Abstract

The present paper challenges the assertion that John II Komnenos’ first campaign against Cilician Armenia was directly connected with the conflict between the Byzantines and the Principality of Antioch. The supposed anti-Byzantine alliance between the Armenians and the Crusaders is examined within this context; excerpts from the relevant sources not only cast doubt on its existence, but also allow the assertion that during the period under examination the relations between the Armenians and the Crusaders were hostile. Thus, the issue that arises is the following: If Levon was an enemy of the Crusaders, why did he not stand at the Byzantines’ side, instead waging war against them? The assertion of the present paper regarding this policy decision is that it was due to Levon’s alliance with John’s primary enemy in the East, the Danishmends. In fact, the sources indicate that the subjugation of Armenia was of greater priority for the Byzantine emperor in his campaign than the conquest of Antioch. This is demonstrated by the fact that John refused to conclude a treaty with the Rubenid lord similar to that which he had concluded with the prince of Antioch, and is supported by the operational maneuvers of the Byzantine forces during the campaign. To connect John’s activities in Cilicia with his subsequent campaign in Pontus and the Turkish reactions to these Byzantine strategic moves, the present paper asserts that John’s conquest of Cilicia was part of a wider policy of strategic encirclement of the Danishmends.