Comportamiento de la crisis económica internacional en países

independent toparch hostile to the byzantines; Lemerle, 'Prolegomenes', 29-36, however doubts the possession of Dvin (Arab capital of Armenia) by Kekaumenos; he also identifies the defender of Larisa with Gregorios strategos of Larisa and Macedonia mentioned in an inscription dated to 1006-7 and found in the church of the Holy Virgin in Egrek-Tao north of Theodosioupolis; he continues by saying that this Gregorios was called Kizaci but he changed his name into Kekaumenos when he entered Byzantine service. However, Oikonomides, Listes, 358 maintains that the inscription refers to the strategos of the other Larisa in Asia-Minor; Savvides, 'Family o f Ce.cawneniis', 12-27

K ekaum enos m ade his stratagem known to the em peror Basil II by a letter in which he praises him self for his ability to m ake provision for the uninterrupted food supply o f the town during the four year period (976-980): "crvpé^aXa rove Kaprroix; àpK O w raç tolç

AapLdaCoLç é m réo-aapm Kai iÔovf rraXii' elcri 777c (iaGiXetac: aou SouXol". Basil approved o f his strategos' actions, but for unknown reasons he recalled him to C onstantinople three years later (983). 52 Zaim ova has argued that contrary to his grandson's assertions, the general was not alw ays loyal to the im perial governm ent, and that behind his brief acknow ledgem ent of the Bulgarian ruler, is hidden not so m uch his concern for the L ariseans but his centrifugal tendencies, 53 Philippou who falls in with Zaim ova's views, goes further by assum ing that if the em peror had accepted K ekaum enos initiative, he w ould not have replaced him, particularly during a very critical period for the existence o f the town. 54 The hypothesis that is put forw ard by the two scholars is d eb atab le and certain ly does not seem to be proven by the evid ence given in K ekaum enos' account.

Firstly because K ekaum enos would not feel em barrassed to adm it that his grandfather was a defector; In another point of his Strategikon he clearly calls him a R om an's enem y

{éxOpàs- TTJÇ Pcjp.amas'). 55 If in fact K ekaum enos had acknow ledged Sam uel so as to fulfil his personal am bitions he w ould not hesitate to defect to the B ulgarian side especially w hen he was recalled by the em peror su p p o sed ly to be punished. In 983 Sam uel had fully taken the initiative and seem ed to control the situation; therefore a defection instead o f his com ing back to C onstantinople w ould seem m ore reasonable. Secondly, the em peror recalled K ekaum enos only after the passage o f three years {Kai p e r à TpeVs' é m a vT o ù ç TrpoefidXero ere p o u uT paT pyàu e lç 'EXXdôa) from the m om ent he received his letter, and for reasons w hich, as we have seen, are totally unknow n to us. If indeed, as Philippou m aintains, Basil II had been dissatisfied by the attitude o f his general he would have recalled him im m ediately after he learned the news for his subm ission and he w ould not have allow ed the lapse of three critical years before

52 Kekaumenos, 65

53 Tapkova-Zaimova, 'Autour', 239

54 Philippou, 'To proto Boulgariko Kratos', 8] 55 See above note 62

41

m aking his decision. T hirdly, apart From the favourable account o f K ekaum enos to his grandfather an anonym ous contem porary text refers to him as the "brave Thessalian general with an iron soul. " 56

In 983 K ekaum enos was recalled to C onstantinople and the new strategos failed to deceive Sam uel in the way his predecessor did. Sam uel apparently m et strong opposition that stim ulated him to tighten the pincer m ovem ent around Larisa. By preventing, for three successive years, the local population from reaping their harvests he reduced the town to a state of fam ine. The garrison and the civil m ilitia that partook in the defence o f the tow n, deprived as they were of the necessary supplies, could not hold on any further. L arisa w as eventually captured in 986 and the w hole population was either reduced to slavery or taken captive to O chrid. 57 The only exception w as the renow ned fam ily of N ikulitzas. Its m em bers enjoyed an exceptional treatm ent and w ere given the right to m igrate elsew here.

On the basis o f the fam ily ties that connected strategos K ekaum enos with the fam ily o f N ikulitzas Lem erle has suggested that Sam uel's exceptional generosity is to be ju stified by his wish to express his adm iration to K ekaum enos for the extraordinary diplom atic and m ilitary skills that displayed in the course o f their personal struggle i.e. from 976-983. It is not im possible that the person who succeeded K ekaum enos as strategos o f H ellas w as the sam e N ikulitzas w ho had previously obtained the m ilitary offices o f dux o f H ellas and com es excubitorum . Therefore, K ekaum enos' (the author of the S tr a te g ik o n ) u n w illin gn ess to m ention his nam e m ay be exp lain ed by his em barrassm ent to criticise his relative for his failure to protect Larisa, and accordingly by his fear to affect the cordial relationships betw een the two fam ilies. 58 in this point it should be m ade absolutely clear that N ikulitzas, dux and then strategos o f Hellas between

Ed. Ldmçros, NE ]6 (1922), 53:".(fvyrju môqpàu .. b areppàs eîxe OeTraXcSu oTparqyàs''

57 The Vlach population particuUirly, was enrolled in some kind of special military formation used by