72 replies to this topic

[Arpa]

Pleeeeez!!!
In case you need a translation the argument was not so much about the value of Aavarayr but the way it is portrayed as a religious war, a war to preserve the "faith" rather than defend the country. That is the problem some of us have with the way it is presented. Barpetzi has a much better account of the events than Yeghishe who does not deny the fact that he was commissioned by the Church.
Whoever you are, please don't pollute the air and in doing so dilute the value of Sardarapat. Some time ago Sardarapat was discussed at length, I was one of the contributors. I cannot locate that thread, maybe our moderators can repost them so we can proceed where we left off.

Hey Seap! Be quiet! No cracks about Mcdonald Arches and Taco Bells

Suffice it to say that Aavarair was a chakatamart while Saradapat a herosamart. Please do not compare the two and in doing so malign the heroes of the latter. They were heroes, not martyrs, they fought for the country not for that elusive faith of yours. The leader(s) did not die in vain as Vardan the romantic fool, the nokhaz, the esh nahatak for the Nakharars and the Church, who sacrificed himself leaving his soldiers and his people in panic and disarray and at the mercy of the Persin butchers.
Another little known fact is that Avarayr was chakatamart, a battle and not the whole war. A battle is part of a war, cahakatamart@ paterazmin mi bazhinn e voch the amboghjutyun@. The battle may have been lost but the war went on.
This leads us to the next subject topic that I had intended to write about anyway.
Read the next post titled "Nvarsak".

[564312]

Ungeraguyn, Geratuyn Arpa.
Inz anznakan vatabanelud hamar mi hat Rusakan asacvack ka.
“Sam Igraet, Sam Tancuet, Sam Payot” (plays himself, dances himself, sings himself) you create your own arguments, defend them, “translate” them in your own ways. Heto el uzum es vor bolor@ zurna trnigi tan.
Whoever I am? who are you? A possessed from the movie “exorcist”? Because any mention of Faith and God your head starts spinning around faster and faster toxidizing everything.
There is no difference between Men of Avarayr, Sardarapt or Arcakh but this is hard to comprehend for someone with your caliber

[KnightOfArmenia]

Uhm... Vartan was a general of the Byzantine Empire; it was due to internal troubles and to quell the Ostrogoths and the Bulgars (especially) that the Byzantines did not send troops to aid the Armenians.

That aside, it was 66,000 Armenians against 300,000 Persians, though the numbers are almost surely inflated; more likely, maybe 15-20,000 Armenians against maybe four or five times that number. The point is, however, that the Armenians were not simply a peasant army, holding their pitchforks against trained troops. The Armenian forces were small in number, but well trained, well disciplined, and well equipped; the Persians relied on conscript troops; usually a whipmaster driving four or five naked or rag-covered young men carrying a long, pointy stick.

The Avarayr plain was by the river; the Armenian positions were entrenched on the opposite side, forcing the Persians to attempt to fjord the water against hostile forces. It was only when Vassak Syuuni showed the Persian Immortal cavalry a hidden shallows that the Persians were able to flank the Armenian position and smash it.

And even despite the tactical loss, it WAS a strategic victory; the Persian army, one of the strongest in the world, had its nose bloodied by a small army for a cause that would only ensure a heavy price of gold and blood. Before the battle, the Persians were adamant on converting the Armenians; afterwards, especially after the years-long guerrilla war waged by Vartan's nephew, Vahan Mamikonian, the Persians made an unheard-of peace with the Armenians, even appointing Vahan as the Marzban and giving Armenia autonomy.

I guess you could say that the Persians "won the battle, but lost the war."

[gamavor]

Knight of Armenia you talk as if you were there:)
Anyway just small correction.
Bulgars in 451 AD were not bulgars but kotrigurs, totrigurs etc. more than 40 tribes dwelling in the plains of Siberia and latter on Batbaian one of Khan Kubrat's son's with his kin settled in northeast Armenia (today so-called Azer.......n).
Ostrogoths (you probably mean Ostgoths, or east Celts) had no business with Byzantium up until 6 century AD.
The reason why Byzantium hadn't help was (official version) because of the Chalcedon. The irony of the whole epic is that while Armenians were fighting for Christ allegedly, and the country, Byzantium was busy deciding weather Christ was human creature, divine creature or both but separate!!!???? On top of it probably they secretly prayed that Armenians as sectarians would have been defeated. The same "friendly" notions continued up until the time when turks reached Vienna, but even after that we were often caught at one others throats in the name of the Olympic sports.

Edited by gamavor, 18 August 2003 - 01:13 AM.

[KnightOfArmenia]

I'm a History major, what can I say?

That aside, the Bulgars and Avars were the general group name of the tribes that swarmed down into the Balkans; similarly, the Ostrogoths (Eastern Goths, along with their cousins the Visigoths, the Western Goths) dominated the former Roman territories after the Western Empire's collapse. The Ostrogoths and Visigoths even briefly controlled the city of Rome itself. Goths were always a thorn in the side of the Empires, both Roman and Byzantine.

But although they were happy about what was happening to the Armenians, they also didn't want full open destruction of Christianity in the region, since they realized that they would need Armenian assistance in future wars against the Persians. If the Armenians fell, the Persians and the European barbarians could surround and destroy the Byzantines. They needed a buffer state in the area, and Armenia served their purposes well, even though it was technically bounced back and forth between Constantinople and Ctesiphon.

[hytga]

Just wanted to reply to MJ's original post.
My view is that the battle was more like a political struggle. even when armenia was under persian rule nakharars or other noblemen still held power. persians decided to reconvert armenians to zorastrianism, thus if the noblemen alowed it to happen they would loose a lot of ground. therefore the battle was indeed for preservation of christianity in armenia, but behind all that was politics and struggle for power.

[TashnagZinvor]

Vartan Mamikon(a chinese word for messanger)ian was a Mongol. As were many of his troops. He was never in the Byzantinian Army. The Byzantinian historian Srebro speaks of Vartan as "an assimilated western" and "a foreigner fighting for the cause of his enemy"...either way, modern day Armenian portrayals of Vartan show him in Armenian/Roman armour, which I doubt he had at the time. The Armenians were known to hire on Mongol and Turk warriors, who were said to be vicious fighters. Perhaps it was essentially the fall of the Armenians, due to overpopulation of Turkic and Mongolian types?

I would say it makes perfect sence that Vartan would fight for the Armenians, the Mongols and Persians/Central Asian Turks(newly Muslim whod eventually assimilate into one another) were enemies.

Edited by TashnagZinvor, 13 December 2003 - 09:40 PM.

[hytga]

whoaaaaaaaaaaa. Stop. armenains hiring mongols and turks in 5th century? you've got to be kidding.

"an assimilated western"------- goes towards west, not east towards mongola or whatever

[TashnagZinvor]

hytga, please...your too proud to not be blinded. Have you ever looked at the Armenian people? Or perhaps DNA evidence? As well as Historical Armenian Manuscripts dating back to pre-christian Armenia of Mongol Generals and Mongol-Armenian alliances? Don't bother repyling, find information that proves me otherwise, then post.

My dear child, Armenia is WEST of Mongolia.

Edited by TashnagZinvor, 15 December 2003 - 12:09 AM.

[hytga]

first of all i'm not your child? What kind of attitude is that? do you even realize what you're saying by calling me so?
there's been armenian mongol aliance with armenian cilician kingdom during the 13th century. insted of me prooving what is not true, you proove me it was true.

"an assimilated western" would mean someone fromt the west. Meaning "a westerner who was assimilated", not an easterner who was assimilated in the west.

did i look at DNA evidence? man you're blind. the dna evidence doesn't say didly. it could've originated during the mongol and turik invasions.

and what manuscripts would you be reffering to? maybe you have an internet url?

Edited by Nairi for name-calling and bad language

Edited by nairi, 16 December 2003 - 03:42 PM.

[nairi]

Ok, let's stop the name-calling and bad language and stay on-topic, shall we?

[Yeznig]

Regarding the Avarayr question here is an article by Mr Arnavoudian that is on Groong. It is rather long but throws some light on the issue.

Why we should read...

`The Story of Vartanantz'
by Yeghishe
324pp, Housapper Printing House, Cairo, Egypt, 1950

Armenian News Network / Groong
December 30, 2001

By Eddie Arnavoudian


In recording the 5th century Armenian Church-led revolt against
Persian imperial authority, Yeghishe's `The Story of Vartanantz' is
simultaneously an inspired defence of the right to insurrection
against illegitimate power. Though written after the decisive
Armenian defeat at the Battle of Avarayr in 451, it reads as an
uncompromising summoning to stand ground, as an invocation against
demoralised surrender and as a proclamation of the righteousness of
the rebels. Yeghishe drives his message home in an amalgam of science
and art, fact and fiction, history and myth, politics and philosophy,
poetry and prose. Deploying his intellectual and philosophical
erudition and his talent for hyperbole, poetic exaggeration and
awesome invectivem he produces an epic drama of defiance and
rebellion.

`The Story of Vartanantz' is not without its shortcomings and flaws,
some of them serious. Most striking is the absence of that broad
conception of nation and nationality that one finds in Barpetzi or
Khorenatzi. Preoccupied with the immediate and narrower interests of
the Church there is little explicit interest in the fortunes of the
state and the nation as a whole. Flowing from this and from Yeghishe's
generally more devout religious approach is the discernible tension
between categorical affirmations of Christian duty to submit to
secular authority and the defence of what is in effect a political
revolt against it. These and other lapses, as well as some
significant internal inconsistencies deny this work the same universal
and enduring artistic and intellectual value of other contemporary
classics. Yet the volume has a particular value and resonance besides
containing many passages of artistic beauty and riveting narrative
that can be read with pleasure and profit.


1. The style and the message

For the 5th and 6th century thinker the notion of art for art's sake
was as remote as the most distant and invisible star. It didn't figure
in their consciousness. The `Book', as a treasury and fountain of
knowledge, was a guide to action. It served to inspire reader and
listener `whether priest, prince or plebeian - to understand and cope
with life's diverse problems be they political, social or individual.
Khazar Barpetzi expresses best this classical and fundamentally valid
conception of literature - one that is today the object of so much
disdain. Barpetzi writes in order that:

`the multitude hearing the story of the virtuous will seek to
emulate him. The brave on hearing of the courage of his
predecessors will multiply his endeavours, bequeathing memorable
accounts of themselves and of their nation. As for the lazy and
good for nothing such stories may inspire positive envy and urge
them on to self-improvement.'

Less precise, but with poetic colour Yeghishe claimed that the written
work must offer `consolation for loved ones, hope for the hopeful and
encouragement for the brave.'

With such aims in mind and writing only some 50 to 70 years after the
formation of the Armenian alphabet, it is understandable why Yeghishe
and his contemporaries employed that combination of differing literary
and intellectual forms which was to become a distinguishing feature of
classical Armenian literature. The form of exposition was neither
accidental nor was the choice of a particular one at any point in the
text arbitrary. Yeghishe and his contemporaries were addressing a
hugely uneven, intellectually and culturally varied, audience. The
clergy would naturally have been their main readers, studying the book
themselves and reciting it to prince and plebeian. Yet neither they
nor their audience would be of the same educational standards, share
the same cultural traditions or have the same grounding in philosophical
and political matters. Many would still be only semi-literate, even
more illiterate. Others would be inspired primarily by religious
fervour or mere superstition, most would be totally unfamiliar with
philosophic matters, and others still would have remained within the
influence of pagan intellectual and popular beliefs that remained
widespread. The written work had to meet the levels and expectations
of all.

>From such concerns flows the variagated style and structure of
Yeghishe's `The Story of Vartanantz'. He was no `objective historian',
no `ivory tower' academic or uncommitted artist and poet. He was a
militant and dedicated ideologue of the 5th century Armenian Church,
then at the apogee of its power and the sole national force in
Armenian politics. His entire exposition is therefore a committed
defence of this Church's traditional rights and privileges. In this
sense the work is a passionately partisan political polemic, indeed a
propaganda tract employing all persuasive devices. But at its
foundation is a solid rationalism.

Opening his account Yeghishe underlines the decisive importance of
knowledge. Repeating the aphorism that `death that is not understood
is truly death, that which is understood is immortality', he adds that
the `evil and misfortune befalls us as a result of ill education.'
Therefore it `is better to be blind of sight than blind of mind. As
the soul is greater than the body so is the mind's grasp broader than
the body's.' On basis of this rationalism Yeghishe develops a
verifiable framework of historical and political analysis into which
he weaves in a philosophical/theological polemic against
Zoroastrianism (discussed well in Henrik Kaprielian's `History of
Armenian Philosophical Thought', Vol. 1) as well as fiction, poetry,
hagiography, declamation and invective to create additional levels in
single tale of righteous resistance. Such an apparently eclectic
method did not necessarily detract from artistic or intellectual
merit. In skilful hands it could, and did, produce an integrated and
outstanding work whose message in consequence was communicated with
greater vigour and force.


2. The political analysis

Yeghishe's work opens not with religious declamation but with sober
political analysis. It dissects Persian imperial strategy towards the
Christian communities and nations within its domain. King Hazgherd II
notes with discontent that `Christianity daily expands in all the
areas that he passes through.' (p111) Previously tolerated, these
communities now threaten to become a Fifth Column in the service of
the perennial foe from the west - the hated Byzantium Empire.
Hazgherd's advisers suggest therefore, that if the King were able `to
convert to a single religion all the nations and people within (his)
jurisdiction' he would not only secure his existing borders but also
`succeed in subjugating even the land of the Greeks.' (p103).

For Hazgherd therefore his campaign to eliminate Christianity from the
Empire is a component of a political battle. Setting about the
business he demands that `all peoples and nations living within my
authority should henceforth cease false worship and come to kneel
before the Sun God and without exception carry out all the required
religious obligations.' (p11). Simultaneously Hazgherd `issued
instructions to dispossess Christians living within Persia of all
their `property and belonging'(p106). In the process of `this robbery'
Yeghishe remarks that Christians were as a matter of course `also
tortured.' (p102). While `all nations' were subjected to this
`disorder' the Armenian Church was its main target. It was the
`strongest' and included `the most devout', among whom stood out those
`from noble houses.' (p110) Indeed despite the termination of the
Armenian monarchy in 428, the Armenian Church remained an immensely
powerful independent national force that continued to nurture grand
political ambitions.

To subdue the Armenian Church Hazgherd therefore launched a
historically unprecedented assault hoping to deliver it a crushing
blow. Intending to destroy this possible bastion for a resurgent,
independent Armenian state, the Persian King first wisely removed from
the scene the Armenian nobility. They could, in alliance with the
Church present a potential military threat, for even though
subordinated to Persian authority the nobility had retained control of
its own military forces (p101). Having removed this obstacle Hazgherd
and his religious advisors demanded Armenian acceptance of a set of
proposals that effectively dislocated the economic, social and
political power and authority the Church.

If successful, Hazgherd's assault will `transform the Church's
(previous) independence into servitude'. The economic foundations of
the Church were targeted with the imposition, for the first time, of
an enormous burden of taxation. The Church's social power was to be
severely diminished by the withdrawal of its legal jurisdiction over
internal Armenian affairs. Further, imperial edict required the
disbanding of a wide network of monasteries and the subjection of the
clergy to secular authority. To cap it all the Armenian head of
government was replaced by a Persian, and a pagan high priest was
nominated as `judge and jury in the land' in order to `thwart the
glory of the Church.' (pp114-15)

This is the context in which Yeghishe whips up the emotions and
passions against Hazgherd and his religious associates. They are
attacking the very foundations of the Church - the main guardian of
Armenian custom and its newly formed intellectual, cultural
tradition. They are therefore undiluted evil with which there can be
no negotiation. Thus the Persian King and his allies are as poisonous
snakes and savage beasts (p110), as the devil incarnate (p131) as
violent and bloodthirsty warmongers (p103) full of bile and
venom. Calumny has its rational foundation deriving from a sober
examination of his opponent's role political and military actions.


3. The organisation of insurrection

In confronting such an opponent the Church's response was immediate,
decisive and comprehensive. With its nationwide organisational
apparatus it began organising a nationwide uprising. Following a
number of general meetings: `The bishops returned to their sees and
sent forth (emissaries) to all villages and farms and to the many
fortresses in the mountainous provinces. They gathered together large
crowds of men and women, plebeian and freeman, priest and monk. They
explained and inspired and transformed all into soldiers for Christ.'
(p141)

Albeit Church-led, Yeghishe describes the resistance as a broad,
popular, nationwide uprising and insurrection that involved whole
swathes of the population irrespective of class or status. In the
resistance there was `no differentiation between lord and servant,
between delicate freeman and hardy peasant, and none appeared lesser
in bravery.' All were `willing of spirit whether man or woman, old or
young '(p149-50). As the organisation of the uprising progressed `all,
not just brave men, but married women too - were ready for battle,
helmets fitted, swords at their waste and shield on arms.' (p142)

So vital did the Church regard this clash that later, on the eve of
the Battle of Avarayr Ghevont Yeretz, the principle Armenian leader
and main strategist and tactician of the revolt was to demand a
radical break from tradition: `You all know that in previous times
when you (the nobility) went to war you always retained the clergy
within the army. But at the moment of battle you removed us to some
secure place. However today bishops, elders, priests, psalm singers
and readers, all according to established rules, are armed and ready
and wish to join battle to destroy the enemies of truth.' (p186)

Constituted of such mettle and confident of popular support the Church
leadership launched its counter-offensive. Despite the fact that it
`was not fully aware of the attitude of all Armenia's noble lords nor
fully apprised of the strength of the Persian high-priests' the
leadership directed the populace to `break the heads' of the
Zoroastrian forces and `chase them back to their abodes'. Yeghishe
describes in detail assaults in which Armenians `wrecked and
destroyed' many of the `fortresses and towns that the Persians had
taken control of' (p150) thus `reducing to nothing the orders of his
imperial majesty'.

Bolstered by such successes, and aware of the persisting Persian
ambitions, the Church rightly rejected as deception a desperate
compromise proposal which whilst granting Armenians freedom of worship
did not restore the church its prior power and independence. The dye
was cast for a decisive conflict between an insurgent Armenian Church
backed by the people and a determined Persian empire. Despite
numerical inferiority and `despite having neither King as leader' nor
`any hope of outside (Byzantium) help' the insurgents `did not stand
in dread' of the final battle being confident in the knowledge that
`with God's help a few can do the work of many.' (p154-155)

It is of significance that in his account of resistance and rebellion
Yeghishe repeatedly underlines the critical role played by the
plebeian population. But what would have possessed an educated member
of the feudal elite to treat the lower classes with evident respect?
Perhaps by so telling the tale he hoped to bind potentially hostile
future generations of plebeians closer to the Church. Perhaps it was
an aspect of a theological war against a resurgent paganism. It could
also have been an attempt to secure the loyalty of a substantial,
independent, spirited free peasantry or part of the clergy's
affirmation of its social power against that portion of the secular
nobility not always faithful to Christian dictates.

Whatever the verdict, Yeghishe records clearly the reasons why the
population at large would have supported a campaign orchestrated by a
Church that was little more than another oppressive feudal estate.
Persian authority was detested even more. Their burdensome taxation
was already `collected more in the manner of plundering bandits than a
dignified state'. New ones now threatened to `annihilate the plebeian
farmer' throwing the population into `extreme poverty'. Thus there was
a confluence of interest between the Church and the peasant/plebeian
population in resisting the Persian encroachment that enabled the
Church to emerge as a formidable force in the national revolt against
foreign authority.


4. Vassak Syouni and national unity

For Yeghishe the defeat of the Uprising was neither predestined nor
the result of any unfavourable political-military balance of forces.
Victory could have been secured despite the odds had the Armenians
retained national unity. Until Vartanantz Yeghishe had `no fear of
telling the story of the blows that were heaped upon our nation (by)
our external enemies. Few of them succeeded in defeating us, whilst we
defeated them many times because we then remained united and equal.'
(p167).

But during the Vartanantz uprising Armenian unity was destroyed by
Vassak Syouni, the Persian appointed Governor of Armenia who broke
ranks by accepting imperial compromise proposals. Vassak's
unpardonable, mortal sin was that he acted as spy, informant and fifth
columnist. It is this, rather than Vassak's religious apostasy that is
primarily held against him. He `separated himself from Armenian ranks'
and `gathered corrupted elements into an (oppositional) military
force'. By informing the Persians of this he exposed `the disunity and
division in the Armenian army.' (p170) These and his other actions
`destabilised and spread confusion throughout the land of Armenia
sowing division and discord between brothers, between father and son
and causing upheaval in a once peaceful land. (p172)

Vassak also communicated more detailed critical military intelligence
to the Persian commanders. He supplied information about `numbers of
troops aligned with Vartan (Mamikonian)', the Armenian armed forces
state of readiness, their morale, their armaments, the numbers
possessing armour, the numbers of infantry and whether they are armed
with bows and arrows or protected by shields (p172-3). All this
enabled the Persians to take appropriate counter-measures and defeat
the insurgents in the decisive Battle of Avarayr. Thus Yeghishe's
visceral hatred for Vassak. He actively assists absolute evil. He too
therefore is condemned as a venal sycophant deserving to `die like and
dog and rot like a donkey'. Alone the invective would not be
ineffective. But with Yeghishe, Vassak's hateful nature is not an
abstract moral vice but a direct expression of his political
treachery.

In opposition to the men of evil are the virtuous and faithful Ghevont
Yeretz, Vartan Mamikonian and the scores of martyrs who fought and
died arms in hand at Avarayr. Refusing to make the slightest
concession in the face of the most horrendous torture and inevitable
death they are embodiments of valour, courage, nobility, intelligence
and wisdom. Presented as leaders of an entire people up in arms it is
easy to see how their story came to be a defining feature of modern
Armenian national identity. In the 19th century Armenian revival,
revolutionary intellectuals enthusiastically encouraged the
celebration of the Vartanantz Uprising and against a hidebound Church
sought to make it the property of the emerging secular nationalist and
democratic movement against Ottoman and Tsarist colonial oppression
and injustice.

Many commentators, failing to appreciate the essential unity of its
diverse forms, have missed the central message of `The Story of
Vartanantz'. Eminent historian Hrant K. Armen, focusing on the
religious dimension, presents Yeghishe as something of a wild fanatic
bent on demonising all opposition in defence of theological dogma.
Hagop Oshagan criticises Yeghishe for `not possessing the seriousness
we expect from a historian'. Others have narrowed Yeghishe's work down
to any one of its particular features: a history, an epic poem, an
impassioned moral fable, a devout Christian hagiography etc. `The
Story of Vartanantz' is of course all of these. But as a unity, with
all its strengths and weaknesses, it is also much more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from
Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on
Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues
have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open
Letter in Los Angeles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Arpa]

7 days from today, March, 3 2011 will the Commemoration Day of the Battle of Avarayr.
As every year there will be thousand of gatherings throughout the world, and many opinions.
Below the opinion of one such “heretic”.
Headline reads, in the words of the said historian- “In my opinion, there was no need for the Battle of Avarayr”

http://www.azg.am/AM/2011022525
To the grumbling of many attendants he concludes his presentation…
A quote from the closing words of the historian-
---
He emphasized saying - “I appreciate those (feasts) commemorations of victories, not martyrs. Thus, to me, Vardananq is not a feast of victory”.

Աշոտ Ներսիսյանն ընդգծեց. «Ես գերադասում եմ այն տոնը, որը հաղթանակի, ոչ թե նահատակվողների տոն է: Իսկ Վարդանանց տոնը չեմ համարում հաղթանակի տոն»:

There must be as many definitions of “victory” as there are people on the Earth.
---
Fr. Yesayi has the last word..
---

Տեր Եսային էլ միանգամայն հակառակը նշեց. «Սա միանշանակ հաղթանակի տոն է»:

“This is a unique feast of victory”.
---

ՊԱՏՄԱԲԱՆԻ ԿԱՐԾԻՔՈՎ` ԱՎԱՐԱՅՐԻ ՃԱԿԱՏԱՄԱՐՏԻ ԿԱՐԻՔՆ ԱՄԵՆԵՎԻՆ ԷԼ ՉԿԱՐ
Վարդանանց շարժումը հայոց պատմության կարեւոր էջերից է: Երեկ Վարդանանց տոնն էր: Վարդանանց շարժմանն ու տոնին երեկ անդրադարձան «Ուրբաթ» ակումբի բանախոսները: Եսայի քահանա Արտեմյանը նշեց, որ Վարդանանց տոնը ներկայացնում է մի իրողություն, որը վճռորոշ դերակատարում է ունեցել հայ մարդու ինքնության պարագայում: Իսկ պատմական գիտությունների դոկտոր Աշոտ Ներսիսյանը կարծիք հայտնեց, որ Վարդանանց շարժումն ու 450-451 թվականների հայ ազգային ազատագրական պայքարը կարիք ունեն հայեցակարգային նոր մոտեցումների: Պատմաբանի փոխանցմամբ` Ավարայրի ճակատամարտը, որը ներկայացվել է քրիստոնեական հավատի պահպանման համար մղված ճակատամարտ, կարիք ունի խոր վերլուծությունների. «Սոսկ Ավարայրի ճակատամարտով Վարդան Մամիկոնյանն իսկապես հերոս էր, բայց երբ անդրադառնում ենք դրան նախորդող իրադարձություններին, տեսնում ենք, որ Վասակ Սյունին դավաճան չէր»: Պատմաբանը նշում է, թե մոտեցումը, որ Վասակ Սյունին եղել է դավաճան ու դեմ է եղել ապստամբությանը, ճիշտ չէ: Առհասարակ, երբ անդրադառնում ենք Վարդանանց շարժմանը, մենք մոռանում ենք խոսել երկրորդ` ներման հրովարտակից, որը եղել է Ավարայրի ճակատամարտից առաջ: Աշոտ Ներսիսյանն ասում, որ ներման հրովարտակով հայերին այլեւս չի պարտադրվել դավանափոխ լինել. «Այստեղ հարց է առաջանում` ներման հրովարտակից հետո Ավարայրի ճակատամարտի կարիքը կա՞ր, թե՞ ոչ: Իմ կարծիքով` չկար, գտնում եմ, որ Ավարայրի ճակատամարտն անտեղի էր»: Պատմաբանն ասում է, որ խոսում է սկզբնաղբյուրներով. «Եղիշեն ու Ղազար Փարպեցին իմ սկզբնաղբյուրներն են»:
Պատմաբանի խոսքերը, իհարկե, առաջ բերեցին ներկաների զայրույթն ու վրդովմունքը, ինչը շատ բնական էր: Ընդհանրապես, որեւէ մեկը, երբ փորձում է կարծրացած մոտեցումներին դեմ կանգնել, ենթարկվում է քննադատության: Երեկ լրագրողներից մեկը նրան անգամ աղանդավոր անվանեց, ասաց` փաստորեն, պատմաբանների մեջ էլ աղանդավորներ կան: Իսկ Աշոտ Ներսիսյանն ի պատասխան ասում էր, որ իր խոսքերը բխում են սկզբնաղբյուրներից, եւ ինքը խոսում է փաստերով: Աշոտ Ներսիսյանի դիտարկումների վերաբերյալ տեր Եսային էլ նշեց, որ միայն հաշտեցման հրովարտակի վրա կենտրոնանալով եզրակացություններ անելն անաչառ չէ:
Ինչեւէ, չնայած վիճահարույց փաստերին ու բանավեճերին` Վարդանանց տոնն ամեն տարի նշվում է, բոլոր եկեղեցիներում մատուցվում է պատարագ: Եվ միայն ասուլիսի վերջում անդրադառնալով տոնին ու նրա խոհրդին` բանախոսներն այս մասին էլ կարծիքներ հայտնեցին: Աշոտ Ներսիսյանն ընդգծեց. «Ես գերադասում եմ այն տոնը, որը հաղթանակի, ոչ թե նահատակվողների տոն է: Իսկ Վարդանանց տոնը չեմ համարում հաղթանակի տոն»: Տեր Եսային էլ միանգամայն հակառակը նշեց. «Սա միանշանակ հաղթանակի տոն է»[/b]:

----
PS. Last year Vardananq was on Feb 11. Beside the fact that the Battle happened in late spring or early summer, if it this a military campaign why does it move from one year to another according to the "passover/schmassover"’? Why do some think it is a joke when the entire Armenian army was decimated including their commanders? Do we move the dates of Sardarapat or the Battle of Shushi?

Edited by Arpa, 24 February 2011 - 04:52 PM.