US Library of Congress - History of Armenia: Last Decade

[MJ]

I came across the materials below, prepared by the Library of the US Congress. I find them appallingly shallow, and sometimes more than inaccurate. However, I think it is worth posting, here. –MJ

 

 

Section 1 of 1

 

Armenia

National Self-Awareness

The Armenians themselves changed dramatically in the midnineteenth century. An intellectual awakening influenced by Western and Russian ideas, a new interest in Armenian history, and an increase in social interaction created a sense of secular nationality among many Armenians. Instead of conceiving of themselves solely as a religious community, Armenians--especially the urban middle class--began to feel closer kinship with Christian Europe and greater alienation from the Muslim peoples among whom they lived.

Lacking faith in reform within the empire, Armenian leaders began to appeal to the European powers for assistance. In 1878 Armenian delegates appeared at the Congress of Berlin, where the European powers were negotiating the disposition of Ottoman territories. Although Armenian requests for European protection went largely unanswered in Berlin, the "Armenian question" became a point of contention in the complex European diplomacy of the late nineteenth century, with Russia and Britain acting as the chief sponsors of Armenian interests on various issues.

The Armenian independence movement began as agitation on behalf of liberal democracy by writers, journalists, and teachers. But by the last decade of the nineteenth century, moderate nationalist intellectuals had been pushed aside by younger, more radical socialists. Armenian revolutionary parties, founded in the early 1890s in Russia and Europe, sent their cadres to organize in Turkey. Because of the self-destruction of one major party, the Social Democratic Hnchaks, and the relative isolation of the liberals and the "internationalist" Social Democrats in the cities of Transcaucasia, the more nationalist of the socialist parties, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF, also known as the Dashnak, a shortened form of its Armenian name), emerged by the early twentieth century as the only real contender for Armenian loyalties. The ARF favored Armenian autonomy in both the Russian and the Ottoman empires rather than full independence for an Armenia in which Russian- and Ottomanheld components would be unified.

In the last decades of the nineteenth century, the Armenians' tendency toward Europeanization antagonized Turkish officials and encouraged their view that Armenians were a foreign, subversive element in the sultan's realm. By 1890 the rapid growth of the Kurdish population in Anatolia, combined with the immigration of Muslims from the Balkans and the Caucasus, had made the Armenian population of Anatolia an increasingly endangered minority. In 1895 Ottoman suspicion of the westernized Armenian population led to the massacre of 300,000 Armenians by special order of the Ottoman government.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Russian border, Armenian churches and schools were closed and church property was confiscated in 1903. Tatars massacred Armenians in several towns and cities in 1905, and fifty-two Armenian nationalist leaders in Russia were tried en masse for underground activities in 1912.

Data as of March 1994

 

Section 1 of 1

 

Armenia

World War I and Its Consequences

As was the case for most of Europe, World War I changed Armenia's geopolitical situation. The war also precipitated an ethnic disaster of rare magnitude and brought the Armenians who remained in their native territory into a new type of empire.

 

Postwar Realignment

 

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/armenia/am01_01c.jpg

 

Folk dancers celebrating Armenian Independence Day (May 28, 1918) in Erevan

Courtesy Azarian Churukian

 

Between 1915 and 1917, Russia occupied virtually the entire Armenian part of the Ottoman Empire. Then in October 1917, the Bolshevik victory in Russia ended that country's involvement in World War I, and Russian troops left the Caucasus. In the vacuum that remained, the Armenians first joined a Transcaucasian federation with Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which, however, soon proved to be unreliable partners. The danger posed by the territorial ambitions of the Ottoman Turks and the Azerbaijanis finally united the Caucasian Armenian population in support of the ARF program for autonomy. In May 1918, an independent Armenian republic was declared; its armies continued to fight on the Allied side south of the Caucasus until the Ottoman Empire surrendered in October 1918. The independent republic endured from May 1918 to December 1920. In the new government, ARF leaders R.I. Kachazuni and A.I. Khatisian became prime minister and foreign minister, respectively.

The Republic of Armenia included the northeastern part of present-day eastern Turkey, west along the Black Sea coast past Trabzon and southwest past Lake Van. But Armenia's precarious independence was threatened from within by the terrible economic conditions that followed the war in the former Ottoman Empire and, by 1920, by the territorial ambitions of Soviet Russia and the nationalist Turks under Kemal Atatürk. Atatürk had rehabilitated Turkey rapidly under a new democratic system, but the ruling party still hoped to create a larger state by taking territory in western Armenia from which Armenians had been driven. In defending its independence, the Republic of Armenia waited in vain, however, for the material and military aid promised at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. The Allies' memories of the 1915 massacre faded as war weariness and isolationism dominated their foreign policy.

In agreeing to the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, the World War I Allies and Turkey recognized Armenian independence; as part of the treaty, Armenia received some disputed territory in what had been the Ottoman Empire. However, most of western Armenia remained in Turkish hands. Eastern Armenia, ravaged by warfare, migration, and disease, had an Armenian population of only 720,000 by 1920. Caught between the advancing Turks and the Red Army, which had already occupied neighboring Azerbaijan, in November 1920 the ARF government made a political agreement with the communists to enter a coalition government. The Treaty of Aleksandropol', signed by this government with Turkey, returned Armenia's northern Kars District to Russia [this is inaccurate –MJ] and repudiated the existence of Armenian populations in newly expanded Turkey.

Data as of March 1994

 

Section 1 of 1

 

Armenia

Nagorno-Artsax and Independence

The conflict in Nagorno-Artsax (often called simply Artsax) served as a catalyst for nationalist movements following the precipitous decline of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s (see fig. 3). In the early 1990s, the struggle defied all negotiating efforts of the West and Russia.

Artsax as a National Issue

The protests of the Armenians of Nagorno-Artsax against Azerbaijani rule began in the spirit of perestroika, but the movement evolved quickly into a political organization, the Artsax Committee, a broad anticommunist coalition for democracy and national sovereignty. In the confusion following the earthquake that devastated northern Armenia in December 1988, Soviet authorities tried to stem the growing opposition to their rule by arresting the leaders of the committee. The attempt by the CPA to rule in Armenia without support from Armenian nationalists only worsened the political crisis. In March 1989, many voters boycotted the general elections for the Soviet Union's Congress of People's Deputies. Massive demonstrations were held to demand the release of the members of the committee, and, in the elections to the Armenian Supreme Soviet, the legislative body of the republic, in May, Armenians chose delegates identified with the Artsax cause. At that time, the flag of independent Armenia was flown for the first time since 1920. The release of the Artsax Committee followed the 1989 election; for the next six months, the nationalist movement and the Armenian communist leadership worked as uncomfortable allies on the Artsax issue.

Gorbachev's 1989 proposal for enhanced autonomy for NagornoArtsax within Azerbaijan satisfied neither Armenians nor Azerbaijanis, and a long and inconclusive conflict erupted between the two peoples. In September 1989, Azerbaijan began an economic blockade of Armenia's vital fuel and supply lines through its territory, which until that time had carried about 90 percent of Armenia's imports from the other Soviet republics. In June 1989, numerous unofficial nationalist organizations joined together to form the Armenian Pannational Movement (APM), to which the Armenian government granted official recognition. [This section is totally misrepresenting the logic of the events. I don’t know if it is due to lack of adequate understanding of the issues, or due to political considerations. –MJ]

Data as of March 1994

 

 

Section 1 of 1

 

Armenia

The Artsax Crisis Escalates, 1989

The Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict escalated steadily in the summer and fall of 1989. Both the APM and the newly formed Azerbaijani Popular Front (APF) called for abolition of the Special Administrative Committee that Gorbachev had established to manage Nagorno-Artsax. The Armenians held to their position that the region must become part of Armenia, and radical Azerbaijanis called for abolition of Artsax autonomy. As hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis demonstrated in Baku, their government further restricted the flow of goods and fuel into Artsax and Armenia. In August 1989, Artsax Armenians responded by electing their own National Council, which declared the secession of Artsax from Azerbaijan and its merger with Armenia. The Armenian Supreme Soviet then declared the Artsax National Council the sole legitimate representative of the Artsax people. The Azerbaijani Supreme Soviet responded by abrogating the autonomy of both Artsax and Nakhichevan.

Although the declarations and counter declarations of mid1989 were ultimately declared invalid by the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and although both Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to be governed by communist parties, neither republic was willing to obey Moscow's directives on the Artsax issue. In November 1989, in frustration at its inability to bring the parties together, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union abolished the Special Administrative Committee and returned direct control of Artsax to Azerbaijan. Rejecting Moscow's decision, the Armenian Supreme Soviet declared Artsax a part of Armenia in December 1989.

After more than two years of the Artsax conflict, Armenia had gone from being one of the most loyal Soviet republics to complete loss of confidence in Moscow. Gorbachev's unwillingness to grant Artsax to Armenia and his failure to end the blockade convinced Armenians that the Kremlin considered it politically advantageous to back the more numerous Muslims. Even the invasion of Azerbaijan by Soviet troops in January 1990, ostensibly to stop pogroms against Armenians in Baku, failed to dampen the growing anti-Soviet mood among Armenians (see Within the Soviet Union, ch. 2). {I am sorry for the shallowness of the author of this material. –MJ]

 

Data as of March 1994

 

Section 1 of 1

 

Armenia

A New Political Climate

The resignation of Suren Harutiunian as first secretary of the CPA in April 1990 and the triumph of the APM in the elections of the spring and summer of 1990 signaled the end of the old party elite and the rise of a new Armenian political class that had matured during the two years of tensions over Artsax. The newly elected Armenian parliament (which retained the Soviet-era name Supreme Soviet or Supreme Council) chose Levon Ter-Petrosian instead of the new CPA first secretary as its chairman, and hence as head of state of the republic.

With the APM in power and the communists in opposition, the transition from Soviet-style government to an independent democratic state began in earnest. The new government faced a nearly complete collapse of order in the republic. Buildings were seized by armed men in Erevan, and several independent militia groups operated in Erevan as well as on the Azerbaijani frontier. Frustrated by the Azerbaijani blockade and determined to defend their republic and Artsax, members of Armenia's Fidain (whose name was taken from an Arabic term literally meaning "one who sacrifices himself" and recalling the Armenian freedom fighters of the turn of the century) raided arsenals and police stations to arm themselves for the coming battles. In July Gorbachev demanded immediate disarmament of the Armenian militias and threatened military intervention if they did not comply. In response, Ter-Petrosian's government itself disarmed the independent militias and restored order in Erevan.

On August 23, 1990, Armenia formally declared its intention to become sovereign and independent, with Nagorno-Artsax an integral part of what now would be known as the Republic of Armenia rather than the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Armenian nation was defined broadly to include not only those living in the territory of the republic but also the worldwide Armenian émigré population as well.

In redefining Armenian national interests, the government acknowledged--but temporarily put aside--the painful question of Armenian genocide, having in mind improved relations with traditional enemies Turkey and Iran. This policy prompted strong criticism from extreme nationalist groups that wanted to recover territory lost to Turkey in World War I. The CPA was also vehemently critical. {The author is a total dilettante in the issues he/she describes. –MJ]

Data as of March 1994

 

 

Section 1 of 1

 

Armenia

Independence

In January 1991, the Armenian Supreme Soviet decided not to participate in Gorbachev's planned referendum on preserving the Soviet Union. In March the parliament announced that, instead, the republic would hold its own referendum in September, in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Soviet constitution for a republic to secede. Although literal compliance would mean that Armenia would not be fully independent for five years after the referendum, Moscow soon moved to change Armenia's course. Without notifying the Armenian government, Moscow sent paratroopers to the republic in early May, ostensibly to protect Soviet defense installations in Armenia. Ter-Petrosian's official statement in reaction characterized the move as a virtual declaration of war by the Soviet Union.

In August 1991, when a self-proclaimed emergency committee attempted to overthrow Gorbachev and take control in Moscow, the Armenian government refused to sanction its actions. Fearing an extension of the Soviet incursion of May, Ter-Petrosian approached the Moscow coup very cautiously. The republic's Defense Committee secretly resolved to have the Armenian armed forces go underground and wage guerrilla warfare. Ter-Petrosian, who believed that Gorbachev's personal blunders, indecisiveness, and concessions to conservative communists were to blame for the coup, was overjoyed when the conservatives were defeated. But the coup itself convinced Armenians of the need to move out of the Soviet Union as rapidly as possible, and it validated TerPetrosian 's refusal to participate in the revival of the Soviet Union advocated by Gorbachev.

Within two months of the coup, Armenians went to the polls twice. In September 1991, over 99 percent of voters approved the republic's commitment to independence. The immediate aftermath of that vote was the Armenian Supreme Soviet's declaration of full independence, on September 23, in disregard of the constitution's restraints on secession. Then in October, Ter-Petrosian was elected overwhelmingly as president of the republic. He now had a popular mandate to carry out his vision [his vision??? – MJ] of Armenian independence and self-sufficiency.

As political changes occurred within the republic, armed conflict continued in Nagorno-Artsax during 1991. Armenia officially denied supporting the "Nagorno-Artsax defense forces" that were pushing Azerbaijani forces out of the region; Armenia also accused the Soviet Union of supporting Azerbaijan as punishment for Armenia's failure to sign Gorbachev's new Union Treaty. In turn, Azerbaijan called Armenia an aggressor state whose national policy included annexation of Azerbaijani territory.

Data as of March 1994

 

 

Section 1 of 1

 

Armenia

Postindependence Armenia

Two immediate tasks facing independent Armenia were rebuilding its devastated economy and strengthening its fledgling democratic institutions. But the escalating war in NagornoArtsax and the effective blockade of the republic by the Azerbaijanis led to a total collapse of the economy. By early 1993, the government seemed helpless before mounting economic and political problems. The last remaining oil and gas pipelines through neighboring Georgia, which itself was being torn by civil and interethnic war, were blown up by saboteurs. To survive the cold, Armenians in Erevan cut down the city's trees, and plans were made to start up the nuclear power plant at Metsamor. In February 1993, demonstrations called for the resignation of the government, but Ter-Petrosian responded by naming a new cabinet headed by Hrant Bagratian.

While economic and political conditions deteriorated within Armenia, the military position of the Armenians in the Artsax struggle improved dramatically. Various peace negotiations sponsored by Iran, Russia, Turkey, and a nine-nation group from the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe ( CSCE--see Glossary) had begun in 1991 and sporadically had yielded cease-fires that were violated almost immediately. In the spring of 1992, while the Azerbaijani communists and the nationalist Azerbaijani Popular Front fought for control in Baku, Artsax Armenian forces occupied most of Nagorno-Artsax, took the old capital, Shusha, and drove a corridor through the Kurdish area around Lachin to link Nagorno-Artsax with Armenia. But the immediate result of this victory was the collapse of Russian-sponsored peace negotiations with Azerbaijan and the continuation of the war.

Beginning a counteroffensive in early summer, the Azerbaijanis recaptured some territory and created thousands of new refugees by expelling Armenians from the villages they took. In midsummer this new phase of the conflict stimulated a CSCEsponsored peace conference, but Armenia stymied progress by demanding for the first time that Nagorno-Artsax be entirely separate from Azerbaijan.

By the end of 1992, the sides were bogged down in a bloody stalemate. After clearing Azerbaijani forces from NagornoArtsax and the territory between Artsax and Armenia, Armenian troops also advanced deep into Azerbaijan proper--a move that brought condemnation from the United Nations (UN) Security Council and panic in Iran, on whose borders Armenian troops had arrived. In the first half of 1993, the Artsax Armenians gained more Azerbaijani territory, against disorganized opposition. Azerbaijani resistance was weakened by the confusion surrounding a military coup that toppled the APF government in Baku and returned former communist party boss Heydar Aliyev to power.

The coup reinvigorated Russian efforts to negotiate a peace under the complex terms of the three parties to the conflict: the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the increasingly independent and assertive Artsax Armenians. CSCE peace proposals were uniformly rejected during this period. Although Russia seemed poised for a triumph of crisis diplomacy on its borders, constant negotiations in the second half of 1993 produced only intermittent cease-fires. At the end of 1993, the Artsax Armenians were able to negotiate with the presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia from a position of power: they retained full control of Nagorno-Artsax and substantial parts of Azerbaijan proper (see After Communist Rule, ch. 2).

Data as of March 1994

[MJ]

Armenian History.

By Rev. William Clark

ARTICLE VIL—ARMENIAN HISTORY.

 

THE ancient history of the Armenians, though involved in the obscurity that reigns over the infancy of all the nations of antiquity, is yet, in many respects, comparing it with the early history of other old nations, somewhat brighter and less confused. It is a peculiar characteristic of Armenian history, that it occupies a perfectly natural position, taking hold of sacred history with one hand, in a spirit of reverence and love, and of profane history with the other, in sympathy with its truth and authority. Its way, through all that traditional and uncertain period of the distant past, is strangely illumined by mysterious and almost sacred lights, which burn more and

more brightly the more attentively we consider them. And we venture the prediction, that, in the degree it becomes the subject of faithful research and study, the evidences of its truth will multiply, and still more, that new additions and elucidations will also be given to our present stock of ancient history relating to other nations. Many reasons might be given for this prediction, showing it to be well founded, reasons drawn from the locality of the Armenian people at the

original starting point of our race, reasons drawn from the fact of their acknowledged high antiquity, and also from their uninterrupted and intimate relations with the oldest monarchies of Asia, and with all those mighty peoples of the past, rising up giant-like, in darkness, in central and northern Asia, and sending forth, from time to time, their portentous clouds, which successively spread themselves over the continent of Europe. The Armenians, as a nation, have ever been stationed on the Ararat watch-tower, within sight of and looking out upon, all the great movements of the numberless hosts of nations, peoples, and tribes, that Asia, in the time of her strength and glory, brought out upon the great stage of the historic past. It is our firm conviction that there are many questions relating to ancient history, yet to be solved, by attention to the history, the literature, the language, and the monuments of Armenia. There are many links in ancient

history that yet remain to be supplied. The old Greek and Roman historians do not give them. They must be sought for elsewhere. Monuments, ruins, buried treasures, manuscripts still preserved in monasteries, caves, and sepulchers, inscriptions on tables of stone, old coins and old nations dug up from the past, these are yet to give us light in our researches, till the beautiful distinct light of sacred history blends and harmonizes with that of profane; and every contribution made by the scholar, the historian, the antiquarian, or the numismatist, to secure this result, deserves the reward of the

world’s approbation and gratitude.

 

The ancient kingdom of Armenia is one of these curious old relics of the past; and, though the history of this kingdom may not be so important or interesting as that of other eastern kingdoms, yet it should be studied for the light it throws upon the nations and great empires which successively established themselves in this region. One finds in its history the history of the primitive empires of Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, and Media; and though as a kingdom it was less vast and populous than many of those surrounding it, yet, by its native

energy and resources, it was frequently able to contend with them, and regain an independence it had temporarily lost. More than fifteen centuries before our era, it is said to have been one of the most powerful monarchies of the East, having its own laws, its own constitution, its dynasty of kings, its language and its literature. There were stone built cities, large and flourishing, upon the plains of Ararat long before the founding of Rome. But we purpose not, in this Article, to give a philosophy of Armenian history, as affecting or throwing light upon the history of other nations, but rather to introduce the reader to merely one old family or people, still full of life and activity, and which traces back its descent in a direct, continuous, and distinct line, to the first family of the Ararat homestead.

 

The Armenians, according to their history, are the descendants of Haigor Haieus, whose genealogy was as follows: Japhet, the son of Noah, begat Gomer, who was the father of Togarmali and Ashkenaz. Togarmah was the father of Haicus, from whom are descended the Haiks or Armenians. Among themselves they have ever been known, even to the present day, by the name of Haiks or sons of Haicus.

 

Following the traditional history of the Armenians, which we shall do in this Article, we are told that this Haicus, soon after the deluge, and while Noah was yet living, proceeded to the plain of Shinar, and there resided for a long period. During this time there occurred the building of the tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues, and the founding of Nineveh. It is said by the eminent Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene that in this work of building the tower, Haicus was concerned as one of the prefects or directors. The history of this

event, curious as a specimen of antiquity, is thus given by the

same historian

 

“Terrible and illustrious were those who first came from the gods in the beginning of the world, when men began to multiply. And among them there was found a race of giants, of immense structure, with limbs and bodies of vast size and strength, who, filled with arrogance, conceived the wicked purpose of building a tower, and while they were thus occupied, a divine and terrible wind, sent by the anger of God, defeated this proud work of the giants, already carried high. There was also distributed to each one of them an unheard of speech, which caused a great confusion. One of these giants was named Haicus, mighty in

throwing, the spear and bending the bow.”

 

A short time after, Bel, or Nimrod, succeeded in establishing his authority in Babylonia, and demanded that all render to him divine homage. Haicus refused to obey, and, taking with him his sons and daughters, and sons sons, brave men, in number about three hundred, together with many home-born servants and strangers attached to him, he left Babylonia, and went northward into the region of Ararat. Pd, or Belus, sent messengers after him, demanding his return and obedience, but not being successful, the tyrant Belus himself went forth to battle with Haicus, and being pierced by an arrow thrown by the latter, was slain. The place where this tyrant was buried received the name Kerezman, i. e. sepulcher, which name it retains to the present day. Haicus is therefore styled “the first champion of religion, for having refused to pay adoration to the statue of Belus, and for killing the latter as being the first introducer of idolatry among mankind.”

 

According to a very ancient tradition, this first king of the Armenians was a man of extraordinary beauty, possessing an imposing figure and wonderful strength; in height tall, with sharp, penetrating eyes, and hair of silken softness. The Armenians have ever felt proud to be called the sons of Haicus. Their old songs and traditions describe his many noble and virtuous qualities, and these songs and chants have been sung in the mountains and valleys about Ararat for nearly four thousand years. Frequently the traveler is startled by their wild music, as he

silently threads his way through some dark gorge, or carefully winds along the almost perpendicular side of some towering cliff in that old land. Haicus, it is said, after having established his authority in

the region of Ararat, introducing many laws and wise regulations, founding cities, and thus securing the prosperity of his people, died at the age of nearly four hundred years, about 2028 before Christ, and a few years before the birth of Abraham. He left a numerous family, consisting of twelve sons and twenty-four daughters.

 

The right of primogeniture was sacredly regarded then as now among the Armenians, and the first born son, Armenag, became the ruler of this Ararat kingdom. Two of his brothers removed to the region near lake Van, and gave their names to their descendants, two distinct families, well known among this people to the present day. In the time of Armuenag and his immediate successors, many cities were built in Armenia, among which was Armavir, said to have been very large and

beautiful, built of hewn stone, about 2000 before Christ. This city is probably the Armouria mentioned by Ptolemy. At that early period it was one of the central points of the world. Its princes extended their rule east to the shores of the Caspian, and west far beyond the Euphrates. Its situation, so far as can now be determined, was a little north of the river Araxes, near a branch of the same, now called Kasagh. About 1850 before Christ, it was very strongly fortified by Harma, an Armenian king of great renown. He surrounded it by walls higher and thicker than those which heretofore enclosed it.

 

These walls were all of stone, of huge dimensions. He also embellished it by the erection of several magnificent palaces, and ornamented the adjacent country by building pleasure houses and caravanserais for the entertainment of travelers. It may at this period have almost rivaled Nineveh in strength and beauty, for it seems to have been built after a similar manner, of great size, with vast and extensive gardens within the walls, and was also the capital of a kingdom which often successfully contended with the kingdom of Assyria.

 

As Abraham is said to have planted a grove and built an altar unto the Lord, so these Armenian kings are said to have planted groves of poplar in and around their first cities, and in these groves were altars, where the first-born of the family officiated, as priest, in offering to God acceptable sacrifices. It is an interesting fact that these poplar groves have ever been esteemed sacred. From the fact that altars were first reared in them there came the belief that they were the dwelling-place of Jehovah, and in later times, when religion was corrupted, they were still considered the terrestrial residences of the gods. It was, therefore, the custom to consecrate children to these

groves, believing that such would be under the special care of the gods, and ever be eminently successful. The Armenian king, Anushavan, 1725 B. C., was consecrated to these groves in his infancy, and, on this account, was surnamed the Poplar. The trembling of the leaves of these groves by the gentlest breeze, as well as by the most violent wind, was a long time an object of magical science to which the wisest devoted themselves.

 

The primitive religion of the Armenians, according to tradition, was patriarchal and pure. Founded upon the faith held from the patriarchs, it consisted in the adoration of the true God, sorrow over that forfeiture which our race sustained by the fall, and the expectation of a Supreme Restorer. The worship was the simplest possible, consisting of prayer and a bloody sacrifice. “The father of the family at the same time, as pontiff and king, ruled the members thereof with a wise equity. He offered to the Most High, as the chosen mediator, prayers and victims, terminated all differences, and under this patriarchal regime all enjoyed peace.”

 

As Armenian geography throws much light upon the history of Armenia, so the history of the Armenian nation throws light on the geography of the country. For instance, the king Aramais, son of Armenag, gave his name to Armavir, which was the ancient capital of Armenia for the space of eighteen hundred years. So Manavaz, brother of king Armenag, 2000 years B. C., gave his name to the city Afanavazagerd, called at the present day Manasgerd, i. e. the city of Manas or Manavaz. The king Amassia, 1940 B. C., building many places at the foot of Mt. Ararat, called the mountain Massis, a name by which it is still known among the Armenians. Sometimes, however, they give it the name of Ararat. Gelam, son of Amassia, building his habitation near a lake not far from Ararat, gave his name also to the lake, a name it has borne to the ciA ime (? –MJ) with very slight variations. It is written Gelam, Gegham, and sometimes Sevan. His grandson, Garni, built a city which received the same name, and this name it has ever retained. Such instances might be multiplied almost indefinitely, showing also this interesting fact, that the most ancient geography of this land, given by Ptolemy, Strabo, Plutarch,

Ctesias, Arrian, and Pliny, is constructed from an Armenian geography still older. The names are all Armenian, or plainly derived from Armenian names. Take for instance the name of the old Armenian city Nakhchevan. By Ptolemy it is called Naxuana. Its etymology, however, is clearly Armenian, composed of two words, Nakh, which signifies first, and Chevan, place of descent or encampment. In the Armenian language it signifies, therefore, the first place of encampment or descent, and is believed to be actually the place where Noah first encamped after leaving the ark, and hence, the oldest city in the world. It was certainly one of the oldest, and, for a very long period, one of the most powerful cities of the ancient Armenian kingdom. Its situation was not far from Mt. Ararat, and in a region frequently described by travelers, as one of the most fertile and attractive in Asia. Gelam, who is said to have ruled over the Armenians from 1908 to 1858 B. C., and who gave his name to the lake above mentioned, had two sons, Harma and Sissag, or Sissac. From the latter descended the people who were called Sissagans, and who were, perhaps, the same as the Sacae of Strabo and Ptolemy; as we find them occupying precisely the same locality, and distinguished by many of the same characteristics. Some very interesting notices of this people are found in ancient Armenian history, and these notices are all the more interesting from the fact that it is the opinion of some, that these Sissagans were the Sakai-suni, mentioned by Turner as the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons.

 

About eighteen hundred years before Christ, in the time of Isaac and Jacob, the Armenian nation was both powerful and prosperous, and also of very large extent. Its kings fought against the Babylonians and Medes, and extended their conquests over the territory of Pontus and Cappadocia. Aram, son of Harma, became ruler about this time, and it was owing much, it seems, to his wisdom, power, and policy, that the

national authority and limits were greatly extended. It is said that this king gave much attention to the study of various arts and arms among his people, which rendered them, at that time and in succeeding centuries, so powerful and respected as a nation. For the prudent and manly bravery he displayed in the service of his country, he became renowned and feared among other nations. Moses of Chorene says, “he chose rather to suffer death in defense of his country, than to see it in subjection to foreigners.’~ The Medes, impelled by avarice and jealousy,, at this time made an incursion into Armenia under the conduct of Neuchar, who was an implacable enemy of king Arani, but the latter, with an army of fifty thousand men, overcame them, took the prince Neuchar prisoner, led him to Armavir, and ordered him to be hung up at the top of a high tower. A nail was driven through his forehead, and he was thus left suspended from the wall, that he might serve as

an object of derision to the passers-by. About this time, too, Barsham, prince of Babylon, invaded Armenia with forty thousand infantry and five thousand cavalry. Aram attacked and defeated him, with great slaughter; the Babylonian prince being also slain in the conflict. He then marched with forty thousand men into Asia Minor, west of the Euphrates, conquered the country, and commanded all the inhabitants to learn the Armenian language. It was at this time he built the city of Cesarea (Kaisareieh) or Mazaca, as it is called by old Greek writers. This name, however, is plainly of Armenian origin, from Meeshak, the name of the Armenian general in this expedition, who is said to have been a relative of the king Aram, and who was left as his deputy in Cappadocia with a force of ten thousand men. This expedition, bringing the most of Asia Minor under the Armenian power at that early period, can be verified, or at least rendered probable, by many interesting testimonies. For instance, the most ancient Greek historians speak of striking similarities between the inhabitants of Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Armenia, in their language and customs, so much so that the Armenians and Phrygians were sometimes said to be the same people. So the Armenians were spoken of by some ancient writers as a colony of the Phrygians; and the Cappadocians as a colony of the Armenians. The different languages of the three, on account of their striking resemblance, have been called different dialects of a common language.

 

Concerning the reign of this Aram, king of the Armenians, we have testimony from both Herodotus and Ctesias. From him the Armenians were called by other nations Arameans or Armenians. It is remarkable how this old traditional history of the Armenians, which has lain neglected so long, when carefully examined, takes upon itself more and more the

character of true history. Events are related in a simple and natural manner, free from the extravagance and mythologic character of the history of many other old nations, and, when there are rays of veritable historic light piercing far back into that darkness, we find in Armenian history no violent contradictions to this light. The Armenian king, Aram, is said to have had a powerful foe in Ninus, king of Assyria, who was also a descendant of Belus, formerly slain by Haicus. Remembering the death of his ancestor by the Armenian king, he ever meditated revenge, but, though he was at times in war with Aram, he was not successful in subduing him. Ninus and Aram were at that time the two great kings of Asia. But Arah, the son and successor of Aram, had not the same good fortune as his father in conflict with the Assyrian power. his contemporary, as ruler of Assyria, was Semiramis; and the following interesting story is related of these two rulers. Semiramis, having heard of the great beauty of the person of Arah, who was surnamed, from a child, Arah the handsome, sent him an offer of her hand and crown, and requested him to visit her. But as she was known to be a voluptuous woman, and of loose principles, Arah drove her ambassadors out of his country. This caused a war, and the queen, with a vast army, invaded Armenia, determined to get possession of the person of the beautiful king, compel him to marry her, and share with her the rule of the two kingdoms, Assyria and Armenia: When about to meet the forces of Arah, she therefore commissioned her generals to spare him, and bring him alive into her presence. But the issue was disastrous to the Armenians, and in the conflict, much to the grief of the queen, king Arah himself was slain. Semiramis grieved sorely over his death, and took his little son, twelve years of age, and placed him on the throne of his father. After remaining a few days on the plains of Ararat, “the Assyrian queen,” says the historian, “returning southward, it being the season of summer, greatly admired the beauty of the country, the flowery and fertile valleys and plains, the clear springs which everywhere gushed forth, the rivers flowing with a murmuring noise, and the purity of the air.” “It is necessary,” she said, “in a country where the climate is so healthy, and the waters so pure, to build a city and a royal residence, in order that we may pass

the summer in Armenia, in the midst of all possible delights and enjoyments, while the colder seasons we will continue to spend in Nineveh.” After surveying very many situations, she at length arrived at the shores of a salt sea. Here she discovered all the natural conditions which she desired for her city, and at once sent orders to all parts of her empire that twelve thousand laborers should come for its erection. She sent also for six thousand artisans, workers in wood, stone, copper, and iron, each one skillful in his art. In obedience to her orders, multitudes of laborers and artisans soon arrived. The queen

superintended the entire work, and, by the force of her continued exertions, achieved, in a few years, the building of a most magnificent city, which became ever after her royal summer residence. “It was enclosed with walls of massive strength, in which were gates of brass. She built, also, in the city a number of magnificent palaces, ornamented and figured with rare and costly stones of various colors. Dividing the city into wide and spacious streets, she distinguished the different quarters by colors veriegated and beautiful. She constructed splendid baths, brought the waters of the river within the walls, and distributed them everywhere for watering the gardens. The environs of the city were also ornamented with beautiful edifices, and groves of fruit-bearing and ornamental trees, and vineyards producing wine of superior quality. Within this city the queen placed an immense population.”

 

Such is the account given of the work of Semiramis by a historian of the fifth century. At that time the city bad long been in ruins, and a description of these wonderful ruins is also given by the same author, and explorations recently made confirm all that Armenian history says of this work of Semiramis. Though this city is known to us by the name of Van, yet, among the Armenians, from the earliest times, it has been

called Shamiramaqerd, i. e. the city of Semiramis. There is also a river in the mountains near the city, which the Kurds of the region have ever called the river of Semiramis. This beautiful scrap of Armenian traditional history, the more it is examined, either by the remarkable ruins of the city referred to, or by the character universally ascribed to this Assyrian queen by all ancient authors, comes more and more into the region of probability. Armenia, by the wars of Semiramis, became tributary to the Assyrian Empire for about eighty years, when it recovered again its independence, 1660 B. C. From this time, during many centuries, Armenia was a power among the old monarchies of Central Asia, and, in her conflicts with them, was sometimes successful, and sometimes unsuccessful, but, at all times, prosperous and possessing a good degree of independence. During the reign of Pharnak, 1531—1478 B. C., the kingdoms of Central and Northern Asia are said to have been invaded by Sesostris, king of Egypt, and after his departure from Armenia, a large number of fortresses were built by Pharnak to protect himself and his country against similar

future invasions. While his son and successor, Sour, was ruler of the kingdom, the children of Israel took possession of Canaan, and, according to tradition, many of the aborigines of that country took refuge in Armenia under the conduct of a leader named Canaanidas, a man, as the records state, of immense riches. From him the Gunthunians or Gentunians, who are well known in the annals of Armenian history, are descended. One old writer says, “The Gentunians were Canaanites, and descended from those who, being expelled from their country by Joshua, the leader of the Israelites, sailing from the port of Acre, passed first to Thorsin, (Tarsns ?), and from there crossed over to Africa, where they left a monument of their coining, bearing this inscription, ‘We, the prefects or leaders of the Canaanites, fleeing from the robber Joshua, have come to inhabit this place.’ One of these became greatly distinguished in Armenia, and the founder of a celebrated family, frequently referred to in the history of the country.” In after times, they received hereditary gifts from Valarsaces I, king of Armenia in the second century before Christ. They were thus honored from having constituted, during his reign,

his chief body-guard. During the reign of Gar, another of their kings, Byzantium, now Constantinople, is said to have been founded. Zarmair was another distinguished and warlike king. In his reign occurred the fatuous siege of Troy, and, being an ally of the Assyrians and Trojans, he went, with a large body of troops, to the assistance of the latter. lie is said to have been slain, however, by the troops of Achilles. The names of many other kings might be given, who distinguished themselves, either in war or in improving and strengthening their own kingdom.

 

During the reign of Pazoug, (1035—985 B. C.), who was called the long-lived, from the length of his reign, the temple of Solomon was built at

Jerusalem. Paroyr is said to have united with Arbaces, prince of the Medes, and Belesis, surnamed Nabonazar, prince of Babylon, in a conspiracy against Sardanapalus, the Assyrian Emperor. After the expulsion of the latter from Nineveh, Assyria was governed by Tiglath pileser; then by his son Shahnaneser, who took Samaria, carried the ten tribes into captivity, placing them in Chalach and Cheebor, by the river Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. Shalmanezer was succeeded by his son, Sennacherib, who, in an expedition against the Jews, then governed by king Hezekiab, lost the whole of his army by the sword of the avenging angel. On his return to Nineveh lie was plunged into the bitterest grief on account of the defeat and destruction of his soldiers ; and, conceiving it to be the anger of the gods, he thought of appeasing them by the sacrifice of his sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, on the altar of the idol Nisroch. They, however, learning the purpose of their unnatural father, and seizing their opportunity,

slew him in the temple of their gods, and took refuge in Armenia. They were kindly received by Paroyr, and large estates were given them. To Sharezer was given a territory in the southwestern part of Armenia bordering on Assyria, and to Adrammelech a country southeast of that of his brother. From the latter are descended the great tribes of the Arzrunians and Gunnians. The posterity of these two Assyrian princes, after some centuries, became so numerous that they established an independent kingdom called Vasburagan. We have also the testimony of Berosus, according to Josephus, to the fact that these sons of Sennacherib fled into Armenia. The same event is recorded in the Scriptures as follows: “And it came to pass as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adraminelech and Sharezer, his sons, smote him with a sword, and they escaped into the land of Armenia.”

 

Another king, Haikak II, who ruled from 607 to 539 B. C., joined Nebuchadnezzar in his expedition against the Jews, and on the latter being led into captivity, Haikak took one of the chiefs named Sembat, with all his family, and brought him into Armenia. From this prince descended the family of the Bagratians, members of which afterwards became rulers, who shed luster on the Armenian nation. It is certain that this family possessed great wealth and dignity under the Arsacidae, as they were advanced to very high places of honor and

influence in the government. The same family is still well known among the Armenians in the Russian Empire, and some of them there hold high civil and military offices. From 859 to 1079 A. D., it was a reigning family in Armenia, with a succession of thirteen kings. The capital of this kingdom was Ani, situated in the Ararat region, the remarkable ruins of which still bear witness to its former greatness and magnificence. This family, as now existing in Russia, can be regarded as one of the most ancient royal families in Europe, the descent of which is historically proved.

 

It is a well known fact, that long before the Christian era the Jewish population in Armenia was very large, and it continued thus even to the third, fourth, and fifth centuries of our era, when, in the desolating wars of the Persians, they either perished or were carried into captivity. Sapor IT drove a million of them out of Armenia, and probably more than this number were slain by the sword. Of all the nations upon the earth, among which the Jews have been scattered,

no nation, perhaps, has treated them with so much kindness, and distinction even, as the Armenian. For many, many centuries, it was the custom for a royal Jewish family to place the crown upon the head of the Armenian kings.

 

We come next to speak of the renowned Tigranes, or Dicran, sometimes called Tigranes I, who ruled the Armenians from 565 to 520 B. C., and was contemporary, friend, and ally of Cyrus, king of Persia. “He was,” says Moses of Chorene, “of all our kings, the most powerful, the wisest and bravest of princes and warriors. lie raised our nation to a high elevation, and extended our territory even to its ancient limits. It was bowed down under a yoke, and he placed it in a position to impose its yoke upon many other nations. There was everywhere an abundance of gold, silver, and precious stones. Such as formerly had no weapons, were now furnished with bucklers and coats of mail. The sight alone of our soldiers assembled together, the fire and shining of their weapons, were sufficient to put our enemies to flight. Tigranes established peace, promoted general improvements, and enriched all the country with streams of oil and honey.” His personal appearance, the historian says, was dignified and commanding, and in the old songs that were sung to the sound of cymbals, in celebration of his excellences and virtues, be is described as a prince prudent and moderate in the desires of the flesh, Pill of wisdom, eloquent; and beneficent in all that concerned humanity. In the many wars in which he was engaged, he had wonderful success. He defeated the Greeks, and compelled them, a long time, to pay him tribute. With Cyrus, he made alliance offensive and defensive, and with him he waged war with Astyages or Ahasuerus, king of the Medes, overcame him, and took possession of his territory. With him he conquered Croesus, king of Lydia, and seized his kingdom, and with him, too, he besieged and took Babylon, which was given to Darius, uncle of Cyrus, who ruled as king. There are many proofs of this alliance in the taking of Babylon, and among them onein the Scriptures: “Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her, (Babylon), call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz, appoint a Captain against her, cause the horses to come up as the rough caterpillars.” With reference to his expedition against Astyages, Moses of Chorene relates, that he took more than 10,000 prisoners, together with Anouish, the chief of the women of the king, and a great number of princesses, all of whome he brought into Armenia, and gave them a settlement in the region of Nakhchevan, upon the river Araxes. This transfer of the Medes into Armenia is authenticated by chants which the inhabitants of that vine country have ever sung, in which there is mention made of them as the descendants of the dragon, “for Astyages,” says the historian, “in our language, signifies dragon.” The exploits of king Tigranes occupy a long space in Armenian history, and his many virtues and superior qualities are highly extolled. He greatly enlarged and enriched his kingdom, building numerous fortified towns . and cities, among which was Tigranocerta, now Diarbekir, situated on the Tigris. This place, with a large extent of country in its environs, lie gave to his sister Tigrana, and ordered the canton, in which the new city was built, to render obedience to this princess. Some place this city of Tigranocerta further east, upon one of the branches of the Tigris, but the one referred to by old Armenian writers was evidently that which is now called Diarbekir. In confirmation of this, the latter city is now called, as it ever has been, among the Armenians, Tigranagerd, i. e., the city of Tigranes.

 

After a prosperous reign of forty-five years, in which his glory had eclipsed that of all Armenian rulers before him, Tigranes died, five years after the death of his great ally, ‘Cyrus. Yahakn, the son and successor of Tigranes, was also a brave and warlike ruler, and, on account of his great personal courage and strength, was usually called, by his subjects, Hercules the Second. Songs in his praise were composed and chanted to the sound of cymbals. “We have heard them,” says the

historian of the fifth century, “with our own ears.” There are

described in these celebrated chants, amongst a variety of other

valiant actions, his combats and victories with the dragons. This alludes, doubtless, to his wars with the Medes. In the country of the Iberians a statue was erected to him, in commemoration of his many great qualities, and before this statue sacrifices were offered, according to pagan custom. He was raised to the rank of the gods. From this prince the tribe of Vahunians are descended, many of whom officiated as priests in temples which they had erected to their ancestor.

 

From 371 to 351 B. C., Armenia was ruled by a king of the name Van, who, having enlarged and embellished the city of Semiramis, gave to it his own name. It preserved, however, a long time its ancient name, together with the new, and at length, about the middle of the second century before our era, Valarsaces, the first king of the Arsacidae in Armenia, again restored the city, and also its ancient name. At the time of Alexander the Great, Vahey, king of the Armenians, being an ally of the Persians, went to their assistance with an army of forty thousand infantry and one thousand cavalry, but, like Darius, he was defeated; consequently, Armenia at this time came under the Macedonian yoke. It was ruled for one hundred and sixty-four years (323 to 159 B. C.)by governors; the first appointed by Alexander himself, the others by his successors. Some came from Macedonia, and others from Selcucia, the capital city of the Seleucidae, in the East. Many of these treated the Armenians with great cruelty, and, as a consequence, there were frequent attempts to regain their independence. Others were, however, mild in their rule, and introduced many of the Grecian arts and customs, together with their religion. Several of the gods worshiped by the Greeks were brought and placed in the temples of Armenia. The ancient religion of the country seems to have undergone various modifications, according as it was influenced by different religious ideas coming in from surrounding nations. For instance, the early patriarchal religion is said to have existed in Armenia till about 1700 B. C., when Assyrian influence began to prevail, introducing Sabeism. From this time, the Chaldean religion exercised its authority till about 725 B. C., when Sabeismn degenerated into Magism, i. e., the worship of fire. This was introduced from Persia. The conquests of Alexander brought in Grecian idolatry, so that, under the Macedonian rule, there was a confused mixture of the two. Some superstitions were also introduced from Scythia, and it is said that several statues of the gods were brought even from India. In the time of Alexander, Armenia was a rich and prosperous country, possessing, according to Strabo, Pliny, and other ancient authors, rich mines of gold and silver, and abounding in precious stones. Alexander, it is said, sent Messon to the mines in Armenia, but he was strangled by the inhabitants of the country. The horses of Armenia were also very celebrated, and, when employed in war, were completely covered with armor; hence the Armenian cavalry was a terror to the surrounding nations. Mention is made of Armenian generals, who fought with Darius against Alexander at Arbela.

 

About 189 B. C., the capital Artaxata is said to have been founded. Delightfully situated on the Araxes, the almost sacred river of the Armenians, surrounded on all sides by plains exceedingly rich and beautiful, the grand entrepot of trade between the eastern and western world, the rich staffs of India, Persia, and China filling her extensive markets, adorned, too, with many magnificent temples and palaces, it was a long time the largest commercial city, and most splendid capital of the ancient Armenian kingdom.

 

In ancient history the building of this capital is ascribed to the influence of Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general. It is said that when the Romans took Carthage, Hannibal fled to Antiochus the Great. Soon after, however, the latter, in war with the Romans, being defeated, was required to deliver up their old and inveterate enemy. But Antiochus, having a very high regard for Hannibal, secretly assisted him in fleeing to Armenia. Here he was welcomed by the Armenian ruler, Artaces, and soon became his favorite and confidant.

He also rendered great assistance to the king in perfecting and

strengthening the administration of his government. “Hannibal,” says the Armenian historian, “during his sojourn with Artaces, drew the plan of a city afterwards built by the latter near the river Araxes, which is connected with the river Medzamore, and he called it after his own name, Artashat. To this place, which afterwards became one of the greatest cities in Armenia, Artaces transferred the scat of his government.”

 

Strabo and Plutarch also say that Autiochus the Great, king of Syria, compelling Hannibal, the chief enemy of the Romans, to leave his kingdom, this Carthaginian general, persecuted by an evil fortune, fled to Artaces, and, being with this prince suggested to him the design of building the city of Artaxata, which was named in honor of its founder. Strabo says it was very favorably situated on almost an island made by the waters of the Araxes, which surrounded every part with the exception of one point, and this was defended by a fosse and a rampart.

 

We now come to a period of Armenian history embracing about five hundred and eighty years, from 149 B. C. to A. D. 422, when there existed in northern Central Asia the Parthian dynasty, or, as it is sometimes called, the dynasty of the Arsacidae, a kingdom of mysterious power and great extent, a powerful rival and foe of the Roman Empire of the west. And perhaps this interesting period of Oriental history is one of the obscurest portions of the past. If we look into our best histories of this age and region of the world, we find hardly any thing that is satisfactory. From the death of Alexander to the reign of Ardeshir, about five centuries, the extant annals of the East exhibit almost a complete blank. Persian authors of this period are exceedingly vague and contradictory. “They have evidently,” says Sir John Malcolm, author of the History of Persia, “no materials to form an authentic narrative, and yet, when we refer to the pages of Roman writers, we find this period abounds with events of which the vainest nations might be proud, and that Parthian monarchs, whose names even cannot now be discovered in the history of their own country, were the only sovereigns upon whom the Roman arms, when that nation was in the very zenith of its power, could make no impression.”

 

This great Parthian power had most intimate and friendly relations with the Armenians, and though the latter were nominally subject or tributary to the former, they had their separate kings, and enjoyed a great degree of prosperity and independence. The Roman Emperors frequently endeavoring, however, during this time, to extend their rule over Armenia, there were many severe conflicts, in which the Armenians

were greatly harassed, and in which, too, they suffered great losses. But what is quite remarkable, is the fact, that the brightest light which shines upon he history of this Parthian power of the East comes from Armenian sources. An interesting history of the Arsacidae Parthians could be compiled from Armenian historical writers.

 

The name Arsacidae was from the name of the first prince of this dynasty, Arsaces, said to have descended from Abraham by Keturah. This prince first established himself in the city of Bahl, in Bactriana, and, by his great qualities, extended his sway over the Parthians, Medes, Persians, and Babylonians. In process of time Armenia was added to this power, and was given to the brother of the Parthian king, whose name was Valarsaces. This brother had greatly distinguished himself as a general of the Parthian forces. Under him, Cappadocia, Pontus, Lazicia, Chaldea, and Egeria had been subdued and made tributary to the Parthian power. As a reward for his valor, the king invested him with legal authority over Armenia, and gave him the large and populous city of Nisibis for his capital. Being distinguished for his literary taste and scholarship, and wishing, it is said, to know the origin of the Armenians as a people, the events that had taken place in their country, and the rulers who had preceded him, he made many inquiries concerning their history. Having learned that there were old Chaldean manuscripts in the possession of his brother, which gave sonic account of the Armenians, he sent a Syrian, a very learned man in the Chaldean language, to examine them. During the examination there was found a

manuscript in the Greek character, with this title: “This book,

containing the annals of ancient history, was translated from Chaldean into Greek by order of Alexander the Great.” In this book, and in other manuscripts found in these old archives, many important facts were recorded, relating to the whole period of Armenian history from Haicus to the time of Alexander. These the learned Syrian extracted, and returned to Nisibis. This discovery afforded great joy to the king Valarsaces, who preserved the history with great care. Other histories were also discovered, which are referred to by Armenian authors. The name of the Syrian who explored these old archives was Mar Abas, of Catina, who lived about 140 years B. C. He is one of the principal authorities consulted by the celebrated Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, of the fifth century, and much weight is attached to his testimony. The king Valarsaces, by his energy and wisdom, greatly

improved the state of his kingdom. He divided the former into provinces, over which he appointed princes. He also formed his army into legions, after the manner of the Romans. Bagarat, his counselor, a descendant of the Jew Sembat, to whom we have already referred, was appointed by him to the hereditary office of placing the crown upon the king’s head at his coronation. This Bagarat is said to have been a Jew of excellent character, and of the greatest service to Valarsaces, from

his intimate acquaintance with the laws of God. The descendants of this individual were called Bagratians, at present a family well known, as has already been said.

 

The descendants of the two Assyrian brothers, Adrammelech and Sliarezer, became, by the appointment ‘of this king, two great satrapial families, under the names Arzrunians, or Ardzrunians, and Gunnians, or Kenounians. The former word is composed of two words: ardzer, eagle, and ouni, having: i.e., those who bore the standard of the eagle before the king; Kenounian is from keenee, wine, and ouni, having: i.e., those who furnished the king with wine.

 

About 120 B. C., a Bulgarian colony was established in the northwestern section of the kingdom, near the city now called Kars. This is the first notice we have of the Bulgarians in history, and for this notice we are indebted to Moses of Chorene. His account of them relates to a period some seven hundred years earlier than what is mentioned by any other historian. And we might here speak of many similar notices

relating to other nations, found in Armenian history, if our object was to show the value of Armenian historical literature. This subject has not yet received the attention of which it is worthy, and it is to be hoped that some Orientalist will, ere long, turn his attention to so interesting a field of research.

 

The King Artaces II, who ruled from 111 to 89 B. C., is said to have subdued the whole of Asia Minor. Assembling a numerous army, he entered Europe, conquered Thrace and Greece, destroyed the chief cities in those countries, cute red the Morea, and defeated the Lacedemonians. During his reign, many idolatrous temples were erected, and statues of the Roman and Greek deities introduced. It is said that this king,

in one of his expeditions into Western Asia, found three well-executed statues, brazen and gilded, of Diana, Hercules, and Apollo, from the hands of Dipaenus and Scyilis, two celebrated Cretan artists. These he sent to Armavir, the much loved old capital of the kingdom. At the time of his expedition into Greece, he also discovered and sent into Armenia five other statues; viz, Jupiter, Diana, Minerva, Vulcan, and Venus.

The latter was also called Anaites, and her most splendid temple, at this period, was at Erzingan, a city situated upon the Euphrates.

The king gave his daughter, Artashama, in marriage to Mithridates, the great and valiant chief of the Georgians, descendant of Mithridates, the first minister of Darius. The successor of Artaces was Tigranes II., his son, who, immediately on coming to the throne, nominated his brother-in-law, Mithridates, prime minister. The first year of his reign he was invaded by the Greeks, who were repulsed with great loss, giving him possession of nearly all Asia Minor. Returning to Armenia, he placed this portion of Asia in charge of Mithridates, appointing him king of Pontus and the regions about the Mediterranean. Many countries are said to have been subdued by this Tigranes, and their kings were kept captive at his court, to render more splendid the daily state in

which he lived. This fact is authenticated by various historians. “We are informed,” says the historian, “that many unfortunate kings, prisoners at his court, were obliged to stand in his presence with their arms folded on their breasts, in token of the absolute power he had over them.” Four of these wretched monarchs were in constant attendance upon him, dressed in their regal robes, and, when he went forth in public on horseback, these kings were compelled to precede

him on foot. Mithridates’ court and kingdom were no less splendid; he is said to have ruled over twenty-two distinct nations, all the different languages of which he spoke with fluency, so as never to need the aid of an interpreter. His wars with the Romans are well known to the readers of ancient history. Tigranes, at one time, marched to meet Lucullus, the Roman general, with 360,000 men, all clad in iron armor. He conquered Assyria, Phenicia, and Cappadocia. When he made peace with Pompey, to each soldier of the Roman army “he gave one hundred and fifty pieces of silver, to every lieutenant one thousand, and to the captains ten thousand each.” In alliance with the Persian King Bacur, he is said to have taken Jerusalem, where he found immense treasures, and took a multitude of the Jews captive. Many of these he placed in the city of Fan, others in Armavir and the regioii around. The posterity of these captives in Fan became so numerous, that, when the city was taken by Sapor II, about the middle of the fourth century, he destroyed eighteen thousand houses of Jews.

 

Tigranes made Nisibis his capital, which was then one of the largest and most strongly fortified cities in the East. Strabo says that, having attained the height of his prosperity, he founded a city which he named Tigranocerta, and peopled it with the inhabitants which he had collected out of twelve Grecian cities. There is much confusion among ancient writers with respect~ to the situation of this city, and it probably arises from confounding two cities of the same name, the one built by Tigranes I., on the Tigris, and now called Diarbekir, and the other on the Nymphius, a branch of the Tigris, and built by Tigranes II. The latter king is, however, said to have rebuilt the city of his predecessor, so that which of the two was the Tigranocerta of the Greeks, it is difficult to determine.

 

Tigranes the Second, or Tigranes the Great, as he is sometimes called, was succeeded by his son, Ardavast, about fifty years before Christ. This ruler is said to have been the author of some tragedies and of a history in Greek. He had a prosperous reign of about twenty-five years, when, on account of his friendship towards the Parthians, he was regarded by the Romans as an enemy. Not wishing to hazard a war with the Armenian king, the Roman general, Mark Antony, determined to get possession of his person by strategy. Wherefore, on the return of the latter to Egypt, he invited Ardavast to visit him, but; there being some suspicion of treachery, the proposal was declined. Antony next asked the daughter of the king in marriage for his son. This was also refused. Antony then marched towards Armenia, circulating the rumor that he had undertaken an expedition into Persia and wished to meet

the Armenian king in consultation, but the suspicions of the latter could not be overcome. Finally, however, after the most solemn assurances of safety had been given, he consented to a conference, but no sooner had he arrived than he was arrested and fettered with golden chains. The sons of the king were also seized, chains put upon them, and the whole family were carried to Egypt and presented to the queen Cleopatra. They were here obliged to suffer many indignities, being led as trophies in the Roman processions of triumph, and forced to prostrate themselves in doing homage to Cleopatra herself. As they manifested some reluctance in performing these humiliating ceremonies, they were threatened with great severities, and, after some time, were put to death. Alexander, son of Antony and Cleopatra, was now made for

a little time ruler in Armenia.

 

Thus we have briefly traced the ancient history of the Armenians, down to the time of Christ. The notices we have now given, however, of this interesting people, furnish only a glimpse of the treasures of their old records. These records, it is true, are a mixture of historical verity and fable, but they are worthy of a more attentive examination than they have yet met with in English literature.

 

 

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa...ABQ0722-0022-51

 

 

[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ][/QB]

[MJ]

In a short while, I am going to move the last material to a more appropriate thread.

[khodja]

MJ,

 

Your latest posting of the piece by Rev. Clark refers to some facts which I have formerly alluded to. Perhaps I am not so psychotic after all. He speaks of the Jewish roots of the Bagratunis and the Assyrian roots of the Arzrunis. I did not find mention here of the Chinese roots of the Mamikonians. As for the multitudes of Jews who were exhiled from Armenia by the Persians, they were those who maintained the Jewish faith. Those Jews who had converted to Christianity conveniently claimed that they were Armenians so as not to be exiled or killed by the Persians. So Dr. Yepiskoposyan's study may not be so far- fetched after all. And I may not be as mentally diseased as some of you here have claimed.

[khodja]

MosJan,

 

Why is my latest posting here not appearing in thr daily topics?

[martha hananian]

Can you furnish me with web or books on Armenian History - English. I have a young relative that has suddenly become interested in his heritage. Web would be preferable. My knowledge is miniscule. Thanks

 

Vart

[MJ]

I don't see how does the material of Rev. Clark address the issue of your mental condition.

[khodja]

The material of Rev. Clark shows that some of the premises that I have made regarding Armenians, which you have labeled me deranged for expressing, have some academic merit. Why are you so full of venom, Martin?

[aurguplu]

mj,

 

a point about the above posting re armenian history:

 

"For instance, the most ancient Greek historians speak of striking similarities between the inhabitants of Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Armenia, in their language and customs, so much so that the Armenians and Phrygians were sometimes said to be the same people. So the Armenians were spoken of by some ancient writers as a colony of the Phrygians; and the Cappadocians as a colony of the Armenians. The different languages of the three, on account of their striking resemblance, have been called different dialects of a common language."

 

we (the cappadocians) spoke dialects of hittite and luwian, both of which are very close to one another. the languages of lycia, lydia, and adanawa (present-day adana) were also very close. phrygian was spoken further north, and was written as a liturgical dead language until the third century a.d. you find phrygian tomb inscriptions in many places in central anatolia but not to the best of my knowledge in cappadocia (cappadocia is a very clearly defined area, and quite easily defended thanks to the fairy chimneys).

 

we never got on quite well with the greeks of the western shores, and preserved our language and culture well into the christian era. we turned christian early on, but developed heretic sects, which the byzantines tried (unsuccessfully) to crush. byzantine authors knew that various non-greek languages were spoken in central and eastern anatolia that were the same as those of the "white syrians" of that country: neo-hittite. to the best of my knowledge they spoke of the survival of our language in the mountains of isauria (northeast of antalya) in the sixth century a.d. later on, when the turks came and the byzantine empire was gone, the christian population (some of us had converted to islam, and there also were the karaman, a clan of the afshar, who settled there and intermarried with the locals) was called the "greeks of karaman", but this was originally a designation of the orthodox religious community rather than ethnicity. despite the best efforts of contemporary greek historians, the "greeks of karaman" have never been proven to have spoken greek in everyday language. in fact, they spoke a divergent form of turkish from probably the eleventh century, but always with many mistakes in it; so their native tongue was something else. we still have many hittite words in the turkish spoken in cappadocia, and our material culture differs from that of the other neighbouring regions very sharply (we have our distinctive pottery style, with a characteristic sheen, which you find in hittite works and nowhere else: no other region of anatolia produces pots like ours).

 

and we are still very different from everyone else, even the people of kayseri, who are not reliable merchants.

 

cheers

[MJ]

I think you have to read the material of Rev. Clark, again, and then have to read your materials, again. If you still don't get it, maybe you should try again.

As to the venom... don't flatter yourself.

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Ali Suat,

I agree with you about the survival of Anatolian languages in pockets of Anatolia. As for the "greeks" (almost all "greeks" of Anatolia need to be put in quotation marks, as you would agree) of Karaman, was it the "bey" of Karaman that ordered the non-Turkish speaking population to switch to Turkish or else (I think the penalty was cutting of the tongue, although I am not sure)? I honestly don't remember. I think there used to be a "Day of Language" in Turkey that celebrated the day the order was issued. Is it still celebrated?

As for the Armenian-Phrygian connection, I have never seen any evidence other than the all-too-often unreliable Greek historians. After all, they also claimed that Phrygian was the oldest language in the world; a laughable claim. The Hittite client kingdom of Hayasa existed before the arrival of the Phrygians, and the Armenian historical tradition (oral or otherwise) has no traces or implications tying Armenians with the Phrygians. The Phrygian/Balkan connection hypothesis was picked and lovingly parroted by Armenian "historians" who were very eager to associate Armenians with European origins. The whole "connection" is rather baseless.

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[aurguplu]

dear twilight bark,

the karaman bey you are referring to was karamanoğlu mehmet bey, who issued that order in 1277. to the best of my knowledge that order was issued not to assimilate greeks or armenians, but to stop turks themselves using persian (turks had a very unnerving habit of switching to persian for administration, and arabic for religious purposes). if you can find any reference to the scope of this ban, and the allegation that the penalty for speaking tongues other than turkish was cutting off the tongue, i would be glad. if it were an effort at cultural assimilation, then why did they allow the christians remain christian? after all, these days it was religion and not ethnicity that affected one's allegiance.

as for the armenians, the language certainly is indo-european, and probably belongs to a dialect cluster that might have included phrygian and the ancient thracian tongues, including probably that of alexander of macedon. there are also curious connections with greek. but the phonology of the language changed out of all recognition when it came in contact with the caucasian languages. since i don't know armenian, i cannot say anything about the extent of the influence of urartu or other caucasian languages on it, but it must be significant. so the ultimate european origins of the armenians appear to be a historical fact.

of course, all this would have to be rewritten if the recent theory by gamkrelidze and ivanov regarding the origin of indo-european is correct: they place it in the caucasus, and maintain that all indo-european languages spread from there, as did farming. from a purely linguistic point of view this theory poses more problems than it solves. but it is a very interesting argument. if you know more about it i would be glad to hear.

cheers,

[aurguplu]

dear twilight bark,

 

yes, there was (i don't know if there still is) a "turkish kanguage day" or something like that. i remember a stamp being issued to celebrate the 700th anniversary of the proclamation of the turkish language as state language.

 

i really should know more about this, as i said, i didn't know that it was a ban on the non-turkic local languages of the area. if it was that, then it certainly differed from the policy of the other turkish emirates of the time.

 

oh, just came to my mind: at that time, anatolia was invaded by the mongols, and we were busy throwing them out. could it have been a method of assimilating the remaining mongols? this might be interesting, because amongst the myriad of languages that survived in anatolia, there is no trace of mongol, written or spoken.

 

cheers,

[Twilight Bark]

As I said, it was a foggy recollection, and I don't have resources at hand. However, a web search came up with one secondary source (http://www.alevibektasi.com/ali_aktas.htm) that goes one sentence further than the usual, truncated "Bundan sonra; devlet dairelerinde, evlerde, sokaklarda Türkçe’den başka bir dil kullanılmayacaktır.", and adds "Aksi hareket edenler idam olunacaktır". Translated it says: "From now on, in state offices, in households, on the streets, no language other than Turkish shall be used. Those who do not comply will be executed." This isn't quite the same as cutting of the tongue, but would usually be regarded as harsher I suppose. Depends on whether you prefer living without a tongue over death

Anyway, I didn't bring it up to "allege" anything or "embarass"; I just remembered something about that and was curious.

As for its purpose, I think it's pretty obvious that the aim of the ferman was to hasten the assimilation of the population into a Turkish identity. Granted, it was unusual for the times. As you point out, religion was regarded as the most important factor defining identity. But not for the Karamanoglu Mehmet Bey apparently.

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[Twilight Bark]

All I can say is that there is not a shred of evidence that the people forming the nucleus of the Armenian nation came from Europe. I am not really saying that they didn't; just that there is no evidence to that effect. On the contrary, the statelet where it all started (i.e. Hayasa) existed before the arrival of Phrygians. The indo-europeans were certainly in Anatolia before that time. As for the "arrival" of the "indo-europeans" (Hittites and Luwians), again there is really no evidence that they came from Europe. The archaeological "evidence" is non-existent, other than the wishful thinking reflecting the biases of individual historians/archaeologists. I admit that this is not concrete evidence, but Bilge Umar's explanations for place names in Anatolia involves Luwian (rather than Hurrian) most of the time. One would expect the place names to reflect the "native" culture much more extensively.

So, in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary it is more rational to reject fictional migration hypotheses.

[aurguplu]

dear twilight bark,

 

1. bilge umar is a law professor from izmir, and although a gifted and informed amateur, to the best of my knowledge he is not a professional historian or archaeologist. i gather he speaks greek and latin, but as for his competence in the other languages of ancient anatolia, i don't know. so i would be careful when using him as a source on ancient anatolian history.

 

2. it is not true that there is not a shred of evidence that the armenians and other indo-europeans came from europe into anatolia: i) since the languages are indo-european, and so by definition originating in eastern europe-southern russia (if the current theories are correct and gamkrelidze and ivanov wrong) they must have come into anatolia from there! the question is whether they came through the caucasus (not europe) or across the bosporus/dardanelles (europe). now the hittites are thought to have taken the eastern route, and there is some archaeological evidence (sword types, etc.) supporting an intrusion of a warlike caste into anatolia about 2000 bc. the armenians, on the other hand, are very likely to have been the offspring of the "sea peoples" which had included, amongst others, the phrygians. now the problem of course is the very divergent nature of the armenian language (especially phonetics and phonology), which makes a precise location within indo-european difficult. it was once thought to be a satem language, but then the centum-satem division was seen to be of little significance, some parallels with greek were found, and also with the thracian tongues. to the best of my understanding these point to an eastern-european origin.

 

also, the phrygians were called muski by the hittites, and there are two regions, one in turkey (mysia) and one in northern greece (moesia) bearing the same name. the word phrygian comes from bryg, which meant brigand (and yes, you have guessed correctly, the two words are cognate). i understand the georgians call the armenians sa-mekhi (or was it sa-mkhetti?), and linguists see a remnant of muski in this.

 

so it is quite possible after all, that the armenians might have come from eastern europe. the language definitely has, and you need people to speak it for a language to have come from somewhere.

 

3. i didn't know about that nasty little second sentence in mehmet bey's ferman. i still find it hard to conceive why on earth a turkish emirate would resort to such a ruling against the local non-turks. it is really without equal in turkish history before or after (until we come to more recent times, of course). i would prefer to comment on it after i have seen more documents on it.

 

cheers,

[Twilight Bark]

Precisely. And that is why he is free to be more objective about it, or at least to explore away from the dogmas of the "profession". I know academia well enough. Many times, it is professional suicide to diverge from the "fundamental" assumptions (e.g. indo-european came from Europe. It is pure conjecture, just like any other hypothesis. There is nothing self-evident about it; the homeland is simply not known; period). So, I do not regard an informed "amateur" as "below" the "professionals" when it comes to history and linguistics. For example, in linguistics, things sometimes get so out of hand that people stop seeing obvious connections because they do not conform to some self-perpetuating, self-accentuating "rules".

[MosJan]

i do not know, i just gar hear.

MOvses

[khodja]

MosJan,

 

That reply to MJ eventually posted 10 minutes late. Must have been congestion on the Web.

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Ali,

I am aware of the "evidence" you are describing. Using the indo-europeanness of Armenian to conclude that its speakers must have come from Europe is circular; the indo-european speakers of Europe may have equally probably come from somewhere outside Europe.

There is no doubt that all of the newcomers, including the Phrygians eventually melted into the Armenians, as well as the "greeks" to varying degrees. The question is, does the arrival of the Phrygians or their cousins signal the arrival of the Armenians or just another component in their mosaic, and the genesis of the Armenian nation as a coherent entity predates that event. There is good evidence that a coherently defined "Hay" nation existed before the arrival of the Thracian tribes.

As for the names, what other groups named or misnamed Armenians is secondary to what they called themselves. Surely, you don't think that Turks are Tajiks, do you? I will not comment on the other names (of which I knew about, but never attached much significance) you mentioned, other than the possibility that they represent later additions to the Armenian mosaic. It probably goes like this: A group migrates in, settles at the periphery of the Armenian-populated region, the neighboring groups come into contact with the new group, the new group gradually assimilates into the Armenian identity but the neighboring groups keep calling them with their original name. When they meet the rest of their "compatriots" (who are now the larger umbrella of Armenians), they will naturally refer to the whole thing by the name of the tribe they have dealt with before.

As for the Hittites and Luwians, connecting this or that site, or the path of an unknown warlike incursion with them is completely arbitrary. There is simply not enough information to make these linkages. It may make a good story, but it is just that: a good story.

Regards,
Twilight Bark

P.S. Thank you for the well-informed and thoughtful discussion you are offering.

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[MJ]

Dear Ali,

Indeed, the Ottoman Empire would've not been undermined by the Armenian Statehood, even if Armenians had pulled chunks of its Eastern territories. As I have mentioned once in this forum, and as TB puts it very astutely, Turkey didn't have any use for these territories then, and I would add, again, that it has no use for them even now. However, I do think that this was the primary reason behind the Genocide no matter how inflated the “danger” of it might’ve been conceptualized. The thing is that what we would call “Armenian nation,” didn’t exist at the time of the Genocide. Armenians had long stopped being a nation, and had turned themselves into a religious community (in fact, by in large, the same concerns the Armenian Diaspora even today). There was no will outside small groups of revolutionaries operating in Istanbul and Tiflis, and to a less degree in European cities, to see an Armenia Statehood. The vast segments of Ottoman Armenians just didn’t care, as long as they had the privilege of attending Armenian Church ceremonies every Sunday, and baptizing their children, conducting wedding and burying their dead according to Armenian religious ceremonies – to a overwhelmingly large degree, this is what the Armenian Church amounts to even in our days. What had been irritating the Ottomans was the aspiration of Armenian Revolutionaries to turn the religious minority into a national-political entity. And they felt threatened, but threatened of what? Part of all that was their brutality, part of it was their arrogance (this can be traced all the way to our days), part of it was their desire to poses the Armenian property (to partially compensate the displaced Turks from Balkans, and perhaps to “bribe” Kurds to buy their loyalty in the WWI), etc. However, contrary to TB’s opinion, I think pan-Turkism was a very minor factor in the Genocide, though some highest profile Ittehat members cherished such hopes/concepts. Armenians on the territory of Ottoman Empire, and even the Armenian Statehood on the territory of its Eastern provinces where not an obstacle for pan-Turkist aspirations. If any obstacle, it would’ve been the Armenians on the territory of Eastern (Russian) Armenia, but primarily the Russian forces, which until 1917 where in a pretty good shape and victorious in WWI. One has to consider also that the agenda of Armenian Revolutionaries was not the Independence of Eastern Armenia, nor “United” Armenia as they would claim today. To the contrary, the independence of Eastern Armenia from Russia was against the political doctrine of the primary revolutionary force at the time – ARF/Dasnak, and even to such degree that when in 1918 Eastern Armenia found itself under circumstances of what is called “forced” independence (bardadrvadz angakhutiun), the ARF burro fiercely opposed it, and for a while even sabotaged it. The responsibility of establishing the Republic of Armenia was undertaken by an all time Armenian hero, previously known from the defense of Van, a nominal member of ARF, an absolutely non-partisan person by mentality and character - Aram Manugian. After the death of Aram (this is how the people has addressed him), and on the basis of his titanic work of few months, the ARF burro rushed to occupy the chairs of the governance of Armenia, perhaps so that to destroy in a period of a year everything that Aram had accomplished. Note also that much in the same spirit, ARF opposed the independence of Armenia in the period of 1988-1991 (don’t make me to give more details ). They reversed their course even later than the Social-Democrat Hnchags and Liberal-Democrat Ramgavars did, when it looked like the sky was falling apart on their heads. There was nothing more absurd that you might expect in the Armenian political spectrum, from the surface, though things where quite logical for those who understand Armenian history and politics beyond the empty clichés.

Back to the topic. I can contemplate here an option that the Ottoman Empire might’ve had in the view of the circumstances alluded above. That is the establishing in 1915 a “Western” Armenian statehood under the protectorate of Turkey on the territory of its Eastern provinces, and in the spirit of the much experimented Russian strategy (300 years old, by now), it could’ve used “Western” Armenia as a buffer zone against Russia and, moreover, threaten Russia’s grip of Eastern Armenia, thus eroding the support of Armenian volunteers given to the Russian Army. I mean, rather than the Russian Czar contemplating the idea of free and independent Armenia (meaning “Western” Armenia, because in the lexicon of the time, Armenia has meant “Western" Armenia), same way Turkey might’ve contemplated the idea of Free, Independent and United (Eastern and Western) Armenia, thus weakening the Russian influence in Eastern Armenia (though then, we might’ve perhaps faced potential Genocide from the Russian side). Things where not rationally analyzed at the time, and I don’t think due to lack of strategic thinking from the Turkish side. It was just an outcome of attitude, brutality, arrogance and greed, as I mentioned above, which prevented the Turks to accept in their minds the potential independence of Armenia. (Allegorically thinking, has it ever happened that you have worked for someone for long time, and he/she has gotten so used to your subordination, that any advancement of your has been hindered or sabotages by your boss?)

To summarize, I think the argument that Turkey eliminate its Armenian minority out of self-preservation lacks serious merit. Armenians where not a threat to Turkey, even if they would’ve succeeded in gaining independence and succeeding the Eastern Anatolian territories. To the contrary, it might’ve much benefited Turkey.

 

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

TB,

 

I am aware of Enver and some others of comparable profile being stunt pan-Turkists at the time. However, I don’t see in what way Armenians of Ottoman Empire where obstacle to such alleged plans. I would argue that [Western] Armenians where not obstacle to any such plans – merely didn’t have the capacity to become obstacle in any sense.

 

As far as the post-Attaturk, moreover post-Soviet pan-Turkist dreams are concerned, I think these have been about a common Turkic cultural space, rather than geography outside some marginal political movements inside Turkey. I strongly doubt that Turkey is interested in creating a “pan-Turkic Empire.” Evidently, Turkey is longing towards the EU. Additionally, I strongly doubt that any of the Central Asian States or Azerbaijan, for that matter, are even contemplating surrendering their Sovereignty to any degree. Most of them sit on vast energy resources, and under proper circumstances they would make fortune. Why should they surrender it to some esoteric idea? As far as the cultural pan-Turkism is concerned, I don’t see anything in it that should be of concern for Armenians. If Turks want to share common cultural space beyond that of what they do now, why should it concern us?

 

As far as Zangezur and Nakhichevan are concerned, sure historically this has been strongly aspired by Azerbaijan and Turkey. But in its current form, the idea has been brought to the surface by Paul Globe of USA, and subsequently has become another instrument of political prostitution in the internal Armenian political life. Globe himself claims as of lately that this concept is unrealistic, though it may sound “logical” theoretically speaking. However, it has been an instrument for shaking Kocharian’s grip over the Republic.

 

As far as Nakhichevan goes, I think it is one of the greatest mysteries of our history (perhaps next to Kars). Clearly, while the Republic of Armenia has contested Nakhichevan in 1918-1920, it has not been able to control it – Nakhichevan has not been formally part of the Republic of Armenia and, moreover, at the time it has declared independence. Some Armenian Generals have been fooled by the Brits at the time, when attempting to expend the Armenian control over Nakhichevan. However, another interesting aspect of it is that the current day Nakhichevan is about 1/3 larger than what the province of Sharur-Nakhichevan has constituted at the time, when the Russo-Turkish treaty has “allocated” Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. One of the subjects requiring special investigation is how did Nakhichevan wind up being by 1/3 larger than what it has meant even by the March 17, 1921 treaty. I discovered this descrepency about 15 years ago, when studying the text of the Russo-Turkish Treaty. Don’t have a compelling explanation, yet. And guess what, that 1/3 incorporates the part of the Republic of Armenia, which has never been conquered by Turkey or Azerbaijan. Isn’t our history full of illogical cataclysms? So, the first attempt of Turkey to have common border with Azerbaijan goes back to the pre-Iranian swap period. In that sense, perhaps you are right that Turkey has had a long term plan. However, I doubt it is about a common state with Azerbaijan. If not for the internal public opinion, I think the leadership of Turkey may have found Armenia to be a more reliable potential partner in economic and other matters than Azerbaijan. But they cannot be public about it.

 

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that the concept of pan-Turkism as underlying motivation of Turkey in 1915 and subsequently, moreover in our days is significantly blown out of all reasonable proportions, in my view.

[Twilight Bark]

Dear MJ,

The wily Young Turks knew that once the dust had settled, the Armenian-populated provinces would prevent them from having a "unitary" state. It would also make it harder to implement heavy-handed assimilation programs. Note that the muslim refugees saw themselves as "Ottoman" or "muslim" and not "Turkish" yet. A big Armenian presence in the country would spoil the homogeneity not only by its own numbers, but also making it more difficult to proclaim with a straight face that everyone in "Turkey" are Turks.

So it's not any "active" ability of Armenians that was the problem. Their mere existence was a great nuiscance.

The pan-Turanic longings are a continuation of this vision. Pan-turanic aspirations of Turkey has been mostly about influence, rather than territory; that is true.
Sure, Turkey had no immediate plans to conquer Central Asia. But you can be sure that it wanted to be ready when/if the opportunity arose. And you don't act as a proper Turkic center when you are a federation of a hodge-podge of Ottoman remains.

As for the more recent developments, Turkey did try to make a foray into the Central Asian republics. It has been kindly but firmly rejected by those republics for many reasons including the ones aptly described by you. Their failure was not due to a lack of enthusiasm on Turkey's part.

Azerbaijan is a lot closer to Turkey than the other republics, both geographically and "emotionally". However, as you said, its leadership is too corrupt to share the proceeds from oil. And Azerbaijan has come to be viewed by the Turks as the good-for-nothing, incompetent cousin, not least because of their losing the Karabagh war.

Finally, believe it or not, entering the EU and establishing a pan-Turanic sphere of influence are not contradictory; at least in the minds of the Turkish establishment. On the contrary, a "European" Turkey would be in a much better position to be the "big brother" in their opinion. And they may be right.

TB

P.S. Thanks for your positive assessment of my other thoughts. Your agreement is a meaningful confirmation.

[Twilight Bark]

About bribing the Kurds, I suspect the state could probably "nationalize" anything it wanted, and redistribute it. It's not as if Kurds had not plundered the Armenian villages for anything they wished, including "bride"s for a very long time. Armenians would keep on complaining, and the complaints would fall on deaf ears as usual.

I probably should have emphasized that pan-Turkic dreams were only one of the central motivations. I agree with your analysis regarding arrogance, plain old hatred, and "how dare they even think of equal rights?" mentality. I have to agree that the irrational part of their thinking was probably a (or maybe even "the") major factor. I was analyzing the "rational" (if you could call it that) part of their motivations. The pan-Turkic dream remained alive in the state ideology of Turkey to this day. The dreams have been expressed often enough by various Turkish leaders over the years. The little territorial swap between Turkey and Iran (during the republican era, I forget exactly when; but certainly before the Iranian revolution) allowed Turkey to have a short but important land border with the Nakhijevan part of Azerbaijan. At the time, it was a completely meaningless swap, because the Soviet border was the important entity, and not which so-called "republic" lied on the other side. But Turkey was taking a very long-term view of things. And it paid off. The fact that Turkish officials repeatedly present the silly idea of a territorial swap between Armenia and Azerbaijan (where Azerbaijan gets the Zangezur area, and becomes connected to Nakhijevan and Turkey, in exchange for recognizing Karabagh's independence) is consistent with this persistently pursued dream. It is a very long term project.

[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[MJ]

Correction: instead of Paul Globe in my material above, please read Paul Goble (hope this time I got it right).