Teutonic Knight

lol good one. I actually heard that they tried a couple of years ago to change the name of the animal via lobbying

That's a perfect name. Naira/Naire/Nairuhi. My favorite Armenian names: Tigran Yervand Andranik Vartan Arshak Martiros Tatevos Vasack Arshavir Mushegh Gevork Nerses Smbat ~ Anahit Astghik Gayane Nvart Shoghik Heghine Lusine Armenouhi Hasmik Arpine Armine Maro

Talar, what an odd name. Is it turkish?

How many of you call Armenia "Hayastan"? Do Greeks say Hellastan? Do Georgians say Sakartsan? No it's Hellas and Sakartvelo. Stan is land in Persian. Why use a foreign name for your homeland? Armenia in Armenian is Hayq, like Georgia is Virq and if i'm not mistaken Greece would be Hellada. Is Armenia still a khanate or a caliphate? Does ROA have language reform policies?

Go back wherever you came from, what makes you think you're welcome there anyway?

Anshousht, metsaguyn hachuykov. Hay lezun krum e haryur hazaramyakneri patmakan hishoghoutyun, ousti lezvapahpanutyun@ hamazgayin ev nuyn pahin mijazgayin gerkhntir eh. Nahangnerum Grapar sovoreluts anmijapes heto, Haykum Hay lezvi dasntatsneri aytseletsi ughigh erku tari. Isk inchu ishkhan ev voch aspet?

Let me try and fix that Armenian version of ebonics/slang: Sip, paron inchu ek artyok aydpisi baner asum? Karch asats, khndrum em shat mi khosek izur tegh@, haskaneli eh husov em dzez ayd parz gaghapar@. Tsayrahegh depkum kareli eh ays harts@ lutsel ankaghakavar mijavayrum. Ps: To the gentlelemn that was offended by that comment. I'm not Armenian, not by a longshot. I'm just stating the facts, that's the reality. You guys are treated like more of an "odar" than I am.

Not particularly.

Sip, yes and no. The thing is the enemies of your people use all that against you with all sorts of fabrications. If an Uighur or a Russian fascist says Armenians=Armenoid and those that are not are simply mixed with Slavs/Greeks and no Armenian argues against that fabrication than indeed all Armenians=Armenoid. If you don't care about that you don't care about your kin. Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese etc. all face the same attacks on a daily basis. The difference is they all stand up and defend themselves, Armenians don't.

You're saying Armenians are not European?

Armenoid does not equal Armenian. Sure there are Armenoid "Armenians"...0.005% of all Armenians are probably Armenoid. There are also some Greeks, but very very few. Armenoids are mostly Jewish, Iranian, Syrian, Kurdish etc. It is said that the original Armenoid race were the Hittites.

Owned? At least you'll know that there is evidence to the contrary of your way of thinking. Not trying would simply be intolerable for me. If you don't agree with the statement that the grass is blue you better provide some edvidence to back up your allegation otherwise stay out of things you know nothing about, hell you can't even properly defend your own hsitory and each response is with hisitation.

Sumerians were Armenoid? What is Armenoid? You mean the hook nosed, toad faced swarthy creatures? http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Images/p42f1.gif http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Images/p42f3.gif You're not an Afrocentrist on the Farrakhan PR camp are you? The Sumerians often had blonde hair and blue eyes. There is evidence on how they portray their gods, and how they refer to lower caste people as having dark hair and dark eyes in their ancient writing. "Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind..." I Hammurabi, the gracious king, have not been careless nor been slack on behalf of the dark-haired folk whom Illil has granted to me (and) whose shepherding Marduk has given to me; I seek out peaceful places for them (and) have relieved their cruel distresses, (and) I make light to rise upon them. With the mighty weapon which Ilbaba and Ishtar have bestowed upon me, with the wisdom which Ea has allotted to me, with the ability which Marduk has given to me, I have plucked up (my) enemies from north to south, extinguished wars (and) prospered the land; I have made the people of the towns to lie down in safety (and) have left them none to affright them. We obviously did not make this up, since it came directly from ancient writing. Dravidians? I hope you meant the Elamites. The Elamites have no racial connection to Sumerians aside from creating the earliest known civilizations. Sumerian civilization effectively died out when it was assimilated by the semitic savage hordes that conquered it. Sumerians called themselves 'the black-headed ones,' (sa-gi-ga) which is the source of the allegation that they were black. In my opinion, this refers to their dark hair. Sources reveal they had long hair and preferred long-ish beards; a trait shared by the Vikings and Ancient Aryans who invaded India. This is a typically Caucasoid trait. I don't believe there is any doubt they were Caucasoid. That leaves us asking, which branch of the Caucasoid tree? The main distinction is Semitic vs Aryan, in my opinion, as I believe in a Semitic-Aryan dualism where these two branches competed for the same land in what we now call the Middle East. White-skinned people once lived all over the Middle East, Middle Asia, North Africa, and Turkey before invasions and eventual assimilation marked the end. And like Celts, Hittites and Hussites, and various Hellenes and Armenians in Anatolia (Turkey), I believe the Ancient 'Whites' or Aryans of the Middle East were invaded and racially displaced through assimilation. The problem we find is that unlike the Amorites or Hittites of the Middle East, we cannot designate for sure the Sumerian language was 'Indo-European'. (I should say, 'they' because I have no qualifications at all to designate languages. Experts, in any case, cannot agree on the classification.) I, therefore, hesitate to call them 'Aryans.' I, nevertheless, believe them to be a member of the White (and non-Semitic) race who had a language that either preceeded the Aryan language itself, or perhaps preceeded the spread of the Aryan language. But what is important is that we see clearly Caucasoid features, seen also here on the goddess Inanna (aka, Ishtar); http://www.white-history.com/hwr7_files/29.jpeg We also know that the Sumerians were not Semites. the later Akkads, however, were. And so the mistake of calling Sumer Semitic is often made simply because 'Summer-Akkad' and later Babylon were Semitic. The original White Sumerians were incorporated into these, and a general decline in Sumerian genius occurred. That's all I can really speculate at the moment. The Sumerians gave us the flood myth of biblical fame, so we can assume a flood was part of their formation. Perhaps this was a flood on the Tigris-Euphrates plain were their civilization began, or perhaps from a home along the Black sea if they migrated from the North, which is quite likely. The bible also speaks of a time of when there was only one language, which might be the Sumerian language, supposing either the Semitic one was not yet known and neither was the Aryan. But who knows? Here's a website which attempts to argue the Sumerians were fair-haired: http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi39.htm Not fully convinced, but it makes interesting claims about linguistic similarities to a later Indo-european language (Latvian, 5000 years later): http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi37.htm Carleton Coon, taken from the Southernist and Mediterraneanist web site of Dienekes Pontikos: http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp/ The Sumerians were Mediterraneans skeletally. So were the ancient Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Children of Israel, and the Arabs of the early Islamic period whose skeletons I had the privilege of measuring at Nippur. A Mediterranean is a white man of variable stature - as whites go, usually short to medium; his bones are light, but strongly marked for muscle attachments if these muscles have been well developed through use. Ernest Hooton, taken from same web site: There are two variants of the Classic Mediterranean type - straight-nosed and hook-nosed. The former is the more primitive and the more widely distributed. It extended in prehistoric times along both shores of the Mediterranean, into central, western, and northern Europe and down into the Horn of Africa. Its area of characterization and source of dissemination cannot have been far from the traditional Garden of Eden - Mesopotamia, which archaeologists include in "the Fertile Crescent." There is not much doubt that the eastward extension of straight-nosed Mediterraneans of the Classic type provided the White basis of the early populations in southeastern Asia and Indonesia. They probably were the main carriers of the Aryan language into India at a much later date. Here's a very wierd looking article I found while snoopin around for data on sumerian origins~~ http://www.algonet.se/~hermesat/humans.htm In that it states that there were 223 genes found in man that did not have the required predecessors that ordinarily would have allowed them to trace the evolutionary origin of man. This was entirely unprecedented and cannot be found in any other species, either plant or animal. Is that true ?? This picture is used by Eurocentrist to prove that Sumerians in fact had blue eyes: http://www.white-history.com/hwr7_files/bluesum.jpeg

This reminds me how we would mock our teachers making up such sentences as if they were saying: "Tso ankhelq apush kezi k@sem GOR vor Hayeren lezvi mej GOR goyutyun chuni. Ays hazarerord angam e vor kezi k@sem GOR, Hayeren lezvin mej GOR chka, k'uzes GOR vor norem @sem"? That sentence was DISTURBING lol @ tso That sounds like some of the Diasporan kids trying to speak Armenian to impress the Yerevantsis.

Arpa is correct, in so called Western Armenian there is no such thing as "gor". Most Diasporans I know use the word and at the same time say that they try not to but just can't stop it.

Hmmm let's see... In the diaspora it's Arab this Turk that and sometimes Diasporans even speak Arabic and Turkish to eachother Are you Armenians or Arabs and Turks? At least Russian is a European language not a bunch of guttural sounds to clean your throat. Russians are friends who have done more for Armenia than any other nation or people on this planet. Every Armenian in Armenia speaks Armenian, reads and writes in Armenian. If you want to have decent job or career ever in your life in Armenia you better speak Russian and be good at it. Now I ask again, why do diasporans still speak Arabic and Turkish? The disease is not cured. Not to mention the plethora of arabic/turkish in so called Western Armenian. How many Greeks still speak Turkish in the West? How many Spaniards, Portuguese or Sicilians still speak Arabic? All these nations cleaned their heritage and removed all the Arabic and Turkish influences while Armenians still cling to the language and culture of their oppressors like it was a cup of water in Der Zor.

Nope. Neither Semite or Aryan are racial types. Indo-European is a racial type aka Europoid. Finns(not Ugrics), Estonians, Hungarians, Basques, Georgians etc. are all Indo-European peoples yet none of them are Aryan. While Indians are of Elamite-Dravidian extraction with a touch of Caucasoid blood from the invasion in 1500 BC yet 80% of India is Aryan, only High Caste Indians are untouched Indo-Europeans. For example, Thales the first know philosopher was a Phoenician whose native language was Semitic but he was 100% Europoid. In any case Moshe is definitely not Armenian.

A Semite is a lingustic term like Aryan. For example Sumerians were Europoid and with Nordic features but later spoke a semitic tongue after being overpowered by the savages in their neighborhood. The Assyrians spoke a Semitic tongue and they used to have a Europoid phenotype now an Assyrian looks just the same as your average Arab or Kurd. Same goes to Phoenicians who were also Europoid and spoke a Semitic tongue... The so called jews that you speak of with such features are Askhenazis that are a mix of Khazars and Europeans (mainly Slavs). Before the 18th century the word "jew" did not exist. Nor did Judaism, Judaism=Pharisees.

Persian Friend, Like I said earlier. You guys are pretty damn smart. Read this article I found: There has been a lot of revisionism or historical distortion in the so-called "Armenian studies" program in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the "west". The reason that Jews usually are interested in Armenian studies is to make the Armenians fit into their "view" of history. The first thing they try to do is to work as hard as possible to disassociate Armenians from Urartu/Armina. Berich Hrozny, an anthropologist from the early 19th century, fought tooth and nail to prevent his colleague's theory from being accepted, and he did so without much academic support. He used his clout instead and bullied the man out of the academic world. The man's name was Peter Jensen, and Jensen's theory was that the Armenians, the Hittites, the "Urartuans" et al were all ethnically Armenian! He was so convinced of this that he dedicated his first ever thesis on the Hittites to a lengthy comparison study entitled “Hittiten und Armenischen”. Subsequently, the Jews worked hard to protect their historical theories, mostly centered on the biblical landscape, which unfortunately for Armenians, encompasses Armenian territory. My suspicion is that if the truth about Armenians ever really did come out, it will cause a lot of commotion that will discredit much of the scholarship that has been going on thus far. And forget about the idea of the "promised land, the land of the Hittites, the Amorites, blah blah" if the Armenian presence in historical Armenia is placed beyond the 3rd millenium BC. For this reason and for this reason only has there been so much "interest" in Armenian studies. Indeed fanatical groups and their fascistic religions do prevent them from being of reason, true reason, and for this reason they will do all to prevent the truth about us from coming out. Turks will probably never accept it that they are a people with primitive ideals. They still name their kids Atilla, Genghiz, Turgut... Would you name your kid after a known bestial butcher? The Jews will never accept that the very root concept of the "Chosen people" is inherently fascistic and racist in tone. Such is the landscape for now, but only for now. As to the Urartu fiasco: Indeed the most adamant opposition to the acceptance of ethnic affinity between the Armenians, Hittites, "Urartuans" and other "ethnicities" cited in Eastern Europe has been by in large scholars of Jewish extraction. That is a pattern that cannot be ignored, and it has a clearly definable history to it. For instance, the recent collaborative team of linguists, that of Vyacheslav Ivanov and Tamaz Gamkrelidze (indeed a Georgian who is a man of integrity it seems), who published their monumental works dealing with the origins of the Indo-European languages, were only opposed (obsessively it seems) by a scholar named Diakonov. Not surprisingly, the Russian Ivanov and the Georgian Gamkrelidze have concluded that, indeed, the origins of the Proto-Indo-European languages is not only most certainly in Armenia, but are more precisely located around the vicinity of Van. Also not surprisingly, Diakonov is a Jew. The main man in the US in support of Diakonov's theory is, none other than, Prof. James Russell of Harvard, who is, also not surprisingly, a Jew. It seems that they have a hard time breaking from their own ethno-religious paradigms and accept cold hard historic and academically sound theories and facts. It is more comforting for them to "re-write" as they please our history to fit their own desired pattern. Jews are trying to say that Jews and Armenians are closely related but this is totally false and absurd (Armenians are Aryan and Jews are Semites) and the only reason they do this is to stretch their history further back than it actually is, while at the same time conveniently trying to shorten ours, to meet them "half-way" so to speak. It must be noted that a "sudden surge" in Armenological interest arose during the first decade of the 20th century, and this "surge" was accompanied by a very vulgar and rabid anti-Armenian propaganda campaign concentrated mainly in Germany before WII and its Jewish academia. The paradigm of the day was that the "Armenian was a conniving filthy bastard" while the "Noble and Warrior Turk was the man of the year." Many noted (in those days) "Germans" (not really, guess who?) academics and members of the elite in general ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT ACCEPT THAT THE OLDEST ARYAN RACE, the Hittites, could have been in the remotest manner associated with the "mongrelic Armenians." The Rothschild family and its wealth is an unfortunate reality in our history, along with, I must say, the wealth and power of the Nobels, the Rockefellers (who were not necessarily Jewish), and other notable "robber barons". The political role that they did indeed play in the misfortunes of Armenians is very well known to virtually all, with the sad exception of the brainwashed "denizen" of the You Esh of Ay. It must be stressed that the Rothschild’s did indeed have control of somewhere in the vicinity of 30% of Caspian oil (experts diverge as to the actual amount, but agree on fair approximations) at the turn of the 20th century. Yes, Zionism played a major role in the perpetration of the Armenian Genocide, and there is a huge library of evidence that supports this. The accused party will not ever admit to such guilt. Two criminals, fascist Turks and Zionists, will stick together in this game. Yes, the unfortunate reality is that the "brothers in genocide" had in fact taken the side of Turkish imperialism with the hope of gaining the foothold in Palestine. That is only derived from simple logic. There is indeed a well-documented (first hand, by the way) account of the Zionist attempt at literally buying Palestine from under the "Sick Man of Europe" under desperate debt. There in the room had sat Amira Dadian, an advisor of the Sultan, who had absolutely warned the Sultan against accepting such an offer. In this same account, there is clearly listed names of individuals involved in the affair, but the preconceived notion of "the Armenian who likes to blame all but himself" is used to prematurely and quite unintelligently dismiss such fascinating possibilities of the workings behind the Genocide. Read Christopher Walker's account of Theodore Herzl's participation in the Genocide. Read The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide by Yair Auron. Read Dadrian. One of Dadrian's (first hand) sources reveals clearly that, indeed, Talaat (Turkey's minister of the interior at the time of the Armenian Genocide and the one who gave the actual orders) was a Jew. He was not merely "of Jewish blood," but was indeed very conscious of his identity. These are merely the (relatively) circumstantial pieces of evidence at hand. The more direct ones, one can consult any decent Armenian book store. The books are there to read. Yes, they are of eyewitness accounts of events that occurred during and just before the terrible period of Genocide. As you will see, they are not only trying to keep the Genocide in the dark, but most of our history that predates theirs. It is crystal clear that we have been around way before their earliest record. Through the examination and analysis of new linguistic and archeological findings, they now think that the Armenians were native to their land since the dawn of history. According to at least one new theory, the point of origin of the earliest Indo-European tribes is Asia Minor itself, somewhere past 6th century millenium BC. The ones who pretend to be compassionate to Armenians are indeed more than likely the "good cops." The real neutrals are not even interested in Armenians. They are ignorant about Armenians. Those who dig deep and get involved in Armenian affairs are more than likely meddlers who wish to merely throw herrings. Over the past many years most Jews in prominent posts have been uttering and writing anti-Armenian comments. For example, every concocted anti-Armenian article written by a Turkish or pro-Turkish historian on the planet was being regularly published in the Jewish Times! As a matter of fact, nine out of ten pro-Turkish or anti-Armenian articles full of lies and distortions, particularly about the Armenian Genocide, is written by Jews and published in Jew owned newspapers such as the New York Times and we will be exposing them all, as it is one of the aims of this site. ~~~ The Armenian Genocide was carried out by the "Young Turk" government of the Ottoman Empire. One and a half million Armenians were killed, out of a total of two and a half million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide was masterminded by the Central Committee of the Young Turk Party which was dominated by Mehmed Talat, Ismail Enver, and Ahmed Djemal. They were a racist group whose ideology was articulated by Zia Gakalp, Dr. Mehmed Nazim, and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir. None of this is important, of course, as the Armenians aren't Jews. There are no Armenian Holocaust museums. No TV Mini-Series. No two billion dollars per year sent to Armenia. No shakedowns of Turkish banks by Armenian lawyers. And no high school lesson plans devoted to the Armenian Holocaust. Turks aren't accused of 'Anti-Armenianism' if they don't like Armenians (The word doesn't even exist). And no Marxist Jews have written books explaining dislike for Armenians as a mental disorder. Of note is that linguistics and archaeological work increasingly suggest that Armenia is one of the most likely locations for the Indo-European homeland. That would make the Armenians a very special people - far more special than the wandering ethnocentric tribe from Judea. -Wolzek's Terror Timeline: History of the Jewish Assault on the World

I'm only concerned with Europe. You can bet good money that the map of the Balkans will change in the very near future. Georgia will msot likely lose Abkhazia for good along with Adjaria (Russian protectorate). Armenia might gain Javakhk on the short run. http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1064727433.GIF The territory with white stripes is non-Armenian land taken from georgia in order to have a common border with Russia.

More than unlikely. Any threat to Turkey is a direct threat to Israel. Any major engagement with Israel will involve nukes directly leading towards "WWIII".

Persians are good and intelligent people. Lots of racially aware Persians here in the West. I wish you well in your struggle to liberate your homeland from the ayatollahs that keep importing arabs and pakis.

Asiatic Invasions, Crusades & The Birth Of Cilicia The destruction of the Bagratid Kingdom was completed by raids of new savage invaders, the Seljuk Turks from Central Asia. These 'people' virtually destroyed almost all of Armenian & Greek culture in the region. With little resistance from weakened Byzantium, the Seljuk Turks spread into the Armenian highlands as well as Eastern Europe. This invasion compelled a large number of Armenians to move south, toward the Taurus Mountains close to the Mediterranean Sea, where in 1080 they founded, under the leadership of Ruben (Rubenid/Rubinian dynasty), the Kingdom of Cilicia. Close contacts with the Crusaders and with fellow Europeans led to the creation of a new European state, absorbing feudal class structure. Cilician Armenia became a country of barons, knights and serfs. The court at Sis adopted European clothes. Latin and French were used alongside Armenian.The close relationship with Western European countries played a very important role during the Crusades. Cilicia provided the Christian armies a safe haven and provision on their way towards Jerusalem. Intermarriage with European crusading families was common, and Western European religious, political, and cultural influence was strong. Many Latin terms entered the Armenian language. Cilician Armenia also played an important role in the trade of the Venetians and Genoese with the East. The Cilician period is regarded as the Golden Age of Armenian Illumination, noted for the lavishness of its decoration and the frequent influence of contemporary Western manuscript painting. Their location on the Mediterranean coast soon involved Cilician Armenians in international trade between the interior of Eurasia and Europe. Enduring constant attacks by the Turks, Mongols and Mamelukes, Cilician Armenia survived for three centuries and fell to Egyptian Mameluks in 1375. The last Armenian king of Cilicia, Levon VI Lousinian, emigrated to France, where his grave still can be seen in the St. Denis Cathedral of Paris. The title "King of Armenia" passed to the kings of Cyprus, then to the Venetians, and was later claimed by the house of Savoy. The Crusades & Cilicia 1096-1102 - The First Crusade: Bagrat contacts the crusading forces at Nicaea and accompanies them across Asia Minor. He forms an alliance with Baldwin of Boulogne. The Franks enter parts of Cilicia but their hold is insecure because of Byzantine invasions and the objections of the native Armenian princes who get the upper hand in the late 1130s. Byzantine takes over Cilicia followed by seven years of relative peace ruled by Byzantium. On April 8th, 1143 John Comnenus Emperor of Byzantine dies as a result of a poisoned arrow. The Second Crusades begin in 1147. Rubenid family allies and marries Franks and fights the Turks and Byzantines together. Hromkla is given to the Armenian catholicos by Beatrice Princess Of Lorraine. In 1179 a religious synod is held at Hromkla to discuss the celebration of Christmas on December 25, instead of the Armenian custom of combining it with the Epiphany on January 6; the method for choosing the date of Easter; the use of fermented bread at mass; and changes in the church services. Emperor Manuel Comneus dies in 1180. In 1189 the Third Crusades begin. Note: Armenian Kings Leon/Levon are numbered differently by various historians, it's easier to understand who is who by the dates instead of I, II etc. Leon sends Nerses of Lampron as ambassador to meet Emperor Frederick Barbarossa when he approaches Cilicia, but on June 10 Barbarossa drowns in the Saleph River near Silifke, ending negotiations for Levon's royal crown. Catholicos Grigor Tgha dies and his nephews, Hetoum and Shahnshah, are assassinated. Gregory V is elected as the new catholicos but doesn't get along with Levon and is imprisoned later killed while trying to escape. On January 6, 1198 Levon/Leon I is crowned as King of Lesser Armenia (Cilicia) by the new Armenian catholicos with a crown from the Hohenstaufen emperor. In return, he is forced to recognize the German emperor as his lord and the pope in Rome as the head of the Armenian Church. The Armenian church however stalls and does not change or adopt the Roman Catholic forms of worship. Constantinople is sacked by crusaders of the Fourth Crusade(1202-1204). Catholicos John of Sis accuses Isabelle of Austria, Levon's queen and mother of his daughter Rita, of adultery and she is imprisoned at Vahka where she died. King Levon of Cilicia marries Sybilla of Lusignan, the daughter of King Aimery of Cyprus and Queen Isabeau Plantagenet, and later mother of Levon's daughter and heir Isabelle (Zabel). Levon's wife's sister, Helvis marries to Raymond-Roupen of Antioch. Two years after the start of the Fifth Crusades, King Levon dies in 1219 reigning 32 years. Isabelle becomes queen, Adam of Baghras the regent. Phillip the son of Raymond count of Tripoly marries Isabelle in 1222. He is later imprisoned and killed in the fortress of Sis. King Levon I's daughter Isabelle is forced to marry Hetoum I (or Hetum I) which joined the Rubenid and Hetumian families. Isabelle runs away from her forced marriage to Hetoum, but eventually reconciles to it. Seljuk Turk animals invade other neighbouring Armenian kingdoms next to Cilicia. Genghis Khan later shatters the Seljuk grip on the region. King Hetoum I (or Hetum I) goes to visit the Genghis Khan for three years and comes back through Greater Armenia, the homeland no Cilician ruler had previously been able to visit. He acquires guarantees that the Mongol savages will protect the Christian Churches in their conquered lands. Bohemond VI of Tripoli marries Hetoum's daughter, Sybille and Prince Levon is knighted at Mamistra. Prince Constantine follows his father as lord of the fortress of Servandikar which dominates the main roads to Cilicia from the east and at Sis he marries King Hetoum's daughter Rita. Prince Levon of Cilicia marries Keran, daughter of Hetum of Lambron. Keran and two of their children died of the plague that struck Europe after 1272 and before Hetoum's death in 1270. Baybars, Mamluk leader, takes Syria, Caesarea, Haifa, Arsuf, Tibnin, and Safad and then turns on Europe. King Hetoum goes to the Mongols for help and while he is gone Princes Levon and Thoros are imprisoned in Cairo and the Mamluks sack Sis, Mamistra, Adana, Ayas, and Tarsus. On May 12, 1268 the Mamluks take Antioch and massacre the inhabitants. Hetum gets his son released from Egypt, abdicates in Levon's favor, and enters a monastery. King Hetum I; father of Fimi (Countess of Sidon) and Levon (crown prince); brother of Bishop Johannes dies in 1270. Marco Polo sets out for Cathay from the Armenian port of Ayas in 1271, not long after the Mamluks try again to conquer Europe through Cilicia. General Smbat, Levon's uncle, traps Mamluk troops in a mountain pass and wins a major battle. Smbat and 300 knights die in the battle. Hetum II abdicates in favor of his brother Thoros (who was strangled by their brother Smbat). Hetum retires to a Franciscan monastery and resumes the throne in 1294. Temporary allied Mongols and Armenian Knights with various other European Knights fight the Mamluks at Homs and win, regaining all their Cilician property. In 1304, The Grand Khan, nicknamed Gazan (which means savage), declares Islam the official religion in his lands and later his son orders all Christians throughout his lands to wear a black linen strip over the shoulder. Hetum II and his nephew, now King Leon, are murdered by the savage Mongols (now even more animalistic under Islam) Anavarza with all their followers. Oshin, Hetum's brother, chases the Mongol troops out. Oshin is poisoned Young Levon is forced to marry his regent's (Oshin of Corycus) daughter, Alice. King Levon in 1329, aged nineteen, takes charge of the kingdom and has his unfaithful wife and her father both killed. King Levon marries Constance Eleanor of Aragon, daughter of Frederick II of Sicily and widow of Henry II of Cyprus. Mamluks attack and take the Cilician port city of Ayas. King Leon V, stays in the citadel of Sis instead of fighting the Mamluks, waits for Western European help, the dissapointed barons murder him in 1341. The following year, barons offer the crown to John of Lusignan who offers the Cilician crown to his brother Guy. Guy agrees and comes to Cilicia. He brings Western European influence to the monarchy and encourages union with the Roman Church. Guy Lusignan sends his younger brother, Bemon, to the Pope in Avignon, France for help; but the negotiations rouse resentment in the barons. Guy, Bemon and their bodyguards are murdered. Constantine III, son of Marshall Baldwin of Neghr, is elected king. He marries Marie, daughter of Oshin (a former regent) and Jeanne of Anjou. Peter I of Cyprus gets the port castles of Korykos in Cilicia in return for helping Constantine VI against the Karamanids Constantine III dies of natural causes and Constantine IV becomes king of Cilicia and marries Marie widow of Constantine III in 1363. Peter of Cyprus is murdered by the Muslims so Constantine VI makes a treaty with the sultan of Cairo, the barons are not very happy that Constantine signed a treaty with non-Europeans. Queen Marie sends Pope Gregory XI a letter requesting military help against the Muslims. Constantine is murdered, and the Pope wants Marie to marry Othon of Brunswick. Leon, son of John of Lusignan and Soldane, is invited by the barons to become king. (Soldane, daughter of King Georgi VII of Georgia, may have been John of Lusignan's mistress and not his wife, and her sons may or may not have been legitimate. Levon's claims to his grandmother Isabella's estates were rejected on those grounds by the Pope.) Levon, delayed in Cyprus on his wife's lands, is "taxed" by the Genoese 280 livres of gold plus 300 ducats ransom for his crown, silver plate, and clothing. His wife's lands are forfeited to Catherine of Aragon. Levon is forced to sell his personal possessions to travel and hire troops. In 1374, Levon VI, a Roman Catholic, and his wife, Margaret of Soissons, are crowned at Sis on September 14 in both an Armenian and Latin ceremony. To their surprise they discover an empty treasury. Next year on January 15 the Mamluks of Egypt capture parts of Sis. February 24, the rest of Sis is evacuated and burned by Levon and his supporters. April 13, Levon VI, his wife, and their twin baby daughters surrender to the Mamluks. July, Levon is taken to Cairo as a captive where he is released from jail, constantly watched by the Arabs and given a daily pension of 60 dirhems. Levon's wife, Marguerite de Soissons, and daughters die in Cairo. In 1382, Levon is ransomed using money from the Kings of Castile and Aragon, 300 squirrel pelts, a gold and silver cup, and a gilded jar. In 1386 Levon serves as an envoy to King Richard II of England. November 29, King Levon VI (John de Lusignan) dies. He is interred with French Royalty in the Basilica of St. Denis. He was in France for help to regain Cilicia. His son Guyot becomes a military man and Philippe becomes an archdecon. The Tartar barbarians invade Asia Minor in 1402. Forty years later the seat of the Armenian Catholicos is moved from Sis to Etchmiadzin. 1453, the Ottoman savages capture Constantinople. 1605, after burning and destroying what they could in the former area of eastern Greater Armenia, the Persians require their Armenian subjects to move to New Julfa and away from the invading Turkish troops. Many Armenians escape north to the Eastern European states such as Poland. 1620, the Persian rule of Eastern Armenia begins...

I heard armenians originated from Turks and Iranians and other mixture with europeans. Hence get it how some look european, some look parsik, some look arabic, some look afghani, some look egyptian? Well I beleive it is a hard question to answer. First off, my dad says armenians originated from turks, then my mom says armo originated from persians....WOW!! MY HEAD IS DIZZY! So your father is a turk and your mother an iranian.

This thread died too quickly so I will attempt to revive it. I'm going to answer each initial response with a negative approach, much the same way someone from Turkey or Israel would. I hope that Twilight Bark will take the time and respond though. The thing is when someone denies the Armenian Holocaust, the first and only Holocaust directed against a distinct group of people do you sit back and do nothing, no? So why should you not care when one denies your history much the same way? The responses are based on my prediction of what Turkish propagandists would use based on previous experience. ~~~ How can you judge the Hurrians as being 'migrants' and the Urarteans as being 'local' when we know that the Urarteans spoke a Hurrian language? You are so confused!!!! You don't know what you're talking about. Urartu was southern Armenia. 'Armenia' was northern Armenia. The Persians referred to this entire land as Armina but the Babylonian version of the same Persian texts call the land Urashtu, not because Armenians and Urarteans were the same but to give the entire land the name of one of these peoples. The Greeks continued to speak of 'Armenians' and 'Alarodians' (Urartians) as distinct peoples until perhaps the 1st century BC, when perhaps Tigranes created his far-flung empire. How come you don't mention the ethnogenesis of such peoples as the Bulgarians, Serbs, and Croats? They are all Slavs, yet they possess the names of people originally not speaking Slavic? The same can be said of the original Hays. The evidence (though scanty as it is) suggest that they didn't even speak an IE language. And 'reconstructing' 'Haykaz' from 'Hayasa-Azzi', although attractive, is also desceptive. The reality was that the Hittites referred to their northeastern neighbor as either 'Azzi' or as 'Hayasa', not as the hyphenated name we use. In modern books we refer to it much more often as 'Azzi-Hayasa' rather then 'Hayasa-Azzi' to show readers that the country was named both ways by the Hittites. And it was probably this 'Thraco-Phrygian' group which brought 'Armenian' to the east. Having demonstrated that the language shows contact with western languages, what nails the origins of the core Armenian group is the fact that of all living languages, the two languages which have the most affinities with it are Greek and Iranian. How can the core nature of Armenian have any relation with Greek? It had to have been in an area where Armeno-Iranian split from Greek. Since the origin of the 'Thraco-Phrygians' was undoubtedly the Balkans, this is probably where the split occurred. Of course it wouldn't be meaningless. But I've already discovered the pitfalls of your theory. Urarteans and Armenians were in fact different. You cannot prove that the Hayasas were IE. Hurrian was earlier than IE in the region. The only candidate left for a proto-Armenian people are the 'Thraco-Phrygians'. The best that can be drawn from the available evidence was that the Armenian core-group migrated from the west into eastern Anatolia by about 1165 BC. They adopted the name of the Hayasas, probably migrated to Shupria where they perhaps gained the name Armenians, and eventually reached northern Armenia sometime after 714 BC after the Cimmerian invasion, since the Urartean records don't mention an Armenian state there before that date. In fact the one power in northern Armenia which the Urarteans had to contend with until 714 BC was the Kingdom of Daeiukhi, which were the Taokhoi of later Greek sources, which distinguish them from the Armenians. True, but your concept of ethnogenesis simply has no evidence to back it up. It is most unfair to reduce the ancient Greek historians and geographers as 'story-tellers'. Much can be said about Herodotus, but much of his narrative has been corroborated by newer scientifically gleened evidence. Ignorance is not going to help you here. What I have presented to you wasn't just language evidence but also geographic and cultural observations of the Greeks, who did in fact distinguish 'Armenians' from 'Urartians' (Alarodioi in Greek). Wrong again. There is a bulk of Urartean inscriptions which deal with the campaigns of Urartean kings, from which we are able to get a good idea as to the names of regions in the north, where the Armenians gained their ultimate ethnogenesis, but none of the Urartean inscriptions speak of an 'Armenia' or 'Hay' nation in this region. Again the major power in this area was Daeiukhi. In the core Urartean region (southeast of Lake Van) the only languages in evidence were Urartean and to a lesser degree, Assyrian, reflecting Assyrian inroads into Urartu from time to time. The problem is that there is simply no evidence to support your thesis. It's just wishful thinking, plain and simple. Common sense is completely irrelevent here. The evidence shows undeniable distinctions between Armenians and Urarteans. I never said that the Urarteans did vanish quickly. Urarteans continued to exist after the collapse of their kingdom as one of several peoples occupying 'Armenia'. They probably continued to exist as a distinct people until perhaps the 1st century BC when Tigran began his conquest of the east. The problem here is that 'Urartean' names and language, match. There is simply no evidence of another language there. The interesting thing here is that Hurrian shows the closest affinities with Caucasian languages. Therefore we can postulate a Hurro-Caucasian language family stretching from north of the Caucasus, south to the mountains north of Assyria. While the core area of the Urartean kingdom, was undoubtedly Urartean in speech, the north was a hodge podge of various lands and kingdoms. Armenian was clearly an intrusive language perhaps causing a rift between the Hurrian south and the Caucasian north. What are you talking about? The first biblical reference is mentioned Japheth, remember? The information from Khorenatsi that supports this Armenian theory, but where do you think he got his information? I did not mention something from the Bible because I believed in it. I merely mentioned it to show how the people of the Bible viewed Armenians (according to an interpretation). I did not attempt to prove it true or untrue. I just mentioned some possibilities, that's all. I had thought long and hard as how to respond to this accusation. This was clearly meant to question the credibility of my sources of information (and perhaps me in particular) as being Turkish in origin, or Turkish in sympathy. You don't know me, and you obviously don't know my sources. I have some of the most detailed and up-to-date sources of information my American bookstores and libraries can give me. If there is anyone here who was showing biased nationalistic tendencies, that would be you. Despite presenting the evidence to the contrary, you still continue to ignore evidence that run contrary to your unsubstantiated theories. You try to find IE speakers where there is no evidence of their eixstence. You insist that the Urartean rulers were only a non-Armenian elite over an Armenian population, but again, there is no evidence. You insist that the Urarteans and Armenians were the same, despite the fact that the Greeks were keenly aware that they were not. I just hope that Yerevan U. is much more enlightened than you!!!