if.........

[levonyeshilian]

Just imagine there was no Genocide....All the Armenians living in Anatolia got their freedom from Ottomans without a Genocide but by an ordinary independence war.

How would you imagine -that great- Armenia would be like today(economical,political vs.)?And our relationship with Turks?Would we be another middle-eastern or caucaus country with problems or a westernised

country?

 

[ March 08, 2001: Message edited by: levonyeshilian ]

[raffiaharonian]

Very nice hypothetical question.

 

The richness and heritage of our culture, the high level intellectual capacity, the material wealth of our people, would have insured the survival of our country as a progressive and balanced country in the region.

Yes we would be 'fighting' against each other, but this rebellious attitude would have strengthened the democratic and diversified opinion and knowledge level of our country.

I have no doubt that we would have become the most stabilised and least troubled country in the region.

 

We do not defer alot from the Greeks. Look at Greece now, it is an EU country with considerable wealth and excellent democratic institutions.

Armenia could have been like Greece.

[shiner]

I have often wondered about that myself. I think that without any major negative influences and problems from outsiders, that Armenia would have been a very prosperous country. It would not have been a utopian society, but nevertheless a very prosperous country with a lot to contribute to this world.

[Pilafhead]

Given the history of the region, it's hard to imagine remaining an autonomous country for long. For centuries, cultures have moved through there. HOWEVER, having said that, there seems to be this view (due to the United Nations, NATO, etc.) that current borders are fixed. So if we would have been able to make it to the 1980's/1990's, we would have been set.

 

I would imagine Armenia would be just like the other Caucasus countries. Low-profile, with many parts of the world oblivious to her existence.

 

Given Armenians' firey nature, do you think such an Armenia would have ever experienced a civil war? It never ceases to amaze me how the seemingly most homogenous societies will find ways to divide themselves.

[bellthecat]

I think that it would never have been possible for Armenia to become independent from the Ottoman empire by an ordinary war of independence (like Greece). Armenia's borders were too ill defined, by the start of the century actual Armenians were the minority of the overall population within those borders - and most Armenians lived outside those borders. If there was no Genocide, but the rest of the region's history remained unaltered, then in the 1920s Armenia would probably still have been a Soviet republic, but three or 4 times larger than it was in real life. And if there was no separate Kurdish republic - by the 1990s an independent Armenia would probably be split by a civil war with its Kurdish population - rather like Bosnia after the collapse of Yugoslavia.

 

Levon, you (or rather your father ) is wrong to say that Kurds and Armenians have lived together for thousands of years - most of the Kurdish population of eastern Turkey are recent arrivals: from the late medieval period or even later. And I would never call their existence with their Armenian neighbours as "living together"!

 

The most honest thing that can be said of Kurds is that they deserve to have Turks as neighbours.

 

Steve

[MJ]

I agree with Steve. Kurds have been settled in the region by Shah Abas to change the regional demographics. This has one of the most devastating things for the future Armenian independence.

[alpha]

In history usually people don’t make “what if” arguments. What if Byzantine army not by Seljuk Turks won the Battle of Manzikert, that’s a more important question. The course of history would have been totally different. I think in that case Armenians would have easily assimilated to Greek culture. It’s somewhat an oxymoron that the oppressors are responsible for the continuation of ethnic culture (Germans are indirectly responsible for the creation of the State of Israel, since Holocaust was the main reason for Ashkenazi Jewish allia). Throughout centuries of Turkish yoke most Armenians in Anatolia forgot their language, and religion was the main distinguishing factor for Armenians. Since they share the same Orthodox traditions with Greeks subsequent assimilation was imminent. The example of assimilation of Armenians in Eastern European Christian countries should serve as an example that difference in religion with Turks was the main reason that Armenians did not assimilate. As much as Armenians hate Turks they have to realize that they were given more freedom in Ottoman Empire than in Byzantine. Up until the capture of Constantinople Armenians weren’t even allowed to have a patriarchate there, and most of them easily assimilated. We shouldn’t also forget that in 1862 Tanzimat laws were passed, which gave Armenians cultural autonomy.

 

What if 1915 did not happen? Interesting question. Just like in the case of Germans and Jews, it brought some positive things for us. First of all before 1915 most Armenians spoke Turkish except in a few places in Western Armenia and Constantinople. Even if we take the numbers of Constantinople Patriarch (I think it’s biased) Armenians did not constitute more than 30% in any of the 6 Armenian vilayets. If Allies won the Battle of Gallipoli and invaded Anatolia, thus preventing a Genocide, still Armenians were only another minority. The only reasonable solution to establishing an Armenian state was a voluntary exchange of population (just like Greece and Turkey did in 1922). I think Armenia wouldn’t be a part of USSR if Allies helped establish an Armenian state then they wouldn’t have allowed the entrance of Soviet Army. In that case Armenia would have been a strategic NATO ally. Taking into consideration the hard working nature of our people and excellent commercial skills, than Armenia would have resembled Greece or pre war Lebanon.

[levonyeshilian]

Steve,

I'm from Harput(in Ottoman era),but since (nearly) 1938 the area is called Tunceli(older name'Dersim').Tunceli is a city of Turkey which both the Turks and the 'Sunni Muslims' dislike most.Because they are 'Zaza(some say 'Zazas are some kind of Kurds but their language is completely different from Kurdish)' and they are Alevi(they believe in Allah and Mohammed but practice very few Muslim beliefs).Those people had a rebellion for freedom and Turks killed many of them as Armenians in 1938.

I and my family has a great sympathy for those people because as i've said before we were saved by them.Maybe it was extreme to say 'thousands of years' but as i hear from my elders 'we lived together for so long time friendly'.

[levonyeshilian]

I think the reason why the world minds Armenians is because of the diaspora and the strong Armenain lobby...Without these I don't think Armenia would be much different from Georgia or any other Caucaus countries in the region.

I repeat again that i find myself middle-eastern.It's my personal opinion.Christianity isn't enough to make a nation westernised(i mean by science,democracy,etc. not our thousands of years traditions and taboos ).

I've been living in Ankara(the capital city of Turkey)since i was 10 years old but each summer i was going to Eastern Anatolia to visit my father who was a building contractor.There i saw Kurdish people and how poor their life was.When i was asking my father if this area belonged to Kurds or Armenians he answered me 'Both,we lived together for thousands of years only our religions are different' and added 'Kurds helped my parents to survive the Genocide'.When i was visiting a web page having the pictures of Genocide victims i've seen the faces of poor Kurds and felt like crying how the Diaspora(i mean whose grandparents are from Eastern Anatolia)is absolutely right to feel anger and hatred for ''those''' Turks.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/images/wegnerlarge/mother.jpg

I'll be back to write more......

 

[ March 08, 2001: Message edited by: Garo ]

[bellthecat]

Levon, as you sugested - the Dersimli "Kurds" are actually not Kurds, so they cannot really be put up as an example of Kurds and Armenians existing together happily!

 

In the 19th century it was suggested that they were really Islamised and "Kurdised" Armenians, and at that time the Dersim region was full of abandoned Armenian churches and graveyards. Probably they were really the original native population, who had become "Armenians" and Christians when Armenia was the dominant culture, then became "Kurds" and Muslims when the Kurds had the advantage.

 

Alpha's posting has a lot of misunderstandings and errors. Armenia would never have been assimilated into Greek culture. Many - probably the majority - of Armenians in Anatolia continued to speak Armenian until 1915, and it was always the language of the church. To say that Armenians had more religious freedom in the Ottoman empire than in the Byzantine empire is just silly. The Greek Orthodox church was very relaxed about such things (unlike western Christendom) providing there was no political threat - and there were even mosques in Constantimople.

 

The only reason the allies wanted to set up an independent Armenia after WW1 was because of the massacres - no massacres, no moral initiative to establish a homeland for Armenians. Without those massacres there would have been greater Armenian resistance to the Turkish advance in 1918, and 1920 - but in the end Armenia would probably still have come under Soviet rule as part of the Soviet Union.

 

Steve

[alpha]

Steve,

Greek Orthodox Church was very aggressive when given a chance. It successfully used the political force of Byzantine Empire to disintegrate Armenian Church. Up until the capture of Constantinople there have been numerous attempts to establish an Armenian Patriarchate in Constantinople where there was a huge community, but to no avail. Only after 1453 when Mehmet II conquered the Constantinople Armenians were recognized as a separate religious group. Greek Orthodox Church did not have to be aggressive in its policies to assimilate Armenian Church; over the time the dominant Greek culture would have assimilated it. The fate of Armenians living in Central Europe should serve as an example how dominant faith assimilates the minority culture. Keep in mind that it was due to successful Greek policies to disintegrate Armenia and relocate nobility to Central and Southern Anatolia that resulted to settlement of Armenia by Seljuk Turks. Medieval Armenian historians also point out that Armenians were not majority in Western Armenia by 15 and 16 centuries. There was virtually no resistance to Turkish invasion, because Greeks have weakened the nobility. In fact Armenians were not even a majority in Eastern Armenia up until 1828. It was through successful immigration from Persian and Ottoman empires that Yerevan guberniaya became mostly Armenian populated.

 

Also, I would like to direct you to Richard Hovhanissian's book "Republic of Armenia", where his research shows that most of the Armenian population in Western Armenia outside of Constantinople and Van region spoke Turkish. My grandparents are from Western Armenia (around Arabkir region) and according to them most of the Armenian population in Sebastia vilayet did not speak Armenian.

 

On a personal note, I’d appreciate if we can hold our discussion on a high level and not get into name calling.

[bellthecat]

Alpha, you are mixing up "faith" with "culture". The Byzantines were very relaxed about "national" churches - they allowed the Bulgars, the Russians, the Serbs, etc. to have their own national churches with their own patriarchs and clergy, and their own architectural styles - in utter contrast to the monolithic, dictatorial, Church of Rome. They were against the Gregorian Armenian church because it divided Christianity and destroyed the universality of the Christian faith. They (the Byzantines) aspired to a world faith - "and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" - and saw (and rightly saw) the Gregorian Armenian church as a heresy.

 

Even if the Armenian church had had adopted the same doctrine as the Orthodox church (an unlikely event) that would not have led to the assimilation of Armenian culture and the disappearance of people calling themselves Armenians. Medieval Armenian communities in Europe did not disappear because of a "dominant faith" as you put it, they disappeared either because the economic or political situation that had led to their founding had changed, or the physical number of Armenians was too small for the population to maintain itself.

 

The Turkish recognition (i.e. toleration) of the Armenian church as a separate group was not a "step-up" for the Armenian church, it was a big "step-down" for the Greek Orthodox church, which after the fall of Constantinople was relegated to being just one sect of infidels amongst many. And this toleration did not go far - for example, the rule of the Ottomans in the 17th century saw the Christian Armenians and Georgians of Ispir and Tao being forced to accept Islam or migrate. There were also many Armenian Christian martyrs from this period.

 

As for the proportion of Armenian speakers, yes, I have read Hovanessian’s "Republic of Armenia" books - but I don't remember anything detailed about language in them - give me some quotes. If you believe that most of Constantinople’s Armenian population spoke Armenian then answer me why that should be. The Gregorian Armenian population of Constantinople was small by the end of the Byzantine empire, and continued to be small until the later centuries of the Ottoman empire. Where do you think all those Armenian speaking Armenians in Constantinople came from - from Armenian speaking Anatolia of course! MOST Armenians around Arapkir and Egin DID speak Armenian, and several 19th century travellers point out that even the local Greek population spoke Armenian in these areas, and had "become" Armenian to the extent that they worshipped in Armenian churches.

 

Steve

[alpha]

Steve, Byzantines were relaxed as long as they controlled Russian, Serb, or other Eastern Orthodox Churches. Keep in mind that the head of all these churches is still the Greek Patriarch that seats in Constantinople. I don’t understand your argument how Armenian Church divided the universality of Christian faith, when it was already divided by 700 AD. The struggle between Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox Churches was based more on political than on theological motives. It was all about control and Armenian Church wasn’t going to willingly give up its control over the Armenian population. The Armenian clergy perfectly understood that once it got under the influence of Greek Orthodox Church it would have lost the special privileges it held for centuries. The whole division of Armenian and Byzantine churches started in 506 at the Council of Dvin, when the Armenian church rejected the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon (451), that the one Person of Christ consists of two natures; the Armenian church thus became (and remained) Monophysite (a view holding that Christ had only "one nature"). When the Georgian church broke away from the Armenians and reunited with the Greek Orthodox Church in the early 7th century, the Armenians remained in communion with the Coptic and Syrian Jacobite churches, confessing the Christological formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria, "one incarnate nature of the Word. So it wasn’t only Armenian Church that held the Monophysite view, Coptic and Syrian churches also adhered to this belief. So claiming that Greek Orthodox Church was tolerant and accepted the existence of other national churches should be viewed from the perspective that they were accepting the existence of other national churches as long as they were able to dominate them.

 

In terms of population of Arabkir and Akn speaking Armenian, the only evidence that I have about the language that were used by Armenians in that region are my grandparents, and other Arabkirci people who lived in Nor Arabkir region of Yerevan. The reason most of the Armenians were Armenian speaking in Constantinople because it was encouraged. Turk was used as a derogatory term, and speaking Turkish was not something that added a social class.

[MJ]

Alpha,

 

I just wanted to coment that the atribution of Armenian Church to the monophysitic family of churches is resulted from a centuries old misinterpretation. In reality, the Armenian Church has never been monophysitic. It is just many of our Holly Fathers, from some century on, have not been able to articulate or even understand what is the real position of Armenian Church on the issue of Holly Tinity. The opinion of our Church's monophysitism is resulted I think from the fact that the primary function of our Holly Fathers has been "baptism," wedding, burrial, etc, and tax colection, and nobody has stood up to present properly the theological foundations of the Church.

[svanriesen]

if.....

 

I wouldn't have been born.

No way my mother would have been allowed to marry a dutchman.

 

And one Armenian Nation? Not likely. The armenians have fought amongst eachother since the beginning of time, always divided in at least 2 camps. It was the genocide that united the armenians in their fate.

Now the sovietunion is no more we once again have 2 sides.

 

[ March 13, 2001: Message edited by: Samuel van Riesen ]