On the Fable of Avarair

[564312]

Tvum e inz vor duk bacarzakapes herkum ek angam amenapokrik patmakan nshuyl@.Khndrum em nerkayacrek zer nor sahmanadrvac paster@.

 

“Who told you that?

I hate to make this comparison but the Jews are their own worst enemies. Another reason why we must not use them as models.”

 

Yes they are lyers still incredible to comprehend how they succeeded in owning US government and corporate America. (is this untrue conspiracy too?)

I don’t think this phenomena could have been achieved by Irish, Italians, Africans or Hispanics.It is an art. Jews have their faults the greater one being that they persecuted and even this day hate Jesus, they did say your blood is on us and on our children and it was! I exemplified Jews because there is a similarity with Armenians in a sense that they like us are scattered all over the world but they do support each other more then Armenians do and that is their success.

 

“No, the great uncle of his great uncle told him after he had had one too many bazhaks after his obligatory khash of course.

Who creates these myths you aked?

Oppressed people are the biggest mythifiers. The irony of it is that they end up believing it themselves as if written by those idiots who wrote the gospels..”

 

Please don’t get personal, do no assume that I am a he. And don’t assume that history was passed to me over khash.

According to you the whole Armenian history is oppressed. There is nothing good, nothing true. Why why why why why why why why why why why why why!

Are you preaching a new religion? Are you proclaiming a new revolution then tell me what is the salvation of Armenia? You are blaming all on Khorenacis, Lusavorich..what about Tigran Mec. Does not matter whom we blame, Bible, History or even the lyrics of Terian the fundaments start from our families!

 

MJ what about Ukraine given same time to Germania and was later returned back to Ukrainians.

Russia gave the lands to Turks conditionally. There are many reasons why it was not returned back to us. That Bolsheviks did not want to fight something that was established before their rule and it was becoming very costly, that Lenin was a Tatar and did not care for Armenia, that Armenia did not press hard for the issue....

I don’t have factual papers to prove but this is a known fact. If you have anything that disproves this please let me know.

[MJ]

564312,

 

I have to run out now. I probably will address your note in more details when I can - perhaps later tonight. Just two brief comments:

 

1. Your allegation of Jews owning America or corporate America means that you have never been in corporate America nor you know a lot about America, in general;

 

2. Your persistent allegation on the subject of the conditionality of our lands to Turkey by Russia are totally baseless. If you read French or Turkish, you can read the relevant treaties (two treaties) of 1921 at the Web Site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey. Perhaps some version can be also found in Russian sources. Additionally, the text of both treaties is widely available also in Armenian literature.

 

Cannot comment on the rest of your statements now, and I am not sure who they are addressed either.

[564312]

QUOTE]Originally posted by MJ:

564312,

 

1. Your allegation of Jews owning America or corporate America means that you have never been in corporate America nor you know a lot about America, in general;

 

rightttt....

If I started typing all the Jews in American Government and corporation my fingers will start falling. Hmmmmmm.. let me see if i can recall few names.

Alan Greenspan - Federal Reserve Chairman

Gerald Levin – AOL time Warner second in command?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg – one of the top decision maker in Bush administration

Senator Joseph Lieberman

Ari Fleischer – Press secretary

Michael Bloomberg – media mogul worth about $4 billion seats on the board of Metropolitan Museum of Art to the Police & Fire Widows

Steve Ballmer – chief executive Microsoft 13th richest person in the world

Brad Turell – incharge of the top communications slots such as TBS, CNN, TNT

Mortimer Zuckerman – owns U.S. News & World Report and the New York Daily News as well real estate and media

Daniel Goldin – Head of NASA

Calvin Klein – Fashion designer

I can start naming all the actors in Hollywood starting from Jerry Springer and finishing with Steven Spilberg. But don’t take my words for it. You can find those names in any Jewish hole of fame.

 

2. Your persistent allegation on the subject of the conditionality of our lands to Turkey by Russia are totally baseless. If you read French or Turkish, you can read the relevant treaties (two treaties) of 1921 at the Web Site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey. Perhaps some version can be also found in Russian sources. Additionally, the text of both treaties is widely available also in Armenian literature.

 

ok let me go to the Ministery of Foreign Affairs of TURKEY to find out the REAL facts.

 

Cannot comment on the rest of your statements now, and I am not sure who they are addressed either.

 

Replying to responses addressed to me MJ.

[MJ]

Dear 564312,

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of few exercises which may strengthen the endurance of your fingers... (just kidding).

 

Now that you have listed the majority of the US population in your previous message, I have no arguments left.

 

Also, where else can I refer you to so that you get familiarized with the fact before you talk about them if you refuse to read the Armenian and Russian sources?

 

[ January 24, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Arpa]

As much as Ihate to do this but I saw fit to close this segment of this debate with a bang. And please, I never want us to compare opurselves to the Jews or suggest them as a models for ourselves. I can speak volumes to argue the opposite but see the story from CNN below. Since 1948 when Israel was recognized as a state, and even before that this is a daily picture. This is not the end yet. It will get worse as those Palestinians get hold of more deadly weapons.

Is this what we wish for ourselves?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/26/...east/index.html

[564312]

I am not sure what facts you want to familiarize me with but are you saying that there was no such thing? You also wrote that I should read this facts of yours in the Turkish website.. strange..

anyways do proceed with your new Armenian History findings. Very interesting.

[MJ]

564312,

 

I have a very low threshold of tolerance with militant incompetence.

[takavor]

not nice !!!

 

[ January 29, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: MosJan ]

[MosJan]

By Arpa - yete moet@t lineyi Jakat@t k@hampyureyi !!!

 

Lseq !!! Menq Hye enq - yev kariq chunenq hamematvelu / mrtselu / kam @endunenq n@ranst vorpes chapanish. Haskatseq vor menq urish enq !!! / yev mer@ urish e !!!/ te mer Dard@ te mer tsav@ te mer xind@ urish e - menq tarber enq amen inchov. mer verq@ menak menq karorr enq darmanel. jishte ognutyan kariq unenq shaterits / sakayn menq menq enq irenq el irenq - enpes vor toreq irents iranst ter@ - menq el tor menanq mer terrerum - inchpes kanq - mer dard u tsavov - mer xind u parov !!!

 

MOvses

[564312]

Movses,

 

es hamazayn em bolor ko khoskeri het. ugaki inz misht zarmanali e vor hayer@ amen patchar gtnum en vor irenc kcen.KHORENACIN SUT EN HANUM!!!!!

AVARAIRI KRIV@ PUST EN ANUM!

Parze hamematutyun chka hreaneri ev hayeri patmutyan mej baic miayn ayn vor hayeri pes irenk el en crvac ambokch ashkarhov aydteg e verjanum hamematutyun@, vorovhetyev hreaner@ tarbervum en irenc varvelakerpov; depi irar nkatmamb.

 

They analyze, criticize, nullify Armenian History. Avarair? How about Sardarapat I am sure if I listen to MJ and Arpa they will find that it was a mistake too after all the Armenian government was short lived even though we won in Sardarapat. I want to understand why Armenia joined Bolsheviks.

What it was their fancy to join, they liked to masquerade around with red star on their hats? Or that Lenin promised Armenians what was failed by Western Allies with Treaty of Serves also Armenian question dating back in 1878 Berlin were Armenian issue was raised by Tsarist Russia and the West. But I am sure they will say this is not true; let me check what is written in the Turkish websites.

 

Yes we can not compare ourselves to Jews because in nature we are peaceful, we are too honest, we are creative, we are too patriotic, we boast too much, we have created bread from the stones, Armenia has given more artists, scientists, heros per square inch and we don’t dig our enemy’s grave we dig each others grave. Jews? Well they stirred the whole world around after all this whole Terrorism and War situation in the world started from the Palestinian and Israeli issue.

[Arpa]

Pleeeeez!!!

In case you need a translation the argument was not so much about the value of Aavarayr but the way it is portrayed as a religious war, a war to preserve the "faith" rather than defend the country. That is the problem some of us have with the way it is presented. Barpetzi has a much better account of the events than Yeghishe who does not deny the fact that he was commissioned by the Church.

Whoever you are, please don't pollute the air and in doing so dilute the value of Sardarapat. Some time ago Sardarapat was discussed at length, I was one of the contributors. I cannot locate that thread, maybe our moderators can repost them so we can proceed where we left off.

 

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

 

Suffice it to say that Aavarair was a chakatamart while Saradapat a herosamart. Please do not compare the two and in doing so malign the heroes of the latter. They were heroes, not martyrs, they fought for the country not for that elusive faith of yours. The leader(s) did not die in vain as Vardan the romantic fool, the nokhaz, the esh nahatak for the Nakharars and the Church, who sacrificed himself leaving his soldiers and his people in panic and disarray and at the mercy of the Persin butchers.

Another little known fact is that Avarayr was chakatamart, a battle and not the whole war. A battle is part of a war, cahakatamart@ paterazmin mi bazhinn e voch the amboghjutyun@. The battle may have been lost but the war went on.

This leads us to the next subject topic that I had intended to write about anyway.

Read the next post titled "Nvarsak".

[564312]

Ungeraguyn, Geratuyn Arpa.

Inz anznakan vatabanelud hamar mi hat Rusakan asacvack ka.

“Sam Igraet, Sam Tancuet, Sam Payot” (plays himself, dances himself, sings himself) you create your own arguments, defend them, “translate” them in your own ways. Heto el uzum es vor bolor@ zurna trnigi tan.

Whoever I am? who are you? A possessed from the movie “exorcist”? Because any mention of Faith and God your head starts spinning around faster and faster toxidizing everything.

There is no difference between Men of Avarayr, Sardarapt or Arcakh but this is hard to comprehend for someone with your caliber

[KnightOfArmenia]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[gamavor]

Knight of Armenia you talk as if you were there:)

Anyway just small correction.

Bulgars in 451 AD were not bulgars but kotrigurs, totrigurs etc. more than 40 tribes dwelling in the plains of Siberia and latter on Batbaian one of Khan Kubrat's son's with his kin settled in northeast Armenia (today so-called Azer.......n).

Ostrogoths (you probably mean Ostgoths, or east Celts) had no business with Byzantium up until 6 century AD.

The reason why Byzantium hadn't help was (official version) because of the Chalcedon. The irony of the whole epic is that while Armenians were fighting for Christ allegedly, and the country, Byzantium was busy deciding weather Christ was human creature, divine creature or both but separate!!!???? On top of it probably they secretly prayed that Armenians as sectarians would have been defeated. The same "friendly" notions continued up until the time when turks reached Vienna, but even after that we were often caught at one others throats in the name of the Olympic sports.

Edited August 18, 2003 by gamavor

[KnightOfArmenia]

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

 

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

 

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

[hytga]

Just wanted to reply to MJ's original post.

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

[TashnagZinvor]

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

 

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

Edited December 14, 2003 by TashnagZinvor

[hytga]

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

 

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

[TashnagZinvor]

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

 

My dear child, Armenia is WEST of Mongolia.

Edited December 15, 2003 by TashnagZinvor

[hytga]

first of all i'm not your child? What kind of attitude is that? do you even realize what you're saying by calling me so?

there's been armenian mongol aliance with armenian cilician kingdom during the 13th century. insted of me prooving what is not true, you proove me it was true.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Edited by Nairi for name-calling and bad language

Edited December 16, 2003 by nairi

[nairi]

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

[Yeznig]

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

 

Why we should read...

 

`The Story of Vartanantz'

by Yeghishe

324pp, Housapper Printing House, Cairo, Egypt, 1950

 

Armenian News Network / Groong

December 30, 2001

 

By Eddie Arnavoudian

 

 

In recording the 5th century Armenian Church-led revolt against

Persian imperial authority, Yeghishe's `The Story of Vartanantz' is

simultaneously an inspired defence of the right to insurrection

against illegitimate power. Though written after the decisive

Armenian defeat at the Battle of Avarayr in 451, it reads as an

uncompromising summoning to stand ground, as an invocation against

demoralised surrender and as a proclamation of the righteousness of

the rebels. Yeghishe drives his message home in an amalgam of science

and art, fact and fiction, history and myth, politics and philosophy,

poetry and prose. Deploying his intellectual and philosophical

erudition and his talent for hyperbole, poetic exaggeration and

awesome invectivem he produces an epic drama of defiance and

rebellion.

 

`The Story of Vartanantz' is not without its shortcomings and flaws,

some of them serious. Most striking is the absence of that broad

conception of nation and nationality that one finds in Barpetzi or

Khorenatzi. Preoccupied with the immediate and narrower interests of

the Church there is little explicit interest in the fortunes of the

state and the nation as a whole. Flowing from this and from Yeghishe's

generally more devout religious approach is the discernible tension

between categorical affirmations of Christian duty to submit to

secular authority and the defence of what is in effect a political

revolt against it. These and other lapses, as well as some

significant internal inconsistencies deny this work the same universal

and enduring artistic and intellectual value of other contemporary

classics. Yet the volume has a particular value and resonance besides

containing many passages of artistic beauty and riveting narrative

that can be read with pleasure and profit.

 

 

1. The style and the message

 

For the 5th and 6th century thinker the notion of art for art's sake

was as remote as the most distant and invisible star. It didn't figure

in their consciousness. The `Book', as a treasury and fountain of

knowledge, was a guide to action. It served to inspire reader and

listener `whether priest, prince or plebeian - to understand and cope

with life's diverse problems be they political, social or individual.

Khazar Barpetzi expresses best this classical and fundamentally valid

conception of literature - one that is today the object of so much

disdain. Barpetzi writes in order that:

 

`the multitude hearing the story of the virtuous will seek to

emulate him. The brave on hearing of the courage of his

predecessors will multiply his endeavours, bequeathing memorable

accounts of themselves and of their nation. As for the lazy and

good for nothing such stories may inspire positive envy and urge

them on to self-improvement.'

 

Less precise, but with poetic colour Yeghishe claimed that the written

work must offer `consolation for loved ones, hope for the hopeful and

encouragement for the brave.'

 

With such aims in mind and writing only some 50 to 70 years after the

formation of the Armenian alphabet, it is understandable why Yeghishe

and his contemporaries employed that combination of differing literary

and intellectual forms which was to become a distinguishing feature of

classical Armenian literature. The form of exposition was neither

accidental nor was the choice of a particular one at any point in the

text arbitrary. Yeghishe and his contemporaries were addressing a

hugely uneven, intellectually and culturally varied, audience. The

clergy would naturally have been their main readers, studying the book

themselves and reciting it to prince and plebeian. Yet neither they

nor their audience would be of the same educational standards, share

the same cultural traditions or have the same grounding in philosophical

and political matters. Many would still be only semi-literate, even

more illiterate. Others would be inspired primarily by religious

fervour or mere superstition, most would be totally unfamiliar with

philosophic matters, and others still would have remained within the

influence of pagan intellectual and popular beliefs that remained

widespread. The written work had to meet the levels and expectations

of all.

 

>From such concerns flows the variagated style and structure of

Yeghishe's `The Story of Vartanantz'. He was no `objective historian',

no `ivory tower' academic or uncommitted artist and poet. He was a

militant and dedicated ideologue of the 5th century Armenian Church,

then at the apogee of its power and the sole national force in

Armenian politics. His entire exposition is therefore a committed

defence of this Church's traditional rights and privileges. In this

sense the work is a passionately partisan political polemic, indeed a

propaganda tract employing all persuasive devices. But at its

foundation is a solid rationalism.

 

Opening his account Yeghishe underlines the decisive importance of

knowledge. Repeating the aphorism that `death that is not understood

is truly death, that which is understood is immortality', he adds that

the `evil and misfortune befalls us as a result of ill education.'

Therefore it `is better to be blind of sight than blind of mind. As

the soul is greater than the body so is the mind's grasp broader than

the body's.' On basis of this rationalism Yeghishe develops a

verifiable framework of historical and political analysis into which

he weaves in a philosophical/theological polemic against

Zoroastrianism (discussed well in Henrik Kaprielian's `History of

Armenian Philosophical Thought', Vol. 1) as well as fiction, poetry,

hagiography, declamation and invective to create additional levels in

single tale of righteous resistance. Such an apparently eclectic

method did not necessarily detract from artistic or intellectual

merit. In skilful hands it could, and did, produce an integrated and

outstanding work whose message in consequence was communicated with

greater vigour and force.

 

 

2. The political analysis

 

Yeghishe's work opens not with religious declamation but with sober

political analysis. It dissects Persian imperial strategy towards the

Christian communities and nations within its domain. King Hazgherd II

notes with discontent that `Christianity daily expands in all the

areas that he passes through.' (p111) Previously tolerated, these

communities now threaten to become a Fifth Column in the service of

the perennial foe from the west - the hated Byzantium Empire.

Hazgherd's advisers suggest therefore, that if the King were able `to

convert to a single religion all the nations and people within (his)

jurisdiction' he would not only secure his existing borders but also

`succeed in subjugating even the land of the Greeks.' (p103).

 

For Hazgherd therefore his campaign to eliminate Christianity from the

Empire is a component of a political battle. Setting about the

business he demands that `all peoples and nations living within my

authority should henceforth cease false worship and come to kneel

before the Sun God and without exception carry out all the required

religious obligations.' (p11). Simultaneously Hazgherd `issued

instructions to dispossess Christians living within Persia of all

their `property and belonging'(p106). In the process of `this robbery'

Yeghishe remarks that Christians were as a matter of course `also

tortured.' (p102). While `all nations' were subjected to this

`disorder' the Armenian Church was its main target. It was the

`strongest' and included `the most devout', among whom stood out those

`from noble houses.' (p110) Indeed despite the termination of the

Armenian monarchy in 428, the Armenian Church remained an immensely

powerful independent national force that continued to nurture grand

political ambitions.

 

To subdue the Armenian Church Hazgherd therefore launched a

historically unprecedented assault hoping to deliver it a crushing

blow. Intending to destroy this possible bastion for a resurgent,

independent Armenian state, the Persian King first wisely removed from

the scene the Armenian nobility. They could, in alliance with the

Church present a potential military threat, for even though

subordinated to Persian authority the nobility had retained control of

its own military forces (p101). Having removed this obstacle Hazgherd

and his religious advisors demanded Armenian acceptance of a set of

proposals that effectively dislocated the economic, social and

political power and authority the Church.

 

If successful, Hazgherd's assault will `transform the Church's

(previous) independence into servitude'. The economic foundations of

the Church were targeted with the imposition, for the first time, of

an enormous burden of taxation. The Church's social power was to be

severely diminished by the withdrawal of its legal jurisdiction over

internal Armenian affairs. Further, imperial edict required the

disbanding of a wide network of monasteries and the subjection of the

clergy to secular authority. To cap it all the Armenian head of

government was replaced by a Persian, and a pagan high priest was

nominated as `judge and jury in the land' in order to `thwart the

glory of the Church.' (pp114-15)

 

This is the context in which Yeghishe whips up the emotions and

passions against Hazgherd and his religious associates. They are

attacking the very foundations of the Church - the main guardian of

Armenian custom and its newly formed intellectual, cultural

tradition. They are therefore undiluted evil with which there can be

no negotiation. Thus the Persian King and his allies are as poisonous

snakes and savage beasts (p110), as the devil incarnate (p131) as

violent and bloodthirsty warmongers (p103) full of bile and

venom. Calumny has its rational foundation deriving from a sober

examination of his opponent's role political and military actions.

 

 

3. The organisation of insurrection

 

In confronting such an opponent the Church's response was immediate,

decisive and comprehensive. With its nationwide organisational

apparatus it began organising a nationwide uprising. Following a

number of general meetings: `The bishops returned to their sees and

sent forth (emissaries) to all villages and farms and to the many

fortresses in the mountainous provinces. They gathered together large

crowds of men and women, plebeian and freeman, priest and monk. They

explained and inspired and transformed all into soldiers for Christ.'

(p141)

 

Albeit Church-led, Yeghishe describes the resistance as a broad,

popular, nationwide uprising and insurrection that involved whole

swathes of the population irrespective of class or status. In the

resistance there was `no differentiation between lord and servant,

between delicate freeman and hardy peasant, and none appeared lesser

in bravery.' All were `willing of spirit whether man or woman, old or

young '(p149-50). As the organisation of the uprising progressed `all,

not just brave men, but married women too - were ready for battle,

helmets fitted, swords at their waste and shield on arms.' (p142)

 

So vital did the Church regard this clash that later, on the eve of

the Battle of Avarayr Ghevont Yeretz, the principle Armenian leader

and main strategist and tactician of the revolt was to demand a

radical break from tradition: `You all know that in previous times

when you (the nobility) went to war you always retained the clergy

within the army. But at the moment of battle you removed us to some

secure place. However today bishops, elders, priests, psalm singers

and readers, all according to established rules, are armed and ready

and wish to join battle to destroy the enemies of truth.' (p186)

 

Constituted of such mettle and confident of popular support the Church

leadership launched its counter-offensive. Despite the fact that it

`was not fully aware of the attitude of all Armenia's noble lords nor

fully apprised of the strength of the Persian high-priests' the

leadership directed the populace to `break the heads' of the

Zoroastrian forces and `chase them back to their abodes'. Yeghishe

describes in detail assaults in which Armenians `wrecked and

destroyed' many of the `fortresses and towns that the Persians had

taken control of' (p150) thus `reducing to nothing the orders of his

imperial majesty'.

 

Bolstered by such successes, and aware of the persisting Persian

ambitions, the Church rightly rejected as deception a desperate

compromise proposal which whilst granting Armenians freedom of worship

did not restore the church its prior power and independence. The dye

was cast for a decisive conflict between an insurgent Armenian Church

backed by the people and a determined Persian empire. Despite

numerical inferiority and `despite having neither King as leader' nor

`any hope of outside (Byzantium) help' the insurgents `did not stand

in dread' of the final battle being confident in the knowledge that

`with God's help a few can do the work of many.' (p154-155)

 

It is of significance that in his account of resistance and rebellion

Yeghishe repeatedly underlines the critical role played by the

plebeian population. But what would have possessed an educated member

of the feudal elite to treat the lower classes with evident respect?

Perhaps by so telling the tale he hoped to bind potentially hostile

future generations of plebeians closer to the Church. Perhaps it was

an aspect of a theological war against a resurgent paganism. It could

also have been an attempt to secure the loyalty of a substantial,

independent, spirited free peasantry or part of the clergy's

affirmation of its social power against that portion of the secular

nobility not always faithful to Christian dictates.

 

Whatever the verdict, Yeghishe records clearly the reasons why the

population at large would have supported a campaign orchestrated by a

Church that was little more than another oppressive feudal estate.

Persian authority was detested even more. Their burdensome taxation

was already `collected more in the manner of plundering bandits than a

dignified state'. New ones now threatened to `annihilate the plebeian

farmer' throwing the population into `extreme poverty'. Thus there was

a confluence of interest between the Church and the peasant/plebeian

population in resisting the Persian encroachment that enabled the

Church to emerge as a formidable force in the national revolt against

foreign authority.

 

 

4. Vassak Syouni and national unity

 

For Yeghishe the defeat of the Uprising was neither predestined nor

the result of any unfavourable political-military balance of forces.

Victory could have been secured despite the odds had the Armenians

retained national unity. Until Vartanantz Yeghishe had `no fear of

telling the story of the blows that were heaped upon our nation (by)

our external enemies. Few of them succeeded in defeating us, whilst we

defeated them many times because we then remained united and equal.'

(p167).

 

But during the Vartanantz uprising Armenian unity was destroyed by

Vassak Syouni, the Persian appointed Governor of Armenia who broke

ranks by accepting imperial compromise proposals. Vassak's

unpardonable, mortal sin was that he acted as spy, informant and fifth

columnist. It is this, rather than Vassak's religious apostasy that is

primarily held against him. He `separated himself from Armenian ranks'

and `gathered corrupted elements into an (oppositional) military

force'. By informing the Persians of this he exposed `the disunity and

division in the Armenian army.' (p170) These and his other actions

`destabilised and spread confusion throughout the land of Armenia

sowing division and discord between brothers, between father and son

and causing upheaval in a once peaceful land. (p172)

 

Vassak also communicated more detailed critical military intelligence

to the Persian commanders. He supplied information about `numbers of

troops aligned with Vartan (Mamikonian)', the Armenian armed forces

state of readiness, their morale, their armaments, the numbers

possessing armour, the numbers of infantry and whether they are armed

with bows and arrows or protected by shields (p172-3). All this

enabled the Persians to take appropriate counter-measures and defeat

the insurgents in the decisive Battle of Avarayr. Thus Yeghishe's

visceral hatred for Vassak. He actively assists absolute evil. He too

therefore is condemned as a venal sycophant deserving to `die like and

dog and rot like a donkey'. Alone the invective would not be

ineffective. But with Yeghishe, Vassak's hateful nature is not an

abstract moral vice but a direct expression of his political

treachery.

 

In opposition to the men of evil are the virtuous and faithful Ghevont

Yeretz, Vartan Mamikonian and the scores of martyrs who fought and

died arms in hand at Avarayr. Refusing to make the slightest

concession in the face of the most horrendous torture and inevitable

death they are embodiments of valour, courage, nobility, intelligence

and wisdom. Presented as leaders of an entire people up in arms it is

easy to see how their story came to be a defining feature of modern

Armenian national identity. In the 19th century Armenian revival,

revolutionary intellectuals enthusiastically encouraged the

celebration of the Vartanantz Uprising and against a hidebound Church

sought to make it the property of the emerging secular nationalist and

democratic movement against Ottoman and Tsarist colonial oppression

and injustice.

 

Many commentators, failing to appreciate the essential unity of its

diverse forms, have missed the central message of `The Story of

Vartanantz'. Eminent historian Hrant K. Armen, focusing on the

religious dimension, presents Yeghishe as something of a wild fanatic

bent on demonising all opposition in defence of theological dogma.

Hagop Oshagan criticises Yeghishe for `not possessing the seriousness

we expect from a historian'. Others have narrowed Yeghishe's work down

to any one of its particular features: a history, an epic poem, an

impassioned moral fable, a devout Christian hagiography etc. `The

Story of Vartanantz' is of course all of these. But as a unity, with

all its strengths and weaknesses, it is also much more.

 

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

Eddie Arnavoudian holds degrees in history and politics from

Manchester, England, and is Groong's commentator-in-residence on

Armenian literature. His works on literary and political issues

have also appeared in Harach in Paris, Nairi in Beirut and Open

Letter in Los Angeles.

 

 

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

[Arpa]

7 days from today, March, 3 2011 will the Commemoration Day of the Battle of Avarayr.

As every year there will be thousand of gatherings throughout the world, and many opinions.

Below the opinion of one such “heretic”.

Headline reads, in the words of the said historian- “In my opinion, there was no need for the Battle of Avarayr”

 

http://www.azg.am/AM/2011022525

To the grumbling of many attendants he concludes his presentation…

A quote from the closing words of the historian-

---

He emphasized saying - “I appreciate those (feasts) commemorations of victories, not martyrs. Thus, to me, Vardananq is not a feast of victory”.

 

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

There must be as many definitions of “victory” as there are people on the Earth.

---

Fr. Yesayi has the last word..

---

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

“This is a unique feast of victory”.

---

ՊԱՏՄԱԲԱՆԻ ԿԱՐԾԻՔՈՎ` ԱՎԱՐԱՅՐԻ ՃԱԿԱՏԱՄԱՐՏԻ ԿԱՐԻՔՆ ԱՄԵՆԵՎԻՆ ԷԼ ՉԿԱՐ

Վարդանանց շարժումը հայոց պատմության կարեւոր էջերից է: Երեկ Վարդանանց տոնն էր: Վարդանանց շարժմանն ու տոնին երեկ անդրադարձան «Ուրբաթ» ակումբի բանախոսները: Եսայի քահանա Արտեմյանը նշեց, որ Վարդանանց տոնը ներկայացնում է մի իրողություն, որը վճռորոշ դերակատարում է ունեցել հայ մարդու ինքնության պարագայում: Իսկ պատմական գիտությունների դոկտոր Աշոտ Ներսիսյանը կարծիք հայտնեց, որ Վարդանանց շարժումն ու 450-451 թվականների հայ ազգային ազատագրական պայքարը կարիք ունեն հայեցակարգային նոր մոտեցումների: Պատմաբանի փոխանցմամբ` Ավարայրի ճակատամարտը, որը ներկայացվել է քրիստոնեական հավատի պահպանման համար մղված ճակատամարտ, կարիք ունի խոր վերլուծությունների. «Սոսկ Ավարայրի ճակատամարտով Վարդան Մամիկոնյանն իսկապես հերոս էր, բայց երբ անդրադառնում ենք դրան նախորդող իրադարձություններին, տեսնում ենք, որ Վասակ Սյունին դավաճան չէր»: Պատմաբանը նշում է, թե մոտեցումը, որ Վասակ Սյունին եղել է դավաճան ու դեմ է եղել ապստամբությանը, ճիշտ չէ: Առհասարակ, երբ անդրադառնում ենք Վարդանանց շարժմանը, մենք մոռանում ենք խոսել երկրորդ` ներման հրովարտակից, որը եղել է Ավարայրի ճակատամարտից առաջ: Աշոտ Ներսիսյանն ասում, որ ներման հրովարտակով հայերին այլեւս չի պարտադրվել դավանափոխ լինել. «Այստեղ հարց է առաջանում` ներման հրովարտակից հետո Ավարայրի ճակատամարտի կարիքը կա՞ր, թե՞ ոչ: Իմ կարծիքով` չկար, գտնում եմ, որ Ավարայրի ճակատամարտն անտեղի էր»: Պատմաբանն ասում է, որ խոսում է սկզբնաղբյուրներով. «Եղիշեն ու Ղազար Փարպեցին իմ սկզբնաղբյուրներն են»:

Պատմաբանի խոսքերը, իհարկե, առաջ բերեցին ներկաների զայրույթն ու վրդովմունքը, ինչը շատ բնական էր: Ընդհանրապես, որեւէ մեկը, երբ փորձում է կարծրացած մոտեցումներին դեմ կանգնել, ենթարկվում է քննադատության: Երեկ լրագրողներից մեկը նրան անգամ աղանդավոր անվանեց, ասաց` փաստորեն, պատմաբանների մեջ էլ աղանդավորներ կան: Իսկ Աշոտ Ներսիսյանն ի պատասխան ասում էր, որ իր խոսքերը բխում են սկզբնաղբյուրներից, եւ ինքը խոսում է փաստերով: Աշոտ Ներսիսյանի դիտարկումների վերաբերյալ տեր Եսային էլ նշեց, որ միայն հաշտեցման հրովարտակի վրա կենտրոնանալով եզրակացություններ անելն անաչառ չէ:

Ինչեւէ, չնայած վիճահարույց փաստերին ու բանավեճերին` Վարդանանց տոնն ամեն տարի նշվում է, բոլոր եկեղեցիներում մատուցվում է պատարագ: Եվ միայն ասուլիսի վերջում անդրադառնալով տոնին ու նրա խոհրդին` բանախոսներն այս մասին էլ կարծիքներ հայտնեցին: Աշոտ Ներսիսյանն ընդգծեց. «Ես գերադասում եմ այն տոնը, որը հաղթանակի, ոչ թե նահատակվողների տոն է: Իսկ Վարդանանց տոնը չեմ համարում հաղթանակի տոն»: Տեր Եսային էլ միանգամայն հակառակը նշեց. «Սա միանշանակ հաղթանակի տոն է»[/b]:

----

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

Edited February 24, 2011 by Arpa