Category Archives: HISTORY

Dedicated to the 20th Anniversary of the creation of the Republic of Armenia’s Armed Forces

Summary

Babken H. Harutyunyan
We have received a very interesting document, conditionally named by researchers “Zoranamak” (Military list), since it has preserved detailed information about armed forces of the principalities (in Armenian – nakhararutyun) of the kingdom of Great Armenia.

The Armenian Army was comprised of 120 thousand soldiers and this number most probably represented the 120 strategies (or generalships) in the kingdom of Great Armenia, as stated by roman author Plinius Secundus. In other words, each strategy which corresponded to an Armenian gavar or province has brought to battlefield an average of 1000 soldiers.

The Armenian royal forces was divided into four flanks and formed a group of forty thousand combatants who then formed four military units, which operated under the command of Bdeshkhs or royal frontier-keeper leaders. From these, the Bdeshkhs of Aghdznik and Gugark had their own proprietorships from quite ancient times. The Bdeshkhs of New Shirakani (Նոր Շիրական) joined them after the year 298, and the forth whose name has not been preserved, owned no proprietorships.

To the number of royal armed forces belonged the Royal guard regiment or Malkhazyan guard regiment, which was comprised of 10000 combatants, out of which 6000 were always deployed for the king during wars or other circumstances. 4000 soldiers of this regiment were permanently stationed in the kingdom’s capital to ensure the safety of Royal Court.

The Mardpetakan regiment who protected the country’s domestic rule and order was also considered to be royal armed forces, comprised 15000 combatants. The regiment’s commander was also responsible for protecting the queen, the Women’s quarters and the safety of most royal treasures. The rest of the treasures were protected by prince of Angeltoun.

Thereby, the royal armed forces were made up of 65000 combatants who made it possible for the king to restrain possible princely actions or rebellions.

The number of combatants in the princely detachments was actually 55 thousand, however it is hard to determine the distribution of those forces into four flanks because the “Zoranamak” example we have is a literary document subjected to a series distortions. It is simply impossible to completely restore it in its original form.

The information regarding the 19400 cavalry or soldiers of the principality of Syunik bears on it the influence of a period when there was a Marzpanate (administrative unit in Sassanid Persia) in Eastern Armenia being under the rule-ship of Sassanid Persia and Marzpan or leader of the Marzpanate was the prince of Syunik – Vasak Syuni. The armed forces of the Syunik principality included the power of 15 thousand soldiers of Armenian Marzpanate, which coincide with the Mardpetakan regiment numbers.

Among the 13200 soldiers that made up the forces of the Kadmeatsik principality 10000 in reality were the soldiers of the Royal guards regiment also secretly preserved as well as the 3200 combatants from Bdeshkh principality of Nor Shirakani.

The Amatouni principality’s name in “Zoranamak” is preserved by the vague writting of Amaskoni who allegedly brought 200 soldiers to the battlefield. An examination shows that the military power of the Amatounis was in reality comprised of 800 to 900 soldiers, of which nearly 400 secretly remained in Vahouni’s units or 500 in Bagratouni’s units. The princely forces were led by four sparapets or flank commanders. 4,000 soldiers from the royal armed forces occupied the Iberian (Virk) and the so called Albanian kingdoms.

The commander of the Armenian armed forces was formally the king of Great Armenia. However, during war the entire army fought under the command of the sparapet of kingdom or general military leader.

Based on military needs, sometimes a group of soldiers was collected to serve as combatants (lands forces) comprising as a rule from infantrymen.

Summary

The Court Society of the Artaxiads (structure, function semiotics)

Albert A. Stepanyan
The paper looks at one of the crucial aspects of modern historical sociology developed thanks to the pioneering works of N. Elias and his followers in the last decades. It deals with the problem of social networks in various historical ages and environments from antiquity to our days.

The experience of the Achaemenians and Seleucids are of undoubted importance for the purpose of the paper. Therefore, they are examined with scrutiny. Their parallels are useful in establishing the structure, function and ideology of the court society of Hellenistic Great Armenia.

In this light, the inner and outer courts of Artaxiads have been taken as the main focus of discussion. The said concerns particularly the two opposite sections of Armenian nobility; one represented the tribal (dynastic), the other the bureaucratic aristocracy. They had various political ideals. For the dynasts a less centralized state was perspective. And they looked at the Parthian state as an acceptable model. As to the bureaucratic nobility, it was in favor of a centralized state and found its ideal in Rome. Artaxiad kings balanced between these two wings guaranteeing homeostasis of Great Armenia.

Armenian aristocracy and court society accumulated the core values of national identity. And in crucial points of history, it acted unanimously in accordance with the interests of national security.

Part II: Political-Historical Issues in the Context of Ethnic Belonging

Summary

Babken H. Harutyunyan

The historical geography of all the Eastern part of the kingdom of Great Armenia is discussed in the article, it illustrates that Colthene (Konqhnhv) Claudii mentioned by Ptolemy corresponds to the region of Great Armenia’s Kaspk’(Կասպք) or Caspiene (Kasphnhv).

The information given by Movses Khorenatsi about the governorships of Utik’, Gardmanatsik’ and Tsavdeatsik’ and about the principality of the Gargaratsik’(Gargarians) is elucidated through the source study examination. It is clearly illustrated that the rule of the Gardmanatsik’ was to be found on the left bank of the river Kura, the name Utik’ in Armenian simply means Ovits (Ովիտք), something which due to the development of the language became Utik’ (Ուտիք) and the name Tsavdek’ originated from the name of the Southern Armenia’s region called Tsavdek’ (Ծաղդեք).

It was also examined the issue of how many names of 26 tribes of so-called Albanians mentioned by Strabo were preserved. Comprehensive research has shown that only the name of the Caspians was preserved, and the purely Albanian declared Gargarians (գարգարացիք), Udins (ուդիններ) in those days lived in the Northern Caucasus, outside of the borders of Albania. It is illustrated also that Ouitioi (ուիտիները/վիտիները) were not found in Armenia and have no connection with the region of Utik’. The Greeks knew it very well; if the Uitis were called [Ouitioi, then Utik’ was called [Wthnh. Rich factual material shows that the name of muvkoi has absolutely nothing to do with Mukan (Մուղան), whose old Armenian form Movkan is preserved in Georgian as a loan.

Through the comparative study of the dates by Curtius Rufus and Arrianus it becomes clear that these so-called Albanians did not participate and could not have taken part in the famous Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC. Their name is simply confused with the Massagets – Mazkuts who had invaded the left bank of the river Kura and who had taken over the Albanian kingdom, whose fellow Mid-Asian tribsmen had participated indeed in the Battle of Gaugamela. The article shows that the Albanian – Massaget confusion also was to be found in the works by Plinius Secundus and Solinus.

It is proved that ’Alarodioi are not Albanians, they belong to the Iranian-speaking Saspeir tribes, which have taken the way to the georgianisation. It is also shown very clearly and objectively that only the Achaemenid Persia’s XIII satrapy was situated in the territory of Armenia, and the XVIII satrapy occupied the territory of the Eastern Georgia and the left bank of the river Kura, and included Matiens, Saspeirs and Alarodis.

The basic conclusion of the article is that the name Albania given by Greek and Roman authors and the name Aghuank’ given by Armenian historiographs has a purely Armenian origin and means “Country of fertile field”. And as the left bank of the river Kura was the continuation of the Armenian fertile | eld, the state formed there was called by the Armenians Alobank’ (Ալոբանք), which through the development of the Armenian language became Aluank (Aghuank’), and in the Greek – Roman world the Armenian “Alobank’” was associated with the Celtic toponym of Albania, and thus was transformed to Albania.

Part One: Issues on Ethnic History

Summary

Babken H. Harutyunyan
In the present article an attempt is being made to investigate a number of issues concerning the ethnic and political history of Ałuank‘ or the Caucasian country called Albania.

According to the results of the investigation, the place name Albania from GrecoRoman sources and the place name Ałuank‘ from Armenian sources have merely Armełuank‘ from Armenian sources have merely Armeuank‘ from Armenian sources have merely Armenian origin and mean “a country of a fruitful field”, i.e. they do not have an ethnic origin. The names originate from the proto-initial form “Alobank‘” which emerges from the instumental case of the word “ał” (salt), which in ancient times was pronounced as “alob,” then it was changed into “alov”, and later into “alu” and “ału”.

The Armenians called “Alobank,” “Alovank,” and “Ałuank” the fruitful field on the right shore of the Kura River, and later the state, finding on the left shore of the Kura River, was called by the same name, as “a country of a fruitful field,”and the people were called the “Albanians” or “Ałuans,” as “people of a fruitful field”, as it was the continuation of the Armenian fruitful field. The people living on the left shore of the Kura River never called themselves that way, the testification of which is the fact that after the decline of the Albanian Kingdom, no tribe preserved this name.

Most likely, this state was initially called after the name of the Mazkuts or Massagets, and afterwards after the names of the Gargarians and again Mazkuts who successively invaded from the Nothern Caucasus in the Transcaucasus. It is not by chance that Faustus Byzand identifies the Kingdom of Mazkuts with the Kingdom of Ałuank‘ or Albania.

It is being shown that in the recordings of the Greek geographer Strabo, among the union of the 26 Albanian tribes there were neither the Gargarians, nor the Udins nor a number of other tribes which, notwithstanding the viewpoints of investigators, during the times of Strabo were in the Northern Caucasus.

It is also shown that the Caspians entered into the union of the Albanian tribes, but are not identified with the Albanians.

In connection with the Caspians it is revealed that the XI and XV satrapies of Achaemenid Persia were not in the region of the Transcaucasus, and the XVIII was in the region of Eastern Georgia and in the so-called Albania region, consequently the Matieni, Saspiri and Alarodii do not belong to the tribes of the Armenian Highland.

Great Armenia and the Civilization Frontier of Euphrates (At the turn of I B. C. – A. D. I centuries)

Summary

Albert A. Stepanyan

The paper deals with the problems of Great Armenia during the mentioned period. Some important aspects of the geopolitical status of the kingdom are taken into consideration. It resulted from the Roman, Parthian and Armenian scenarios interwoven under concrete situations. Four paradigms of the status are the main focus of the paper: Great Armenia as a Roman province, a client kingdom under Roman nominees, independence under Artaxiads and independence secured by the national aristocracy. The last two paradigms consolidated Armenian society and looked at the settlement of the problem through compromise.

This compromise, in a sense, is reminscent of the settlement of the Treaty of Artashat arranged by Gn. Pompeius and Tigran II (66 B.C.). In 18 A.D., one of the most influential members of the imperial house, Germanicus, arrived in Armenia. In Artashat, he called an assembly (agora) and managed the accession of Zenon to the throne of Artaxiads. This Pontian prince (probably, an Artaxiad by his mother) was brought up in Armenia, and had gained the favour both of the aristocracy and the people. As a result of this settlement, Artashat was again recognized as the political center of the region from North Mesopotamia to the Caucasian Mountains.

“Goris-2010: the Annual Year of the Absurd Theatre”: the Political Drivel of Razik Mehtiyev, the President Recruitment Manager of Azerbaijan

Summary

Babken H. Harutyunyan
The RA president Serj Sargsyan gave a speech in front of the Diaspora correspondents on October 16 of this year, making an appeal to bring the true Press to the attention of the world society. His speech evoked a state of rage in the authority circles of Azerbaijan, and on October 29, R. Mehtiyev, the president recruitment manager of Azerbaijan, came up with an article, not only trying to take under suspicion and to deny the theses of the RA president’s speech, but also the achievements of the Armenian historiographical mind.

In the present article, on the factual material it is being shown that in the person of R. Mehtiyev the Azerbaijanian historiography, while examining the Armenian issues, makes falsification and leads a policy of artificially falsifying the simplest issues.

In the article such questions are being examined as the problems of the Azerbaijani being new-comers and formation time questions, the impossibility and drivel of the Caucasian Albans being the ancestors of the Azerbaijani, Strabon’s and other authors’ deliberate information falsification by R. Mehtiyev, the emergence of the geographical and governmental region name “Azerbaijan” from the Iranian Atur-Patakan, the problem of the Turkish falsifications of the Armenian place-names of the Eastern Armenia caused because of the Muslim bends, Vararakn village’s preceding the Khanqyand barracks and residence, the genocide committed by the ancestors of the Azerbaijani, the Ghzlbash tribes, in the Eastern Armenian at the beginning of the XVII century, the emigration of the Armenians forced by the Christian states in the second half of the XVIII century and in the first 30 years of the XIX century, the fact of Nagorno Karabakh being a part of the historical Armenia, the place-name Ejmiatsin having no connection with the “Uch-Muazin” invention, the circumstance of giving Ejmiatsin the name “Uch-qilisa”, the real picture of the Persian Armenians after the 1826-1828 Russian-Persian War, the real picture of the Nagorno Karabakh population in the XVIII century and at the beginning of the XIX century, the NKAO demographical problems, the so-called “Genocide of Khojalu”, the legitimacy of the Armenians’ self-determination of Nagorno Karabakh.

Part III. Efforts for Homogenic Equilibrum under Artavazd II

Summary

Albert A. Stepanyan
A stereotype on this crucial period of history of Great Armenia is obvious im modern articles and monographs. It considers the country as a minor partner of her powerful neighbours, Rome and Parthia. Consequently, all events of her history are viewed as results of their direct or indirect influence.

An attempt to break this superstition has been undertaken in this paper. Profound economic, social and religious metamorphoses of the Armenian society have been illuminated. This gave opportunity to appreciate the rule of Artavazd II from “inner dimensions” of Great Armenia. In dangers and instabilities of Parthian campaigns of M.Crassus and M.Antonius, the king tended to keep identical (amical) relations both with East (Parthia) and West (Rome). However, he followed this complementary policy with rigour and neglected the necessity of compromises. It brought his reign to failure.

King Artavazd was captured and executed by M.Antonius. Despite this negative experience, complementary policy and civilization choice must be appreciated as one of more important elements of social homeostasis of the Armenians during centuries.

bertstepanyan@yahoo.com

On Martin Tamkey’s Dissertation: “Armin T. Wegner and the Armenians: one Witness’s Claim and the Reality”

Summary

Albert V. Musheghyan
In 1980-90s the evangelic theologian Martin Tamkey came up with a number of articles, a PhD dissertation and a monograph in Goethingen, Marburg and Hamburg. The mentioned works were addressed against the pure memory of the witness of the Armenian Genocide, Armin Theofil Wegner. In his dissertation “Armin Theofil Wegner: One Witness’s Claim and the Reality”, separately published as a book in Hamburg in 1993 and 1996, written on the basis of the materials collected by him in the literary archive and extraneous documents, professor M. Tamkey has taken the task to prove that ostensibly Armin Wegner who served as a sanitarian in the German military headquarters did not witness the Armenian Genocide in Mesopotamia in 1915-1916. He also defends the mendacious thesis of the Turkish historiography according to which during World War I thousands of Armenians who were displaced from Asia Minor merely because of military necessity died in the Syrian Desert only because of unfavourable conditions. In the article based on the testimonies of contemporaries, Martin Tamkey’s own new publication and Wegner’s diaries the undivine and insolvent viewpoints of the Doctor of Theological Studies are being one after the other denied.

Part 2. The Extra-Social Civilization Homeostasis of Great Armenia: Tigran II.

Summary

Albert A. Stepanyan
The paper looks at the problems of extra-social homeostasis incorporated by the empire of Tigran the Great (80-60-s B.C.). Scholars define it as global civilization (Pax armenica) consisted of three basic elements. The first was Great Armenia, the core state. The second was “the visible empire” from Caucasian mountains to Egypt. The third represented “the charismatic empire” up to the borders of India.

The empie fell under pressure of Rome, and Great Armenia changed her status into the centre of the region “from Caucasus to North Mesopotamia”.The central issue of the metamorphosus the treaty of Artaxata has been detalized in the paper from the point of view of international right of the time.

Part 1. The Intracommunal Homeostasis. Artaxias I

Summary

Albert A. Stepanyan
The paper looks at the civilizational interpretation of one of the crucial epoques of ancient Armenia. It begins with a brief survey of the term “civilization” in modern humanities. Among the main features of this approach the homeostasis has been taken into consideration.

Two varieties of homeostasis are basic for my discussion – intra/ and extra-social. The first of them made the meaning of reforms of Artaxias I – the founder of the Artaxiad dynasty in Armenia. They embraced a large scope of social stratum including cadastre and administrative system, trade and religious beliefs, culture and army etc. All of them looked at the end of rationalization of social stratum of Great Armenia by overpowering traditional (tribal and dynastic) structures. King Artaxias was successful in his innovation program. Owing to them Armenia could keep step with the developed states of the time.