Category Archives: MEMORY

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of death of Commander Drastamat Kanayan

Summary

Hamlet M. Gevorgyan, Arthur S. Ghazaryan

Keywords – Drastamat Kanayan, battle of Surmalu, Republic of Armenia, front of Kars, Ararat valley, Karo of Sasun, Kurd, Koghb, Kazim Karabekir Pasha, Caracalla, Yerevan, Vahe Artsruni, A. Aharonyan, Igdir, Kuro Tarkhanyan, Martiros Abrahamyan.

The battle of Surmalu led by Drastamat Kanayan was the last battle of the Armenian-Turkish war of 1920, when the Armenian army won a decisive victory. But this fact did not receive due attention among Armenian historiography and society. Although the Government of Armenia and the army’s high command believed that the main front was the one of Kars, but Surmalu was not at all inferior to Kars due to its geographical position and tactical importance. The front of Surmalu was closer to Yerevan and to the most densely populated region – the Ararat valley, besides, compared to Kars front there were no sufficient troops and weapons. The victory of the Armenian armed forces in the battle of Surmalu saved Armenians of Ararat valley from being slaughtered.

Thus, the victory of the Armenian troops in the battle of Surmalu during the Turkish-Armenian War of 1920 was crucial to the future survival of Armenia, and Dro has once again proved that he deserved the name of the invincible commander.

Against european solidarity of the great powers

Summary

Tigran R. Yepremyan

Key words – Napoleon Bonaparte, European System, nation, self-determination, sovereignty, liberty, equality, Armenians, the Congress of Vienna, legitimacy, equilibrium.

The article comparatively examines the new paradigm in international relations based on the French revolutionary ideas and sifted by Napoleon Bonapart. The armies of the Revolutionary France were transforming Europe in accordance with the republican values and the universal principles of Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité. In this context the goal of Napoleon’s policy of exporting the French Revolution was the creation of commonwealth of European sovereign nations, which was to supersede ancien régime and sovereign monarchs, based on the European equilibrium. His policy marked an important step towards the formation of the right of self-determination of nations. The Napoleonic structural and institutional reforms promoted the rise of the national ideologies and the modernization of European societies and states into modern nation-states. Thus, the Napoleonic period marked the transition from the ancien régime to the modern era.

The French Revolution was the first great pan-European social upheaval, which had a secular logic, thus affecting also the neighbouring Islamic world.

Moreover, its ideas caused a great schism between Christianity and states affecting the very basis of group cohesion and creating new patterns of loyalty and new paradigms of identity formation. Thus, the ideas of French Revolution found their reflections also among the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Particularly, the Greek and the Armenian elite of Constantinople, who were familiar with the Western culture, were linguistically and intellectually prepared to accept the revolutionary ideas. The idea of liberty in the Ottoman context acquired a new political content becoming the war-cry of the national liberation struggles of the oppressed people against the Ottoman despotism. The idea of equality due to the corporative structure of the Ottoman society found itself in a different context having little effect when appealing to the individuals, but getting profound response while appealing to the ethnic or religious groups. Thus, the idea of equality was raised from individualistic level to the interethnic level and found its expression as equality between nations, which was later raised to the right of self-determination of nations.

The Napoleonic “Grand Empire,” which was stretching from Holland to Poland and from Spain to Balkans, represented a conglomeration of three groups of territories: annexed lands, conquered countries, and allied countries. Conditionally we call this as the Napoleonic System of International Relations, where the ideas of national sovereignty, liberty and fraternal equality were recognized at least in the ideological sense. Remarkably, Napoleon’s European policy had a profound influence on both ideological and structural unification of Europe. The creation of administrative and legal uniformity, economic unity, and the territorial reorganization in various parts of Europe helped to stimulate national aspirations.

In contrast to the Napoleonic system the victorious conservative powers gathered in Vienna for the refoundation of Europe made their decisions based on the principles of équilibre, légitimité and compensation trying to stop the general transformation. Thus, Napoleon’s concept of the integration of European nations was replaced with the great powers’ Concert of Europe. However, Napoleon’s victories and the French hegemony over Europe proved the supremacy of the French nation-state and sent a clear signal to the European rulers that modernization of state apparatus based on the French model was indispensable if they wanted to survive and to continue playing a decisive role in the international arena.

New details concerning the crimes committed by Armenian revolutionary committee

Summary

Gevorg S. Stepanyan

Key words – Armenian Revolutionary Committee, ARF Dashnaktsutyun, the Cheka, arrest, Bandus, Vardan Tellalyan (V. Bakur), deprivation of liberty, Mushegh Aghayan, Hamazasp, Oliver Baldwin, hacked to death.

On December 2, 1920, at 13:00 the representatives of the government of Armenia Drastamat Kanayan (Dro) and Hambartsum Terteryan and the authorized representative of Soviet Russia – Boris Legrand signed an agreement consisted of an 8-points in Yerevan, by which the government of the country peacefully passed into the hands of Armenian Revolutionary Committee. According to the fourth and fifth points of the agreement, Russia and the Revolutionary Committee undertook not to use violence against the military structure, the former members of the government and the leaders of ARF Dashnaktsutyun. But the Bolsheviks did not fulfill any of the points of agreement, their aim was to carry out regime change by civil war, bloodshed and the class struggle. As a result of the ongoing violence and arrests, in February 1921, the Cheka prison, as well as a the military prison and the central prison of Yerevan were full of political prisoners. On February 14, the Cheka began secret extrajudicial executions at the prison of Yerevan, thus many Armenian intellectuals and prominent figures of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun fell victim to it. February 16-18 were the worst days in the central prison in Yerevan. Cheka decided to begin executions and massacres in the night from 16 to 17 February. Bloody holiday was personally headed by Avis Nurijanyan, Suleyman Nuri – Turk by nationality, S. Amirkhanyan and Tatar butcher of Hantari market in Yerevan, whose name was Tahir. At night from 17 to 18 February the central prison turned into a slaughterhouse, executions and murders with an ax were recommenced. Among the victims were such priceless Armenian heroes of the national liberation struggle and prominent military figures as Hamazasp (Srvandztyants), Nick. Ghorghanyan, Makedon Hakobjanyan, Vardan Tellalyan – officer from Sebastia and others. Regarding the number of dead prisoners some clarifying information is provided by Martiros of Bashgarni: According to the data of Chief Bureau of Kanaker district, 75 people were shot and hacked to death.

Summary

Gagik G. Danielyan

Key words – Mamluk Sultanate, Mongols, Il-khanate, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, Ketbugha, Hetum I, Bohemond VI, Qutuz, Baybars, Armenian-Mamluk relations.

In the middle of the XIII century important events occurred in Egypt that changed drastically the political situation not only in Egypt, but in the Middle East as a whole. In 1250, as a result of the overthrow of the Ayyūbid dynasty, the Mamlūks seized the power in Cairo and established the Mamlūk Sultanate (1250-1517). A few years later, another great political power came into existence in the region – the Mongol Il-khanate of Persia (1256-1335). The Cilician Armenian Kingdom, which had already submitted to Mongol suzerainty, was also involved into a constant struggle between the two states. In 1260 king Het’um tооk an active part in the Mongol invasion of Syria led by Hulegu. However, after the Mongol defeat at ’Ayn Ğālūt, the Mongol-Armenian alliance became the main reason for strained relations between Cilician Armenia and the Mamlūk Sultanate, that soon developed into a direct military confrontation.

From the history of the formation of the interstate border between Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan

Summary

Hamo K. Sukiasyan

On the basis of the Armenian-Russian agreement signed on December 2, 1920 in Yerevan, Soviet Russia recognized the province of Zangezur of Yelizavetpol province as part of Soviet Armenia. Previously, on November 30, 1920 the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan also declared Zangezur property of Soviet Armenia.

On August 31, 1921 People‘s Commissars of ASSR took the decision „about the formation of the province of Zangezur“, which meant only the territory under the guidance of Njdeh (western part of the province). Thus, although the leaders of the ASSR were pretending that Zangezur joined the Soviet Armenia, it concerned only the western part of the province.

On October 12-13,1921 at the meeting with the participation of 43 „responsible figures“ from Armenia and Azerbaijan, it was decided to hold a temporary border between the two states. Accordingly, the territories where in April 1921 they held the elections for local councils, were considered part of the territory of Azerbaijan, and those areas which were under the rule of G. Nzhdeh until July 1921 were attached to Armenia. A similar decision was taken just the day before during the meeting of the provincial Revolutionary Committee of Zangezur.

In fact, on the basis of an agreement signed in Yerevan on December 2, 1920, the province of Zangezur, which was part of the Soviet Armenia, now was implicitly divided between Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan.

The destruction of Turkish army in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria in autumn 1918

Summary

Samvel A. Poghosyan

One of the major hostilities of World War I was the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918. It went down in military history as a specific battle, where it became possible to preserve absolute confidentiality of the offensive’s directions, transfer of the troops; it was secured a close cooperation with the aviation and cavalry. The Armenian Legion, who fought under the French flag, participated and played a significant role in the victory of that battle. British General Allenby carried out the operation successfully, which led to the complete destruction of Turkish forces in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and the regions have been liberated. As a result, the Ottoman Empire had to capitulate.

Summary

Ishkhan G. Chiftchyan

Forced Islamization of the Armenians before and during the Genocide led to two main results: on the one hand, physically survived generation changed religion and national identity, and now, after 100 years, it is on the lookout, searching for ways to return and to self-determination. On the other hand, it lost itself in this experience and disappeared being deprived of religious and national identity. There have been temporary and voluntary Islamizations that made possible to return to their original identity after some time. Any largescale study concerning the problems of Islamized Armenians on the territory of Turkey and beyond it has not been carried out, which makes the present attempts quite complicated. Even the descendants of the victims had great difficulty trying to address the issues of the existence of Islamized Armenians. Meanwhile, the total delay still harms the common cause.

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of WW I

Summary

Tigran S. Simyan

The article traces the model of the “host-intellectual” in its “passive” and “active” forms, as a guarantee for the “recovery” and democratization of a society, as a generator of meaning for updating the values of capital (Bourdieu) in society. Special attention is paid to habitus prominent pacifist Romain Rolland, Hermann Hesse, and an axiological “war” (conflict) is traced between anti-pacifists (Bergson, Hauptmann) and pacifists (Rolland, Hesse) in the context of the First World War.

Summary

Tovmas G. Poghosyan
Jivani refers to the questions concerning the liberation of the Armenian people not only in allegoric form typical for the ashug poetry, for example as the famous song which begins with the words “The unlucky days…”, but he also wrote a series of works dedicated to the heroes of liberation struggle in the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th century and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Transcaucasia in 1905-1906.,

The above-mentioned works’ structure is based on national-political generalizations expressed in poetical compositions. Conditioned by this circumstance, Jivani’s works have on one hand important literary-social meaning and on the other hand, they have some value of documents and historical primary sources put in poetical form, as they have some information about events and social figures of that time.

Jivani refers to the questions concerning the liberation of the Armenian people not only in allegoric form typical for the ashug poetry, for example as the famous song which begins with the words “The unlucky days…”, but he also wrote a series of works dedicated to the heroes of liberation struggle in the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th century and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Transcaucasia.

The above-mentioned works’ structure is based on national-political generalizations expressed in poetical compositions. Conditioned by this circumstance, Jivani’s works have on one hand important literary-social meaning and on the other hand, they have some value of documents and historical primary sources put in poetical form, as they have some information about events and social figures of that time.

Part I: the warm friendship of Simon Zavaryan and Hovhannes Tumanyan

Summary

Susanna G. Hovhannisyan
The social activity of the great persons – Simon Zavaryan and Hovhannes Tumanyan is one of the interesting pages of the Armenian political thought of the beginning of the 20th century. The meetings and cooperation of these two famous persons are connected to the activity of AR Federation, which was the primary force in the Armenian liberation war, as well as to the different spheres of the Armenian life activity. They were gathered with the idea of the survival and freedom of the Armenian people.

The social, national, educational and other projects of Zavaryan and Tumanyan had just one goal – to develop the social life and people in general. Nevertheless, that period full of political mess and disorder left all their projects undone.

Despite the different characters, they were holding the same views concerning the development of the national literature, the role of woman, patriotism, culture and so on. But they were in variance in the questions of foreign policy, especially in the question of Russia’s policy.

Zavaryan and Tumanyan have almost always been on the same side of the barricade, they’ve been together in the same political group – «Young Armenia», in the same party – AR Federation. They have given lectures in the youthful secret organization called “Tsiatsan” (Rainbow), which purposed to introduce the Armenian literature and history to the people contributing in that way to the rise of the national self-consciousness and freedom-loving ideas. They have also run the risk together during the Armenian-Tatar conflict in 1905-1906.

Despite the differences and common things in approaches of Zavaryan and Tumanyan, they are very timely even now. Their researches and publicistic articles, numerous ideas and the whole life that they lived are original and necessary lectures for every Armenian public figure at all times.