Military Review

Armenian Knights 1050-1350's

66
Not one I saw a bold man, -
Now they have long been in graves,

And even the ant to drive off the face,
Went to the lions, they can not.
Hovhannes Tlkuranzi. Armenian medieval lyrics. L. O. publishing house "Soviet writer", 1972


Knights and chivalry of three centuries. In our "journey" through the "era of the Knights of the Chainmail" we have already passed a lot of countries and finally, leaving Europe, found themselves in the mountains of the Caucasus. And we will start with the Armenian soldiers, since the Armenians are one of the most ancient peoples of the Middle East. During the period under review, they inhabited two separate areas, the first of which was their original homeland in northeastern Anatolia, and the second was in the Caucasus. There was also a number of Arab-Armenian emirates north of Lake Van. These areas had a different level of autonomy with numerous Christian or Muslim princes, but usually remained under Byzantine or Muslim suzerainty. The long struggle for independence led to the fact that at the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th century, the Byzantine Empire recognized the fact of the political hegemony of Armenia in the South Caucasus - at least with regard to the Christian states that are there. Armenian kings Ashot I, Smbat I and Ashot II had the title of “Archon the Archons”, which gave them supreme authority over all other rulers of Transcaucasia, adhering to the Byzantine orientation. For its part, the Arab Caliphate granted the Armenian kings the honorary title of shahinshah - “the king of kings”, which gave the kings of Armenia the right of legal primacy over all other landowners in Armenia and Transcaucasia. At the same time, the Armenian kings from the Bagratids dynasty managed to regain the use of the term “Great Armenia”.

Armenian Knights 1050-1350's

St. Theodore Stratilates kills the snake. For this, grateful residents proclaimed him a stratilate — that is, a warlord, after which he continued to perform feats in the name of faith until his martyr's demise. We are, however, interested in this case the armor depicted on this bas-relief. They are plate, designed for protection from arrows! (One of the bas-reliefs of Surb Khach Church, Armenia)


One step from great to negligible


However, for a number of reasons (one of which was a military defeat) in 1045, Armenia as an independent state ceased to exist and completely passed under the authority of Byzantium. The exodus of Armenians began, the masses leaving the land, who came under the authority of the Byzantines. Armenians managed to preserve the remnants of their national-state structure only in some places: Syunik (Zangezur), Tashir and Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1080, in Cilicia, Armenians also formed their own independent principality, which in 1198, under Levon II, became a kingdom. It is also quite obvious that it was Armenian Christians who were culturally dominant in their region for many centuries, despite the presence of a significant Islamic population present in many Armenian cities.

Happy country rich in iron


British researcher D. Nicole believes that the traditional military culture of Armenia was similar to the military culture of western Iran and to a lesser extent the culture of Byzantium and the Arab lands. The military elite was a rider in heavy armor. Moreover, it was relatively numerous due to the fact that Armenia was rich in iron. Large shields, spears and swords were favored. weapons such riders even at the end of the XI century, when single-edged saber was used as a weapon. Mounted archery was also known, but was not used as such by Central Asian nomads at the beginning of the attack and during the pursuit. Riders lined up and fired at the enemy in volleys. In addition, Armenians were considered qualified siege engineers.


Here we also see a bas-relief depicting the formidable warrior Goliath. And he is also wearing armor from metal plates rounded at the top (upper part of the armor) and below (bottom), and the holes of their fastenings are visible on the lower plates.


To the West, to Edessa and Antioch!


Before the defeat of Manzikert in 1071, the mass emigration of Armenians was directed to the west, to Cappadocia. Since the 1050-ies, the Armenians who remained in the East have tried, as far as possible, to defend themselves, but after Manzikert every local feudal lord had no choice but to defend both his own territory and his people. The breakthrough of the Turkmen nomads to the central Anatolian plateau led to the second Armenian migration, this time south from Cappadocia to the Taurus Mountains. New cultural centers of Armenians appeared. Among them, the most important were Edessa (Urfa) and Antioch (Antakya), which were controlled by Filaret Varazhnuni, an Armenian military leader who once controlled most of the Byzantine border in southeastern Anatolia. Without succumbing to the Byzantines and Turks, Filaret entered into an alliance with various neighboring Arab princes. By this time, the Armenian "army" included infantry and cavalry, as well as a large number of Western European mercenaries - mainly Normans, who had previously served Byzantium. However, even with such troops, Filaret was still defeated by the Seljuk Turks. But they did not smash all the Armenian principalities in a row, and those whose rulers were less ambitious and obstinate, allowed them to retain power, land, and subjects, probably, to use them as pawns in a more serious struggle with the Arab Emirs of the Euphrates and the North Syria. Urfa was one of those highly militarized city-states, which, with its permanent garrison and city militia, existed until the First Crusade. Others, such as Antakya, were directly subordinate to the Seljuk government, and by the time the Crusaders appeared, the local military elite was largely Turkic.


Armenian soldiers with miniatures from the manuscript “Roman about Alexander”, XIV century. (Library of San Lazzaro, Venice)


State in the ring of enemies


Small Armenia in Cilicia existed for quite a long time, although it was surrounded by enemies from almost all sides and even from the sea. His strength, if not wealth, lay in the Taurus mountains to the north. The whole region was the border between Byzantium and the Islamic world for many centuries and is full of castles and fortresses, although it fell under the control of Armenia by the beginning of the 1080-s, when most of the local Greek population was driven out of here. And let all this time in the state there was a fierce struggle for power, during which the rivals swore allegiance and betrayed each other, then submitting to Byzantium, then fighting with it, until this last outpost of Christianity, the state of Lesser Armenia, existed here long enough what did not finally fall under the blows of the Egyptian Mamluks in 1375 year.


Thumbnail from the same source as the previous thumbnail. The soldiers clearly see the spheroconic helmets of the eastern type with shoulder caps, barmitsa and chain mail.


Army on salary!


However, despite all the internal feuds, from the second half of the 13th century, the rulers of Cilicia Armenia had a regular army, from 12 thousands of horsemen and 50 thousands of infantrymen. In peacetime, this royal army was stationed in different cities and fortresses of the country. A special tax was levied on the population for the maintenance of the army, and soldiers for service received a salary. During the year of service, the rider received 12, and the infantryman received 3 gold coins. The nobles were given a "hrog" —that is a kind of "feeding" from the population, which was assigned to it. And, of course, the soldiers relied part of the production.

Simple and clear system


At the head of the army of Cilicia Armenia was the king himself. But he had a commander-in-chief, called sparapet, similar to the European constable. Sparapet had two assistants: Marajakht (Armenian marshal), who performed the function of chief quartermaster, and the Spasvalar, the head of the cavalry.

As in Europe, the army of Cilicia Armenia was formed on the basis of a flax system. All large and small landowners and dziavory knights were obliged to serve the king. The unauthorized departure of a vassal from the army or his refusal to fulfill the king’s demands were considered treason with all the ensuing consequences. But then the service was followed by a reward in the form of a land award. Either the soldiers just paid salaries, which was also not bad. He can buy land for this money later.


And here we see the "continuation of the same topic." But on separate warriors chainmail, while some have armor made of plates.

Armenian chivalry - dzavori


Armenian dzhiavor were the most real knights. There is an opinion that there was no Armenian knightly orders in Cilicia, since there was a regular army there. Nevertheless, the institution of chivalry existed there. Initiation into knights was carried out according to strictly enforceable rules and was timed to any worthy event, for example, a coronation or a major victory over the enemy. “Instructions on chivalry” (the original document has been preserved!) Reached us, where it is written that people from among the feudal lords are dedicated to knighthood, from 14 years. Dziavor wore blue clothes that showed a cross in the color of gold and a horseman that signified his ministry. In this case, the knighthood was of two ranks - the highest and the lowest. Well, and who got into what rank, depended primarily on ... the volume of land holding.

Infantrymen- "ramiki"


During the war, both citizens and peasants were recruited into the army, of whom the Ramic infantry (Armenian "common people") was recruited. With full mobilization, it was possible to collect (according to the sources that have reached us) an army in 80 — 100 thousands of people. In addition to the cavalry, there were detachments of archers, as well as personnel of servicemen, servants and military doctors. Young warriors who did not belong to the nobility, after the call were military training.

Engaged to the sea!


At sea, Armenia continuously competed with Genoa and Venice for dominance in the Mediterranean, and often fought with them. These wars often occurred in the territorial waters of Cilician Armenia and off its coast. Numerous both Armenian and foreign testimonies of eyewitness chroniclers of those events (Sanuto, Dandolo, Genoese anonym, Hetum and others) have come down to us, so today we know quite a bit about all the ups and downs of these wars. The ships were built in Armenian shipyards, the sailors were Armenians too, and the Armenian merchants were brave seafarers who were not inferior to the Genoese and Venetians!


Figure-reconstruction M. Gorelika. It is easy to see who and from where he took as the basis for drawing the Armenian soldier on the lower right. (Gorelik, M. Warriors of Eurasia: From the VIIIth century BC. To the XVIIth century AD. L .: Montvert Publications, 1995.)


Mercenaries in demand


It is also interesting that the bulk of the mercenary troops came to the many regions of the Middle East with the territory of compact residence of Armenians. Most of those who served in the Crusader states probably came from Cilicia, the regions of Taurus or Lesser Armenia, and Armenian mercenaries fought both in cavalry and infantry. Armenians have long played a prominent role in the Byzantine army. For example, approximately 50 000 Armenian militias were supposed to be disbanded by the Byzantine authorities only in 1044 year, but other Armenian troops, especially from the vassal princes of western Cilicia, were still in the service of the Byzantine emperors and more than a century later.

But Armenians were just as noticeable in the armies of the enemies of Byzantium. For example, Armenians served in the Selcuk-Roma troops (Turkish Anatolia), first as allies against the Byzantines during the first phase of the Seljuks invasion, and then submitting to the new conquerors. In fact, a significant part of the Armenian nobility has never fled from its original Eastern Anatolian homeland, and subsequently, albeit slowly, was absorbed by the Seljuq military elite. And the Armenians fought side by side with the Seljuks and against the Mongols, and against the Mamluks, who fought with the same Mongols! Such are the paradoxes stories...

In the same Syria, the Armenians served as archers in the armies of Sultan Nur ad-Din and his heirs. It is also interesting that the squad of Armenian cavalry, who was in Damascus in 1138, belonged to a heretical sect known as Arevorik, who allegedly believed that Christ was ... the sun. That is, even sectarians and those at that time had their own military detachments, and were not at all merely left fanatics who had left the world and dressed in rags. However, the main role of the Armenians in the Muslim world happened to play in later Fatimid Egypt, where at times they actually ruled this country.

Medieval chroniclers report ...


How big was the size of the Armenian army? Thus, according to the historian Tovma Artsruni, who lived at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries, Smbat I had under his command ... an 100-thousandth army. Reporting on the festivities held in the capital of Ani on the occasion of the ascension to the throne of Gagik I, Mateos Urhaezi reported: “On that day he conducted a review of his troops, consisting of 100, thousands of elected men, who were well-equipped, famous in battle and extremely brave. " In 974, King Ashot III gathered against the army of John Tzimiskes 80-thousand army, which included mercenaries. The army consisted of two main divisions - marzpetakan and arkunakan. The first was collected throughout the country and was subordinated to the commander - marzpet or marzpan. Under Tsar Smbat I, the marzpan was one Gurgen Artsruni, under Gagik I - Ashot. Moreover, the number of cavalry was half the infantry, that is, approximately 1 / 3 of the number of the entire army. As in Europe, the feudal troops, who were part of the tsarist army, had their own lords, commanders and their own flags, and clothes of the same color. For example, it is reported that the soldiers of King Abbas (vassal Smbate II) wore red clothes.


Royal standard of the Cilician sovereigns.


At the time of the weakening of the Armenian state, in 1040, the number of the Armenian army, according to contemporaries, numbered 30 thousands. However, it is emphasized that these are only those people who were recruited in the capital Ani and in its vicinity. How much these figures can be trusted today is another question.

Armenians are skillful builders!


It is also known that the Armenians were skillful builders and built powerful fortresses in very inaccessible places. As a result of this construction, the Armenian kingdom had a powerful defensive belt of fortresses: the fortresses of Syunik and Artsakh, and also the fortresses of Vaspurakan and Mocca defended it from the east and southeast, in the west there were the Armenia High fortresses and Tsopka. Near the capital Ani, to its west, the Kars fortress and Artagers, Tignis and Magasaberd were located to the west, and the fortresses of Garni, Bjni and Amberd defended approaches to it from the south and east.

Использованная литература:
1. Gorelik, M. Warriors of Eurasia: From the VIII century BC to the XVII century AD. L .: Montvert Publications, 1995.
2. Sukiasyan A.G. History of the Cilician Armenian State and Law (XI-XIV centuries) / resp. ed. Z. G. Bashindzhagyan. Yerevan: Mitk, 1969. C. 158-161.
3. Nicolle, D. Arms and Armor of the Crusading Era, 1050 - 1350. UK L .: Greenhill Books. Vol. 2.


To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Knighthood of medieval Hungary
Knighthood of the medieval Balkans
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Knights of Outremer
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Knights of the South of Italy and Sicily 1050-1350.
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Part of 11. Knights of Italy 1050-1350.
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Part of 10. Knights of the Kingdom of Arelat
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Part of 9. Germanic effigii
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Part of 8. Knights of the Holy Roman Empire
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Part of 7. Knights of Spain: Leon, Castile and Portugal
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Knights of Spain: Aragon, Navarre and Catalonia (part 6)
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. CH 5. Knights of France. Central and southern areas
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Knights of Ireland (part 4)
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Knights of Scotland (part 3)
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Knighthood and knights of England and Wales. Part of 2
Knights and chivalry of three centuries. Knighthood and knights of northern France. Part of 1
Polish chivalry. From Boleslav the Brave to Vladislav Jagiellon
Scandinavian knighthood 1050-1350.
Knights and non-knights of the Baltic
Warriors of the Bulgarian elite 1050-1350's
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 July 2019 05: 17
    +7
    Unknown to me pages of history!
    Vyacheslav Olegovich - thanks !!!
  2. svp67
    svp67 14 July 2019 06: 22
    +9
    “On that day, he conducted a review of his troops, consisting of 100 thousand chosen husbands, [who all] were well equipped, glorified in battle and extremely brave”
    Why not 1 000 000 then? Well, who fed them and provided everything necessary. If, according to modern estimates, such a well-armed and equipped army could make up, at most, no more than 5% of the working population, then were there so many able-bodied people?
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 14 July 2019 06: 55
      +6
      In general, this issue has been raised more than once. It is not for nothing that the author inserts the word "presumably" in every phrase referring to the number of troops.
      1. vlad106
        vlad106 16 July 2019 07: 49
        +1
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        In general, this issue has been raised more than once. It is not for nothing that the author inserts the word "presumably" in every phrase referring to the number of troops.

        Quote: svp67
        “On that day, he conducted a review of his troops, consisting of 100 thousand chosen husbands, [who all] were well equipped, glorified in battle and extremely brave”
        Why not 1 000 000 then? Well, who fed them and provided everything necessary. If, according to modern estimates, such a well-armed and equipped army could make up, at most, no more than 5% of the working population, then were there so many able-bodied people?


        )) I agree completely !!
        And then "Armenian knights", "Armenian king", "Armenian troops out of 100 thousand chosen" ...

        one more "God's chosen"
        "we are drifting"
        but in fact, masters sit on someone else’s neck, half-beggars-beggars
        1. Yuri
          Yuri 28 August 2019 00: 57
          0
          Can you please give an example of the (actual and truthful) begging and freebie?
          And yet, if you undertake to mimic someone's accent, then you are my advice, try to be at least more reliable
        2. Armen Gabrielyan
          Armen Gabrielyan 8 January 2020 12: 28
          0
          Absheron fuel oil and fat tail trace of your opus not hide
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 14 July 2019 08: 00
      +6
      at a maximum of not more than 5% of the working population
      This percentage characterizes virtually total mobilization in the Middle Ages. In peacetime, the numbers there are much lower than 1%
      1. svp67
        svp67 14 July 2019 08: 05
        +2
        Quote: abrakadabre
        This percentage characterizes virtually total mobilization in the Middle Ages. In peacetime, the numbers there are much lower than 1%

        Yes, I took the "maximum". Well, even this value is EXTREMELY.
    3. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 14 July 2019 12: 52
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      And why not 1 000 000 then?

      In general, I agree, the sources give more suitable figures for the XIX century than for X. I think that even
      12 thousand horsemen and 50 thousand infantrymen.
      - bust that way ten times.
      A hundred thousand
      elected husbands, [who were all] well equipped, honored in battle and extremely valiant
      means unconditional military domination over ... yes, over everything, from China to Lusitania.
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor 14 July 2019 06: 31
    +1
    How to return Ararat now? Begging for the New Turkish Empire?
    Still, the Armenians have the right to be proud of Great Armenia, it was the same. Unlike their Transcaucasian neighbors, separate tribes belonging to different states.
    1. lucul
      lucul 14 July 2019 11: 25
      -3
      How to return Ararat now? Begging for the New Turkish Empire?
      Still, the Armenians have the right to be proud of Great Armenia, it was the same. Unlike their Transcaucasian neighbors, separate tribes belonging to different states.

      The greatest power, the Armenian kingdom reached in the time of the Romans, it was the Romans who destroyed the Armenian kingdom - later, it could never recover to its former greatness.
      1. Walking
        Walking 14 July 2019 12: 06
        -1
        The Armenian dynasty ruled in Byzantium.
    2. Oquzyurd
      Oquzyurd 14 July 2019 16: 58
      +3
      A fictional story with the same heroes. And, the long-standing name Armenia (Armenians) has nothing to do with today's Armenia and the people inhabiting it (hayes, hayes) It is no coincidence that the Armenians themselves call Armenia Hayastan, or rather Hayastan. Hayes at the beginning licked the name- Armenia, then the Biblical name for Mount Ararat was appropriated to itself, as a result, they also stole the alphabet from the Ethiopians.
      1. Armen Gabrielyan
        Armen Gabrielyan 8 January 2020 12: 30
        -1
        another tomato and eggplant version of the history of the bazaar academy
        1. Oquzyurd
          Oquzyurd 8 January 2020 20: 46
          0
          Tell me, aren't you Hayes? Don't you call your country hɑjɑstɑˈni hɑnɾɑpɛtuˈtʰjun? Ağrı Dağı, "Ararat" is not the biblical name for the mountain? Can you refute all this "tomato-eggplant" reality, ladies and gentlemen, shoemakers?
          1. Armen Gabrielyan
            Armen Gabrielyan 4 March 2020 13: 39
            -1
            Absheron lamb from the tribe of Ak Vya Gara Goyunlu get at least an elementary education and understand the difference between an endo-ethnonym and an exo-ethnonym
            1. Oquzyurd
              Oquzyurd 4 March 2020 13: 50
              0
              It would be better to answer a direct question. Insult is not an answer to questions, it is a sign of powerlessness.
              1. Armen Gabrielyan
                Armen Gabrielyan 5 July 2020 19: 46
                0
                a stupid question is a sign of ignorance. Armenians have the self-name hay (հայ in Armenian). The self-name is an endo-ethnonym. Armenians, Somekhs, Armani, etc. are exoethnonym. The mismatch between the endo-ethnonym and exo-ethnonym is common and occurs among many nations.
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 14 July 2019 06: 51
    +12
    The article is informative, but the big minus of the article is the complete lack of cartographic materials. Many names that mere mortals do not say anything about
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 14 July 2019 07: 21
      +5
      I agree with this claim.
  5. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 14 July 2019 07: 28
    +2
    I wonder what principle D. Nicole is guided by reckoning medieval Armenia as the knightly era of Europe?
    I can assume two markers: the presence of heavy cavalry and Christianity.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 14 July 2019 08: 02
      +2
      I can assume two markers: the presence of heavy cavalry and Christianity.
      As well as the principle of manning this heavy cavalry (not cavalry - this is important) - the flax system and the main tactical action of this very cavalry is a lance ram.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 14 July 2019 08: 19
        +1
        I already somehow expressed the idea that chivalry, while noting all sorts of romantic husks, is nothing more than heavy cavalry. The translator Nicolas (Shpakovsky) replied that the author of the monograph adheres to the same opinion almost literally.
        Please explain what you see the difference?
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 14 July 2019 10: 32
          +3
          I already somehow expressed the idea that chivalry, while noting all sorts of romantic husks, is nothing more than heavy cavalry.
          Please explain what you see the difference?
          Chivalry is not cavalry, but only cavalry. And the difference between these concepts is significant.
          Unlike cavalry, cavalry is a regular type of army having: uniform regular strength in separate units, centralized supply, uniform authorized weapons, the actual charter of service, discipline and combat coordination not only within a separate detachment of a particular feudal lord, uniform uniform ladder of ranks and subordination.
          Cavalry, knightly, including, did not possess all of the listed features, and in fact was irregular. In all senses. Everything was much sadder with her. Despite the very high individual training of horsemen (knights and their sergeants).
          Closest to the concept of cavalry in the ancient world is the subdivisions of the Klibanarii of Ancient Rome. In the Middle Ages of Asia - the cavalry of Genghis Khan and the government horse contingents of China. In Europe, the French ordinance companies of the gendarmes are considered the transition from knightly cavalry to cavalry.
        2. Trilobite Master
          Trilobite Master 14 July 2019 13: 06
          +6
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          Please explain what you see the difference?

          Let me? smile hi
          A knight is primarily a landowner, or at least the son of one. This is a nobleman, a representative of the ruling class.
          A rich merchant in posh armor as part of the city militia or the royal (imperial) guardsman who serves for salary will not be knights, despite the complete identity of weapons, tactics, etc.
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 14 July 2019 18: 04
            +1
            Hello Mikhail! I can give several arguments "pro" and "contra" of your opinion, but I do not want to "die for one" az "", the mood is not right.
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 14 July 2019 22: 12
              +2
              Greetings, Anton. And damn it with him. laughing Another time, there will be more time. drinks
          2. Korsar4
            Korsar4 14 July 2019 20: 42
            +2
            And did the sons of the younger sons no longer belong to the knighthood?
            1. Trilobite Master
              Trilobite Master 14 July 2019 22: 06
              +2
              For the service relied put. Could not deserve - could not ensure the future of the kind. The knight was given a coat of arms and an estate at the initiation. Poorly served - sorry. smile
              1. Korsar4
                Korsar4 14 July 2019 22: 40
                +2
                That is, when Dick Shelton from "Black Arrow" was knighted, it was understood that part of the estates would be taken away from Sir Daniel, or all?
                1. Trilobite Master
                  Trilobite Master 15 July 2019 00: 35
                  +3
                  In the case of Dick Shelton, after being knighted, he entered into the inheritance parv, and Sir Brackley moved from the status of guardian to the status of an equal neighbor. smile
                  In general, the process of granting estates was not strictly regulated - everything was at the will of the overlord, and over time, the "concepts" of how to reward changed. In the XI century. practically only land, later - positions, profitable marriages were added, even later - just money, but this is practically New time.
                  In the period under review, the knight was supposed to be a landowner, at least nominally, to have a piece of land with a village. Otherwise, no one would even listen to him.
                  1. vlad106
                    vlad106 16 July 2019 08: 07
                    +1
                    Quote: Trilobite Master
                    In the period under review, the knight was supposed to be a landowner, at least nominally, to have a piece of land with a village. Otherwise, no one would even listen to him.

                    they - Armenians according to their dreams, probably everyone had a piece of the territory of Ararat ...
                    so sho mustache were "landowners" and therefore "true knights" with numerous squires and in general a multi-million army ...
  6. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 14 July 2019 08: 44
    +4
    Good morning article.
    I still can’t keep myself about expressing the opposite opinion of D. Nicole.
    When we talk about the Armenian society of the early Middle Ages, it is difficult to talk about feudalism, even if it is close to Europe: similar rituals are not evidence of feudalism.
    That is the problem of this society, that due to the geographical environment (mountains, foothills) and neighbors, exceeding in strength, it could not go beyond the tribal relations. And the system of initiation into warriors, steps, etc., “kings”, all this was borrowed or developed simultaneously while the Sassanian Iran was still in power over part of Armenia and had little to do with feudalism in this context.
    Cilicia is a state entity that could not compete closely with Venice and Genoa, a completely temporary education buffer created by the victories of the Crusaders in the East and which could exist while the Crusaders were strong and Byzantium was quickly destroyed with the decline of the forces of the Christian states. .
    Well, in this regard, I completely agree that when specifying the number of Armenian troops, it’s fair to put "approximately", Armenian sources inflated the number of troops incredibly.
    And last, the Armenians were successfully integrated into the Byzantine Empire, the emperor John Tzimisches - Armenian, many noble Byzantine families were Armenian, and the terrible defeat that was inflicted on the Romans under Mantsikerne took place on the Armenian land as part of the empire.
    1. Elturisto
      Elturisto 14 July 2019 22: 44
      +3
      And Vasily Makedonyanin and Roman Likapin .... a good comment ... equating the economic dwarf Killikia with the superpower of the early Middle Ages is not right ... but in Armenian ...
  7. Alex013
    Alex013 14 July 2019 08: 45
    +2
    Thank you for the article! Very interesting. Usually, when you hear about the history of Armenia, merchants come to mind, not knights.
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 14 July 2019 09: 17
      +2
      Admirers of the Armenian national epic "Sasna Tsrer". Those were still "thugs"! Moreover, according to the estimates of the Armenians themselves.
      1. vlad106
        vlad106 16 July 2019 08: 11
        +1
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Admirers of the Armenian national epic "Sasna Tsrer". Those were still "thugs"! Moreover, according to the estimates of the Armenians themselves.

        well yes. especially Dashnaks like Zatikyanov, Stepanyanov who carried out terrorist attacks in Moscow in Soviet times
  8. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 14 July 2019 09: 14
    +2
    Good morning historical theme. News about Ukraine got already.
  9. Otshelnik
    Otshelnik 14 July 2019 11: 24
    +6
    “I’ll pay $ 1.000.000 (one million dollars) if someone tells me about the capital and ruler of“ Armenia ”on the 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19 centuries!” American scientist of English descent, doctor of historical sciences, professor, head of the department of theory and history of international relations John Hubrs.
    1. Oquzyurd
      Oquzyurd 14 July 2019 22: 46
      +1
      You ruined the holiday by some. Turning around you passed by, like you didn’t notice, laughing: 10 centuries, everything is in the archives, everything is in sight, therefore it’s difficult to compose something oh. And about the early centuries there is little information and you can manipulate fictional compositions.
  10. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 14 July 2019 13: 16
    +2
    So, my traditional comment regarding the number of troops hi
    However, despite all the internal feuds, from the second half of the 13th century, the rulers of Cilicia Armenia had a regular army, from 12 thousands of horsemen and 50 thousands of infantrymen.

    Considering the dense population of Cilicia, it is quite possible, although it is difficult to say something specifically here due to the lack of estimates of the population of Cilicia in my reach. However, if you start from the mob. potential of 2,5 percent (quite a lot, but the Armenians are also highlanders - and highlanders always have a higher relative mob potential), then it turns out that the population of Cilicia was in the region of 2,5 million - and this, let's say, is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, if we start from one number of cavalry, then the population is "blown away" to about 1-1,2 million people, which is much more plausible, and in 50 thousand infantry they could safely write down anyone, if only the number was beautiful.

    Separately, I note that the estimates are based on the number field armies, since the garrisons consisting of militias, usually did not enter this account, but participated in the defenses of the fortresses or compensated for the losses suffered by the field army. A similar principle is adopted by Europeans, it may not be applicable to Armenians.
    With full mobilization, it was possible to collect (according to the sources that have reached us) an army in 80 — 100 thousands of people.

    Nuuuu .... In the field the state of the Bagratids would definitely not put such an army. The ancient Armenian kingdom - yes, quite, but not in the Middle Ages, when the territory of Armenia was strongly "blown away".
    Thus, according to the historian Tovma Artsruni, who lived at the turn of the 9th-10th centuries, Smbat I had under his command ... an 100-thousandth army.

    That was not what was not. I am not familiar with the local specifics of medieval demography, but if we take a high population density in 10 people on 1 km X NUMX and multiply it by the known area of ​​the Bagratid state in 2, we get a population in the 1000-1,4 area of ​​a million people. Adjusted for mountain specificity, mob. in this case, the potential will be no more than 1,5-3 percent (and this I did to the owl very painfully), then Smbat I could ideally have only 4-45 a thousandth army, which, however, was also a lot. With a skeptical estimate, this figure will drop to 60-30 thousands.
    Reporting on the festivities held in the capital of Ani on the occasion of the ascension to the throne of Gagik I, Mateos Urhaezi reported: “On that day he conducted a review of his troops, consisting of 100, thousands of elected men, who were well equipped, famous in battle and extremely brave. "

    Again, 100 thousand - the figure is clearly too high (see the previous paragraph). On the other hand, it is repeated time after time, and then one of two things — either somehow this figure became a kind of literary canon for Armenian chroniclers, or there was a very peculiar account of the troops, when all the men who could keep weapons, but which in the event of war could not make up a field army, and for the most part sat in garrisons.
    In 974, King Ashot III gathered against the army of John Tzimiskes 80-thousand army, which included mercenaries.

    Even with mercenaries - you can safely divide it into 1,5, or even 2.
    At the time of the weakening of the Armenian state, in 1040, the number of the Armenian army, according to contemporaries, numbered 30 thousands. However, it is emphasized that these are only those people who were recruited in the capital Ani and in its vicinity.

    Again, if we take all the men capable of taking up arms, the 30 of thousands may be typed, but the 10-15 might have come out of the field, well, a maximum of 20 of thousands of them, and, as before, and she resists.


    In general, Armenian sources regarding the number of troops EXTREMELY look somewhat more plausible than European ones, where 10-thousandth armies sometimes blow up to a million (that is, 100 times). If you make several assumptions about the relatively high density of the population of Armenia, and about the fact that all men were recorded in the indicated numbers of troops in general, that they were holding a weapon, and not just a field army (as was done in Europe), then even the original chronicle figures prove to be quite real. But even if these assumptions are wrong, then there was an overestimation at times, but not an order of magnitude. At least it seemed to me that the Armenians overestimated the number of troops to a lesser extent than most Europeans (including the ancient Russian chronicles). On the other hand, I could make a mistake because of ignorance of local specifics, and if the population density in Armenia exceeded 10 people per km2, then with the growth of this figure, the indicated troop numbers become more and more close to the truth.
    1. Trilobite Master
      Trilobite Master 14 July 2019 15: 07
      +3
      Artem, welcome.
      Regarding how to calculate the mobilization resource of a particular area, without trying to challenge them, I note that they all stumble upon one problem - the lack of accurate data on the population. Restore this number can, as a rule, only hypothetically.
      I propose to look at the problem of determining the possible size of an army of a state from the other side - from the point of view of expediency.
      The army is an expensive pleasure and the cost of it must comply with the principle of "necessary and sufficient". How necessary was Armenia to maintain military contingents of several tens of thousands of professional soldiers on a permanent basis? Did it have opponents who demanded such a strain on the economy? Did she wage active wars of conquest?
      We should not also forget that the army is created for business, it must fight and if we read in the sources about 100, 50, even 20 thousands of professional soldiers, in order to believe these numbers, we should read about the grandiose campaigns and battles in which this army would participate.
      With regard to Armenia, we see not large campaigns and grandiose battles, but rather small permanent conflicts, neither in the scale of goals, nor in the means used to achieve these goals, which do not rise above the level of the usual feudal squabble, analogues of which are known to us in Europe and in Russia. I cannot imagine a situation when a ruler, having gathered a huge number of troops for a parade, then "forgot" or "could not" use them to resolve this or that real conflict.
      So, most likely, the huge Armenian armies described in the sources did not exist in reality.
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 14 July 2019 15: 55
        0
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        Regarding how to calculate the mobilization resource of a particular area, without trying to challenge them, I note that they all stumble upon one problem - the lack of accurate data on the population. Restore this number can, as a rule, only hypothetically.

        Taki yes. Moreover, if in Western Europe population censuses start quite early (the basis for precise tax collection), in Armenia there is a problem ... Problems. I met on the Internet only one figure of the estimated population of the Bagratid state in 1000 - 66 thousand, but this is almost 100% erroneous information, as the author uses a mathematical model of population counting that is incomprehensible to me, based on modernity, also created in Europe, which is almost guaranteed gives an error plus or minus a couple of thousand percent wassat
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        How necessary was it for Armenia to maintain permanently military contingents of several tens of thousands of professional soldiers?

        And who said that they were all really professional warriors? smile You should know that not everything that is said on this subject in the annals should be believed. For example, I collected the same Smbat for the celebrations of a thousand soldiers in armor, the chronicler looked - the armor is good (iron in Armenia is readily available), there are many people, let 10 thousand be, and I heard that the chronicler, that it seems like 100 of thousands of men with arms in their hands can, if anything happens, come up in the chronicle of the figure in 100 of thousands .... But in reality there remain only the 1000 of those very professionals. In fact, as far as I can tell from the above, the pros in the tsarist army were cavalry plus, probably some units of infantry, and that is not a fact. The rest-the usual militia or mercenaries, reinforced by the readiness of iron in the region.
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        Did she have opponents demanding such a strain on the economy?

        Quite - Byzantium, Arabs, Seljuks (the latter, however, already in fact finished off Armenia, although in terms of demographics, the end of it came during the Mongol invasion). It is necessary to keep a large army here, because the enemies have a large army, and the tension of the economy, when you have, to quote a familiar historian and archaeologist who has been in those places, “the iron is lying under your feet and growing in the trees” is rather relative - the main problem large armies, sufficient provision of weapons and armor is easy for the Armenians, and military operations are mostly short-term and do not require a significant concentration of food. Nobody would have gathered large troops for celebrations, large armies are already in case of war, and in peacetime - perhaps only horsemen (1 / 5-1 / 6 of the entire army, as far as I understand) and some elite infantry detachments, everything else - the militia. For the same Cilicia in the Middle Ages, 12 thousand pros is a plausible number, since this region at that time was densely populated and rich. What you read in the annals should always be filtered, since chroniclers are usually interested persons, and they embellish or invent not only in terms of the number of armies.
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        I can not imagine a situation where the ruler, having collected a huge number of troops for the parade

        Again, all that you read is worth filtering. 100 of thousands of people for the parade sounds powerful, but in reality it is stupid and pointless, I very much doubt that they were there de facto, and even if the figure is correct, it is rather the size of the entire hypothetical Armenian army that the king can count on.
        Quote: Trilobite Master
        So, most likely, the huge Armenian armies described in the sources did not exist in reality.

        Therefore, I point out that this number is probably somewhat overestimated, and, moreover, it includes those units that were usually "not considered" in Europe, such as garrisons and local militias, which were called up only in case of emergency, and then - not for long. This was probably due to the local specifics - cheap iron and relatively cheap weapons, which more people could provide for themselves in relative terms, plus the specifics of the mountainous terrain (there is less land, agriculture is less developed, fewer people are involved in it, more can go camping - those. relative mob. potential is greater) than in Europe, therefore they were considered in the general mass, although I repeat, it was simply unrealistic to bring them all into the field, it is rather an estimate of the total mob. potential than a real field army. But this is only a theory based on guesses and suspicious repetition of the same or similar numbers, as well as local economic specifics.

        Sorry, that the answer was ragged, the editor of comments began to "jump" when entering the text, and it won't be long before epilepsy, if I write a couple more sentences laughing
    2. Seal
      Seal 16 July 2019 13: 23
      0
      In 974, King Ashot III gathered an 80th army against the army of John Tzimiskes
      Moreover, what is interesting is that according to Armenian historiography both Ashot III and John Tzimiskes are Armenians. laughing
  11. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 14 July 2019 16: 17
    0
    Once again, in the non-dull editor, where I at least see the text being entered, I will specifically speak on the subject of troop strength.

    Initially, I always proceed from the fact that the voiced figures are nevertheless close to reality, and I try to find a logical explanation and substantiation of the chronicle information. If for many European states such a justification simply cannot be found, then for Armenia it still develops - with a high population density, in the conditions of mountainous terrain and iron ore abundance, a 100-thousand army of Bagratids could really take place, but it was more about the maximum mob. potential, this included both professionals and militias, who could be drafted into the army if necessary, or they could not be drafted at all, or they served a maximum of garrisons, on second and third roles - but they were listed in the army, since they had a personal weapon. With this explanation, the figures of 62 thousand for Cilicia and 100 thousand for Armenia Bagratids look quite plausible, but only a core of professionals could have been used directly for wars, i.e. the same 12 thousand for Cilicia and 10-15, maybe 20 thousand for Armenia, all the rest were in the rear, "in reserve" or garrisons. Those. here we are talking more about a special calculation in combination with local conditions than about falsification - if, again, the figures announced are correct. But, of course, no one would call on 100 thousand people for a one-time show on the occasion of some celebrations, just as no one would clean the whole mob clean. potential for minor wars - here the chronicles are undoubtedly embellished and composed.

    If the voiced figures are incorrect, then in any case they are not as high as it may seem - in those conditions (iron, mountains, dense settlement to Seljuks and Mongols) Armenia Bagratids, according to my most approximate estimates, even if the population estimate ( 1,4-1,5 million) is overpriced, could easily put on the battlefield 12-15 thousands of people, and this is still a rather big army, especially if it is well armed, protected, and consists mainly of professionals.
    1. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 29 July 2019 16: 14
      0
      Quote: arturpraetor
      If for many European states such a justification simply cannot be found, then for Armenia it still develops - with a high population density, in the conditions of mountainous terrain and iron ore abundance, a 100-thousand army of Bagratids could really take place, but it was more about the maximum mob. potential, this included both professionals and militias, who could be drafted into the army if necessary, or they could not be drafted at all, or they served a maximum of garrisons, in second and third roles - but they were listed in the army, since they had a personal weapon. With this explanation, the figures 62 thousand for Cilicia and 100 thousand for Armenia Bagratids look quite plausible, but only a core of professionals could have been used directly for wars, i.e. the same 12 thousand for Cilicia and 10-15, maybe 20 thousand for Armenia, all the rest were in the rear, "in reserve" or garrisons.

      Interestingly, how do you plan to feed such a horde of 100 thousand heads during the Middle Ages, in the absence of roads and, if necessary, logistics in mountainous areas?!?
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 29 July 2019 16: 18
        0
        I repeat - if 100 is still true thousands, then it can only be the maximum possible mob. the potential of Armenia, which was recorded immediately as an army in order to amuse your CSW and / or customers of the chronicle. Field armies will be at best in 2-3 times smaller, and at the most plausible - in 5-10. Do you need to repeat again?
  12. Oquzyurd
    Oquzyurd 14 July 2019 16: 40
    +1
    SMELLS with an order, written for the sake of some lines, like - "at the end of the 1000th - beginning of the XNUMXth centuries, the Byzantine Empire recognized the fact of the political hegemony of Armenia in the Transcaucasus" or "The remnants of their national state structure were preserved by the Armenians only in some places: Syunik (Zangezur) , Tashir and in Nagorno-Karabakh. "(?!?!?!?) And it is clear that this is being done to justify the occupation of Azerbaijani lands in Nagorno-Karabakh. Like these lands in some distant century were Armenian and therefore they have the right today, killing Azerbaijanis, destroying all heritage in XNUMX years, to occupy the lands of another neighboring state.
  13. wmn5500
    wmn5500 14 July 2019 16: 59
    +1
    The exodus began of the Armenians, who left the lands in masses and came under the rule of the Byzantines. The Armenians managed to save the remains of their national state structure only in some places: Syunik (Zangezur), Tashir and in Nagorno-Karabakh.


    Very strange?! Maybe I don’t read or understand! But ... I quote;
    "Hasan-Jalalyan, Yesai Catholicos of Aghvan ..... He wrote a work on History of Karabakh entitled “A Brief History of Agwank Country","
    Why is the country, as they write here Armenian, and the history written by the hereditary prince and priest "katalikos" Aghvan ???!
    (Aghvan = Alban = Albania). https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan-Jalalyan, Esai
    More details here; http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Esai/pred2.phtml?id=483
    That's how it turns out ?!
    1. Oquzyurd
      Oquzyurd 14 July 2019 17: 53
      +2
      Fictional Story: They are able to appropriate anything from others to create the appearance of their story. lol
  14. vieking
    vieking 14 July 2019 21: 00
    -1
    it can be seen that the debate was mainly about the size of the army.
    and it is, in fact, not so difficult for a specialist to calculate: if you believe Flavius ​​in the "Jewish wars" in the neighboring Armenian lands of Galilee, there was not a single uncultivated piece of land.

    we multiply the area (minus the mountainous areas) by productivity and divide by consumption per person, we get an approximate number of the population, and from the mobilization potential the size of the army.

    Armenians had even a little more than the estimated population, many worked on iron mining.
  15. Seal
    Seal 16 July 2019 12: 53
    0
    Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
    Emperor John Tzimiskes - Armenian
    John Tzimiskes: white-faced and fair-haired with blue eyes and a red beard. Well, just a typical Armenian lol
    How the Byzantines are made Armenians.
    Consider an example of the Comnenus dynasty.
    Here
    http://mostga.am/istoki/armeniya-na-perekrestkakh-istorii.html
    Armenians write that:
    "The coming to power of the dynasty of the Byzantine emperors of the Komnenos coincided with the formation of the Cilician Armenian state. The founder of the dynasty, Isaac I, Comnenus, was emperor from 1057 to 1059.
    In 1081, full power in Byzantium passed into the hands of the feudalizing magnates headed by Alexei I Komnin (1081-1118), whose mother Anna Dalassina was an Armenian by birth and a Chalcedonian by religion. "

    So, we see that the authors of the article in Wikopedia (I wonder who?) Quite imperatively, that is, in an affirmative tone, write "that whose mother Anna Dalassina was an Armenian by birth." Like, everything is proven, leave me alone, but those who do not believe are either Turks or Azerbaijanis. Oh, in this slouchy one who doesn't believe is a Greek too.
    From the fact that Anna Dalassina was supposedly an Armenian, some draw conclusions that the entire subsequent Komnin dynasty was supposedly an Armenian dynasty. Although it’s strange, after all, it seems that Armenians have a nationality of the father, not the mother. By mother, it seems, only among the Jews. But the Armenians .... always choose what is currently more profitable for them. It is more profitable to imagine that someone is Armenian because their mother is Armenian - they do so.
    But let us not believe them and look at the Anna Dalassina page.
    We see. : Anna Dalassina (1025 - 1105, Constantinople) - wife (from 1042) of the Byzantine military leader John Komnin (1015-1067), brother of Isaac Komnin, who occupied the imperial throne in 1057-1059; mother of emperor Alexei I Komnin.
    Came from a noble Talas clan perhaps, of Armenian origin [1] [2]. She had a noticeable influence on state affairs during the reign of her son Alexei I, during the emperor’s frequent military campaigns she actually controlled the capital.

    Let us note that there are two footnotes [1] [2] behind the expression “came from a noble Talas clan, possibly of Armenian origin”. These footnotes show that the assumption that the Talas clan is possibly of Armenian origin was made in these two sources. We look at what these sources are.
    1. A.P. Kazhdan. Armenians in the ruling class of the Byzantine Empire in the 11-12 centuries. Page 95 of Part 25 of the Dalasins. Academy of Sciences of the ArmSSR 1973
    Alexander Petrovich (Peysakhovich) Kazhdan (born Alexander Kazhdan; September 3, 1922, Moscow - May 29, 1997, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, USA) - Soviet and American Byzantine historian, Armenist, one of the greatest specialists of the XNUMXth century in Byzantium and the Great Armenia, editor of the fundamental "Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium".
    2. V. A. Harutyunova-Fidanyan. Armenian medieval historians about the expansion of the Byzantine Empire to the East in the X-XI centuries.
    So, two historians, a Jew and an Armenian, expressed their personal opinion that the Talas clan may have been (and may not have been) of Armenian origin.
    And on this assumption of only two historians that the Talas clan was probably of Armenian origin, all Komnins were recorded in Armenians hi
    1. Yuri
      Yuri 28 August 2019 01: 36
      0
      Instead of sorting out the color of the beard of John Tzimiskes, you can take a look at this link about its origin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I_Tzimiskes
      And your insult about the Armenian claims to contribute to the history of Byzantium seems rather petty, in comparison with the bitter fate of this civilization - and not at all from Armenian hands!
      1. Seal
        Seal 30 August 2019 13: 44
        0
        Another Wikipedia fan. Not even funny.
        in comparison with the bitter fate of this civilization

        From your own hands.
        The whole trouble of the Greeks turned out to be that they in 1261 managed to accidentally regain Constantinople. After the capture of Constantinople (or, as the Greeks themselves called it long before the Turks - Istimboli) by the Latins, the Greeks managed to create several states. The strongest of which was the peasant (without big cities) Nicaean Empire. The Nicene Empire was strong and most importantly, a self-sufficient, prosperous state. And therefore, it had, though not a very large, but strong army, consisting of free people who had something to defend. But as soon as the Greeks accidentally occupied Constantinople in 1261, everything went awry. The capital was declared this huge parasite city. The bureaucratic apparatus of the former Nicaean Empire, which became the Empire of the Paleologists (who overthrew the legal Vatat dynasty shortly before the return of Constantinople), grew to tens of times with relocation to Constantinople. In order to feed him and restore his old new capital, part of which had been in ruins since 1204, Paleologists sharply increased taxes on peasants and artisans, which the founders of the Nicene Empire Theodore I Laskaris and Vatatsi would never have allowed. Peasants and artisans began to go broke. Accordingly, this instantly affected the army. And quite soon after the return of Constantinople, the Paleologists no longer had that mass of strong free peasants who made up the army of the Nicene Empire from the time of Theodore I Laskaris and Vatatsev. Therefore, the Paleologists were forced to reorient themselves to European mercenaries, which again needed money. Taxes grew. But there was still not enough money, as European mercenaries valued themselves dearly. Therefore, after some time, the Byzantines decided to part with the European mercenaries (Catalans) without paying them. And they (the Byzantines) did very badly with their European mercenaries. The Byzantines lured the leader of the Catalans, Roger de Flora, who recently received the second most important after the emperor Byzantine rank "Caesar"; and his closest assistants at the reception to the emperor and there he and his associates were stabbed to death. Since the Catalans, as befits the ceremony, they entered the emperor without weapons. The Catalans were offended, and most importantly, the Catalans managed to organize themselves. He chose new leaders and went to the Czechoslovakia and the Byzantines and the French barons, who had possessions in Greece, and in the tail and mane. And the Paleologists were forced to turn to the Ottoman Turks. So none of the Europeans, seeing before their eyes the fate of Roger de Flora, did not want to go to the Byzantines in mercenaries anymore. And the Paleologists did not have money for Europeans - all the money went to feed their own huge bureaucratic apparatus and to this parasite city of Constantinople. Therefore, the Europeans did not go to the Byzantines anymore, but only the Turks. However, the Paleologists did not even have enough money to pay for Turkish mercenaries. Therefore, as a fee, the Paleologists began to let their mercenaries, which I recall, were the Ottomans, to the Paleologists, which had long been torn off from the earth, not particularly needed territory of the rural areas of their state - the former Nicene Empire, now the Empire of Paleologists. The Ottomans organized their administration there, which was economically more profitable for the peasants and artisans than the administration of the bureaucratic Constantinople. And the inhabitants of the former Nicene Empire partly began to massively convert to Islam, that is, they became Turks, and partly went under the Turks while remaining Christians. Moreover, those areas of the former Nicene Empire, which were still controlled from Constantinople, also sought to go under the Turks.
  16. Seal
    Seal 16 July 2019 12: 58
    0
    Quote: vieking
    according to Flavius ​​in the "Jewish wars"
    If you believe Flavius, who in his Jewish wars in chapter 16 "Cestius sends the tribune of Neapolitan to investigate the state of affairs in Judea. King Agrippa's speech to the Jews, in which he advises them not to start wars against the Romans," gave out the following pearl:
    What kind of army, what weapon inspires such confidence in you? Where is your fleet that should occupy the Roman seas? Where are the treasures with which you should support your enterprise? Do you not imagine that you are raising weapons against some Egyptians or Arabs? Do not you know what the Roman state means? Or do you have no scale for your own weakness? Have you not already been often defeated by your neighbors? And the power of the Romans, on the contrary, in all the inhabited earth is invincible. But all this was still not enough for them, and their desires went further; the whole Euphrates in the east, the Danube in the north, in the south of Libya, which they cut to the deserts, and Hades in the west - all this did not satisfy them; on the other side of the ocean they found the New World and transferred their weapons to hitherto unknown riches. And you? Are you richer than Gauls ‚braver than Germans‚ smarter than Hellenes and more numerous than all nations on earth? What inspires you with self-confidence to rebel against the Romans? You say that the Roman yoke is too heavy. How much harder it should be for the Hellenes, who are known for the most noble nation under the sun and inhabit such a great country!
  17. Seal
    Seal 16 July 2019 13: 03
    0
    Quote: 3x3zsave
    I already somehow expressed the idea that chivalry, while noting all sorts of romantic husks, is nothing more than heavy cavalry.
    Type spanish cobaliero hi Whoever has got a mare for himself is a mare lol
  18. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 29 July 2019 16: 10
    0
    Quote: Vyacheslav Shpakovsky
    In the same Syria, the Armenians served as archers in the armies of Sultan Nur ad-Din and his heirs. It is also interesting that the squad of Armenian cavalry, who was in Damascus in 1138, belonged to a heretical sect known as Arevorik, who allegedly believed that Christ was ... the sun. That is, even sectarians and those at that time had their own military detachments, and were not at all merely left fanatics who had left the world and dressed in rags. However, the main role of the Armenians in the Muslim world happened to play in later Fatimid Egypt, where at times they actually ruled this country.
    Well, this is apparently some kind of problem of Syria and the surrounding lands - even today, local sectarians have not only armed units, but entire armies.
    1. Yuri
      Yuri 28 August 2019 01: 20
      0
      Without disputing your comment on this interesting quote, I note that the author gave a somewhat incorrect transliteration of a group called Arevordik, which translates as "children of the sun". And they were Armenians who preserved the Zoroastrian faith, according to some sources, up to the 1920s. So their interpretation of the nature of Christ lends itself to logical comprehension. It is surprising, however, that despite the special hostility of Muslims to fire worshipers, their services were still resorted to
      1. Warrior2015
        Warrior2015 19 September 2019 11: 41
        0
        Quote: Youri
        So their interpretation of the nature of Christ can easily be interpreted logically. It is surprising, however, that despite the special hostility of Muslims to fire-worshipers, they still resorted to their services

        We cannot judge for sure, on the basis of just a quote, about whom we are talking. We can talk about Mazdakites, and about the last ancient fire worshipers, etc.
  19. Nadir shah
    Nadir shah 29 August 2019 23: 10
    -1
    Quote: Oquzyurd
    A fictional story with the same heroes. And, the long-standing name Armenia (Armenians) has nothing to do with today's Armenia and the people inhabiting it (hayes, hayes) It is no coincidence that the Armenians themselves call Armenia Hayastan, or rather Hayastan. Hayes at the beginning licked the name- Armenia, then the Biblical name for Mount Ararat was appropriated to itself, as a result, they also stole the alphabet from the Ethiopians.

    some set of words. Well, it is enough that the Ethiopians do not have their own alphabet, and the one that is (from the Ge'ez language) with Armenian is not connected from the word at all. It doesn't even resemble him as much as the Chinese characters are to the Korean alphabet.
  20. Nadir shah
    Nadir shah 29 August 2019 23: 16
    0
    Quote: Youri
    Without disputing your comment on this interesting quote, I note that the author gave a somewhat incorrect transliteration of a group called Arevordik, which translates as "children of the sun". And they were Armenians who preserved the Zoroastrian faith, according to some sources, up to the 1920s. So their interpretation of the nature of Christ lends itself to logical comprehension. It is surprising, however, that despite the special hostility of Muslims to fire worshipers, their services were still resorted to

    so dislike that the Zoroastrians are among the people of the book (Koran)? along with Jews and Christians.
    1. Warrior2015
      Warrior2015 19 September 2019 11: 42
      0
      Quote: Nadir Shah
      Quote: Youri
      So their interpretation of the nature of Christ can easily be interpreted logically. It is surprising, however, that despite the special hostility of Muslims to fire-worshipers, they still resorted to their services

      so dislike that the Zoroastrians are among the people of the book (Koran)? along with Jews and Christians.
      Where do the firewood come from? The Zoroastrians are not included in the Sharia (at least in the era of Muhammad) among the "people of the Book".
  21. captain.ilgar
    captain.ilgar 7 October 2019 22: 09
    0
    Appeal to the Armenians of Colonel G. Lazarev


    Christians!
     
    According to reliable rumors that have reached me, unintentional people try to spread not only ridiculous and deceitful news, but even instill fear in those who ask permission to move to blessed Russia, and thereby avert the desire of their hearts.
     
    In disgust with this and by proxy to me of the Armenian people, according to the duty assigned to me by our Commander-in-Chief, I announce to you that the generous Russian Monarch gives those who wish to move to a reliable, calm and happy refuge in His state. In Erivan, Nakhichevan and Karabakh, where you yourself choose, you will receive an abundance of farmland, partly sown, of which only a tenth is cultivated in favor of the Treasury. - You are exempted for six years from all taxes and for the poorest of you will be given help. Those who have real estate here, having sent their families, can leave on their own attorneys for sale thereof, the term of which is determined by the Turkmanchay treatise to five years; the names of those remaining with a list of their property will be delivered by me to the Messenger or Commissar, with His Highness Abbas Mirza abiding, so that they, as subjects of the Great Sovereign, would be under His high patronage. - In Russia, you will see the tolerance of faith and the equality of Russian rights with other subjects of the Sovereign, and you will forget all the sorrows you are tolerant.
     
    “There you will find a new fatherland inhabited by Christians, and you will no longer see the oppression of the holy faith!” There you will live under the auspices of the laws and feel their beneficial effects.
     
    “There you will finally improve your well-being, and the small donations made by you will be rewarded a hundredfold.” - You will leave the Motherland, kind for everyone; but one thought about the land of Christianity should delight you.
     
    Scattered in the Persian regions, Christians will see their union, and can you know how the Great Monarch of Russia will reward your loyalty? Hurry up! Time is expensive.
     
    - Soon Russian troops will come out of the Persian borders, then your resettlement will be difficult and we will not be able to answer for your safe passage. “By sacrificing small things and for a short time, you will receive everything forever”
     
    Signed: Russian-Imperial Colonel and Cavalier Lazarev
    March 30, 1828 Urmia
  22. captain.ilgar
    captain.ilgar 7 October 2019 22: 30
    0
    https://erevangala500.com/page/123.html
  23. captain.ilgar
    captain.ilgar 7 October 2019 22: 36
    0
    Putin did not remain in debt here and read out the Decree: “As far as possible, the Armenians should be caressed and facilitated in a decent manner, in order to give a hunt for their greater arrival.” True, this Decree was not signed by the President of Russia, but by Peter I. “Nothing but 300 years have passed,” said the GDP. - No sooner said than done!"

    Want to refute Peter I? Or want to blame not knowing the history of GDP? Armenians as such in the Caucasus did not have them i.e. hai was moved to the Caucasus by the Russian Empire and this whole story every letter is just fake hai this is a tribe expelled from India this is a tribe of prostitutes and thieves still part of the hai live in India and for some reason the only oldest cemetery in India even stole the name Armenia in it it was ARMY
  24. captain.ilgar
    captain.ilgar 7 October 2019 22: 45
    0
    Armenian tradition of appropriation. Stolen List
    “Came, saw, ... appropriated”

    I. Armenian Confessions

    Armenians about themselves

    Yeghishe Charents, famous Armenian poet: "Hypocrisy is manifested in us even in the womb."

    Hovhannes Tumanyan, a famous Armenian poet and writer: "... true salvation must begin from within, because we are sick from within." (O. Tumanyan, “Selected Prose”, p. 201, Yerevan, 1977).

    Hovhannes Tumanyan: "Our miserable tribe has never been politically independent."

    N.S. Vartapetov: [The “Armenian Church”], armed with a Christian flag, at all times destroyed the peoples of historical Albania and its integral part of Karabakh (Artsakh) and, “skillfully adjusting to the historical situation, rendered services to the Safavids, then “The Russian Empire, just as it once served Byzantium, the Iranian Sassanids, Arab hali-fams and the Mongols.” (N.S. Vartapetov, “Christian Monuments of Transcaucasia”).

    K. Patkanov, famous Armenian historian, Armenologist: “Armenians have never played a special role in the history of mankind. This is not a political term, but the name of a geographical area in which individual Armenian settlements are scattered. The Armenians have always been poor owners of the lands on which they lived, but they always skillfully served strong, selling their loved ones ... ” (“Van inscriptions and their significance for the Near East,” 1875.).

    Gevorg Aslan, a famous Armenian historian: “Armenians did not have statehood. They are not bound by a sense of homeland and not bound by political bonds. Armenian patriotism is associated only with the place of residence. " (G. Aslan, “Armenia and Armenians”, 1914).

    S.Lekhatsi, a well-known Armenian historian: “... From Moldova to Istanbul, from Romelia to Great Venice there is no city, village, village where there is no Armenian. Like dust, we settled around the world of the earth. ” (S.Lekhatsi. Travel notes. Eastern literature, Moscow, 1965).

    Armenians about their history

    Manuk Abeghyan, famous literary critic, linguist, folklorist, academician: “... where are the roots of the Armenian people, how, when, at what time, from where and in what ways he came here ... We do not have accurate and clear evidence of this” (“History of Armenian literature” , Yerevan, 1975).

    Levon Dabeghyan, a famous specialist: “... the Armenians owe their national existence indeed ... to the Turks. If we stayed among the Byzantines or other Europeans, the Armenian name could only be preserved in historical books. ”

    Haykazyan, famous Armenian historian: “The first Armenian dynasty does not consist of historical figures, but figures taken from fictional tales. Movses Khorenatsi himself is not a fifth-century historian, but a falsified historian who lived in the seventh century. ” (“Armenian History”, Paris, 1919).

    Garagashyan: “There is no information about the past of the Armenians that could be considered history or tradition. After the adoption of Christianity, they invented the relationship between Hayk and Noah. It is accepted that he is a descendant of Torgom, one of the grandchildren of Japhes, the son of Noah. For some of the old historians the name of Torgom, mentioned in the Jewish chronicles, was shown as part of Armenia, the family, clan, nation of Torgom. Khorensky Movses first wrote about this. ” (The History of the Eastern Question, London, 1905).

    Basmadzhyan: “The origin, history of Armenia and Armenians is very dark. From the most ancient times, this territory was conquered by emigrants who came from the plains of the Pamirs, Indikusha. Armenians, like the Romans, Greeks, Iranians and all nations have their mythical heroes. "National historians, not having detailed, explicit sources, took their places from characters from fairy tales." (“The New History of Armenians”, Paris, 1917).

    N. Pasermajyan, Armenian historian: “The Armenian chronicles attribute the appearance of Hayk and his people in Armenia to 2200 BC. and give a list of successive up to 800g. BC. spiritual leaders and kings. Modern science does not confirm this legend. Peoples, unlike individuals, like to add age ... ”

    Gevorg Aslan: “We must accept that Movses Khorenatsi drew these stories from Syrian fairy tales or heard from the Hurufites who wandered in Armenia and masterfully embodied them in his own composition. Sam himself used the historical sources of Syria and Iran. He appropriated excerpts from the war of the Jews of Jasenhen, the history of the church of Euseben, from Pascal and Malales. " (Gevorg Aslan, “Historical study of the population of Armenia”, Paris, 1909).

    B. Ishkhanyan: “The true homeland of the Armenians -“ Great Armenia ”is Asia Minor.” (B. Ishkhanyan, “Peoples of the Caucasus”, 1916).

    B. Ishkhanyan: “The Armenians living in Karabakh are partly Aboriginal descendants of the ancient Albanians, and partly are refugees from Turkey and Iran, for whom the Azerbaijani land has become a refuge from persecution and persecution.” (B. Ishkhanyan, “Peoples of the Caucasus”, St. Petersburg, 1916).