Chapter VI: ARMENIAN KINGDOM IN CILICIA (FROM 1080 TO 1375)
Establishment of Rubenids dynasty.
After the devastating raids of Seljuks thousands of Armenians moved toward Cilicia - region of Armenia Minor situated between the Taurus and Amanus mountains close to Mediterranean coast. The Armenian population in Cilicia gradually became predominant. In 1080 a certain Prince Ruben, that the historians believe to be descendant of the Bagradouni and Ardzrouni dynasties, asserted authority over the local Armenian and Greek princes. Ruben became founder of a new glorious royal House of Rubenids that ruled over Cilicia for more than 300 years.
Ruben I and his successors maintained close contacts with the Crusaders. As a result, the new Armenian Principality, which later became Kingdom, imitated the principles of State organization accepted in European countries. A number of new ranks and titles were established. Armenian Nakharars became Knights and Barons, Sparapets were often called Constables etc. The Armenian Cilician noblemen used the Latin and French languages alongside the Armenian. Intermarriages between the members of the Armenian and European noble families were widespread.
The first rulers of Cilicia.
The first Armenian rulers of Cilicia, such as Constantine I and Thoros I led successful warfare against both Saracens and Greeks. The next ruler, the bellicose Leon I was less fortunate, as the Emperor John II Comnenus arrested him and seized all of his domains. Later Leon I and his elder son Ruben were murdered in prison, but Leon's younger son Thoros known as Thoros II was spared.
5 years later, Thoros II escaped to Cilicia to declare the country's independence. Then the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus sent his commander Andronicus (later known as Emperor Andronicus I Comnenus) to punish the fugitive prince. However, Thoros defeated the Greek army several times. Unable to subject Thoros, the Greeks even concluded a military alliance with Sultan of Konya, but the troops of the latter were also routed by Thoros.
Leon II and the Crusaders.
During the ruling of Leon II, when Cilicia enjoyed the period of a prosperous development, the Third Crusade was proclaimed in Europe. The Roman Emperor Frederic I Barbarossa, the French King Philip II Augustus and the English King Richard the Lion-Hearted assembled their forces to recapture Jerusalem from Saladin. Arriving in Asia Minor, Frederic Barbarossa proposed an alliance to Leon II. The Armenian King promised to supply the Europeans with food and horses. Although Frederic I was tragically drowned in the Calycadnus River in Cilicia, Leon II continued to support the Crusaders. Wishing to reward Leon II for his loyalty, Henry IV, the son of Frederic Barbarossa, sent him a splendid crown. Other leaders of the Third Crusade also promised their friendship and protection. Nevertheless, the European monarchs and the Popes of Rome were never disinterested toward the Armenian state. Some religious concessions and the further reunion of the Armenian and Catholic churches were stipulated as an important condition.
The Cilician Armenian Kingdom was reinforced after Leon II gained the long-term conflict over the Latin princes of the neighboring Antioch Principality. The Armenian King captured Antioch twice. He also marked the end of his ruling with victories over the Sultans of Konya and Aleppo.
The Armenian Renaissance.
While the inhabitants of the Greater Armenia eye-witnessed the loss of their national statehood and numerous foreign invasions, the Cilician Armenians lived in wealth and prosperity. Good geographic location involved the country into an intensive international trade. Science and culture flourished. This period of Armenian history is regarded as the brilliant Age of Ecclesiastical manuscript painting. The school of genius Thoros Roslin was especially famous. Theology, philosophy, rhetoric, medicine and mathematics were taught in a large number of new schools and monasteries. New significant names appeared in the Armenian literature, such as: Nerses Shnorhali, Matthew of Edessa, Vardan Aygektsi and Sembat the Constable.
Hetum I and the Mongols.
Meanwhile, the enormous Empire of Mongols expanded on the East, and the Turks were consecutively ousted from the Greater Armenia, Syria and Mesopotamia. During the ruling of Hetum I, Mongols approached the borders of Cappadocia and Cilicia. A far-sighted politician, Hetum I was prompt to establish the good relations with Khan Batu. Later, when Khan Mangu assumed the title of Great Khan, Hetum I made a long trip to the Golden Horde with the many sumptuous presents. As a result the military alliance with the Mongols was reaffirmed. The Mongols supported Hetum I in his conflict against the Sultans of Konya and Aleppo. The next Armenian kings also maintained friendly connections with the Khans of Golden Horde. The situations drastically changed however, as the Mongols declined in power and were gradually converted to Islam.
Cilician Kingdom in danger.
By the beginning of the 14th century, the aggressive Mamelukes dynasties becoming stronger and dangerous, the Armenian Kings had no way out but seeking protection of the European monarchs. The King Leon IV repeatedly sent messengers to Rome promising the reunion of the Armenian and Catholic churches. Later his brother Oshin I tried to make alliance with Philip V, King of France. Also Leon V, Oshin's son asked Philip VI to render assistance. But the European leaders, although sympathetic, were not able or willing to intervene.
End of Rubenids.
Leon V was the last king of the Rubenids dynasty. Then, the descendants of Armenian branch of the royal Lusignan family ruled Cilicia. The country was already depleted as a result of the permanent Moslem invasions. As a matter of fact, the Christian Cilicia was doomed. The surrounding Moslem states feared new possible Crusades and often considered the Cilician Armenia as an eternal source of conflicts and an eternal pretext for European Kingdoms to interfere.
Fall of the Kingdom.
Under the ruling of Constantine IV, the Cilician Armenians gained perhaps their last victory, defeating the troops of Mamelukes near Alexandria. After Constantine's death in 1364 the Cilician throne remained unoccupied for more than 2 years. Finally, Leon VI, the last Armenian King, was elected in 1366. 8 years later, after a series of fatal battles against the superior enemy he locked himself in the Kapan fortress, but soon surrendered. The Mamelukes sent him to Egypt when he remained imprisoned for several years. Later the King of Castile mediated for his liberation. Leon VI died in Paris in 1393.
http://www.armenianhistory.info/cilician.htm
Friday, August 1, 2008
Armenia becomes the first Christian nation
I think that to understand and to know Armenian Genocide better and deeper one has to know the ancient history of Armenia especially the age when Armenia became the fisrt Christian state in the world and ever since has never adopted any other religion and has never converted its Christian religion into another one (especially Muslim) (even under horrible tortures, wars, genocide).
I decided to post this article in order to make you more familiar with Armenian nation,Armenian history.
Armenia becomes the first Christian nation.
For all that, it's only two and half centuries later that Armenia was Christianized. In 301, the king Tiridates established Christianity as a sole religion of Armenia. Some modern researchers unsubstantially pretend the event took place in 314, and not in 301. The fact remains that the Edict of Milan decreed by Constantine the Great in 313 simply mandated tolerance of the Christians in the Roman Empire, while Tiridates the Great proclaimed Christianity as a sole religion throughout all Armenian lands. Thus, Armenia became the first Christian State in the history of the world.
Gregory the Illuminator, the first Patriarch of the Armenian Church, converted Tiridates and his court. Before his conversion Tiridates, famous for his tyranny, persecuted Christians. After many horrible tortures, he threw Gregory into an underground pit full of serpents and dead bodies, where Gregory spent 13 long years.
Agathangeghos, historian of 4th century, states that during Gregory's imprisonment a group of Christian virgins under the guidance of Gayane Abbess arrived in the city of Vagharshapat. The King Tiridates fell in love with Hripsime, one of the virgins. As Hripsime rejected his love, he put the whole group of virgins to the sword. As a result of this evil deed, Tiridates was stricken with an incurable illness. Then Khosroviducht, his Christian sister, urged him to free Gregory. The King did so, and was miraculously healed.
During the following years, Tiridates and Gregory implanted the new religion with fire and sword. The sanctuaries and heathen temples were destroyed throughout the country. The only pagan temple remained intact to this day is Garni (1-st century AD-H.A.)
The first Christian churches appeared in Vagharshapat (Echmiadzin), in Nakhijevan, in Artsakh (Karabakh!). According to different accounts presented in ancient legends and in the History of Moses Khorenatzi, the first cathedral of St.Echmiadzin (now the official center of the Armenian Church) was built between 301 and 303. The exact design and place came to St.Gregory in a divine vision: Christ himself descended to the Ararat valley and struck with a golden hammer to indicate the future location of the cathedral.
Arshak II, Papes and Varazdat.
The adoption of Christianity put an end to the pagan traditions and abolished the secular fine arts and poetry. The Persian influence was still very strong in Armenia, but now Armenia and Persia worshipped different Gods. The political consequences of the evolution were tragic. A series of wars weakened Armenia during the ruling of Arshak II. The Persian King Shapur II succeeded in sowing discord between Arshak II and his principal feudal lords, called Nakharars. Some of the lords defected to Shapur. The Armenian King was summoned to Persia and then imprisoned for life in the Castle of Oblivion. His wife, Queen Parandzem, led the Armenian defense in the Artagers castle, but after 14 months of siege was also imprisoned, taken to Persia and then killed.
Arshak's successor, King Papes was as contradictory figure as his father. He was assassinated by order of the Emperor Flavius Theodosius after he allegedly had ordered the Armenian Catholicos Nerses the Great be poisoned. At that time Papes' two sons were not of age to take the throne, so Theodosius crowned Varazdat, Papes's nephew. This Varazdat was a handsome young man, a formidable warrior and a skillful fisticuffs fighter. He took part in the Olympic Games at Olympia, Greece and became victor. But the end of his ruling was unfortunate. His intention to marry the Persian Princess angered Theodosius, Persia's sworn enemy. The perfidious Emperor ordered that Varazdat be enchained and exiled to an island.
St. Mesrob and the Golden Age of Armenia
The Armenian Kingdom fell into decay, but Christianity in Armenia strengthened considerably. At that time the necessity emerged to revive the lost Armenian alphabet. The Masses in Armenian churches were sung in Greek, the Royal Court and nobility spoke Greek and Parthian, priesthood, schools and different educational institutions widely used Greek and Syrian. Therefore, the recreation of the alphabet became vital to oppose the possible assimilation.
King Vramshapouh and Catholicos Sahak Partev assigned the task to Mesrob Mashtots, a genius scholar monk. For several years, he traveled throughout Greater and Lesser Armenias and Mediterranean world in quest for the lost scriptures. In Edessa, he finds some of the scrolls in old Armenian, and after carefully reviewing them and exploring the possibilities, he recreates the Armenian alphabet in 405.
In 425, the Bible was translated into the Armenian language from the authentic copies of the Bible brought from Constantinople and Edessa. The Armenian translation is the fifth known translation of the Bible. Earlier, the Bible was only translated into the Syriac, the Latin, the Coptic and the Abyssinian languages. Some specialists estimate this translation, performed by St.Mesrob and his disciples, as the best Bible translation ever. The French linguists of the 19th century termed it as the "Queen of translations". St.Mesrob, later elevated into sainthood, is also known as the author of the actual Georgian alphabet. He also invented an alphabet for the large tribe of Gargareans, that inhabited Aghuank.
Paradoxically, the 5th century, marked by serious political losses, became the Golden Age of the Armenian literature. The works of Faustus the Byzantine, Moses of Khorene, Eliseus , Koriun, Lazarus Barbedzi, Eznik of Kolb, David the Invincible, and others, may be considered milestones of historiography and philosophy.
St. Vardan and the first war for the Christian faith.
Meanwhile, Armenia lost independence. Over the next 200 years the eastern provinces were ruled by the Persian marzpans. A number of insurrections took place during that period. The most famous among them was the so-called Vardanank, War of St.Vardan in 451, described in details by Eliseus and Lazarus Barbedzi. The Persian King Yazdegerd II tried to put an end to Christianity in Armenia, and to disseminate the doctrine of Zoroaster. Armenians revolted when the numerous Persian priests were sent to Armenia to build temples and conduct fire worship. On May 6, 451 a horrifically bloody battle took place in the Avarayr place. 66 thousand Armenians heroically fought the overwhelmingly superior Persian troops. Most of the Armenian lords including St.Vardan fell in battle, but Armenia undoubtedly won a great moral victory. Over 60 thousand of Persian soldiers were killed, and Yazdegerd's hopes were dashed. That was the first known war for Christian faith in history.
Vahan Mamikonean.
30 years later a new resurrection took place, headed by Prince Vahan Mamikonean, St.Vardan's nephew. This commander fought the Persian king Firuz II with changeable success. Firuz's successor was a moderate ruler conceding the freedom of religion. Vahan was granted the title of marzpan. Another offspring of Mamikonean family, known as Red Vardan, rose against Persians in the middle of the next century. He captured the city of Dvin, the old Armenian capital. But soon the rising was put down, and Vardan made his escape to Greece. In 551 Moses , the Armenian Catholicos set a new Armenian calendar from AD 551.
The Bagradouni Princes and the Arab expansion.
Around 590, a new partition of Armenia between Persia and Byzantine Empire took place. Western provinces of the Greater Armenia were ruled by the kuropalats - governors of the Greek Emperor. The Mamikonean Princes gradually conceded their leading role to the other noble Armenian families. The Bagradouni Princes became especially powerful and influential.
>Meanwhile, the Persian Empire fell into decay. In the early seventh century, a new power emerged in the Middle East. The Arabian Caliphate began first great expansions. Egypt and Syria became Islamic countries. The Persian troops were routed several times. By 680, Arabs destroyed the last remains of the Persian resistance and invaded all Persian territories. Zoroastrianism was replaced with Islam.
Arab invasions and Armenian revolts.
The Arabs first invaded Armenia in 640. Prince Theodoros Rshtuni led the Armenian defense. In 652, a piece agreement was made, allowing Armenians freedom of religion. Prince Theidoros traveled to Damask, where he was recognized by the Arabs as the ruler of Armenia, Georgia and Albania.
By the end of the seventh century, the Caliphate's policy toward Armenia and the Christian faith hardened. Special representatives of Caliph called ostigans were sent to govern Armenia. The ostigans made the city of Dvin their residence. Before Dvin was the residence of Armenian Catholicos.
Although declared domain of Caliph, Armenia remained faithful to the Christian religion. The Arabs failed in several attempts to convert the Armenians to Islam. The Armenian obstinacy exasperated caliph Abd al-Malik. In 705, he gave to one of the ostigans an unprecedented order to murder all Armenian Nakharars. More than 400 Armenian noblemen were entrapped to one of Nakhichevan churches, then the doors were closed and the church was set in fire. Later, the Arab historians termed that time as The Year of Great Burning. Quoting Armenian History.','#cc9966')" onmouseout=kill() href="http://www.armenianhistory.info/draskhanakertsi.htm" target=_blank ;>John VI, "...ocean of tears flooded Armenia". A number of unsuccessful insurrections followed that tragic event during the 8th century.
By 850, the Bagradouni Princes strengthened their position among the other noble Armenian families. The Prince Bagarat Bagradouni was the one who enjoyed the confidence of the high-ranking Arab officials. The Caliph granted him the title of Grand Prince. But soon thereafter, other Armenian Nakharars rebelled against him.
In 851 Yussouf, a Caliph's commander, arrived to Armenia to put down the mutiny. To his surprise, he found nobody submissive. Enraged, Yussouf arrested the Grand Prince and sent him to the Caliph. A few later, the two sons of Bagarat revenged his father, raising the highlanders of Sassun province against Arabs. At nighttime, the armed multitude suddenly attacked the castle of Yussouf and killed him.
Furious, the Caliph sent a huge army, headed by Bugha. This commander, former slave, was known for his particular cruelty. Bugha's campaign was truly devastating. Many Armenian cities and fortresses were destroyed and set ablaze. Historians termed Bugha as "butcher" and "brutal urderer". The panic prevailed throughout the country. Only some few of the Armenian Nakharars put a stout resistance. Isaiah, the valiant Prince of Artsakh was Bugha's most uncompromising opponent, but in the end Bugha seized him and sent to Baghdad together with other captive Nakharars.
Many of these noble prisoners met their death in the Baghdad dungeons. Being aware of the particular authority of Bagradouni Princes, the Caliph tried to convert them to Islam. Sembat Bagradouni, Sparabet of Armenia, refused to apostatize and was murdered after many cruel tortures.
Restoration of Kingdom.
Ten years later Ashot Bagradouni, son of Sembat was proclaimed Prince of Princes. Wise and astute politician, Ashot resourcefully balanced between the Arabs and the Greeks. Under his ruling, Armenia enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. In 884, Ashot I was solemnly crowned King of Armenia. Both the Caliph and the Byzantine Emperor sent him a crown with many splendid presents, recognizing him as King. Thus, the Armenian Kingdom was de jure restored.
In the time of Ashot's ruling, Basil I, the first Emperor of the Macedonian dynasty, came to throne in the Byzantine Empire. Basil I and a number of his successors were of Armenian descent. The new Emperor declared himself a descendent of the Armenian Arshakids kings. Traditionally, during the coronation ceremonies of the Armenian kings, it was a representative of Bagradouni family who solemnly laid the crown on the new king's head. That's why Basil I delegated a certain Nikita, his court eunuch, to Armenia asking Ashot Bagradouni to symbolically send him a crown.
Chapter V:CIVIL STRIFE (FROM 890 TO 14th CENTURY)
After Ashot's death in 890 his son, Sembat I became King of Armenia. Bellicose and energetic, he waged non-stop warfare during 22 years of his ruling. He was very successful in the beginning, putting down a number of revolts in northern Armenia and subjecting the Moslem rulers of Dvin. The major Armenian Nakharars supported Sembat at that time, and his army was very efficient. But later, some of the most ambitious vassals sought independence. As a result the Kingdom was split into several rebellious principalities. Perhaps the King Sembat had only himself to blame. He began the destructive process in 899, when he granted the title of King to his friend and loyal vassal Adrnerseh, the Prince of the vast Vyrk province. The accession of Adrnerseh in Vyrk originated the future Georgian Kingdom.
The jealousy of other influential Princes caused unrest and trouble in Armenia. The ostigan Afshin, sworn enemy of King Sembat, was now able to turn the situation to his profit. He repeatedly attacked the Armenian cities and captured the important fortress of Kars, making Armenian Queen and other members of the royal family his hostages. The truce was established after Sembat I agreed to pay a huge ransom and give one of his nieces in marriage to Afshin. Shortly after, Afshin died, but his brother Yussouf was even worse. He concluded an alliance with Gagik Ardsrouni, ruler of Vaspurakan province. A few later, Gagik was declared King of Armenia. Also the Sparapet Ashot seceded and declared himself King of Armenia. A number of fratricidal wars devastated the country. Then Yussouf, in alliance with the apostate Armenian princes, besieged and destroyed many of key cities and fortresses. At the end of his tether, the King Sembat locked him-self in an impregnable fortress of Kapuit.
The siege of Kapuit lasted over two years. Finally, Sembat surrendered to Yussouf making it a condition to spare his loyal soldiers. Yussouf hypocritically swore eternal friendship, but after a while he perfidiously captured the Armenian King again. Sembat I was accused of preparing a new war, tortured in a barbarous fashion, and finally put to death.
Ashot Erkat.
The internecine strife continued to destroy Armenia during the next decade. Ashot II, son of Sembat, came to throne of his father. He forthwith began the war against another King Ashot, his cousin and namesake who had for residence the city of Bagharan. The third Armenian king, Gagik Ardsrouni, ruled in relative peace the Vaspurakan province. An unprecedented renaissance in architecture marked his ruling. A number of splendid churches and a beautiful palace were built on the Akhtamar Island. Later, the Church of Holy Cross became the residence of the Catholicosate of Aghtamar. In 914, Ashot II visited Constantinople. The Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus treated him with affection and sent him back to Armenia with a huge army. Now Ashot II was able to rout Yussouf and put an end to the Arab dominance. Historians called Ashot, Erkat i.e. Iron.
Heyday of Trade and Literature.
Under the ruling of Abas I, and Ashot III, Armenia reentered the period of peace and prosperity. The capital moved into the glorious city of Ani, known as "the city of one thousand and one churches". Under the next kings, Sembat II and his brother Gaguik I, the resumption oftrade made Ani one of the most prosperous cities of that time. Its population reached 200 000 inhabitants.
The 10th and the 11th century produced new illustrious names in Armenian historical and ecclesiastic literature, such as John of Draskhanakert, Thomas Ardsrouni, Moses Kaghankatvatsi, Asoghik and Gregory Narekatsi.
The Turks emerge.
However, new disastrous invasions marked the beginning of a new millennium. The Seljuk Turks emerged as a new dangerous power. The Vaspurakan province was the first to be attacked. As mentioned above, this province was ruled by Ardsrouni princes who proclaimed themselves kings. Unable to secure the country against the new enemy, the King Senekerim sought the protection of Emperor Basil II. As a result of their mutual accord, Basil II took the possession of Vaspurakan giving Senekerim one of the Greek provinces in exchange. Meanwhile, the Seljuks tried to capture the old Armenian city of Dvin, but were put to rout by Vahram Pahlavouni, Sparapet of Armenia.
Gagik II.
During the next 50 years the Greeks gradually annexed the important part of the Great Armenia. Torn between the Turkish danger and co-religionist Byzantine power, Armenia was at the threshold of a national disaster. The army of Constantine IX besieged Ani in 1041. The Sparapet Vahram Pahlavouni, at the time 80 years old, repeatedly repulsed the enemy. Soon after, the Greeks raised the siege. A 16-year-old Gaguik II arrived in Ani and was proclaimed King of Armenia. However, Gaguik II was fated to be the last king of the Armenian Bagratouni dynasty. Young and inexperienced, he was betrayed by some of his pro-Greek princes, especially by Prince Sarkis. During Gaguik's visit in Constantinople the Emperor Constantine IX told him that Sarkis and the other Armenian grandees had recognized the Greek authority over Armenia. Confused and upset, Gagik refused to return to Armenia.
Armenia falls under the Turks
The Greek dominance in Armenia ended in 1071, after the famous battle of Manzikert. The 100-thousandth army of Byzantines including the Armenian forces met with the huge army of Seljuks under Alp Aslan. The Christians led by the Emperor Romanus Diogenes were defeated, and Diogenes was imprisoned by Alp Aslan. The Turks took control over all of the Greater Armenia.
Armenians and Georgians unite.
In the 12th century and in the beginning of the 13th century, a number of Armenian nobles joined with the neighboring Georgians, in an attempt to liberate the Armenian lands. The strengthening Georgian Kingdom was at the time ruled by a branch of the Armenian Bagradouni dynasty. After a number of uprisings that took place in 1124, 1161 and 1174, the Seljuk rule was overthrown in different cities of Greater Armenia. During the reign of Queen Tamar (1184-1213), some important cities of Greater Armenia, such as Ani, Kars and Dvin were retaken from the Turks. The military expeditions were led by Armenian nobles Zakare Zakarian and his brother Ivane, favorite of Queen Tamar.
Mongols and Turkomans in Armenia.
The short revival in Armenia ended with the first Mongol invasions in the early 1220's. During the next 100 years the country was subjected to new campaigns of terror and destruction. The cities and the entire provinces, such as Ani, Kars, Lori, Gandzak, Shamkhor, Khachen, Nakhichevan and many others were destroyed, plundered and set ablaze. After the census taken in 1254, the population was overtaxed. According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, eyewitness to the events, "…they demanded the most severe taxes, more than a man could bear…They harassed the people with incredible beatings and tortures… Those who hid were seized and killed."
A number of rebellions led by Armenian and Georgian lords were brutally crushed by Mongols.
From the beginning of the 14th century, the Mongol dominance in the region recedes. Now numerous Turkoman nomadic tribes invade the Armenian lands. Different parts of Armenia become the theater of warfare for the various nomadic clans, such as Kara Koyunlu (Black Sheep) and Ak Koyunlu(White Sheep) .
http://www.armenianhistory.info/christianity.htm
I decided to post this article in order to make you more familiar with Armenian nation,Armenian history.
Armenia becomes the first Christian nation.
For all that, it's only two and half centuries later that Armenia was Christianized. In 301, the king Tiridates established Christianity as a sole religion of Armenia. Some modern researchers unsubstantially pretend the event took place in 314, and not in 301. The fact remains that the Edict of Milan decreed by Constantine the Great in 313 simply mandated tolerance of the Christians in the Roman Empire, while Tiridates the Great proclaimed Christianity as a sole religion throughout all Armenian lands. Thus, Armenia became the first Christian State in the history of the world.
Gregory the Illuminator, the first Patriarch of the Armenian Church, converted Tiridates and his court. Before his conversion Tiridates, famous for his tyranny, persecuted Christians. After many horrible tortures, he threw Gregory into an underground pit full of serpents and dead bodies, where Gregory spent 13 long years.
Agathangeghos, historian of 4th century, states that during Gregory's imprisonment a group of Christian virgins under the guidance of Gayane Abbess arrived in the city of Vagharshapat. The King Tiridates fell in love with Hripsime, one of the virgins. As Hripsime rejected his love, he put the whole group of virgins to the sword. As a result of this evil deed, Tiridates was stricken with an incurable illness. Then Khosroviducht, his Christian sister, urged him to free Gregory. The King did so, and was miraculously healed.
During the following years, Tiridates and Gregory implanted the new religion with fire and sword. The sanctuaries and heathen temples were destroyed throughout the country. The only pagan temple remained intact to this day is Garni (1-st century AD-H.A.)
The first Christian churches appeared in Vagharshapat (Echmiadzin), in Nakhijevan, in Artsakh (Karabakh!). According to different accounts presented in ancient legends and in the History of Moses Khorenatzi, the first cathedral of St.Echmiadzin (now the official center of the Armenian Church) was built between 301 and 303. The exact design and place came to St.Gregory in a divine vision: Christ himself descended to the Ararat valley and struck with a golden hammer to indicate the future location of the cathedral.
Arshak II, Papes and Varazdat.
The adoption of Christianity put an end to the pagan traditions and abolished the secular fine arts and poetry. The Persian influence was still very strong in Armenia, but now Armenia and Persia worshipped different Gods. The political consequences of the evolution were tragic. A series of wars weakened Armenia during the ruling of Arshak II. The Persian King Shapur II succeeded in sowing discord between Arshak II and his principal feudal lords, called Nakharars. Some of the lords defected to Shapur. The Armenian King was summoned to Persia and then imprisoned for life in the Castle of Oblivion. His wife, Queen Parandzem, led the Armenian defense in the Artagers castle, but after 14 months of siege was also imprisoned, taken to Persia and then killed.
Arshak's successor, King Papes was as contradictory figure as his father. He was assassinated by order of the Emperor Flavius Theodosius after he allegedly had ordered the Armenian Catholicos Nerses the Great be poisoned. At that time Papes' two sons were not of age to take the throne, so Theodosius crowned Varazdat, Papes's nephew. This Varazdat was a handsome young man, a formidable warrior and a skillful fisticuffs fighter. He took part in the Olympic Games at Olympia, Greece and became victor. But the end of his ruling was unfortunate. His intention to marry the Persian Princess angered Theodosius, Persia's sworn enemy. The perfidious Emperor ordered that Varazdat be enchained and exiled to an island.
St. Mesrob and the Golden Age of Armenia
The Armenian Kingdom fell into decay, but Christianity in Armenia strengthened considerably. At that time the necessity emerged to revive the lost Armenian alphabet. The Masses in Armenian churches were sung in Greek, the Royal Court and nobility spoke Greek and Parthian, priesthood, schools and different educational institutions widely used Greek and Syrian. Therefore, the recreation of the alphabet became vital to oppose the possible assimilation.
King Vramshapouh and Catholicos Sahak Partev assigned the task to Mesrob Mashtots, a genius scholar monk. For several years, he traveled throughout Greater and Lesser Armenias and Mediterranean world in quest for the lost scriptures. In Edessa, he finds some of the scrolls in old Armenian, and after carefully reviewing them and exploring the possibilities, he recreates the Armenian alphabet in 405.
In 425, the Bible was translated into the Armenian language from the authentic copies of the Bible brought from Constantinople and Edessa. The Armenian translation is the fifth known translation of the Bible. Earlier, the Bible was only translated into the Syriac, the Latin, the Coptic and the Abyssinian languages. Some specialists estimate this translation, performed by St.Mesrob and his disciples, as the best Bible translation ever. The French linguists of the 19th century termed it as the "Queen of translations". St.Mesrob, later elevated into sainthood, is also known as the author of the actual Georgian alphabet. He also invented an alphabet for the large tribe of Gargareans, that inhabited Aghuank.
Paradoxically, the 5th century, marked by serious political losses, became the Golden Age of the Armenian literature. The works of Faustus the Byzantine, Moses of Khorene, Eliseus , Koriun, Lazarus Barbedzi, Eznik of Kolb, David the Invincible, and others, may be considered milestones of historiography and philosophy.
St. Vardan and the first war for the Christian faith.
Meanwhile, Armenia lost independence. Over the next 200 years the eastern provinces were ruled by the Persian marzpans. A number of insurrections took place during that period. The most famous among them was the so-called Vardanank, War of St.Vardan in 451, described in details by Eliseus and Lazarus Barbedzi. The Persian King Yazdegerd II tried to put an end to Christianity in Armenia, and to disseminate the doctrine of Zoroaster. Armenians revolted when the numerous Persian priests were sent to Armenia to build temples and conduct fire worship. On May 6, 451 a horrifically bloody battle took place in the Avarayr place. 66 thousand Armenians heroically fought the overwhelmingly superior Persian troops. Most of the Armenian lords including St.Vardan fell in battle, but Armenia undoubtedly won a great moral victory. Over 60 thousand of Persian soldiers were killed, and Yazdegerd's hopes were dashed. That was the first known war for Christian faith in history.
Vahan Mamikonean.
30 years later a new resurrection took place, headed by Prince Vahan Mamikonean, St.Vardan's nephew. This commander fought the Persian king Firuz II with changeable success. Firuz's successor was a moderate ruler conceding the freedom of religion. Vahan was granted the title of marzpan. Another offspring of Mamikonean family, known as Red Vardan, rose against Persians in the middle of the next century. He captured the city of Dvin, the old Armenian capital. But soon the rising was put down, and Vardan made his escape to Greece. In 551 Moses , the Armenian Catholicos set a new Armenian calendar from AD 551.
The Bagradouni Princes and the Arab expansion.
Around 590, a new partition of Armenia between Persia and Byzantine Empire took place. Western provinces of the Greater Armenia were ruled by the kuropalats - governors of the Greek Emperor. The Mamikonean Princes gradually conceded their leading role to the other noble Armenian families. The Bagradouni Princes became especially powerful and influential.
>Meanwhile, the Persian Empire fell into decay. In the early seventh century, a new power emerged in the Middle East. The Arabian Caliphate began first great expansions. Egypt and Syria became Islamic countries. The Persian troops were routed several times. By 680, Arabs destroyed the last remains of the Persian resistance and invaded all Persian territories. Zoroastrianism was replaced with Islam.
Arab invasions and Armenian revolts.
The Arabs first invaded Armenia in 640. Prince Theodoros Rshtuni led the Armenian defense. In 652, a piece agreement was made, allowing Armenians freedom of religion. Prince Theidoros traveled to Damask, where he was recognized by the Arabs as the ruler of Armenia, Georgia and Albania.
By the end of the seventh century, the Caliphate's policy toward Armenia and the Christian faith hardened. Special representatives of Caliph called ostigans were sent to govern Armenia. The ostigans made the city of Dvin their residence. Before Dvin was the residence of Armenian Catholicos.
Although declared domain of Caliph, Armenia remained faithful to the Christian religion. The Arabs failed in several attempts to convert the Armenians to Islam. The Armenian obstinacy exasperated caliph Abd al-Malik. In 705, he gave to one of the ostigans an unprecedented order to murder all Armenian Nakharars. More than 400 Armenian noblemen were entrapped to one of Nakhichevan churches, then the doors were closed and the church was set in fire. Later, the Arab historians termed that time as The Year of Great Burning. Quoting Armenian History.','#cc9966')" onmouseout=kill() href="http://www.armenianhistory.info/draskhanakertsi.htm" target=_blank ;>John VI, "...ocean of tears flooded Armenia". A number of unsuccessful insurrections followed that tragic event during the 8th century.
By 850, the Bagradouni Princes strengthened their position among the other noble Armenian families. The Prince Bagarat Bagradouni was the one who enjoyed the confidence of the high-ranking Arab officials. The Caliph granted him the title of Grand Prince. But soon thereafter, other Armenian Nakharars rebelled against him.
In 851 Yussouf, a Caliph's commander, arrived to Armenia to put down the mutiny. To his surprise, he found nobody submissive. Enraged, Yussouf arrested the Grand Prince and sent him to the Caliph. A few later, the two sons of Bagarat revenged his father, raising the highlanders of Sassun province against Arabs. At nighttime, the armed multitude suddenly attacked the castle of Yussouf and killed him.
Furious, the Caliph sent a huge army, headed by Bugha. This commander, former slave, was known for his particular cruelty. Bugha's campaign was truly devastating. Many Armenian cities and fortresses were destroyed and set ablaze. Historians termed Bugha as "butcher" and "brutal urderer". The panic prevailed throughout the country. Only some few of the Armenian Nakharars put a stout resistance. Isaiah, the valiant Prince of Artsakh was Bugha's most uncompromising opponent, but in the end Bugha seized him and sent to Baghdad together with other captive Nakharars.
Many of these noble prisoners met their death in the Baghdad dungeons. Being aware of the particular authority of Bagradouni Princes, the Caliph tried to convert them to Islam. Sembat Bagradouni, Sparabet of Armenia, refused to apostatize and was murdered after many cruel tortures.
Restoration of Kingdom.
Ten years later Ashot Bagradouni, son of Sembat was proclaimed Prince of Princes. Wise and astute politician, Ashot resourcefully balanced between the Arabs and the Greeks. Under his ruling, Armenia enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. In 884, Ashot I was solemnly crowned King of Armenia. Both the Caliph and the Byzantine Emperor sent him a crown with many splendid presents, recognizing him as King. Thus, the Armenian Kingdom was de jure restored.
In the time of Ashot's ruling, Basil I, the first Emperor of the Macedonian dynasty, came to throne in the Byzantine Empire. Basil I and a number of his successors were of Armenian descent. The new Emperor declared himself a descendent of the Armenian Arshakids kings. Traditionally, during the coronation ceremonies of the Armenian kings, it was a representative of Bagradouni family who solemnly laid the crown on the new king's head. That's why Basil I delegated a certain Nikita, his court eunuch, to Armenia asking Ashot Bagradouni to symbolically send him a crown.
Chapter V:CIVIL STRIFE (FROM 890 TO 14th CENTURY)
After Ashot's death in 890 his son, Sembat I became King of Armenia. Bellicose and energetic, he waged non-stop warfare during 22 years of his ruling. He was very successful in the beginning, putting down a number of revolts in northern Armenia and subjecting the Moslem rulers of Dvin. The major Armenian Nakharars supported Sembat at that time, and his army was very efficient. But later, some of the most ambitious vassals sought independence. As a result the Kingdom was split into several rebellious principalities. Perhaps the King Sembat had only himself to blame. He began the destructive process in 899, when he granted the title of King to his friend and loyal vassal Adrnerseh, the Prince of the vast Vyrk province. The accession of Adrnerseh in Vyrk originated the future Georgian Kingdom.
The jealousy of other influential Princes caused unrest and trouble in Armenia. The ostigan Afshin, sworn enemy of King Sembat, was now able to turn the situation to his profit. He repeatedly attacked the Armenian cities and captured the important fortress of Kars, making Armenian Queen and other members of the royal family his hostages. The truce was established after Sembat I agreed to pay a huge ransom and give one of his nieces in marriage to Afshin. Shortly after, Afshin died, but his brother Yussouf was even worse. He concluded an alliance with Gagik Ardsrouni, ruler of Vaspurakan province. A few later, Gagik was declared King of Armenia. Also the Sparapet Ashot seceded and declared himself King of Armenia. A number of fratricidal wars devastated the country. Then Yussouf, in alliance with the apostate Armenian princes, besieged and destroyed many of key cities and fortresses. At the end of his tether, the King Sembat locked him-self in an impregnable fortress of Kapuit.
The siege of Kapuit lasted over two years. Finally, Sembat surrendered to Yussouf making it a condition to spare his loyal soldiers. Yussouf hypocritically swore eternal friendship, but after a while he perfidiously captured the Armenian King again. Sembat I was accused of preparing a new war, tortured in a barbarous fashion, and finally put to death.
Ashot Erkat.
The internecine strife continued to destroy Armenia during the next decade. Ashot II, son of Sembat, came to throne of his father. He forthwith began the war against another King Ashot, his cousin and namesake who had for residence the city of Bagharan. The third Armenian king, Gagik Ardsrouni, ruled in relative peace the Vaspurakan province. An unprecedented renaissance in architecture marked his ruling. A number of splendid churches and a beautiful palace were built on the Akhtamar Island. Later, the Church of Holy Cross became the residence of the Catholicosate of Aghtamar. In 914, Ashot II visited Constantinople. The Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus treated him with affection and sent him back to Armenia with a huge army. Now Ashot II was able to rout Yussouf and put an end to the Arab dominance. Historians called Ashot, Erkat i.e. Iron.
Heyday of Trade and Literature.
Under the ruling of Abas I, and Ashot III, Armenia reentered the period of peace and prosperity. The capital moved into the glorious city of Ani, known as "the city of one thousand and one churches". Under the next kings, Sembat II and his brother Gaguik I, the resumption oftrade made Ani one of the most prosperous cities of that time. Its population reached 200 000 inhabitants.
The 10th and the 11th century produced new illustrious names in Armenian historical and ecclesiastic literature, such as John of Draskhanakert, Thomas Ardsrouni, Moses Kaghankatvatsi, Asoghik and Gregory Narekatsi.
The Turks emerge.
However, new disastrous invasions marked the beginning of a new millennium. The Seljuk Turks emerged as a new dangerous power. The Vaspurakan province was the first to be attacked. As mentioned above, this province was ruled by Ardsrouni princes who proclaimed themselves kings. Unable to secure the country against the new enemy, the King Senekerim sought the protection of Emperor Basil II. As a result of their mutual accord, Basil II took the possession of Vaspurakan giving Senekerim one of the Greek provinces in exchange. Meanwhile, the Seljuks tried to capture the old Armenian city of Dvin, but were put to rout by Vahram Pahlavouni, Sparapet of Armenia.
Gagik II.
During the next 50 years the Greeks gradually annexed the important part of the Great Armenia. Torn between the Turkish danger and co-religionist Byzantine power, Armenia was at the threshold of a national disaster. The army of Constantine IX besieged Ani in 1041. The Sparapet Vahram Pahlavouni, at the time 80 years old, repeatedly repulsed the enemy. Soon after, the Greeks raised the siege. A 16-year-old Gaguik II arrived in Ani and was proclaimed King of Armenia. However, Gaguik II was fated to be the last king of the Armenian Bagratouni dynasty. Young and inexperienced, he was betrayed by some of his pro-Greek princes, especially by Prince Sarkis. During Gaguik's visit in Constantinople the Emperor Constantine IX told him that Sarkis and the other Armenian grandees had recognized the Greek authority over Armenia. Confused and upset, Gagik refused to return to Armenia.
Armenia falls under the Turks
The Greek dominance in Armenia ended in 1071, after the famous battle of Manzikert. The 100-thousandth army of Byzantines including the Armenian forces met with the huge army of Seljuks under Alp Aslan. The Christians led by the Emperor Romanus Diogenes were defeated, and Diogenes was imprisoned by Alp Aslan. The Turks took control over all of the Greater Armenia.
Armenians and Georgians unite.
In the 12th century and in the beginning of the 13th century, a number of Armenian nobles joined with the neighboring Georgians, in an attempt to liberate the Armenian lands. The strengthening Georgian Kingdom was at the time ruled by a branch of the Armenian Bagradouni dynasty. After a number of uprisings that took place in 1124, 1161 and 1174, the Seljuk rule was overthrown in different cities of Greater Armenia. During the reign of Queen Tamar (1184-1213), some important cities of Greater Armenia, such as Ani, Kars and Dvin were retaken from the Turks. The military expeditions were led by Armenian nobles Zakare Zakarian and his brother Ivane, favorite of Queen Tamar.
Mongols and Turkomans in Armenia.
The short revival in Armenia ended with the first Mongol invasions in the early 1220's. During the next 100 years the country was subjected to new campaigns of terror and destruction. The cities and the entire provinces, such as Ani, Kars, Lori, Gandzak, Shamkhor, Khachen, Nakhichevan and many others were destroyed, plundered and set ablaze. After the census taken in 1254, the population was overtaxed. According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, eyewitness to the events, "…they demanded the most severe taxes, more than a man could bear…They harassed the people with incredible beatings and tortures… Those who hid were seized and killed."
A number of rebellions led by Armenian and Georgian lords were brutally crushed by Mongols.
From the beginning of the 14th century, the Mongol dominance in the region recedes. Now numerous Turkoman nomadic tribes invade the Armenian lands. Different parts of Armenia become the theater of warfare for the various nomadic clans, such as Kara Koyunlu (Black Sheep) and Ak Koyunlu(White Sheep) .
http://www.armenianhistory.info/christianity.htm
Thursday, July 31, 2008
In 1915 alone, the New York Times Published 145 Articles About the Armenian Genocide.
Why Doesn’t the U.S.Recognize the Genocide and Hold its Perpetrators Responsible?
Due to Turkish threats, every U.S. administration since 1982 has feared that properly recognizing the Armenian Genocide would offend the Turkish government. As a result, the executive branch has consistently opposed the passage of Congressional resolutions commemorating the Genocide and has objected to the use of the word “genocide” to describe the systematic destruction of the Armenian people.
Genocide Denial Campaign
The Republic of Turkey, which, in spite of the overwhelming evidence documenting the Armenian Genocide, continues to pursue a well-funded campaign - in Washington, DC and throughout the world - to deny and ultimately erase from world history the 1.5 million victims of Ottoman Turkey's and later the Republic of Turkey's systematic and deliberate massacres and deportations of the Armenian people by between the years 1915 and 1923.
Governments that Recognize and Condemn the Genocide
Several countries have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide through legislation and state declarations. Some of the more recently prominent legislative bodies to pass such resolutions include the Dutch Parliament, Swiss National Council, Canadian House of Commons, Argentinean Senate, and the French National Assembly.
Why is Genocide Recognition So Important?
The first step in stopping future genocides from occurring is to acknowledge past crimes against humanity. It is only then that we can unequivocally condemn all genocidal campaigns and take a stand against them. By recognizing and officially commemorating the Armenian Genocide, the United States would be ensuring that the lessons of this terrible crime against humanity are never forgotten. In addition, proper recognition would encourage Turkey to finally come to terms with its own history and eventually improve relations with Armenia.
Who Remembers the Armenians?
By Christine Thomassian and Shabtai Gold
Fri. Apr 29, 2005
Adolf Hitler was confident that the world would remain indifferent to the plight of the Jewish people he was planning to exterminate. After all, he reportedly told Nazi commanders before the outbreak of World War II, who remembers the Armenians?
The answer to Hitler’s rhetorical question remained much the same as the 90th anniversary of the Turkish genocide of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians was commemorated last weekend.
Yad Vashem, Israel’s national Holocaust museum and the world’s central address for commemorating the horrors of genocide, recently opened a new wing to its museum, with much international fanfare. There is not a single mention in the new museum of the Armenian genocide, which paved the ideological way for the Jewish genocide perpetrated by the Nazis.
For its part, the Turkish government — much like today’s Holocaust deniers — continues to disclaim its involvement in the genocide and the very occurrence of such a horror, expending large sums of money in this campaign. Some in Turkey admit that a few “individuals” committed massacres against the Armenians, but they are quick to assert that these acts were provoked by the Armenians themselves in order to receive aid and sympathy.
Not satisfied with this accusation, this week the Turkish State Archives announced that more than a half million Turks were killed by Armenians. True, many Armenians collaborated with the Russians as irregular fighters against Turkey in World War I, and they may have killed as many as 75,000 Turks. But given the anti-Armenian pogroms initiated by Turkey during the 1890s that set the stage for the full-scale genocide in 1915, Armenians’ partaking in the fighting is easily understood — no one should be expected to go like sheep to the slaughter.
Sadly, the Turkish government is not alone in its campaign. Indeed, it is receiving support from some very odd sources, including a number of prominent Jewish organizations in Washington and the Jewish state itself. Noble Peace laureate Shimon Peres, while serving as Israeli foreign minister in 2001, called the Armenian genocide nothing more than a “tragedy,” saying “nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred.”
Much energy, effort and money is justifiably spent on attempting to ensure that the world will never forget the Holocaust. Wouldn’t it meet our standards of morality to include all such horrors?
What about the Assyrian Christians murdered along with Armenians by Turkey? What about the Roma, homosexuals and other “undesirables” massacred by the Nazis? And what of the more recent killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda and now Darfur?
Shouldn’t “never again” be applied to all men, women and children who are starved, beaten, obligated to undergo torturous medical experiments, marched through forests or deserts, forced to dig their own mass graves or herded into gas chambers? Is “never again” an admonition over which the Jewish people can maintain a monopoly?
Shouldn’t the American Jewish community be doing more to help gain recognition for the Armenian genocide, 90 years after the fact? After all, the first American human rights movement to focus on issues overseas was founded to stop the travesties being committed against Armenians. And it was Henry Morgenthau, America’s Jewish ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, who led the campaign to alert the world to the horrors being perpetrated by Turkey.
Denial is, without a doubt, the final stage of genocide. It murders the memory of the horrors, and of the dead. We must always guard against denial becoming accepted as legitimate discourse, let alone as fact. Will we allow Turkey to successfully continue its campaign of denial?
If we do, we will be condemning our children to repeat these horrors and to have these horrors repeated unto them, as American philosopher George Santayana famously warned a century ago. But if we act now, if we insure that our children and our children’s children are properly educated about the Armenian genocide, then just maybe we can prevent “never again” from becoming an empty saying.
Christine Thomassian and Shabtai Gold are university students who lost members of their family in, respectively, the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust.
http://www.forward.com/articles/3383/
Fri. Apr 29, 2005
Adolf Hitler was confident that the world would remain indifferent to the plight of the Jewish people he was planning to exterminate. After all, he reportedly told Nazi commanders before the outbreak of World War II, who remembers the Armenians?
The answer to Hitler’s rhetorical question remained much the same as the 90th anniversary of the Turkish genocide of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians was commemorated last weekend.
Yad Vashem, Israel’s national Holocaust museum and the world’s central address for commemorating the horrors of genocide, recently opened a new wing to its museum, with much international fanfare. There is not a single mention in the new museum of the Armenian genocide, which paved the ideological way for the Jewish genocide perpetrated by the Nazis.
For its part, the Turkish government — much like today’s Holocaust deniers — continues to disclaim its involvement in the genocide and the very occurrence of such a horror, expending large sums of money in this campaign. Some in Turkey admit that a few “individuals” committed massacres against the Armenians, but they are quick to assert that these acts were provoked by the Armenians themselves in order to receive aid and sympathy.
Not satisfied with this accusation, this week the Turkish State Archives announced that more than a half million Turks were killed by Armenians. True, many Armenians collaborated with the Russians as irregular fighters against Turkey in World War I, and they may have killed as many as 75,000 Turks. But given the anti-Armenian pogroms initiated by Turkey during the 1890s that set the stage for the full-scale genocide in 1915, Armenians’ partaking in the fighting is easily understood — no one should be expected to go like sheep to the slaughter.
Sadly, the Turkish government is not alone in its campaign. Indeed, it is receiving support from some very odd sources, including a number of prominent Jewish organizations in Washington and the Jewish state itself. Noble Peace laureate Shimon Peres, while serving as Israeli foreign minister in 2001, called the Armenian genocide nothing more than a “tragedy,” saying “nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred.”
Much energy, effort and money is justifiably spent on attempting to ensure that the world will never forget the Holocaust. Wouldn’t it meet our standards of morality to include all such horrors?
What about the Assyrian Christians murdered along with Armenians by Turkey? What about the Roma, homosexuals and other “undesirables” massacred by the Nazis? And what of the more recent killing fields in Cambodia, Rwanda and now Darfur?
Shouldn’t “never again” be applied to all men, women and children who are starved, beaten, obligated to undergo torturous medical experiments, marched through forests or deserts, forced to dig their own mass graves or herded into gas chambers? Is “never again” an admonition over which the Jewish people can maintain a monopoly?
Shouldn’t the American Jewish community be doing more to help gain recognition for the Armenian genocide, 90 years after the fact? After all, the first American human rights movement to focus on issues overseas was founded to stop the travesties being committed against Armenians. And it was Henry Morgenthau, America’s Jewish ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, who led the campaign to alert the world to the horrors being perpetrated by Turkey.
Denial is, without a doubt, the final stage of genocide. It murders the memory of the horrors, and of the dead. We must always guard against denial becoming accepted as legitimate discourse, let alone as fact. Will we allow Turkey to successfully continue its campaign of denial?
If we do, we will be condemning our children to repeat these horrors and to have these horrors repeated unto them, as American philosopher George Santayana famously warned a century ago. But if we act now, if we insure that our children and our children’s children are properly educated about the Armenian genocide, then just maybe we can prevent “never again” from becoming an empty saying.
Christine Thomassian and Shabtai Gold are university students who lost members of their family in, respectively, the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust.
http://www.forward.com/articles/3383/
Turkey’s Choice: Europe or Amnesia
The Continental Divide
By Eric FreyFri.
Oct 27, 2006
On October 12 Europe sent two powerful messages to Turkey about the way it should deal with the crimes of the past and the civil liberties of the present: The Swedish Academy awarded the Nobel Prize for literature to dissident Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, and the French National Assembly passed a bill making denial of the Armenian genocide during the First World War a crime punishable by several years in prison.
The first message was an appropriate honor for a wonderful writer and a fighter for free speech and tolerance. The second one was a misguided attempt to legislate historical truth. Ironically, the French bill resembles the Turkish law under which Pamuk was charged last year for speaking up about the Armenian genocide. Even though the French bill will probably never become law, it may backfire by strengthening nationalist forces in Turkey.
Turkey is a torn country that stands at several crossroads. The mildly Islamist government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to take his country into the European Union and has pressured the union to open formal membership negotiations last year. But that prospect faces broad opposition from the European public and growing resistance within Turkey.
The main foes of Erdogan’s European strategy are not the Islamists, but the country’s secular, radically nationalist forces. This grouping includes most of the military and a powerful lobby of lawyers and state prosecutors. They push for a hard line on Cyprus, the Mediterranean island that has been split into Greek and Turkish sectors since the invasion of Turkey’s armed forces in 1974. And they continue to deny the genocide against the Armenians and make sure that this view remains the law of the land. Intellectuals, journalists, writers and scholars are systematically charged with “denigration of Turkishness” if they dare to speak up on that historic crime (though they are usually acquitted).
The Armenian genocide has a special relevance for Jews. The systematic deportations and killings of around a million Armenians from 1915 to 1917 offered a blueprint to the Nazis. And just as Jews insist that the memory of the Holocaust be kept alive, today’s Armenians demand that Turkey at least acknowledges the horrible injustices committed against them 90 years ago.
Unfortunately, the modern Turkish state seems unable to do so. Even though its founder, Kemal Atatürk, was not personally implicated in the genocide, too many of his key aides were. The denial of that crime thus became a pillar of Turkish national identity. The issue also poisons the relationship with neighboring Armenia, a poor former Soviet republic to which Turkey has closed off all border crossings.
A growing number of Turkish intellectuals, with Pamuk in the lead, consider that attitude a disgrace. And they are encouraged by recent signs of softening by the Erdogan government, including its decision to allow a congress of independent scholars to meet in Istanbul to discuss the Armenian issue and its support for a mixed Turkish-Armenian commission of historians to study the events. But Pamuk and others are highly critical of the French efforts to make genocide denial a crime. For good reasons, they see in the French obsession with the massacres against Armenians a thinly veiled attempt to refuse an Islamic country membership in the European Union...
...Still, Turkey’s inability to face up to the Armenian genocide, just like its refusal to grant cultural rights to its huge Kurdish minority, demonstrates how far the country still has to go before it can be said to have reached European standards of democracy. Turkish nationalism may be the biggest obstacle to E.U. membership, more so than religion or its comparatively low income levels. There is no way that Turkey will ever join the E.U. if it continues to prosecute its brightest minds for demanding historical honesty...
...Whether Turkey ever joins the E.U., the road to membership should be kept open. It is up to Turkish society to banish its ghosts from the past and contain the radical nationalist forces that want their homeland to remain separate from the West. The Nobel Prize for Orhan Pamuk gives the country’s liberals much-needed encouragement. Now it’s up to Pamuk and his allies at home, and not French parliamentarians, to teach Turks that saying “we’re sorry” to Armenians after 90 years is no disgrace.
Eric Frey is the managing editor of the Vienna daily Der Standard
http://www.forward.com/articles/turkey-s-choice-europe-or-amnesia/
By Eric FreyFri.
Oct 27, 2006
On October 12 Europe sent two powerful messages to Turkey about the way it should deal with the crimes of the past and the civil liberties of the present: The Swedish Academy awarded the Nobel Prize for literature to dissident Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, and the French National Assembly passed a bill making denial of the Armenian genocide during the First World War a crime punishable by several years in prison.
The first message was an appropriate honor for a wonderful writer and a fighter for free speech and tolerance. The second one was a misguided attempt to legislate historical truth. Ironically, the French bill resembles the Turkish law under which Pamuk was charged last year for speaking up about the Armenian genocide. Even though the French bill will probably never become law, it may backfire by strengthening nationalist forces in Turkey.
Turkey is a torn country that stands at several crossroads. The mildly Islamist government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants to take his country into the European Union and has pressured the union to open formal membership negotiations last year. But that prospect faces broad opposition from the European public and growing resistance within Turkey.
The main foes of Erdogan’s European strategy are not the Islamists, but the country’s secular, radically nationalist forces. This grouping includes most of the military and a powerful lobby of lawyers and state prosecutors. They push for a hard line on Cyprus, the Mediterranean island that has been split into Greek and Turkish sectors since the invasion of Turkey’s armed forces in 1974. And they continue to deny the genocide against the Armenians and make sure that this view remains the law of the land. Intellectuals, journalists, writers and scholars are systematically charged with “denigration of Turkishness” if they dare to speak up on that historic crime (though they are usually acquitted).
The Armenian genocide has a special relevance for Jews. The systematic deportations and killings of around a million Armenians from 1915 to 1917 offered a blueprint to the Nazis. And just as Jews insist that the memory of the Holocaust be kept alive, today’s Armenians demand that Turkey at least acknowledges the horrible injustices committed against them 90 years ago.
Unfortunately, the modern Turkish state seems unable to do so. Even though its founder, Kemal Atatürk, was not personally implicated in the genocide, too many of his key aides were. The denial of that crime thus became a pillar of Turkish national identity. The issue also poisons the relationship with neighboring Armenia, a poor former Soviet republic to which Turkey has closed off all border crossings.
A growing number of Turkish intellectuals, with Pamuk in the lead, consider that attitude a disgrace. And they are encouraged by recent signs of softening by the Erdogan government, including its decision to allow a congress of independent scholars to meet in Istanbul to discuss the Armenian issue and its support for a mixed Turkish-Armenian commission of historians to study the events. But Pamuk and others are highly critical of the French efforts to make genocide denial a crime. For good reasons, they see in the French obsession with the massacres against Armenians a thinly veiled attempt to refuse an Islamic country membership in the European Union...
...Still, Turkey’s inability to face up to the Armenian genocide, just like its refusal to grant cultural rights to its huge Kurdish minority, demonstrates how far the country still has to go before it can be said to have reached European standards of democracy. Turkish nationalism may be the biggest obstacle to E.U. membership, more so than religion or its comparatively low income levels. There is no way that Turkey will ever join the E.U. if it continues to prosecute its brightest minds for demanding historical honesty...
...Whether Turkey ever joins the E.U., the road to membership should be kept open. It is up to Turkish society to banish its ghosts from the past and contain the radical nationalist forces that want their homeland to remain separate from the West. The Nobel Prize for Orhan Pamuk gives the country’s liberals much-needed encouragement. Now it’s up to Pamuk and his allies at home, and not French parliamentarians, to teach Turks that saying “we’re sorry” to Armenians after 90 years is no disgrace.
Eric Frey is the managing editor of the Vienna daily Der Standard
http://www.forward.com/articles/turkey-s-choice-europe-or-amnesia/
On Armenian Genocide, Politics Trumps Truth
The Hour
By Leonard Fein
Wed. Aug 15, 2007
On the surface, it should be an easy call. Here, for example, is the text of a cable that Henry Morgenthau, Sr., then America’s ambassador to Turkey, sent to the State Department on July 10, 1915: “Persecution of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian population and through arbitrary arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions, and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction and destitution on them. These measures are not in response to popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed from Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in districts where no military operations are likely to take place.” And then, on August 11, his cable back home referred to “this effort to exterminate a race.”
Morgenthau couldn’t use the word “genocide”; it wasn’t invented until 1944. But today, the overwhelming majority of scholars around the world are in agreement: The first genocide of the 20th century was committed by Turkey, and the Armenians were its victims.
But Turkey disagrees, labors mightily to impeach the scholarship, to expunge the term, to establish its claim that Armenians were mere casualties of war. Unlike the many nations that have established commissions of truth and reconciliation, that have looked fearlessly into their own past crimes against humanity (most notably, Germany itself), Turkey hires K Street lobbyists to persuade the American public and the U.S. Congress that its hands are clean, its heart is pure. (See, for an example, the statement of former Congressman Bob Livingston, who has been paid at least $700,000 by Turkey, here.
It is doubtful that many people are persuaded by the Turks and their lobbyists. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum recognizes the Armenian genocide, as does the Reform Jewish movement, as, one assumes, do most Jewish leaders, at least privately — perhaps even the leaders of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and B’nai B’rith International. Yet the leaders of these organizations have steadfastly refused to endorse a bill currently before Congress that would formally acknowledge the fact of the Armenian genocide.
How can that be? Why do they shy away from using the word “genocide” to describe the tragedy of the Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turkey?
The answer is unsettling. It has nothing to do with history or truth; it has everything to do with the strategic interests of Israel, as also, to a lesser degree, of the United States.
Turkey is a Muslim country that maintains cordial and strategically important relations with both Israel and America. That is presumably why, in 2001, Shimon Peres, then Israel’s foreign minister, could say, “We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. What the Armenians went through is a tragedy, but not genocide.”
The Peres dismissal led Professor Israel Charny, executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, to write to Peres: “Even as I disagree with you, it may be that in your broad perspective of the needs of the State of Israel, it is your obligation to circumvent and desist from bringing up the subject with Turkey, but as a Jew and an Israeli I am ashamed of the extent to which you have now entered into the range of actual denial of the Armenian Genocide, comparable to denials of the Holocaust.”
The matter has suddenly become a volatile disruption. In Watertown, a suburb of Boston that is home to some 8,000 Armenians, a challenge has been mounted against ADL’s “No Place For Hate” program, a popular anti-bigotry campaign in which hundreds of communities around the nation participate. And cyberspace is filled with criticism of Abe Foxman, the ADL’s chief, who recently said, “This [the genocide] is not an issue where we take a position one way or the other. This is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.”
It is true that Foxman is neither a historian nor an arbiter. But it is not possible to believe that he is unaware of the relevant history. And that raises a number of pressing questions:
At what point do we allow Israel’s raisons d’etat to override the sober and sobering truth? There’s a long record on this one, going back to Israel’s efforts to impose silence on American Jews regarding the plight of Soviet Jewry, regarding our views of the junta in Argentina, even regarding the war in Vietnam. Israeli officials will necessarily act in what they perceive as their nation’s interests, but is there no way for Israel’s friends to express their own considered views without impinging on those interests?
Does not the outrageous stubbornness of Turkey require that Turkey’s friends and allies seek to persuade the Turkish government that this abrasive issue will continue to foul Turkey’s reputation, that it would be a mature and cleansing act for Turkey at long last to lay open the record and deal frankly with its past, as so many others have done and are doing? Would not such candor raise Turkey’s reputation in the family of nations?
And a question for the authors of HR106, the House bill that would formally recognize the genocide: Have you no shame? The resolution “calls upon the President… to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.” But America’s record was not proud; it was shameful, as Samantha Power carefully documents in her masterful “A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” We, too, ought be honest about the past.
http://www.forward.com/articles/11385/
Forward
The Jewish Daily
By Leonard Fein
Wed. Aug 15, 2007
On the surface, it should be an easy call. Here, for example, is the text of a cable that Henry Morgenthau, Sr., then America’s ambassador to Turkey, sent to the State Department on July 10, 1915: “Persecution of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian population and through arbitrary arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions, and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction and destitution on them. These measures are not in response to popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed from Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in districts where no military operations are likely to take place.” And then, on August 11, his cable back home referred to “this effort to exterminate a race.”
Morgenthau couldn’t use the word “genocide”; it wasn’t invented until 1944. But today, the overwhelming majority of scholars around the world are in agreement: The first genocide of the 20th century was committed by Turkey, and the Armenians were its victims.
But Turkey disagrees, labors mightily to impeach the scholarship, to expunge the term, to establish its claim that Armenians were mere casualties of war. Unlike the many nations that have established commissions of truth and reconciliation, that have looked fearlessly into their own past crimes against humanity (most notably, Germany itself), Turkey hires K Street lobbyists to persuade the American public and the U.S. Congress that its hands are clean, its heart is pure. (See, for an example, the statement of former Congressman Bob Livingston, who has been paid at least $700,000 by Turkey, here.
It is doubtful that many people are persuaded by the Turks and their lobbyists. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum recognizes the Armenian genocide, as does the Reform Jewish movement, as, one assumes, do most Jewish leaders, at least privately — perhaps even the leaders of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and B’nai B’rith International. Yet the leaders of these organizations have steadfastly refused to endorse a bill currently before Congress that would formally acknowledge the fact of the Armenian genocide.
How can that be? Why do they shy away from using the word “genocide” to describe the tragedy of the Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turkey?
The answer is unsettling. It has nothing to do with history or truth; it has everything to do with the strategic interests of Israel, as also, to a lesser degree, of the United States.
Turkey is a Muslim country that maintains cordial and strategically important relations with both Israel and America. That is presumably why, in 2001, Shimon Peres, then Israel’s foreign minister, could say, “We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. What the Armenians went through is a tragedy, but not genocide.”
The Peres dismissal led Professor Israel Charny, executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, to write to Peres: “Even as I disagree with you, it may be that in your broad perspective of the needs of the State of Israel, it is your obligation to circumvent and desist from bringing up the subject with Turkey, but as a Jew and an Israeli I am ashamed of the extent to which you have now entered into the range of actual denial of the Armenian Genocide, comparable to denials of the Holocaust.”
The matter has suddenly become a volatile disruption. In Watertown, a suburb of Boston that is home to some 8,000 Armenians, a challenge has been mounted against ADL’s “No Place For Hate” program, a popular anti-bigotry campaign in which hundreds of communities around the nation participate. And cyberspace is filled with criticism of Abe Foxman, the ADL’s chief, who recently said, “This [the genocide] is not an issue where we take a position one way or the other. This is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties, not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters.”
It is true that Foxman is neither a historian nor an arbiter. But it is not possible to believe that he is unaware of the relevant history. And that raises a number of pressing questions:
At what point do we allow Israel’s raisons d’etat to override the sober and sobering truth? There’s a long record on this one, going back to Israel’s efforts to impose silence on American Jews regarding the plight of Soviet Jewry, regarding our views of the junta in Argentina, even regarding the war in Vietnam. Israeli officials will necessarily act in what they perceive as their nation’s interests, but is there no way for Israel’s friends to express their own considered views without impinging on those interests?
Does not the outrageous stubbornness of Turkey require that Turkey’s friends and allies seek to persuade the Turkish government that this abrasive issue will continue to foul Turkey’s reputation, that it would be a mature and cleansing act for Turkey at long last to lay open the record and deal frankly with its past, as so many others have done and are doing? Would not such candor raise Turkey’s reputation in the family of nations?
And a question for the authors of HR106, the House bill that would formally recognize the genocide: Have you no shame? The resolution “calls upon the President… to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.” But America’s record was not proud; it was shameful, as Samantha Power carefully documents in her masterful “A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” We, too, ought be honest about the past.
http://www.forward.com/articles/11385/
Forward
The Jewish Daily
ARMENIA 1915
Before the genocide
The Armenians are an ancient people whose home has been in the southern Caucasus since the 7th century BC. Mongol, Persian, Russian and Ottoman (Turkish) empires have fought on and over this region for many centuries. In the 4th century AD one of Armenia's kings became a Christian(in 301, the king Tiridates established Christianity as a sole religion of Armenia-H.A.-http://www.armenianhistory.info/christianity.htm), and Christianity has been the Armenian state religion ever since. After Islam was founded in Arabia in the 7th century AD, it became the state religion in all the countries surrounding Armenia (including Iran, which was the strongest influence on Armenian culture). But the Armenians continued to cherish their Christian church, although politically they lived under a series of foreign regimes and as a result often experienced hardship, persecution, discrimination and abuse.
At the end of the 19th century, Turkey and Russia were recovering from a war with each other. In the west, 2.5m Christian Armenians were governed by the Turks; eastern Armenia was in Russian hands. A surge in Armenian nationalism gave the Armenian leaders confidence to demand political reforms. This was unwelcome to both Ottoman and Russian powers, afraid of armed partisan resistance or even the revival of interstate war. They began to repress Armenians even more harshly. In some Turkish Armenian provinces large-scale massacres were carried out from 1894 to 1896. In Russian Armenia, the Tsar closed hundreds of Armenian schools, libraries and newspaper offices, and in 1903 confiscated the property of the Armenian church.
In 1909 the Ottoman Sultan was overthrown by a new political group: the 'Young Turks', eager for a modern, westernised style of government. When the First World War broke out, the Young Turks supported Germany, which brought the country into conflict with Russia once again. It was easy for the Young Turks to expect Turkish Armenians to conspire with pro-Christian Russians against them (though many Turkish Armenians denied any such intention). As far as the Young Turks were concerned, what had long been 'the Armenian Question' had to be answered, now.
The genocide
In 1915, under the cover of the war, the Ottoman government resolved to expel Turkey's Armenian population (at the time about 1.75m) entirely. Their plan included deportation to the deserts of Syria and Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were driven out of their homes and either massacred or force-marched into the desert until they died. The German ambassador to Turkey wrote home: 'The government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire'. Between 1915 and 1923 the western part of historic Armenia was emptied of Armenians. The death toll is reliably estimated to be over a million. Those who did not die fled to the Middle East, Russia or the USA.
The genocide was conducted in a well-organised way, making use of new technology available. Orders to begin the operation were sent to every police station, to be carried out simultaneously at the same time on the same day: April 20, 1915. Once it had begun, the perpetrators kept in touch by telegraph. They also made use of the Istanbul- Baghdad railway: the new line had already been laid as far as the Syrian desert. Tens of thousands of Armenians were packed into railway wagons and sent down the line into the desert, where they were left without shelter, water or food. Many of the workers laying the railway were Armenian, and thought they would escape; their turn for the death trucks came in 1916.
Genocide in wartime is relatively easy to conceal. When Hitler was planning the invasion of Poland in 1939, he gave the order to 'kill without mercy men, women and children of the Polish race or language. Only in this way will we get the living space we need. Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'
After the genocide
After the First World War efforts were made to restore Armenian territory, but without success. Even USA's President Wilson did not stop the Turks from ignoring all treaties and hanging on to the Armenian provinces it had cleared. In 1920 Armenia finally renounced its claim to them. It took some time for the political status (and the boundaries) of Armenia to be sorted out. In 1922 Armenia became part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, under central Soviet rule, where it remained for 71 years. During this time Armenia was protected from hostile neighbouring countries, but the Soviet government (especially under Stalin) was harsh. Politicians, intellectuals and churchmen were suppressed. Workers on the land were forced to take up the communist 'collective farming' policy, becoming badly-paid labourers on the land they were no longer allowed to own individually.
In the 1920s, despite overwhelming evidence of the genocide provided by Western and Armenian eyewitnesses, Turkish officials effectively created a fog of denial. After a surge of American interest in the fate of Armenia during the 1914-18 war, there was post-war international reluctance to rock the boat, even when treaties were broken - after all, the Ottoman Empire had just been dismantled, and modern Turkey was not created until 1923.
One determined American nurse did persist in making her experiences known; she also exposed the new callousness at Istanbul's American Embassy (which in 1915 had tried hard to intervene). The new ambassador, driven 'obsessively' by commercial interests, was willingly colluding in Turkish denial. Allen Dulles, US Eastern Affairs chief (later to become director of the CIA), had a problem meeting the ambassador's urgent desire for cover-up. 'Confidentially,' said Dulles, 'the State Department is in a bind. Our task would be simple if the reports of the atrocities could be declared untrue or even exaggerated but the evidence, alas, is irrefutable. We want to avoid giving the impression that while the United States is willing to intervene actively to protect its commercial interests, it isn't willing to move on behalf of the Christian minorities.' But few moves were made beyond offering a refuge for dispossessed Armenians.
Armenia has persistently called for the massacres of 1915 and after to be acknowledged as genocide. They have also asked Turkey to apologise for it. Turkey, however, has continued to deny genocide, claiming that the figures given are false: instead, 300,000 Armenians (and many thousands of Turks) were killed in the general carnage and turbulence of internal fighting during the First World War, with local massacres carried out by both sides. Both Armenia and Turkey have collected extensive documentary evidence to support their respective cases (with mutual accusations of forgery).In 2001, when the first Holocaust Day took place in the UK, the national Assembly of France formally decided to acknowledge the Armenian killings as genocide, though not mentioning Turkey by name. All the same, it provoked a substantial row with Turkey, which suspended diplomatic relations, called off trade deals, toyed with imposing sanctions, and contemplated formally accusing France of genocide during Algeria's 1955-1962 war of independence.
The 70,000 or so Armenians who live in Turkey today have distanced themselves from the arguments, saying that the dispute should be left to historians.
Witness
from a letter sent by an American observer in Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1915:
' "Armenia without the Armenians" - that is the Ottoman Government's project. The Muslims are already being allowed to take possession of the lands and houses abandoned by the Armenians. The exiles are forbidden to take anything with them. In the districts under military occupation there is nothing left to take, as the military authorities have carried off, for their own use, everything that they could lay hands on. The exiles have to traverse on foot a distance that involves one or two months' marching and sometimes even more, before they reach the particular corner of the desert destined to become their tomb. We hear, in fact, that the course of their route and the stream of the Euphrates are littered with the corpses of exiles, while those who survive are doomed to certain death, since they will find in the desert neither house, nor work, nor food. It is simply a scheme for exterminating the Armenian nation wholesale, without any fuss. It is another form of massacre, and a more horrible form.
All the men between 20 and 45 have been sent to the front lines. Those between 45 and 60 are working for the military transport service, or have been exiled or imprisoned on one pretext or another. The result is that there is no one left to deport but the old men, the women and the children. These poor creatures have to travel through regions which, even in times of peace, were dangerous. Now that Turkish brigands, as well as the police and civil officials, enjoy the most absolute licence, the exiles are robbed on the road, and their women and girls dishonoured and abducted.
About a million Armenian inhabitants have been thus deported from their homes and sent southwards into exile. These deportations have been carried out very systematically by the local authorities. In every village and every town, the population was disarmed by the police (and by criminals released from prison for this purpose. On the pretext of disarming the Armenians, these criminals committed assassinations and inflicted hideous tortures.). Next, they imprisoned the Armenians en masse, on the pretext that they had found something incriminating in their possession. After that, they began the deportation. Any men who had not been imprisoned were massacred. The remainder - old men, women, and children - were placed at the disposal of the Muslim population. The highest official as well as the most simple peasant chose the woman or girl who caught his fancy. The rest were marched away. An eye-witness reports to us that the women deported from Erzerum were abandoned, some days ago, on the plain of Harpout, where they have all died of hunger (50 or 60 a day). The only step taken by the authorities was to send people to bury them, in order to safeguard the health of the population.
We are making great efforts to save at any rate the Armenians of Constantinople from this horrible extermination of the race, in order that, hereafter, we may have at least one rallying point for the Armenian cause in Turkey. The whole Armenian population of Turkey has been condemned to death, and this decree is being put into execution energetically in every corner of the Empire, under the eyes of the European Powers. So far, neither Germany nor Austria has succeeded in checking the action of their ally and removing the stain of these barbarities, which also attaches to them. All our efforts have been without result. Our hope is set upon the Armenians abroad.'
Issues
When nation oppresses nation, it stores up a future of oppression. It may well become oppressed itself. Here's an account of the attempt in Bulgaria to erase everything Turkish from its history:
'If there is one thing missing in Bulgaria, it is any sense of the country's Ottoman past. Even the word "Ottoman" is "not really one to use in Bulgaria". The centuries of Ottoman rule (1393-1878) are portrayed as Bulgaria's dark ages, "slavery under the Turkish yoke". This emotive, nationalistic spirit takes stone form at the Freedom Monument, which commemorates the decisive victory over the Turks at Shipka Pass. It can be seen for miles around from the surrounding plains, and it is here that we begin to understand how historical hatreds can be kept alive.
Nothing Ottoman has been preserved in the museums, and relics have been smashed. Turkish towns and villages were given Bulgarian names in 1940. From 1972 fierce campaigns were waged to make Turks adopt Bulgarian names - at least 50 Turks were killed. Muslim traditions were discouraged, mosques closed down, and speaking Turkish in public was prohibited. The few remaining mosques (as well as synagogues) are a target for skinheads.'
The denial of people's language, as a means of oppression, has been practised officially and unofficially in many other places - including the UK (Ireland and Wales).
No act of oppression is without long-term effects, including prejudice and tension between nationalities. This means that the chances of different national, religious and cultural groups living together are much lower, the likelihood of tension much higher. Consider what conflicts are taking place between Muslim and Christian communities in European countries today.
Mutual tolerance is threatened wherever there is a history of mutual conflict. There's a difficult balance to be reached: if people are 'assimilated' in a country not their traditional home, is there a line to cross beyond which their individual histories and heritage are, in effect, exterminated? How far can racial, religious, national observances be maintained without seeming defiant and aggressive?
People also become victims of conflicts between wider communities, as the Armenians became the victims of conflict between two rival empires, both requiring Armenian loyalty and support. On a small scale, in local communities, it is the same. Allegiances to factions and power groups always carry risks of bitter hostility that may break out in violence and the use of force.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_armenia.html
The Armenians are an ancient people whose home has been in the southern Caucasus since the 7th century BC. Mongol, Persian, Russian and Ottoman (Turkish) empires have fought on and over this region for many centuries. In the 4th century AD one of Armenia's kings became a Christian(in 301, the king Tiridates established Christianity as a sole religion of Armenia-H.A.-http://www.armenianhistory.info/christianity.htm), and Christianity has been the Armenian state religion ever since. After Islam was founded in Arabia in the 7th century AD, it became the state religion in all the countries surrounding Armenia (including Iran, which was the strongest influence on Armenian culture). But the Armenians continued to cherish their Christian church, although politically they lived under a series of foreign regimes and as a result often experienced hardship, persecution, discrimination and abuse.
At the end of the 19th century, Turkey and Russia were recovering from a war with each other. In the west, 2.5m Christian Armenians were governed by the Turks; eastern Armenia was in Russian hands. A surge in Armenian nationalism gave the Armenian leaders confidence to demand political reforms. This was unwelcome to both Ottoman and Russian powers, afraid of armed partisan resistance or even the revival of interstate war. They began to repress Armenians even more harshly. In some Turkish Armenian provinces large-scale massacres were carried out from 1894 to 1896. In Russian Armenia, the Tsar closed hundreds of Armenian schools, libraries and newspaper offices, and in 1903 confiscated the property of the Armenian church.
In 1909 the Ottoman Sultan was overthrown by a new political group: the 'Young Turks', eager for a modern, westernised style of government. When the First World War broke out, the Young Turks supported Germany, which brought the country into conflict with Russia once again. It was easy for the Young Turks to expect Turkish Armenians to conspire with pro-Christian Russians against them (though many Turkish Armenians denied any such intention). As far as the Young Turks were concerned, what had long been 'the Armenian Question' had to be answered, now.
The genocide
In 1915, under the cover of the war, the Ottoman government resolved to expel Turkey's Armenian population (at the time about 1.75m) entirely. Their plan included deportation to the deserts of Syria and Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were driven out of their homes and either massacred or force-marched into the desert until they died. The German ambassador to Turkey wrote home: 'The government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire'. Between 1915 and 1923 the western part of historic Armenia was emptied of Armenians. The death toll is reliably estimated to be over a million. Those who did not die fled to the Middle East, Russia or the USA.
The genocide was conducted in a well-organised way, making use of new technology available. Orders to begin the operation were sent to every police station, to be carried out simultaneously at the same time on the same day: April 20, 1915. Once it had begun, the perpetrators kept in touch by telegraph. They also made use of the Istanbul- Baghdad railway: the new line had already been laid as far as the Syrian desert. Tens of thousands of Armenians were packed into railway wagons and sent down the line into the desert, where they were left without shelter, water or food. Many of the workers laying the railway were Armenian, and thought they would escape; their turn for the death trucks came in 1916.
Genocide in wartime is relatively easy to conceal. When Hitler was planning the invasion of Poland in 1939, he gave the order to 'kill without mercy men, women and children of the Polish race or language. Only in this way will we get the living space we need. Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'
After the genocide
After the First World War efforts were made to restore Armenian territory, but without success. Even USA's President Wilson did not stop the Turks from ignoring all treaties and hanging on to the Armenian provinces it had cleared. In 1920 Armenia finally renounced its claim to them. It took some time for the political status (and the boundaries) of Armenia to be sorted out. In 1922 Armenia became part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, under central Soviet rule, where it remained for 71 years. During this time Armenia was protected from hostile neighbouring countries, but the Soviet government (especially under Stalin) was harsh. Politicians, intellectuals and churchmen were suppressed. Workers on the land were forced to take up the communist 'collective farming' policy, becoming badly-paid labourers on the land they were no longer allowed to own individually.
In the 1920s, despite overwhelming evidence of the genocide provided by Western and Armenian eyewitnesses, Turkish officials effectively created a fog of denial. After a surge of American interest in the fate of Armenia during the 1914-18 war, there was post-war international reluctance to rock the boat, even when treaties were broken - after all, the Ottoman Empire had just been dismantled, and modern Turkey was not created until 1923.
One determined American nurse did persist in making her experiences known; she also exposed the new callousness at Istanbul's American Embassy (which in 1915 had tried hard to intervene). The new ambassador, driven 'obsessively' by commercial interests, was willingly colluding in Turkish denial. Allen Dulles, US Eastern Affairs chief (later to become director of the CIA), had a problem meeting the ambassador's urgent desire for cover-up. 'Confidentially,' said Dulles, 'the State Department is in a bind. Our task would be simple if the reports of the atrocities could be declared untrue or even exaggerated but the evidence, alas, is irrefutable. We want to avoid giving the impression that while the United States is willing to intervene actively to protect its commercial interests, it isn't willing to move on behalf of the Christian minorities.' But few moves were made beyond offering a refuge for dispossessed Armenians.
Armenia has persistently called for the massacres of 1915 and after to be acknowledged as genocide. They have also asked Turkey to apologise for it. Turkey, however, has continued to deny genocide, claiming that the figures given are false: instead, 300,000 Armenians (and many thousands of Turks) were killed in the general carnage and turbulence of internal fighting during the First World War, with local massacres carried out by both sides. Both Armenia and Turkey have collected extensive documentary evidence to support their respective cases (with mutual accusations of forgery).In 2001, when the first Holocaust Day took place in the UK, the national Assembly of France formally decided to acknowledge the Armenian killings as genocide, though not mentioning Turkey by name. All the same, it provoked a substantial row with Turkey, which suspended diplomatic relations, called off trade deals, toyed with imposing sanctions, and contemplated formally accusing France of genocide during Algeria's 1955-1962 war of independence.
The 70,000 or so Armenians who live in Turkey today have distanced themselves from the arguments, saying that the dispute should be left to historians.
Witness
from a letter sent by an American observer in Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1915:
' "Armenia without the Armenians" - that is the Ottoman Government's project. The Muslims are already being allowed to take possession of the lands and houses abandoned by the Armenians. The exiles are forbidden to take anything with them. In the districts under military occupation there is nothing left to take, as the military authorities have carried off, for their own use, everything that they could lay hands on. The exiles have to traverse on foot a distance that involves one or two months' marching and sometimes even more, before they reach the particular corner of the desert destined to become their tomb. We hear, in fact, that the course of their route and the stream of the Euphrates are littered with the corpses of exiles, while those who survive are doomed to certain death, since they will find in the desert neither house, nor work, nor food. It is simply a scheme for exterminating the Armenian nation wholesale, without any fuss. It is another form of massacre, and a more horrible form.
All the men between 20 and 45 have been sent to the front lines. Those between 45 and 60 are working for the military transport service, or have been exiled or imprisoned on one pretext or another. The result is that there is no one left to deport but the old men, the women and the children. These poor creatures have to travel through regions which, even in times of peace, were dangerous. Now that Turkish brigands, as well as the police and civil officials, enjoy the most absolute licence, the exiles are robbed on the road, and their women and girls dishonoured and abducted.
About a million Armenian inhabitants have been thus deported from their homes and sent southwards into exile. These deportations have been carried out very systematically by the local authorities. In every village and every town, the population was disarmed by the police (and by criminals released from prison for this purpose. On the pretext of disarming the Armenians, these criminals committed assassinations and inflicted hideous tortures.). Next, they imprisoned the Armenians en masse, on the pretext that they had found something incriminating in their possession. After that, they began the deportation. Any men who had not been imprisoned were massacred. The remainder - old men, women, and children - were placed at the disposal of the Muslim population. The highest official as well as the most simple peasant chose the woman or girl who caught his fancy. The rest were marched away. An eye-witness reports to us that the women deported from Erzerum were abandoned, some days ago, on the plain of Harpout, where they have all died of hunger (50 or 60 a day). The only step taken by the authorities was to send people to bury them, in order to safeguard the health of the population.
We are making great efforts to save at any rate the Armenians of Constantinople from this horrible extermination of the race, in order that, hereafter, we may have at least one rallying point for the Armenian cause in Turkey. The whole Armenian population of Turkey has been condemned to death, and this decree is being put into execution energetically in every corner of the Empire, under the eyes of the European Powers. So far, neither Germany nor Austria has succeeded in checking the action of their ally and removing the stain of these barbarities, which also attaches to them. All our efforts have been without result. Our hope is set upon the Armenians abroad.'
Issues
When nation oppresses nation, it stores up a future of oppression. It may well become oppressed itself. Here's an account of the attempt in Bulgaria to erase everything Turkish from its history:
'If there is one thing missing in Bulgaria, it is any sense of the country's Ottoman past. Even the word "Ottoman" is "not really one to use in Bulgaria". The centuries of Ottoman rule (1393-1878) are portrayed as Bulgaria's dark ages, "slavery under the Turkish yoke". This emotive, nationalistic spirit takes stone form at the Freedom Monument, which commemorates the decisive victory over the Turks at Shipka Pass. It can be seen for miles around from the surrounding plains, and it is here that we begin to understand how historical hatreds can be kept alive.
Nothing Ottoman has been preserved in the museums, and relics have been smashed. Turkish towns and villages were given Bulgarian names in 1940. From 1972 fierce campaigns were waged to make Turks adopt Bulgarian names - at least 50 Turks were killed. Muslim traditions were discouraged, mosques closed down, and speaking Turkish in public was prohibited. The few remaining mosques (as well as synagogues) are a target for skinheads.'
The denial of people's language, as a means of oppression, has been practised officially and unofficially in many other places - including the UK (Ireland and Wales).
No act of oppression is without long-term effects, including prejudice and tension between nationalities. This means that the chances of different national, religious and cultural groups living together are much lower, the likelihood of tension much higher. Consider what conflicts are taking place between Muslim and Christian communities in European countries today.
Mutual tolerance is threatened wherever there is a history of mutual conflict. There's a difficult balance to be reached: if people are 'assimilated' in a country not their traditional home, is there a line to cross beyond which their individual histories and heritage are, in effect, exterminated? How far can racial, religious, national observances be maintained without seeming defiant and aggressive?
People also become victims of conflicts between wider communities, as the Armenians became the victims of conflict between two rival empires, both requiring Armenian loyalty and support. On a small scale, in local communities, it is the same. Allegiances to factions and power groups always carry risks of bitter hostility that may break out in violence and the use of force.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_armenia.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
