1

The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the
Lords of Armenia in the 13-14th Centuries

Introduction

The history of Greater Armenia in the 13-14th centuries is not well known to Western scholars. To Armenists, however, with the possible exception Armenia's "golden age" (5th century A.D.), no period has received as much attention as the 13-14th centuries. The nature and diversity of the primary sources as well as the uses to which they have been put provide explanations for both opposing tendencies. Western scholars have been most interested in the Armenian sources for what they tell about the Mongols. Such interest explains the translated anthologies of relevant sections of the Armenian sources (1) which focus on the Mongols in Armenia or the Mongols in the Armenian sources, but not on Armenia or the Armenians per se. Despite the existence of such anthologies and of full translations of the Armenian sources (in some cases for over 100 years), [2] these sources remain under-utilized in some modern studies of the Mongols (2).

In recent times, works devoted to the history of Asia Minor in the 11-15th centuries have made use of some 13-14th century Armenian sources in translation. C. Cahen's Pre-Ottoman Turkey (New York, 1968) cites several Armenian sources, "those from Cilicia and those from Azarbaijan" (sic) (3). His study concentrates on the history of the Turks of western and central Asia Minor. When speaking about the Armenians of eastern Asia Minor, however, Cahen sometimes makes egregious errors (4). S. Vryonis' Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Los Angeles, 1971) utilizes translated Armenian sources more fully than Cahen's work, but as Cahen, Vryonis is not primarily interested in the Armenians of eastern Asia Minor. His work focusses on the Greek element in western and central Asia Minor, mentioning the Armenians only occasionally and peripherally.

[3] If the history of 13-14th century Armenia is not well known in the West, the opposite situation prevails among Armenists. Far from being under-studied, the 13-14th centuries have attracted considerable interest. The abundance of source material explains this in part. Armenists have been interested primarily in various aspects of the socio-economic and political life of Armenia during a period when the Mongols figured as conquerors and overlords, but not as creators of that distinctive culture. The first Armenist to deal with the 13-14th centuries was the Mxit'arist father M. Ch'amch'ean, in the third volume of his History of Armenia (Venice, 1786). Ch'amch'ean's account, in addition to being clerical and patriotic is also episodic. When faced with insufficient sources for late 13th century Greater Armenia (no published corpora of colophons or inscriptions existed in his day) Ch'amch'ean moved his focus to Cilician Armenia. The history of Greater Armenia in the 14th century is entirely omitted.

Scholarly activity on the period of interest done during the 19th century may be divided into two main categories. First, the 19th century saw the beginning of the publication of the classical Armenian texts and their translations into European languages, especially into Russian and French. In the absence of critical editions--which have begun to appear only recently-- the[4] 19th century publications are still the ones utilized today. The scholarly notes of the editors and translators of these texts constituted a step forward in the study of the 13-14th centuries. The second category of activity began in the mid-19th century and built into an ever stronger wave of publications devoted to diverse aspects of the period. Such were the numerous historico-- geographical studies of authors including S. Jalaleanc', E. Lalayean, M. Barxudareanc' and Gh. Alishan. In the early 20th century these scholars were joined by many others who turned their attention to the history of one particular feudal family, one city, or monastic complex. Among these were I. A. 0rbeli, G. Yovsep'ean, A. Shahnazarean, and Gh. Movsesean. The general lines of such research were continued and amplified in the 1920-1950's by many scholars working in Europe and in the newly-created Soviet republic of Armenia (5).

[5] In recent times a number of Armenian studies dealing with the 13-14th centuries have appeared. These are H. Manandyan's Critical Survey of the History of the Armenian People, vol. 3 (Erevan, 1952), L. H. Babayan's Socio-Economic and Political History of Armenia in the XIII-XIV Centuries [SEPHA],(Erevan, 1964; Moscow, 1969), and the same author's chapters in vol. 3 of the series History of the Armenian People [HAP], (Erevan, 1976) wherein Babayan revized some of the views expressed in his earlier studies. Manandyan's and Babayan's works concern the socio-economic and political history of Armenia during the 11-14th centuries (Manandyan), 13-14th centuries (Babayan, SEPHA), and the mid-9th--mid-14th centuries (Babayan, HAP) i.e., these studies embrace the Turco-Mongol invasions but do not feature them as the central or sole objects of study. Not only is the focus never on the invasions themselves as phenomena, but there is even some disagreement on periodizing the invasions.

Manandyan, both in the chronological limits given to his work and in a chapter in his Trade and Cities of Armenia in Connection with Ancient World Trade (Lisbon, 1965) showed an awareness that Turco-Tatar included the 11th century Saljuqs as well as 13-14th century Mongols, but he nowhere compared and contrasted the invasions. Babayan's work on Armenia in the 13-14th centuries does not treat the Saljuq invasions, nor are the Saljuqs mentioned in his article, "Consequences of the Dominance of the Nomadic Feudal [6] Economic System on the Economic Life of Sedentary Peoples". Furthermore, vol. 3 of the History of the Armenian People ("Armenia in the Period of Developed Feudalism") does not accept the invasions of Timur in the early 15th century as a terminus, since the volume ends in the mid-14th century. Thus, between Manandyan and Babayan there is no study of the 11-14th century Turco-Mongol invasions as invasions, or even agreement on periodizing the invasions.

The present study has two principal aims. First, the political-military history of the Turco-Mongol invasions from the 11lth century to the early years of the 15th century is provided. The invasions, their participants and their consequences are compared and contrasted, Such a review fills a gap both in Western and in Armenian scholarship. The writing of this part of the study was facilitated by the works of Cahen and Vryonis, Manandyan, Babayan, Yuzbashyan and many others--Western and Eastern scholars not well acquainted with each other's work.

Because of the complexity of the period and the unfamiliarity of the material to the general reader, background information on Armenia in the pre-Saljuq period (especially the political-ethnic conditions on Armenia's ellusive borders) is provided in the notes to chapter two ("Armenia and the Turco-Mongol Invasions") . The notes for much of the second part of the chapter contain, in addition to documentation, extensive translations from the relevant Armenian sources [7]themselves. In this case, as in chapter one, it was deemed advisable to place special emphasis on the Armenian sources, which are simultaneously the least known and the most important for this study (6).

The second aim of the study is to examine topically several aspects of the impact of the 13-14th century invasions on the Armenian lords of Greater Armenia. By way of introduction, chapter three begins with a discussion of who the lords (naxarars) were on the eve of the 13th century (during the so-called Zak'arid revival), and where their lands were located. The remainder of the chapter examines three questions: (1) how did the naxarars react to the Turco-Mongol invasions/migrations of the 13th century; ( 2 ) how did the Mongols (both before and after Islamization) attempt to control the naxarars, and finally, (3) what were the reactions of the naxarars to Mongol policies. The writing of this part of the study was facilitated first by the studies of Adontz, Manandyan, and Toumanoff, devoted to Armenia's social structure in earlier times (5-9th centuries). The many studies of Arhak'elyan, [8] Babayan, Manandyan and Musheghyan, devoted to the 13-14th centuries were also very useful for questions pertaining to economic history. It should be stressed that this is not a study of 13-14th century Armenian society in its entirety, but rather of the lordly heads of that society in Greater Armenia. For questions concerning Armenia's peasants, and the complicated history of the Armenian Church in this period, the works of Manandyan, Babayan and Ormanian should be consulted.

The second part of the study, while drawing on the works of the above-mentioned scholars, is more than a synthesis. This is the first study of the 13-14th century lords which draws heavily on information found in the Georgian History of K'art'li. During the 13-14th centuries when Armenia was politically part of a Georgian state, many of its lords held important positions in the Georgian court (see chapter two and Appendix A for background). Much invaluable information on the lords is found in the History of K'art'li. Despite this, both Manandyan and (more surprisingly) Babayan relied on a brief Armenian abridgement of the History made by Melik'set'-bek,which limits itself solely to "Armenia".

[9] This study, therefore, provides information unavailable elsewhere not only on the 13-14th century invasions, but also on their socio-political impact on Armenia's naxarars. Appendices B and C contain supplementary information on topics not examined by others, e.g., on the centrifugal forces operating within Armenian society, and on certain relations between the Mongols and the Armenian Church.

The transliteration systems followed here are the prevailing Hubschmann-Meillet system for Armenian, an adaptation of it for Georgian, and the system employed in volume 5 of the Cambridge History of Iran (the Saljuq and Mongol Periods) for Turkish and Mongolian. Double forms are utilized for localities which are identified in the sources by more than one name (e.g., Karin/Erzerum, Sebastia/Sivas). Finally, to elimate unnecessary confusion, and since this study focusses on Armenia; Georgian forms of proper names have been given in their Armenian equivalents - (e.g., Shahnsah, not Shahnshe; Zak'are, not Zak'aria).

Footnotes 1-6

Continue to Chapter One: the Sources

Return to Turco-Mongol Menu

Return to Selected Writings Menu

Return to Main Menu