63

Chapter Two

Armenia and the Turco-Mongol Invasions


In the early 1220's when Mongol troops first passed through the Caucasus, the Armenian population, living there and in many other localities across Asia Minor, dwelled under considerably diverse circumstances. The many states in which the Armenians were settled in the late 12th and early 13th centuries had arisen as the result of the Saljuq Turkish invasions of the mid 11th century, and for our purposes may be viewed as differing from each other principally on the basis of the amount of political and cultural autonomy enjoyed by their Arnenian inhabitants. The nature of the Saljuq invasions/migrations and certain aspects of the consequences of Turkish domination merit a brief examination prior to reviewing the Turco-Mongol invasions/migrations of the 13-14th centuries because, in a certain sense, the invasions of the 11th century were a dress rehersal for several subsequent invasions of Armenia from the 0rient. A characterization of the Saljuq invasions and domination will provide not only an introduction to the complexities of medieval Armenian society, but also will throw into sharper relief fundamental similarities and dissimilarities with the Khwarazmian, Mongol, and Timurid invasions and administrations. This chapter first examines briefly some of the more salient features of political [64] history associated with the pre~Mongol period: (1) the Saljuq invasions of the Armenian highlands; (2) the Turkish domination and its consequences; and (3) the new situation created by the resurgence of Georgia; the second part of the chapter details the invasions of the 13-14th centuries.

The Turkish invasions and eventual political domination of most parts of the Armenian highlands did not occur at any one date, nor were they accomplished by any one group. Rather, both as the contemporaries noted, and as modern scholars have pointed out, from the early 11th century onward various parts of Asia Minor were subjected to direct attack and to infiltration which accompanied the invasions and settlement of diverse Turkic groups there. Turkish migrations to Asia Minor continued from the 11th through the 15th centuries, a period of approximately 400 years (114).

[65] The earliest references to Turkish attacks date from ca. 1016 at which time the district of Vaspurakan in southeastern Armenia was raided--not by Turkish armies--but by Turkic mercenaries serving the Muslim emirs of Azarbaijan. Around 1021 the area from Naxijewan to Dwin was raided by Turkmen Oghuz(Ghuzz) nomads serving in the Persian Dailamite armies (115). From 1029 onward, [66] various Turkmen groups commenced raiding diverse parts of Armenia, from the direction of Azarbaijan to the east as well as from northern Mesopotamia (116). In 1042 some [67] 15,000 Turkmens from the Urmiah area attacked and looted Vaspurakan and defeated Byzantine forces near the city of Archesh on the northeastern shore of Lake Van, while yet another group was raiding around Bjni in the northern district of Ayrarat (1042/43). From 1045-63, detachments of Turks more or less controlled by Saljuqid sultans and their generals penetrated deeper into Armenia, destroying numerous cities and devastating entire districts: Ani (attacked, 1045), Vagharshawan in the western district of Basen (1047), the Mananaghi district of western Armenia (1048), Arcn in the northwest (1048/49), Bayburt (1054), Melitene in the southwest, Colonea in the northwest (1057), Sebastia/ Sivas (sacked, 1059), Ani (captured, 1064), Kars (1065?), Caesarea (1067) and Manazkert (1071), to mention only the better known sites (117). While it appears that most of [68] historical Armenia had been subjected to sack by 1070, it must be stressed that in several remote mountain areas, small Armenian principalities continued their existence throughout the11th and 12th centuries, although encircled by inimical forces and under perpetual attack. These areas comprised districts in northern and northeastern Armenia (Gugark', Siwnik', Arc'ax), plus southern and southwestern Armenia (parts of Vaspurakan and Mokk',and Sasun) (118). Consequently, it would be incorrect to speak of "the Turkish conquest" as being fully consummated in the 11th century. Some parts of Armenia never succumbed.

[69] Just as theTurkish conquests of Armenia must be discussed with regard to a particular part of the country at a particular time, so too the groups participating should be distinguished from each other. The eminent Turcologist, Claude Cahen, has demonstrated that from the very outset, two elements participated in the invasions, conquests and settlement of Asia Minor . Though perhaps ethnically the same people, these two groups are distinguishable on the basis of their subordination (or lack of it) to the Saljuq authorities. One group, which might be called the Saljuq "regular army" consisted of elements more or less obedient to the sultans and their generals. The other group, the Turkmen nomads, appears in the sources as an almost ungovernable force, interested solely in booty. [70] Indeed, quite often the Turkmens disobeyed commands to resist plundering and, what is important from the standpoint of the establishment of any centralized Turkish state in the pre-Mongol period, Saljuq sultans were frequently obliged to send armies against the Turkmens--fighting Turkmen rebels almost as often, it would seem, as the autochthonous populations (119). Furthermore, the nomadic pastoralist Turkmens were the bane not only of the Saljuq authorities, and, of course, of the sedentary Armenians, but also of the Muslim states which bordered Armenia on the east (the Shaddadids of Ganjak in Caucasian Aghbania) and south (the Marwanids), in the period of the invasions. Each successive invasion--Saljuq, Khwarazmian, Mongol and Timurid--pushed before it, brought along with it, or dragged in its wake into Asia Minor thousands of these virtually uncontrollable nomadic warriors who (when totally unchecked) devastated the cities searching for plunder, destroyed the countryside and the complex irrigation systems turning cultivated fields into pasturage for their sheep herds, and reduced the possibilities for internal and international trade by infesting the trade routes between cities, and attacking caravans (120). Despite C. Cahen's [71] differentiation it remains true, nonetheless, that whether a detachment of Turkmens pillaged a given locale under orders from the sultan, or in defiance of those orders, the results ordinarily were the same. Certainly such fine points of distinction were lost on the victims themselves who were killed or raped and led away into slavery. Even if the obviously inflated figures of contemporary eye-witnesses are halved, even if quartered, the extent of the damage occasioned by the Saljuqs during the period of the conquest was and is dizzying (121).

Turning now to some of the consequences of the Saljuq invasions and domination vis-a--vis the Armenians, a number of tendencies are observable· For the most part the Saljuqs acted as catalysts on phenomena which predated their arrival. One striking example of this is the dem- ographic change observable in central Asia Minor (Cappadocia), northern Mesopotamia and Syria. In the early 11th century, the Byzantine government had followed a policy of removing powerful Armenian lords (naxarars) and their dependents from their native Armenian habitats and settling them to [72] the west and southwest (122). Thus Cappadocia and Armenia Minor (P'ok'r Hayk'), areas which centuries earlier had hosted sizeable Armenian populations suddenly became re-Armenized on the eve of the Turkish invasions. The invasions quickened the tempo of Armenian emigration and extended its range in a southwesterly direction (into Cilicia) and [73] northward (into Georgia) (123). The naxarars, relocating as [74] they did with sometimes sizeable forces, occasionally were powers to be reckoned with. Several such powerful and ambitious naxarars carved out for themselves principalities over an extensive area stretching from Cilicia on the Mediterranean, southward to Antioch, eastward to Edessa, northward to Samosata, to Melitene/Malatya, and elsewhere (124). However, it must be stressed that despite what appears to have been large-scale emigration from Greater Armenia, those departing (principally families of means) nonetheless constituted a minority of the total indigenous population of eastern Asia Minor which remained in situ [75] and overwhelmingly Armenian in the period covered by this study (125).

[76] Another tendency of medieval Armenian life receiving a stimulus (or perhaps, reaffirmation) from the Saljuq domination was centrifugation, a key feature of Armenia's socio-geopolitical system, naxararism (126). The Saljuqs were even less successful than their Armenian predecessors (Arsacids, Bagratids) in holding together in one state the different parts of eastern Asia Minor. As was mentioned above, centrifugal tendencies were inherent in the very nature of the Turkish migrations/invasions. Furthermore, the ruling family of the Saljuqs--just as their Armenian predecessors--was obliged to grant appanages to junior [77] members and these "fiefdoms" quickly transformed themselves from conditional to hereditary landholds (127). Indeed, prior to the establishment of Saljuq control over much of the Armenian highlands by the late 11th century, the proliferation of small and usually mutually inimical Muslim emirates had begun. In the east, embracing parts of eastern Armenia, Caucasian Aghbania, and Azarbaijan was the emirate of Ganjak (ruled independently from 1148 to 1225) (128). In the south, in the areas of Aghjnik'/Diyarbakr and Xlat' the holdings of the Muslim Marwanid emirs quickly were confiscated by the Artukids of Aghjnik' (1101-1231) (129), and the Saljuqid Shah Armens of Xlat' (1100-1207) (130). In the west, the Turkmen Danishmandids (1097-1165) ruled a large area including Sebastia/Sivas, Caesarea, and Melitene/Malatya (131). Finally, in the northwest, were the emirates of Karin/Erzerum (ruled by the Saltukids ca. 1080-late 12th century) and Kars (ca. 1080-1200). From 1118 Erzinjan and Divrigi belonged [78] to Mangujek, founder of yet another dynasty (132). The ruling dynasties of these states were sometimes joined together by marriage ties, or sometimes united to fight a common enemy (usually Georgia to the north). But more often they were at war with each other. Meanwhile, throughout the 12th century the Saljuqid Sultanate of Rum, centered at Iconium/Konya in the west, was constantly attempting to control one or another of the above-mentioned states. As economic conditions stablized by the end of the 12th century, Konya was indeed well on the way to achieving its aim (133).

[79] The political, social and economic fragmentation of Armenian states which accompanied the Turkish invasions and a similar fragmentation of Turkish states resulting in the proliferation of emirates was new neither to the Armenian nor to the Turkish polity. Also not unexpectedly for naxarar Armenia, the political fragmentation was accompanied by religious fragmentation. Not only were numerous small Armenian political entities engendered, but several kat'oghikoi (or anti-kat'oghikoi) emerged in the 11-12th centuries. In this case, too, the confusion created by the Saljuqs acted as a catalyst on a phenomenon of hoary antiquity, which long predated their arrival (134).

The situation created by the overlordship of ostensibly Muslim rulers over Christian Armenians across most of the Armenian highlands was not new (135). Inasmuch as religious and political agreement in the ancient world were often inseparable, and because Armenia's powerful neighbors were determined to control that state, the Armenians were no strangers to religious persecution (136). Immediately prior [80] to the arrival of the Saljuqs the Armenian people had been subjected to a bloody campaign of religious persecution from Orthodox Byzantium (137). For this reason, and because of the violently anti-Byzantine reaction such a policy engendered, all segments of the Armenian population did not respond in a uniform way either to the Saljuq invasions, or to the domination. Indeed, some few Armeniane saw the anti-Byzantine Turks not as the agents of God sent to punish Armenians for their sins, but as an excellent vehicle opportunely available to themselves for vengeance against the Greeks. The contemporary non-Armenian sources in particular accuse the Armenians of siding with the Turks, deserting from the Byzantine armies sent to "defend" Armenia, and even joining the enemy (138).


Footnotes 114-138


Continue

Return to Turco-Mongol Menu

Return to Selected Writings Menu

Return to Main Menu