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).
Continue to Chapter One: the Sources