Armenia and Byzantium

[Armenian]

Re: Armenia and Byzantium

Some of your assertions regarding ethnicity and religion are somewhat plausible. However, explain this to me: what kind of sociopolitical factors in the 19th century would force an Islamic Turk, a subject of the powerful Ottoman Empire, to convert over to Armenian Christianity? It's like saying: There were Nazis in German during the 1930s that chose to convert to Judaism... It's nonsense. It would have made more sense had the article suggested that some Turkic tribes were converted into Christianity during medieval times, when the Ottoman Empire had not rose to prominence yet. Besides, what does this matter have to do with the topic of this thread?

We often read and listen many things regarding Armenians who were converted with Islam but don't know more details regarding Turks who chose to be Armenian.... Maybe you will say that this article is garbage but I find it interesting.First of all, this article was published in esteemed, impartial and open minded newspaper.

[garod]

Re: Armenia and Byzantium

We often read and listen many things regarding Armenians who were converted with Islam but don't know more details regarding Turks who chose to be Armenian.

I read an article with title " Ermeni olmak " ( being Armenian) in Turkish newspaper Radikal ( which is esteemed newspaper). Writer tells the blood (race) reality with religion in his article.He said that in the past being Armenian is to choose Armenian religion in Anatolia and then added that nationality is not religion but we some times see many examples. What's the difference between Serbians and Croatians? or Pakistanians and Indians?As everyboy knows that these publics belongs to same nationality but religion divided them.And then he tells the reality of some turkic publics who chose to be gregorian in East Anatolia and Caucasus and were added Armenian nationality from beginning of 19. century till beginning 20. century.According to writer, those Armenians (new Armenians) published their religious books even in Turkish language.Article's most interesting part : Armenians who rebelled to Ottoman Empire in east were mostly Turkic Armenians who didn't know Armenian language.

Maybe you will say that this article is garbage but I find it interesting.First of all, this article was published in esteemed, impartial and open minded newspaper.

Some part of article in Turkish :"Milliyet eşittir din" demiyorum. Ama bazen aynen böyle olur diyorum. Örnekler çoktur:
Pakistan'ı Hindistan'dan ne ayırır? Hırvatlar niye Sırplardan ayrı milliyet?
Şimdi asıl diyeceğime geliyorum. Birçoklarının bildiği ama kimilerinin ezberine aykırı tarih bilgileri veriyorum: Bizim coğrafyamızda, bilhassa Doğu Anadolu ve Kafkasya'da Gregoryan mezhebine giren çok sayıda Türk dilli, Türk soylu halk on dokuzuncu yüzyılda başlayan ve yirminci yüzyılın başlarında tamamlanan bir süreçle Ermeni milliyetine dahil olmuşlardır. Hatta Doğu Anadolu'da yirminci yüzyılın başlarında ortaya çıkan isyancı Ermenilerin birçoğu Ermenice bilmeyen Türk soylu Ermenilerdir.
Çünkü! Asırlardan beri gelen anlayış da öyleydi. Müslüman olursa "Müslüman milleti", Gregoryan olursa "Ermeni."
Ermenilik bilinci oluştuktan sonra Protestan Ermenilerinin de var olması durumu değiştirmemiştir.

And here is link as follows :http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?...rih=12/02/2008

[Armenian]

Re: Armenia and Byzantium

Remnants of Byzantine disorders.

Once again, Greek and Armenian clergy at each other's throats. Nonetheless, I do not really fault the Armenian Church in these unfortunate matters, it is the Greek Orthodox Church that has always looked down upon our clergy and nation. It is just very sad, when ones sees this kind of conflict in the name of God. And its sad knowing that our enemies observe such situations with glee.

Armenian

**********************************************

Patriarch asks for support on Holy Fire Ceremony

The Holy Fire Ceremony is a religious ceremony that takes place on the Saturday of Holy Week, within the Tomb of Jesus Christ in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Christians believe that, during the ceremony, the Holy Fire descends from Heaven and lights up the lamp within the Tomb of Christ, thereby symbolizing the Resurrection of Christ and his victory over death. The descent of the fire from heaven is one of the greatest miracles of Christianity, being the divine revelation of Jesus himself. For this reason, the Holy Saturday ceremony is the holiest one for the Eastern Churches. These churches include the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Jacobite-Syrians; all participate in the Holy Saturday ceremony.

The ceremony is conducted according to precise and clear rules and arrangements, which have been in existence for hundreds of years. These rules were anchored in the Ottoman-period Status Quo arrangement for the Holy Places. The material part of the ceremony, acceptance of the holy fire, is conducted within the edicule of the Holy Sepulchre; the edicule is made up of two chambers - the Angels Chapel and the Holy Tomb Chapel. According to the centuries-old practice, at the highlight of the ceremony, the Greek Patriarch and the Armenian Patriarch, or his representative, enter the Holy Tomb together, kneel down in front of the Tomb together, and witness the miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire together. The Holy Fire is transferred by the Greek Patriarch and the Armenian Patriarch, or his representative, to members of the Eastern Churches through two windows located in the wall of the Angel's Chapel.

During Easter of 2002, the newly elected Greek Patriarch, Irineos I, whose first time it was participating in the abovementioned ceremony, incited a conflict inside the Holy Tomb with the Armenian Patriarch's representative, by demanding a deviation from the Status Quo arrangements. Since that time, the issue remains unresolved. According to the Greek Patriarch's statement regarding the ceremony in 2002, he said that the Armenian Bishop must not leave the Holy Tomb's Chapel first, and demanded that he leave first, contrary to the binding order of the ceremony. It is notable to mention that the predecessors of Irineos I have entered the Holy Tomb's Chapel together with the Armenian Patriarch, or his representative, for the Holy Fire Ceremony. The Greek Metropolitan Archbishops Daniel and Cornelius have themselves been witnesses to this.

Prior to the Holy Fire Ceremony of 2003, the Greek Patriarch altered his previous statement and announced his objection in principle that the Armenian Patriarch, or his representative, had no right to enter the Holy Tomb's Chapel during the ceremony. In essence, he said the Armenian Patriarch, or his representative, had no right to enter the Holy Tomb's Chapel at all, witness the miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire, and light his torch directly from the Holy Fire lamp. Prior to the Easter celebrations of 2003, and after the Greek Patriarchate refused every attempt at negotiation or compromise between the churches within a forum of religious scholars, the State of Israel summoned both parties around a table to solve the issue. Under Israeli Law, the Government has the exclusive authority to attain an effective and fair resolution of any dispute pertaining to the Holy Places in the Holy Land.

Instead of settling the issue immediately, and enforcing the Status Quo, the Israeli government pretended to have a lack of knowledge regarding the situation and requested that both churches present it with their evidence. The government requested this evidence on what each side considered to be the binding Status Quo arrangement, so that it could issue a decision during the year preceding the 2004 ceremony. At the same time, the churches and the Israeli police reached an interim confidential agreement for the Holy Fire Ceremony of 2004 to ensure that peace and security prevailed for the event. We believed that as soon as our evidence through historic documents were presented, the Government would be able to decide on the matter.

After the ceremony of 2004, we acted as agreed and conducted a thorough investigation of not only our archives, but the archives of the Sharia courts in Israel and abroad (including the Ottoman archives). We collected the testimony of living witnesses who had conducted the Holy Fire Ceremony as representatives of the Armenian Patriarch, and compiled various legal documents and scientific books. We also hired the services of an expert, Dr. Shmuel Berkovich, and furnished the Government with his expert opinion to establish our position.

Dr. Berkovich concluded that the Armenian Patriarch, or his representative, has had an exclusive right for hundreds of years to enter the Holy Tomb on Holy Saturday together with the Greek Patriarch. He continued to state that the Armenian Patriarch, or his representative, had the right to kneel in front of the Holy Tomb together with the Greek Patriarch, had the right to witness the miracle of the descent of the Holy Fire together, had the right to light his candle directly from the Holy Fire together, and had the right to exit the Holy Tomb holding their lit candles, which they would then spread to their respective communities. Dr. Berkovich emphasized that the Government of Israel must uphold these specific rights of the Armenians Orthodox Church.

Dr. Berkovich's expert opinion was presented to the Israeli Government, who once again appointed the former Minister, N. Sharansky, to deal with this issue. The Armenian Patriarchate was informed however, that the Israeli Government would not be willing to decide the matter. Both churches were once again asked to promise restraint during the ceremony until a decision was issued by the Government. The ceremony of 2004 was again held under a heavy police presence.

During these many months, the Greek Patriarchate has not honored its agreement to present any evidence or documents. Prior to the Easter celebrations of 2005, the Armenian Patriarchate petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice, and requested the Court's instructions to the Israeli Government regarding the settlement of this sensitive and most-important issue.

The Armenian Patriarchate felt compelled to petition the Court due to the reluctance of the Israeli Government to resolve the conflict in a timely manner, as well as the lack of an opinion emanating from the Greek Patriarchate. The Armenian Patriarchate is looking to protect its rights pursuant to the Status Quo arrangement. In its response to the Supreme Court, the Greek Patriarchate declared that the expert opinion on behalf of the Greek Church would not be submitted until 1 September 2005. Once again, contrary to its promises to the Supreme Court, the Greek Patriarchate did not submit an opinion until 2007.

In January of 2006, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the petition of the Armenian Church for several reasons including: the impracticality of formulating a solution to the dispute during the short period remaining until the 2006 Holy Fire Ceremony, the fact that national elections were looming ahead, and that the Government that would have been required to deliberate on the conflict would not be the same Government against which the Armenian petition was filed. Although a new Government was elected over 10 months ago, no steps have still been taken to address this most-sensitive issue.
Following the Holy Saturday ceremony of 2005, the Armenian Patriarchate once again appealed to the Greek Patriarchate in order for the parties to discuss the issue between them in a peaceful manner, but to no avail.

It was not until January of 2007 that the Armenian Patriarchate and the Israeli Government received copies of the study of the Greek Patriarchate's historian regarding the Holy Fire Ceremony. The Armenian Patriarchate has studied their evidence and found nothing that overshadows the undeniable right of the Armenian Church, and/or contradicts or refutes Dr. S. Berkovich's expert opinion.

For the last five years, the Armenian Patriarchate has been knocking on the doors of the Israeli Prime Minister, the other Government Ministers, the Knesset Members and the Attorney General, requesting that a decision be issued. Five years on, only promises have been given without any decisions. There is no argument that it is the duty and responsibility of the Israeli Government to resolve issues and conflicts in the Holy Places as set forth by established international law principles, as well as the laws of the State of Israel.

We beseech you, collectively and individually, to petition the Israeli Government to act with a sense of duty and responsibility, and to uphold the centuries-old rights of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. We urge all of our Armenian brothers and sisters around the world to email and fax the attached petition in your name, or the name of your organization, to the important Ministers of the Israeli Government listed below. In case you are unable to send the attached petition to the fax numbers and email addresses listed below, you may send it to your local Israeli Embassy or Consulate.

Please demand that this issue be resolved before the day of the Holy Fire Ceremony on 7 April 2007, so that we may together celebrate and give thanks and glory to the Risen Christ.

[Armenian]

Re: Armenia and Byzantium

Hellenized Armenians constituted a majority of Byzantium's military aristocracy and conscripts. It is known that more than twenty Byzantine emperors were of Armenian decent. For centuries the Armenian population constituted a majority within the eastern half of Byzantium. Various Armenian kingdoms and principalities served as impregnable buffer zones against Islamic and Turkic expansion. The following is a partial list of Armenians that impacted Byzantine politics and civilization. Missing from the list, however, is the great "crusading" emperor Heraclius (575-641) who is also said to be of Armenian decent.

Armenian

***************************************

That there were 20 emperors of armenian origin

1. Morick Oshakanatsi (Mavrikiy) 582-602.
2. Vardan Pikick 711-713.
3. Artavazd - 742-743.
4. Levon (Lion the V) Artsruni - 813-830.
5. Barseg Arsha - kuni (Vasil the I - the founder of armenian Makedonian dinasty) - 867-886.
6. Levon Arshakuni (Lion the VI, philosopher) 886-912.
7. Alexander 912-913.
8. Kons tandin the VII Bagrianorodny 913-959.
9. Romanos Vashtakian (Roman the I) 919-949. Ruled with Konstandin the VII Bagrianororodny).
10. Romanos the II - 959-963.
11. Nikiphor the II Phoka (the Great) - 963-969.
12. Hovanes Chimishk (Ioan Tsimiskhy) 969-976.
13. Vasily (Basil) the II Bulgaroboyts (Bulgar Slayer) 976-1025.
14. Konstandin the VIII - 1025-1028.
15. Roman the III 1028-1034.
16. Mikhael Paflagon (Mikhael the IV) - 1034 1041.
17. Mikhael Kalapat (Mikhael the V) - 1041-1042.
18. Konstandin the IX Monomakh - 1042-1054.
19. Teodora the II (Phedora the II) empress - 1054-1056.
20. Mikhael Stratiotik (Mikhael the II) - 1056-1057.

...that among Byzantian military leaders more than eighty were armenians and among them: Sittas (528), Buz (538), Balisarios (545), Nerses (555) Vardan Mamikonian (571), Smbat Bagratouny (582), Atat Khorkhrouny (601), Vardan Pilick (711), Vasack Patrik (741), Musheg Alex (792), Arshavir Patrik (807., Manuel Mamikonian ("Byzantian Ahiless" 830.), Hobgan Kurkuas (941., conquered 1000 cities and was called "the Greatest"), Mlag (Melios), the "Great" (went down in byzantian epos "Diogonis - Akritas" (934), Vard Skleros (976), Vard Pokas (987), Magistros Bagratouny (990), Grigor Taronatsy (996), Nikapor Tsrviz (1022), Levon - Tornick Bagratouny (1047), and others.

...that from 837 till 843 the patriarck of Konstantinopulus was the famous armenian scientist Hoivanes Karahan (loan Grammatick).

...that the founder of an ancientslatinopolsky university of Magnavr was Levon, the great mathematician and astronomer of the IV century, Hovanes Karahan`s niece.

...that the creators of the ancientslavonic alphabet Kirill ( Konstandin ) and Mephody were the sons of Levon and the pupils of Hovanes Karahan in the University of Magnavr. They created the alphabet which consisted of 36 letters, as in armenian one, by Mesrob Mashtots, but not of 24 letters as in Greek one.

... that the sister of Vasily the II Bulgaroboyts Anna, in 988, married Kiev prince Vladimir Sviatoslav, on condition that he and the whole Kiev Russia adopts christianity. Russia was baptized by Armenian priests.

...that the patriarchs of Byzantine church, in different years, were armenian churchmen: Melitos (360), Apgtikos (406-427), Isaak (625-643), Hovanes Karahan (837-843), Stepanos (888), Teopilintos (931-1057), Bagrat (Pankratios) (9th c.).

... that Kiev was founded by the armenian prince Smbat Bagratouny in 585, and was named originally - Smbatos.

...that the mother of Vladimir Monomakh (1053-1125) Mariam (Maria) was the daughter of the emperor of armenian origin Konstandin the IX Monomakh (1042- 1054). From him Vladimir inherited the nickname "Monomakh". Mariam was married with Vsevolod, the son of Yaroslav Mudry (the Wise) - the Great prince of Kiev Russia - the son of Vladimir Monomakh, the Great prince Yuri Dolgorouky (1096- 1157) the founder of Moscow (1147) - is mentioned in the russian chronicles as "Grugy" or "Kriuk", that is to say George. The church of George was built in Vladimir, in his honour (1158-1164). The grandchild of Yury Dolgorouky and the husband of the queen of Georgia Tamar - was named George.

... the lion was represented on the emblem of armenian prince family of Dolgorouky - Argutinsky, as on the emblem of Bagratouny dynasty in Armenia, which was in family ties with it. This lion was represented also on the emblem of Yury Dolgoruky.

- the icon St. George in Moscow (12)- the patron of Yury Dolgoruky - represents the Great prince itself.

- the armenian historian Zenon Glack (5-6 cc) in "The history of Taron", writes about Kuar (Kie), Sheke (Meltey) and Chorean : "Kuar built the city of Kuar and it was named Kuar after him. And Meltey built its city on that field and named it Meltey (Shekovitsa). And Chorean built its own city in the district of Paluni and named it Khorean (Korevan).

Smbatas was founded on the mountain of Zamk (Kiselevka), soon near it "gradok Kiev" appeared on the mountain of Andreev, which was founded by Kie (on the place of Kiev historical Museum). Thus near Smbatas city situated on the Zamk mountain appeared three cities - Kiev, Shekovitsa and Korevitsa. According to Byzantine emperor of armenian origin, Konstandin Bagrianorodny (948) "Russ are going downstream the Dnepr and are gathering in the Kiev fortress, called Smbatas".

There were cities with armenian names: Armen (Romen), Artan, Artavet. They surrounded Kiev. In the arabian source of the 9-11 cc. "Huddud- al - aalem", is said that precious bladed for swords and swords, which can be bended, were produced in the city of Artavet. Artavet specialists so firmly kept the secrets of producing their weapon, that killed all foreighners,when they reached the city (Roden on the Dnepr).

Yury Dolgorouky, for the first time, gave the name of Moscow in March, 1142. "Come to my place, in Moscow, my brother", this armenian pronounciation (transcription) of Moscow reached to ourdays. The russian chronicler informes: "arrange the dinner party by Giurgy's will...". "Giurgy" - "Kiurk" - this is the form of name "Yury Dolgorouky" in the russian chronicles.

V.N. Tatishev describes Yury Dolgorouky, according to kiev sources, in this way: "This great prince was tall and stout with white face and small eyes, with long and curve nose, with short beard. He was the great lover of women, sweets and drinks. In a word, the powerfull founder and ruler of Moscow, Suzdal, Vladimir, Yaroslav, Rostov - Dmitrov and the other cities, wasn't deprived of courage".

In the capital Vladimir, the city of Yury Dolgorouky, after his death in 1157, the church of George was built in his honour in 1158 - 1164. And the famous "Golden gates" of Vladimir led to it.

Source: http://www.arminco.com/hayknet/ellib/know.htm

[Armenian]

Re: Armenia and Byzantium

Byzantium, Armenia and the Turkic incursions into Anatolia

Asia Minor was a war zone for much of the first millennium AD, as Byzantines, Armenians, Persians and Arabs were engaged in perennial warfare against one another. Unnoticed by all, a profound threat was looming on the not too distant horizon to the east. This threat was tragically overlooked by all and, as a result, allowed to evolve into an uncontrollable monster that would reveal itself several centuries later at the turn of the first millennium AD. This monster that would forever change the face of the region in question was not Islam, it was the Turkic invasions of Asia Minor and the Near East. These invasions drastically changed the course of history, abruptly changed the demographics of Asia Minor and quickly plunged the entire region, known for being the epicenter of Christendom and advanced civilization, into centuries of neglect, known historically as the region's dark ages.

In hindsight, Islamization of the Near-East and northern Africa, which occurred between the seventh and eleventh centuries, did not have the disastrous effect on Asia Minor and Europe as some are erroneously led to believe. Islam was not a long-term threat to Christendom, primarily because its initial impetus had been successfully checked by Christian forces the turn of the tenth century AD. After a period of warfare, various Christian kingdoms within Asia Minor and southern Europe were able to reestablished their autonomies and stop Islam's advances. Byzantium with the aide of Armenian principalities and kingdoms was able to successfully hold back Islamic inroads into Asia Minor by the tenth century. The forces of Christendom within Europe were finally able to stop and reverse Moorish advances into the Iberian Peninsula as well. Subsequently, east-west trade began to flourish as never before, giving rise to various prominent and wealthy city-states within the Italian peninsula and Asia Minor.

Moreover, Christian centers within the Holy Land were unmolested by its native Islamic administrators. It is universally know that Islamic administrators tolerated the native Christian and Jewish populations of the so-called Holy Land as 'people of the book.' Most importantly, from a historical perspective, Islamic conquerors, who were at the time predominantly of Mesopotamian and North African origin, generally speaking did not lay waste to the highly developed Christian societies they had come to dominate. Instead, Islamic civilization become profoundly inspired by the various advanced civilizations they had come into contact with. Nevertheless, the quick spread of Islam indirectly paved the way for the eventual incursions and immigrations into Asia Minor and elsewhere by Turkic nomads of the central Asian steppes who had by the tenth century converted to Islam.

For centuries the Armenian populated provinces of Asia Minor, administered by its native kings and princes, had served as an impregnable fortresses for Byzantium and by extension to western civilization, as they effectively protected the eastern and southern invasions routes within Asia Minor and the southern Caucasus. What's more, a large percentage of Byzantine nobility and close to two dozen of Byzantium’s most effective emperors were of Armenian decent, albeit most being Armenian converts to Greek Orthodoxy. Moreover, large numbers of Armenians were found within the empire’s military forces, which according to western sources sometimes compromised up to twenty five percent of the imperial army.

At various times Byzantine-Armenian relations could be described as cordial and cooperative, however, at other times they were quite hostile. The large Armenian contingents within the imperial army and their officers, who were mostly of Armenian nobility, were often accused by the Byzantines of having their allegiances elsewhere and considered unreliable. Concurrently, severe theological disputes further strained relations between the two states at various times. The theological disputes in question primarily stemmed from the almost fanatical desire, or obsession, of the Byzantine Orthodox Church to incorporate into its structure the national church of Armenia which belonged to the eastern branch of Orthodoxy and was considered heretical by the Byzantine Church. As Armenian nationalists stubbornly held on to their national and spiritual sovereignty, the situation between the two principal Christian peoples of the Byzantine Empire worsened incrementally.

Ironically, these theological disputes were primarily based upon issues that would be considered petty by modern standards, issues such as doctrines of the nature of Christ, liturgical practices and Church rituals. Nevertheless, the resulting animosity and profound distrust that was created between the Armenian and Byzantine communities lingered for centuries thereafter, with dire consequences as we shall see later. The theological and political disputes would at times flare into open hostility between the followers of the imperial church and the followers of the national church of Armenia. These disputes were particularly severe during the sixth, seventh, tenth and eleventh centuries. Compounding the theological disputes that existed between the two neighboring churches, a prolonged conflict known today as “Iconoclasm,” which originated within the Armenian Highlands and later spread to all parts of Byzantium, had a devastating effect upon both Byzantium and Armenia.

The severity of the social and political antagonisms that existed within the Greek Orthodox clergy and Byzantine nobility towards Armenians is ominously recorded by a late seventh century Armenian historian known as Sebeos in a writings known as Historie d’ Heraclius. Considered apocryphal writing by some historians, nevertheless, Sebeos literary work clearly exposes the severely hostile atmosphere that existed within the sixth and seventh centuries between Greeks and Armenians. In one of Sebeos recounts, Emperor Maurice supposedly sends an official letter to the Persian Shah. In it he writes:

They (the Armenians) are a disloyal and disobedient nation. They stand between us and create dissentions. Let us make an agreement, I will gather up mine and send them to Thrace, let you gather up yours and order them east. If they should perish there, then enemies will have perished and if they should kill others, it is our enemies that they will kill, and we shall live in peace, for, as long as they shall remain in their country we shall have no rest.

The content of this Byzantine letter eerily echoes the anti-Armenian genocidal rhetoric of the Turkish authorities during the First World War. Regardless of the accuracy of Sebeos' history the above story accurately described the real situation on the ground within the Armenian provinces under Byzantine administration during certain periods. Due to Byzantium’s relentless and fanatical effort to convert Armenians into Greek Orthodoxy, Armenia’s political structures gradually became weakened. Byzantine policy of moving large numbers of Armenian nobility and military contingents to its holdings in Thrace and Cyprus either by force or deceit, further undermined Armenia’s defenses against invaders. Moreover, the millennial old rivalry between the Byzantine west and the Persian east was primarily fought within Armenian lands. These battles also served to weaken the two main superpowers of the time.

With such perpetual fighting going on between the superpowers of the time, Asia Minor eventually became deprived of an effective defense against an enemy that had not yet been seen looming over the eastern horizon. The exhaustion of the regional powers had become all too apparent when the Persian Empire fell to the inroads of Islam essentially without a fight in the mid-seventh century. The submission to Islam of the vast and prosperous empire coupled with the severely weakened geopolitical state of Byzantium and Armenia signaled the dawn of a new era in world history. Wave-after-wave of central Asian Turkic nomads had begun migrating westward. By the closing of the first millennium AD, within a few generations after their arrival, these Asiatic Turkic tribes had became a majority within certain areas where they had settled and eventually managed to wrestle control of the political institutions within the Middle East, Persia and India.

By the dawn of the second millennium AD, these Turkic tribes, in particular the Seljuqs, were at the very gates of Armenia, the eastern frontier of Byzantium. Instead of devising a plan to expel these Turkic invaders, Byzantines instead chose to step up efforts to undermine the Armenian state by devoting enormous military and diplomatic efforts to systematically annex Armenian provinces and disperse the nation’s native nobility. Byzantium even sent imperial military contingents against Armenia. Unsuccessful in militarily defeating Armenia, officials within Byzantium would even resort to encouraging and commissioning Turkic raids into the Armenian highlands. After decades of facing severe dangers all along its frontiers, the Armenian Bagratuni kingdom fell into an untenable condition. The nation’s nobility ideologically divided and under great pressures decided to relinquish the great Bagratuni capital city of Ani to the Byzantines in 1045 AD.

Upon gaining control over the Armenian stronghold of Ani, Byzantines decide to disband the region’s fifty thousand men strong Armenian military contingent, arguably the most effective military force within the region. According to sources, the disbanding of the Armenian contingent by the authorities in Constantinople was done due to “cost issues.” Nonetheless, the disbanding of this military contingent proved to have dire consequences because it precisely came on the eve of a massive Seljuk movement westward. What’s more, the surviving remnants the nation’s nobility, again, arguably the most capable within the region, were forcibly relocated to the far corners of Byzantium. As a result, with the fall of Ani, with the disbanding of the nation’s military and with the dispersion the nation’s nobility, Armenians would never again be able to establish full autonomy within their native lands.

In this manner, the native Armenian Christian nobility which ruled unopposed within the Armenian highlands for centuries virtually vanished into the pages of medieval history. Some noble houses of Armenia eventually assimilated within their new Byzantine domains in Cyprus, Thrace and the Crimea. Others became eventually decimated during various wars fought within foreign lands. And others, such as the last Armenian Bagratuni king Gagik, were murdered by the Byzantines. Some Armenian nobles, however, did manage to survive, with a Bagratuni line eventually establishing themselves within the Georgian court, and another line establishing an independent principality that would later evolve into the ‘Crusader’ kingdom within Cilicia on the north-eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

Having effectively lost nationhood and leadership in the mid-eleventh century, the Armenian population of Asia Minor emigrated out of their historic lands en-mass. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians began settling primarily in Cyprus, Thrace, Crimea, Georgia and Cilicia, thereby creating Armenia’s first significant Diaspora. Back within the Armenian highlands, without a native Armenian force to oppose them, Seljuq forces entered the now Byzantine administered Armenian provinces with relative ease and besieged the former Armenian capital of Ani in 1064 A.D. The Greek garrison stationed within the city, instead of protecting the strategic former Armenian capital that Byzantium conspired decades to conquer, fled, abandoning the magnificent city celebrated as “the city of a thousand and one churches” to the Turkic besiegers. Without Byzantine forces in sight, what followed was the expected sacking of Ani and its surrounding provinces and the persecution of the remaining Christian population. For detailed information regarding the famous Bagtatuni city of Ani please visit Virtual-Ani: http://www.virtualani.org/citymap.htm

In conclusion, the security of the entire eastern frontier of Byzantium and the protection of the northern flank of the Crusader states within the Holy Land was directly impacted by Armenians for centuries. When viable, Armenian kingdoms served as impregnable fortresses against Islamic and Turkic incursions into Asia Minor and the Caucasus. Sadly, however, contemporary Christian kingdoms of Europe and especially the fanatical aristocracy within Byzantium failed to fully appreciate the invaluable role Armenians played within the strategic highlands of Armenia. After the last European Crusaders fled their last stronghold at Acre in 1291 AD, after Byzantium retired to the pages of history in 1453 AD, the surviving remnants of the once great Armenian nation of Asia Minor was plunged into the darkest episode of its history, one that would last six hundred years - until the founding of the First Armenian Republic in 1918 upon the ashes of the Armenian Genocide.

Armenian

[Armenian]

The term "Greek" or "Hellas" was never used by the multi-ethnic Byzantines to describe themselves. The population of Byzantium referred to themselves as "Roman" or "Rum." Even today, Greeks, being the remnants of Byzantium, are called "Rum" by Turks. Moreover, the official title of Byzantium was the "Eastern Roman Empire." And the official language of the empire was Latin for several centuries before it became Greek. Generally speaking, however, to be an official within the empire one had to be a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Imperial Church exerted great influence upon Byzantine society and molded its socio-political character.

Armenian

**************************************

From "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" By Robert H. Hewsen:

If Armenia was strongly influenced by Byzantium, Byzantium was influenced by Armenia in return and, to paraphrase Tournanoff, Armenia gave more than it received. Apart from the Armenians living directly under imperial rule, a continuous stream of Armenians entered the empire for one reason or another over a period of several centuries: adventurers, scholars, clerics, refugees, and large numbers of common people-including the heterodox Paulician sectarians, forced to migrate from Byzantine-occupied Armenia to other parts of the empire by the imperial government itself. These immigrants early distinguished themselves in three environments: the army, the administration, and the general population.

Armenia, as we have seen, was a society dominated by a class of warrior nobility. Thus, when driven from their homeland for whatever reasons, it was natural for Armenian princes to enter the Byzantine military service, and from the time of Justinian I, we find them reaching the highest rank. Justinian himself, who fought wars on three fronts, had no fewer than nineteen Armenian generals in his service, including Narses of the house of Kamsarakan, who was probably the greatest general of his time. Thereafter, we hear of nearly two hundred Armenian officers who distinguished themselves in the imperial service: generals, admirals, officials, exarchs, provincial governors, courtiers, and members of the emperor's entourage.

In the Byzantine administration, civil and ecclesiastical, Kaisar Bardos, who reestablished higher instruction at Constantinople in the ninth century, Leo the Philosopher, who was the most eminent scholar of his day, and the patriarchs Photios (857-858, 877-886) and John the Grammarian (837-843) were all Armenians. In a surprisingly short time, we find Armenians reaching the imperial throne itself, for the Armenians not only served the empire, they ruled it as well, and did so for almost a third of its history. No fewer than sixteen emperors and eleven empresses were of Armenian origin, including Mavridios (Maurice, 582-602), Heraklios (610-642), John Tzimiskes (969-976), and Basil II (976-1025), and Armenians founded three imperial dynasties: the Heraclids (of royal Arsacid origin, 610-711), the Basilids (876-1056), and the Lekapenoi, who interupted the Basilids for twenty five years (920-944).

In addition, there were a number of isolated emperors of Armenian origin: Bardanes (Vardan, 711-713), Artabazdes (Artavazd, 742-743), Leo V "the Armenian" (813-820), and John Tzimiskes (969-976), who, though an emperor, was one of the greatest Byzantine military commanders as well. In addition, there were many Armenians who attempted the throne but failed to achieve it. In the ninth century, the throne, the patriarchate, and the command of the imperial armies were all held by Armenians, and the empire was, in effect, in Armenian hands. Most of these Armenians, of course, were thoroughly Hellenized, membership in the Greek Church being the sine qua non for advancement in the Byzantine world. Others such as the protospatharios John, who commissioned an Armenian Gospel manuscript that still survives remained linked to their own culture. Yet as the Armenians became Hellenized, there seems to be evidence that they, in turn, added something to the oriental influences that pervaded Byzantine civilization, and, as Der Nersessian notes, these appear to have been particularly strong in the realm of decorative arts precisely in the ninth and tenth centuries, when the role of Armenians in the highest levels of Byzantine society was at its height.

Of particular interest is the Basilid Romanus II, who was instrumental in the conversion of the Russians to Christianity and whose sister Anna married Vladimir the Great (980-1015), first Christian prince of Kiev, whose descendants ruled in Muscovy until 1598. One of the daughter of Vladimir and Anna was sent to France, where she married Henry I. One of their granddaughters married the last Saxon king of England; another married a king of Poland. In this way, the blood of the great houses of Armenia passed into those of Europe, east and west. Apart from the dynasties of Armenian origin, we know of many families of Armenian ancestry that figured in the political and military life of the empire: the Koutikes; the Phokades and the houses of Vrakhamios and Musle or Krinites; the Skleroi; the houses of Kourkouas, Makhitar, and Theodorokanos; Melias, Dalassenoi, and Kekaumenoi; and Taronites and their offshoot, the Tornikoi.

The third impact of the Armenians was in the realm of sheer manpower, whereby the Armenians simply added to the general population. Throughout the period of the Roman Empire, the Armenians living in Roman Armenia were eligible to serve in the Roman army, and doubtless many did so. After the loss of the West, however, these Armenians would have become a much higher percentage of the total. Then, after the temporary loss of the Balkans in the sixth century, Armenia replaced this area as the empire's chief recruiting ground. The size of Roman Armenia had grown, moreover with the annexations of 387 and 390; they grew even further with those of 591. This would have meant even more Armenians available to the Byzantine army, and by the late Arab period, the Armenians are estimated to have been some 20%-25% of the total Byzantine troops.

The Armeniakon theme (military province) had a large Armenian population, and the increasing size of this jurisdiction suggests an increasing influx of Armenian settlers. Many Armenians, as we have seen, immigrated to the empire as well, some following their princes, some preferring imperial rule to Persian or Arab, some fleeing the Arab, Khazar, or Turkish invasions, some fleeing justice, some fleeing debt, some who adhered to the imperial church, some simply seeking land or a new life. All of these newcomers swelled the Armenian population upon which the empire was able to draw. Not all the immigration was voluntary, as we have seen, and the Byzantine government often forcibly transferred Armenians from Armenia to various parts of the empire. Some were settled in the Danube Valley to defend the Macedonian passes; others were shipped to Thrace, Sicily, Calabria, Greece, Cyprus, and Crete, or settled in Kilikia after it was recovered from Arab rule. There was a strong pro-Byzantine element in Armenia throughout the Byzantine era, and many Armenians adhered to the Byzantine faith....