Tweet
Bournoutian Tells the Great (and Not So Great) History of Tigran Metz
By Andy Turpin
BELMONT, Mass. (A.W.)-On May 5, historian George Bournoutian spoke at the
National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) about his
most recent translation into English of Armenian historian Hakob H.
Manandyan's (1873-1952) work Tigranes II and Rome.
Manandyan's work is regarded as the first serious attempt to examine the 1st
century B.C. monarch, without appealing to patriotic sentiments and with a
grounding in Greek and Roman sources.
NAASR director of programs and publications Marc A. Mamigonian introduced
Bournoutian, saying, "He has spoken all over for us and logged many, many
miles on NAASR's behalf. He is always interesting and entertaining as all of
you will find out."
Bournoutian began by giving context to Manandyan and his pioneering work in
writing Armenian history during the Stalinist Soviet period behind the Iron
Curtain. He explained that Manandyan's efforts were rare, since "Stalin did
not like any nationalisms for Soviet minorities."
Of Tigran the Great (also referred to as Tigranes II or, in Armenian,
"Tigran Metz") Bournoutian said, "We Armenians only have one 'Great' and
that's Tigran. Most of our dynasties were weak." He continued, "The
Tigranian period was the greatest height of Armenian history."
Of his translation and additional footnotes to Manandyan's work, he added,
"My notes reflect the scholarship of 2007."
Bournoutian continued, "Tigran Metz has only been studied in a very cursory
fashion by those European scholars interested in the history of Rome and
Pontus."
"All of the European scholars relied heavily on highly inaccurate Roman
sources that painted Tigran as a caricatured monster." Of the dubious and
exaggerated nature of Roman sources, Bournoutian cited that the xxxish
historian Flavius Josephus once said, "Even eyewitness accounts have
tendencies to play up Roman victories."
And always in Roman annals, and later the European works that pedestaled
them, there was a total disregard for Greek, Pontic, and Armenian sources.
Bournoutian said of these biases and derogations, "[The Romans] called the
Eastern peoples 'dogs' in their fidelity. And Europeans viewed the whole
area as a war between east and west."
Of today's research, Bournoutian stated, "Most historians say that had the
Greek and Armenians been allowed by Rome and Byzantium to build strong
cities, it would not have allowed for later the conquests of the Arabs, the
Mongols, and certainly not the Turks."
With great enthusiasm Bournoutian told of the Parthian Persian empire at the
time of Tigran and the role it played in shaping Armenian history. He
stated, "Both cultures had common gods. Zoroastrianism was big. Hellenism
and Hellenistic gods were big."
He explained of the Armenian royal crown that Tigran brought into prominence
and wore on his coinage during his reign, "It's unique. It looks different
from all other crowns and is called the 'Armenian Tiara.'"
Of the culture that pervaded during Tigran's reign, Bournoutian made very
clear to myth-bust nationalist assumptions by stating, "Court was always in
Greek-the language at that time was Greek!"
However, he explained, what made Tigran unique was that "he minted his own
coins with no Hellenistic goddesses on them-unheard of for that period."
Of extreme importance to understanding the mentality and life of Tigran
Metz, Bournoutian explained that as a teen Tigran became a royal hostage of
the Persian court. He detailed that being a "royal" hostage is very
different in treatment from simply being a hostage. Tigran was trained in
Persian military techniques and education his whole adult life. The nobility
hostage system was a comparatively civil institution in every empire of the
period and ultimately its civility was its downfall. Noble hostages became
so well versed in their enemy's tactics that inevitably it was almost always
a former hostage that heralded the downfall of that horde by commanding
armies against them with insider knowledge.
Such was the case with Julius Caesar destroying the pirates of Cilicia that
had held him; the downfall of Attila the Hun; and the defeat of the Ottoman
forces by Vlad "Dracula" Tepes outside the Romanian city of Targoviste in
1462.
Bournoutian said of Tigran that when he was finally released from Persia as
a hostage and free to be king in Armenia, "He was 45 years old. He had
conceded 70 valleys in what is today Azerbaijan to Parthia to allow him to
go home."
Of what that geographical home actually was, Bournoutian said of Armenia's
capital Tigranagert, "Diyarbekir [in present-day Turkey] is not Tigranagert.
The site is actually at Silvan, very close to Diyarbekir."
Armenia's stability relied heavily on royal alliances and, as with all royal
politics, intrigue and deception was rampant. To secure his borders, Tigran,
Bournoutian detailed, "married the daughter of the king of Pontus to cover
his flank from the west."
He also explained to quash false perceptions of Tigran as a one-woman family
man that "Tigran was not Christian. He had a harem. He killed four of his
boys-but with reasons, not because he was crazy."
Tigran executed his eldest son for rebeling against Armenia and siding with
Tigran's enemies in a bid for the crown. A younger, handicapped son was
executed after he stole the crown from Tigran's head on a hunting trip and
road to the capital proclaiming himself king as a lark. To save face, Tigran
called for his death.
Bournoutian explained, "You can't blame his eldest son though. He was
restless. In a time when people didn't live past their 50s, Tigran was 75
years old and refused to give up the crown. That's the problem with some of
us, we don't know when to quit." Tigran reigned for another 10 years, until
he was 85.
Of Tigran's policies as a ruler, Bournoutian stated, "He brought new
populations to Tigranagert, especially Greeks. Not just Greek-speaking
peoples but real Greeks."
He continued, "He needed non-Armenians in his kingdom because populations
were not big in cities at that time. It would not do if someone inevitably
invaded his capital and was able to take the king and all the Armenian
people under control."
Of Tigran's faults, Bournoutian noted that he married into the Pontic
kingdom but did not back his wife's family when they were threatened by
Rome. He said, "Rome could not tolerate a strong Armenia united with a
strong Pontus. But Tigran's big mistake was that he tried to remain
neutral."
In the end, the famous Roman general Pompey used deceitful tactics to gain
senate support to destroy Armenia and wage a long guerilla-war in Pontus on
the pretense that Tigran had placed 15,000 Armenian soldiers on the Pontic
border in a covert war alliance with the Greeks against Rome.
In fact, those 15,000 Armenians were mercenaries for Pontus, unknown to and
not commanded by Tigran. Bournoutian compared Pompey's trick to the tactics
used by the Bush administration to gain approval to invade Iraq, but chided
that had Tigran supported Pontus initially he would not have made himself
vulnerable.
Bournoutian ended by saying of Tigran's true character in history, "He was
an emperor of his time, a strong king. But we cannot make him something he
was not" through nationalism.
A very mixed audience reaction followed Bournoutian's lecture. Many
history-oriented members expressed overwhelming thanks to Bournoutian for
his clear portrait, while others were more shaken. One attendee chimed that
Tigran "must not even have been Armenian." Bournoutian assauged the crowd by
explaining, "We've intermaried before! We've undergone the Greek Orthodox
mass over the centuries, too. This does not mean these people were bad
Armenians. It was a different time from today. Culture mixes. Art mixes."
Another member asked Bournoutian to explain why at an earlier point he did
not regard the early Urartian confederation as totally Armenian. Bournoutian
answered, "Urartu was not an Armenian dynasty. It was not a kingdom, it was
a confederation. And though it was in Armenia, there are almost no traces of
the Armenian language," only Sumerian-Akkadian cunieform.
Asked why such gaps exist in Urartian scholarship, Bournoutian stated
plainly, "There are no jobs. We complain about there being no scholars, but
we have no jobs to give them."
By Andy Turpin
BELMONT, Mass. (A.W.)-On May 5, historian George Bournoutian spoke at the
National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) about his
most recent translation into English of Armenian historian Hakob H.
Manandyan's (1873-1952) work Tigranes II and Rome.
Manandyan's work is regarded as the first serious attempt to examine the 1st
century B.C. monarch, without appealing to patriotic sentiments and with a
grounding in Greek and Roman sources.
NAASR director of programs and publications Marc A. Mamigonian introduced
Bournoutian, saying, "He has spoken all over for us and logged many, many
miles on NAASR's behalf. He is always interesting and entertaining as all of
you will find out."
Bournoutian began by giving context to Manandyan and his pioneering work in
writing Armenian history during the Stalinist Soviet period behind the Iron
Curtain. He explained that Manandyan's efforts were rare, since "Stalin did
not like any nationalisms for Soviet minorities."
Of Tigran the Great (also referred to as Tigranes II or, in Armenian,
"Tigran Metz") Bournoutian said, "We Armenians only have one 'Great' and
that's Tigran. Most of our dynasties were weak." He continued, "The
Tigranian period was the greatest height of Armenian history."
Of his translation and additional footnotes to Manandyan's work, he added,
"My notes reflect the scholarship of 2007."
Bournoutian continued, "Tigran Metz has only been studied in a very cursory
fashion by those European scholars interested in the history of Rome and
Pontus."
"All of the European scholars relied heavily on highly inaccurate Roman
sources that painted Tigran as a caricatured monster." Of the dubious and
exaggerated nature of Roman sources, Bournoutian cited that the xxxish
historian Flavius Josephus once said, "Even eyewitness accounts have
tendencies to play up Roman victories."
And always in Roman annals, and later the European works that pedestaled
them, there was a total disregard for Greek, Pontic, and Armenian sources.
Bournoutian said of these biases and derogations, "[The Romans] called the
Eastern peoples 'dogs' in their fidelity. And Europeans viewed the whole
area as a war between east and west."
Of today's research, Bournoutian stated, "Most historians say that had the
Greek and Armenians been allowed by Rome and Byzantium to build strong
cities, it would not have allowed for later the conquests of the Arabs, the
Mongols, and certainly not the Turks."
With great enthusiasm Bournoutian told of the Parthian Persian empire at the
time of Tigran and the role it played in shaping Armenian history. He
stated, "Both cultures had common gods. Zoroastrianism was big. Hellenism
and Hellenistic gods were big."
He explained of the Armenian royal crown that Tigran brought into prominence
and wore on his coinage during his reign, "It's unique. It looks different
from all other crowns and is called the 'Armenian Tiara.'"
Of the culture that pervaded during Tigran's reign, Bournoutian made very
clear to myth-bust nationalist assumptions by stating, "Court was always in
Greek-the language at that time was Greek!"
However, he explained, what made Tigran unique was that "he minted his own
coins with no Hellenistic goddesses on them-unheard of for that period."
Of extreme importance to understanding the mentality and life of Tigran
Metz, Bournoutian explained that as a teen Tigran became a royal hostage of
the Persian court. He detailed that being a "royal" hostage is very
different in treatment from simply being a hostage. Tigran was trained in
Persian military techniques and education his whole adult life. The nobility
hostage system was a comparatively civil institution in every empire of the
period and ultimately its civility was its downfall. Noble hostages became
so well versed in their enemy's tactics that inevitably it was almost always
a former hostage that heralded the downfall of that horde by commanding
armies against them with insider knowledge.
Such was the case with Julius Caesar destroying the pirates of Cilicia that
had held him; the downfall of Attila the Hun; and the defeat of the Ottoman
forces by Vlad "Dracula" Tepes outside the Romanian city of Targoviste in
1462.
Bournoutian said of Tigran that when he was finally released from Persia as
a hostage and free to be king in Armenia, "He was 45 years old. He had
conceded 70 valleys in what is today Azerbaijan to Parthia to allow him to
go home."
Of what that geographical home actually was, Bournoutian said of Armenia's
capital Tigranagert, "Diyarbekir [in present-day Turkey] is not Tigranagert.
The site is actually at Silvan, very close to Diyarbekir."
Armenia's stability relied heavily on royal alliances and, as with all royal
politics, intrigue and deception was rampant. To secure his borders, Tigran,
Bournoutian detailed, "married the daughter of the king of Pontus to cover
his flank from the west."
He also explained to quash false perceptions of Tigran as a one-woman family
man that "Tigran was not Christian. He had a harem. He killed four of his
boys-but with reasons, not because he was crazy."
Tigran executed his eldest son for rebeling against Armenia and siding with
Tigran's enemies in a bid for the crown. A younger, handicapped son was
executed after he stole the crown from Tigran's head on a hunting trip and
road to the capital proclaiming himself king as a lark. To save face, Tigran
called for his death.
Bournoutian explained, "You can't blame his eldest son though. He was
restless. In a time when people didn't live past their 50s, Tigran was 75
years old and refused to give up the crown. That's the problem with some of
us, we don't know when to quit." Tigran reigned for another 10 years, until
he was 85.
Of Tigran's policies as a ruler, Bournoutian stated, "He brought new
populations to Tigranagert, especially Greeks. Not just Greek-speaking
peoples but real Greeks."
He continued, "He needed non-Armenians in his kingdom because populations
were not big in cities at that time. It would not do if someone inevitably
invaded his capital and was able to take the king and all the Armenian
people under control."
Of Tigran's faults, Bournoutian noted that he married into the Pontic
kingdom but did not back his wife's family when they were threatened by
Rome. He said, "Rome could not tolerate a strong Armenia united with a
strong Pontus. But Tigran's big mistake was that he tried to remain
neutral."
In the end, the famous Roman general Pompey used deceitful tactics to gain
senate support to destroy Armenia and wage a long guerilla-war in Pontus on
the pretense that Tigran had placed 15,000 Armenian soldiers on the Pontic
border in a covert war alliance with the Greeks against Rome.
In fact, those 15,000 Armenians were mercenaries for Pontus, unknown to and
not commanded by Tigran. Bournoutian compared Pompey's trick to the tactics
used by the Bush administration to gain approval to invade Iraq, but chided
that had Tigran supported Pontus initially he would not have made himself
vulnerable.
Bournoutian ended by saying of Tigran's true character in history, "He was
an emperor of his time, a strong king. But we cannot make him something he
was not" through nationalism.
A very mixed audience reaction followed Bournoutian's lecture. Many
history-oriented members expressed overwhelming thanks to Bournoutian for
his clear portrait, while others were more shaken. One attendee chimed that
Tigran "must not even have been Armenian." Bournoutian assauged the crowd by
explaining, "We've intermaried before! We've undergone the Greek Orthodox
mass over the centuries, too. This does not mean these people were bad
Armenians. It was a different time from today. Culture mixes. Art mixes."
Another member asked Bournoutian to explain why at an earlier point he did
not regard the early Urartian confederation as totally Armenian. Bournoutian
answered, "Urartu was not an Armenian dynasty. It was not a kingdom, it was
a confederation. And though it was in Armenia, there are almost no traces of
the Armenian language," only Sumerian-Akkadian cunieform.
Asked why such gaps exist in Urartian scholarship, Bournoutian stated
plainly, "There are no jobs. We complain about there being no scholars, but
we have no jobs to give them."
Comment