Why couldn't Armenians....

[UrMistake]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

we nead an proArmenian policy now days cause others will use armenian benefit for there own,we nead a strong armenia with real allyes Russia,Iran,Greece,whay is so hard to be united?look Israel thay dont have a vast land but they are among the first and yet many nations opose them.today sokme say we nead more land to be stong,its true but how can we ever take those land?no 1 will give them back,so no other whay fo as,we nead to build up armenia,first we nead strong law and next a strong economy,to secure these 2 things we nead to be united with srong Politicans.We can be strong but who will lead as?what political party?with so many pro-country lovers how can we be united?i think that is the problem.cant we have them just allyes?se Serbia they lost Kosovo and they had more suport from russia more than armenia in NKR war,dont forget only we will make ourselfs strong we will fight for our intrests.

[Palavra]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

how can you not follow pro-armenian politics when you are armenian? Saying that we should follow proarmenian politic is oximoron.. (After nationalism.)

Also unity is generally something unproductive. Turks did not built their empires when they are united and Ottomans began to decline, after Sultan controled all rebellions and competing factions.

[ara87]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

how can you not follow pro-armenian politics when you are armenian? Saying that we should follow proarmenian politic is oximoron.. (After nationalism.)

Also unity is generally something unproductive. Turks did not built their empires when they are united and Ottomans began to decline, after Sultan controled all rebellions and competing factions.

Didn't Turks see some of there best times under the sultan's though? What about Suleiman the Great? And look at the Arabs today... If they were united as one for the past century, they would have a lot more influence in the world than they already do, and probably been able to expand more into Africa, Anatolia, Caucasia, Iran, and onwards, culturally if not geographically as well. And the world wouldn't have done anything as long as it was getting it's oil and other resources.

By the way, just for an extra lip service, You looks so handsome..
.

[truAnatolian]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

I'm with UrMistake on this one..... We can build a very strong Armenia with the land we have now, we just have to increase industry and education. Israel is a good model for this and they were able to bring back their most wealthy diaspora. A key difference however may be that Israel has access to the sea which we do not. Look how much land Canada has and our military is not generally considered very strong (though we were vital to WWI and WWII efforts).

Imvfor a strong armenia, not a big one.

[Palavra]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Didn't Turks see some of there best times under the sultan's though? What about Suleiman the Great?

He is only great at European eyes. In Turkey, he is called as lawful. Anyway, Acording to Turkish historians, decrease of Ottoman powers begin with Sultan Süleyman.

And look at the Arabs today... If they were united as one for the past century, they would have a lot more influence in the world than they already do, and probably been able to expand more into Africa, Anatolia, Caucasia, Iran, and onwards, culturally if not geographically as well.

a lot arabian country is united under harsh rulers and they still do not become a xxxx.. Even all of them unified, They would still be not powerful and absolutely cannot expand at anatolia or iran.. Ottomans unified all arabic country, but where is she.

Anyway, I did not say, unification does not make a country or nation powerful. I just said, It is unproductive.. It just harm society in long run..

[Anoush]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Good question. Thank you for bringing this up. I would like Armenians to seriously think about this topic.

But before we go on, realize that Turks only managed to create their empire due to the political weaknesses of Byzantine, Armenian, Persian and Middle Eastern powers... Turkish power rose during a time when the natives of Asia Minor, Mesopotamia and the Caucasus were exhausted from constant warfare that had lasted centuries, most of which was occurring within the Armenian Highlands... The natives of the region had more-or-less fought themselves to the point of utter exhaustion. Moreover, the relentless stream of barbarian Huns, Tatars, Seljuks, Turkmens, Mongols, Ottomans, etc., was simply too much for the region's highly cultured and civilized nations to check effectively.

It's no secret that barbarians fight better than highly cultured peoples. This has been one of the fundamental ailments of world history.

The first Turks in Asia Minor/Armenian Highlands were the Seljuks. The Seljuk leader, Alp Arslan, managed to invade Asia Minor in 1064 only because the Byzantines at the time had in effect dissolved the Armenian Bagratuni kingdom during the 1040s. During the historic battle by the Armenian town of Manzikert in 1084, when the Seljuks symbolically broke down the gates of Asia Minor, the Byzantine empire did not have the crucial/pivotal support of the region's Armenians as well as having serious internal issues amongst themselves... Actually, due to their hatred of the Byzantines a significant portion of the Armenian population at the time may have even supported the Seljuks. Had the Byzantines made an alliance with Armenia at the time instead of relentlessly conspiring to destroy it - there would not have been a Turkish presence in Asia Minor today.

To their credit, Turkic peoples, being uncivilized and uncultured at the time, were united enough, barbaric enough and hungry enough to persevere against their vastly more civilized but hopelessly disunited enemies. So, history has given you Turks the credit for being united and relentless - yet uncultured and barbaric...

But you are right, other than Tigran the Great's short lived empire, which was created during a political vacuum in Asia Minor, Armenia only managed to create various kingdoms and principalities of various degrees of effectiveness. From Urartu to Cilicia Armenians managed to create powerful yet 'limited' kingdoms. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many historians, the reasons for this are geography, politics, culture and genetics.

From the beginning of time, mountain dwelling Armenians living in what was essentially the crossroads of the world were always stuck between major empires. So, in a sense, we Armenians never really had long periods of political stability. Historically, mountain peoples also tend to be fiercely independent - yet fiercely disunited as well. Historically, empires have been created by lowlands peoples which have tended to be compliant/slavish and isolated peoples such islanders.

Genetically and culturally Armenians have been too ambitious, too cleaver, too talented, and more importantly - too 'individualistic' to be united under one banner, be it Armenian or any other. Unlike Europeans and Asians, Armenians have never made good followers/servants.

So, our both people's respective national characteristics have been one of your greatest weapons. But times are changing. I think we will again carve out a significant portion of Asia Minor under an Armenian banner. Like in the past, we wont be a great empire, but we will again be a major regional power.

Besides, empires live big but they die nasty.

PS: You Turks will eventually loose some of your eastern provinces to the majority Kurds there. Wouldn't you rather just give the territory in question to us Armenians instead? When a Kurdish nation rises wouldn't you Turks want a powerful Armenia as a counterbalance in the region? What kind of neighbors would you like to have to your east, Kurds or Armenians?

Thank you Armenian for your brainstorms, knowledge of history in the true sense and for being in here for you are a true Armenian but with intelligent views!!!!!

I also like your good and useful viewpoints in your P.S.

[Anoush]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Until today I didn't realize that due to our locale of having been mountain dwellers that we tend to be fiercely independent and fiercely disunited as well. And yet because of our cleverness, having been talented, ambituous and individualistic that it actually worked against us to become better soldiers under one rule "a king". And that part of our nature unfortunately worked against us and our unitedness to have become a more powerful nation throughout our long but sad history.

[Hye_Psycho]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Why couldn't Armenians create a sustaining, lasting and large empire to this day?

I don’t like the downtrodden sentiment echoing from this thread.

The Armenians forged a series of spectacular Kingdoms in a geography which in my opinion was perhaps the most fiercely fought over geo-political region for over 4000 years of human civilisation.

The political institution of Empire is in reality barbaric in nature. it resonates with subjugation, repression and ethnic cleansing - mostly through cultural annihilation depending on the ferocity of the attacker and the headstrong character of the victim.

The Armenians Managed to forge an Empire during the reign of Tigran the great. However is this surprising, that given at this time the Armenian elites were almost thoroughly Hellenised, and Tigran himself was a product of the Parthian court and exposed to its imperial structure. Offcourse under the earlier Kingdom of Ararat, several areas were also placed under ‘urartian’ control by King Ishpuinis.

Anatolia has been swapped between the Romans, Macedonians (Alexander the Great), Persians, Byzantines, Some Arabs, and finally the Turks. Since Armenians did inhabit most of eastern Anatolia for centuries, why weren't they effective enough to create their own empire that survived through into a nation state?

Unity, dis-unity, the bariarinsm of the turk are all affourse legitimite reasons for our lack of imperial conquest. I also posit our lack of numbers and tribal relatives. Armenians have always been the one and only ethnos, with no reall allies or lingusitc, cultural or biological brethren. The Romans forged an empire on the back of several ethnic denominations of Latin speakers, Hellenes, indigenous Etruscans and the ethnicity of Roman soon became succinct with anyone living in the empire

The modern Persians are an amalgamation of ancient Iranian tribes who migrated to Iran in the 2nd millennium. These tribes included the Persians, Parthians, Medes, scythians, Allans ext.. Together they managed to unite, with unprecedented numbers to create successive imperial dynasties (achamenids, Parthians, Sassanid Byzantines, Some Arabs, and finally the Turks

The Byzantine Empire was in fact not a Greek enterprise, but rather an combination of several peoples, including the Armenians. 1/5 royal kings were of Armenian decent. The Arabs, far greater in number also used the unifying force of Islam to galvanise millions more for the caliphate cause.

And finally the Turks, who Armenian accurately accounted for. Lets also not forget the deluge of migration from Oghuz, Seljuk Turks, Turkish beylics and Mamluk Turks.

The only time Armenians managed to maintain empires were the interim periods between the other empires; Armenia only came around when the land was being switched hands amongst other empires.

It's just one of those things. You know, have been there first and around for a while but never got around to anything. Kind of like the native Americans in America - they had so many opportunities to stop the Europeans - but it just didn't happen.

Was it just bad luck?

The Armenians did not create the massive empires of other more powerful national units, and neither did they need to. The most important indication of national strength is not measured by an imperial past, but a unique civilisation present and future. The Romans, ancient Persians, original Turkic invaders, Egyptians, Byzantines, Macedonians ext… Are now confined only to history books. Against all odds, the Hye manufactured the necessary and correct hybrid of institutional, royal and state infrastructure, which allowed us to preserve and develop our national culture and self-awareness, an Identity that has outlasted most and still continues to prosper.

[Armanen]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

Well said Hye Psycho, apres!

[Anush]

Re: Why couldn't Armenians....

The Armenians did not create the massive empires of other more powerful national units, and neither did they need to. The most important indication of national strength is not measured by an imperial past, but a unique civilisation present and future. The Romans, ancient Persians, original Turkic invaders, Egyptians, Byzantines, Macedonians ext… Are now confined only to history books. Against all odds, the Hye manufactured the necessary and correct hybrid of institutional, royal and state infrastructure, which allowed us to preserve and develop our national culture and self-awareness, an Identity that has outlasted most and still continues to prosper.

Bravo!! Very well put!