Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

[SevSpitak]

I came across this map and I am wondering what it means. Medz Hayk in it represents the peak of Armenia, but what of the rest? Does this map assume that Dikran had authority over the rest of the Persian Empire?

[jgk3]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

No, he didn't have authority in the sense of governing it, but he probably collected tribute from it. The map is a fancy, grandiose way of representing that through a geographical representation, when in reality, it has to do with one man handing over a pouch full of gold to another man.

Armenia would soon lose this wonderful prestigious position when the Romans challenged Dikran the Great. We didn't have the infrastructure to defend that empire and its orbit of influence. Like a deck of cards, it collapsed very quickly, never to be seen again.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

No, he didn't have authority in the sense of governing it, but he probably collected tribute from it. The map is a fancy, grandiose way of representing that through a geographical representation, when in reality, it has to do with one man handing over a pouch full of gold to another man.

Armenia would soon lose this wonderful prestigious position when the Romans challenged Dikran the Great. We didn't have the infrastructure to defend that empire and its orbit of influence. Like a deck of cards, it collapsed very quickly, never to be seen again.

The Medians ruled Greater Iran, so did the Persians, and the Parthians, and I guess it was to be Armenia's turn with Dikran, that's what this map probably assumes. If they did pay tribute, then the map is somewhat correct in the sense that Armenia was the super power of the region at the time, but Tigran's empire lasted only a few decades, and the territories it literally controlled were the ones that are portrayed as "Medz Hayk" (dark orange).

The Romans failed their attempts to destroy Dikran's empire until Pompey, and the greatest reason of the empire's demise was the betrayal of Dikran's sons.

[jgk3]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

The Medians ruled Greater Iran, so did the Persians, and the Parthians, and I guess it was to be Armenia's turn with Dikran, that's what this map probably assumes. If they did pay tribute, then the map is somewhat correct in the sense that Armenia was the super power of the region at the time, but Tigran's empire lasted only a few decades, and the territories it literally controlled were the ones that are portrayed as "Medz Hayk" (dark orange).

yep

The Romans failed their attempts to destroy Dikran's empire until Pompey, and the greatest reason of the empire's demise was the betrayal of Dikran's sons.

I know next to nothing about this chapter in our history. All I know is that it was a one time thing, haha.

[Davo88]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

Indeed, the map shows that Parthia was tributary to Armenia throughout the reign of Tigranes the Great. In fact, he had taken over the title "King of Kings" from the Parthians which cements his role as the sole power in the Middle-East.

I don't really know the details, but I doubt that the Armenians lost against the Romans because the Armenian army was too weak. If it was weak it wouldn't have been able to expand Armenian lands to the extent depicted in that map. Our loss was because the Roman one was really ahead of its time by being so organized compared to any other army in the Ancient world.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

Indeed, the map shows that Parthia was tributary to Armenia throughout the reign of Tigranes the Great. In fact, he had taken over the title "King of Kings" from the Parthians which cements his role as the sole power in the Middle-East.

I don't really know the details, but I doubt that the Armenians lost against the Romans because the Armenian army was too weak. If it was weak it wouldn't have been able to expand Armenian lands to the extent depicted in that map. Our loss was because the Roman one was really ahead of its time by being so organized compared to any other army in the Ancient world.

Non-Armenians in the western regions of the Armenian Empire sided with the Romans. Plus, Dikran's two sons rebelled against him.

The Armenian Empire fell due to internal corruption, mostly, not because Rome was too powerful. Armenia could have very well stood on its feet against Rome if its subjects were loyal. Armenia could have been the next Iranian empire, even. Rome considered Armenia its biggest threat in the East after Parthia, which was reduced temporarily at the time Armenia expanded. This without saying that Armenia would have been 100% successful against Rome if there was no internal corruption. Armenia would still have probably lost (like you said, Rome was ahead of its time), but not as easily as it really did.

[jgk3]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

Non-Armenians in the western regions of the Armenian Empire sided with the Romans. Plus, Dikran's two sons rebelled against him.

The Armenian Empire fell due to internal corruption, mostly, not because Rome was too powerful. Armenia could have very well stood on its feet against Rome if its subjects were loyal. Armenia could have been the next Iranian empire, even. Rome considered Armenia its biggest threat in the East after Parthia, which was reduced temporarily at the time Armenia expanded. This without saying that Armenia would have been 100% successful against Rome if there was no internal corruption. Armenia would still have probably lost (like you said, Rome was ahead of its time), but not as easily as it really did.

That is a universal problem, and Armenia, not used to being a super power, probably had a hard time dealing with it. You think Rome never had to deal with internal corruption?

99% of people are 100% successful in anything they put their minds to if there's no internal corruption, that is a no brainer. If there was no corruption in Armenia, chances are this factor would cause them to even conquer Roman territories and keep them, because the gastric juices of internal stability and order could digest them.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

That is a universal problem, and Armenia, not used to being a super power, probably had a hard time dealing with it. You think Rome never had to deal with internal corruption?

99% of people are 100% successful in anything they put their minds to if there's no internal corruption, that is a no brainer. If there was no corruption in Armenia, chances are this factor would cause them to even conquer Roman territories and keep them, because the gastric juices of internal stability and order could digest them.

First, there was no such thing as a kingdom that was used to being a super power back then. Medians weren't used to it at first, neither were the Romans, neither was England, nor France, until they became a super power and stayed a super power until today/they fell.

Second, it was the ruling dynasty that was used to ruling over a vast region, not the kingdom itself. The Kingdom itself wasn't an established entity back then like Republics are today, its name/language/religion could change easily with a simple change of dynasty or the ethnicity of the ruler.

Third, at that time, if you were a king, it wasn't too difficult to begin an empire if you had the opportunity, military power, intelligence and courage. Dikran found an opportunity, and he didn't fear no Roman, Seleucid nor Parthian emperor, made allies, organized a successful army and declared himself King of Kings of Greater Iran and lived carrying that title almost until the end of his life.

All nations go through a beginning to be a super power, and most of the time, without much of a competition until they were used to being a superpower.

What I'm trying to say is that if Romans had begun their empire in Armenia's position, we would surely not be talking about a Roman Empire today, and if Dikran lived in Rome, we would probably be talking about the Armenian Empire instead, for all I know!

Dikran was cunning, and lucky enough to be able to get out of prison from the hands of the Parthians and build an empire right in front of their nose. Dikran's accomplishments were so grand, it hasn't been paralleled in the region by any other nation of Armenia's caliber in history to this day (there was no Iberian, Colchian, Aturpat, Kurdish, Cappadocian, etc. empire). The Romans didn't see Armenians like a small nation to conquer easily like Iberia or Cilicia. They saw Armenia, along with Parthia, as a big threat and a mortal enemy in their expansion to the East.

There are many factors that make an empire, and two of the big factors are luck and circumstances. Sure, there is intelligence and courage, too, but Dikran didn't lack these. He lacked the appropriate circumstances and luck.

If Dikran's sons hadn't rebelled and joined the enemy, there is no doubt in my mind that Dikran would have begun a somewhat successful dynasty, and would have resisted the Romans much longer. There is no doubt in my mind that Armenia had the power to rule over Greater Iran. Don't forget, Iranian empires didn't rule over a homogenous kingdom. Medians, Persians, Kurds, Aturpats, C. Albanians, Assyrians, etc., all kingdoms more or less the size of Armenia. In fact, Armenia was the most successfully rebellious kingdom and among the biggest nations within Greater Iran. Also, don't forget that Armenia is the satrapy that succeeded the Urartian kingdom, and therefore, it was home to a regional superpower for some centuries already. Urartu successfully competed with the regional superpower of the time, Assyria. It even had Assyria at its knees for some decades.

Why is it that some noble individual from Parthia can build an empire, and "be used to being a superpower," and not some noble individual from Armenia? There is no doubt in my mind that if Rome wasn't involved, it was Armenia's turn to rule Greater Iran, and overthrow Parthia, just as Achaemenid Persians overthrew the first Iranian empire, Media (without counting Scythia because they lived north of the Caspian Sea). I am also very sure that if the Romans had arrived at the gates of Parthia at Parthia's beginning stages, it wouldn't have lasted any longer than the Armenian Empire.

Don't compare Armenia's insignificance in the world today to the Armenian Kingdom of the past. Armenia was a major player in the region, we're talking 6th century BC to 1st century BC. Armenia is the very kingdom that put an end to the Seleucid Empire's history. It became somewhat insignificant when Romans and Parthians ripped it apart and divided it after numerous attempts to do so. In fact, both empires always knew that as long as Armenia wasn't divided and conquered, it would always be a threat (by the time of Katch Vartan, Armenia was already divided). I wonder how powerful France would have been today if back then, it had two giant empires on both sides, and was in the middle of countless religious wars.

[jgk3]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

First, there was no such thing as a kingdom that was used to being a super power back then. Medians weren't used to it at first, neither were the Romans, neither was England, nor France, until they became a super power and stayed a super power until today/they fell.

You're right, being a super power meant swallowing up the entire world around you, piece by piece, and not losing it.

Second, it was the ruling dynasty that was used to ruling over a vast region, not the kingdom itself. The Kingdom itself wasn't an established entity back then like Republics are today, its name/language/religion could change easily with a simple change of dynasty or the ethnicity of the ruler.

This is also true, but I still think Rome had its civil, military and logistical foundation pretty well laid out throughout its empire by the time it challenged Armenia. Could the same be said of Armenia? You tell me, I don't know enough on that period about our history.

Third, at that time, if you were a king, it wasn't too difficult to begin an empire if you had the opportunity, military power, intelligence and courage. Dikran found an opportunity, and he didn't fear no Roman, Seleucid nor Parthian emperor, made allies, organized a successful army and declared himself King of Kings of Greater Iran and lived carrying that title almost until the end of his life.

I agree, that is how things worked.

All nations go through a beginning to be a super power, and most of the time, without much of a competition until they were used to being a superpower.

What I'm trying to say is that if Romans had begun their empire in Armenia's position, we would surely not be talking about a Roman Empire today, and if Dikran lived in Rome, we would probably be talking about the Armenian Empire instead, for all I know!

Dikran was cunning, and lucky enough to be able to get out of prison from the hands of the Parthians and build an empire right in front of their nose. Dikran's accomplishments were so grand, it hasn't been paralleled in the region by any other nation of Armenia's caliber in history to this day (there was no Iberian, Colchian, Aturpat, Kurdish, Cappadocian, etc. empire). The Romans didn't see Armenians like a small nation to conquer easily like Iberia or Cilicia. They saw Armenia, along with Parthia, as a big threat and a mortal enemy in their expansion to the East.

Yes, I can see that.

There are many factors that make an empire, and two of the big factors are luck and circumstances. Sure, there is intelligence and courage, too, but Dikran didn't lack these. He lacked the appropriate circumstances and luck.

If Dikran's sons hadn't rebelled and joined the enemy, there is no doubt in my mind that Dikran would have begun a somewhat successful dynasty, and would have resisted the Romans much longer. There is no doubt in my mind that Armenia had the power to rule over Greater Iran. Don't forget, Iranian empires didn't rule over a homogenous kingdom. Medians, Persians, Kurds, Aturpats, C. Albanians, Assyrians, etc., all kingdoms more or less the size of Armenia. In fact, Armenia was the most successfully rebellious kingdom and among the biggest nations within Greater Iran. Also, don't forget that Armenia is the satrapy that succeeded the Urartian kingdom, and therefore, it was home to a regional superpower for some centuries already. Urartu successfully competed with the regional superpower of the time, Assyria. It even had Assyria at its knees for some decades.

Why is it that some noble individual from Parthia can build an empire, and "be used to being a superpower," and not some noble individual from Armenia? There is no doubt in my mind that if Rome wasn't involved, it was Armenia's turn to rule Greater Iran, and overthrow Parthia, just as Achaemenid Persians overthrew the first Iranian empire, Media (without counting Scythia because they lived north of the Caspian Sea). I am also very sure that if the Romans had arrived at the gates of Parthia at Parthia's beginning stages, it wouldn't have lasted any longer than the Armenian Empire.

Don't compare Armenia's insignificance in the world today to the Armenian Kingdom of the past. Armenia was a major player in the region, we're talking 6th century BC to 1st century BC. Armenia is the very kingdom that put an end to the Seleucid Empire's history. It became somewhat insignificant when Romans and Parthians ripped it apart and divided it after numerous attempts to do so. In fact, both empires always knew that as long as Armenia wasn't divided and conquered, it would always be a threat (by the time of Katch Vartan, Armenia was already divided). I wonder how powerful France would have been today if back then, it had two giant empires on both sides, and was in the middle of countless religious wars.

Fair enough.

[Lion1700]

Re: Can Someone Explain This Map of Armenia?

It is an empire Tigrana card. Colour places on a card show, how influence of the Armenian king has been far widespread a zone.