Regional geopolitics

[hagopn]

Re: Regional geopolitics

the inspiration to fight mostly came from foreigners - Russians, British, French. Only exceptionally from Armenian leaders. Are Italians inspired by a foreign power? No! Are Iranians? No!

the inspiration to fight mostly came from foreigners - Russians, British, French. Only exceptionally from Armenian leaders. Are Italians inspired by a foreign power? No! Are Iranians? No!

There is a partial truth in that (rhetorical) question, but only partial. Let's start with the Italians and their long drawn history of disunity despite having inherited the focal point of the Roman empire, which is an extreme irony. The Italians were disunited politically and were a territory of city states controlled by mainly "dynasties" of purely commercial interests, with the Papacy and its Papal States as the notable exception (although the Borgias were definitely a commercial clan) and only true catalyst for eventual unification, with some credit to the Fascists at the latest stage of unification in Italy's history, something the knowledgeable Italian will say without hesitation despite all the stigma attached with that movement. For example, we have the Lombards who ended up ironically uniting the country for quite a long time, and this length of time, again, was entirely due to the reluctance of the various Italian commercial dynasties to make that big decision: to beg the Pope to indulge the Franks into ousting the Lombards, which is something that did eventually happen. The Lombards were defeated, and the disunited Italy resumed its business. Italy is actually the worst example, even post-Garibaldi Italy, where Garibaldi (merely a Mussolini prototype, less honest) was actually yet another henchman, no more no less, for hire by the ambitious Savoy clan who had based themselves in Sardinia, and from there had launched their operations of toppling the individual city states and creating a united Italy. Historians of various political leanings treat this episode vastly differently, but my take is that the Savoy were savvy businessmen that simply outmaneuvered their rival city state dynasties. They used the element of "emerging nationalisms" as the inspiration for their moves, but the point is that they needed and used foreign inspiration (and a foreign dynasty taking the initiative), the principal incentive being an avoidance of another Napoleonic era.

In the case of Persia, you simply cannot compare imperialism with nationalism. THey are certainly two distinct and vastly different models with equally great differences in results for their populations with an equally greater difference in the set of ambitions on behalf of their leadership cadre. Persia, Iran if you wish (as I am still wary of that name), was merely a weakened empire, still in tact with its state and military apparatus, and did not need any inspiration. Parasitic empires, (redundant term, since empire means parasite, essentially), tend to maintain their composure due to the very nature of their state model, which is that of conquest and oppression exclusively. That is true, but why is that such a comparable case to Armenians, who are a nation who had non-imperial kingdoms that collapsed under the pressure of imperial ambitions of their neighbors, one of which was definitely the Persian? THe various Armenian kindgoms, including the central one at Ani and its predecessors, were confederate and truly national entities that were not based on this "conquest and oppression, totalitarian" model despite all false misconceptions. Perhaps they should have adopted such a model, but would Armenians be Armenians anymore in such a climate (as author Derenik Demirjian noticed and so well described our character)?

Such broad statements are simply inaccurate and unfair. Armenians were always inspired for freedom in some form, and the only thing I will grant you is that they, in their weakened state, sought opportunities that were less risky, ironically due to the sort of unnatural leadership that had resulted due to the loss of statehood. Really, even from Madras and the resulting Emin expedition and then the campaigns by David Beg were driven by the merchant classes, who were prudent people who tended to take less risks. But you also say that such prudence would have been better in the 19th century especially.

But, the populations in Armenia, as Emin's journals truly show, were always ready for independence from the Ottomans and the Persians. There's no doubt. The irony is that you blame Armenians for revolutionary acts, but those acts were easily catalyzed precisely because the desire for freedom always existed.

I will have to agree with you on the "revolutionary" bungling, such as the Ottoman bank incident, which is something that was warned against by Grigor Artsruni. There were better opportunities and methods, and Artsruni was working on it, financing it, cooperating with others on it. If they had been given the chance, things would have bee much different for us. The ARtrsuni clan, by the way, is one example of why your rule of "lack of action without external inspiration" is invalid. These folks, inheritors of a leading dynasty, always had in their future an Armenian state of some sort. This was evident in his writings and in the actions of his father and grandfather, the details of which are covered in Leo's biography in his History volume 6.***

***I wish that would be digitized somewhere. If it is, I hope someone lets me know.

[lampron]

Re: Regional geopolitics

There is a partial truth in that (rhetorical) question, but only partial. Let's start with the Italians and their long drawn history of disunity despite having inherited the focal point of the Roman empire, which is an extreme irony. The Italians were disunited politically and were a territory of city states controlled by mainly "dynasties" of purely commercial interests, with the Papacy and its Papal States as the notable exception (although the Borgias were definitely a commercial clan) and only true catalyst for eventual unification, with some credit to the Fascists at the latest stage of unification in Italy's history, something the knowledgeable Italian will say without hesitation despite all the stigma attached with that movement. For example, we have the Lombards who ended up ironically uniting the country for quite a long time, and this length of time, again, was entirely due to the reluctance of the various Italian commercial dynasties to make that big decision: to beg the Pope to indulge the Franks into ousting the Lombards, which is something that did eventually happen. The Lombards were defeated, and the disunited Italy resumed its business. Italy is actually the worst example, even post-Garibaldi Italy, where Garibaldi (merely a Mussolini prototype, less honest) was actually yet another henchman, no more no less, for hire by the ambitious Savoy clan who had based themselves in Sardinia, and from there had launched their operations of toppling the individual city states and creating a united Italy. Historians of various political leanings treat this episode vastly differently, but my take is that the Savoy were savvy businessmen that simply outmaneuvered their rival city state dynasties. They used the element of "emerging nationalisms" as the inspiration for their moves, but the point is that they needed and used foreign inspiration (and a foreign dynasty taking the initiative), the principal incentive being an avoidance of another Napoleonic era.

In the case of Persia, you simply cannot compare imperialism with nationalism. THey are certainly two distinct and vastly different models with equally great differences in results for their populations with an equally greater difference in the set of ambitions on behalf of their leadership cadre. Persia, Iran if you wish (as I am still wary of that name), was merely a weakened empire, still in tact with its state and military apparatus, and did not need any inspiration. Parasitic empires, (redundant term, since empire means parasite, essentially), tend to maintain their composure due to the very nature of their state model, which is that of conquest and oppression exclusively. That is true, but why is that such a comparable case to Armenians, who are a nation who had non-imperial kingdoms that collapsed under the pressure of imperial ambitions of their neighbors, one of which was definitely the Persian? THe various Armenian kindgoms, including the central one at Ani and its predecessors, were confederate and truly national entities that were not based on this "conquest and oppression, totalitarian" model despite all false misconceptions. Perhaps they should have adopted such a model, but would Armenians be Armenians anymore in such a climate (as author Derenik Demirjian noticed and so well described our character)?

Such broad statements are simply inaccurate and unfair. Armenians were always inspired for freedom in some form, and the only thing I will grant you is that they, in their weakened state, sought opportunities that were less risky, ironically due to the sort of unnatural leadership that had resulted due to the loss of statehood. Really, even from Madras and the resulting Emin expedition and then the campaigns by David Beg were driven by the merchant classes, who were prudent people who tended to take less risks. But you also say that such prudence would have been better in the 19th century especially.

But, the populations in Armenia, as Emin's journals truly show, were always ready for independence from the Ottomans and the Persians. There's no doubt. The irony is that you blame Armenians for revolutionary acts, but those acts were easily catalyzed precisely because the desire for freedom always existed.

I will have to agree with you on the "revolutionary" bungling, such as the Ottoman bank incident, which is something that was warned against by Grigor Artsruni. There were better opportunities and methods, and Artsruni was working on it, financing it, cooperating with others on it. If they had been given the chance, things would have bee much different for us. The ARtrsuni clan, by the way, is one example of why your rule of "lack of action without external inspiration" is invalid. These folks, inheritors of a leading dynasty, always had in their future an Armenian state of some sort. This was evident in his writings and in the actions of his father and grandfather, the details of which are covered in Leo's biography in his History volume 6.***

***I wish that would be digitized somewhere. If it is, I hope someone lets me know.

interesting analysis, but if Italy and Iran are more or less successful countries then it is right to aspire to their level

David Beg was an example of how an Armenian leader should be. But such examples are few. He was inspired by the possibility of Russian intervention

We have to remember that in the Ottoman and Russian empires Armenian mostly did not trust one another

[lampron]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Son of a cat.

you still don't sound very happy!

[Eddo211]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Lampron
The reason is because of Armenians peacful nature and the fact that they were living on their own lands, they have seen empires come and go but they remained, no need to rebell......once Turks decided on ethnic cleansing because of revenge for Karikamish, all bets were off.

The butchers feared Gen Andranik

[Artashes]

Re: Regional geopolitics

The butchers ran from Movsis Silikian.

[londontsi]

Re: Regional geopolitics

what Armenian revolutionary movement, ......

Precisely, that is what I meant, lack of knowledge of Armenian history.

Pointing out a individual incidents to highlight your agenda does not give you credibility.

.

[Hakob]

Re: Regional geopolitics

10:05 03/02/2014 » INTERVIEWS
US missiles on Russia borders, provocative – expert

Press TV has conducted an interview with Bill Jones, with the Executive Intelligence Review, Leesburg about the expansion of the US missile program which Russia says is a threat and prevents talks on further nuclear arms reduction.

- Why is there double standard on the part of Washington? On the one hand it calls for nuclear arms reduction; on the other hand it continues to develop its missile program.

- This has been a continued complaint by the Russians ever since it was clearly outlined what the missile defense program would look like.

Placing these missiles really on the borders to Russia in Poland and in Romania whatever one may say about it was a very provocative operation and they have been trying to reach some kind of agreement where this would not be a threat to Russia. They haven’t come to that agreement.

The US and NATO have been determined in continuing the missile system has it was originally outlined and they are seeming to ignore more or less the Russian objection saying that they’re not relevant.

And given everything else that’s going on between the US and Russia and the general deterioration of the relations that exist between the two nations – and between Russia and NATO as well – it’s not unusual that the Russian deputy foreign minister would make such statements.

They’ve been very concerned. They are concerned about the intentions of the US and therefore they’re taking measures to do what they think has to be done to protect themselves.

- Don’t these double standards embolden other countries to develop such weapons?

- That’s always been the case. There has always been the criticism about the fact that the US, being the big kid on the block, can do as it wants, but is asking others to restrict their armaments. I think this double standard has been there for a long time.

And in order to get any kind of success the US would have to at least create a climate that indicates to the other parties that the US is willing to bring down its military posture.

Up until this point that has not been the case and especially the latest developments in Ukraine indicate much more of an aggressiveness on the part of the West, on the part of the US and this is just sending the wrong signals to Russia and they’re taking measures appropriately.

- What political implications would this missile defense system have for those countries in Europe that are hosting it?

- They see this obviously as a protection. When the wall came down there was a lot of discussion that we could have new relations – that NATO may have been obsolete – and you could have new relations, which would include Russia in a European architecture.

But there was a lot of lobbying on the part of the East European countries who felt that they wanted more protection, not becoming a part of the Soviet sphere of influence again and they insisted that NATO continue to exist and that they be a part of it. And the West unfortunately went along with this.

So you have the contradictory development where the US is saying they want better relations after the demise of the Soviet Union, but at the same time they’re taking measures to really increase the military stance on the borders of Russia.

And it’s that contradiction that still hasn’t been overcome and has created a great deal of the tension between the US and Russia in the last decade.
Panorama. Am

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Regional geopolitics

There is a partial truth in that (rhetorical) question, but only partial. Let's start with the Italians and their long drawn history of disunity despite having inherited the focal point of the Roman empire, which is an extreme irony. The Italians were disunited politically and were a territory of city states controlled by mainly "dynasties" of purely commercial interests, with the Papacy and its Papal States as the notable exception (although the Borgias were definitely a commercial clan) and only true catalyst for eventual unification, with some credit to the Fascists at the latest stage of unification in Italy's history, something the knowledgeable Italian will say without hesitation despite all the stigma attached with that movement. For example, we have the Lombards who ended up ironically uniting the country for quite a long time, and this length of time, again, was entirely due to the reluctance of the various Italian commercial dynasties to make that big decision: to beg the Pope to indulge the Franks into ousting the Lombards, which is something that did eventually happen. The Lombards were defeated, and the disunited Italy resumed its business. Italy is actually the worst example, even post-Garibaldi Italy, where Garibaldi (merely a Mussolini prototype, less honest) was actually yet another henchman, no more no less, for hire by the ambitious Savoy clan who had based themselves in Sardinia, and from there had launched their operations of toppling the individual city states and creating a united Italy. Historians of various political leanings treat this episode vastly differently, but my take is that the Savoy were savvy businessmen that simply outmaneuvered their rival city state dynasties. They used the element of "emerging nationalisms" as the inspiration for their moves, but the point is that they needed and used foreign inspiration (and a foreign dynasty taking the initiative), the principal incentive being an avoidance of another Napoleonic era.

In the case of Persia, you simply cannot compare imperialism with nationalism. THey are certainly two distinct and vastly different models with equally great differences in results for their populations with an equally greater difference in the set of ambitions on behalf of their leadership cadre. Persia, Iran if you wish (as I am still wary of that name), was merely a weakened empire, still in tact with its state and military apparatus, and did not need any inspiration. Parasitic empires, (redundant term, since empire means parasite, essentially), tend to maintain their composure due to the very nature of their state model, which is that of conquest and oppression exclusively. That is true, but why is that such a comparable case to Armenians, who are a nation who had non-imperial kingdoms that collapsed under the pressure of imperial ambitions of their neighbors, one of which was definitely the Persian? THe various Armenian kindgoms, including the central one at Ani and its predecessors, were confederate and truly national entities that were not based on this "conquest and oppression, totalitarian" model despite all false misconceptions. Perhaps they should have adopted such a model, but would Armenians be Armenians anymore in such a climate (as author Derenik Demirjian noticed and so well described our character)?

Such broad statements are simply inaccurate and unfair. Armenians were always inspired for freedom in some form, and the only thing I will grant you is that they, in their weakened state, sought opportunities that were less risky, ironically due to the sort of unnatural leadership that had resulted due to the loss of statehood. Really, even from Madras and the resulting Emin expedition and then the campaigns by David Beg were driven by the merchant classes, who were prudent people who tended to take less risks. But you also say that such prudence would have been better in the 19th century especially.

But, the populations in Armenia, as Emin's journals truly show, were always ready for independence from the Ottomans and the Persians. There's no doubt. The irony is that you blame Armenians for revolutionary acts, but those acts were easily catalyzed precisely because the desire for freedom always existed.

I will have to agree with you on the "revolutionary" bungling, such as the Ottoman bank incident, which is something that was warned against by Grigor Artsruni. There were better opportunities and methods, and Artsruni was working on it, financing it, cooperating with others on it. If they had been given the chance, things would have bee much different for us. The ARtrsuni clan, by the way, is one example of why your rule of "lack of action without external inspiration" is invalid. These folks, inheritors of a leading dynasty, always had in their future an Armenian state of some sort. This was evident in his writings and in the actions of his father and grandfather, the details of which are covered in Leo's biography in his History volume 6.***

***I wish that would be digitized somewhere. If it is, I hope someone lets me know.

Italy ans Iran used foreign influences in how to arange their states, and their rulling classes, but they used the past, in particular what they saw as their nation's lost past glories, to move and manipulate their populations. Though how much of a connection to the past those populations really felt is argyuable - ordinary Italians pretty quickly abandoned Mussolini and his attempts to make an Italian empire, and ordinary Iranians just laughed at the Shah's pompous ceremonies at Persepolis. Garibaldi was so eager to become part of the European club of rulling monarchs and for united Italy to be just like any other European country that he sent his army to fight in the Crimea against Russia, rather like Armenia did when sending its soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Armenian reformers and revolutionaries in the 19th and early 20th century also looked to Armenia's past to motivate Armenians (and had to start from a stage where most Armenians did not know anything much about that past) - but I don't think today's leaders do it except in the very narrow sense of using it to maintain state control over a cowed population (i.e. to allege that obedience to ones "elders", obedience to the Armenian Church, to know ones place, and to conform to behavior defined as proper by your rulers is a requirement for Armenia to be great again). And nowadays almost nothing from outside Armenia is presented as being positive by those rulers, and is in fact often presented as being negative and very dangerous to that goal of being great again. A number of Armenians try the same trick here, and often get away with it.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Regional geopolitics

The version that is spread by Ronald Suny about the expedition of Joseph Emin is a complete lie. The journal entry of Emin riding into the village and being at first attacked by the villagers upon greeting them in Armenian is true. The part of the interview with the Kahana at the village about "the destiny of ARmenian being determined to be in the hands of the Ottomans by divine mandate" is also true, but only half the story!

The continuation of the journal shows that the Kahana was merely taking precautions until such a time it is determined that Emin is in fact who he says he is, and is not in fact some Ottoman impostor. The first author to catch this lie by Suny is Armen Ayvazyan. He published the entire episode of Emin and that village in his book entitled The History of Armenia as Presented in American Historiography: A Critical Survey. 1998

Here is the full text in the Sovorakan/Sylfaen (unicode) font http://www.artsakhworld.com/Armen_Ai...Index_Eng.html

Suny's anti-Armenian rantings are completely exposed by Aryvazyan in that book. I highly suggest you read it. Remember that Suny has proudly proclaimed that he is, and I quote, "an anti-nationalist."

Ironically, quite the opposite of how Suny presents it, Emin's journals reveal that the ARmenian rural populations as well were very nationalistic and prepared to join David Beg's campaign to liberate the entirety of ARmenia.

Really hagopn, you do yourself no favours by citing that puffed-up rabble-rouser pseudo-historian Armen Ayvazyan. In another thread, after Artashes claimed support of many legitimate western historians for his opinions, I reminded Artashes that it was his sort who actually oppose the work of legitimate historians. Ronald Suny is a legitimate historian, like all legitimate historians he will not always be right and may alter his opinion over time. Ayvazyan is not a legitimate historian and never will be. Ayvasyan cannot change any of his opinions through study becase his opinions do not derive from facts. For Ayvasyan facts always come second and can be ignored if inconvenient: facts are merely used to fit and support his predefined beliefs and goals. He could find himself a happy home in Azerbaijan, a country where his sort of pseudo-historian enjoys state support. If the defining requirement to be an Azeri or and Armenian pseudo-historian is to be a "nationalist", then all legitimate historians must define themselves as "an anti-nationalist".

[hrai]

Re: Regional geopolitics

There is a partial truth in that (rhetorical) question, but only partial. Let's start with the Italians and their long drawn history of disunity despite having inherited the focal point of the Roman empire, which is an extreme irony.

Interesting viewpoint but I would argue that the focal point of the Roman Empire had long moved to Constantinople :

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/sozomen-constantinople1.asp

"Nothing that Constantine the Great did shows his ability more clearly than his seizing upon the site of old Byzantium for the location for his new capital. The place was admirably sited for an imperial residence, being over against Asia which the Persians were threatening, and in easy touch with the Danube, where the Northern Barbarians were always swarming. Note that Constantinople was from the outset a Christian city; as contrasted with old Rome, where paganism still kept a firm grip, at least on much of the population, for nearly a century.

Sozomen (d. c. 450 CE), Ecclesiastical History, II.3:

The Emperor [Constantine] always intent on the advancement of religion erected splendid Christian temples to God in every place---especially in great cities such as Nicomedia in Bithynia, Antioch on the Orontes, and Byzantium. He greatly improved this latter city, and made it equal to Rome in power and influence; for when he had settled his empire as he was minded, and had freed himself from foreign foes, he resolved on founding a city which should be called by his own name, and should equal in fame even Rome. With this intent he went to the plain at the foot of Troy on the Hellespont. . . and here he laid out the plan of a large and beautiful city, and built gates on a high spot of ground, whence they are still visible from the sea to sailors. But when he had proceeded thus far, God appeared to him by night and bade him seek another site for his city.

Led by the divine hand, he came to Byzantium in Thrace, beyond Chalcedon in Bithynia, and here he desired to build his city, and render it worthy of the name of Constantine. In obedience to the command of God, he therefore enlarged the city formerly called Byzantium, and surrounded it with high walls; likewise he built splendid dwelling houses; and being aware that the former population was not enough for so great a city, he peopled it with men of rank and their families, whom he summoned from Rome and from other countries. He imposed special taxes to cover the expenses of building and adorning the city, and of supplying the inhabitants with food. He erected all the needed edifices for a great capital---a hippodrome, fountains, porticoes and other beautiful adornments. He named it Constantinople and New Rome---and established it as the Roman capital for all the inhabitants of the North, the South, the East, and the shores of the Mediterranean, from the cities on the Danube and from Epidamnus and the Ionian Gulf to Cyrene and Libya.

He created another Senate which he endowed with the same honors and privileges as that of Rome, and he strove to render the city of his name equal in every way to Rome in Italy; nor were his wishes in vain, for by the favor of God, it became the most populous and wealthy of cities. As this city became the capital of the Empire during the period of religious prosperity, it was not polluted by altars, Grecian temples, nor pagan sacrifices. Constantine also honored this new city of Christ by adorning it with many and splendid houses of prayer, in which the Deity vouchsafed to bless the efforts of the Emperor by giving sensible manifestations of his presence."