It is generally accepted, even by the higher critics, that the present
Armenians are descended from Togarmah of the Scriptures (Genesis 10:3).
The traditions of the Armenians also happily agree with this. It was
common in the olden times for the Armenian writers to call the people
“the house of Togarmah,” as did also the prophet Ezekiel (27:14).
There is a happy agreement among the commentators on the subject of
“Togarmah” or “the house of Togarmah,” all seeming to accept these
words as representing the Armenians. Here we may adduce the statements
of a few distinguished writers on this subject. “The third son of Gomer
is Togarmah; the people descending from him is called the house of
Togarmah--(Ezekiel 27:14)--where they are named after Javan, Tubel,
and Meshech, as bringing horses and mules to the mart of Tyre; and
38:6, where it appears after Gomer as a component of the army of Gog.
The Armenians regarded Thorgom (Togarmah), the father of Haick, as
their ancestor; and even granting that the form of the name Thorgom
was occasioned by Thorgama of the LXX (Septuagint version), still the
Armenian tradition is confirmed by Tilgarimmu being in the cuneiform
inscription the name of a fortified town in the subsequent district
of Melitem (Malatiah), on the southwestern boundary of Armenia.”[14]
“TOGARMAH.” “The people thus designated are mentioned twice by Ezekiel:
in the former passage as trading in the fairs of Tyre with horses and
mules, in the latter as about to come with Gomer out of the north
quarter against Palestine. Neither passage does much toward fixing a
locality, but both agree with the hypothesis which has the support
alike of etymology and of national tradition, that the people intended
are the ancient inhabitants of Armenia. Grimm’s view that Togarmah
is composed of two elements: _Taka_, which is in Sanskrit ‘tribe’
or ‘race,’ and Armah (Armenia), may well be accepted. The Armenian
tradition which derived the Haikian race from Thorgon (m), as it can
scarcely be a coincidence, must be regarded as having considerable
value. Now, the existing Armenians, the legitimate descendants of those
who occupied the country in the time of Ezekiel, speak a language which
modern ethnologists pronounce to be decidedly Indo-European; and thus,
so far the modern science confirms the Scriptural account.”[15]
This Armenian tradition which the great scholars say “must be regarded
as having considerable value,” runs somewhat like the following:
About 2300 B.C., Haig, the son of Togarmah, like the rest of the
descendants of Noah, was in pursuit of a new home for himself and for
his posterity, and had descended with the multitude into the country
of Shinar. Here the people, for fear of another destructive flood,
attempted to build a high tower, “the tower of Babel.” Haig and his
sons distinguished themselves by wisdom and virtue in the erection of
this tower; but Belus ambitious for supremacy, yea, even requiring
homage to his image, became too repulsive to the virtuous Haig and his
sons. Haig, therefore, left the plains of Shinar with his large family
and turned back to the home of his nativity, the land of Ararat, in the
vicinity of the Lake of Van.
Belus, on hearing that Haig had withdrawn from his authority, pursued
him with a large force. Haig, on hearing of the purpose of Belus’
pursuit, mustered all the male members of his family who were able to
fight, and all those who were willing to cast their lot with him and
willingly put themselves under his authority, and he armed them as
best he was able and set out to meet the enemy. He charged his little
army to attack that part of the enemy’s force where Belus commanded
in person. “For,” said he, “if we succeed in discomfiting that part
the victory is ours; should we, however, be unsuccessful in our
attempt let us never survive the misery and disgrace of a defeat, but
rather perish, sword in hand, defending the best and dearest right of
reasonable creatures--our liberty.” Then did the brave leader move on
with his little force and encountered the invaders. After a bloody
conflict Belus fell by an arrow discharged at him by Haig. The army
of Belus, soon after this, was dispersed. Thus the first battle for
liberty the progenitor of the Armenians fought and won for himself and
his posterity. The Armenians, therefore, call themselves after this
hero _Haigs_ and the country _Haiasdan_.
Haig, following the manner of the patriarchs, built many towns and
villages and after a long and useful life, died in peace.
Haig was succeeded by his son Armenag--some think Armenia is named
after this prince. The son of Armenag, whose name was Aramais,
succeeded him. The son and successor of Aramais was Amasia, who, soon
after the decease of his father took the lead of the government.
According to our tradition it was this king who gave the name Masis,
after himself, to that magnificent and huge mountain, now called Mount
Ararat. After the death of his father Harmah ascended the throne.
Aram, about 1300 B.C.,[16] the son and successor of Harmah, towers
among the kings of the first period of the Armenian history; he
was, like King David, a great warrior and conqueror. He chased out
the Babylonian and Median invaders, penetrated into the heart of
Cappadocia, and the countries which he thus subjected to the west of
the Euphrates composed the Armenia Minor.
After the long and glorious reign of Aram the country slowly came into
a subordinate condition to the Assyrian empire and though the kings of
the Haikian dynasty continued to rule over Armenia, they were according
to our traditional history much overshadowed when the southern empire
was at the zenith of her glory.
The famous inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I, the king of Assyria
(1110-1090 B.C.) throws some light on the condition of Armenia, and
some of those districts which never knew subjection: “The lands of
_Laraus_ and _Ammous_, which from the days immemorial had not known
subjection, like the flood of a deluge I overwhelmed. With their armies
on the mountains of _Aruma_, I fought, and a destruction of them I
made.... At the mountain of _Aruma_, a difficult district which for the
passage of my chariots was not suited, I left the chariots, I took the
lead of my soldiers.”
It is apparent from the discoveries of the cuneiform inscriptions,
both in Armenia and in Assyria, and their decipherment by the
modern scholars, that our ancient historians, who depended largely
on traditions, were misled or mistaken with regard to the Assyrian
supremacy over Armenia at this period--1100-626 B.C. Instead of
Assyrian supremacy, a new dynasty had sprung up in the regions of Lake
Van, north, west, and south of the lake, and become a worthy antagonist
of the Assyrians. They had probably pushed the Haikian dynasty further
north and northwest for a few centuries.
The following is a brief account of this period and dynasty: It may be
interesting and also important to state that the kings of this dynasty
are known to the Assyrian monarchs as the kings of Urartu (Ararat) or
Nairi, and in the Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions, they are so named.
Neither do they call themselves the kings of Urartu, but they designate
themselves as the Kings of Nairi and Biainia.
They call themselves also the children of Khaldis, after their supreme
God. Of late the modern writers call them Chaldians or Khaldians, but
they are pleased to call themselves the children of Khaldis, and never
Khaldians. They seem to have a sort of theocratic reign.
Following is a list of the kings of this dynasty; Arame--He has no
inscriptions; he is known only through those of the Assyrian kings, in
which he is styled the king of Urartu (Ararat). He was attacked in his
capital, Arzaskum, by Shalmaneser II in 860 and again in 856 B.C.
1. Sarduris I--Son of Lutipris, was attacked by the general of
Shalmaneser II in about 833 B.C. Called King of Urartu in the Assyrian
inscriptions.
2. Ispuinis--Son of Sarduris, 825-812 B.C., mentioned in his own
inscriptions, styled himself King of Nairi of Soura (Northern Syria),
inhabiting the city of Dhuspas.
3. Menuas--Son of Ispuinis, “may be regarded as the founder of the
original garden city of Van.” He calls himself the great King of
Biania, inhabiting the city of Dhuspas (Van).
4. Argistis--his son--Numerous inscriptions of his are found as far
north as Alexandropol--He described his conquests of the Assyrians
southeast of Lake Urumia. Lynch thinks “He was the founder of the City
of Armanir in the valley of the Araxes.”
5. Sarduris II--Son of Argistis--His numerous inscriptions are
scattered over a large area of the country as far as Malatia. He
probably reigned from 754-727 B.C. He is called the King of Urardhu in
the Assyrian inscriptions.
6. Rusas--his son. He has at least two important inscriptions. He came
in contact with Sargon, the King of Assyria (722-705 B.C.)
7. Argistis II--Son of Rusas. The mention of this ruler in a Vannic
text was discovered by Messrs. Beliek and Lehman in an inscription on
a shield in the temple at Tobrak Kala, near Van; now in the British
Museum.
8. Rusas II--The son of the above. He is mentioned on the shield above
mentioned, and also in two new inscriptions found by Dr. Belek, in
which it is told that he conquered the Hittites and Moschians. He was a
contemporary of Esarhaddon of Assyria (681-668 B.C.).
9. Erimenas--He is mentioned in an inscription on the shield as the
father of Rusas III.
10. Rusas III--He rebuilt the temple of Khaldis (god) on the Tobrak
Kala. An inscription of this king has been found at Armauir.
11. Sarduris III--He is known through the Assyrian inscriptions as
having sent an embassy an embassy to Ashur-Bani-Pal for a treaty of
peace, about 644 B.C.[17]
The succession of the kings of this dynasty has been recently corrected
by inscriptions discovered by Drs. Belek and Lehmann. They put (1)
Lutipris, (2) Sarduris I, (3) Arame, (4) Sarduris II.... They suppose
a Sarduris II, the son of Arame, as the antagonist of Shalmaneser II,
and suggest that Sarduris I was a contemporary of Ashur-Naser-Pal II
(885-860 B.C.).
“The original capital of the land was named Arzashkun, and was
situated in the valley of Araxes. The first kings mentioned in the
inscription are Lutipris and Sarduris I, who were contemporary with
Ashur-Naser-Pal (885-860 B.C.). In the account of the sweeping
operations from end to end of the northern regions, which marked the
beginning and end of that great warrior’s reign, no mention is made
of Sarduris, but it is more than probable that he felt the weight of
Ashur-Naser-Pal’s arm. Shalmaneser II is the first Assyrian king who
states that he came into actual hostile contact with Urartu, whose
king was Arame. In 860, 857, and 845 Shalmaneser ravaged Arame’s
country and finally destroyed Arzashkun. Later, when Sarduris II
had succeeded Arame, the Assyrian _turtan_ (general) Ashurdayan
attacked (in 833 and 829 B.C.). Ten years later again the _turtan_ of
Shamshi-Adod led an expedition against Ishpuinis, the successor of
Sarduris II. These successive attacks seem to have strengthened rather
than weakened the hardy mountain state, while the Assyrians gained no
real advantage from them. In alliance, apparently, with Urartu, stood
the Mannai, an Iranian folk of Median stock, and Protomedes, to whom
the name Madai properly belonged (it now first appears in history),
in the country east of Lake Urmia.... Meanwhile Menuas, the son of
Sarduris II, had extended the dominion of Urartu to the western shores
of Lake Urmia. Argistis I, his son, conquered the whole of Kurdistan
and Armenia as far west as Meled or Meleten (Malatia). The proximity
of the territory of Urartu to the center of the Assyrian power now
became directly dangerous to the empire.”[18]
It is more than probable that our esteemed reader’s patience has been
taxed beyond measure by reading a history furnished by the Assyrian and
Armenian inscriptions, but then hardy states, the kingdoms of Ararat
have rendered a noble service to mankind by checking the Assyrian
kings from doing more mischief in other parts of western Asia. Not
infrequently these kings had to quit in the midst of their campaign in
Syria, Palestine or in Asia Minor and run back to stop the avalanche
coming down from the “Mountains of Aruma” to sweep the Assyrians
down. With all their boasting, the Assyrian kings never conquered the
kingdoms of Ararat.
“The great undertaking of the 4th year of the King’s reign was
a campaign into the lands of Nairi. By this, the annals of
Tiglathpileser I clearly mean the lands about the sources of the
Tigris and Euphrates, lying north, west and south of Lake Van.... One
only of these twenty-three kings--Pierri, the king of Dayami (near
Maleshgert)--refused to surrender as the others did but resisted to
the last. He was therefore carried in chains to Assyria.... This
episode in the king’s conquests is concluded with the claim that the
whole of the lands of Nairi were subdued, but later history shows
clearly that further conquest was necessary.”[19]
Tiglathpileser IV, the king of Assyria, made several attempts (in 739,
736, 735 B.C.) to reduce the kingdoms of Ararat, but he completely
failed to conquer them. The authority above quoted concludes the
history of their campaigns in these words: “After some ineffectual
fighting about the Capital (Van) Tiglathpileser raised the siege and
departed. He had not succeeded in adding the kingdom of Urartu to
Assyria.”[20]
According to Dr. Belek, the last work of the last king, Sarduris
IV, of Ararat is written in the records of Ashurbanipal of Assyria
(668-626 B.C.). Sarduris sent messengers, with presents and words of
friendliness to the Assyrian king. Assyria had abandoned its attempts
to wreck the kingdom of Ararat and the two powers now were friends.
Some of the modern kings would have saved untold misery and millions of
lives had they done likewise.
It is very probable that Aram of the Armenian historians, Aruma of
Tiglath-Pileser I (1090 B.C.) and Arame of Shalmaneser II (860 B.C.)
are the same name. Tiglath-Pileser may have used it as a certain
district, for his expression would justify this supposition: “On the
mountains of Aruma I fought.” And again: “At the mountain of Aruma, a
difficult district....”[21] No name of a king is mentioned at this
date. But in the time of Shalmaneser’s invasion into Armenia (860
B.C.), we are distinctly told: “The inscription of Kurkh (twenty miles
from Diarhekir) informs us that Shalmaneser had already, in the year
of his accession, come in conflict with Arrame (or Arame, as the name
is there written). After leaving the city of Khupuscia, in the land
of Nahri, he had attacked Sugunia, a stronghold of Arame, ‘King of
Urardlians,’ and there marched to the Sea of the land of Nahri; or
Lake Van, where a figure of himself and a cuneiform inscription were
engraved on the rack.”[22]
A probable hypothesis is that Aram of the Armenian historians, by his
conquests and wise administration, had formed a dynasty, that the
early Assyrians knew his country and some of his successors by his
name, that Arame of the time of Shalmaneser may have been the last of
that dynasty and on account of his reverses with the Assyrian King,
his reign came to an end. The following quotation from Professor Sayce
seems to confirm this view: “A more serious difficulty exists in the
fact that Sarduris I calls himself the son of Lutipris, whereas the
king of Uradhu, against whom Shalmaneser had to contend in 857 and 845
B.C., was Arame, and already, in 833 B.C., only twelve years later, his
antagonist was Sarduris. It is, however, quite possible that the reign
of Lutipris had been a short one of less than twelve years. But I am
more inclined to conjecture that Sarduris I was the leader of a new
dynasty, the ill successes of Arame in his wars with Assyrians forming
the occasion for his overthrow.” This conjecture also explains why the
kings of this dynasty do not call themselves the kings of Ararat, and
have no reference to Arame, while much Assyrianism exists in their
culture.
In regard to the origin of Ararat, or Arardhi, it is certainly not a
Semitic word, neither is it an Accadian, were it so, we would have been
told. Moses of Khorene thought it was called Ara-ard, in reference to
a defeat of Ara, the king of Armenia, in a bloody conflict with the
Babylonians about eighteen centuries before our era. Another Armenian
historian makes Arardhi to derive its name from King Ara, in honor of
the king, it being composed of Ara and Ardh, “field” or “plain,” on
account of his wise administration and the improvements which he made
in the land.[23]
Brockhous’ definition and derivation of Arardhi is the most
satisfactory of all, namely, Ar, in Sanskrit the root of “Aryan” or
“nobles,” and ardh, in ancient Armenian the “plains” or “field,” thus
Arardhi or Ararat meaning “the plains of nobles” or “Aryans.”[24]
The antiquity of the name of Ararat is not disputed. It first comes
to our notice in the book of Genesis, as we have seen in connection
with the resting of the ark “upon the mountains of Ararat.” The book
of Genesis is considered by the best critics to be the oldest book,
or at least, having the oldest documents that compose the book in the
Scriptures, and its authorship is assigned to Moses, who lived in
the fifteenth century before the Christian era. Ararat was known as
the name of Armenia even several centuries before the time of Moses.
“An ancient bilingual tablet (W. A. I., II 48, 13) makes Urdhu the
equivalent of _tilla_, the latter, as Sir H. Rawlinson long ago pointed
out, being probably a semitic loan-word, and meaning “the highlands.”
_Tilla_, the equivalent of Urdhu, usually signifies that land of Accad
or northern Babylonia, but since it is not glossed in this passage,
and stands, moreover, between Akharu or Palestine, and Kutu Kurdistan,
it would seem that it is here employed to denote Armenia. Urardhu,
therefore, contracted into Urdhu, would have been the designation
of the highlands of Armenia among the Babylonians as early as the
sixteenth and seventeenth century B.C.”[25]
We know that the Assyrians sprang out of the ancient Babylonian people;
they were of the same blood and race. Assyria was colonized from
Babylonia.[26] Thus, their early acquaintance with the highlands of
Armenia, by the name of Urardhu, accounts for their calling the Kings
of Armenia the kings of Urardhu or Ararat.
There has been a great deal of discussion among the scholars as to
whether these Vaunic kings and people belong to the Aryan race or not,
and whether their language belongs to the Indo-European family of
languages. The question may be considered still a debatable one, though
the consensus of opinion of the modern writers is in the negative.
Yet a man like the late Dr. Hincks, who was the first to begin the
decipherment of the Vaunic inscriptions, has recorded his opinion in
the following words: “I flatter myself, that those who read this paper
will admit that I have made a beginning, and gone a considerable way in
the decipherment and interpretation of a set of inscriptions, which,
however slight may be their value in a historical point of view, are
invaluable to the philologer, as being beyond all comparison the oldest
specimens of the Asiatic branch of the Indo-Germanic family; nay, for
aught we know to the contrary, they are more ancient than any Greek
which has come down to us.”[27]
The name Armenia was differently spelled by the ancients. In the old
Persian it is written Armina, and in the Armondian, Kharminya. It first
appears in the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius Hystospis (522-486
B.C.), which supplanted the earlier name Arardu, or Ararat. According
to the Armenian historians it is called after King Armenag, but
according to others its origin is unknown. “It may be connected with
the Vaunic word _armeini-lio_ ‘a stele’ (monument), or with Arman, an
Aramaean district south of Lake Van.”[28]
It must have been during the reign of Rusas II, the King of Ararat,
that the sons of Sennacherib, Adrammelech and Shareser, after their
assassination of their father, escaped into the land of Ararat
or Armenia (see Isaiah 37:37-38). For we know that Rusas II was
contemporary of Esar-haddon, Sennacherib’s son, who succeeded him
(681-668 B.C.). The Armenian history makes Sgaiordi the king who
welcomed the Assyrian princes in to his realm: probably it is a mistake.
Ashurbanipal was the last king of Assyria who had anything to do with
the Kings of Ararat. As we have seen he made the treaty of peace with
Sarduris III or IV, but his long reign (from 668-626 B.C.) was a period
of gradual waning of the power of the vast empire. Babylon, hitherto a
tributary of Assyria, became independent under Nabopolassar about 625
B.C., and by the aid of the King of Ararat and their ally, Nabopalassar
succeeded in overthrowing the Assyrian empire, and about 607 B.C.
Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, fell before Nabopolassar and his allies.
The supremacy of the East was thus transferred to Babylon.
According to our history, Prince Baruir was an ally of Nabopalassar.
It is not said that he was an ally when the latter established the
independence of Babylon (though he might have been), but he was
an ally when Nabopalassar finished the work of overthrowing the
Assyrian empire. Thirty-seven years before the latter event Sarduris
was the King of Ararat. There is a great probability that Baruir
of the Armenian history and Sarduris of the cuneiform inscription
are either the same person, or Baruir is a successor of Sarduris,
by the same name; and that the name Baruir is a misspelled form of
Sarduris.[29] Again, the son and successor of Baruir (or Sarduris V)
is called H’rasha or H’racha. It is surely more than probable that
this is the name of Rusas of the inscriptions. I would not insist
that he is Rusas III, who lived before Sarduis IV, but if Baruir is
identical with Sarduris IV, or he is his successor, then is H’rasha
his son and successor Rusas IV. He was a contemporary and an ally of
Nebuchadnezzar, who succeeded his father Nabopolassar about 606 B.C.
H’racha, as the ally of Nebuchadnezzar, marched at the head of his
forces with the Babylonian monarch against Syria and Palestine. On
his return, he brought with him a small colony from Judea, mostly
nobles,[30] among whom was a prince by the name of Shambat, whose
posterity in the middle ages furnished the kings of Pagradit dynasty in
Armenia.
Among the successors of H’racha, as the rulers of Armenia, Tigranes
I is spoken of, by our historians, as really royal; wise in his
administration of the affairs of the State and just in his dealings
with the high and low. In the revolt of the Persians, and consequent
defeat of Astyages (the Median King) and the Medes; which resulted
in the accession of Cyrus to the throne of the united Medo-Persian
empire; Tigranes must have rendered some valuable service to the son
of Cambyses. This may account for the great friendship that existed
between these two worthy champions of human liberty.[31] And according
to the summons of Prophet Jeremiah (51:27-28), the forces of Ararat,
Minni, and Ashchenaz joined the Medo-Persian army and accomplished the
overthrow of the wicked empire of Babylonia (538 B.C.).
The descendants of Tigranes I maintained some sort of a tributary rule
over the northeastern part of the country, but the major part of the
country was ruled by the governors appointed by the Medo-Persian kings.
Yet little as this tributary state was, judging by the references
found in the Behistan inscriptions, revolts were not infrequent. The
following is from Darius Hystaspis’ inscriptions (521-486 B.C.).
“... Afterwards I sent Dadarshesh the Armenian, he is my servant,
I said to him, ‘go and crush that rebellious army, which revolts
against.’ Dadarshesh went to subdue Armenia. The rebels fought against
him, Ormazd came to my help. My army destroyed many of the enemy’s
army.”
King Vahi was the last of the descendants of Tigranes I, who at the
head of his army was fighting with the Persian forces against the
Macedonian invaders under Alexander the Great. King Vahi valiantly
fought against the Grecian armies in defense of the rights of his
people and country, and in the terrible conflict he fell (330 B.C.).
From this time on the Macedonian rulers controlled all of Armenia,
except a small district between the rivers Araxes and Kur in the remote
northeastern mountain fastnesses. After the defeat of Antiochus the
Great by the Romans, Armenia recovered her independence; it, however,
did not last very long.
On the east and southeast of the Caspian Sea, a mountainous district
is marked on the ancient maps of the east--Parthia. It is generally
believed by the learned that the people who occupied this country and
were called Parthians, were of Scythian origin, and that the word
Parthian in the Scythian language means _exile_. They were nomadic in
their habits, but noted horsemen and well skilled in handling the bow
and arrow. They were patient in bearing the yoke under the Assyrian,
Median, and Persian governments. After the conquests of Alexander the
Great they shared the fate of their more enlightened and powerful
neighbors; but even the Parthians could not stand any longer the
miserable rule of the successors of the Macedonian king. They revolted
against Antiochus II, in 256, and during the reign of Seleucus II,
under the leadership of Arsaces, they established their complete
independence (238 B.C.), and began to extend their dominions into the
east, and west, and north and south. Within less than a century, the
Arsacide dynasty extended the boundaries of the Parthian empire from
the Indus to the Euphrates and from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf.
Arsaces VI, or the Great, appointed his brother Valarsaces king over
Armenia (149 B.C.), and these two countries, governed by one reigning
family, were in full sympathy and accord with each other and for a long
time in a firm alliance, becoming worthy antagonists of the Romans, who
were pushing eastward over the territories once subdued by Alexander
the Great.
Among the successors of Valarsaces of the Arsacide dynasty of Armenia,
Tigranes II, or the Great, immortalized himself, not only in the
history of Armenia, but also in universal history. He had a long and
glorious reign (98-36 B.C.). His name was the glory of his people, as
it was also a terror to his foes. He extended his dominions from the
Caucasian mountains to the Mesopotamian plains and from the Caspian Sea
to the Mediterranean.
“Tigranes (II) had hitherto been continually increasing in strength.
By the defeat of Artunes, king of Sopheni or Armenia Minor, he had
made himself master of Armenia in its widest extent; by his wars with
Parthia herself, he had acquired Gordyene, or Northern Mesopotamia,
and Adiabeni or the entire rich tract east of the middle Tigris
(including Assyria proper and Arbelitis), as far, at any rate, as
the course of the lower Zab; by means which are not stated, he had
brought under subjection the king of the important country of Media
Atropatene, independent since the time of Alexander. Invited into
Syria, about B.C. 83, by the wretched inhabitants, wearied with
perpetual civil wars between the princes of the house of Seleucidae,
he had found no difficulty in establishing himself as a king over
Cilicia, Syria and most of Phœnicia. About B.C. 80, he had determined
on building himself a new capital in the province of Gordieni, a
capital of vast size, provided with all the luxuries required by an
Oriental court, and fortified with a wall which recalled the glories
of the ancient cities of Assyria.”[32]
This magnificent capital was called after him--Tigranaghert[33] (built
by Tigranes).
Long before this time the Romans had been following the track of the
Macedonian conqueror to snatch the fragments of his broken Eastern
empire from his successors. But Tigranes the Great was like a great
wall before their fast advance. Now he was dead. Still worse, there was
not, as before, that firm alliance between the Parthians and Armenians,
which had been the foundation of their stability. Had the Parthian and
Armenian monarchs recognized the fact that Rome was a common enemy to
both, and kept their alliance firm and unshaken by the intrigues and
enticements of the Roman generals, and had encountered the common foe
with their united forces, the Roman power would never have been able to
make her appearance, or maintain it, in western Asia. However, whether
with bravery or treachery (we rather think with a combination of the
two), the Romans pushed their way into that country.
Antony, the Roman general, in his expedition into Parthia entered into
alliance with Artavasdes, the son and successor of Tigranes II, and
he was allowed to attack Media through Armenia. Media was dependent
on Parthia, at this time (35 B.C.). Ill success compelled him to
retreat into Armenia and winter there. Meanwhile, the king of Media,
having been provoked by the Parthians, and with the hope of a possible
recovery of his country’s independence by the Roman aid, entered into
an alliance with the Roman general. Antony, then desiring to reduce
Armenia to a vassal state, by enticing Artavasdes to enter into his
power, while the Roman legions were stationed at the most important
posts in the country which had afforded them such a hospitable shelter
during the severe winter, “he (Antony) professed the most friendly
feeling towards Artavasdes, even promising an alliance between their
families, that prince (Artavasdes), after some hesitation, at length
entered into his presence. He was immediately seized and put in chains,
and carried off Artavasdes and a rich bounty into Egypt.”[34]
Artavasdes was kept in prison for about two years and afterwards
beheaded (30 B.C.). According to some his son recovered the country
by the aid of the Parthians and was avenged for the wrong done to his
father, by massacring all the perfidious Romans found in the country.
Armenia, after this, was for a long time in a perpetual turmoil,
between the Romans on one side and the Parthians on the other. Almost
a hundred years after the death of Ardashes II (21 B.C.-85 A.D.), the
condition of the country was most deplorable. The internal dissensions
among the nobility of the inhabitants, and the contentions of the
Romans and Parthians externally, resulting in the clash of arms often
between these two powers. Intrigues and assassinations among the
princes and notables, fill the country with horror and the people with
misery.
A fragment of the great empire of Tigranes II, the northwestern part of
Mesopotamia was made a principality, the soldiers and the nobility made
Artavasdes’ cousin, Arsham, king, under the protectorate of Rome (33-3
B.C.). The king made Edessa his capital. His son and successor was
called Abgarus by the Assyrians. He was contemporary with Christ and
was the first Christian Prince (3 B.C.-35 A.D.). In the north Ardashes
(III) seems to have a stormy time for a while, but he had a long and
useful reign (85-131 A.D.). His three sons successively succeeded him
(131-193).