For a century after the Mohammedan conquest of Persia, the fortunes
of Armenia were apparently at their lowest ebb, and as a country it
almost disappears from history; but by one of the compensations of
nature, which provides that human force, like other force, cannot be
extinguished, but if suppressed will find an outlet elsewhere, its
people began a career of brilliancy and power unequaled in its history,
and broadened from the rule of a tormented buffer-state to that of
the great Byzantine Empire itself. The Saracen torrent flowed over
Armenia's lowlands and up to the base of its mountain fortresses, but
never overcame them; generation after generation the contending forces
battled together, surging back and forth, and filling the beautiful
valleys with fire and blood, but Armenia proper was never added to
the list of Saracen conquests, never made a part of the Mohammedan
Empire or strengthened Mohammedanism till four centuries later through
Byzantine greed and folly. Internally it was all in feudal anarchy
again so far as concerned any one central focus of government. Even
the Persian satraps had gone from the Persian side, and with them the
half-control they had kept over the turbulent baronage; on the Roman
side from early in the seventh century to early in the eighth, the
throne of Constantinople was filled with weak and unstable monarchs,
fighting for Anatolia against the Saracens, and unable to exercise
any effective control over Armenia, to which indeed they looked as
a frontier defense against those very foes.
But let us not attach too harsh a meaning to "anarchy." There were a
hundred rulers, it is true, great dukes and barons, each supreme in
his own district; but because they held power by the sword against
a savage enemy, their subjects had to be a strong, independent race,
with arms in their hands, which they would use against their chiefs
as well as the foreigners if there was great oppression. In this
fiery school, Armenia learned the sternest lessons of self-help
and discipline. With no interference from outsiders to fear, and no
help from them to be got, it became even more confirmed in its own
independent isolated ways, a world to itself as it has been ever
since. Its cultivators tilled their fields as they had done for
so many centuries, and its scholars read such books as they had,
and wrote such as their own minds furnished. But vast numbers of its
hardy sons took service in the Greek armies, and became the bone and
sinew of the defense of Asia Minor against the caliphs; not only so,
but they rose by hundreds to the highest commands in the empire, both
civil and military. They formed the best "society" in Constantinople
itself; and to crown all, a score of emperors and empresses in four
different lines, including the most illustrious ones that ever sat
on the throne from Constantine down, and who ruled the empire for
two hundred and seventy-seven years, were Armenians.
It is within the truth, and can be justified from the greatest of
English historians, to say that for four centuries the Byzantine
Empire was not a Greek but an Armenian empire. Armenians by blood
filled all the great offices of state, commanded the armies, occupied
the throne for nearly three hundred years, preserved the empire from
external invasion and internal disintegration. It was the accession
of an Armenian dynasty that turned it from a decaying power to one
that expanded steadily for two centuries, from one falling into
anarchy to one the glory of the world for scientific organizations;
and it was the final overthrow of Armenian influence that ruined
the empire, being followed almost at once by the loss of half its
territory and the richest part, and the break-up of its system of civil
administration. Everywhere in the time of Byzantine glory you find the
list full of Armenian names. The appearance of "Bardas" as the name of
generals or civil magnates is always proof of Armenian blood, and that
name is monotonously common; it is the Greek form of "Vartan," though
now and then they make it "Bardanes." One of the greatest conquerors
in Byzantine history, John Kurkuas, was an Armenian, from a family
which supplied three generations of statesmen and generals, and two
great emperors. And this is part of what the immortal historian of
"Greece Under Foreign Domination," George Finlay, has to say:--
"At the accession of Leo III (717), the Hellenic race occupied a
very subordinate position in the empire. The predominant influence
in the political administration was in the hands of Asiatics,
and particularly of Armenians, who filled the highest military
commands. Of the numerous rebels who assumed the title of emperor,
the greater part were Armenians. Artabasdos, who rebelled against his
brother, Constantine V, was an Armenian. Alexios Mousel, strangled
by order of Constantine VI, in the year 790; Bardan called the
Turk, who rebelled against Nicephorus I; Arsaber [Arshavir] the
father-in-law of Leo V, convicted of treason in 808; and Thomas,
who revolted against Michael II, were all Asiatics, and most of them
Armenians. Many of the Armenians in the Byzantine Empire belonged to
the oldest and most illustrious families in the Christian world; and
their connection with the remains of Roman society at Constantinople,
in which the pride of birth was cherished, was a proof that Asiatic
influence had eclipsed Roman and Greek in the government of the
empire. An amazing instance of the influence of Asiatic prejudices
at Constantinople will appear in the eagerness displayed by Basil I,
a Sclavonian groom from Macedonia, to claim descent from the Armenian
royal family." (But I shall show that he was an Armenian.)
Let us note the Armenian sovereigns of the Byzantine Empire. First the
great Iconoclast house, of Leo the so-called Isaurian, the saviour and
restorer of the empire, which reigned from 716 to 797. Leo considered
himself an Armenian, and he ought to have known best, and he married
his daughter to an Armenian. He saved Constantinople from capture
by the Saracens, causing the destruction of the finest Mohammedan
army ever got together; of its 180,000 men only 30,000 got back home,
according to the Mohammedan historians. Twenty-two years later another
great Moslem army was annihilated by Leo, and for two centuries
the Saracens scarcely troubled the empire again. But not only so,
he remodeled the whole administration so effectively that no serious
break-down occurred for three centuries, and he put new life into the
whole society, so that it began to outgrow its enemies, as well as
outfight them. After his able dynasty ended, another Armenian, Leo V,
reigned seven and a half years, from 813 to 820. About half a century
later began the Basilian dynasty, under which the laws were codified,
and Bulgaria destroyed. Basil was born in Macedonia, but the name
of his brother, Symbatios, Armenian Simpad, shows that he was of an
Armenian family, the colonies of Armenians having spread all over the
civilized world. His line reigned without a break from 867 to 963,
when the beautiful widow Theophano was pushed aside for sixteen
years by another Armenian house, Nikephoros Phokas and his nephew
John Zimiskes, two of the ablest generals and statesmen ever on the
throne, descendants of a brother of the great commander, John Kurkuas,
before spoken of; then Theophano's son, Basil II--Boulgaroktonos,
the Bulgarian slayer, and the ultimate destroyer of Armenia as
well--took the throne, 979, and the dynasty continued till 1057,
when it had run to dregs, and had just before finally ruined Armenia,
and by so doing ruined the empire.
To go back to Armenia itself. The reason a feudal anarchy always ends
in a military monarchy, no matter how able or self-willed every one of
the separate chiefs may be, is that this very class most interested
in perpetuating it grow weary of it. The stronger barons oppress and
plunder the weaker, who are always superior in numbers, and in united
strength if they will act together. A small lord may like to be free
from control by the king's officers as well as a great one; but if he
can only have that privilege by letting his overbearing neighbor be
free from it too, and rob him, he finds it does not pay, and sighs
for a law that will control everyone alike, and a strong ruler to
enforce it. So if a chief in such a community comes to be known as
having a hard hand and letting no one be above the law but himself,
the small landholders flock under his banner; he grows into a prince,
and eventually some prince of such a family will make himself king,
with the goodwill and help of all but a few great houses, who feel
able to take care of themselves and desirous of taking care of others.
This happened in Armenia. In 743, a century after the battle of
Nehavend and four years after Leo's crushing defeat of the second
great Saracen army, we find that a chief named Ashod, of the family
of Pakrad or Bagrat, claiming descent from the ancient Jews (see
the Haigian dynasty in this book), had managed to win control over
central and northern Armenia; how long it had been exercised, or
what it grew from, no one knows. Ashod I is the first known founder
of the Pakradoonian dynasty, though it is counted as beginning from
the recognition of its independence by the caliphs over a century
later. He recovered some parts of Armenia proper, and fought hard for
Lesser Armenia. The family had vigorous blood in it, and somewhere
in the ninth century--885 is the date fixed--it was recognized by the
caliphs as an independent house of kings, and Armenia as a kingdom. But
it had really been so for over a hundred years before.
Ashod II, "the Iron," gained his title from his stern military power;
he beat back the Arabs and gave the land peace for a considerable
time. He left no son, and his brother Appas succeeded him; another
brave and wise ruler, who brought back the Armenian captives held in
bondage by the Saracens. He made the city of Kars his capital. It
is now owned by Russia, having been captured by her forces in the
Russo-Turkish war of 1878. He greatly improved the city, and built
a beautiful cathedral there. After a reign of twenty-four years he
died in peace, and his son succeeded him as Ashod III.
This was the glory of the line in prowess and generosity; he reminds
one of Alfred the Great, in England. He was the terror of his country's
enemies; not one of them--Arab, Greek, or Persian--dared to invade
Armenia, and they sent presents to conciliate his friendship. It was
under him that the country became formally independent again. He filled
it with fortified places. He gave all his personal income in charity,
and established almshouses and state charities. He was so benevolent
and so interested in the destitute that he was called The Merciful. He
ruled over Armenia twenty-six years, and was succeeded by his son
Simpad. This was neither a good man nor good ruler; corrupt, cruel,
and ambitious only for selfish purposes. He made the city of Ani, on
the north side of Mt. Ararat, the royal capital, built strong walls and
lofty towers around it, and is said to have erected 1001 churches in
it--which he might do, and still be a bad man. The extent of its still
existing ruins of palaces, churches, towers, and castles testifies that
it was one of the great cities of the world, like Babylon and Antioch.
For more than a century Armenia flourished and grew rich; then it
disappeared once more under the hammer and anvil of Byzantine and
Saracen, aided by internal disruption--the traitorousness of its great
nobles, who hated the kings for controlling their lawlessness. Let
us take in just its situation. It included the heart of the Armenian
highlands; but it had not the extent of old Armenia, several Armenian
districts being independent of it, and either free or tributary to
the Byzantine Empire. Ani was its seat; but the district around Kars,
fifty miles northwest, had split off into a separate principality, the
boundary between the two being the Aras; on the east was Vaspourakan,
another princedom; on the west Sebaste, another; on the north Iberia,
and Abkhasia or Abasgia or Albania, the realms of the Georgians; and
one or two others not quite certain,--but all these ruled by Armenian
princes, mostly of the Pakradoonian house. Though Armenia was in
fragments, therefore, the pieces formed a sort of family confederacy,
and often acted together, as they did to their eventual ruin. Their
folly paved the way for the destruction of Armenian national existence,
and the worse folly of a Byzantine emperor accomplished it. About
1020 the Seljuk Turks were pressing so hard on Vaspourakan that the
prince, Sennacherib, was unable to hold out, and ceded his dominion to
Basil II of Constantinople in return for the sovereignty of Sebaste,
which he agreed to hold as a Byzantine governor; great numbers of
his subjects went with him. Something about this transaction roused
the Armenian national feeling to resentment; for John Simpad, king of
Armenia (known at this time as the Kingdom of Ani, from its capital),
joined with George the Pakradoonian king; of Iberia, to promise help
to a couple of discontented generals, one at least an Armenian, who
were to raise the standard of revolt in Cappadocia and call on all
Armenians to rise. It was to have been a general revolt of all eastern
Asia Minor. But the mighty Basil, conqueror of Bulgaria, and nearing
the end of his half-century's reign, first crushed the rebellion by
buying up one of the generals and getting him to assassinate the other
(the Armenian), and then crushed the league of Bagratian kings. The
king of Armenia, as the price of retaining his throne, was compelled
to sign a treaty ceding the kingdom to the Byzantine Empire after
his death.
John Simpad was succeeded by his nephew Kakig, an able ruler and
good general. But in 1042 there was placed on the Byzantine throne
the fourth husband of the despicable old female (Zoe), whose male
creatures, married or not married to her, misgoverned the empire for
nearly thirty years. The reign of Constantine Monomachos stands out
black in the history of the world; it not only destroyed Armenia,
but it fatally wounded the Greek Empire; it gave Asia Minor to
the Turks; it was the first great step towards subjecting Eastern
Christianity to the Mohammedans; it began the Eastern Question. The
sack of Constantinople by the Turks, four centuries later, was
directly due to it. Almost never has sheer contemptible negative
good-for-nothingness produced such awful results. He was a worthless
man and an utterly incapable statesman; a libertine without decency,
a spend-thrift without generosity or taste, a ruler without sense
of responsibility. Having spent on debauchery or his favorites,
or diversions, or palaces in Constantinople, or other selfish,
short-sighted gratifications, or on the church to win its indulgence
for them, all the money he could wring from his subjects without
risking his throne, he bethought himself of another resource. The
provinces on the frontiers of Iberia, Armenia, and Syria, were exempted
from taxation, and the small dependent states in that region from
tribute, in consideration of maintaining bodies of militia to defend
their territories, and save the central government from keeping
regular troops there. The emperor ordered the militia disbanded,
and the taxes and tribute collected and remitted to Constantinople
as from other places. This monstrous piece of imbecility laid the
southeastern frontier open to the Turks at once; and the money was
quickly wasted in the emperor's pleasures. But even this was not
enough, and he cast his eyes on Armenia as a rich country to squeeze
taxes out of, and sent word to Kakig to fulfill his uncle's will, and
yield up his kingdom. Kakig refused. Constantine formed an alliance
with the Saracen emir of Tovin (on the east flank of Armenia),
and sent an army to attack Ani; and a number of the great Armenian
nobles turned traitors and joined the Byzantine forces. Kakig could
not make head against the three allies with the slender forces left
him; and choosing to yield to Christians rather than Saracens, though
Constantine evidently had no such scruples, surrendered Ani to the
imperial forces (1045), and went to Constantinople to plead his cause
with the emperor. Constantine would not yield, and Kakig resigned
his kingship for a magistracy, and large estates in Cappadocia. The
emperor forced the Catholicos to leave Ani and live at Arzen, then
at Constantinople; finally the Comnenian house allowed him to settle
in Sebaste among his people. The princedom of Kars alone preserved
its independence against both Christians and Saracens, and thus the
Armenian life still beat; but as a kingdom, Armenia perished and the
Pakradoonian dynasty with it when Ani surrendered.
This piece of wanton foolishness and criminality had its immediate
reward; it laid all Asia Minor open to the Turks--for the Armenians
after they had lost their independence would not fight for their
oppressors as they had fought for themselves; and the Turks were
ready. Three years before the capture of Ani, a Turkish chief, cousin
of Togrul Beg, flying after a defeat, had asked the Byzantine governor
of Vaspourakan to let him pass through that district; on being refused,
he attacked the imperial troops, routed them, captured the governor,
and on reaching Turkish ground sold him as a slave, and urged Togrul
to invade the Byzantine territories, as they were of matchless
fertility and wealth, and the troops not formidable. Togrul sent
his nephew Ibrahim to do so in 1048; the timid Byzantine commanders,
after defeating a detachment of his troops, waited for reinforcements
before encountering the main body, and Ibrahim, finding the movable
wealth mostly stored up in fortresses, assailed the rich, unfortified
city of Arzen, with 300,000 people, who had neglected to transfer
their possessions to Theodosiopolis, the nearest fortress. It was
one of the chief seats of Asiatic commerce, full of the warehouses of
Armenian and Syrian merchants. They defended themselves for six days
with such desperation that Ibrahim, giving up the hope of plunder,
and wishing at once to secure his rear from attack while retreating,
and to injure Byzantine resources, set fire to the city, and reduced it
to ashes. Few such conflagrations have ever been witnessed on earth;
perhaps Moscow and Chicago are the only things comparable. It is said
that 140,000 persons perished in the fire and in the massacre by the
Turks that followed, and the prisoners taken were such a multitude
that the slave markets of Asia were filled with ladies and children
from Arzen. This was the first of the many such calamities that
have dispersed the Armenians all over the world, like the Jews, have
reduced one of the richest and most populous countries on the earth
to a poor and thinly populated one, and turned Asia Minor practically
into a desert. The next year Kars was overrun; but in 1050 an attack
on Manzikert failed, and after an unsuccessful invasion again in 1052,
the Turks retired for a while, but only for a more terrible onslaught.
Before going on to the next dynasty, I will finish the story of
Kakig. In his Cappadocian magistracy he was still called King Kakig
and honored as a king. One day he heard that a Greek bishop had
called his dog "Armen" to insult the Armenians, and went to his
house to make sure, and to exact vengeance if it were true. They
drank heavily together, and Kakig ordered the bishop to call his dog;
the bishop, too drunk to know what he was about, called him "Here,
Armen." Kakig, in a rage, ordered his retainers to put the bishop
and his dog into a bag together, and then beat the dog till he bit
his master to death. The church was too powerful for even a king
to murder a bishop with impunity, and Kakig was hanged on a castle
wall. This gave rise to the Turkish proverb, "Kart Giavour musliman
almaz, Room Ermenie dost almaz" (An infidel never becomes a Moslem,
a Greek never loves an Armenian). The Turks have always acted on this,
and used the Greeks against the Armenians; but the old hate has died
out now under common oppression.