Artaxiad Armenia under Tigranes II, compared with present borders © fr.wikipedia.org
Hagop Manantian
Tigranes II and Rome
( Complete Works, Armenia, 1977, vol. 1)
[Armenian]
by Eddie Arnavoudian
www.groong.org
[Tigranes II, ousted from his "Great" by Hagop Manantian pedestal.]
Tigranes II and Rome of Hagop Manantian, published for the first time in Soviet Armenia, here 70 years, remains one of the most balanced essays on the reign Imperial exception of Tigran the Great, king of Armenia. During a short period, Tigranes II, who ruled Armenia from 95 to 55 before our era, represented a major regional power, against which all others, including an aggressive imperialist Rome, had to be measured. According to Cicero, Tigran "shook the republic of Rome before the prowess of his arms. "After taking the title" King of Kings ", linked to the weakened throne of Persia, Tigranes began a military campaign of twenty-five years to build an empire which at its peak stretched from Armenia north to Georgia and Iberia east to the Caspian Sea, south to the Assyrian territories and west to the shores of the Mediterranean, occupying Cilicia, Damascus, Antioch and Phoenicia Large parts of the Syrian hinterland.
Tigran's victories could not leave indifferent Rome. She also craved the rich spoils associated with the conquest of Asia Minor. A frontal battle between Rome and Armenia was thus inevitable. The work of Hagop Manantian is the story of this confrontation, the war waged by Rome to destroy the state Armenian Imperial, the ultimate barrier opposing its supremacy in Asia Minor. This is a parallel evaluation of the role of regional history and heritage Tigranes national sobering. Although the footprint of a few weaknesses, it remains as a remarkable contribution to a necessary arsenal Armenian polemic against forgery imperialist history of Armenia, falsification that spans at least 3000 years and is already found, from the 5th century by the founder of Armenian historiography, Movses Khorenatsi [Moses Khoren] (1).
I. The denigration of Tigranes
The scholarship is polemical Manantian as primary sources of classical Rome that the European imperialist historiography of the 20th century. The Romans, "with superior talent," he says, "produced a story in the service itself, which" removes the truths [that are] negative "(p. 408). In this case, the main culprit Roman Plutarch, to glorify their imperial masters, presents the Armenian Tigranes II and his ally, King Mithridates VI of Pontus, as representatives backward, cowardly, uncivilized and incompetent, a somber East against which the Roman troops marched with soles bearing the imprint of civilization. Moreover, Plutarch is targeted because it is based on his fiction that the European imperialist historians, when they try to strengthen their "significant hostility" against "the East and the eastern population, so it can also present the imperialist plunder of Europe in one day civilization.
Manantian demolished tampering with the panache, combining meticulous examination of sources and intellectual rigor. By unraveling the reality from fiction, he goes to Tigranes II the status of king formidable is his. Tigranes was neither poor nor barbarous East, unfair and incompetent, which would have been content to follow the king of Pontus, most powerful and talented, although equally barbaric. Man with exceptional abilities, he was 45 years later came to the throne, but he had enough energy and stamina to reach 70 years of imperial heights, still leading his armies into battle on horseback, at age 75 . With an extraordinary ability to heal, despite serious injuries and nearly fatal blows, and a limitless physical stamina and a fierce determination, he seized his chance and built, using a acute political and military sense, an empire that was the envy of neighboring monarchs.
Trying to find a more authentic Tigranes historically, even Manantian takes advantage of Rome. The Romans, not the Armenians, he says, who were Barbarians. The label of barbarian was a typical definition of Imperial Rome at least in Hellenistic Asia Minor. There was an order operator and draining parasite constantly territories with wealth and a skilled workforce, but does not contribute to its economic, social or cultural. The point is emphasized in a quote from the classic German historian Theodor Momzen in the 19th century, much admired by Mark Twain, who wrote: "The burden already weighing of Roman rule in the East quickly turned into an unbearable repression and oppression , against which neither the Crown nor the hut of the peasant were free of the danger of being confiscated. Each ear of wheat grown alone was reserved for tax collectors and Roman each unborn child was destined to become the property of his slave traders. "(P. 417).
The Roman conquest of Asia Minor is summarized in the eyes of Manantian:
"[...] the beginning of a disaster and destruction that would be terrible and devastating consequences for the economic and cultural future of the Hellenistic East. "(P. 415)
"The collapse and cultural disintegration" as experienced by Asia Minor following must be charged "squarely on the responsibility of Rome, which plundered and destroyed the East not only through military invasion, but also "financial exploitation and usury" (p. 411).
Against this retrograde invasion, the argument continues, the resistance of Tigranes and Mithridates VI was objectively a defense of pre-Roman Hellenistic civilization of Asia Minor, still surviving, which, through its infrastructure global production and trade, underpinning a substantial cultural development. In a recent study, sometimes enlightening, HK Hakobyan added in, writing: "During the 1st century BC, Tigranes was actually an agent of globalization, continuing the work done by Alexander of Macedonia. That is the yardstick that the international significance of Tigranes should be appreciated. ( Tigran the Great, Yerevan, 2005, 244 p., 51)
Unfortunately, neither Manantian or Hakobyan about it, offers no argument or detailed, exacerbating rather their cases by a questionable advocacy and fictionalized for the two monarchs. It's one thing to assert that as heirs of the Hellenistic Asia Minor, they took de facto defense against a reactionary and predatory Rome. It is quite another to present them as a sort of modern revolutionary democrats, an approach that neglects the nature of slavery, oppression implacable their own people and their militaristic conquest of other nations and peoples. Now that's what Manantian.
While Mithridates VI directs his imperial armies in neighboring states conquered by Rome, he is presented as a national liberator, almost a representative of the class struggle, "defending and protecting the exploited" and inspiring a "social and class struggle" against the "brutal domination of Rome" (p. 440-1). Manantian Momzen dispute about it. "It is difficult, he writes, to agree with him on the fact that the Armenian-Roman wars of Mithridates were reactionary movements against the peoples of the East. "(P. 466) In truth, the population of these countries hated the Romans. But there can be no question of depicting the conquest by a new colonial power as a national liberation. Hakobyan also suggests a kind of imperialism Armenian benevolent, progressive, restoring order, stability and security, thus contributing to trade and trade (Hakobyan, p. 101). With regard to such views, it should perhaps recall the case of Genghis Khan. In his eyes and logically, Armenians can not be a positive designation. Yet it is qualified by the English writer Ralph Fox imperialist progressive under the same grounds on which Tigran Hakobyan plebiscite.
Desiring to further substantiate his defense of Tigranes Manantian, like many Armenian historians, avoid taking into account the mass deportations that were central instruments of his imperial policy. Tigranes deported 300,000 people from their ancestral Cappadocia, the relocating in Armenia in order to serve his Hellenistic reform project. Manantian trying to give this project a progressive varnish, suggesting that urban development and craftsmanship that resulted enjoyed the Armenian people. Need I remind you that Shah Abbas in Persia, where the Armenians also have much to say, uprooted and deported all an Armenian community in the relocating in Persia, there to serve its own national development agenda?
II. Clash of Empires
Romance aside, the central approach of Manantian remains strong and measured. Tigranes surrenders in its true historic role, he does not put on this pedestal of "Great", built by Roman historians, European and Armenian, and do not portray either under the garish patriotic attire, that the found so often in the arsenal of Armenian historical makeup. Nothing dimmed the final victory of Rome and its devastating consequences for Armenia and the region.
forces were indeed defeats Tigranes at first major confrontation with Rome at the Battle of Tigranakert in 69 BC. Manatian rule on behalf of the absurd story made by Plutarch in a landslide victory of the Roman armies on the "barbarians" Armenian cowardly and incapable story echoed in the 20th century Kurt Eckhardt, who opposes him as "a Roman army incomparably gifted" to "wild bands marching behind the banner of Tigranes. There was "no bloody confrontation" in Tigranakert hence no test of military prowess, of military valor, bravery or courage on both sides. But we can hide the scale and severity of the collapse of Armenia, which proved to be a "panic and a flight without a fight" (p. 523), one of the most humiliating defeat as a result not military inferiority of the Armenians, but a political strategy misconduct on the part of the Emperor of Armenia.
The first Roman assault against Mithridates VI of Pontus, from 90 to 85 BC, Tigranes II chose to remain neutral, hoping that in exchange refrained from attacking Rome in its imperial possessions. Conceding that the Roman sources, they note Manantian
"[...] rightly suggest that Tigranes would not have allowed the destruction of the bridge, which protected his rear. "(P. 489)
failure assessment combined with astonishing complacency. Considering the prospects of a Roman assault remote part Tigranes defend the steps of his empire, leaving Rome Free emboldened to attack his empire now politically isolated and also private chef.
Manantian does not attempt to explain the decisions of Tigranes, "would he committed against the Romans (when they first attacked the bridge), it would have been obliged to fight simultaneously and Rome Persian forces loopholes, it was working then quit. "Manatian further notes diplomacy misleading, incredibly clever, from Rome, who managed to deceive the vigilance of Tigranes. Hakobyan goes further, saying it is wrong to "support that Tigranes did not expect not to attack Rome. " Armenia and Rome, he writes, knew that "everything was going in the direction" of the war and so "worked to prepare for the inevitable coming of a battle" (p. 116). The fact that Tigranes was abused, said Hakobyan, results not from a miscalculation on his part, but the collapse of the easiest and unexpected to the Romans against Mithridates.
Whatever the reason, the policy decisions of Tigranes facilitated a Roman victory that launched the collapse of his empire. Lucullus was able to strike at the heart of the Armenian empire undefended - The capital city of newly built Tigranakert family residence of Tigranes and warehouse its spoils of conquest. Roman historiography shows silent or dismissive on the Armenian resistance for months against the Roman forces encircling Tigranakert. However, shortly after the raid Expeditionary bold Tigranes who rescued his family trapped in Rome took the city and sacked it. It should be noted here that the objections to the deportation and forced relocation of populations by Tigranes is not only a moral ahistorical, although legitimate. Such measures can never help ensure a stable foundation for any state whatsoever. At the Battle of Tigranakert the Roman victory, which would effectively seal the fate of the empire of Tigranes was facilitated when large sections of the population of the city, who had been forcibly relocated, rallied to the Romans.
Tigranes revenged himself, organizing a successful campaign of guerrilla-style, which Lucullus humiliated and forced to abandon the region shamefully. But his good fortune never recovered. His defeat at Tigranakert in 69 BCE, determined "the fate and future not only of the bridge, but Armenia and Asia Minor "(p. 477). It marked the beginning of the disintegration of the great Armenian state "(p. 522), put an end both to" developing a culture and a civilization in an urban Hellenistic Armenia backward "that the same fate civilization in the East (p. 526).
III. The end of empire and the debate over his legacy
Despite the retirement of Lucullus by Plutarch as a triumphant start, Rome was able to dictate stringent conditions. Outre le fait d’imposer un lourd fardeau de réparations de guerre et d’impôts, Rome réduisit les frontières de l’empire de Tigrane à une fraction de ses dimensions antérieures. Mais il était réservé au successeur de Lucullus, Pompée, cet « agent notoire de la finance et de l’usure romaines », de dresser l’acte de décès de l’empire arménien de Tigrane. Face à un Tigrane terriblement affaibli, Pompée réussit, dès 66 avant notre ère, à « soumettre et piller l’Arménie sans verser le sang, ni sacrifier de vies » (p. 583), drainant davantage encore la puissance et la richesse que Tigrane avait accumulées.
Far from greatness "king of kings", Tigranes would become a "friend and ally" of Rome, paying taxes and lower, a "buffer state", "a Roman military outpost ( p. 598). Dominant regional state during a brief period, Pompey went to Armenia that it was early in the reign of Tigranes. At the end, Armenia had "ceased to be a great power," had lost its "de facto independence," and means "to take charge of their destiny." In his collection of essays on the history of Armenia, Bagrat Ouloubabian summarized well:
"So [...] under the very eyes of its creator, the universal state of Tigran the Great narrows and found that characterized the borders of Armenia during the reign of his father, King Artashes [Artaxias] ist. When the son of Tigranes, Artavazd II ascended the throne, Armenia was to some extent a dependent state of Rome. "(P. 133)
With the end of the Armenian Empire, Rome trampled the remains of the Hellenistic East. A sign of his triumph was the subsequent triumph of Christianity in Armenia. Imposed by military force, he erased the last vestiges of Hellenistic culture that Tigranes tried so hard to introduce in Armenia.
For the development of the Armenian state, the defeat by Rome in the empire of Tigranes also showed an inability to anchor and strengthen long-term foundation of a future independent and autonomous Armenian state, monarchical or otherwise . Despite his undoubted personal qualities, Tigranes was unable to contain the forces and feudal Armenian strongly centrifugal, which broke several times every attempt to build a stable and centralized Armenian state, capable of withstanding violent ambitions of neighboring powers. Parallel to the triumph of Rome, an emboldened Persia joined the pack of the same conquerors neighbors, eager to secure control of Armenia. Also:
"With the establishment of Roman hegemony [...] a very difficult political situation and painful-looking state stamp, was created for the ancient Armenia, which would continue for centuries . Finding himself between two powerful enemies, between Rome and Persia, Armenia was forced, against the vital interests of the Armenian people to become involved in endless wars and hate periodically undertaken by the major powers that it was close. "(P. 601)
After a brief period of true independence of the state, the future of Armenia and its people is now largely" determined "by the great powers (surrounding) (p . 602), namely the Persian empires, Roman and Arabic and, more recently, Ottoman and Russian.
In his book, Hakobyan trying to recover part of the reign of Tigran the benefit of modern Armenian nation. But his argument is tenuous. "The major legacy of [Tigranes] for future generations," he wrote, was his role in the survival "of the Armenian nation." "Peoples of Asia Minor who fell in Rome, he says, have since left the historical stage, while the Armenians still live today. "(P. 230) While the Armenian people continued to live, but not as free people. Continuing its existence as a slave into hell, shackled, deported from their ancestral lands, killed, massacred and reduced today to the brink of survival.
For severe than either approach Manantian it diminishes naturally not the personal qualities of Tigranes. As a person, his story truly embodies the tragedy of a heroic figure who, ranking the vertices of an imperial glory with speed, audacity and determination amazing, then lived his last years in minor auxiliary opponents who rabaissèrent . It is amazing to see so few modern literary fiction, devoted to Tigranes, beyond sentimentalism Patriotic. Ouloubabian reminds us that the "popular folklore" para-law Tigranes "will be the brightest." Yet it shows, and rightly, utopias popular for a better life, safe and peaceful. But this is not a representation of modern art. This would require the rebuilding of social and historical truths in the imperial era of Tigranes, appearance and cruel slavery, his militarism, conquest and oppression which he exercised over other nations, as many conditions should also appear so central in any discussion of modern, democratic and national on the reign of Tigranes.
Unfortunately, much of Armenian literature, historical or fictional, the imperial state of Tigranes and the history of Armenia in general, is submerged by a more enthusiastic patriotism. Few watching, if anything, about the accuracy in defining the concepts of nation and people, although they are well developed in modern Armenian intellectual discourse. Despite all their differences, and Mikael Nalpantian Krikor Ardzrouni, two prominent thinkers of the 19th century, understood and used correctly the term " nation "to refer primarily to the majority share of a population, ordinary people, not elites. Based on their study of Armenian history and their contemporary experience as democratic representatives of the Armenian people, they put light on the essentially non-national of the Armenian elite, accusing its opposition to the nation as people, people's needs and those of Armenia. Any debate and sincere approach to the history of Armenia, its monarchs, princes and bishops, including Tigranes should consider the approach of Nalpantian Ardzrouni and as a reference and a necessary starting point.
Much of modern Armenian historiography remains sadly indifferent to the legacy and remarkable Nalpantian Ardzrouni. The novelist and leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), early 20th century, Avetis Aharonian, for example, writes that it was during the reign of Tigran that "our (the part of the Armenian people) national pulse beats more healthily and with great force. " Even the historian Leo, an admirer of Ardzrouni leaves a sigh of regret over a "unparalleled leader" who hoisted Armenia "power levels not seen since." But "the pulse that beats" and "power gained" during the reign of Tigranes were not those of the people or the Armenian nation. A people can have an empire. The British Empire was not that the British people! The state built that Tigranes was not that the people or the Armenian nation. It was the personal property of Tigranes. The empire of Tigranes was the empire of an absolute monarch, totally cut off from people. He not only exploited the people, but he engaged in a colonial conquest, not unlike that which has devastated the lives of ordinary Armenians and Armenian. Incidentally, being away from the people is emphasized by a singular fact. Logic with the history of the Armenian elite, the language of the Court of Tigranes was more a foreign language: Greek!
Unlike falsifications imperialists, the Armenian people, as the people of Africa and Asia, has a history that spans centuries. But like all stories of a state or region, is not glorious, all that remains is not worthy of admiration. In the annals of Armenian history, there is much more than the ennoblement of the emperor Tigranes. It does not naturally exclude Tigranes II and the rulers who preceded and followed the story of the people and the Armenian nation. For Armenians, whose ancestors lived in historic Armenia, all previous epochs have left a raw material for the formation of the modern nation. Its study and its ownership by ordinary people, however, require precision and clarity in the use of categories et des notions.
Note
1. Remarquant la supercherie historiographique des grandes puissances, dans leurs tentatives pour assimiler des nations plus petites et les rejeter ensuite de l’histoire, Moïse de Khorène note que pour se venger de Haïk, fondateur de l’Arménie, le roi assyrien Ninus entreprit « l’anéantissement de tous ses descendants » et « ordonna la destruction d’un grand nombre d’ouvrages qui évoquaient les réalisations des autres nations », dont celles des Arméniens. Les falsifications impérialistes conçues en vue de saper l’édification other independent nations remain valid. Armenians must fight this kind of falsification not only from Turkish historiography, which tries to erase the memory of their historical territories, but also that of European and contemporary American historians, who have systematically and Armenia culture as appendages secondary to major imperial powers above. Armen Aivazyan forcefully drew attention to this point in his controversial book, not always correct, but often sharp, History of Armenia, as presented in American historiography: a critical approach (Yerevan: Artagers, 1998) [in Armenian].
[ Arnavoudian Eddie is a graduate of history and political science from Manchester, England. He leads the heading of Armenian literature in Groong . His literary and political essays also appear in Haratch (Paris), Nairi (Beirut) and Open Letter (Los Angeles).]
___________
Source: http://www. groong.com/tcc/tcc-20110131.html
Article published on 01/31/2011.
Translation: © George Festa - 02.2011
Courtesy of Eddie Arnavoudian.
0 comments:
Post a Comment