It is hard to destroy old myths. Especially, when it is related to historical science. It is a pity that history has always been and remains a tool for politicians. it has always been written for the sake of them. For that reason, there are a lot of gaps and inconsistencies today in the history of many regions. That is also related to the history of Asia Minor and Caucasus.Since ancient times, the interests of various powerful States have clashed in these regions. They all wrote the specific story they wanted to see, which supported their conqueror’s wishes.
And this kind of ancient myths can include the myth of “Great Armenia”.We will try to thoroughly study and dispel this myth, without resorting to fabrications, but simply using what official historical science gives us.
Ok, let’s start…
“Greater” or “Great” — geography or history?
Not for nothing, we put the name “Greater Armenia” into brackets. Although we doubt the existence of a “greater” Armenian State in the antique times, we utilize brackets, not for that reason.We use brackets because the phrase “Greater Armenia” is just a deliberately distorted translation of the antique name.
It is a known fact that we got, most of the references regarding ancient Armenia, from Roman sources. The works of ancients on history and geography of this region were translated by the modern scholars exactly from Latin. You can say, what is the problem then? But, here we have a problem: all the ancient Roman and the latter sources called “Great Armenia” in Latin as Armenia Major.
What does that mean? — let’s clarify. Major in Latin means “greater”. So, the notion of Armenia Major should be translated as “Greater Armenia”. But, why that was translated as “Great Armenia”? Well, Is it just an accidental mistake or a big lie, claims to something that has never been existed?
That’s why we wrote the “Great Armenia” in brackets, to make it visible to readers, how the current official history inflated the “great,” “mighty” but never existed Armenian State out of the geographical name of “Greater Armenia”. It is known that the term “great” often, specifically refers to states and countries. In various historical maps and books, it is possible to read, the “great” names such as:
“Great Britain”, “Great Tartaria”( Genghis Khan’s Empire ) — (Great Tartaria, Grande Tartarie, or in Latin: Magnus Tartarie)
Dear reader, you will be able to find neither in ancient nor in medieval sources the inscription in Latin that reads Magnus Armenia (Great Armenia in English). There everywhere will be merely one name: Armenia Major (“Greater Armenia”). The notion of “greater” for instance refers to “Greater Caucasus” or to the rivers Greater Tira and Greater Almatinka. All of them are geographical names.
So, when antique Roman authors wrote about the realities of Greater Armenia, they meant the geographical region with that name, not the exact “great” state. But today, peacemakers tell fairy tales about the ancient and magnificent state of Armenia. Almost about the “Armenian Empire”. Despite all these tails from the various ancient sources, we become aware of the following:
The territory of ancient Armenia (there didn’t exist such kind of name at that time) under the reign of Achaemenids was just an ordinary province (satrapy) of Iran. Afterward, two centuries later Armenia was subordinated to the power of Alexander the Great.
Only after the death of Alexander the Great the western part of the former Persian satrapy (that extended to the Euphrates in the East ) gained independence, but centuries later it was conquered by the kings of Pontus.
The eastern part of the former Persian satrapy, which was known to the whole world as Armenia Major (Greater Armenia ) the name of which that presented to us intentionally as “Great Armenia”, just has a less majestic history, than the western one.
After the fall of the power of Alexander the Great (at the end of the fourth century BC) the territories became subordinated by Iranian satrapy — Oront (whom the modern Armenian sources call as Yervand, by trying to armenize him) and his successors. Their less than one hundred years old rule suppressed, when at the end of the third century BC, these territories were conquered by Seleucids (Antiochus III) and incorporated into the region of Sophene.
Then Artaxias and Zariadrius the military commanders of Antiochus the Great, who were fighting with Romans, divided the country into two parts. They were ruling the country on behalf of the king. After that the king was defeated, they went over the side of the Romans.
Following the death of such an “independent” king Artaxias, — the lands ( that is, Greater Armenia ) which were located between Euphrates and Murat (the eastern Euphrates) were subordinated to the Parthian power. At the later times, their proteges as Tigranes II was put on the “Royal throne” of Greater Armenia, who in turn, bought the Armenian throne from Parthians for large territorial concessions.
Tigran had to experience the various vicissitudes of faith. At first, he was living as a hostage with the Parthians, then he managed to get permission to come back to his homeland. Moreover, Parthians took ransom — seventy valleys in Armenia (Strabo. Geography. Book XI).
As he (Tigranes) felt the weakness of the Parthian state, he started to wage wars with them. During two decades Tigranes made several successful campaigns to the neighboring countries and all of these were recorded in his name as conquest, but if that was conquest, not just campaigns — they would have gained a foothold for Armenia or at least for Tigranes. But that didn’t happen.
Despite submissiveness to Romans in sixty-six BC Tigranes was left as a puppet-ruler in Greater Armenia, Romans didn’t submit any territories to him, which he allegedly conquered. Although, if these lands truly belonged to the “king” of Armenia, Rome would have tried to take them into their hands, by recognizing them as their vassal.
Lucullus expelled Tigranes also from Syria and Phoenicia. His heir Artavasdus was prospering as long as he allied with Parthians. But when Artavasdus betrayed Antony during the war with Parthians, he was punished and Antony brought him to Alexandria in a triumphal process, he was led bound through the city and for some time held in custody, but then he was killed (Strabo. Geography. Book XI).
At the later times, Greater Armenia passed from one owner to another as a toy. Until the mid of first century AD, Greater Armenia was governed by Romans and then by Parthian governors. In sixty-six AD Armenia was ruled by the governor from the ruling family of Parthians — Trdat (modern Armenian pronunciation of the Latin Tiridatus).
Today, Armenian scientists call Trdat a founder of the Armenian house of Arshakids (note that the same ruling houses of Arshakids existed in Caucasian Albania and Iran), although it’s a known fact that his rule was not hereditary. Plus by taking into consideration that Arshakids were descended from the Saka tribes, then there is no need to talk about any Armenian state, especially at the beginning of the II century AD, the Great Armenia was occupied again by Rome and was announced as the province of the empire.
After Artavasdus, the country was ruled under the power of Caesar and Romans, and now there is an existing country that ruled on the same principles. (Strabo. Geography. Book XI).
Merely in the mid II century, Parthians managed to partially recapture Great Armenia from Romans and re-appoint the governor from the ruling Parthian family of Arshakids. The hereditary title of the king of Greater Armenia was received by the Parthian governs only at the end of the II century. Due to the fact that at the beginning of the III century Sassanids seized the power in Iran by destroying the local dynasty of Arshakids of Iran (Parthians), for that reason the Arshakid hereditary rulers of Greater Armenia began to approach Rome. However, Sassanids conquered Greater Armenia and held it in their hands till the end of the III century. In two hundred and six The Persian shahinshah (the king of kings) expels the roman governor from the family of Arshakids Trdat III from Armenia and then invades through the territory of Greater Armenia to the eastern province of Rome. In two hundred and eight the Sassanids were defeated by the Roman army and as result, there was signed a treaty agreement, according to which Rome got right to appoint the governors not only in the puppet kingdom of Armenia but also in Iberia, where the governors had been appointed by Sassanids. According to the treaty, Greater Armenia was assigned to the sphere of influence of Rome.
By moving a little away from the topic of searching the “the great Armenian state of antiquity”, it’s worth paying attention to the question of the spreading of Christianity in Armenia.
According to the Armenian sources, in three hundred and one Armenia became the first country that adopted Christianity as a state religion. Take attention to this part — as a state religion! The question arises, after reading that, What state are we talking about? By whose decision it was adopted?
Could Trdat the puppet arshakid (not of Armenian origin) ruler, who was appointed by Rome, decided by himself for the Armenian people, which were under the rule of the roman empire. It is clear that the date three hundred and one is fictional. The roman puppets — “Armenian ” arshakids , could adopt Christianity merely after that the emperor Constantin and Licinius signed an edict of Milan, which allowed the freedom of religion in Rome and territories under their control. — including Greater Armenia. It means after three hundred and thirteen.
Ok, let’s move on. There is very little left in our narrative until three hundred and eighty-seven. But still, there is no evidence of the mighty Armenian state of antiquity. Only the small vassals and puppets or even the worse — ordinary governors who were appointed by neighbors.
In three hundred and thirty the Greater Armenian territories were invaded by the descendants of Sakhs ( by the way, the name Artsakh, was derived from the name of these tribes) led by Paitakaran Sanaturk the ruler of the Albanian region, who also attracted the union the Huns from Hunan ( the Hunnic region of Caucasian Albania). Sanaturk conquered the capital city Vagharshapat ( vagarsha in Persian )of Armenia and kept it for a year. But in three hundred and thirty-eight the roman troops, defending their puppet — Armenia, attacked Sanaturk and defeated his army. In three hundred and thirty-nine Shapur marched on Armenia but Rome managed also to defeat his army and in three hundred and fifty Arshak was appointed as a ruler of Armenia.
It’s worth pointing out that, Armenia had always been under the control of Rome, because of that the modern speculations about mighty Armenia are just a myth, nothing else.
In three hundred and seventy Bab (according to the modern Armenian sources — Popes) from the Arshakids was appointed by Rome as a ruler of Armenia. Bad tried to get the support of Sassanids but it ended up bad for him. He was killed by the order of the Roman emperor. After the death of Bab (in three hundred and seventy-four) the puppet state of Armenia lost even the nominal royal power and became the province of Rome. But Iran didn’t want to cede these territories to Rome.
Starting from this period, Rome and Iran began to wage new wars. As a result of which, in three hundred and eighty-seven Armenia was divided between these two empires. Armenia was liquidated as a state, and great Armenia as a geographical region was separated into two equal parts.
Based on the above-mentioned facts, which are not denied by the Armenian scientists, we could draw the following conclusions:
- For some reason, the “mighty” rulers of Armenia were appointed by the Seleucids, Parthians (arshakids), Romans, and Sassanids as their puppets.
- For some reason, the great Armenian state was constantly dependent on the neighboring empires.
- For some reason, the founder kings and grandees of the Armenian kingdom who were appointed from Iran and Rome had a Persian or Parthian origin.
- “The great Armenian kings” — the pride of the “Great Armenia” had constantly betrayed their patrons, as they were defeated by enemies.
Let’s sum up all of these things: “the great Armenia” wasn’t so powerful, as described by the modern Armenian “scientists”.
In conclusion, it will be enough to remind that there is no name such as “Great Armenia” (Magnus) in any ancient source. There is just the term “Armenia major” — which is translated as “Greater Armenia ”, — and is the name of the geographical location.
So, the notion of “great” could not be related to ancient Armenia not only linguistically but also historically.
Author: Amir Eyvaz
Translated by: Atilla Turk
