Download PDF | (Brill’s Inner Asian Library) Bayarsaikhan Dashdondog - The Mongols and the Armenians (1220–1335)-BRILL (2010).
280 Pages
INTRODUCTION
This book is an invitation to a journey to the medieval world, which, in author’s opinion, is the most picturesque period of human history to embark back to, and it is definitely one of the fascinating moments of the Great Mongol Empire. It is an interesting journey in many ways: historically, geographically and culturally. It will take the reader from the Inner Asian plateau to the Caucasus, Anatolia, Middle and Near East; from a nomadic culture to sedentary civilisations; from a warrior’s mindset to the subjects’ survival policy.
The present work tries to understand the connection between the various aspects of East and West in Medieval times by exploring relations between two nations, the Armenians and the Mongols, who began interacting with each other during the thirteenth century. During that time the Mongols became widely known to the world for building the most extensive land empire in human history that stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Adriatic Sea, covering most of Asia all the way to Korea, excluding India and Eastern Europe, but including Hungary.
Conceptualising the Mongol conquest, Armenian historian Grigor Aknerts‘i named the Mongols a “Nation of Archers.’ The phenomenon of the Mongol Empire has become the subject of extensive recent academic publications.’ The relationship of the Mongols with their subject peoples still remains the chief area of interest among modern scholars. Likewise, this book explores the relationship between the Armenians and the Mongols during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, which was developed quite differently between the Mongol Empire and Greater Armenia on the one hand, and between the Mongol Empire and the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia on the other.
The fact that part of Greater Armenia, having been conquered before by the Georgians, tried to sustain its sovereignty through the individual contacts of the Armenian princes with the Mongol conquerors, illustrates one pattern of their relations. Another pattern of the Mongol-Armenian relationship was the accepting of tributary status by the Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia without suffering Mongol assaults. In both cases, the Armenians entered into direct contact with the Mongols: The Greater Armenians acted as subjects of the Mongols to assist the latter with further conquests of the Middle East; the Cilician Armenians, being vassals, participated in conquests as the Mongols’ partners, thus both of them enhanced Mongol imperial ideology. As such, the Cilician Armenians not only played an essential role as a Mongol ally, but also contributed to the Mongol conquest of the Near East, intending to liberate the Holy Land, bringing into political and religious confrontation the Christian West, the Mamluk Sultanate and the Mongol II-Khanate.
Based on the political course of the conquest and the actual presence of the Mongols in Armenian lands, the book aims to illustrate that without local political ties it was impossible to rule the vast domain and the interactions of the Mongol commanders with the Greater Armenian princes brought gains for both parties. Besides this, the basis of Mongol administration, which dealt with the complex issues of taxes and tributes of nomadic origin, was introduced to the sedentary society of Greater Armenia. These affairs represented a completely new challenge for nomads, as the guiding principle of acquiring booty was no longer viable; awareness of this among the Mongol rulers led to the establishment of economic institutions instead. The physical participation of the Greater Armenians in Mongol wars and the actual co-operation of the Cilician Armenian monarchy in Mongol conquests were challenged in stages, since the breakdown of the issues of Mongol-Armenian cooperation was applied until the last Il-Khan. These themes form the subject of this book and which I aim to achieve through the study of primary sources written in Mongolian, Armenian, Persian and Arabic, together with additional literature written on the subject.
Previous Scholarship
Despite extraordinary geographical mobility and ethnic-cultural diversity of the Mongol Empire as a subject for study, research on the Mongols and Armenians is relatively meagre and has generally been undertaken only in the light of the damage brought by the Mongols to Greater Armenia. The reasons for this are twofold. First, the historical events are often evaluated only in the light of local conditions. Second, the sources are sometimes biased to conform to the ideology of a particular time. Since the studies of the Mongols are based on what was written by their vassals, most of the information about the conquerors and their image is understandably more negative than positive. However, my approach is to look at the issues relating to the Armenians as part of the larger framework of the Mongol Empire and to highlight their role in Mongol affairs, which was made possible by direct access to a range of sources.
Indeed, there is substantial modern scholarship on the subject of the Mongol invasion of Armenia; however, their influence is usually addressed as ‘destruction.’ The Soviet scholar H. Manandian was no exception when exploring the subject in depth as a separate topic in the third volume of his K‘nnakan Tesut‘itwn Hay Zhoghovrdi Patmut‘yan (Critical View of the History of the Armenian People) in 1952. The main consideration of this work concerning the Mongol period in Greater Armenia is tackled as a dismal moment in the history of Armenia. His statement that the Armenians and Georgians were at a much higher level of social development than the Mongols and that the Mongols were unable to alter the social formation of the Armenians was possibly dictated by the ideology of the time when the work was written.” Regardless of the fact that Manandian believes that the Mongol nomads impeded Armenian culture by their ferociousness, his detailed study of the initial Mongol conquest of Armenia, the locations and names of the battlefields, and the economic issues of the country, especially regarding the trade circumstances under the Mongol governors, are worth consulting.
This seems to be a common approach taken by Soviet scholars in seeing the Mongols only as a regressive force. The second volume of the Sketches of the History of the USSR, edited by Grekov in 1953, which covers the medieval period and relates to the issues of this study, is also biased by Soviet ideology, comparing the Mongol invasion with a huge devastating machine that halted the progress of the world. Surely, a polity of a “Tartar Yoke’ existed. A definition of this kind is the most common; however, as every human is equally cultural, it limits the issues of cultural transmission of the Mongol Empire, becoming a popular subject for recent research.* In favour of Grekov’s work, his approach in highlighting the local conditions under Mongol dominion in each region of the former Soviet territories is of value. Of greatest interest, the economic conditions of the Caucasus region, including Greater Armenia, are examined in depth to demonstrate the damage brought on by the Mongols. However, it is clear that the volume uses a range of primary Armenian sources, unfortunately without mentioning them in most cases.
Another prominent work, the Social Economic and Political History of Armenia in the 13th-14th Centuries by L. Babayan, written in 1969, as well as his chapters on the Mongol period in Greater Armenia in the third volume of Hay Zhoghovrdi Patmut‘iwn (The History of the Armenian People) written in 1976, remain the basic works to consult, although they are not free from Marxist-Leninist ideology either. Nevertheless, Babayan has extensive references to the primary sources of the Armenian Houses and their history. Moreover, he made a comparative study of Armenian and Persian sources to find out that Armenian authors, such as Kirakos Gandzakets‘i, Vardan Arevelts‘i and Step‘annos Orbelian, were known to Rashid al-Din, a discussion of which follows below in the section on the sources.
Although indebted to the Soviet period, A. Galstyan has a different approach to the ones mentioned above. In his Armjanskije istochniki o Mongolakh (Armenian Sources for the Mongols), written in 1962, he examines the primary Armenian sources with an aim to demonstrate that, in their writings, Armenian historians shared more sympathy with the Mongols and particularly with the development of Mongol-Armenian relations. The essential point in assessing Galstyan’s work remains the fact that he is inclined to confirm the possible existence of the actual document of the Mongol-Armenian agreement of cooperation, mentioned by Het‘um Patmich‘ (Hayton). Therefore, he makes extensive references to this document in his Russian translation, based on the French and Latin texts.*
Another point of view is expressed by R. Bedrosian in his doctoral dissertation “The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the Lords of Armenia in the 13th-14th Centuries” in 1979 needs to be acknowledged as a meticulous work. However, Bedrosian tends to see the Mongols or external factors as a main motive in the decline of the Armenian Houses, although this process of the failing powers of the princely Armenian Houses started much earlier.
The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia has been studied by a number of scholars in connection with the history of the Armenians or with the Crusades and the history of Byzantium. The works by W. RudtCollenberg,’ T. Boase,° C. Mutafian’ and G. Dédéyan* have contributed greatly to the study of the political history of Cilician Armenia, its internal and external affairs, and its involvement with the Mamluks, Crusaders and I]-Khans. In particular, S. der Nersessian’s textual study of the different editions of Smbat Sparapet’s Chronicle known as the Royal Chronicle,’ along with the partial translation into English, needs to be acknowledged. Her edition of the Chronicle discovered an important detail regarding the reason of the Mongol failure in Syria in 1260; this was explained by the excessive heat of the place and sickness among the Mongol horses."®
With the invaluable scholarship of R. Amitai and A. Stewart, the extensive Arab sources could be tackled in this study in which the dynamics of Mongol-Mamluk relations and Mamluk-Cilician Armenian affairs are highlighted."
Peter Jackson’s assessment of Western sources for the Mongols and especially his opinion of the Cilician Armenian source of Hayton written in 1307 inspired this study to look at the reasons where and for whom the primary sources were written.”
Recent research on the Mongols through Syriac sources by Pier Giorgio Borbone, as well as an apologetic view of the facts and their interpretation for a Muslim and Christian readership in Bar Hebraeus by Denise Aigle, should be also mentioned.”
A wide range of modern Western and Russian scholarship on the recent and early period was consulted with regard to the Mongols, Armenians, Mamluks and the Crusades. In addition to these, the use of the works of Mongol scholars, such as Sh. Bira,'* B. Shirendyb,'° Ch. Dalai,’® Sh. Choima” and S. Dulam'’ is brought into focus, some for the first time, further enhancing scholarship on the Mongol Empire. The main arguments of this study comment on these modern scholars and their hypotheses, and will be presented in due course.
Primary Sources
The information from different historiographical traditions is often contradictory and varies according to their views of certain historical events, which are based on their culture, locality, time and style of writing, as well as the character of the sources. While reading primary sources in the original is important, it is not enough. It is crucial to understand the patterns of thought of medieval Armenians, Mongols and the neighbours who wrote about them.
Since there are no sources compiled by historians of the Mongol dynasty for the Armenians, the issues connected with the MongolArmenian relationship are mainly based on what the Armenians and others chose to mention in their historiographical traditions. However, comparative reading of a large variety of contemporary sources allows a reconstruction of the details of historical events that can build a distinctive picture of the relationship between Mongols and Armenians in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. For that reason, the object of this study is to bring together essential knowledge of contemporary Armenian sources for the Mongols. The overall impact of this study is to add one more dimension to understanding the relationships established between the conquerors and their subjects in the Mongol Empire.
Mongolian Sources
The Mongolian sources are limited to the Secret History of the Mongols (Mongyol-un Niyu¢éa Tob¢iyan), the only surviving text, translated into many languages and several times into English.” The existence of this single source tends to be explained by the claim that the Mongols were illiterate before the time of Chinggis Khan and even after his reign.” If this is a plausible view, how could these supposedly illiterate people have produced at their first attempt such a significant work of historiography, literature and style as the Secret History of the Mongols?! Professor Kara implies that the writings of the Uighurs from the ninth century and of the Kidans (Khitans) of the tenth and eleventh centuries, who were a Mongolic-speaking people that inhabited the southern region of Mongolia, were already known.
The Kidan words that are preserved in Chinese transcription, mostly in the Liao Shih (The Annals of the Liao Dynasty) compiled by the Mongolian historian T‘o-t‘o, helped to determine the role of the Kidan language among the Altaic languages.” The existence of Sogdian borrowings in the Mongolian language shows that the Mongols adopted the Uighur script in the early period of the Uighur state. Recent linguistic research by Ts. Shagdarsurung shows that the Mongols borrowed their alphabet not from the the Uighurs, but from the Sogdians directly and simultaneously as the Uighurs did.* The Sogdian-UVighur script, that goes back to the PhoenicianAramaic system of writing, was used in its fully-fledged form in the chancellery practice of the Mongol state.** Moreover, it is attested that the Uighurs used the Orkhon script.”’ This script is named after the Orkhon valley in Mongolia.
The fact that there are no other extant works at our disposal does not indicate the illiteracy of the Mongols. The royal chronicles that were kept at the courts of the Khans were not permitted to be on public display, so the histories were called Secret and the books Golden.” It is obvious that at the time of dissolution of any rule, the royal chronicles, glorifying the deeds of former rulers, would be targets for destruction as much as their court or their leader. Therefore, it is more prudent to assume a loss of sources rather than supposed illiteracy. With regard to the limitation of the written sources in Mongolian, some scholars suggest that knowledge of Mongolian is the least important among the wide range of languages for the study of the Mongol Empire.” Considering the fact that the Mongols were nomads whose lifestyle was not conducive to written activity, one surely cannot ignore their oral tradition and insights, nor their ‘nomadic historiography,’ knowledge of which can be gained only through knowing the language.”
The name of the author of the Secret History of the Mongols is not known.*! It was written in the Year of the Rat (1228/1240/1252).” Agreeing with Ozawa, I tend to believe that the first ten chapters were completed in 1228 and, as historical events show, the last two chapters might have been added later. In 2004, a group of Mongolian scholars re-produced the classical text of the Secret History of the Mongols that consists of 12 chapters and 282 paragraphs. This edition does not resolve the issue of the authorship, nor the date of the composition; however, it suggests that there is no discrepancy in style or language within the work as a whole. This edition provides some clarification as to the names and tribes of the Mongols, and of geography and locations. Since the Chinese characters of the surviving text had a corrupted transliteration, the rules of classical Mongolian were adopted in transcribing not only the Mongolian words, but also the poetic insertions that are so distinctive in the text.
The Secret History of the Mongols begins with the mythical origin of the Chinggisid house from Bérte Chino (Blue Wolf) and Goa Maral (Beautiful Doe) in legendary times and continues until the reign of Chinggis Khan’s first successor, Ogedei Khan (r. 1229-1241). The work can be divided into three parts: the genealogy of the ancestors of Chinggis Khan; narrations of his life and deeds; and short references to Ogedei Khan. The main emphasis is found in the second part, where accounts are given of historical events and data.* This is the only surviving major source that expresses a Mongol perspective on the Mongol conquest and it is important for this study as it provides a chance to compare the relevance of its contents with other contemporary sources written by non-Mongols in the same period.
Among the lost annals was a written work called Unen Teiike (True Annals).** This work was a detailed chronicle of the deeds of the Mongol Khans. Professor Dalai suggests that the lost True Annals was mostly a continuation of the Secret History of the Mongols; however, in style it follows the canon of Chinese chronicle composition and it was written in both the Mongolian and Chinese languages.* The existence of such a book is mentioned in the Yuan Shih.’**
Besides this, among the lost written works was the above-mentioned Altan Debter (Golden Book), which was circulated at the Mongol courts in Iran and China. The Great Register of Qara-Qorum, another work written in Mongolian and mentioned in the Yiian Shih, was used to compile the latter.” The Cayan Teiike (White Annals) that was in circulation during the fourteenth century was published in 1981 in Inner Mongolia.** The authorship of the White Annals is attributed to Qubilai Khan. It has 151 pages, with the narration following the tradition of Buddhist sutras. Dalai suggests that this book was probably written in the 1280s-1290s, and it relates to the biography and history of the Mongol Great Khans until the reign of Qubilai Khan.” Bira suggests that the White Annals was written in the 1260s-1280s.*°
Another Mongolian source, written, however, in Tibetan, is the Marbo (Red Book).”' It was compiled in 1363 by Tsalba Gungaadorj (1309-1365) and it took him 17 years to complete; it has not yet been translated into other languages. The Sheng-wu Ch’in-cheng lu (Description of the Personal Campaigns of the Holy Martial) attributed to Tsagaan, written in Chinese in the thirteenth century, was considered to be a copy of the Altan Debter.” However, recent scholarship claims that this work is not a copy, but an independent work that depicts the world conquest of the Mongols.*? To my great disappointment, the framework of my work and the language barrier did not allow me to consult these sources.
Armenian Sources
The twelfth to thirteenth centuries formed one of the richest periods in Armenian historiography, giving rise to more than ten historians and chronologists, like Samuel Anets‘i, Mkhit‘ar Anets‘i, Matheos Urhayets‘i, Mkhit‘ar Ayrivanets‘i, Vardan Arevelts‘i, Kirakos Gandzakets‘i, Grigor Aknerts‘i, Vahram Rabuni, Smbat Sparapet, Het‘um Patmich’, Step‘annos Orbelian, etc. This study uses Armenian sources of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries where the information on the Mongols is extensive. However, Armenian sources for the Mongols differ in their attitudes towards the Mongols, expressing both neutral and personal views and depending on where they were written, ie., in Greater Armenia or in Cilician Armenia. Of the many primary sources consulted, the most important sources with direct access to Mongol-Armenian relations will be treated below according to the chronological order in which they may have been written or compiled.
The essential source for this study remains the Patmut‘iwn Hayots* (History of the Armenians) by Kirakos Gandzakets‘i (1200-1271) which has 65 chapters that review the political history of Armenia from its Christianisation until 1266/1267.“ It has several thematic sections, such as political history and biographical accounts of clerics in Greater and Cilician Armenia, as well as in Caucasian Albania. Much of this work is devoted to the events of the historian’s own day: The Mongol invasion and Mongol domination. From Chapter 11 onwards, Kirakos Gandzakets‘i gives an extensive and in-depth account of the Mongols, starting from the emergence of the Mongols in the lands of Greater Armenia, Georgia and then in Cilician Armenia. The reason for this is that, in 1236, Kirakos was captured along with his teacher Vanakan Vardapet* by the Mongol commander Molar in a village called Lorut, south of Tavush Fortress, where they had taken shelter from the Kh”arazmian onslaught. On Molar’s order, Kirakos was taken to serve the Mongols’ secretarial needs, writing and reading letters during the whole of the Summer of 1236.*° This gave him a certain understanding of the history and religion of the Mongols, as well as knowledge of Mongolian, which he elaborates in Chapter 32.”
Several points can be highlighted in this work with regard to the Mongols. The first relates to Mongol vocabulary. Kirakos spelled the Mongol words in the way they were pronounced at that time, which is itself one of the contributions of this Armenian author to Mongol studies. An important point that caught my attention is the way Kirakos interprets the words for ‘sea’ as naur-tangez, and ‘river’ as moran-ulansu. ‘Sea’ in Mongolian is dalai, ‘lake’ is naur, ‘ocean’ is tengez, and ‘river’ is mérén. Ulansu is an archaic expression for ‘river’ that is preserved in some dialects of Mongolian.
However, for the Mongols in both the past and present whose country was and still is land-locked, the dual use of any water element is very common and it is remarkable that Kirakos’ vocabulary shows this usage. The middle-Mongolian kdéke (qnquy) is given for ‘heaven,’ ‘God’ is given as tengri, and el (Ej) and irgen (hpyuwit:) for ‘earth.’ Around 70 words and their meanings that Kirakos includes in his Mongol vocabulary still await linguistic analysis, which will certainly contribute to the study of middle-Mongolian.
The second point is that his work deals in depth with the history of his own age: The crushing of the Georgians by the Mongol armies in 1220/1221 and the sacking of the cities of Gandzak (Ganja), Shamkor (Shamk‘or), Lori (Lori), Ani, Karin (Erzurum) and of many other districts, including Khachen.* Kirakos is very explicit about the extent of the destruction wrought by the Mongols in Greater Armenia and Georgia, and also shows great concern about the Armenian lords’ actions under Mongol pressure. He observes the hopeless situation of Prince Awag in resisting the Mongols and his decision to submit to them.
The author also comments on the breach of international etiquette in the handing over of Seljuk refugees to the Mongol commander Baiju by the Cilician Armenian King Het'um I (r. 1226-1269), which was justified on the grounds of the safety of his kingdom.” He records that Het'um I followed the example of the Georgian king who went to the Mongol Khan to express his submission. The Armenian monarch sent his brother Smbat to the Mongol court and later he himself went to Mongolia.*! The author also recounts Het'um’s campaigns in Syria and describes the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols.”
The third point is that Kirakos wrote his observations of early Mongol administrative-fiscal policies in Armenia and Georgia prior to the Mongol governor Arghun’s census of 1243/1244. Furthermore, Kirakos notices the important fact that Hilegt (1256-1265), on coming to Armenia, was a royal prince but not yet a Khan and so refers to him as ‘Khan-like’ (quid) Htilegtt.** According to Kirakos, the Mongol army stationed in Armenia under the command of General Baiju feared Htilegti as if he were Khan.* Unfortunately, his history abruptly breaks off for unknown reasons after describing the war between the Il-Khan Abaqa (1265-1282) and Berke Khan (12571267) of the Golden Horde in 1266.
The fourth point is that Kirakos mentions the Mongol-Armenian agreement, established between the Mongol Khan and the Cilician Armenian monarch, the reference to which follows in later chapters.
Finally, the work relies on oral reports of the informants and firsthand witnesses the historian met and interviewed, which reflect the plausibility of this source. Since his main account is of the Zak’arid princes’ deeds and their relations with the Georgians and the Mongols, the work possibly was written for the Zak‘arids.
Nonetheless, some discrepancies over the location of certain events are found in his history that contradict the accounts given by Muslim historians, which will be mentioned later. As is common in medieval historical records, Kirakos’ history is not free from fanciful tales about the non-human shapes of barbarian peoples or their nonhuman behaviour.
Despite these, the Patmut‘iwn Hayots‘ remains one of the most valuable thirteenth-century Armenian sources for the Mongols due to its abundant information about the dynamics of Mongol-Armenian relations.
Another significant source to complement Kirakos’ writings is the work of Vardan Arevelts‘i (ca.1200-1271), entitled the Hawak‘umn Patmut‘ean (Historical Compilation).°* Since Kirakos and Vardan were students of the same teacher, Vanakan Vardapet, and they wrote their histories at more or less the same time, the sources tend to reinforce each other. However, the key point is that this source is different in that Vardan introduces Armenian clerical attitudes towards the Mongol invasion of Greater Armenia, which stands alone among the Armenian sources.
For this alone, it is important to look at his biography. From the comments he left about himself, we may conclude that Vardan Arevelts‘i was born around 1200 in the region of Gandzak in north-eastern Armenia.” It is also clear that Vardan taught in several monasteries and then went to Jerusalem. On his way back, he stopped in Cilicia and remained there for five years.°8
According to Kirakos Gandzakets‘i, in Cilicia, Catholicos Kostandin Bardzrberdts’i (1221-1267) was very concerned about the devastation of Greater Armenia under the Mongols, attributing these sufferings to their sins. Therefore, the Catholicos entrusted Vardan with an Encyclical Letter written for the ecclesiastics of Greater Armenia, which was comprised of 25 points of instruction for the religious canons.” In 1246, Vardan travelled through the districts of Greater Armenia collecting the signatures of the monks and lords and then sent this letter back to the Catholicos.
Vardan stayed for a while in the district of Kayen, teaching.*' He returned to Cilicia later and remained there until 1251 and then left for Greater Armenia again with a Letter of Spiritual Advice from the Catholicos Kostandin for the congregations to help in the theological disputes about the Son of God between Armenians and Roman Catholics.” He spent the rest of his life in Greater Armenia.
Unlike Kirakos’ writing, the Historical Compilation of Vardan falls into the category of chronicles, rather than of histories, in the early Armenian tradition and is based on a wide range of previous Armenian sources.® Vardan reviews in a very condensed manner the general course of human history based on the narratives of Genesis and brings the history of Armenia up to 1267. He engages with the Mongols only at the end of his chronicle. He dates the first arrival of the Mongols in the land of Greater Armenia to 1220 and describes the division of the Armenian land into lots by the Mongol commanders, as does Kirakos Gandzakets’‘i, albeit very briefly.
More of his insights are also found in his narration of his visit in 1264 to Htilegti in Tabriz. He depicts the Mongol Il-Khan as having a very positive attitude towards the Christians. However, he was most impressed by Hiulegt’s Nestorian Christian wife Doquz (Toquz) Khatun, who is mentioned in his work with a degree of excitement.® An important detail which is found in his source, along with those of Step‘annos Orbelian and Kirakos Gandzakets’i, is the Il-Khan Abaqa’s marriage to Maria Despina, the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor.® At this point, the script of the Historical Compilation for some reason was lost and was found again by a relative of Vardan 18 months later in the bazaar of Tiflis. Vardan added only a few more pages, however, and ended his Chronicle in 1267 with the death of Catholicos Kostandin.”
This work is well addressed in terms of the author’s opinion of the Armenian ecclesiastical position in relation to the Mongol invasion. Vardan’s personal view of the first two Mongol Il-Khans, the Cilician King’s visit to the Mongol court,® and the attitude by which he dealt with the information available to him reflects the plausibility of this source.
Another important source which supports the main goal of this study is the work of Grigor Aknerts‘i (1250-1335) or Akanets‘i, entitled the History of the Nation of the Archers, or T‘at‘arats‘ Patmut iwn (Patmutiwn vasn Azgin Netoghats‘) in Armenian. His work has long been accessible in French, Russian and English translations.”
The authorship of this source is associated with three different names: Vardan Patmich‘, Maghak‘ia Abegha and Grigor Abegha Aknerts‘i. N. Pogharean, in his introduction to the critical edition of 1974, proved that the first two could not be the authors of the work, however.””
Grigor Aknerts‘i in his History of the Nation of the Archers describes the events relating to the Armenians from the reign of Chinggis Khan down to 1271/1273.” The work was written in 1273 in Akants‘ Anapat (the Hermitage of Akan) in Cilicia.” Unlike traditional Armenian historiography, although the author introduces himself as a student of Vanakan Vardapet, along with Vardan and Kirakos, this source is far from being a universal history. Its main consideration is the history of the thirteenth-century Cilician and Greater Armenians. The analysis of this source, in terms of our main topic, concerns the following:
First, unlike the work of Kirakos Gandzakets‘i, the History of the Nation of the Archers has some discrepancies in dating some events that occurred in Greater Armenia before the 1250s, such as stating the first appearance of the Mongols in Armenia in 1214 instead of 1220, and the defeat of the Sultan of Rim in 1239 instead of 1243. The reason may well be that the author was not an eyewitness of these events. Of course, these might be scribal errors as well.
Second point is that, from the 1250s onwards, Grigor accurately provides some details on the Mongols, Mamluks and Armenians, on a history that was well known to him and was connected to Cilician Armenia, that make this source very important to this study, as well as to researchers of this particular period.
Thirdly, Grigor Aknerts‘i contributes to Mongolian studies by mentioning many names of the Mongol chieftains who governed in Greater Armenia.” Akinean, Alishan, Oskean and Blake suggest that Grigor had possibly used Vanakan Vardapet’s lost annals as his source, which is possible. However, the series of Mongol names and expressions, which are not found in other works, show that Grigor added his own knowledge to his History of the Nation of the Archers.”
The fourth point is that the source has some colourful details of the Mongol-Armenian relations, like the reception of the Cilician Armenian King by the Mongol Khan, his readiness to fulfil all wishes of the King,” and the Mongol-Armenian treaty established by Smbat Sparapet and the Mongol general Baiju.”°
Another significant author is Step‘annos Orbelian (1250/60—1304), the metropolitan of the province of Siwnik‘, who wrote the Patmut‘iwn Nahangin Sisakan (History of the Siwnik‘ Province).” The History of the Siwnik‘ Province has 73 chapters, starting with the creation of the world, recounting the time of Sisak, the predecessor of the Orbelian House, until the author’s own days in 1299, when the History was completed.
From Chapter 66 onwards, information on the Mongols is found. Since Step’annos Orbelian personally interacted with the Mongols, his history is essential for information on the Orbelians and their relations with the Mongols that is not found in other works. His opinion of the Il-Khans is in line with the policy of the Orbelian House, which aimed to get power over other Armenian families through the Mongols.” From his work it is clear that Step‘annos himself paid a visit to Arghun Khan (r. 1284-1291), who honoured him.
After the death of Arghun Khan, he had to visit Tabriz again, this time to meet the Il-Khan Geikhatu (r. 1291-1295), who re-estab-lished the Orbelians’ rights. In connection with the accession to the throne of Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304), Step‘annos was in Tabriz for the third time when he was given more rights than under former rulers.” The source can be viewed as a narration of the glorious deeds of the Orbelian House, although for the early part of his work, Step’annos Orbelian probably used the sources of his predecessors, namely Kirakos Gandzakets‘i and Vardan Arevelts‘i.
Apart from Step‘annos Orbelian, there is another Step‘annos called Episkopos, a chronicler of the thirteenth century, who wrote a Chronicle.® He started his work from the events occurred in 1193, when the Chronicle of Samuel Anets‘i ended.*! This source was mistakenly attributed to Step‘annos Orbelian and, in 1942, Ashot Abrahamian published this Chronicle under the name of Step‘annos Orbelian.** Due to events described in common by Step‘annos Episkopos and by Step‘annos Orbelian in the Patmu'‘tiwn Nahangin Sisakan, it was claimed that this Chronicle was written by the latter. However, L. Khach‘ikian and V. Hakobyan expressed their doubts and argued that it was a different Chronicle, written by Step‘annos Episkopos of Siwnik’.®
Step‘annos Episkopos’ Chronicle begins in 1193 with a short introduction and ends in 1290, thus covering almost 100 years; however, due to confusion around its authorship, this Chronicle was left out of the orbit of scholars’ use. Without a doubt, it is one of the most important Armenian sources that relates events that occurred in Greater Armenia, Georgia and Cilicia, and involves the Zak‘arids, the Mongols and the Mamluks, as well as the Il-Khans.
This study uses the Chronicle of Step‘annos Episkopos and values it for its details that are not found in other sources relating to the historical events in the Caucasus, Cilician Armenia, and the Near and Middle East. The Chronicle has some colourful moments regarding the depiction of the conquest of Karin by the Mongols and his surprise about how quick and suddenly the country was found full of Tatars and how these Tatars considered the manuscripts and church utensils as their booty. These details are without doubt impor-tant in order to understand the Armenians’ reaction to the Mongol invasion.™ Therefore, the Chronicle of Step‘annos Episkopos indisputably augments the list of Armenian historical records for the Mongol period.
The Annals, by an unknown author of the thirteenth century who lived in Sebastia (Sivas) and was thus named Sebastats‘i, is another source that requires our attention because previous scholarship has paid insufficient attention to it. The importance of this source is enormous; it gives a full account of the Mongol conquest of Armenia and of its regional history. The Annals cover the period from the first century AD until 1220. Then, after an interruption because the pages describing the events of 1221-1254 were lost,** the chronicle goes on until 1300, which is corroborated better by other sources.
An important characteristic of the Annals of Sebastats‘i is that the author describes historical events along with natural calamities that preceded or followed warfare or the devastation of Armenian lands. For example, he observes that the earth cracked and oozed black water before the Mongol commander Chormaghan penetrated the Caucasus, and notices the earthquake that occurred before the Mongol governor Arghun started the census in Erznka and Sebastia in 1254. The comet, which appeared in 1264, foretold the death of Htlegti Khan who died in 1265. After the death of King Lewon, a great earthquake killed many people and, when Ghazan Khan battled against the Mamluks, a severe famine followed in Sebastia in 1300.*
Some mysterious signs preceding the plunder of Gandzak described by Sebastats‘i are very similar to what Kirakos Gandzakets‘i mentions.** These few similarities in the descriptions in these two texts may suggest that Sebastats‘i was well aware of Kirakos’ writing; however, it does not indicate that these texts are related to each other.
The names of battlefield locations and the consequences of certain events given by Sebastats‘i expand the information from other sources, and suggest that he had access to some alternative information, making it as important as those mentioned above.
Before introducing the next sources, it is important to see from the works described above that the Armenian historiography of the thirteenth century, especially those written in the 1270s, are rich and often very detailed in their information about the Mongol-Armenian relationship. The six major authors offered for consideration above deal in general with the issues of the Mongol invasion and the events that occurred in the Armenian territories and beyond them. These sources undoubtably reflect the growth of medieval Armenian historiography. In addition to that, they represent additional excellent examples of world medieval historiography.
The following sources represent the historical writings of the Cilician Armenians. The Chronicle of Smbat Sparapet (1208-1276), a brother of King Het‘um I, is one of the major works on the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and a valuable source for the Crusades and the Mongol-Armenian affiliation, as well as for ArmenianByzantine, Armenian-Persian and Armenian-Arabic relations.” The first section of the Chronicle, which covers the period from 951 to 1162, mainly follows the Chronology of Matthew of Edessa (d. ca. 1140) and of his continuator Gregory the Priest. Smbat’s original work covers the period from 1163 to 1272 and for an unknown reason terminates there. An anonymous writer continues the Chronicle up to the year 1331.”
The Mongols are mentioned in the Chronicle of Smbat Sparapet in connection with the flight of the members of the Seljuk Sultan’s family to Cilicia. He also gives detailed information on the penetration of the Mongols into Kh”arazmia, Central Asia and the Middle East. The author is explicit about the capture of the city of Samarqand since he stayed there on his way to the Mongol court in Qara-Qorum and from Samargand he wrote a letter to his brother-in-law, King Henry I of Cyprus or Henri de Lusignan (1218-1253). In his letter, Smbat mentioned many places he passed through and many Christians he saw scattered in the East.”
The interesting point of the Chronicle of Smbat Sparapet is that the author offers his own reasoning behind the historical events to many of which he was an eyewitness. Thus, he attributes the failure of the Mongols in Syria in 1260 to illness among Mongol troops and horses as a result of the hot climate. Since the source was written for the Het‘umids, Smbat was well aware that this failure had a negative consequence for Mongol-Armenian military cooperation, as had been established by the Het‘umids. Being delegated to attend Batu Khan and then to travel to Mongolia to open negotiations with the Mongol Khan, Smbat Sparapet has written a valuable work for consultation.
Another important Armenian source that merits consideration is La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d’Orient by Hayton.” The author is also known as Het‘um Patmich‘ (d. ca. 1311) or Het‘um the Historian. This is a major source for the medieval history of Mongolia, as well as the Middle East, and is as renowned as Marco Polo’s or William Rubruck’s travel books.** By order of Pope Clement V (1305-1314), the Armenian monk Het‘um (Hayton), Lord of Korikos, a member of the royal family, dictated this history in French in the city of Poitiers in 1307. In the same year, it was translated into Latin by Nicole Falcon (Nikoghayos Salkon)
then in the last third of the fourteenth century into Spanish” and later it was re-translated into French by Jean le Long in 1351.” There are two Tudor English translations (probably made in the 1520s),”* as well as German, Italian and Dutch versions. The edition I used the most is the second edition of the translated version from Latin into Armenian by the Rev. H. Mkrtich’ Awgerean.”
This work is valued in terms of the historiography of the Western Crusades, the Armenian Christians and Papal diplomacy.'” But also it appeals to the Muslims and Mongols and is a remarkable account of the history, culture, ethnology and geography of the people who inhabited the Near and Middle East and Central Asia during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
However, according to Bundy and Jackson, this work represents early fourteenth-century Armenian propaganda aimed at promoting the Latin-Mongol-Armenian relationship and reflects the engagement of the Armenian elite to justify their action to ally with the Mongols.'*' Indeed the author was not a contemporary of the first submissions of the Armenians to the Mongol Khan and the final section of this source deals with a proposal for a Crusade to reconquer Palestine, especially the Holy Land, in cooperation with the Mongols and Armenians.
Putting aside this notion of appealing for a Crusade, I would rather propose to look at La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d’Orient as a source of Mongol-Armenian relations written by an Armenian historian, since this source is, according to Bundy, ‘the most sophisticated example of medieval Armenian historiography.”
La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d’Orient begins with an account of the 14 oriental kingdoms that existed in the thirteenth century, with details of their inhabitants, natural resources and political status. The part that relates to the Mongols begins with a description of the realm of Cathay or Northern China.’ Many details of the Mongols and their history, from this historian’s viewpoint, are found in this work. For instance, Chinggis Khan in La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d Orient is a poor old man who had a vision of a white man riding a white horse, and who addressed him as Chinggis. This white man told Chinggis that, by the providence of God, he would rule over the Mongols. The enthroning ceremony of Chinggis, according to the nomads’ tradition, was held on a black carpet.“ Lifting him up, the Mongols named him Chinggis Khan.
The administrative and military systems of the Mongols were characterised in the History by the decimal system’ and by their obedience to the legislation, called Yasa.'°° The story continues that God told Chinggis Khan to go west and conquer countries. Before setting out, the Mongols had to kneel down nine times and, as Het‘um emphatically states, from this, the worship of the number nine started among the Mongols. After kneeling and worshipping, the sea receded to open the road to the west.'” The accounts of some of the Mongol customs in existence at that time, as well as the myths and legends of Mongolian origin, are given, as is consistent with reports by Marco Polo and other Western travellers. The issues of the faith, customs and behaviour of the Mongols are reported in depth:
Murder and prostitution were not considered a sin among the Mongols, but taking the bridle away from the horse’s mouth is a mortal sin. It is not shameful to flee if it is worthy. It is difficult to chase them, as they are good archers from the rear. They know how to seize countries, but they do not know how to keep them. They do not allow others to lie, however they could lie freely. But in wartime, they keep their word."
Despite the fact that the source was written for the special purpose of persuading the Latin powers to ally with the Mongols, as well as a few lapses on dates and details, the History of the Tatars still has value as a contemporary source for the Mongols for several reasons. First, it has a reconstruction of the history of Mongol-Armenian relations as far as it was available for the purpose of attracting the attention of Western kings.
Second, it is clear that the Mongols were seen by the Armenian author as the Christians’ only allies against the Muslims in order to liberate the Holy Land and to save the Crusader states along the Syrian coast, thus resolving a long-standing battle against the Muslim world. This was also a common point of view of the lords in both Greater and Cilician Armenia.
Third, although the reference of Het‘um Patmich‘ to the preparations made to convert Méngke Khan to Christianity does not seem to be historically accurate, this act is also mentioned by other Christian travellers. Therefore, this source cannot be dismissed as mere propaganda. As in the case of every medieval historian, we have to understand and take account of his outlook and aims in making use of the materials he records.
Fourth, one of the interesting points of this source lies in the fact that the text of a Mongol-Armenian agreement between the Cilician Armenians and the Mongols is included in detail. Although the details of this agreement are not found in other sources, the actual fact of his mentioning that the Armenians entered into an alliance with the Mongols is supported by other Armenian sources written long before Het‘um Patmich*, in particular that by Kirakos Gandzakets‘i.!° This may reflect a belief held true at the time. Therefore, it is impossible to exclude this source from our discussion if only because the Armenian interpretation of historical events is put forward.
Besides these major sources, there are many minor ones, such as the Chronicle of King Het'um II, written in 1296, which covers the period from the tenth century until his own ruling days. The work was continued by different people up to 1351.'”° Due to this work, the issues of Mongol-Armenian cooperation under Mamluk pressure became possible to discuss. The Chronicle of Mkhit‘ar Ayrivanets‘i (1222-1291) goes up to 1289, though the dates are not specified.
At the end of his Chronicle, there is some information about the Mongols, starting from the first raids of Jebe and Stibedei into Greater Armenia until the enthronement of the Il-Khan Arghun (1284) and the death of the Cilician King Lewon II (1289). Mkhit‘ar has some details that are not found in other Armenian annals, such as Hilegi killing all the Chaghataids (gwjewiiu; who were the Chinggisid princes) and Tegitider fleeing to Swanetia to escape execution.'”
Some other Armenian authors are also worth noting. Frik (d. ca. 1300), the Armenian poet of the thirteenth century, is the author of many Poems, written in colloquial Armenian, and was originally from Siwnik* but wandered and died in Cilicia. His reference to the conditions of the Armenians under the Mongols and his sympathy towards the Il-Khan Arghun makes this source worth studying. Nersés Palients‘, the chronicler of the fourteenth century, reports the historical events relevant to the Mongol-Mamluk-Armenian relationship and to the Armenian Catholicosate in Hfomklay.
The Armenian colophons are important sources for this study, not only because of their detailed information about the year and place the manuscripts were made, along with the copyist’s and recipient’s names, but also due to their references to the dates of the Mongol destructions or census-taking; this includes, for example, the colophon of the Gospel of the monastery in Getik dated in the early 1230s."
More particularly, I found them useful for their explicit references to the Mongol Il-Khans (e.g., the colophon of the Armenian Gospel from Vaspurakan dated 1304), and the political and economic conditions under which the manuscripts were copied, as well as their descriptions of the circumstances of a particular event that was characteristic of a certain village, town or monastery (the colophon written in Glajor monastery in 1314).''° They were also helpful in establishing the family relationships of some of those who were mentioned as patrons or recipients."
In general, although the Armenian colophons of the thirteenth century describe the Mongol invasion as a human disaster, they express more neutral views about the Mongols, whereas the Armenian manuscript colophons of the early fourteenth century interpret the Mongols as God’s chastisement for human sins.
In spite of there being no direct link to the subject of MongolArmenian relations, the large collection of inscriptions of western and eastern Armenia represents another important source for this study. These inscriptions explore the details of taxes and tributes levied in Greater Armenia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (e.g., the inscription of the city of Ani, dated 1270 or the edict of Aba Sa‘id [r. 1316-1335] in Ani), as well as the deeds of certain people inhabiting a certain area, and the memorials they left behind (e.g., the inscriptions in Gandzasar, dated 1280 and 1286).!””
Muslim Sources
This study uses a range of Muslim sources mainly with regard to the Mongols, although there are also some references to Greater Armenia and more to Cilician Armenia. If the majority of Armenian sources for the Mongols fall into the category of chronicles with a chain of events related to their dates, the Muslim sources, especially the Persian ones, are more like histories dedicated to a specific people, area or theme. Even the titles of the works speak for themselves. The major work remains the Jami al-Tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) written in 704—710 H. (1305-1310/1311) by Rashid al-Din (ca. 645-718 H./ 1247-1318), a general history of the world from the earliest time to 1310-1311 with special accounts devoted to the Mongols.''
This is the first systematic and comprehensive history of the known world and is unique in its research methods.'” When Rashid al-Din was commissioned to compose the history of the Mongols by the order of the Il-Khan Ghazan (1295-1304), he clearly needed some sources and informants for consultation and advice. The collaboration of Rashid al-Din, the Il-Khan’s vizier and Bolad Chinksank or Ptlad Chinksank, the Great Khan Qubilai’s representative in Iran, on state business is well known.'”° However, less well known is his role in the writing of Jami’ al-Tawarikh. A thorough examination of the facts described in this famous work suggests that Bolad was much more than an informant and it is likely that the Compendium of Chronicles was a joint venture with Rashid al-Din.'”!
Scholars believe that Rashid al-Din is most likely to have used the Secret History and the lost Altan Debter (Golden Book), the compendium of ritual texts for the Chinggisids mentioned above, copies of which were at the Mongol courts in Iran and China.” According to Babayan, the Armenian scholar, among his many sources Rashid al-Din also used the works of the Armenian authors of Kirakos Gandzakets'i, Vardan Arevelts'i, Step’annos Orbelian and Het'tum Patmich’.
Babayan made this suggestion after making a comparative study of some extracts of the above-mentioned authors’ works.’ Indeed, Rashid al-Din’s description of famine in the city of Martyropolis (Mayyafariqin), while Hulegti’s army besieged the city, follows Kirakos Gandzakets'i without any alterations.’** However, Babayan’s claim to see parallels between Step'annos Orbelian and Rashid al-Din’s accounts of affairs between Arghun Khan and Bugha are debatable.
First of all, the extract he compares is attributed to Step'annos Episkopos, not to Step‘annos Orbelian.'° Although the text is more or less the same and the order of narration is similar, it is not identical. Rashid al-Din has more details of the events and names.'”” Nonetheless, the similarities in the narration of Tegtider’s (Negitider) rebellion against Abaga Khan and its aftermath in Grigor Aknertsi and in Rashid al-Din are striking.'** Therefore, the assumption that Rashid al-Din used the works of the Armenian historians is more than convincing, especially for the narration of historical events that took place in the Caucasus and nearby regions.
The final version of Jami al-Tawarikh included a history of the Mongol and Turkic tribes, the history of Chinggis Khan, his ancestors and successors, a history of Biblical prophets, and the emergence of Islam, the Caliphates and the major sultanates, with an extensive description of genealogy and geography along with the accounts of the Chinese, Jews, Turks, Indians and Franks. Unlike the mainstream of non-Armenian sources, the Jami al-Tawarikh refers to the Armenians separately from the Georgians but as part of a larger canvas of Mongol subjects, which is very valuable.
Before Rashid al-Din, there were Persian authors who wrote about the Mongols. The most famous of them is Juvayni (623-681 H. / 1225-1283) who wrote the Ta’rikh-i Jahan-Gusha (History of the World Conqueror) in the 1260s.!” Juvayni’s family was employed by the Mongols. His father was Amir Arghun’s deputy over a large area, including Georgia and Armenia, and his brother was a Minister of Finance under the Il-Khans, Htilegti and Abaqa. Juvayni himself travelled twice to Mongolia. The information he gathered on the Mongols, Qara-Khitais, Uighurs and Kh“arazmians gave him a chance to commence his history of the career and life of Chinggis Khan, followed by warfare, law and customs. The Mongol invasion of Islamic lands, the Isma‘llis and other historical events are included in his history. Juvayni is not explicit about the Armenians. The facts that reflect Greater Armenia in his history are hidden under a general reference to Georgia, even when he talks about the Kh”arazm-Shah Jalal al-Din and his activities, destruction and executions in Armenia.
Another source, the Tabagat-i- Nasiri (Nasiri Tables) was written in 1259-1260 by Juzjani (589-664 H. / 1193-d. after 1265), contemporary with the Mongol conquest.'*° This is a history of the Ghurids in Afghanistan, written in India, outside the Mongol sphere of influence. The 23rd and last section (Tabaqa) contains information about the Mongol invasion.'*' The source is mainly consulted for the first stage of the Mongol invasion of Greater Armenia. Jiizjani considers the Mongol disaster as God’s judgement on the sins of the Muslims; however, he sees in the fall of the Ismailis the triumph of orthodox Muslims.'** Although there is no direct connection between this source and the Armenian sources, the notion of seeing the reason for the Mongol conquest as a punishment for sin is relevant. The Armenian view of this point will be introduced in due course in this study.
Apart from these major sources for the latter period of the Il-Khanate’s administration, this study also consulted Vassaf.'*? For the geography of Gurjistan Vilayet and the administration of taxes by the Il-Khanate, use was made of the Nuzhat al- Qulib (Pleasure of the Hearts) (ca. 740 H. / 1340) and the Ta’rikh-i Guzida (Selected History) (730 H. / 1330) by Hamd Allah Mustawfi Qazvini (ca. 680-744 H. / ca. 1281-1344).'* These Persian sources are constructive in giving a broader picture of Mongol administration in Iran, which allow me to examine some details concerning Greater Armenia.
The principal Arabic sources related to this study refer mostly to the Cilician Armenians and their relations with the Mongols and Mamluks, such as the Kitab al-Mukhtasar (Compendious Book) by Abu1-Fida’ (d. 1332)!° or the Dhail ta’rikh Dimashq (Continuation of the Chronicle of Damascus) by Ibn al-Qalanisi (1070-1160),'°° along with al-Maqrizi, Ibn Shaddad and many others. The al-Kamil fil-ta’rikh (Complete History) by Ibn al-Athir (1160-1233) is useful to compare the first appearance of the Mongols in Greater Armenia with the situation in Islamic countries.'*” Nasawi is consulted in connection with Jalal al-Din Kh”arazm-Shah.
The Arabic sources assisted my work by providing more details on Mongol-Armenian joint actions in Syria. In contrast to the Armenian sources where anti-Muslim notions are not very prominent, the anti-infidel approach in Arabic sources is quite conspicuous. Regardless of their didactic tone, the Arabic sources are full of direct information relating to the Mongols and their ventures in Syria, which confirms in general what is mentioned in the Armenian sources of the relevant period.
Other Sources
To supplement the major sources, I have used other works of contemporary Western travellers, such as Marco Polo, Carpini and Rubruck, as well as some Chinese sources, the Yiian Shih and the Liao Shih in translation or as quoted. The second volume of The Georgian Sources for Armenia and the Armenians, including Kart'lis Chovreba (History of K’art'li), compiled and translated into Armenian by L. Melikset-bek in 1936, added to my understanding of the Georgian side of events because a substantial proportion of the important officials at the Georgian court were Armenian.’ This study found the Melikset-bek’s edition useful in considering the actual relationship between the Georgian kings and their vassals, the Greater Armenian lords.
Syriac sources available in English translation are used in this study with regard to Mongol-Christian and Muslim-Christian relationships. The French translation of the History of Mar Yaballaha III by anonymous author and the two volumes of The Chronography of Gregory Abi al-Faraj by Bar Hebraeus (translated by Wallis Budge in 1932) undeniably assist in comparing Syriac and Armenian Christian sources.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق