Download PDF | (The Medieval Mediterranean, 34) Angus Donal Stewart - The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks_ War and Diplomacy During the Reigns of Hetʻum II (1289-1307)-Brill (2001).
239 Pages
INTRODUCTION
The end of the seventh/thirteenth century was a period of momentous change in the Near and Middle East. Following the Mongol conquests earlier in the century, Hulegu and his successor Ilkhans created a new, expansionist, state , based in northern Persia ; another, rival, Mongol khanate, that of the 'Golden Horde', was formed in the steppelands to the north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea. Dominated by the Mongols of Persia , and threatened by the growing power of Turkmen confederations, the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was in steep decline, heading towards its eventual oblivion. Having to deal with these changes to its north and east was the remnant of the old Byzantine Empire, once again centred on Constantinople. As the Romans regained their city, so another ancient dynasty, the 'Abbasids, finally lost their own, Baghdad. The Caliphate was revived, as a shadow of its former self, in Cairo. Even without the residence of the Caliph, Cairo had become the focus of Muslim rule throughout the region, with the rise of the Mamluk Sultanate. In Egypt, the Mamluks deposed their Ayyubid Sultan, but in Syria they were able to occupy the vacuum caused by the Mongol destruction of the Ayyubid states there (although some Ayyubid princes survived for a while). The Mamluks consciously sought the mantle of the defenders of the dar al-islam, the leaders of the jihad against the infidels. These were difficult times for the Christian states of the eastern Mediterranean. At first, there was uncertainty and difference of opinion as to how to react to the new Mongol and Mamluk neighbours, and when the Mongols came to be seen as the Great Hope, it was perhaps too late. Riven by internal tensions , and confronted by the full awesome power of the Mamluks, the Crusader States-the legacy of Bohemond, Tancred, Baldwin, Raymond and Godfrey-collapsed. Antioch fell to the Mamluks in 1268; Tripoli in 1289; and Acre and the last few remaining coastal towns in 1291. The more secure kingdom of Cyprus, which sought to regain toeholds in Syria through continued alliance with the Ilkhans, was nevertheless equally affected by the same sort of factionalism that had dogged the last century of the other Frankish states of Outremer.
The kingdom of the Armenians established in 1198 in Cilicia and the area north of Syria, its development hith erto closely bound to its neighbouring Frankish states, remained, alone, surrounded by the Seljuks and Turkmen of Anatolia to the north and west, the Ilkhans of Mesopotamia and Persia to the east, and the Mamluks of Syria and Egypt to the south. The kingdom 's future looked bleak, yet it survived, three-qu arters of the way through the eighth / fourteenth century . The end of the seventhlthirteenth and the beginning of the eighth/ fourteenth century was an important, and interesting, time in the affairs of the Armenian kingdom, as it struggled to find its place in the drastically altered circumstances of the region. This was also the great period of Mamluk expansion. The Mamluks were proud of their achievements, and-perhaps as a consequence of being a 'dynasty' of constant usurpation-sought to promote them, and themselves. The Mamluk era produced many great, and many lesser, historical writers, and we are learning an ever-growing amount about the historiography of the period. The work of these Arabic writers is becoming increasingly available, through modern editions, and modern scholarship. On the oth er hand, one problem with tracing the affairs of the Armenian kingdom in the period after the fall of the C rusader States is the comparative paucity of the Arm enian sources available to the modern student.' It seems a promising approach, therefore, to seek to make use of the historiographical production of the Mamluk Sultan ate to investigate the affairs of the Armenian kingdom in this period. Given the nature of the Mamluk attitude to the Armenian kingdom , mu ch of the material I am presenting here deals with military and diplomatic contacts between the Armenian king and the Mamluk Sultan. Nevertheless, this is in itself revealing of the changed status and position of the Arme nian kingdom; and it also shows that the Arabic sources, frequ ently neglected by schol ars working on the history of the kingdom, can actu ally be used to uncover or illuminate details concerning its internal affairs.
Previous Scholarship
Since its publication in 1978, the most prominent work in English on the Armenian kingdom has been T.S.R. Boase's The Cilician Kingdom if Armenia? In truth this is not a monograph but a collection of chapters by various authors on topics related to the history of the kingdom, prefaced by a historical introduction and concluded by a list of place-names provided by Boase himself." Other chapters deal with two castles, and with the Military Orders and the Armenian kingdom." While all the chapters are in their way useful, the historical introduction really provides only that: there is little room to go into any kind of detail. The period covered in the present work, from the rise of the Mamluk Sultanate to the murder of King Het'um II in 1307, is essentially covered in four pages, and much of this is not strictly to do with what was happening, but about the culture of the time as well." Boase relies on the articles of Canard" and Der Nersessian, and on the sources gathered in the Recueil des historiens des croisades volumes, the sources that have been behind much of the work produced by 'Crusade historians' that touches on the Armenian kingdom. Boase makes little use of Arabic sources, and, where he does, the use may not be first-hand: he clearly is not too well aware of the basics of Arabic historiography, to the point where he can cite a wholly fictitious source. "
The other standard work in English on the Armenian kingdom, which is used by Boase, is Sirarpie Der Nersessian's chapter in the multi-volume account of the crusades edited by Setton." 'While this chapter stands independently as a history of the Armenians in Cilicia, it must also been seen in the context of the aims of the whole work that contains it, a history of the crusades. Der Nerse ssian covers the period from the rise of the Mamluks to 1307 in six pages, and concentrates more on the political and military events than does Boase. While there is the occasional misconception, or chronological confusion, by and large the chapter seems accurate , and Der Nersessian gives the impression of knowing the sources very well. Indeed, Der Nersessian provides a list of the "principal Arabic sources" , which consists largely of those in the Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens orientaux, and other translations from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries." The main criticism to be made of this chapter is perhaps the lack of understanding of the history of the wider Middle East, and especially of the Mamluk Sultanate." As a summary of the basic history of the kingdom Der Ners essian's chapter is fine, but it does not obviate the need for a much more in-depth look at the sources for this period. Robert Edwards' mammoth study on the fortifications from the Armenian period that survive in Cilicia also includes an introductory chapter on the 'Historical Background' .11 Edwards' stated aim is to provide a "brief historical survey of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia", and he does "not attempt to reinterpret .. . any of the questions concerning chronology or political events"Y The whole last century of the kingdom is covered in a short paragraph." Nevertheless, the study as a whole proves an invaluable aid to understanding the history of the Armenians in Cilicia, and also proves a crucial service in assisting a visitor to the region to find, and comprehend, the sites he discusses, which are frequently well off the beaten track. Claude Mutafian has written two books that deal with the history of the kingdom. One is exclusively concerned with the Armenians in Cilicia, while the other is a general history of Cilicia itself. The former, Le Royaume Armemen de Cilicie, is a large-scale, beautifully produced work, illustrated lavishly in colour with photographs and reproductions of art-works." The book is much more than a political history; it is also a presentation of the culture of the Armenian kingdom." As a consequence of this, some of the political happenings of the period are skated over with minimal notice," and some of the analysis is rather simplistic," as are some of the errors." The work is not intended as a serious academic record, and lacks a critical apparatus; additionally, few sources are cited. The same cannot be said of the other of Mutafian's books on the subject. La Cilicie au carrefour des empires covers the history of the region from the classical period on, and a large chapter is devoted to the history of the Armenian kingdom." The work is to some extent concerned with the historical geography of the area, and is abundantly accompanied by maps and illustrations, in a separate volume. While the amount of space given over to a survey of the political history of the period is impressive, the nature of the work is such that Mutafian appears more interested in the geographical effects of the events-changes in putative borders-than in discussing the course of the events themselves. One strength of the work is Mutafian's willingness to make a full use of the Arabic sources available to him in French translation, especially Abu'l-Fida', al-Maqrizf, al-jazarr and Mufaddal." However, at times it seems that Mutafian is treating these editions as if they were the sources themselves, debating the significance of the French of the translation rather than the original Arabic." Mutafian has an advantageous knowledge of Armenian, and makes extensive use of both Armenian sources and modern Armenian writers. At times, his writing perhaps unfortunately reflects theirs, in that he presents an account of events slanted to give maximum prominence and status to the Armenians and their kings." Nevertheless, La Cilicie au carrefour des empires represents perhaps the most thorough modern account in a western language of the political history of the Armenian kingdom in this period.
The same slanting that affects some of Mutafian's work can also be identified in general histories of the Armenians that deal with their southern outpost in Cilicia . This can be to such an extent that an accurate picture of the history of the kingdom is not provided. Some writers betray a lack of understanding even of the 'pro-Armenian' sources from the kingdom, and perhaps through reliance on passionately nationalistic later writers, may take an unrealistically positivistic approach to the history of the kingdom. Concentrating on the heroic (or anti-heroic) Armenian kings, these works often show a lack of understanding of the complexities of the realpolitik in the Middle and Near East during this period, and, thereby without being able to put the kingdom within its proper political context, may ascribe a disproportionate amount of importance to the role of these Armenian kings within the affairs of the day. An example of one such work is that of Hrand Pasdermadjian, described as professor at the University of Geneva, which was first published in 1949.23 A general history of Armenia and the Armenians "from their origins to the Treaty of Lausanne" at the end of the First World War, it contains a chapter on the history of "New Armenia". In common with most other works on this topic, the amount of space given over to the period discussed in this work is very small (two and a half pages), but this short section nevertheless manages to be extremely interesting, if merely because of the level of inaccuracy shown . It may be useful to summarise Pasdermadjian's version of the years from roughly 1280 to 1307. Throughout this section the only source footnoted is a chapter on Armenia by Mader in the Cambridge Medieval History,24 and while this is itself somewhat tendentious, it seems likely that Pasdermadjian's distortions have been influenced by other works. Pasdermadjian explains how the battle of Horns results from Lewon III "marching on Syria", after "allying his forces with those of the Mongols"; the battle would have been won but for the Mongol general Mengu Ternur ordering "inexplicable conduct", a retreat, for which he and his army were punished by the Ilkhan.
The Mamluks attacked Hrorngla in 1292, and captured it and the Catholicos, but Het'um II managed finally to drive off the troops of the Sultan of Egypt. This latter, obliged to recall his troops in order to face the Crusaders who had laid siege to Alexandria, released the Catholicos and concluded peace." Some years later the viceroy of Damascus, Susamich, attacked New Armenia at the head of his army, but he was defeated by Het'um II and constrained to withdraw. " Then the king of New Armenia, allied to the Mongols commanded by Ghazan Khan, invaded Syria. The aim of this invasion was to take as far as Palestine and to deliver Jerusalem. The Mongol Khan soon returned to Persia with his army in order to put down a revolt there. The Armenian army, abandoned to its own forces, gained some success, but had finally to abandon the enterprise before the numerical superiority of the Muslim forces and serious losses were incurred." Towards the end of the reign of Het'um II the equilibrium of the opposing forces was modified, to the detriment of Armenia, by the gradual conversion of the Mongols to Islam. Thus in 1303 the successor of Ghazan Khan, Oljeitu, attacked New Armenia with his Mongols. The plain of Cilicia was reduced to ruins and the king and his army were obliged to go to entrench themselves in the Taurus mountains. After the departure of the Mongols, the Seljuk Turks of the Sultanate of Ikonium and the Mamluks of Egypt occupied the country to continue the pillaging. But Het'um II at the head of his army attacked the enemy troops who were preparing to quit the country, loaded with booty, and inflicted on them a bloody defeat, killing 7,000 of their men. The Sultan of Egypt along with the Turks of Ikonium were thus reduced to conclude peace." As a response to the loss of the Mongol alliance, Het'um turned to the West for assistance, and was prepared to submit the Armenian Church to that of Rome. But the Armenian people, alwaysfiercely attached to the independence of their Church, then rose up, in a moment of insane aberration called on the Mongols who occupied the country and put Lewon IV and Het'um II to death." This is, as I intend to demonstrate in this book, for the most part positivist fantasy embroidered by the occasional (but not too frequent) oblique reference to the truth. The implication of much of the text is that it was the Armenian king who was taking the lead in the fight against the Mamluks, with the Mongols merely following, allied to the Armenians. In fact, the Armenians were the subject nation, and were obliged to contribute, at some considerable cost, to the Ilkhan's expeditions against Syria . The Mongols are implicitly blamed for the failure of these Armenian-inspired expeditions, by their "inexplicable conduct", or their precipitate withdrawal. These expeditions were, of course, Mongol-inspired and Mongol-led; the Armenian influence on their course being small or insignificant. The Sultans of Konya had long since faded from importance, and it was in fact at about this time that the Seljuk Sultanate simply disappeared." In 1303, when the Mongols are supposed to have invaded Cilicia under Oljeitu, Ghazan was still Ilkhan, and the Mongol alliance, for what it was worth, still held: the above seems to be a reference to what was actually a Mamluk raid. It was, in fact, with Mongol assistance that the Armenian king was able to gain the victory referred to above . This victory did not force the Mamluk Sultan to peace: rather, the Armenian king rushed to apologise to the Mamluks, and caved in to their demands, helping to recover captives from the Mongols, in order to stave off a further, more serious, Mamluk raid." The idea that the Mamluk Sultans would ever have been forced by Armenian military action to conclude a peace with the Armenian king is ridiculous. The truces between the Mamluks and the Armenians were all largely dictated by the Mamluks' terms, with the Armenian king merely hoping to get away with the least worst possible deal. The murder of Het'um and Lewon was not part of some general uprising, or a Mongol invasion, but was the act of a Mongol commander, who was executed as punishment by the Ilkhan." It may seem unfair and disproportionate to devote such time to an analysis of this work, but it should be noted that this is not merely a critique of the scholarship of this one individual. Pasdermadjian's work is representative of one strand of writing on the topic, of which echoes may be found even in otherwise scholarly work on the Armenian kingdom." While more sober writers on the history of the kingdom do not suffer from the failings revealed in Pasdermadjian's work, there is still a need for a thorough account of the history of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia in this period that shows awareness of the wider context of the politics of the Near and Middle East , and awareness of the 'non-traditional' (that is, not western European or Armenian) sources . Not all such general histories of the Armenians are quite so problematic when dealing with the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia. For example, Jacques de Morgan's history of the Armenian people also includes a chapter on the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia." His account is, per hap s inevitably, brief," and is well illustrated with pictures of coins and seals. The qu ality of what is there is generally very high , and large extrac ts from Quatrem ere's tran slation of al-Maqrizr's Suluk are given (although with some inaccuracies, for example with the Arabic names). Nevertheless, given the brevity, there is no attempt to deal with the sources for the history, not even the Arme nian sources upon which de Morgan is reliant, and there is little attempt to contextualise the history of the kingdom within that of the Middle East. T ournebiz e's wo rk on the political and religious history of the Arme nians provides one of the more detailed descriptions of the history of the media-val Arme nian kingdom." Het'um II 's reign is very densely covered in nine large pages, and the ecclesiastical history of the period is dealt with separa tely." While some of the information presented derives from later Armenian histori ans rather than from the contemporary sources.i" and some of the basic facts are inaccurate," this is arguably the best widely available introduction to the period . Tournebize even shows awareness of the relevan ce of the wider politics of the M iddl e East to the Arme nian kingdom," and he makes interesting use of al-Maqrizf and Abu' l-Fida"." However, since T ournebize was writing, more sources (and more information about them) from the Mamluk Sultana te have becom e ava ilable, and the use T ournebize mad e of these can be extend ed greatly. A more recent introduction to the history of The Armenians, by Sira rp ie Der Ne rsessian, also has a chapter on the media-val kingdom." This nin e-page chapter gives only "the main outlines of the turbulent history" of the kingdom , and also looks at its culture , and, interestingly, at its place within 'Eur ope'. The account of the period under discussion in this work is very brief: the last century of the kingdom is covered schematically, rather than chronologically. Nevertheless, it is an excellent summary of the history of the realm, and Der Nersessian is very perceptive in her relation of the kingdom's history with that of the Mongols. The book is intended for a popular audience, and this, and its extreme brevity, entail there being no discussion or analysis of sources, and no investigation into the historiography, be it 'pro-Armenian', or Arabic." Recent years have seen an increased interest in the study of the crusading movement after 1291.45 The fall of Acre and the expulsion of the Franks from Syria has come to be seen, as it was at the time, as merely one event in a whole series: it was not necessarily to be an ending, but also the beginning of a new phase in crusading. Crusades still left western Europe, and crusading propaganda received a new impetus. Norman Housley, introducing his study on The Later Crusades, argues that while the '''classical period' of crusading (1095- 1291) will probably always exert a greater appeal to both historians and readers . .. the 'post-classical period' . . . can assuredly no longer be relegated to concluding chapters or appendices"." Just as the Armenians of Cilicia are involved in the course of the earlier crusades, so the history of their kingdom has had to be considered for this later period by historians of the later crusades. While scholars of the Crusades are indeed increasingly looking beyond the fall of Acre, there is often a lack of understanding of the history of the Arm enian kingdom, and its place in the network of political relations in the Near and Middle East. Housley, reasonably enough, deals with the Armenian kingdom in a chapte r shared with the kingdom of Cyprus. Inevitably, the affairs of Cyprus dominate, with the history of the Armenian kingdom dealt with summarily in four pages." The political history of the period dealt with in this work is covered in little more than one page, and while the account is an excellent summary, Housl ey makes some assumptions that need to be tested by more detailed study, such as his emphasis on "the great invasion of 1266", when oth ers may have been quit e as traumatic. " As is too frequently the case with works written from the point of view of the crusades, rather than the Middle East itself, there are confusions when dealing with aspects of the history of the region and the Arm enian kingdom." This can be seen much more seriously in an important (and more detailed) recent work on crusa ding policy from 1274 to 1314 by Sylvia Schein." Som e of Schein's confusion is simply a matter of getting basic facts wrong: for example, within the space of four pages, two different dates are given for Het'um II's assassination.51 Nevertheless, some of the problems are due to a more serious misapprehension of the nature of events.52 A lack of awareness of the long-term internal politics of the Armenian kingdom is also revealed, for example in a discussion of attempts by Het'um II to move the Armenian Church into line with that of Rome." At times the interpreta tion of the history of the kingdom is infected by an unrealistically positive spin on events, perhaps because of a lack of sophistication in dealing with the sources, or a reliance on the 'pro-Armenian' sources without the balance provided by the Arabic ones." At one point, "Arab chroniclers" are cited as being in support of an absur d claim made by a late Armenian source , but on inspection of the citations, they do no such thing.55 It is clear that a better understanding of the history of the Armenian kingdom , and of its place in the Middle East, and, perh aps most importantly, of the nature of the available sources, including those written from the Mamluk point of view, would be desirable.
While the well-known Armenian sources have been available in the Recueil des historiens des croisades: Documents armenienf'6 since the beginning of this century, and have been well used, in some cases they have been over-relied on, or followed too closely. Echoes of Hayton's Flor des estoires especially can be found in many works that touch on the kingdom, while this is an extremely tendentious work, designed to be a piece of propaganda. One recent writer even confuses the author of the Flor with his namesake who was then king of the Armenians." Unfortunately, the 'pro-Armenian' sources can be problematic, and, worse, the information they provide may be unclear or sparse. Many writers have sought to make use of some of the sources available from the 'other side' , from the Mamluk Sultanate, if only relying on translations, some of which themselves are rather problematic. All too often, however, writers have privileged the 'pro-Armenian' sources over the Arabic ones, using the latter merely for supporting detail. While editions of Arabic historical works from the Mamluk period have continued to be produced, and the works themselves and the historiography of the period in general to be studied with ever greater attentionj" many writers on the subject of Cilicia and its Armenian kingdom still rely exclusively on translations a century or more old. Nevertheless, the new studies and new editions can provide a new and largely unutilised body of source material. These sources can be mined for new information relevant to the history of the Armenian kingdom, to provide a greater breadth or depth to our knowledge of events, as well as, perhaps, new perspectives. The Arabic and 'pro-Armenian' sources can be used together, compared and contrasted, to provide what is hopefully a more reasonable and balanced view of the history of the relations of the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia and the Mamluk Sultanate.
Two works, by Canard and Scott, have looked in detail at this topic. Marius Canard's 'Le royaume d'Armenie-Cilicie ct les Mamelouks jusqu'au traite de 1285' appeared in 1967.59 Canard makes use of a wide range of Arabic sources." and Armenian sources in French or Russian translation . He is aware of the limitations of Armenian sources-such as Hayton's Flor61- and uses the Arabic sources both as a means of checking details given by the Armenians .f and as of value themselves. His method is to compare the accounts of different Arabic sources from the Mamluk Sultanate, with each other and with pro-Armenian sources, and then to propose a synthesis . He shows great awareness of the wider history of the region, relating events of direct concern to the Armenian kingdom to events , for example, concerning the Mongols-the history of the Armenian kingdom's relations with the Mamluks is also firmly placed within the context of the wider Mamluk-Mongol conflict. Canard's methodology in this article has served as a model and as an inspiration for the present work.F' Richard Scott's Master's thesis, "Mamluk-Armenian Relations during the Bahri Period to the Fall of SIs, 1250- 1375", also looks at this topic, but for a longer period." In his introduction, Scott notes the opinion of Dulaurier, the editor of the first Armenian volume of the Recueil des historiens des croisades, that "Arabic, Greek and Latin historians have left us much material on central and southern Syria, but little on Cilicia", but counters that "Arabic sources do indeed contain a good deal of information on Cilician Armenia, at least in as much as it came into contact with the Mamluks't.P Scott then continues to prove this point. His surveying of the primary source material is extremely impressivc.i" but th e analysis of events, understandably, is mu ch weaker and more simplistic than in Canard's article. His emphasis is on what the Arabic sources contain, not on trying to create a synthesis, or a conjunction between the Arabic and non-Arabic sources. While he does make use of the non-Arabic sources, his thesis is perhaps too reliant on th e Arabic texts, and on occasion could be improved by an increased input from other sourc es, or from increased knowledge of the topography (and toponymy) of the region. At tim es this makes him unaware, or at least reluctant to deal with, problems in the Arabic sou rces." H is thesis reads like an overview of what th e sources say, with little attempt to break up, and break down, the source material: he seems content to follow the path laid by each of the sources. At times he does not go into very great detail, and whi le he is very strong on the reigns of Baybars and Qalawun, the period from the death of th e latter to the murder of H et'um II is covered in on ly twelve pages.
The Arm enian kingdom did not exist in a vacuum, and it is important to consider the wider history of the region when consid ering its history." The end of the seventhlthirteenth century and the beginning of the eighth/ four teenth was clearly a very important period in the development of the Middle East. The period saw the rise to superpower status of the Mamluk Sultanate; the disappearance of the Scljuk Sultanate of Rum; the conversion of the Mongol Ilkhans, and the end of their policy of expansion into Syria ; and the extirpation of the Franks from the mainland of the Middle East. These years saw the reign in Cilicia of Het'um II, which was a turbulent period even by the standards of the Armenian kingdom. It marks a confirmation of the Armenian kingdom's inherent weakness before the might of the Mamluks, and important developments in the relationship of the Armenians and the Mongols. A study of the history of the Armenian kingdom and its relations with the Mamluks in this period should clearly be rewarding.
Sources
In this study I have sought to demonstrate the potential value of the Arabic sources from the Mamluk Sultanate, and I have limited myself to those that are widely available in printed editions. These sources have been the subject of some recent study, and I do not propose to look at them here in superfluous detail." Therefore, I will here only briefly introduce them, and the other sources I have consulted. Foremost among the Arabic sources I have used is al-'Aynl (762-855/ 1361-1451 ), a Cairene qa¢z, courtier and scholar. While a comparatively late source , his general history, the 'Iqd al-jumiin fi ta'rikh. ahl al-ramiin; reliably preserves the accounts of earlier writers, and at great length." He is not afraid to present versions of events that may be contradictory to each other, which allows us to reach our own conclusions. It is to be hoped that more volumes of the edition of the Tqd soon appear: fortunately, those already available just cover the period of the present work. Another, more famous , writer from the same era of use is al-Maqrfzf (766- 845/ 1364- 1442), a professional scholar in Cairo, and a rival of al-CAynf's. His history of the Ayyubid and Mamluk dynasties, the Kitab al-suluk li-ma'rija duwal al-muliik, is available for the period covered by this work both in a well-respected twentieth century edition, and in a mid-nineteenth century French translation." Doubts have been raised about the ultimate value of the Suliik, given al-Maqrfzl''s possibly questionable methodology," but it still remains useful, if only because of the amount of material collected therein. Closer to the period studied is Abu'l-Fida' (672-732/ 1273- 1331), author of a universal chronicle, al-Mukhtasarfi akhbiir al-bashar. His account, available in a recent English translation by Holt, is frequently that of an eyewitness: as an Ayyiibid prince, and later the ruler of Hama, he accompanied many important Mamluk military expeditions." It was not only his position that led to him being wellinformed, but also it seems an innate interest in politics and history: for example, he shows a surprising degree of knowledge concerning the internal affairs of the Armenian kingdom. Also contemporary to the events they describe were two Syrian writers, representatives of one of the important schools of Mamluk historiography, based in Damascus: al-jazari' (658- 739/1 260-1338) and al-Yuninf (640-726/ 1242-1326). Their chronicles are inextricably linked, and of great value ." It is unfortunate that al-jazari's Haxoadith al-ramiin is incomplete, and that al-Yuninf's Dhayl mir'iit alzaman fi ta'rikh. al-ayan is only partially available, and that mostly in unsatisfactory editions." Nevertheless, what is available is of some interest, and often appears to be a foundation for the versions of later writers, such as al-Maqnzi. Several other writers, all working in Egypt in the first half of the eighth/fourtcenth century, deserve mention. Mufaddal ibn Abr'lFada'il, a Copt, wrote a continuation to an earlier history entitled al-Nahj al-sadid wa'l-durr al-farid fima ba'd ta'ritdi Ibn al-iAmid, which covers the period 658-741/1260-1348. 77 We know little about Mufaddal, but his Nahj contains much interesting detail, and is distinguished by a coherent organisation. Ibn al-Dawadari is also a shadowy figure, but had connections with the Mamluk regime and may himself have been a Mamluk official. His universal chronicle, completed in 736/1335, the Durar al-tijan, is unpublished for this period, but his own abbreviation of it, the Kanr al-durar, has been edited." Better known are two slightly earlier writers who were themselves sources for those writing after, but whos e work is not fully ava ilable : Baybars al-Mansuri, and al-Nuwayri. The former was a Mam1uk general, who died in old age in 725/1325, the author of two main historical works , Zubdat al-jikra fi ta'rikh. al-hijra, covering the period up to 724/1324, and the shorter Tuifa al-tnulukiyya fi'ldawla al-turkiyya. Al-Nuwayri (677-733/ 1279-1333) was an administrator and then a professional scholar, the author of a vast cncyclopaedia, not all of which has been yet edited, Nihayat at-arab fi funun al-adab. Extracts from the work of both al-Nuwayri and Baybars alMansuri, covering the years 694 -98/1294-98, have been edited and published by Elham. " 'Izz al-Din Ibn Shaddad (6 13-84/1 217- 85), a biographer of Baybars, also wrote on the historical topography of Syria and the Jazira, in al-A'ldq al-khatira fi dhikr umard' al-Shiim wa'l-JaZ'ira. Relevant sections have recently been translated into French, by Edde-Terrasse ." T his has provided much background information on places mentioned in the sources, as well as some historical detail. Also of use have been the biographies collected by Ibn al-Suqa'I (died, in Damascus, in 726/1325), in the Talr kitab wafayat al-a)an. This has also recently been edited and translated into French." Foremost among the Armenian sources for this period must be La Flor des Estoires de la Terre d'Orient of Het'um, or Hayton, of Gorigos. This was actually dictated by Hayton in French, to a clerk who then translated it into Latin (Flos Historiarum Terre Orientis), for presentation to Pope Clement V, in August, 1307.82 The first thre e books describe the lands of the East , and deal with the history of the Mongols, including passages of some relevance for the history of the Armenian kingdom, many of which Hayton claims to be a witness to; the fourth book is essentially a treatise advocating a passagium aimed at recapturing the Holy Land." The intended Papal audience , the 'political' aim of the work, and Hayton's own involvement in the politics of both the Armenian kingdom and Cyprus," are all factors that lead the reader to question the reliability of the Flor. Nevertheless, bearing these problems in mind, the Flor does provide much information, which can in the least be compared with other sources. Hayton was also responsible for the brief and incomplete, though occasionally informative, entries in a 'Chronological Table', edited and translated into French from the Armenian by Dulaurier."
Another figure of some importance in the history of the Armenian kingdom who has left us, amongst other works, a chronicle based in part on eyewitness observation, is the Constable Smpad, 'the brother of Het'um 1. There have been recent French and English translations of this chronicle, but these versions end in the l270s: 86 Smpad himself died in 1276. The work was also translated by Dulaurier, in the Recueil des historiens des croisades, with an anonymous continuation up to the l330s, as the Chronicle ifthe Kingdom ifLittle Armenia." Many of the notices recorded by the continuer are very brief, but even these can be helpful. Other Armenian sources furnish the occasional detail. I have made use of two continuations of the chronicle of Samuel Anec'i, or Samuel of Ani. The details provided in the Chronography edited and translated by Dulaurier are generally, with the occasional exception, brief, but are much more full than the simple entries in the Chronological Tables translated by Brosset." Of some interest is the collection of Armenian manuscript colophons translated by Sanjian." These often help with points of dating and titles, for example, and by their nature give what are the frequently fascinating opinions on events of contemporary scribes. The shifting attitude of the Armenians to the Ilkhans is one area revealed by some of the extracts. The Gestes des Chiprois also adds some information of interest, for example relating to the Ilkhans' invasions of Syria, and even the internal affairs of the Armenian kingdom." The compiler of this, the author of the later section relevant here, who may have been a Templar, lived in Cyprus at the time covered in this work. Given this contemporary status, and the close relations between the Armenian and Cypriot kingdoms, it is well worth paying attention to his account. Another contemporary account is provided by the importantJacobite ecclesiastic known as Bar Hebraeus, who, from his studies and his posts, knew the Middle East well. He died in Maragha in 68511286, but his Syriac Chronography was continued, perhaps by his own brother, until 696/1297, and has been translated by Budge ." The accounts of visitors to the eastern Mediterranean, such as Jean de Joinville or Marco Polo, have also provided the occasional detail. 92 While 'historical' written sources are inevitably the mainstay of research into the Mamluks and the Armenian, other sources of information can also prove useful. The physical remnants of the Armenian kingdom can also contribute to an understanding of its history. It is clear that visiting the region, observing the terrain, and inspecting many of the important centres of the Armenian kingdom, can provide many importants insights, and contribute extremely positively to an understanding of the written sources. Also of some use in assessing the impact of the conflict with the Mamluks on the Armenian kingdom is the work of scholars looking at the coinage of the kingdom, notably Paul Bedoukian." Of the literary sources discussed here, the latter, 'pro-Armenian', ones are those traditionally used by historians of the Armenian kingdom. In this present work I am seeking to demonstrate the great potential value of other sources, the work of Arabic writers from the Mamluk Sultanate.
The Geography if the Armenian Kingdom The area settled by the Armenians emigrating from their ancestral homelands, the mountainous country in the southern Caucasus and to the north of Lake Van, in the tenth and subsequent centuries was much wider than the area later covered by the Armenian kingdom of the Rupenids and Het'umids, even when at its height. By the later eleventh century Armenian governors controlled a vast area, which included Malatya, Marash, Edessa and Antioch. Much of this territory later came under the control of the crusaders, but some was later included in the lands of the Armenian kingdom in the thirteenth century. Especially in the later thirteenth century, after Hulegu's conquests and distribution of lands, it is perhaps misleading to refer to the Armenian kingdom, centred in Cilicia as it was, as being merely "of Cilicia", or "Cilician": the Armenian king ruled lands away in the eastern Taurus mountains, to the banks of the Euphrates, in what is the extreme north of Syria. Throughout this thesis I have tried not to use these terms, and especially the 'Cilician Kingdom of Armenia' construction. I have sought to avoid the problem of the lack of a single geographical designation for the area covered by the kingdom by calling it the "Armenian kingdom". It should be noted that, of contemporary sources, only the 'Western' name the kingdom as "Armenia", such as the Gestes des Chiprois' reference to the "royaume d'Ermenie".Jean Dardel calls the region of the kingdom "la basse Armenye", as opposed to "la haulte Armenye", the Armenian homeland. Hayton, very interestingly, calls the kingdom Cilicia, but states that "verily, this province of Cilicia is known as Armenia"." Armenian writers, such as Samuel of Ani or the Constable Smpad, call the region Cilicia (Kilikia, Giligia, etc.), although the ruler himself may be termed "king of Armenia". The writers of the colophons collected by Sanjian, even those in Cilicia itself, call the province Cilicia, and its ruler the "king of the Armenians"; the legend on coins from the kingdom describes the ruler in the same way, or even as "king of all the Armenians"." The Arabic writers used in this work never call the kingdom 'Armenia', but always bildd sls, the "land of Sis", and at times merely SlS itself serves for the whole kingdom as well as its capital (a not uncommon, but potentially confusing practice); occasionally there is a reference to "the territory of the Armenians". While they are aware that he and his subjects are Arm enians, the king is called sahib sis, "lord of Sis", or even talfur malik sis, "Takfiir [doubtless a derivation of the Armenian for king, t'agawor] king of Sis".97 On this topic, it should be noted that it is difficult to establish which national or religious groups were resident in the Armenian kingdom . Hayton describes the inhabitants of his "kingdom of Syria", of which Cilicia is the fourth part, as "Greeks, Armenians,Jacobites, Nestorians, Saracens [in the Latin version only], and another two Christian nations , ... Syrians and Maronites", the latter two groups explained as Arabic-speaking, and following the Greek and Jacobite rites respectively;" but this does not help us with regard to the Armenian kingdom alone. The Arabic writers seem to refer only to Armenians as inhabitants of the kingdom: Armenian soldiers took part in the Mongol raid s; Armenian ambassadors were sent to the Sultan; the nobles of the kingdom were the "amirs of the Armenians'Y" castles are "in the land of the Arm enians",100 or are garrisoned by Armenians. While these are all references to nobles or soldiers, the Arabic sources also refer to Armenian s, presumably civilians, who gather in or near a castle in the face of Mamluk attack,101 and prisoners massacred by a Mamluk raiding party returning from Cilicia are those who had been "captured from the Armenians".' ?" The kingdom was the "land of th e Armeni ans" , its population the "Armenian people of Sis".103 Cilicia, nevertheless, was the main, and most important, part of the kingdom. Cilicia lies around and to the north and west of the Gulf of Alexandretta/Tskenderun, and the very north-eastern corner of the Medit erran ean Sea. To its north is the Anatolian plateau , Syria to the south and cast. The Cilician plain (Classical Cilicia Pedias, in Turkish Cukorova) is fertile, and in summer very hot: the climate is characteristically Mediterranean, and modem irrigation programmes have led to citrus plantations, and cotton is still a major product. The plain is drained by two main rivers and their tributaries, the Seyhan (Arabic Sayhan, Classical Sarus) and the Ceyhan (Armenian Chahan, Arabic ]aylJan, Classical Pyramus). The main cities of the area lie in this plain, Tarsus, Adana (farther west, on the Seyhan), Msis (T urkish Misis, Arabic al-Massisa, Classical Mopsuestia or Mamistra, on the Ceyhan), Sis (today Kozan, to the north), and Ayas (Classical Aigai, Turkish Yumurtahk) on the west side of the Gulf of Alexandretta.'?' However, at the time of the Armenian kingdom, it seems that these cities, with the possible exception of Ayas, were often little more than trading depots, with only small populations sheltering within dilapidated walls: 105 it is likely that the kingdom was overwhelmingly rural in its population, and that this was more concentrated in the mountain valleys than the plain.l'" It is possible that it was the small population of the Cilician cities that enabled them to be so repeatedly sacked by Mamluk armies: they only maintained a low level of urbanisation, that was easier to revive than would have been a more sophisticated settlement.
While the Cilician plain is largely flat, with only the occasional outcrop (as at AnawarzalAnavarza/'Ayn ZarbalAnazarbos), the mountains that separate it from the rest of what is today Turkey are imposing, densely forested, and difficult to cross. In the west of Cilicia the Taurus mountains extend close to the coast, and the main settlements occur where a valley enters the sea, as with the Goksu/Calycadnus at Silifke (Seleucia). Other important ports in this region include Anamur to the west and Kizkalesi (Armenian Gorigos, Classical Korykos or Corycus) just to the east of Silifke. This mountainous area is very isolated, and even the modern road that skirts the coast from Alanya to Silifke is extremely winding, and still in places very rough, doubtless where landslides have caused damage or diversion. While a road from Silifke heads north up the canyon of the Goksu towards Karaman and Konya (Ikonion), the main road into Cilicia from the north-west, in the historical period as well as today, runs through the "Cilician Gates" (or FylfE CilicifE) north of Tarsus.'?" Sis itself is at the southern end of another, minor, route across the mountains, north past Vahga (one of the earliest fortresses of the Rupenids in Cilicia, today Feke Kalesi). The great rivers that cut through the mountains from Cappadocia run through steep gorges, and the viable passes, then as now, often avoid what might seem the obvious routes along the river valleys.l'" To the east of Cilicia, the mountains, while still imposing, are not so impassible, and there are minor routes through the eastern Taurus, such as that from Kadirli, east of Sis, to Marash and thence to Goksun or Elbistan.'!? The Amanus range (the Nur Daglan or Jabal al-Lukkam), though less impressive tha n the Taurus, still acts as a barrier to the south-eastern side of Cilicia. While there are other routes, under ideal conditions, across these mountains from Syria, in practice there are only two imp ortant passes. The pass of Belen or the "Syrian Gates" is the southerly of the two, and is guarded on its eastern side by the castle of Baghras, from which comes the name often given the pass by Arabic writers.II I In order to enter Cilicia proper from this pass, a traveller must also go through the Portella, a defile between the mountains and the coast north of Alexandretta.!" At the northern end of the range is the pass called the "Amanian [or 'Amanus] Gates" (or Pylte Amanides, known to the Arm enians as the pass of M ari, and containing the important castle of Saruantik'ar (Savranda). The modern equivalent to this pass, slightly to the north of the media-val route, contains the main highway between Adana and Antep. !" While the mountains are breached by these passes, they also contain remote valleys, accessible by narrow winding roads through the forested slopes. One such valley, significant in the history of the Armenians of Cilicia as the base of the Het'umid rivals to the Rup enids, is that dominated by the castle of Lampron (Namrunkale), southwest of the Cilician Gates, but divided from them by the mountains. The Taurus mountains contain many such castles, more isolated even than Lampron.!'" The castle-towns in the valleys of th e eastern T aurus, such as Marash and Behesni, were also important outpo sts of the Armenian kingdom at the end of the thirteen th century, and, as with many of even the most isolated fortresses, these were on important routes of communication and trade. Within the Cilician plain itself, other castles are to be found on isolated outcrops, as at Anawarza, YI1an Kalesi, T'il Hamdun, or Tumlu Kalesi. These dominate the country, and are intervisible, obviously a potential aid to communication in the case of invasion. The castle of Sis itself is perched on an outcrop just south of the mountains proper, and other castles- Tumlu and Anawarza, for example-are visible from it.I IS Quite apart from the fertility of the Cilician plain, a major source of income for the Armenian kingdom derived from the trade that passed through.'!" Caravans using the passes into Cilicia could be taxed, but Cilicia also, more importantly, provided Ayas, the port that for a time, after the decline of the Crusader states, and before the disintegration of both the Mongol Ilkhanate and the Armenian kingdom itself, was the terminus of the great trade routes to the East. At the other end of the plain, Gorigos (Korykos), like Ayas defended by both land and sea castles, was much less important. In the Media-val period it is likely that at times Tarsus, and even Adana and Msis, may have been accessible to boats sailing up each city's river. Given the build up of land caused by silt deposits from the great rivers these cities would then have been closer to the sea, but the lower reaches of these rivers were then even more marshy and shallow than now, and it seems that, especially in the period covered in this work, Ayas was by far and away the most important port.'! ' Much of what we know of the commercial life of the Armenian kingdom comes from surviving documents from the Italian mercantile cities.'!" The Genoese and Venetians were granted trading privileges in the kingdom from the beginning of the thirteenth century, and each had a representative (a 'consul' or 'bayle') in the kingdom. Ayas was also frequented by traders from Sicily, Catalonia, Montpellier, and Pisa, and housed representatives of the great Tuscan commercial companies.!" Perhaps inevitably, Ayas had especially close links with Famagusta in Cyprus, and it seems much of Ayas' trade flowed through that city alsO. 120 The Western merchants exported not only the spices carried overland from India and the far East (such as pepper, ginger, indigo and brasil wood), but also the produce of Cilicia itself, such as cotton. When not forbidden by the Papal embargo on trade in military supplies with the Mamluks, the Italians also carried wood and iron, the products of the Taurus forests, to Syria and Egypt. From the West the merchants carried finished cloth to Cilicia, for re-export to Konya, Tabriz and beyond, and also grain, oil, and wine.!" Famous Italian merchants that passed through Cilicia include Marco Polo, and Francesco Balducci Pegolotti (as late as 1336). The topography of the Armenian kingdom was extremely varied. The high forested mountains, drier in the east, with steep-sided valleys, provided the home and place of refuge for the majority of the Armenian population. As in the Armenian homeland, the Armenian nobility resided in their castles, rather than in towns. This is in marked contrast to the Frankish settlers in the Crusader States, and, even, Turkish immigrants to the dar at-islam such as the Mamluks themselves, for example. While a source of strength, the mountain base for the kingdom, and the scattered settlement of the nobility, may have contributed to their fissiparous tendencies, and may have militated against coordinated defence . The far-flung nature of some of the kingdom's outposts would also have contributed to these defensive problems. The hot, fertile plain was a source of wealth, but its exposure to enemy incursions prohibited much development: the kingdom followed a "non-urban strategy", 122 based on control of fortified outcrops, and on retreat to the mountains.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق