Map Close  
Person info Close  
Information Close  
Source reference Close  
  Svenska
 
Index

Armenia

The Urartu Civilisation

Victory for Independence

Artashisian Dynasty on the Armenian Throne

Armenia caught between Rome and the Arsacids

The Acceptance of Christianity

Defending Christianity

Armenia Under the Bagratouni Dynasty

Cilicia - the New Armenia

Armenia Under Turanian Rule

The Renaissance or the Resurrection of Armenia

The Eastern Question

Russia in the Caucasus

The Armenian Question

Battle on Two Fronts

Tsarist Russia Against the Armenians

The Revolution of the Young Turks and the Armenian People on the Eve of World War I

The First World War

The Resurrection of Armenia

Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

- Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

Eastern Armenia

Western Armenia

"The Fateful Years" (1914-1917)

"Hopes and Emotions" (March-October, 1917)

The Bolshevik Revolution and Armenia

Transcaucasia Adrift (November, 1917

Dilemmas (March-April, 1918)

War and Independence (April-May, 1918)

The Republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia

The Suppliants (June-October, 1918)

In conclusion

Soviet Armenia

The Second Independent Republic of Armenia

Epilogue

Previous page Page 115 Next page Smaller font Larger font Print friednly version  
Military Aspects

Two factors determined the independence of Bagratouni Armenia: the size of its own army, and the hostility between Byzantine and the Arabs as the own strength of Armenia.

We have earlier seen how Ashot I was capable of gathering an army of 40,000 men ready for combat, consisting of a feudal force and soldiers enlisted from the peasants and guerrilla-fighters. 99 During the succession of warrior kings on the Bagratouni throne, this army proved its value during several different wars and its vital role in maintaining the independence of Armenia.

This army grew constantly and during the reign of Ashot III it consisted of 90,000 men equipped for combat. 100 An army of this size Armenia had not seen since the times of Tigran II and was an impressive number at that time – an indicator that the Bagratouni Armenia was a major power in the region.

Indeed, the great empire of Byzantine never exceeded 150,000 even during the peak of its power, and in general reached around 100,000.

Moreover, the Byzantine army was a professional army, consisting of mercenaries, whilst the army of Bagratouni Armenia was a national army consisting of its armed people.

This military power would have been sufficient to uphold the independence of Armenia, but from the end of the 10th century, the separation of the provinces of Lori and Kars from Armenia and the foundation of the new independent states, meant also a division of the Armenian army. Although the Armenia of Ani was the symbol and the representative for the whole of Armenia, it could no longer command its former military strength.

Despite these divisions, Bagratouni Armenia was still able to stand victorious against its enemies and it was only when it was forced to fight on two fronts, against Byzantine in the west and the Turanians in the east, that it was forced to its knees. At the same time, the treason of Catholicos Petros was a pivotal factor in the division of Armenia. This period spanning several decades of conflicts in which Armenia withstood assaults from all directions, is one of the proudest in Armenian history.

This is especially true considering that during these battles and during future periods, the Turanians had a conspicuous advantage over the Armenians and the peoples in the Middle East. Unlike nowadays, when the military strength of a country often translates into success in its economic and social position in the world, this was not the case during the Middle Ages. Before the invention of fire-weapons, tent-living nomadic people, such as the Turanians, wielded enormous power since their whole army, which sometimes consisted entirely of riders, was much more mobile compared to the more developed armies, such as those in Armenia, Greece, Persia, the countries in the Balkans and Europe, and even in China, where the major part of the forces consisted of residing peasants.

In comparison to these peasant forces, who could only move slowly to threatened areas, the tent-living armies, with their quick riders, had a remarkable advantage. It was this mobility which explains the successes of the plundering expeditions of these nomadic people, the Huns in Europe, the Turks in the Middle East, 11th century and in the west and the Mongols in the east and the Far East. 101