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 66 Next page Smaller font Larger font Print friednly version  
Armenia During the Last Arsacid Kings (330-428)

Tirdat III died after a long reign, a phenomenon which was quite rare at the time. The events which came to characterize his reign were often sad, for instance the two occasions when he was compelled to leave the country when Armenia was attacked by enemies. But there were also heroic deeds and glorious events, among them the acceptance of Christianity. There are rumours which claim that Tirdat III was murdered during a hunting trip as a result of a Sasanid plot.

After the death of Tirdat III Armenia went through a difficult part of its history. The prime cause of its suffering was ignorance among the Armenian leaders themselves and their internal conflicts, but also external factors played their part, especially the increased Sasanid power and the weakening of the Roman Empire. 50 It was not long before the Roman Empire was divided into two separate empires: the Western Roman Empire which would disintegrate under the attacks of the northern tribes, and the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, which never was able to enjoy the strength of its predecessor and whose policies often wavered unlike those of the Roman Empire.

But blame for the internal conflicts of Armenia can mainly be laid at the feet of the disobedient and undisciplined Armenian higher nobility. Armenia, because of the nature of its physical landscape and the constant external threats it experienced, had reverted to feudalism. This happened through the re-emergence of a powerful noble class who, despite its courage, weakened the country with constant conflict and hunger for power.

This hierarchy heralded a regime which Europe would later become familiar with during the Middle Ages, a period when local loyalties replaced the notion of nationhood, divided the country and degraded the ruling central power. During this period members of the nobility were either at war against one another or against the king and none of them was ready to ally himself with the others or to call for their aid. At the same time, exactly as in all other feudal societies, the common people were deprived of their rights which prevented the creation of a closely united nation and an organised, central power.

In addition to these weaknesses were the conflicts that prevailed between the Armenian court and the church. Since the position of the Catholicos was inherited from father to son and the church possessed enormous assets it could not be regarded as merely a spiritual institution, but as a strong power base which could compare itself to the royal court and sometime even dared to oppose it.

In this manner, the Armenian Church differed markedly from the Eastern Roman church. Officials of the Byzantine Church were considered to be in the service of the emperor, in effect his servants,, while the Armenian Church was more like the western churches and characterised by countless conflicts between its priests.

And finally, Armenia for 300 years was unfortunate enough to be ruled by a number of kings who lacked courage, bravery and political knowledge. The war against Sasanid Persia was at the time turning into a decisive duel and the country needed to be ruled by courageous and competent kings.