Map Close  
Person info Close  
Information Close  
Source reference Close  
  Svenska
 
Previous page Page 95 Next page Smaller font Larger font Print friednly version  
The lands were not equally distributed among the landowners, resulting in three distinct classes into which the nobility was divided. The first of these were the lesser nobility, consisting of the so called azatani (free men) and the sepouh, who owned a small hamlet or village.

In the second grouping was the baron, or the nakharar, who beside his special properties and estates, had the right of controlling a region in which the lesser nobility obeyed him and were regarded as his subjects, and in fact constituted his army. These nakharars constituted the core of the feudal system in Armenia. 69 Each of them ruled over the lesser nobility who regarded him as the natural ruler and military leader. These feudal soldiers who served the nakharar numbered around two hundred riders. If the nakharar needed more soldiers, he would use his villagers or call in the villagers of his subjects and thereby could gather a group which were regarded as guerrilla fighters.

The nakharar had total control within his territories and they belonged exclusively to him. He was the supreme legal judge in this area with the lives of his subjects in his hands, and he could exercise his power on any person at any time. Even during the periods when there was a ruling king in the country, the nakharars sustained this right as local judge. 70

Inheritance among the nakharars was structured in such a way that the oldest son was regarded as the political heir of the father. He also kept the most important parts in his realm, namely the family residence which was considered as the centre of the region and belonged to his forefathers. Nevertheless, some times there were divisions which were to the advantage of the other sons, in which fragments of the oldest son's territory was given away to other heirs, something which ultimately resulted in the division of the lands. 71

In the third group, above the nakharars ruled the high nobility, the princes, or ishkhans, who each owned an entire province. Each province consisted of several regions and the ishkhans ruled over all the nakharars in these regions. Armenia at that time consisted of several principalities, among which the households of Mamikonian, Rshtouni, Gnouni, Artzrouni, Bagratouni, Kamsarakan and Siuni were the most powerful ones and were independent, continuing this independent life even during the reign of the Persians and the Arabs.

In the great noble families, the oldest son was the person who inherited power of rule in the province: this power was not subject to division amongst brothers. However, advantageous divisions, which were common among the nakharars, also occurred amongst the ishkhans, so that when the house of Bagratouni and Artzrouni, during the 10th century took over the Armenian throne after a king's death, the country was divided among the sons of the dead king a decisive and unfortunate event for Armenia, which more than anything was in need of unity.



This feudal society which we just have described encompassed the whole population of Armenia, except the clergy and the members of the higher classes (bourgeois) who lived in the cities. The cities were separate from the feudal world. The cities of Armenia had had, since Ancient time (apparently from the reign of Vologuése II), their own administrative autonomies and guerrilla fighters which they commanded themselves. It was only the ishkhans who ruled over the provinces or the principalities who had sufficient "military and political power to be able to have influence over the bourgeois and the priests of the cities in order to request from them military and economical assistance in case of war." 72