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 70 Next page Smaller font Larger font Print friednly version  
The Armenian Feudal Lords and their Role

The point at which great Armenia lost its independence is a good time to look again at the Armenian nobility and its role in the history of Armenia. It was, after all, this class that was mainly responsible for the disappearance of independent Armenia. The nobiility would also play an important role over the coming centuries, regardless whether they were under Sasanid or Arabic occupation, in Armenia during the rule of the Bagratouni dynasty or in the New Armenia (Cilicia).

Since the beginning of its history, Armenia had because of the natural physical barriers within the country and also because of constant external threat, developed a special social military society which in Europe came to be known as the feudal social system. The arable lands belonged either to the king, the church or the nobility. The noble classes consisted of the higher nobility which later came to be called princes, or ishkhan, and ruled over entire provinces which they also owned ; the ordinary nobility which consisted of barons, or nakharar, who owned parts of provinces; and finally the lesser nobility who owned the their own city or village.

All these families lived in great fortified castles described by Tacitus . Their history is similar to the clans in Scotland.

During the 4th century the most prominent noble families were the following: Mamikonian in which the military command of Armenia was invested. Their lands consisted of Taron (present-day Moush), Manazkert (some parts of present Bitlis), Bagrevand (Alashkert) and Arsharounik (southern Kars). The shape of the area under their influence was oblong and constituted one quarter of the total area of Armenia. Their main castle was the Vorhagan which was on the highland of Moush. The Artzrouni family, owned the province of Vaspourakan, south of Lake Van. The Rshtouni family owned the area southwest of the Lake Van (present-day Gharesou, Moks and Shatakh). The Gnouni family owned the province of Spian, north of Lake Van. The princes in the Siuni family owned the province with the same name (present-day Siunik and Zangezour). The Kamsarakan family owned the Vanand province (plain of Kars) and the region of Shirak. And finally the Bagratouni family owned large scattered parts in Ispir (near Baibort), Maku and Nakhichevan. 93

The royal family owned large lands as well, especially in the provinces of Ararat and Yerevan.

As long as there were competent kings of firm character, such as the early kings of the Artashesian dynasty (Artashes I, Artavazd I, Tigran II and Artavazd III), ruling in Armenia, these noble families were disciplined and served their country, but under weaker regimes the country devolved into a purely feudal society. Guizot summarised this society, which, although it had the advantage of forcing civilisation out of barbarism also resulted in the prevention any organised solidarity. "And since it places all its importance on individualism, it can never enjoy political continuity 94". One of the greatest characteristics of feudal society was the impossibility of distinguishing between common and individual rights.