The ideology of this type of society could be described as follows: the members of this union of nobles were ready to acknowledge the authority of the king, pay their taxes to him and in time of war provide him with their own forces. These rebellious Armenian noblemen were ready to do anything in their power for their king and sacrifice their lives for their country. They did not fear death especially when they were on the offensive. However, they considered their obligations to end there and as soon as they had fulfilled their part of the bargain they expected to be regarded as the undisputed master and owner of their own lands and no one was allowed to interfere in their affairs.
We have earlier compared the Armenian social system of that time to the feudal society in Europe during the Middle Ages. In reality the rights and liberties of the Armenian feudal lords were much greater and broader than those in Europe, and as Laurent pointed out, the Armenian nobility, in the prevailing intense chaos, had forgotten that their lands had originally been gifts which their forefathers had received from the king. Instead they were under the impression that these lands had always been the property of their families and were in no way the result of the decision of a central power. Instead of, as in west, requesting acknowledgement from the king, the nobility in Armenia had devolved so far that they did not even wish to submit to the king. In their eyes their roles had begun to shift until they thought that it was they who should recognise the king and the government of the country and not the other way round.
Consequently we find an exaggerated version of the western feudal system in Armenia. As soon as a province, regardless if it was a gift from the king or a battle trophy, ended up in the hands of a noble family it was regarded as their personal property over which the central government had no say. It was not required that the king transfer it to the next generation in that family. 95 Besides, the nobility regarded the king purely as the symbolic head of their union of nobles, and no more. This class thought that if it was not able to choose a king and had to recognise one that did not belong to its family, it had the right to refuse to obey that king and to do everything in its power, even seek the assistance of a foreign power, to countermand the king in order to prevent him from strengthening his central rule and limiting its own rights.
In this way the feudal system of Armenia resulted, unfortunately, in the weakening of the central power and with it the entire country. It encouraged the nobles to do everything in their power to maintain their own rights and they searched for allies who supported them, even if it meant that these allies were found among foreigners. "The nakharars let the Arshakouni and the Arsacid dynasties go under, since it was nonessential who sat on the Armenian throne, an Armenian or a foreigner, provided that the regal incumbent did not attempt to increase his central power and provided that the nobility could do exactly as it wished with its properties, without the king meddling in their affairs" 96
When the Armenians, during the wars in the 4th century AD, found themselves up against a strong and treacherous opponent in the shape of the Sasanid Shapour II, who augmented his image of ruthlessness by making empty and false promises, their feudalism constituted an extreme threat against the security and integrity of the country. It was during these decisive battles that two of the foremost personalities among the Armenian nobility, one from the Mamikonian and the other from the Artzrouni, families, went over to the enemy side because of their hatred of the king and, in their eagerness for acquiring the throne for themselves fought beside the enemy against their fatherland.
|
