A mountainous landscape with a system of partly connected valleys often engenders a greater striving for independence among the local population, and encourages differences of opinion between local aristocratic families, which in their turn become very protective of their own rights and privileges. This can often delay the establishment of a strong central government.
Such a situation evidently arose in Armenia. Its mountainous landscape made it difficult to establish a powerful central royal rule, a power which could tame the local separatist noble families and gather all the powers in the country under one flag against any external threat.
As F. W. Bussel pointed out "The tribal feelings, the pride and the dedication which became the ground for the creation of different tribes and, later, the feudal system, is one of the obvious characteristics of Armenian society. One should not at all be surprised by the fact that among the equally strong and like-minded noble families, there was not one that could raise themselves above the others and control them. In a proud feudal society of this kind there can only be a dynasty of foreign rulers, because no member of that society will ever obey another member who is equal to himself. The sorrows, the sufferings and the disputes, like the living force in the Armenian people, have their source in this strong pride and envy." 21
The destruction and the competition between the major noble families and their subsequent outcomes resulted in the inability of the Armenians to maintain a political existence of their own and was the reason for the loss of their independence. Even their enemies confirmed this: "The Armenians are neither suited for ruling over their own country nor for living as an obedient nation under the rule of a foreign power."
However such an analysis is highly superficial and does not take into consideration the geographical situation of Armenia and the significance which this has had on the history of the country. Professor Raul Blanchard, a reputed French historian, wrote that: "The inhabitable areas in Armenia, which like isolated islands have been separated from each other and the outer world by high mountains, cannot cooperate with one another in order to maintain economic development." 22 One can add that they also could not coordinate a common defence against an external enemy.
Paul Rohrbach, one of the foremost Armenian researchers, described this as follows:: "… it is the topography of Armenia that has during its history limited the defence of the country against external attack both from the east and the west. Armenia is, in reality, divided by mountains in vital regions (e.g. the Araxes valley, a region which stretches from Bayazid to Erzurum and the area around Lake Van) and communication between these areas is difficult. When these are attacked from outside, they cannot concentrate all of the countrys forces quickly enough in one area." 23
There are many other examples in history where the mountainous topography of a region has inhibited its independence by preventing the establishment of an powerful central administration which could organise a defence against an invading army. As Nansen pointed out, Norway, which is a mountainous country, has for many centuries been under foreign rule.
|
