These events, together with a number of assassinations of kings at the hands of the Armenian nobility which took place during the last centuries of independence for great Armenia, cast a dark shadow on that part of the country's history.
At the same time we should point out that there are many similar examples elsewhere during the Middle Ages as well as in modern history, e.g. in France and Germany where leading noble families betrayed their king and allied themselves with the enemy.
On the other hand, it was the very same noble families who, with their heroism and courage, constituted much of the strength of the country. When Armenia later lay under the rule of the Arabs or the Persians, it was these families who still kept their self-governing skills and were able to maintain the Armenian provinces. 97 Moreover, Armenia's fame spread when these feudal lords displayed their knowledge and competence by leading foreign legions in the armies of Persia, Byzantine and the Arab Empire.
When foreign powers tried to force their own ways upon Armenian customs and religion the people rose up and it was once more this noble class who led the revolts. This class, side by side with the church, maintained and defended the identity of the Armenian people and managed twice to regain the independence of Armenia: firstly during the 9th century A.D. as Armenia under the rule of the Bagratouni dynasty and a second time during the 11th century by founding the New Armenia or Cilicia.
Feudalism came to play a decisive role in the weakening of the people through its influence on the political atmosphere of the country. Under the Persians and the Arabs, the independence of Armenia was made impossible by the fact that the nobility was given almost unlimited powers of self-government. This allowed the occupying powers to play one family off against the other, something which prevented the families from uniting their forces against the common external enemy. "They (the higher nobility) still acted according to the old feudal habits, i.e. the survival of each and every one of them was the main task of their subjects instead of concentrating all their forces on serving the people and working in one direction. And in this way the enemy was constantly able to seize the opportunity of turning one group against the others." 98
And finally we should point out that even though the idea of creating different classes of society, with a powerful noble class whose members are allocated separate and specific tasks, is not exclusive to the Indo-European people, it is still one of their most distinct characteristics, and that in its turn is obvious proof of the similarity between the Armenian people and their western relatives.
This way of thinking cannot be observed to the same extent among the Semitic and Turkic people 99 Among these there is one central power and one powerful leader. At the same time the different classes have much less authority but their equality is much greater. This equality may be under slavish circumstances, but it is still equal.
One could say that the major weakness in the history of great Armenia, the weakness which caused the end of the country's several years as a kingdom, was the lack of a central administrative power. This weakness also existed in the Roman Empire, but in another form, and also caused the fall of that empire. The Byzantine Empire may have existed much longer than its predecessor, but it was thanks to the fact that they were compelled to find a solution for their existing deficiencies and correct themselves according to the demands of that time. The solution consisted of strengthening the central power by introducing an absolute dictator. According to P. Lemerle: "In this enormous empire which consisted of many different people and had not managed to spread the advantages of membership of the community, there was no other way than to introduce a dictator."
|
