Материал: Payaslian S., The History of Armenia From the Origins to the Present

after removing Smbat.19 Realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation in this case prevailed over personal ambition and self-glorification, and Gagik Artsruni threw his lot with Ashot II.

ASHOT II ERKAT

No sooner had Ashot II (r. 915–928/9) secured the throne than he launched successive military campaigns to consolidate power over his domain and commenced a new era of reconstruction in Greater Armenia, although like his predecessor his capabilities were severely tested by domestic and external threats. His first objective was to remove Yusuf and Arab military presence from his dominion, and with the support of his brother Abas and Gagik Artsruni of Vaspurakan, Ashot II liberated Bagratuni lands. He relied on piecemeal operations and guerrilla warfare tactics to launch surprise attacks on the Muslim armies stationed in urban centers and rural areas. Armenian commando units raided the forts and garrisons under Arab control, as in Bagrevand, Shirak, Gugark, and Tashirk. The battles quickly spread from the northern and southeastern regions, including Ani, Dvin, and Siunik, to the west and south in Vaspurakan and the Lake Van basin. His military successes earned him the title of Erkat (Iron) and so enhanced his prestige that most of the nakharar families—with the exception of his cousin, Ashot Shapuhian— forged alliances under his leadership.20

Such unity among the Armenian elite did not deter foreign invaders from Iberia at the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains in the north. In efforts to check potential vulnerabilities against Yusuf, Iberian forces invaded Armenia from the north and pushed as far south as the plains of Ararat, in the process destroying and plundering the land and people. According to the tenth-century Catholicos Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi:

They devastated many provinces and turned them into deserts, untrodden and barren, almost like a land through which men had never passed, and where the Son of Man had never dwelt. Thus, they turned the habitable places into wasteland . . . . Thus, through us the prophesy of Isaiah came to its fulfillment: ‘Your country is desolate, your cities are burned by fire; strangers devour your land in your presence; it is made desolate, and overthrown by foreign nations.’21

The destruction had a strategic purpose, as it sought to render a military march by Yusuf to Caucasian Iberia logistically unfeasible, if not absolutely impossible. The geopolitical situation was exacerbated when Ashot Shapuhian took advantage of the crisis to ally himself with Yusuf in exchange for coronation as king at Dvin.22

The successes registered by Ashot II and the international prestige gained in the process appeared to be unraveling when Byzantium, realizing the potential challenge Yusuf posed to its own security in the absence of an Armenian buffer, encouraged closer relations with Ashot II. Patriarch Nicholas Mysticos and Catholicos Hovhannes arranged a meeting in Constantinople for Ashot II to promote Byzantine-Armenian alliance and Christian unity against the Muslim invaders. Ashot II visited Constantinople in 914 and found the Byzantine military favorably disposed toward such a cooperation. He returned with Byzantine forces, but the latter soon withdrew before any direct engagement with the enemy.23

Ashot II began to restrengthen his position after two years (918–920) of wars with Ashot Shapuhian at Dvin and established his rule in Utik, Gardman, and all of western Siunik. In Siunik, he assisted Prince Vasak and his family to return home in Gegharkunik and subsequently launched a major military campaign to remove the Arabs and other Muslims from the region. Ashot II timed his Siunik campaign to take advantage of the political crisis experienced by Yusuf. The latter’s political adventures and ambitions had eventually pitted him directly against the caliph alMuktadir in Baghdad, whose forces, after a brief war in 918–919, arrested Yusuf and imprisoned him in Baghdad for four years. The removal of Yusuf as the archenemy certainly relieved the Armenian monarchy and its supporters. For Ashot Shabuhian, however, Yusuf’s removal as a political force also meant the elimination of a protective shield against Ashot II. Unable to devise alternative means to maintain his position at Dvin, Ashot Shabuhian approached the Bagratuni king for reconciliation. Ashot II was the Bagratuni king but also represented the Armenian monarchy, he conceded. Ashot II appeared to have secured stability at home, and his position grew stronger when Sbuk, Yusuf’s successor as ostikan, in part because of personal disposition but also as instructed by Baghdad, conferred the title of shahanshah (king of kings) upon him, further enhancing the legitimacy of the Bagratuni kingdom.24

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The traditional Armenian social structure prevailed during the Bagratuni era. The monarchy represented the apex of power as a hereditary institution. The king was recognized as the shahanshah over his domain, encompassing both Christian and Muslim subjects, and his success or failure as a ruler rested mainly on his personal leadership qualities. Despite years of political upheaval, the social hierarchies, as inherited from the Arshakuni period, had survived. They consisted of the nakharar classes, the knights,

the church, the military, urban workers, peasants, and slaves.25 The royal court consisted of palace advisers and the royal ministries. The former comprised of the most loyal and prominent nobles and members of the Bagratuni dynasty who advised the king on matters of policy and administration. The royal ministries included the sparapetutiun, hazarapetutiun, tagadir, chief of the royal escort, administrator of the royal treasury and fortresses, and the high court.

The Bagratunis also revived the Armenian legal system and philosophy of jurisprudence as developed during the Arshakuni kingdom. The royal ministry of justice investigated and administered cases involving high crimes, offenses against the crown and royal offices, and cases between nakharars and the crown, while the lower courts under the governors of gavars and minor princes heard cases involving urban dwellers and peasants. Slaves had no access to the courts.26 The Bagratuni judicial system consisted of civil and criminal law, which was governed by the same legal principles as under the previous Armenian kingdom. In civil cases, the principle of restitution applied, enabling the plaintiff to recover the material conditions enjoyed prior to the grievous act involved. In criminal cases, the royal ministry of justice or the lower offices under the nakharars and regional feudal lords heard and administered material and physical punishment, including revocation of privileges and honors, such as estates and titles granted by the monarchy, and corporal and capital punishment. In civil cases, the defendant assumed the burden of proof; in criminal cases, that obligation rested with the plaintiff.

Legal evidence consisted of confession, witness accounts, documents, and expert opinion. The legal philosophy of Mekhitar Gosh (1130-1213), author of the famed Datastanagirk (code of laws), reflected developments in Armenian jurisprudence during the Bagratuni and the Cilician eras. He maintained that representation should be limited to family members who would be most familiar with the parties involved. In theory, poor and rich had equal standing before the law, but in actual practice, the judicial system favored wealthier classes. Moreover, the legal system placed several restrictions, as for instance pertaining to witnesses: They had to be male, twenty-five years of age, of good standing in the community and knowledgeable about its affairs, and Christian in cases of involving Christians.27

Mekhitar Gosh also integrated in his legal philosophy issues related to family, marriage, property, and religion. The Bagratuni period, like its predecessors, restricted the rights of women in all aspects of public life, including legal matters. The Justinianic reforms had granted the right of inheritance to daughters but had not extended similar rights to other areas, as women were considered too emotional and too erratic in judgment. To Gosh, women inherently possessed no more than half the value

of men. Most marriages were arranged by parents, and it was not uncommon for the bride and the groom to meet each other for the first time at the altar. The husband had to be older than his wife so as to control her effectively, yet if a man suffered from sexual impotence, his wife could decide to stay with him or else divorce him, in which case she could reclaim her ozhit (dowry). A wife, however, could not remarry without permission from her former husband, although no such restrictions were placed on him. Concerning domestic violence, Gosh maintained that the victimized woman could not leave her husband even if he caused severe bodily harm. She could, however, divorce him if he abandoned his Christian faith. The views expressed by Gosh reflected the concerns of the Armenian Church regarding marriages with foreigners, particularly Muslims, which had occurred with greater frequency since the Justinianic reforms and the Arab invasions. Such marriages, the church maintained, threatened the wealth and power of the nakharar houses and weakened the Armenian family both spiritually and materially, as it removed the individual and his or her inheritance from the Christian community.28

TRADE AND ECONOMY

Political stability at home and good relations with the major powers encouraged commercial relations, integrating the economy of Armenia with regional and wider international trade and financial networks. Trade relations expanded considerably with Byzantium, the caliphate, and the Far East, and economic growth led to rapid urbanization. Roads were constructed connecting principal commercial cities, such as Ani, Kars, and Dvin, with cities in Arab lands, Persia, the Caucasus, and on the shores of the Black Sea. The economies of smaller cities, such as Bagaran, Erevan, Koghb, Garni, and Talin, contained markets and shops for the distribution of agricultural goods both produced in nearby villages and imported.

During the Bargatuni era, about fifty cities existed. The population of large cities ranged from between 25,000 and 100,000, of medium size cities between 10,000 and 20,000, and of small towns from 3,000 to 9,000. In the largest cities—Ani, Kars, and Dvin—the population exceeded 100,000.29 Medieval Armenian cities were similar to most cities in Muslim Asia at the time. Following the Persian tradition, they were made of three parts: kuhenduz (the citadel), sharistan (the city), and rabad (the suburbs). The ruling aristocracy lived in the sharistan, while the lower classes lived in the rabad. For example, the inner part of the city of Ani included the citadel and the palace, while most of the population lived outside of the walls of the city.30 The ruling elite generally preferred to live in isolated and fortified communities and maintained minimum direct contact with

their subjects. Feudal lords residing in the cities maintained military units for physical security and protection of property. They paid the soldiers for their services, which, in addition to imposing law and order, included supervision of laborers during construction, escorting tax collectors, and arresting and punishing the rebellious, disobedient, and delinquent.31 The urban population also included the clergy. By the early eleventh century, the higher clergy, with the support of the monarchy, had gained enormous wealth and power. Catholicos Petros I Getadardz, who occupied the patriarchal throne from 1019 until the fall of Ani in 1058, is said to have owned and controlled as much land, serfs, farm animals, and money as most of the leading feudal lords, and he made sure the clergy served him loyally or else were defrocked.32

By the tenth century, agricultural economies no longer represented the sole bases for commerce and wealth, but growing urbanization also brought a host of social and economic problems. Towns and cities during this era witnessed the proliferation of artisans and laborers in metal and wood shops, carpenters, tailors, bakers, and producers of various manufactured goods.33 These production and market activities stimulated rapid economic development, which in turn led to the growth of the monopolies in the hands of elites, economic dislocations, and rampant corruption, as rich and poor sought through bribery and otherwise to take advantage of the opportunities offered by new and expanding markets. The wealth accumulated by the urban rich, landowners, and merchants during this period is believed to have stimulated early phases of capitalism in Armenia. The emergence of merchant classes with enormous capital accumulated in commerce posed a serious challenge to the old landowning feudal nakharar houses. The merchant classes, whose wealth was based on money rather than land, represented financial power independent of the feudal lords, whose wealth was based on land and therefore immovable. Both sectors competed to shape the course of economy and policy.

The expansion of markets more closely integrated the urban and rural economies within each region, particularly as the ever-growing urban population increased the demand for agricultural goods. Khans (commercial courtyards) or caravansaries (inns) in urban centers served as clearinghouses for goods delivered from rural areas and as places where local and traveling merchants exchanged goods, information, news, and gossip. Over time, however, the rural economies grew more dependent on and therefore more vulnerable to market fluctuations in the urban sector. The promise of jobs in the cities attracted more rural poor than the urban economies could sustain. Those who failed to secure jobs resorted to beggary, prostitution, thievery, and violence to survive. Employment entailed twelve or more hours of labor per day at the whim of the employer. Slaves of foreign origin (numbering in the thousands in the major cities) were required to work as