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

foreign cultural influences, a position that found strong support among the Parthian elite. Refusing to grant Rome exclusive jurisdiction over Armenia, he attacked Artashat and Tigranakert (Tigranocerta) and, with the blessings of the pro-Parthian nakharar or noble houses, installed his younger brother Trdat I (Tiridates, r. 62/66–75) on the Armenian throne.2

Rome refused to accept a potentially threatening Armenian-Parthian alignment and redoubled efforts to reassert its influence in Armenia. Upon accession to power, the emperor Nero, for domestic and geopolitical reasons, in A.D. 55 dispatched the revered general Domitius Corbulo to the east to secure Syria and Dsopk (Sophene) as client states, erecting a cordon sanitare against Greater Armenia. Vologeses I, determined to deny Nero a free hand in the region, declared Armenia a vassal state and launched his own offensive, to which Corbulo responded in 58 by a full-scale invasion of Armenia, which, one observer has noted, “had the misfortune to be the ‘cockpit of the Near East.’ ”3 The Roman army marched east from Erzerum, while Roman ships arriving at the docks of Trebizond and other ports on the southern coast of the Black Sea extended logistical support. Corbulo sacked Artashat and directed his southern contingent to the southern shores of Lake Van and onward to the city of Tigranakert. Vologeses retaliated in kind. Before the invasions and counter invasions had ceased in 58/59, Corbulo had captured Tigranakert and Artashat and the entire region between the two cities and farther north to Erzerum, forcing Trdat to seek refuge in Persia. Rome installed a governor in Tigranakert and actually sought to annex all of Armenia, but in 62 Vologeses defeated General Caesennius Paetus and forced him to withdraw from Armenia.4 Internal political difficulties in Rome and Parthia led to the cessation of hostilities, and in 64 they agreed to the Rhandeia Compromise, which established Roman-Parthian co-suzerainty over Armenia, whereby Parthian Arshakunis would nominate the candidates to the Armenian throne and Rome would confer legitimacy through coronation. The Armenian nakharars, too exhausted by the chaotic situation and perhaps unable to decide whether to side with Rome or Parthia, accepted this mutually satisfactory resolution.

Trdat, with his wife, children, and nephews (sons of Vologeses and Bakur), traveled overland to Rome for his coronation by Nero, who financed the journey of his entire entourage of about 3,000 Armenians and Parthians.5 Trdat arrived at Naples in 66, probably later than Nero had expected. The emperor received him with honors and gladiatorial contests for entertainment. Thence they traveled to Rome for the coronation, which was held at the Forum. There Nero, seated on the rostra, opened the ceremonies. Trdat knelt before Nero and “acknowledged vassality in terms that contained the formula proclaiming the supernatural attributes of the Iranian sovereign.”6

Master . . . I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras. The destiny thou spinnest for me shall be mine, for thou art my Fortune and my Fate.

The Roman emperor accepted the honor with great content; he crowned Trdat as king of Armenia, and they resumed celebrations at the theater in Pompey. The theater “had been entirely covered with gold for the occasion and shaded from the sun by purple curtains stretched overhead, so that people gave to the day itself the epithet of ‘golden.’”7 Vologeses I’s brother Trdat I returned triumphantly to Armenia and assumed the throne, as “the sun” and “supreme ruler of Greater Armenia,” attested the inscriptions found at Garni. Trdat thus established the Arshakuni dynasty in Armenia. With Nero’s blessings, he launched major reconstruction projects throughout Armenia, rebuilt the cities, including the capital city of Artashat, destroyed by Corbulo, expanded commercial relations, and urged the Arshakuni residents in Armenia to assimilate into the local culture. Trdat also built a temple dedicated to the god Tir north of Artashat.8

The recurring imperial competition would not permit luxuries of peace and stability. The decline of the Parthian empire encouraged Rome to pursue an aggressive policy to control Armenia. The emperor Vespasian (r. 70–79) in 72 incorporated Lesser Armenia into the Roman province of Cappadocia, and shortly after Trdat’s death in 88, Greater Armenia fell victim to Roman expansionist strategies against Parthia.9 In 114, in clear violation of the Rhandeia Compromise, the emperor Trajan (r. 98–117) refused to install a Parthian to the Armenian throne and, under the Roman governor L. Catilius Severus, briefly annexed Armenia to the Roman empire.10 After Trajan’s death in August 117, Rome failed to maintain the vast territories under its domain. Fearing growing Parthian presence in Armenia under Vagharsh I (r. 117–138/144), founder of the new cities of Vagharshapat, Vagharshavan, and Vagharshakert, the Roman army intensified its campaign to force Parthia’s withdrawal from Armenia.11

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL CLASHES

The social structure in Arshakuni Armenia retained the deep imprints of Persian political customs and administrative practices.12 The key Armenian institutions in the second century A.D. consisted of, in hierarchical order, the monarchy, the nakharars or nobles, azats (or knights), ramiks (the masses, city dwellers, laborers), shinakans (peasants), and struks (slaves). The Armenian king ruled as an “Oriental despot,”13 and

among the nobility, loyalty to the king and military service in his army yielded as reward all the accouterments of high offices, land, and slaves.14 The Arshakuni kings, like their Artashesian predecessors, carried such titles as king, great king, and king of kings, each reflecting his own personal proclivities, wealth, and power as recognized at home and abroad. Following the Persian tradition, the king claimed “supernatural glory” (park) and was believed to possess “fortune and glory” (bakht u park) that legitimized his rule. In fact, the king represented the source of policy and political legitimacy. He revived and strengthened old rules and regulations, and issued new edicts that superseded them; he also had the authority to mint new coins and to build new cities. The principal functions and powers of the Armenian king included the declaration and conduct of war, signing treaties, representation of the Armenian state, and management of interand intradynastic relations. The latter often blurred the line between domestic and foreign policy issues because of the close khnamiutiun (familial) relations across the Armenian and Persian dynasties.15

The administrative bureaucracies, headed by the Royal Ministries, comprised of such offices as sparapetutiun (commander in chief of the armed forces), hazarapetutiun (seneschal), tagadir-aspetutiun (coronant), maghkhazutiun (chief of the royal escort), mardpetutiun (administrator of the royal treasury and fortresses), and mets datavorutiun (supreme court). The hayr mardpet as the head of the royal treasury was also responsible for the supervision of the royal harems and the citadels. Mets datavorutiun of the ministry of justice included the office of the high priest (krmapet) and, after Armenia’s Christianization, the Catholicos Hayots (Supreme Patriarch of Armenians). Other offices included the senekapet, who administered the secretarial offices (run by secretaries, dpirs) and served as the king’s secretary, while the royal archivist (arkuni divan) supervised the archives.16

Next in the social class structure were the nakharars,17 the nobility. The most loyal and powerful members of the elite nakharar tuns (noble houses) enjoyed vast powers, and in return for their services they were granted land (or estate, gavar) in addition to honors and privileges of the court. Originally, the term nakharar referred to governorship or prefects, but over the centuries governorship became ownership of gavars, while nakharardom became hereditary. By the third and fourth centuries, this system eventually contributed to the development of feudalism in Armenia.18 Arshakuni Armenia consisted of large and small nakharardoms19 in hierarchical arrangement, each nakharar inheriting his rank and insignia (bardz u pativ; literarily, “cushion and honor”) according to his status according to the Gahnamak (Rank List) and Zoranamak (Military List). The major nakharar houses held such positions as the bdeshkh (quasi-autonomous

nobles guarding the borders), coronant, and sparapet, each with its own privileges and responsibilities and could maintain up to ten thousand cavalry troops. The nakharars were expected to provide their tsarayutiun (services), including military services in times of war, to the king, who in turn would consult with them on matters of importance.20 The nakharars could cooperate with the king in promoting his policies and protecting his monarchy against internal and external enemies; they could withhold their cooperation and compel the king to seek protection from outside sources; or they could conspire to oust him from power.

As one of the highest and most powerful offices, the seneschal, for example, administered the country’s finances and collected taxes from cities and villages. It coordinated the country’s infrastructural development policies and provided laborers (usually based on some form of forced labor) for the construction of cities, fortresses, bridges, and irrigation and transportation networks. The coronant, in addition to his role during coronations, functioned as the head of royal ceremonies and determined each minister’s relative status (bardz u pativ) within the palace according to the Gahnamak and Zoranamak.21 Some “royal” ministerial offices were hereditary to individual houses. For example, the Mamikonian house headed the sparapetutiun, the Bagratuni house held the office of the coronant, and the Gnunis held the offices of the seneschal and administrator of the royal treasury and fortresses.22

This dominant aristocratic class consisted of autonomous tuns (houses), each led by the tanuter (head of the house), with its own hayrenik (inherited land) and pargevagank (granted estates). An Arshakuni king, for example, was the tanuter of the Arshakuni house. When a noble relinquished his land, it was transferred to a male heir in his house or the house of the nearest female heir’s husband.23 This system enabled the nakharars to prevent fragmentation of their lands and to maintain a certain (at times, a high) degree of autonomy from the center. Below the nakharars were the sepuhs (minor princes), followed by the small landowning class azats (corresponding to European knights), and the lower classes, the anazats (not free), which included ramiks and shinakans. The slaves were not considered a class as such and were therefore called ankarg (not classified). Most of the urban population were ramiks (laborers) employed by merchants and artisans, while urban slaves worked in households. Some economic sectors became virtual household industries engaged in production and sale of military hardware, clothing, furniture, jewelry, ceramic plates, and the like exhibiting various degrees of sophistication for the wealthy and mass consumers. The administrative districts and territorial divisions in Arshakuni Armenia reflected the hierarchical arrangement and social order. These included the royal

domain and lands (or gavark arkunakank) owned by the king; the gavars (private estates) and land grants owned by the nobles (e.g., bdeshkh gavars); gavars owned by the Arshakuni minor princes; temple lands and complexes dedicated to the worship of deceased members of the dynasty; and village communes.24

The pre-Christian Arshakuni kings continued the traditions of selfdeification and ancestor worship. As part of their patronage, they designated certain princely landholdings as sacred places for pilgrimage, which developed into temple complexes with their own estates, farm animals, and slaves. For example, after King Trdat I proclaimed himself god Helios “the sun,” he declared a number of royal territories as pilgrimage sites in honor of his deceased relatives: Artavanian, located south of Van city, for his uncle the Parthian king Artavan III; Bakurakert (Bakur village), a suburb of Marand city, for his brother Bakur; and Vagharshakert (Alashkert), in memory of his brother King Vagharsh (Vologeses).25 Their agricultural production contributed to the local economies, the royal treasury, and international commerce.

ARMENIA BETWEEN THE SASANIAN

AND ROMAN EMPIRES

By the time Vagharsh II had ascended the Parthian throne in 191 (regnal name, Vologeses IV), tensions between the two major empires had escalated, pressuring the Arshakuni leadership in Armenia to decide whether to favor or abandon Parthia. Initially Khosrov I (r. ca. 191–216/217), Vagharsh’s less capable son and successor in Armenia, sought to maintain neutrality in East-West conflicts but, as the Roman threat intensified during the latter’s campaign to capture the Parthian capital Ctesiphon in 197/198, he eventually sided with Rome.26 In 216, the Roman military command invited Khosrov I to a conference, imprisoned him and his family, and installed a Roman governor, Theocretes, in Armenia. The Armenian nakharars, and Armenians in general, rebelled against Rome for the treacherous act and incessant meddling in Armenian affairs and overthrew the Roman governor.27 By the early 220s the Parthian empire itself became the battleground for internal clashes. Opposition to the Parthian Arshakunis in Ctesiphon came most notably from the rising leader of the Sasanian dynasty, Ardashir I, the son of Sasan who ruled Persis (modern Fars province). After a prolonged struggle for power, the Parthian kingdom collapsed, leaving the Armenian branch of Arshakunis to govern at Artashat.28 The Armenian Arshakunis gained greater freedom to govern their internal affairs independently of their Persian relations, particularly in matters of succession to the throne. The Arshakunis thus emerged as an independent kingdom