The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the Lords of Armenia in the 13 ...

This is an authorized facsimile 

and was produced by microfilm-xerography 

in 1981 by 

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS INTERNATIONAL 

Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 

London, England

BEDROSIAN, ROBERT GREGORY 

8008701 

THE TURCO-MONGOl INVASIONS AND THE LORDS OF ARMENIA IN THE 13-14TH 

CENTURIES 

Columbia University PH.D. 1979 

University 

Microfilms 

MON.Z«bRo*d.AaaArtor,Ml«»lM IS Bedferd Row. London WCUt4EI.En«lind 

Copyright 1979 

by 

BEDROSIAN, ROBERT GREGORY 

All Rights Reserved

INFORMATION TO USERS 

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the 

most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document 

have been used, the quality is heavfly dependent upon the quality of the material 

submitted. 

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand 

markings or notations whici. may appear on this reproduction. 

l.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document 

photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing 

page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. 

This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating 

adjacent pages to assure yon of complete continuity. 

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an 

indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of 

movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete 

copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a 

good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed 

the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" 

the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer 

of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with 

small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning 

below the first row and continuing on until complete. 

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by 

xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and 

tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our 

Dissertations Customer Services Department. 

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we 

have filmed the best available copy. 

Universjlv 

International 

300 N ZEES ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 

18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WCIR 4EJ. ENGLAND

THE TURCO-1.IONGOL INVASIONS AND THE LORDS 

OP ARIOTIA IN THE 13-14TH CENTURIES 

Robert Gregory Bedrosian 

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the 

requireaents for the degree 

of Doctor of Philosophy 

in the Faculty of Philosophy 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

1979

ABSTRACT 

TEE TURCO-MONGOL INVASIONS AND THE LORDS OF 

ARMENIA IK THE 13-14TH CENTURIES 

ROBERT GREGORY BEDROSIAN 

The 13-14th centuries was a period of great 

turbulence in the history of the Araenian people. Over 

roughly 170 years (from ca. 1220 to ca. 140?) Armenia 

wae subjected to no less than 15 invasions of Turco— 

Mongol peoples. The Armenian societies conquered and 

controlled by the various nomadic invaders froa Central 

Asia had already experienced conquest and domination by 

nomadic and sedentarizing Turkic peoples two centuries 

earlier. The experience of invasion by nomads from 

Central Asia consequently, was not new to the Armenian 

historical experience. But there were differences among 

the invading groups, and differences within any one 

invading group. 

Just as there were differences among and even within 

the different invading groups, so the sedentary Armenian 

societies which came to be dominated were of different 

sorts. Subject to different political entities, the 

various districts of "Armenia" in the 13-14th centuries 

were (and had been, historically) subjected to different

ethnic, economic, and cultural stimuli. The Armenian 

or part-Armenian populations of these states subscribed 

to a variety of religions ranging from Apostolic, Orthodox, 

and Roman Catholic Christianity, to Islam. Even north- 

eastern Armenian society (for which the historical record 

is the most complete) on the eve of the Turco-Mongol 

invasions was far from being a homogeneous ethnic, cultural 

or religious entity. Even where Armenians were in political 

control of Armenian-inhabited territories, a geographically- 

derived centrifugalisn made the lords (naxarars) of the 

various districts disinclined to unite. In the 13-14th 

centuries, therefore, Armenia experienced the effects of 

a double centrifugation: of Turco-Mongol societies in 

dissolution, and of native Armenian naxarar society, which 

was itself characterized by centrifugation. 

This study has two principal aims. A review of the 

salient political and military events associated with the 

Turco-Mongol invasions of Armenia is one aim. Who were 

the invaders, and in what ways were they alike and 

dissiailar? The second aim of the study is an examination 

of the impact (a) of the invasions and dominations) of 

the 13-14th centuries on Armenia's lordly naxarar rulers. 

While many aspects of both areas of investigation (i,.£., 

regarding the invasions and dominations and their impacts) 

have already been examined by scholars, to the present 

no single study has focussed on the invasions of Armenia 

as phenomena. Similarly, while diverse aspects of Armenia's 

ii

socio-economic and political history in the 13-14th 

centuries have been examined by others, no single study 

of the lordly heads of that society has as yet been 

undertaken. The present work, therefore, attempts to 

fill a void existing in Armenian scholarship. It is 

hoped that this study will likewise serve as an intro- 

duction to 13-14th century Armenian history for Western 

scholars, to whom Armenia in this period has remained 

terra incognita. 

iii

CONTENTS 

Introduction . 1 

I. The Sources. 10 

II. Armenia and the Turco-'ôngol Invasions. 53 

III. Armenia's Lords and Their Reactions to the Turco-Uongol 

Invasions and Domination of the 13-14-th Centuries. 155 

Appendix A. Supplementary Notes on the ll-13th Century 

Kaxarars. 249 

Appendix B. Aspects of Centrifugalism within and among 

Certain 13-14th Century Naxarardoma. 266 

Appendix C. Notes on the Relations between the Mongols 

and the Armenian Church in the 13th Century. 

Bibliography. 293 

Glossary. 

iv 

281

INTRODUCTION 

The history of Greater Armenia in the 13-14th 

centuries is not well known to Western scholars. To 

Armeniats, however, with the possible exception of 

Armenia's "golden age" (5th century A.D.), no period 

has received as much attention as the 13-14th centuries. 

The nature and diversity of the primary sources as well 

as the uses to which they have been put provide explan- 

ations for both opposing tendencies. Western scholars 

have been most interested in the Armenian sources for 

what they tell about the Mongols. Such interest explains 

the translated anthologies of relevant sections of the 

Armenian sources which focus on the Mongols in Armenia 

or the Mongols in the Armenian sources, but not on 

Armenia or the Armenians per se. Despite the existence 

of such anthologies and of full translations of the 

Armenian sources (in some cases for over 100 years), 

For example, K. Patkanov*s two-volume Russian anthology 

which appeared in St. Petersburg in 1873 and 1874, 

latoriia mongolov po armianskim istochnikam [History of 

the Mongols According to the Armenian Sources]which includes 

extracts from Vardan, Srbelean, Smbat Sparapet, and 

Kirakos Ganjakec'i; A.G. Galstyan's Armianskie istochniki 

o mongolakh [Armenian Sources on the MohpolsB.(Moscow. 

1962); and the translations into English of various 

passages from Kirakos Ganjakec'i dealing with the Mongols 

made by J.A, Boyle. Bibliographical indications, when 

not provided in the text will be found in the Bibliography.

these sources remain under-utilized in some modern 

studies of the Mongols . 

In recent times, works devoted to the history of 

Asia Minor in the ll-15th centuries have made use of 

some 13-14th century Armenian sources in translation. 

C. Cahen1s Pre-Ottoman Turkey (New York, 1968) cites 

several Armenian sources, "those from Cilicia and those 

from Izarbaijan" (sic) . His study concentrates on the 

history of the Turks of western and central Asia Minor. 

When speaking about the Armenians of eastern Asia Minor, 

however, Cahen sometimes makes egregious errors . 

S. Vryonis' Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor 

and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through 

the Fifteenth Century (Los Angeles, 1971) utilizes 

translated Armenian sources more fully than Cahen'a work, 

but as Cahen, Vryonis is not primarily interested in 

the Armenians of eastern Asia Minor. His work focusses 

on the Greek element in western and central Asia Minor, 

mentioning the Armenians only occasionally and peripherally. 

i 

Most surprisingly in B. Spuler's History of the Mongols 

Based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth 

and Fourteenth Centuries i CBerkeley. 1972) which does 

not include a single Armenian or Georgian source. J. A. Boyle's 

scholarly studies are a welcome exception. 

2 

PT P. 438. 

3 H PP. 204, 326

If the history of 13-l4tfa century Armenia is not 

well known in the West, the opposite situation prevails 

among Armeniata. Far from being under-etudied, the 

13-14th centuries have attracted considerable interest. 

The abundance of source material explains this in part. 

Armenists have been interested primarily in various 

aspects of the socio-economic and political life of 

Armenia during a period when the Mongols figured as 

conquerors and overlords, but not as creators of that 

distinctive culture. The first Araenist to deal with 

the 13-14th centuries was the Mxit'arist father M. $am$ean, 

in the third volume of his History of Armenia (Venice, 

1736). $am$ean*s account, in addition to being clerical 

and patriotic is also episodic. When faced with insufficient 

sources for late 13th century Greater Armenia (no published 

corpora of colophons or inscriptions existed in his day) 

£am$ean moved his focus to Cilician Armenia. The history 

of Greater Armenia in the 14th century is entirely omitted. 

Scholarly activity on the period of interest done 

during the 19th century may be divided into two main 

categories. First, the 19th century saw the beginning 

of the publication of the classical Armenian texts and 

their translations into European languages, especially 

into Russian and French. In the absence of critical 

editions—which have begun to appear only recently—- the

19th century publications are still the ones utilized 

today. The scholarly notes of the editors and translators 

of these texts constituted a step forward in the study 

of the 13-14th centuries. The second category of 

activity began in the mid-19th century and built into an 

ever stronger wave of publications devoted to diverse 

aspects of the period. Such were the numerous historico— 

geographical studies of authors including S. Jalaleanc', 

E. Lalayean, M. Barxudareanc' and i. Aliaan. In the 

early 20th century these scholars were joined by many 

others who turned their attention to the history of one 

particular feudal family, one city, or monastic complex. 

Among these were I.A. Orbeli, G. Yovsep'ean, A. Sahnazarean, 

and i. Movsesean. The general lines of such research 

were continued and amplified in the 1920-1950*s by many 

scholars working in Europe and in the newly-created 

Soviet republic of Armenia . 

1 Foremost among the European Armenists were fathers 

Kerses Akinean and H« Oskean. Among the numerous Soviet 

scholars deserving attention belong N. Marr, H. Manandyan, 

M. Abelyan, T'« Avdalbekyan, X. Samuelyan, S. Eremyan, 

L. Melik'set'-bek, K. iafadaryan, A. Hovannisyan, 

H. Zamko$yan, L. Xa§ikyan, A. Galstyan, and P. Muradyan. 

For their contributions see below chapter one (Sources) 

under Kirakoa Ganjakec'i, Yardan Arewelc'i. Step'annos 

Orbelean, Grigor Aknerc'i, T'ovma Mecop'ec i, Chronographiea 

and Hagiographlcal Literature, Colophons, and Inscriptions. 

See Bibliography for full listing.

In recent times a number of Armenian studies 

dealing with the 13-14th centuries have appeared. 

These are H. Manandyan's Critical Survey of the History 

of the Armenian People, vol. 3 (Erevan, 1952), 

l.H. Babayan's Socio-Economic and Political History of 

Armenia |£ the XIII-XIV Centuries [SEPHA],(Erevan, 1964} 

Moscow, 1969), and the same author's chapters in vol. 3 

of the series History of the Armenian People [HA?]. 

(Erevan, 1976) wherein Babayan revized some of the views 

expressed in his earlier studies, Manandyan's and 

Babayan's works concern the socio-economic and political 

history of Armenia during the ll-14th centuries (Manandyan), 

13-l4th centuries (Babayan, SEPHA). and the mid-9th—mid-14th 

centuries (Babayan, HAP) !..£., these studies embrace the 

Turco-Mongol invasions but do not feature them as the 

central or sole objects of study. Not only is the focus 

never on the invasions themselves as phenomena, but there 

is even some disagreement on periodizing the invasions. 

Manandyan, both in the chronological limits given to bis 

work and in a chapter in his Trade and Cities of Armenia 

in Connection with Ancient World Trade (Lisbon, 1965) 

showed an awareness that Turco-Tatar included the llth 

century Saljuqs as well as 13-14th century Mongols, but 

he nowhere compared and contrasted the invasions. Babayan*s 

work on Armenia in the 13-14th centuries does not treat 

the Saljuq invasions, nor are the Saljuqs mentioned in his 

article, "Consequences of the Dominance of the Nomadic Feudal

Economic System on the Economic Life of Sedentary Peoples". 

Furthermore, vol. 3 of the History of the Armenian People 

("Armenia in the Period of Developed Feudalism") does 

not accept the invasions of llmur in the early 15th century 

as a terminus, since the volume ends in the mid-14th century. 

Thus, between Manandyan and Babayan there is no study of 

the ll-14th century Turco-Mongol Invasions as invasions, 

or even agreement on periodizing the invasions. 

The present study has two principal aims. First, 

the political-military history of the Turco-Mongol invasions 

from the llth century to the early years of the 15th 

century is provided. The invasions, their participants 

and their consequences are compared and contrasted. Such 

a review fills a gap both in Western and in Armenian 

scholarship. The writing of this part of the study was 

facilitated by the works of Cahen and Vryonis, Manandyan, 

Babayan, YusbaS'yan and many others—Western and Eastern 

scholars not well acquainted with each other's work. 

Because of the complexity of the period and the unfamiliar!ty 

of the material to the general reader, background information 

on Armenia in the pre-SalJug. period (especially the 

political-ethnic conditions on Armenia's ellusive borders) 

is provided in the notes to chapter two ("Armenia and the 

Turco-Uongol Invasions"). The notes for much of the second 

part of the chapter contain, in addition to documentation, 

extensive translations from the relevant Armenian sources 

6

themselves. In this case, as in chapter one, it was 

deemed advisable to place special emphasis on the Armenian 

sources, which are simultaneously the least known and 

the most important for this study . 

The second aim of the study is to examine topically 

several aspects of the impact of the 13-14th century 

invasions on the Armenian lords of Greater Armenia. By 

way of introduction, chapter three begins with a discussion 

of who the lords (naxarars) were on the eve of the 13th 

century (during the so-called Zak'arid revival), and where 

their lands were located. The remainder of the chapter 

examines three questions: (1) how did the naxarars react 

to the Turco-r«'ongol invasions/migrations of the 13tb 

century; (2) how did the Mongols (both before and after 

Islamization) attempt to control the ncxarars. and finally, 

(3) what were the reactions of the naxarare to Mongol 

policies. The writing of this part of the study was 

facilitated first by the studies of Adontz, Uanandyan, and 

Toumanoff, devoted to Armenia's social structure in earlier 

times (5-9th centuries). The many studies of Arak'elyan, 

As a result, the information in chapter one on the 

Armenian sources serves as a preface to the translated 

portions of the sources appearing in chapters two and 

three which form an anthology of 13-14th century Armenian 

historical writings focussing on the' Turco-Mongol invasions 

and domination(s) and the Armenian lords' reactions to them. 

It should be noted that while both Manandyan and Babayan 

conducted surveys of the Armenian sources, their reviews 

tend to be catalogues with little indication of a source's 

specific relevance. M. Abelyan's History of Ancient Armeniar. 

Literature vol. 2 (Erevan, 1946) examined the literary(and 

often historical) importance of the 13-14th century sources.Thus

Babayan, Manandyan and MuSeiyan, devoted to the 13-14th 

centuries were also very useful for questions pertaining 

to economic history. It should be stressed that this is 

not a study of 13-14th century Armenian society in its 

entirety, but rather of the lordly heads of that society 

in Greater Armenia. For questions concerning Armenia's 

peasants, and the complicated history of the Armenian 

Church in this period, the works of Manandyan, Babayan 

and Ormanian should be consulted. 

The second part of the study, while drawing on the 

works of the above-mentioned scholars, is more than a 

synthesis. This is the first study of the 13-14th century 

lords which draws heavily on information found in the 

Georgian History of K'art'li. During the 13-14th centuries 

when Armenia was politically part of a Georgian state, 

many of its lords held important positions in the Georgian 

court (see chapter two and Appendix A for background). 

Much invaluable information on the lords is found in the 

History of K'art'li. Despite this, both Kanandyan and 

(more surprisingly) Babayan relied on a brief Armenian 

abridgement of the History made by Melik'set'-bek which 

limits itself solely to "Armenia". 

the survey of 13-14th century literary historians in 

chapter one below is the most extensive currently 

available.

This study, therefore, provides information unavailable 

elsewhere not only on the 13-14th century invasions, but 

alao on their socio-political impact on Armenia's naxarars. 

Appendices B and C contain supplementary information on 

topics not examined by others, £•£•> on the centrifugal 

forces operating within Armenian society, and on certain 

relations between the Mongols and the Armenian Church. 

The transliteration systems followed here are the 

prevailing HObgchmann-LJeillet system for Armenian, 

an adaptation of it for Georgian, and the system employed 

in volume 5 of the Cambridge History of Iran (the Saljuq 

and Mongol Periods) for Turkish and Mongolian. Double 

forms are utilized for localities which are identified 

in the sources by more than one name (£.£., Karin/Erzerum, 

Sebastia/Sivas). Finally, to elimate unnecessary confusion, 

and since this study focusses on Armenia, Georgian forms 

of proper names have been given in their Armenian equivalents 

(£.£., Sahnlah, not Sahnse; Zak'are, not Zak'aria). 

9

CHAPTER ONE 

THE SOURCES 

There are several ways of categorizing and character- 

izing the 13-14th century sources bearing on the two aspects 

of this study, i,.£. on (1) the Turco-Mongol invasions of 

Armenia, and (2) the history of the Armenian lords in 

the 13-14th centuries. Some of the sources, such as the 

Armenian and Georgian literary histories, treat both topics 

and consequently are of principal importance. These include 

the histories of 13-14th century clerical authors from 

the Caucasus: Kirakoa of Ganjak and Vardan the Easterner 

(Arewelc'i), both of whom died ca. 1270/71, Step'annos 

Orbelean (d. 1304), the Georgian Hiatory of K'art'li. (1330?), 

and T'ovma Mecop'ec'i (d. 1446). The History of the Nation 

of the Archers by a Cilician cleric, Grigor Aknerc'i (d. 1335?) 

though geographically removed from Greater Armenia, none- 

theless contains material about Greater Armenia not found 

in the local sources themselves regarding both the invasions 

and the lords. Armenian chronograph!es, colophons and 

hagiographical literature likewise supply information both 

regarding the invasions and the lords. Frequently their 

authors concentrated on their own immediate milieus thereby 

providing important information on local events. Sometimes 

written by clerics possessing limited educations, they are 

narrower in scope and more mundane than the literary histories, 

10

ut precisely that narrow scope and those mundane interests 

are what make such sources valuable. The early 13th 

century was a period of vigorous building activity across 

the Armenian highlands, and it was customary for the lordly 

patrons of this activity to inscribe the walls of their 

edifices with sometimes lengthy inscriptions. Besides 

containing much of interest for economic history, the inscrip- 

tions often contain lordly titles and valuable geneological 

information. The 13-l4th century Armenian sources are 

not well known to Western scholars, and consequently, are 

under-utilized in their studies. For this reason, and 

because the sources are scattered, a more detailed investi- 

gation of these sources and their authors appears justified 

(see below). Conversely, sources familiar to scholars-- 

Juvaini, Rashid al-Din, etc.—are but briefly examined 

for their relevance to the two specific areas of interest 

to this study. These latter will be addressed first. 

Persian literary histories of the 13-l4th centuries 

tend to be of importance more for the study of the invasions 

and their economic impact on the Armenian highlands, than 

for the history of the lords. The histories of Juvaini (d.1283) 

'Ala ad-Din 'Ata-Halik Juvaini (ca. 1226-83) was in an 

excellent position to obtain information about various parts 

of the Mongol empire and particularly about the Caucasus. 

His great-grandfather had been an advisor to the Khwarazm Shah 

Tekish, and other relatives had served the Saljuq.s in Iran 

[Juvaini, The History of the World-Conqueror, J.A. Boyle, trans,, 

vol. I (Manchester, 1955) p. xvj. His grandfather was the 

11

and Hashid al-Dln (d. 1317) , for example, are more 

directly concerned with the Mongols than with the Armenian 

sahib-divan or Minister_of Finance for the Khwarazm Shahs 

Muhammad and Jalal al-Din, and had died during the latter's 

siege of Xlat' on the northern shore of Lake Van (ibid, 

p. xvi). Juvaini's own father, Baha ad-Din, became the 

Minister of Finance for Chingiz-Khan's successor, Bgedei, 

and during the absence ofnis immediate superior, the emir 

Ar£hun (ca. 1246), Baha ad-Din acted as Ar£hun's deputy 

over a large area Including Georgia and Armenia (ibid, p. 

xviii). Juvaini himself became an important official of 

the empire. Twice during his youth he had visited the 

Mongol capital of Qara-Qorum, commencing his history of the 

Mongols conquests on one such visit (ca. 1252-53) (ibid, 

pp. xviii-xx). He had been with the Il-Khan Httlegtt Tn~" 

1256 at the taking of the Assassins' stronghold Alamut, 

and was responsible for saving part of its celebrated 

library (ibicU p. xxi). He had accompanied HUlegU during 

the sack of Baghdad (1258), and the next year was appointed 

governor of Baghdad, Lower Mesopotamia, and Khuzistan by 

him (ibid, p. xxii). Around 1282, Juvaini attended a 

Mongol auriltai (or assembly) held in the Ala-Tag, pastures, 

northeast of Lake Van (ibid, p. xxiv). He_digd the 

following year in Mughan or Arran in Azerbaijan (ibid, p. xxv). 

Juvaini's influential brother Shams ad-Din, who had served 

as Minister of Finance under Khans HUlegU and Abaqa, was 

the husband of Xosak', daughter of Awak Zak'arean/Mxargrceli 

(ibid, p. xvi; KG, p. 251). Consequently, both through his 

own work and through family connections, Juvaini was privy 

to information unavailable to other historians. For some unknown 

reason Juvaini's history terminates more than twenty years 

before the author's death, with the year 1260. 

Rashid al-Din(b. 124? in Hamadan) was a Jewish convert 

to Islam who served as physician to the Il-Khan Abaqa 

(1265-81), possibly the stweard to the IlKhan Geikhatu 

(1291-95), and as financial advisor to Abaqa's grandson, 

Ghazan (1295-1304)[Hashid al-Din, The Successors of Genghis 

Khan. J.A.Boyle, trans. (New York, 19"71) pp. 3-4], He was 

commissioned by the latter to write a history of the Mongols 

and their conquests, which he completed during the reign of 

OlJeitU (1307-16). This work, the Complete Collection of 

Histories (Jami' al-Tawarikh) was at the time of completion 

{ca. 1307) of monumental size. Unfortunately all sections 

have not survived or been discovered (ibid, pp. 6-13} 

also A.Z.V. Togan, "Still Missing WorksoT Rashid al-Din", 

Central Asiatic Journal #9 (1964) pp. 113-22). Two portions 

12

nobility. Nonetheless, their works show Armenia as part 

of the larger picture of the Mongol conquests and of the 

Il-Khanid empire as a whole. Both authors were officials 

of the Mongol government in Iran, both were Muslims, and 

had sensibilities other than those found reflected in the 

Christian Caucasian sources. For example, the Khwarazm 

Shah Jalal al-Bin's activities in Armenia which included 

demolishing churches and executing Christians are described 

approvingly by Juvaini. A Muslim viewpoint also characterizes 

of the surviving encyclopedia, volumes II and £11, are 

of great importance for the study of the II-Khanate. 

Volume II is an account of the successors of Chingiz-Khan 

while volume III describes the Il-Khans of Iran. In bis_ 

narration down to the reign of M'dngke (1251-59), Juvaini 

was Rashid al-Bin's main source, however, he also utilized 

numerous now-lows Far Eastern and other sources. The 

Jami' al-Tawarjkh is perhaps the single most comprehensive 

Persian source on the Mongol period [J.A.Boyle, "Juvaini 

ar.d Rashid al-Din as Sources on the History of the Mongols", 

in Historians of the Middle East. B. Lewis, ed. (New York, 

1962) pp. 133-37.Tn an article entitled "The Collection 

of Annals of Rashid-ad-Din and Its Armenian Sources [Raiid—• 

gd-Dini Tareerut'yunnerl zotovacun ev nra haykakan atbyurnerlTTV 

PBH #2 (1965) pp. 81-94]L.H. BaSayan attempted 

(unsuccessfully) to prove that Rashid had utilized Armenian 

sources in Persian translation. He offered no convincing 

proof of the assertion . Such an important official as 

Rashid was in an excellent position to utilize diverse 

sources of information on Armenia, especially archival 

material. He himself owned large estates in the Caucasus 

and Asia Minor. Finally, as Boyle writes: "The administration 

of the state [during OljeitU'a reign] had become almost 

a private monopoly of his family: of his fourteen sons, 

eight were governors of provinces, including the whole of 

western Iran, Georgia, Iraq., and the greater part of what 

is now Turkey1*(Successors, p. 4). As a result of the 

successful intrigues of jealous courtiers, Rashid al-Din 

was brutally executed in 1317. Volume II of ETs History 

dealing with Chingiz1 successors down to Ghazan has been 

translated in part by J.A.Boyle. Volume III was translated 

into Russian by A.K Arends and issued in 1946, Rashid-ad-Din, 

Sbornik letopisei, t. Ill, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1946). For 

other translations, full or partial see the bibliography 

in Boyle's Successors, pp. 333-38. 

13

Ihn Bibi's History of the Saljugs, written in the latter part 

of the 13th century in Persian. This work, written at the 

request of the Persian historian Juvaini is a panegyric to 

the Saljuq sultan Kai-Qubad I (1220-37). Nonetheless, it 

does provide some information on military and political 

events in western historical Armenia which was under Saljuq 

control in the 13th century, mentions the presence of 

Armenians in the Sal jug. army and court, conversions to Islam, 

and the presence of Turkmen settlements . 

Other sources—works of a chronographical nature—also 

provide information more important for military, political 

and economic history than for study of the Armenian lords. 

Among these sources are the works of Ibn al-Athir (d. 1234), 

Bar Kebraeus (d. 1286) and Abu'l Fida (d. 1333). While Ibn 

The History of the Sal jug 3 by Ibn Bibi, a Persian living 

in Rum embraces the period 1192-1282 and describes major 

events in Asia Minor and Cilicia. Almost nothing is known 

about the author, albeit judging from the fact that_his 

father had been_a secretary at the court of the Khwaraza 

Shah Jalal al-Din, and his mother a noted astronomer, Ibn 

Bibi pjobably_received a fine education. After the defeat 

of Jalal al-Din by the Mongols in 1231, his family sought 

refuge with Melik Aahraf in Damascus. At the invitation 

of the sultan of Rum, 'Ala' al-Din, the family moved to 

Kenya where they settled. He gives most of his attention 

to the deeds of 'Ala' al-Din Kai-Qubad I, which are 

described in a florid oriental style and are heavily influenced 

by the legendary exploits of heroes in the Shahname . 

A later unknown individual made a summary of the History" 

in which he attempted to eliminate the wearisome mythological 

allusions. The French translation of this abridged version 

was published by Koutsoa in 1902 [Histoire dee Seldlpucideg 

d'Asie Kineure d'apres 1'Abregg du Seld.1o"uknameh d'lbn Bibi. 

1902) J , "ana a German translation of the critical 

edition of the same abridged text was issued by Herbert 

Duda in 1959 [Die Seltschukengeschiehte des Ibn Bibi Mu 

aard (Kopehhagen, 1959)]. Those portions~oT th"e History 

14

al-Athir bad little to say about Armenia's lords, hie 

information on the resurgence of Georgia and the coming of 

the Mongols, Qlpchaqs and Khwarazmians in the early 1220's 

confirms and occasionally amplifies what is known from 

native sources.. For the purposes of this study, the most 

important of the numerous works bequeathed to posterity 

by Bar Hebraeus is his encyclopedic Chronoeraphy. a history 

of the world from Creation until 1286, the year of his 

death . The history of his own time he wrote with the 

bearing_on Armenia and Cilicia were translated into Armenian 

by ?, Ter-Polosean and appeared in HA (I960). 

Ibn al-Athir, one of the world's greatest chroniclers, 

was born in 1160 and educated in Mosul. After completing 

his education, he travelled on missions for the prince of 

Mosul, to Syria and the Levant. Eventually he retired to 

devote himself to study. His Complete Chronology begins 

with Creation and ends in the year 1231 [C. Kuart, A History 

of Arabic Literature (New York, 1903) p. 206], The Complete 

CHrqnology was published in its entirety by Tornberg at 

Leyden in 1851-76 in fourteen volumes. Unfortunately, no 

complete translation exists, although some extracts in 

French translation were published in Reeueil des historiens 

des Croiaades; Hiet. Orient. II, 1887, and M.Tefremery 

has translated those passages concerning the Caucasus 

["Fragments de Geographes et d'Historiens arabes et persans 

inedit", JA, 4th ser. #13 (1848), #14(1849)J 

2 Bar Hebraeus (also known as Ibn al- Ibri and Gregory 

Abu'l FaraJ) was born into a Jewish family in the city of 

Melitene/Malatya on the Euphrates in 1225/26. As a child 

he studied Syriac, Arabic and probably Hebrew, and subsequently 

philosophy, theology, and medicine [The Chronographs 

of Gregory Abu'l-Farai (Bar Hebraeus),""E7A.Wallis 

Budge, trans. (London, 1932; repr. 1976) pp. xv-xvi]. 

In 1244 the Mongol general Shawer who had ravaged the 

Melitene/Kalatya area employed the services of Bar Hebraeus' 

father, a physician. The family travelled with the Mongols 

to Xarberd and thence to Antioch where Gregory at age 

17 became a Syrian Monophysite Christian(Jacobite). After 

15

authority of an eye-witness whose great clerical prestige 

gave him access to Mongol Khans and Armenian royalty. 

His knowledge of the Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Armenian, 

Uighur, and (to some extent) Chinese languages placed him 

in a unique position to benefit from multi-lingual sources . 

The fact that he was a native of Melitene/Malatya is 

important, since he is always careful to note developments 

there, in the area around that city, and stretching eastward 

through the Armenian districts to the district surrounding 

2 

Lake Van • Finally, as head of the Jacobite Church which 

was in communion with the Armenian Apostolic Church, Bar 

Hebraeus often conveys information about the Armenians and 

several years of study, Bar Hebraeus was ordained bishop of 

one of the dioceses of Melitene/Malatya, ca. 1247, a position 

he occupied for some six or seven years (Budge, p. xvii). 

Thereafter he was appointed to the diocese of Aleppo, and, 

in 1264 he became Maphrian of the East, being ordained at 

Sis in Cilicia in the presence of the Armenian royal house 

and heads of the Jacobite and Armenian Churches (ibid, pp. 

xviii-xix). He then visited Abaqa-Khan, HUlegtt's son, and 

was confirmed in his new goaltlon(ibid, p. xxi). During the 

next decade Bar Hebraeus was actively involved in quelling 

the numerous disputes which plagued his Church, and be _ 

frequently travelled between Cilicia, Maraghfe in Azarbaljan 

and Melitene/Malatya (ibid, pp. xxi-xxlv). In 1281 Bar 

Hebraeus participated in the ordination of an Uighur monk, 

Yahbh-Allaha, to the catholieosate of the Jacobite Church. 

The next year he visited Ahmad-Khan and received new and 

greater authority. Upon his death in 1286, it w§s grdered 

by catholicos Yahbh-Allaha that the bazar of Mara£heh be 

closed, and Bar Hebraeus was buried in that city with a 

large number of Armenians, Nestorians, Greeks and Jacobites 

participating in the services (ibid, p. xxx). 

1 Budge, p. xvii. 

2 ibid, pp. xviii-xix. 

16

their Church . Considerably less important than Bar 

Hebraeus' work is Abu'l Fida's Universal History, an 

2 

annal which reaches the year 1328 . He based himself on 

former historians but also included original sections 

on the countries he had visited in person such as Syria, 

Egypt, parts of Arabia and Cappadocia as far as Caesarea:. 

The Universal History contains historical information on 

the emirs of Rum and Syria, the rise of Georgia in the 

12-13th centuries, Jalal al-Din, on the latter'a death, 

and on the Mongol invasions of Rum. In addition, Abu'l Fida 

mentions the Armenian backgrounds of numerous Zslamized 

officials in the various Middle Eastern countries in the 

13-14th centuries. 

1 The great value of Bar Hebraeus' Chronography was recognized 

during the author's own lifetime (Budge, pp.xxviiixxiz) 

when "foremost men among the Arabs asked him to turn 

the Chronography which he had composed in Syriac into the 

Saracenic (Arabic) language so that they also might read 

and enjoy it. To this the Maphrian agreed and straightway 

he began to turn the [book into Arabic] in noble and exceedingly 

eloquent language". A Latin translation of Bar 

Hebraeus1 Arabic translation was published in 1663 by Pococke. 

The Syriac text of the Chronography published by Bedjan 

in 1890 was translated into English by E.A. Wallie Budge 

in 1932. 

2 Abu'l Fida, the Arab historian and geographer was descended 

from the line of Saladin's father. Bom in Damscus in 1273, 

he received a military and literary education, participating 

in a series of campaigns and wars. In 1310, the sultan Malik 

Nasr granted him the rule of Hamat, for his services against 

the sultan's adversaries Baibars and the Mongols. He died in 

1333 after ruling Hamat for twenty years [C. Huart, op.cit., 

PP. 337-38] . 

3 Arabakan a^byuraera Hayaetani ev harevan erkrneri masin 

[Arabic Sources on, Armenia and Neighboring Countrj esl, 

HJT*. ftaibandyan, trans.(Erevan, 1965) p. 211. Kalbandyan's 

17

Two sources have been utilized in this study almost 

exclusively for economic and demographic details: the 

Geography of Yaqut al-Hamavi (completed in 1224 in Arabic)1 

and a treatise on taxation in the Il-Khanid state (completed 

in 1340 in Persian), written by the Acoountant-General 

(Mustawfi) of Iran, Hamd-Allah Qazvini2. In addition to 

providing information of an economic nature, both help to 

clarify the changing territorial conceptions "Armenia" in 

the 13-14th centuries. 

Armenian translation of those portions relevant to Armenia 

and surrounding areas is found in Arabakan... pp. 212-50, 

notes pp. 251-91. Standard French translations are by 

Reinaud (Paris, 1848) and S. Guyard (Paris, 1883). 

Yaqut was born in 1178 into a Greek family of Asia Minor. 

Taken captive as a youth, he was sold in Baghdad to a 

Muslim merchant who saw to his education. He was sent on 

business for his master to numerous places. After his 

manumission in 1199, Yaqut visited Syria, Oman, Egypt, 

Tabriz, Aleppo and ôsul. In 1215 he travelled to Khurasan 

and eventually to India. He was in Balkb when he heard of 

the Mongol conquests of Khiva and Bukhara. In 1220 he fled 

to Mosul where, in 1224 He" completed his geographical work. 

He died in 1229 [El. vol. 42 p. 1153, "Yakut al-Rumi"; 

Arabakan... p. 53. 

Qazvini's family, from the time of his great-grandfather, 

had held hereditarily the position of Mustawfi of Iran. 

Qaivini himself was trained in office-work relating to the 

taxation of the provinces, and served under the great 

historian and official Rashid al-Din [ G. Le Strange, 

Mesopotamia and Persia uncTer the Mongols in the Fourteenth 

Century A.P. CLondon. 1903) P. 53. LeStrange'a translation 

of QazviniTs treatise is The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulub 

of Hamd-Allah Muatawfi of Qazvin (London, 1919). 

Book III oT the Nuzhat-al-Qulub jrovides priceless information 

about Azarbaijan. Mughan and Arran. Shirvan, Gurjistan 

(Georgia), Rum and Armenia. District by district, city by . 

city the author usually explains what revenue had accrued 

18

Accounts made by four 13-l4tb century travellers 

have importance both for military, political and economic 

history, and for the history of Armenia's lords. The 

first of the travellers considered is William of Rubruck. 

This French Franciscan friar visited and described various 

parts of the Caucasus in the period from November 17, 1254 

te the beginning of April, 1255. Returning from a frustrat- 

ing, wearying journey on behalf of king Louis IX of 

France to Sartakh-Khan who sent him to Batu, who sent him 

all the way to Mongke-Khan in Qara-Qorum, Rubruck descended 

into the Caucasus to attend to some final businessc He 

visited Darband, Tiflis, Shamakhi, Uughan, Naxijjewan, Ani, 

Kama* and Sebaatia/Sivas. Rubruck met and dined with the 

lord of Ani, Sahnlah Zak'arean. His remarks on Sahnlah, 

his observations of Armenian clerics in the Far East, and 

his accounts of Turco-Mongol nobles make the journal an 

invaluable source . 

from a given area both in his own day, and in past times 

as well4 providing a vivid picture of the general decline 

of the Il-Khanid state in the 14th century. In addition, 

Qazvini commented on the ruined condition of numerous 

cities and towns, the relative size and the trade of 

surviving cities, their noted religious sanctuaries, the 

types of crops grown in the countryside, and much more. 

W.W. Rockhill, The Journey of William of Rubruck to 

the Eastern Parta'"o7 the World"^5?-^5 (london. 1900). 

19

Ibn Battuta (d. 1377), a Spanish Muslim traveller, 

visited Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor during 1333. For 

the most part travelling along the southern, western, and 

northern coasts of Asia Minor, Ibn Battuta also made a 

short excursion inland, visiting the describing the western 

Armenian cities of Sebastia/Sivas, Erzinjan and Erzerum. 

The account is extremely valuable for 14th century Armenian 

social history, speaking about the presence of Turkmen 

bands on the highlands, the condition of cities, religious 

segregation and discrimination and the slave trade in 

Asia Minor1. Battuta as a Muslim travelling in an officially 

.Muslim country, presents a viewpoint not found among the 

Christian travellers. 

The third traveller, a Bavarian Catholic soldier 

named Johann Schiltberger, was captured by the Ottoman sultan 

Bayazid in 1396 at the battle of Nicopolia when he was 

barely 16 years old. Following Bayazid's own capture by 

Timur in 1402, Schiltberger became the property of Timur 

whom he served until the year 1405 when he escaped and 

returned to Europe. The remarkable account of his adventures 

was dictated from memory by the author in German after his 

return home . Schiltberger visited the Armenian highlands 

1 El, new ed., vol. Ill, "Ibn Battuta11 p. 735. On the 

dating of Battuta's excursion Inland see H.A. R. Gibb, The 

Travels of Ibn Battuta. vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1962) pp. 

20

at the beginning and toward the end of his captivity. He 

described the sites, events, and prominent personalities 

of Sebastia/Sivas, Samson, Erzinjan, Xlat', Maku and 

Saxijewan during the times of Bayazid, Timur and Tlmur's 

son Shahrukh. In addition he discoursed on the Apostolic 

religion of the Armenians, on St. Gregory (the Illuminator 

of Armenia), and on Graeco-Armenian tensions. He described 

his co-religionists, the Armenian Catholics of Kaxi3ewan, 

in whom he apparently took much comfort and with whom he 

seems to have remained a sufficient amount of time to have 

picked up the unusual amount of lore found in his account. 

The book ends with the Lord's Prayer given in translitterated 

Armenian and Mongolian . 

The fourth and final traveller considered is Buy 

Gonzalez de Clavijo, whose Embassy to Tamerlane is a 

first-rate account of his three year journey as ambassador 

to king Henry III of Spain in 1403-1*06 from Cadiz in 

Spain to Timur-Khan in Samarkand, and back. Enroute to 

the East, Clavijo passed fros Trebizond to Erzinjan to 

Erzerum, Surmari, Ararat, Maku and Khoy, frequently lodging 

in villages. On his return from Samarqand he visited 

1 The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger. 

T TI •*-•"'—., trans. (London, 1679J. 

21

Alashkert, Ani, and Sper. He commented on the condition 

of citiee and of the countryside under Timor's rule, on 

the tribulations of the Armenian governor of Erzinjan, on 

taxes, crypto-Christianity, on the massacres and deportations 

of Armenians in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, 

and on Turkmen, Timurid, and Ottoman warfare, frequently 

providing detailed historical excursuses . 

The non-Caucasian sources tend to have different 

foci than the Caucasian. They were written by indiv- 

iduals lacking the patriotic feelings that motivated the 

Armenian historians. The history of the Turco-Mongol invasions 

could not be written without them, but for the history of 

Armenia's nobles in the 13-14th centuries, the Caucasian 

sources remain the most important. A discussion of these 

sources follows. 

Armenian Sources 

Kirakos Ganjakec'i and His History of Armenia 

Kirakos Ganjakec'i was one of the most important Armenian 

historians of the 13th century. Biographical information 

about him is not plentiful . In chapter 33 of his work, after 

a description of the activities of the influential Syrian 

Eaban, the author wrote: "This [episode] was written down 

1 Clavijo, Embassy to Tamerlane 1403-1*06, (J. Le Strange, 

trans. (London, 19287. 

22

in the year 1241/42 (690 A.E. )„..when I was more or less forty 

years old" . Consequently the historian was born in the 

early part of the 13th century, probably between 1200 and 

12102. 

Kirakos received his early education at the monastery 

of Getik, at that time under the direction of a student of 

the great teacher and writer Mxit'ar Gfos (d. 1213) named 

Martiros'. However, it was with another of Mxit'ar'a stud- 

ents, the historian Yovhannes Vanakan (d. 1251) that Kirakos 

sutdied for a prolonged period. Ibis education commenced 

at Xoranasat monastery near Tawus fortress, northwest of 

Ganjak . When the Khwarazmian sultan Jalal al-Dln ravaged 

Xoranasat in 1225, Vanakan fled with his students to a nearby 

cave, near the village of Lorut, south of Tawus . He con- 

tinued teaching there until 1236 when a Mongol army 

under Molar occupied TawuS. Both Vanakan and Kirakos 

were taken captive by the Mongols and kept as secretaries 

for several months , Vanakan eventually was ransomed by 

I Kirakos Ganjakec'i, Patmut'iwn Hayoc* [History of Armenia] 

K.A. Melik'OhanJanyan, ed. (Erevan, 1961), hereafter KG, ch. 

33 p. 278; "i. Samanaki kenac' meroc * ama k'afaaun pakas ka.-s 

aweli". 

2 See H. Oskean, "Kirakos Ganjakec'i" KA (1922) p. 89} Alisan, 

Kayapatua p. 216 specifies 1203. 

5 KG ch. 17 p. 222. 

4 KG ch. 15 p. 218. 

5 KG ch. 23 PP. 2

the Christiana of Gag for 80 dahekana. and Kirakos escaped 

secretly the same night, fleeing to Getik1. 

Almost nothing is known about the remaining years 

of the historian's life. That he participated in the 

aovement to crush a rebellion in the Church in 1251, is 

o 

clear from chapter 48 of his work . Around 1255 he 

interviewed the Cilician Armenian king Het'um (1224-68) 

at the village of Vardenis near mt. Aragac upon the latter's 

return from a visit to Batu-Khan . Kirakos' name is 

mentioned in 1265 by his classmate and fellow-historian 

Tardan Arewelc'i from whom the author requested and 

received a commentary on the Song of Songs . According 

to another late 13th century historian, Grigor Aknerc'i, 

Kirakos died in 1271/725. 

KG, chp. 23, P. 252; M. Abeiyan, Collected Works, vol. 4 

(Erevan, 1970} pp. 234-40. See Bibliography under Abeiyan. 

KG, chp. 48, p. 327, and chp. 48 passim. 

3 

KG , chp. 58 p. 364,371, 372. On the journey of Het'um 

see John Andrew Boyle, "The Journey of Het'um I, King of 

Little Armenia, to the Court of the Great Khan MSnge", Central 

Asiatic Journal. 9(1964) pp. 175-89. • ~~ 

Oskean, op.cit.. pp. 91-93. 

Grigor Aknerc'i, History gf the Hation of. the Archers£HSA], 

R.Blake, trans., Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies(1949) 

#3-4 p. 379? Minor Chronicles. voT" 1 (Erevan, 1951) P. 44 

See below under Chronographies. 

24

Ganjakee'i's Hiatory of Armenia is a lengthy work 

in 65 chapters, written in a clear, simple style. It 

ooomences with the Christianization of Armenia and narrates 

events from Armenia's political and Church history, based 

on sources cited by the author . Since most of these 

sources have survived, the early portion of the History 

—albeit by no means devoid of interest—is less important 

than the eection(beginning with chapter 11) wherein 

Kirakos describes events of his own day. The writer himself 

2 

clearly was conscious of this fact < Kirakos was eminently 

qualified to write about 13th century Armenia* An intell- 

igent man trained by an intellectual of Vanakan's caliber, 

the author was familiar with Church organization and 

problems, with prominent contemporary churchmen and their 

historical writings . He was acquainted with important 

Armenian naxarars such as prince Proi Zalbakean, who 

participated in the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258/59 

and narrated to Kirakos what he had seen and heard, and 

prince Grigor Maoikonean, who informed Kirakos what he had 

heard from a Mongol noble about Chinglz-Khan . His detailed 

KG, "Introduction", pp. 6-10. 

KG, chp. 20 p. 231. 

Kirakos mentions his teacher Vanakan's now-lost work, 

KG, ehp. 5 P. 178. 

KG, chp. 60 p. 364;chp. 32 p. 272. 

25

information about members of the Zak'arid family derives 

in part from ProS, himself a Zak'arid relation. Is 

mentioned above, king Het'um I served as one informant. 

Furthermore, during his months of captivity by the Mongols 

Xirakos served as a secretary writing and reading letters , 

o 

and he learned Mongolian . In chapter 32 of his History 

Kirakoo Ganjakec'i has left us a priceless treasure, a 

lexicon of some 55 Mongolian terms with their Armenian 

equivalents, one of the earliest monuments of the Mongolian 

language5. Consequently, such an individual knew well not 

only the workings of his own society, but clearly under- 

stood aspects of the society of Armenia's conquerors and 

new masters. 

We do not know when Kirakos began his work. Father 

Oskean, citing the aforementioned statement in chapter 33, 

"This was written down in the year 690 A.E. (-1241/42)..." 

thinks the year 1240 a likely time4. The History ends 

abruptly with an unfinished description of the war between 

KG, chp. 24 p. 249. 

KG, chp. 32 p. 274. 

KG, chp. 32 p. 274. For an English translation and 

scholarly commentary on this chapter and lexicon see 

J.A. Boyle, "Klrakos of Ganjak on the Mongols", Central 

Asiatic Journal 8(1963) pp. 199-214. also L.Li&eti, "Le 

lexique .-nonôl de Kirakos de Gandzak" Acta Oriental la Hungarian 

4 xviutiles). 

Oskean, 53. cit., p. 216. 

26

the Diane Abaga and Berke (1266/67). The cause of this 

sudden termination remains unknown . 

Vardan Arewelc'i and His Compilation of History 

Like Kirakoa, Vardan is believed to have been born 

in 1200-1210. Nothing is known about his parents or family. 

One of his early teachers was Yovhannes Vanakan (d. 1251), 

whom Vardan refers to in his History as "our glorious father" 

and whose now-lost historical work Vardan, like Kirakoa, 

o 

employed . 

The critical edition of Ganjakee'i's History of Armenia 

was published by the late K.A. :.!elik'-Ohanjanyan in 1961. 

This text was based on 30 manuscripts housed at the Matenadaran 

in Erevan, Armenia, collated with the three earlier 

editions, those of Moscow [Patmut'iwn Hayoe' arareal Kirakosi 

Gan.lakec woy (The History of Armenia composed by Kirakos 

Qan.iakec'i). Ostan Ter-Georgean-Yovhanniseanc'(Moscow, 

1858], Venice,Ct. Alisan, ed., (Venice, 1865)3 and Tiflis, 

1909. The latter is a reprint of the Moscow edition.and is 

reviewed by S. Akinean in HA (1910), pp. 253-54. Complete 

translations were made in Trench by M. Brosaet (St. Petersburg,1870) 

Deux hi8toriens armenienes. I, Kirakos de Gandzac; 

into Russian by L. A. Khanlarian, Kirakos Gandzaketsi, 

Istoriia Armenii (MOSCOW, 1976); and into English by the 

present_writer. For the numerous translations see K. A. 

Melik'-OhanJanyan. A full bibliography by H.'Anasyan is 

appended to that work. 

b 

Vardan Arewelc'i, Hawak'umn patmut'ean Vardanay vardapeti 

luaabaneal (Venice, 1862) ch. 67 p. 1*ST ^'araworeaT 

hayrn mer Vanakan yardapetn...*. Biographical information 

about Vardan called Arewelc'i (the Easterner), Aluanic* 

(from Albania), Ganjakec'i and "the Great", is found in 

the History of his classmate and good friend Kirakos Ganjakec'i, 

in Vardan'a own works, and in Grigor Aknerc'i's History. 

Scholars in elucidating the few facts known about Vardan 

sometimes have confused him with other Vardans living in

Around 1239-40, Yardan visited Jerusalem on a pilgrimage 

and then went to Cilicia, ca. 1240-41 where he was received 

very favorably by king Het'um I and the reigning kat'otikos 

Constantino Barjraberdc'i (1220-68)1. Kirakos Ganjakec'i 

states that the kat'otikos entrusted Vardan with an encyclical 

which the latter brought back to eastern Armenia for the 

signatures of the somewhat reluctant bishops, monies, and 

princes. Presumably Yardan visited most of these dignitaries 

in person, a journey which would have taken him from larin/ 

Erzerum to Ani, Kara, Bjni, Anberd, Halbat, Sanahin, Getik, 

Halaroin, Kegaru, Kawuc' T'ar, Ayrivank* (Geiard), Yovhan- 

havank', Salmoaavank', Horomoa, to Albania, to his teacher 

the sage period. Father M. Camêan rPatmut'^wn. Havoc' 

skzbane aaxarhi minSew zam tearn 1784 ast awandelov 

aylayl matenagrac' (History pjf the Armenians from the 

Creation of theWorld to A.D. 1784 According to the 

Accounts of* biverse Source's 3 vole. (Venice, 1784-86) 

vol. 3 p. 240] and J. Emin [MkrtiZ (Joseph) Emin, first 

to publish the Armenian text entitled it Mecin Vardanay 

Bar.1rberdc 'woy patmut'iwn tiezerakan (Universal History 

p_f the Sreat Vardan Bar.lraberde'i) (Moscow. 1861)1 made 

the same mistake. However the error was not made by 

the publishers in the forword of the second edition 

(Venice, 1862) p. ii. See 11. Abelyan, Works. vol. 4, 

p. 240, and H. Oekean, "Vardan Arewelc'i", kA (L921) p. 365. 

1 KG ch. 41 p. 294. Father Oskean considers it likely 

that Vardan participated in the Council of Sis in 1243, 

called to settle Church disputes (Oskean, p. 368). While 

in Cilicia, Vardan made the acquaintance of a Syrian 

priest named Isox, with whom he translated into Armenian 

Michael the Syrian's Chronology, ca. 1246 (Oskean, pp. 

569-70. On the numerous other works attributed to Vardan 

see Oskean, pp. 461-69, 564-72. 

28

?snakan, and to the prince of princes Awag Zak'arean . 

Yardaa then sent the signed document back to the kat*- 

oîkos2. 

In 1264/^5 a merchant named Snorhawor took Vardan 

to see Httlegtt-Khan who deeply honored the great scholar'. 

Sometime in 1266 Vardan's History was stolen, the work 

still unfinished. However one and a half years later 

he was able to retrieve it . Vardan spent his last years 

KG che 43 PC 310. 

ibid p. 311. Cam§ean, followed by £. Alisan incorrectly 

supposed that Vardan personally took the encyclical back 

to Cilicia (Oskean, op. Pit., p. 369). After discharging 

the kat'oiikos' request, Vardan went to his retreat called 

Andre near Kayean fortress where he taught and wrote (KG 

ch. 43 p. 311). He also lived six years at Xorvirap where 

he had 40 pupils, then at Salmosavank* and HariSa monasteries 

(Oskean, pp. 369-70). See also H. Kanandian and Hr..ASarean 

Hayoc* nor ykanera [Armenian Hep-martyrs]. (Valarsapat,1903) 

p. 105. 

VA ch. 96 pp. 155-58. 

VA ch. 97 p. 167. 

29

at Halbat and Xofvirap1. According to Crigor Aknerc'l, 2 

he died in 1271/72, the same year aa hia friend Kirakoa . 

Vardan made use of Kirakoa Ganjakec'i's History of 

Armenia'. He derived another source of his information 

1 Oskean, ojj. c^t., pp. 370-71. 

2 GA p. 379. Oskean thinks that Vardan was buried at 

Xorvirap (Oskean, p. 373). 

3 VA oh. 87 p. 146. Vardan1s Compilation of History 

belongs to the genre of "universal histories" popular 

among medieval Armenian authors. It commences with Adam 

and terminates with the death of Vardan's personal friend 

kat'oîkos Constantine in 1268. It is not known when the 

author started writing the History. While Vardan tends 

to concentrate on the history of Armenia, the early 

portion of his work also speaks about the rulers of Israel, 

Greece, Persia, and Arabia. As a result of his attempt 

to abridge so much of Middle Eastern history, Vardan's 

style suffers. The list-like presentations of names and 

the extraneous repetitions in the early section of his 

work make it tiresome reading.Sources for the period 

before his own include the Bible and Biblical traditions, 

plus most of the same Armenian historians utilized by 

Kirakos Ganjakec'i. Unlike Kirakoa, however, Vardan 

rarely cites his sources. This is a consequence not of 

the author's desire to conceal this information or to 

claim it as his own, but simply because these sources 

would have been immediately recognized by readers. As 

Vardan approaches his won period, the information becomes 

more significant. This is especially true of his narration 

of llth and 12th century events, since apparently he 

made use of works now lost, such as Yovhannes Sargawag's 

History of the Saljuqs. 

30

from personal acquaintance with the principals of the day. 

As was mentioned above, the erudite Vardan, praised as 

"the learned and brilliant vardapet" by his classmate 

Kirakos was a valued friend both of king Het'um I of 

Cilicia, and of the kat'otikoa. Kirakos wrote: "He went 

to the kat'oîkoa [Constantine] who rejoiced exceedingly 

at his sight. The kat'oîkos kept [Vardan] with him for 

a long time, binding the latter to himself with affection, 

o 

for he never wanted him to depart" . When Vardan took 

the kat'oilkoa* encyclical £ast for ratification, he visited 

all the important Church and lay personalities of the 

period. In addition to his intimacy with prominent Armenians, 

Vardan was personally acquainted with the Mongol Il-Khan 

HUlegU (1255-65) and his Christian wife Doquz-Khatun'.The account 

KG ch. 41 p. 294: "zimaatun ew zhanSarejt vardapetn zVardan. . . " . 

ew 

ew ar iwr paheal y 

oS.kamer erbek' me 

kat'otikosn. zor teaeal* uraxae *aw ypyz1. 

ov zamanaks . sirov kapeal and nma. zi 

il i nmane". 

Vardan attended the Mongol New Year celebration in Iran 

in 1265/66 at HUlegU's invitation. According to his own 

account of his audience with HUlegU, Vardan, as an honored 

cleric was not required to bow. He agreed to bless the 

Khan's wine (VA ch. 96 p. 156). HUlegU later grew Vardan 

aside and by means of interpretora urged him to criticize 

and advize freely and fearlessly (ibid, p. 157). Vardan 

was given a patent of authority (yarligh) and was promised 

an audience again, the following year, though HUlegU had 

died before it took place. "Howgver, [HUlegtt's Christian 

wife] the great queen Toluz-Khatun prior to announcing 

HUlegU's death, secretly sent to me, saying: 

'God loved the Il-Khan and took him away. Whatever 

he loved here and gave to this world will be given 

to him in the next. Should there be a mass or not?1... 

She also inquired regarding Abaqa, HUlegU's senior son,

of a man enjoying such authority among his .own people and 

their foreign overlords is of exceptional importance . 

Step'annos Orbelean*s History of the State of Sisakan 

Step'annos Orbelean, metropolitan of the district 

of Siwnik' in eastern Armenia (1285/86-1303/4) was the 

— o 

House historian of the illustrious Orbelean family . The 

whtether it was proper to enthrone him, for he had not 

converted [to Christianity] (7A, ch . 97 pp. 160-61)". 

1 Vardan's History Is important too from the standpoint of 

language. Written in a somewhat vulgar form of classical 

Armenian, occasionally we see evidence of the emergence 

of the urn ending typical of later modern eastern Armenian. 

See Abelyan, pp. 245-46. Regrettably, no critical edition 

of Vardan's History exists. The Armenian text had been 

published twice; by J. Smin (Moscow, 1861) and by the 

Venetian Mxit'ariats in 1862. The latter edition is based 

on a ms. made in 1307. Among the 8 or 9 remaining mas. 

of the History, one recopied in 1631 was based on a ms. 

dated 723 A.E. (»1274/75), only three years after Vardan's 

death (VA, p. xi; Oskean, pp. 460-61). Ths History was 

translated in full into Russian by Smin (Moscow, 1861). 

A partial Russian translation was made by K.Patkanov 

(St. Petersburg, 1873, vol. 1, pp. 1-29). Partial French 

translations appeared in Journal Asiatique (1860 fas. II) 

andîn Recueil dea historiens des Croisades; Documents 

armeniens I [Paris. 18691 PP. 731-43 made by E. Dulaurier. 

An £nglish"~translation of chapters 82-100 (pp. 138-64of 

the Venice, 1862 ed.) was made by the present writer. 

2 The Orbeleans, apparently a branch of the once-influential 

Mamikonean house, removed to southern Georgia from Armenia 

in the second half of the 9th century. Centered at the 

fortress of Orbeti in the SamSvilde area, this family, like 

its presumed Armenian Mamikonid relations in Armenia, held 

the often hereditary office of commander-in-chief (spaspeti) 

of the Georgian army in the llth and 12th centuries 

[C.Toumanoff, "The Mamikonids and the Liparitids", Armenlaca 

(Venice, 1969), p. 125. Step'annos Orbelean, PatmuViwn 

ifahankin SisakamHlstory of the State of Sisakan). Kara pet 

Sahnazareanc , ed. (Paris, 1§59) chp. 6T passim. Hereafter SO], 

32

year of Step'annos' birth is not known. Some scholars 

believe that he was born in 1250-60, basing themselves 

on his statement that he was ordained a priest in 1280/81, 

and probably would have been between 25 and 30 years of 

age at that time . Step'annos received a clerical educ- 

ation and became successively a scribe (dpir), deacon, 

and priest2. In 1285/86 his father sent him to Cilicia, 

where "on Easter day they ordained Step'annos the oetro- 

However, in 1177, as a result of the implication of the 

Orbeleans in an abortive rebellion against king Georgi III, 

the Georgian Crown exterminated all members of the clan, 

excepting two brothers who escaped (SO, chp. 66 pp. 128-35). 

One brother, Iwane, succeeded in restoring part of his 

family's holdings in Georgia during the reign of queen 

Tamar (1184-1213) (ibid, p. 136). Descendants of the other 

brother, Elikum, eventually gained control of all Siwnik' 

(SO, chp. 66 pp. 143-44, 167-69, "from Balk' to Ayrarat 

and from the gate of BarkuSat to the borders of BJni"). 

As a consequence of speedy submission to the Mongols, the 

Orbeleans, then headed by Elikum'a grandson Smbat, not 

only retained their lands, but also extended them (SO, p. 

150, 158). When Smbat's brother and successor TaraayiS 

died in 1290, Orbelean control over Siwnik' was stronger 

than ever: larsayi&'s son Elikum became the secular lord 

of the princedom, while our author Step'annos, Tarsayic's 

other son, firmly exercised the spiritual author!ty(SO,p.179). 

1 SO. chp. 66 p. 174; T'. X. Hakobyan, S.T. Melik'-BaxSyan, 

Step anos OrbeIvan (Erevan, I960)p. 26. Also G.M. Grigoryan, 

"Step anos Orbelyan", PBH 4(1976) p. 155.Some controversy 

exists about his mother. In chapter 66 of the History 

Step'annos wrote about his father TarsayiS: "He had taken 

a wife from among the Ishmaalites,.Aruz xat'un, daughter 

of the lord of Siwnik'; she became a Christian and [displayed] 

venerable faith and fear of God..."(SO, chp. 66 p. 162). 

Subsequently, in chapter 71 he stated that he was descended 

on his mother's side "from [the line of] Sisak* and was an 

Orbelean on his father's side (SO, chp. 71, p. 226). If 

both statements are correct, i.e.., that Aruz was both a 

Muslim and of the indigenous Armenian line of Sisak, it is 

possible that his mother had been an Islamized Armenian. 

SO, chp.66 p. 166. M. Abelyan, vol. 4 pp.250-51. 

33

politan of the great see of Siwnik', above all the other 

bishops here and there, some in Yayoc* Jor and some in 

1 2 

Tat'ew" . He returned home in 1287/68 . After a protracted 

struggle with rebellious bishops , he managed to assert 

his control over the prelacies of Tat'ew and Noravank, and 

then commenced industriously rennovating the ruined and 

dilapidated churches and monasteries under his jurisdiction . 

1 SO, chp 

zStep'annoa 

epiakoposac 

2 ibid, p. 175. 

3 ibid, pp. 175-76. 

4 SO, chp. 63 P. 90. Information on these activities ia 

found not only in the History but in the numerous extant 

inscriptions the new metropolitan had carved on his construction 

projects themselves CDivan Hay Yimaerut'yan 

(Corpus of Armenian Inscriptions) vol. 3 (Erevan, 1966) 

[CIA volTS"] pp. 208, 215, 220, 222, 238, etc. It should 

be noted too that march other inscriptions which have survived 

in a damaged state both from Step'annos* time and 

from earlier periods have been reconstructed thanks to 

the scholarly Step'annos who frequently incorporated their 

complete texts into his History. See H.A.Orbeli, CIA vol.1 

(Erevan, 1966) p. XI, ff.lj.Srigoryan, oj>.cit., p. 161. 

Speaking of Siwnik in the early 1290Ts under the rule of 

his brother Elikum and himself, Step'annos declared: "How 

because in this period the whole land was ruined and 

corrupted and worship had been obstructed in the monasteries, 

everyone universally applied to this lordship [Siwnik'] 

finding a haven here. [Among the applicants were] the 

kat'ojtikos of Albania, lord Step'annos who came and dwelled 

with his [.spiritual] brother lord Step'annos [the author], 

many other bishops, vardapets. and azats. By the grace of 

God, this tunCHouae] was a sight to behold, like unto 

Noah's ark amidst the world-destroying waves..."(SO.chp.66 

p. 178). In the late 1290's and early 1300's, Step annos 

was active as the leader of the eastern Armenian clergy in 

resisting the Latinophile policies of the Cilician kat olikos 

34

In chapter 73 of the History the author states that 

he completed his work in the year 1299 during the reign 

of Ghazan-Khan, son of Arghun . For the early portion 

of the History. Step'annos used many of the sources used 

by Xirakos and Vardan; however, he also employed histories 

and sources unused by other writers such as the sermons 

of the fifth century Petros Siwnik', and the history of 

A 

Maitoc* of Sewan . He frequently quotes directly from 

now-lost kat'oSrikoaal encyclicals, letters from kat'oiikoi 

to the bishops of Siwnik' and responses to them, edicts, 

Church property documents, inscriptions, colophons and 

old letters of Armenian and Siwnik' monarchs and the princes 

of Siwnik' . Step'annos knew Georgian , and used the 

History of K'art'li . He may have known Persian as 

Srigor Anawarzec'i (SO, chp. 68-69). Step'annos1 tombstone 

at Noravank* monastery indicates 1303/4 as the year of hii 

death (CIA, vol. 3 p. 233). 

1 SO, chp. 73 pp. 256-57. The History of the State of 

Sisakan is not Step'annos' sole surviving work.For a 

list of the others see Grigoryan, op.cit., p. 157, also 

M. Abelyan, vol. 4, pp. 257-71. In part, apparently, 

Step'annos was motivated to undertake this project by 

feelings of family pride. He complains that while other 

families which played a prominent role in Armenian affairs 

—such as the Mamikonean, Bagratuni, and Arcruni— all had 

their noteworthy deeds put into writing, the House of Siaak 

and its successors (the Orbeleans) lacked a recorded history 

(SO, chp. 1 p. 47; chp. 5 pp. 56-57). 

2 Agjt'angelos, SO chp. 7 p, 64, chp. 9 p. 71; lazar and 

Eiise, chpi 18 p. 104; Zenob, chp. 5 p. 58; iewond, chp. 7 

p.64; Movses Xorenac'i, chp. 6 p. 63; John Kat'olikos, chp. 

26 p. 148; Uxtanes, chp. 25 p. 142, chp. 26, p. 149; History 

of Albania, chp. 26 p. 149, chp.52, p. 22; Mxit'ar of Ani, 

chp. 66 p. 118; Book of Letters, chp. 26, p. 149. Petros 

Siwnik' chp. 1 p. 48, chp. 10 pj. 78-79 and elsewhere; 

Maltoc* of Sewan, chp. 34 p. 204. 

35

well1. In chapter 3 he provides a unique but regrettably 

corrupt geographical description of the 12 districts of 

Siwnik', and in chapter 74 he furnishes a long list of the 

2 

taxes paid to the Church by these districts . 

The already extremely great importance of this History 

is increased yet more when Step'annoe speaks of his own 

times. As the educated son of the former lord of Siwnik', 

TarsayiS, and as the brother of the ruling lord Elilcum, 

Step'annoa was in a position to know intimately all the 

important noble personalities and events of that state and 

in Armenia generally. Similarly, his knowledge of Georgian 

and the existence of a powerful Georgian branch of his own 

family doubtlessly made him privy to information unavailable 

to many Armenian historians regarding events in Georgia. 

As metropolitan of Siwnik' he had jurisdiction over all 

churches and monasteries located there. Furthermore, he 

had numerous highly placed acquaintances and enjoyed their 

respect. In chapter 66 where the author described his trip 

1 On Step'annos* use of old documents: SO chp. 1 p. 49, 

chp. 8 p. 67, chp. 23; chp. 36 p. 208; ohp. 43 pp. 278-79; 

chp. 57 pp. 52-53, chp. 73 PP. 254-55,and elsewhere. His 

knowledge of Georgian: SO chp. 66 p. 133 and use of the 

History of K'art'li chp. 66 p. 118. His possible knowledge 

of Persian: chp. 70 p. 219. 

2 On the tax list see G.M. Grigoryan, "Dramakan haraberut *yunneri 

zargac'uma Syunik *um ev St.OrbeTyani harkac'uc"alci 

xndirs [The Development of~Honey~Selationships in Siwnik 

and the Question of St. Orbelean's Tax list]" Lraber 2(1966) 

PP. 45-57'. 

36

to Cilicia, he wrote; 

...But when Step'annos arrived there, the 

kat'oîkos [Yakob] had died. Lewon, king of Armenia, 

received him with great honor and glory and greatly 

entreated him to remain there and to occupy the 

kat'olikosal throne. Step'annoB did not consent 

to this...l. 

He was personally acquainted with three Mongol Khans. 

Arghun, Geikhatu, and Ghazan, all of whom esteemed this 

2 

important dignitary and quickly granted his requests . 

Consequently, Step'annos was uniquely qualified to write 

an authoritative history of his country and his times . 

i. t, agaworen Havoc Lewone or ew yolpv it axanjans arnei 

nma" mnal. and en ew nstel yat"ror~k'aT 'oîkosut 'eanTTayoc *1 

Ew ming o$ arnoyr yan.1n 

SO, chp. 66 p. 176? chp. 71 p.230; chp. 71 p. 231. 

Unfortunately no critical edition of the History of the 

State of Siaakan exists. The Armenian text was pubTTshed 

first TiyKarapet Sahnazareanc' (Paris, 1859). I*o years 

later J.ISmin issued an edition in Moscow based on two mss. 

which he compared with the Sahnazareanc' text. The third 

printing occurred in Tiflia, 1910 in the lukaaean Library 

Series, and is a reprint of the Paris text with the addition 

of an index. A full French translation in two volumes was 

issued by M. Brosset (St.Petersburg. 1864-66; Histoire de 

la Siounie. par Stephannos Orbellan; . Translations of 

individual chapters have been made into Russian by 

K. Patkanov and A.G. GalstyanCsee Bibliography]; French by 

M.S.Saint-MartenCMemoires historiques et geographiques sur 

I'Armenie. t.II(Paris, 1819)]; and English by the presenT" 

writer. 

37

Grigor Aknerc'i's History of the Nation of the ArchersCHNA] 

Very little is known about the author of this work 

which treats the 44 year period from 1229/30 to 1273. 

He is presumed to have been born in Cilicia around 1250 . 

Nothing is known about his parents, although by his own 

testimony Grigor did have a brother Mxit'ar who had died 

by the time Grigor completed his work . A colophon dated 

1312/13 speaks of Grigor as the abbot of Akner monastery 

in Cilicia . Father Nerses Akinean places his death around 

13354. 

Nerses Akinean, "Grieor k'ahanay Aknerc*i patmaeir 

T 'at'arac' Patmut'ean 1250-1335CGrigor the Priest of Akner, 

HisTorian of 'ike"'History of"lhe T'at'ars3",HA (1948) p.387. 

2 ibid, p. 387 n.l. 

Nerses Akinean, "Akanc' kam Akneri vank'aCAkane* or 

Akner Monastery], HA (I9487~p. 237. 

4 Akinean."Grieqr k'ahanay". pp. 389-90. SNA is contained 

in ms. 32 housed a7 the library of the monastery of St. 

James in Jerusalem. Ms. 32 commences with the Armenian 

translation of the Chronoeraphy of Michael the Syrian 

(done by Vardan Arewelc"1 in 1246) which concludes with 

the events of 1195. The Chronograyhy is followed by a 

continuation made by the Armenian translator or some other 

person which briefly comments on the period 1216-1229. 

This section is succeeded by a colophon of the copyist 

Grigor Aknerc'i, which states that the latter completed 

his copy of the above portions in 1273, and then adds: 

"...by the grace of God we too shall write what is lacking 

from it for 44 years"(GA, Introduction, p. 272). This 

is followed immediately by Grigor's HNA which the author 

apparently saw as a continuation of the chronologies he 

had been copying. At the end of the History. Grigor stated: 

"In the year 720 A.E. (-1271/72) these chronograph!es were 

written by the command of the blessed, glorious father 

38

The HNA differs from the works of other Armenian 

historians thus far described. First, as the product of 

a Cilician author in his early 20'a when the work was 

completed in 1273, this history lacks the immediacy found 

in the compilations of eastern Armenian eye-witnesses to 

the Mongol conquest and domination, such as Kirakos, Vardan, 

and Step'annos. This circumstance probably accounts for 

some of the chronological inaccuracies committed by Grigor 

in the early portion of his work . On the other hand, 

as Blake observed, "The writer had one advantage over his 

more gifted contemporary [Kirakoa]: he was not immediately 

exposed to the impact of the invaders..." . A second 

difference between Grigor'a work and the histories of 

Kirakos, Vardan, and Step'annos concerns the scope of his 

undertaking. Aknerc *i wrote a relatively a hort history 

of a 44 year period. ?ar from being a universal history 

Step'annos of this retreat of Akanc* with the consent of 

Tardan, warden of the holy retreat, and of the entire 

brotherhood of priests and clerics, by the hand of the 

miserable scribe Grigor, servant of the Word..."(Akinean, 

"Grigcr k'ahanay". p. 390, also H.Blake, GA, Introduction, 

pp. 281-82 n.6). All publications of the Armenian text 

and all translations of it prior to the issuance of R.Blake's 

text and English translation have incorrectly named a certain 

vardajjetjiaiakia as the author. Two scholars, H.2amko§yan 

and Herses Akinean independently established Grigor of Akner 

as the true writer[Akinean, "Grigor k'ahanay"; 2amko$yan, 

"The Author of the Work HKA"(in Arm.)Scientific Works of 

the State University of Erevan 23(1946) pp. 367-68].Malakia 

it was revealed, was none other than the 17th century 

yardapet Malakia T'oxat'ec'i who had recopied Grigor1s work 

and whose own colophon gave rise to this confusion. 

1 For example, Grigor incorrectly dates the first appearance 

of the Mongols in the Caucasus to 1214, years earlier than 

other historians (GA, p. 294/95); the defeat of Ghiyath 

39

of Armenia, the author focusaed on but two principal arenas, 

Greater Armenia and Cilieia, and he devoted considerable 

space to 13th century Cilieia. A third important differ- 

ence is that clearly Grigor was not a well-educated or 

deep individual. His frequent lapses into fantasy 

jeopardize the credibility of other information for which 

he is our only source. 

What were Aknerc'i's sources of information? 

?r. Akinean observed a number of them. Apparently among 

the most important were oral accounts of events provided 

by Armenian visitors to Akner monastery such as Dawit* 

Bjnec'i, Kirakos Getikc'i, and king Het'um I, people who 

either were from the East, or had travelled there . One 

informant in Akinean1a opinion, had been a student of 

2 

Vanakan vardapet . It was from such informed individuals 

al-Din in 1244 is recorded as occurring in 1239 (p.306/7); 

Arghun's census of 1253/54 is consigned to 1251/52 by 

Grigor. Zamkojyan noted that for the post-1249 period, 

Grigor is generally accurate (Zamkogyan, op.cit.. p.388). 

Blake's statement, GA, Introduction, p. 269. 

1 Akinean, •grlgetr k'ahanay". p. 399. 

2 ibid, p. 400. To Akinean, Grigor definitely was not 

a pupil of Vanakan nor the classmate of Vardan and Kirakos. 

Thus the statement found at the end of chapter 9: "In 

those days the senior glorious vardapet. our Vanakan, 

passed to Christ leaving us in great grief, not only those 

of us who had studied with him, but the entire land..." 

(GA, p. 322/23) in Akinean1s opinion was made by such an 

informant to Grigor, not by the author himself. 

40

.that Grigor learned the meanings of the large number of 

Mongolian military and Juridical terms which he incorpor- 

ated into the History . Akinean also detected a few 

written sources, including the Bible, a commentary on 

the Names of the Hebrews, the Chronography of Michael the 

Syrian, and the lengthy colophon of Vardan Arewelc'i 

(1246) providing a legendary geneology of the Mongols, 

which Grigor incorporated into his own work with few 

alterations . It is also possible, as Akinean and Blake 

suggested, that Grigor may have had access to Vanakan's 

now-lost history'. 

1 Akinean, "Grigor k'ahanay". 400. 

2 ibid, pp. 401-2. 

3 

ibid, p. 403; Blake, GA, Introduction, pp. 274-76. The 

Armenian text of the HNA first was published in 1870 at 

Jerusalem based on the oldest extant ms. (#32 of the 

Patriarchal Library of St. James, Jerusalem) dated 1271, 

and another ms. dated 1602 CNlxark * hay matenagrut 'ean 

patmut * iwn T'atarac* Tardani patmci haneal hanea ^ jeragir 

orinakacc ' (Fragments of Armenian Literature :"Yardan the 

Historian's History oT the T'at'ars. printed from manuscript 

copies) (Jerusalem, T§70) ; See also N. Akinean 's review 

of Blake's translation in HA (1955) p. 274]. Also in 1870 

K. Patkanean published theTrmenian text in St. Petersburg 

baaed on a Venice ms. of 1624[Halak/ia ' 

vaan, azgin HetQ3,ae '(Maâk'ia jJIa Monh;'P H&All. The following 

year Patkanean published a Russian transla tionC Istoriia 

Mongol oy inoka Magakii (Maiak'ia the Monk's History Pf Hi 

ongolsT. The Sistory previousTy~Ha"d~Eeen""translated~"in:E 

french by Brosset in 1851 [based on the Venice ms. dated 

1624. Ouvrage de Malakia-Abegha , ou Ualakia-le-Moine, in 

M. Broaset's Additions et eclairoissments a I'Histoire de 

la Georgie (St. Peters burg, 1851) pp. 438-67J7 The Armenian 

text, compared with all previous editions accompanied by 

an English translation was printed in vol. 12 of the 

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies #3-4(1949) pp. 269-443.

T'ovma Mecop'ec'i's History of Tamerlane and His Successors 

Information about this author ia found in T'ovma"a 

« 9 

own History, , in the Life of T'ovma Meoopec'i* written 

Appearing in the same Journal was Francis Woodman Cleaves' 

important article, "The Mongolian Names and Terms in the 

History of the Nation of the Archers by Grigor of Akanc'" 

(pp. 400-444). Subsequently, in 1954, Blake's text and 

translation and Cleaves1 article were reprinted together 

in book form [History of the Nation of the Archers (the 

Mongols) by Grigor o? Hcanc , hitherto ascribed to Malak'la 

the Monk, the Armenian text edited with an English translation 

and notes by Robert P. Blake and Richard N. Frye 

(Cambridge, Mass., 1954)]. Blake's translation, without 

a doubt a great contribution to Armenian and Mongol studies, 

nonetheless has a number of inaccuracies. Some of these 

are due to typographical errors, others to the scholar's 

unfamiliar!ty with certain conventions in classical Armenian 

and with Armenian place names. The most serious of these 

mistakes have been identified in Akinean's review of the 

publication (HA, 1955, pp. 275-77). Here we point out 

three such errors as a caution that Blake's work must be 

used in conjunction with the studies of Akinean and Zamko?yant 

Blake Should Read 

zMcbnay berd "the citadel of zMacnaberd("Macnaberd, a 

Nisibis«(chp.3 p.297 1 65). fortress near Ganjak). 

zNorberdn,"the new fortress" zNorberdn("Norberd, a 

(chp.3 p.297 1 67). fortress near Tawus). 

yurdgahs, "royal tent" yurdgahs (ordugah.* camp"). 

(chp. 6 p. 313, 1 74). 

1 Patmut *iwn lank-T'amuray ew yaHprdac * iwroc '. arareal 

T ovma vardapetI~Mecobec'woyTThe History of Tamerlane and 

ffis Successors by yardagett ovma Meepbec ^], K. Sahnazarean, 

ed. (Paris, i860). H 

2 This work was published in Armenian twice by Garegin 

Yovsep'ean: "New Materials for the Biography of T'ovma 

Mecop%c'i, 1376-1447", Ararat (1913) PP. 738-67,1151-61; 

(1914) pp. 67-84; and as a separate book with the same 

title (Vaiariapat, 1914). The Life is available in a 

Russian translation, Pamiatniki Armianakoi Aîografii 

[Monuments of Armenian Hagiogra'phy] K .S. Ter-Javt 'yan. 

trans, and ed".",(Erevan, 1973; pp. 157-63. 

42

y his student Xirakos Banaser (the Philologist)*, and in 

a number of 15th century colophons. According to these 

2 

sources, T'ovma was born in 1378 in the district of 

Aliovit, north of Lake Van. He received his early educ- 

ation at the monastery of Mecop' north of Aries, but the 

invasions of Tamerlane and the attacks of Turkmen bands 

obliged him to move from place to place, frequently flee- 

ing for his life. In 1395 he went to Suxara (Xafabasta) 

monastery in the K'ajberunik* district of southern 

Armenia where he studied for 12 years with the noted 

vardapeta Sargis and Vardan , In 1406 together with 12 

classmates, he went to one of the most important seats of 

learning in Armenia, the monastery of Tat'ew in the Cluk 

region of Siwnlk' . After a residence of only two years 

there, T'ovma, his classmates and their teacher, the great 

intellectual Grigor Tat'ewac'i were forced to flee to 

Mecop' monastery to escape the Qara Qoyunlu Turkmens . 

V.Hakobyan, Minor Chronicles of the XIII-XYI II Centuries, 

vol. I (Erevan, 192-U PP* u.$-J^TSee JJiDiiograpny; suggests 

that Kirakos Banaser and Kirakos Sstuni, compiler of a 

chronicle are the same individual. 

L.Xa$ikyan, compiler,^ Dari haveren jefagreyi 

aranner [Colophons of XVTh Century Armenian Manuscripts] 

vol. j. (Erevan, 1955T p. 567! see also Ter-Davf van. OP. 

cit.. p. 152 n.6. 

Yovsep'yan, op.cjt. . Foreword, p. 5; Ter-Davt'yan,p.l52. 

4 L. Xa?ikyan, p. 101. 

ibid. 

43

Soon thereafter T'ovma's beloved teacher was taken to 

the Ayrarat district by other students and T'ovma who set 

out after him with his classmates was unable to convince 

him to return . According to Kirakos Banaser, Grigor 

Tat 'ewac*i conferred the vardapetal dignity on T'ovma 

p 

in Erewan . T'ovma then returned to Hecop* where he 

engaged in teaching and literary activity. However between 

1421 and 1437 southern Armenia once again became a theater 

of warfare between Turkmena, Mongols, and Kurds. In 

1430 T'ovma fled for his life to the island of Lim in 

Lake Van. In 1436 he and his students fled to Xlat', 

ArSea and Arcke . T'ovma Mecop'ec'i was one of the major 

protagonists involved in transferring the Armenian kat'ol- 

ikosate from Sis back to fijmiacin in 1441 . After the 

realization of his dream, T'ovma returned to his beloved 

Mecop* where he died three years later, in 1446'. 

1. Xajikyan, 0£.£it.., p. 101. 

2 Ter-Davt'yan» p. 154. 

3 Tli, pp. 83, 85, 87-89, 90-95, 108-109. 

4 T'ovma described this in his other surviving work, 

T'ovma Mecop'ec'u Yisatakarana[T'ovma Mecop'eg'i's Colophon] 

K.kostanean, e¥.~(Tiflis, 1892)7 " 

Ter-Davt'yan, p.157. 

44

The History of Tamerlane and His Sueoessora. although 

the major source for Armenia In the late 14th and early 

15th centuries, ia, nonetheless a rather defective produc- 

tion. Written for the most part from memory, the work 

especially when dealing with events occurring outside of 

Armenia, contains historical inaccuracies and frequent 

repetitions, jumps episodically back and forth from one 

decade to another, and does not, generally seem to be a 

well-structured history . T'ovma himself was well aware 

of its shortcomingsc He wrote: "This [referring to the 

martyrdom of four vardapets] occurred in 1425/26 more or 

less. You must excuse me, for I was old and commenced 

after 50 years [of age]. Therefore I wrote going backward 

O 

and forward (yet ew yaraH grec'l)" . 

The History commences with the devastations wreaked 

on Siwnik* by the northern Tatars in 1366. Tamerlane's 

invasions of 1387, 1388, 1395, 1401, and 1402 on numerous 

districts of eastern and western Armenia and Georgia are 

described with the blood-curdling immediacy of a terrified 

eye-witness. The account is more detailed yet for the 

M. Abelyan, vol. 4, pp. 417-20. 

TM, p.44

first three decades of the 15th century. It describes 

the impact on Armenian economic, intellectual and religious 

life of this dismal and nightmarish period of mass 

exterminations, mass deportations, and the forced and 

voluntary apostasy of the population . 

Chronograph!ea and Hagiographical Literature 

In addition to the longer literary histories reviewed 

above, a number of chronographical works and medieval 

martyrdoms also are important for an examination of the 

invasions and the lords of the 13-14.th centuries. Of the 

chronographies, some are rather extensive, lengthy works, 

others are quite short. The more lengthy works include 

Samuel of Ani's Chronography. Mxit'ar Ayrivanec'i'a Chronology 

and Smbat Sparapet's Chronicle. Samuel, the first of the 

three was a 12th century cleric from Ani whose chronicle 

ends in 1179/80 ^. 

However, for the purposes of this study, 

1 Unfortunately no critical edition of T'ovma'a work exists. 

The Armenian text was published by X. Sahnazarean in Paris 

in 1860t I have not seen the modern Armenian translation 

by A. Ter-Yovhanniseanc' (Jerusalem, 1873). Subsequently 

the classical text was translated into Trench by Felix 

Neve and published twice: first in JA (1855) PP. 221-81; 

second as a separate book in 1861. *Sahnazarean's Armenian 

text was translated into English by the present writer. 

2 Almost nothing is known about the author of this chronicle. 

In hig list of source, Kirakos Ganjakec'i mentions him as 

"Samuel the priest of the cathedral of Ani"(KG p. 8). Vardan 

Arewelc'i, recalling noteworthy Armenian clerics of the 12th 

century speaks of "Samuel, presbyter of the land, Anec'i, 

who compiled a chronicle" (VA oh. 69 p. 121). In the body 

46

more important even than Samuel's own work are the 

anonymous continuations made by a number of subsequent 

writers, covering the periods 1179/80-1304/5 and 1257— 

1424/251. Mxit'ar Ayrivanec'i's Chronology extends from 

Biblical times to the year 1289 and, as Samuel's work, 

provides details on political, military, and socio-economic 

matters, confirming or amplifying what is known from 

2 

other sources . Smbat Sparapet's Chronicle (the Royal Chronicle) 

was compiled by the influential brother of Cilician king 

6f his own work Samuel claims to have been an eye-witness 

to the capture of Ani by Georgian kin§ Georgian 1161/62,( 

„ ,_.. . 1893)p.l37. 

Other biographical details are lacking. In the opinion 

of Ter-Mik'elean, editor of a semi-critical edition of 

the text, Samuel may have been born around 1100, dying 

around 1190 (SA, Introduction, p. 6). 

Ter-Mik'elean'a edition was based on the approximately 13 

manuscripts now housed at the Matenadaran in Erevan, Armenia, 

yet the editor noted the existence of other unused copies 

in Venice and Paris (SA, Introduction, p. 24). He believed 

that all copies stemmed from a single exemplar. None of 

the manuscripts predate the 17th century, and all are to 

a greater or lesser degree corrupt (ibid, pp. 7-24). In 

preparing his gdition, Ter-Mik'elean made two useful alterations 

in Samuel's work. He eliminated all calendrical 

systems found in that work except the Armeniai,which proved 

to be the most accurate, and arranged the historical information 

as separate entries placed to the right of the date. 

Samuel of Ani'a chronicle was translated into French by 

M. Brosset, Collection d'hiatoriens Armeniens (St. Petersburg, 

1876) vol» II pp. 340-453. 

2 Almost nothing is known about Mxit'ar. See Manandyan, 

Critical... vol. 3 P. 372. The French translation is by 

M. Brosset, Histoire chronologiaue par Mkhithar d'Airivank 

(St. Petersburg, 1869). 

47

Het'um I. Believed to have been born in 1208, Smbat 

became commander-in-chief of the Cilician army (Constable 

or sparapet) in 1226 when barely 18 years old, and he 

occupied that office for some 50 years . In 1246-47 

Smbat was sent to GUyllk-Khan in Qara-Qorum to negotiate 

a peace agreement between Cilicia and the Mongols. This 

p 

journey lasted two years . Smbat died in 1275/76 at the 

age of 67, several days after being thrown from his horse 

in a triumphant battle against Egyptian invaders3. The 

Chronicle Smbat compiled covers the period 951-1272. 

Information on the 13th century derives from official 

documents which the author had access to and from his 

acquaintance with the principals. The Chronicle ia important 

for confirming details of political and military history, 

though it contains little detail on the lords of Greater Armenia . 

Smbatay sparapeti taregirk' [The Chronicle of Smbat Sparapet3. 

S. Agalean, ed. (Venice, 1956), Introduction p. v. 

2 Smbat13 journey is recorded by numerous sources. See 

A.G. Galstyan's Armenian article, "The First Armeno-Mongol 

Negotiations", PBH #1 (1964) and its English translation 

in the Armenian'TEe'view #29 (1976), especially pp. 33-34. 

3 i£. Abelyan, Works. vol. 4 p. 248. 

4 All editions of the Armenian text ("Smbat'a Chronicle"), 

and all translations of it prior to the Armenian edition 

of Venice, 1956 were baaed on 19th century copies of two 

late manuscripts then housed at Ejmiacin [The Armenian text 

of Smbat * a Chronicle was published twice: by Oekan of Erevan 

(Moscow, 1856) and by Sahnazarean (Paris, 1859). A partial 

French tranalation, Chroniaue de Sempad. was made by V. 

Langlois (St. Petersburg, 186277 Dulaurier published much 

46

In addition to the more lengthy chronograph!cal works 

just mentioned , a number of shorter chronicles dating front 

the 13-15th centuries are important for the details they 

provide about events merely alluded to elsewhere, particul- 

arly for western Armenia for which at times they are the 

only sources. They are: the Anonymous Chronicle of the 

XJIIth Century, the Annals of Bishop Step'annos (13th century) 

the Annals of Het'urn II (13th century), the Chronology 

Attributed to Sargis Pioak (14th century), the Chronicle of 

Kirakos Rltuni (15th century) and the Anonymous Chronicle 

of Sebastia « 

of the text and a French translation, beginning with the 

year 1092 in the Recueil dea historiens des Croisades. 

Documents armlniens. I, pp. 610-72], The recent Venice 

edition is based on a manuscript of the late 13th or early 

14th century which had been cited in the works of i.AliSan 

as the "Royal Chronicle1* [Sirarpie Der Nersessian, "The 

Royal Chronicle of Smbat Constable", Dumbarton Oaks Papers 

#10 (1959) PP. 143-44], S. Per Nersessian in an article 

on the Royal Chronicle noted that the Sjmiacin manuscripts 

used in earlier publications appear to be an abbreviation 

of the longer more detailed Venice manuscript (ibid, pp. 144— 

45). This latter manuscript however is defective in its 

beginning and end and has several lacunae. The editor of 

the Venice edition, S. Agalean recopied in smaller print 

those sections which were present in Smbat'a Chronicle. 

thereby producing a continuous text. Regrettably, from 

the standpoint of this study, that part of the Chronicle 

which detailed Smbat's mission to the Mongol court is not 

contained in either the Ejmiactn or the Venice manuscripts. 

It is, however, possible that Smbat's travel notes were 

utilized by Het'um, Smbat's nephew in Het'urn's own history 

[see A. Galstyan, "Het'urni patmut'iwn T'at'arac* grk'i 

bnut'agrman hare i Iur5 (On the Question of the Characterization 

of HeFumTs Book 'The History of the Tatars)",T_elekagir 

#9 (1958) pp. 70-72]. 

1 Critical texts for all the above-mentioned chronicles 

were published with extensive erudite notes by V.A. Hakobyan 

Minor Chronicles of the XIII-XVIII Centuries. 2 vols. (Erevan, 

1951 ana 1956). 

49

Finally, accounts of a number of neo-martyrdoms 

which had occurred during the 13-14th centuries are 

relevant for their descriptions of the religio-juridical 

position of the Christian Armenian lords in a time of 

an ascendant Islam, again, especially for western and 

southern Armenia about which the more lengthy literary 

histories are often silent. In 1903 H. Manandyan and 

Hr. ASarean published the critical edition of a collection 

of records of martyrdoms occurring between 1155 and 1643. 

These episodes are drawn primarily from various menologies 

and collections of sermons and from the works of medieval 

historians. Accounts of the following 13-14th century 

nee-martyrs were used in this study: T'eodoros of Caesarea 

(d. 1204), Grigor Xaibakean of Xa$en (d. 1223), Hasan 

Jalal of Xajen (d. 1261), Grigor of Balu (d. 1290/91), 

bishop Grigor of Karin/Erzerum (d. 1321/22), Amenawag of 

Derjan (d. 1335/36), bishop Vanak of Bjni (d. 1387/88), 

archbishop Step'annoa of Sebaatia (d. 1387/88), Awag of 

Salmast (d. 1390/91), Eliaabef of Xarabast (d. 1391/92) 

kat'oiikoB Zak'aria of Alt'amar (d. 1393/94) and T'amar of 

Mokk* (d. 1398/99)1. 

1 H. Manandian and Hr. A5areant Havoc' nor vkanera. 1155-1843 

[Armenian Reo-martyrs]. (Valarsapat, 1903). 

50

Colophons of the 13-l4th Centuries 

The colophons of Armenian manuscripts represent an 

important source for the history of Armenians and 

neighboring peoples from the 10th century on. For the 

13th century, the colophons are valuable for the inform- 

ation they provide supplementing what is known from 

other historical sources. For the 14th century—a period 

which failed to produce historians such as Kirakos, 

Vardan, and Step'annos—the colophons become the major 

source of our information. 

Colophons are those writings usually found at the 

end of a manuscript and most often made by the manuscript's 

copyist or recipient. Frequently providing the copyist's 

name, the year the manuscript was copied, and the year 

the colophon was made, these often lengthy addenda 

sometimes provide considerably detailed information not 

found in other sources concerning political and military 

developments, taxation, agriculture, the condition of 

villages, towns, cities, and monasteries and churches, 

and the place where and circumstances under which the 

manuscript was copied. Written as they usually were by 

professional scribes from humble backgrounds, possessing 

limited educations, the colophons are also important from 

a linguistic standpoint, since they contain numerous 

51

dialectal forms and much foreign terminology . The 

humble origins of the copyists also led them to relate 

mundane details—so valuable for the historian— often 

ignored by churchmen such as Kirakos, Vardan and 

Step'annos. 

The great importance of colophons was appreciated 

already in the 13th century by Step'annos Orbelean who 

made use of them in his History. The 17th century author 

Arak'el DavriSec'i, the 18th century Mxit'arist M.Cam?can, 

and the 19th century lewond AllSan made prodigious use 

of colophons in their works. In the 20th century 

a number of studies on feudal families by Garegin Yovsep'- 

ean were based almost exclusively on colophons. In no 

case, however, did any of the above authors have the full 

corpus of colophons at his disposal. During the 19th and 

20th centuries numerous additional collections of colophons 

2 

have been published . 

1 For a discussion of, ani bibliography on, colophons in 

English, see A.K. Sanjian, Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts 

1301-1480 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), "Preface" pp. vii-xv, 

and "Introduction" pp. 1-41, passim. See note 2 below on 

Sanjian's workjalso H.S. Anasyan. Haykakan Matenagitut'yun 

[Armenian Bibliography] vol. I (Erevan, 1959) Ixxvii-xcii. 

2 The first large collection of colophons (covering the 

period c. 887-1596) was made by the 19th century scholar 

iewond P'irlalemean. The original draft of this collection, 

of which only a small part has been published, is housed 

at the Matenadaran in Erevan.[$atenadaran Archives #4515, 

6273, 6332. Iewond P'irlalemean, Notark' hayoc*(Const., 

188K) includes only the period 1393-146TJ. Bishop Garegin 

52

Inscriptions 

The late 13th century archbishop of Siwnik*, 

Step'annos Orbelean, perhaps the first to utilize 

Sruanjteanc' also collected and published colophons 

from more than 350 manuscripts [Garegin Sruanjteanc' 

T'pros Albar: Hayastani Cambord (Brother T'oroa. Traveller 

"of Armenia) 2 vols. (Const.., 1879-85); Sanjian, p. 53. 

TEe collections of F irlalemean and Sruanjteanc assume 

even greater significance when it is recalled that many 

of the manuscripts from which these colophons were collected 

in western Armenia were destroyed during and after 

World War I. The next major compilation of colophons 

was published by Yakobos Taiean in the 1890's and embraced 

manuscripts found at the Imperial Library and the Mxit'arist 

library in Vienna [Yakobos Tasean, .C'uc'ak hayeren 

jeragrac' kayserakan matenadaranin i Vienna Tâtaiogue 

of Armenian i

colphons in his study, was also it seems the first 

Armenian historian to understand the great importance 

of epigraphical material and to make lavish use of it. 

However, the modern scholarly collection and publication 

of Armenian inscriptions began only in the 19th century. 

Prior to the publication of K.Koataneanc''a Vimakan 

laregirCAnnal of Inscriptions] , no large corpus embracing 

inscriptions from both eastern and western Armenia existed. 

Rather, numerous smaller collections devoted to the in- 

scriptions of one district, one city, to a single monastery 

or to monastic complexes had been the rule . Frequently 

collected by travellers, ethnographers and historians, the 

impressive volume of this work carried out in the 19th 

century has acquired an added significance in the 20th 

century when large areas of western and southern historical 

Araenia are no longer under Armenian political control and 

regrettably are closed to Armenists. The natural and 

deliberate destruction of Armenian historical sites in 

Lalayean (Vaspurakan) and Neraoyan(Oxford and Manchester 

libraries), he did not utilize available publications of 

the colophons from Berlin, Rome, Nor Bayazit, Tehran 

and elsewhereCAkinean, op.clt.. pp. 468-69], Since the 

publication of Xa$ikyan, numerous other catalogues of 

manuascripts, providing their colophons in full or part 

have appeared: from the Armenian library of Galata 

(Antilias, 1959), the Library of the Monastery of Armash 

(Venice, 1962), the Mxit'arist Library of Vienna (Vienna, 

1963), the Library of the Monastery of Bzommar(Vienna, 

1964), the Grand Catalogue of Manuscripts of St. James 

Jerusalem (Jerusalem from 1966 on), the Manuscripts of 

Arakelotz-Tarkmanchatz Convent of Mush (Jerusalem,1967). 

1 K.Kostaneanc' Vimakan Iaregir;C'uc'ak JEoôvacoy arjnagrut*eanc 

' havoc'FAnnal of Inscriptions;" dollection of Armenian 

inscriptions] (St. Petersburg, 1913T 

54

eastern Asia Minor further enchances the value of many 

of the inscriptions collected from those areas. Koetan- 

eanc''a work conviently incorporated many of the inscrip- 

tions previously published in books now rare, or in 

journals difficult of access . 

Since I960, the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnog- 

aphy of the Academy of Sciences of Armenia has issued 

5 volumes in an ambitiousprojected series of 10 volumes 

of Armenian inscriptions, the Corpus Inseriptionum 

Armenicarum. a compilation which fully meets the demands 

of modern scholarship. Volume I (Erevan, 1966) contains 

inscriptions from Ani, while the succeeding volumes 

II, III, IV, and VI (Erevan, I960, 1966, 1973, 1977) 

embrace those inscriptions located on the territory of 

o 

present-day Armenia . For western and southern historical 

Armenia, however, we still must depend on Kostaneanc''s 

collection*. 

1 See the bibliography in Kostaneanc1, pp. xxviii-xxxi. 

2 Divan Kay Vimagrut *yan[Corpus Inscriptionun Armenicarum] 

vol. I, H.i. Orbeii, ed.(Erevan, 1966); vol. Ii, s.i». 

Barxudaryan, ed. (Erevan,I960); vols. Ill, IV (Erevan,1967, 

1973) under the same editor; vol. VI, S.A.Avagyan and H. 

U. Janp'oladyan, ed. (Erevan, 1977). 

3 The plentiful Armenian epigraphical material from the 

13-14th centuries used in our study was originally found 

on the interior and exterior walls of the many religious 

and secular buildings constructed in that period, on mausolea, 

and on the numerous decorated stone memorials known 

as xajk'ars ("stone crftssss"). (JontentB vary 

55

greatly. Some inscriptions, such as those on certain 

xa$k'ara serving as tombstones, are but a few lines. 

oThe"ra on building walls may consist of several lengthy 

paragraphs. The latter frequently record the name of the 

donor of the building and geneological information about 

his or her family, the date the construction commenced 

and terminated, gifts (including land and money grants) 

made by the donor, information about political and 

military events which involved the donor and family 

members and/or impeded construction, names of the donor's 

patrons and of prominent secular lords (including Mongol 

Khans), names of the reigning kat'otikoi and local bishops. 

Tn addition, the inscriptions frequently provide the names 

of taxes and rates paid in a given locality and therefore 

also are of the utmost importance for the study of 

Armenia's economic life. 

The great significance of this epigraphic material 

has been appreciated by modern scholars many of whom have 

made ample use of it in their historical works devoted 

to the 13-14th centuries. Indeed some monographs on 

individual feudal families of this period are based almost 

entirely on inscriptions [For example, G. Ovsepian 

(Yovsep ean), Potomstvo larsaicha Orbeliana i Mina-Khatuny 

(The Posterity of TarsaVTs Or1oelean""and Mina^fchatun) 

KErlatlanskiiYostok. t. II (St. Petersburg. 1913); 

I.A.Orbell. h'A"aan tizhalal kniaz' Khachenskii (Hasan Jalal 

Prince of Xa?en) Izvestiia imp. AN (St. Petersburg, 1909); 

More recently, K. iafadaryan, MHIs"toriographical Observattions 

on the Kyurikyan Princedom of Nor-Berd" Teiekagir 

#4-5 (1940), pp. 167-80 (in Arm.);_H.Kurdian, "Ihe Esei 

Branch of the Hamikoneans", Bazmavep (1956), pp. 155-62, 

246-51 (in Arm.)]. Finally, in modern times a number 

of scholarly studies devoted to the elucidation of certain 

terms in one particular inscription or group of inscriptions, 

have produced important results[For example, T'. 

Avdalbegyan, "A Secret in the Armenian Inscriptions and 

Its Significance for the Economic History of Armenia in 

the 13-14th Centuries", Teiekagir #2(1927) pp. 43-76 

(in Arm.); 3. Barxudaryan, "A few Observations on the 

Inscriptions of Erevan's Cathedral Church", Tetekagir 

#5(1947) pp. 69-78 (in Arm.); H.

Of the various sources considered thus far, while 

the Armenian sources remain foremost for the study both 

of the invasions and of the lords, the Anonymous Chronicle 

in the Georgian History of K*art*11 holds a uniquely 

important place for the study of the lords. During the 

15-14th centuries (and to some extent before it) large 

parts of Armenian territory were under the political control 

of the Georgian Crown. These areas included the districts 

of Taiir, Gugark", Lori, Ani and its environs, Ears and 

Karin/Erzerum and their environs, and parts of central 

historical Armenia. Numerous other areas such as Gag, 

Somxet'i ("Armenia"), Javaxet'i, Tayk'/Tao, Klarjefi, .etc. 

for centuries were inhabited by mixed Armeno-Georgian 

populations . Consequently the Chronicle speaks about 

developments in these parts of the kingdom. Furthermore, 

a substantial proportion of the most important officials 

at the Georgian court and in the realm in this period 

were Armenian: the royal family of the Bagratids were of 

Armenian origin as were the Zak'arids, Arcrunids and 

Orbeleans, — to mention only a few 2. 

Just as the Armenian 

historians present these families in their Armenian milieu, 

so the Anonymous Chronicle provides a rare opportunity to 

observe the Georgian side of the personalities of these 

See below ch. 2 p. n.l. 

See Appendix A. 

57

many individuals who were bilingual aa well as bicultural. 

The Anonymous Chronicle, one part of the larger History 

£f K'art'li is devoted to the 13-14th centuries, i.e.., 

to the period 1207-1318 . Unfortunately little is known 

about the author. He is believed to have been a senior 

contemporary of king Giorgi the Brilliant (1318-46) . The 

Anonymous Chronicle Itself is a remarkable work written by 

a surprisingly unbiased individual who recorded the positive 

and negative aspects of Georgia's native and foreign rulers 

in a clear, concise fashion, avoiding repetitions and 

keeping to a minimum those tales of the fantastic and 

miraculous which characterize medieval histories generally. 

However, like other sections of the History of K'art'li. 

the Anonymous Chronicle unfortunately lacks absolute chron- 

ology, a circumstance which requires the use of other sources 

for verification. Apparently the author knew several 

2 

languages and had at his disposal a number of sources now lost . 

1 Yrac' JEamanakagrut'yun (1207-1318) [The Georgian Chronicle], 

trans, into Armenian with an introduction and notes by 

P. Muradyan (Erevan, 1971) PP. 11-16. The so-called Old 

Section of the History of K art'11 is a compilation of 10 

historical works written aT different times. Of these, 9 

present the history of Georgia from remote antiquity to 

the 13th century, while only one portion, the Anonymous 

Chronicle pertains to the 13-14th centuries. 

2 The author seems to have had some knowledge of Mongolian, 

since in several passages he transcribes Mongolian names 

and entire sentences and then translates them into Georgian 

[X'art'lis C'xovreba (The History of K'art'li) vol. II 

ST SauxSTsvTli, ed. (Tbilisi, l$59'Fpp.TT77?68]. P.Muradyan 

has demonstrated that the author made use—albeit not full 

use— of the Persian histories of Juvaini and Rashid al-Din 

58

It was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter 

that there is more than one way to categorize the 13-14th 

century sources. The method followed here has been to 

classify the material on the basis of its application to 

studies of the Turco-Mongol invasions and/or the lords of 

Armenia in the 13-14th centuries. The Penan literary 

histories are more relevant for study of the invasions. 

They are important for their Muslim viewpoint and the 

picture they provide of Armenia as part of the larger 

fl-Khanid government. The non-Armenian chronograph!es and 

geographies are important for information on the invasions 

and conditions in western and southern historical Armenia. 

Travellers' accounts contain information on conditions of 

life during the Mongol domination, and on certain Armenian 

lords. The History of K'art*li holds a uniquely important 

Muradyan, op.cit.. pp. 24-26. Whether or not he utilized 

Armenian sources is debated. In one passage he refers to 

an account "written by a certain other chronicler" (KG p. 

226) concerning the flight of queen Rusudan's son David 

from Qara-Qorum to Abxazia—an account he finds unacceptable. 

Perhaps he is referring to the peculiar account found in 

Step'annos Orbelean's History (SO pp. 151-53). A connection 

between the Chronicle and Grigor Ataierc'i's History of the 

Kation of the Archers is also possible. It is lamentable 

that no corpus of Georgian inscriptions comparable to 

the Corpus Inacriptionum Armenicarua or even to Kostaneanc'ls 

Annal of Inscriptions[Vf] presently exists. Nonetheless, 

some few Georgian inscriptions relevant to the socio-religious 

history of 13-14th century Armenia have been published. 

Among these are the inscription of the Georgian kat'oiikos 

Epip an made in 1218/19 when the kat'oiikos was blessing 

the churches at Ani [first published by N.Marr, Kapis' 

Epifaniia Katplikosa Gruzii (The Inscriptions of Epifan. 

Katolikos of Georgia).CSt. Petersburg. 1910); Armenian 

translation of the text in Ararat (1911) PP. 664-66]; inscrip- 

59

place in juxtaposition with the Armenian sources, since 

it reflects the Georgian side of political-military 

events and of the "Armenian" lords of the 13-14th centuries. 

Armenian chronographies, hagiographical literature, 

colophons, and inscriptions provide new information, 

but also supplement and amplify what is found in the moat 

important sources— the 13-14th century literary historians. 

A few general observations on these sources are in order. 

First, if the literary histories are categorized by geo- 

graphical provenance, it is clear that they reveal a 

definite bias in favor of northeastern Armenia. This 

tendency becomes comprehensible when it is recalled that 

the three most important 13th century Armenian historians, 

Kirakos Ganjakec'i (d. 1270/71), Vardan Arewelc'i (d.1270/71) 

and Step'annos Orbelean (d. 1303/4) were all born in this 

region and passed most of their lives there. Step'annos 

nay be excluded from criticism on this point, since he 

set out to write the history of an eastern Armenian district, 

Siwnik*. As for Kirakos and Vardan, although they by no 

means confine their works to the eastern regions solely, 

naturally it is about their own milieu that the accounts 

are most detailed and intimate. As regards the early 14th 

century Gilician sources, their main interest is Cilicia. 

tions of the 13-14th century of Pln3ahank'(Axt'alal village) 

[P.M.Muradyan."Vrac *eren arjanagrut yunner Hayastanum; 

Pinjahank'^Georgian Inscriptions in Armenia: Pinjahank') 

iLraber #1 (1973) pp. 39-573; and a rare quadrilingual 

inscription in Georgian, Armenian, Persian and Uighur 

found at Garesjja,Georgia and dated 1352 [L.Melik'set'-Bek, 

60

The major Georgian soureea, the History of K'art:'li 

(when apeaking of apecifically Armenian events) and the 

few published Georgian inscriptions from Armenia tend 

to focus on northern Armenia. Some information on western 

and southern Armenia is found in the minor chronicles, 

colophons, the nee-martyrdoms, inscriptions and in T'ovma 

Hecop'ec'i'a History, however for the political and military 

history of the Armenian highlands in the 13-14th centuries 

the non-Armenian sources are crucial. Thus geographical 

bias in favor of northeastern Armenia, resulting from 

the nature of the Armenian literary histories is a problem 

facing the investigator. 

Second, it will be noticed that the 13th century 

Armenian literary historians Kirakos, Vardan, and 

Step'annos were all educated, polished churchmen. Their 

interests were in the important events and lords of the 

day, and rarely extended down to the lower ranks of society. 

Such groups as the peasants, the artisans, and other 

non-clerical non-noble city population, although occasion- 

ally glimpsed in the colophons, chronicles and neo-martyrdoms, 

"On the Rare XlVth Century Quadrilingual Inscription of 

Asian's Son, Sargis" Teêkagir #7 (1946) pp. 31-38 (in Arm.)]. 

The Georgian text of the History of K'art'li based on three 

18th century manuscripts was published""in fuTT originally 

by M. Brosset in 1849, accompanied by a French translation 

CHistoire de la, Georgie. depuia l*antiquite jusou»au XIX 

sieclej. The second publication,made by TvaaaIviTi~"in~T906 

similarly was based on only several mas. [K art'lis C'xovreba. 

E. T'aqalvili ,ed. (Tbilisi, 1906)].~PTnalIy~tn"e 

critical edition in two volumes based on 11 mas. was 

produced by S. QauxSisvili [KG, vols. I and II (Tbilisi, 

1955, 19591. None of the mas. predate the 18th century]. 

61

are essentially left out in the narration. Nor, in this 

ease, do the non-Armenian sources come to the rescue. 

Possibly extensive archaeological excavation will one 

day partially right this imbalance, although it is doubtful 

if the details of everyday life of the lower classes will 

ever be known. The literary sources therefore contain 

a class bias. 

Finally, the quantity and type of the sources is 

likewise not constant. The quality of the sources also 

deteriorates over time. Kirakoe, Yardan, and Step'annos 

lived through the Mongol conquest and domination of Armenia. 

Kirakos, though taken.captive by the invaders, and forced 

to serve as their secretary, had grudging praise for. nis 

• 

new overlords. Vardan and Step'annos both were befriended 

by the II-Khans and died blessing their wisdom and 

religious tolerance. But as the Khans Islamized in the 

early 14th century, the situation changed dramatically. 

The unsettled, intolerant 14th century produced no major 

Armenian historian. Only the humble authors of chronicles 

and colophons, many of them anonymous, detail the persec- 

utions, plunderings of churches and famines. Finally, with 

T'ovma Mecop'ee'i's life and History the results of the 

breakdown of a corrupt and fanatically intolerant Mongol 

state as observable, for T'ovma was a poorly educated, 

superstitious cleric who wrote his sorry and disorganized 

account while literally fleeing from his Muslim persecutors. 

62

CHAPTER TWO 

ARMENIA AND THE TURCO-MOHGOL INVASIONS 

In the early 1220'a when Mongol troops first passed 

through the Caucasus, the Armenian population, living 

there and in many other localities across Asia Minor, 

dwelled under considerably diverse circumstances. The 

many states in which the Armenians were settled in the 

late 12th and early 13th centuries had-.-arisen as the 

result of the Saljuq Turkish invasions of the mid llth 

century, and for our purposes may be viewed as differing 

from each other principally on the basis of the amount 

of political and cultural autonomy enjoyed by their 

Armenian inhabitants. The nature of the Saljuq invasions/ 

migrations and certain aspects of the consequences of 

Turkish domination merit a brief examination prior to 

reviewing the Turco-Xongol invasions/migrations of the 

13-14th centuries because, in a certain sense, the 

invasions of the llth century were a "dress rehersal" 

for several subsequent invasions of Armenia from the 

Orient. A characterization of the Saljuq invasions and 

domination will provide not only an introduction to the 

complexities of medieval Armenian society, but also will 

throw into sharper relief fundamental similarities and 

dissimilarities with the Khwarazmian, Mongol, and Timurid 

invasions and administrations. This chapter first examines 

briefly some of the more salient features of political 

63

history associated with the pre-Mongol period: (1) the 

Saljuq invasions of the Armenians highlands; (2) the 

Turkish domination and its consequences; and (3) the new 

situation created by the resurgence of Georgia; the 

second part of the chapter details the invasions of the 

13-l4th centuries. 

The Turkish invasions and eventual political domin- 

ation of most parts of the Armenian highlands did not 

occur at any one date, nor were they accomplished by any 

one s>roup. Rather, both as the contemporaries noted, and 

as modern scholars have pointed out, from the early llth 

century onward various parts of Asia Minor were subjected 

to direct attack and to infiltration which accompanied the 

invasions and settlement of diverse Turkic groups there. 

Turkish migrations to Asia Minor continued from the llth 

through the 15th centuries, a period of approximately 

400 years . 

1 

Standard reference works on the Saljuq. invasions include 

Claude Cahen's Pre-Cttorogn Turkey (London, 1968) [Hereafter 

PJ] plus numerous articles by the same author (bibliography 

PI __ ppx __ 441-50); _ The Cambridge History $£ Iran. 

\ 

and Mongol Periods) J. A. Boyle, ed. (Cambridge, 

1968) [SUP], Speros Vryonis1 The Decline of Mediev Medieval Hell- 

in Asia Minor and the Process of Islaiaization 

leventh through the Fifteenth Century (Los Ange 

71) CljIIK] details the impact of the Oriental invasions 

on the Greek population of Asia Minor. On Armenia in 

particular see vol. Ill of the History of the Armenian 

People [gay. Soiovrdi patmut'yun] (Erevan. HffeTTHST" 

chapter 26 pp. 440-60 by S.V.Bornazyan. "Hayastani nvajSuma 

ael*uk-t 'urk eri koâic CThe Conquest of Armenia by the 

Saljuq Turks]". 

64

earliest references to Turkish attacks date from 

ca. 1016 at which time the district of Vaspurakan in 

southeastern Armenia was raided--not by Turkish armies-- 

but by Turkic mercenaries serving the Muslim emirs of 

Azerbaijan. Around 1021 the area from Naxijewan to 

Dwin was raided by Turkmen Oghuz(Ghuzz) nomads serving 

in the Persian Dailamite armies . From 1029 onward, 

See KJJ.Yuzbasyan, "Deilemity v povestvovanii Aristakesa 

LaativerttaiCIhe Dailamites in Aristakes tastivertc'i's 

Narration]", Palestinskii Sbornik [PS] #7(70) 1962 pp. 146— 

51? S.G. Agadzanov and K.N.Yuzbasyan, "K istorii tiurskikh 

nabegov na Armeniiu v XIv [Toward the HTstory of the 

Turkish Saids on Armenia in the llth Century]", Pjg #12 

(1965) pp. 144-57. The administrative inclusion into one 

territorial unit of parts of Caucasian and central Armenia 

with the Caucasian areas of Iberia, Atrpatakan and Albania 

dates from the 6th century A.D. when this unit constituted 

one of four military-administrative districts in the Sasanian 

Persian empire. After the Arab conquest of Iran and 

Armenia, Caucasian Armenia and formerly Byzantine Armenia 

to its west remained in approximately the same association 

styled by the Arabs "Armeniya" despite the fact that neither 

Iberia to the north ("Armeniya II" ) nor Albania to the 

east ("Armeniya I") was ethnically Armenian. Thus "Armenia" 

was but a part of what Arabic authors styled "Armeniya". 

The two terms should not be confused. During the more 

than 200 years of Arab domination (ca. 650-886), Atrpatakan 

to the east frequently was united with Armeniya , and its 

occasionally dependable Muslim lords sometimes were given 

limited control over parts of Caucasian Armenia. As 

Aram Ter-iewondyan of Erevan has noted, the attempts of 

Atrpatakan's Muslim emirs to subjugate Armenia found 

reflection in the wor.ks of 10th century Arab geographers 

—such as al-Isfakhri, Ibn JJawkal, and al-Mukadasi—who 

regarded Armenia, Arran and Atrpatakan as one province 

(see A. Ter-iewondyan, "K'ust-i Kapkoh vargakan miavori 

yerapruknera Xalifayut'yan~zainanak [Survivals of the 

Administrative Unit of Kust-i Kapkoh in the Time of the 

Caliphate]'1, Telekagir #9(i25S) PP. 73-77. The role 

played by Atrpatakan/Azarbaijan bordering Caucasian Armenia 

on the east in the pre-Mongol period is of interest since 

the region's already great importance was in time enhanced 

further. Atrpatakan/Azarbaijan which had Islamized early, 

became a base of sorts for the Caliphate for controlling 

65

various Turkmen groups commenced raiding diverse parts of 

Armenia, from the direction of Azerbaijan to the east 

as well as from northern Mesopotamia . In 1042 some 

Caucasian Armenia, Albania, and Ibegia. Subsequently, 

be it from the Kurdish Muslim Shaddadids who established 

control over the Albanian city of Ganjak/Ganja in the 

mid-lOth century or from another branch of the same family 

which gained control of the city of Dwin in the mid-llth 

century, Armenia was under constant Muslim pressure from 

the east. Even before the emergence of the Saljuq Turks 

as a force.in th.§ area, exactly what was "Armenian" and 

what was "Azarbaijani" territory was not always clear. 

Armenia's eastern border was in a constant state of flux. 

The expansion, or contraction o f lands held there by 

Armenian or Azarbaijani Muslim lords was conditioned 

primarily by the ambition and martial prowess of a given 

lord or lords. . 

1 R. HusseinovCHusseynov], "La conquete de 1'Azerbaidjan 

par lea Seldjoucides", Bedj. KarthllaarBKI 48-49 vol. 

XiX-XX (1965) PP. 99-108; HAP, pp. 442^3. During the 

more than 200 years of Arab domination, the geographical 

and demographic conception of Armenia was subject to 

alteration in historical southern Armenia also. Southwestern 

Armenia especially became an area of heavy settlement 

by Arab tribes. Coterminously the Armenian element 

in the southwestern districts (the old Armenian districts 

of Aljnik' and Hanjit especially) thinned. Indeed, during 

this period the Armenian place names themselves were 

replaced by Arabic ones there. Unlike the previous 

conquerors of Armenian lands, the Arabs left colonies 

and emirates behind them, which, as Dr. Ter-lewondyan 

stated, "opened the first serious crack in Greater Armenia... 

The Arab emirates drove in the wedge which gradually widened 

to provide room not only for the Kurds, but also for the 

Saljuqs, the presence of whose emirates in Greater Armenia 

became one of the main causes for the Armenian state's 

failure to survive in the 12th and 13th centuries" 

(Aram Ter-Ghewondyan. The Arab Emirates in Bapratid Armenia. 

N. Garsolan, trans. (LlsT>onTT976) p. 150). Prior to the 

appearance of the Saljuq Turks in the llth century, a 

number of emirates had existed in southern and southwestern 

Armenia. Among them were the Kaysite emirate, including 

the cities of Manazkert, Xlat' and Xnus; and the_emirate 

of Aljnik' or Arzn, embracing the cities of Kayyafariqin, 

Arzn and Bales/Bitlis. Southern Armenia then$ fairly 

early had become an area of foreign settlement. This 

tendency was to accelerate with time. 

66

15C000 Turkmens from the Urmiah area attacked and looted 

Vaspurakan and defeated Byzantine forces near the city of 

ArSel on the northeastern shore of Lake Van, while yet 

another group was raiding around B3ni in the northern 

district of Ayrarat (1042/43). Prom 1045-63, detachments 

of lurks more or less controlled by Saljuqld sultans and 

their generals penetrated deeper into Armenia, destroying 

numerous cities and devastating entire districts: Ani 

(attacked, 1045), ValarSawan in the western district of 

Basen (1047), the Mananali district of western Armenia (1048), 

Arcn in the northwest (1048/49), Bayburt (1054), Melitene 

in the southwest, Colonea in the northwest (1057), Sebastia/ 

Sivas (sacked, 1059), Ani (captured, 1064), Kars (1065?), 

Caesarea (1067) and Manazkert (1071), to mention only the 

better known sites . While it appears that most of histor- 

HAP pp. 444-60, passim; M. Canard, "La campagne armenienne 

du sultan Saljuqide Alp Arslan et la prise d'Ani en 1064" 

Revue dea Etudes Armeniennes [R£A3n.s. (1965) pp. 239-59} 

CTCanen, "Une campagne du seldjukide Alp-Arslan en Georgie", 

B£ 41-42 n.s. XIII-XIV (1962) pp. 17-20; R. Husseinov, 

"Consequences de la bataille de Mantzikert (1071) entre 

Alp-Arslan et Remain IV pour la transcaucasie", BK vol. 

XXVII (1970) pp. 93-100. Also see Toumanoff's excellent 

article in Congress. "Background to Mantzikert", pp. 411-26. 

67

ieal Armenia had been subjected to sack by 1070, it must 

be stressed that in several remote mountain areas, small 

Armenian principalities continued their existence through- 

out the llth and 12th centuries, although encircled by 

inimical forces and under perpetual attack. These areas 

comprised districts in northern and northeastern Armenia 

(Gugark*, Siwnik', Arc'ax), plus southern and southwestern 

Armenia (parts of Vaspurakan and Mokk'.and Sasun) . 

Consequently, it would be incorrect to speak of "the 

Turkish conquest" as being fully consummated in the llth 

century. Some parts of Armenia never succumbed. 

1 Armenian political control over much of the Armenian 

highlands had been reestablished during the dissolution 

of a powerful Arab empire beginning in the late 9th century. 

The Bagratid state, the most powerful of the several Armenian 

kingdoms which arose in the 9-10th centuries, apparently 

remembered well not only the legendary glory of Armenia's 

ancient Arsacid kingdom, but also the more recent extensive 

unit of Armeniya , which had been named for Armenia, its 

most important p§jtt Very much as the Muslim emirs of 

Atrpatakan/Azarbaijan attempted to control parts of eastern 

Armenia, basing their somewhat dubious claims on their 

occasional duties as tax collectors in the period of Arab 

supremacy, or on the more respectable claims of legitimacy 

through intermarriage with local naxarar houses, so the 

Bagratids attempted—with considerable success—to gain 

control of the non-Armenian parts of Arab Armeniya 

(see Ter-lewondyan, "Kust..." pp. 76-77). Already by the 

early 9th century, a branch of the Bagratid family had 

established itself on the Iberian throne. During the peak 

of Bagratid power, under king Gagik I (990-1020), that 

family controlled in addition to Iberia, an extensive state 

stretching from Baaen district in the west, to near 

Partaw/Barda'a in Caucasian Albania in the east, south to 

Hanazkert and north to Samk'or city. In addition, that 

kingdom had a number of vassals such as the princedoms 

of Xajjen, Kogovif, Bagrevand, Gardman and the emirate of 

Golt'n, while other areas such as the kingdoms of Vanand 

and Tafjir-Joraget, the Kaysite emirate and the principality 

of Taron were ruled by Bagratid family members and relations 

66

Just as the Turkish conquests of Armenia oust be 

discussed with regard to a particular part of the country 

at a particular time, so too the groups participating 

should be distinguished from each other. She eminent 

Turcologist Claude Cahen has demonstrated that from the 

very outset, two elements participated in the invasions, 

conquests and settlement of Asia Minor . Though perhaps 

ethnically the same people, these two groups are disting- 

uishable on the basis of their subordination (or lack 

of it) to the Saljuq authorities. One group, which might 

be called the Saljuq "regular army" consisted of elements 

more or less obedient to the sultans and their generals. 

The other group, the Turkmen nomads, appears in the sources 

as an almost ungovernable force, Interested solely in booty. 

by marriage. Remaining areas of the Armenian highlands 

such as Yaspurakan in the south and Sivmii:' in the east 

were also under Armenian rule, although their relations 

with the Bagratids and with each other frequently were 

strained and hostile. Consequently, during the 10th 

century, despite the fact that Armenian political power 

was reestablished in the heart of the Armenian highlands, 

and that areas with sizeable and. growing non-Armenian 

population (such as Aljnik'/Diyarbakr) became subject 

to some type of Armenian suzereignty, it would be incorrect 

to speak of "the Armenian state" in the 10th century. 

There were several Armenias at the time. 

On the numerous independent and semi-independent Armenian 

states in the ll-12th centuries see; a. Lori: l.Movsesian, 

FHietoire des rois Kiurikian de Loti", 8SA, VII (1927) pp. 

209-66; b. Siwnik': t.Alisan, Sisakan (Venice, 1893), 

T .X. Hakobyan, gyunik'i t'agavorut"yuna [The Kingdom of 

Siwnik'] (Erevan, 1966)7 c".-: Arc -ax: lOTBarrutareanc', 

Arc-ax (Baku, 1895), B.A. Ulubabyan, Xa$eni iixanut'yuna 

X-TVidarerunCThe Princedom of Xa?en Tn Tine X-XVI Centuries] 

TBrevan,1975); oV Vaepurakan ancTSasun: HAT ch~28 pp. 

482-87, A.M. Ier-£ewondyan."Xedenekyan Areruninera YaspurakanumtThe 

Xedenekean Arcrunids in VaspurakanJ"and ^Sasuni 

T &fnikvannera TThe T'otnikeaiis of Sasun]", and V.Petoyan, 

"Sasuni I'ornikyan iBxanut'yuno [The T'ornikean Princedom 

of SasunT". Teiekaeir #2(1955T"DD. 85-96. 

69

Indeed, quite often the Turkmans disobeyed commands to 

resist plundering and, what is important from the stand- 

point of the establishment of any centralized Turkish state 

in the pre-Mongol period, Saljuq sultans were frequently 

obliged to send armies against the lurkmens—-fighting 

Turkmen rebels almost as often, it would seem, as the 

autochthonous populations . Furthermore, the nomadic 

pastoraliat Turkmens were the bane not only of the Saljuq 

authorities, and, of course, of the sedentary Armenians, 

but also of the Euslim states which bordered Armenia on the 

east (the Shaddadids of Ganjak in Caucasian Albania) and 

south (the Uarwanids), in the period of the invasions. 

Each successive invasion—Saljuq, Khwarazmian, Mongol and 

llmurid—pushed before it, brought along with it, or 

dragged in its wake into Asia Minor thousands of these 

virtually uncontrollable nomadic warriors who (when totally 

unchecked) devastated the cities searching for plunder, 

destroyed the countryside and the complex irrigation systems 

turning cultivated fields into pasturage for their sheep 

herds, and reduced the possibilities for internal and 

international trade by infesting the trade routes between 

2 

cities, and attacking caravans . Despite C . Cahen's 

1 W p. 27, pp. 32-50. 

2 DMH pp. 258-85. 

70

differentiation it remains true, nonetheless, that 

whether a detachment of Xurkmens pillaged a given locale 

under orders from the sultan, or in defiance of those 

orders, the results ordinarily were the same. Certainly 

such fine points of distinction were lost on the victims 

themselves who were killed or raped and led away into 

slavery. Even if the obviously inflated figures of 

contemporary eye-witnesses are halved, even if quartered, 

the extent of the damage occasioned by the Saljuqs during 

the period of the conquest was and is dizzying . 

Turning now to some of the consequences of the 

Saljuq invasions and domination vis-a-vis the Armenians, 

a number of tendencies are observable. For the most part 

the Saljuqs acted as catalysts on phenomena which predated 

their arrival. One striking example of this is the dem- 

ographic change observable in central Asia Minor (Cappadocia), 

northern Mesopotamia and Syria. In the early 11th century, 

the Byzantine government had followed a policy of removing 

powerful Armenian lords (naxarars) and their dependents 

from their native Armenian habitats and settling them to 

1 

PP. 155-63. Also pp. 166-67, which contain a listing 

of towns, villages and provinces destroyed, pillaged, 

enslaved, massacred or beseiged. 

71

the west and southwest * 

. Thus 

Cappadocia and Armenia Minor 

(P'ok'r Hayk*). areas which centuries earlier had hosted 

sizeable Armenian populations suddenly became re-Armenlzed 

on the ere of the Turkish invasions. The invasions 

quickened the tempo of Armenian emigration and extended 

its range in a southwesterly direction (into Cilicla) and 

1 

V .T ' 

emuryan, "Hayeri artaga t ' 

a depl gamirk ' 

llrd darum 

[The Emigration of Armenians to Cappadocia in the lltK" 

Century]", TgielsagiE #2(1955) PP. 75-83} V.K.Iskanyan, 

" 

Arcrunvac artagatt i magin [On the Arcrunid Emigration]" 

Patina-banaairakan HandesCPBH] #3(1965) PP. 67-82. Without 

a doubt, prior to the Saljuq, invasions of the 11th century, 

it was Christian Byzantium in the west which posed the 

greatest threat to the various Armenian kingdoms and princedoms. 

Indeed, it is clear not only to modern scholars, but 

the very contemporaries themselves recognized the fact that 

Byzantium's ill-conceived policies vis-a-vis the Armenian 

kingdoms were responsible in large measure for the success 

of foreign conquest and penetration of Asia Minor. Already 

in the mid-lOth century, Byzantium had seized the southwestern 

Armenian district of Taron. To it were added 

other western Armenian districts such as Der an, Mananaii, 

Haiteank' and Palnaturn. Although frequently governed 

by Bagratdis appointed by Byzantium, the prefecture of 

Taron including the above-mentioned districts experienced 

Byzantine administration for over 100 years before the 

Saljuq conquests. Coterminous with Byzantine military 

pressure on parts of western and northern Armenia, the 

Empire attempted to Induce various powerful Armenian lords 

to will their hereditary lands to itself in exchange for 

new lands elsewhere. Thus did the last king of Vaspurakan, 

Senek'erim Arcruni leave southern Armenia to settle in 

Byzantine Sebastla (1021) which was given to him "in perpetuity". 

Supposedly tens of thousands of Armenians from 

Vaspurakan accompanied Senek'erim. By a similar route, 

the Empire acquired the Ani-Sirak kingdom in 1040. The 

last ruler of that state also received lands in Byzantine 

Cappadocia, and also'quit Greater Armenia with thousands 

of his followers. The consequences of Byzantine pressure 

from the west were twofold. First, numerous purts of 

Greater Armenia were stripped of their natural military 

defenders, thereby facillitating Saljuq penetration. 

Second, various areas of Cappadocia, North Syria, Cilicla 

and Georgia became Armenized or re-Armenlzed with tens of 

thousands of emigrants from Greater Armenia. The pace 

of emigration quickened with the Saljuq invasions. See 

succeeding two notes. Also H.W.Thomson, "The Influence of 

72

northward (into Georgia) . 

The 

naxarars. relocating as 

their Environment on the Armenians in Exile In the Eleventh 

Century", Congress, pp. 432-38. 

The complex history of Cilicia lies beyond the purview 

of this study. In the absence of any thorough modern study 

of that kingdom, one might consult G.G.Mikaelian, Istoriia 

Kilikiiskogo Apn anst ofig gosudarstyaCHistoyv ££ the Cllician 

Armenian Government! (Erevan, 1952), or S.V.Botnazyan , 

SSs. l l-tntfgahan harafe?rat 'rwingn itllilnYan havkakan 

Petut vunumrSoclo-Economic Relations jja. SM. Cilicia Aja.- 

Sliiaa SialfiJ (Erevan, 1973). On Mongol-Cilician relations 

see Galstyan's Armenian article in P3H #1(1964) and the 

English translation of it in the Armenian Review, vol. XXIX 

Ko.-l-113 (1976), "The First Armeno-Uongol Negotiations", 

pp.26-37. Political and demographic conditions on the 

northern border served to confuse what was "Armenian" in 

that area also. As Cyril Toumanoff has demonstrated 

Cin his Studies i . Christian Caucasian Hi story (Georgetown. 

1963), part v: "She Armeno-Georgian Marcblands", pp. 437- 

99], between Armenia and Iberia from northeast to northwest 

stretched a series of border districts which were neither 

Armenian nor Georgian, but Armeno-Georgian , as their ;| 

double names attest. Possessed of mixed Armenian and '| 

Georgian populations, such border districts over the centur- '$ 

ies passed from Armenian to Georgian polit-i cal control (or 

vice versa). Among these districts were: Tayk /Tao, Kol*/ 

Kol, Artani/Artahan, Javaxet'i/Jawaxk', T'rialet'i/T'telk', 

Asoc'/Aboc'i, Tasir/Tasiri-, Gogsurene, Koibap'or, Jorap'or 

and Gardman. 

A very strong Armenian presence existed in Iberia 

at least from the Arab period on, when many Armenian 

families settled there. Among these were offshoots of 

the Amatunis, Arcrunis, Bagratids, Kamaarakans, and 

Mamikoneans. C, Toumanoff estimates that about 1/5th 

of the Georgian royal (Bagratid) and princely dynasties 

were of Armenian origin C C.Toumanoff, "Caucasia and 

Byzantium", Traditio 27(1971) p.129 n.73]. The tendency 

for Armenian emigration northward to Iberia accelerated 

with time. Concomitantly the creation of great Armeno- 

Georgian dynasties relfected the growing Armenian influence 

in Iberia» 

In the immediately pre-Saljuq period, the greatest threat 

to Armenia in the north came not from I. eria, but from the 

political manoeuvrings of Byzantium. In the year 1000, 

upon the death of the Georgian Bagratid ruler of Tayk ' 

/Tao, 

David the Curopalate, David's hereditary state of Upper 

Tao as well as his Armenian territories-Karin, the districts 

of Basen and Apahunik ' 

with the city of Manazkert as its 

capital-passed to the Empire by "will". In 1021 the 

Byzantine emperor Basil II invaded the north and annexed the 

73 

1

they did with aometioes sizeable forces, occasionally 

were powers to be reckoned with. Several such powerful 

and ambitious naxarara carved out for themselves principal- 

ities over an extensive area stretching from Cilieia 

on the Mediterranean, southward to Antioch, eastward to 

Edessa, northward to Samosata, to Helitene/Ualatya, and 

elsewhere . However, 

it must be stressed that despite 

what appears to have been large-scale emigration from Greater 

Armenia, those departing (principally families of means) 

nonetheless constituted a minority of the total indigenous 

population of eastern Asia Minor which remained in situ 

districts of Tayk'/Tao, Kola/Koi, Artani/Artahan and 

Javaxet'i/Jawaxlc*. Between 1041 and 1043, Byzantium 

attacked the city of Ani three times, but was repelled 

each time. In 1045, through treachery, the Ani-sirak 

kingdom was annexed. The same year the Fahlawunid princedom 

of Bjni in northeastern Armenia suucumbed. Its 

territories had included the districts of Kig, parts of 

YaraSnunik', Kotayk' plus Eayean and Kaycon fortresses. 

In addition to Soumanoff's Studies one should consult 

his important articles in Traditig, especially 

" 

Caucasia and Byzantium", and in fhe Cambridge Medieval ' 

History, vol IV, The Byzantine Empire, part 1 (Cambrld 

1966}ch. XIV "Armenia and Georgia" pp. 619-24 for background. 

See also Appendix A of this study. 

1 

MS oh . 30, "flaS ga3rt'avayrera merjavor Ayevelk'um 

[Armenian Settlements in the Near Eastj": 1. O.Z.T op uzyan 

c'l ev AaaziJt'i h Yf c h n ga t'avavrera [Armenian 

Settlements in Mesopotamia and Syria]" pp. 506-15; 2. A.N. 

Ter-tewondyan, "Havera Eeiptosup [The Armenians in Egypt]", 

PP. 516-20; M.J.Laurent, Byzance et Antioche sous le 

curopalate PhilarSte", gEA , IX(1929) PP. 61-72. 

"ailagSlf 

ge. 

74

and overwhelmingly Armenian in the period covered by 

this study 1 . 

1 

IS. p. 15 . In C. Cahen's opinion, the number of 

Turkmen invaders/migrants throughout the ll-12th centuries 

remained small: "Several tens of thousands, certainly; 

but that they numbered several hundreds of thousands is 

doubtful,.."QM p. 33). "It is difficult to believe that 

movements of peoples at that period can have involved more 

than a few tens of thousands of individuals in any one 

operation, at the most two or three hundred thousands, 

even though the texts give the impression of enormous 

masses (it should be remembered that regular armies in 

battle contained at the most a few thousand men)"(FT p. 

143). See also JMH p. 261 n. 718 where Yryonis has 

compiled figures from the sources concerning the invasions. 

In the 11-12th centuries Turkish settlement in Armenia .. 

sgems to have been very limited. Cahen notes that Azarbaijan 

to the east became and remained the ethnic base for 

the Turks of Asia Minor in this period (PT p. 79). 

Furthermore, in the early 12th century when Turkish immigration 

in Iran itself had become stabilized, "the Turks 

established in Asia Minor no longer permitted any others 

to come among them and divide their spoils" (PT p. 90). 

Turkmen "settlements" (or perhaps, "concentrations" would 

be more apt, since the Turkmen were nomads) were established 

" when and if [the Turkmen tribe] could secure a winter base 

after its summer raids. Until it could acquire and defend 

a winter base in Anatolia, the tribe usually left Asia 

Minor at the end of the summer raiding season. Once located, 

the tribes usually established a semianual transhumant 

pattern between their summer yayla in the mountains and 

their winter base in the plains"(DIE p. 279). For a list 

of possible Turkmen settlements-temporary and "permanent" 

-cited by ll-15th century sources see DMH p. 281 n. 791. 

The nedieval Armenian translation of the KC, known as" 

' Juanaer". mentions Turkmen concentrations and their 

yaylaa in northern and northwestern Armenia. Speaking 

of the success of Georgian king David II the Builder 

(1089-1123) in expelling these elements, the text reads: 

" In that period some 10,000 Turks raided in Ttelk'CTrialeti). 

David was at KaSarmad. When he heard about them he came 

at night with but few troops, and in the morning, with 

God's aid, beat them until evening. The few survivors 

fled at night. Similarly, in the Tayk' country there were 

tens of thousands of Turkish troops which had descended 

into the Tayk' country. [David] went and struck them, and 

took their goods, andthe country of Georgia filled up with 

good things....But while the great David was celebrating 

the feast of Easter at Naxedran, they brought him news that 

75

Another tendency of medieval Armenian life reoelTing 

a stimulus (or perhaps, reaffirmation) from the Saljuq 

domination was centrifugation, a key feature of Armenia's 

socio-geopolitical system, naxararlsm?' 

. The 

Saljuqs were 

even less successful than their Armenian predecessors 

(Arsaeids,Bagratids) in holding together in one state the 

different parts of eastern Asia Minor. As was mentioned 

above, centrifugal tendencies were inherent in the very 

nature of the Turkish migrations/invasions. Furthermore, 

the ruling family of the Saljuas--just as their Armenian 

predecessors-was obliged to grant appanages to Junior 

the Turks had slain BeSken in Jawaxet' and had come and 

encamped on the shores of the Araz. He went against them, 

destroying and capturing their entire army....He struck 

at the Turks in [their] wintering grounds of T ' 

uiark ' 

and 

filled up with booty. On the 13th of February and on the 

same septenary of fasting, he took Kapa city and filled 

up Georgia with gold and silver. 0n May 5th he raided 

v 

LayiSk' as far as K'urdawan and Xstalan and returned to 

X ' 

art ' 

11 in wealth. The same year he went to Alomi and 

beat the army of Turks until there were not left [even] 

mourners in their tents....Now the Turkmens ascended the 

mountains of Armenia in summertime and in wintertime 

descended to the warm meadows by the banks of the Kur 

river-but not without great preparation due to fear of 

David. However, that year they were without a care because 

of the king's distance. The king returned, sklring Mt. 

Lixt before him, and came to X'art'll. He found prepared 

troops in the month of March and went to Zunan and did 

not allow [any] of the multitude of Turks to live. He 

crossed to Partaw and discovered in the villages, fugitives 

from the Turks. .He put them to the sword and returned 

in peace" (Juanser, p.118-20). 

1 

See the Introduction and also ch. 3 below. 

76

members and these "fiefdoms" quickly transformed themselves 

from conditional to hereditary landholds . Indeed, prior 

to the establishment of Saljuq, control over much of the 

Armenian highlands by the late 11th century, the prolif- 

eration of small and usually mutually inimical Muslim 

emirates had begun. In the east, embracing parts of 

eastern Armenia, Caucasian Albania, and £zarbaljan was the 

emirate of Ganjak (ruled independently from 1148 to 1225) , 

In the south, in the areas of Aijnik'/Diyarbakr and Xlat', 

the holdings of the Muslim Marwanid emirs quickly were 

confiscated by the Artukids of Aljnik * (1101-1231)5, and 

the Saljuqid Shah Armens of Xlat* (1100-1207) 4 . In the west, 

the Turkmen Danishmandids (1097-1165) ruled a large area 

including Sebastia/Sivas, Caesarea, and Melitene/Iialatya . 

Finally, in the northwest, were the emirates of Karin/Erzerum 

(ruled by the Saltukids ca. 1080-late 12th century) and 

Kars (ca. 1080-1200). From 1118 Erzinjan and Divrigi belonged 

1 

PT pp. 23*-48. 

2 

On the emirate of Ganjak to 1075 see V.Minorsky, Studies 

in Caucasian History (London, 1953) pp. 1-77} thereafter, 

S-IP pp. 169-71. 176-83 passim! HAP pp. 475-79. 

3 

£T pp. 101-2, 126-32; § 3 pp. 111-12; gAP pp. 465, 

469-70, 486-91 passim. 

4 

_ 

H G . . T'ursyan, "5ah-l-ArmennerCThe Shah-i-Armens]", PBH 

#4 (1964) pp. 117-75; pp. 46, 107, 1,27; A.N.Ter-Lewona'yan 

" 3ah Armenneri amir yut yuna Xlat'urn [The Emirate of 

' 

tET 

5 

Shah Armens at Xlat'jT ArTp 787-90. 

PT pp. 96-107; HAP pp. 469-70, 579-80. 

77

to MangQjek, founder of yet another dynasty . 

The 

ruling 

dynasties of these states were sometimes Joined together 

by marriage ties, or sometimes united to fight a common 

enemy (usually Georgia to the north). But more often they 

were at war with each other. Meanwhile, throughout the 

12th century the Saljuqid Sultanate of Rum, centered at 

Iconlum/Konya in the west, was constantly attempting to 

control one or another of the above-mentioned states. 

As economic conditions stablized by the end of the 12th 

century, Kenya was indeed well on the way to achieving its 

aim 2 . 

1 

S . V. Bomazyan, "Salduxyannera Karinum [The Saltukids 

in Karin]", HAP pp. 490-91; U 106-8, 115, 118; HA? 

P. 492, PT p. 127; PI PP. 108-12, 236-37, 242-44. 

2 

ler !r 

PT passim. H. Masse, "Le sultan seldjoukide Keykobad 

~ 

et I'Irmenie", S£A IX(1929) PP. 113-29. 

78

p. 

The politleal, social and economic fragmentation 

of Armenian states which accompanied the Turkish invasions 

and a similar fragmentation of Turkish states resulting 

in the proliferation of emirates was new neither to the 

Armenian nor to the Turkish polity. Also not unexpectedly 

for naxarar Armenia, the political fragmentation was 

accompanied by religious fr agmentation. K.ot only were 

numerous small Armenian political entities engendered, 

tout several kat'olikoi (or anti-kat'olikoi) emerged in 

the ll-12th centuries. In this case, too, the confusion 

created by the Saljuqs acted as a catalyst on a phenomenon 

of hoary antiquity, which long predated their arrival . 

The situation created by the overlordship of ostensibly 

Muslim rulers over Christian Armenians across most of the 

2 

Armenian highlands was not new.. Inasmuch as religious And 

political agreement in the ancient world were often 

inseparable, and because Armenia*s powerful neighbors 

were determined to control that state, the Armenians were 

no strangers to religious persecution . 

1 

Immediately 

prior 

H M . .Bart'ikyan, "Havastane Byuzandakan tirapetut*yan 

nerk ' 

o. 3. Kronakan atak'akanut"yunaLArmenia under 5yzantine 

Domination, 3. The Heligious Policy]" QAP pp. 435-39; 

H .Berberian, "Le Patriarcat aroenien du sultanat de Roum",R£A 

n.s. #3(1966), pp. 233-43. 

2 

On the nature of Turkish "Islam" see DMH pp. 270-73} PT p.8, 

3 

Throughout most of Armenia's history, the pressure to 

alter the country's apostolic Honophysitism had come from 

79

. 

southe 

g 

Atrpatakan/Azarbaija 

, 

to the arrival of the Saljuqa the Armenian people had been 

subjected to a bloody campaign of religious persecution 

from Orthodox Byzantium1. For this reason, and because 

of the violently anti-Byzantine reaction such a policy 

engendered, all segments of the Armenian population did not 

respond in a uniform way either to the Saljuq invasions, or 

to the domination. Indeed, some few Armenians saw the 

anti-Byzantine Turks not as the agents of God sent to 

punish Armenians for their sins, but as an excellent 

vehicle opportunely available to themselves for vengeance 

against the Greeks. The contemporary non-Armenian sources 

in particular accuse the Armenians of siding with the Turks, 

deserting from the Byzantine armies sent to "defend" Armenia, 

2 

and even joining the enemy . 

three directions: (1) in the west, from Orthodox ChaleedoQiaQ 

Byzantium; (2) in the east from Iran and Atrpatakan/Azarbaljan 

(first Zoroastrian, later Muslim); and (3) in the south 

from Muslim Syria and the Arab emirates established in southern 

Armenia. Over the centuries, many Armenians living in areas 

bordering thes three regions, or settled within these states 

themselves had, for reasons of expediency or conviction 

" apostasized". See Toumanoff's " Armenia and Georgia", passim. 

1 

2 

Bart'ikyan, 2£'£ii«. iMS PP« 92-93. 

pp. 93-110. 

80

The establishment of Turkish political overlordshlp 

over an overwhelmingly Armenian Honophysite Christian 

population in eastern Asia Minor, and over Graeco-Armenian 

populations in central Asia Minor did not immediately 

lead to widespread conversions to Islam. This was to 

occur in the 12th and early 13th centuries, and to resume 

after a hiatus, in the early 14th century. But during the 

time of the Saljuq invasions, Armenian Islamization seems 

to have been limited, restricted mostly to those obliged 

to convert to save their lives, and to the tens of 

thousands of Armenian women and children forcibly removed 

from their homes and sold on the Middle Eastern slave 

marts entering Muslim harems and households * 

. In 

this 

early period too, several influential Armenian naxarar 

women were sought after as brides by Saljuq rulers . 

1 

On Saljuqid slave-trading in Asia Minor see DMH pp. 174- 

79, and also my article, "The Slave Trade in Armenians 

in the ll-14th Centuries"in a forthcoming Issue of the 

quarterly Ararat during 1980. 

2 

The daughter of Kiwrike, king of the semi-autonomous 

northeastern Armenian state of TaSir-Joraget is one example. 

With great reluctance her father surrendered her to sultan 

Alp Arslan (in 1064/65) CPataut'iwa Mattfeosi Ufhavec 'woy 

(The History of Matthew of EdessaT Uerusalec, 1869) pp. 

174-75 [Hereafter MEd], See also Juanser, p. 113; Another 

example say be Oohar fchgtun 

(d. 1118/19), wife of sultan 

Malik Shah's son, Isma'il (MEd, p. 427). It is clear 

from tEe testimony of Abu'l Pida that already by the 

mid-llth century, Armenian women (most probably Muslim 

Armenians, or Islamized slave-women) were being taken 

as brides by the now Turkicizlng Caliphs of Baghdad, supreme 

chiefs of orthodox Muslims: 1. Kat*r an-Nada (d . 1057/58), 

mother of Caliph al-Kayim (Nalbandyan trans, of Abu ' 

l 

Pida, Arabakan atbyurner. Erevan, 1965) P. 215 and n.20; 

2 . Arjivan, mother of Caliph Moktadi bi-Amr Allah Abu'l 

Kasim (d. 1094/95) p. 217 and n.26; 3. the mother of Caliph 

81

8 

Presumably many of them Islam!zed. Subsequently, after 

the establishment of Saljuq political control, other 

Armenians converted, be they the young Armenian boys, 

gulams. absorbed into the Saljuq military schools, or the 

skilled Armenian bureaucrats and artisans who dominated 

numerous important positions within the various Turkish 

states, and who figure prominently in Turkish epic liter- 

ature (see below) . 

The upshot of this conversion, forcible or voluntary, 

was the creation with time of a distinct group-virtually 

excluded from the Armenian sources as "renegades", but 

apparently not yet fully accepted by their new Muslim 

eo-religionists either, who in their sources usually style 

Uostadi bi-Amr Allah Abu Muhammad al-Haaan ibn Yusuf ibn 

Hostakid (d, 1180), p. 222 and n. 50. The fact that 

succession in the Caliphate tended to pass hereditarily 

from father to son meant that throughout the ll-12th 

centuries, many of the Caliphs were of some Armenian 

descent. However, it must be underlined that Armenian 

extraction did not necessarily mean that the individual 

identified with the Armenians, or even that he or she 

was aware'of the relation. 

1 

DMH pp. 240 ff. Also on the gulams see Sp. Yryonis, 

" Seljuk Gulams and Ottoman Sevsnlrmes", Per Islam. XLI 

(1965) PP. 224-52. 

82

them "Armenians" . 

However, 

it must he underlined that 

the majority of the Armenians remained true to their own 

1 

Most notably Abu'l Pida, who specifically notes the 

Armenian descent of certain Caliphs as well as of prominent 

functionaries in Muslim governments. The Armenian literary 

historians are loathe to mention the reality (and of course 

the extent) of conversion. However, that intermarriage 

with Muslims was indeed becoming a problem is clear from 

certain articles in the so-called Penetentlal of Pawit * 

of 

Ganjaf 

c, C.J.P. Dowsett, ed. (Louvain, 1961} Corpus Scripv- 

torum Christianorum Orlentalium, vol. 216, Seriptores 

Armeniacl tomus 3. This work, which deals primarily with 

the degrees of penance necessary for various offenses was 

written at the beginning of the 12th century in or near 

Ganjakc Sr. Dowsett writes: "As the many passages in 

the Xratk' kanonakank* [Penitential] dealing with the 

relations between Christians and Infidels (usually specified 

as Kurds) show, Dawit * 

lived his life in a time of troubles 

for his church and nation. The Christians were subject not 

only to the contamination of their food, vessels and holy 

places by Muslims, and the misfortune of seeing Armenian 

women become their wives, mistresses or nurses: the church 

might clearly at any time be threatened by what Dawit ' 

calls "hopeless tyrants"(ch, 37), and attacks on Christians 

were not unknown (chp. 59)*. The relevant entries are: 

(16) Concerning an Armenian woman who lives with a Kurd 

[and will not separate from him] for the sake of Christianity, 

p. 16: (17) Concerning a woman who dwells with a Kurd, 

p. 17; (18) Concerning a woman who fornicates with a Kurd, 

p.17} (19) Concerning those who voluntarily give their 

daughters to infidels, p.17; (20) Concerning those who 

feed the children of infidels at the breasts, p.18. That 

many of the same problems had continued through the 12th 

century is clear from the inclusion of identical or 

similar entries in the Law Book of Mxit ' 

ar Gos (d. 1213). 

Religious conversion in this period was not unidirectional. 

There was also Turkish conversion to Christianity, both 

forced and voluntary. Juanser, speaking of the deeds of 

David II the Builder (1089-1125) notes David's attempt to 

Christianize the shamanist Qlpchaq Turks of the north 

Caucasus: "How [David] kept wiTE him on Georgian soil 

40,000 Qlpehaqs with their families and sons plus 500 

young children whom he raised at his court as Christians, 

and others still day by day were baptized and studied 

the faith of our Lord. He armed the 40,000 and designated 

spasalars for them and repelled Persia and T ' 

urk ' 

astan 

with them". Juanler, p. 119. Similarly, voluntary conversion 

of Turks to Monophysitic Christianity was not unknown. 

The Armenian Church has canonized the Turkish martyr 

Yordanan who was slain in Karin/Erzerum on Good Friday,1182, 

83

dietinctive form of Christianity. Thia fact, coupled with 

the reality of an Armenian majority in eastern Asia Minor, 

in its turn led to yet another phenomenon-also not new 

on the highlands, albeit this time affecting the overlords, 

not their subjects, i.e, ., what might be termed the Armen- 

isation of the Saljuqs . 

Not 

only did Armenians of differ- 

ent faiths-Apostolic, Orthodox, Muslim-constitute the 

bulk of the population in eastern Asia Minor during the 

Saljuq, domination, but fairly quickly an Armeno-Turkiah 

2 

community came into existence through intermarriage . 

Intermarriage occurred not only between the families of 

Armenian civil servants and Turkish lords, but at the 

very pinnacle of the state. By the IJth century, few were 

1 

Armanization which resulted from intermarriage 

with Armenian noble families and from the naxararisation 

of foreigners occurred in some of .the Arab emirates f 

southern Armenia and among some of the Kurdish Shaddadids 

' 

in the 10th-12th centuries. See Ier-&ewondyan, !oi£a£ea, 

PP. 45-50, 97-98, 119, 124? Minorsky, Studies, pp. 39, 

43, 47 n.l, 51. 80-106 jassim. 

2 

Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. 

Greek sources style the offspring of such unions 

mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage 

and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi 

is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume 

that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These 

nixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of 

political sympathy and allegiance, but in .the long run 

their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that 

favored the growth of the Muslim population at the 

expense of the Christian population, because Muslim 

society dominated politically and militarily. It is 

interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what 

would have happened to the Anatolian mlxovarysroi under 

different political circumstances" (DBS p. 176J. Vryonis 

continues elsewhere; "There is every reason to suppose 

84

8 

the Saljuq sultans and rulers of eastern Asia Minor lacking 

an Armenian, Georgian or Greek parent or grandparent . 

Indeed, some have suggested that the great warlord and 

founder of the Daniehmandid emirate, hero of the Turkish 

epic the Danlshmend name. emir Malik Janlahmand himself, 

2 

was an Armenian Muslim . Judging from the many clearly 

that Intermarriage took place rather extensively from 

the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia 

and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks 

of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi. and the 

twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. 

When the Greek historian Dlcephorus Gregoras passed through 

Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenthcentury, 

just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, 

he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, 

mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage 

of Muslims and Christians at every level of society played 

a very important role in the integration and absorption 

of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DUH 

pp. 228-29). The Tuikish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi 

may have been ikdlah. signifying a gelding or cross-bred 

animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93. 

1 

SMH pp. 227-34. Furthermore, certain Christian families 

of western and central Asia Minor, cited as "Greeks" in 

Greek sources, such as the Tornikes, Taronites, Phocades, 

Musele, Skleroi, etc. were in fact of Armenian descent, 

even if no longer identifying as such. See A.f.Kashdan, 

" Armlano-vigantllskie zametkl". PBJL #4(1971) pp. 93-105, 

and thesame author's recent study, Armiane v soetave 

eos pod atvulushchego klasaa Vizantil v Al-JLllvv.LArmeHians 

in the aompositlon o7 

~ 

he Ruling Class of .byzantium in 

KeTT-XII CenturlesT TMoacow, I97 ). p, Charania, ' 

The Xrmenlans in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963). 

2 

According to S.Eremyan, "Liparit zoravarl ha ordnera ev 

Danismanyan tohml cagman xndlra [The Succesaorf of General 

Llparlt and ihe Problem of the Origin of the Daniehmandid 

Linel", Teickagir #8(1947) PP. 65-79, Malik .DanisEjiand was 

none other than the Armeno-Georgian Hrahat/Rat Orbeleac/ 

liparltean. The Turkish scholar Kalil Yinanc, Selcuklular 

[cited by I. Melikoff in La Geste de 

Deyri. . 

welik Danismend (Paris , I960) p. 76] probaTSTy followTng 

the 18th century Armeniaui historian M. am$ean has suggested 

that Danishmand was an Armenian captive of war-possibly 

85

Saljuq architecture not only took some of its inspiration 

from Armenian ecclesiastical and civil structures which 

graced and still grace the landscape of eastern Asia 

Minor, but in the ll-13th centuries, many of the structures 

themselves were designed and constructed by Christian 

and Muslim Armenians . 

By 

the end of the 12th century 

Armenia was well on the way to absorbing and transforming 

its newest residents. 

The emergence of Georgia as a great military power 

in the late ll

Saljuq architecture not only took aome of its inspiration 

from Armenian ecclesiastical and civil structures which 

graced and still grace the landscape of eastern Asia 

Minor, but in the 11-13th centuries, many of the structures 

themselves were designed and constructed by Christian 

and Muslim Armenians . 

By 

the end of the 12th century 

Armenia was well on the way to absorbing and transforming 

its newest residents. 

The emergence of Georgia as a great military power 

in the late ll-12th centuries radically shifted the balance 

scales in favor of complete Caucasian cultural as well 

as political supremacy in eastern Asia Minor. Thanks to 

Georgia, much of historical Armenia once again came under 

Armenian political control-though briefly-and those 

parts that were not, were either tributary to Georgia 

or had made peace with that stats. Beginning in the reign 

of the Georgian Bagratid monarch David II, called "the 

Builder" (1089-1125), the armies of Georgia commenced 

clearing southern and southeastern Georgia of nomadic Turk- 

mens, capturing from them Samaoylde and many strongholds 

in the Armeno-Georgian district of Somxit'i (1110) ; Lol-e 

1 

DMH p. 236 n. 563. One might also compare the style 

of dome characteristic of Armenian churches-the gabet'to 

the Saljuq kunpets and turbgs. Compare e.g., plates 

15,16,17 in S. iter Nersessian's The Armenians (New York , 

1970)to PT p. 394 Pi. 24, p. 395"pl. 30 , p. 402 pi. 34, 

p. 403 pi. 35.

Agarak and the Kiwrlkean holdings (1118) ; Samaxl, eastern 

Gugark', western Utile', Gag, K'awazin, Kayean, Kayoon, 

Terunakan, Nor Berd, Tawui, Mahkanaherd, Manasgom, and 

ZalinSk'ar (1123) . The same year, Anl was taken, though 

that city passed tack and forth between the Georgian 

and the Muslim emirs many times throughout the 12th 

century ' . During 

the reign of David's successor Demetre I 

(1125-1155/56) and his successor Georgi III (1155/56-1184) 

the conquests continued though at a slower pace. Through- 

out this period, the Georgian army was swelling with 

Armenian volunteers, enthusiastically participating in 

the liberation of their country. Furthermore, the 

Georgian Bagratids,themselves of Armenian descent, 

very definitely favored certain Armenian nobles long 

since established within Iberia and within that 

4 

country's ruling structure . Such lorda - as 

the Zak'arean/Kxargroelis, Orbelean/Orbelis and Aroruni/ 

1 

2 

Juanler pp. 118-19; KG pp. 162-63. 

Juanier p. 121; HAP pp. 525-26. 

T ' 

X .Hakobyan, Hayastani patmakan aSxarhaprut'yun 

[Armenia's Historical Georgraphy] (Erevan. 1966)01). 302, 

303, 305, 310-11. 

4 

MEd p. 447; Juanser p. 122; 11 p. 28; W.E.D, Allen , 

A Hiatory of the Georgian People (Mew York, 1971, repr. of 

1932 ed.) pp. 85-108 passim. A certain amount of conflict 

resulted from confessional differences between Georgians 

and Armenians, which secular leaders were unable to resolve. 

See Appendices A and B. 

88

9 

Maakaberdelle not only commanded the victorious araiee, 

but were left in charge of the newly established 

atoinistratipns 1 . The 

Georgian Bagratide reached the 

apogee of their power under queen Taoar (1184-1213). 

Under Taoar's generals, the energetic brothers Zak'are 

and Iwane Zak ' 

arean, the Aroeno-Georgian armies surged 

ahead reclaiming one after another fortress, city and 

district: Anberd in Aragaeotn district (1196), Samk ' 

or, 

Ganjak, Arc'ax, Slwnik*, Slrak, the Ayrarat plain and 

Ani (ca. 1199); Bjni (1201); and Dwin (1203) 2 . They 

now turned upon the southern and western emirates, defeat- 

ing the renowned aultan of Eonya, Rukn al-Sln in the district 

of Sasen (1204) 3 . In 1204/5 they reached as far south 

1 

While, strictly speaking, it is more precise to refer 

to the lords as naxarar/didebulsCin light of their 

Armeno-Gecrgian ' 

backgrounds and affiliations] and to 

provide the double Armenian and Georgian forms of their 

surnames, since this study examines aspects of the 

Armenian background only, we shall hereafter prefer 

the Armenian forms except in cases where the source 

Iraber #11(1975) PP. 48-60. 

2 

VA p. 138; SO p. 137; Ibn al-Amr , year 599(1202-3) 

pp. 507-8;JHAP p. 534. 

.Alilan, Hayapatum. colophon #313 , p. 448; A.Abrahjmyan, 

.Ruk n-ed-Dirir partut ' 

yune [The 3)efeat of Rukn al-Dinj", 

TeSekagTr. 6 liwi) pp. 78-e3; HAP p. 536. 

89

situatio 

as Manazkert and ArSel on the northern shore of Lake Tan, 

although this area was not taken until ca. 1208/9 1 , 

Zwane's daughter I'amt'a was married to the Shah Arnen 

of Hat * in 1209/102. In a treat final burst, general 

Zak'are inarched through NaxiJewan and Juia, through 

Xzarbaijan to Uarand, Tabriz and Qazvin, looting and 

sacking Muslim settlements . 

By 

the time of Zak'are's 

death in 1212, Georgia was the most powerful state in 

the region, while the status of the Armenians, be they 

inhabitants of historical Armenia-northeastern, southern, 

western-of Georgia, or of the plethora of small communities 

stretching to the southwest to the independent Cilician 

kingdom had been changed in a very positive way. This situation 

was to be altered again almost at once. 

1 

Ibn al-Athir, year 601 (1204-5) pp. 509-11? year 605 

(1208-9) PP. 517-22. In any case, it does not seem that 

this area was under direct Georgian military control 

for very long, HAP p. 537. 

2 

KG p. 164; 7A p. 138; Ibn al-Athir (p. 510) followed 

by Bar Hebraeua (p. 361) incorrectly reports that "iakare 

the Leas" died during the seige of Xlat1. A&u'l Pida 

(Halb. trana., p. 228) without naming Zak'are, styles 

him Jhe "king of Georgia". During the Xlat' campaign, 

Iwane was captured. The marriage of J'amt'a was part 

of the peace terms proposed by_the Shah Armen. Eventually 

T ' 

amt ' 

a became ruler of the Shah Armen state in her own 

right, ruling from ca. 1212-Tr (T ' 

uriyan, op.cit.. pp. 

126-31). 

3 

KG pp. 184-86; VA chp. 83 PP. 139-40; QAP p. 538; 

S .Eremyan, Amirspasalar Zak aria Erkavnabazuk CAmlrapasalar 

Zak aria MxargrcellJ (Srevan. 1944) pp. 58-60. On the 

naxarars in this period see chapter three below and also 

Appendix A , 

90

Th» great demographic, military, and political 

changes which had taken place in the history of the Armen- 

ians in the late 12-early 13th centuries have left 

their imprints on the contemporary sources. In the 

ll-14th century sources there is Justifiable confusion 

over the borders of Armenia. Political boundaries, 

of course, do not always embrace neatly definable 

regions of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural entities, 

and "Armenia" in the 13-14th centuries was a fine example 

of this. Because of large scale emigration, resulting 

in the creation of new diasporas, one could draw very 

wide indeed the cultural boundaries of Armenia, in this 

period, even though a delineation of the political 

boundaries is well-nigh impossible 1 . 

1 

As was pointed out above, by the 1220's, Armenians were 

dwelling over a sizable territory embracing the Armenian 

highlands, Georgia and Cilicla. Some, though hardly all, 

of these areas were under Armenian political control, a 

circumstance whic created confusion among the contemporaries. 

Mzlt ' 

ar Sol (d.1213) for whom as for other Armenian 

clerics the political boundaries were less important than 

the demographic, used a new term to designate part of 

Armenian-inhabited souther Armenia, alternately controlled 

by the Ayyubida and the Shah Armenat"meso-Armenia"(mlHnahayk 

' 

~ 

. Arakk' Mxlt'aray 7oal (The Pablea of Mxit'arSol) 

iVenice, 1854) p. 160;. With theUongol invasions and 

domination of most of Asia Minor, political boundaries 

became less distinct. For the 13-l4th centuries, characterized 

by the almost perpetual invasions, we are unable to 

do more than cite the testimony of confusing and/or confused 

sources. To the Arab geographer Yaqut (d,1229) the 

uncertain boundaries of Armenia reflect the confusion 

occasioned by Georgia's resurgence and expansion Into 

previously Armenian-controlled and/or populated areas, 

as well as the reality of Armenian majorities In areas 

not under Caucasian political control. Moreover, in 

Yaqut*s day, the 7th century Arab geographical designation 

" 

Armeniyya"8till was being used , although the author notes 

91

that its constituent parts were dehated:"It is said that 

there are a Greater and Lesser Armenia. On one side 

reaching from Barda ' 

a to Bab al-Abwab and on the other 

as far as the country of Rub and the Caucasus mountains 

and the country of lord Sarir Some say that Greater 

Armeniy a is composed of Akhlat/Xlat* and its environs; 

while Lesser Armeniy a ofTiflis and its environs. There 

are also those who say that there are three, even four 

Armeniy as. The first consists of Baylakan, Kabalan and 

Shirran and the regions subject to them; the second: 

Jurzan. Suddabll, Bab Firuz-Kuban and al-Lak'z; the third: 

Basfurjan, Sabil, SiraJ, T'ayr, Balravand and Annasavan; 

in the fourth is the grave of one of the Prophet's 

comrades, Safvan ibn al-Muatt ' 

al..,also Simlat ' 

Kalikala 

, 

[ErzerumJ, Sisakan, Savil, Naiava, SiraJ, T'ayr, Balravand, 

Xlat', and Bajunayis, fonaerly were under the Greeks* 

domination, but the Rami's united them to the Sirvan princedom"(Yaqut, 

Balb. trans, pp. 16-17). Among the cities 

and districts of Armeniy a Yac t listed as having Armenian 

Christian populations are: Aroel(p.l2), Er:Zinjarup. 14), 

Brzezni ffl(p.l5). Aflughunia (near Hisibis, p. 21), Bayburt 

rp.28), Balu (p.30), Bitlis(p. 33), Capaljur

9 

before the Georgians (HP p. 50). and obserres the 

presence of Armenians in Tabriz (MP, p. 57). 

The late 13th centxiry Geoera-phy.. attributed to 

Yardan Arewelo'i, apparently in part under the influence 

of the 7th century Anania of Sirak, and in 

part in reflection of the demographic spread of 

Armenians in the late 13th century, draws the borders 

of Armenia very wide indeed; including all of historical 

Armenia plus Edesga and Aleppo (Geog.. p.21) 

Cilicia (p. 24), Azarbaijan (pp. 15-16) andmuch of 

Georgia (pp. 17-18). Vardan concludes his Geography 

with the crucial expression: "these are the lands and 

districts of Arnenla/of the Armenians (aSxar tm ew 

yawflrv ' 

n HnyoeM". Indeed , though he does proviTe 

the Arabic or Turkish forms of some Armenian place 

names, he nowhere mentions that in his day most of 

historical western Armenia no longer was under Armenian 

political control [see Vardan*s usages Arzrum for 

Karin (p. 18), Tiarpak'ir for Aljnlk* (p. 21). Malat'ia 

for Melitene (p. 21), Sewast for Sebastia (p. 23)]. 

Het'um the Historian, writing in the early 14th 

century, extends Armenia from the Darial pass In the 

Caucasus to "Media", and includes (as does Vardan) 

the city of Tabriz, then an area of Armenian population 

(Het'um, p. 14). In describing the "Kingdom of the 

Turks" LHum], Het'um wrote: "In the Turkish kingdom 

dwell four peoples: the Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites 

...and the Turks p. 21). 

Ibn Battuta, who visited Asia Minor in the early 

1330's wrote of Erziirjan (then almost 300 years under 

non-Armenian rule): "a large and populous city, most 

of whose Inhabitants are Armenians" (Ibn Battuta, p. 

437). To Qazvini in the 1340's, Armenia was divided 

into two sections. Greater Armenia was the Lake Van 

basin with its capital at Hat', though it extended 

" 

frgm Arzan-ar-Rum[Erzerum] to Salmas, and from 

Arran to the further end of the Akhlat[Xlat'] district" 

(Qazvini, p. 100). The "chief dependencies" of Lesser 

Armenia were Sis, Cyprus and Trebizond (!), Qarin and 

Tarun (p. 100, 258). Schiltberger (who visited the 

Armenian highlands in 1402-1405) calls Brznjan the 

capital of Lesser Armenia (Schiltberger, p. 21) which 

also embraced Bayburt and Kamax (p. 43). Elsewhere 

he wrote: "In Armenia are three kingdoms, one is called 

Tlflis, the other is called Sis, the third is called 

Ersingen,..and that is Lesser Armenia (p. 86). Clavijo 

noted large concentrations of Armenians in the Tabriz 

area (Clavijo p. 150, 309). He described Khoy as 

a city of Upper Armenia with a majority of Armenians 

(p. 148). He noted populous Armenian villages south 

of Khoy (p. 330) and stayed in Armenian villages during 

his transit of central Asia Minor and the Caucasus (pp. 111- 

148). Contradictions within and among the sources, 

resulting from the frequent changes in the area's political 

and military history, preclude a more specific definition 

of Armenia in the 13-14th centuries. 

93

In the early 1220's, Armenia was subjected to a 

number of luroo-Mongol invasions. These invasions, all 

related to one another (though hardly coordinated) were 

made from different geographical directions. Varying in 

scope, participants, and intent, all of them nonetheless 

contributed to the destruction of the military capabilities 

of the Armeno-Georgian armies. Taken individually, the 

consequences of each invasion might have been overcome. 

But the invasions were, in a sense, a chain reaction. 

One followed the next within the space of a few years. 

This quick succession of attacks more than anything else 

explains how the mighty Armeno-Georgian forces, so 

recently on the aggressive offensive against hostile 

and far-flung powers, were so quickly humiliated, destroyed 

or neutralized before the onslaught of the Mongol 

conquerors in subsequent decades. 

Chronologically, the first incursion was made in 

1220/21 by a detachment of some 20,000 Mongols who had 

been sent across Central Asia by Chlngiz-Khao in pursuit 

of the Shah of Khwarazm 1 . The 

1 

latter succeeded in evading 

Useful secondary sources on the Mongol Invasions 

are SMP; B. Spuler, The Muslim World, part II The , 

Mongol Period (Leiden , I960) [Hereafter, Spulerj{ 

J .J .Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conaueets 

(London, 1971)jTor Armenia in particular. PI; DiH; 

Alizade; SESM; H&P III , ch . 35, L.H.Babayan, "Monfrolakan 

areavank nere ev Hayaatani nvaguae [The Mongol 

Invasions and the Conquest of Armenia]", pp. 597-613; 

HAZ IV (Erevan. 1972) ch . 1, L.S.XaJikyan, "Hayaatani 

k ' 

aialc ' 

akan vicaks tv soc * 

ial-tntesakan haraberut* 

yunneraTtV-xV darerunTTIrmenia'a Political Situation 

9*

his pursuers and had, in fact, died in obscurity on an 

Island in the Caspian Sea the saae time the Mongols were 

entering the Caucasus 1 . The Mongols' route into Armenia 

was from the southeast, from western Naxljewan north to 

the Aghstev region. A certain disagreement exists among 

the sources regarding the location(s) of the Mongols' 

first battle(s) with Caucasian forces. But the outcome 

apparently was that some 10,000 Armenians and Georgians, 

commanded by king Georgi IV LaSa of Georgia and his 

atabek Iwane Zak ' 

arean were defeated in the Kotman area 

2 

of northeastern Armenia . Through espionage the Mongols 

and Sooio-Economic Relations in the XIV-XTth Centuries]'*, 

PP. 15-47 particularly; also A.G. Galstyan's Russian 

article in lataro-Mongoly v Azii i Evrope (Moscow, 1970) 

and the English translation of it in the Armenian Revitew 

vol. XXVII (1975), "The Conquest of Armenia by the 

Mongol Armies", pp. 356-76 [Hereafter CAMA], CAMA, p. 357; 

HAP III p. 600. 

1 

SMP pp. 309-10. 

2 

HAP III p. 600; Babayan is challenged by Galstyan in 

CAMA, pp. 357-58; The Armenian sources report the following 

on early Mongol activities in the Caucasus: 1. Kir- 

akos Ganjakec ' 

i: "...Thus finding many people unconcerned, 

they [Mongols] destroyed and ruined many places. Then 

they secured their bags and baggage in the marshy, muddy 

place which lies between the cities of Bartaw and Belukan 

-a very safe place which they call BelameJ-and they 

destroyed many districts with brazen attacks", KG p. 202; 

2 . Vardan Arewelc'i: The initial penetration of the Caucasus 

is presented in chapter 84 of his History. "In 1221... 

foreign-looking and foreign-soundin* people called Mulal 

and T at ' 

ar moved from the land of pin and Ma?in and came 

to Gugark s meadowlands by way of Albania. There were 

some 20,000 of them. They destroyed everything that they 

found alive and then quickly turned back. Now [king] 

LaSa pursued them with all his forces, reaching [the Mongols] 

by the Kotman river. He waa_defeated by them and 

saved himself by flight, with Iwane. Some prince had whipped 

95

9 

the latter*a horse (acer zf llln) such that Ivane lost him. 

However, Vahram, lortTof the land, who was uninformed of 

the others' flight, went [pursuing the Mongols] as far 

as Gardman, displaying great bravery in the face of severe 

destruction" , VA p. 142; 3. Grigor Aknero'i: AJcnerc'i's 

information on the initial penetration is found in chapter 

3 of his History and immediately follows his hazy reference 

to Jalal al-Sln: "Together with all of this, they once 

more took a command from their khan, who was called j ankss 

khan. And they attacked the land of the Albanians and 

Georgians. 

" 

When the king of the Georgians heard about the coming 

of the Tat ' 

ars be went against them with 60,000 cavalry 

to the great plain called Kotman, located before Terunakan 

fortress. When the battle was Joined, through the influence 

of satan, the enemy of truth, Hamidawla, the lord of 

Manasa stable, because of some grudge, hamstrung the horse 

of At ' 

abak Iwvane. ?or at that time Laia, king of Georgia, 

had died, leaving a eon named Dawit' and a daughter 

Rusudan (U uzuk'an). Dawit' had fallen into the hands of 

the sultan of Sum and was in prison. His sistoj Rusudan 

held the kingdom under the supervision of Iwvane, called 

the At'abak. 

" 

Now as was said above, when.the news of the coming of 

the Tat'ars was learned, Iwvane took the oavalry of the 

Georgian kingdom and came to GagA to the great and wise 

prince Varham, son of Plu Zak ' 

are. Taking him with his 

own army he went against the Tat ' 

ars. The mighty gnd 

great prince Varham took the right wing and Iwvane the 

left. But when they attacked each other the accursed 

Hamidawla worked this crime which was described. 

" 

When the Nation of the Archers saw such dissension amongst 

them, they grew stronger and attacked the Georgian cavalry, 

mercilessly killing them. 

" 

However the great prince Varham, lord of Gag, who had 

taken Ccommand] of the .[army's] right wing went on until 

evening, mercilessly attacking and killing the Tat ' 

ars 

until the plain of Sagam was generally filled with slain 

Tat'ars. When Varham, prince of Gag heard of the destruction 

of the forces of the kingdom, sorrowing greatly, he left 

off warring and returned to his secure fortress called 

K ' 

arherj. This took place in the year 663 of the Armenian 

Era (-1215)", GA, pp. 292,294? Step'annos Orbelean: 

After describing the 7 ygars of famine and clamities 

occasioned by Jalal al-Sin, Step ' 

annos wrote: "Now after 

11 years, the Lord raised up out of the East the Nation 

of the Archers or Mulals, also vulgarly known as T at ars, 

from the land of Sin and Ma?in, from beyond Xat'astan... 

Now the third division [of the Mongol army] passed straight 

through the land [of Persia], crossing the great 7ahan 

river which they themselves call the Amu Mawra. And moving 

about like a storm, they reached our land, general ly subjecting 

every place...The first to come to [this] land 

were Jawraan, falatay, Asian, Asawur and Laia khan. 

They took the land in 1237 (685 A.l.)", SO pp. 146-48. In 

other words, as far as Step annos cares to relate, the 

96

97 

first penetration of the Mongols was linked with the 

immediate submission of the Orbeleans; 5. The confused 

account in the History of £art * 

li associates the 

appgaranee .of the Mongols in Caucasia with the hunt for 

Jalal al-Djn, but the chronology is impossible. 

Chingis-Khaa sent princes Tamay and Salpian with 12,000 

soldiers haTing no arms or food, no swords, and only 

[bows and] arrows. 

" They traversed I'uran, Jeon, Zorasan, SralClraq], 

Atrpatakan, and reached GanjaJt. No one opposed them, 

but if [realsters appeared anywhere, they defeated 

all of them. Having reached the borders of Georgia they 

began ravaging the Gag country. TahramCVarham] Gagell 

and atabek Ivane learned about this and informed king 

Laia about foreign tribes speaking an unknown language 

who had come to ruin Somzit i. The king summoned his 

army, Imerc ' 

is and Amerc'ls, gathered a force of 90,000 

and sent them to that border of Gag where the Tatars 

were. ?rom there a large force joined them, comprising 

atabek Ivane andvhis brother's son Sahnlah CSanie] and the 

msaxurt ' 

-uxue * 

ee Vahram of Gag, and they went on?. 

The latars were encamped on the banks of the BerduVSagln 

river. They defeated the Georgians who fled. "The Tatars 

reached as far as Samsvilde and turned back from there 

working such amazing deeds. They went by the Sarband 

road [and], because neither the SlrvanSah nor the people 

of Sarband resisted them, they passed through "the the 

Gate of Darband and entered the Qlpchaqa* country. These 

they forced to fight, and many times the Qlpchaqa battled 

but the Tatars were always victorious. And so they went 

on, fighting. 

" Thus as I said, [the Mongols], unarmed and with unshod 

horses, traversing such a road crossed Qlpchaa. circumloouted 

the Sarband Sea and reached their ruler Chlngiz-. 

Khan in Qara-Qoruo. This extraordinary feat was accomplished 

wTthout stopping, crossing all the roads with unshod 

horses. Those fho had come from Qara-Qorum returned there. 

When Chinglz-Khan learned that the Tatars had been victorious 

.everywhere, he sent his sons to find sultan Jalal 

al-Din of Zorasan", KC pp. 166-67; MuradyanCMur.], pp. 

55-56. 

97

learned of an alliance forming against tliemaelTea to 

include besides Armenians and Georgians, those forces 

still loyal to the rulers of Xlat * 

and Azarbaijan. 

Consequently, without delay the Mongols invaded Georgia 

In January, 1221 taking along an Izarbaijanl defector 

plus his troops of Turkaens and Kurds whom they obliged 

to fight in the vanguard-a typical Mongol battle tactic 1 . 

Northern Armenia and southeastern Georgia were looted, 

and then the invaders returned to their base in Utile * 

In spring of the same year they moved south toward Tabriz, 

plundering and destroying the cities of Maragheh, Haaadan, 

Kaxijewan, Ardabil, and later Utilt o largest city, 

Baylakan, carrying off large herds of horses, mules, 

2 

donkeys, oxen and sheep . Despite its success, this 

army had not been sent for conquest but to pursue the 

Khwarazn Shah and to conduct reconnaissance for future 

operations, thus, considering their mission accomplished, 

the Mongols departed via the Caucasus mountains to the 

north, destroying the city of Sank 'or enroute ' . Seen 

1 

2 

. 

in 

HAP III p. 600; Ibn al-Athlr [JA 14(1849)] pp. 447-52. 

HAP III p. 601; Ibn al-Athlr pp. 452-53. 

3 

CAMA pp. 358-59; M? IH p. 602; Ibn al-Athir pp. 453-55; 

According to Kirakos, the king assembled an even larger 

army and "wanted to battle the enemy. But the T ' 

at ' 

ars 

collected their wives, children, and all their bags and 

baggage, and desired to pass to their own land through the 

Darband Gate. Mow the TaSik troops who were in Darband 

did not allow them to enter. So the I'at'ars crossed 

the Caucasus mountains at an impassable spot, filling the 

98

etrospect, this Mongol campaign, conducted by a relatively 

small army of 20,000 was nothing short of astounding, 

accomplishing the defeat of 20 peoples and a complete 

circuit of the Caspian in less than two years . 

The second invasion of the Caucasus took place 

immediately after the Mongol departure in 1222, and was 

caused by it. This time the participants were nomadic 

Qlpchaq Turks from the plains to the north. In their 

turn defeated by the Mongols, one siseable body of 

Qlpohaqe fled from them in a southward direction. Request- 

ing dwelling places in the Caucasus, they were disbelieved 

and refused at Saxband, whereupon they pillaged and 

looted there; at the Georgian city of Eabala; and all | 

2 I 

the way south to the city of Oanjak in Caucasian Albania . | 

abyss with wood and stones, their goods, horses and military 

equipment and thus crossed over and went to their own land. 

The name of their leader was Sabada Bahatur", EG p. 203. 

Yardant "In 1223 those same [Mongols] wanted to depart. 

Furthermore, their ambassadors had found Armenia and 

Georgia [militarily] ready and assembled, and they so 

reported (tareal zhambawn). [Thus] they did not dare 

come and instead turned and went awayn,VA p. 142. 

1 

J .J. Saunders, op.cjt.. p. 59. 

2 

HAP III p. 602; SEPHA p. 93; Ibn al-Athlr pp. 463-67; 

Kirakos* information is found in his chapter 12: "Afterwards 

when some time had passed, another force of Huns, 

called Xb axs game through Georgia to king Lala and to the 

haaarapet Iwane so that these two might give them a place 

to dwell and [in exchange] they would serve them loyally. 

However they did not agree to accept the Qlpchaqs. 

" So the Qlpchaqs arose and went to the residents of the 

city of Ganjsk where they were joyously received, since 

99

10 

She emir of Ganjak permitted the Qlpchaqg to settle in 

the environs of the city, intending to use them against 

Georgian incursions. The atabek Iwane mustered troops and 

went against them, but he was defeated, having underestim- 

ated their strength. What was worse, many naxarars and 

didebuls were captured, then killed or ransomed for huge 

sums of money 1 . The 

Qlpchaqs continued looting and raiding 

the people there had been placed in great straits by the 

Georgian army, which ruined their lands and enslaved man 

and beast. The Ganjakec ' 

is gave the Huns an area to 

reside, located within the confines of the oity and they 

aided them with food and drink so that with their help 

the citizens might resist the Georgian kingdom. The Hun 

army halted there and settled", EG p. 204. Yardan; "...And 

in the same year [12231 a large army of Huns called 

Qlpchaqs (Xw$ai) came to Ganjak and united with them 

[i.e., with the people of Ganjak]. And because our forces 

went against them carelessly and in surety, they were 

dispersed, separated, and fled. Many were killed by the 

sword, while others were taken alive and put into prison 

-some from among the glorious azats Included. Among the 

prisoners were the prince called Grigor son of Zalbak and 

his nephew (brother's son) the manly and valliant champion 

named Papak . They were avenged the next year when our 

forces wiped out a large part of the Qlpchaqs when the 

latter came to the land of TardanaSat", 7X pp. 142-43. 

1 

Ibn al-Athir. pp. 468-69? Klrakos: "Then Iwane mustered 

troops and arrogantly went against them. He boasted 

greatly that he would exterminate them and the city as well, 

placing his trust in the multitude of h soldiers and not 

in God Who gives the victory to whomever He pleases. When 

the two groups clashed, the barbarians calmly emerged from 

their lairs and put to the sword the wearied and [God-Jforsaken 

Georgian army. They arrested many and put the 

remainder to flight. There was, that day a great destruction 

of the Christian troops. So many were abandoned by 

the protection of God that one poor [fighting] man was 

able to capture many brave and experienced warriors, like 

a shepherd leading his flock before him. ?or God had 

removed His aid from their swords and did not succor them 

in battle. The Qlpchaqs brought the honorable men [of the 

captives] and sold tEem for some clothing or food. Persians 

bought them and tormented them with impossible tortures, 

demanding such quantities of gold and silver that it was 

impossible to pay. And many died there in 3a.il, 

100

different parts of the Caucasus until 1223 when Iwane, 

in alliance with Xzarbaijanis, Lezghians and other peoples 

finally defeated the Qgpchaas. killing or selling them 

into slavery1. The QXpchaq raids, though less serious 

than the invasions which preceded and succeeded them, 

nonetheless contributed to the continued unsettled state 

of affairs initiated by the Mongols; depleted the Armeno- 

Georgian military of some choice leaders; and undoubtedly 

weakened the army's morale. 

The third devastation of Armenia took place from 1225 

to ca. 1230, during which time various parts of the 

country were subjected to raids and invasions by the 

ethnically diverse armle s of the new Khwarazmshah, 

Jalal al-Din Mangubirdi 2 . Resembling his father, he 

offered stubborn and occasionally successful resistance 

to his Mongol pursuers', This was, however, at the expense 

" 

The Qlpchaqs seized, among others, Grigor, son of Halbak, 

brother of - 

Brave Yasak and his brother's son Papak', for 

Vasak had three sons...But after some days had elapsed, 

the great hazarapet Iwane once again mustered troops and 

went to wreak vengeance on those who had destroyed his 

soldiers. He attacked them at an unexpected hour and put 

the barbarians to the sword. He captured their booty and 

enslaved their children, taking both to his land", KG pp. 

204-6. 

1 

2 

Ibn al-Athir p. 470; KG pp. 206-7. 

PT PP. 49, 128} SEPHA pp 94-99; CAMA pp. 359-60. 

3 

SMP p. 330. 

101

of other peoples, notably the Armenians and Georgians. 

At the head of an army of some 60,000 lurkmens and 

Qlpchao. mercenaries, Jalal al-Din invaded northeastern 

Armenia following the age-old route of invasion, through 

Nazijewan and northward . He took and devastated Dwin, and 

at Garni defeated the 70,000 man strong Aroeno-Georglan 

army commanded by Iwane . This was followed by the capture 

1 HAP III p. 604; Kfli P. 133 notes the general increase 

of ngmadlo elements in Asia Minor as a result of Jalal 

al-Din's flight. 

2 SMP p. 327; Kirakos' account is fairly extensive,and 

includes one date, 1225/26 (674 A.E.) in the heading 

for chp. 18 of his History; "18. Concerning Sultan "alaladin 

and the Destruction of the Georgian Army in_674 A.E." 

KG states that Jalaladin, sultan of Xorasan (Khwarazm) as 

a result of the Mongol attack on his lands fled* "through 

the land of Albania and he came and captured the city of 

Ganjak. He then assembled his countless troops from among 

the £ersians, Ta5iks_and Turks and came to Armenia". 

Iwane learned of Jalal'a arrival, informed the ruler of 

Georgia, and massed the army, boasting that if he defeated 

Jalal al-Din he would force all the Armenians under Georgia's 

comination "to convert to the Georgians' religion [to 

Chalcedonian Orthodoxy], while they would kill those resisting". 

EG attributes the Caucasian defeat to this blasphemous 

arrogance. 

Meanwhile Jalal al-Din had come to Kotayk'.. The Georgian 

army camped nearby, and observed that the Khwarazmiana were 

unaware of this. "Now as soon as this wa,8~"observed by 

one Qf the senior Georgian princes, Salue and by his brother 

Iwane, men brave and renowned and triumphant in battle, they 

said to the other troops; 'You stay in one place while we 

shall go and engage them. If we turn some of them in our 

pursuit, the victory is ours. Do you then spring out. 

But If they defeat us, then do you flee and save your lives'. 

"As soon as they engaged them they began to destroy the 

sultan's army. But the Georgian soldiers paid no attention 

and instead fled the place..." fleeing unpursued as far 

as Garni. Then the sultan's army followed, killing and 

throwing soldiers over cliffs. 

"Sultan Jalal al-Din came to the head of the valley and 

saw a pitiful sight. For a multitude of men and horses lay 

there piled up like a heap of rocks. He shook his head and 

102

said: 'This is not the work of man but of God for Whom all 

is possible'. He then turned to rob the corpses of the 

fallen, and having ruined many places, went off to the 

city of Tiflis(T]j Jtis)", KG pp. 224-25. 

Vardan Arewelc i's information is found in chp. 85 of 

his History. The account differs in detail from what 

is found in the other Armenian sources: "Now toward 

the end of 1225/26, two sons of the Xorazm-Iah, defeated 

and harassed by the T'at'ars came in a.body of 200,000 

so they say, through the land of Azerbaijan (Adlparakan) 

to Ostan in Armenia. This they took and filled the. plain 

with wide tents. Our forces went against [the Khwarazmians] 

and not a few from our side were lost, both by TEe town 

of Garni and, a larger group, which fell over, ditches 

into chasms. This was God's wrath upon Iwane in recompense 

for the new and alien evils worked by his wife. ?or when 

the presbyter FarkeSt died, she had his body removed from 

the grave and burned. _Then a dog was sacrificed on the 

place...". Jalal al-Dig meanwhile, after conquering many 

places returned to Tabriz. A year later he went to Tiflis 

by way of the plains of Gag, VA p. 143. 

Step'annoa Orbelean's account is briefer than Kirakos1 

and_provides some additional detail. Step annos notes 

Jalal's destructive movement from Atrpatakan to the 

Araratean district where he encamped. When atabek Iwane 

went to fight him,'the account here becomes somewhat 

different. According to Step'annog,,Salue and his brother 

Grigor observed how sparse the Khwarazmian army was and 

signalled the Caucasian troops to attack. However, God 

altered the response so that it sounded like "flee". The 

fleeing army, crossed over some loose ground near Garni 

which gave way, and the mass fell into the ravine. "But 

atabek Iwane got away with 10 men and fled into the fortress 

oTTfeTe. 

"As for Lipar!t [Orbelean], he found some byway and went 

home with all his men, praising the Lord [for his deliverance]. 

This transpired in the year 1225/26 (674A.E.). 

Now after this the whole land became sullied through unbelieva^be 

disasters and various [calamitous] events; for 

the Khwarazmians, finding the land without a master, 

mercilessly killed and enslaved and set on fire all the 

homes and dwellings in the cities, villages, and monasteries; 

they also burned all the crops and cut down the vineyards 

and trees, as a result of which a severe famine ensued 

everywhere". A plague followed and wolves, which had 

grown accustomed to human carrion now began attacking 

the living. "And this calamity lasted in the land for 

7 years", SQ p. 14£. Step'annos does not narrate the 

fate of Jalal al-Din, and seems unaware (or takes it for 

granted) that the Mongols first came to the Caucasus in 

pursuit of him. 

Het'um the Historian relates nothing about the episode 

of Jalal. This is interesting since chp. 4 of his 

Kletcry of the Tatars is devoted to a description of 

khwarazmla which recounts the country's borders, chief city, 

103

and.religion. Grigor Aknero'i too does not know about 

Jalal, unless, with Dr. Blake , we take the following 

passage to be a reference to him:"Now when this strange 

people [the Mongols] learned that it was the will of God 

[for them] to rule over us on the earth, they mustered 

troops and went against the Persians. And"they took from 

them a small city. Then the Persians grew strong and 

took back their own and some of theirs [the Mongols' land]. 

Thereafter they sent out a call to wherever the Nation of 

the Archers—their own people—dwelled. Once more they 

attacked Persia, conquered them and seized their city and 

all their goods", GA pp. 290,292. 

Bj far the -most extensive account of the exploits of 

Jalal al-Din is found in the KG. Leaving aside those . 

portions not relevant to the Caucasus, we encounter Jalal 

and some 140,000 followers near Dwin in Armenia: "[Then] 

they reached the Mxargrceli country, for Dwin belonged to 

atabek Iwane, while Ani had been given to his brother's 

son SahnSah, the mandat'urt *-uxuc es. The Khwarazmlans 

came in the third year of Lafia-Georgi's deaTC, to englave 

and wreck Dwin and the surrounding countries". Iwane 

and Vahram of Gag informed Busudan about the arrival of 

the foreigners, and an army was sent,, 

There was some enmity betweeg Iwane and the two Axalc'xec'i 

brothers, Salva and Iwane. During the first encounter 

with Jalal, atabek Iwane injured his foot [the author 

attributes this to the enmijy]. This encounter took place 

near Garni.Thereafter Iwane refused to participate in 

further combats. Apparently under his control were parts, 

of the royal army which he also forbade to fight. However, 

theJF'orelia and the two brothers did do battle with 

Jalal. Salva is captured and the Georgians flee. His 

brother Iwane died while hiding in the mountains of Garni. 

Salva was killed after a year, for not flpostasizing. __ _ 

Atabek Iwane returned to Bjni while Jalal went to Azarbaijan 

ana {jaxijewan whence he raided Georgia. Two years later 

Iwane died and.his son Awag was made amirspasalar. 

"CJalal al-Din] went and destroyed the wholfe country of 

Dwin, the k'ust of Dwin, all of Ani, Somxit i, Gag as far 

as Ganja, SamF'or. To that time, Samk'or and the neighboring 

countries belonged to Vahram of Gag...". 

Sultan Jalal al-Din learned that the atabek and spasalar 

Awag was at Bjni and he urged Awag to get queen Buaudan to 

consent to be his wife. Awag relayed the proposal to 

Busudan, who refused it. The jilted sultan headed for 

Tiflis, destroying Somxit'i enroute (KG pp. 169-73; Mur. 

PP. 59-63). 

104

of Ganjak, Lori, and Tiflis in which city a frightful 

massacre of Christians ensued with the active participation 

of resident Muslims who looked upon Jalal as a liberator1. 

The northern cities of Ani and Kara, and the southern 

cities of Xlat' and Manazkert were besie ged unsuccessfully 

2 

in 1226 . Certain areas such as Tiflis and Dwin soon were 

r p. 328; Abu'l Pida (Malb. trans., p. 230); Kirakos 

notes that Jalal al-Din took Tiflis with the oomplioity 

of the resident Persians and killed those who refused to 

convert to Islam. He describes the forced circumcisions 

and the destruction of crosses and churches. "This occurred 

not only in Tiflis, but in Ganjak, Naxijewan and elsewhere" 

(KG p. 226). The gruesome account in Georgian, with many 

additional details and amplifications is found in KC pp. 

175-76; Mur. pp. 64-65. 

§MP p. 329; MS. HI P. 605} Abu'l Pida (Nalb. p. 231); 

BH describes Jalal's seige and capture of Xlat* and Van 

in 1229 (BH pp. 394-95); see also SA p. 149; ?ov. YiS.. 

#388 pp. 845-46, #392 p. 857, #395 P.862, #400 p.sTTT 

CIA v.I p.18. The KC provides information not found 

elsewhere: "After so destroying Tiflis, they began laying 

waste, enslaving, exterminating, and destroying Somxlt'i 

and Kaobegian, the borders of lori, K'art'li and Trialetl, 

Javaxet 1, Artahan, and parts of Tao and Samc'xe, the 

lands around Karnip or and Ani. This chastisement and 

providential wrath continued foe five years. For two 

years in the beginning [the Kbwarazmiane] destroyed the 

country, then for five yearsThey remained In the city 

and destroyed the above-mentioned countries. Excepting 

fasts and fortresses, there were no other structures 

[left standing in the land]", KC pp. 178-79; Mur. pp. 66— 

67. Eventually Jalal learned that the Uo.ngg.ls were 

approaching, so he left Tiflis for Azerbaijan, meanwhile 

urging the sultan of Xlat' the Caliph, and the sultan of 

Iraq to help him resist the enemy. They declined, 

"...guessing that his army and that ..of Atrpatakan would 

be unable to withstand, [Jalal al-Din] quit Atrpatakan 

and again went as the fugitive to Tiflis", KC p. 162; 

Mur. p. 70. Rusudan summoned her army, opened the Darial 

Gates enabling northerners (probably Qlpchaq Turks) to 

pour into Georgia, and sent this motley group against 

Jalal, who was encamped in Bolnisi valley, Somxit'i. 

These royal troops were put to flight by the sultan who 

then went on to Tiflis, destroying", KC pp. 182-83; Mur. 

P.70. 

105

etaken by the Caucasians, but Jalal al-Din continued 

devastating one or another section of Armenia until 

1230 when he was decisively beaten near £rz.injan by a 

united force composed of troops of Malik-Ashraf of Hat', 

the Sal Jug, sultan of Rum, Kai-Qubad, Cilioian and 

Crusader detachments . Jalal was murdered the nest 

2 

year by a Kurdish peasant . His raids and devastations 

2S PP. 129-30? HAP III p. 605? Abu'1-Fida (Halb. pp. 

233-24); Ibn Bibi pp. 154-74; Yov.YiS., appendix, #11 

pp. 1031-32; U. p. 75. KG'a information is found in 

chp. 19 of his History. "Concerning the Destruction of 

Sultan Jalal al-Din and His Death". According to this 

source, after Jalal had defeated the ruler of Zlat', 

Malik-Ashraf, he married.the latter.'s wife T'amt'a, who 

was the aaughter of Iwane. As Jalal went on to ruin.other 

districts under the sway of 'Ala al-Din, sultan of Rum, 

the latter mustered a mixed army including Egyptins, 

Cilician Armenians and Franks. Supposedly, although there 

were less than a thousand Cilician Armenians and Franks, 

it was due to their valour that Jalal al-Din's army was 

routed, KG pp. 22g-29. 

"Now sultan Jalal al-Din returned to the land of Albania 

to the fruitful and fertile Mughan plain, in great shame. 

He encamped there and wanted to assemble an army. However, 

the I'at ars who had expelled him from his own country as 

a fugitive pursued him and chased him as far as Amit' 

(Amida), where they ferociously struck his forces. The 

impious prince died in that very battle. But some say 

he went on foot thence as a fugitive, and that a man 

chanced upon him and recognized him as the one who had 

earlier slain one of his relations, and so killed him to 

avenge his relative's blond. Thus did the evil one die, 

wickedly " KG p. 230. 

2 2E£ P. 335; KG pp. 229-30 (see note 1 above); VA: "After 

committing many crimes, he turned.upon Zlat , took it, 

and gnriched with booty went to Rum against sultan Ala 

al-Din and Malik-Ashraf. However he suffered a great. _ 

defeat in battle an? fled with a few [followers] to Mughan. 

that plain so suited for all human and animal needs. Then 

the T at'are—who had thrown him out of his country earlier 

—fell upon him suddenly and thence put him to flight to 

Amids. Either he died inadvertently while fleeing, or he 

fell to the T'at'ar sword, or else, as is said, one of 

106

had lasted seven years. Not only did he bring mass 

destruction of human life and property, but also 

famine and pestilence, since, as Step'annos Orbelean 

noted, Jalal al-Din and his unruly troops frequently 

out down fruit trees and vineyards and burned the crops . 

[Jalal*s] own people whose relation had been killd 

summarily was disgruntled on this account and also because 

of the uncomfortable movings about of [the army] which 

he had caused. And so vengeance was exacted for the blood 

of the innocent that had been spilled" (VA pp. 143-44). 

The KC: "Hearing this [news of the capture of Ganjak 

by the Mongols.], the sultan hurriedly arose with his family 

and fled to Hum. Meanwhile the Tatars %ere pursuing him 

and reached Basen. As soon as Cthe Khwarazmian army] saw 

the coming of [the Mongols], they scattered. The sultan 

even was left alone. He reached some insignificant village 

and fell asleep under the trees. By chance, someone saw 

him and killed him. The sultan's belt, saddle and quiver 

were adorned with great gems for which tfcat lofty and 

renowned ruler was slain....When the Khwarazmiana dispersed, 

many fled to Garmian while sultan Jalal al-Din was killed. 

With this, the great kingdom essentially was ended" (EC 

p. 185» Mur. pp. 71-72). Abu'1-Pida (Nalb. pp. 233-34) 

claims that the murderers were Kurdish brigands. 

SO p. 146; Ibn Bibi describes the problems caused by 

the lingering Khwarazmian troops to the settled Saljuq 

rulers (pp. 175^84). He mentions an invasion by the sultan 

of Egypt in 1232 which was aided by the malik of Zarberd 

(pp. 184-90). (The leaderless, dispersed Khwarazmians 

served as mercenaries in the armies of dif?eren$ rulers 

(pp. 220-22). According to BH, some 10,000 Khwarazmians 

were settled by 'Ala'al-Din, but he does not say where 

(BH p. 397). 

BH speaks of the Mongols invading the Zarberd area 

of southern Armenia around 1230. These were most lively 

detachments returning from the pursuit of Jalal al-Din: 

"Then a legion of the Tatars invaded the country of the 

fortress of Zaid [larberd] and it came on as far as the 

Euphrates, which is in Melitene, and it crossed the plain 

of Hanazit. And because the whole population through their 

terror had fled to the places and towns which were disaffected 

and the fortresses, there was not much destruction. And 

those Tatars went back and ruled over Adhorbijan and 

Shaharzur, and they subjugated the Iberians also" (BH 

PP. 396-97). Ibn flibi (pp. 175-78) speaks of Mongols 

raiding as far as Sebastia/Sivas in 1230. 

107

Following the deaths of king Georgi 17 Laia (1223) and 

Iwane Zak'arean (1227), Christian Caucasia, already 

seriously weakened now lost the possibility of united 

resistance against attackers, and this at the very moment 

when it was needed most. 

The fourth invasion of Armenia occurred in 1236. It 

was short and merciless, and confined to the northeastern 

and northern regions. In that year the Mongol general 

Chormaehun. now established at the Mongol summer camp in 

the Mughan plain of IzarbaTjan, sent out detachments under 

various commanders to capture all the key fortresses in 

northeastern Armenia . Unlike the first appearance of the 

In the period from 1230 to the reappearance of the Mongols 

in western Armenia, the situation there was hardly stable. 

BH records that the fortress-cities of Zarberd and Xlat* 

constantly were passing back and forth among Muslim rivals 

(BH pp. 400-401). In the early 1230's we see Armenians 

and Georgians fighting in the armies of the Sal jug. sultan 

in Palestine (BH p. 400). The same author records a 

famine in western. Armenia around 1234 (BH p. 401). In the 

late 1230's, Khwarazmian rgmnants gtill were powerful 

enough to give sultan Ghiyath al-Din problems, ravaging 

Samosata and Xarberd (ST p. 403) 7£ p. 77); Armenian colophons 

also speak of Mongol raids in western Armenia 

prior to 1236. See Tov.j^Ll., #403 P. 878, #405 PP. 882-83. 

1 HAP III pp. 606-607; SEPHA p. 103; CAMA p. 360; Kirakos* 

History contains considerable information on the conquest 

of parts of Caucasia prior to the submission of certain 

pringes^ After noting the establishment of the Mongols 

in Mughan. he commences in ch . 21 with ah account of the 

capture and destruction of Gaujak, a city then densely 

settled with Muslim Persians: 

"Immediately the T'at'ar army arrived and beseiged Ganjak 

on all sides, battling it with numerous war machines. They 

struck the orchard which surrounded the city. Then they 

demolished the city wall using catapults on all sides. 

108

However, none of the enemy entered the city. They 

simply remained there, fully armed, for a week guarding 

it* (KG p. 236). Many of the residents then burned down 

their houses and killed themselves. "When the enemy 

observed this, they became furious and put everyone to 

the sword: man, woman, and child. And no one escaped them 

but for a small brigade, armed and fully prepared which 

broke through one part of the wall at night and fled. 

Some few dregs were also spared and tortured to reveal 

where the treasures were kept. Then they killed some 

of them and took the rest captive. They then dug through 

the charred homes and removed whatever/whomever they 

found there. And they were occupied with this for many 

days, and then departed. 

"The T'at'ara then circulated through all the districts 

around the city to dig up and hunt for goods and wares. 

They discovered many things made of gold, silver, copper, 

and iron, as well as various garments which had been hidden 

in cellars and subterranean chambers

Mongols in the Caucasus which had been for the pursuit of 

a fugitive, their reappearance now was for the purpose of 

conquest and occupation. On this occasion, the Mongols 

travelled with their families, carts, and herds—their 

"portable economy" . Upon receiving news of the return 

of the Mongols, the ruler of Georgia, queen Rusudan 

(1223-47) with many of the naxarar/didebuls fled to 

the security of western Georgia, while others secured themselves 

in their fortresses. But no one was secure. Molar-noyin 

took the territories of Iwane's nephew Tahrao of Gag: 

Samk'or, Sagam, Terunakan, Ergevank', Gag, Tawus, Kacaret', 

K'awazin. The Kiwrlkean fortresses of Macnaberd and 

Nor Berd fell, and about the same time the clerical 

historians Vanakan and Kirakos Ganjakec'i were captured. 

Ghatagha-noyin took Gardman, j?arek', Getabek, and Vardanasat. 

Ghaghatai-noyin took the Zak'arid holdings of Lori; and 

soon Dmanis, Samsulde and Tiflie fell. Iwane's son 

Awag surrendered when his fortress of Kayean was beseiged 

by Dughata-noyin. Upper and Lower Xa$en were taken by A 

Jughbugha. while Aalan-neyin took the Siwnik' district . 

1 CAMA p. 361. 

2 HAP III pp. 607-609; SEPHA pp. 104-105? 107-108; CAMA 

pp. 361-63; KG pp. 239-50; VA p. 145; GA pp. 294,296; 

KC 186-67, Mur. pp. 72-73. For translations of these 

passages see the notes to ch. 3. 

110

As will be aeen in the next chapter, in many oases the 

local Armenian princes, instead of resisting surrendered 

to the Mongols, were spared, reinstated in their holdings 

and sometimes even promoted. However, surrender did not 

always elicit Mongol sympathy. Fearing the harsh fata 

suffered by Ani, Kara surrendered but was devastated 

nonetheless . Surmari was attacked and ravaged. Shirvan 

2 

fell . Thus, during the course of 1236 the Mongols 

1 HAP III p. 610; J5S2HA p. 107? CAMA p. 362; Yov.YiS., 

PP. 909-911, #416 p. 917; #422 p. 936; KG: The suEmisaion 

of a few eastern Armenian princes did not bring a halt 

to the Mongols' conquering activity. Chormaghun took 

Awag and bis troops and marched againaT~Ani. First he 

sent envoys telling the people to surrender. "Those who 

were the principals of the city did not dare respond to 

[Chormaghun'B] message without asking prince Sahnsah, 

since the city was under his authority. How the mob in 

the city with the ramiks (rabble) killed Chormaghun'a 

delegation". Chormaghun battled with seige machinery and 

took the city, generally killing the population "sparing 

only a few women and children and some artisans whom they 

led into captivity. Then they entered the city, took all 

the goods and possessions, looted all the churches, 

ruined and destroyed the whole city and corrupted the 

glory of its comeliness"(KG p. 258;. 

In ch . 28 Kirakos describes the sack of Kara. Kara 

surrendered ita keys, "but because the T'at'ars were 

anxious for booty and feared no one, they did there the 

same as they had done in Ani.«. 

"The same army also took the city of Surb Mari [Surmalu] 

which several years earlier Bahnsah and Awag had taken 

from the Ta5iks. And while [the inhabitants] were yet 

licking their wounds, suddenly a certain one of the nobles 

named iara Bahatur came upon them with many troops and 

quickly took the city, ravishing all that he found in it" 

(KG p. 260). 

2 HAP III p. 610; SJ2SA. p. 107. 

Ill

subjugated by sword or treaty all of northeastern and 

northern Armenia. They net with no serious resistance 

anywhere. 

The Mongol conquest of western and southern Armenia 

took place between 1242 and 1245. These lands, it will 

be remembered, though inhabited by Armenians were under 

the political domination of the Saljuqs or, in the case 

of Xlat', of the Ayyubids1. In 1242 BaiJu-noyin (the 

successor of the former supreme commander Chonnaehun 

who had lost his hearing) took Karin/Erzerum after a siege 

of two months. The population was massacred and led away 

into slavery . The Mongols spent the winter of 1243 at 

1 See pp. 63-64.above. 

2 HAP III p. 611; SEPHA p. 109! JS. P. 137; Ibn Bibi 

describes how the rulers of Xlat and Erzerum were arguing 

over money for hiring mercenaries to defend themselves 

(Ibn Bibi pp. 222-37); BH describes the taking of Erzerum 

(p. 406). During 1242 the Mongols looted as far south as 

Xarberd (BH pp. 406-407). KG; "As soon asBaiju assumed 

authority he forthwith mustered troops from all the peoples 

under his domination and went to that part of Armenia under 

the domination of the sultan of Bum". He beseiged Karin 

and invited the city to surrender. Receiving a negative 

reply, Baiju broke down the walls with seige machinery 

and destroyed the city. "And at that time the city was 

very heavily populated being filled not only with Christians 

and Taeiks, but all the people from the whole district had 

assembled there [for protection], 

"In the city were countless holy gospels [belonging to] 

the great and the small. The foreigners took these and 

sold the expensive ones to the Christians in their army 

cheaply. In glee they spread through each district, dividing 

up the churches and monasteries. May Christ reward the 

Christian princes Awag, Sahnsah, Vahram's son Albula, pious 

Dop''a son Grigor Xajenc'i, and their troops. For these 

princes bought out of slavery as many men, women, and 

children, bishops, priest and eacons as was possible" 

(KG pp. 279-80); GA pp. 307, 309. 

112

their base in Azarbaijan, but returned in springtime to 

crush the forces of the Saljuq sultan of Rum, Ghiyath 

al-Din Kai Khusrau at Kose Dagh/Chmankatuk near Erzinjan . The 

See A.G.Galstyan's Armenian article in PBH #1(1964) and 

the English translation of it "The First Armeno-Mongol 

Negotiations" in the Armenian Review vol. XXIX (1976) 

pp. 26-37 thereafter fcAIflft.FAMN pp. 27-29? SEPHA pp. 

110-11. BH p. 407 describes the battle of Chmankatuk, as 

does Abu'1-Fida (Nalb. p. 234). Ibn Bibi describes the 

defeat, and the subsequent "unfriendliness" of the Cilician 

Armenians in surrendering the sultan's refugee mother to 

the Mongols (Ibn Bibi pp. 222-37). 

KG; "The sultan had left his usual place and had come to 

that part of Armenia which was under his domination, hard 

by a village called Sman-katuk. 

"General Baiju, consistent with his deep knowledge, 

divided his soldiers into many fronts, putting foremost 

those under the brave commanders while the foreign troops 

composed of various nationalities who had come with them 

he divided so that they would not work any treachery" 

(KG p. 282); Vardan Arewelc'l's account of the taking 

of western Armenia is quite brief, mentioning neither 

the Armeno-Georgian auxiliaries nor the tactisc used in 

battle: "88. Now in the year 1243 Baiju-noyin replaced 

the authority of Chormaghun and took the city of Karin, 

taking thence Umek"7 a man venerable, wealthy (mecatun) 

and fearful of the Lord, as well as his relations, the 

sons of paron Yohann, Step'annos and his five brothers. 

In 1244 [Baiju conquered] the whole territory of Rum 

and the notable cities, first Caesarea, then Sebastia 

[whose people] were spared destruction since they had 

submitted early, then Erznka which was mercilessly destroyed 

and enslaved, for it had resisted. CThe Mongols also 

took] many lands and districts where especially the Armenian 

people [were to] dwell in distree" (VA p. 147). 

GA; "The commander of the army was Baiju-noyin. a man 

successful in battle, achieving many victories wherever 

he met realstera. But the causes of victory were the 

Armenian and Georgian princes who were in the front lines 

and launched themselves with a mighty blow against the 

enemy. Then, after them, came the T at'ars, with bow 

and arrow". Georgians were not only fighting on the. 

Mongols' side. Aknerc'i notes that the son of Salue, who 

had been with the sultan of Rum for a long time, fought 

in the sultan's army. "When the battle waxed fierce, the 

courageous and renowned son of Salue put to flight the 

T'at'ars and killed many of them". Aknerc'i also praises 

the fighting ability of Aibuia, son of Vahram, granson 

of Plu Zak'are, fightiru- on the Mongols' aide. At nightfall 

113

the battle of Chmankatuk endgd. The_next morning the 

Mongols discovered that Ghiyath al-Din had fled (GA pp. 

307-309). "~ 

Het urn's unusual account of the taking of eastern Asia 

Minor shows numerous marks of a writer not well acquainted 

with the details. In chp. 18, "Regarding Ogedei, Second 

Khan of the Tatars* be recounts a number of Mongol battles 

with_"the Turks", but Het'urn appears to have merged Jalal 

al-Din with the sultan of Rum. After 10,000 Mongols were 

put to flight by the Turks, Ogedei sent general Baiju 

(Payton) "with 30,000 Tatar soldiers called damak or 

reconnaissance troops...Now when Balju with ihe 30,000 

soldiers reached the kingdom of the Turks, travelling day 

by day, he learned that the sultan from whom the first 

Tatars had fled had died, and that his son named K'iadati 

(? Ghiyath ) had succeeded him. When the former heard 

about the coming of the Tatars he was horrified and summoned 

as many mercenary troops as he could from foreigners and 

from the Latins. He had in his service among others, 

2,000 Latins led by two commanders named Yohanes Llminad 

from Cyprus, and the other, Vonipakioa born in Genoa. 

[The Turkish sultan] also sent to neighboring sultans 

promising anyone who came favors and gifts. And thus 

gathering a great multitude of warriors, he went to the 

place where the Tatars were encamped. However the Tatars 

were in no way disturbed. Instead they valllantly waged 

war as far as Konsedrak. In the end the Tatars were the 

victors and the Turks were defeated in a masterly fashion. 

In this way the Tatars captured the kingdom of the Turks 

in the year of Our Lord 1244(Het'urn pp. 40-41). 

The EC relates the conquest of western Armenia and the 

sending to the Mongols by Rusudan ofher son David as events 

occurring simultaneously. Queen Rusudan sent as messengers 

to the Mongols Sahnsah, Awag, Vahram, and the eriat'av 

(duke) of Heret'i, Sota. "While the queen was sending her 

son [to the Mongols], .they had. decided to campaign against 

the great sultan Ghiyath al-Din, by origin a Saljuq, master 

of Rum, to subjugate him. They sent Bai.1u-noyin who took 

with him the very preatest princes of Georgia. When they 

reached the countries of Sebastia and £rznka, they started 

to loot". The sultan approached the Mongols with an army 

of 400,000 (!) commanded by two Georgians, "Sarvarsis-je 

of Abxazia called Dard who had great renown from the very 

first for his bravery and had remained firm in the faith; 

and with him was P'ardavlay son of Salva Axalc'ixeli-T'oreli, 

who had fled to the sultan and was a brave man. 

renowned in warfare "(KC pp. 191-92; Mur. pp. 76-77). The 

KC then describes the boasting of Mongol subject Sargis 

Jalel, ivarlvare's grandson before Baiju. The Georgians 

were all appointed as advance-attackers. "Now the Georgians 

fought better and more bravely than any. A fierce battle 

ensued and countless men were killed on the sultan's side, 

including Sarvarsis-je called Dard Abxaz, their general. 

The sultan's army took to flight and the Tatars and Georgians 

114

The defeat of the Saljuqs at K3se Dagh was an event of 

the greatest significance for the Armenians both locally, 

and abroad in the independent state of Cilicia. like 

dominoes the remaining key cities of central Asia Minor 

fell: Erzinjan, Caesarea, Sebastia/Sivas, Melitene/Malatya, 

and Divrigr In 1245 Baiju captured Xlat', Amida, Edessa, 

pursued, killing numberless warriors and taking captives. 

But Axalc'izel was killed by the sultan for revenge against 

the Georgians....The Georgians and Tatars swelled up with 

all sorts of extraordinary cloths and clothing, and so 

many horses, asses and camels that it is impossible to 

count them" (KC p. 194', Mur. p. 78). 

HAP III p. 611; SEPHA B..110; PT p. 138; BH described 

the taking of Sebastia/Sivas; "And they came to Sebastia, 

and the people who were therein made terms with them, 

and they brought out much gold and bought their own souls 

from slaughter, and their sons and daughters from slavery. 

And the Tatars went into the city, and sacked the royal 

treasuries, and whatsoever pleased them they took, and 

the weapons of war they burned, and they wrecked four 

(or forty) cubits of the [top of the] wall all round the 

city. 

"And another chief went to Caesarea, and the Inhabitants 

thereof did not wish to surrender it. Then they all 

gathered together against it, and they breached its wall 

with engines of war, and they went in, and sacked the 

royal treasuries, and burned the wonderful houses and 

buildings. And they tortured the nobles and the free men, 

and they stabbed them with swords until they had stripped 

them of all their money. And after that they killed 

therein many tens of thousands of people, and carried off 

the young men and the young women into captivity" (BH p. 

407). The same author provides unique Information on the 

taking of Melitene/Malatya-(BH pp. 408-409) See also 

Ibn Bibi (pp. 222-57), Yov. Yis., #436 pp. 959-60; #437 

p. 961} VT p. 84. 

KG pp. 282-84; GA; "And then the next day [after 

ChmankatukJ filled with great joy, they attacked the land 

of Rum. First they took Erznka and left sahna (guards). 

Then they took Caesarea and wrought much bloodshed in it 

because the town did not surrender, but resisted the Tatars 

in battle. ?or there was much cavalry stationed in it, 

and it was filled with goods. They did not surrender 

the town willingly, so the wily Tat'ar army took it by 

treachery, generally killing off the grandees and, mercilessly 

did they capture the lesser folk with all their goods. 

115

and Nisibis . By that year the Armenian populations, 

be they in Caucasian Armenia, western Armenia, southern 

Armenia, or even Cllician Armenia were to a greater 

or lesser degree all formally under the overlordship of 

the Mongols. A unique situation had been created. 

During the more than 100 years of Mongol domination, 

the Armenians experienced periods of benevolent, even 

enlightened, rule and of capricious, benighted misrule. 

From 1236-43 Mongol rule resulted in little if any 

radical change in the lives of Caucasian Armenians. As 

was mentioned above, many if not most of the naxarara 

retained control of their lands. Probably Mongol 

garrisons were maintained in the key cities, but, as was 

the case during the Saljuq conquests, it seems unlikely 

that there would have been enough troops to police all 

areas. During this early period the sources unanimously 

note that the Mongols returned each winter to the warm 

Mughan plain of Azerbaijan, so for part of the year the 

majority of them were outside of Armenia (though hardly 

2 

very far away). Apparently, prior to 1243 no permanent 

Once more they took Konya and Axsar with all the greatest 

villages and monasteries. Then they attacked Sewast and 

took it, warring. But they did not kill them, rather 

they took their goods as booty" (GA pp. 307-309). 

HAP III p. 612; SEPHA p. Ill; KG pp. 292-93. 

See following page, note 1. 

116

formal taxes had been imposed on Armenia, the conquerors 

contenting themselves instead with the rich booty and 

plunder to be had from the many areas taken by military 

force . But the sources maintain that in 1243 by command 

HAP III ch . 36 pp. 614-27, I.H.Babayan, "Hayastana 

monôlakan tirapetut van ara.iin arlfanum [Armenia in 

the First Perioa of the Mongol Domination]", p. 617? 

SEPHA pp. 119-26; Kirakos has a number of valuable remarks 

about early Mongol administrative-fiscal policies in 

Armenia and Georgia prior to Arehun's census of 1243/44. 

When speaking about the battle for certain eastern Armenian 

fortresses in 1236, he says: "Meanwhile the army of 

foreigners battled with the fortresses. Those inside them 

unwillingly provided the Mongols with horses, livestock 

and whatever else they demanded. The Mongols placed taxes 

over them and left them in their name" (KG p. 243). Clip. 

24 describes the capture of Vanakan vardapet and his student, 

the author himself. When the Mongols were beseiging the 

cave where Vanakan was holed up, the following message 

was relayed: "Prom outside the enemies shouted; 'Why do 

you want to die? Come out to us, we shall give you overseers 

and leave you in your places'. They repeated this 

a second and third time, with pledges" (KG p. 244). Upon 

the conclusion of Molar-noyin's interview with Vanakan, 

"Molar-noyin ordered him to bring down the people of the 

fortress there fearlessly and he promised that each wouldf 

be left in his place with his overseers and that he would" 

build villages and fields (agaraks) in his name" (KG p. 246). 

Some of the captives, however, such as Kirakos and Vanakan 

were not "left in their places": "...Then they selected 

men from among us who could go about with them. The 

rest they ordered taken to the monastery and to the village 

and left their overseers there so that no one else would 

search them" (KG p. 248). That same year (1236) the Mongols 

took Lori whose prince, Sahnlah had fled: "They discovered 

the treasures of prince Sahnsah which those obedient to him 

had taken and robbed, and the T'at'ara constructed there 

a sturdy treasury which no one could see, since they made 

the mouth of the pit narrow enough that it was sufficient 

only for casting treasure in, but not for taking anything 

out" (KG p. 253). "...Then they came to Sebastia and 

since the inhabitants of the city had surrendered in 

advance—coming out to them with gifts and presents—no 

one was blamed, although a part of the city was looted. 

Conquering the city in their own name they set up overseers 

and left" (KG p. 283). VA and SO have nothing to say 

on this topic. 

Grigor Aknerc'i's first mention of an administrative deed 

11?

follows the agreement of the prinoea to pay the mal and 

tagar taxes and to contribute soldiers to the army: "The 

Tat'ars, agreeing to this, left off killing and destroying 

the land. They then returned to their place, the Mughan. 

country. However, they left a chief named lara Bula to 

demolish all the country's fortresses which they had taken. 

They destroyed to the foundations the impregnable fortresses 

bylit by the TaSiks at great cost" (GA p. 296). While in 

Mughan. the three commanders Chormaghun. Ben-.l and Mular 

held* a quriltai at night with the latter two urging the 

killing of all the population in a new expeditions. 

Chormaghun, however, urged peace; "There has been enough 

destruction and killing in the land. Let it remain 

cultivated (sen). They can cultivate it, giving half 

for us to live on, from the vineyards and fields, and 

keeping half for themselves" (GA p. 298). Mysteriously, 

the next day, two of the warlike commanders were found 

dead. Chormaghun, the_aurvivor, went to "Chingiz" and 

and explained. The Khan mentions that it is God's will 

for the Mongols to take the world, maintain order, impose 

the yasax and collect iz-tu. mal tatar. and Ip'Jur taxes. 

The Khan gave Chormaghun his wife Agltâna Katun and 

aentTTim back to" the Caucasus, to Mughan. with 110 chiefs: 

"Then they held a quiriltai (xutut ay) and a great 

council at Chormaghun's order, and they divided the 

countries among the 110 chieftains. Dividing the land into 

three parts, one group went north, one south and one 

directly through the country... 

"Now the names of those chieftains who remained in the 

middle of the country were: Asutû-noyin who was the ggkr 

(?,"bone", "relative") of the Khan; Calatay who was called 

khan; Sanit'ay; another Junior~7aiatay; flacu-noyln(Baiju) 

"These same 13 chiefs divided amongst themselves the 

land of Georgia and Albania, mountain and plain. And they 

brought the great House of Chormaghun to Ganjak Sahastan 

which previously was destroyed but later restored"(GA p. 302) 

Aknerc'i next describes the capture of Vanakan, the destruction 

of Karin/Erzerum, the victory of Chmantakuk and 

following that the capture of Erzinjan "where they left 

aahna (guards)" (GA p. 310), the destruction of Caesarea, 

and the capture of Kenya and Axsar. "Then they attacked 

Sebastia and took it by seige, but they did not kill the 

population. Rather, they took their belongings as booty, 

counted the men, imposed their customary mal and t &lar 

taxes, left aahna and.chêftains for the country or Hum", 

and returned to Azerbaijan (GA p. 312). 

According to the KG, the first administrative move made 

by the Mongols occurred after Awag's submission. "He 

went to Chormaghun, Chaghatai. Bifo (Baiju?) and Yusur 

who saw [Him] and honored him, became intimately acquainted 

and appointed guards for [his] cities. In their language 

these are called san". Subsequently Sahnsah submitted:

of the Great Khan Gtiytik himself, taxes amounting to 

between l/30th and l/10th ad valorem, were imposed on 

virtually everything movable and immovable and a heavy 

head tax of 60 silver drama was collected from males . 

•They appointed guards for the interior of the country" 

(KC p. 190; Mur. p. 75). The capture and lei 2,1 ing of 

the disobedient continued until finally Iwane C'ixis5varel — 

Jaleli submitted: " Iwane went and met Chaghatai who received 

him with honor and appointed guards for the country. 

"When they had secured the entire land in this fashion, 

they divided it among the four rulers (noyins) as well as 

(•included in the division) all the erist ist ay's (dukes) . their 

incomes and taxes which they took and sent. In this way 

the country began to be pacified, gradually" (KC p. 191; 

Mur. p. 76;. 

The subsequent chronology here seems to be somewhat 

confused. The KC next describes the campaign against 

Ghiyath al-Din, adding: "while the queen was sending 

her son [to the Mongols], . .harassed by the fighting [and 

after the capture of Konya] , the sultan requested peace 

and promised to pay heavy and great taxes, and giving many 

gifts, huge gems, pearls, he calmed them down and requested 

guards. And for a certain time they would have no sultan 

until the best was chosen" (KC pp. 194.95; Mur. pp. 77-78). 

1 JAP III p. 620; CAMA pp. 365-66; VT pp. 88,91. KG's 

information is found in his chp. 44: "As soon as Khan 

GUyiik took control of the great kingdom of the T'aT'ar 

army in their own land, he forthwith sent out tax-collectors 

to his troops in various lands and regions which they had 

subdued, to take 1/1 Oth (tasanord) of all the military 

property as well as taxes from the districts and kingdoms 

conquered by them: from the Persians, TaSika, Armenians, 

Georgians, Albanians, and from all peoples under them" 

(KG pp. 311-12). The chiefs of the tax-collectors were 

Arghun and Buqa, the latter even confiscating goods from 

a terrified Mongol nobility: "Yet no one dared say anything 

to him, for he had assembled brigands from among the Persians 

and Taciks who mercilessly performed deeds of cruelty and 

were especially inimical toward the Christians. 

"Therefore they provoked him against the pious prince 

Hasan Jalal. [Buqa] seized him in the great court, before 

all the nobles and subjected him to numerous punishments. 

He demolished [Hasan's] inaccessible fortresses: the one 

called in Persian Xoyaxana, Bed, Ciranak'ar and his other 

fortresses. And they so levelled them that not even a 

trace appeared that anything had ever been built there. 

Taking much gold and silver from [Hasan] they -barely spared 

119

The severity of the taxes and the brutal manner of their 

collection triggered an abortive uprising of the naxarar/ 

didebuls in 1248/49. This rebellion, which was discovered 

by the Mongols while still in the planning stages was 

crushed at the expense of human and animal lives and crops 

in numerous districts of northeastern Armenia and southern 

Georgia. Some of the arrested Armenian and Georgian 

conspirators, unable to raise the huge ransoms demanded 

for their release were tortured or killed . But the main 

his life. The great nobility (mecamec awagani) could do 

nothing to help him, so thrown into fear were all the 

spectators" (KG p. 313). Buqa also planned to seize the 

prince of princes Awag, but the great nobility (presumably 

Mongol nobility) urged him to visit Buqa with his large 

personal army, saying: "Should [Buqa] happen to seize you, 

then you attack him". Seeing Awag's troops the frightened 

Buqa asked: "What is that multitude of sgldiera for? Could 

it be that you are rebelling from the Khan and have come 

to kill us"? Buqa then spoke to Awag ofpeace, while 

simultaneously plotting against him. But before Buqa was 

able to actualize his designs, he died of disease (KG p. 314). 

Grigor Aknerc'i does not mention the census of 1243 . . 

directly. However, describing the taking of Sebastia/Sivas 

in 1244 he writes: "But they did not kill them, rather 

took their treasures as booty and registered the populace 

and imposed taxes on them according to their custom, the 

mal and t'alar. And leaving Jahna (guards) and chiefs in 

W land~oTTum..."(GA p. 312). 

1 HAP III pp. 620-22} SEPHA pp. 131-32} CAMA p. 366} In 

chp. 47, "Concerning the Destruction Wrought by the T'at'are 

in Georgia", Kirakos narrates the princes' rebellion of 

1249/50: "While the land was recovering a little from the 

raids and plunderinge stirred up by the earth-consuming 

fire...the princes deprived and robbed the poor, and from 

this extortion they bought expensive clothing and they 

dressed, ate, drank, and boasted greatly as is the arrogant 

cusom of Georgia " (KG p. 318). Kirakos rebukes those who 

"do not learn from the past", and he considers the Instigator 

of the rebellion to be Satan. "...Suddenly all the 

nobility of the T'at'ar army held a council, armed, and 

wanted universally to ravage the lands of Armenia and 

Georgia, [lands] obedient to them, because tne Georgian 

120

king wanted to rebel with all the princes, and [the 

Mongols] were recruiting to come and destroy them, since 

it was apparent that all the princes were going for a 

levee to the king of Georgia, Dawit , in Tiflis. 

"And while they were drinking wine, their spirits rose 

and an immature man among them said: 'Having such a 

multitude of troops, why do we serve [the Mongols]? Come, 

let us fall upon them suddenly, destroy and exterminate 

them, and we shall have our lands'. 

"The great prince Awag intercepted this plot. And the 

I'at'ar army happening to be in the place was informed 

about it, and the army notified its chiefs. 

"As soon as the forces of the princes each went to its 

own place thus armed, they [the Mongols] wanted generally 

to destroy everyone. The princes they found with them, 

they arrested and to those who were not there they sent 

summons for them to come in haste... 

"...One of the senior leaders, general Chaghatai, head 

of the entire army and a friend of Awag, came amidst the 

armed troops and said to them; *We have no order from the 

Khan to kill those who are obedient to.us, stand in 

service to us, and pay taxes to the Khan. And the reality 

of their rebellion is not certain. But if we destroy, 

them without cause you will be responsible to the Khan'. 

Hearing this they ceased following the matter. 

"The mother of Awag, named Xosak, went to them to assure 

them of her son's loyalty to them and that he soon would 

be coming—which in fact happened, since prince Awag 

quickly came up and demonstrated his intimacy with them by 

many testimonies. 

"King Dawit' and the other princes arrives. [The Mongols] 

bound all of them tightly, according to their custom, hand 

and foot, with thin cords. They left them bound thus 

for three days, ridiculing and insulting them for their 

arrogance and rebellious plans. And they took all [the 

rebels'] horses, put a price on their heads, and left 

them. [The Mongols] attacked Georgia, falling upon many 

districts of the rebels and non-rebels. They cut down 

many people and took even more captive, a countless multitude 

of men, women, and children they drowned in the 

river. And this took place in 1249/50 (698 A.E.)" (KG 

pp. 319-20). 

VA:"...Por a census was conducted in 1243/44by which 

they worked deeds worthy of lamentation and tears not 

merely for [the sake ofj rational animals, but for dumb 

animals, mountains and plains, which were watered with 

blood and tears. This same lamentation was repeated in 

1249/50 because Baiju and the other nobles got wind of 

the presumptuousness and rebelliousness of the king and 

the princes of Georgia. King Dawit' was arrested as 

were other grandees; they were bound and sentenced to 

death, though they were spared by concern from On High. 

Nonetheless, countless numbers were killed and enslaved, 

villages and fields [were destroyed], and they disgraced 

women in Armenia—but more so in Georgia" (VA pp. 147-48). 

121

Aknerc'i's narration of the rebellion ia found in hia 

ehp. II. Like Kirakos, Aknerc'i noted that it was a 

Georgian custom to boast: "Now one of the Georgian princes 

counted the other princes in front of the king and 

declared the number of princes to be 1000. And some of 

the princes had 1000 horsemen for battle, while aome had 

500. The news of this spread throughout the entire kingdom, 

while they carelessly ate and drank. When they had 

counted and taken atock of the Armenian and Georgian forcea, 

they aaid that their aide would vanquish the T'at'ar 

troops. And they divided the chiefs amongst themselves. 

But this was not spoken straightforwardly, rather, in Jest, 

for they were at leisure and free from care, and there 

was no enemy in the eastern land besides the Tat'ars who 

kept coming and through taxation harassing the Georgian 

and Armenian princes. From aome they demanded gold cloth, 

from aome falcons, from aome aalek ("well-bred") dogs and 

horses. And in this way they harassed them over and above 

the mal. t'aiar and xalan" (GA p. 320). Aknerc'i says 

that a certain unnamed traitorous prince went and informed 

the Mongols. 

"Now they, believing theae false words, turned against 

the land, taking aa plunder all the goods and flocks. 

But they dld.not kill people, [being] without orders from 

the great Khan. They seized the king and all the princes 

of the nation, while they even took to the court of the 

chieftain the great prince of Georgia, Awag, At'abak Iwvane's 

son, on a litter, since he had fallen ill in those days 

and was unable to ride a horse. Although the other princes 

and the king apoke a great deal, they did not believe them, 

and did not cease making captivea and looting the land. 

But when they took Awag on a litter to the court of the 

Tat'ar chieftain(a) he apoke and was believed; they left 

off destroying the land and made peace with the terrified 

and pitiful Chrifltians" (GA p. 322). 

Step annoa Orbelean omits any reference to the princes' 

rebellion. The account in the KG for the period 1243-50 • 

ia extremely confused chronologically. Dating, aa usual, 

is absent, and beyond this, many events are telescoped. 

The chronicler laments the confused state of affairs following 

the death of queen Ruaudan in 1247. During this time, 

the Georgian army was obliged to fight each year against 

the Assassins at Alamut, to fulfill military service to the 

Mongols. Furthermore, with the country klngleaa, Turks 

began attacking the Valarlkert area. Then, with Georgia 

in confusion, the Georgian princes assembled at Koxtast'avi, 

complaining about their yearly fighting obligations at 

Alamut. They decided to rebell against the Mongols. Present 

were Egaralan, Dadlani, Tahram of Gag, Ivarlvare, Sot'a 

Kupar, T'orian, the Her-Kaxet'is, the K'art'lee'is, 

Gamerkel T'oreli, Sargia T'mogveli, the Meaxa and people 

of Tao. However the noyins Baiju and Angurag arrested 

those at Koxta and sent them to Sirakavan, where Chormaehun 

had them bound. They claimed they had assembled To" pay the 

khara.1 tax. But they were not released until one of the 

122

causes of the unrest remained unaddressed by the Mongols. 

After the accession of the Great Khan MSngke (1251-59) 

a thorough census was made of all parts of the empire 

during 1252-57 . The Iranian emir Argjiun personally 

conducted the census of Caucasia in 1254. Although the 

study made by Arghun has not survived, modern scholars 

estimate the Armenian population of Greater Armenia 

(excluding Cilicia) to have been about 4 million in the 

mid-13th century . The thoroughness of Argjmn's work 

boded ill for Armenian laborers. Kirakos Ganjakee'i 

instigators, C'otne Dadiani, came all the way from Abxazia 

voluntarily, and repeated the same story (KC pp. 211-16; 

Mur. pp. 90-94). 

SMP pp. 339-40. 

HAP III p. 625; VA p. 148 merely mentions the census. 

Aknerc'i provides information not met with in the other 

Armenian sources: "In one small village [the Mongols] 

counted 30 or 50 men all from 15 to 60 years of age. 

They took 60 spitaks from each person counted. When they 

captured one who had fled or hid, they cruelly tied his 

handa back and beat him with green rods until his body 

was all cut and caked with blood. Then they pitilessly 

let loose their ferocious dogs, which they had trained 

to eat human flesh, and they let them devour the miserable 

and impoverished Christians'1 (GA p. 325). The EC, though 

somewhat confused, has a passage which appears to relate 

to the census of 1254. It characterizes Archun, strangely, 

as a just, honest adviser, quite the opposite of the 

Armenian sources. First Argjiun was sent to the domains 

of Batu, north of the Caucasus; "to survey and record 

those soldiers and warriors who had gone with the senior 

and junior noyina campaigning, and to stipulate according 

to their worth the uluf. which is a gift for those who 

have taken to the road and recompense for horse and 

saddle" (KC p. 234; Mur. p. 107). Argjiun then went to 

Qubilai-Khan in China where he engaged"in the same work. 

"When he reached Httlegti-Khan, the latter received his 

with honor and sent him to Georgia to king David, then on 

123

described it as follows: 

[Census-takers] also reached the lands of Armenia, 

Georgia, Albania, and the districts around them, and 

began recording all those from 11 years and up, exceptting 

the women. And they demanded the most severe 

taxes, more than a man could bear. And people became 

impoverished. They harassed the people with unbelievable 

beatings, torments, and tortures. Those who hid were 

seized and killed. Those who were unable to pay the rate 

had their children taken to pay their debt, for [the censustakers] 

circulated around with Persian Muslim attendants... 

all the artisans, whether in the cities or in villages 

were taxed. Furthermore, fishermen of the seas and lakes, 

miners and blacksmiths and painters/plasterers [were taxed] 

...And they alone profitted. They took all the salt mines 

in Kolba and in other regions. 

Arghun similarly profitted greatly from the merchants 

and heaped up vast quantities of gold, silver, and precious 

stones. Thus everything became expensive and the lands 

became filled with lamentation and complaints. Then he 

left in charge of the lands a wicked governor (ostikan) 

who demanded the same amount every year by list, and in 

writing. 1 

to Rum to survey all of his holdings. When Arghun reached 

Georgia, all the inhabitants of David's kingdom were 

greatly menaced. They started surveying people and beasts 

fields, and plants, vineyards and vegetable gardens. From 

[each] 9 land-owning peasants it was ordered that 1 soldier 

should be provided. Thus David's kingdom provided by 

census to the Tatars 9 dumans, which is 9 x 10,000.[From 

eachjvillage they stipulated gifts: to the Thousander 

one lamb and one drahkan (?); to the Ten Thousander, one 

sheep and two drahkan; for the horseman (?) 3 tetris da.ily 

(«a silver coinTTHe so stipulated and then went to Hum 

Baghdad, and everywhere" (KG pp. 234-35; Mur. pp. 107-108). 

KG pp.. 362-63: "ew zamenayn arueetageta. e£ e i ^ 

ew et e j, giwia. zamenayn i harki kac ue in. Ayl ew zcovaks. 

ew zliSs jknorsae , ew zerEat 'ahans. ew zd"arbins. ew 

zSparars. ..ew inTc'canSc* miayn sahein. ew zamenayn aSahansn 

arin. or ^ Kol_5ew or yayl kotmans kp^mans. 

"Na ew ^ vaârakanae oazum infsaheal. kutec in ganjs _ 

aaatiks os'kwoy ew arcat *oy ew aganc patuakanac'. Ew ayspes 

zamenesin aâc aâc'uc'eal uc eal ew vayiw vayTw ew asxa: asxarov ic'eal z^Sxarhs 

t'otin {ar ostikans i veray asxarhac'a ' 

yamenavn ani. novin Hamarov ew grov^."" 

124

Another administrative change occurred regarding 

Armenia in the mid-13th century. This was the establish- 

ment of the Il-Khanid Mongol state over the territory of 

Iran, and the inclusion of Caucasia into it, beginning 

in 1256. Prior to that time the Caucasus had formed a 

single administrative unit composed of five vilayets. 

Of these five, the first two were areas of Armenian 

population, namely 1) the Gurjistani (Georgian) vilayet. 

and 2) the vilayet of Greater Armenia. The Gurjistanl 

vilayet consisted of eight tumana or districts each 

capable of providing 10,000 soldiers. Three of the eight 

tumana in the first vilayet .were Armenian and included Ani, 

Kara, northeasternmost Armenia, Siwnik* and Arc'ax. The second 

vilayet, that of Greater'Armenia embraced some of the 

quasi-independent Armenian principalities, such as the 

Mamikonean/T'ornikeans of Sasun and the Arcrunid Xedenek- 

eans of Vaapurakan. The center of this vilayet was Karin/ 

Erzerum . 

Following the granting of Iran as a hereditary 

appanage to Hulegu-Khan in 1256, the situation was somewhat 

altered . First, HUlegU chose as his residence Mughan 

in Azarbaijan which until then had been the camping grounds 

of Baiju-noyin. Htilegti ordered the latter and all the 

HAP III pp. 614-16; SEPKA pp. 155-59. 

125

nomadic Mongol and Turkmen warriors subordinate to him to 

evacuate the Caucasus, in order to create room for his own 

entourage. With considerable grumbling the displaced 

Baiju and his hosts moved westward, sacking the cities 

of Erzerum, Erzinjan Sivaa, Caesarea and Zonya as they 

went . Almost simultaneously some of Chingiz-Khan's 

grandchildren descended on the Caucasus through the Caspian 

Sates in order to settle near their relation, HttlegU. 

CAKA p. 366; FT pp. 275-76; Bar Hebraeus describes 

Httlegti's entourage (BH p. 419) and Baiju's move (BH p.424). 

In 1256 the Melitene/Malatya area was attacked by Turkmens 

(BH p. 425) as well as by Baiju (BH pp. 426-27). The 

same author (p. 427) reports cannibalism in that city; 

KG p. 375; GA: "After this, when the year 706 A.E. (-1257/58) 

had come, there arrived from the East, where the great 

Khan was, 7 of the Khan's sons, each with a duman of cavalry 

and a duman is 30,007 [incorrect. The duman'waa 10,000], 

They were named as follows: the first and greatest of them 

was Hulawu, who was a brother of Manku khan. The second, 

Xul, called himself_the brother of God and was not ashamed. 

The third was Balaxe, the fourth Tut'ar, the fifth, T'agudar, 

the sixth, tatalan, and the seventh, Bawralan. They were 

in disagreement amongst themselves, but were very fearless 

and eaters of men. On their journey they all came and 

travelled about in wagons, while they levelled the mountains 

and hills of the eastern country to facilitate the movement 

of their wagons and carts" (GA p. 327). Of the leaders 

mentioned by GA, Xul it seems became a bandit and attacked 

certain monasteries in "the interior of the country". 

The monastery of Geret'i is mentioned especially (GA pp. 

327, 329, 331). 

KC: "Hulegii arrived in Atrpatakan with 60,000 troops. 

Learning about this, the noyins Chormaghun, Yusur, Baiju, 

and Angurak went to meet him, takTng with them all the nobles 

of Georgia, especially Egarslan, to whom the entire Georgian 

nobility submitted, as if to a king. They met in Atrpatakan. 

Two [bodies] of Tatars were [thus] assembled: those who 

had come there before [.i.e., at the time of the conquest 

of the Caucasus], who w«Tre* called t'amber, and those who 

had come with HUlegti-Khan... ~" 

"They came to the place known as Ala-Ta£h[east of Lake 

Van in southern historical Armenia]. All his subjects 

came before him. He sat on the throne of the Khanate 

and they congratulated him according to their custom and 

called him Khan..." (KC pp. 222-23; Mur. p. 98). 

126

This unruly group also caused much damage as it travelled, 

and extorted whatever it could from the sedentary 

population . The establishment of the Il-Khanid state 

in 1256 brought about yet another change, albeit one 

somewhat more difficult to evaluate than the damage 

occasioned by nomads on the move. In the pre-Il-Khanid 

period, those Armenian naxarars heading tumans ia the 

two Caucasian vilayets had had direct access to the 

Great Khan of the Mongol empire in Qara-Qorum. Now, with 

the establishment of the . Il-Khanate (itself a 

vassal of the Great Khans) these same nobles . 

became as it were sub-vassals whose direct access to 

2 

supreme and ultimate power was lost . On the other hand 

KG; "To this Khan [HUlegU] went the very greatest chiefs 

from Batu's region: iul, Balala, Juthar, latalan, for 

everyone honored HUlegU like a Khan. They obeyed him 

and feargd him" (KG p. 377); KC: "During the same period 

other khans sent their sons to these par,ts* Called koun. 

they were: Batu's son Tur, Chaghatai-Khan's son Ulan, 

iu^, and from the T'ul clan, BoTia, in order that the 

khans' sons rule the lands they arrived in and also take 

the taxes.. Ogedei-Khan's grandson HUlegU, brother of 

Qubilai-Khan bad come forth and was here tin the Caucasus]. 

When HUlegti saw these three kouns he received them and 

gave them the lands due, and thus did they remain in peace" 

(KG pp. 223-24; Mur. p. 99). 

CAKA pp. 367-68. 

127

the proximity of new powerful masters as of 1256, plus 

the information obtained by them from the census of 1254 

had yet another immediate ramification for the Caucasus. 

How the naxarara were obliged to participate in all mil- 

itary ventures of the fl-Khanids on a regular ongoing basis, 

providing a specified number of troops yearly. Armenian 

and Georgian warriors fought in all the major Mongol 

campaigns in the Middle East from 1256 onward. This in 

turn resulted in the deaths or enslavements of large 

numbers of Christian Caucasians abroad, and, secondly 

in the absence of native defenders within the Caucasus 

itself, where they were needed to protect that area from 

the persistent raids and sorties of Mongols, Turks, and 

local rebels . 

Heavy taxation, coupled with the 

onerous burden of military service in distant lands led, 

not unexpectedly, to rebellion. The eecond Armeno-Georglan 

rebellion occurred between 1259 and 1261. Though of longer 

duration than the rebellion of 1248/49, this one too 

eventually was brutally crushed2. 

On the participation of Caucasian nobles in Il-Khanid 

warfare, see .ch. 3. 

2 HAP III. ch . 37, "Hayastang Hulavyan iSxanut'van 

tirapetut yan nerk o [Armenia under mileguid Domination]" 

by L. H. Babayan, pp. 628-44, pp. 630-31; SEPKA pp. 137-39. 

Kirakos1..information is found in his ch . 63, "Concerning 

the Death of Pious Prince Jalal": "Now the king of Georgia, 

128

Dawit', son of Lasa, who was subject to the T'at'ars, was 

placed into straits and wearied by the numerous and 

impossibly heavy taxes demanded of him, of all the princes, 

and of all the lands, which they could not bear. He left 

his city Tiflia, his throne, and everything he owned and 

fled to the depths of Ap'xazia and the fortresses of 

Suanet'ia. With him went many other great princes of 

districts who were harassed and harried, bankrupt, and 

who had mortgaged cities and districts but were still 

unable to satiate the evil leech-like appetite [of the 

Mongols], So fraught, Dawit' fled, but he was unable to 

take with him his wife queen Gone'a and his newborn son 

Demetre. He took along only his first born son Giorgi" 

(KG p. 389). 

Arghun pursued him, but was unable to catch up. He 

destroyed and enslaved many Georgian districts, destroying 

the mausolea of the kings at Gelat'i and the kat'olikosate 

at Aclor. Suddenly some 400 Georgian cavalry appeared 

and scared off the Mongols. "And Argjiun became frightened 

and dared not so braeenly enter and search places. He 

returned to HQlegti planning wickedness in his heart. He 

seized the Georgian queen Gone'a, her daughter Xoiak, the 

great prince Sahnsah, Hasan Jalal the lord of Xa$en and 

many others because of debts and taxes Cowed]. These 

people gave much treasure and barely saved their lives." 

(KG p. 390). However Hasan Jalal was executed in 1261/62. 

"Now it happened that Zak'are [Sahnsah1s son] wag with 

Arghun and his many troops in Georgia. And Zak'are went 

unbeknownst to Arghun and the other soldiers to see his 

wife who was with ner father Sargls, prince of Uxteac', 

one of the rebels with the Georgian king Dawit'. When 

ArKhun learned about this, he notified Httlegtt who himself 

ordered that Zak'are be taken shackled. He heaped other 

false accusations upon him, ordered him killed, dismembered 

and thrown to the dogs^ (KG p. 393). 

VA notes that Zak'are, the sparapet of Georgia..."was 

falsely accused with delaying in going to court at the 

set time he was supposed to" (VA p. 153); Interestingly, 

SO says nothing about this rebellion, either. KG pp. 

238-49, passim; Mur. pp. 110-21, passim. 

129

Dealing with the rebellions of subject peoples and 

waging war against Muslim powers in the Hear East were 

not the only military operations occupying Il-Khanid 

generals. Beginning with 1261, the Caucasus became an 

occasional theater of warfare between fl-Khanida and 

yet another Mongol state, that of the Golden Horde centered 

in the lower Volga with its capital at Sarai. The organ- 

izer of this state, Berke-Khan (1257-66) a devout Muslim, 

was outraged by the anti-Muslim policies of the shamanist 

HfllegQ and especially by his massacre of the Muslim 

population of Baghdad in 1258. Hot only did Berke and 

his successors attempt to infringe on the uncertain 

boundary between his realm and HSlegU's (i.«»., the Caucasus), 

but they also entered into an alliance with the increasingly 

powerful Mamluk state in Egypt . The latter were the most 

ferocious enemies of the Il-Khanids in the Hear East, and 

the only power to have dealt the Mongols a severe military 

defeat there in 12602. 

1 Spuler pp. 21-25; 27-29; SMP pp. 352-54; CJA'v. 3 p. 218 

foldout; KG pp. 395-96; VA's account on p. 153 is merely 

a chronological list derived from KG; SO p. 161; KG pp. 

249-54; Mur. pp. 121-25. 

2 Spuler p.20; SKP pp. 351-52; Het'ua p. 53. 

130

During the reign of Htilegtt'a son and successor 

Abaqa (1265-82) more examples of centrifugation. among 

the Mongols became manifest. In the very first year of 

his rule, Abaqa was obliged to deal with another invasion 

of the Caucasus from Berke . With the latter's death in 

Tiflis in 1266, the troops of the Golden Horde retreated . 

Spuler p. 26; KG's text ends with an incomplete description 

of this invasion, p. 399; VA chp. 98: "Now at the beginning 

of 1266/67, the governor of the North named Berke (Bark'a) 

who had held the position of Battt and Sartakh and was a 

Muslim, heard about the death of great Hfllegu and he came 

with a multitude [of troops] to the Kur river to display 

his forces to the troops on this side of the river—troops 

of Abaqa and his brother Ismud, to show that he was alive 

after the death of their father. And Berke came and trampled 

them with little care, as far as HeZn. All the Muslims 

there prayed in joy. But those [people] on this side were 

terrified by this and walled off the length of the river 

called Sibar and kept in all readiness throughout the winter. 

Then Berke, having lost hope, returned to his place. And' 

in the summertime he died. They say that in behavior he 

was not an agitator, and that he loathed blood-letting" 

(VA p. 162). 

KG: "Curing this period the great Khan Berke came forth 

on the Darband highway to avenge [the deaths.of] Xut'ar, 

Balal-, and lul. Learning of this, Abaqa-Khan summoned 

his army and king David, and set out. But when he realized 

the size of Berke's army and its might, he did not 

cross the Kur, but went up the banks, leaving troops where 

the Kur and the. Ar,ax join, from there to Mc'xet'a* Berke 

ravaged the Shirvan country, Heret'i , Kaxet'i , and the 

whole bank oT"~the lori. The army came as far asJTiflis. 

Countless Christians were killed, while Berke-Khan encamped 

in the Ga.re3 mountains. Then God pitied the land and 

Abaqa-Khan. Berke was seized with some sort of illQess 

and heTied. Now his troops when they saw their Khan's 

decease, picked up the corpse and passed through tEe 

Darband Gates. So the land was pacified" (KG pp. 254-55; 

Mur. p. 126). SMP p. 356. 


No sooner had this situation been resolved , however than one of 

.Chingiz-Khan's great grandsons, Tegiider, rebelled in 1268. 

Teglider's holdings included parts of southern Georgia and 

the Gelarkunik* area around Lake Sewan in Armenia . 

Armeno-Georgian troops aided in the suppression of this 

rebellion, just as they had fought for the II-Khans 

o 

against Berke . In both instances the Armenian and 

Georgian agriculturalists were the primary losers, since 

1 KAP III p. 632; SEPKA pp. 161-62; SMP p. 357; According 

to the KG, in the period prior to the death of king David 

(d.1270), Tegiider, brother of Baraq-Khan of Turan, rebelled 

against Abaqa. The latter had granted* Tegiider summer 

camping grounds on the Ararat mountains, wintering quarters 

on the bank of the Arax plus Naxijewan, and tax-collecting 

rights over the country belonging to Baraq there. Tegiider 

and his brother unsuccessfully plotted to overthrow Abaqa. 

When the plot failed, Tegiider went to Savseti and ASaria 

in Georgia and persuaded the lord Sargis Jaleli to allow 

him to pass through. Meanwhile Abaqa sent a force including 

Sahnsah's son Iwane the mandat *urt *-uxue *es and under 

the comman* of Chormaghun's BOP Shiremun.Tn pursuit. 

Tegtider was defeated and lost many men in a landslide. 

However he and the survivors managed to reach David in 

Kutais where he was royally entertained. "Frequently king 

David went to Tegiider and managed all the rituals and 

ceremonies, and so served before him....The same was done 

by the queen, the daughter of the great Palaeologus, ruler 

of Constantinople" (KC pp. 261-62; Kur. p. 133). Now as 

soon as Shiremiin returned to Abaqa with the good news 

that Tegucfer was out of the way, a road-guard on the 

Khorasan highway arrived saying that Baraq was on the move. 

Abaqa summoned David and the Georgian army and they went, 

with the Georgians serving as advance-attackers. While 

this was going on, Tegiider sent three commanders to raid 

Javaxet'i. Tegiider then ravaged K'art'li (KC pp. 265-66; 

Uur. pp. 135-37). 

632; Allen p. 117; GA ch . XVI pp. 375-77. 


their particular districts were expected to feed and 

accomodate one or another party of Mongols, yet as a 

consequence of this were ravaged by the mutually inimical 

Mongol armies as punishment for aiding enemies. 

The situation outlined above continued more or less 

unchanged until the reign of Ghazan-Khan (1295-1304). 

For the rest of Abaqa'a reign and during those of his 

successors Ahmad, Arghun, and Geikhatu , we see Armeno— 

Georgian forces fighting and suffering defeat from the 

Mamluks (1281J1; fighting the next year in the Far East 

against yet another Mongol state ruled by the descendants 

2 

of Chingiz' grandson Chaghatai ; and fighting the armies 

of the Golden Horde, which in 1287 once again attempted 

to invade Caucasia . In this period other woes befell the 

Armenians, both peasant and noble. As a result of the 

strengthening of the Muslim Mamluks in Egypt, Islamic 

Turkic elements in Asia Minor began to take heart, to 

form secret alliances with their co-religioniats against 

the Mongols, and to loot and pillage whenever they thought 

they could succeed. The brunt of Turkmen viilence was the 

HAP III p. 634; SMP p. 363. 

Ibid. KG p. 284; Mur. p. 152. 

S^P PP. 370-71. 


sedentary Christian population, especially the Armenians, 

who had distinguished themselves as Mongol supporters . 

Het'um pp. 56-59$ Abu'1-Fida (Nalb. p. 238); BH p. 

454 describes the capture and robbery o.f a caravan of 

Christian merchants from Cilicia and Rum in 1276; "And 

at [this] time (1276) the captain of the host of the 

fortress of Zaid (Xarberd) whose name was Biahar, a 

wicked man and a shedder of blood, an old man, one hundred 

years old, made up his mind to flee to the Egyptians. 

For he had in his heart a hatred of Mar Barkis the bishop 

of the Armenians in the city of Arzengan, who was a great 

man and who was honored by the king of the Huns (Mongols). 

He determined to kill him and then to go away. And, 

taking certain of his free men with him, he went to the 

country of Arzengan. He heard that the saint was in one 

of his monasteries preparing for Palm Sunday, and he lay 

in wait for him on the road. And when the holy man rose 

up on the second day [of the week] of the Sabbath of the 

Passion to go into the city, his son who was great and 

famous, was also with him. And he said unto the holy 

man, his father, 'Do thou go into the city, and I want to 

go and occupy myself in such and such a village, where 

they want to consecrate the church which they have built'. 

And his father gave him permission to go, and he was not 

to stay too long. And when they had separated from each 

other, three Turkish horsemen came and met the holy man, 

and they dismounted and went to kiss his hand. And they 

said unto him, 'An ambassador hath come and he asketh 

for thee and thy son also to read the yarlikh (!.£., 

a Mongol patent or administrative order) which Eenath 

with him1. And the holy man said, 'My son hath gone to 

such and such a village, but behold I will come'. And 

when they had journeyed on a little farther, there fell 

upon them about two hundred Turkish horsemen, and they 

killed the holy man and the thirty souls, elders, monks, 

and other slaves, who were with him. And they cut off 

his head, and they took it and went and seized that village 

and they surrounded the church (wherein was the son of 

the holy man) very carefully. And when they entered the 

church they could not find him because there was a heap 

[of grain] there, and he had hidden himself inside it. 

And when they wanted to depart, one of those accursed 

infidels said, 'Let us set fire to this heap first, and 

then .we will go forth'. And having set fire to it the 

young man came forth only half alive. And the Turks said 

unto him, 'Where is your father?' And he replied, 'He 

has gone into the city'. Then they cast down before him 

his [father's] head. And when he saw [it] he shrieked 

and fell down on the head of his father. And then and 

there, as he fell down, they hacked him limb from limb. 

And after these things that wicked old man Bishar took his 


sons and all his company of soldiers and departed to the 

lord of Egypt" (BH pp. 455-56). See also SA p. 162. 

According to BE, in the late 13th century, bands of Turkmens, 

Mongols and Kurds were quite active in western 

Armenia and northern Syria to Cilicia. In 1282 nomadic 

Turkish bands were raiding around Xarberd (p. 465); 1285 

raiding Arbil (p. 475); 1288 Mongols and Kurds were 

warring near Mosul (p. 477): 1289 marauding around 

Melitene/Malatya (p. 4§3-84); in 1290 Mongols despoiled 

Kurdish farmers in Diyarbakr (p.. 485): in 1291 Geikhatu 

went against the Turkmens of Rum (p. 492), but in T?95 

the Mongols and Turkmens were still warring (p. 508): 

Throughout the 13th century the Saljuqid state was 

constantly being undermined by uncontrollable Turkmen 

warriors, who in fact, eventually brought that state down. 

The sources note Turkmen rebellions/rampages in 1239-40, 

1261-62, 1276, 1277, 1286, 1290 (see DMH pp. 134-35; 

PT pp. 279, 280, 282, 286-88, 291, 293, 295-97. C . 

Cahen has observed that the Turkmens benefitted from the 

disorganization of cohesive societies (PT p. 299). 

Elsewhere, discussing the ethnic evolution of Asia Minor 

he wrote: "There has already been occasion more than 

once to mention in passing the new peoples which the 

Mongols' invasion had driven into Asia Minor, at first 

by thrusting them back before their own advance, later 

by carrying them along in their own ranks. Some were 

Iranians, others Turkmens, and there were even Mongols 

who were not solely garrison troops, but who settled down 

with their livestock and families in the eastern half of 

the country. In terms of numbers, there thus ensued an 

increase—which is Impossible to calculate—in these 

ethnic groups as sompared with the stable numbers of the 

natives; and there were also certain qualitative modifications. 

Leaving aside the Mongols, the new Turkmens 

were not the exact counterparts of the old ones, economically 

and culturally"...(PT p. 314). 

"The Oghuz are not the only Turkish^people to have 

supplied Asia Minor with settlers. Among the Turkish tribes 

some of whose members settled down there with the Mongols, 

there were some who derived from other Turkish peoples, 

such as the Uighur. There can and indeed must have been 

an absorption of the Cumans/QIpchaqs whom Theodore Lascaria 

had installed on the southern frontiers of the State of 

Nicaea for the express purpose of resisting the Turkmens. 

Moreover, the Mongols, who at the start were an undifferentiated 

army of occupation, as their Empire disintegrated, 

themselves seem to have become divided and reorganized 

into groups of tribes. Some of these were named as being 

still in Anatolia at the en.d of th.e 14th century in the 

histories of the gadi Burhan al-Din or of the Karamanids 

sometimes being associatod with the Turkmens, sometimes 

hostile to them, in eastern and central Anatolia, and 

emancipated from the princes even when the latter were 

Mongols. Finally, many Kurds had been displaced. The 

distribution of the tribes found in Diyarbakr in the 14th 


Ironically, in the late 13th century the Caucasian 

naxarar/didebuls too were punished—not by Turks—but 

by their own Mongol overlords. This must be explained 

by the very nearness of many lords to the Il-Khan court 

and their great intimacy with its members. Thus in 1289, 

when Ar£hun-Khan crushed a plot against him organized 

by the emir Buqa, he also executed king Demetre of 

Georgia who had married Buqa'a daughter and was, rightly 

or wrongly, implicated . Similarly, when Geikhatu 

succeeded his brother Arghun as Khan in 1291, he in turn 

killed off Arghun's Argfc prominent supporters, among whom were 

/• 

many Armenians' 

.2 

The reign of Ghazan-Khan (1295-1304) is regarded 

by Mongol scholars as a watershed, during which important 

changes took place. Some changes, such as the Islamization 

of the Mongols, were of a permanent nature . Others, such 

as fiscal reforms, were ephemeral and did not take root 

among Ghazan's successors. 

century was no longer the same as had been known hitherto, 

and was already as known in the 16th century. Moreover, 

it will be remembered, the Kurds penetrated into Armenian 

regions where they had never previously been recorded" 

(PT p. 316). 

1 BH p. 481; SO pp. 176-77; KC pp. 286-92; Mur. pp. 154-59, 

2 HAP III p. 636. Arghun, of course, had done the same; 

SO 5. 172. For the end of the 1290's (c. 1296) both 

Orbelean and the KC speak of depredations caused by 

Mongol rebels (SO pp. 217-20; KC pp. 297-300; Kur. pp. 

163-65). 


It is a known fact that at the time of the Mongol 

conquests in the early 13th century the Mongols were 

characterized by their religious tolerance, or perhaps, 

" 137 

indifference. They themselves were for the most part 

» 

shamanists, although some prominent families among them 

were Nestorian Christians, having received the faith from 

Syrian missionaries to Central Asia . Consequently, 

throughout the 13th century, certain individual Mongol 

leaders exerted themselves to further certain Christian 

lords (both clerical and secular) subject to them. The 

Khans themselves adroitly manipulated the anti-Muslim 

sentiments of their Christian subjects for their own 

2 

military and foreign policy objectives . this situation 

changed with the Islamization first of Ahmad-Khan 

(1282-84), and then, irrevocably, with Ghazan's conversion. 

Christianity quickly passed from the status of .a favored religion 

to that of a tolerated religion. Anti-Christian persec- 

utions began almost at once, and though checked during 

part of Ghazan's reign, they became the rule rather than 

the exception under his intolerant successors . Now that the 

(London, 1928), 

(Ne Fall of Christianity in Medieval Asia", Journal of Religious 

History #2 (1968) pp. 93-104; See SMP ch"T~7ÂTSausani, 

"Religion under the Mongols" ,pp. 538-49. 

2 SMP pp. 370-71. 

3 SMP pp. 379-80, 542. During the first part of Ghazan's 

reign, persecution was severe (SA p. 164). King Het'um 

of Cilician Armenia was able to calm Ghazan's wrath

insatiable appetite for plunder of the Mongol nonad 

warriors could net be assuaged in successful wars against 

foreign enemies, it could at least be unleashed upon a 

new class of domestic enemies—the Christians. In Caucaeia 

the "instrument of the anti-Christ" was a Persian Muslim 

named :.auruz, whose fanaticism neems to hpve been es much 

138 

for the aaaasing of a personal fortune as for the promulgation of Islan 

temporarily, according to BK p. 506. Anti-Christian persecutions 

had occurred prior to Ghazan's reign, in 1286 in 

Mosul (3K p. -*e2). See Armenian Neo-Tiartyra, bishop Grigor 

Karnec'i (d. 1321/22) pp. 121-22. 

1 Step'annos has recorded that Nauruz received Ghazan's 

permission to extirpate Christianity: "Within our borders, 

they robbed the churches of Naxi3«wan, enslaved and tormented 

the priests; and they hauled off the doors of the chapela 

and demolished the altars. However, the great chieftains 

did no* silow thcsa churches to fcs pulled down which were 

inspected by the Georgian troops. They also cane to the 

[religious] seat of Siwnik* and wanted to yull down 

arsK "but through bribes and violence we did not let 

They looted the monasteries in the district of 

.wan, but 4-fte 3*j!«r Arnenlati lands on the other side 

of thr Afrax rlvfci were Isrt alons, thank God" (SO y. 221). 

SO then diacribes how the Syrian Cutholicoa was termed by 

ihe Mongols. Kin« Het'uo of Cilicia, enroute to Baidu 

was at the Syrian Cathollcoaate at the tima. "They seized 

the bishcp of Ajcct-lea1 [church! Icrd Tirac'u and vilified 

hia by various ir.df.j3

Hie depredations in Georgia and Armenia provoked yet 

another rebellion which, like the two preceding ones, 

was crushed at the expense of extreme suffering to people, 

livestock, crops and property . Religious persecution 

intensified during the second part of the reign of 

Ghazan*s successor, his brother Muhammad Khuda-Banda 

("servant of God", 1304-16). In 1307 Khuda-Banda, or 

Zarabanda ("servant of an ass") as the Armenian sources 

styled him, resumed collection of the jizya or head-tax 

on non-Muslims, something Ghazan had tried but was obliged 

2 

to discontinue . The sources report that even month-old 

children were registered for payment of the Jizya3. 

Furthermore, Christians were now required to wear identifying 

patches of blue or black material on their clothing *. 

1 HAP III p. 637? Rashid III p. 171; SO pp. 224-25. 

2 SKP p. 533; HAP III pp. 640-41; 14CC #55 p. 41. 

Alisan, Hayapatua. p. 526; 14CC p. 104. 

4 SA p. 165 and BH p. 507 state that already in Ghazan'3 

day this practise was adopted and included the Jews, who 

never had been a protected people under the Mongols. SA 

p. 168; 14CC #178 p. 138. #61 p. 46, #62 p. 47, #89 P. 66, 

#125 P. 92, #130 p. 96, #135 PP. 101-102. "...In this 

year [1318/19] the entire Christ-glorifying flock was 

troubled by the breath of larabandalul, Khan of the Nation 

of the Archers. Inspired by Satan, he orcTered that 

taxes be collected from all Christians because of their 

faith in Christ, and he ordered that a blue mark/badge be 

sewn on the shoulders of Believers* Beyond this, they took 

taxes from clerics, without the Khan's order. Then the 

thrice-blessed, holy patriarch ZaTc'aria went after the 

Khan as far as Babylon [and remained] one whole year..He 

received from him a yarligh(arlrex) freeing the clerics 


Heedless to say, such unenlightened policies did indeed 

create a new class of domestic enemies at a time when 

the Il-Khanid state could hardly afford it. 

and priests from taxation, but they collected from the 

laymen and youths...And in the spring of. this year they 

collected the tax, but in autumn the Khan died. Then 

there came Ailalu, Sint'amur and Hasan?'amur with 1,300 

men, and collected the tax a second time, but without 

limit, and no one resisted them. The monks who were free, 

whom they captured, they tortured with unbelievable torments 

and collected limitless fines. The blessed congregation 

[of Varaga] fell into their hands. They arrived, suddenly, 

secretly, at night. Everyone fled, but those they seized 

they tortured so, that we are unable to relate it.....Others 

who had fled did not dare return to the monastery for 

[the Mongols] kept coming, day and night troubling us. 

Horrified by them, in fear and trembling we spent morning 

and evening on the blessed mountain, in caves, and crevices 

of rock. But they came every day and opened all the church 

doors and small rooms and looted whatever they found... 

And we bore many other sorrows, harasaments and trials from 

all aides, in summer and winter a fugitive, and sleeping 

out in the open on the blessed mountain...For a long time 

we bore these and other troubles, and for the love of the 

holy Cross, taking refuge in It, we did not leave this 

holy congregation. [People from] the city and country 

fled hither and thither, a silent meeting-place remained; 

but we stayed firmly in place out of love for the holy 

Cross" (14CC #178 p. 138). 

Spuler writes: "On embracing Islam [the Mongols] became 

of one faith with the numerous Turks of Iran, who bad 

long been solidly Muslim; and when the two peoples thus 

ceased to be kept apart by religion, they fused into a 

new amalgam, whose everyday tongue was Turkish. At the 

beginning of the 14th century, the various Turkish tribes 

which, together with later arrivals, have formed the 

backbone of the present Turkish-speaking element in the 

population of. Pergia,. began to take definite shape. JThe 

province of Azerbaijan, which as the center of Il-Khanid 

power became the main focus of Turco-Mongol colonization, 

has remained solidly Turkish-speaking ever since, the 

Mongol speech having soon given way to the Turkish" 

(Spuler, p. 36). 

140

Among the ephemeral changes instituted during 

Ghazan's reign was fiscal reform. This was undertaken 

cm the prudent advice of Chazan's chief vizier, the 

historian Hashid al-Din, a Jewish convert to Islam. 

Eashid attempted to check some of the most egregious 

abuses of the nomadic fiscal system, characterized by 

the repeated collection under force of imprecisely 

o 

stipulated taxes; the billeting of hordes of official 

"emissaries" or elchis on local populations; and the 

wanton destruction of crop lands «. But the early 14th 

century was already late for correcting abuses now 

over a century old, especially since the reforming spirit 

did not find favorable reception among Mongol nomad 

chieftains. Moreover, one should bear in mind that 

neither of the changes occurring in ffhazan's time— Islan- 

ization as well as the beginning and end of fiscal reform 

--took place to the exclusion of those other features of 

Mongol nomadism outlined above. Far from it, religious 

persecution and economic chaos operated in addition to 

the other abuses. Thus, for example, in 1319 during the 

reign of Khuda-Banda's young son Abu Sa'id (then a boy 

On Ghazan's reforms see Spuler p. 37; SUP clip. 6 pp. 

483-537, I.P. Petru.ehevs.ky, "The Socio-Economic Condition 

of Iran under the Il-Khans", especially pp. 494-500. For 

Armenia in particularT"hAP III pp. 638-40; SEPHA pp. 

273-82. 

141

of 15), a Mongol chieftain named Qurumsjji rebelled in 

the Causasus. The Gelarkunik' area of Armenia and 

parts of southern Georgia were ravaged. The very 

next year another Mongol rebellion flared up, caused 

by a disgruntled baaqaq or tax-collector. Northern 

Armenia and eastern Georgia were devastated . Il-Khanid 

foreign policy too was on a disaster course, with the 

state's powerful neighbors,Mongols (Chaghatais, Golden 

o 

Horde) and Egyptians arming for war . Meanwhile Armenians 

and Georgians still were expected to fight in the army 

to defend the Il-Khanid state3. 

HAP III p. 641; Colophons speak of religious persecution 

in Berkri (1318) 14CC #180 p. 144, Sebastia (1320) #202 

p. 162, #284 p. 226; Lori, #310 p. 249, Sebastia again 

#316 p. 256, and Karin (1335) #333 p. 270. Erzinjjan was 

being harassed by Chobanids already in 1326/2? (SA p. 167). 

The city was beseiged again in 1334 and again in 1336 

(SA p. 168). 

2 Spuler pp. 39-40. 

See Alilan, Hayapatum. #353 p. 527 where prince K'urd II 

claims to have served militarily from 1292-1335. With 

the Islamization of the Mongols, references to Christian 

naxarars' service in the army disappear; See KG pp. 311-17, 

319-24} Mur. pp. 175-81, 183-87. 

142

Following the death of Abu Sa'id in 1335» a period 

of nine years of internecine warfare broke out among 

various nomadic elements vying for power. Between 1335 

and 1344 no less than 8 Khans were enthroned, only to 

be deposed or murdered, shortly afterwards. But the 

collapse of the fl-Khans, far from signalling freedom 

from oppressive rule for the Armenians, meant only that 

that land now became the theater of warfare for the 

various new contenders . 

During the first part of the 14th century, the first 

set of new contenders consisted of two nomadic clans, the 

Jalayirids and the Chobanids. The eponymous founders of 

both these clans had come to northwestern Iran, the Caucasus 

and Asia Minor during the 13th century. As a result of 

devastating battles fought between these clans in Armenia 

in 1338, the Chobanids emerged as temporary victors. The 

Chobanids, under the leadership of one Hasan-i Kuchak. 

reunited many parts of the fragmented Httlegtiid state 

(including Armenia) . However, their victory did not 

mean the disappearance of the rival Jalayirids. In 1340 

Hasan-i Kuchak waged war against Jalayirid holdings in 

1 SOT pp. 413-17; 14CC #339 p. 276, #347 P.281, #348 p. 

283, #350 p. 285, #379 P. 306. 

2 HAP IV (Erevan, 1972) ch . 1 pp. 15-23, L.A. Xajikyan, 

"Hayastane Cobanyanneri ev Jelairyanneri tirapetut Van 

Samanakaarpanum [ArmenTa in the Period of the Domination 

of the Chobanids and Jalayiride]11. HA? IV pp. 15-16; 

Sebastia/Sivas was starved into submission in 1339 (SA p,168). 

143

Diyarbakr. The MuS area in southwestern Armenia was 

ravaged. In 1343 $asan-i Kuchak raided parts of western 

Armenia under Jalayirid control, capturing Karin/Erzerum 

and Sebastia/Sivas . In 1344 with Sasan's murder, real 

power passed to bis brother Malik-Ashraf who ruled 13 

years with ferocious cruelty. Not only did he battle 

Jalayirids, but he turned his wrath on .the remnants of the 

once-great Armenian noble houses in Ani and Bjni in the 

north and northeast. These towns were ravaged in the 

2 

early 1350 's . The unwise and unpopular actions of the 

jJhobanids estranged a sizeable portion of the nomadic 

aristocracy. To escape Malik-Ashraf 's persecutions, 

many Mongol nobles fled westward from Iran to Armenian 

Naxijewan and to Caucasian Albania5. Flight, however, 

was not the limit of their response. Mongol nobles went 

14CC #378 pp. 304-305. 

1 

IV p. 17; Erz;ojan was beseiged and burned in 1339/40 

1341/42 (SA p. 168); 14CC ErziMan #400 p. 325. Sebastia 

#414 p. 334, Bayberd #433 p. 346, Vayoc* Jor #448 p. 369, 

Divrigi #449 P. 369. 

IV p. 18; VT pp. 169-70; According to SA p. 169 

in 1348/49 there was famine; scribes from Alt'amar report 

harassments in the early 1350's: 14CC #485 p. 405, #489 

p. 408, at ErzKjan #493 P. 411; Alt'amar: #496 p. 414. 

3 HAP IV p. 18. 

144

north to Khan Jani-3eg of the Golden Horde, beseeching 

him to invade Azarbaijan to "liberate" them. Thus in 

1357 the Caucasus once more was overrun by invasion from 

the north. Jani-Beg put an end to the Chobanids that 

year, set up a new governor, and departed . 

Now the Jalayirids became the new contenders for 

the Il-£han legacy. In 1358 Jalayirids fought the soldiers 

of Jani-Beg in Tabriz, Naxijewan and Qarabagh, expelling 

them and seizing much of the Chobanids' holdings in 

2 

Armenia and Iran . However the Jalayirid state was nothing 

but an ever-shifting network of uneasy alliances among 

nomadic bands. Centrifugal pressures split it into 

numerous parts around 1374, after which nomadic tribes 

of Mongols, Turkmans and Kurds warred against one another 

and against the sedentary Armenian population . 

From the standpoint of destructiveness, two Turkmen 

groups played a major role in Armenia in the late 14th 

century. One was the Qara Qoyunlu ("Black Sheep") Turkmens 

who had established themselves in the central and southern 

Armenian districts jn the late 13th century. Throughout the 

SAP IV pp. 19-20; Spuler pp. 40-41, 54-55; SA p. 169; 

14CC #519 P. 433. 

HAP IV p. 20. 

HAP IV p. 21; SA p. 170. 

145

14th century they raided districts in southern Armenia 

and by the mid-1380'a had extended their rule over parts 

of central Armenia . The other nomadic group was the 

Ottomans. The latter were a part of the Ghuzz tribesmen 

who had first come into Asia Minor in the llth century, but 

greatly increased with new arrivals during the 13th century. 

By the beginning of the 14th century, the Ottoman entity 

had emerged as the strongest of the many small states to 

arise on the ruins of the Sultanate of Bum. Throughout 

the 14th century the Ottomans continued to expand at 

the expense of other Turkmen principalities. Toward the 

end of the century, they controlled areas of western 

Armenia, such as Sebastia/Sivas, Erzfrjan, and Melitene/ 

Malatya2. 

The confused situation thus created in the Caucasus 

and in Asia Minor did not go unnoticed by Khan Tokhtamysh 

of the Golden Horde. In 1385, with an army of 50,000, 

he invaded Azerbaijan via Barband and Shirvan. After 

taking Tabriz, his marauding army divided into sections, 

one group going via Maraud to Naxijewan and Siwnik', which 

latter district was plundered from south to north. Khan 

Tokhtamysh1 s divided army reunited in Qaraba*£h and then 

1 SA£ IV p. 21; 1368 harassment of Christians in Mua 

14CC #590 p. 483; 1370 Ekeieao' district, #601 p. 491; 

Al-t'amar #607 p. 495; Kamax #681 p. 546. 

2 

IjAP IV pp. 30-31; Mokk' 14CC #643 p. 520; Taron #652 

P. 52S. 

146

eturned north via Shirvan. With them went 200,000 

slaves including tens of thousands of Armenians from 

the districts of Parskahayk4, Siwnik*, and Arc'ax1. 

From 1220, when the Mongols first appeared in the 

Caucasus, to 1385 when Tokhtamysh invaded, a period of 

165 years had elapsed. During this time different parts 

of Armenia had experienced no less than 12 foreign 

invasions, and the severity of Mongol rule had triggered 

three Armeno-Georgian rebellions. Mongol centrifugation 

had resulted in two major uprisings of Mongol nomads 

resident in the Caucasus itself. Moreover, with the 

collapse of the II-Khan state in the 1330/s, a condition 

of "internal war* had existed in most parts of historical 

Armenia, as mutually antagonistic bands (and armies) of 

Mongol, Turkmen and Kurdish nomads fought one another 

and the sedentary native population. Religious persecution 

and economic chaos had long since become the norm. 

Armenia now lay supine. However, a new storm was about 

to break. 

In 1386-87, 1394-96 and 1399-1403 Armenia was subjected 

to what were perhaps the most brutal invasions yet. These 

pp. 12, 98. 

IV pp. 22-23; SA p. 171; 14CC #700 pp. 559-60; 

8 

147

were led or directed by the lame warlord Timur (Tamerlane) 

and constituted the last invasions of Armenia from Central 

Asia. In his Mongols in History. J.J. Saunders wrote 

of Timur: 

...His career was a singularly barren one. 

The great Chingiz at least created an empire that 

imposed ordTr and peace and a rudimentary civilization 

on Asia for over a century: Timur's kingdom 

vanished with his life, and his imperialism was 

imbued with no purpose other than the agglomeration 

of sheer power built on the corpses of millions. 

Till the advent of Hitler, Timur stood forth in 

history as the supreme example of soulless and 

unproductive militarism, n.l. 

During the first Timurid invasion of 1386-87, Baxijewan 

was captured and the fortress of Ernjak was besieged 

(though it did not surrender until 1401). The towns and 

fortresses of Karbi, B5ni, Garni, Surmari and Koib fell, 

and the districts of Ayrarat and Lesser Siwnik' were 

devastated 2 . Tiflia was taken and sacked, and Timur — — 

had the opportunity to demonstrate his non-discriminatory 

policy vis-a-vis killing Muslims. Wherever he went, 

Christian and Muslim resistance received equal treatment: 

1 J.J. Saunders, 0£.cit., p. 59. 

2 The Continuator of Samuel of Ani has the following 

entry under 1386/87: "The Turks took the fortress of 

Orotan and the great vardapet Kaxik went.as a fugitive 

to Car... In the same year T'oxtamil, Khan of Crimea 

dispatched troops to Persia. They came and entered 

Tabriz...they destroyed and captured more than 20 x 10,000 

'men and women, then crossed via Naxijewan and Siwnik', 

and went to their own land. In the same year Lankt'amur 

148

either the registers were exterminated, or entire popul- 

ations were led off into Central Asia to live and 

die in slavery. After wintering in Mughan Azarbaijan, 

Timur's generals crossed into the Kajberunik* and Capaljur 

districts of southern and southwestern Armenia, where 

they fought unsuccessfully against the Qara Qoyunlu 

Turkmens . Some Timurid detachments reached as far north 

came to Tabriz and Naxijewan and thence in one day captured 

as far as Karbi and Bjni, to Garni, Surmarl and Koib. Thence 

he went to Georgia and made holy war (iaza arar) against 

the city of Tiflis. Capturing the king Bagrat, he made 

him convert tg Iglam (tac"kae'oye *). then he went and 

wintered in Mughan. At the onset of the next year, on 

the day of Easter, he came to Siwnik* and spread all 

about. He went after the Turkmens as far as the Amida 

river, turned back on the city of Van, and beseiged it 

for 25 days. He captured it on a Thursday...and threw 

everyone down from the fortress: 7,000 men. Then he went 

tg $he land of Samarkand. After six years, once again 

Timur came forth, descending into Baghdad where he killed 

many people and built six minarets out of heads. He 

went to Syrian Mesopotamia and killed many people there. 

Now the son of sultan Ahmad was in the fortress of Ernjak. 

The Georgians came and took it. When Timur heard this 

he was angered and came forth in great rage. He went to 

Georgia causing much ruin and harm with sword, fire, 

and captive-taking. He demolished the grandest churches 

in Tiflis and thence descended to Syria. He approached 

Jerusalem but did not enter. Then he turned back with 

mych booty and went to T'axt. The next year he went to 

Rum and took Kamax and many other places. In Sebastia 

he buried more than 2,000 people alive, thgn returned to 

nig place. The next year he returned to Rum and captured 

khan Yaltrum who had countless cavalry and troops. He 

oTspersed and captured all" (SA pp. 171-72). 14CC #709 

? P. 567-68; Armenian Hep-martyrs. Vanak bishop of B3ni 

d. 1387/88) p. 136? HEP IV pp. 24-25. 

1 

HAP IV p. 26; "The commencement of copying this gospel 

occurred in the year 1387/66 (A.E. 836) in a bitter time 

when many places were devastated because of our sins. A 

wicked Mahmetakan tyrant named Lank-T'amur arose in the 

East with countless troops and enveloped Persia as far as 

the Hum country. Coming to Armenia he demolished and 

enslaved everything and pitilessly put to the sword all 

149

as Karin/Erzerum, looting, pillaging, and talcing slaves 

as they went . In 1387 Timur beseiged the Kurdish emir 

Ezdin at Van. When he took the citadel after 26 days' 

beaeigement, the women and children were enslaved, while 

some 7,000 males of all faiths were killed by being 

9 _ - 

hurled from the walls . After Timur left Asia Minor 

in 1387, severe famine ensued, since due to the disruptions 

he had caused, crops were not planted, and now there was 

nothing to harvest . Cannibalism was reported in some 

areas . 

all the Armenians and TaSiks whom he found. Oh, who can 

relate all his eveil and the damage he occasioned in 

various places. Now...this was finished in the Kajberunik* 

country at the retreat called Manuk Surb Nlan, consecrated 

by the apostle Thaddeus, and at the foot of [the church 

of] Georg the General, during the patriarchate of Armenians 

of lord Zak'aria, when the country was controlled by 

lara-Iwsiwf (Qara Yusuf), a wicked, bitter, loathsome 

wrecker of the land...May God not cause us to witness 

again what we have seen" (14CC #710 p. 569). 

1 14CC #711 p. 570. 

2 SA p. 171; 14CC #717 p. 573, #735 p. 590; 15CC A. pp. 

286-87, 277-78; TM p. 30. 

3 HAP IV p. 27. 

4 M P. 32. 

150

The country hardly had recovered from this when, 

in 1394, Timur returned. Entering western Armenia from 

northern Mesopotamia, he took Erzi>jan, parts of Basen 

district and Awnik fortress; Kars, Surmari Kolb, Bagaran 

and Ayrarat were ravaged; and the Qara Qoyunlu Turkmen 

areas, centered at ArSes, north of Lake Van, were 

T « «* 

attacked . At this point Timur turned upon Khan Tokhtamysh 

of the Golden Horde who had been raiding Shirvan. The 

Timurids defeated Tokhtamysh and sacked his principal 

_ 2 

cities, Astrakhan and Sarai . 

Timur appointed Miran, his half-mad son, as governor 

of Iran, Iraq, Armenia and other parts of the Caucasus. 

In 1396 Miran continued operations against Ernjak in 

the south and expanded warfare against the Kurdish emir 

of Bltlis . In 1397 southern Vaspurakan was ravaged and 

Ani in the north fell . Strangely, all powers of resistance 

had not been completely broken by the Timurids. In 1399 

king Georgi VII of Georgia attacked the Timurid beseigers 

of Ernjak fortress, temporarily freeing those inside 

from the 13 year seige . 

1 HAP IV p. 28; 14CC #756 p. 607, #762 p. 611, #765 p. 613, 

#772 p. 618. 

2 Spuler p. 67. 

3 HAP IV p. 29. 

4 14CC #778 p. 621. 

5 HAP IV p. 29 n. 43; Allen p. 124; 14CC #784 p. 629. 

151

But when Timur learned about the retaking of Ern}ak, 

he left Samarkand and headed for the Caucasus. In revenge 

he attacked northeastern Armenia and southern Georgia, 

killing, destroying, and taking slaves. More than 60,000 

Caucasians were led into slavery this time (in 1400), and 

many districts of northern Armenia were depopulated . 

Subsequently,Timur headed for western Armenia where he took 

Sebastia/Sivaa and Melitene/Malatya from his arch-enemies, 

o 

the Ottomans . After conquering Aleppo, Damascus, Merdin, 

and Baghdad, Timur decisively beat and captured the Ottoman 

sultan, Bayazld I in 1402. The next year Georgia was 

invaded again and its king finally submitted to Timur. 

During 1403-1404 Timur wintered in Qarabagh before return- 

ing to Saraqand . He died there in 140$ at the age of 

70, having left a trail of blood and pyramids of decapitated 

heads across Asia and the Middle East. 

1 HAP IV p. 30. 

2 HAP IV p. 31. 

3 HAP IV pp. 31-32. 

159L

Although the focus of this chapter has been on 

the invasions of the 13-14th centuries, the survey 

commenced with the Saljuq invasions of the llth century 

and with the remark that they were a sort of "dress rehersal* 

for the later invasions. In what ways were the invasions 

qualitatively similar and dissimilar vis-a-vis treatment 

of the Armenians? All of the invasions fron the llth 

through to the 14th centuries contained a Turkmen element 

which at times was "controllable" by the leaders of the 

invasions, but at times uncontrollable. This element 

worked to the detriment of settled societies (such as 

Armenia's) and to later Turco-Mongol governments as well. 

The Saljuq invasions and conquest of Armenia occurred 

over a period of 50 years (ca. 1020-70). The initial 

Mongol invasions and conquest occurred over a shorter 

period, 1236-60. Both the Saljuq invasions and the 

13th century Mongol invasions were facilitated by a 

weakened Armenia. In the llth century, Armenia had been 

weakened by the policies of Byzantium. In the 13th century, 

the five year rule of Jalal al-Din destroyed the Caucasian 

potential for resisting the Mongols. The Turco-i-fongol 

invasions of the 14th century also encountered an Armenia 

weakened and exhausted—this time by the experience of 

Mongol domination. 

153

Consequences of the Mongol domination regarding the 

Armenian lords are described in the following chapter. 

After the Saljuq invasions, those Armenian lords remaining 

in their patrimonies made accommodation with the new over- 

lords and a process of "Armenlzation" or "naxararization" 

of the Saljuq nobility took place. This was possible 

primarily because from the late llth until the 13th century 

no major comparable invasions or disruptions occurred. 

Furthermore, as was noted, the Saljuq domination was not 

uniform across the Armenian highlands. After merely forty 

years, the Saljuq empire was in pieces. Already in the early 

12th century, thanks to Georgia, an Armenian center existed 

in the northeastern part of the highlands. By the 13th 

century many districts of historical northeastern, central 

and even southern Armenia were under Armenian political control 

again. Such was not the case from ca. 1221 to 1403 when 

the Armenian highlands were subjected to frequent invasions, 

having as it were, no time to recover from one before the next 

was in progress. 

The Mongol domination lasted longer than the Saljuqid 

and incorporated Armenia into an empire more firmly. For 

almost 100 years (1240-1330) Armenia experienced Mongol rule 

and misrule. Nor was there a protector for Armenia. If in 

the ll-12th centuries Georgia was the deliverer and source 

of strength against Islam, in the 13th century the Armenians 

looked to the "Christian" Mongols—to the invaders themselves 

—for protection. With the Islamization of the Mongols, any 

154

hope for protection, or even for equal, just treatment 

disappeared. 

Finally, unlike the Iranizing Saljuqs of Asia Minor 

who created an era of economic prosperity in the 12th-early 

13th centuries, the Mongols commenced their domination 

by looting many of the Armenian cities. Subsequently 

they literally taxed the life out of the various societies 

under their control—seemingly unaware of the ultimate 

consequences for themselves, as well as for the subjugated 

population. 

155

CHAPTER THREE 

ARMENIA'S LORDS AND THEIR REACTIONS TO THE 

TURCO-MONGOL INVASIONS AND DOMINATION OF 

THE 13-14TH CENTURIES 

This part of the study examines several aspects 

of the history of the lords or naxarars of Armenia 

in the 13-14th centuries: (1) who were the naxarars 

on the eve of the 13th century invasions (during the 

so-called Zak'arid revival) and where were their lands; 

(2) how did the naxarars react to the Turco-Hongol 

invasions/migrations of the 13th century; (3) how did 

the Mongols (both before and after Islamization) attempt 

to control the naxarars; and finally, (4) what were the 

reactions of the naxarars to Mongol policies? 

Considerable debate exists among Armeniats regarding 

many aspects of the history of Armenia's nobility. The 

derivation and thus the literal meaning of the term 

naxarar itself is debated . The genesis of the naxarars 

too has been depicted differently by the foremost invest- 

igators of the institution or phenomenon of naxararism, 

by Nicholas Adontz, Hagop Manandyan, and Cyril 

On the various derivations see Adontz, Armenia in the 

Period of Justinian, published originally in Russian in 

1908, translated into English with extensive editorial 

remarks and notes by N.O. Garaoian (Lisbon, 1970) p.514 

n. 44; also Anahit Perixanyan's "Drevnearmianskie vostaniki 

[The oatanik's in Ancient Armenia]". VPI jST 

PP. 49-50. 

156

Toumanoff . Host important, the essence of the tern, 

its real rather than literal meaning has been perceived 

p 

and described differently by these scholars . Adontz, 

Nicholas Adontz placed the disintegration of clan 

relationships in the time of political unrest in Armenia 

under Zariadris and Artaxias (second century B.C.), and 

the completion of this process during the reign of 

Tigran the Great (first century B.C.) at which time 

the greatest naxarar families, in his view, already had 

emerged (Adontz, pp. 307, 310, 315). Manandyan challenged 

this, suggesting that "a significant break in clan 

relationships and the growth in power and authority of 

clan leaders and chiefs had already occurred in this 

ancient [Urartian] period" (Manandyan, Trade. also 

Feudalism, pp. 250-51). It is Important to observe 

(see note 2 below) that Manandyan was looking for the 

"emergence of feudalistic features" in Armenian society, 

automatically equating this with naxararism or "naxarar 

customs"—which to my knowledge he nowhere defines. 

Toumanoff places the appearance of dynasts before the 

creation of the Urartian state, styling them the "immemorial 

dynasts", Studies, pp. 50-52, 69, 74, 79, 136, and 

note 2 below. 

Adontz, pp. 303-26 viewed the naxarars as descendants 

of tribal chieftains of different ethnic backgrounds 

who held power by right of birth. Manandyan (to the extent 

that it was and is possible given the scanty information 

available) focussed on the class position of the naxarars 

relative to the other classes in Armenian society!He, 

as many Soviet scholars, was eager to associate the 

naxarar "system" with Western European feudalism (See 

Manandyan,, Trade, pp. 70-72; Feudalism, pp. 42-89; 

also B. Harut rut"yur yunyah's " article"geod-in " 

ey beneficium-in 

hamaoataaxanol ji terminnera hay hayFe mifaadarvan __________ grakanut *yan 

ne3 [Terms Corresponding to ?eod and Beneficium in 

ledieval Armenian Literature!", PVIraber #12 tl2 U958) C1958) Jpp. 

87— 

95, and the remarks of Sukiasian in the forward to his 

study on early "feudalism" in Armenia, Sukiasian pp. 15-27). 

Toumanoff, in his classic Studies in Christian Caucasian 

"' »tor%(Georgetown, 1963) has reexamined the entire history 

of the Armenian highlands from Urartian times to the Bagratid 

period. Toumanoff considerably elaborated and 

took in new directions Adontz1 recognition that the 

Armenian social system had a double aspect: one "feudal" 

and one dynastic (Studies, pp. 34-144,154,188). According 

to the author, the dynastic element pre-dated statehood 

(be it Urartian statehood, Arsacid or other) and consequently 

157

Manandyan and Toumanoff likewise disagreed on the duration 

of the naxarar "system". Adontz wrote: 

The naxarar system existed in Armenia from 

antiquity until the Mongol invasions. Like any 

institution developing in accordance with conditions 

of place and time, the naxarar system often changed 

in character and passed through several phases. 1. 

Manandyan hypothesized that the participation of the 

naxarars in the Mongols' many campaigns and the heavy 

taxes of the period combined to initiate the system's 

2 

collapse . The final liquidation of the system in his 

view came after the mid-fourteenth century, when Armenia 

became a battleground for numerous nomadic Turkic groups, 

though Manandyan noted certain "survivals" of "naxarar 

customs" in the inaccessible mountain regions of Eastern 

Armenia and Qarabagh . Toumanoff wrote: 

This social structure perished with the brutal 

Byzantine and Seljuq destruction of the Armenian 

polity in the eleventh century. Some vestiges of 

it, however, survived the catastrophe, both in 

Armenia and, through emigration, elsewhere. 4. 

regarded itself as equal to the monarch. One should 

consult the notes and appendices to Adontz provided 

by N.Garsoian, also the same author's recent "Prolegomena 

to a Study of the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia*.HA 

(1976) PP. 177-234, and also R. Hewsen's important 

tripartite study on the Melike of Eastern Armenia(see 

Bibliography) on which see the conclusions of this study. 

1 Adontz, p. 183. 

2 Manandyan, Feudalism, pp. 255-56. 

3 Ibid. p. 256. 

Studies, p. I44n. 262. 

158

It is not .our purpose here (and in any ease it is 

beyond our present competence) to write the complex and 

often-changing history of Armenia's nobility from pre-- 

Christian times to the 14th century. However, to place 

in sharper focus what is to be understood by the term 

naxarar in the 13-14th centuries, we shall contrast 

briefly the classical Arsacid (4-5th century) naxarar 

with his Zak'arid successor. 

The socio-economic essence underlying the concept 

of the term naxarar underwent numerous changes from the 

5th through the 13th centuries. The naxarar of the 

Zak'arid restoration differed fundamentally from the 

Arsacid lord. The Arsacid naxarar was the ancestral 

lord of clan domains which he did not personally own, 

and therefore could not alienate by sale or other means. 

If the truly great naxarar associated with the Armenian 

monarch, it was on terms of equality. As they never 

allowed their "natural lords" to forget, some of the 

grand naxarara descended from clans as old as, or older 

than, the Arsacids. For this reason, when naxarars 

accepted positions at the Arsacid Court, the act was 

usually a recognition on the king's part of the naxarar's 

right by birth and position to the office. The naxarar- 

doms tended to be self-sufficient economies, and trade 

in that period was of an international transit type 

through naxarar domains, of importance to the naxarars 

only due to the toll and customs revenue they could derive 

159

from it. Their principal wealth was land, and the labor 

of dependent peasants living on that land . 

Quite different were the lords of the Zak'arid 

revival. The nobility of the early 13th century consisted 

of different elements. One substantial group included 

men of ambition and military talents from newly-arisen 

families, who were rewarded by their Zak'arid overlords 

with grants of land and/or the rights of administration 

(see below). Before and after receiving lands and 

villages, this category of 13th century lord derived 

much wealth from booty taken during military campaigns. 

Another element is referred to in the sources from the 

12th century as mecatun. which means literally "of a 

great House". In fact, these were men of great financial 

wealth, who formed the upper class in tfce many Armenian 

cities which had recuperated from the Saljuq dislocations. 

These men too lacked antique pedigrees, and did not 

belong to the old naxarar families. Their wealth had been 

gained through trading and money-lending and, in contra- 

distinction to the Arsacid lords who did not engage in 

trade, a substantial part of the mecatuns' assets were in 

cash. However, these merchants reinvested their 

capital in land, buying not only entire estates, but 

p 

also shares of establishments (such as mills) . An 

1 See Adontz, Armenia pp. 289-371, and Toumanoff, Studies. 

pp. 33-144. 

2 HAP ch. 34, B.H.Afak'elyan, "Mecatunneri k'alak'ajin 

yernaxayi jevavoruma[Formation of the Mecatun Urban Upper 

Stratum]« pp. 585-94. 

160

inscription (1215) of one meeatun. Tigran, from the 

historically unknown family Honenc', on the wall of 

the church of St. Gregory in Ani, indicates the far-flung 

and multi-faceted nature of meeatun wealth . Prom 

the inscription of another meoatun. we learn that ca. 

1242 a certain Umek purchased the church of Getik for 

"40,000 red [gold] ducats",a currency which clearly 

indicates that such merchants as Umek were participating 

in the lucrative international trade with Italian city- 

states2. 

The nobility of the Zak'arid period included 

descendants of the ancient dynastic families: Hamlkonids, 

Bagratids, Arcrunids, Orbeleans, and others. In my 

opinion, by the 13th century these groups are probably 

best considered extended families rather than clans 

in the Arsacid sense. Nonetheless, dynasties as hoary 

as these (some of which by then were more than 13*centuries 

in duration) had a strong consciousness of their own 

past, which they knew from the ancient histories. Most 

likely these names commanded rather profound emotions 

among the Armenians, and their bearers probably possessed 

a certain status for sentimental reasons alone,not 

held by other segments of the nobility. Probable too 

is the existence within such families of certain ceremonies 

1 VT pp. 58-59; Manandyan, Trade, pp-. 185-86. 

2 Manandyan, pp. 186-87. 

161

ituals and regalia—especially within some of the 

Siwnlk' and Xa$en dynasties—unshared by the merchants 

or Zak'arid warriors. Yet another segment of the 

Zak'arid nobility was composed of prominent clerics, 

representatives of various families, administering 

their family holdings as religious foundations (see 

below). 

Nicholas Marr was of the opinion that In the 

immediately pre-Uongol and early Mongol periods the 

transfer of princely and noble estates into the hands 

of merchant-capitalists was taking place . This is 

probably true. However, the tendency for urban merchants 

to invest in land, and the probably concomitant tendency 

for the landed naxarars to diversify into trade makes 

any drawing of lines impossible. Indeed, the new 

meaning of the term hayrenik' in this period reflects 

the same confusion. In the 5th and subsequent centuries 

hayrenik * referred to a lord's ancestral patrimony. It 

consisted of lands. But in the «rly 13th century, 

hayrenik * referred to both moveable and immoveable prop- 

erty, hereditary or purchased, and included money and 

2 

shares in business enterprises as well . Thus at the 

opening of the 13th century, the term aaxarar had something 

of a catchall sense, exactly as the term meIlk did, two 

centuries later . 

Manandyan, Trade, p. 186. 

pp. 554-55. 

of 

Armenia(l)", figA. 11(1972) 

162

Unlike the territorial units of Arsacid Armenia 

studied by Adontz, which in some cases had been the 

possessions of different ethnic groups from time immemorial, 

the naxarardoms of the late 12th and 13th centuries were 

in many—though not all—cases the creations of the 

Zak'arid brothers, Zak'are and Iwane. The men chosen 

by the Zak'arids to administer and rule parts of northern 

and northeastern Armenia were not the elderly nahapets 

or the descendants of anciai tribal chieftains of 

Arsacid times who occupied office by right as much as 

by appointaent. Rather, they were successful military 

commanders who had served under Zak'are and Zwane in the 

reclamation of Armenia from the Saljuqs. Many were men 

of ambition and action, lacking illustrious pedigrees. 

Frequently they were given charge of lands they themselves 

captured; often they were attached to the Zak'arids 

through marriage ties, as is illustrated below, 

t 

The properties under the overall jurisdiction of 

amirspaaalar Zak'are and later of his son SahnSah were 

located in the northwestern parts of the reconquered 

lands: Lori, Ani, Aragacotn, Bagrewand, Calkotn, Kogovit, 

Surmari, lands from the Yirahayoc' mountains to the southern 

border of Calkotn, from Bolorpahakic' to Erewan. Ani 

was the center of this realm. Subject to Zak'are's 

house were both newly-created families (such as the 

Vaguteans) and old naxarar families (such as the Pahlawunids, 

163

Arcrunlda, Mamikonids and others) . The first of these 

families was founded by one Va$e, a loyal follower of 

Zak'are but of an unknown background, who was given 

by his lord all the districts of Aragaeotn, Sirak, Nig 

2 

and Anberd as far as Erasxajor. He waa made prince of 

% 

princes of Zak'are's realm. Ihe Pahlawunids, ruling 

around Manualea, Bagnayr and Lmbat, had acquired hered- 

itary control over the office of bishop of *nl and Sirak, 

and occasionally were mayors of Ani . Ihe Arcrunids, 

who ruled the fortresses of Mahkanaberd and its 

environs north of Lake Sewan, were connected to the 

Zak'arlda by marriage ties . Ihe Mamikonids held two 

small areas, one by Dsel, the other south of Garni, 

around Ureajor . 

HAP chp. 32, I.H.Babayan, "Zak'aryannerin ent'aka 

feodalakan tnera [Feudal Houses Subject to theZajcarida]" 

P. 547. 

ibid. 

ibid, p. 548, also Appendix A. 

4 See below p. and also Appendix A. 

5 On the Mamikonids: H. Kurdian, "Mamikoneanneri 

cula [The Dsel Branch of the Mamikoneans3".Bazmavep (1956) 

PP. 155-62, 246-51} also A.Sahinyan, •Mamikpnyan-Hamazaspyan 

tohma Hayastanun III-XIII darerum [The Mamikonean-Hamazaapean 

danof Northern Armenia in the XII-XIII Centuries]" 

Lraber #3 (1968) pp. 84-93. 

164

165 

Under the jurisdiction of atabek Iwane Zak'arean and later of 

his son Awag were the eastern areas: Bjfni, Gelark'unik', 

Vayoc* Jor, most of Arc'ax, Siwnik', Naxijewan, Dwln, 

and Erewan. The center of this realm was first Dwin 

and later Bjni. Subject to Iwane's house were the 

Orbeleans, laibakeans, Dop'eans and others . The 

Orbeleans, who originally had been the Zak'arids' over- 

lords in Georgia were, in the changed situation of 

the late 12th end 13th centuries their subordinates in 

Armenia. Around 1184 atabek Iwane Zak'arean under 

authorization from the Georgian Crown granted to the 

successful general Liparit Orbelean lands in eastern 

2 I 

Vayoc' Jor, Kotayk', Gelark'unik' and Kayean . Liparit 

married the daughter of the prince of princes of Siwnik' J •j 

and became the founder of the Siwnik* Orbelean line*. 

Another of Iwane's subordinates was Vasak Xalbakean, j 

originally from the Xa$en area, who had helped In the 

reconquest of Vayoc' Jor, Bjnl, and Dwin. As a reward 

he was given lands in western Vaoyc* Jor, Sahapunik', 

Varainunik" and parts of Kotayk' and Ayrarat. This | 

family came to be known as ProScan after Vasak's energetic 

HAP p. 5*8. 

SO pp. 142-43. 

SO p. 144. On the Orbeleans see also R.Hewsen,*The 

MelikB" SEA #XI (1975/76 pp. 220-24.

son, Pros (1223-84)1. Another small branch of the 

Zak'arlds descended from Zak'are'a and Iwane's first 

cousin (father's brother's son) also named Zak'are, 

ruled lands in Tawus, P'arisos and Gardman. The center 

of its realm was Gag fortress. This line became known 

as Tahramean after Zak'are Gageli's son, Vahraa of 

Gag2. 

A number of new and old naxarar families became 

associated with the Zak'arlds through marriage alliances 

with three of Zak'are'a and Iwane's sisters. Their sister 

Vaneni was married to Abas II Klwrikean of Macnaberd*; 

Dop'i married Hasan, prince of the old naxarardom of 

Arc'ax in eastern Armenia, receiving as dowry a large 

area on the southern shore of Lake Sewan and Sot'k' dis- 

trict in Siwnik*. Her descendants are known as the 

Dop'eank . Zoriiah Zak'arean, another sister, was 

G. Yovsep'ean, laibakeank * kam Proeeank * (Antelias, 

1969. repr. of 1928 ed. with additional collected 

articles) pp. 10, 14. Hereafter, X. On the Xaibakids, also 

H. Hewsen, "The Meliks"(III), g£A 11(1975/76) pp. 225-26. 

2 HAP cto . 32, I.H. Babayan, "Zak'aryan erek* isymut'yunneri 

kazmayoruma [The Formation of the Three Zak'arid 

Princedoms.]" p. 541. 

3 On the Klwrikeans: t.Movaesean, "Histoire dee rols 

Kurikian de Lori", F.Maclcr, trans. ££A(1927) PP. 253-55, 

266. 

4 On the Dop'eans: G.E. Kirakoeyan, "Matenagitakan teiekut'yunner 

Dog'yanneri masinCBjbliographical Information on 

the Dop'Tean8jH PBH #1 (1969) PP. 217-26; also R. Hewsen, 

"The Meliks"(JlTÊA X (1973/74) pp. 289-90. 

.166

married to Vaxt'ang lord of lagen district. The family 

was named after Hasan tfalal, the issue of this union. 

The Hasan Jalaleans ruled southern Xajen . 

Zn the early 13th century the Zak'arids had influence 

la southern Armenia too, though how much and how deeply 

it was felt cannot be ascertained clearly. As a result 

of his carelessness on a campaign against Xlat* in 1209/10, 

atabek Iwane was captured by the Muslim lord of that 

city. Among the terms stipulated for Iwane'a release was 

the hand of hia daughter T'amt'a, T'amt'a was married 

to Melik Asbraf of Xlat', and became the real ruler of 

parts of the Shah-Armen state during periods of dislocation, 

from 1212 to 12312. Another Armenian "state" existed 

in the Van area, centered mostly at Alt'amar, but probably 

possessing property in the numerous Armenian cities under 

its spiritual jurisdiction, i.e.., in the cities surrounding 

Lake Van: Berkri, ArSes, Arcke, Xlat', Hizan, etc. This 

was the religô-political entity known as the kat'oîkoaate 

(or anti-kat'ojfcikogate) of Alt'amar, a creation of the 

Arcrunids . This surrogate state existed in addition to 

l.A.Orbeli. b/'Asan Dzhalal kniaz' Khachenskii[Hasan Jalal, 

Prince of Xapen] . _ Izvestiia rzvestiia Imp.AN(St.Petersburg, .. . . 

1909); also 

H.Hewsen, "The Melika"(II) pp. 288-89. 

See ch. 2 P. 

When in 1021 king Senek'erim Arcruni of Vaapurakan 

exchanged his lands for lands in Byzantine Cappadocia,"he 

167

an Arorunid-Mamlkonid mountain nararardom in Saaun, to the 

west. Furthermore, the brothers Zak'are and Iwane (and 

also T'amt'a) were themselves of Arcrunid background. 

Their mother was Sahakduxt, daughter of Sadun I Arcruni/ 

Mahkanaberdeli . The existence of such families, whose 

properties and political-spiritual-financial jurisdiction 

embraced large parts of the Armenian highlands on the 

one hand must have presented unique opportunities for 

trade and more intimate ties. On the other hand, it 

provided unlimited opportunities for intra-family and 

2 

inter-family conflicts . 

did not give [emperor] Basil the monasteries, so that they 

would remain free and pray for Senek'erlm and his son. 

There were 115, or some say 900 monasteries"(SA p. 104). 

An Arcrunid counter-kat'o^lkoaate was established at 

Alt'amar in the early 12th century, and existed until the 

20th century, much to the chagrin of Sis and Ejmiacin, 

X p. 7. 

See Appendices A and B. 

168

The Kaxarars and the Invasions of the Early 13th Century 

Of the various Turco-Mongol invasions occurring in 

the 1220's and 1230's, the moat destructive were those 

undertaken by Jalal al-Din HangublrdI of Khwaraza and 

by the Mongols. How did the naxarars react to them, and 

how did the new conquerors of Armenia deal with the 

naxarars? According to Kirakos Ganjakcc'i, Step'annos 

Orbelean and the History of K'art'li. the Armeno-Georgian 

army commanded by atabek Iwane outnumbered Jalal al-Din's 

forcee But naxarar squabbles and jealousies appear to 

have been an important cause of defeat. Some sources 

politely and piously speak of divine intervention which 

managed to change the shouted command "charge" into "flee" . 

In fact, because of enmity between the atabek Iwane and hie 

relations Iwane and Salva (Vahram Gageli's first cousin), the 

atabek Iwane refused to participate or to allow those 

troops under him to fight. Other detachments under lesser 

commanders fled or fought chaotically . Following their 

desertion, the prominent naxarars withdrew to the security 

of their inaccessible fortresses . 

SO p. 145. 

See ch . 2 pp. 81-82 n. 2. 

. 180; Mur. p. 68: "...Now the mandat*urt'-uxuc*ea 

Tao were all fortified into their keeps, each of them loyal 

to Rusudan'a rule, but due to their preoccupation, they 

v.were unable to participate in the ceremony for king David". 

169

Jalal al-Dln's destructive actiYities in Armenia 

and Georgia hardly can be considered a strategy to win 

popular support. Jalal himself was a desperate fugitive 

from the Mongols. He did, however, entertain hopes of 

creating a state in his conquered areas, and, as Kirakos 

noted, he did establish an administration of sorts in 

Ganjak . In those areas where Muslin enclaves lived 

surrounded by Christian majorities—Tiflls, for example- 

lie was able to rely on Muslims as a base of support. 

Kirakos and the History a£ £'a£t'ii both etate that Jalal 

was able to capture Tiflie with the complicity of resident 

Persians who opened the city gates and regarded him as 

o 

their liberator . However areas ruled by Muslims regarded 

him and his uncontrollable Turkmen warriors as a danger, 

and allied to fight him . Jalal al-Din was not unaware of 

the Caucasian nobility. According to Kirakos, when he 

captured Hat' on the northeastern shore of Lake Tan, he 

married that city's figurehead ruler, Iwane's daughter 

T'amt'a Zak'arean4.According to the Hiatory a& K-'art'll. 

Jtlftl •Is* Hoped to marry the queen of Georgia, Susudan, 

and even urged Awag to serve as match-maker,but Susudan 

KG pp. 226-27. 

KG p. 226; KG pp. 175-77; Mur. pp. 64-65. 

KC p. 182; Mur. pp. 69-70. 

KG p. 228. 

'170

was unwilling . 

The Armenian and Georgian sources tend to combine 

Into one account events from the first and second Mongol 

invasions, of 1220/21 and of 1236. Naxarar reaction 

seemingly was quite similar on both occasions, and almost 

identical with the reaction to Jalal al-Din. Some of 

the Armeno-Georgian forces fought, while others deserted 

and took refuge in their strongholds. Dissension and 

rivalries among the resisting troops are reported by 

o 

the sources . Despite the numerical superiority of the 

Armeno-Georgian army, the Mongols were disciplined fighters. 

Their adversaries were not. 

1 KC pp. 173-74; Mur. pp. 63-64. 

2 GA pp. 292,294: "...When, the aews of the coming of the 

Tat'ars was learned, Iwane took the cavalry of the Georgian 

kingdom and came to Gag, to the grgat and wise prince 

Varham [Gageli], son of Flu Zak'are. Taking him with his 

own army, he went against the Tat'ars. The mighjy and 

great prince Varham took the right wing and Iwane the left 

...When the battle was joined, through the influence of 

Satan, the enemy of Truth, Hamidawla, the lord of Hanasa 

stable, becau.se of some grudge, hamstrung the horse of 

At'abak Iwane. When the Nation of the Archers saw such 

oiesension amongst them, they grew stronger and attacked 

the Georgian cavalry, mercilessly killing them". 

171

Whatever the true sequence of events, by 1236, when 

the Mongols attacked the Caucasus a second tine, bringing 

along sophisticated Chinese sie.ge machinery , the 

Caucasian nobles had no intention of joint military resist- 

ance. Klrakos wrote; 

...And since [the nobles] were unable to 

withstand that great blizzard [of Mongols] which 

had come, they all betook themselves to fortresses 

wherever they were able. The Mongols spread 

throughout the plains, mountains, and valleys 

like a multitude of locusts or like torrential 

rains pouring down on the land. 2. 

The queen of Georgia and Vahram of Gag fled to northwestern 

Georgia; Sahnlah fled to ASaria; and Awag secured himself 

into fort Kayean . Not only did the naxarars not fight, 

KG pp. 236, 241, 250. 

KG pp. 238-39: "Ew $8 ein karoi zden une." _______ rekeloy. 

vaa_n avao^Tk a^-|papaji eten anenek'ean,* gayt'aj^^fflM' 

kajn i,Drew zan.lrew yordut 'eamb teteal 1 veray erkri?. —— 

KC p. 187? Mur. p. 73. 

1T2

ut at least in one instance, the population of a city 

(Sarnie "or) belonging to Vahram of Sag, was forbidden to 

resist, by Yahram himself . 

KG p.241-2:"One of the nobles, named Molar noyin. whose 

lot had fallen over those regions, while they moved from 

their abode in the Mughan plain, sent a small force of 

about 100 men who came and encamped by the city of Samk'or, 

and blocked the entrance to and exit from it". This 

city belonged to Vahram and his son Albuia who had taken 

it from the Persians. When the residents sent to Vahram 

for protection the latter refused and forbade them to 

resist. "The foreigners' army increased daily untij. their 

commander Molar arrived and fought against the city. He 

filled the trench which surrounded the city walls with 

wood and stalks, so that they might easily climb onto 

the walls. But the people threw fire down at night 

and burned the filler. Now in the morning when Molay noyin 

saw that, he ordered each of his soldiers to bring a load 

of soil and to throw it into the trench. When this was 

done the area became level with the walls. 

•Then each soldier applied himself to that part of the 

city directly In front of him. And they took it, killed 

all the inhabitants, burned the buildings and took whatever 

they found there.. They then fell upon other fortresses 

under Vahram1s sway: Terunakan, Ergevank Macnaberd (which 

belong to Eiwrike Bagratunl, Alaartan's son), Gardman, 

and other regions [such as] $arenk*. And another chief 

named latalan noyin went to Getabak. H^w Vahram who was 

then in Gardman, secretly fled at night to wherever he 

was able. Meanwhile the army of foreigners battled with 

the foretreeses. Those inside them unwillingly provided 

the Mongols with horses, livestock and whatever else they 

demanded. The Mongols placed taxes over them and left 

them... 

"But those who took Samk'or had come with all their 

baggage to Tamil, Kacaret', Norberd, Gag and the surrounding 

areas. Placing these regions in great straits, they 

beseiged them" (KG p. 242). See also KC pp. 186-87; Mur. 

PP. 72-73. 

173

174 

The common danger posed by the Mongols proved insufficient 

to unite the naxarars. The History of K'art'li describes 

the situation obtaining in Christian Caucasia on the eve 

of the princes' surrender: 

When the country was subjected to such 

bitterness and wicked acts, the powerful erist'avs 

of erist'avs and the veziers rose up against each" 

other and became each other's murderers. For 

queen Rusudan was entirely settled en the far 

side of the Lixt mountains and was unable to cross 

to this side of Lixt; nor were the veziers on 

this side able to go to her, having no chance. 

They became wanderers. So they were disunited and 

imprudent. Thus Georgia's powerful and renowned 

ones became unable to fight the Tatars to save 

themselves. 1. 

When the naxarars realized the futility of resistance 

they began surrendering. The Mongols richly rewarded 

those submitting—an inducement to the hesitant—while 

simultaneously devastating the lands of recalcitrant lords. 

They demanded taxes, appointed guards for key areas, 

demolished the walls encircling fortresses which they 

2 

considered potential bases of local resistance , and 

required the naxarars and their troops to participate 

in the subjugation of other areas. Frequently they obliged 

the Caucasians to fight as advance-attackers, to prevent 

their desertion . 

1 KG pp. 188-89; Mur. p. 74. 

2 KG pp. 237, 241, 313? GA p. 297. 

3 The Armenian and Georgian princes' submission to the

Mongols is recounted variously by the different sources. 

KG's account begins in chp. 26, "Concerning Prince Awag's 

Pall into the Hands of the Tatars". Awag, at the time 

was holed up in Kayean fortress where he, and many inhabitants 

of the district had sought refuge. "The land 

filled with the troops of foreigners...They settled 

around all sides of the wall at the base of the fortress 

and sent messages to Awag to come out to them obediently 

in service and not to be afraid. Many times they sent 

to him saying the same thing. Now Awag, desiring to win 

their approval, gave over to the Tatars his daughter 

and many goods, so that perhaps they would lift the seige. 

But they took his gifts and still more Insistently demanded 

his presence". The beseiged suffered from thirst. "So 

they gave over to the Tatars their horses and all their 

livestock, so that they allow some of them to go and bring 

water for their animals. Undertaking their plan in a body 

of many men, they went to the water source there. The 

Tatars blocked their path to the water. They killed no 

one, but told them to lower down their families and to 

live among them. Unwillingly and in grief, they brought 

down their families. They drank water and were kept among 

the Tatars. The Tatars took the women they wanted and 

killed their men, leaving others without their husbands. 

"As soon as Awag saw that the Tatars did not let off 

besieging or destroying them, he wished to surrender so 

that perhaps things would be lighter for the people. So 

he sent Grlgor called Tlay ['lad'] with flatteries. He 

was one of the Xa$en azats. the superintendent of Awag's 

home. [Grigor] was sent in advance of Awag, to go and 

meet with their leader Chormaghun who had pitched his tent 

by the shores of lake GeTark'unik' [Sewan], When the 

great noyin Chormaghun heard this, he was delighted and 

sent immediaTely to Itulata, who was besieging Kayean, 

to speedily come to him and no longer harry the inhabitants 

of the fortress and district. Itulata took Awag and quickly 

came to Chormaghun. When Chormaghun saw the prince, he 

said to him: 'Are you Awag'? The prince replied: 'I am 

he1. The great commander then asked: 'Why did you not 

come quickly to me when I entered the boundaries of your 

land'? The prince responded: 'While you were far away, 

and my father was living, he served you with many gifts 

(pataragok*). As soon as my father died, I served you 

according to my capability. And now that you have come to 

my land, lo, I have come before you. Do with me what you 

will*. [To my knowledge no explanation has as yet been 

offered for this curious passage-RB]...CChormaghun] 

further ordered all of his troops not toTight with the 

fortresses and cities under Awag's domination. And great 

ease came about in his land and many captives among the 

azats were freed because of him. And Chormaghun gave him 

all of his land and more besides and established unbreakable 

friendship with him. Taking Awag and all his troops, 

Chormaghun marched against the city of Ani" (KG pp. 255-57). 

175

Awag then visited the Khan in Qara Qorun. "When he came 

back to his land and tEe commanders implemented the orders 

of their king, the following meg came to the Tatars in 

service: 5ahnsah, son of Zak'are; prince Tahram and his 

son Albuia; Hasan called tfalal, prince of the la?en area, 

and many others. The Tatars gave to each one control 

over his lands and for the time being,*a pardon"(EG p. 263). 

In oh' . 30, Kirakos describes the conquest of Xa$en, 

where many people fled to the inaccessible fortress called 

Hawaxalac ("Perch"). This fortress was taken and its 

people killed. The Mongols also went againsj prince _ 

Hasan Cfalal, the son of the sister of Zak'are and I wane, 

who holed up with the population under him in the fortress 

"which is called Xoxanaberd in Persian. When the Tatars' 

arrived to seize the fortress, they saw that it was not 

possible to take it. So they called Jalal to them, amicably. 

And he wisely pleased them. Later, he himself went to 

them with many presents. The Tatars honored him and gave 

him back his land and other lands besides, and ordered 

him to come to them each year for war service, and 

ingenuously to be obedient to them" (KG p. 269). 

According to VA, following the taking of Samk or by the 

Mongols, Vahram of Gag and his son Albuia fled from place 

to place "until they learned that the Tatars spared those 

people who voluntarily subordinated themselves to them. 

Then they CVahram and his son] wwirt and received back from 

the Tatars those castles and districts they had captured, 

which were their sep'akan patrimony (hayrenik*). All of 

them were taken: Tawus, Zacaret', Terunakan. Ergevank', 

Maonaberd which was [the property]of Aaxart an Kiwrikean, 

Norberd, [the property] of the royal (tdeaworazn) Vaaak; 

and the Impregnable fortress K'awazin; the renowned fortress 

of Gag and the district built up by king Gagik...Everything 

was surrendered to them in a short period without toil 

or labor. For we knew that it was the Hand of the Lord, 

which, before our very eyes, had given over our land as 

food for the foreigners" (VA p. 145). 

SO: "When the Tatars first came to this land, our 

districts fell the lot (bajin) of Asian noyin. Elikum 

[Orbelean] was holed up with his people in the impregnable 

fortress of Hraikaberd. That Asian came and circumlocuted 

the fortress and realized that it was humanly impossible 

to take it. So he encamped opposite the fortress and sent 

messages to Elikum, saying: 'Make friends with us; come to 

us, and you will find many benefits from us. Otherwise, 

no matter how long you ait on your rock, we shall not 

quit this land. Por God has given us this [land] as 

patrimony, and when you come forth, it will be the ruin 

of you and your tun(House)'. 

"When Elikum heard this, he did not reject the advice, 

but instead, replying sweetly, he requested an oath. And 

he went before [Asian] with numerous gifts. When Asian 

saw this, he liked Elikum greatly and received him and 

made peace" (SO p. 149). 

'176

GA: "Thereafter when the wise princes of Armenia 

and Georgia realized that God had given power and victory 

to [the Mongols] to take our lands, they then became 

reconciled, and became obedient to the Tatars and promised 

to give the taxes, i.e., the mal and Jt'aiar, and to come 

out to them with th?ir cavalry wherever they led them. 

The latars, agreeing to this, ceased their killing and 

destroying the land, and themselves returned to their 

place, the country of Mughan. But they left a chief 

named lara Bula to demolish all the fortresses which they 

had taken. They destroyed to the foundations the impregnable 

fortresses built by the TaSiks at great cost. This 

all came to pass" (GA p. 237). 

KG: "When atabek Iwane'a son, the amirspasalar Awag 

saw these crimes, he sent emissaries to Partaw, where 

the above-mentioned noylns had encamped for the winter. 

The latter passed the summer in the mountains of Gelark'unik' 

and Ayrarat, for at that time, Chormaghun had taken Ani. 

Awag sent to them emissaries, seeking reconciliation. He 

promised to go to see them, to serve and to pay taxes, for 

the preservation of his country; he demanded an oath and 

assurances. They were delighted and accepted Awag'a 

emissary with affection and swore a firm oath. 

"...When Awag's emissaries returned and relayed to 

him all that happened, epasalar Awag went to them, having 

staked his soul for his lands. He went to Chormaghun. 

Chaghatai, Baiju and Yusur, who saw and honored him, became 

intimately acquainted, and appointed guards for [his] 

cities. In their language these are called Ian. 

"Awag's land was thus pacified. When the mandat urt'— 

uxuc'es Sahniab was Informed of the reconciliation between 

Awag and the Tatars, he too wanted to keep his country 

safely, in peace, and unharmed. He told Awag to notify 

them that he wanted to go to see the Tatars. The Tatars 

were informed and agreed to it with joy, and for this 

too they also swore the golden oath of assurance. Sahnsah 

also went and saw them. They similarly honored him greatly 

and returned to him Ani and the land of his they had 

taken, in its entirety. Then they appointed guards for 

the interior of the country. They received with honor 

all the Georgian princes who came [to them] while Jhey 

ravaged the lands of the disobedient. When Zak'are's son, 

Tahram Gageli was informed of this, he too sought refuge 

[with the Tatars], With reconciliation accepted, his 

lands too were pacified...However Heret'i and Kaxet'i, 

Somxlt'i and K'art111 and above as far as the city of 

Karin (Erzerum) were undergoing bitter destruction... 

[The Mongols] enslaved and raided K'ajt'li, flame'xe, Javaxet'i. 

and above as far as Greece («Rum), Kaxet'i, and 

Heret i as far as Darband. 

"Forced to this fate by chastisements, all the princes 

of Georgia, the people of Her-Kaxet'i, of K'art'li, Toreli— 

Gamrkeli, Sargis T'mogveli an educated and virtuous man, 

sought refuge with the Tatars, while the Mesons, for the 

dignity of queen Rusudan did not submit". Chaghatai. enraged, 

177

Indeed, it was during such Mongol campaigns—be they 

in the as yet unsubdued areas of eastern Armenia, or in 

those areas of western Armenia under Saljuqid rule—that 

the naxarars had the opportunity to display their martial 

prowess, their loyalty, and their greed. ?or there was 

much booty to be had, and this naturally appealed to the 

naxarars. Thus (in 1236) did the atabek Awag participate 

in the sack of An! (the property of his cousin Sahniah) 

and the looting of its churches . The city of Karin/Erzerum 

o 

was sacked in 1242 . The naxarara are reported to have been 

invaded Samc'xe and.devastated it. "When there was no 

strength left, Iwane C'ixisJvarel-Jaqeli, who was also 

called Ivarlvare, appealed to queen Rusudan, at her 

agreement, for him also to seek protection with Chaghatai, 

to free the country from destruction. He [firstoothered 

to ask her permission] because he was the meZur8let-uxuc *es 

and the pgince of Samc'xe. The queen agreed and sent him. 

Then Iwane went and met 

honor and appointed 

Mur. pp. 74-76). 

KG PP. 257-60. 

tai who received him with 

or the country" (KC pp. 189-91? 

KG p. 279: "...And at that time the city was heavily 

populated, being filled not only with Christians and TaSiks, 

but all the people from the entire district had assembled 

there. In the city were countless holy gospels [belonging 

to] the great and the lowly. The foreigners took them and 

sold the expensive ones to the Christians in their army, 

cheaply. In glee they spread through each district, 

dividing up the churches and monasteries". However, to 

the credit of the princes, KG notes "Hay Christ reward 

the Christian princes Awag, Sahniah, Vahram's son, Aiouia, 

pious Dop*'s son, Grigor Xa£enc'i, and their troops. For 

these princes bought out of slavery as many men, women, 

and children, bishops priests and deacons as was possible...1* 

(KG p. 280). GA pp. 307, 309:"...Then the Armenian and 

Georgian princes took [away] many books, heortologia, 

martyrologia, the Apostolic works, lectionaries, Acts, and 

the Gospels written in gold, richly adorned beyond comparison 

for the edification and adornment of the sons of the new 

178

enriched specifically after crushing the SaljuQid suitan 

of Bum, Ghiyath al-Din Kai Khusrau near ErzinJan(1243/44) . 

Even when the eourcea do not specifically mention it, 

the naxarars. if not the common soldiers ordinarily received 

some share of the booty during the Mongol campaigns. 

Aknerc'i's account of the naxarars1 behavior in the 

city of Mayyafarikin/Tigranakert (which was starved into 

submission) probably was typical of the naxarars' actions 

2 

elsewhere in western Armenia . 

Zion. Whence they took and brought them to the eastern 

country and filled the monasteries with all the adornments 

of the Church". 

KC p. 194; Mur. p. 78: "The Georgians and Tatars swelled 

up with all sorts of treasures: gold and silver, gold and 

silver cups and bowls, extraordinary cloths and clothing 

and so many horses, asses and camels that it is impossible 

to count them". 

GA pp. 334, 336:"...The Armenian troops there with the 

Tat'are found many relics of the saints and took them to 

their land. Now the great prince of Armenia named T'aleadin, 

from the Bagratuni family, seized a Syrian presbyter and 

made him confess that he had found the right [hand] of 

the blessed apostle Bartholomew. With great Joy [T'aieadin] 

took it to his eastern land and put it in his monastery. 

Afterwards, forced by the great Arcrunid prince named 

Sadun, he gave it to him. Sadun, lord of Halbat's great 

and renowned holy congregation had the blessed right hand 

of apostle Bartholomew placed in the holy congregation 

of Halbat. And it is in fact there". 

179

Mongol Control Techniques in the 13th Century 

The Mongols dealt with the Caucasian nobility in 

a number of time-honored ways: through the manipulation 

of naxarar precedence and the co-optation of allegiance; 

and through de-naxararization. Given the normal rivalries 

and antagonisms among the lords (see below, Appendix B), 

the manipulation of naxarar precedence was made quite 

simple. The Mongols, before conquering a particular 

region (such as the Caucasus) always divided up by lota 

among their generals the area to be taken . The 

naxarars. upon surrendering to them, became the clients 

of the particular Mongol general conquering that territory. 

The immediate effect of this was to distort and partially 

destroy the nexus of political (and of course, military) 

ties which had existed between the nobles and the Georgian 

Crown. 

KG pp. 237-38; VA p. 144; SO p. 149. Proa Kirakoa1 

narration it is clear that during the conquest of Armenia, 

the Mongols had a fairly clear understanding of the 

relative importance of prince Awag [KG p. 256]. Somewhat 

annoyed by Awag'3 slowness in submitting, the Mongol 

noyin Chormaghun showed his displeasure in an episode 

regarding seating precedence. See KG pp. 256-57. 

180

In theory as well as in practice, the Mongols 

regarded all conquered lands as their own property. They 

did not hesitate to favor submissive princes or punish 

the recalcitrant by giving lands or taking them away. 

The Mongols were adroit at exploiting antagonisms existing 

within branches of the same family. Thus, when Awag 

(ca. 1243), harried by the Mongols' excessive demands, 

fled to the court of queen Rusudan (herself a fugitive 

from the Mongols), Kirakos noted that the Mongols gave 

his land to SahnSah because of the latter's greater 

faithfulness « Another striking example of precedence 

manipulation within a single family concerns the Georgian 

royal Bagratids themselves. The Mongol commander Baiju 

furious with Rusudan for not surrendering to him, 

2 

enthroned her co-opted eon, David Rusudanean . Eventually 

sanctioning two monarchs, the Mongols effectively 

divided the kingdom and the royal treasury, expropriating 

one third of it for themselves . But following Rusudan's 

death (ca. 1247) and before the enthronement of the 

two rulers, the Mongols again manipulated the precedence 

of the lords to suit their principal aim, namely of 

encouraging centrifueation. The History of. K'art'li^ 

after noting Georgia's rulerless condition, continues: 

KG p. 265. 

KG p. 289. Also see Appendix B. 

KG p. 317. 

181

Consequently, each one [prince] arranged 

matters individually and concerned himself with 

his own affairs. Each prince attached himself to 

a noyin and the Tatars appointed a Ten Thousander 

officer for them, whom they called dumnapet. 

Princes were chosen by them [the Mongols]. First 

was Egarslan Bakurc'isxeli, a very eloquent man, 

but not one with a respect-worthy behavior. They 

bestowed on him the army of Heret'i, Kaxet'i, and 

Kamcechovani above to Tiflis and to Mt. Samaxi. 

They entrusted to Sahnsah his own and Awag's 

properties; to Varham Gageli all of Somxit'i; 

to Grigor Surameli, K'art'li; to Torel-Gamrekeli, 

[still] a youth like Egarslan, Javaxet'i, Samc'xe, 

and above to the city of Karin; to C'otne Dadiani 

and the duke of Ra2 [Kaxaberi, father of Gone'a 

Kaxaberije-Awagean], all of the kingdom on the 

other side. 1. 

Prior to the return of Awag and the two Davids froc a 

sojourn in the Far East, Egarslan Bakurc'isxeli's power 

was permitted to grow, until: 

...he became so very powerful that he almost 

dared to be called king. The entire Georgian 

people was subject to his command, as to a king's 

including the great and honorable mandat *urj: '— 

uxue *ep Sahnsah, Varham Gageli, and all the other 

princes. 2. 

Upon Awag's return from the Far Eaat, Egarslan was 

expelled from the country, as the Mongols looked on 

approvingly'. In the .late 1250's, the Mongols attempted 

to elevate Sargis Jaqeli-C'ixisJvarell for saving 

Httlegtl-Khan' s life during battle. Their actions, and 

the reaction of the Georgian Crown show very well the 

diviaiveneas engendered by Mongol policy: 

KG pp. 207-8} Mur. pp. 87-88. 

KC p. 212; Kur. P. 90. 

KG p. 225; Mur. p. 100. 

182

...How [the Khan] gave to king David and 

his soldiers great honor and numerous gifts, so 

much so that he granted by yarligh the city of 

Karin and the surrounding lands to Sargis 

Jaqeli. 

At that time some foes envied [Sargis] and 

said to the king: 'Now why do you not give 

Sargis your kingdom, too, since the Khan has 

strengthened him so much that he wllino longer 

be subject to your rule'. The king believed 

this, because he was untried and credulous of 

both good and evil words. At night_he went to 

the noyin and explained: 'If the Khan gives 

Sargis the oity of Karin, he also gives the 

kingdom,!. Elgon noyin was astonished and replied: 

•The Khan gave it [to him] because of his 

activity with you, but if it bothers you, he will 

not give it. In battle you Georgians do nothing 

good for the brave warrigrs. Don't you know 

that Sargis saved the Khan from the enemy, and 

offered a tough and noteworthy fight?' 

The noyin went and informed the Khan of the 

entire conversation, and [as a result! he did 

not give the city of Karin. When Sargis heard 

about this he was stunned and grumbled against 

his lord. That winter the king was kept in- 

Partaw while the disgruntled Sargis went to 

Samc'xe. 1. 

In the 1260's and 1270's the Mongols furthered the territorial 

and political ambitions of the Orbeleans and the Arcrunid/ 

Mahkanaberdelis, at the expense of the Zak'arida and 

Georgian Bagratids, but as is noted (Appendix 3) the 

consistent contradictiona in the sources obscure the 

picture somewhat. Finally, at the end of the 13th century 

KC p. 250; Mur. p..122. Subsequently king David imprisoned 

Sargis, but Abaqa-Khan ordered his release. The KC adds: 

"Prom this point on, the Jaqelis became loyal to HUlegU" 

(KC p. 255; Mur. p. 127; also KC p. 297; Mur. p. 164). 

183

and the beginning of the 14th, the Mongols elevated a 

Jaqeli to the throne1. 

Another method of manipulating naxarar precedence 

involved detaching certain prominent princes from 

economic and political connection with the Georgian 

Crown(s). The beat known example of this involves the 

Armenian Orbeleans of Slwnlk*. Smbat Orbelean was granted 

in.10 status in 1252 on a trip to the Par East: 

...[Mongke-Khan] readily accepted these words 

[of counsel] and" then entrusted Smbat to his 

mother named Suraxt'ambek, saying: 'This particular 

ark*ayun we shall keep for ourselves and not 

allow any other [person] authority over him1. And 

they styled him en§u, that is, teruni. They 

ordered him to remaTn at court for some days and 

instructed the officials to provide him with a 

daily stipend from the court...Furthermore they 

removed SmbatC's name] from the dawt'ars of the 

Georgians and others. 2. 

Another prince who apparently received injfl status was 

Hasan Jalal. Around 1257, Hasan accompanied the new 

Khan of the North, Sartakh, on a trip to the Great Khan 

KG p. 324; Mur. pp. 187-88. 

SO pp. 155, 1J7: "Orum yoyjB hawaneal ew mtadlwrut 'eamb 

ankaleal zbansn apa jay zSmbat morn iwroy ew yanjne 

: in pal i draEn_awurs inc7 ew yanjne'c 

-IS . ..£w 

ew yayloc " 

184

MSngke: 

...With Sartakh was the pious prince of 

Xa$en, Jalal, who had gone to reveal to hia 

supreme lord the diaaters he had borne from 

governor Arghun, from whom he had barely 

escaped deatK, thanks to the TaSiks. tAnd he 

gave him a document [entitling him] to rule 

his princedom independently, and to fear no 

one. For Sartakh liked Jalal on account of . 

the prince's Christianity, since he too was 

Christian. 1. 

Apparently, around 1273 Sargis Jaqeli also received 

2 

in.tii status . During the same decade the cities of 

Kara, T'elavi, Belak'an "and many other lands" were 

separated from royal control and given by the Mongols 

to Sadun Arcruni/Mahkanaberdeli . 

KG p. 373*, "and. nma er ew barepalt isxann lagenoy Jalaln. 

JT ert'eal er c'ue anel zaiete iwr tearnn tiezerac ._zor 

treao na yArûn ostikanen. or haziw zercaw i^ mahuanen 

^ sadreloy taCkac*n. JEw et nma gir iSxanut'ean iwroy 

tlrel aep'akanabar ew ^5 erknie'l yume2*e. zi sirer zoa 

3art'axn vasn k'ristoneut'ean. zi ew na"*k'rTstoneay er". 

KC pp. 270-71; Mur. pp. 140-41: "Then all the didebuls 

of Georgia assembled and took the royal Demitre to the 

Horde. They went to Sahnsah's son, Iwane, the mandat*urt'— 

uxuc es. and he too went to the Horde where they saw to it 

that Demitre received the reign...[Abaqa] gave the entire 

kingdom to him, excepting the lands of Sargis Jaqeli. He 

sent him to Sadun whom king Demitre made atabek...[Speaking 

of the Pervane's replacement_as ruler of RumJ: To him they 

entrusted the princedom of Rum, including Aclur and Samc'xe 

which had belonged to the Pervane from his [Georgian] wife's 

dowry, and they bestowed on him Sargis Jaqeli and his son 

Beka". See also KC p. 297; Mur. p. 164. 

KC p. 272; iiur. p. 142. 

.185

Co-optation of allegiance, a corollary of the 

manipulation of naxarar precedence, occurred as a natural 

consequence of Mongol policies. This involved more than 

simply the extension of one lord's boundaries at the 

expense of another's. The Mongols attempted to incorporate 

certain prominent naxarars into their own court and 

administration, and thereby created conflicts of loyalty. 

They further sought to bind naxarars to themselves by 

providing them with Mongol wives. The source mention 

such co-optation beginning after 1256, the year in which 

HUlegU became Il-Khan in Iran: 

When Hulegti saw the Georgian nobility which 

had come before him, received them affectionately 

and armed [them] to take them to battle with him. 

Some he appointed as uldaS. that is, sword-bearing 

palace guards; some were designated aak *ur8 . that 

is, those who hold above the Khan's head a parasol 

with a rounded end, like a flag; and only those 

from the Khan's relatives had the right to fan; 

others were appointed lubSac"— keepers of the 

wardrobe and shoes (basmatT; others, eydCalrg. 

bodyguards; and one group also was designated 

tore — folders of arrows and quivers. Thus did 

the Khan bestow these mean honors on the great 

princes of Georgia, and he considered each honored. 

1 gC pp. 222-23; Mur. p. 98. Aknerc'i wrote: "HClegtt— 

Khan greatly loved the Armenian and Georgian forces 

because of the extreme bravery which they displayed before 

him in all battles. Therefore he called them Bahaturs . 

He selected the young and handsome sons of the great 

princes of Armenia and Georgia and appointed them as his 

guards, styling them K'esikt'oyk'-- guards with sword and 

bow" (GA p. 342). The Mongols also tried— obviously with 

limited success— to co-opt the allegiance of king David 

Laiaean. From Batu-Khan of the Northern Tatars, David 

received "a parasol Tsuk'ur) which no one excepting the 

Khans and their relations~Tiave . [Batu] told Kulegtt that 

186

Some naxarara—notably those enjoying iniS status- 

became pillars of Mongol administration in the Caucasus. 

IS1? 

Smbat Orbelean and Sadun Arcruni/Mahkanaberdell are particularly 

good examples. In the early 1260'a Smbat was deputiced 

HQlegU's overseer of construction for the new fl-Khanid 

summer residence of Ala-Ta£h to the east of Lake Van. 

Step'annos added: 

...Httlegu so heeded his words that [Smbat] 

could have killed whomever he chose, or granted 

life to whomever he wanted. Consequently, everyone 

quaked with fear because of him, and everyone's 

eyes were upon him. 2. 

with the exception of HfilegG noyin himself, when entering 

the Horde, no one should stand higher than the ^Georgian] 

king...After the king reached his holdings, he went with 

great gifts to Httlegii-Khan. When the latter saw him, he 

received him with honor and placed him in front with the 

noylna. stipulating his place for standing, sitting, 

inquiring, and giving counsel" (EC pp. 230-32; Mur. pp. 

104-105). 

SO p. 161. 

SQ p. 168: nk 'an Iso 

tamer ; mah tayr cel. . ew urn .^. 

amenayn ok' dotayr i nmane

Sadun, according to Aknero'i, was to be allowed pardons 

for up to nine crimes, so much was he cherished by Hulegfl1. 

Tarsayic" Orbelean, following in his brother Smbat's steps 

was designated for extra special honors: 

...So respected was he before Abaqa-Khan 

that on numerous occasions the latter removed 

from his person his own royal garments and 

clothed TarsayiS in them from head to toe, and 

girdled him with a belt of pure gold studded with 

oostly gems and pearls... 2. 

The loyalty and support of the mecatuna, or wealthy 

merchants who formed an important part of the new 

nobility of the 13th century were actively sought after 

by the Mongols from the first. In 1242, when the city 

of Karin/Erzerum was taken and its population massacred 

or enslaved, special consideration was shown to 

wealthy Armenians there . According to Vardan Arew- 

GA p. 348. Both Sfflbat and Sadun, and others besides 

made a point of learning Mongolian. According to SO, 

Smbat was "a skilled rhetorician, unbeatable at diwan 

court—for he spoke five languages: Armenian, Georgian, 

Uighur, Persian, and even Mongolian" (SO p. 151). See 

also EC p. 248; Mur. p. 120 where Sadun does simultaneous 

translation of Georgian and Mongolian at court. Grigor 

Mamikonean also knew Mongolian (KG p. 272). 

SO p. 170: "ew aynk/an yargeal liner arafo Apa 

bazum_angam zark'ayakan banderjn iwr merkace 

3 VA p. 147: "Now in the year 1242 Baiju noyln replaced the 

authority of Chormaghun and took the city of Karin, 

taking thenee~TTmek, a man venerable, wealthy (mecatun) 

188

elc'i, HttlegU utilized Armenian merchants cgs emissaries , 

Finally, co-optation of allegiance was furthered 

by intermarriage with the naxarars. The Christian 

Caucasian literary sources alone mention eight examples 

of intermarriage between the Mongols (or officials in 

the Il-Khanid administration) and the Christian Caucasian 

nobility: 'Awag himself was given a Mongol bride named 

Eslom ; Hasan Jalal'a daughter Ruzuk'an was wed to Chormaghun'a 

son Bora noyin'; Xosak Awagean was married to the eahibdiwan 

and fearful of the Lord, as well as his relations, the 

sons of paron Yohann, Step'annos, and his five brothers". 

KG p. 363: "But one wealthy merchant was respected by 

them. He was Umek, whom they called Asil, a benevolent 

man whom we recalled [above], who lived through the 

Mongols' destruction of the city of Karin, together with 

his sons Yovhannes, Step'annos and his brothers. At this 

time [late 1240's, early 1250'a] he was dwelling in the 

city of liflis, and was called the 'father' of the Georgian 

king David. He was honored by the Khan in writing and 

by all the [Mongol] nobility. He gave generous gifts to 

Arghun and those with him, and was much esteemed by him... 

Ihe sons of Sarawan named Snorhawor and Mkrti$ were also 

prosperous and wealthy". 

1 m 

7A pp. 154-55: "In the year 1265 great HUlegii the Il-Khan 

summoned us by means of a man of the day, Snorhawor, more 

prominent than any, especially from among the laity. [He 

had come] from the governor of the north, Batu, where he 

ent first and was honored, then [he was honored] by Httlegtt 

f1-Khan. [Snorhawor] took us along with his merchandise 

and pack animals*. On Mongol relations with the Armenian 

Church, see Appendix C. 

KG p. 263; KC p. 225; Mur. p. 100. 

KG p. 391. 

189

Shams ad-Din Juvaini ; king David LaSaean married lawand 

o 

Esugan, a relative of Chormaghun ; king Denetre'a sister 

Tamar was married to emir Arghun's eon'; Demitre's 

daughter Ruaudan, to the son of Buqa ; king Tazt'ang 

married Arghun-Khan's sister, Oljjat , who subsequently 

was wed to Vart'ang's . successor king David6. Cilician 

sources mention a number of Cilician Armenian notables 

also who had Mongol spouses, and most likely the Armeno— 1 

Saljuq nobility similarly intermarried with Mongol no.yina' 

SO p. 165. 

SO p. 167; KG p. 251; Mur. p. 123. 

KG p. 274; Mur. p. 144. 

KC p. 281; Mur. p. 150. Also KC p. 285; Mur. p. 153. 

KC p. 293; Mur. p. 160. 

KG p. 297; Mur. p. 164. 

Toward the end of the 13th century, despite protestations 

from the Church, the Armeno-Georgian lords began imitating 

the Mongol and Islamic practise of polygamy. Consequently 

a number of potentially powerful alliances were formed. 

TarsayiS Orbelean, for example, during the lifetime of his 

first wife, married Mina khatun Xalbakean of Xa$en (d. 1311) 

sister of Hasan Jalal( X. 10, 117, 175,177,2677. One of 

TarsayiS'a daughters was married into another branch of 

the Xalbakeans, while a second daughter became the wife of 

king Demitre's brother Manuel (SO p. 171). Sadun Arcruni 

took four wives, one of whom was king Demitre's only sister, 

T'amar(KC p. 278; Mur. p. 147). King Demitre himself had 

three wives, one of whom was the daughter of the powerful 

Beka Jaqeli of Samc'xe (KC pp. 282-83; Kurfc 150-51). In 

the final decades of the 13th century, Orbeleans once 

again married into the Xalbakean family, and into the family 

of their rivals, the Arcruni/Mahkanaberdelis (SO p. 179). 

190

During the Mongol domination de-naxararization 

occurred in Armenia as a result of different Mongol 

policies. During the 13th century, in some oases it was 

temporary and perhaps unintentional, such as the de-naxar- 

arization resulting from the Mongols' insistence that 

important lords visit the center of Mongol power (be it 

in Qara-Qorum in the Par East, or later in the Il-Khanid 

centexsof Iran and Armenia). Sometimes de-naxararization 

occurred through deaths of naxarars in foreign wars which, 

as Mongol clients, the naxarars were obliged to participate 

in. In other cases, de-naxararization was the result of 

intentional policy: punishment for rebellion and punishment 

for association with certain Mongol noyins who had fallen 

into disfavor. With the Islamization of the Mongol court 

in the 14th century and the concomitant inception of anti- 

Christian persecution, de-naxararization, by definition 

directed against one segment of society, degenerated Into 

massacres (premeditated and "spontaneous11) directed against 

all levels of Christian Armenian society. 

Armenian and Georgian sources contain numerous references 

to the long and difficult journeys to the Par East undertaken 

by Caucasian lords. Apparently, the first naxarar to be 

sent to Qara-Qorum was Awag1. Atabek Iwane's renowned 

KG pp. 262-63: "After a short time had passed, they sent 

Awag on a ..distant journey to the northeast to their king, 

called Khan, for they did the same to all the grandees 

whom they wished to honor. They sent him to the king and, 

receiving [their] ruler's command, implemented it, for 

191

daughter (Awag'a slater) T'amt'a was taken to Mongolia 

after the capture of Xlat' (1245). After being kept 

there for "many years" she was allowed to return and 

reign over Zlat' . Prior to the journey East of David 

Rusudanean, his royal mother sent Sahnsah, Awag, Vahram 

of Gag and Sota, the duke of Eeret *i to the northern 

Batu-Khan . At almost the same tine the Mongols 

retrieved from captivity David Lasaean (the legitimate 

heir to the throne). He too was sent to the Khans, first 

to Batu, then to MSngke in Qara-Qorum. Accompanying 

David Lasaean were Sahnsah1s sons Zak'are, Vahram's son 

they were extremely obedient to their king. The prince 

himself was happy to go, so that perhaps his situation 

and that of the country be eased somewhat... 

"How Awag went before the great Khan and showed him 

letters from his commanders and recalled the reasons for 

his coming, Jhat he had come to him in service. 0_ce 

the great Khan heard that, he received Awag with affection, 

gave him a Tat'ar bride, and sent him to his country. He 

also wrote to his commanders to give Awag his lands, and 

with his help to subdue all the rebels, as happened". 

1 Her release was arranged by queen Busudan's envoy, Hamadola, 

when the latter himself was on a trip to the Par East (KG p. 

292). 

KC p. 192J Mur. p. 76. 

192

Aibula Gageli, and Sargls T'mogveli. Batu kept with hia 

Zak'are and Aibula. David was sent Eaet with Sargie 

"and a few other Georgians" . When David and hia party 

arrived in Qara-Qorua, "they encountered king Narin 

David [David Busudanean], atabek Awag, Surameli, Gamrekeli, 

A 

and the amirertib Beik'en" . Awag had been in Mongolia 

(or at least, out of Georgia) for some five years, 

according to the History of Kart'li . In the early 

1250's Hasan Jalal also made the trip, first to Batu, 

then home to Xa{en, then, "after some days, being harassed 

..193 

by tax-collectors and by [the enir] Arghun, he went to HSngke— 

Khan4. In the mid-1250's king Het'um of Cilician Armenia, 

with an entourage of princes and priests, made the journey 

to Mongke, returning home after three and a half years . 

Het'urn's successors on the throne visited the fl-Khanid 

KG p. 219; Mur. p. 96. 

KG p. 220; Mur. p. 96. 

KG p. 220; Murc p. 97. 

KG p. 359. See our Appendix C. 

KG pp. 364-65. On Het'um's journey see J.A. Boyle's 

article, "The Journey of He'turn I, King of little 

Armenia, to the Court of the Great Khan MSngke", Central 

Asiatic Journal #9 (1964) pp. 175-8^7 also Het'um the 

Historian, p. 47.

court in Tabriz . Smbat Orbelean visited the ?ar £ast 

twice in that same decade, the first time (1252) remaining 

for three years2. In 1274, Smbat died at the Il-Khanid 

court in Tabriz3. For our purposes, it is irrelevant 

whether the nobles were sent to the Khans as deputies or 

whether they travelled voluntarily. The effect was the 

same: the removal from Armenia of the most powerful (and 

potentially the most dangerous) lords. In the absence 

of certain grandees, other lords could and did attempt 

to encroach upon their rivals' lands and rights. Though 

this form of de-naxararication may have been temporary, 

the centrifugal results promoted by it were not. 

More costly in terms of human life was the de-naxarar- 

ization resulting from the obligation of the lords to 

participate with their cavalry in Mongol campaigns . 

Because the Mongols considered their subject peoples 

Lewon (Het'um p. 57); Het'um II (Het'um p. 221); Lewon 

paron Bet'urn and other princes travelled to Bularghu 

who treacherously murdered them in 1309 (14CC p. 56). 

2 SO p. 155. It was probably during those three years 

that Smbat learned some of his five languages (SO p.151). 

Uamikonids visited the Khan in the 1260'e (VI p. 108). 

SO p. 166. 

KG p. 269; GA p. 297. 

194

expendable, they usually designated then as advance-- 

attackers. This was not, as the History of g'art'li 

and Grigor Aknere'i would have us believe, because the 

Armeno-Georgian troops were such excellent warriors, but 

first, precisely because the Caucasians were expendable 

and second, because desertion was impossible with foreign 

troops fighting in front or in detachments surrounded by 

Mongols. Deserters were killed. This fact perhaps 

accounts for the "valor" so extensively recounted in the 

sources, and so reminiscent in spirit to those epic 

descriptions of naxarar single-combat exploits found in 

the Arsacid sources. The Caucasian troops had a simple 

choice facing them: life and the spoils of victory, or 

death from defeat or attempted desertion. 

195 

Also facing the lords (at least in western historical Armenia) 

were the Armenian and Georgian defenders of their own 

country, Rum. Armenians and Georgians fought and died 

on both sides . With the subjugation of western Armenia, 

the obligation of military service to the Mongol overlords 

did not end. The lords and their troops were taken on 

campaigns all over the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia. 

KC p. 192; Mur. p. 77; GA p. 309.

De-naxarariration in this instance involved the reaoval 

of powerful military men from the Caucasus "temporarily" 

during campaigns of varying durations, and permanently, 

through death in foreign lands. 

According to the History of K'art '14, the stringent 

requirements involved in participating in Mongol campaigns 

were a major cause of the Caucasian princes' rebellion 

of 1259-61: 

...The Georgians were menaced because [the 

Mongols] were fightinga protracted and uninterrupted 

war [lasting 7 years] against the Assassins, while 

the Georgians were fighting along with them, divided 

into two sections. Each [Georgian] ruler was 

apportioned [to the service of] one noyin... 1. 

...[The Georgian lords] all wondered: 'What 

shall we do without someone of the royal line to 

guide us and fight against the Tatars? We are 

disunited and unable to resist them. So wickedly 

do they menace us that we go off to Alamut each 

year, withstanding all sorts of troubles and 

dangers. 2. 

It is true that the Mongols placed considerable trust 

in certain Armenian lords, such as amirspaealar Sahneah'a 

son Zak'are and Prof Xaibakean who aided in the capture 

of Baghdad (1258) . The honors bestowed upon the noted 

EC p. 208; Mur. p. 88 

1C p. 214; Mur. p. 93. 

KG pp. 380, 384, 385. 

196

military man XarsayiS Orbelean by Abaqa-Khan are also 

noteworthy* 

Often the Caucasians suffered decimation . 

In 1261 many Armenian and Georgian warriors died when 

Mongol general Kltbuqa's army in Egypt was wiped out . 

Prince Sewada Xagene'i was killed in the battle for 

Mayyafarikin3. In 1261/62 (710 A.E.) the young prince 

Burt'el Orbelean died in the North Caucasus, fighting 

KOlegii's enemy, Berke . Caucasians died in the war 

SO p. 170: "...And because [ZarsayiS] was a nan powerful 

and intrepid, warlike, and of astounding size, wherever 

he wgnt he displayed great valor in all warfare: in 

Khurasan, Syria, BUB, in Haas and Haa, among the Egyptians 

and in Darband. Vine times personally did he direct the 

battle, as a consequence of which he was honored with 

many great gifts by the King of Kings and received a 

golden balls which was flat, the sice of a fig, and in 

weight one Iter—for such was the honor of victory". 

KG pp. 388-89. 

7A p. 152, 

SO p. 162} .CIA v. Ill p. 218 (foldout). 

197

etween Arghun-Khan and Baraq. in the mid-1260 •• in Central 

Asia , In the late 1270'a, Caucasian troope suffered 

dreadful loaaea during the Mongols' ill-conceiTed 

expeditions in Gilan, on the southern shore of the 

Caspian Sea , while in 1282 Caucasian contingents 

fighting again in Egypt were all but wiped out'. In 

1283, in Khurasan, the Georgian king Demitre and his 

army participated on the wrong side in a succession 

struggle between Ahmad and the eventual victor, Arghun— 

Khan . Shortly thereafter the king and his troops were 

taken north to suppress a rebellion in Darband . 

Geikhatu-Khan crushed a rebellion in Rum with the army 

of Demitre'a son, David while another part of the Caucasian 

KG pp. 262-64; Mur. pp. 133-35. 

2 KG p. 276; Mur. p. 145. 

3 According to BH p. 457, in 1277 some 2,000 Georgians 

(!•£•» Caucasians) were killed in Egypt; KC pp. 278-80 

Hur. pp. 146-49; Het'um pp. 58-59; BH p. 464,mentions 

5,000 Caucasian troops fighting in Egypt. 

4 KC p. 284; llur. p. 152. 

KC p. 285; Mur.p. 153. 

198

troops remained on alert in Mughan . Around 130$, 

immediately preceding Khar-Bands's conversion to Islam, 

1 2 

king Giorgi and various princes were fighting in loonium . 

De-nazararization through participation in Mongol exped- 

itions resulted in more than the deaths of thousands 

of men. In the absence of the naxarar warlords, the 

Caucasus was left without committed defenders to protect 

it from the persistent raids and sorties of Mongols, 

Turks and local rebels. 

De-naxararization also was achieved directly by 

execution, the ordinary punishment for disloyalty, real 

or perceived. The lordly participants in the abortive 

Caucasian uprising of 1248/49, though arrested and con- 

demned to death, nonetheless were released, thanks 

mostly to the humanity of Awag's Mongol friend, general 

Chaghatai. However the rebels' properties were ravaged 

in reprisal*. Response to the second rebellion of 

1259-61 was less restrained. Unatle to vent their 

anger oa the participants immediately, the Mongols 

KC p. 296; Mur. p. 162. 

KG p. 324; Mur. p. 188. 

IG pp. 320-21; VA p. 148. 

199

destroyed the mausolea of the Georgian kings at Gelat'i, 

and the kaVollkosate at Acior , and then arrested the naxarar 

relatives of the rebels: 

[Emir] Argjmn seized the Georgian queen 

Gone'a, her daughter Xosak', the great prince 

Sahniah, Hasan Jalal, lord of Xagen, and many 

others because of debts and taxes Cowed]. 

These people gave much treasure and barely 

saved their lives.2. 

Hasan Jalal, however, was tortured to death in 1261*. The 

KG p. 390. 

mahuane". 

yoroc bagum gan.1s 

KG pp. 390-91: "But the pious and virtuous prince Jalal 

was molested by impossible tortures, as they demanded 

more taxes from him than he could pay. They put wood on 

his neck and irons on his feet. They dealt with him in 

this manner because of his strong Christianity, for all 

the Muslims were inimical to him and urged Argiun to kill 

him, saying: 'He more [than others] is hostile to our 

religion and laws'. ?or Arghun also was Muslim. He took 

[Jalal] to Qazvin. Meanwhile Jalal bore everything with 

praise, for he was very well versed in Scripture, fasting 

and praying, modest in food and drink and desirous 5f a 

martyr's death. 

"Now Jalal's daughter fiuzuk'an, wife of Bora no.vin 

(son of Chormaghun, first general of the Tatars) went 

to HiilegiTa wife [the Nestorian Christian] Toguz khatun 

to free her father from Argjiun's clutches. When the 

impious ostikan [Arghun] learned this, he immediately 

sent executioners and had the blessed and just man killed 

during the night. The impious executioners went and tore 

Jalal1s body into pieces...in 1261/62 (710 A.E.)". 

200

next year, Zak'are was murdered „ 

As was pointed out in another connection, the 

closeness of certain Caucasian lords to suddenly-disgraced 

Mongol noyins was fatal. Thus in 1289, when Arghun-ghan 

crushed a plot against himself organized by the emir 

Buqa, he also executed king Demitre of Georgia who had 

married Buna's daughter and was, rightly or wrongly , 

implicated. Similarly, when Geikhatu succeeded his brother 

Arghun as Khan in 1291, he in turn killed off Arehun's 

2 

prominent supporters, among whom were many Armenians . 

KG p. 393: "Now it happened that Zak'are fas with Arghun 

and his many troops in Georgia. And Zak'are went unbeknownst 

to Arghun and the other soldiers to see his wife who was 

with her father Sargis, prince of Uxtik', one of the rebels 

with the Georgian king David. When Arghun learned about 

this, he notified HUlegii who himself ordered that 

Zak'are be taken shackled. He heaped other false accusations 

upon him, ordered him killed, dismembered, and thrown 

to the dogs. And when his father Sahnsah in the Tillage 

of Ojun heard the bad news, he became aggrieved and died 

of sorrow". 

2 See below chapter two p. 122 notes 1 and 2. 

201

Triumph of the Turkmens 

The barely controllable,plunder-hungry lurknen 

element which formed the mainstay of the armies of the 

Saljuq conquerors of the llth century also participated 

in all subsequent Turco-Mocgol invasions. It had no 

interest in good government or the maintenance of order. 

On the contrary, the nomadic Turkmans solely were concerned 

with the aggrandizement of portable wealth. The lives 

of despoiled populations were of no value to them, unless 

such populations could be sold into slavery. Yet, as 

was pointed out earlier, all Saljuqa and all Mongols did 

not share these alms. Consequently, centralizing forces 

within both the Saljuq and Mongol governments were obliged 

to support a very delicate balance. On the one hand, the 

warlike Turkmens were the best, most determined fighters 

and so were necessary for victorious expeditions. On 

the other hand, the Turkmens' impulse to destroy all and 

move on had to be fought—sometimes literally— in order 

for the more sedentary elements to impose taxation on the 

conquered peoples, and exploit them in a more systematic 

fashion. But eventually the Turkmens were victorious, 

destroying both organized Turkish and Mongol states. 

Destructive nomadism of the Turkmen type (essentially a 

type of economic parasitism) also was practised by some 

Kurdish and Arab groups operating in southern and south- 

western Armenia. 

202

The initial Mongol expedition of 1220/21 waa in 

the Caucasus primarily for reconnaissance. Apart from 

reporting the pilfering of herds and the sack of some 

few cities, the Caucasian sources do not dwell on unbridled 

Turkmen activity at that time. Ihia reconnaissance army 

waa disciplined and obedient to ita commanders. 

The nature of Turkmen activity becomes clearer with 

the destructive sojourn of Jalal al-Din on the Armenian 

highlands (1225-ca. 1230). During these five bloody years, 

Jalal held the loyalty of the Turkmans in his company by 

giving them full rein, and directing them especially 

against Christians. While the actual devotion to Islam 

of Jalal or of his rude hordes ia questionable, his 

tecnique of directing rampages against Christians effectively 

satisfied the army's lust for plunder and simultaneously 

provided a religious justification for ita actions. 

Jalal'a career was that of a Turkmen brigand and he died 

the death of an unsuccessful brigand chief. He waa abandoned 

by the army when he waa unable to provide it with more 

loot. With his murder, as we have aeen, Turkmena in email 

bands continued harassing sedentary populations and 

caravans all over the Middle East . 

When the Mongols returned in 1236, the Turkmen element 

in their midst was satiated somewhat by the sack of resisting 

cities. However, even in this early period of Mongol rule, 

203

when the central government was at its strongest, there 

is evidence of irregularities. For example, the Armenian 

city of Surb Marl (Suroalu) was sacked by the regular 

Mongol army, but then ravished a second time by a certain 

noble named Lara Bahatur . Similarly, during the taking 

of Western Armenia, though it was Mongol policy to spare 

surrendering cities, some were sacked nonetheless, because 

chieftains could not control their men, or (perhaps better) 

because so many chieftains themselves were inclined to 

plunder. The centrifugal nomadic element was unaccustomed 

to and uninterested in sedentary government and its forma. 

The Turco-Mongol nomads were unhappy at the fixed rates 

of taxation imposed on subject populations. Indeed, their 

constant illegal exactions were the root cause behind each 

o 

Caucasian rebellion . Kor, clearly, did this element 

fancy the exalted stations given to some of the Caucasian 

nobles. Tor example, the death of Awag'a influential 

patron, the Mongol general Chormaghun in 1242/43 led to 

an increase in disorders of all sorts. Turkmens immediately 

plotted (unsuccessfully) to murder Awag . When the same 

KG p. 260. 

KG pp. 263-64; GA pp. 321, 323. 

KG p. 264. 

204

elements in the army learned about plana for a Caucasian 

rebellion (1249/50): 

...suddenly all the nobility of the Tatar 

army held a council, armed, and universally 

wanted to ravage the lands of Armenia and 

Georgia, [lands] obedient to them, because the 

Georgian king sought to rebell with all the 

princes...Cthe Mongols] wanted generally to 

destroy everyone. 1. 

Awag's patron and friend Chaghatai prevented this, and 

in a drammatio appeal to the furious Mongols presented 

the views of the central government, barely preventing 

a massacre of the captured naxarars: 

...One of the senior leaders, general of 

the entire army named Chaghatai, a friend of 

Awag, came amidst the armed troops and said to 

them: 'We have no order from the Khan to kill 

those who are obedient to us, stand* in service 

to us, and pay taxes to the Khan. And the 

reality of their rebellion is not certain. But 

if.we destroy them without cause, you will be 

responsible to the Khan. 2. 

Though the naxarars were not executed, the Turkmans, 

nonetheless, were allowed to vent their rage on the Caucasian 

.KG^p. 319: "...yankarcakl xorhurd arareal amenayn awagani 

«aix 

ixanok n...kaaein ar hasarak kotore 

zameneein" 

KG p. 32.0; "...Mi, omn yawag glxaworac'n. or^soravar er 

amenayn zorun.Caiatay anun nora. or barekamn er Awagin. 

205 

!

population . 

Centrifugal elements within the Mongol army of 

occupation were not the only ones facing Armenians and 

Georgians. According to Bar Eebraeua and the History of 

i, in the 1230's and 1240 's, remnants of Jalal 

al -Din's nomadic Khwarazmian army entered Georgia and 

2 - 

harassed the settled population . Khwarazmian mercenaries 

also operated in the Mayyafarlkin area in southwestern 

Armenia during the 1240 's*. In 1255, Mongol rebels despoiled 

rae'n ew aae c'nosa. 'Mek' ojj unimk* 

zaynosik. or. hnazandeal en meg ew 

mez i carayut ^ can ew w harkatuk* en ânln. ew ijlc' 

' 

KG pp. 320-21: "Cine Mongols] attacked Georgia, falling 

upon many districts of the rebels and non-rsbels. They 

cut down many people and took even more captive; a countless 

multitude of men, women and children they drowned in 

the river. And this took place in 1249/50 (698 A.E.)". 

TA p. 148: "...Countless numbers were killed and enslaved, 

villages and fields [were destroyed], and they disgraced 

women in Armenia, but more so in Georgia* . 

2 BH p. 402; KC pp. 212-15; Mur. pp. 91-92. 

3 BH p. 403. 

206

villages around Melitene/Malatya , and still were active 

2 

in the same area at the close of the decade . Further- 

more, the arrival in HulegU'a realm of some seven of 

Chingiz-Khan' s unruly grandchildren from the North, and 

their partial settlement in the Caucasus (mid-1250's) 

introduced another centrifugal force given over to pillaging. 

In the late 1250's the Caucasus was ravaged by one of 

these arrivals, Xul . In 1268 another of the emigres, 

Tegttder, rebelled from the fl-Khans, causing chaos and 

destruction in Armenia and Georgia . 

Because of anti-Islamic feeling among the Mongols 

at the time of the invasion, the shamanist Turkmens1 rage 

often was channeled against Muslims—much to the delight 

of beleaguered Christians. However, Mongol religious 

policy was quite complex, and underwent numerous 

shifts. For ezaaple, at the time of the census conducted 

by Arghun and Buna (1243), Kirakos said that Buqa 

"...had assembled brigands from among the Persians 

and TaSika, who mercilessly performed deeds of cruelty 

BH p. 420. 

BH pp. 425-26. 

pp. 327, 329. 

KG pp. 258-67; Mur. pp. 129-37. 

207

and were especially inimical toward the Christiana* . 

Yet in 1258, during the siege of Baghdad, the Mongols 

encouraged the Christians In their army brutally to 

exterminate the city's Muslim population. But in 

retaliation for the Caucasian rebellion of 1259-61, 

Mongols destroyed churches and the Georgian kat'oiikosate 

itself, and the emir Arghun (himself a Muslim) had the 

Christian prince Hasan Jalal tortured" to death for 

2 

failure to apostasize . Clearly, Mongols adroitly 

used the Christians in Muslim areas and the Muslins in 

Christian Caucasia for espionage and maintenance of terror. 

With the Increasing Islamization of the Mongols, 

their policy changed. Once again, as had happened during 

the invasions of the Saljuqa and the Khwarazmians, 

fanatical Islam was wed to the nomads' lust for booty. 

?rom toward the end of the 13th century to beyond the end 

of the 14th century, anti-Christian persecutions prevailed 

almost uninterruptedly. What earlier had been punishment 

meted out to an occasionally recalcitrant naxarar became 

the generalized fate of all Christians refusing to convert. 

Nomads of all kinds of backgrounds,circulating in different 

— 

M p. 313* "...zi Sotoveal er ^wr ars erikays i qarsjx* 

ew i_ tackac ork aoxnay gorcein ggorc xakut'ean ew t snamik 

eln afawel k 'HatoneTc^''. ^^ --- 

2 KG pp. 390-91. 

208

part* of the Armenian highlands, attacked churches, 

monasteries, wealthy and poor Christians. Already in 

the late 1270's Turkmen* killed Sargis, the influential 

bishop of Erzinjan . in 1290, the anti-Christian lord 

of Mayyafarikin had the Armenian lord of Mus assassinated 

w 2 

and then persecuted the monks of Taron. In 1290/91 a 

peripatetic Armenian priest, Grigor, was killed at Zarberd, 

and 45 Armenian meoatuns in the city were arrested. It 

16 interesting that this episode is recounted both in 

Bar Hebraeus and in an Armenian martyrology. In the 

Armenian account, the Mongol governor barely restrained 

a Muslim mob from killing the 45 merchants. Ihis scene 

is reminiscent of Kirakos' account of Chaehatai * s rescue 

of the arrested naxarars (1249/50). It is one of the 

last examples of such restraint to be found in the sources: 

...But a certain chief named T'at'laray.of the 

Nation of the Archers, got up, mounted a horse, 

[came] with his troops, snatched the bound [prisoners] 

away from them and set them free in peace. Then 

he threatened [the would-be killers] saying: 'Were 

you to slay such citizens,_what answer should I give 

to the world-conquering Khan by whom I was sent 

to guard this city? 4. 

SA p. 162. Samuel's contlnuator places the murder in 1272, 

though the Annals of Bishop Step'annos (MC vol. 1 p. 44) 

puts it in 1276. See above oh. two pp. 120-21 n. 1. 

BH p. 464. 

BH pp. 4B3-84. 

AHM p. 115. 

209

In the coming decades, no "answer* would have been 

necessary, as anti-Christian persecution became policy. 

Such persecutions, executions, confiscations, and des- 

tructions of churches were reported from all parts of 

historical Armenia . Anti-Christian persecution was 

launched formally with the plundering and killing ezped- 

For the first decade of the 14th century, surviving 

colophons speak of persecutions and confiscations at 

Alt'amar (14CC p. 41), and of Turkmen attacks on Zayk'/ 

Tao (KG pp. 310-12; Mur. pp. 175-77). During the second 

decade there were destructions of monasteries in parts of 

northeastern Armenia (14CC p. 66), and at Karin (14CC p. 

102, also the martyrdom of bishop Grigor Earneo'i d. 132V 

22 ANil pp. 121-27), persecutions in southern Armenia at 

Alt'amar (14CC p.114), Varaga (14CC pp. 136-37), Berkri 

( 14CC p. 144), Sebastia (14CC p. 163). The third decade 

brought a slight relaxation of the terror, but soon it 

escalated again (VT p. 164). In the fourth, decade, 

persecution was reported from Iranian Tabriz (14CC p. 283)« 

Lori in northern Armenia (14CC p.249), Alt'amar (14CC p. 

259), Goit'n (14CC p. 281), and Erevan. This'last city 

was attacked by a coalition of Mongols, Turkmans and 

Kurds (14CC p. 305). In the fifth decade persecutions, 

brigandage, and massacres continued at Erzir.jan (14CC p. 

325), Tayk* (14CC p. 327), Bayburt and Tevrike (14CC p. 

369), C'lna (14CC p. 379) and between 1350 and 1360 

occurred at Alt'amar (14CC pp. 405, 414), Erz: Jan (14CC 

p. 411), and Bjjni (VT pp. 169-70). In the seventh decade 

there were persecutions, expulsions, massacres and destructions 

of churches in Hayoc* Jor near Julamerik 

(14CC p. 458) and Mui (14CC p. 483). Reference to persecutions 

in the above cities should not be taken to mean 

that persecutions occurred solely there and solely at 

that date. Anti-Christian terror was a permanent feature 

of the 14th century and it was general throughout the 

Armenian highlands, north, south, east, and west, though 

Its scale and intensity did vary greatly. 

210

itions of Nauruz (1295/96) during the reign of Ghacan-Khan. 

Whether or not Ghazan at firat knew about Nauruz1 activities 

ia disputed from source to source. Granted, Nauruz 

eventually was hunted down and executed at Shazan's 

command, with Christian Caucasians gleefully participating. 

But by then, the Turkmans were no longer controllable. 

Not surprisingly, the "hellish and bitter" 14th 

century did not produce literary historians such as 

Kirakos, Vardan, or Step'annos. The disorganized history 

of S'ovma Hecop'ec'i (d. ca. 1446) does speak of the 

last three decades of the 14th century, but for the 

first seven decades, only the humble authors of chronicles 

and colophons, many of then anonymous, detail the persec- 

utions, plunderings of churches and famines. They do not 

speak of land disputes among naxarars—-many of whom 

already had quit the country, had apostasized, or been 

killed. 

In the 1320's, Grigor, bishop of Karin/Erzerum was 

killed after refusing to convert . In 1334 Christians 

were obliged to wear special blue badges as a visible 

indicator of their subordinate status2, just as economically 

1 

SAp. 167 dates this in 1321/22, while ANM p. 123 has 

1326, "V27. 

2 

SA p. 165. 

211

their subordinate status was made formal years before 

(1301/2) by the inception of the kharaj tax, an annual 

tax on Christians . The requirement of the blue badge, 

kerchief, or hat, to set the Christians apart from Kuslims 

was observed by the Bavarian captive, Johann Schiltberger 

around 1400, and so was a feature of the entire 14th 

2 

century . 

With the breakdown of the IlrKhanid government in the 

1330*8, various Turkmen, Mongol, and Kurdish bands 

became completely unchecked. For example, in 1343, the 

Qara Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) Turkmens (who had established 

bases in Bagrewand and Kajberunik* in the late 13th 

century) were ceaselessly raiding around Hat . The 

Spanish Muslim traveller Ibn Battuta in 1333 noted that 

Karin/Erzerum was "mostly in ruins as a consequence of 

a factional feud which broke out between two groups of 

Turkmens there"4. During the 1330's and 1340's, the 

cities of Ersnjan, Sebastia/Sivas, and Karin/Erzerum 

were under almost constant seige by rival nomadic groups . 

SA p. 165. 

JS p. 74. 

14CC p. 334. 

Battuta p. 437. 

SA pp. 167-69. 

212

Hat* was captured by Turkmans in 1359 . Furthermore, 

in the 1380'a, Ximur'a detachoenta frequently battled 

with Qara Qoyunlu and Kurdish groups. In the Capaljur 

and Hui areas and near Karin/Erzerum, the Turkmene 

- - 2 

successfully reaiated Timur's advance . In 1382 Turkmen 

groups were fighting in the plain of Artac . During 

his second invasion (1395) Timur raided Turkmen areaa 

centered at ArSea on lake Tan'a northern shore . 

Concomitant with the chaos occasioned by warring 

nomads went persecution of Christians—especially of the 

clerical nobility. In 1387/88, Step'annos, archbishop 

of Sebaatia/Sivas was executed for failure to convert. 

His monastery of St. Nsan was converted into a dervish 

sanctuary, and other churches there were demolished . 

In 1393/94, kat'otikos Zak'aria of Alt'amar and the 

kat'otikos of Sia, T'eodoros both were executed . Between 

SA p. 

TM P. 21. 

SA p* 170. 

TM pp. 46-47. 

ANJJ PP. 144-45. 

SA p. 172. 

213

1403 and 1406, according to the Spanish ambassador 

Clavijo, lirnur demolished the churches of Erznjan and 

BekariS1. 

the triumph of the Turkmans drained Armenia, in 

numerous ways. H. Llanandyan and I. Babayan have observed 

the collapse of Armenia's economy, pointing out the 

incompatibility of the nomadic economic system with the 

agricultural and mercantile economy of Armenia?. The 

Mongols expropriated for their own use vast tracts of 

land in Armenia, taking certain choice farming areas for 

summer and winter pasturage for their herds. The slopes 

of the Aragac mountains, and the areas of Yayoc* Jor, 

parts of the plain of Ayrarat, andvareas around Karin/ 

Erzerum, Tan, Berkri, and Balel/Bitlie became summer 

vavlaa. while Vaspurakan, the Ayrarat plains and the 

Xarberd region were used for wintering places . These 

areas formerly had been under intensive agricultural 

development, but increasingly in the late 13th and in the 

14th century they became semi-desert . Parts of southern 

Clav. pp. 130, 138. 

H.A. Manandyan, Trade, chp. VI pp. 201-202, chp. 71 

~ " mi 3nadaryan hayastanl 

rom the Historyof Medieval 

> 

feodalakan tnteea.1evi tiraoetut Van 

heteyank nera nstakyac* Soôvurdneri tntesakan _ vra 

[Consequences of the Dominance of the Nomadic Feuda 

Economic System on the Economic Life'of Sedentary Peoples]" 

CEpisodeelpp. 77-119. 

* Episodes P.83. 

4 HAP P. 657. 

214

and western Armenia were used almost solely for animal 

husbandry. The Mongols and Turknen nomads used the 

area between Erznjan, Bayberd, and Sebastia/Sivaa, and 

areas around Van and in Diyarbakr for these purposes, t 

also . Hot only was good farmland allowed to desiccate, 

but with the mass enslavings and deportations of whole 

Tillages, there were even fewer farmers; and with the 

mass theft of livestock, remaining farmers often were 

deprived of their only source of power for pulling the 

plow. 

A part of the Caucasian land-owning class also was 

deprived of land and driven to bankruptcy by the Mongols' 

excessive tax demands. Already by the time of the 

princes' rebellion of 1259-61, the sources speak of the 

impoverishment of some of the princes: 

...With [the rebel king David] went many 

other great princes of districts who were 

harassed and harried, bankrupt, and who had 

mortgaged cities and districts, but were still 

unable to satiate the evil, leech-like appetite 

[of the Mongols]. 2. 

HAP p. 658. 

KG p.,389: ",..and nma ew ayl mecamec isxank gaw 

zanyaga eat 

215

At the same time that certain large landholders were 

selling their estates, a few Mongol favorites such as 

Sahmadin, Umck, Snorhawor and Sadun Arcruni were purchasing 

them and became landholders after the example of the 

Mongol aristocrats, owning huge properties in different 

states . However, the wealth of these few lords, accum- 

ulated from trading and land speculation, cannot serve 

as an index of the country's prosperity. 

The decline of Armenia's cities in this period 

was caused by Turkmen ravages, excessive taxation, and 

by the transferal of the international trade routes. 

Ragbid al-Din speaking about the disastrous situation 

at the beginning of the 14th century, wrote that five 

of every ten houses were deserted, and that numerous 

o 

cities on both sides of the •Euphrates had been abandoned . 

Hamd Allah Mustawfi Qazvini noted the decline of cities 

and townsin Caucasia across the Armenian highlands in 

his day (1340). Speaking of Georgia and Abxazia, he 

stated that "revenues in time of their native kings 

amounted to near 5,000,000 dinars of the present currency; 

but in our times the government only obtains 1,202,000 dinars"5. 

About Rum, which embraced western Armenia, he 

said: "Its revenues at the present day amount to 3,300,000 

1 HAP p. 657. 

2 Rasfaid, III pp. 308-309} Yov. YiS. p. 992. 

3 Q P. 94. 

216

dinars ae set down in the registers; tout during the time 

of the Saljuqs they were in excess of 15,000,000 dinars 

of the present currency" . The walls of Sebastia/Sivaa 

2 3 

were in ruins jAwnik was in ruins'; Bayburt "was a 

large town; it is now but a small one" ; Mui "in former 

times a large city, but now a ruin" ; Berkri "a small 

town, that was a large place formerly" ; "Van is a fortress 

and Vastan (Ostan) was a large town formerly, but now 

only of medium size"7. Hat' "is the capital of this 

province [Greater Armenia] and its revenues in former 

days amounted to near 2,000,000 dinars of the present 

currency; but now the total sum paid is only 390,000 

dinars" . Until the Saljuq invasions, Siwnik' had some 

1 Q p. 95. 

2 ibid. 

3 Q P. 96. 

4 ibid. 

5 Q P. 105. 

6 Q P. 100. 

7 Q. p. 101. 

8 Q. p. 100. 

217

1,000 Tillages, while at the end of the 13th century, 

the figure had declined by 331 to 677 Tillages. According 

to Samuel of Anl and Matthew of Edeaaa, the former 

Arcrunid kingdom in Taspurakan had over 4,000 Tillages, 

but 13th and 14th century authors speak of that area 

with distress, as if describing a desert . Furthermore, 

in the 1550 's the trade routes shifted away from the 

northern cities of Anl and Sara, to southern cities of 

Xlat', MayyafariklnAP 'rkert, and ArSei, helping to 

2 

impoverish northeastern Armenia . Not surprisingly, it 

is precisely from the mid-l4th century that the great 

naxarar families of northeastern Armenia quickly fade 

from the sources, literary and inscriptional. Influential 

Zak'arids, 7a(uteans and ProScans (known as such, and 

not by a different surname) are unknown after 1360, and 

noteworthy Orbeleans and Dop'eans are mentioned last 

at the end of the 14th century . 

An important aspect of the Turkmens1 triumph concerns 

the settlement of Turco-Mongol populations across the 

Armenian highlands. Regrettably, the sources do not 

contain much information on this question. The sources 

mention Mongols established in the area between 

HAP p. 661. 

Manandyan, Trade, pp. 197-200. 

HAP pp. 642-44. R. Hewsen's articles("The Meliks" in 

BjJAJhave demonstrated the probable survival of "noble" 

statue within melik families descended from the naxarara 

218

Bayburt and Sebastia/SivasJ Qara-Qoyunlu Turkmen in the 

Lake Van basin; Aq-Qoyunlu Turkmen in tbe Amida-Diyarbakr 

area , Presumably some of those areas of southern 

and western Armenia which the nomada used for their 

yaylaa eventually were transformed into sedentary 

communities. In the 1403-1406 period, Clavijo 

encountered but two yaylaa. one near BekariS and the 

other in Ernjfak, though clearly there must have been 

o 

more . Johan Schiltberger speaks of Turkmans in the 

Samaun area, renting pasturage3. With time, more 

and more Turkmena began settling in or near cities. 

Clavijo observed that both Erzicjan and Ani—two traditionally 

Armenian cities—had Turkmen governors, and that BekariS 

had an Armenian and a Turkish suburb . 

1 Episodes p. 86. 

2 Clav. pp. 138, 148. 

3 JS p. 14. 

4 Clav. pp. 138-39, 333. 

219

Saxarar Reactions to Mongol Control Techniques of the 

13-14th Centuries 

Raiarar reactions to the different control techniques 

used by the Mongols before and after their Islanlzation 

were varied, but contained no elements previously unknown 

in the long hietoiy of the naxarars. We have observed 

naxarar reaction to the invasions: when united military 

resistance proved impossible, the naxarars holed up in 

their mountain fortresses; when they learned that the 

Mongols apared those submitting peaceably, the naxarars 

submitted, making separate often highly advantageous arrange- 

ments with their new overlords. As for the domination, 

naxarar reactions to Mongol control techniques in the 

13-l4th centuries may be grouped under five major headings. 

The lords (1) attempted when possible to exploit the 

rivalry between different centers of Mongol authority; 

(2) rebelled, when feeling themselves sufficiently 

powerful or when driven to it by Mongol excesses; (3) 

emigrated from the Armenian highlands In large numbers; 

(4) lalamlzed in large numbers, and (5) withstood everything, 

retaining the Christian faith and also a certain leverage 

with the Turco-Mongol regimes. Some lords of totally 

impregnable fortresses became caravan-looters and bandits. 

Other lords sometimes were able to retain certain privileges 

and even family lands through the process of giving their 

220

lands to religious establishments under the control 

of clerical representatives of the secular lord's 

own family. 

She naaarars traditionally attempted to exploit 

big power rivalries whenever they believed that they 

stood to gain leverage thereby. This required the 

existence of two or more foreign rivals powerful enough 

potentially to balance each other and also willing to 

intervene militarily or diplomatically in the Caucasus. 

Did such a situation exist in the 13-14th centuries? At 

certain times it did, although it did not produce the 

results hoped for by the naxarars. The two Mongol rivals 

were the fl-Khan state in Iran, centered at Tabriz, and 

the state of the Norther Tatars (the Golden Horde) centered 

at Sarai on the Volga river. The rivalry between these 

two, which broke into open warfare in the mid-1260's, 

manifested itself at least twenty years earlier. 

Influence over the Caucasus, which each side regarded 

as its own, was but one factor in this dispute, but the 

crucial one from the standpoint of certain Caucasian 

lords seeking maneuverability. 

At the time of the Mongol conquest (1236), queen 

Busudan of Georgia fled for safety to the distant city 

of Xutals in northwestern Georgia. The Mongols sent 

emissaries (including Armenian naxarars) to her demanding 

her submission and that she send them her son David Rusudanean 

221

...But ahe did not do so, and Instead 

sent Iwane's son Awag who was among/in the 

Tatar army ("had already submitted) with a 

few soldiers to the Tatars, saying: iUntll 

the ambassador whoa I sent to the Khan your 

king returns, I cannot COBS to you. 1. 

It was at this point that the enraged Mongols enthroned 

Rusudan'a nephew, the legitimate heir, David Laiaean: 

Now when David's aunt Rusudan heard 

about this, she fled to Abxazia and Svane'tla 

with her son, the other David (,!.£. David 

Rusudanean), and sent ambassadors to the 

other Jatar commander, Batu, a relative of 

the Khan... She offered him her submission. 

Batu ordered her to reside in Tiflis, and 

no one opposed_thls, since during this tine 

the [Great] Khan had died. 2. 

Rusudan's plans were thwarted when the Mongols decided to 

enthrone both Davids, Indicating that two could play the 

same game. But with the deepening of hostilities between 

the II-Khans and the Northern Tatars, the question of 

Georgian allegiance became crucial. Indeed, years later, 

when HiilegU was planning to kill hostage members of king 

David Laiaean'a family, he was prudently stopped by 

his wife: 

KG p. 288: *...2fk na arareal* tay sakaw zorrs 

ind I*at ar zorun. 

KG p. 289: "I§k horak'oyr oora Ruzudan" ^.bêw luaw gayn. 

p'axeaw yAp'xa'zet'' ew f SuaneT

_ Remember too that your brother, the great 

jQxan fiatu'a aon CBerke] has sent many emissaries 

and given great gifts [to David] so that they 

give [Mm] the Serial [pass] and the western 

highway, and that both are in his (David's) hands 

...for should the army of Batu's ulus and that 

of the [Georgian] king unite, there shall be 

great disorder. 1. 

In the very last years of the 13th century onoe again the 

Georgian king attempted alliance with the Northern 

Tatars, sending his son and brother to them. Despite 

his disloyalty, the II-Khans were sufficiently concerned 

to seek reconciliation with the king "so that the king 

would swear an oath of loyalty to Ghazan, and not 

• 2 

permit passage to Batu's grandson, the great Khan Toqta . 

With the deterioration of the soirees in the 14th century, 

references to alliances with the Northern Tatars disappear. 

However, the Northern connection remained a double-edged 

sword, as the events of the late 1380's were to prove. 

Was the Georgian royal family alone among the lords 

to attempt using the Golden Horde for leverage? Apparently 

not. Hasan Jalal believed that he could achieve maneuver- 

ability similarly. It was from Batu that Hasan received 

in.1tt status (ca. 1257) although eventually he too was 

nma nstel i Tp'xis. ef sok'a o$ anddimac'an. k/ 'anzi and 

awurs end ays mefreal er tann". 

* 

KC pp. 245-46; Mur. p. 118. 

KG pp. 303-304; Mur. p. 169. 

223

thwarted by local Mongols and had to visit the Great 

Khan Ubngke to complain . Probably, however, naxarar 

attempts to play off the two inimical Mongol states 

were not common. 

It is interesting that at the very end of our period, 

after all of Timor'e decimations, enslavements and 

executions we find at least one naxarar seeking leverage 

from the rivalry of two strong powers. The Armenian 

governor of Erzirjan, called Taharten by Clavijo and 

T'axrat'an by T'ovma Mecbp'ec'i, was blamed by Clavijo 

for causing strife and warfare between his Ottoman 

lord Bayazid, and Timur: 

Now the causes that led to the Sultan of 

the Turks having knowledge of the Mongol Tartars 

and what indeed brought Timur first into Asia 

Minor, where he afterwards fought and conquered 

Sultan Bayazid, the causes thereof, I say, were 

these. The lord of the city of Arzinjan was at 

that time as already explained, the prince 

Taharten: and his territories neighbored those 

of the Turk. Tne Sultan had lately become most 

avaricious to possess all that region, and more 

especially to be master of that strong castle 

of Camag which Taharten jealously guarded as his 

own. Sultan Bayazid thereupon was prompted to 

send to Taharten a message demanding of him that 

he should pay tribute, and also that he should 

deliver into his care that castle of Camag. 

To this Taharten replied that willingly would 

he pay tribute, acknowledging the Sultan as 

his overlord, but that the Caste of Camag he 

would not deliver over to the Turks. To Taharten 

the answer shortly came back that it would be 

for his peace to deliver it up, otherwise he 

would certainly lose both it and his whole 

territory. Row prince Taharten had by this 

time already heard of Timur and his mighty deeds, 

and how he was engaged waging war in Persia, 

where all the Persian princes had been subjugated. 

Taharten therefore sent envoys to Timur, with 

gifts and letters, beseeching him that he would 

224

come to his aid against the lurk, and he offered 

to place both himself and his territories 

completely at the disposal and service of Tiaur. 

Timur on this, despatched an envoy to Sultan 

Bayacid with letters in which he informed the 

Sultan that prince Taharten was become his 

subject and vassal. Hence for his own honor he, 

Timur, could not allow aught of dishonor to be 

done to Taharten or the matter should be requited 

at the Sultan's hands.n.l. 

Another naxarar response to Mongol control was 

rebellion and armed resistance. The naxarar rebellions 

which already have been discussed in different contexts 

in this study, all were caused by Mongol excesses. 

Nonetheless, all of them failed because the Mongols 

controlled the loyalty of certain principal lords 

who informed on the conspirators. At times, Caucasian 

revolt amounted to little more than flight far into 

the inaccessible mountains, but on other occasions, 

the rebels did have some leverage or at least aid, be 

it the real or presumed assistance (mostly diplomatic) 

from the Golden Horde, or be it from alliance with 

Mongol rebels. The sources contain several instances 

of such entente cordiale between Caucasian and Mongol 

o 

rebels . Given the numerical superiority of Mongol troops, 

and their renowned discipline, and given the mountainous 

Clav. pp. 131-32. 

2 KG pp. 261-62} Mur. p. 133, also KG pp. 297-99? Mur. pp. 

164-65. 

225

terrain of Caucasia, such revolts always took the 

form of guerrilla warfare. It is noteworthy that 

despite the demonstrated exhaustion of Armenia during 

the 14th century, there still was some scattered 

resistance offered to Timur: 

...How a pious tanuter named Martiros, 

an extremely strong warrior from the village 

of Kolb [in northeastern Armenia], mercifull, 

a lover of the poor, went up onto Bardol 

mountain which others call T'akalt'u. With 

him were extremely manly and brave youths 

from the village. They saved all the Believers 

through a great battle and with the intrepid 

aiding power of mighty GodA £esua Christ, 

our Savior. And though [Timur"a men] fought 

many times, they were unable to take that 

mountain. But subsequently [Hartiros] was 

murdered by an unclean Turkmen named Sahat' 

--drowned in the waters of the Araz, far from 

human sight. 1. 

In addition to Kolb, the ProScan city of Sahaponk', and 

Surmari and Bjni also offered resistance to Timur2. 

Moat remarkable of all were the successes of the Georgian 

monarch against Timur. In the early years of the 15th 

century, king Giorgi VII undertook a marauding exped- 

ition of revenge against Muslim settlements. It was 

reminiscent of amirsoasalar Zak*are's final campaign 

TM pp. 17-18. The present writer regrets that he is unable 

to furnish the classical Armenian texts for III. So my 1 

ledge there is no copy of Sahnazarean's 1860 edition in 

the United States. The above passage has been extracted 

from a full translation of Mecop'ec i'a History done 

by the present writer, during the winter of 1976/77 in 

Erevan, 

HAP vol. IV p. 25. 

226

through Naxijewan, Juia, through A*zarbaljan to Marand, 

Tabriz and Qazvin in 1211-121. 

Emigration of naxarara from Armenia was caused 

by two factors: the breakdown of conditions deemed 

essential by the mecatuns for international trade, and (from 

the inception of Islamization) anti-Christian terror 

aimed especially at the prominent and well-to-do. 

Emigration to escape Mongol domination probably began 

in the 1220's during the decade of chaos. Already 

by the time of the French Franciscan William of Subruck's 

visit to Ani (1255), even the Zakarids were looking for 

1 •It was about this time [1405/6] that the king ofGeorgia 

of whom we have already spoken, came out in rebellion. 

He invaded the country round and about Ani and Erzerun, 

which is of Greater Armenia, and extended his raid down 

even to Tabriz, plundering and burning many villages and 

hamlets, spreading terror on all hands. The Moslems 

of Tabriz held that Prince Omar must of his duty march 

to their defence, but he failed to oome. But next he 

sent in his place, giving him command in Tabriz, a certain 

great noble [of whom we have already spoken] a very old 

man, him whose name was Omar Toban, who at the head of 

some 5,000 horse had hitherto been stationed on the Georgian 

frontier of those parts. From the country round Tabriz 

troops were hurriedly collected, these numbering some 

15,000 horse, and forthwith proudly marched through the 

streets of that city, where they made a very fine display. 

Then these all took their departure for the frontier in 

the region of the Alatao. plains, which are of Greater 

Armenia. No sooner had king George heard of their approach 

than he marched out with 5,000 of his horsemen to encounter 

them:»and coming fell on them at night. Taking them thus 

by surprise, he slew most of these men, while such as 

•escaped fled back to Tabriz, where the terror and confusion 

of the Moslem folk became very great"(Clav* p. 323). 

.227

a way out: 

...We came to the country of Sahensa(Sahniah) 

once the most powerful Georgian prince, but now 

tributary to the Tartars, who have destroyed all 

its fortified places. His father, Zacharias by 

name, had got this country of the Armenians, for 

delivering then from the hands of the Saracens. 

I took a meal with this Sahensa; and he showed 

me great politeness, as did his wife and his son 

called Zacharias, a very fine and prudent young 

man, who asked me, whether if he should come to 

you [the Pope], you would keep him with you; for 

so heavily does he bear the domination of the 

Tartars, that though he has abundance of all things, 

he would prefer to wander in foreign lands to 

bearing their domination. Moreover, they told me 

that they were sons of the Roman Church; and if 

the lord Pope would send them some assistance, 

they would themselves subject all the neighboring 

countries to the Church. 1. 

The sources contain no references to emigration of 

naxarare and their dependents en masse , of the sort 

known from earlier times. Nor may much speciflo be 

said about emigration in the 13th century generally, 

beyond the fact that it occurred (and probably was 

widespread), because of a lack of information. Some 

13th century colophons written by clerics from 

Greater Armenia merely mention the fact that the authors 

themselves fled from the Mongols, sometimes adding the 

name of an occasional lord who also left. Cllicia 

seems to have been a favorite refuge for many Greater 

* 

Armenians, though colophons written in Armenian centers 

WE pp. 271-72. 

228

is Italy are not unknown. In the 14th century, the 

Crimea became a favorite refuge for mecatun merchants, 

and its trading capital of Kafa also became a major 

center of Armenian culture . 

Given the inextricable connection between the 

Church and the State in Armenia, it should come as 

no surprise that the powerful families diversified their 

talents and wealth into both areas in the 13-14th 

centuries. Just as in Arsacid times, in this period 

also the bishop of a given district usually was the 

brother or other close relation of the district's 

secular lord. When a given regime granted the Church 

tax-free status or other privileges, the secular lords 

attempted to transfer the family holdings to the (family) 

Church, to avoid paying taxes, or to obtain other 

advantages. Each of the major naxarar families groomed 

certain members (sometimes selected at birth) for 

specific offices in the Church. Their ideal was the 

situation obtaining in the late 13th century in Siwnik', 

ruled by the secular naxarar Elikum Orbelean. The 2 

metropolitan of Siwnik' was his brother, Step'annos . 

For example: 1233/34 col. Alilan, Hay. #318 "B", p.#57? „ 

1238/39 col. Alilan, #318 "C", p.458;1239/40 col. Yov. YiS.. 

PP. 936-37; 1240/41 col. Yov. YiS.,pp. 941-42, to cite 

a few of the earlier ones. See 27 K. Eorkhmazian's 

ianekaia mlniatiura Kryma [Armenian Miniatures of 

(Ei Erevan, """ 1978 — 

•SO pp. 178-79. 

229

With increasing frequency the 13th century inscriptions 

mention the tetoting of lands and villages on certain 

monasteries, and virtually all 14th century inscriptions 

speak of it. The gtanting of land to the naxararized 

churches was used as a device not only to avoid onerous 

land taxes but also as a means of retaining control of 

the district in the event of the naxarars' departure to 

another land, temporarily or permanently. The Arcrunids, 

it will be remembered, had made such an arrangement already 

in the llth century when king Senek'erim quit Yaspurakan 

but retained control of numerous monasteries • Over 

many centuries the Arcrunid Zedenekeans and Sefedineans 

did indeed retain control of some parts of Taspurakan, 

especially Alt'amar where they set up their own kat'olikos- 

in the early 12th century. It is not impossible that the 

vardapet Malak'ia of the late 14th century, centioned 

by T'ovma Hecop'ec'i, was in eastern Armenia to keep an 

eye on the property of his prosperous family, which had 

moved to the Crimea some time before: 

...[Malak'ia] was from the seaside city of 

(rim (Crimea), son of an extremely wealthy family. 

He left his inheritance and came to the great 

vardapet Yovhannes. Receiving from him the authority 

of vardapet. [Malak'ia] went to the district of 

VaxCuan and constructed Armenian monasteries. 2 . 

See above pp. 167-o8, and Appendix B p. 279. 

*.: p. 15. 

230

The sane may be true of Malak'ia's teacher, vardapet 

Tovhannes kaxik Orotnec'i, "son of the great prince 

Iwane, from the line of the first princes of Siwnik" . 

At the end of our period, the Spanish ambassador Clavijo 

reported on a similar situation. Enroute to Ximur in 

1403, Clavijo lodged in the southeastern district of 

Maku with the Armenian lord of that mountainous area, 

a Roman Catholic named Nur ad-Din: 

The governor CKur ad-Din] further had at 

home there another son, younger than that other, 

and in conversation he informed us that this 

second son of his, not being a man of arms like 

his brother, but learned and a skilled grammarian 

in the Armenian language, he desired that 

should God grant us to return home from Samarkand 

passing by the way of this his castle, he would 

fain confide this youth to our care, to carry 

him with us to Spain. Then our King, who, he 

trusted might favor him, would recommend him to 

the Pope, beseeching his holiness to ordain him 

a bishop over his father's province. It is 

indeed a wonder how the Christians of this 

Castle of Maku hold their own thus surrounded by 

the Moslem folk and so far estranged from all 

Christian succour: they are in fact of the 

Armenian nation, but of the Roman Catholic belief, 

and they serve God in the orthodox rite. 2. 

The above quotation has elements in common with Rubruok's 

remarks also. Sahnsah and Nur ad-Din both were attempt- 

ing to ally with the might of the Catholic Church, to 

bring in a powerful foreign power to give them political 

TM pp. 14-15. 

Clav. p. 147. 

231

leverage at home or (perhaps better) to secure the 

future existence of the family holdings—under control 

of the clerical rather than secular lords of the 

family. 

With the Islamization of the Mongols, the naxarara 

were under direct pressure to convert. However, the 

polygamy of the late 13th century naxarars may indicate 

that some lords were easing into the Islamic practises 

of their Mongol overlords even before being obliged to 

apostasize. Perhaps they practised two religions. 

Specific references to the conversion of lords in 

contradistinction to the general conversion of the 

populace, abound from sources dating to the end of our 

period. Clavijo and T'ovma Mecop'ec'i both mention 

the Armenian prince Taharten, governor of -2rznjan. His 

son by a daughter of the emperor of Trebizond, was a 

Muslim and (perhaps because of his faith), Timor's 

governor of the same city . Another probable Armenian 

lordly convert to Islam is the emir Ezdin of Van, whom 

T'ovma Mecop'ec'i described as being "of the line of A 

king Senek'erim", !...£., of some Arcrunid background . 

Clav. p. 125. 

P. 30. 

232

The Timurids forced certain princes to convert. Bagarat, 

king of Georgia, was forced to convert, but the apostasy 

waa only temporary, and to save hia life . In the late 

14th century, Timur'a grandson, 'Hoar, forced several 

conversions: 

During the first year of his reign, he 

forcibly made to apostasize three princes of 

our people who had remained like a tiny cluster 

of grapes among us.: the so.n o£ Iwane and 

grandson of Butt'el, Butt'el ter of Orotan, of 

the Orbelean family; his brother Smbat whom 

they took with hia family to Samarkand (but 

subsequently, through divine mercy and their 

prayer.8 they returned to their patrimony); 

the ter of Eiegie named Tarsayic, son o£ 

Gorgon they caused to apostasize; the ter 

of Haku they detached from the false anaaiophysitic 

[beliefs] of Alt'armayut *iwn [Roman 

Catholicism], and the son of an azat (azatordi) 

named Azitan from Alc'uac* village in the 

Ayraratean district. Later, however, they 

repented and became true Believers in Christ 

and heirs of the Kingdom. 2. 

The ter of Maku referred to in the above quotation 

probably is the first son of Clavijo's host, Nur ad-Din. 

Clavijo related that Nur ad-Din came to terms with 

Jimur, and pledged to serve in his army with 20 horsemen . 

IK p. 20. 

TM pp. 67-68. 

Clav. p. 145. Also see R. Hewsen, "The Melike"(II), 

#1(1973/74) p. 299. 

233

But this was not enough. Timor demanded religious 

adhesion: 

Next, Timur, noting that the lord of the 

castle had so fine a son. it were, he said, indeed 

a pity the youth should be kept mewed up at home, 

and he, Timur, would receive him, carrying him 

off in his train to become the companion of his 

grandson. This prince, the grandson of Timur 

is named Omar Mirza', and he was at that time 

already established as governor ruling over the 

whole of Western Persia, in which region Maku 

is included. The young man whom Timur thus carried 

off in his train is at this present moment living 

with Omar Mirza, and has been raised to be a 

commander in his army. But they have forced him 

against his will to become a Moslem, having 

bestowed on him the name of Siurgatmish, and he 

now is captain of the guards of Omar Mirza. 

Outwardly he professes himself a Moslem: but 

not of free will, for at heart he is still a 

Catholic. 1. 

As a result of the unsettled, unsafe times, some 

lords of completely impregnable fortresses, unable to 

maintain themselves in any other way, turned to banditry. 

Prime sources of loot were the increasingly rare 

caravans passing over the bandit's lands, or even booty 

captured from Tlmurids and Turkmans. Sometimes bandit 

lords operated alone, sometimes in alliance with others, 

Christian or Muslim. C'ovma Mecdp'eo'i speaks of one 

such mixed group of Kurdish Muslim and Armenian Christian 

brigands from Sasun and Xut' which looted a Timurid camp 

1 Clav. p. 146. 

234

in aouthweatern Armenia in the early 1390'a . The 

Spanish ambaaaador Clavijo encountered Caucaaian bandita 

both enroute to Erzi*jan from Trebizond in 1403, and on 

hia return, again in northwestern Armenia and eeuthwestern 

Georgia: "for though they are Armenians and profess to 

be Christiana, all are robbers and brigands; indeed 

they forced us, before we were let free to pass, to give 

2 

a present of our goods as toll for right of passage" . 

The lord encountered in the Trebizond area in 1403> prob- 

ably a Graeco-Georgian, was typical of thia group of 

mountain lords: 

He preceded to explain to us that he lived 

in that barren land, where indeed we found him 

now at peace, but that he had continually to defend 

himself against the Turks who were hia neighbors 

on all aides, against whom he was ever at war. 

Further he said he and hia men had nothing to lire 

on, except it were what they could get given them 

by those who passed through their country, or what 

they could come to by plundering the landa of their 

neighbors, and hence he, Cabaaioa, must now Implore 

of us to give him some aid aa a free gift in the 

form of money or gooda. In answer we stated that 

we were ambassadors and no merchants, being envoys 

whom our master the King of Spain was sending 

to the Lord Timur, and that further we carried 

no gooda with us except what we were bearing aa 

gifts to Timur. That Tatar ambaaaador of Timur, 

who was our travelling companion, here broke in, 

saying that though he well knew the Emperor of 

Trebizond was the overlord of all that country, 

he was in fact none the less a vassal potentate 

tributary to Timur, wherefore it was Incumbent 

TK p. 27. 

Clav. p. 336. 

235

on him, Cabasioa, that we all should be allowed 

to pass those borders without let or hindrance. 

To this Cabasica, backed by his men, replied that 

this all might indeed be very true, but that they 

were in a state only able to exist by what they 

could obtain in the manner that had been set forth 

to as; averring that by necessity their stress of 

wherewithal to eat would cause them even to plunder 

and raid into the homelands of the Lord Timur himself. 

1. 

Despite the extremely bleak situation across the 

Armenian highlands at the end of the 14th century, the 

sources still report a few instances of secular and 

clerical Armenian lords enjoying some influence with 

the Timurids. Among the secular rulers belong the 

o 

unnamed woman ruler of Igdir castle , and the Armenian 

lord of Bayazid . Another such lord was the Roman 

Catholic Kur ad-Din, mentioned earlier . Among the 

clerical lords enjoying some influence with the Timurids 

belong the director of Mecop' monastery, Yovhannes , 

and the noted intellectual.yardapet Grigor Tat'ewac'i, 

who was a confidant of Timur's son, Hiran . 

Clav. p. 119. 

Clay. 142. 

Clay. p. 144; "This city was beseiged by Timur some six 

years ago, but the lord of the same shortly came to terms 

with him agreeing to pay Timur tribute, who on his Aide 

promised not to let his Tartars enter the place. Neither was 

th« lord of Bayazid, either of himself or with his men, 

bound to join and march with Timur". 

4 Clay. 145. 

5 TM p. 58. 

6 TM p. 69. 

236

At the beginning of this chapter it was mentioned 

that Adontz, Manandyan, and Toumanoff disagreed on the 

duration of the naxarar "system". Toumanoff placed its 

destruction in the llth century, Adontz in the early 13th 

century and Manandyan, after the mid-14th century, though 

each of the scholars acknowledged that vestiges of the 

•system" survived into later times. From the quantitative 

standpoint, Toumanoff was quite right in placing the 

Beginning of the end in the llth century. After the Sal jug, 

invasions, the number of remaining naxarar Houses (which 

had steadily declined from about 50 in the 5th century 

to 20 ca. 800 A.D.) numbered about five: the Arcrunlds, 

Bagratids, Mamikonids, Orbeleans, and Fahlawunids. From 

the standpoint of *naxarar ways" which Manandyan spoke of 

without defining, at the end of the 14th century there 

were still some "naxarars" alive in Armenia, as this 

chapter has attempted to demonstrate. Adontz, however, who 

wrote of a "system" destroyed in the early 13th century was 

incorrect in his hypothesis. To Adontz, hereditary tenure 

and seniority were fundamental features of this "system", 

yet he himself admitted that beginning already in the 5th 

century, the rule of seniority was being undermined. By the 

10th century a fundamental change had occurred in the essence 

2 

of the "system" . What the Mongol invasions swept away 

1 Toumanoff, Studies, p. 227. 

2 Adontz, Armenia, p. 221. 

237

was a lordly society, but one more sentimentally remin- 

iscent of, than actually resembling, the Arsacid naxarars 

so brilliantly described by Adontz. 

238

CONCLUSION 

Thia study has examined various aspects of Armenian 

history during the 13-l4th centuries. Commencing with 

a review of the Armenian and non-Armenian sources (chapter 

one), the political and military history of Armenia in our 

period, and in the period immediately preceding it was 

presented in chapter two. The third and final chapter 

concerned Armenia's nobility, the naxarars. 

From 1220, when the Mongols first appeared in the 

Caucasus, to 1385 when Tokhtamysh invaded, a period of 165 

years had elapsed. During that time different parts of 

Armenia had experienced no less than 12 foreign invasions, 

and the severity of Mongol rule had triggered three 

Armeno-Georgian rebellions. Mongol centrifugation had 

resulted in two major uprisings of Mongol nomads resident 

in the Caucasus itself. Moreover, with the collapse of the 

Il-Khanid state in the 1330«s, a condition of "internal 

war" had existed in most parts of historical Armenia, as 

mutually antagonistic bands (and armies) of Mongol, Turkmen, 

and Kurdish nomads fought one another and the sedentary 

native population. Religious persecution and economic 

chaos had long since become the norm. In 1386-87, 1394-96, 

and 1399-1403, Armenia was subjected to what were perhaps 

the most brutal invasions yet, led or directed by Timur. 

239

By focussing on the information regarding each of the major 

invasions provided in the Armenian, Georgian, and relevant 

non-Caucasian sources, the specific features of each have 

been set forth. 

Each successive invasion—Sal juq (llth century, intro- 

duced ae a prototypical example), Khwarazmian, Mongol and 

Timurid—puahed before it, brought along with it, or 

dragged in ita wake into Aaia Minor, thousands of virtually 

uncontrollable nomadic warriors who (when totally unchecked) 

devastated the cities, searching for plunder, destroyed 

the countryside and the complex irrigation systems, turning 

cultivated fields into pasturage for their sheep herds, and 

reduced the possibilities for internal and international 

trade by infesting the trade routes between cities, and 

attacking caravans. Following the noted Mongoliat, Bertold 

Spuler, we have described this element as Turkmen, under 

which is understood not necessarily or solely a Turkic or 

Turcophone population, but rather that plunder-hungry element 

among the nomads, in contradistinction to those forces 

interested in the establishment of stable forms of govern- 

ment, and a sedentary or semi-sedentary existence. 

Centralizing forces within the various Turco-Kongol societies 

described, were obliged to support a very delicate balance. 

On the one hand, the warlike Turkmans were the best, most 

determined fighters, and so were necessary for victorious 

expeditions. On the other hand, the Turkmans' impulse to 

240

destroy and move on had to be fought—-sometimes literally— 

in order for the more sedentary elements to impose taxation 

on the conquered peoples, and attempt to exploit then in 

a more systematic fashion. But eventually the Turkmena 

were victorious, destroying the organized Turkish and Mongol 

states. 

As was pointed out in the final chapter, the wild, 

unrestrained, plunder-hungry element was present from the 

very first, during the Mongol invasions and of course 

during the domination of Armenia (beginning in 1236). In 

a sense, even the "centralizing elements", or let us say 

•representatives of the 'central government'" became 

"Turkmen!zed". The Mongols did not know the meaning of 

fair taxation; application of the principle of peaceful 

exploitation through taxation was not well understood by 

the rulers of the various nomadic societies, and as a 

result, conquered countries were squeezed dry of human and 

material resources. With the Islamization of the Mongols, 

and the ethnic fusion of Turkic and Mongol groups, all 

aspects of life became further "Turkmen!zed". The illegal, 

extraordinary exactions placed upon taxed communities 

(reported in the sources almost from the first) were thereby 

given a religious justification. Once again under the 

Mongols, as had happened during the invasions of the Saljuqs 

and the Khwarazmians, fanatical Islam was wed to the nomads' 

241

lust for booty. From toward the end of the 13th century 

to beyond the end of the 14th century,anti-Christian 

persecutions prevailed almost uninterruptedly. What earlier 

had been punishment meted out to an occasionally recalcitrant 

naxarar became the generalized fate of all Christiana 

refusing to convert. Nomads of all kinds of backgrounds, 

circulating in different parts of the Armenian highlands, 

attacked churches, monasteries, wealthy and poor Christians. 

During the resurgence and expansion of Georgia 

in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, the Georgian 

monarchs used three control mechanisms in dealing with the 

nobles: (1) manipulation of precedence among the lords 

and its corollary, the co-optation of allegiance; (2) cir- 

cumvention of the lords, and (3) de-naxararization. By 

the end of the 12th century the Georgian Crown had managed 

temporarily to rein in the most dangerous centrifugal 

forces—but only for the moment. In that brief historical 

moment (from the last decades of the 12th century until 

ca. 1236) Georgian culture flourished and blossomed. Under 

the aegis of the Georgian Crown and the Armeno-Georgian 

family of Zak'arean/Mxargrceli, Armenia recovered much of 

its irredenta, and flourished as a united state. 

242

The nobility of the Zak'arid revival consisted of 

different elements: men of ambition and military talents 

from newly-arisen families, who were rewarded by their 

Zak'arid overlords with grants of land and/or the rights 

of administration; mecatun merchants; the remnants of 

the ancient dynastic families: Uamikonids, Bagratids, 

Arcrunids, Orbeleans, and others, who in the changed 

situation of the early 13th century all became Zak'arid 

vassals; and the clerical nobility representing the 

different Armenian churches. 

It must be stated that the Zak'arid revival was of 

such short duration that the achievement—a centralized 

Armenian state under Georgian overlordship—>is difficult 

to evaluate. As we illustrated, during the Zak'arid 

revival and throughout the 13th century there were numerous 

conflicts among the naxarars (secular and clerical) over 

land. The lords in this period were not quarreling over 

more orchards and choice hunting grounds, but over the 

tolls for right of passage from the trade routes criss- 

crossing the highlands. There were other superficial 

similarities with Arsacld naxararism, but we stress that 

they were more apparent than real. The feud, an important 

feature of Arsacid naxararism, existed in the 13th century 

as well, but the obligation of blood vengeance had been 

243

eplaced by an elaborate schedule of payments of "blood 

price" with each class of society having its monetary 

worth, written into a law code. The old term for the 

inalienable clan patrimony, the harrenik *. which in 

Araacld times had meant land, in the 13th century referred 

to both moveable and immoveable property, hereditary or 

purchased, and included money and shares in business 

enterprises as well. The service obligation of a subordinate 

to his lord in this period did indeed include military 

service, but the vassals also paid taxes in cash. Hereditary 

tenure and seniority were not the main features of this 

society. Many of the principals of the day were appointees 

of the Zak'arids, rewarded for their talents. The 

Zak'arids established marriage ties with the most prominent 

of the old prestigious families of eastern Armenia. Thus, 

for a brief moment, it appears that a feudal "command" type 

of society had been generated—with the principals 

appointed by the Zak'arids and firmly under their control. 

In this connection, it is most interesting to note 

certain remarks made by Adontz toward the end of his study, 

as he compared and contrasted his interpretation of the 

genesis of the naxarars with the legendary account provided 

by the late 8th century antiquarian, Movses lorenac'i: 

244

..cOur own analysis justifies [Zorenac'i's 

interpretation since it too has shown that the 

naxarar system did in fact consist first of native 

[i.,e. dynastic] and later of foreign [i.e.. Arsacid] 

elements. The fundamental difference lies in the 

fact that according to Zorenac i, the great naxarardoos 

were descended from single individuals,"while 

in our analysis they were derived from previously 

Independent ethnic groups. 

It is evident from the examples just cited that 

for Zorenac'i two qualities were the bases of naxarar 

status: service and nobility, i.£.» superiority of 

blood... In Zorenac'i*s opinion, the aristocracy 

consisted of the more ancient families, primarily 

those presumably descended from Hayk, which were 

already present in Armenia at the time of the coming 

of the Arsacids. According to us, the aristocracy 

consisted of the houses which had developed through 

the disintegration of tribal relationships. 

For Zorenac'i as for us, land tenure also 

provided the material basis of the naxarar system. 

Promotion to the rank of naxarar according to hlo 

was nothing more than a grant of" lands. Nobility 

and naxarar status were synonymous concepts for 

him for the very reason that all nobles possessed 

lands, and lands were granted in hereditary tenure, n. 

We maintain that for the early 13th century, both Adontz 

and Zorenac'i were correct. Zak'are came very close to 

Zorenac'i's first Arsacid king, "ValarSak" in establishing 

a regime. In a sense, he generated new families through 

association with his own. But curiously, the tendency 

toward convergence—mecatuns investing in land, and the 

remnants of the few ancient dynastic families diversifying 

into trade—coupled with that strong hereditarizing 

Adontz, pp. 369-70. 

245

principle which has never ceased to operate in Armenian 

society—led to a "re-seeding" of what might seen like 

classical Arsacid naxararism. but in fact was a structure 

resting on a completely different base. It is very 

important to underline the fact that in a country with as 

developed a historical consciousness as Armenia, and as 

ancient a literature, a certain amount of evocation of 

the antique past pervades many sources dating from much 

later times. Just as the Saaanian Persians hearkened back 

to their Achaemenid "forbears" and adopted certain ceremonial 

and/or sentimental forms to stress this identification, 

so too did the Bagratids and Zak'arids look to the Arsacids 

for symbolic identification. Thus certain similarities 

of terminology found in Arsacid and Zak'arid sources must 

be analyzed on an individual basis, before any assumptions 

of identity may be entertained. 

It is important in this regard to note that on the 

eve of the Turco-Mongol invasions of the 13th century, the 

term saxarar already designated different types of lords, 

just as (in a later period) the term melik did. As 

Keween noted: 

By the end of the Mongol period, the Caucasian 

social structure had to all intents and purposes been 

destroyed in Armenia; its princely houses exterminated, 

246

submerged by the egalitariansio of Islam which 

recognized no princely dignity, or incorporated 

into the surviving Caucasian social structure in 

Georgia. Only here and there, notably in the 

mountains of Karabagh and Siwnik' some vestiges 

of the old princely houses survived and retained 

some measure of local autonomy. This social 

disintegration is clear from the disappearance 

of the old Armenian princely titles, so important 

in the Caucasian social system, and their replacement 

by one new and flexible term, 'melik*, the 

very all-purposeness of which is an indication 

that the fixed social framework was no longer 

there. It would appear then, that the title 

'melik1 was used simply to designate any of the 

few surviving members of the Armenian nobility 

of old who retained any kind of social position 

in a world which had become the world of Islam; 

whether one had been a naxarar (dynast) or merely 

an azat (member of the gentry). Indeed, as we 

shall see, the term was applicable to municipal 

ethnarchs and, in time, it would appear, even to 

mere village chiefs. 1. 

We might ask, parenthetically, if indeed even in Arsacld 

times the term naxarar had a single sense or meaning. 

It was pointed out in chapter three that as 

regards control mechanisms, the Mongols invented nothing 

new. Furthermore, naxarar reactions to the different 

control techniques used by the Mongols before and after 

their Islamization were varied, but also contained no 

new elements. Naxarar reaction to the invasions was 

clear: when united military resistance proved Impossible, 

the naxarars holed up in their mountain fortresses; when 

R. Hewsen, "The Meliks"(I) p. 293. 

S47

they learned that the Mongols spared those submitting 

peaceably, the naxarars submitted, making separate often 

highly advantageous arrangements with their new overlords. 

As for the domination, naxarar reactions to Mongol control 

techniques in the 13-14th centuries may be grouped under 

five major headings. The lords: (1) attempted when possible 

to exploit the rivalry between different centers of Mongol 

authority; (2) rebelled, when feeling themselves sufficiently 

powerful and when driven to it by Mongol excesses; (3) 

emigrated from the*Armenian highlands in large numbers; 

(4) Islamized in large numbers, and (5) withstood everything, 

retaining the Christian faith and also a certain leverage 

with the Turco-Mongol regimes. Some lords of totally 

impregnable fortresses became caravan-looters and bandits. 

Other lords sometimes were able to retain certain privileges 

and even family lands through the process of giving their 

lands to religious establishments under the control of 

clerical representatives of the secular lord's own family. 

Robert Bedrosian 

Long Branch, New Jersey, 

1978 

248

APPENDIX A 

Supplementary Hotea on the ll-13th Century Naxarars 

Aspects of the Saljuq invasions and domination are 

dealt with in chapter two of this study. Here we shall 

examine features relating directly to the prineea in 

this period, continuing through to the resurgence of 

Georgia. Supplementary information on inatitutiona of 

the Zak'arid period likewise is provided. It ahould 

be noted, remarkable as it is, that despite Byzantium's 

inept and disastrous policies vis-a-vis the Arm£z4ana, 

the Saljuqs did in fact meet some Armenian armed resistance. 

In 1042, for example, Xul Xa$i Arcruni of T'ornawan 

attempted a heroic but futile resistance against 15,000 

Turkmans in Vaspurakan. In 1042/43, an unspecified 

number of Turkmans raiding Bjni in northeastern Armenia 

were defeated by king Gagik Bagratuni and Grlgor Hagistros 

Pahlawuni, son of forcer sparapet Vaeak . In 1053 the 2 

Armenians of Surmari destroyed an army of 60,000 Turks . 

The size of Turkmen detachments going against different 

parts of Armenia varied from about 5,000 to perhaps 50,000 

troops. While these armies are not large by modern standards, 

it must be remembered that the Saljuqs were a determined 

SAP. P. 444. 

The numbers of combatants, even when given are probably 

quite inflated. According to Ibn al-Athir, in 1048 a 

Byzantine army of resistance led by Armenian naxarars in 

Byzantine service was defeated by the Saljuqe in .Baaen 

and prince liparit Orbelean was captured and taken to Persia 

249

"cohesive" fighting force. The same nay aot be said 

of the Armenian and Greek forces of Asia Minor. 

During and after the invasions, some princes, not 

wishing to emigrate, or unable to, took to a wandering 

life, hiding in caves, in some cases perhaps waiting for 

opportunities to avenge themselves . Others made accom- 

odation with the Saljuqs and retained certain limited 

rights. Furthermore, the benevolent Saljuq sultan Malik- 

Shah granted the Armenian churches tax-free status in 1090, 

upon the request of the kat'otikos. Probably some of the 

naxarar families were able to retain control of their 

lands through the clergy. In the absence of the naxarar 

confederational State, the naxararized Church became the 

medium of communication for the families. Indeed Smbat 

Sparapet described kat'ojktkos Grigor Tla Fahlawunl 

(1173-93) as being "like a king" in wealth. References in 

other sources also suggest a partial restoration of lands 

and privileges under various Muslim overlords. Matthew 

of Edesaa, for example, describing the situation in the 

time of Ualik Ismael Ibn Yaqut (1085-93) wrote "everyone 

ruled his patrimony in his [Yaqut's] time (amenayn ok* tlreal 

together with 100,000 captives (HAP pp. 449-50). 

C.J.F. Dowsett, "The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Go!" 

BSOAS vol. 21(1958) p. 484. 

25C

er hayreneac * iwroc * yawura nora)"c According to Vardan 

Arewelc'i, when the Shaddadid Manuchihr ruled Ani-Slrak, 

he recalled from exile Grigor Pahlawuni and restored his 

holdings . Furthermore, Armenians, Greeks and Georgians 

serving in the armies of the Shah-Armena and the sultana 

of Iconium/Konya also received iotas—originally condition- 

2 

al landholds which quickly became hereditary . 

The situation of shock and confusion which many 

cavalrymen or azats. the "gentry*, found themselves in, 

dispoeseased from their lands, was described by the late 

llth century author Aristakee Laativertc'i: "The cavalry 

wanders about lordleaaly, some in Persia, some in Greece, 

Borne in Georgia. The aepuh brigade of azats has left 

its patrimony and fallen from wealth; they growl wherever 

they happen to be, like lion cubs in their lairs" . Members 

of the azatagundk' havoc *. the cavalry of Armenia, clustered 

around successful bandits like Gol Vasil or Philaretus 

For references and discussion, HAP pp. 497-98. 

HAP pp. 495-96. 

251

VaraJnunik* in lands southwest of Armenia. Others 

found a very warm reception in Georgia. During the 

reign of David the Restorer (1089-1125), Georgia became 

a haven for Armenian lords and lordless azats . Katthew 

of Edessa says that David "received and loved the Armenian 

people. The remnants of the Armenian forces assembled 

by him" . He also built a special city, Gori, for the 

refugees: "And he [David] established churches and many 

monasteries. He named the city Gora [Gori] and received 

2 

all the Armenian people with great joy and gladness* . 

According to the old medieval Armenian translation of the 

History of K'art'li ("Juanser"). David knew Armenian, and 

had as his father-confessor the Monophysite vardapet 

Sarkawag from Halbat monastery . 

1 One of David's wives was Armenian, and his son Demitre 

was the issue of that union. MEd p. 447: "Af sa Sotoveo'an 

mnae'eal zork*n Hayoc *. 

2 MEd pp. 447-48: "ew iga sinesc* k'aiak* Havoc * i vaSxarhn 

Vrac', em hastateae' ekeirec'is ew vanoravs basums. gw 

-—•• — i-•_!-*;«.!_ n—«.— — uner mecaw urazut eamb 

Juanaer pp. 122-23: "Furthermore, he wanted to unite 

the Armenians and Georgians [religiously]. He summoned 

Yovhannes, kat'olikos of K'art'li, and Arsenics K'art'lec'i, 

translator of Georgian and Greek, and the bishops and 

yardapets of Armenia, and held a meeting. They examined 

tmatters]from morning until evening, but did not accept 

each other". 

252

The emigration of Armenians to Georgia, Cilicia, and 

other parts of the Middle Eaat led to a phenomenon we might 

call the internationalization of the great families. 

There were Georgian Bagratida, Armenian Bagratida, Alban- 

ian Bagratida, and Graeco-Saljuq. Bagratida, and the same 

applied to the Arcrunida and Orbeleans. The Pahlawunids 

in particular internationalized. They were hereditary 

archbishops of Ani from the ll-13th centuries, and also 

owned property in Mesopotamia and Cilicia, where in the 

12th century they became kat'oiikoi. In the 12th century, 

another branch of the Fahlawunids settled in Egypt and 

acquired so much influence as veziers, that anti-Armenian 

riots took place in several Egyptian cities . It 

should be noted, however, that while the internationalization 

of the great families could and did lead to new trading 

opportunities and the accumulation of great wealth, 

such was not always the case. Often the different 

branches of a given family were in bitter rivalry with 

each other. 

In dealing with the Georgian nobility, the Bagratid 

kings of Georgia utilized many of the same methods as did 

foreign rulers: circumvention of the dynasts whenever possible, 

HAP PP. 516-18, 507, 509-510. 

253

manipulation of the noble*' precedence, and "de-naxarar- 

ization"—removal of the lords. During the 10-12th 

centuries, Georgian monarchs attempted to circumvent 

the autochonous dynaatio nobility by elevating to official 

positions, persons of non-noble origin. So many non-nobles 

(uaznoni) were thus elevated to noble status (aznauroba) 

that in the llth century Georgian sources a new term, 

aizeebulni ("the raised") appeared to designate this growing 

body . On the military front, the monarchs attempted to 

circumvent powerful Georgian dynasts by relying on foreign 

2 

mercenaries (Caucasian mountaineers, QXpchao. Turks, 

Russians), the lesser nobility, and the increasingly 

influential Armenian emigre element. The availability 

of non-noble and foreign elements probably gave the Georgian 

Bagratids more leverage in dealing with dynasts than had 

been the case in Bagratid Armenia. 

Apparently Georgian monarchs also were able to manuipulate 

precedence among the nobles more advantageously than their 

Armenian cousins. Occupancy of the office of commander-in- 

chief of the army (the amirspasalarate) illustrates this. 

Throughout much of the 12th century to 1155, the amirspasalars 

tended to be chosen from the mighty, rebellious Georgian 

branch of the Orbeleans. In the 1120*3 the Crown tried 

1 Allen p. 229. 

On the Q?pchaqs in Georgia, see '?.D.Lordkipariidze, Istoriia 

oruaii Xi-nachala XIII veka (Tbilisi, 1974). 

254

to counter Orbelean influence by advancing the Abulet'isjes; 

and in the 1130'a the Armenian Kiwrikean Bagratids . In 

155 king David V tried to check the Orbeleans1 power by 

removing them from the amirspasalarate and giving that 

office to the Orbeleans1 principal Georgian rivals, the 

Abulet'isjes, to whom other important duties had been 

2 _ 

given . Orbeleans, however, poisoned the king and regained 

the office, but after amirspasalar Iwane Orbeli's abortive 

revolt in 1176-77, the office was given to a Qlpchaq lurk 

named Qubasar. In 1184, the Gamrekelis were elevated to 

the amirspasalarate. and several years later the Armenized 

Kurdish family of Zak'arean/Mxargrceli . Thus prior 

to the advent of the Zak'arids, the monarch was able to 

manipulate precedence by rewarding of office, although 

from the above it should be clear that the struggle against 

the dynasts was a continuous ongoing contest. The monarch 

could never rest or relax vigilance. 

H.S.Margaryan, •Milfeodalakan payjc'ara Georgi III-j zamanak 

ev K urd amirapeta [The Inter-Feudal Struggle in the Time 

of Teorgi III, and the Amirapet K'urd]", Lraber #11 (I975)p. 

50. 

Ibid. P. 49. 

Allen p. 253. 

255

la the 12th century the Georgian Crown also attempted 

de-naxararizatlon. Tola waa aimed primarily at the Bagratida1 

moat powerful rivals, the Orbeleana. In 1176-77, the 

Orbeleans, hoping to aeize the throne, rebelled with the 

support of many Armenian prineea (including the Zak'areans, 

who were Orbelld vassals at the time) . When the rebellion 

waa put down, the entire Orbelean family (excepting two or 

three males) waa exterminated, and the family aaaeta were 

y 

confiscated . The Georgian Bagratida alao practiaed a leaa 

drastic form of de-naxararizatioa. namely the forcible 

exile of oppoaenta. In the llth century, the Georgian 

Bagratida fought their Armenian Kiwrikeaa oounaina, the 

"kings" of Lori. According to Kirakoa Gaajakeo'i: 

Kiwrike Bagratuni, who waa from the town of 

Lori, having opposed the Georgians all his life, 

kept his patrimony (hayrenik*) intact. But after 

his death [ca. 1090] his eons Dawit' and Abaa 

were deceived by the Georgians and roae and went 

and received from them aa a heritage ICawuI and 

Uacnaberd and other places; then, after some days, 

the Persians took back Tawul, and they dwelt in 

Macnaberd. 3. 

Kargaryan, pp. 51-52. 

SO pp. 128-35. 

KG pp. 151-52: "lak Kiwrike BaKratuni, or 

zamenayn zamanaks Iwr kac'eal anddem yrac*. 

+ JE'A***'!' 

ila fwr. _Ew yet mahuan nora 

I vrac' elealk' FTane tavreneac*7"gnac'in'i'parBlEs. Dawit* 

ew Abaa. ew arnun i noc ane 1 larangut'iwn ?Tawus~ew 

vfTnT^^^KiKÂT^Â*^ ^ _ _«i ""^^TT^^—"^"^1** ^?_ ^*n^^3^^^^T_^? * * T^^^Û^"^T- 

yg-g^ zayi-tetTaT Apa yet iaymr?'* arxui daHeal 

paraikk i noc ane zTawul. ew nok'a'îak'en 1 k'acnaberd...' 

TwfJ^||iik' 

25

The Armenophile David III who ruled Georgia for less than 

a year (1155/56-1156/57) "showed such benevolence as to 

send for the King Kiwrike, son of King Dawit' Bagratuni, 

and promise to return to him his patrimony which his 

ancestors had taken away from him; and thus he sent him 

back with presents, and arranged a meeting" . According 

to indications in the Albanian Chronicle of Mzit'ar Gol, 

the Arcrunids who held the position of mayor (amiraoet. 

sahap) of liflis and also owned lands at Kayean and Mahkan- 

aberd, were expelled from the kingdom under king Giorgi III 

(1156/57-1184), th ough Giorgi's successor T'amar restored 

2 

them in their holdings . 

Lowsett, op.cit.. p. 488. 

2 ibid, pp. 488-89: "When he became king, Giorgi made to 

seize Prince Vasak, for he bore him a grudge, for when 

he was governor of the town he did not honour him as much 

as his brother Dawit' and would not serve and obey him; 

other rpinces of Georgia also speaking ill of him, Vasak 

fled with his brothers and went''to 1'iodupolis which is 

now called the town of Karin [Erzerum], And the emir named 

Saltuz received him with joy and honor, for when Saltux 

was captured by the Georgian army whilst he begeiged the 

town of Ani and was brought before King Demetre in Tillis, 

Vasak did him many services; because of this, he honored 

them with gifts and granted them authority over many 

villages. And having been there for some months, Vasak 

died and was buried in the church called Astuacacin (Mother 

of God) in the town. And his standard and clarior and 

authority were given to his brother called K'urd, and he 

remained there in great esteem". 

257

As a result of territorial expansion.especially 

southwest into historical Armenia,the Georgian monarchy 

had at its disposal an ample fund of land. Choice 

sites especially in the Armeno-Georgian borderlands 

were available for gifts to court officials as rewards 

for military or other services, or to guarantee loyalty. 

How the Crown intended such land gifts to be conditional, 

that is, they were given to a particular individual 

for the duration of his life or of his tenure. Such was 

the situation with the district of Lor* and the amirspasal- 

arate. In 1118 Lore was Orbelean property. After the 

dispossession of the Georgian Orbeleans la 1176-77, Lore 

was confiscated and given to the amirspasalar Xubasar. 

When Xubasar was removed from office in 1184, T'amar 

left him in all of his holdings except Lore, by now 

considered the property of the anirspasalar . The fact 

remains, however, that with time, just as appointed 

offices (such as the amlrapaaalarate) tended to become 

hereditary, so did those conditional landholds (such as 

Lore) become hereditary within one family (Zak'areans). 

Hargaryan, p. 49. . llargaryan notes that Kayean until 

1176-77 belonged to prince Hasan.,from 1185-91, to Vardan 

Dadlan. After 1191 it belonged to Iwane Zak arean. He 

suggests that Kayean went to Jhe holder of the office of 

msaxurt -uzuc *es. just as Lore went to the amirspaaalarfp. 59). 

258

While the study concerns the 13-14th centuries and 

not merely the Zak'arid restoration, we feel obliged 

to make some mention of Zak'arid institutions. These 

institutions have been examined thoroughly by fiabayan, 

most recently. Regrettably, details are lacking concerning 

the precise workings of political administration in the 

immediately pre-Mongol period. The brothers Zak'are and 

Iwane, both notable, generals, also held official positions 

within the Georgian court. Zak'are was the commander-in—- 

chief of the army (amirapaaalar) as of 1191, and the 

mandaturt '-uxuc 'ea from 1203 onj while his brother, first 

the maaxurt'-uxuc *es (foremost vezier at court) became 

atabeg in 1212, an office which was instituted within 

the Georgian court at Iwane's own request . 

1 HAP p. 545; S. Eremyan, Amirspasalar Zak'aria ErkavnabazuJf 

(Erevan, 1944) p. 17: mandaturt'-uruc es: "vezier of the 

seal and head of the queen's bodyguard"? The following 

is a partial listing of Zak'arid family titles compiled 

from inscriptions and colophons. 

239 

d.1212, Zak'are mand. + amirsp. atabek Iwane (d.1227) 

1228/29 (son) Sahnsah (d.l26l).mand. (son)Awag, amirsp.(YT p.71) 

1230/31 amirsp. (VTpp. 73-74) 

1231/32 amirap.(VT p. 74) 

1246/47 spasalarlVI p. 90) 

1251/52 amirsP.(CIA v. I p. 15) 

atabek and amirap. (CIA v.I p. 64) , 

1258/59 mand. (VT. p. 10l) 

1273/74 atabek+amirsp. paron Sadun (VT p. 115) (d.1284) 

1285/86 spaaalar Xarkreeal "gon of the great Sahnsah (JIT p. 126). 

1 orti /fto MM^ MM** M*. .&*.»..»4 **.i _~._ _ ^ fl_^..2..i. tvm K. "\ f\ \ a>.aucjt, aaûiaoLU 

1336/37 atabek Varham(brother of above).paron of parons (VI pp. . 

1342/43 p§!r§6)atabek Varham (VT p. 167). 

1358/59 atabek 2aza (VT pp. 169^70) 

1396/97 in the paronuViwn of atabek Iwane (14CC p. 614).

la the view of . L. H. Babayan, the nature of the Zak'arld 

brothers' service to the Georgian Crown was primarily of 

a military sort. Armenian lands recaptured from the 

lurks, he suggests, did not pay taxes to Georgia, but to 

the Zak'arids who sometimes are styled "kings","Caesars", 

and "sahnsahs" in the Armenian sources, apparently in 

recognition of this . 

Within the vast territories under their jurisdiction 

the two Zak'arid brothers apparently established many of 

the same offices as existed in the Georgian Court. The 

men chosen by them to fill these offices were those same 

individuals who had been instrumental as warriors in the 

reconquest of Armenian lands. The service (carayut'iwn) 

tendered the Zak'arids by their appointees consisted of 

military aid and the payment of taxes. Thus, in return 

for his service, Zak'are titled Va$e [Va?utean] his "prince 

of princes" . Members of the Xa$en aristocracy served 

as Zak'arid hejjubs, chamberlains, court directors, and 

guardians of Zak'arid children3. Prince Bubak, Iwane's 

subordinate, is styled "prince of princes* and "the great 

8AP_ P. 544, U p. 47; ocoaaionally Zak'arid women are 

styled queens: ¥2 pp. 71,74; X.pp. 6-7. 

HAP p. 547 

HAP p. 550. 

260

eparapet" in the sources . As Babayan notes, Bubak also 

was known by the Georgian title of maaxurt '-queue *ea—the 

same title originally held by Iwane in the Georgian Court2* 

P. 51. 

HAP p. 549. The following is a partial listing of 13-l4th 

century titles mentioned in inscriptions and colophons. 

1207/8 Va5e, "prince of princes" (XX pp. 48,58). 

[1217/18] • " (Yl p. 61). 

1210/11 "the great aparapet Bubak" CSIA v. 17 p. 69). 

1214/15 "the great prince of princes, K'urd" (Yl P. 56). 

261 

1219/20 Vasak Xalbakean, "kgimnapahdieutenant) [of the lands] ' 

1223/24 ^Sfici^^pJjnglSâilk^gj:1!^?- 123). 

1225/26 "I, Davit '...atabek of the great and nighty prince 

Sadun" (VI p. 69). 

1228/29 hecup Origor (VI pp. 71-72). 

1230/31 S'apik... general of amirapaaalar Sahnaah (YX PP.73-74) 

1232/33 Colophon, Yov.Yil., pp. 886-87 "prince of princes 

patron Xawraa". 

1236/37 Col.Yov.YiS.. pp. 909-911: "prince of princes patron 

Dawit Sot'to]rkanc , and his son the brare and 

renowned patron of patrons Origor". 

of Balk* (VI pp. 92-93). 

1251/52 "I, llamk'an, queen, wife of [Hasan]Jalal Dawl[a] 

(tl p. 96). 

1251/52 kotmnakal Tarsayic, prince of princes,..."brother 

6£ king Smbat" (VI. P. 94). 

1252/53 "king Jalal 3>awl[aJ" (Et p. 96). 

1260/61 Sabat "prince of princea""(CIA v.IIl p. 218 foldout). 

1282/83 "the great aaparapet Varham"(ÎA T. Ill p. 50? YI 

pp. 123-24)7^ 

During the 1280'a many inscriptions begin using the terms 

paron and paronut jwnt 

1289/90 "prince of princes, paron Buit'ay"(CIA T.I p. 22). 

1295/96 "prince of princes Burt'el" (VT p. 13T). 

1296/97 "in the paronut'iwn of the prince of princes Grigor" 

(CIA v. IV p. 355? also YI P. 139).

This lends credence to the view that the Zak'arids created 

a partial microcosm of the Georgian Court hierarchy on 

their own lands. 

Other important offices (gorcakalut'iwnk*) fleet- 

ingly referred to in the sources are the kotmnakalut *iwnk * 

or lieutenancies. In Zak'arid Armenia there were three 

of them, held by three major families: in Siwnik', the Or- 

beleans, in Ayrarat the Vajuteans, and in Vayoc* Jor the 

1296/97 Mina khatun, the royal queen, daughter of the great 

lieutenant of Albania, Jalal (filA. v.III p. 237: 

VT p. 138). 

1307 Colophon,14CC p.42, prince of princes Burt'el, 

1307 Wife of Hasan the asparapet of Armenia (CIA r.III 

P.76: VT. p. 154). 

1322 Col.l4CC p. 166; "in the generalship and princedom 

of this district [GlajorJ of Burt'el and Aalr 

Hasan". 

1324 Col. 14CC p. 182, "the king of Georgia and Greater 

Armenia, Gawrg, the prince of princes of the House 

of Siwnik', apayapet Burt'Jl". 

1337/38 Col.l4CC p. 292, "for the paron of parons. Peigen, 

heir of the royal line of Greater Armenia and bis 

son Blikum, 'born in the purple'". 

1338/39 Kurd Anberdec'i, prince of princes (VJ p4 166). 

1348/49 Col. J4CC p. 369,"prince of princes Bgsken and 

Ivane", sons of deceased paron Burt'el 

1341/42 Col. 14CC p. 328: "in the consulship, and sparapetut 

iwn of Armenia of Biwrt'el [Orbelean]. 

1400/1 Col.l4CC p. 632, "the princedom of paron Smbat and 

Burdel". 

262

Xalbakean-Froeeani. Babayan reasonably suggests that the 

kotmnakals were endowed with some administrative-judicial 

powers . The sane author bellevee that the amiras or emirs 

were city mayors who stood at the head of an elaborate 

but poorly-understood governing body which included clergy 

and wealthy laymen. It is clear from Inscriptions that at 

times even the administrative heads of large villages were 

appointed directly from the top, in one case by Iwane himself^. 

Ihe sources also contain a welter of terms such as tanuter. 

gaherec * iSatan, patronac * patron and others, some known 

from the dawn of Armenian writing, others new. However, 

the manner in which the real content of such terms changed 

over time is not clearly known. Often titles such as 

sahnSah or aarzban appear as the given names of individuals 

who held titled official positions, adding to the confusion'. 

H4£ P. 552. 

MAP p. 553; YT pp. 50, 52, 68. 

3 The following are some random examples of the confusion 

resulting from the use of titles as proper names. 

1206/7 irspasalar Zak 'are calls himself Zak 'are Sahnsah 

, CVT P. 47) 

1208/9 Sahnsah ahnsah Zak aria (CIA v. I p. 6; Vf p. 49}

Furthermore, since the political reality of the time was 

Armeno-Georgian and not exclusirely Armenian, sometimes 

Georgian titulary is used alongside the Armenian, Increasing 

the confusion . 

1232/33 Col ol. Yov.Yil., pp. 886-87, "the Caesars of Armenia 

Georgia, and all Abxazla". 

1234/35 

1234/35 

1243/44 

1245/46 

1252/53 

1276/77 

1281/82 

1293/94 

1320 

"I, I'aguhi. wife of Sarap'lah (YJ p.78). 

"I, I'ayk T aguhi, daughter of Sarap'aah(VI pp. 78,112), 

Hasan Jalal'a son is named At'abak (VJ p. 86). 

"Aslanbeg, son of Marcpan" (VI pp. 88-89). 

"I. Smbat, son of Hejub" (U p. 96). 

AVabak, lord of Xa?en (VI p. 118). . 

I'aguhi, daughter of the presbyter ter(lord) Sahak 

OCC.P. 122). 

HeHub's brother's son (VI p. 136). 

Hecup ecup ( (CIA v. 's 

IV p. 123? VI p. 159). 

For example: 

1206/7 amirapasalar Zak'are calls himself the zawrapet of 

Armenia and Georgia (VI p. 47). 

1211/12 Zak'aria "amirspasalar of Armenia and Georgia* (VI p. 

53). 

1214/15 Awag.. the "coronant of Georgia" (VI p. 56). 

1219/20 Iwane, atabek of Armenia and Georgia (VI p. 62). 

1223/24 "the amirspaaalarate of Armenia and Georgia of 

Sahnsah" (VI p. 62). 

A classic example of the confusion of Armenian and Georgian 

titles is the curious and regrettably unique passage in 

SO p* 100 which mentions the dignitaries summoned by atabek 

Iwane (cat 1224) to participate in a judicial decision: 

"...[Iwane] ordered his grandees to sit and examine the 

matter: Bubak and the marcuan [proper name or title?],Iwane 

the dpel and the memnas8iel_[title, or proper name Memna 

Jaqell?] the great etawnditel (bishop) who had come from 

the kingdom, the ciram ciawr (abbot) of Varji and the 

abbot of Plnjahank", the great mamt'avar (patriarch) of Garate, 

the Gageck'ik', and the Uacnaberdec'ik' and in 

addition, many other didebule; the qadl of Dwin and the one 

called the lex of Surmari. [Among the examiners were also] 

the great bliHop of Ani. the bishop of Bjjni, and the bishop 

of Haxbat". See L.Melik set'-Bek', "A Testimony about the 

Structure and Procedure of the Supreme Court in Zak'arid 

Armenia", Telekagir #3-4(1945) PP. 75-79(in Arm.). 

1232/33 Col.Yov.Yis., pp. 886-87: "Now this Bible...was 

requested by...the honorable prince of princes

Patron Xawfas, son of Aair Sargis, who was the brother 

of the mother of the Caesars of Armenia,.Georgia, and 

all Abxazia...the great Zak'are and Iwane...before whom 

he was nourished and grew up...After great Zak'are's 

untimely passing to Christ—which plunged the land of Armenia 

into darkness—his well-favored descendant...the mandatort'axuc'ea 

of the great kingdom, Sahnsah, succeeded 

to the throne of his father's kingdom...May Jesus. Christ 

keep him in peace...and also keep his sen Zak'are 'born 

into the crown'(t'agacin)...Ihe same loyalty was shown by 

the very honorable prince of princes Zawras educating 

and nourishing him with all piety and devoutness as he 

had been educated by his forbears—from whom as recompense 

for his loyal service, he received a great honor [of the 

office] of meaxurt'axuc 4es in Georgian which translates 

into our [Armenian] language as 'chief and commander of 

all the rulers and chiefs of the royal house of his lord* 

(glux ilxec o^ ew hramanatar amena;— •**—-•-•«--• — -•> 

ac tan t'agaworut'ean teafn iwroy 

265

APPENDIX B 

Aapecta £f Centrifugaliam within and aaong Certain 13- 

Century Raxarardoma 

The 13th and 14th centuries were characterised by 

eonfllcta within and among certain Caucasian naxarardoas. 

In some cases these conflicts pertained to families 

(£•£•» *&e s«orgian Bagratids, the Zak'arean/Mzargrcells, 

the Kaxaberijea of BaSa, the Orbelean/Orbelia, the Aroroni/ 

Mahkanaberdelis, the Jaq.ella), in other cases, to the 

"naxarardoma" of the Church(ea). The conflict within 

the Georgian royal family was extremely serious and must 

be mentioned not only as an example of centrlfugalism 

at the very pinnacle of authority in Christian Caucasia, 

but also becauae of ita deviaive ramifications. On his 

deathbed, king Giorgi laaa Bagratuni (d. 1223) was promised 

by his aiater Ruaudan that Giorgi's child son DaTid Lasaean 

would receive the throne on his maturity. Busudan (d. oa. 

1245) then became "king* of Georgia. Rather than honoring 

the pledge made to her late brother, Busudan instead 

banished and imprisoned David Lalaean and enthroned 

her own son (also named DaTid). While co-optation of the 

heir hardly was a new feature in Georgia, ita almost 

inevitable result was the polarisation of the nobility 

into two hoatile camps. Eventually the authority of the 

"usurper* David Busudanean was challenged by the matured 

embittered David Laiaean. Between 1250 and 1258, Georgia 

thus had two kings simultaneously. Ihe line of David 

Laaaean occupied the throne in Tiflia until 1289, but from 

266

1291 to 1318 a system of collegial sovereignty existed in 

Georgia whereby Lalaean Icings were forced to share the 

realm with co-kings—their very sons, or candidates from 

the rival line of David Rusudanean . 

Hostile relations among prominent families had at 

their base disputes over land. From the order of 

Kirakos Ganjakec'i's narration, one might (incorrectly) 

assume that the amirspaaalar Awag Zak'arean was ther 

first Armenian prince to surrender to the Mongols (1236) 

and consequently his holdings were not disturbed by the 

conquerors2. However, Kirakos1 junior contemporary, 

Step'annos Orbelean, placed the submission of Elikum 

Orbelean before that of Awag-5, and the point is revealing 

and crucial. For the Armenian Orbeleans, prior to the 

C. Toumanoff, "The Fifteenth Century Bagratids and the 

Institution of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia", Traditio 

VJI (1949-51) pp. 204-5, 210. 

KG pp. 255-56. 

SO pp. 149-50: "...Taking [Elikum] as a guide [the Mongols' 

commander Aslan-noyin ] went as far as Ani, subduing everyone. 

He took Vayoc' Jor and Elegia as far as Ereror village which 

stands opposite Garni, and gave it all to Elikum, saying: 

•That which was taken by the sword and that which was bought 

with gold are equally the patrimony of man. How these 

districts which I have taken with my sword shall be yours 

as patrimony and the patrimony of your line. £° you now 

faithfully look upon us and serve the Great Khan who sent 

us here*. And Elikum with great heartfelt thanks served 

them. From that day forth it was confirmed that those 

[lands] would be the patrimony of the Orbelean tun(House) 

and line. Now other commanders subordinated other lands 

and broufo* out of Kayen fortress, Awaf. They took the

invasions, bad been clients of the Iwane-Awagids, yet 

from Step'annoe' account it appears that the Orbeleana 

(with Mongol approval) bad expanded tbeir holdings at 

Awagid expense, at the time of the conquest itself. Enmity 

over the Orbelan expansion may have accounted for 

Elikum's death, as Step'annos suggested , and enmity 

marked Zak'arid-Orbelean relations for some decades to 

follow. Elikum was succeeded by bis polyglot brother 

Smbat. 

...But after ElikumC's. death] the tun(House) 

of Awag treated the Orbelean tun with great 

jealousy, and enmity especially Awag's wife. 

They wanted to disperse and persecute the, or 

to destroy the surviving children, Smbat and 

his brothers. They [the.Awagids] seized their 

patrimony while [the Orbeleana] wandered about 

in concealment, here and there until the compassionate 

love of the_Creator willed to restore 

and strengthen the Orbelean tun through Smbat... .2. 

The significance of the underlined "especially Awag's 

wife" appears to have escaped modern scholars. Curiously, 

it appears that the line of Gone'a, daughter of the 

duke Kaxaberi of RaS , descended from a Georgian branch 

of the Orbeleans . Consequently, Gone V; enmity toward 

kingdom of Georgia by force, and absolutely ruled everywhere" 

(SO pp. 149-50). 

1 SO p. 150 suggests that Elikum was murdered by physicians 

at the command of Awag. 

2 SO p. 151. 

3 Toumanoff, Studies, p. 211 n. 238. 

268

Sfflbat may have had elements of an intra-family feud. It 

is interesting too (and similarly unremarked by scholars) 

that the Awagid-Orbelean land dispute resulting from the 

Mongol conquest has been carried over into the sources 

more than once, and in more than one way. For example, 

in relating one and the sane story—how Smbat Orbelean 

aided a fugitive monarch—Step 'annos Orbelean mentions 

the incident as occurring on Smbat * a land, whereas the 

History of K'art*11 describes the same territory as 

"the land of atabek Awag" . 

The importance and severity of the [Kaxiberije]-Awagid— 

Orbelean feud led Snbat to the Far East on two occasions, 

for protection and confirmation of "his lands". The first 

visit(ca. 1252) resulted in Smbat'a vindication2. But the 

SO pp. 152-53? KC p. 228; Mur. p. 103. 

SO p. 157: "They gave him a golden p'ayiza which is a 

tablet bearing the names of God and of the king, their 

greatest honor. They also drew up a yarligh (earlex) 

which we call sigel—a command—and gave him all that Asian 

had taken by the sword and Orotn with its lands...and 

the gortrese of Borotn with its provisions, as the blood-price 

for the murder of his father Liparit. Furthermore 

they removed SmbatC's name] from the dawt'ars of the 

Georgians and others. This was the second confirmation of 

their patrimony, for the first [time] it was taken by th 

sword, when [Smbat] was a servant, by the agency of Asian— 

novin: while the second time [it was received] as a gift 

from the Khan...". 

269

Awagids were unwilling to accept this verdict, and 

plotted to destroy Smbat: 

Now while these [events] were so [unfolding] 

that wicked Satan started stirring up envy and 

inciting the tun of Awag and the Georgian grandees 

[against SmbatJ. Awag had died in the year 1250/51 

(699 A.E.). His wife had a daughter named Xoiak', 

and ruled all of his princedom. They agsembled 

in Tiflis near Arghun, for the great Khan had 

designated him vezier and pastaz (overseer) over 

all the lands, i.e., commander of all and ruler of 

the royal taxes and the great diwan. [It was he] 

who made a census of all the lands in 1254/55 

(703 A.E.). With numerous bribes they requested 

Smbat's destruction and that he not be able to 

hereditarily transmit his country. Argjhun did 

not dare accede to this request, but he did take 

away from Smbat many places, and severely oppressed 

the remainder. 1> 

Smbat made a second journey to the Far East ca. 1257, 

A 

and had his rights reconfirmed . Meanwhile Gone'a Zaxiber- 

ije-Awagean had married the Georgian king, David Lasaean. 

SO p. 159! "lak minS jya avaoea liner, ana bariateac'n 

satanay 

zmecamecan 

eg kin nora rone a.vn uner dustr me Xosak anun. Tew 

amenavn snayn isxanut ean. nora. vaan oroy £oôvee'an 1 

a* Arjrunn 0% er vazir ew paaâ Cteaug) kargeal 

mec jânen i veray' amenavn asxarhis. aysink *n hramanatar 

amenec jinêjj iaxec 'oiârk *uni harkac jj ew mec diwanin. 

pr arar aaxarhagir zasxarha amenavn y703 i uakanin! 

[ bazum kasaf-ok xndrein korusanel zSmpat ew 06 iarangec 

jjc anel zerkir nora. zor ew 06 hamar.1aker 

gyl arin i Smbatay bazum teîa. ew zmnac'ealsn 

Bin sastkapes". 

SO p. 161. 

270

The birth of their son Demitre created a Bagratid-Kaxaber- 

ije-Awagean link. The struggle of families was by no 

means over, however: 

...Now Smbat planned, with the other princes 

to become the "adopted father" ofJLwag's tun; 

by order of HttlegU-Khan they had Gone a drowned 

in the sea, and he, Smbat, ruled over all of 

Awag'e princedom. He gave Awag's daughter Xoeak 

in marriage to the great sahipdiwan Xo3a [brother 

of the historian Juvayni]...This occurred in 

1269/70 (718 A.E.). 1. 

According to Step'annos, the Georgian monarch David 

Lasaean and Smbat were on the best of terms: "King David 

so loved Smbat that he considered him his equal , and 

placed the little boy Demitre in his hands, giving his 

son to him" . Once again the enmity of families has left 

SO p. 165: Smbatay hayraair leal tann Awagin* 

xorfai and ayl xanac n. ew tan spananel i covami?i 

zGonc'ayn. hra'amanaw 

HuTawu ianin. ew ink'n ilxer amen- 

Tsxanufeancl Awagin. Sw tay zHiIatr TLQT& zXo'sak 'n 

^"^^ ^^••^"^•î" ^"^*^^ •"•^•^l^!^p-."" 

sahip diwanin..>ew .er ays y?16 

> 'Uin'.' . KG p. SSljlfur. . y, p. j.£?; 123: -HOW "Now Awag-s AvagTa loraer Toriaer 

wife, the queen Gone a, was killed when located among the 

Tatars, as they sayj and it was at the urging of her 

daughter Xosak , wife of the sahibdivan khoja Shamsad 

Din that she was killed". 

SO p. 168. 

271

its imprint in the literary sources, creating a contra- 

diction. According to the History of K'art'li. it was 

to Sadun Arcrunl, not to his rival Smbat, that Xolak' 

and care for the Awagid holdings were entrusted . Nor 

does the same work dwell on the close relations between 

2 

the king and Smbat . 

Allegedly Smbat extracted a concession from king 

David. He convinced the king to destroy a document relat- 

ing to the time of the expulsion of the Orbella from Georgia 

(because of their involvement in the abortive rebellion of 

1176/77). Whether the Armenian Orbeleans were able to 

reclaim the old family possessions in Georgia is unclear 

from the sources, though Smbat's "exceeding delight" at 

KC p. 236; Mur. p. 110; "At that time, Awag was dead, 

having left no male heir, but only a daughter named Xolak'. 

In tears the king went to Bjni. He saw Awag's fair wife, 

Gone'a, the daughter of Kaxaberije, duke (erist'ay) of 

Rac". He fell in love with her and after a short while, 

married her and made her queen. He brought her to his 

kingdom. As for Awag'% daughter, he left her in her 

patrimonial holdings and entrusted her to Sadun Mahkanaberdeli". 

KC p. 237; Mur. p. 109-110: "The fact that Gone'a had 

become queen was displeasing to the mestunre Jik'uri, 

since they were enemies. So on the advice of Smbat Orbell 

[word] was spread about that Jik'uri had sent someone 

to Arghun to reveal to HUlegU-Khan the [size of the] 

king's wealth, and hie intention to rebell". 

272

the king's action, reminiscent of Ellkum's "heartfelt 

thanks" to Asian noyin strongly suggests that soae 

partial restitution was made to the Orbeleans . 

SO pp. 168-69: "Then the king called Smbat to Tiflis and 

wanted to show his gratitude to him through very great 

gifts. He asked Smbat: 'What great gifts shall I bestow 

upon you? For whatever in my kingdom you wish, whatever 

you find agreeable, I shall give you unsparingly*. Smbat 

arose and prostrated himself: 'Oh king, whatever we 

have is/was [given by] you and your forbears. This much 

is enough for us; but there is one thing I request from 

you'. The king responded:; 'I swear that I shall give you 

whatever you ask for'. Smbat said: 'Then obliterate 

that wigked memory of us, through which your forbear, 

[ing] Georgi slandered my ancestors. For he had written 

Ca document] with curses, such that we not be allowed into 

our patrimony, and he had it placed in his treasury. 

Give that [document] to me'. The king was astonished 

and despised his father for removing from his tun such 

powerful and capable men. And he ordered his attendants 

to search for and bring that document (girk*: "writing, 

letter, book"). They went, located it, and quickly brought 

it. The king took it in his hand and stood up, saying: 

'Behold, Smbat, take the document you requested'. Smbat 

arose, prostrated himself, and replied: 'Oh king, who so 

forgave the past, show me [yet another] kindness. That 

book was written by a king's hand; it must be destroyed 

by a king's hand. Order that a fire be kindled before 

yourself, and throw that book into the flames with your 

own hand'. At once the king commanded that a fire be 

struck up. He pulled out his sword, tore out the pages, 

and threw them into the fire. Whereupon Smbat was exceedingly 

delighted and thanked him. After this, the king 

gave him many other magnificent gifts and robes of honor 

and further distinguished him and sent him home. In this 

manner did Smbat remove the stigma attached to his ancestors, 

and left a good reputation for those succeeding [him]". 

273

According to Step'annos, the preeminence of Orbeleana 

in Caucasian affairs continued after Smbat "passed from 

this world in a chariot of angels"—probably murdered 

while in Tabriz (1274) . Smbat's heir, his younger 

brother Tarsayi! supposedly enthroned Demitre "with great 

effort" as king of Georgia2. But the History of K'art'li 

describes matters differently. Sadun Arcrunl's great 

influence is noted, while TarsayiS Orbelean is not 

even mentioned: 

During this period Sadun Mahkanaberdeli had 

become stronger than all his contemporary princes, 

since Abaqa liked him. And [Sadun] started to be 

caretaker of all Georgia's affairs, because [the 

king] had entrusted [to his care] lord atabek 

Awag'a daughter, while XoSak* had given him the 

ejjibdom. 

Then all the didebuls of Georgia assembled 

and took the royal Demitre Jo the Horde. They 

went to Sahniah's son, Iwane, the mandat'urt*— 

uxuc'es. and he too went to the Horde where they 

saw to it.that Demitre received the reign... 

[Abaqa-Khan] gave the entire kingdom to him, 

excepting [the lands of] Sargis Jaqeli. He sent 

him back to Sadun whom king Demitre made atabek.. 3. 

1 SO p. 166. 

2 SO p. 171: "bazug JJaniw". 

3 KC pp. 269-70} Mur. p. 150.

According to the History of K'art *li. Sadun was made 

atabek by the new Georgian monarch, and upon his death 

(dc 1281/82) his son Xut'lubuia Arcruni received Sadun'a 

property and the office of spaapeti . Step'annos Orbelean 

wrote the following: 

...[Arghun-Khan]liked -kiag Benitre greatly. 

He gave DemiTre the entire land of Armenia, tne 

tun(House) of Awag and the tun of Sahnsah and of 

the Gagec'ik' and the sons ofj Sadun... 

...Then Demitre returned [to the Caucasus] 

with great Joy and all the azats and grandees 

of Georgia and Armenia with him. When he reached 

Sarur, Tarsayic" came before him and magnified 

the king with great honor and royal gifts. 

[Demitre] took him to his Awagean country, Ayrarat, 

and greatly entreating him, forced him to be 

atabek over his entire lordship, from Tiflis to 

Ani and Kara. He also entrusted TarsayiS with 

his young sons, Dawit' and Manuel whom he raised 

and kept. Thereafter TarsayiS held the atabekate 

of the land of Armenia and did many things to 

lighten[the lot of] the harassed Armenian people... 

King Demitre "sent his little son David to the house of 

atabek Awag so that he would grow up there and have a 

KG p. 281 j ilur. p. 150. 

2 According to the History of K'art *li. the property of 

atabek Awag, before being entrusted to king Demitr.e 

-oeionged to the sahipdiwan". i.e., to Shams ad-Din Juvaini 

(KC p. 285; Mur. pTTf7JT"s"0 pp7 172-73: "£w er and 

nora _t 'agaworn Denetre. zor sireac ' Ariunn. ew et nma 

zamena7n asxarha Kayoc *ztunn Awagean ew ztunn sahansahean 

ew Gaggc 'in ew zordian Sadun at 'abekin. . .Asa darjaw t 

TTecieTre me caw xndut eamb ew amenayn azatok , ew meeameck 

Vrac Tw Hayoc ' and nma. Tw ekeal ^ Sarur* gnac nma 

and aTaj Tarsayicn mecamec patuov. ew ark unakan ancaviwk ' 

mecareac zt agaworn. Ew na afeal taraw and iwj zna 

jrerkirnAwagean*yAyrarat. ew bazum .£ axan 1 aqok bf-naz- 

>oseac ' £na> -ew £& At abek iverav amenavn terut *ean 

iwroy nin$ew ,i Tj'îs ew yAni e^ i Kara. £K £d i 

ers nora ztâyan iwr zDawlt £w zManueln aoua 

znosa ew pahel . Ew yavnmhete uner Ta^raayiZn ^ zat abekut ' 

asxarhis Hayoc '. ew bazum b diwrut * jw_n. ew olarnmt ''iwn 

neieal azgis Kayoc7" 

" 

275

share in the property of the royal line" . The Orbeleans 

are not mentioned here. The sources themselves are 

in conflict over who was the more important naxarar 

in this period, but what is important here is the 

evidence of conflict among the families. Indeed, within 

the Orbelean family itself quarrels arose among the 

children of TarsayiS aftep his death (1290)2. 

Conflicts among the secular lordly families were 

paralleled by conflicts among the clerical nobility. 

As the history of the Armenian Church in this period 

has been studied in elaborate detail in Ormanian's 

Azgapatum. here we shall note only some of the major 

divisions which led to unlimited conflict and rivalry. 

First, there were religious differences within the two 

branches of the Zak'arid family itself. Though Zai'are 

remained true to Armenian Monophysitism, his brother 

Iwane "converted" to Georgian Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. 

Nor was Iwane an exceptional case. Many Armenians, 

KG p. 285? Mur. p.153. 

SO pp. 177-78: "...But then his eons commenced arguing 

over their father's lordships and princedom. They went, 

to the royal court and stood before the ruler Arghun-Khan 

and familiarized him with their debate. Arghun called" 

forth the senior son, Elikum, appointed him to his father's 

place and set him as prince over all. However, although 

Elikum ruled all of his father's patrimonies and princedom, 

nonetheless he did not want to deprive his brothers. So he 

divided the entire inheritance with the advice of the 

bishops, vardapeta and azats. He gave a suitable portion to 

his brother's son, Liparit...". 

276

especially those living and working In Georgia or in 

the Armeno-Georglan borderlands had come under the 

influence of Chalcedonianism, These Armenian Chalcedon- 

ians performed the Greek rite in the Armenian language. 

The sources contain frequent allusions to rancor and 

enmity between Armenian Monophysites and Armenian 

Chalcedonians . The disputes occasionally took the form 

2 

of land disputes between monasteries . 

Second, Roman Catholicism began to have an impact 

on Armenian religious affairs. In the 13th century, for 

complicated reasons, the Cilician Armenian monarchy and 

kat'otikosate and certain circles in Greater Armenia 

began encouraging the idea of religious union with Rome5. 

VA p. 143; Zak'are and Iwane attempted to forcibly 

unite the Armenian Monophysite and the Georgian Chalcedonian 

Churches,unsuccessfully (KG pp. 166-67: the 

Annals of Bsihop Step'annos, MC vol. 1 p. 38). The 

center of Georgian Chalcedonianism in northern Armenia 

was the monastery of Plnjahank",on which see P.M. Huradyan, 

"Vrac'eren arjanagrut'yunner Hayastanum; Plnjahank'C 

Georgian Inscriptions in Armenia; finjahanS^J" Lraber 

#1 (1973) pp. 39-57, as well as the same author's first 

article, "Georgian Inscriptions in Armenia" describing 

the inscriptions at Hnevank'. Sanahin, and Halbat, 

Teiekagir #3 (1966) pp. 30-47. 

KG p. 222. 

G. Petrowicz, " MIabanot eibayrnera ew Hay ekeêe 'in 

[The Dniators and the Armenian Church]1^ ^"(1969)" PP. 361-62. 

277

In 1316 at the Council of Adana, union was made . But 

although a number of vardapets and bishops agreed to 

union, others rejected Latinophile policies outright2: 

During the tenure as tat'o^lkoe of Yakob Seeo'i (1327— 

41, 1355-59), Sis and Sjmiacin broke over the issue3. 

But by that time the Dominicans had won over to Catholicism 

the influential Yovhannes E'rnec'i of southern Siwnik', 

who began attracting to Catholicism his former fellow 

classmates . The fight against the Armenian Catholics 

of K'rna preoccupied the Armenian Church leadership for 

much of the 14th century. During the reign of Yakob 

Ssec'i, matters had deteriorated to the point that the 

Cilician kat'otlkos supported E'rna's efforts against 

Sjmiaciir. 

Petrowicz pp. 363-64. 

As Fetrowicz notes, the signatures of those favoring 

unity, appearing on the protocols of the Council of Adana, 

indicate support from numerous jarts of Armenia: (all 

bishopg) Yardan of Ani, Yovhannes Maranduneanc', Yovhannes 

of Taron, Markos of Kara, Yakob of Salmast, Grigor of Mara!, 

Nersea of Eamaz, Awetik' of Np'rkert, Tardan of Sasun, 

P Hippos of Xorjean, Step'annos of Colonean (HA p. 367). 

Petrowicz pp. 364-65. 

Ibid, pp. 367-68. 

Ibid, pp. 466-67. 

278

A third source of conflict came from the very 

existence of the kat 'olikoeate (or anti-kat Vllkosate) 

of Ait'amar. The fcat'ollkoaate and its jurisdiction 

were denounced and "nullified" by the kat 'olikosate 

of Sis in the early 12th century, but this did not put 

an end to Ait'amar18 independent development . Kat'olikos 

Grigor Anawarzec'i (1293-1307) attempted, unsuccessfully, 

to bring Ait'amar into allegiance with Sis and 2]Jmiacin. 

In 1408/9 the noted cleric and scholar Grigor Tat'ewae'i 

removed his diocese of K'ajberunik* from communion with 

Ait'amar, but the general anathema imposed on the kat'olikoi 

of Ait'amar remained in effect until 14413. The kat'olikoe- 

ate of Ait'amar continued its existence until 1895 . 

1 Akinean, "Ait'amar" , HA (1916) pp. 141-42, (1917/18) p. 34. 

2 ibid. (1916) p. 142. 

3 ibid, pp. 144-45, 

4 ibid, p. 148. Yet another special "center" of the Church 

was the district of Siwnik' in eastern Armenia, an area 

traditionally known for its separatist tendencies. The 

political independence of Siwnik' in this period was paralled 

by jurisdictional independence in religious matters. Thus 

the historian Step'annos Orbelean was ordained in Cilicia 

in 1287/88, "metropolitan of the great see of Siwnik', 

above all the other bishops here and there, some in Tayoc' 

Jor and some in Tat'ew" (SO p. 174). To my knowledge, 

Step'annos was the first cleric in Armenia to be styled 

metropolitan, a new term perhaps to match Siwnik''s unique 

positon (VT p. 137, also CIA v. II p. 78). In any case 

the erudite Step'annos appears to have maintained good 

relations with Sis and with the clerical nobility of Greater 

Armenia. It is known, for example, that Step'annos was 

a close friend of kat olikos Zak'aria I of Ait'amar (1296— 

1336) and requested from him a copy of T'ovma Arcruni's 

History of the Arorunid House (10th cent.)[TA p. 319]. For 

279

Given the numerous sources of conflict, within 

and among families, and within and among religious 

Institutions, the foreign rulers of Armenia in the 

13-14th centuries did not have great difficulty keeping 

the naxarars divided—>it was the natural state of affairs. 

the most part, however, relations among the various Armenian 

Christian groups—just as relations among the important secular 

naxarardoms—were characterized by bitter conflict and 

rivalry. 

280

APPENDIX C 

Hotea on the Relations between the Mongols and the 

Armenian Church in the 13th Century 

1. Philo-Christianity and Taxation of the Church 

During the 13th century, the presence of numerous 

Christian Mongols in the Mongol court and army had many 

different ramifications. General statements to the effect 

that the Mongols were philo-Christian or that the Church 

and its hierarchy were not taxed during the domination 

are misleadingly inaccurate. While specific Mongols were 

philo-Christian, and though churches under the jurisdiction 

of certain naxarar families were not always taxed, the 

situation changed from ruler to ruler. 

The earliest information on relations between the 

Mongols and the Armenian Church is found in Kirakos 

Ganjakec'i's History and relates to the first appearance 

of the Mongols in the Caucasus, ca. 1220/21: 

...False information came concerning them 

to the effect that they were mages and/or of the 

Christian faith—wonder-worders—and that they 

had come to avenge the Christians from the tyranny 

of the laciks. And it was said that they had with 

them a portable tent-church and a miracle-working 

cross and that they would bring and throw an 

epah of barley before this cross and all the soldiers 

would take from it, and give it to their horses 

and the supply would not be exhausted...Such 

false rumors filled the land. Therefore the inhabitants 

of the country did not fortify themselves 

281

in, to the point that one lay presbyter, talcing 

hia people, even went before[the Tatars]carrying 

[in procession] hooded crosses. The enemy put 

them to the sword, one and all. 1. 

The Mongols' motives in this instance, during their 

reconnaissance mission of 1220/21 simply may have been 

to terrorize the population. However it is* not impossible 

that the unfortunate Christian welcoming party was 

mistaken for a band of secular princes. According 

to Klrakos Ganjakec'i, when in 1236 the Mongols returned 

to the Caucasus and in subduing the region captured the 

great cleric and scholar Vanakan yardapet. they thought 

that he was a secular prince and pressed him for information 

about fortresses and the whereabout of the Armenian 

lords . In any case, in 1236 the Mongols did not exterminate 

the intellectuals who had fallen into their hands. Vanakan, 

___ 

asein. t "«f un 

bereal 

istor ___ 

ec'i vraneay ew xaC sk anCelagorc 

: gariârkanen, ara^T laein. 25 amenavn 

2ork'*n~a7ea]1 1 nnrsne" " tanin 1,an erivanae ' d^wreanc , ew 

o^ pakaa^. avl ibrew BBS. J^n amenek qajn. ^ t^nglQY- novn 

kapign anden fflflay. . .Ew avgpifli hambaw a tut *ean Ic aw 

vasxarha. Vaan ayaorik o5 amrae an bnakigk aaxarh^n. 

erec ml asxarhakan* area], zjotovurd iwr. ew 

' Ya»elovk;'^9nt 'ae^w and ara^ noc 'a. Ew, noc 'a 

verav edeal* kotorec ^ znosa afr haearak ___ ". 

KG p. 246. 

282

his student Kirakos, and many other clerics were forced 

to serve the Mongols as secretaries, 'writing and reading 

letters"1. 

A definite improvement in conditions for Christians 

of the Mongol Middle East was achieved by the Syrian 

doctor of the Church, Rabban in 1241/42 . Thanks to 

Kg p. 249: "A£a arin ew zis eynkerac' imoc* zkni iwreano * 

4 pets dprut *ean erel t u^t- gwant ernul...". 

283 

2 £G PP. 276-77: "...He was known as the 'father of the 

Khan', since in Syriac raban means vardapet. while in 

Mongolian at'a means father. As soon as he heard about 

the merciless*"killing of the Christians occasioned by 

the Tatar troops, he approached the Khan and beseeched 

him for a letter to give the Tatar troops, commanding them 

not to kill Innocent people the way they were doing, 

people who had not warred against them, but instead [the 

Mongols should] let them alone so..that they might serve 

the king. With great pomp the Khan sent Raban himself to 

his commanders with a written ord~er that all obey his 

command. /-" 

"When Raban arrived, many things turned propitious for 

the Christians and the killings and captures ceased. 

Be likewise built churches in TaSik cities where previously 

no one dared utter the name of Christ—even in Tabriz 

and the city of NaxSawan which were yet more inimical to 

the Christians, so much so that Christians [dwelling there] 

did not dare appear or walk abroad openly, to say nothing 

of constructing a church or erecting a cross. Yet Raban 

erected cross and church, and the sounding-board was heard 

day and night. Christians openly took their dead for 

burial, carrying [in the procession] hooded crosses, gospels, 

and worshipping after the Christian custom. Those opposing 

them were put to death. No one dared come out against 

[Raban'a] order. On the contrary, the Tatar army revered 

him like their king, and without Raban, they neither planned 

ner did anything...And those merchants who had his tamgha 

that is to say, insignia, boldly circulated throughout 

the lands and no one dared approach those who mentioned 

Raban's name. Instead all the Tatar commanders gave him 

gifts from their booty".

fiaban's efforts, Nersea, kat'olikos of Cauoaaiaa Albania 

was taken to Chormagjran's wife, Alt ana: 

...They gave [Norses] gifts and an al-tamgha, 

so that no one would harass bin, [andjpthey gave 

him a Molal Tatar guide who took him throughout 

his dioceses in Albania. For a long while neither 

[Neraes] nor his predecessors had dared to circulate 

throughout the dioceses due to the blood-thirsty 

and bestial nation of TaSiks. Now [Nersea]-passed 

throughout his dioceses, returning peacefully 

to his residence in JCamsi monastery... 1. 

In 1247/48, the kat'oiikoa Kostandin of Cilicia sent 

to Greater Armenia gifts and money for the embellishment 

of the monastery of St. T'adeos, which was then elevated 

to a diocese. This rennovation work was entrusted to 

a vardapet Yovsep' and was expedited by the Mongols: 

And Yovsep' went to a Tatar commander named 

Angurak noyin whose summer quarters were, close 

by the tomb of the blessed apostle T'adeos. And 

on his command, Yovsep* blessed the church and 

held the pre-consecration ceremony, built a monastery 

and assembled many clerics in it. 

The Tatar man enlarged the roads on all sides 

[so that] all pilgrims could come amongst his 

troops fearlessly. He commanded strictly that 

no one wishing to come be harassed, and he humbled 

himself to them with love. And many of them came 

and baptized their sons and daughters, and many who 

...Etun nma pargewa ew eltamtaya. zi mi" 

joiov zamanaKJc ein, or oc na ew og o« y 

£9 isxein srjil and vTcakeals iwreanc â± 

ew gazanabaroy azgjn tackac . Idc nora 

ealsn* darjaw and~ren xaâtut'eamb i tel wr, t vansn 

ramsi' 

284

were possessed by devils and were sick became 

Sealed, and the name of our Lord Jesus Christ 

was glorified. 1, 

To my knowledge, the implications of certain 

statements in the sources concerning the tax status of 

the Armenian churches have not been thoroughly understood. 

According to Step'annos Orbelean, prior to Smbat Orbelean's 

visit to the Far East in. 1252/93, the churches of Orbslean 

Siwnik' were being taxed "bitterly"2. In M8nge-£han's 

285 

KG pp. 311-12: "Ew Yo 'ay ert'eal at nH 

I'at'arin, orum anun er Aaagurak-nuln. orov lHaw 

Twr yawuran amaraynoy hup er i gerezman aurb arak eloyn 

T'adeosit ew nora hramanaw erbeal gekeiec in ew nawakatia 

Icatareal ITneac ' zvansn ew toloveac ± na kronawora bazuma. 

Ew ayr I 'at 'ar andarjakeac' zCanaparas yamenayn kotaanc * 

iztakanac g _.nd. me3 zorac' ' nora. oatuer er hri hramani 

sa eamb* mi aok* zzuel ew netel. or kamlc'^n ' 

sirov xonarher at noaa. "Ew bazumk'* i 

noc unc* gayini 

ew mkrtein zueters ew zdustera iwreanc *. ._ 

ew bazum aysaha lark"' ew hiwandk" bzlkein. ew TO B arawor liner lin< 

anun tearn mero risuai K'riBtosi". 

SO p. 154.

presence, Smbat complained about the harassment of the 

churches , and received from Mongke "a decree freeing 

all the churches of Armenia and the priests", a statement 

o 

repeated twice . With encouragement from Baiju's wife, 

Smbat rennovated Siwnik''s religious eeat Tat'ew (then 

in a dilapidated condition)*. Kirakoa and the History 

of K*art*J4 very clearly state that as a result of emir 

Arghun's census of 1255, neither Church nor clergy 

was to be taxed . However, in 1257 when Hasan Jalal 

visited Batu-Khan in the Horth, he pointed out that Berses, 

kat'olikos of Albania still was being harassed. He was 

given a written order that such harassment should stop'. 

1 SO p. 155. 

3 SO p. 158. 

4 KG P. 363; "This [emir] Arehun designated what was proper 

[for tax collection] in all four Khanates, for-he was a 

just man, But as for monks, friars, and Church foundations, 

he did not place them under taxation, nor the ialan [tax] 

either. The same went for sheikhs and dervishes"! He 

freed [from taxation] all those Believers called the Servants 

of God" (KG p. 235J Mur. p. 108). 

286 

5 KG p. 359: "...[Hasan] also received a document guaranteeing 

freedom for lord Neraes , kat 'oiikos of Albania, for all 

his properties and goods, that he be free and untaxed and 

allowed to travel freely everywhere in the dioceses under 

his authority, and that no one disobey what he said".

fhe fact that Hasan, subsequently "being harassed by 

tax-collectors and by [emir] Argjiun" was obliged to 

visit the ?ar East to complain, demonstrates the crucial 

point, and is equally valid for the secular Hasan and 

the clerical Nerses. It was not enough simply to have 

written patents of authority or protection. The local 

Mongol noyins did not always implement them. 

In the late 1270's according to the History of 

K'art'li. the twelve retreats of Garesjfa, Georgia were 

taxed by the Mongols—even though under the administration 

287 

of so loyal a Mongol supporter aa Sadun Arcruni/Mahkanaberdeli . 

In the early 1280's (and presumably before), more than 

150 Armenian monasteries within the Georgian state were 

being taxed . Consequently we must conclude that even 

before the Islamization of the Mongols, many Armenian 

churches were taxed. 

KG p. 359: "Keêal 4 harkapahanUac *n ew yArafcunen**. 

2 KG p. 272; Mur. p. 142. 

SO p. 173: "Thereafter TarsayiS [Orbelean] held the 

atabekate of the land of Armenia, and did many things to 

lightenCthe lot of] the harassed Armenian people. Going 

to Tiflis he had brought forth the royal diwan and read 

all the names of the Armenian monasteries, and* such remained 

in the diwan as taxable (i nerk'py harki). So he had fetched 

the senior ciknawpar of the archives and changed the 

dawt'ar. He removed the names of more than 150 monasteries, 

[from the tax-register] and burned the old [register] in 

the fire. Thus did he free all the churches".

2. Armenian Clerical Presence at the Courta of the ghana 

William of Rubruck and Het'um the Historian proTide 

valuable information regarding Armenian clerica in Asia 

and about Armenian Christian influence on the Khans. 

Rubruck who travelled to the Par East during 1253-55 

found Armenian priests at virtually all the major 

stopping placea. At the very start of hie trip, in 

Constantinople he met and conversed with Armenian merchants 

and resident clerics . At Sarai on the Volga river, 

the capital of the Northern latara, he encountered at 

the court of Sartsjth.-gh.an (Batu'a aon) "Armenian priests 

who knew Turkish and Arabic* and were employed aa transo 

latora in addition to performing religious duties . 

Armenian priests were serving aa translators in Qara Qorua, 

Mongolia also aa William subsequently discovered . 

In Qara Qorum, Rubruck came upon a small Armenian 

chapel. Its colorful attendant was the "monk" Sargia. This 

WH p. zxzvii. 

ra p. 105. 

WH pp. 166, 205. 

288

impostor claimed that: 

...he had been a hermit in the country of 

Jerusalem, and that God had appeared to hi" three 

times, enjoining on him to go to the Prince of 

the Tartars. But as he neglected going, God 

threatened him the third time, striking him down 

to the ground, and saying that he should die if 

he .did not go; and that he should say to MSngke— 

Khan that if he would become a Christian, all 

the world would oome under his rule, and that 

the great Pope would obey him... 1. 

Sargis indeed was an Armenian, "swarthy and lank" , but 

not a priest; and, if a Christian, of a rather ahamanistio 

sort': 

...but he lied, for he had taken no [religious] 

orders, and did not know a single letter, but was 

a cloth weaver, as I found out in his own country, 

which I went through on my way back. . 4. 

Although William does not mention other Armenian clerics 

by names, he does alude to their presence. Thus, worried 

l WE p. 169. 

2 WE p. 168. 

3 WR pp. 193-96, 203-205, 207, 211, 218-19. 

4 WE p. 193. 

289

that the Pope's letters he was carrying may have been 

tampered with, he wrote: 

...I feared that as those who had interpreted 

your letters were Armenians from 

Greater Armenia—great haters of the Saracens 

-•they had perhaps through hatred and for the 

discomfiture of the Saracens, gratuitously 

translated as had suited their fancy. 1. 

Turthermore, Bubruck's comment that Armenian Easter 

was celebrated in Qara Qorum with a large clerical pro- 

cession to the Khan's residence, only makes sense if 

there were a sizeable number of Armenian clerics present . 

While in Qara Qorum, William encountered an unnamed 

Armenian lordly petitioner to MSngke-Khan: 

A certain Armenian who had come with the 

monk had brought this said cross from Jerusalem, 

as he said, and it was of silver, weighing perhaps 

four marks, and had four gems in the angles and 

one in the center; and it did not have the image 

of the Savior, for the Armenians and Nestorians 

are ashamed to show the Christ fixed to. the Cross. 

And they had presented it to Hongke-Khan, and 

Uongke asked him what he wanted. Then he said 

he was the son of an Armenian priest, whose church 

had been destroyed by the Saracens, and he asked 

his help to restore this church. Then [Mbngke] 

asked him with how much it could be rebuilt, and 

he said two hundred iascot—that is two thousand 

marks. And he ordered that he should be given 

letters to him who receives the tribute in Persia 

and Greater Armenia, to pay him this sum of silver. 

1 WH p. 166. 

2 

WR p. 187. 

3 WE p.191. 

230

la my opinion, the lord mentioned above probably was 

Sabat Orbelean, whose first trip to the Far Eaat took 

place while Whilliam was in Qara Qorun. 

Het'um the Historian's History provides an account 

of Armenian Christian influence in the courts of various 

Mongol Khans. Evidently, some of his information is 

fanciful or perhaps even wishful thinking. However, the 

unmistakable import of his narration is that Armenian 

Christiana enjoyed considerable influence with different 

Khans. Supposedly, when king Het'um of Cilicia visited 

Mongke-Khan in the early 1250'a: 

...Pirst he urged the Khan to convert to 

Christianity and to accept Baptism together with 

his people; second, that eternal peace and 

friendship be established between Christians 

and Tatars; third, that it be possible to construct 

Christian churches in all of the Tatar countries 

and that the Armenians be freed from taxes and 

other borders; fourth, that the Holy land and the 

Holy Sepulcher be wrested from the Turks and 

given to the Christians; fifth, that the caliph 

in Baghdad, the head of the [Muslim] religion, 

be done away with...When the Tatar Khan had 

consulted with his princes and grandTes, he 

replied to the king of Armenia: 'I accept your 

requests. I shall accept baptism and adopt the 

Christian religion and show concern that all 

my subjects do likewise... 1. 

Het'um p. 45. 

291

Chapter 24 of the Hiatory la entitled "Regarding the 

Baptism of MSngke-Khan" : 

Now after M'ongke had accepted the requesta 

of the Armenian king with charitable munificence, 

he had himself baptised by the chancellor of the 

Armenian kingdom, who was a bishop. Whith him 

[were baptised] his house and numerous other 

esteemed and grand men and women. . I. 

She Cilician king Kewon (like all the Cilician kinga) 

is elevated in Het'urn's account to the position of defender 

of the Christians. When visiting Abaqa-Khan in Iran: 

...the king of Armenia beaeeched him 

regarding freeing the Hply Land from the infidels. 

And Abaqa ao promised, simultaneously advizing 

the Armenian king to send emissaries to the 

Pope and to the orthodox kings [regarding this 

matter], 2. 

Xhua we may conclude that an Armenian clerical presence 

existed at the courts of the Khans already by the early 

1250'a, and probably earlier. It may have developed 

into a sizeable presence before the Islamization of 

the Mongols in the late 13-early 14th centuries, involving 

clerics both from Greater Armenia and Cilicia. The 

influence of Christian Cilician kings with the Khans 

ended with Mongol Islamization. 

1 Het'urn p. 46. 

2 Het'urn p. 57. 

292

I. Sources 

Bibliography 

AL Aristakes Lastivertc*i. Patmut *iwn 

Aristaklsi Lastiverte*woy [History 

of Aristakea LastlvertcT'i]. K. S. 

Yuzoasyan, ed,(Erevan, 1963). 

Trana. : Recit dea malheurs de la 

nation armenienne. M. Canard et 

H. Berberian, trad. (Bruxelles. 

1973). 

Povestvovanie vardapeta Aristakaea 

Lastiverttsi. K.N. Yuzbasyan, trans. 

(Moscow, 1968)o 

BH, Chronieon Syriacua Bar Kebraeus, The Chronography of 

Gregory Abu'l Fara3...Bar Hebr'aeus. 

£,A.W. Budge, trans. (London, 1976) 

reprint of the 1932 edition. 

CIA 

Clav. 

Eawit' of Sanjak 

Corpus Inscriptionun Armeniearum 

[Pivan Hay Vimagrut'yan3 

Vol.'"l:"TCA. Orbeli, eS. (Erevan, 

1966). 

Vol. 2: S.G. Barxudaryan, ed. 

(Erevan, I960). 

Vol. 3: S.G. Barxudaryan, ed. 

(Erevan, 1967). 

Vol. 4: S.G. Barxudaryan, ed, 

(Erevan, 1973). 

Vole 6; S.A. Avagyan and H.M. Janpoladyan, 

ed. (Erevan, 1977}. 

Clavijo, Embassy to Tamerlane 1403— 

1406. G. Le Strange, trans. (London, 

The Penitential of Dawit'of Ganjak. 

^77.F. Dowsett, et. (Louvain,1961). 

293

GA Grigor Aknerc'i, History of the 

tion of the Archers (the Mongols) 

by Grigor of Akanc ...the Armenian 

text edited with an English trans. 

by Robert P. Blake and R.N.Frye 

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 

#3-4(1949) PP. 25?-445; printed" 

as a separate book with the same 

title (Cambridge, Mass., 1954). 

etersburg, 1871). 

istory 

trans., 

Ouvrage de Malakia-Abegha, ou Maiakia-le-Moine, 

in Additions et 

eclaircisamenta a 1'HistoIre'ê 

la Seoririe. M. Broe'aet. trans. 

Tat. Petersburg, 1851). 

Galstyan, A.G. Arm Armianskie istochniki o 

TAT rmenian Sources oni tEe~Mi Mongof . 

A.G. Galstyan, trans., (Moscow, 1962). 

kh 

_iT, 

ayoc* nor vkanera. Havoc' nor vkanera. 1155-1843 

[Armenian Neo-martyrs. ANM], Y. Manandean, 

Hr. Acarean, ed. (VaiarSapat, 

1903). 

Het 'urn Het'um the Historian, Het'urn patmig 

T'at'arac'CHet'um. Historian of 

The Tatars]. M. Awgerean. trans. 

TVenice, 1842). 

Ibn al-Athir Ibn al-Athir, "Fragments de 

Geographes et^d'Historiens arabes 

et persans inedit". M. Defremery, 

trans. JA #13(1848), #14(1849). 

Ibn Battuta Ibn flattuta, The Travels of Ibn 

Battuta. H.A.RT~Gibb, trans, 

vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1962). 

294

Ibn Bibi Ibn Bibi, Die Seltsohukengeschiehte 

des Ibn Bibi Munksgaard (Copenhagen. 

Trans, of passages relevant to 

Armenia: "Hayestan Ibn Bibi Hamemat 

[Armenia_A c cord ing to lTm~Bi'bT] 

P. Ter-Polosean, trans., JjA (I960): 

Juanser Juanser, Haratot Patmut *iwn Vrac* 

ancayeal Juanleri patmigitConcise 

tory of Georgia Presented by 

Juanser the Historian]. (Venice. 

Juvaini Juvaini, The History of the World-- 

Conqueror. J. A.Boyle, trans, 

vole 1 (Manchester, 1958). 

K'art'ns C'xovreba [The History 

2f"T'art'll] , S. QauxJIsvili, ed. 

volT TT~"(f"b"ilisi, 1959). 

Trans. : K'art'lis C'xovreba. 

text and French translation by 

Ms Brosset in Histoire de 1 

Georgie. depuis I'antiquj 

"gu XIX siecle (St. Petersburg. 

Yrac' Yrac' 8amanakaerut'yun (1207-1318) 

TISe Georgian Chronicler 

Chronicle]. P. Muradyan, 

trans., (Erevan, 1971). 

KG Kirakos Ganjakec'i, Patnut'iwn 

Hayoc' [History of Armenia], 

K.A. Melik"-0han3anyan, ed. 

(Erevan, 1961). 

Trans.: "Histoire d1Armenia par 

le vartabied Kirakos de Gantzac", 

Deux historiena armeniens. M.P. 

Brosset trans. (St. Petersburg, 

1870). 

Istoriia Armenii [History of Armenia] 

L.A. Xanlarian, trans. (Moscow, 

1976). 

295

MC Samanakagrut 'yunner XIII-XYIIIdd. 

r Chronicles of the UTT-XVIII 

Centuries]. V.A7~Hakobyan. ed. 

vol. 1 tErevan, 1951), 

vol. 2 (Erevan, 1956). 

MEd 

Trans.: Bibliotneque historique 

armenienne. I. E. Dulaurier. trans. 

(Paris, 1858). 

Uxit'ar Ayrivanec'i Mxit'ar Ayrivanec'i, Histoire 

chronologique Mkhithar d'AIriyank 

M.J3rosset, trans. (St. Petersbvirg, 

1869). 

Mxit'ar Cos Mxit'ar Cos, "The Albanian Chronicle 

of Mxit'ar Gos", C.J.P. Dowsett, 

trans. BSOAS #21 (1958). 

Afakk*[Fables]. (Venice, 185*). 

Girk' dataatani [law Book], 

3c. T'orosyan, ed. (Erevan, 1975). 

Qazvini, The Geographical Part 

,__ of the .. NuzEat-al~Qulub o? Haaor-Allah 

Sustawfi of Qazvin. 

trans. (London, 1919). 

Rashid al-Din Rashid al-Din, The Successors of 

Genghis Khan. J.A. Boyle, trans. 

(New VorkTTg ' 

Sbornik letopiseiCCollection of 

Chronicles], A.K. Arends, trans. 

(Moscow-Leningrad, 1946). 

SA Samuel of Ani, en k/ahanayjL 

Anec'wpy — --M. hawak' —----- sîiiK i groc patmaerac 

.rnuel the Priest of Ani'B Collection 

Historians' Writings] . A"."Ter— 

'k'elean, ed. (Vaiarsapat, 1893). 

296

Trans. : Collection d1historians 

armeniens, M. BrosseT, trans.. 

vol. II (St. Petersburg, 1876). 

Schiltberger Johann Schiltberger.The Bondage 

and Travels of JohannTchI iltberge ' 

J.B. Telfer, trans. (London, 16 

Smbat Sparapet Smpat Sjarapjst, Smbatav gparapeti 

taregirk' LChrpnicle of Smbal 

Sparapet]. S. Agalean, e3T 

(Venice, 1956). 

SO Step'annos Orbelean, Patmut *jwn 

•"ihangin Sisakan arareal Stepânnosi 

r•belean 

ark'episkoposi Siwneac1' 

[Hiistory of the State of Sisakan 

Step annos Orbelean. Archbishop 

01 giwnik'3. K. Sahnazareanc",ed. 

TParis, 1859). 

Trans. : Histoire de la Siounie. 

M. Brosset, trans."7 vols. (St. Petersburg, 

1864-66). 

Spuler, Bertold History of the Mongols Based 

Eastern and Western Accounts 

the Thirteenth and Fourteenth 

Centuries, translated from the 

German by H. and S. Drummond 

(Berkeley, 1972). 

TA 

LYardapet £ 

of the Arcrun 

burg, 1887). 

a Hia 

House].(St. it.Te Peters- 

T :-« 

:•* T'ovma Mecop'ec'i, Patmut*iwn 

Lank-T'anuray ew yaôrdac' iwroc' 

ec'i]7 K. Sahnazarean. ed.(Paris,1860). 

297

M, col. 

Trans. : -Expose dee .erres 

de Tamerlan et de Sc- tah-Rokh dans 

pAsie occidentaTe. d'aprea la 

chronique armenienne~'inedite"7e 

Thomas dg Medzpph . Felix Neve, 

trans. (Brussels, 1861). 

takarana 

T ovma 

K. Kostanean r olophonj 

iflis, 1892). 

VA, Geog. Vardan Arewelc*i, Aixarhae'pyc' 

Yardanay Vardapeti [Geography of 

Vardan vardapet]. H. Berberian.ed. 

(Paris, I960). 

VA.Hist. Vardan Arewelc'i, Hawak *umn 

patmut*ean Yardanay yardapeti 

lusaban'ealCCoDpilatlon of History 

by Vardapet Vardan Arewelc*j] i.J 

(Venice, 1862 

VT Vimakan taregir CAnnal of Inscriptions]. 

K. Kostaneanc ,ed. 

(St. Petersburg, 1913). 

VR William of Rubruck, The Journey 

Si. William of Rubruck. W. Rocknill, 

trans. (. LoriSon, 1900). 

Xajikyan, L. 14CC, XIV Pari yeren .1 efagre 

hilatakaranner 

Century 4Armenian 

?JanusGripes'], 

L. Xa$ikyan, ed.,(Erevan, 1950 

Yaqut 

Yov. YiS. 

15CC, XV Dari hayeren .leragreri 

hisatalca'ranner [Colop'hons of XVth 

fcentury Armenian Manuscripts], 

L. ia{iJcyan, ed., vol. I (1401— 

1450), (Erevan, 1955). 

Yaqut al-Hamavi. Passages relevant 

to Armenia and neighboring areas 

have been drawn from the Armenian 

translation in Arabakan. pp. 5-121. 

YijSatakarank' ieragrac'[Manuscript 

Colophons]. G.Yovsepean. ed. 

(Antllias,1951). 

298

II. Literature 

Abelyan, M., Erker [Works] vol. 4 (Erevan, 1970) reprint 

of Hayoo' bin grakanut *yan patmut *yun [History -•* 

Ancient Armenian Literature] vol. 2 (Erevan, Is 

Abrahamyan, "Ruk'n-ed-Dini partut'yung [The Defeat of 

Rukn al-kinl", Teêkagir f5-b (1941). 

Adontz, N.A., Armenia in the Period of Justinian. H.G. Garsoian, 

translator and editor (Lisbon, 1970) originally 

published in Russian in 1908. 

Akinean, N., "Akanc ' kam Akneri vank'a [Akanc* or Akner 

Monastery j", HA"Tl9T§TI "" 

"A^t'amaray kat 'oîkosac* gawazanagirk'a [The Succession 

of the Kafoiikoi of A^t'amarJ" HA (191?). 

"Srigor k'ahanay Aknerc'i patmagir T'at'arac* Patmut 'iwn 

1250-1335 [Srigor the Priest of AknerTHistorian 

oT"the5istory of the T'at'ars]", HA (1948). 

Review of R.Blake's History of the Nation o£. the 

Archers HA (1955). 

Review of Kirakos Ganjakec'i (Tiflis, 1909), HA (1910). 

Review of L, Xajikyan's 14CC, HA (1951). 

Alisan, 1., Hayapatuir [Antiquities],(Venice, 1901). 

-- Sirak (Venice, 1890). 

Sisakan (Venice, 1893). 

tory of 

enturies]. (Baku, 195^7. 

e Socip-E< 

the XI17•XIV 

299

Allen, ff.E.D., A History of the Georgian People (New York, 

1971) reprint of the 1

301 

Sotsial 'no-akonomicheskaia i pol i ti cheekaia istoriia 

Armenil v XIII-XIV vekakh '[The S.ooio-fecgnomlo and 

Political History of Armenia in the XIII-XIVthTJenturiea] , 

(Moscow, 1969). 

~ "Zak 'aryan erek* iSxanut 'yunneri kaznavoruma [The 

Formation of the Three Zak "arid Principalities] " .HAP ch.32. 

Baidasaryan, S. M. , "Erznkayi haykakan iSxanut 'yuna 

arerum [The Armenian Principality of E 

III-XV Centuries]", Lraber #2 (1970). 

f 

Barxutareanc ' , M. , Arc 'ax (Baku, 1895). 

Teiekagir #5 (1947). 

Bausani, A., "Religion under the Mongols", SMP ch. 7. 

Berberian, H., "Le Patriarcat armenien du suitanat de Roum", 

REA. n.s. #3(1966). 

Bornazyan, S.V., "Hayaatanl nvaSums sel5uk-t *urk'eri koimic * 

CThe Conquest of Armenia by the SalJua Turk8jHTtiAP 

ch. 26. 

"Salduxyannera KarinumC The Saltukide in Karin]".HAP ch.28« 

Soc 'ial-tntesakan haraberut '.vunnera kilikyan haykakan 

petut yunum CSocio-Economic gelations in the Cilician 

Armenian Stated. (Erevan. 1973). 

Boyle, J.A., ed., Ihe Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 5, 

the Sal jug and Mongol Periods CCambridgeT 1968)[SMPJ. 

"The Journey of Het'un I, King of Little Armenia, to 

the Court of the Great Khan Mongke", Central Asiatic 

Journal #9 (1964). 

one

"Kirakos of Ganjak on the Mongols", Central Asiatic 

Journal #8 (1963). 

Budge, E.A. Wallis, The Monica of Kublai Khan (London, 1928). 

Jam?can, M., Patmut'iwn Hayoc * skzbane alxarhi minSew zam 

tearn 1784 aat awandelov aylayl matenagrac [History 

the Armenians from the Creation of the World to • 

A.J. 1784Accord"ing to the Accounts of Diverse Sources] 

3 vol. (Venice, 1784-8677 

Cahen, 01., Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London, 1968). 

~ "Une campagne du aeldjukide Alp-Arslan en Giorgio". 

Bedi Karthlisa 41-42 n.s. XIII-XIV (1962). 

Canard, M., "La campagne armenienne du sultan Saljuqide Alp 

Arslan et la prise d'Ani en 1064", RSA. n.s.(1965). 

Charanis, P., The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 

1963). 

Cleaves, P.W., "The Mongolian Names and Terms in the History 

of the Nation of the Archers by Grigor of Akanc'", 

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies #3-4 (1949). 

Der Nereessian, S., Armenia and the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge, 

Mass., 1945). 

The Armeniana (New York, 1970). 

Eremyan, S., Amirspaaalar Zak'aria Erkaynabazuk [Amirspasalar 

2ak 'aria MxargreelTlTTErevan. 1944). 

"Liparit zoravari haHordnera ev Danismanyan tohmi 

cagman jcndira [The Successors of General Liparit 

and the Problem of the Origin of the Danishmandid Line]", 

Telekagir #8 (1947). ~" 

302

Galatyan, A.G., "The Conquest of Armenia by the Mongol 

Armies", Armenian Review #27 (1975). 

"The First Armeno-Mongol Negotiations", Armenian Review 

#29(1976). 

Garsoian, K. G., "Prolegemena to a Study of the Iranian 

. Aspects in Arsacld Armenia", HA (1976). 

and the Question of St. Orbelean's Tax List]", Lraber 

#2 (1966). 

"Step'anos Orbelyan", PBH #4(1976)« 

Hakobyan, T'.X., Hayaatanl patmakan asxarhaerut'yun [Armenia's 

Historical geography]. (Erevan. 1968). ~ 

Step'anos Orbelyan (Erevan, I960). 

Ijc'i. t'agavorut'yuna, [The Kingdom of Siwnik'] 

ivan, 1966 J. 

Harut'yunyan, B. 3., "Feod-in ev benefieium-in hamaapatasxanoi 

terminnera :a hay mijnadaryan grakanut'yan me^ [Terms 

Corresponding IcTing to Feod and Beneficium in Medieval 

Armenian Literature]", Lraber #12 (1958). 

Hewsen, R., "The Meliks of Eastern Armenia", HEA article I 

IX(1972), II 1(1973/74), III XI(1975/76TT 

Huart, C., A History 2l Arabic Literature (New York, 1903). 

303

Huaaeinov, R., "La conquete de 1'Azerbaldjan par lea 

Seldjoucidea", Bedi Karthliaa 48-49 vol. IIX-IX (1965). 

lakanyan, V.K., "Arcrunyac * artagatt'i masin [On the Arcrunid 

Emigration]". PBH fS (19657. 

Jalalean, S., Canaparhordut *iwn i meen Hayaetan [Journey to 

Greater Armenia] I(!rifTlB'.184nT illTiflie, 1858). 

Kazhdan, A.P., Armiane v aoatave goapodatvuiUBhchego klaaaa 

Yizantii Vizantii v XI-X XI-XIl"Vv.[Armenians in the Compoaition 

of '? ibe the SuTing G^TasF'of'BT' 

" " ~~~ 

HoacoV, 1975): 

Kirakoayan, G.E., * Ma tenagi takan tetekut 'yunne 

[Bibliographical hi Information on the Eop eanaj 

PBtrgl (1969). 

Korkhmazian, 3. M., Armianakaia miniatiura Kryma [Armenian 

Miniatures of Crimea]. (Erevan. 1978). 

Kurdian, H., "Mamikoneanneri Daet 8u3^9[The Dael Branch of 

the Mamikoneana]". Bazmavep (1956). 

iafadaryan, K., "Patmahnagitakan ditotut'yunner nor Berdi 

Kyurikyanneri isxanut yan masln LHiatoriographical 

Observations on the Xiwrikean Principality of Nor 

Berd]", Teêkagir #4-5 (19*0). 

Lalayan, £., "Siaian". Azgagrakan Handea (1899). 

"Ganjaki gawa? [The Diatrict of Ganjak]", Azgagrakan 

Laurent, !>1.J,, "Byzane et Antioche aoua le curopalate 

Philarete", REA IX (1929). 

le Strange, G., Mesopotamia and Peraia under the Mongola 

in the Fourteenth Century A.I). (London, 1903). 

Ligeti, L. "Le Lexique noneol de Kirakos de Gandzak", Acta 

Orientalia Kungarica. XVIII (I9c?). 

Lordkipanidze, .;.!>., Istoriia gruzii jCI-naehala XIII beka 

L^he History of Georgia 1'roa the Xivc the bebinnin^ of 

the XIII Century], (ibiITs7.T974TT — 

304

Manandyan, H.A., Feodalizma hin Hayastanum [Feudalism.- Sa . 

Ancient Armenia] . (Erevan. 1934). 

K 'nnakan tesut 'yun Hay £otovrdi patmut 'yan [Critical 

gurvey gurvey of 

the History of the Armenian People J. vol.3 

(Erevan, 1952). 

The Trade and Cities of Armenia in Connection 

Ancient World Trade. NTG.Garsoian, trana. t Ls 1965). 

Margaryan, H.G., "Mi^feodalakan payk'ara Georgi Ill-i Samanak 

ev K'urd amirapeta [The Inter-Feudal Struggle Tn the 

TTme" of Georgi III, and the Amirapet K'urd]", Lraber 

#11 (1975). - 

Uarr, K. la., "Arkaun. mongol'ekoe nazvanie khristian[Arkaun, 

the Mongolian Designation for Christians]". Vigantilakil 

Vremenik XII (1905). ~ 

i.Iasse, K., "Le sultan seldjoukide Key ko bad ler et I'Armenie", 

REA IX(1929). 

Melikoff, I., " Georgi ens et Armenians dans la litterature 

epique des Turcs d'Anatolie", Bedi Karthlisa 36-37 

n.s. XI -XII (1961). 

La Geste de, Melik Danismend (Paris, I960). 

Melik'set '-Bek, L. , "Geragoyn datarani ev datavarut *yan 

masin 2ak 'arean Hayastanun COn the Supreme Court 

and Legal Frocedings in Zak arid Armenia] ".Teiekagir 

#3-4(1945). - 

Vrac ' a.^byurnera Hayastani ev hayeri masin C Georgian 

Sources on Armenia and on the Armenians], vol. A 

(Erevan, 1934), vol7~5 TErevan, 1936). 

Kikaelian, G.G., latoriia Kilikiiskogo Armianskogo gosudarstva 

[History of the Cilieian Armenian StateT. 

(Erevan, 1952). 

Minorsky, V., Studies in Caucasian History (London, 1953). 

305

Moule, A.C., Christians in China before lg£Q (New York, 1930). 

Movsesean, L., "Histoire des rois Kuriklan de Lori", P. Hacler, 

trans., REA (1927). 

Huradyan, P.M., "Yrac'eren arjanaerut 'yunner Hayastanum 

Pinjahank' [Georgian Inscriptions in Armenia: Pinjahank-]". 

Lraber #1 (1973). 

Mulelyan, X.A., "Dramayin srltanafrut 'yuna Hayastanum IX-XIV 

darerum tThe Circulation of Money in Armenia in the 

IX-XlVth Centuries]", PBH #4(1971). 

Orbeli. I. A., "h'Asan Dzhalal kniaz' Khachenskil CHasan 

Jalal, Prince of"7a{en7". Izves'tiia imp.~lN (1909). 

Oskanyant A.M. . "Asxaragrakan determinizma bay patmagrut *yan 

me5 [Geographical Determinism in Armenian Historiography]", 

Oskean, H., "Kirakos Ganjakec'i", HA (1922). 

"Vardan Arewelc'i", HA (1921). 

Perikhanyan, A., "Prevnearmianskie vostaniki [The ostanik*s 

in Ancient Armenia]". VJI #2 (1956). 

Petoyan, V., "Sasuni T'ofnikyan iixanut'yuna [The T'ornikean 

Principality of'"Sa8un]11'. Teieka'HrH^~(1955). 

Petrowicz, G., "Miabano^ e^bayrnera ew Hay ekelec'in 

[The Uniators and the ArmenianThurch]", HA TT969). 

P'irlalemean, i., Kotark' havoc *(Constantinople. 1888). 

Sahinyan, A., "Mamikonyan-Hamazaspyan tohma Hayastanum 

XII-XIII darerum [The Mamikonean-Hamazaspean Clan 

of Northern Armenia in the XII-XIII Centuries]", 

Lraber #3 (1968). 

506

Sahnazarean, A., "Zak'arean tohmi cagumaC Origin of the 

Zak'arid ClanTr."?oSafcat ' CYatariapat. 1913). 

Sanjlan, A.K. , Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts 1301-1480 

(Cambridge, Mass., T569). 

Saunders, J.J., "The Decline and Fall of Christianity in 

Medieval Asia", Journal £f Religious History #2(1968). 

History of the Mongol Conquests (London, 1971). 

Spuler, B., The Muslim World, part II, The Mongol Period 

(Leiden, I960). 

Sruanjteanc', G., T'pros A^bar! Hayastani Sambord [ Bro ther 

T 'pros , Traveller of Armenia] 2 vol . ( Constantinople , 

T87F85): ' 

C'uc'ak hayeren Jeragrac' matenadaranin Mxit'areanc * 

T TTenna [Catalogue of t'he Armenian Manuscripts at 

the Mxit'ariat Library ItTVienna] .(Vienna. 1695). 

T'emuryan, V., "Hayeri artagait'a depi Gamirk' llrd darum 

LThe Emigration of Armenians to Cappadocia in the 

llth Century]", Teêkagir #2 (1955). 

Ter-Davt'yaa, K'.S., Pamiatniki Armianskoi Agiografii 

[Monuments of Armenian Hagiography].(Erevan.1973). 

Ter-lewondyan, A., The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia. 

N.G.Garsoian, trans. (Lisbon, 1976). 

— "Hayera Egiptosum [The Armenians in Egypt]", HAP ch.30. 

*K 'ust-i Kapkoh vargakan miavori verapruknera 

Xalifavut'yan Samanak [Survivala of the Administrative 

Unit of Kust-i Kapkoh in the Time of the Caliphate]", 

Teiekaglr #9 (1958). 

307

"Sah Armenneri anirayut *yuna Xlat'un [The Emirate 

oFThe Shah Armens at Xlat 'T"7"HTP ch.28. 

"Xedenekyan Arcruninera Yaapurakanum [The Xedenekean 

Arcrunids in Yaspurakan]".HAP ch. 28. 

"Zak'aria ev lyanei arabatar arrlanagrut 'yuna anberdum 

[Zak'aria's and I wane's Inscription in Arabic from 

Anberd]", PBH #1 (1971). 

Thomson, R.W. , "The Influence of their Environment on the 

Armenians in Exileîn the Eleventh Century* . Congrea 

international des etudea byzantines. 13th (Oxford, 

Togan, A.Z.V., "Still Missing Works of Raahid al-Din", 

Central Asiatic Journal #9 (1964). 

T'op'uzyan, 5. X., "MiWetk'i ev Aaorik'i haykakan gatt'avayrera 

[Armenian Settlements in Mesopotamia and 

Syria] " , HAP ch. 30. 

Toumanoff, C., "Armenia and Georgia", The Cambridge Medieval 

History, vol. IV. The Byzantine Empire, part I 

(Cambridge, 1966) cE7 XIV. 

"Background to Mantzikert", Congress (Oxford, 1967). 

"Caucasia and Byzantium", Iraditio 27 (1971). 

"The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution 

of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia", Iraditio 7 

(1949-51). 

"The Mamikonids and the Liparltids", Armeniaca 

(Venice, 1969). 

"Medieval Georgian Historical Literature (Vll-XVth 

Centuries)", Traditio 1 (1943). 

308 

Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown. 1963) .

'uriyan, H.G., "Sah-i-Armenner CThe Shah-i-ArmenaT' 

PBH #4(196*77 -- 

Ulubabyan 

197DCBMHTT 

in Asia 

the 

a"Angel ea , 

"Seljuk Gulama and Ottoman Devshirmes " , Per Islam 

XLI (1965). -- 

Xafikyan, L.S. ."Syunyac ' Srbelyanneri Burt * _ 

[The Biwrt el ean Branch of the Siwnid Orbeleana] " , 

BM #9 (1969). 

ch. 1. 

HAP 

"Hayaatani k'atak'akan viZaka ev aoe 'ial-tnteaakan 

haraberut'yunnera XIY-XlPdarerum [Armenia's Political 

Situation and Socio-Economic Relations in the 

XlV-XVth Centuries]", HAP IV ch. 1. 

Yovsep'ean, G., "Nor niwt'er T'oyma Mecop'ec'u kenaagrut'ean 

hamar [New Materials feJr the BTograpEy of T "ovma 

MeHop'ec'i]", Ararat (1913). 

Potomatvo Tarsaicha Orbellana iL Mina-Khatuny [The 

Posterity of Tarsayi 5 Orbelean"~and Mina-Khatun] , 

Khristianakii Voatok. II (1913). 

Xajbakeank ' kam Proa eank* CThe Xa^bakeans or Proaeans] 

(Anteliaa, 19^9*) reprint oFThe 1928 editl tion. 

Yuzbalyan, K.N., "Deilemity v povestvovanii Aristakesa 

Laetiverttsl [The BaiTamitea in Aristakes Laatlvertc'i'a 

Narration]", Paleatinskii Sbornik #7 (1962). 

309

with Agadzanov, S.G., "K istorii tiurskikh nabegov 

na Armeniiu v Xly [Toward the History py of the Turkia Turkish 

Raids on Armenia in the llth Centur Century]", Palestinskii 

Sbornik #12 (1965). 

Zamkofyan, H., "Ani k'aâk'um erku XHIrd arjanagrut'yunneri 

masin [On Two 13th Century Inscriptions from the 

"~ Ani]", GAEPH #47 

"Patmut*lwn vasn azgin netoâc * erki heînaka 

[The Author of the Work History of the Nation of 

the Archers]" GAEPH #23 (1946). 

310

amir-hejub 

amir-spaaalar 

kat'oiikos 

kesik(toyk) 

khara.i 

khatun 

mal 

mandat 'urt '-uxuc *e_3 

mecatun 

GLOSSARY 

Army. 

Grand Chamberlain. 

Commander-in-Chief of the 

"father-guardian". 

Arm./Iran, literally "free", 

designation for lesser gentry. 

"hero". 

"tax collector". 

Georg. "great one", high noble. 

. envoy, ambassador. 

Georg. "duke", head of a province. 

Arm. "patrimony", a form of landhold. 

Mong. subordinate Khan, title of 

the Khan of Iran (T7e., subordinate 

to the Great Khan)7 ~ 

Mong. "demesne", a Jandhold directly 

tributary ..to the Khan or members 

of the Khan's family. 

poll-tax, originally on 

non-Muslims. 

head of the Armenian Church. 

"imperial guard". 

. land tax. 

. "queen, princess, lady". 

t 

"property, cattle tax". 

Georg. "High Marshall" of the 

Georgian Court. 

Arm. literally "of a great House", 

wealthy merchant. 

311

maaxurt *-uxu£ '%£. 

naxarar 

noyin 

paiza 

quriltai 

sahib-divan 

iahna 

taghar 

tanuter 

ter 

tumen 

tun 

vardapet 

yarligh 

yasax 

yayla 

Georg. Treasurer of the Georgian 

Court. 

Arm. "noble". 

• "general, commander, official". 

. tablet of authority. 

. national assembly. 

Minister of Finance. 

. "guards". 

a tax in kind. 

Arm. "lord of the House". 

Arm. "lord", secular and clerical. 

. 10,000 troops. 

Arm. "House, clan, family". 

Arm. doctor of the Armenian Church. 

"decree, order, law", 

code of law. 

"pasturing grounds". 

312

The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the Lords of Armenia in the 13 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?