‘The Armenian ethnos was formed in the course of the clashes of the first empires, hence its political and philosophical origin is imperial whereas its political model of behaviour is reactionary’
Front Asia remained permanently in the epicentre of historical events. In the fecund valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates the first civilisations were formed, the most mighty powers and empires of the ancient world, such as Sumer, Akkadian, the Hittite kingdom, the Hellenistic Seleucid state, were also established, expanded and perished there. Front Asia has always been in the zone of clash of interests of superpowers of all times and distribution of their areas of influence. Not a single state formed on the terrain of the Armenian Highland has ever managed to escape the maelstrom of these geopolitical processes.
Furthermore, at least two powers of the Armenian Highland, Urartu and the empire of Tigranes the Great, dominated West Asia, challenging the fallacy that Armenia is geographically destined to be a zone of superpower influence or balance between those.
The history of Armenian statehood has always been linked to the history of the most powerful states of its times, even to the point that Armenians themselves shaped the geopolitical picture of the region. In the formation of the Armenian ethnos, external aggression acted as a mechanism of ethnogenesis. It was exactly the invasions of the most ancient empires (first the Hittite kingdom, then Assyria) that forced various small ‘countries’ of the Armenian Highland to merge into larger alliances. It was the external factor that played a significant role in the establishment of the new Armenian kingdom headed by Paruyr Skyordi. The kingdom was formed amidst the rise of a new power, Media, and the clash between Assyria and Urartu.
From the accounts of historians of the time, it can be inferred that the Armenian kingdom was the first to recognise the Median domination. However, the Median hegemony did not last long, and as a result of a palace coup in 550 BC, Cyrus the Great founded the Achaemenid Empire within the territories of that state, and Armenia also became a vassal of that empire, retaining this status until the campaigns of Alexander the Great. Armenia succeeded in attaining independence only after Alexander the Great’s troops defeated the army of the last Achaemenid king Darius III Codomannus in the battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC. The case for independence was also favoured by Alexander’s never having undertaken any campaigns against Armenia, having only sent one of his commanders to conquer the gold ores at Speri. In the middle of the 3rd century BC the Tsopk region separated from Great Armenia, forming the Armenian kingdom of Tsopk (Sophene) and Commagene, ruled by Samos (Sham) of the Ervandites’ royal lineage. But in the 3rd century BC, due to the Seleucid intervention, Commagene separated from Tsopk. Thus, the Armenian lands were divided into four kingdoms: Greater Armenia, Lesser Armenia, Tsopk, and Commagene. Following Alexander’s death, the world once again plunged into the formation of a world order: his Diadochi sought to divide that vast empire among themselves. The new world order assumed its complete contours after the Battle of Ipsus (301 BC), when Seleucus, one of Alexander’s generals, took over the former Persian Empire, whereas Ptolemy acquired Egypt. The retention of Armenia’s independence was also stipulated by the decline of the Seleucid state as the Parthians separated from them and established their own state in the lands to the south and south-east of the Caspian Sea, while in Central Asia the Greco-Baktrian kingdom broke away. The circumstances changed when Antiochus III Megas who sought to restore the empire of Alexander of Macedon on behalf of his state ascended the Seleucid throne. At first, in the 3rd century BC the Seleucids conquered Commagene, and the King of Tsopk, Xerxes, assumed the allegiance to Antiochus, but after Xerxes was murdered by his wife, Zariadres was appointed the strategus of Tsopk instead.
At that time, Greater Armenia was ruled by the last representative of the Ervandites (Orontides), Yervand (Orontes) IV, consequently killed by an Armenian aristocrat Artaxias. The latter was appointed the strategus of Greater Armenia. At parallel, a new imperial power, Rome which had already conquered the whole of the West, was moving eastwards to spread the confines of the Pax Romana. In the face of such geopolitical environment, when the principal threat to Armenia, the Seleucid State, was weakened and contained within the bounds of Syria, and Rome supported the independence aspirations of the Seleucid subject countries in every possible way, proclaiming them friends of Rome, Artaxias de jure cemented the independence of Greater Armenia by declaring himself king. In Tsopk, Zariadres proceeded in a similar vein. The Artaxid (Artashesian) dynasty of Greater Armenia, which was destined to become the greatest in our history, was forged in such challenging political circumstances, in the maelstrom of clashing interests of the superpowers.
The principles of political realism stating that the behaviour of states is conditioned by their national interests and peculiarities of the world order were enshrined two thousand years after the reign of King Artaxias. What was new was the laying down of these principles, but not their enforcement.
The world order of the Artashesians’ era prescribed two models for the existence of states: be either an empire or a subject of an empire, since there is no other choice. Since then, nothing has substantively changed.
And in these circumstances, where Rome had reached the pinnacle of its power, the Parthian kingdom was growing stronger day by day in the vicinity of Greater Armenia and the Seleucids would not leave their former vassals alone, Armenia’s national interest dictated the path on which the Armenian people were to move ‘in the world of empires’. Thus Artaxias embarked on preparing the political, socio-economic, and cultural foundations of the future Armenian empire. Firstly, Artaxias united the Armenian lands by expanding his possessions and conquering new territories at the disposal of surrounding peoples, as follows: from the Midians, he took Caspiane, Faunitida, and Basolropeda, from the Iberians – the slopes of Mount Pariadra as well as Khordzene and Gogarene lying on the other side of the river Kura, from the Chalybes and Mossynoeci – Karenitis and Xerxene, located at the very limits of Lesser Armenia and forming a part of it afterwards, from the Cataons – Akilisene and the neighbouring region of Antitaurus, and from the Syrians – Tamonitis. Although Artaxias united 14 of the 15 Armenian provinces, the Armenian territories continued to be divided between the three kingdoms of Greater Armenia, Tsopk, and Lesser Armenia, which had enlarged to the Black Sea. Of course Artaxias was mindful of the importance of uniting the Armenian kingdoms, and after Zariadres’ death he tried to merge Tsopk into Greater Armenia, but the endeavour failed since the king of Cappadocia came to Tsopk’s support.
Artaxias would not have attained his long-term goal without substantial military and economic reforms, among them, the administrative-territorial division, urban planning peculiar to Hellenistic culture, and land reforms. Advanced economy is also the basis for a powerful army, and Artaxias built the army in parallel with economic reforms. He established a regular army and divided it into four commands according to geographical directions. He entrusted the eastern, western and northern provinces to his sons Artavazd, Tigranes and Zareh correspondingly, and allotted the southern province to the commander Smbat. As a result of the aforesaid reforms of Artaxias, Greater Armenia’s political weight in the region had grown. Hence, in the era of Artaxias I, Great Armenia was at the phase of rapid economic, political, military, and cultural rise, and this enormous potential and the energy accumulated by Artaxias laid the groundwork for the future geopolitical successes of Tigranes the Great.
After the death of Tigranes I, the Parthians let his son return to his homeland, but in return they demanded and were given some of the south-eastern regions of Greater Armenia. History knows that the enemy, keeping the heir to the throne among their own nobility, tried to subject him to ideological influence, turning him into their ally, in order to use this affinity as an opportunity to advance their political goals when such arises. However, in Tigranes’ case, such a script did not work out: having lived for many (20) years among the Parthian nobility, he not only did not become pro-Parthian, but also used that time to thoroughly study his opponent, to understand his policies, the structure and the nature of his empire. Tigranes built his envisioning of the empire before returning to Armenia and sketched out the frontiers of Greater Armenia mentally. One cannot regard it as a mere coincidence that he was consecrated to the king not in the capital Artashat, but in the extreme south of Greater Armenia, in the same spot that later on became the centre of his vast empire and where he built the capital Tigranakert years afterwards.
Tigranes the Great ascended the throne in 95 BC, at the age of 45. His contemporary was Mithridates Eupator, who reigned in Pontus when the kingdom expanded and reached the Black Sea in the north, with Lesser Armenia as a part of it. Mithridates, just like Tigranes, strove to build a Hellenistic-type empire, but while the former saw the Romans as his main rival and sought to completely oust them from the region, for the latter the main adversary was Parthia. The ambitions of Tigranes and Mithridates were identical, but their interests were not colliding, as the target of the Pontic king’s imperial ambitions was the West, while the Armenian king was aiming at the South and East. And on the basis of these common interests the Armenian-Pontian alliance was formed, which was concluded on an equal and mutually beneficial basis. Tigranes, who had imperial intentions, had to fortify his borders first, creating a defensive belt between his and Roman dominated territories.
After ascending the throne, he first of all incorporated Tsopk into Greater Armenia, and this not only completed the consolidation of the Armenian lands, but also brought Armenia to the border with Cappadocia, Rome’s satellite and ally. It was in the Armenian interest that Cappadocia was under the Pontian influence, and not that of constantly rising Rome. Among the most important points of the Armenian-Pontic treaty was that the conquered territories were to fall to Mithridates, whereas the captives and military property were to belong to Tigranes. This was an important strategic move by Tigranes that secured the necessary human and economic resources needed for continued conquests, and with a secure rear in the west, the fulfilment of his vision could commence.
Tigranes‘ triumph lasted: after conquering Syria, he also took over Commagene and Plain Cilicia, emerging as the Romans’ immediate neighbour. In 70 BC Tigranes conquered the city of Ptolemais and subjugated Phoenicia. While Tigranes carried on his conquests in Syria, Mithridates fought with his remaining troops against the Roman legions under Lucius Lucullus’ command in Asia Minor. The Second Mithridatic War proved decisive not only for Pontus, but also for Armenia. After the battle of Cabira, the Pontic army was devastated and Mithridates had escaped. It is no wonder that under such circumstances, Armenia would become Rome’s next target, and nothing else could prevent Rome from fulfilling its long-held dream of annihilating Armenia’s hegemony and regaining its own foothold in the East. Greek historians tried in every possible way to conceal the real intentions of Rome and depicted Tigranes’ refusal to extradite Mithridates to Lucullus, who, by the way, did not obtain a mandate from the Senate to wage war against Armenia, as the cause of the Armenian-Roman war. However, even if the historical actualities played out exactly as they present them, it would only signify that Tigranes perfectly realised that regardless of his decision, war was inevitable. However, the very fact that Tigranes refused to meet Mithridates, who had taken refuge in one of the peripheral Armenian lands, down to the capture of Tigranakert suggests that the Armenian king was trying to do his best to avoid an open clash with the Romans. Some Armenian historians are inclined to believe that by focusing his eye on the east, Tigranes perhaps did not quite grasp Rome’s long-term plans.
We can only speculate what would have happened if Tigranes had helped Mithridates before the battle of Cabira, but it is clear that in this situation external factors were clearly not on Tigranes’ side. Armenian-Roman hostilities continued with varying fortunes until 66 BC, when the Roman commander Lucullus was replaced by Pompey, who succoured Tigranes the Great and put an end to the might of his empire. Armenia was confined within the boundaries of Greater Armenia, and these boundaries did not change until the first division of Armenia. It is beyond our scope to outline the course of the Armenian-Roman wars, as we are not concerned with how the Armenian empire fell, but rather with its causes and consequences for Armenian history.
The state created by Tigranes the Great was an empire with inherent heterogeneity: it included different peoples, tribes, whose culture, life, beliefs differed greatly, they spoke 15 languages and were at different levels of economic development. The process of building a political nation from a ‘mixed element’ required long years, even centuries, and vast resources, but Tigran did not have the time. One must admit that some of these peoples and countries joined Tigran’s empire involuntarily, and despite acknowledging Tigran’s hegemony, many of them even retained their internal autonomy on the ground. Consequently, as soon as a new power, Rome, appeared in counterbalance to Armenia, they backed it in opposition to Tigranes the Great.
The downfall of Greater Armenia was also rooted in a phenomenon that would later haunt us throughout history, causing no fewer losses: the lack of internal consolidation and strategic vision.
As early as during Lucullus’ campaigns, Tigranes was betrayed by his vassal kings who had failed him and defected to the Romans. But the hardest blow was the betrayal of his son, Tigranes the Younger, who was enticed to switch over to their side by a specific part of the nobility. History tells us that Tigranes’ other two sons also tried to assassinate him and claim his throne. Of course, these rebellions were instigated by Rome, which proclaimed Armenia its most dangerous and powerful enemy in the East. On the eve of the Armenian-Roman peace treaty Tigranes the Great found himself in a difficult position – he lost the support of a number of his former allied states, Rome and Parthia made an alliance against him, a wave of rebellions and betrayals arose within the empire, and in these challenging circumstances he decided to conclude an alliance with Pompey. It was signed in 66 BC, whereby Tigranes the Great retained the territories of Greater Armenia and the title of ‘King of Kings’, the Artashesian dynasty began to decline, and the Armenian nation was never again able to regain its former strength.
The fall of the Armenian empire marked the turning of the most important page of Armenian history.
However, the picture of this empire and the most powerful Armenian king Tigranes the Great are forever preserved in the historical memory of our people, becoming a sort of national symbol of our existence. This symbol is often identified with the material boundaries of the Armenian empire – with ‘Armenia from sea to sea’, which stretched from the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus Mountains to the Interfluve and the Red Sea, from Ecbatana to the Mediterranean Sea.
However, very few try to understand what was taking place within these boundaries. Few realise that the people born from the clash of empires and nurtured by imperial ideas were advancing to a higher level of super-ethnos, the level of political nation. Tigranes was the first king who managed to overcome geographical constraints and give birth to the Armenian empire. He put an end to the long-held view that countries on the crossing line of the superpowers’ interests have no option but to maintain a balance between the sides or take sides. This empire was born in the Armenian Highland, which until the accession of Tigranes to the throne and then after his death continued to constantly be on the collision line of the strongest powers of all times.
