Armenia and Her People; or, The Story of Armenia by an ArmenianFilian, George H.
History
Armenia and Her People; or, The Story of Armenia by an Armenian
Filian, George H.
Armenia; Armenian question
To write the history of the next few centuries would tire out all my
readers, and would not do any good; it was a long duel between Rome
and Persia for the ownership of Armenia, in which the prosperity
and happiness of their unhappy foot-ball nearly perished. Almost
the whole foreign policy of Parthia was to control, or to have a
paramount influence in Armenia; almost the whole foreign policy of
Rome in the East was to do the same thing. For nearly a century
following Artavasdes' deposition, though the Romans professed to
govern the country and the Parthians sometimes held it, and both sides
repeatedly put kings on its throne, it was actually in a state of pure
anarchy. Every great family, seeing it must depend on its own strength
for preservation, extended its rule over as wide a district as would
submit; nearly two hundred houses acted with perfect independence
of each other, and of the nominal government, and some of them
established principalities of considerable size. After this, though
the country was for century after century just the same shuttlecock
between the rival states, the feudal anarchy was somewhat reduced, the
turbulent nobility better held in check, but it was impossible that
there should be really firm and orderly government when a king could
not be secure of his throne for a year on one side or the other, and
dared not render his powerful subjects disaffected by making them obey
the laws. We may be sure that the government was really an oligarchy
under the forms of a monarchy, and even the title "King of Armenia"
during this period must not be taken to mean too much. There were
sometimes separate kings of Upper and Lower Armenia, one under Roman,
and one under Parthian influence; the independent princes often made
head against both, and outlying principalities, like those of Osrhoene
and Gordyene probably got hold of more or less Armenian territory in
the melee. No king of Armenia after Tigranes ever held sway over all of
old Armenia for any length of time, if at all. But any king who got an
acknowledged position at all was invariably an Arshagoonian; the people
considered that line the only rightful kings. Artavasdes III, whom the
Romans seated in power just before the birth of Christ; Tigranes IV,
who expelled him by Parthian aid the year of Christ's birth; Vonones,
a deposed Parthian king, who got himself chosen king as the Roman
favorite in 16 A.D., but was persuaded by Tiberius to retire; Arsaces,
son of the king of Parthia, assassinated by the king of Iberia whose
brother was the Roman candidate, about the time of the crucifixion;
Ervand, who made himself master of the land after a fashion, in 58;
Dertad (Tiridates), set up by the Parthians in 52, and acknowledged by
the Romans in 66; Exedarus (Eshdir?) son of the Parthian king, given
the throne with Roman consent about 100, pulled down by his uncle in
114, resulting in the conquest of the country by Trajan; Sohaemus,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account