Hovhannes Khorikyan

According to the viewpoint of some specialized literature, Vardan Mamikonyan was the king in the Battle of Avarayr in 451. We have made an attempt to confirm this view. In our opinion Vardan Mamikonyan’s nickname ‘Red’ has a specific meaning. In the case of Vardan Mamikonyan it would be very simple to connect the origin of the nickname ‘Red’ with the red color that has a Christological meaning since in the Battle of Avarayr everyone was martyred in the holy blood of martyrdom. In fact, the honorary name of Vardan Mamikonyan had a different meaning at first. Later on, our church historians connected the ‘Red’ nickname with the martyrdom and Vardan Mamikonyan was called as Saint, and Blissful as well. With reference to our research, red clothing was a symbol of royal power from the ancient times, and Vardan Mamikonyan wore red royal clothing. For this very reason he was given the nickname ‘Red’. Since then the Armenian church has associated ‘Red’ with the blood of those martyred for the sake of the Christian faith.

The examination of ancient sources shows that the Caspians of the XI and XV Satrapies were found in Middle Asia, in geographically different areas. Analysis of Aramaic documents shows that the Caspians entered into the structure of the nations serving in the military garrison of Elephantine and participated in the socioeconomic life of the the Egyptian Satrapy, but it is difficult to say which Satrapy’s Caspians it is related to.

Under the influence of the priests of Egyptian god Khnum’s temple the Egyptians destroyed the temple of Yaho which was located in Elephantine. In this clash Antisemitism had been seen for decades in professional literature. But the attack of Egyptians against Judeans was a political action and coincided with anti-Persian wave.
There were different motives in the destruction of the temple in Elephantine. The spiritual élite of Jerusalem was for the destruction of the temple so they incited the Egyptians to take action. That clash was convenient also for the Egyptians cause besides religious and economic intolerance the anti-Persian revolt was increasing. The Persian satrapic regime didn’t suppress the Egyptians’ actions cause they didn’t have enough forces for that but tried to satisfy the complaints of Judeans in future allowing them to rebuild the temple. Thus, there was no reason to connect the destruction of the temple in Elephantine with the antisemitism.

Xenophon’s data about the ethnic composition of Armenia has been repeatedly examined in the professional literature, and the researchers have often expressed opposing opinions about the ethnogeographical realities of Ancient Armenia. We have touched upon these issues, too, which allowed us to examine the information given by Strabo that caused disagreements.
The examination of the ancient sources shows that a part of the tribe called Iranian Phasians lived in the vicinity of the present-day city of Poti in Western Georgia, and Armenian Phasians were located in the upper courses of the Yeraskh River and the sources of the Ułtis River. The existence of Phasians in the north indicates that the Phasians established in Armenia having moved from the Caucasus and most likely settled in Anpayt Basean initially, gradually spreading to the south, to Basean, firmly retaining their name in the canton name.
During their invasions the Scythian tribes also settled in different parts of Armenia: the Phasians in the canton of Basean, and the so-called Asii Scythians in the canton of Aseatspor. Moreover, the Asian Asii and Pasiani indicated by Strabo can be considered the Central Asian branch of the Asii and Phasians mentioned in Armenia. What is important both in Xenophon’s and Strabo’s accounts is that the mentioned tribes are mentioned side by side, with almost the same names, and are considered the Scythian people.
During the Scythian invasions, the Scythian Asii and Phasiani tribes, settled in the Armenian Highland had already assimilated with the Armenians by the end of 5th century BC and kept their name only in geographical names.
As for Strabo’s information about the Central Asian Asii and Pasiani tribes, these were also Scythian tribes and some part of them lived in Armenia, Western Georgia and the North Caucasus.

The article shows that the Sasanian monarchs in one way or another used to take into account the importance of Syriac role in the state economy. The Christian craftsmen and merchants paid colossal taxes to the state treasury. Indeed, Nestorianism antagonized the official Byzantine church; spreading out from Mesopotamia, it was the creed of the merchants, the class who sought independency, which confronted Zoroastrianism in Iran. The Armenian Church, being national in nature, had such an intolerant position against the Byzantine church and Barsauma. At the time when the Christian church was divided into Monophysites and Dyophysites, and the Byzantines persecuted the Nestorians, the latter settled in Iran and from that time on the Persians changed their attitude towards the Christians and started to patronize the Nestorians, who were the enemies of Byzantine Chalcedonianism.
In ancient and medieval ages, the ethnic affiliation was directly related to the practicing of religion, the Syrians were Christians, and the Persians were Zoroastrians. This factor forced the Syrians to have their own establishment and under its patronage they could exist. They were unified around the church and the union of the craftsmen ensured the financial support.

Armenia Minor was first mentioned by Roman historian Curtius Rufus in I century A.D., whose data compared with Arrian and other historical sources reveals important facts. In the professional literature, for many decades, there is a dominant opinion that Orontes and Mithraustes mentioned in the Battle of Gaugamela are the rulers of Greater Armenia and Armenia Minor, who restored the independence of Greater Armenia and Armenia Minor after the Battle of Gaugamela. The holders of this point of view actually admit that the existence of Greater Armenia and Armenia Minor before the 30s of IV BC is a reality, however, there is no source of information for such an assumption. During the Achaemenid era, the territory of Greater Armenia and Armenia Minor was mainly included in Satrapic Armenia.
  In our opinion, this point of view is wrong, because at the Battle of Gaugamela, Armenia Minor did not exist as a historical reality yet, and its territory was included in the administrative unit of Pactyica. The term “Armenia Minor”, west of the River Euphrates, was originally a geographic name to indicate the native Armenian territories, which as a result of political events came under the influence of powerful neighbors. Extensive territories of the former XIX Satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire were found to be part of Armenia Minor in the III century B.C. - beginning of the II century B.C. By the way, the first ancient author who used the phrase “Armenia Minor” was Strabo.
    Armenia Minor was not a kingdom until Mithridates VI Eupator, as evidenced by the sources of two different eras. The rulers of Armenia Minor did not have any royal titles, but they had the title of satrap, which unveiled their dependent status and acceptance of the supreme power of the king from any country. Nevertheless, the dynasties of Armenia Minor, taking advantage of favorable foreign political conditions, often had a de facto independent status and expanded the boundaries of their dominion.

In the period of Achaemenid domination the issue of the center of Satrapic Armenia continues to be a controversial issue even nowadays. Recent studies have shown that during VI-IV BC Armenia was not divided into two Satrapies-the XIII and the XVIII. The XIII satrapy corresponded to Armenia, and the XVIII satrapy was located between the Greater Caucasus and the River Kura). In the article we have demonstrated that the administrative center (capital city) of Satrapic Armenia was the city of Van, which was probably also one of the residences of the Achaemenid "Great kings". As to Armavir being the center of the satrapy, after 331 BC it again became the military-political center of the independent Armenian State. Armavir had as vital economic importance for Satrapic Armenia like that of Susa for Achaemenids.

Egypt’s revolt against Darius I gives rise to various assumptions which are undoubtedly due to scarce information available via primary sources. We are for the opinion that Egypt satrap Aryandes kept himself independent of Darius I. Aryandes made certain attempts to rebel at the beginning of Darius I’s rules in 522-520 BC, but his attempts somehow failed to succeed. Perhaps Aryandes wasn’t supported by broader classes and nobility. In such conditions, Aryandes possibly backed from his intentions, and the Egyptian rebellion ended with even being started. In Bisitun’s inscription, the absence of the details on Egyptian rebellion is because Aryandes didn’t manage to implement long-term goals because of Darius I’s successes, and only in 518 BC Darius replaced him with another satrap. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that Aryandes’s unfaithfulness to Darius didn’t end with the proclamation of the pharaoh by the Persian satrap, which would undoubtedly have been mentioned in Bisitun’s inscription.

In the era of Achaemenid domination the issue of the centre of Satrapic Armenia continues to be a controversial issue even nowadays. Recent studies show that Armenia was not divided into two Satrapies: XIII and XVIII during VI-IV BC. XIII Satrapy corresponded to Armenia, and XVIII Satrapy stretches between the Greater Caucasus and the River Kur.
In the article we showed that the administrative center (capital city) of Satrapic Armenia was the city of Van, which was probably also one of the residences of Achaemenid king of kings.
As for Armavir being the center of the Satrapy, after 331 BC it again becomes the militarypolitical centre of the newly independent Armenian State. Armavir had as vital economic importance to Satrapic Armenia, as did Susa to Achaemenids.

The Egyptian Satrapy had the first-rate importance for Achaemenid Persia. Many important and wrinkled issues on the administrative policy and historical geography of the VI Satrapy were examined in the article, the elucidation of which has an important meaning for studying the history of Achaemenid Persia. Analysis of informations received from Herodotus  and other ancient sources shows that Egypt had great economic and military importance to Persian Court. Тhe VI Satrapy was divided into four subdistricts: Egypt, Libya, Cyrene and Barca.

The Babylonian document BE. X.107 dated by the period of Darius
II contains some very important information which is connected to the
administrative division of the Achaemenid Empire. Shamesh/Iltammešbarakku
who was the governor of the people of Urashtu (Urartu) and
Milidu, is mentioned in the document. Urashtu-Urartu corresponds with
Armenia and Milidu-Melitine, and when it was mentioned with the latter,
was an indivisible part of Satrapic Armenia, and Herodotus’ account
proves this. Therefore, it can be said that Milidu is mentioned separately
because it later became the center of Pactyica after Darius I’s administrative
reforms; it was also one of the centers of the 13th satrapy which remained
part of Armenia, despite the new administrative changes. Its ruler, the
satrap, continued having the title of “Governor of the People of Urashtu
and Milidu (in a broad sense, Pactyica)”. Therefore, one can state that
Melitine and its outlying regions, being to the west of the Euphrates where
the territory of Armenia Minor would be established in the future, were
an indivisible part of the country known as Armina-Armenia, during the
entire period of Achaemenid reign.

The enumeration sequence of the Satrapies in scholarly literature has
always caused controversy. After the formation of the Satrapies in relatively peaceful regions of the Empire to the west of the Euphrates, the attention of the Persian court was already focused on those countries which had not adopted Darius’ royal power and had rebelled against it.
The study shows that the enumeration sequence of the Satrapies is
determined by their chronological formation order, which has taken place through five phases.

Old Persian Parsa was Achaemenid dynasty cradle.  Cuneiform and ancient sources’ accounts prove that Anshan and Parsa are identical. In Achaemenid era Parsa can be considered one of the Satrapies of the Empire, but  the Achaemenid kings occupied the conquered countries together with the Persians. Parsa was a separate administrative unit in Achaemenid  administrative division system, and Persians, having the right of the ruling nation, were dwelled frees from taxes if not wholly, then partially in comparison with other subject nations.

The examination of old sources related to the arabians and Palestine shows that the Persian Royal Court was establishing such a management system for each of them which was related to the local features of the establishment of the V Satrapy. The comprehensive investigation of the ancient sources gives a chance to make historical-geographical accurate definitions, clarification of the boundaries of Arabia and Palestine. In the article we come to the conclusion, that the V Satrapy wasn’t a stable administrative unit and its boundaries were changed. On the other hand, the Achaemenians eventually aimed to more effectively organize the taxation case and successfully defend the V Satrapy from the revolts of the Satraps.

Many important and wrinkled issues on the administrative policy and historical geography of X Satrapy were examined in the article, the elucidation of which has an important meaning for studying the history of Achaemenid Persia. The study of the ethnical structure and the territory of the Median Satrapy shows that the latter has been developed on the base of the Iranian ethnical component. Тhe X Satrapy was divided into four subdistricts: Agbatana, the rest of Media, the territories of the Paricanians and Orthocorybantians.

Hr. Acharyan, M. Abeghyan, Ye. Ter-Minassyan, Gh. Alishan, N. Adonts, S. Yeremyan, B. Ulubabyan, B. Harutyunyan, A. Hakobyan and others have studied the problem of the localization of Balassakan, which
was located in the Northern Caucasus, in the regions near the Huns, between the rivers Alazani and Kur, in P’aytakaran or Kaspk’ and on the left bank of the Kur. The comprehensive investigation of the sources
shows that the land of Balassakan, the Balassakan field and Balasiçk‘ were situated on the left bank of the lower stream of the Kur, moreover, the name of Balassakan was widely used for the east seaside part of
ancient Albania. From the administrative point of view Balassakan was an individual shahr in Kusti-kapkoh and entered into the structure of the Albanian marzpanate and had an important role in the political life of
Transcaucasia.

Ancient greek author Herodotus writes about the VII Satrapy that the Sattagydae, Gandarii, Dadicae, and Aparytae paid together an hundred and seventy talents. The territory of the VII Satrapy had a big strategical importance for Achaemenians. Thus the administrative rechanges of the VII Satrapy firstly aimed at strengthening the influence of the central power in the North-East periphery of Empire. The comprehensive investigation of the ancient sources gives a chance to make historical-geographical accurate definitions, clarification of its boundaries.
The investigation shows that the Achaemenid Court governs the VII Satrapy mainly through the Arachosian Satrap. 
In a broader sense the VII Satrapy can be located in the regions of the eastern parts of today’s  Afghanistan, the central Pakistan and the north periphery of India.

The investigation of ancient sources shows that Herodotus’ Saspeires have lived in Virq (Iberia, modern Eastern Georgia) and have been perhaps of the Scythian tribe. Any attempt to locate the Saspeires in the Armenian Highland is failed as that tribe has been included in the XVIII Satrapy and the latter is between the River Kur and the Great Caucasus.
The name Saspeires was a collective name and there were many tribes and smaller groups included in that tribe. Judging by all these facts the Matienians and the Alarodians were included there as according to Herodotus a nation called Saspeires lived between the Colchians and the Medes.

Analysis of informations received from Herodotus  and other ancient sources show that despite its small territory, Phoenicia  had great economic and military importance to Persian Court. Phoenicia was an administrative subdistrict in the structure of V Satrapy and its fleet had a paramount importance to Achaemenid Empire. Phoenician cities didn’t form a real federation, as during the wars Phoenician ships were commanded not by the commander in chief, but by the king of every city though during invasions of Xerxes the king of Sidon dominated over other Phoenician kings. The policy of Persian Court towards Phoenicia  can be described as “controlled autonomy”.