Persians and Armenians

[The Persian Cataphract]

To elaborate on what Foot wrote: I think we need to somehow declare the idea of Zoroastrianism as a strictly monotheistic religion defunct and obsolete; Even during the Sassanian dynasty where the "orthodox" Zoroastrianism (Which ironically was quite Hellenistic, especially per "Epiphanous" where the King of Kings became the "God Manifest" after the investiture had been completed, often after the reception of a sceptre or a diadem) was dominant, there was still a firm idea of dualism, the eternal struggle between Ahûrâ Mazdâ and Ahrîman, and a struggle of a divine army against that of the dêv/daevas, where manifestations of the sun (Mêhr/Mïhr/Mithras) and water (Ânâhîtâ/Anaïtis) and whatnot continue the struggle against their "moral privotations"; Zoroastrian cosmology pictures the spiritual world as a ziggurat, and as thus we may derive that the divine struggle manifests itself in several level, even into the "physical realm" of man, where the King of Kings would "fight against evil". Such imagery have perpetuated in the form of royalty engaging in the depicted killing of various beasts. Zoroastrianism and its connection to the pre-Zoroastrian polytheism has therefore been a complete absorption, with its own "Messiah" (Sâoshyant), "patron gods" (Who were the basis for the Zoroastrian calendar), such as Vahman (Patron of the good mind and conduct and guardian of the cattle), Verethragnâ/Varahrân/Vahrâm (Patron of war, struggle and victory), Sahrêwar/Shahrîvar (Patron of the metal) and so forth. The Zoroastrian religion is very closely knit to a popular mythology that somehow gave mankind and divinity a connection.

This form of divine duality is mirrored in the Levantine-originated Mandâëan doctrine, the Nasoraeans/Nasorites, which also portrays in its own way the function of the somewhat exclusive but very influential Zûrvân-sect of Mesopotamia, where the Chaldaeans added the fourth dimension, or a universe to encapsulate everything; Zûrvân existed in later Zoroastrianism as the "God of Time", but according to Zurvanism/Zervanism, Zûrvân is universal balance, or indeed, the universe. It is not hard to understand why the Chaldaeans who have an illustrious history as astrologers found such inclinations to be particularly appealing.

On one hand, it has been argued that Iranian kingship, especially with the advent of Cyrus II The Great of the Achaemenians, introduced proper secular rule (Richard N. Frye on the satrapal organization and its federalistic nature), bringing a sharp contrast to the popular perception of "direct Persian rule from eastern Scythia and India as far as Cyrene and Thrace", but on the other hand, Iranian royalty relied itself entirely, whether it be credit or legitimacy, upon religious institutions. It must have only been natural to surmise that the "King of Kings" and that the "leader of the good faith fighting against evil" must have been made legitimate only as the manifestation of God. Otherwise, he could never be fit to rule. This made the Iranian organization as a state a complex apparatus.

The Armenians during the Arsacid rule made only a slight modification to this rule, and in effect Zoroastrianism was merely replaced instead of Christianity. The feudal or federalistic organization was retained and the nakharars, and the azats kept their privileges, even during the Marzpanate era.

[artavazd]

Armenian people are a result of the unification of the Armens, and the Urartu confedaration ( Urartu is a semetic mispronounication of Ararat. The Hurrian tribes of the Urartu confedaration called themselves Biani which linguisticaly over time has become Van. one of the centers of Armenian civilization)

The Armens are the tribe who are responsible for the modern Armenian language. They were related to the Phrygians. Infact Armenian and Greek both have a Thraco-Phrygian commonality.

Now the indo-european language of the Armens, infused with the Hurrian language of Biani (Vanic Confederation, Urartu) and the Armenian language was developed. The Hurrian language is neither an indo-european nor semetic language (Ive seen some theories which say that ancient Sumerian spoke a similar language. The ancient kingdom of Mittani also were a Hurrian speaking people. Today Hurrian has been tied with the modern Caucasian languages (the Caucasus region) Infact when Armenian is spoken the Indo-european language is given a Hurrian/Caucasian spin.

The Armenians call themselves Hai which steams from two possible sources. One source is from one of the tribes of the Urartu Confederation the Haiasa. A people located in the area of Armenia that are mentioned by Hittite sources. Another source is from the Legendary Patriarch of Armenians whose name was Haik. (There have been modern research which has tied the Legondary Haik with an actoual chieftain of one of the Hurrian tribes.)

Before the Armens were incorporated into Urartu and thus creating the Armenian people, Urartu had ties with Iranian people. Infact they were allies agaisnt Assyria ( the bigest foe to Urartu) Many administrative characteristics of of Urartu were later on seen in Achamenid Persia.

Now the Armenian people are the coming togather of the Hurrian/Caucasian Urartu confederation, and the Indo-European Armens. The Armenians are mostly Caucasian, but as Dna testings have shown, the elements of the Armens are also profound in the Armenian Dna here is a study that I would like to share with you guys:

The most frequent haplotype in a sample of Armenians was seen against the background of HG1 Y chromosomes. It occurred in all Armenian groups, at frequencies ~5-14%. According to YHRD, the same haplotype defined over more loci (14 13 29 24 11 13 12 11,14) was also the most frequent one, occurring in 3% of Armenians (*). According to Whit Athey's haplogroup predictor, this is suggestive of haplogroup R1b. A search for the haplotype in YHRD produced the following result:


The geographical distribution of this haplotype is such that it is shared by Armenians and two other populations from the Caucasus. Moreover, it is lacking in most other populations from the Caucasus, as well as in the other populations from further east. On the other hand, it is more frequently found in Europe, where as we know, haplogroup R1b tends to have higher frequencies as well.
The Armenian modal haplotype is also the modal R1b3 haplotype observed by Cinnioglu in Anatolia. According to him, apparently it entered Anatolia from Europe in Paleolithic times, and diffused again from Anatolia in the Late Upper Paleolithic.


An alternative explanation may be that the particular haplotype may have been associated with the movement of the Phrygians into Asia Minor. The Phrygians were an Indo-European people of the Balkans who settled in Asia Minor, and the Armenians were reputed to be descended from them. It would be interesting to thoroughly study the populations of modern Thrace, Anatolia, and Armenia, and to investigate whether a subgroup of R1b3 chromosomes linked by the Armenian modal haplotype may represent the signature of a back-migration into Asia of Balkan Indo-European peoples.

[Havok.]

So, basicly, Armenians are Armenians and Persians are Persians, different peoples, but very similar aye?

[Ibrahim]

well, they both speak an indo european language, no? they dress similarly, went through many of the same cultural changes, so they are indeed similar.

[artavazd]

So, basicly, Armenians are Armenians and Persians are Persians, different peoples, but very similar aye?

Yes. one can say the same thing about Greeks and Armenians as well. Now if we are talking about EB's timeframe, than Yes Armenians and Iranians are more similar than Greeks and Armenians. However there have been changes since that time frame. Most notibly starting from the 7th century ad with the arab invasion of Iran. The Muslims considered Christians "people of the book" so therefore were more harsh to pagan cultures. Well the Iranians were Zoroastrian, therefore "not a people of the book" for the invading Arabs. Alot of Iranian culture was destroyed during that time not to mention wholescale slaughter of Iranians who refused Islam.

Now in modern times there are Iranians who even in appearance look very similar to Armenians and there are Iranians who have more Arabic features. In my opinion and maybe I am wrong, I think invading arabs, and later on turks settled in Iran and became "Iranianized"

[Reno Melitensis]

Very interesting history lesson But I would like to ask you a question. how did the Arabs of Mecca and Medina overthrow such a powerful empire like the Sassanids in such a short time?

cheers.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Another simple question which demands a very complicated answer if accuracy is desired. I neither have time nor the desire to go though all of it again. However, if you do want to know what I think about the whole event, check the following debate:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143229

The following entries should neatly encapsulate my assessment of the ordeal, and its macro-historical importance:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...6&postcount=20
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...6&postcount=25
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...6&postcount=27
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...3&postcount=38

There is more over at Wikipedia discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sa...e#Civilization

It's no more than heated words. Needless to say, the invasion lead to an enormous cultural loss. Books were burned, and if no fire could be made they would be cast into water for spoilage. The Pahlavîg script and the Middle-Persian language was outlawed, a decree which lasted for more than two centuries. Zoroastrian temple lords, entire contingents of scribes, and sages were murdered, leading to not only loss of scripture, but also a great deal of oral traditions and religious codes. Two very well-attested events, the sack of Ctesiphon by Sa'ad Ibn Abi-Vaghas and the tyranny of Qutaibah-Ibn Muslim, and his associate, Hajjaj Ibn-Yussuf in Chorasmia paints for us a spectrum of destruction that spanned within the entire area (Sa'ad had followed the "Righteous Caliph" Umar Ibn Al-Khattab's decree). Monuments, and precious regalia were destroyed or desecrated. The banner of Kâvêh "The Great Blacksmith", was captured and sold as if it was a cheap trinket, the great carpet of Bahârîstân was torn to pieces and divided between the soldiers as booty of war, temples were destroyed, and the invaders had almost come close to destroying Pasargadae, had not crafty locals persuaded them that the monuments were erected by Solomon, a trick which quickly spread word as far as Azerbaijan, where the same trick was used to protect Shîz, nowadays known as Takht-î Sôleymân (Lit. "Solomon's Throne") and spare it from ruin.

For a more complete outlook of the entire event, you may refer to Zarrinqub's acclaimed "Two Centuries of Silence". It is a corner-stone in Iranology, and getting a version (Non-edited) published before the Islamic Revolution, a rare edition, would be the best bet.

[Jolt]

Loads of linkies with interesting history.

I've read throughly for the last day what you wrote on the matters of Islam (and other subjects related to the discussions of Persia), and while you present many sources (Both primary and secondary), your arguments tend to turn too much against ad hominem, rather than sticking with the facts, which in the end results in a pointless insult hurling discussion.

Anyways, those conversations eventually led to me reading the "Caesar invading Parthia et al." Thread. While I'm really going off-topic for turning this into something about the Romans (Seeing as that Thread in twcenter has 5 months since the last post), while I was thinking about such a possibility (And I like to think about those "What if" scenarios), I recalled the primary difference between Gaul which was conquered in a decade and Parthia was that the latter was a unified state ad hoc, while Gaul was a land fragmented by tribes, this fact being vital, in Caesar "Divide and Conquer" maxim in Gaul, by gettings Gallic tribes against Gallic tribes (Some supporting him, while others opposing him), and Parthia was less prone to such events, due to it's centralized government. But as I read further the discussion, I recalled that Parthia was actually a feudal system, in which nobles had, supposedly great autonomy (And here, I'm being analogous with the Medieval Feudal system, as I'm not familiar with the specifics and unique aspects of the Parthian one.)

What I wonder (basically for TPC to answer, since he is the primary Iranian source on this matter), is that, imagining that Caesar would be able to score some early victories in Mesopotamia do you think he would have been able to explore the intricacies of the Parthian feudal system to sow dissention among Parthian nobles, and thus gain allies in the region (Who would be vital in case he would ever wish to succeed). From what I read, Caesar was apparently about to bash into a Parthian golden age, but still; wasn't there any known hostility inside the noble clans in Parthia by then? Or were the clans all loyal to the King by this period?

[artavazd]

Very interesting history lesson But I would like to ask you a question. how did the Arabs of Mecca and Medina overthrow such a powerful empire like the Sassanids in such a short time?
cheers.

A very simplified explanation would be, 1. the Sassanids were war weary from the constant fighting with the Byzantin Empire. 2. religouse fervor of the arabs. 3. The heavy Cataphracts of the Sassanids were not able to fight effectivly against the fast light cavalry of the arabs

[The General]

Very interesting history lesson But I would like to ask you a question. how did the Arabs of Mecca and Medina overthrow such a powerful empire like the Sassanids in such a short time?

cheers.

War exhaustion from the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars, in particular the last (and most dramatic) one.