Persians and Armenians

[Matinius Brutus]

My only knowledge on this comes from the Creation by Gore Vidal, but isn't Zoroastrism completely different from the worship of the multigod pantheon where Anahita belongs?

[The Persian Cataphract]

My only knowledge on this comes from the Creation by Gore Vidal, but isn't Zoroastrism completely different from the worship of the multigod pantheon where Anahita belongs?

No. Zoroastrianism, in its most general form and excluding the sectarian divisions, incorporated the previous Iranian polytheism into a form of mythology that transformed the previous divinities as demi-gods.

[Foot]

My only knowledge on this comes from the Creation by Gore Vidal, but isn't Zoroastrism completely different from the worship of the multigod pantheon where Anahita belongs?

Only if we follow a strict definition of zoroastrianism. Mithra was himself both worshipped in Armenia and Persia as a deity (when in the zoroastrian tradition only ahura mazda and that other one are really deities). Certainly the tradition was changed and largely followed the style of the Urartean pantheon in Armenia (though there were also some semitic influence in Armenia, in particular the practice of prostitution in the temples of Anahit). However, there were many zoroastrian traditions in Armenia throughout the classical period and into the sassanian period. Fire worship was practiced and we know that a client King of the Romans (can't recall the name at the moment) would only travel overland to Rome to receive his crown, as he was a Zoroastrian priest and was not allowed to traverse water. In other words no, not completely different - even Persia didn't follow Zoroastrianism strictly.

Foot

[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.

[Sarkiss]

Fire worship was practiced and we know that a client King of the Romans (can't recall the name at the moment) would only travel overland to Rome to receive his crown, as he was a Zoroastrian priest and was not allowed to traverse water. In other words no, not completely different - even Persia didn't follow Zoroastrianism strictly.

Foot

the name is Trdat (Tiridates)
he went to Rome to be crowned by Nero.


the irony is that it was one of his descendants - Trdat III the Great of Arshakuni (Arsacid) Dynasty who demolished old, pagan temples and eradicated paganism.

[Ibrahim]

isn't he the one Nero embarassed by playing a lyre right after he was crowned (according to rumors)?
so I have heard-I dunno

[Cyclops]

What a fascinating thread.

My impression of the Armenians is of a mountain culture emerging in the late bronze age, strongly influenced by the dazzling cultures and polities of Mesopotamia as they rose in turn (Assyria, Babylon, Media and Persia), and responding to western influences (Lydians/Phrygians, Hellenes and Romans) but retaining a discrete identity between these (more or less) powerful cultural tides.

I feel they were not just a backwater of the Persian empire, or a cultural dependancy of Mesopotamia. Is this fair to say, or were there times when Armenia really was quite immeresed in "Greater Persia"?

[artavazd]

What a fascinating thread.

My impression of the Armenians is of a mountain culture emerging in the late bronze age, strongly influenced by the dazzling cultures and polities of Mesopotamia as they rose in turn (Assyria, Babylon, Media and Persia), and responding to western influences (Lydians/Phrygians, Hellenes and Romans) but retaining a discrete identity between these (more or less) powerful cultural tides.

I feel they were not just a backwater of the Persian empire, or a cultural dependancy of Mesopotamia. Is this fair to say, or were there times when Armenia really was quite immeresed in "Greater Persia"?

You are completely right. Infact , many administrative characteristics of Urartu(confederation of Armenian tribes which was formed inresponse to Assyrian threats) later show up in Achamenid Perisa


From the title of this thread, I dont want people getting the impression that Persia and Armenia are the same, or Armenians and Persians are the same. To put it simply both groups lived close to eachother, had similar culture,similar social structure, both spoke an indo-european language, and in some cases shared common blood in their monarchies. (same as any monarchy in Europe)

In ancient historical sorces Armenians have always been adressed as a distinct ethnic group. The only time a historian grouped another group of people togather with Armenians was Heredotus when he grouped Armenians (most notably the Armen tribe) and Phrygians togather.

In very simple terms I would describe Armenians and Persians as cousins. The exact same thing could be said about Greeks and Armenians as well. I would have to say though in antiqueity the culture and social structre of Armenia was ofcourse closer to the Persians than the Greeks. but in regards to closeness of language Greek is closer to Armenian (that is not to say it doesnt have any similarities with Persian, because it has a lot )


I found two neat music video on youtube, It shows traditional Armenian folk music, dress, and I think it gives a nice overall picture of Armenia, and Armenians enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzgZseZp4W0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV96...eature=related

[kambiz]

In very simple terms I would describe Armenians and Persians as cousins. The exact same thing could be said about Greeks and Armenians as well.

Wow that's cool. But if we are cousins ,And you and hellens are cousins as well ,Then logically we iranians (At least ancient iranians) were cousins to hellens as well ?! Then we can say graco-iranian wars were somehow a war between the same people who one was ruler of the east and another the ruler of the west ,right?

BTW ,as you guys mentioned before armenians and iranians were so close to eachothers. Even now there are many armenians live in iran and even one of them was in our national football team (Armenak Petrosian ,Do you know him artavazd?). Myslef had a armenian friend back in university a really good fellow there are many more in tehran , isfahan ,shiraz and many more cities.

And thanks for the youtube link artavazd

[Sarkiss]

awesome videos, thanks for sharing.
in the first video from about 3:20 onward, after the song finishes, you can see the goat skins they are wearing, kind of cardigan. wouldnt that be a perfect way for Armenian low end infantry men to protect themselves? sort of cheap armor that peasantry could afford? make perfect sense to me.
would be nice to see them wearing similar stuff in EBII.