Edited by Jiirgen Tubach, Sophia G. Vashalomidze and Manfred ZimmerCaucasus during the Mongol Period — Der Kaukasus in der Mongolenzeit Edited by Jiirgen Tubach, Sophia G. Vashalomidze and Manfred Zimmer Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden 2012Armenians, Mongols and the End of Times: An Overview of 13" Century Sources’ Zaroui Pogossian (Roma) Apocalyptic Speculations before the Mongol Invasion Enough evidence has survived to warrant the conclusion that throughout the 11 and 12" centuries there was a particularly strong interest in apocalyptic speculations among the Armenians.’ Eschatological prophecies were composed oF re-edited in both centuries. Theit existence and influence can be gleaned in other literary genres as well, such as historiogra- phy, hagiography, official letters and poetry. It is likely that eschatological tales circulated also orally.” Several key motifS appeared or re-appeared in such texts in the 12" eentury. One off those which gained great popularity, especially as the Rubenid princes in Cilicia were con- solidating their power leading to the eventual coronation of Prince Levon Il Rubenid as King Levon 1, was the restoration of the Armenian royal crown by an offspring of the ArSakuni dynasty and the renovation of the line of St. Gregory as holders of the office of the Armenian Catholicos, shortly before the End of Times. Many texts envisioned the reali- sation of these political and religious restorations through the help of a “Roman army”, ic the Crusaders.” Moreover, three prophecies that have come down to us ~ the Visiom of St. Nersés, the Sermo de Antichristo and the Prophecies of Agaton — specified that the Roman army would fight against the “Nation of the Archers” from whose yoke it would liberate Armenia.* The renewal of the Armenian royal and Catholical offices to their ‘rightful heirs? ‘would ensue such a v This atcle was writen while Twas 4 Humboldt Fellow atthe University of Tobingen, I express my rate to Alexandr von Humboldt Foundation forts general suppor. In this pape Huse the term “apocalypse” or apocalyptic” to refer to texts or taitons which ents as signs abot an imminent End of Times Thus, here the words “apocalyprie” and “eschatological ae used interchangeably. For an overview and analyses of 11 ‘There were several reasons tind such interest, including the year 1000 or 1033 (i. 1000 years from the Resurestion|; the dissolution ofthe independence of Armenian Kingdoms ofthe Baga the incursion of ariows Turkic tibos into the erty of Greater Armenia: and, lst but not eas, the atval of the Crusades ant hopes that h nia, fom the yoke ofthe “infidel.” ial versions of these tens the "Roman army” may have rl Hochannissyen 1957, 21-23 and Pogossian 2008 + These fens ill be ler to ete at: VN (forthe Vision of Nery whichis found inthe Life of Nersésh SA ((orthe Sermo de Amichristo) sind PA (Foe the Prophecies of Aga). Pll publication infomation s provided. in the bibliography References tothe “Nation ofthe Atchers” are found ia: FY, 91; SA 32, although only in the Long Recension ofthis text and not inthe Short one (both Lents are Cound on the same page inthe printed. rus Versions of the Vision of St. NerszsNersés de 1nd 12* century soos and ther historical context, ft Pagosian, 2008. nisand Ar ‘wohl not only iherate Jerusalem before the Ed of Times, bat also Are oto the Byzantine army. CF cain); and mss M82 fo, 0 For BA. There ate to continuous re-wrtng ofthe prophecy that was aimed at “updating” i wo new circumstances. Aseueding (0 the 1853 Venice ition, the hase muse by the ei ws copie in 1131, However, dhat version eould have een redaeted any tts hstween the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1089 and 1131 based on internal ev dae, Both caer si! str versions are extant in mny mss, but have no been studied. Some such versions170 Zaroui Pogossian Several 12" century Armenian Catholico’ belonged to the P‘ahlawuni noble dynasty \hich claimed its descent from St, Gregory the Illuminator. Thus, for the contemporaries, the prophecies contained in the Vision of Si. Nersés would seem partially fulfilled. Then, it is not surprising that the coronation of the Rubenid Prince Levon II (even if he was not of Arsakuni dynasty),” whieh was hailed by numerous contemporaries as “the restoration of the long-lost Armenian Kingdom,” would take on eschatological significance as well. ‘The appellation “Nation of the Archers” may have been coined as a result of the first confrontations with Seljuk or various other Turkie soldiers.” But it becomes an apocalyt cally charged term in the texts cited above, such as VN, SA and PA. There they represent the hostile army which would over-run Armenia and against whom a Roman Emperor with his contingents would hurry to the aid of the Armenians, eventually overthrowing their “yoke” and liberating Armenia.® In the 13° century the term “Nation of the Archers” ill find a new meaning due to the appearance of the Mongols. are discussed in Hoshanissyan 1987, 21, 28-28, Ce also Thomson 2001, 74-75 on problems related tothe century ssi 2008. All references w mss will be given according Wo the siglaaocepted by the Association Inserationale des Faudes Arménicnnes, Cf Coie 2002 Thee is, however, evidence tha the thsi spiritual heirs. This ean be delice from a ponegyric composed by Micha Halicus and dedicat t0 Emperor John Commenus aller his conquests in Cilicia and Syria. The panegyric is disussed in Bantkian 1984, Another tendency nthe Ruled descended from the Bagratni royal dynasty, The issue of “royal ideology discussed in Pogossian 2004 69-79, with further relevant bibliography PPogossan 2008. La Porta 2008 discusses Conse by Varin yack“ who alles to Levon asthe “Last Armenian King” and, in view ofthe approaching End, gives a morlistie Cows! as to how one should bo- have. Lam grateful t9 De, Serio La Porta for allowing me accesso his yet unpublished atc Mattos Urhayee'/ Matthew of Edessa (henceforh ML] 1983, Sf, describes a dramatic hale betscen an Armenian contingent and “Turkish” sods study and use of tis text without a reliable ction, On WN and other apocalyptic texts fom the ‘wer attemprs to Link the Rubi dynasty wo the Arsakunis, at least as ‘cenmury souroes ake for granted in he 1 century as aim ha the in Cilician Armenia is sme with arches." He yoos onto state that “at that time the Armenian forces were unaccustomed and not ready to resist arrows an despite thei brave resistance, many were wounded heease of the skilfl se ofthis weapon by the enemy forces, Mathew. thn, ples this bate ‘azinst “the achers” in an apocalyptic framework and considers ta a sign of dhe approaching En, Accord ing to Manandyan 1975, 41-42, the “Turks” mentioned hy MU did not represent an organised Sj nv 3- ‘on, ba wer, rather, mercenaries belonging to a variey of Turk sribes serving in the Daplamit am. The «exact rik association of the Turkic soldiers in question snot significant fr this study, hut the ast hat they Toft a tenlying impression for their dexciy a archers, thence, possibly, giving ise to the term “Nation of the Archers” in 12" sentir aposayptie souroes. This term would take on smother meaning in the 1° eer. A detailed analysis of sources, many sill unpublished, is available in Hoshannissyan 1957, Apocalyptic ‘mots and ens are discussed in Pouossian 2018, La Pora 2009 explores the apocalyptic perweption of Mus Tims in 12% century Armenian sources, Moreover. he mentions that apocalyptic expectations and investives against Mustins with eschatological eolourine were “toned down asthe 13" century progressed. This paper will provide some funhor evidenee for such a ean rate to Dr, Sergio Lt Porta For providing mea copy of his yet unpublised ate son, ut with regards to the Mongols. I express myArmenians, Mongols and the End of Times i The First Reactions to the Mongols The first incursion of Mongols into Greater Armenia” was part of a raiding expedition to, the Caueasus and took place in 1220."" A mixed Georgian-Armenian army of 10,000 that met this expedition in December of the same year was crushed." A year later in January 1221 there was another battle between now much larger Georgian-Armenian forces under the command of Ivan Zak'arean (Mgargrdzeli in Georgian sources) with the same dra- matic result for the Caucasian forees."* Between 1220 and 1230, various locations in the Caucasus were pillaged by the armies of the Khwarezmshah Jalal al-Din, by the Mongols who were pursuing him until his death in 1231, as well as by the Cumans (Qipchags) of the Northern Caucasus who moved Southward under pressure from the Mongol armies."* The first, organised Mongol incursion to the Caucasus, under the command of Ogddey Khan's general Chormaghun, took place in 1236, but it would take a decade before most of the territories inhabited by the Armenians, including the Sultanate of Rum, were fully sub- dued." The Battle of Késedagh, where the Mongol armies were lead by general Baiju, in 1243 marked the fall of the Sultanate of Rum, Soon afterwards, King Het'um of Cilician Armenia declared his voluntary submission to the Mongol Empire and in 1246 sent his brother Constable Smbat as his personal envoy to the Mongol court in Qara Qorum for confirming this status.'° He himself’ made the journey to the Mongol court in 1254-1255 to declare his obedience to the fourth Great Khan Méngke.” Eventually, the fortunes of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia would remain closely linked to the events in the l-Khanid In the 12" and 13% homogenous entity, but was comprised oF a mosaic of Mustim and Christian (Georgian and Armenian) lands spread across teritories loosely refered tas Great Armenia in the sources and literature. The two largest states which ruled areas predominantly inbited hy Armenians (ete {um no considering the Cian Arme- nian Kingdom) included the Zak‘ards under Georgian suerainty inthe North-East and the Sultanate of Rum in the South-West. For an overview ofthe situation eft Bedeosyan 1979, [6S)-{79) (follow dhe paye num bers indicate by the author inthe ontine version of hs work), For analyses of various dates proposed by eye-witness or somewhat lar medieval historians, ss well dhe ‘Mongols took during this fist ineursion and it purpose, cfr (chronolopcaly) Manandyan 1977, 192-196; Bedrosjan 1979, 94-97; Limper 1980, 80-89 and 327 for nes. For the stay of the Mongol perind in Armenia | have greatly relied on these Works. Limper’s work consists of a thorough ex Ploraton of historical evens, dats and persons, laying the groundwork for further analysis of the perio Bedrosyan focuses especially on the typeof resistance pt up by the Armenian navarars, while Manandyan sill provides useful overview of politi events and the economic sition during the Mongol conquest af and domination in Armenia, For difiulis in idemiying the loation of tis Fst bate, ef Limper 1980, 81 where the previous scolar raves (ap well a later) “Greater Armenia’ did not representa poieally unified and ship is reviewed and eriiqued as wll © Limper 1980, 83, hid 94-117, where the author also provides ints in’s politcal hopes to en args unified empite witha ase in Iran, On the events of tese years, ef also Manandyan 1977, 195-208 and Bedosyan 1976, 94}-{105) Manandyan 1977, 210-219; Bedrosyan 1976, [108]-[119] and Limper 1980, 123-132, (On Sinbat’s journey, eft Galstyan 1961, 47-55, Sma was probably present a the enthronisationcerem Gayik, the third Great Khan, asthe Friar John of Pian di Carine ive ofthe King of Armia presenta this event. Cf de Rachewil 197, 98 Hoyle 1964, translated snd commented upon Kiakos Ganjakec''s description of Ki ing insights ino lal Hecum's voyage to172 Zaroui Pogossian state, founded by the brother of Méngke, HillegG (HHulawu in Armenian sources), and as Jong as the Il-Khans were favourable to Christianity (and this was generally the case during. the rule of Halega (1256-1265), Abaga (1265-1282), Arghun (1284-1291) and, with some tups and downs, Ghazan (1295-1304) and successful against their great foe ~ the Mamluk Egypt — the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, as well as the lords of Greater Armenia submit- ted to the Mongols, enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity.'” The rule of the Ile Khan Ghazan (1295-1304), especially his military failures against the Mamluks, signalled a dramatic change of this situation, which would deteriorate even further in the 14°" cen- tury." ‘The multiple aspects of the Mongol rule in Greater Armenia and the relationship with the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia, as well as an overall appraisal of the Mongols in Arme- nian history are vast tasks beyond the purpose of this paper. It has been briefly and point= edly characterised by Bedrosyan: “During the more than one hundred years of Mongol domination, the Armenians experienced periods of benevolent, even enlightened rule and of | capricious benighted misrule.”” In this study I will attempt to outline the perception of and response” to the Mongol nule, and the interpretative models adopted to make sense of the new historical context, with a particular interest in the presence or absence of apocalyptic speculations. 1 will attempt to provide a general outline of the development (or the decline) of eschatological speculations in the 13" century in relation to the Mongol conquest and domination of Armenia. Historieal events will be referred to in the body of the paper as necessary. The time limits of my enquiry stretch from the first Mongol incursions. into Armenia until the rule of Ghazan Khan, when, as mentioned above, the situa nificantly altered and would give rise to a different type of discourse in Armenian sources, ‘The most extensive report on the reactions to the first raiding Mongol contingent of 1220 is found in the History of the Armenians of Kirakos Ganjakec‘i, one of the most sig- nificant Armenian historians of the Mongol period.”" Kirakos tells of a curious episode which took place somewhere “in the land of Atuank,” near the city of Samk*or in 1220: In the year 669 (1220) [..] suddenly, at an unexpected hour, numerous regiments of heavy. fully equipped army burst through the Gate of Darband. They eame to the land of Alsank", [bwhence| they passed to the lands of the Armenians and the Georgians. And whatever they Found on their way they put to the sword — man, heast, even down tothe dogs. And they were not at all concerned with taking expensive clothing or anything else, except horses, They ‘quickly reached the city of Tp'xis™, once more descended into the land of the Aluanians, 10 As Bundy 1996, 38-39 has emplussed citing the westinony of Grigor Akners" and a Continuator of Sant ‘of Ani: “thee was a grim side tothe cooperation.” This inched high taxes an, eat to this, bribes and «xtrtions; the obligation ofthe subdued nobility to pansipate in watson the Mongol sid, often resulting