Talk:Battle of Avarayr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Battle of Avarayr is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Sun worship
Zoroastrianism is not sun worship, The article was generally a bit biased. Amir85
- I was working from Armenian sources because found no others. You are welcome to tone down POV without resorting to copyvio. --Ghirlandajo 14:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Its not a copyvio and to be honest the your version was violating.
[edit] Yazdegerd II
Yazdegerd II was not present at the battle. The commander of the Sassanid troops was Mihr-Narseh.
Letter by Mihr-Narseh, the Sassanid commander:
From Elishe's The History of Vartanank
To the Armenian Nobles:
Quote: Manifold Greetings;
Be it known to you, that every man who dwells beneath the heavens and holds not the Mazdean religion, is deaf and blind and is deceived by the devils of Ahriman. Because the heavens and the earth were not yet in existence when the great God Zruan made offerings for a thousand years and said: 'Perhaps, I will have a son by the name of Vormizt, who will create heaven and earth.' And he conceived two in his abdomen: one for the offerings he had made, and the other because he said 'perhaps'. When he perceived that there were two in his abdomen, he said: 'Whichever shall come first, to him I will give my sovereignty.' But he who had been conceived in doubt, ruptured the abdomen and came out.
But I do not want to mention all the details in writing, because the things they [Christians] say are many. Their preachings, that God was crucified by men, that he died, and that He was buried, and then He rose again and ascended into heaven, is worse than all we mentioned above. Should it not have been worthy of you properly to appraise such unworthy preachings? Even the devils, who are evil, cannot be caught and tortured by men, let alone God, Who is the Creator of all beings. It is shameful for you to say things which are utterly incredible to us.
Now then, there are two ways open to you: either you answer this letter word for word, or you repair to the Court and present yourselves at the great assembly.
The response:
Quote: To Mihrnerseh, the Grand Commander:
Many greetings to You and to the Great Army of the Aryans, in Peaceloving Spirit.
This Jesus Christ, who within Himself redeemed the whole world, came to death of His own will; and, by means known to Himself and God, he assumed a solid form from the Pure Virgin, was born, wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger, to which He guided the wise men from the East to worship Him. He performed great miracles and magnificent deeds among the Hebrews, was betrayed by the priests and convicted by Pontius Pilate. He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose gain on the third day, and appeared to His twelve disciples and to many others to more than five hundred persons. He promised to come a second time with a terrible might to wake the dead, to redeem the whole world, to deal strict justice to the innocent and the sinners, to reward the deserving and to punish the wicked who do not believe in these benevolent deeds.
From this faith no one can shake us, neither angels nor men, neither sword, nor fire, nor water, nor any, nor all horrid tortures. All our goods and possessions are in your hands, our bodies are before you; dispose of them as you will. If you leave us to our belief, we will, here on earth, choose no other master in your place, and in heaven choose no other God in place of Jesus Christ, for there is no other God. But should you require anything beyond this great testimony, here we are; our bodies are in your hands; do with them as you please. Tortures from you, submission from us; the sword is yours, the neck ours. We are no better that our fathers, who, for the sake of this faith, surrendered their goods, their possession, and their bodies.
Were we even immortal, it would become us to die for the love of Christ; for He Himself was immortal and so loved us that He took death on Himself, that we, by His death, might be freed from eternal death. And since He did not spare His immortality, we, who became mortal of our own will, will die for His love willingly, so that He may make us participators in His immortality. We shall die as mortals that He may accept our death as that of immortals.
Do not, therefore, interrogate us further concerning all this, because our bond of faith is not with men to be deceived like children, but to God with whom we are indisoluably bound and from Whom nothing can detach and separate us, neither now, nor later, nor forever, nor forever and ever. --Eupator 15:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Avarayr NOT Vartanants
In Armenian it's Vartanats Paterazm, War of Vartanants but the specific battle is Avarayri &akatamart - Battle of Avarayr (location where the battle was fought).--Eupator 00:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Awfully biased.
This article is awfully biased and clearly written from an Armenian perspective:
"Sassanid overlords"
"Although the Persians eventually subdued the rebellion, they had to revise their plans for persecution of Christians"
After doing a term project on the Sassanids I believe that this article should be relegated to a Start article. The Sassanids punishing of the Armenians was meant to prevent any further interference from the Byzantines in Sassanid affairs.
Rampage57 03:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Rampage57
 |
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008) |
I agree, and though I have the utmost respect for Armenians and Armenian history, calling it an "Armenian victory" (As it is labelled in outcome) even though the article itself contradicts this, does deduct the quality of the article. It is a little biased, but then again it must be understood that even in spite of the fact that Iranians and Armenians maintained historically friendly relations, this one battle is often considered the "Armenian Thermopylae", and Vartan considered a hero, so even though it is biased, it is "understood" at the subconscious level. I can accept that this battle was a moral victory for the Armenians, but in the technical, strategical and tactical sense, this battle was a Sassanid victory. This is not a downplay on Armenian valour or courage, but I get the sense that this battle was purely an attack on Christianity, and with respect to the context it seems to me rather like the Sassanids wished to consolidate Armenia away from Roman influence. The Sassanids, although the war on the Armenians seems unfair, had all the reasons to be suspicious towards Christianity, considering their rivalry with the Romans. I think these additions may serve to give the article more perspective, without violating Armenian integrity. I do however urge a change on the supposed "Armenian victory" in the outcome, as this never was the case. --The Persian Cataphract 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? Where the hell does it say Armenian victory? It was an Armenian military loss. In every other sense it was an Armenian victory though. Armenians had outrageous priviliges in Sassanid times. The marzpanate of Armenia was governed by an Armenian while every other marzpanate was governed by Persians for example.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- It used to say Armenian victory some hours ago, Nareklm changed it back. Note that according to Armenian sources, the Persians lost approximately 3 times more men than the Armenians. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Armenians lost military. In the decades following the battle, the continued Armenian resistance led by Vahan Mamikonian (the successor of Vartan) eventually forced the Persians to accept the Nvarsak Treaty (484) which guaranteed freedom of religion to the Armenians. I'll add some this info to the article. -- Davo88 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias -- or just the right of a people to determine their religion?
That the Sassanians had a policy of attempting to eradicate non-Zoroasterian faiths is uncontroversial. Since we moderns believe in the freedom of religion, it is bound that anything we write is bound to appear "biased" on Avarayr. The alternative is of course, relativism -- in its brutest form.
So, we can come up with the excuse of "consolidating the polity," to wipe out all undersireable cultures. And, only a few decades or centuries later, we have writers like Ramapag defending Sassanian policy against a weak and small nation that desired nothing other than to be left alone.--Jackkalpakian 14:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The Persians were the first to believe in the freedom of religion. Read up on your history first, try Cyrus's cylinder. This attack was not an attack on 'undesirables' as you put it but a show of force against the continuous Byzantine meddling in Sassanian affairs. (Rampage57 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
Yes, the Achamenians and the Parthians were tolerant. The Sassanians were not "tolerant" at all -- their assault on the Byzantine provinces of the fertile crescent was motivated by religious considerations. They reversed the tolerance accorded in the past and the Armenian revolt became inevitable. I believe that you are trying to use this issue to justify religious oppression, deportation and genocide.--Jackkalpakian 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I am not using this issue to justify religious oppresion, deportation or genocide. This was a show of force against the Byzantines, more or less to put the blood on their hands. I am not defending this action I'm simply giving the reasons why this happened. I do not feel that this was an attack on Christianity in the fertile crescent, it was to demonstrate to the Byzantines that the meddling had to end. I assure you that I do not support oppression, deportation, nor do I support genocide. Please in the future do not insult people by accusing them of supporting these activities. Rampage57 03:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Modern parallels
There are few subjects less given to attack from non-Armenians hostile to the existence of Armenians than our history. We have here a clear attempt to distort the reality of what took place that May more than 1500 years ago -- it was a stand by a population that simply wanted to be. It was pan-class, pan-national, and with a very clear message -- let us be who we are.
Unfortunately, Armenians have not been left alone, ever. Byzantium and the Ottomans came to repeat the same policy as the Sassanians.
All three nations are off the map today. While Armenia saw immense suffering throughout, it exists and they do not. Let history be a warning to Armenia's enemies.--Jackkalpakian 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd simply like to inform you that two out of the three nations mentioned in your statement here are still very recognized in the world today. The Ottomans are the Turks, and the Sassanians are the Iranians. The Armenians have suffered immensely, it is true, but to say that this was an attack on Armenian identity is incorrect. This was an attack on Byzantine meddling in Sassanian affairs.
You should be proud of your Armenian heritage as I am of my Iranian heritage, however a significant portion of the historical community agree that this was to discourage Byzantine meddling and not an attack on the Armenian identity.Rampage57 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it is not exactly clear how much todays Iranians have in common with Sassanians. Iranians are a multi ethnic, multi cultural people. Also your logic doesn't make much sense, Sassanids were meddling in Armenian affairs just as much as Byzantines (who often were of Armenian heritage). Who says it wasn't the Byzantines trying to stop Sassanid encroachment?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The Sassanians were removed from existence by the the Arab Muslim invasion. The Byzantines were removed from existence by the Ottomans. The Ottomans were removed from existence by the Ataturkist Turks.
None of these three nations exist. BTW, Rampage knows nothing about how many Armenians were deported , massacred and driven to starvation by Byzantium -- itself a part Armenian state.(UTC)--Jackkalpakian 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
