Alik Bakhshi
Armenians - A History of Betrayal
(expanded)
According
to Herodotus, Armenians migrated to Asia Minor from Thrace and settled in the
kingdom of Urartu. After the destruction of Urartu by Babylon, Armenians
settled in the area known as the Armenian Highland, which became the site of a
long conflict between the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Pontus (the
Mithridatic Wars, 89-63 BCE), and then with the Parthian Kingdom (53 BCE - 226
CE).
The
territory of the Armenian Highland unwittingly became the arena of this
conflict. After defeat in a battle with Lucullus, the Pontic King Mithridates
VI took refuge with his relative, the Armenian King Tigranes II, who refused to
extradite him. In response, Lucullus in 69 BCE... In the 1st century BCE,
Lucullus allocated only two legions to Armenia, which proved sufficient for
victory. When Tigranes II learned of the Roman invasion, he famously remarked, "If
these are ambassadors, then they are too many; if enemies, then they are too
few." This boastful phrase cost Tigranes II dearly. Lucullus's talent
as a military leader was revealed at the Battle of Tigranocerta. He utterly
routed the Armenian army, which was vastly superior in numbers to 300,000.
According to Plutarch, on the Roman side, "only a hundred were wounded
and only five killed," while Tigranes II's army suffered enormous
losses, up to 100,000 infantrymen killed, and all but a handful of cavalry were
destroyed. (Plutarch, Life of Lucullus, § 25)
There are
clearly two contradictory points here. Either Tigranes the Great was unaware
that within the territory of his vast empire—that is, Greater Armenia from sea
to sea, which, according to Armenian historical scholarship, included almost
the entire Middle East, along with almost half of the powerful Parthia, whose
forces had defeated the Seleucid Empire—a war between Rome and the Kingdom of
Pontus had been raging since 89 BC, or there was no Greater Armenia, but rather
a small Armenian kingdom, a vassal state of Mithridates VI.
The
consequences and legacy of this battle for Tigranes II had an impact on the
subsequent tragic fates of his son and grandson, and indeed on all of Armenia.
Tigranes II acknowledged his vassalage to Rome, for which, in 66 BC, he was
ceded. He received the title of "friend and ally of the Roman people"
(Treaty of Artashat, 66 BC) and, with Rome's permission, retained his throne,
thereby betraying his former ally and relative Mithridates VI, with whom Pompey
ended a victorious war three years later.
In 54 BC,
during Rome's war with the Parthian Empire, Artavasdes II, the son of Tigranes
II, as an ally under the Treaty of Artashat, pledged to provide the Roman
commander Marcus Licinimus Crassus with aid in the form of 10,000 cavalry and
30,000 infantry. However, as soon as the Romans invaded Partha, Artavasdes II
abandoned Crassus with his army. Due to the betrayal of their Armenian ally,
the Roman army was defeated, and Crassus's head was solemnly presented at the
feet of the Parthian king Orodes II. (Plutarch, vol. III. XIX),
The
Armenian betrayal did not end there. In 36 BC, the Roman general Mark Antony
launched a new campaign against Parthia. He formed an alliance with several
kings of the region, including Artavasdes II, who by then had again defected to
Rome. According to Plutarch, Artavasdes II provided Antony with 6,000 cavalry
and 7,000 infantry. (Plutarch, Antony 37) However, as soon as Antony entered
Parthian territory, Artavasdes repeated his betrayal, and once again the
Romans, left without the promised aid, suffered defeat. In 34 BC, Mark Antony,
seeking revenge for the betrayal, entered the Armenian capital, arrested the
treacherous traitor, and took him to Alexandria.
The
Armenian king and his family, bound with golden chains, followed Antony in his
triumphal procession. (Tacitus, The Annals 2.3) After being held captive for
three years, Artavazd II was beheaded. (Cassius Dio, Roman History 51.5.5;
Strabo, Geography, book 11, p. 532)
Artavazd
II's son, Artaxias II, fled to the Parthian king Phraates IV, to whom he
promised to become an anti-Roman ally, betraying (Bunson, Encyclopedia of the
Roman Empire, p. 48). Phraates IV invaded Armenia and placed Artaxias II on the
throne. (Daryae, The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, p. 173) For the murder
of his father, Artaxias ordered the massacre of the entire Roman garrison
stationed in Armenia. Naturally, Rome could not help but react to what was
happening in the conquered lands. Emperor Augustus decided to install Artashes'
younger brother, Tigranes III, as king of Armenia. He had lived in Rome for 10
years under close supervision. (Temporini, Politische Geschichte (Provinzen Und
Randv Lker: Griechischer Balkanraum; Kleinasien): Griechischer Balkanraum;
Kleinasien), p. 979)
To this
end, Augustus sent Tigranes III to Armenia, accompanied by a large army.
However, before the army arrived, Artashes II was assassinated by conspirators
in the palace. (Bunson, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, p. 48) Thus, in 20
BC, without a fight, the Romans unhinderedly proclaimed Tigranes III the new
king of Armenia.
I have deliberately provided links from reliable sources
and have not used Wikipedia, which is filled with ambiguity and sometimes
outright lies from Armenian pseudo-historians regarding the so-called Greater
Armenia from sea to sea, which is depicted on their map as nothing less than
the mistress of the seas (1, 2, 3):
To substantiate my assertions, I will cite an example
from Wikipedia: Greater Armenia reached its greatest power under Tigranes II
(95-55 BC). Tigranes II, better known as Tigranes the Great, was the king of
Greater Armenia from the Artaxiad dynasty, a major military leader and
conqueror of the Hellenistic period. (Greater Armenia - Wikipedia)
But the dates of the so-called functioning of Greater
Armenia do not fit into the period of the wars between Rome and the Kingdom of
Pontus from 89-63 BC. And then with the Parthian Kingdom from 53 BC to 226 AD.
It seems these three truly great powers were unaware that they were fighting on
the territory of Greater Armenia, or perhaps they were fighting among
themselves, so to speak, with the permission of Tigranes II, which seems pure
absurdity. One thing is clear: the empires existing at that time simply did not
consider Greater Armenia a worthy opponent. Lucullus would not have intended to
invade the kingdom of Tigranes II had the latter not refused to hand over his
relative Mithridates VI. Lucullus was well aware of Greater Armenia's military
weakness, which was incapable of maintaining a professional army like the
Pontic one; otherwise, he would not have marched on Tigranocerta without
adequate preparation and a small army of 40,000. In the very first clash, the
Remlians routed Greater Armenia's unprofessional army of 300,000 men.
How can we speak of Armenia's greatness if Tigran II was
a vassal of Rome, if Rome controlled the throne and lives of its kings?
Armenia was one of the small dependent kingdoms, such as
Media, Antropatene, Cappadocia, Sophene, and others, whose territories were the
arena of wars between Rome, Pontus, and Parthia. Armenian historians attempt to
present as parts of Greater Armenia wherever Armenians established compact
settlements, where they built churches and erected khachkars.
It is known that Armenians have lived and continue to
live across a vast territory: Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, the Caucasus,
Crimea, and, more recently, in the Rostov region, where Armenians now outnumber
Cossacks. Presumably, Armenia will eventually lay claim to the Don Cossack
territory, based on the fact that evidence of the Armenian people's presence
there has been preserved for centuries, in the form of Armenian churches and
cemeteries with khachkars (cross-stones). The other day, I came across a YouTube
video with the pompous title "The Armenians Ruled All of India"—no
more and no less, namely, all of India, where, even before the British
colonized it, they had established merchant houses to infiltrate the economic
and political life of the Mughal Empire. Now, again, about Armenian betrayal.
During the colonization of India, the British won the Battle of Plassey in 1757
because the Armenian commander Omichand Petrus Arutyun, after a failed attempt
at blackmail, refused to fight on the side of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj
ud-Daulah, after which the British established control over Bengal.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kepur8nA3ps )
During World War I, the Tsarist government took advantage
of the Dashnaks' plans, promising them assistance in establishing an Armenian
state in Turkey. To this end, Armenians living in Turkey were provided with
weapons to organize an armed rebellion in the rear in anticipation of the
advancing Russian army. The Dashnaks carried out a brutal massacre of the
unarmed local population in order to sow panic and clear the territory for a
future fictitious state. However, this plan turned tragic for the Armenians of
Turkey. To secure their rear, the Turkish government was forced to deport the
Armenians deep into the empire. This time, the Armenians found themselves among
the Turkic population fleeing pogroms, which provoked vengeance from the
refugees. Evil begot evil. Since then, peoples who had lived in peace for
centuries have become enemies, and the seeds of that evil still germinate with
the help of the surviving, but deceived by the Russians, Nazi Dashnaktsutyun
party. The fact is that Moscow created an Armenian Republic on Azerbaijani
soil, the former Irivan Khanate, but it never became independent, contrary to
the Dashnaks' hopes. True, the Armenians tried to make their presence felt by
organizing terrorist attacks in the Moscow metro in 1977, detonating ducklings
filled with bolts among passengers. The authorities managed to identify the
organizers and perpetrators, who turned out to be NUP (National United Party of
Armenia) members Stapan Zatikyan, Hakob Stepanyan, and Zaven Baghdasaryan, who
were sentenced to death.
The Dashnaktsutyun party was revived with the weakening
of the central government and the collapse of the USSR, leading to the 30-year
Karabakh conflict, which ended in defeat for the Armenians. Once again,
Armenians feel betrayed by Moscow, accusing it of withholding military support.
One wonders why Russia, sacrificing its lucrative economic relations with
Turkey and Azerbaijan, should have supported Armenia, whose policies, with the
emergence of Pashinyan, were easily predicted to be pro-Western. It should be
noted that the Armenians behaved, as they say, in the Armenian way. On the one
hand, Armenia officially did not provide military support to the Armenians of
Karabakh; moreover, Armenia did not recognize their republic as independent. On
the other hand, and here is the most inexplicable, Pashinyan officially
declared that Karabakh is Azerbaijani territory. So, why should Russia have
helped the Armenians of Karabakh, let alone fought against Azerbaijan in
Armenia's stead? Absolutely absurd! Not only is Russia mired in lies in the war
with Ukraine, but it is also caught in a situation orchestrated by the
Armenians, which could not be better reflected in Tyutchev's words:
"Russia cannot be understood with the mind."
Indeed, at the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, Russia
sided with the Armenians. For example, the Russian 366th Motorized Rifle
Regiment participated on the Armenian side in the capture of Khojaly, which
ended in the mass death of civilians, known as the Khojaly genocide. However,
subsequent events, in which the Kremlin perceived Armenia as responsible,
forced a reconsideration of the traditionally closer relations with Armenia
compared to Georgia and Azerbaijan. Moscow has repeatedly used the Armenian diasporas
in its colonies to suppress their aspirations for independence, which is
considered nothing less than treason on the part of the diaspora. This happened
in Baku in 1918, when Armenian Bolsheviks led by Shaumyan staged a bloody
rebellion, slaughtering the Azerbaijani population. If not for the fraternal
assistance of Turkey, which, despite the desperate situation on the front,
hastily sent an army to save Baku, the Dashnaks' unprecedentedly brutal
extermination of the local population would have escalated to a catastrophe no
less catastrophic than the genocide of European Jews. To the Turks' credit, it
must be noted that, having defeated the Dashnak armed units, they prevented a
massive retaliatory massacre, thereby preserving the Armenian diaspora in
Azerbaijan. (4)
I will cite an example of betrayal characteristic of the
Armenian diaspora. After conquering Turkestan, the Russians, well aware of the
mentality of the Armenian people, their propensity for migration and their
remarkable adaptation to new conditions, encouraged the resettlement of
Armenians to new colonial territories in order to dilute the hostile Turkic
population with Christians. Just as in the Caucasus, the Russians saw Armenians
as a pillar of their power in Turkestan. Within a short period of time, a
strong Armenian diaspora formed in the Fergana and Zarafshan valleys, the
wealthiest of the three. Armenians displaced the Turkic merchants; Armenians
became the owners of shops, numerous stalls, restaurants, tailor shops, buyers
and resellers, and the keepers of the newly established beer halls and
apartment buildings. Naturally, a significant number of Armenians were
represented among government officials and military personnel. An Armenian
quarter emerged in Kokand, housing an Armenian Gregorian church and Armenian
parish schools—in short, an exact replica of Armenikend, a large Armenian
district in Baku. It is important to note that there was no hint of hostility
between Armenians and the local Turkic population. However, everything changed
radically with the first destabilization of established socio-political
relations.
After the fall of the Tsarist regime, a national
government of Turkestan was established in Kokand. Simultaneously, the
Bolsheviks in Tashkent established their own government, devoid of a single
representative of the indigenous ethnic group, which issued an ultimatum to
Kokand to recognize Soviet power. It was then that the treachery of the
Armenian diaspora revealed itself: Dashnak military units suddenly appeared and
carried out a particularly brutal bloody massacre in Kokand, slaughtering the
entire population within three days. The city was completely destroyed and
burned. It must be said that this very act was the cause of the Basmachi
rebellion, which the Russians had to fight until the 1930s. Interestingly, the
massacres in Baku and Kokand coincided exactly in time – March 1918. This leads
to one conclusion: wherever the Armenian diaspora is present, the extremely
nationalist ideology of the Dashnaktsutyun party is also latent. Otherwise,
such sudden treachery on the part of the Armenian diaspora cannot be explained.
Moreover, the Kokand massacre is an eloquent illustration of the Dashnaks'
brutal bloodthirstiness and the danger posed by the Armenian diaspora. Armenian
historians seem to have omitted Central Asia from the "Greater
Armenia," and there's only one explanation: bloodlust and terror were both
accompanying and integral characteristics of the Dashnaktsutyun party's
activities.
After their defeat in Karabakh, the Armenian Nazis lost
their authority, and the Dashnaktsutyun party was forced to participate in the
2026 elections in a bloc with another party. There is hope that the Armenian
people will reject Nazi ideology, which throughout the 20th century and a
quarter of the 21st century instilled in Armenians a lie about a Greater
Armenia from sea to sea, a lie that never existed in history.
Of course, the Russians, who created a state for the
Armenians that they never had, are right to consider Armenia's decision to
trade Russia, the former patron guilty of failing to assist in the war with
Azerbaijan, for the West as treacherous and ungrateful. However, what did the
Russians expect if they did good not at their own expense, but at Azerbaijan's
expense, while using the Nazi ideology of the Dashnaktsutyun party as a tool to
achieve purely selfish goals in the war with Turkey, and then outlawing that
same party? In this circumstance, two traitors clashed, each getting what they
deserved. That Armenia is an artificially created state is confirmed by a very
telling reality: namely, the fact that Armenians are leaving the country in
large numbers, not seeing it as a homeland. While Azerbaijani refugees from
Armenia and Karabakh fled to Azerbaijan, Armenian refugees found themselves
anywhere – in Russia, Europe, even across the ocean in distant California – but
certainly not in Armenia.
1. Was there a Greater Armenia?
https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2020/07/blog-post_31.html
2. Greater Armenia or the Great Lie.
https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2023/01/blog-post.html
3. Armenian nationalism on the website 33b.ru as a
reflection of the overall picture in the media.
https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2016/11/33bru_3.html
4. A Hole in the Portrait, or From the Great Lie to
"Greater Armenia."
https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post_41.html
August 7, 2026
