Talk:Battle of Avarayr

Just Bad
This is a very badly written article. Not only are there numerous grammar mistakes, but also the tone of the article gives you the feeling that it is just a bad translation from a patriotic Armenian school book. Here is a random excerpt:

Armenian army took the Holy Communion before the battle. The army was mostly composed of popular masses but led by Armenian noblemen who were experienced soldiers, having fought in many wars, sometimes alongside the Persian army. They were all motivated by the desire to preserve their religion and new way of life.

What significance is there in a christian army taking the holy communion just before the war? Did it help the outcome? Who on earth polled the masses which make up the army on what motivated them or even if they were motivated? If you like, preach the patriotic nonsense to your gullible masses but put only facts in a Wikipedia article please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe because the only account is written in an Armenian epic a few centuries later? Serouj (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is why we edit before we put things in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.138.254 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 as 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 was nourished with milk as an infant, grew up and gained for thirty years, and was baptized in the River Jordan by John, the son of a barren woman. 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, rose again on the third day, and appeared to His twelve disciples and to many others — to more than five hundred persons. He traveled with them for forty days and ascended to Heaven from the Mount of Olives, before the eyes of His disciples, and seated Himself upon his Paternal Throne. 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 all 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 other 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 forefathers, who, for the sake of this faith, surrendered their goods, their possessions, 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 with God to Whom we are indisoluably bound and from Whom nothing can detach and separate us, neither now, nor later, nor forever, nor forever and ever.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Dear Jack, just the fact that we call ourselves Armenian and use the same alphabet does not mean we are "the same" while others have "disappeared". We are still Armenians but the Armenia of the valiant nakharars that we are so proud of disappeared a long time ago and what emerged from the centuries is a republic whose very existence was "a close call", a miracle of history. Yes, we still stand! But at what cost...

Persians are the offspring of Sassanian Iran just as well as modern Greeks consider themselves the heirs of Byzantium and Turks are continuators of the Ottomans. Otherwise, why hold modern Turks responsible?! Right? If you defend one people's history and share most of its blood you are their offspring and heir. If you defend genocide you are an accomplice.

If you think about it our commenting Persian friend is right! The Sassanian attack was on Byzantine oriented Christianity, not all kinds of Christianity. Iran knew that the religious factor could create a rift between many centuries of close ties between Iran ans Armenia. Guess what? It was their own aggressive policy that severed ties abruptly, sooner than the decades would have done it anyway!

Similarly, there were large numbers of Armenians whose ties with Iran and its culture were stronger than the new Christian faith and to them it was not "betrayal" it was defending a way of life that they cherished. So it may have been pan-class but it was not pan-national, just dominant. Our nation was not yet formed and defined as an almost exclusively Christian nation. The way I see it, Avarayr was a bit of a civil war in which the Persian army was a little more active on the Zoroastrian side than Hitler or Mussolini's troops on the side of Franco in 1936 Spain. But history was written by Christian Armenians, the only ones that kept their identity in a recognizable form and here we are, strongly defending it with the risk of becoming unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.37.37 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why Armenians were allowed to keep their church organization
The article implies that Armenian resistence before and after the battle eventually led the Persians to allow them to practice Christianity as they wished. However, the early material makes it clear that the Persians didn't want them to stop being Christians -- they only wanted the Armenian Church to be part of the Church of the East (which followed the Bishop of Ctesiphon) rather than the Western Church that was based in the Roman Empire. It's noted in passing that the Persians agreed to allow the Armenians to keep their existing church structure after the Council of Chaldecon had prompted the schism between the Armenians and the Western church. Surely this also has a lot to do with the ultimate outcome of the dispute? --Jfruh (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We obviously don't have any proof of it, but the circumstances are certainly there. I pointed this out in a copy-edit of the Outcome section. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got a Persian troll.
IP address 217.146.216.194, editing out of kanoon.net registered to Kanoon Informatic of Tehran, Iran, threw in some vandalism primarily in the summary. (This was most definitely a Pyrrhic, not a decisive, victory for the Sassanids.) I'm going to switch it back, but I really hope he gets embarrassed enough by this to not do it again. I hate this kind of thing, but it's part of the life of the WikiCitizen... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to prove that the battle was a "Phyrric" Victory? The article states that it's "based on studies", when it's based on purely Armenian sources, at least based on the previews comments on this section. It may be the only account of losses, but that doesn't mean it can be taken as an absolute truth, even less "based on studies". Remember that most of the Armenian opossition were untrained peasants, and even with a noble force present it's doubtful that each Armenian could kill three or four Persians on average. In case I'm wrong and there's an alternative source stating these Heavy losses were a reality, please put your reference here --190.69.186.112 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when can an ancient Empire build up an Army of 500 000 Men?What for a bullsh**t totally exaggeration here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.79.11 (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sry guys pls fix the info box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.79.11 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
220 000 Sassanid Persians? The largest armies of the Sassanid Empire would not exceed 80 000 and here suddently I see numbers of 220 000.

I am not gonna edit it, because i cannot provide sources, but still, this book is not proving enough sources itself. In almost all battles of this time the sassanid numbers are under 100 000, suddently in a rebelion there are 220 000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

68,000 total casualties?? Seems highly unlikely, generally speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.119.92 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So this is B-Class?
How on earth did this mediocre article ever reach B Class status? Besides its tendentious use of sources, it doesn't actually contain a description of the battle, even though (judging from the nice map that somebody has drawn) its course is described in some detail in the Armenian sources. Until somebody decides to fix the article's many deficiencies, it deserves to be downgraded to Start Class. Let's keep a proper sense of proportion, please.

Djwilms (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeframe for rejecting the Council of Chalcedon
The article currently states "In 484 AD, Shah Peroz I signed the Nvarsak Treaty, which guaranteed religious freedom to the Christian Armenians [10]—who were, however, no longer in communion with Rome or Constantinople—and granted a general amnesty with permission to construct new churches." I am deleting the statement enclosed by dashes since it seems unlikely that the Armenians were out of communion with Rome and Constantinople given that the process of officially rejecting the Council of Chalcedon appears to have occurred later at the First and Second Councils of Dvin (506 A.D., 551 A.D.) and certainly not earlier than the Council of Vagharshapat (491 A.D.). Ketone16 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are 100% correct.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 14:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Avarayr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/018/18265.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531014545/http://www.armenica.org:80/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7==76==Battle%20of%20Avarayr=== to http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7==76==Battle%20of%20Avarayr===

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source(s)

 * Georgia Mouradian's Armenian InfoText which you added fails WP:RS. He's got a BA in Mathematics, MA in Statistics and BA in Industrial Engineering, and is an engineer by profession.
 * Ara Baliozian, is an economist and political scientist.
 * Susan Wise Bauer; "holds a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA, a Master of Arts in English and a Ph.D. in American Studies from The College of William and Mary. She received her B.A. from Liberty University. She has been a member of the English faculty at William and Mary since 1993."(CV)
 * Margaret Bedrosian, lecturer in comparative literature at the University of California at Davis, where she also earned her Ph.D.

Will be removing said sources and tagging where and if needed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Why's all this such a big deal? Just because a certain user says it's unreliable doesn't mean it actually is. I wish things in Wikipedia work out so easily this way. ''Hey, unreliable! Remove!'' I mean, I'm especially astonished to see how Bauer unreliable. A scholar who has been cited by 15 academic works and peer-reviewed articles. Yet, Wikipedia shouldn't cite her? And it's not as if the claims made by any of these sources are farfetched. They merely point out that there were "Heavy casualties", and on both sides might I add. This appears to be a classic case of WP:JDLI wherein which the fact that Armenians inflicting "Heavy damage" on Persian troops has become too big of a pill to swallow. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bauer has no specialization in this area. Her PhD is in American studies.


 * "They merely point out that there were "Heavy casualties", and on both sides might I add. This appears to be a classic case of WP:JDLI wherein which the fact that Armenians inflicting "Heavy damage" on Persian troops has become too big of a pill to swallow."
 * Yeah, I just can not stand the fact the Persian took "Heavy casualties" in a battle that even the Encyclopedia Iranica states, "So spirited was the Armenian defense, however, that the Persians suffered enormous losses as well. Their victory was pyrrhic and the king, faced with troubles elsewhere, was forced, at least for the time being, to allow the Armenians to worship as they chose."
 * Oh, FYI, the "Heavy" under casualties for the Sasanids is still there. I changed Armenian casualties to "Unknown" and removed "rebels" after Christian Armenians,(POV). Technically, Encyclopedia Iranica can be used to source "Heavy/Enormous" casualties for the Sasanid army. So what is it exactly that I don't like? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * JDLI was not in reference to you, and at this point I'm not debating the content either since it's mostly inline with my recent fixes. And regarding Bauer, her reliability, or any one scholar's reliability, is not to be judged merely on what her degree is. Though that might be a helpful indicator, it's not the only indicator. RS standards on Wikipedia usually involve WP:VERIFIABILITY. University-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, and works cited in peer-reviewed articles are all strong indicators of RS, and this happens to be the case with Bauer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Concerning the JDLI, I was pinged by you, so perhaps refraining from such comments until a sufficient dialogue has been obtained, would be prudent. As for Bauer, I see nothing that would convince me of her reliability as a source for Armenians, Sasanids, or Late Antiquity. Besides, as it stands right now, the article only "needs" a source for Armenian casualties. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Avarayr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930045233/http://www.ansc.org/ansc/armenia.cfm to http://www.ansc.org/ansc/armenia.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't on 26 May 451
The original article in Armenian says it was fought on 26 may in year 451. I don't know if i am wrong or right but i am slightly confused reading this article. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)