AH: Armenia-wank

Given it's long history more tragic than a Shakespearean Script, at what point in time could Hayasdan (Armenia) have been wanked to have a far more successful impact on History? Tigranes' Era perhaps?
 
I'm not sure Tigranes' Armenia domination could have lasted indefinitly against Roman pressure.
Wouldn't have be possible that Armenia expansion begin earlier (maybe at the loss of Seluicids) after the Diadochoi Wars, allowing a more stable presence in the region?
 
I'm not sure Tigranes' Armenia domination could have lasted indefinitly against Roman pressure.
Wouldn't have be possible that Armenia expansion begin earlier (maybe at the loss of Seluicids) after the Diadochoi Wars, allowing a more stable presence in the region?

Tigranes' expansion could definitely last. But what that requires (unless he gets a lot of luck) is to have Mithradates' expansion work. If you can have Mithradates achieve better success, then that provides a strong buffer between the Romans and Tigranes.

With that said, Tigranes at his height was also king of Syria and IIRC, controlled Palestine. He was very much in a position to challenge the Parthians, and even to an extent the Egyptians, though that would needlessly bring him into conflict with Rome. As far as I know, the chance to take more from Parthia was very much open as well.
 
Tigranes' expansion could definitely last. But what that requires (unless he gets a lot of luck) is to have Mithradates' expansion work. If you can have Mithradates achieve better success, then that provides a strong buffer between the Romans and Tigranes.

What stops this Armenia from being threatened by nonRomans, though?
 
What stops this Armenia from being threatened by nonRomans, though?

Tigranes was in a pretty strong position. IIRC, he had already successfully taken territory from the Parthians (which weren't as strong as this point as they would come to be), and his only other non friendly border (being allied with Pontus) would be Egypt, which is hardly a threat at this point. Not sure about the situation north of the Caucasus though.

I can't say what would happen after Tigranes reign, but they should be on solid enough footing to remain a powerful state.
 
Tigranes' expansion could definitely last. But what that requires (unless he gets a lot of luck) is to have Mithradates' expansion work. If you can have Mithradates achieve better success, then that provides a strong buffer between the Romans and Tigranes.

Mithridates wouldn't be a threat then? Or Armenia and Pontus would have comparable forces?
 
Mithridates wouldn't be a threat then? Or Armenia and Pontus would have comparable forces?

Mithradates was allied to Tigranes. Mithradates was Tigranes son in law. Or it was the other way around.

edit: and at least after the First Mithradatic War, Tigranes had far more troops than Mithradates.
 
Mithridates wouldn't be a threat then? Or Armenia and Pontus would have comparable forces?

Mithradates and Tigranes were in a very close alliance. Several times in the course of his career did Tigranes lend Mithradates entire armies, and even Cappadocia invaded on his behalf. Should Mithradates succeed, it is in Armenia's best interest, because they can focus more on consolidating Tigranes' holdings in Syria and Mesopotamia.

However, the question is would relations remain pleasant after the two kings (who were about the same age) die. Would their sons get along in quite the same way?
 

Winnabago

Banned
I'm not sure Tigranes' Armenia domination could have lasted indefinitly against Roman pressure.
Wouldn't have be possible that Armenia expansion begin earlier (maybe at the loss of Seluicids) after the Diadochoi Wars, allowing a more stable presence in the region?

Perhaps a stronger Roman anti-Greek sentiment could result in Tigranes being a Roman friend and client?
 
However, the question is would relations remain pleasant after the two kings (who were about the same age) die. Would their sons get along in quite the same way?

And their sons (as in, the grandsons)?

Armenia is unfortunately placed in any scenario where Anatolia and/or the Iranian plataeu hold significant powers, even if one is friendly.
 
How about Lesser Armenia? IN this scenario, it would successfully incorporate Antioch and fight a successful guerrilla warfare against the Mamluks while allied with the Mongols. I'm stomped as to how they'd withstand the Ottomans, but I can see a strong Armenia surviving until the 15th century at least.
 
And their sons (as in, the grandsons)?

Armenia is unfortunately placed in any scenario where Anatolia and/or the Iranian plataeu hold significant powers, even if one is friendly.

Armenia would need to somehow lessen Parthia's power if it wants a chance, especially if it aims (as I think was the intention) to gain control of Syria and Mesopotamia. The borders would end up looking something like the Assyrian Empire, if they got lucky
 
How about Lesser Armenia? IN this scenario, it would successfully incorporate Antioch and fight a successful guerrilla warfare against the Mamluks while allied with the Mongols. I'm stomped as to how they'd withstand the Ottomans, but I can see a strong Armenia surviving until the 15th century at least.

Little Armenian satelets, then kingdom managed to live on mainly because of the crusader support (direct, or indirect as the Crusade of 1204 allowed them to reinforce their presence on western shores).

Taking Antioch from Muslims satelets is out of the range of Armenian principalities, and an infighting with Latin states is going to challenge chances of Cilician Armenia to live on (except submitting to Byzance, but it's going to defenitly prevent their rise).

Unless the Armenians are trusted with Cyprus (a reverse move compared to what happened OTL), I don't really see how they will outlive their OTL existence.

Regarding alliance with Mongols, it's pretty much flawed as these ones saw alliances basically as vassaliy pledges. And just as Mongols went back to their lands, of if they didn't see benefit on helping what they saw as barring states, Mameluks were able to get back the control of the land quickly (I remember a message sent by Baybars to Crusaders saying more or less "You think that the khan is going to help you? Tough luck!")

I don't know about Antiquity's Armenia, but Petty Armenia is not really going to wank anything.
 
I think the best departure would be the survival of the Medieval Armenian state (not Cilician Armenia which was a successor kingdom) under the Bagratuni Dynasty. It was a major power by the 11th century. Unfortunately, the Byzantines worked against it and annexed it, only to lose everything after the Battle of Manzikert.

If for some reason, the Byzantines saw Armenia as a useful asset rather than a rival, Armenia would survive. We could then have a scenario when the Seljuks come, that the Armenians are able to negotiate with Arp Aslan who leaves them alone and the Armenian state remains intact.

When the Seljuk Empire breaks up, Armenia is able to take advantage and expands south and east to the mountains, blocking further Islamic expansion and incorporating the areas now populated by the Azeris and Kurds. It does reach the Caspian Sea to the east, and its border to the west could be anything.

The Armenian state has its ups and downs over the centuries, but basically is able to hold onto the lands of Greater Armenia. By the modern era, Armenia holds the oil rich lands around Baku and Mosul and becomes a major oil power. We could even arrange things so that it has access to the sea either to the Black Sea near Trebizond, or towards the Med by including Cilician Armenia and the port of Iskenderun.
 
Last edited:
Top