Talk:Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia

Armenica.Com link (re)moved

I'm removing the link to Armenica.org: Complete history of Armenia, covering 800 B.C. to 2004 precisely because it is so general, that it properly belongs under History of Armenia, where I'll be putting it in a coupla minutes. From that link it is true that one can navigate to a good, detailed section on the history of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia — but that section is presented in a number of individual pages in frames; and though it's possible to link to any one of those pages outside the frames, that site is misdesigned in such a way as to require frames to get to the next one: thus making useful local linking impossible. Bill 3 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

---

Armenia Minor was actually the Western Part of Historic Armenia. Basically, the region West of the Euphrates river was known as Armenia Minor, both before, and especially during Roman times. HawaiiArmenian

That agrees with what I remember. I'm not sure about Lesser Armenia as an alternative name, either. I removed both; better to leave off alternate names than risk equating things that aren't the same, especially in an area like medieval history where many readers won't have much background. Isomorphic 06:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Expand tag is nonsense

The expand tag doesn't belong here. Sure, most any article in Wikipedia can be expanded; there's no reason to clutter up Wikipedia:Requests for expansion with this one. Gene Nygaard 13:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this belong?

F. Nansen writes: "When a people, which has experienced a terrible and unbearable destiny, manages to found a flourishing state in a foreign land, surrounded by enemies in all directions and continues to exist for three centuries, is this then not a sign of a supernatural force within this people?"

Does this belong in the article? It is not put in any context. It's just a floating quotation. And the date in the reference (1927) is telling. It was written at a time when a certain breed of nationalism and racialism was in vogue and is does not have the veneer of scholarship. I don't know if it can serve any purpose in the article. Srnec 05:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you like it better the way I put it now. I think it makes a nice little conclusion. -- Davo88 07:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While I still think the statement itself sounds silly, it is in a much better position in the article. Srnec 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Princes and Kings

Is there a way to list Princes and Kings on the template, instead of calling all of the Kings? Thanks. -- Davo88 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the infobox? I think it should go altogether. These former country infoboxes do not work very well, in my opinion, with feudal and semi-feudal states, like Cilicia. Srnec 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, the infobox. The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia could be considered a nation-state, not just a feudal state even though it took up European feudal traditions, since the King considered himself the King of all Armenians, not just the ruler of the Rubenids, the Hetumids, etc. etc. -- Davo88 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Capetians were kings of the Franks (French) and not just the Capetians but they were feudal monarchs. I think the Armenian kingdom was definitely not a nation-state even if it was never like the ultimate feudal states of western Europe and Jerusalem. Srnec 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that rulers of Cilician Armenia not only had the title "King of Armenians", but also stood up for the Armenians living in mainland Armenia. For example, King Hetoum persuaded the early pagan Mongols to not to treat the people of Historic Armenia roughly. -- Davo88 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The titles of most feudal rulers in western Europe were of the "King of the [People]" type: rex Francorum, rex Teutonicorum, rex Anglorum, etc. Srnec 04:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The title "King of the Armenians" appears on the coinage of Cilician Armenian. Meowy 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Kingdom

Danizz, can you please explain to me, why an article about ancient Armenian Kingdom instead of saying that it was an Armenian kingdom say that its now part of Turkey? And no the anon was not me, I never edit as an anon. You can do a checkuser if you like. --VartanM 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Asped

Image of Armenian knight not clear to distinguish wearing a salade which dates the 15th century if of family from the reach as the apparently visor helmet may be a bascinet.

Disputed

Unfortunately, it appears that this article is the latest target in an ever-widening dispute, centered on Franco-Mongol alliance. The issue is that there is a POV dispute there, about such issues as whether or not the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300, and whether or not Hetoum was in Jerusalem in 1300. There is a medieval source which says he was, but most modern sources say that the medieval source was unreliable. While we're sorting this out, unless there's someone who's extremely knowledgeable on the subject and would like to help out, it's probably best to just leave the "disputed" tag on the article. --Elonka 23:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the tag way too strong, not to mention unnecessary? Your objection is regarding the attack on Jerusalem right? Nowherere is that mentioned as 100% solid fact. The statement is attributed to its source. Why not simply follow up with a line saying historian X believes that was just Christian propaganda of the time? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right, I could have just removed or edited the material, but the problem is, that every other article that I've tried this, PHG just reverts me, and to be honest, I'm getting tired of the edit-warring, so I'm fine on just tagging things as disputed and moving on. If you'll check Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, you can see that we've had lengthy discussions on this, and despite clear consensus from other editors, PHG just ignores everyone and goes on and does what he wants, while at the same time throwing back all kinds of counter-accusations to confuse matters. As regards the quote about Hethoum that was added here, we've had multiple confirmations that the information is unreliable. We've also had multiple editors criticize PHG's practice of trying to promote a POV by including selective quotes from primary sources. PHG knows this, and yet he chose to add the information to this article anyway, without any kind of a qualifier. He has been doing this at other articles too (like we were just edit-warring at Jacques de Molay yesterday). Rather than get into a detailed discussion at each and every article, to maintain my sanity, I've decided to just tag things as disputed, and try to direct centralized discussion back to the mediation page where it belongs. --Elonka 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Please feel free to do as suggested by Eupator: simply follow up with a line saying historian X believes that was just Christian propaganda of the time. I don't think I have very often deleted such additions to Franco-Mongol alliance (on the contrary, I am all in favour of balancing arguments, with proper references. I have rather been reinstating referenced material you had deleted). Regards PHG 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the quote should not be listed at all. It's from an unreliable source, is not corroborated by any other of the medieval historians, and has been repeatedly criticized by modern historians. Angus Donal Stewart was very clear that the claim was "absurd." Reuven Amitai pointed out that it was clearly Armenian propaganda of the time. It shouldn't be included in an article about Armenian history, because it's just going to cause confusion, especially the way that it's being set off as some sort of an important quote. --Elonka 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that in itself interesting and notable? Wikipedia:Reliable sources doesn't apply to medieval primary sources. No policy is violated. It's subjective isn't it? Again, why not just modify that paragraph placing it in a broader context with third party modern sources. Just because the claim isn't true doesn't mean it should be suppressed. We just need additonal information from modern scholars. Angus Donal Stewart is a perfect source imo for this task. Last resort should be an RFC to settle this matter (including every other issue spawned by the Franco-Mongol alliance arrticle) with a community consensus.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we've done an RfC, which was unanimously against PHG's interpretation. He initially ignored it, and then when I brought it up again a week later, he said it was "ancient" (even though it had just been started two weeks earlier). See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. He also tried creating a POV fork on a related issue, and the community was pretty much unanimous against that too. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem. His response to that was "no big deal." He was initially totally resistant to mediation, but after a couple ANI threads, he's at least giving it a try, but so far we haven't had any luck finding a compromise on anything. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. If we don't start making progress, it'll probably have to go to ArbCom, but I haven't given up complete hope of mediation yet. You may also wish to check out the FA review on another of his articles: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom where we're seeing some of the same complaints from other editors: Ownership, reverting other editors, incivility (calling other editors vandals), over-use of primary sources, misinterpretation of secondary sources, cherry-picking words to promote a biased POV, etc. It's a shame that this may have to go further up the chain via Dispute Resolution, as PHG has done a lot of good stuff on Wikipedia (he's a genius when it comes to locating images). But unless he's willing to abide by community consensus, I'm afraid that things are going to get worse before they get better.

Getting back to the actual article, okay, fair enough, I'll make at least one attempt at actually editing it, and then we'll see how things go from there. --Elonka 23:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic personal attacks. PHG (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision suggestions

Some suggestions after a quick read:

• Stress the importance of Armenian migration in the late 10th and 11th centuries which led to Cilicia having a substantial Armenian population
• Have a separate section for each dynasty (the Hethoumids don't have one as such at the moment)
• More on the Lusignan period
• Culture section: Frankish (Western European) influence on Armenian culture; writers and artists of the time (e.g. Toros Roslin)
• Legacy: survival of the title of "King of Armenia" into modern times; bit about subsequent fate of Cilician Armenians; how the kingdom is viewed in the context of Armenian history; any cultural depictions of medieval Cilician Armenia.

--Folantin (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of the above are good suggestions. Meowy 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious if it might also sound reasonable to follow the model that the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia follows: it contains an overall history as well as individual sections including Cilicia's military, economy, philosophy, culture, etc. Comments? I'd definitely like to see this article reach FA status.--Marshal Bagramyan 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, you say that we should talk about cultural depictions of medieval Cilician Armenia in this article. What immediately comes to mind is this excellent religious song : http://www.arak29.am/PDF_PPT/Songbook/04_gilikia.pdf -- Davo88 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Leo king numbers

I tried to straighten the situation on the numbering of the Levon kings, which was utterly confused (typically a given number would redirect to another one etc...). At one end, it seems quite clear from the sources that king Leo I of Armenia was originally called Prince Leo II, but should be referred as Leo I of Armenia indeed (the earlier Leo I was only a prince and never a king, and indeed has his article as Prince Levon I of Armenia). At the other end of the line of rulers, the last king seems to be undoubtedy numbered Leo V of Armenia, as confirmed by sources (Claude Mutafian, Le Pogam) basing themselves on his own seal and cenotaph. In the articles for each kings I favoured this numbering method, and clarified that the alternative numbering (+1) was only occasional (and it seems historically mistaken). I also modified the redirects so that Leo I redirects to Leo I, Leo II to Leo II etc... I suspect that some articles however still misnumber some of the kings in their text, so that it will take some patrolling to eradicate all mistakes. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The first Leo never held the title of the King and the confusion arose as a result of certain sources numbering the first King Levon as Levon II.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lesser Armenia?

The article says this term is as an alternative name for Armenian Cilicia. However, it is my understanding that "Lesser Armenia" (also called Armenia Minor) were those parts of Armenia that lay to the west of "Greater Armenia" (also called Armenia Major). Lesser Armenia did not include Cilicia. However, Cilician Armenia was also known as "little Armenia". Meowy 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the Wikipedia entry for lesser Armenia agrees with what I have just written, so in this entry I will change "Lesser Armenia" to "Little Armenia". Meowy 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Raban, Altınaşkale, and Araban

A statement in the section Foundation of Armenian power in Cilicia says that the fortresses of Raban is modern Altınaşkale. I have had no luck finding a Turkish place by that name. Could someone tell me the original source? It seems like Raban is actually the modern Araban. Aramgar (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted revisionist. VartanM (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the gazetteer of the book "The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia" by T.S.R. Boase, Raban is mentioned as also being "Altountach Kale". That is obviously just a variation of Altınaşkale. A lot of these identifications are not certain of course, but making alternative identifications without sources would be considered original research Meowy 14:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I just checked on a Turkish map, and an Altıntaş castle is marked a few km south of Araban, and the whole plain is called the Altıntaş Ovasi. So modern Araban may well be Raban - but it is OR unless someone said it in a published source. Meowy 14:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have been slow to locate Robert W. Edwards's Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia (useful bibliography suggested to me from the now banned ip User:149.68.31.146). My library has the book, and I will add documentation from it soon. Aramgar (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've a feeling there won't be much, or maybe nothing at all, in that book regarding Raban if it is actually Araban. It is too far east from most of the other sites and monuments. I've a photocopy of the book's map: it does not extend further east than Marash. Meowy 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there is anything in Sinclair? Will look and see. Meowy 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sinclair (T.A. Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, an Architectural and Archaeological Survey, vol 4.) considers Araban to be Raban. He mentions (p128) the remains of a medieval citadel, perhaps Ayyubid or Mamluk, on a small mound in the town. No mention of a site called "Altıntaşkale". Meowy 16:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cilicia under French rule

As part of my additions I added information about Armenian Cilicia under French rule. However, do you think it is relevant enough in this article? --Davo88 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've completed a full copy edit, as requested. You will notice I have left a few hidden comments, most of which are minor things. The entire top half of the article (before "Demise of Cilician Armenia") is excellently written, and would surely be FA-prone; however, below it was, in my judgement, written by a completely different person; there were long two-line enumerations, several style issues, inconsistent capitalization, various incomprehensible sentences, an entire paragraph I would suggest to be removed, and a few other things I probably noted in comments. I think those should be looked after before submitting it to FAC, but other than that, great article, quite easy to read. If you need anything else, or require another copy edit (be it a personal request or a request from reviewers at FAC), feel free to drop by the Guild of Copy-Editors again for another lookover, or visit my user page for other questions. Good luck with the nomination! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this extensive copy edit. I'll see what I can do for the sections below "Demise of Cilician Armenia", and I'll contact you if needed. -- Davo88 (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be shy to ask for another look over; I'd be glad to help you out if needed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. 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/20101123210554/http://globeweeklynews.com/cilician_kingdom.htm to http://www.globeweeklynews.com/cilician_kingdom.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia under the Lusignan Dynasty (1341-1375).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia under the Lusignan Dynasty (1341-1375).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)