{"id":579,"date":"2013-03-12T03:41:50","date_gmt":"2013-03-12T07:41:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/?p=579"},"modified":"2014-04-10T05:04:54","modified_gmt":"2014-04-10T09:04:54","slug":"a-response-to-everett-l-wheelers-review-of-the-armenian-military-in-the-byzantine-empire-conflict-and-alliance-under-justinian-and-maurice-alfortville-sigest-2012-by-armen-ayvazyan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/?p=579","title":{"rendered":"A RESPONSE To Everett L. Wheeler\u2019s review of The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire By Armen Ayvazyan"},"content":{"rendered":"

A RESPONSE <\/strong><\/p>\n

To Everett L. Wheeler\u2019s review of <\/strong>The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire: Conflict and Alliance under Justinian and Maurice <\/strong><\/em>(<\/strong>Alfortville: Sigest, 2012<\/strong>) <\/strong><\/p>\n

B<\/strong>y Armen Ayvazyan<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I considered it a great honor, both for myself and my book, The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire: Conflict and Alliance under Justinian and Maurice<\/em> (hereafter \u2013 the AM<\/em>), that it was reviewed in The Journal of Military History <\/em>(hereafter \u2013 JMH<\/em>, 2013, No. 1, pp. 318-320), one of the most authoritative periodicals in the field it designates. The review, written by Everett L. Wheeler of the Duke University, presents the contents, the imprint and other particulars of the publication as follows: Glendale, Calif. <\/em>(sic): Editions Sigest, 2012. ISBN: 978-2-91-732939-9<\/em> (sic). Note on Armenian personal names and toponyms. Illustrations. Maps. Notes. Appendixes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. 127. <\/em><\/p>\n

In fact, the AM<\/em> was printed in Alfortville (Paris, France) rather than Glendale (California, USA)! The words Glendale and California are nowhere to be found in the AM<\/em>. The questions as to why and how they could have appeared in its review are disturbing. One may even wonder whether the reviewer has ever held the book in his hands, especially if considered that no page references are provided. Incidentally \u2013 or perhaps not incidentally \u2013 two of the four dashes within the ISBN number are misplaced too, not an inconsequential mistake in our digital age (the correct ISBN is 978-2-917329-39-9<\/em>). These curious mistakes are only the first indications of the utterly unprofessional and tendentious character of Wheeler\u2019s review.<\/p>\n

In one and a half pages the reviewer manages to accuse me of representing \u201ca super-nationalistic branch of Armenian historiography prominent since 1991,\u201d while branding my book as \u201camateurish,\u201d \u201c\u2018old military history\u2019 in one of its worst forms, featuring presentism and excessively speculative reconstructions of campaigns,\u201d a \u201ccurious diatribe,\u201d etc. Apparently to ensure full indoctrination of the uninitiated reader, the indictment in nationalism is reiterated in the closing sentence: \u201cthe work exemplifies a branch of contemporary nationalistic Armenian historiography better than serious scholarship.\u201d<\/p>\n

To see how successfully Wheeler is able to support these sweeping, politically colored, and offensive denunciations, below I will respond to all<\/em> of his criticisms.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On nationalism and<\/strong><\/em> Armenian historiography<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Wheeler charges that \u201can idealized view of ancient Armenia (apparently identified with the current Republic) and Armenian culture underlies the narrative, in which patriotic desires for independence and autonomy inspire rebel leaders rather than the personal motives that Procopius asserts.\u201d<\/p>\n

The sentence above lacks clarity and cohesion. The nonsensical allegation that the AM<\/em> somehow identifies the current Republic of Armenia with ancient Armenia is mystifying. No criterion is offered to check the veracity of such a bizarre claim. Does Wheeler suggest that the AM<\/em> identifies current Republic of Armenia with ancient Armenia territorially or perhaps by its state system, to name just two aspects? Or does he suggest that the AM<\/em>\u00a0 idealizes the current Republic (the grave social deficiencies of which its author has been a loud and vocal opponent, parenthetically)? But nowhere in the AM<\/em> are the Republic of Armenia, or the word \u2018Republic,\u2019 even mentioned and neither is any ahistorical attempt made to project the present-day realities on the sixth century. The same question poses itself again: has Wheeler read or seen the book he undertook to review? Or, at least, has he unfolded and read its colour Map (inset), which does not even include the territory of the Republic of Armenia?<\/p>\n

Wheeler is bluntly denying the \u201cpatriotic desires for independence and autonomy\u201d of the Armenian rebels in 538-539, arguing that they acted according to their \u201cpersonal motives.\u201d The truth, however, is that the personal motives are inseparably interconnected\u00a0 with the collective ones: the ethnopolitical mobilization of the Armenian rebels, and, what is more, their armed resistance to the imperial policies could not have taken place without \u201cpatriotic desires,\u201d irrespective of how much the latter were conditioned by purely individual motivations.<\/p>\n

Most important, the \u201cpatriotic desires\u201d of ancient and medieval Armenians, including their nobility and clergy, are abundantly represented in the Armenian (as well as non-Armenian) primary sources, of which Wheeler does not seem to have a solid grasp. It is the classic Armenian literature, especially historiography which, from the fifth century onwards, had been accentuating the Armenians\u2019 patriotism or \u201cnationalism.\u201d This is a well-known and academically recognized truth, and to deny it, as Wheeler does without substantiation, is sad and ignorant of primary sources. If it were not an established historical fact then many Western historians should also be branded as representatives of \u201ca super-nationalistic branch of Armenian historiography prominent since 1991.\u201d Prof. Walter E. Kaegi, to take just one example, would certainly be among them for his observations about the Armenians\u2019 \u201cimpulse to local autonomy,\u201d their \u201cwill to remain distinctively Armenian,\u201d that \u201cin no other region of the Byzantine Empire\u2026 did the local inhabitants have a tradition of being so well armed and prone to rely on themselves and their own family groupings and notables,\u201d and that both the Arabs and the Byzantines had to take into consideration the \u201cintractability and formidable character of the Armenians.\u201d<\/a>1<\/sup><\/sup> These quotes are provided in the AM<\/em> (p. 107), but Wheeler has either not read or just chosen to overlook them.<\/p>\n

As a matter of fact, Kaegi is not at all alone and such conclusions have been an encyclopedic knowledge in the West long before 1991. As early as 1967, the Encyclopedia Americana,<\/em> enumerating the \u201cfactors [that] contributed to the development of a strong sense of [Armenian] national consciousness, centuries before its advent on the Western European scene,\u201d underlined, in particular, that \u201cthe martyrdom of Vartan Mamikonian [451 AD] provided Armenia with a national hero, further reinforcing the Armenian sense of isolation, self-reliance, and ethnocentrism.\u201d<\/a>2<\/sup><\/sup> Likewise, The New Encyclopedia Britannica<\/em> (1984) speaks about \u201cthe strongly individualistic Armenian people,\u201d who \u201cretained a fiercely independent spirit\u201d from the ancient times up to the modern period.<\/a>3<\/sup><\/sup> \u201cArmenian nationalism,\u201d again, is mentioned as one of the factors, which made Armenia difficult to govern by the Arabs in the seventh century.<\/a>4<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

The pertinent issues of ancient Armenian identity, including Armenian linguistic nationalism and the system of values of Armenia\u2019s military class, have been analyzed in some of my other studies, conducted in full accordance with modern Western theoretical thought and on the basis of Armenian and non-Armenian primary sources.<\/a>5<\/sup><\/sup> These studies are evoked and adequately referred to in the AM<\/em>, mainly in Part II. Wheeler, however, avoids either appraising or refuting them, presenting instead a bouquet of derisive Soviet-type political labels.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, if we follow Wheeler\u2019s logic, then his assumed date of activation for \u201ca super-nationalistic branch of Armenian historiography,\u201d the year of 1991 (that is, since Armenia gained its newest independence), should be significantly pushed back \u2013 by about fifteen centuries, because, as noted, classical Armenian historiographyhad also been markedly demonstrating patriotic (\u201cnationalistic\u201d) motivations. Akin to Wheeler\u2019s condemnation of the AM<\/em>\u2019s present-day author, the \u201cidealization\u201d of Armenia by classical Armenian authors was reprehended by Nina Garsoian, one of the pillars of the American Armenian Studies, in her following reproaches:<\/p>\n

\u201cPavstos Buzand and Movses Khorenatzi\u2019s narrative reflects their own ideals \u2013 single, united Armenia which stands firm against the threats of Zoroastrian Persia\u2026 They stress the unity of the Armenian Church… They ignore the deep Iranian influence on the Armenian society and institutions…\u201d<\/a>6<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

At least, as highlighted by these quotes, Garsoian, unlike Wheeler, recognizes the \u201cpatriotic desires for independence and autonomy\u201d of the ancient Armenians and their intellectual elite. However, as a major advocate of the hypothesis about ancient Armenia\u2019s near total Iranization, Garsoian disagrees with both Buzand and Khorenatzi \u2013 and, by extension, with the vast corpus ofclassical Armenian historiography \u2013 on the cultural substance of ancient Armenian society.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On Armenia\u2019s \u201cIranization\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

This brings Wheeler to detecting the next mortal fault in the AM<\/em>, namely, that \u201cnothing [has been] said about Armenia\u2019s iranization (lowercased by Wheeler \u2013 A.A.) through the Parthian Arsacid Dynasty (66-428).\u201d<\/p>\n

But to what purpose should anything have been said about Armenia\u2019s hypothetical Iranization in a book which is concerned primarily with the military history and covers mostly the sixth century realities? Wheeler\u2019s censure is reminiscent of the Soviet ideological mandatory requirement for providing quotations from Marx, Engels, and Lenin in all academic writings, regardless of their subject matter.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the unconvincing assumptions of \u201cArmenia\u2019s Iranization.\u201d Exaggerated beyond measure by its proponents, this theory is especially wrong for the historical period between the fourth and sixth centuries AD \u2013 and the AM<\/em> deals mainly with the sixth century. Here are just a few of my objections, put in brief: Armenia and the Armenian monarchs had fallen out with the Iranian rulers since at least 224 AD, when the Sassanids ousted the Parthian Arsacids from power. Many<\/em> bloody wars had been fought between Armenia and Sassanid Persia in the third, fourth and fifth centuries. Armenia adopted Christianity in the early fourth century, while Iran was officially Zoroastrian until its Islamization in the seventh. Despite borrowings from old and middle Persian, the Armenian language had been strongly dominant in all Armenia since before Christ\u2019s era, as evidenced by Strabo (see his Geography<\/em>, XI.14.5-6). Furthermore, in 405 AD the Armenians introduced their own script, which almost immediately brought about national literature in a whole variety of genres. In the fourth-sixth centuries AD, Armenia was, as a result, culturally different from Iran in language, religion, literature, law, education system, architecture, music as well as in many other important ways. In short, demanding from a historian to speak about Armenia\u2019s Iranization in the period under discussion is a misconception. (And neither did the strong Iranian influence on Armenia amount to cultural \u201cIranization\u201d in the earlier period; however that is a topic for another discussion.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Concerning the <\/strong><\/em>AM\u2019<\/strong>s Part II <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Wheeler\u2019s unequivocal assessment of the second part of my book (\u201cOn Imperial Prejudice and Expedient Omission of Armenians in Maurice\u2019s Strategikon,<\/em>\u201d pp. 95-113) as \u201ca curious diatribe\u201d is suggested on the basis of a single argument, namely that \u201cin Maurice\u2019s day Roman territory included three-fourths of Armenia.\u201d Since Wheeler adds nothing else in this regard, the reader could be pushed to surmise \u2013 this is the best possible conjecture I can come up with \u2013 that the Armenians could not have been qualified as Eastern Roman Empire\u2019s possible military opponents and, thus, their omission from Maurice\u2019s relevant list could not, and should not, be questioned in any way.<\/p>\n

However, as the AM<\/em>\u2019s analysis has amply demonstrated, the Armenians were both real and potential enemies of the Byzantine Empire. Wheeler has failed to notice three Armenian insurrections during Maurice\u2019s reign, which should have sufficed to prove the point. He has also failed to notice that the Armenian armed forces in the eastern\/Persian part of Armenia continued to be engaged against the Byzantines as vassals of the Sassanids (by the way, the three-fourths of Armenia were under the Empire\u2019s control only from 591 to 602, while before and after this decennium the proportional control of Armenia\u2019s territory by these two feuding empires often maintained a reverse position). Further, the reviewer has simply ignored the Armenian primary sources, in particular, the seventh-century History of Bishop Sebeos<\/em>, where Maurice verbatim qualifies the Armenians, and their armed forces based in Armenia proper, as genuine hostiles to his Empire. Above all, Wheeler overlooks the contemporary historical setting, which manifested the existing hostility between the Armenians residing in Byzantine part of Armenia and the Empire. These sources, questions and factors are amply discussed in the AM<\/em>\u2019s Part II.<\/p>\n

Observably, this piece \u2013 labeled by Wheeler as \u201ca curious diatribe\u201d \u2013 has been adequately appreciated by the international community of historians of the late Roman and Byzantine history as well as political scientists. In a positive review of the AM <\/em>(Ancient Warfare<\/em>, 2012, VI, 5, pp. 54-55), Ian Hughes, author of Belisarius: The Last Roman General<\/em> and Aetius: Attila’s Nemesis<\/em>, assesses the same Part II as \u201cextremely interesting and insightful,\u201d cautioning at the same time that \u201cthere is a need to read the section through in its entirety before forming any judgements, as the conclusions are left to the end.\u201d (And this is exactly what has not been done by Wheeler regarding the whole book.)<\/p>\n

It is also worth quoting in full the evaluation of the same section by Dr. Ilkka Syvanne, Vice Chairman of the Finnish Society for Byzantine Studies and author of The Age of Hippotoxotai. Art of War in Roman Revival and Disaster 491-63<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe second essay expounds a persuasive set of reasons about why the Armenians were omitted from the list of enemies in the Strategikon<\/em>. While doing this, it also unearths some deep-rooted cultural prejudices within the Roman Empire. On the basis of these findings, it is also easy to see why the Arabs were similarly left out of the same list. The original questions put forward here allow the author to reveal explicitly the continuity of \u2013 and interplay between \u2013 Roman and Byzantine traditional policies against Armenia\u2019s independent or autonomous status on the one hand and ethnic bias against the Armenians in Roman and Byzantine society on the other hand. Ayvazyan illustrates how important a role the Armenians played in the Roman military and how varied, and sometimes hostile, the Roman elites\u2019 reactions were towards them. After reading Ayvazyan\u2019s analysis, it becomes abundantly clear that the root source of the military effectiveness of the Armenian princes and their retinues was their fiercely independent nature. This in turn could cause the Roman government to adopt hostile and counterproductive measures to quell their traditionally self-reliant spirit, as exemplified in Maurice\u2019s ill-conceived project of transferring the Armenian military from Armenia to the Balkans (see \u201cForeword,\u201d in the AM<\/em>, p. 11).\u201d<\/p>\n

By Wheeler\u2019s bizarre standards, Syvanne, alongside the authors of Britannica<\/em> and Americana<\/em> Encyclopedias<\/em> and Prof. Kaegi, should have been also automatically qualified as representatives of \u201ca super-nationalistic branch of Armenian historiography.\u201d Yet, for some reason, Wheeler has bestowed that unrealistic title on me only.<\/p>\n

The same section of the AM<\/em>, as a separate article, was published, both in English and Russian, by such specialized peer-reviewed journals as the Medieval Warfare<\/em> (2012, II.4, pp. 33-36) and \u0412\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u041c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043d\u0438\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430<\/em>[\u0421\u0435\u0440. 12]. \u041f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u0438<\/em> [Journal of the Moscow State University. Political Science series<\/em>] (2012, N 1, pp. 25-37).<\/a>7<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On \u201c<\/strong><\/em>old military history,\u201d \u201cpresentism\u201d and modern terminology<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

To uphold his claim that the AM<\/em> represents \u201c\u2019old military history\u2019 in one of its worst forms, featuring presentism and excessively speculative reconstructions of campaigns,\u201d Wheeler parenthetically offers two short-formulated examples: \u201ce.g., political assassination as \u2018special operations\u2019 and Sittas\u2019s death in battle as a planned operation of \u2018elite commandos\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

Certainly, not all political assassinations can be termed as \u201cspecial operations,\u201d but only those which entail the following basics: the initial secret planning of the assassination, its implementation by a highly-trained military unit which uses unconventional tactics and combat skills. In addition, special operations typically employ elements of surprise, stealth, self-reliance, speed, and occasionally special equipment. The assassination of Gontharis in Libya (Byzantine Africa) in May 546, carried out by the Armenian squad of Artabanes, utilized all<\/em> these features (for Procopius\u2019s detailed account and its analysis, see AM<\/em>, pp. 26-30, 86-90). Hence, characterizing this assassination as a \u201cspecial operation\u201d is thoroughly justified.<\/p>\n

Professional historians have practiced the reasonable application of modern terminology to ancient realities always and on all spheres of human activity. If we consider the military-political-intelligence aspects only, such terms as scorched-earth policy, guerrilla tactics, irregular warfare, counterinsurgency, psychological warfare, tactical planning, strategic advice, public propaganda, espionage, covert action, covert operation, political influence operation, paramilitary operation, influencing political parties, and many others have been increasingly used by military historians.<\/a>8<\/sup><\/sup> \u201cSpecial Operations,\u201d the term that unnerved Wheeler, has been the title, and major theme, of a recent book on medieval warfare.<\/a>9<\/sup><\/sup> It would be more than appropriate to quote in this regard Col. Rose Mary Sheldon, Head of the Department of History at the same Virginia Military Institute where the Journal of Military History<\/em> is published (incidentally, Sheldon\u2019s review of The Complete Roman Legions<\/em> precedes Wheeler\u2019s review of the AM<\/em> in the same issue of the JMH<\/em>):<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ancients certainly did not have our technology, and they rarely used the same terminology\u2026 Yet to use a term like HUMINT is not inaccurate when describing the collection of intelligence by human means. A spy is a spy, and eavesdropping is eavesdropping whether done by human ear or an electronic device.\u201d<\/a>10<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

To paraphrase Sheldon, a special operation is a special operation whether carried out with a machine gun with a silencer or a double-edged sword. The same argument is basically true for the term \u201cthe detachment of elite commandos,\u201d which has been used in the AM <\/em>only once (p. 69) and in a clearly figurative sense: the killing of a Roman general in battle was extremely difficult and rarely accomplished, and it could have been performed only by the best of the best.<\/p>\n

To sum up, contrary to Wheeler\u2019s pontification, the rational use of modern terminology in a historical study is neither \u201cold military history,\u201d nor, moreover, \u201cone of its worst forms.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On the significance of the 538-539 rebellion and efficiency of the Armenian forces<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Wheeler\u2019s review carries on with more fault-finding: \u201cProcopius\u2019s skeletal account is fattened with hyperbole about the revolt\u2019s significance and the quality and efficiency of the Armenian forces, for which maxims of Sun Tzu and Sun Pin are cited for support\u2026 If the revolt were as significant as here alleged, the \u201cSatrapies\u201d of southwestern Armenia, victims of the same 536 reforms, curiously abstained from participation.\u201d<\/p>\n

By rejecting this rebellion\u2019s significance, the JMH<\/em>\u2019s reviewer blatantly \u2013 and deliberately (assuming he has read the book at all) \u2013 ignores major historical facts, which have been amply elucidated in the AM<\/em>. Here is their brief, but sufficient summary. First<\/em>, the two-year duration of this rebellion best attests to its magnitude (ironically, Wheeler admits the AM<\/em>\u2019s conclusion that it lasted for two consecutive years, 538-539: \u201coccasionally a nail is correctly hit on the head,\u201d admits he, with excessive arrogance). Second<\/em>, to quell the Armenian uprising, the Emperor Justinian was forced to send against the rebels two armies, headed by foremost generals of his day. Third<\/em>, the first campaign and its decisive battle against the Armenian rebels ended with humiliating defeat; moreover, during the battle, Sittas, the Roman grand marshal (magister militum<\/em>), recognized by his contemporaries as an equal to the great Belisarius, was killed by the Armenians. These facts are more than enough to comprehend the military significance of the rebellion. Many other facts revealing its robust logistical capacity, military potential, and critical geopolitical implications (especially, unleashing a new war between the Sassanid Iran and Byzantine Empire) are abundantly presented in the AM.<\/em> Again, Wheeler either has not read the book or intentionally ignored the facts.<\/p>\n

It is not at all clear whether the semi-independent \u201cSatrapies\u201d of southwestern Armenia participated in this Armenian liberation attempt. Though there is no direct evidence about their participation, as has been noted in the AM<\/em>, \u201ccompletely ruling out the presence in this [rebel-controlled] territory of other Armenian princely houses only on the basis that their names have not survived is rather excessive\u201d (p. 33, note 27). In any case, the unusual strength of the Armenian rebel army does allow for a tentative supposition about their full or partial participation.<\/p>\n

The writings of several classical theoreticians of warfare as well as Byzantine and Iranian treatises on strategy and tactics have served as auxiliary material for penetrating into the thinking and mindsets behind the military campaigns analyzed in the AM<\/em>. Wheeler thoroughly misinterprets when he implies that the maxims of Sun Tzu and Sun Bin have been used to directly support<\/em> the AM<\/em>\u2019s conclusions about the efficiency of the Armenian forces. Instead of pointlessly rejecting the use of the classics, Wheeler should have tried to determine whether the author of the AM<\/em> was able to productively use them or not. The AM<\/em>\u2019s related arguments about the exchange of tactical elements employed by the Persian, Roman, and Armenian military forces as well as the interaction and mutual borrowings of Sassanid and late Roman military theories (pp. 40-41, 71, 77), not surprisingly, have remained unappreciated in his review, too.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On the identification of Oinokhalakon with Avnik <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Wheeler disagrees also with the AM<\/em>\u2019s identification of Avnik as the location of the decisive battle between the Armenians and Romans in 539. (As will be shown below, he denies even the actuality of the battle itself.) He reasons that \u201cAvnik, without prominence in Armenian sources, is an unlikely kalak<\/em> (city) in a largely un-urbanized Armenia.\u201d He further inaccurately claims that it was \u201cMichael Chamchian (1738-1832), who argued that Procopius\u2019s toponym Oinokhalakon combines Avnik, allegedly pronounced Onik in classical Armenian, and Armenian kalak<\/em> (city).\u201d In point of fact, the last explanation was elaborated by me (pp. 61-62), while Chamchian made the same identification without any explanations whatsoever, though presumably on the same basis.<\/p>\n

If I had the slightest intention to \u201cfatten\u201d my study (as maliciously alleged by Wheeler), I could have (and perhaps should have! \u2013 I must accept) devoted a whole chapter on the etymology and history of Avnik\/Oinokhalakon, especially because the relevant materials are not available in English. As a scholarly publication, however, the AM<\/em> regularly delegates its reader to the references in the footnotes, for a good deal of additional information. Wheeler, inexpertly, did not take the trouble of familiarizing himself with the diversified literature on Avnik cited in three consecutive footnotes on page 62, Nos. 114-116. The reviewer\u2019s ignorance in Armenian language (both Classical and modern), could not serve as an excuse here, since, as a scholar, he is supposed to abstain from passing judgment on \u2013 actually scorning \u2013 anything he is unable to peruse. In any case, below I will provide the most important details from the literature cited in the AM<\/em>\u2018s mentioned footnotes that effectively reinforce its argumentation in support of the sameness of Avnik and Oinokhalakon.<\/p>\n

Concerning the Armenian word kalak<\/em> (city), however, Wheeler could have consulted the specialized literature in English, too. As is clear from Pavstos Buzand\u2019s fifth century text, in ancient and early medieval times kalak<\/em>\u00a0 designated \u2018city\u2019 both in the broad and narrow senses, meaning, in the latter case, \u201ca fortified, garrisoned, and walled stronghold; a fortress,\u201d or, as Nina Garsoian suggests in her extensive annotation on kalak<\/em>, a \u201cwalled enclosure, city,\u201d and even a \u201cwalled hunting preserve.\u201d<\/a>11<\/sup><\/sup> Hence, Wheeler\u2019s statement on impossibility of Avnik being a kalak<\/em> is inapt, irrespective of whether, in the sixth century, it was just a stronghold, a fortress or a bigger walled settlement.<\/p>\n

The second known written reference to Avnik (after Procopius\u2019s Oinokhalakon) belongs to Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905\u2013959). In his famous De Administrando Imperio<\/em>, Avnik (Abnikon) features as an important and populous fortress or city, strategically and commercially tightly interconnected<\/em> with Theodosiopolis.<\/a>12<\/sup><\/sup>The same term of kavstron, translated by the Byzantinistsboth as \u201ccity\u201d (Jenkins) and \u201cfortress\u201d (Bartikyan), is applied by Constantine VII, simultaneously, to Theodosiopolis, Avnik, and Manzikert.<\/a>13<\/sup><\/sup> This strategic linkage between Theodosiopolis and Avnik fully supports the AM<\/em>\u2019s reconstruction of the 539 military campaign in Armenia, whereby the Armenian rebels retreated to Avnik and Sittas moved against them from Theodosiopolis (see the AM<\/em>, pp. 61-67 and also Map 1).<\/p>\n

That Avnik is Procopius\u2019s Oinokhalachon becomes a convincing certainty, if one considers also this fortress\/city\u2019s name variants, preserved in various Armenian primary sources (note that in Armenian berd<\/em>\u00a0 means \u201cfortress\u201d): Avnik, Avnkaberd<\/em>, Avnkoberd<\/em>, Avnkuberd<\/em>, Vornik, Vornkaberd<\/em>, Unik, Onik, Ornik, Ornkaberd<\/em><\/a>14<\/sup><\/sup>. As is easy to see, this toponym was widely known not only by its basic name of Avnik, but also with the variants that incorporated also the second component with the meaning of \u201cfortress\u201d (berd<\/em>), which exactly corresponds to Oino[k]-khalak(on), that is Avnik\/Onik-fortress\/city.<\/p>\n

Neither is Wheeler\u2019s assertion true about Avnik being \u201cwithout prominence\u201d in the Armenian sources. The eleventh century History<\/em> by Aristakes Lastivertzi relates that, in 1054, Tughril Beg (ca. 990-1063), the first sultan of the Seljuk Empire, approached \u201cthe impregnable fortress of Avnik, where he spotted scores of people and cattle; nevertheless, [deeply] impressed by just its invulnerable appearance,he refused to consider attacking it\u201d and led his army in another direction.<\/a>15<\/sup><\/sup> Ever since, this fortress has been mentioned in the later Armenian as well as non-Armenian sources, featuring conspicuously during Mongol invasions too (see the literature cited in footnotes 114-116 of the AM<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Weeler\u2019s loosely formulated, if uncorroborated, objection about Avnik being \u201cwithout prominence\u201d in the Armenian sources could further extend to imply that Avnik could not be Procopius\u2019s Oinokhalakon, because the Armenian sources had not mentioned Avnik before the 11th century. This line of reasoning could also rashly deny Avnik\u2019s identification with Abnikon, rationalizing that the latter had been mentioned by Constantin VII two centuries before Avnik was cited by an Armenian source (Aristakes Lastivertzi). However, such a refutation would be doomed, because Constantin\u2019s De Administrando Imperio<\/em> correctly located this \u201ccity\/fortress\u201d in the canton of Basean (Phasiane). By the same perverse logic, it could be further claimed that the Armenian rebellion of 538-539 had never happened, because the Armenian sources are completely silent about it! Naturally, the rebellion\u2019s actuality cannot be questioned by such a willful refutation.<\/p>\n

There were hundreds of fortresses in ancient and medieval Armenia, and it should not be surprising that dozens of them were mentioned in Armenian sources centuries after their foundation, or that the written historical records regarding many of them have not reached us at all.<\/a>16<\/sup><\/sup> Such lack of historical evidence is partly due to the fact that scores of Armenian classic and medieval texts have been destroyed during numerous foreign invasions and other national calamities that have befallen upon Armenia.<\/a>17<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

Thus, linguistically, etymologically, historically and geographically, the identification of Avnik with Oinokhalakon may, I believe, be considered as perfectly accurate.<\/a>18<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Wheeler<\/strong><\/em> against the primary sources, again!<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

As shown above, Wheeler chooses to refute, in just one or two vague phrases, the major findings of the AM<\/em>, which have been substantiated by numerous facts and arguments. Another example of such refutations is represented by his following imprecise sentence, intended to prove the nationalism of the AM<\/em>\u2019s author: \u201cByzantine Hellenization of Armenians and their integration into the Byzantine elite (e.g., the emperors Maurice and Heraclius possibly had Armenian blood) are deplored.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since no page of the AM<\/em> is mentioned, nor any passage from it quoted, it is difficult to be certain as to what text exactly Wheeler is referring to. His claim is nevertheless clear: Byzantine policies towards Armenia should have been greeted, rather than \u201cdeplored.\u201d Contrary, yet again, to Wheeler\u2019s dogmatic stance, the contemporary Armenian primary sources \u2013 and not the AM<\/em>\u2019s author! \u2013 were openly deploring the Byzantine policies of incorporation and assimilation, so amiably termed by Wheeler as \u201cByzantine Hellenization of Armenians and their integration into the Byzantine elite.\u201d The seventh century Armenian historian Sebeos, expressing the opinion of a large portion of Armenian society, was harshly critical of Maurice\u2019s policies of removal of the Armenian military forces from Armenia or, as he put it, \u201cthe perfidious plot by Maurice to empty Armenia of Armenian princes.\u201d The AM<\/em> is a product of historical research and its conclusions are based on the primary sources, while Wheeler\u2019s whole unfavorable judgment betrays current ideological banalities and underlying political (or geopolitical) preferences. Projecting the thoughts and ideas of the primary sources on the author of the AM<\/em> is an unfortunate attempt at distortion of the historical record.<\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t it natural then that Wheeler launches a frontal assault against all ancient and medieval Armenian literature, unduly devaluating it thus: \u201cArmenian-language sources (of controversial historical value).\u201d Not just particular pieces of evidence in these sources are rejected as erratic or unreliable, but the value<\/em> of a whole voluminous national historiography, rare in most languages, is ludicrously declared controversial \u2013 an insensate posture.<\/p>\n

Next, Wheeler tries to twist Procopius\u2019s concrete evidence regarding the Battle of Avnik, too. It was not, writes Wheeler, \u201ca pitched battle fully planned by the rebels pace Ayvazyan, rather than the skirmish Procopius describes.\u201d In this passing manner, without any argumentation, two of the major points of the AM<\/em> are flatly rejected: that the military engagement near Avnik was a pitched battle, and that it was fully planned by the rebels. Meanwhile, Procopius describes very clearly the character of this engagement:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026since both [Roman and Armenian] armies were on exceedingly difficult ground where precipices abounded, they did not fight in one place, but scattered about among the ridges and ravines.\u201d<\/a>19<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

As is evident from Procopius\u2019s account, this was a battle on the rough terrain where two armies<\/em> adopted a scattered formation and engaged in numerous isolated combats against each other\u2019s fragmented units. Thus, the primary source itself unambiguously resolves a question of whether this was a battle or just a skirmish in favor of the former. Wheeler ascribes to me what was related by Procopius, openly distorting his valuable report and, concurrently, slighting the AM<\/em>\u2019s in-depth analysis of this battle.<\/p>\n

Further, rather than me, it was Martindale and Syvanne who first rightly categorized the character of this battle, reasonably suggesting that \u201cthe ridges and ravines forced both the Armenians and the Romans to adopt a scattered formation,\u201d which was \u201cso unusual\u201d as even to push Procopius of Caesarea to pay attention.<\/a>20<\/sup><\/sup> Another Western scholar, Whately, in his PhD dissertation on Descriptions of Battle in the \u2018Wars\u2019 of Procopius<\/em> preceded me in specifying the battle of Avnik as a \u201cpitched\u201d one.<\/a>21<\/sup><\/sup> Again, all of these remarks and their authors were specifically referred to in the AM<\/em>, but Wheeler has chosen to zero in on me only.<\/p>\n

As for the battle of Avnik being preplanned by the Armenian rebel command, the AM<\/em> is putting forward a whole interrelated set of arguments in favor of this version of events. Rather than trying to refute them, Wheeler, again, presents a flat and hollow rejection, which does not qualify as a serious scholarly critique.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dissemination of inaccurate information of personal character<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Wheeler identifies me as \u201can Armenian historian and political scientist associated with the Ararat Center for Strategic Research.\u201d Thus he tries to belittle even my career, since I am more than just an \u201cassociate\u201d of the Ararat Center; I have been its founding and only Director ever since its establishment in 2006. The other important point here is that Wheeler fails to mention my much more relevant affiliation (as far as the AM<\/em> is concerned) with the Matenadaran<\/em>, the Yerevan Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, where I have been working as a research scholar since 1990 (with several intermissions, connected with my professional career). He could have easily found accurate and freely available information about me on the Internet, including on my personal website www.hayq.org<\/a>. But he chose not to.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusion: On <\/strong><\/em>amateurism<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Wheeler, unfortunately, has failed to objectively evaluate my book. He took a non-scholarly path of vicious labeling and empty accusations, which amount to mudslinging against both the AM<\/em> and its author. His methodology of historical research is flawed, with demonstrable infusion of current political-ideological contents. He has been unable even to properly (if at all!) read the AM<\/em>, truly a small book, which he disparages as just \u201ctwo articles.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wheeler castigates the AM<\/em> as an \u201camateurish volume.\u201d This is a daring statement for someone who has not made any serious contribution to the study of history of Armenia. His brashness is even more unwarranted, when one considers his very limited command of both the primary and secondary sources of the historical theme he claims to assess: while the AM<\/em> uses multi-lingual primary sources and secondary literature with proper research methodology, Wheeler often does not know even the subject he is commenting on. In view of his ignorance of Armenian and Russian, Wheeler should have been appreciative, at least, of the considerable portions of historical research in these languages that the AM<\/em> made available for the English-speaking reader for the first time. But the lack of integrity of judgement did not allow him to do that either. Indeed, as it has been amply shown above, Wheeler himself typifies all the characteristics of a dilettante in the military history of Armenia and Armenian Studies at large.<\/p>\n

All in all, I am open and would be only too glad to draw on constructive criticisms. Certainly the AM<\/em> could have, and does have, deficiencies. To address those that have been detected by myself, the book\u2019s new, second edition, which will be published soon, has been considerably revised, corrected and expanded.<\/p>\n

PS.<\/strong> When my response was ready for forwarding to the JMH<\/em>, I came across a related piece, written two decades earlier. In 1995, David Braund of the University of Exeter responded to Wheeler\u2019s review of his book\u00a0 Georgia in Antiquity<\/em> (Oxford University Press, 1994). Braund notes, in particular, that he had \u201cnever received a review so distorted, unsubstantiated and simply unpleasant as that\u201d by Wheeler. Braund finds Wheeler\u2019s denunciations as \u201cvague and laden with bile,\u201d his \u201cveiled suggestion\u201d of plagiarism as \u201cfalse and outrageous.\u201d He objects \u201cto his petulance,\u201d and further characterizes Wheeler\u2019s arguments as \u201cannoying,\u201d \u201csilly,\u201d \u201crather puzzling,\u201d etc.<\/a>22<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

Braund\u2019s conclusions, of course, are not surprising. It appears that Wheeler has not changed.<\/p>\n

ARMEN AYVAZYAN <\/strong><\/p>\n

PhD (History) and D.Sc. (Political Science)<\/strong><\/p>\n

www.hayq.org<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

armenayvazyan@gmail.com<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/a>1 See Kaegi<\/strong>, Walter E. <\/strong>Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests<\/em> (Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 189, 198, 202, cf. a separate chapter on \u201cByzantium, Armenia, Armenians, and early Islamic conquests,\u201d ibid.,<\/em> pp. 181-204.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>2 Encyclopedia Americana,<\/em> International Ed. (New York: Americana Corp., 1967, Vol. 2), p. 332.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>3 The New Encyclopedia Britannica.<\/em>Macropedia<\/em> (Fifteenth ed., Vol. 18, Chicago, 1984), pp. 1039, 1042.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>4 Ibid<\/em>., p. 1042.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>5 \u201cMother Tongue and the Origins of Nationalism: A Comparative Analysis of the Armenian and European Primary Sources<\/a>,\u201d Armenian Folia Anglistika<\/em> (International Journal of English Studies), No. 1 (2), 2006, pp. 123-131 (this is an abridged version of the eponymous study published as a separate book in Yerevan, 2001, in Arm.); The Code of Honor of the Armenian Military, the 4-5<\/em>th<\/em><\/sup> centuries<\/em> (Yerevan, 2000, in Arm.); \u201cAncient Armenia as a Nation-State,\u201d (in Arm.) Echmiadzin<\/em>, 2005, No. 5, pp. 123-138.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>6 \u0413\u0430\u0440\u0441\u043e\u044f\u043d, \u041d. \u0413. \u201c\u0410\u0440\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0432 IV \u0432. (\u041a \u0432\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0443 \u0443\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0442\u0435\u0440\u043c\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0432 \u00ab\u0410\u0440\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\u00bb \u0438 \u00ab\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c\u00bb)\u201d, \u053c\u0580\u0561\u0562\u0565\u0580 \u0540\u0561\u057d\u0561\u0580\u0561\u056f\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0533\u056b\u057f\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0576\u0576\u0565\u0580\u056b, [Garsoian, N. G., \u201cArmenia in the 4th century (on the question of clarifying the terms \u2018Armenia\u2019 and \u2018loyalty\u2019)\u201d Journal of Social Studies<\/em> of the Armenian Academy of Sciences], 1971, No. 3. pp. 55-56.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>7 The Russian version was titled as \u201cGeopolitical Determinant of Imperial Prejudices and Byzantine Military Pragmatism (from Maurice\u2019s Strategikon<\/em>).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>8 Some of the terms cited above are derived from Sheldon<\/strong>, Rose Mary<\/strong>, \u201cThe Ancient Imperative: Clandestine Operations and
\nCovert Action,\u201d International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence<\/em> Vol. 10, No. 3 (Fall 1997), pp. 299-315.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>9 Harari, Yuval Noah<\/strong>. Special Operations in the Age of Chivalry, 1100-1550<\/em> (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007, repr. in 2009, 248pp.).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>10Sheldon<\/strong>, Rose Mary<\/strong>. Espionage in the Ancient World: An Annotated Bibliography<\/em> (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2003), p. 8.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>11Pavstos Buzand<\/strong>, History of Armenia. <\/em>Transl. and commentary by S. Malkhasiantz, Yerevan State University Press, 1987 (in Arm.) (see pp. 83, 359, 427, 442, notes 59 and 201); cf. The Epic Histories Attributed to Pawstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmutiwnk)<\/em>. Translation and commentary by Nina Garsoian (Cambridge, Mass.\u0589 Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 535-536.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>12 Constantine Porphyrogenitus<\/a>, De Administrando Imperio<\/em>. Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins. New, revised edition (Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington D. C., 1967), Ch. 45, pp. 208, 211, 213, 288<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>13 Ibid.; cf. \u0532\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0566\u0561\u0576\u0564\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0561\u0572\u0562\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0580\u0576\u0565\u0580\u0589 \u0540. \u0532, \u053f\u0578\u0576\u057d\u057f\u0561\u0576\u057f\u056b\u0576 \u053e\u056b\u0580\u0561\u0576\u0561\u056e\u056b\u0576\u0589 \u0539\u0561\u0580\u0563\u0574. \u0562\u0576\u0561\u0563\u0580\u056b\u0581, \u0561\u057c\u0561\u057b\u0561\u0562\u0561\u0576 \u0587 \u056e\u0561\u0576. \u0540\u0580\u0561\u0579 \u0532\u0561\u0580\u0569\u056b\u056f\u0575\u0561\u0576\u056b[Byzantine Sources. <\/em>Vol. II, Constantine Porphyrogenitus<\/em><\/a>. The preface, transl. into Armenian from the original and commentary by H. M. Bartikyan], Yerevan, 1970, pp. 15-18, 232 (note 21).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>14 \u0540\u0561\u0575\u0561\u057d\u057f\u0561\u0576\u056b \u0587 \u0570\u0561\u0580\u0561\u056f\u056b\u0581 \u0577\u0580\u057b\u0561\u0576\u0576\u0565\u0580\u056b \u057f\u0565\u0572\u0561\u0576\u0578\u0582\u0576\u0576\u0565\u0580\u056b \u0562\u0561\u057c\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 [The Dictionary of Toponyms of Armenia and Neighboring Areas,<\/em> vol. 1], Yerevan, 1986, pp. 365-366.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>15 Aristakes Lastivertzi, History<\/em> (Venice, 1901, in Arm.), p. 80; idem<\/em>. (Tiflis, 1912, p. 100, in Arm.).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>16 See \u0544\u056b\u0584\u0561\u0575\u0567\u056c<\/strong> \u0545\u0578\u057e\u0570\u0561\u0576\u0576\u0567\u057d\u0565\u0561\u0576<\/strong>, \u0540\u0561\u0575\u0561\u057d\u057f\u0561\u0576\u056b \u0562\u0565\u0580\u0564\u0565\u0580\u0568[Michael Hovannisian,<\/strong> The Fortresses of Armenia<\/em>], Venice, 1970.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>17 Here it will suffice to mention only the pillage and destruction of 10,000 manuscripts by Seljuk Turks in the fortress of Baghaberd in 1170 (Stepanos Orbelian, The History of Syunik.<\/em> Rendered into modern Armenian and commented by A. Abrahamyan, Yerevan, 1986. in Arm., p. 280) or the thousands of manuscripts destroyed during the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1922.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>18 In July 2012, almost immediately after the publication of the AM<\/em>, I managed to visit the site of the battle of Avnik (currently in modern Turkey) and climbed up the Avnik fortress itself. The personal observation of the terrain additionally corroborated my findings. I will be commenting on the resulting insights and new valuable visual materials in the second edition of the book.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>19 Procopius of Caesaria<\/strong>, History of the Wars<\/em>: The Persian War. <\/em>Vol. I, Books 1-2. With an English translation by H. B. Dewing, London: William Heinemann-New York: The Macmillan Co., 1914 (Loeb Classical Library, English and Greek Edition), II.3.19.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>20 Syvanne (<\/strong>Syv\u00e4nne), <\/strong>Ilkka. <\/strong>The Age of Hippotoxotai. Art of War in Roman Revival and Disaster 491-636<\/em>. PhD Dissertation in History (the University of Tampere, Finland, 2004), pp. 440, 441 (note 1); quoted in the AM<\/em>, p. 67. Cf. Martindale<\/strong>, J. R. <\/strong>The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire: Volume III. AD 527\u2014641<\/em> (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992), p. 1162.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>21 Whately, Conor Campbell<\/strong>. Descriptions of Battle in the \u2018Wars\u2019 of Procopius.<\/em> PhD Dissertation in Classics and Ancient History, the University of Warwick, 2009, pp. 155-157, 167-168, 188-189, 195, 199, the battle in question is specifically identified as a pitched one on pp. 155 (note 28) and 199; quoted in the AM<\/em>, p. 25, note 7.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>22 David Braund,\u201cResponse: Georgia in Antiquity<\/em> Again,\u201d Bryn Mawr Classical Review,<\/em> 95.09.28, retrieved from http:\/\/bmcr.brynmawr.edu\/1995\/95.09.28.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A RESPONSE To Everett L. Wheeler\u2019s review of The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire: Conflict and Alliance under Justinian and Maurice (Alfortville: Sigest, 2012) By Armen Ayvazyan   I considered it a great honor, both for myself and my book, The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire: Conflict and Alliance under Justinian and Maurice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=579"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/579\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":656,"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/579\/revisions\/656"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.ararat-center.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}