Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Аварайрская битва" in Russian language version.
The Armenian defeat in the Battle of Avarayr in 451 proved a pyrrhic victory for the Persians. Though the Armenians lost their commander, Vartan Mamikonian, and most of their soldiers, Persian losses were proportionately heavy, and Armenia was allowed to remain Christian.
Yet the proverbial strength of an army was 12,000 men (Ferdowsī, Šāh-nāma VIII, p. 343). The total strength of the registered warriors in 578 was 70,000 (Ṭabarī, tr. Nöldeke, p. 271).
Все они сплоченно прибывали на ратное дело, на равнину Артаза, и было всего, по подсчету, шестьдесят шесть тысяч мужей, [считая] с конницей и пехотой. …
И когда проведал об общем числе этого множества, тем более попытался узнать, сколько имеется начальствующих над храбрыми героями, чтобы подготовить троих против одного на каждого из них, не говоря о всех прочих.
А всех вместе будет тысяча тридцать шесть. А на стороне отступников и язычников пало в тот день три тысячи пятьсот сорок четыре мужа.
Все они сплоченно прибывали на ратное дело, на равнину Артаза, и было всего, по подсчету, шестьдесят шесть тысяч мужей, [считая] с конницей и пехотой. …
И когда проведал об общем числе этого множества, тем более попытался узнать, сколько имеется начальствующих над храбрыми героями, чтобы подготовить троих против одного на каждого из них, не говоря о всех прочих.
Yet the proverbial strength of an army was 12,000 men (Ferdowsī, Šāh-nāma VIII, p. 343). The total strength of the registered warriors in 578 was 70,000 (Ṭabarī, tr. Nöldeke, p. 271).
А всех вместе будет тысяча тридцать шесть. А на стороне отступников и язычников пало в тот день три тысячи пятьсот сорок четыре мужа.
these two words are not found in any MSS, but in the edition A. They are required by the sense, as the rest of the paragraph makes clear.
The Armenian revolt of 450/1 against Sassanian rule and the subsequent fate of the Armenian prisoners in Iran are described in two Armenian sources: the Histories of ELishe and of Lazar P’arpets’i. There is, however, no mention of these events in any non-Armenian source.
But not only is the History of Elishe more easily understood as an expansive adaptation of Lazar than the latter’s work as an abbreviation of Elishe; the influence of translations from the «Hellenizing» period on Elishe is explained by that order without doing violence to our knowledge of such translations and their probable sixth-century date. Although the present writer is unconvinced by Akinean’s theories that the original version of this History described the revolt of 572 and that it was rewritten in the seventh century, he does agree with Akinean and Kiwleserean that Elise wrote after Lazar. there is no compelling reason to accept the «eyewitness» claim, and the literary aspects of the work are far more easily explicable if it is dated to the sixth century. … One final argument that would place Elishe’s History in the last decade of the sixth century or later needs to be reviewed … It seems, therefore, most unlikely that Elishe’s History can predate the sixth century.
For Elishe´s history is not simply a record of events as remembered by an eyewitness. This claim to literal veracity obscures the underlying purpose of the book, which is to offer an interpretation of the events described. … Thus because Elishe´s history gives us an interpretation — in which the speeches, letters, and edicts play an effective literary role and are not to be taken as verbatim reports …
This war is not to be explained as caused by personal rancor, as Lazar explained it, but on more general grounds. It illustrates difficulties faced by Armenians not merely on 450/1 but perennially, and these difficulties are basically of a religious nature. The main problem is the preservation of Armenian traqditions (awrenk), which include religious practices but are more comprehensive than the term «religion» in a modern sense. … Elishe saw many parallels with the position of the Jews vis-a-vis the Seleucid kings of Antioch as described in the books of Maccabees, though, of course, the political circumstances were quite different. Elishe does not entirely hide his knowledge of the Maccabees, but he does conceal the extent to which he was indebted to the Armenian version. For his purpose was not just to borrow a few expressive phrases in order to embellish his own story — as, for example, many Armenian historians did in their descriptions of battles. Rather, he wanted to recreate the kind of situation in which the play of basic issues between the antagonists would become clear in general terms. So Elishe´s History takes a specific occasion — the revolt of 450/1 and its aftermath — and describes it in terms reminiscent of the Maccabees so that the general problems will emerge more clearly.
