The Armenian Rebellions (1862 - 1890's)

THE ARMENIAN REBELLIONS

"The centers of revolutionary activity in Turkish Armenia were Zeitun, Van, and Erzurum. The Zeitun Rebellion of 1862 was the beginning of extensive uprisings directed against the Ottoman government." (15)

C.F.Dixon-Johnson explains the fears of the Moslems from the Armenian revolts:
"In Turkey the people have a horror of secret societies and plots, founded on the experience of their own suffering at the hands of the Greek Hetairia and the Bulgarian Komitadjis. The fears of the Turks and the Kurds were genuine. They believed that the members of the once loyal 'millet-i sadzka' (the loyal nation) no longer merited that title, and that they were arming and preparing to massacre the Moslems." (16)

Hratch Dasnabedian evaluates the situation:

"Thus the eighties of the 19th century formed the period of preparation for the phase of armed struggle in the Armenian liberation movement. On both sides of the border revolutionary ferment gained momentum, and underground cells and clandestine armed organizations were formed." (17)

1. Zeitun Rebellions (1862 and 1895)
The inhabitants of Zeitun were a rebellious community where there were revolts as far back as the 1850's. The last two major rebellions in Zeitun are summarized here.

Nalbandian describes the first maj or Zeitun rebellion:

"The Zeitun Rebellion of 1862 became the first of a series of insurrections Turkish Armenia against the Ottoman regime which were inspired by volutionary ideas that had swept the Armenian world. The Zeitunli insurgents Id had direct contacts with certain Armenian intellectuals in onstantinople ... These intellectuals were members of an organization called enevolent Union ... A letter, partly written in cipher, dated May 14/28, 1862, from the Benevolent Union member Serobe Tagvorian in Constantinople, to Mikael Nalbandian in St. Petersburg indicates that there were revolutionaries in the Turkish capital who had direct contacts with the Zeitun insurgents ... Tagvorian's letter indicates that preparations for the Zeitun Rebellion (August, 1862) were probably begun as early as May,1862." (18)

On 12 October 1895 another major rebellion took place. This time the Hunchak Party guided the insurrection.
Sir Mark Sykes narrates the following about the 1895 rebellion:

"Some Revolutionary Society (The Hunchak Party) not being satisfied with the general state of affairs in Turkey and scenting collections and relief funds in the future, judged it expedient in the year of grace 1895, to dispatch certain emissaries to Armenia. On the warlike population of Zeitun they pinned leir hopes of raising a semi-successful revolution, and six of their boldest agents were accorded to that district. What the end of the revolution would be these desperadoes recked little, so long as the attention of Europe was drawn to their cause and their collection-boxes ... A number of Furnus and Zeitunli Armenians were in the habit of going to Adana for the purpose of earning money as farmers and handicraftsmen ... They were foolish enough to pillage some Turkomans on their way home ... The Turkomans addressed themselves in complaint to the Mutesarif of Marash who decided to investigate the affair. .. The gents (Armenian) saw in this move a chance of bringing matters to a crisis and ither attacked, or persuaded the villagers to attack the commission killing 'Binbashi (Major) and three of the guards, and carrying off the Christian commissioner with them. The surrounding Armenians .. joined the evolutionaries ... The revolutionists decided to attack the garrison at Zeitun in order to force that town to join a jehad against the Osmanli. Having gained a victory of some importance, the Armenian force proceeded to the Kertul district where they plundered and sacked the Konak. On their way back to Zeitun they committed some most disgraceful murders at Chukarhissar , commemoration of the decease of the late Armenian kingdom which was finaly ended at that place. (Writer's note:I was told some ghastly details, but I doubt the veracity of them, as they were related to me by a town Armenian). .. They (agents assembled the refugees driven in by Ali Pasha, and repaired with them to the Konak, where the imprisoned garrison was quartered, and proceeded to murder them with bestial cruelty ... After that foolish slaughter. .. EdhemPasha ... arrived on the scene, and with the assistance of the European Consuls concluded the honorable peace with the town: containing, alas! a clause by which the miserable causes of all this unhappiness and bloodshed were allowed to return unmolested to Europe." (19)

Aghasi, member of the Hunchak Party, who began the rebellion Zeitun recounts the insurrection in his memoirs:

"I was accompanied by my friends Apah, Meleh, and Heratchia. Towards the end of July, we arrived in Zeitun ... On August 7th, the first encounter between Armenians and the gendarmes occurred ... On October 10th the government of Zeitun (township center) had sent for the last time two gendarmes to Alabash, to examine, in secret, the situation of the Armenians, in view of a definitive attack. The inhabitants of Alabash, in an outburst of anger, tied these two gendarmes to a tree, and burnt them alive. On October 24th, we hung a red flag in the valley of Karanlik Dere. From that morning forward, the prominent leaders of all the Armenian villages started arriving with some fighters ... At noon, we began negotiating. The discussions lasted for two hours: we established the pIan of our struggle." (20)

The rebellion which began on 24 October ended on 28 January l896. The 50 officers and 600 soldiers in the barracks were taken prisoner. Aghasi tells us that most of the prisoners were killed and only 56 of them were able to escape. According to Aghasi, from the beginning until the end of the insurrection, the Turks lost 20,000 men against only 125 Armenians.

The rebellion ended with the agreement proposed by six European powers and which was accepted by the Porte. According to the agreement, the five Hunchak revolutionaries who started the rebellion left Zeitun on 13 February 1896, under the protection of the British Consulate.

2. Erzurum Revolt (20 June 1890)

Han-Azad, one of the founders of the Hunchak Party described this incident in the Hayreniknewspaperpublished in the US in 1927:

"The founder of the Sansarian School had died in 1890. The government had been informed that there was a workshop in this school which produced weapons. It was thought that the informers were the Armenian Catholic priests. Two hours before the search, an individual named, 'Bogos the dog', belonging to the 'Defenders of the Motherland Society', spread the news that the school would be searched. Immediately, national history books, notebooks, objects which would draw suspicion and curiosity were concealed. Nothing was found during the search. (The denunciation made to the Government was that weapons were produced not only in the school, but also in the Church. The Church and the school were searched in the presence of the church priest and the school president. This is the reason for the charges that the church was desecrated.) Armenians cried out that the entering of the Turks into the Church was filth and indecency. The men of Gerechian, who was one of the founders of the 'Defenders of the Motherland Society", and who was later killed by the decision of the Erzurum centre of the Dashnaktsutiun Committee the first to engage in provocations among the people. Shops were closed, worship in Church was forbidden, bells were not rung. As soon as they were in control of the situation, they seized this opportunity to yell that Armenians have been free for three days, and that they shall defend their freedom with arms. They demanded that the government reduce taxes and abolish the military conscription tax, that the Church which was desecrated be demolished and built anew, that the 61st article of the Berlin Treaty be implemented. Armenians stayed for 3-4 days in the cemetery, in the Church and in the School yard. Some prominent Armenians, who were trying to disperse the Armenians, were beaten. The order of the government, which demanded that everybody go back to their business, 1rent unheeded. The committee members went around encouraging people. Meanwhile, Gerekchian's brother shot two soldiers and fighting began in the city, and continued till evening. It was believed that there were many casualties. The following day the Consuls visited the city. There were more than 100 dead on both sides, and 200-300 wounded ... "

The British Consul, Clifford Lloyd, reports to the Embassy about the Erzurum revolt:
"The order to search the Armenian institutions in Erzurum had come from Constantinople. This search had created some discontent among the Armenians. They decided to close the shops and schools, and send a letter of protest to the Sultan. The Consul tried to pacify them, and persuaded them to open the shops. The Moslems and the local authorities saw the closing of the shops as an antagonistic act. The Governor-General discussed for this reason with the Armenian Bishop who returned to the Church advised the people, but the people began demonstrations against the Bishop. Upon this, the Bishop had asked the help of the soldiers, a battalion of soldiers had arrived, and the Armenians had opened fire on the soldiers, killing two soldiers, and wounded three. Upon this the Moslems attacked the Armenians with sticks and daggers, and chased them as far as the neighborhoods of the Consulates. The British Consul had informed the Governor-General and had asked for help. The unit arrived shortly and was in control of the situation. Meanwhile 12 Armenians were killed and 250 individuals were wounded. "(21 )

The Erzurum revolt was reported in Europe as a massacre of the Armenians. Europe accepted this as such, and the incident became to be known as the first allegations of a massacre concerning Armenian revolts."

(14) Sir Mark Sykes, The Caliph’s Last Heritage (London 1915), pp 409, 418 (15) Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement (California 1963) p.67
(16) C.F.Dixon-Johnson, The Armenians (Blackburn, 1916), pp.24-25
(17) Hrateh Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation 1890-1924 (Milan, 1989), p.21
(18) Nalvandian, op cit., pp 71-73
(19) Dixon-Johnson, op. cit., p.33
(20) Aghasi, Zeitoun, Traduction d'Archag Tchobanian (Paris 1897), pp.186, 193, 197
(21) British Blue Books on Turkey, No.l (l889) No.85, enclosure 3

Armenian Comittees and their activities

The Armenian Commitees and their Activities against the Ottoman Empire

The Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian asserts that "the Armenians of the nineteenth century were not prepared, however, to propose independence ... For the eastern Ottoman provinces, most Armenian leaders considered self­ determination within the framework of the Turkish Empire as the most desirable improvement.
Of the several political and revolutionary societies organized during the last quarter of the century only the Hunchakist, a Marxist organization initiated in 1887 at Geneva, advocated outright separation from the Ottoman Empire."(5)

However, Hratch Dasnabedian summarizes the situation prior to the establishment of the Hunchakist organization:

"Even before 1878, in the regions of Daron-Sasoun and Vasbouragan there had been underground cells, secret groups, and bands of "brigands" who fought against government forces. During the eighties, Khrimian and Mgrdich Portugalian were active in Van ... Expelled from Van in 1885, Mgrdich Portugalian left the Ottoman Empire and settled in Marseille, where he published the periodical 'Armenia '. His students and friends in Van considered 'Armenia' their voice, and in 1886 established the 'Armenagan' Party, the purpose of which was to secure the sovereignty of the Armenian people through revolution. "(6)

"Toward the close of the eighties, both Eastern and Western Armenians were caught up in the excitement of revolution. The Hunchakians had begun to expand throughout Constantinople., Asia Minor and Trebizond. In Vasbouragan the Armenagans were at work. In Tiflis the Yeridasart Hayastan organization had been established; its members periodically visited Ottoman Armenia to become more familiar with the situation and disposition of Armenians there; on both sides of the border they had established military cells, called the 'Droshak' groups. In various regions of Western Armenia bands of 'brigands' or groups of partisans were already operating or gradually being formed .. .In Russia, the cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Tiflis were centers of students moved by the spirit of revolution. In 1890, Sarkis Gougounian, a student in St. Petersburg, formed an armed group of 125 young patriots to cross from Kars into Turkish Armenia. "(7)

Apart from the Marxist separatist Hunchakist organization, a second Armenian organization was founded in 1890 in Tiflis. Hovannisian defines this organization:

"In Transcaucasia and the eastern Ottoman vilayets, the platform Hai Heghapokhakan Dashnaktsutiun (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) founded in 1890 at Tiflis, became by the first years of the twentieth century the most powerful and comprehensive Armenian political organization. Its initial program, adopted in 1892, propounded the administrative and economic freedom of Turkish Armenia ... To effect these aims, the Dashnaktsutiun would organize fighting units, arm the populace, operate an espionage network, propagandize to raise the revolutionary spirit of Armenians, and, in particular, resort to the terrorization of corrupt officials, traitors and exploiters. The methods adopted by Dashnaktsutiun were similar to those of the Russian Narodnaia Volia and its successor, the Social Revolutionary Party, both of which maintained close contact and ideological bonds with the Armenian leaders. "(8)

Indeed, K.S.Papazian writes that in the program of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARP) adopted at the General Convention of 1892 the purpose of the organization is stated to be the achievement of political and economic freedom by means of rebellion.(9)

According to Papazian, "to run with the hare and to hunt with the hound has been the tactics oftheARF"(l 0)

(5) Richard G.Hovannisian, Almenia on the Road to Independence 1918 (California, 1967), p.16
(6) Hratch Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiun 1890/1924 (Milan, 1989), p.21
(7) Dasnabedian, op. cit., p.29 (8) Hovannisian, op. cit., p.16
(8) Hovannisian, op. cit., p.16
(9) K. S. Papazian, Patriotism Perverted (Boston, 1934), p.lO
(10) Papazian, op. cit,. P.1l.

The American Commission under the leadership of General James G. Harbord, refers to the Dashnaktsutiun in the following terms in its report presented to the Peace Conference and the United States Government in 1919:

"This is really a political society rather than a party. It contains three clearly defined elements, all of which are strongly socialist.
a- The right wing composed of comitadji (meaning secret revolutionists who believe in '}trong armed methods)
b- The centre comprising intellectuals who control both wings,
c- The left wing which is almost Bolshevist. It is highly organized, has agents everywhere and still plays a dominant part in Armenian national life. The opponents of the Dashnaktsutiun say that, despite its patriotic work, it is only a relic of barbarism and must be suppressed. It is probable that the Dashnaktsutuin still employs terroristic methods, and undeniable that it is now a wurce of danger, owing to its liability to precipitate coriflicts. "

Whereas Papazian asserts that "Terrorism has,from the first, been adopted by the Dashnag Committee of the Caucasus, as a policy or a method for achieving its ends. "( 11 )

In fact, the heading "Means" in the Dashnag program adopted in 1892 reads as follows:

"The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, in order to achieve its 'Jurpose through rebellion, organizes revolutionary groups ... "(12)

M.Varandian, the most prominent Dashnag ideologist and historian says:

"The purpose of the Armenian movement, has been, from the beginning, to Jrganize as far as possible a long drawn-out fight against the Ottoman tyranny, fO create in the country a continuous revolutionary state, always having before Jur eyes the intervention of the third factor. .. the European factor"( 13)

Lt. Col. Sir Mark Sykes, proposes a similar view about the tactics of the revolutionaries. He writes in 1915:

“... the Armenians of the Mush plain are at present an extremely difficult people to manage. They are very avaricious and would object to pay the most moderate taxes; they are also exceedingly treacherous to one another, and oftenjoin the revolutionaries to wipe off old scores on their fellow villagers. As for the tactics of the revolutionaries, anything more fiendish one could not imagine-the assassination of Moslems in order to bring about punishment of innocent men, the midnight extortion of money from villages which have just paid their taxes by day, the murder of persons who refuse to contribute to their collection boxes, are only some of the crimes of which Moslems, Catholics, and Gregorians accuse them with no uncertain voice .... if the object of the Armenians is to secure equality before the law, and the maintenance of security and peace in the countries part inhabited by Armenians, then I can only say that their methods are not those calculated to achieve success. "( 14)

(11) Ibid,p.14
(12) Ibid, p 14
(13) Mikael Varandian, History of the A.R.Federation (Paris, 1932 and Cairo, 1950), p.3
(14) Sir Mark Sykes, The Caliph's Last Heritage (London 1915), ppA09,41

introduction Part 2

Until the 1870's neither Russia nor the other powers were significantly involved with the Armenians. The rebellions broke out in the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire in 1875-76 and the Russo- Turkish War of 1877 -78 and its aftermath provided the conditions that were to be exploited both by the Russians and the Armenians.
The Armenians also began to seek the aid of the European powers. These attempts were pursued by the Patriarchate and the clergy.
Sir Henry Elliot, the British Ambassador,writes in a letter to the Foreign Office on 7 December 1876:
"The Armenian Patriarch called upon me yesterday. His object was to express, on behalf of the large Christian community of which he is the head, the hope that the Conference will not insist upon the Porte conceding to the provinces which had risen against the Goverment privileges which would be denied to those which had remained quiet, but which were entitled to equal consideration.
I answered with reserve, saying that the object of the Conference was to restore tranquillity to the provinces where an insurrection threatened the general peace, but that it would not, I imagined, go into the whole question of the administration of the entire Ottoman Empire.
The Patriarch replied that his people were much excited, and said that if, in order to secure the sympathy of the European Powers, it was necessary to rise in insurrection, there would be no difficulty in getting upsuch a movement. "(2)


(2) F.0.424/46, p.205-206, No.336

In a dispatch dated 14 July 1878, to Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary, Sir Henry Layard, British Ambassador, refers to the Russian activities among the Armenian population:

"I am informed, on good authority, that Russia is already commencing her usual intrigues among the Armenians of Asiatic Turkey. Russian agents are being sent into the provinces inhabited by them with the object of stirring up discontent against the rule and authority of the Porte. A Russian party is being fonned in the capital amongst the Armenians, which already includes some leading and influential members of that community. "(3)


(3) F.0.424/72, pp.160-161, No.211

Paul Cambon, the French Ambassador in Istanbul (1894-1897) writes:
"The Armenians were pleasantly accepted in London. The Gladstone Cabinet invited the unpleased ones, classified them, put them in order and promised to support them. Henceforth, the propaganda committee was established in London which was going to be the source of inspiration.
Two simple concepts had to be adopted by the Armenian people: The concepts of nationalism and liberty.
The committees believed that it was their duty to spread these ... and thus with the help of propaganda they exploited the deficiency and faults of the Turkish administration and established secret organizations which will spread the concepts of national awakening and liberty ... "(4)
With reference to Paul Cambon's report, the Russian General Mayewsky, Consul of Russia in Van and Erzurum, states the following in his study presented to the Russian General Staff:
"P Cambon clearly claims that the rebellious Armenians believed that their duty was to make the villagers accept the concepts of nationalism, liberty and autonomy.
In this case, what would the attitude of the Turkish Government be against the activities of Armenian committees? Could the Turkish Government approve of these activities which are actually aimed to destroy her?"

(4) Livre Jaune, Affaires Armeniennes, pp.11-12