Authors

Discussion

This paper analyzes the responses of Armenians within the Ottoman and Russian Empires to the late imperial struggle for maintaining imperial identity, order and legitimacy. From the Tanzimat reforms in Istanbul to the Great Reforms and subsequent policies in the Russian Caucasus, both empires endeavored to redefine the relationship between state and subject amidst war, socio-economic transition, and the intensifying pressures of nationalism and Western influence. However, these initiatives frequently resulted in ambiguity rather than cohesion, revealing the inherent fragility of imperial authority.

Armenians, positioned between empires and invested in both imperial and communal futures, became integral to this dynamic. In the Ottoman Empire, the Tanzimat promise of equality elicited enthusiasm for Ottoman subjecthood; nevertheless, aspirations for integration were tempered by the conservative backlash under Abdülhamid II and incidents of violence against the Ottoman Armenians that undermined the prospects for imperial tolerance. In the Russian Empire, Armenians engaged proactively with opportunities in education, bureaucracy, and commerce; yet, increasing state suspicion of the Armenian Church and constraints on cultural autonomy complicated these efforts at loyalty. In both contexts, the Armenian experience illustrates how attempts to creat “imperial nation” were perceived as a measure aimed at the eradication of communal identity and engendered tensions that ultimately destabilized the imperial project itself.

Drawing on Armenian newspapers, private letters, and diaries, this paper reconceptualizes loyalty as neither a passive acceptance nor an outright resistance but rather as a contested practice. These sources illuminate the range of strategies employed by Armenian elites, including expressions of gratitude toward reformist rulers, critiques of unmet promises, and reaffirmations of communal solidarity. Rather than succumbing to a simplistic binary of collaboration or opposition, Armenians continually recalibrated their sense of belonging, weighing imperial claims against communal interests.

By juxtaposing the experiences of Ottoman and Russian Armenians, this study contributes to broader discussions regarding imperial crisis and legitimacy in multi-ethnic empires. It posits that the erosion of imperial definition was not solely the consequence of nationalist agitation or structural decline, but also a product of the everyday negotiations through which subjects interpreted, appropriated, and occasionally subverted imperial visions of authority. In this manner, Armenians serve as a lens for examining the paradox of late imperial governance: the simultaneous effort to integrate diverse populations and the inability to project a unified identity across contested frontiers.