Latest / The Story of Armenia: Survival Through Empires and Genocide — Fexingo History / The Treaty of Zuhab: How Armenia Was Split Between Ottoman and Safavid Empires
Transcript
- Lucas: So you know how we've talked about Armenia caught between the Ottomans and Safavids—battles like Chaldiran, the deportations under Shah Abbas. There's a moment where that rivalry gets formalized on paper, and it changes Armenia forever. Luna: A treaty? Lucas: Exactly. The Treaty of Zuhab, signed in 1639—also called the Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin after the town in western Iran where it was negotiated. It ended a war that had been raging for nearly twenty years, and it drew a border right through the middle of historic Armenia. Luna: So for the first time, there's a clear line between Ottoman and Persian Armenia. Lucas: Right. And that line largely holds to this day—it's the modern border between Turkey and Iran. But for Armenians, it meant that their homeland was now permanently split between two empires, each with very different policies toward them. Lucas: Let's back up a bit. The war that led to Zuhab started in 1623, when the Safavid Shah Abbas I—the same guy who moved the Armenians to New Julfa—captured Baghdad from the Ottomans. That was a huge blow to Ottoman prestige, because Baghdad had been under their control since Suleiman the Magnificent. Luna: So the Ottomans wanted revenge. Lucas: They did. But Abbas died in 1629, and his successor, Shah Safi, was a very different kind of ruler. Safi was notoriously paranoid—he had his own grand vizier executed, along with many of his generals. So when the Ottomans struck back under Sultan Murad IV, the Safavids were in disarray. Lucas: Murad IV is one of those Ottoman sultans who's remembered as a strongman—he executed corrupt officials, banned alcohol and tobacco, and personally led his armies into battle. In 1635, he marched on Yerevan. Luna: Yerevan—the heart of Eastern Armenia. Lucas: Exactly. The city had been under Safavid control since 1604, when Shah Abbas deported its Armenian population. Murad besieged it for just a few weeks before the Safavid garrison surrendered. He then ordered the reconstruction of the fortress and left a large Ottoman force there. Lucas: But the war wasn't over. Two years later, the Safavids recaptured Yerevan, and Murad had to march again. This time, he went straight for Baghdad. The siege of Baghdad in 1638 was brutal—the Ottomans used heavy artillery, and after 40 days the city fell. Murad ordered a massacre of the remaining Safavid soldiers. Luna: And that's what forced the Safavids to negotiate. Lucas: Precisely. With Baghdad lost and his army exhausted, Shah Safi sent an ambassador to the Ottoman camp. The negotiations took place at a small town called Zuhab—or Qasr-e Shirin—and the treaty was signed on May 17, 1639. Lucas: The terms were straightforward. The border was drawn along the Zagros Mountains, roughly following the line of the modern Iran-Iraq border. The Ottomans got Baghdad, Basra, and all of Mesopotamia. The Safavids kept their hold on Eastern Armenia, including Yerevan, as well as Azerbaijan and Georgia. Luna: So Western Armenia—including the historic capital of Ani—remained Ottoman. Lucas: That's right. And this division had huge consequences for Armenians. In the Ottoman west, Armenians were organized into a millet—a semi-autonomous religious community under the authority of the Armenian Apostolic Church. They could practice their faith, but they were second-class subjects, paying higher taxes and facing periodic discrimination. Lucas: In the Safavid east, things were different. The shahs often relocated Armenian communities—sometimes forcibly—to boost trade and agriculture. We've talked about New Julfa, but that wasn't the only instance. Under Shah Abbas and his successors, thousands of Armenians were moved from Nakhichevan and Artsakh to the interior of Persia. Luna: And that reshaped Armenian demographics. Lucas: Massively. The Nakhichevan region, which had been a center of Armenian culture for centuries, became predominantly Muslim. The same happened in parts of Artsakh. Meanwhile, Armenian communities flourished in places like Isfahan and Tabriz, but they were disconnected from their ancestral lands. Luna: I've read that the treaty also guaranteed the safety of pilgrims traveling to Christian holy sites. Lucas: That's true. Article 4 of the treaty specifically mentioned that Armenian and other Christian pilgrims could travel freely to Jerusalem and other holy places without interference. But in practice, this protection was often violated. Local governors would extort fees or simply ignore the treaty. Lucas: And here's something that doesn't get talked about enough: the treaty created a kind of cold war between the two empires. For nearly a century after Zuhab, there were no major wars between Ottomans and Safavids. That stability allowed both sides to consolidate control over their Armenian populations. Luna: Which meant Armenians had to adapt to two very different systems. Lucas: Exactly. In the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian millet was headed by the Patriarch in Constantinople, who had considerable influence over education, law, and taxation. In Safavid Persia, the Armenian church was more independent but also more vulnerable to the whims of the shah. Lucas: One of the most interesting figures from this period is Catholicos Movses III of Etchmiadzin. He served from 1629 to 1632—right in the middle of the war—and he had to navigate both empires. He visited the Ottoman court to secure rights for Armenians, and he also corresponded with the Safavid shah. Luna: So even the head of the church had to be a diplomat. Lucas: Absolutely. And this is a theme we've seen before—Armenian leaders constantly balancing between empires. The treaty of Zuhab formalized that balancing act. It didn't just divide land; it divided Armenian identity into eastern and western branches that would evolve separately. Lucas: The border itself was not heavily fortified at first. Trade continued across it, and Armenians were often the merchants who moved between the two empires. But over time, the cultural gap widened. Western Armenians adopted more Turkish loanwords and Ottoman customs. Eastern Armenians were more influenced by Persian language and culture. Luna: And that split is still visible today in the difference between the Armenian spoken in Armenia versus the diaspora. Lucas: Exactly. The Eastern Armenian dialect is based on the speech of the Yerevan region, while Western Armenian comes from the Ottoman-era communities in Constantinople and Anatolia. That linguistic divide traces directly back to the treaty of Zuhab. Luna: What about the actual ceremony of the treaty? Do we know how it was signed? Lucas: We don't have a lot of details, but we know the Ottoman negotiator was a vizier named Khusraw Pasha, and the Safavid representative was a general called Saru Khan. The treaty was written in Persian and Ottoman Turkish, with a separate version in Arabic. Both sides swore on the Quran and the Gospels to uphold it. Lucas: Interestingly, the treaty didn't include any provision for population exchanges or border demarcation on the ground. It just described the frontier in general terms—rivers, mountain ranges, districts. That vagueness led to centuries of local disputes over which villages belonged to which empire. Luna: So it was more of a ceasefire than a precise legal document. Lucas: In some ways, yes. But it held. The peace lasted until the Safavid Empire collapsed in the 1720s, and even then, subsequent treaties between the Ottomans and the Afsharids and Qajars largely reaffirmed the same border. So its legacy is incredibly durable. Lucas: And that brings us to one of the hardest parts of this story: the treaty of Zuhab is a direct antecedent to the modern border between Turkey and Armenia. When the Ottoman Empire fell after World War I, the new Turkish Republic claimed the same eastern border that Murad IV had won. That's why the border is still closed today. Luna: So a 17th-century treaty is still shaping geopolitics. Lucas: It really is. And it's a reminder that for Armenians, survival has often meant adapting to borders drawn by others. The treaty of Zuhab didn't end the suffering—it just changed its terms. Luna: It's remarkable how much history can be traced back to a single agreement. Lucas: And we've only scratched the surface. If you want to dig deeper, there's a great book by George Bournoutian called 'Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1600-1800' that covers this period in detail. Also, the letters of Catholicos Movses III survive in the Etchmiadzin archives—they're a firsthand window into how Armenian leaders navigated this world. Luna: I might have to check that out. Lucas: And a quick note—if you're enjoying these deep dives into Armenian history, there's a way to support the show directly. A number of listeners chip in a few dollars each month through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, and that honest to goodness is what keeps us ad-free and able to spend time on episodes like this. No pressure, but if you find value in what we do, that's where you can help. Luna: Yeah, it really makes a difference. And we appreciate everyone who's already part of that. Lucas: So back to the treaty's aftermath—one of the most lasting effects was on the Armenian Church. In the Ottoman Empire, the Patriarchate became a powerful institution, but it was also subject to corruption and interference from the sultan. In Persia, the church was poorer but more autonomous. That shaped how Armenian national identity developed in each region. Luna: And the church itself was split, right? Between the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Lucas: Exactly. The Catholicos in Etchmiadzin was the spiritual head of all Armenians, but in practice, the Ottoman Patriarch had more direct authority over Western Armenians. There was often tension between the two. For example, when the Ottoman government appointed a new patriarch, they usually chose someone loyal to the state, while the Catholicos often favored more nationalist figures. Lucas: This ecclesiastical division mirrored the political one. And it wasn't until the 20th century, after the genocide, that the two branches began to work more closely together. Even today, the Armenian diaspora has separate churches for Eastern and Western rites. Luna: So the treaty didn't just draw a line on a map—it drew lines through people's lives. Lucas: Exactly. And that's why understanding the Treaty of Zuhab is essential to understanding modern Armenia. It's not just a dusty old document—it's a living legacy.