Hatra and the Parthian Commonwealth

Oxford History of Empire, 2020

Ancient West & East, 2019

Iranian studies' recent renaissance has already elicited two anthologies on border kingdoms between the Roman and Parthian Empires. The present volume, a product of panels at the annual meetings of the American Schools of Oriental Research 2012-14, adds a third. 1 [[485]] Here the emphasis lies with 'intercultural communications', jargon for coin types, hostages, war, diplomatic embassies, slippery local rulers, and art. A Judaean/Josephus orientation can be discerned-not surprising, as the editors are co-directors of the Omrit excavations (Israel), an Herodian site, with which J. A. Overman, another contributor, has also been active. Yet the promise of high quality papers from scholarly meetings soon disappoints. A better example of the futility of the current proliferation of anthologies would be difficult to find. The contributors, largely young scholars in the guise of 'Parthian experts', remarkably offer unconvincing speculations, exaggerated claims, rehearsals of the known, bibliographical myopia, and numerous factual errors. Even the correct numbers for homonymous Parthian kings are unknown. 2 Only the clear illustrations of coin types can be lauded. In probably the volume's best paper, Jeffrey Lerner (pp.1-24) seeks to explain change on the reverse of Parthian drachmas between Arsaces I (c. 247-217 BC) and Mithridates I (c. 171-138 BC): the stool (diphros) of a nomadic archer later becomes an omphalos. An archer on a diphros recalls a reverse type on staters of the Achaemenid satrap Datames (386-362 BC) and the archer, identified as Ārash, a famous archer and Parthian ancestor in the late Zoroastrian tradition, could be assimilated under the Seleucids with Apollo and Mithra. The omphalos, Apollo's universal symbol, alludes to Mithridates I's eastern conquests in western Bactria, Areia, and Margiana. Hence a reverse type with Achaemenid roots became culturally ambiguous for Greeks and Iranians. Although speculative, as such numismatic arguments often are-and the identification of Ārash cannot be conclusively proved-the paper exploits a methodology common among some Iranianists that elements of the fully developed Zoroastrian tradition found in medieval Persian and Arabic sources circulated among the early Parthians. Four papers treating aspects of Roman-Parthians relations between Mark Antony and Nero form the bulk of the volume. Jake Nabel (pp.25-50) examines 'lessons' that both Romans and Parthians learned from experiences with Seleucid hostages. Kenneth Jones (pp.51-63) pleads both that Antony's campaign in Media Atropatene (36 BC) was a success obscured in Octavian's Actium propaganda and that Antony's aims foreshadowed those of Augustus. Schlude and Rubin (pp.65-91) find a mechanism for peace and cultural exchange in diplomatic embassies and gifts,

This article combines historical analysis with international-relations theory to contend that geopolitical developments around the Eastern Mediterranean in the middle third century BCE were indirectly responsible for the emergence of the Parthian state and a new international system of states in the ancient East. Since the death of Alexander the Great, the Seleucid Empire had ruled over much of the East; however, disastrous military conflicts at home and abroad in the West caused a sudden decline of Seleucid power in the 240s-
230s BCE. The troubles of the Seleucid state caused what political scientists call a power-transition crisis that damaged Seleucid hegemony over the East when the Seleucid satraps of Parthia and Bactria declared their independence. Moreover, the deleterious civil wars between Seleucid dynasts in the West and the rebellions of eastern satraps encouraged the nomadic Parni tribe from the Central Asian steppe (later known as the Parthians), who had been seeking a new homeland for decades, to invade northeastern Iran and establish a new kingdom. With the Parni’s successful conquest of Parthia and its immediate consequences, a new interstate system of tripolarity between the Seleucid Empire, Bactrian Kingdom, and the newly formed Parthian state emerged in the ancient East.

Studia Iranica, 2019

When the Parthians rebelled against the Seleucid Empire in the middle third century BCE, seizing a large section of northeastern Iran, they inherited the challenging responsibility of monitoring the extensive frontier between the Iranian plateau and the Central Asian steppe. Although initially able to maintain working relations with various tribal confederations in the region, with the final collapse of the Bactrian kingdom in the 1305 BCE, the ever-widening eastern frontier of the Parthian state became increasingly unstable, and in the 1205 BCE nomadic warriors devastated the vulnerable eastern territories of the Parthian state, temporarily eliminating Parthian control of the Iranian plateau. This article is a consideration of the failures of the Parthians to meet and overcome the obstacles they faced along their eastern frontier in the 120s BCE and a reevaluation of the causes and consequences of the events. It concludes that western distractions and the mismanagement of eastern affairs by the Arsacids turned a minor dispute into one of the most costly and difficult struggles in Parthian history.

Tacitus is the only Roman historian who devoted his works to such an extent to Rome's eastern neighbor – the Parthian Empire. Scholars have researched the problem of Taci-tus' attitude towards the Parthians on many occasions. It seems that what is the most important question is not Tacitus' opinion, but the perspective from which he looked at this topic combined with the source he used when describing the Parthians and their history. Another interesting question is also how deep Tacitus' knowledge was of the past of the Parthian Empire and the history of Roman-Parthian relations. The aim of this paper is to verify what Tacitus wrote about the Parthians throughout his works. Without taking into account all this evidence, it is not possible to propose a proper evaluation or balanced observations concerning his presentation of the Roman-Parthian relations and internal history, society and customs of the Arsacid state in the first century CE.

The End of Empires, Universal-und kulturhistorische Studien, 2022

I would like to thank my dear colleagues Michael Gehler and Robert Rollinger for organizing a stimulating conference on the End of Empires in a most hospitable setting in Hildesheim. My gratitute also to Jake Nabel for having commented on an earlier version of this contribution.

Anabasis. Studia Classica Et Orientalia, 2017

The climactic Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE was the first major engagement between the Romans and Parthians. In the battle, the mobile Parthian army outmaneuvered and overwhelmed Crassus’ much larger force. There is a longstanding, recently restated scholarly tradition that this battle and the Parthians’ approach to it was anomalous; however, this article rejects the notion that the Parthians’ fought atypically at Carrhae. Instead, it investigates the Parthians’ unique tactical and strategic approach to warfare and its long tradition of success since the reign of Arsaces I in the mid-third century BCE. It also illustrates the Parthians’ implementation of their unique mode of warfare through a close consideration of the decisive events at Carrhae.

Dura-Europos: Past, Present, Future, 2025

In 1935 Michael Rostovtzeff published his now-classic essay ‘Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art’. Although the details of his argument have not held up to critical scrutiny, the three main assumptions underlying his argument remain quite valuable. First, he saw Parthian art as a cogent phenomenon, not the naive eclecticism of imperial parvenus. Second, its style was a deliberate choice, rather than a result of the gradual degradation of a Greek aesthetic. Third, he took a broad view of Parthian art, which included material from both the empire’s periphery and from geographically and chronologically adjacent artistic traditions, on the assumption that a major empire such as that of the Arsacids would have had some impact on them.

The aim of this paper is to present Parthian-Armenian relations from the end of the 2nd century BCE to the so-called Treaty of Rhandeia (63 CE). This covers the period from the first contact of both states to the final conclusion of long-drawn-out military conflicts over Armenia between the Arsacids ruling the Parthian Empire and Rome. The author discusses reasons for the Parthian involvement in Armenia during the rule of Mithradates II and various efforts of the Arsacids to win control over this area. He also identifies three phases of their politics towards Armenia in the discussed period.