Source: Justin, History of the World, translated by G. Turnbull, Book 41 (London: Printed for S. Birt, and B. Dod, 1746), chaps. I–VI.
Origins of the Arsacid (Parthian) Empire According to Ammianus Marcellinus
2. This kingdom, which was once small … after the fates had taken off Alexander the Great at Babylon, took its name from the Parthian Arsaces, a man of low birth; he had been a brigand chief during his younger days, but since his ideals gradually changed for the better, by a series of brilliant exploits he rose to greater heights. 3. After many glorious and valiant deeds, and after he had conquered Seleucus Nicator, successor of the said Alexander, on whom his many victories had conferred that surname, and had driven out the Macedonian garrison, he passed his life in quiet peace, and was a mild ruler and judge of his subjects. 4. Finally, after all the neighboring lands had been brought under his rule, by force, by regards for justice, or by fear, and he had filled Persia with cities, with fortified camps, and with strongholds, and to all the neighbouring peoples, which she previously feared, he had made her a constant cause of dread, he died a peaceful death in middle life. And nobles and commons rivaled each other in agreeing to place him among the stars (as they believe) according to the sacred custom of their country; and he was the first of all to be so honoured. 5. Hence to this very day the over-boastful kings of that race suffer themselves to be called brothers of the Sun and Moon, and just as for our emperors the title of Augustus is beloved and coveted, so to the Parthian kings, … there fell the very greatest increase in distinction, won by the happy auspices of Arsaces.
Source: Ammianus Marcellinus, Translated by John C. Rolfe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937), 23.6, 2–6.
Parthian Government and Army
Chap II. The Government of The Nation, after their revolt from the Empire of the Macedons was under kings. The order or estate of the commons is next the majesty of kings; from hence they derive both generals in war and magistrates in peace. Their speech is mixed between the Scythian language and the Median. They are clothed after their old custom; and if their fortunes do grow high, they are appareled like the Medes, with a garment translucently thin and fluent. In their wars, they use both their own and the Scythian discipline. They have not as other nations, an army composed of free-men, but the greatest part of it … consist of servants. … They bring up these with as great care as they do their own children, and teach them both to ride and shoot with great industry. As everyone who is more rich, so in the service of the war he brings in more hordes to the king. When fifty thousand of their cavalry did meet Mark Antony in the field making war upon them, they were not above four hundred and fifty of them that were free born. They are not used to fight hand in hand, or to maintain a siege before a city. They fight always with their horses, either charging or wheeling about; they often counterfeit themselves to be routed, that they stop and return with the greater advantage, whereby they both find their pursuers to lie open to their swords and unprepared to receive the second impression of their charge. Their sound unto the battle is not given by trumpet, but by a drum; neither do they long hold out in fight. … Often times in the very heat of the first charge they forsake their battle, and after their fight they will immediately rally and renew the fight again, and when you think you are most sure of conquest the greatest difficulty and danger of the battle is to come. Their defense for themselves and for their horses, are plumed coats of mail on which are such waving plumes that they cover all the bodies of both. They have no use either of gold or silver, but only on their armor. …
Source: Marcus Junianus Justin, History of Justin Taken Out of the Four and Forty Books of Trogus Pompeius, translated into English by Robert Codrington, Book 41 (London: William Gilbertson, 1664), chap II.
The Parthians, Their Land, and Their Government According to Strabo
As for the Parthian country, it is not large; at any rate, it paid its tribute along with the Hyrcanians in the Persian times, and also after this, when for a long time the Macedonians held the mastery. And, in addition to its smallness, it is thickly wooded and mountainous, and also poverty-stricken, so that on this account the kings send their own throngs through it in great haste, since the country is unable to support them even for a short time. At present, however, it has increased its extent. Parts of the Parthian country are Comisenê and Chorenê, and, one may almost say, the whole region that extends as far as the Caspian Gates and Rhagae and the Tapyri, which formerly belonged to Media. …
But when revolutions were attempted by the countries outside the Taurus, because of the fact that the kings of Syria and Media, who were in possession also of these countries, were busily engaged with others, those who had been entrusted with their government first caused the revolt of Bactriana [Bactria] and of all the country near it, I mean Euthydemus and his followers; and then Arsaces, a Scythian, with some of the Dāae (I mean the Aparnians, as they were called, nomads who lived along the Ochus), invaded Parthia and conquered it. Now at the outset Arsaces was weak, being continually at war with those who had been deprived by him of their territory, both he himself and his successors, but later they grew so strong, always taking the neighbouring territory, through successes in warfare, that finally they established themselves as lords of the whole of the country inside the Euphrates. And they also took a part of Bactriana, having forced the Scythians, and still earlier Eucratides and his followers, to yield to them; and at present time they rule over so much land and so many tribes that in the size of their empire they have become, in a way, rivals of the Romans. The cause of this is their mode of life, and also their customs, which contain much that is barbarian and Scythian in character, though more that is conducive to hegemony and success at war. … At any rate, some say that Arsaces derives his origin from the Scythians, whereas others say that he was a Bactrian, and that when in flight from the enlarged power of Diodotus and his followers he caused Parthia to revolt. … I shall mention this alone, that the Council of the Parthians, according to Poseidonius, consists of two groups, one that of kinsmen, and the other that of wise men and Magi, from both of which groups the kings were appointed.
Source: Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, translated by Horace Leonard Jones (London: William Heinemann, 1928), 11.9.1–10.1.
The Parthian Army
These people [the Parthians] dwell beyond the Tigris for the most part in forts and garrisons, but also in a few cities, among them Ctesiphon, in which they have a royal residence. Their race was in existence among the ancient barbarians and they had the same name even under the Persian kingdom; but at that time they inhabited only a small portion of the country and had acquired no dominion beyond their own borders. But when the Persian rule had been overthrown and that of the Macedonians was at its height, and when the successors of Alexander had quarreled with one another, cutting off separate portions for themselves and setting up individual monarchies, the Parthians then first attained prominence under a certain Arsaces, from whom their succeeding rulers received the title of Arsacidae [Arsacids]. By good fortune they acquired all the neighboring territory, occupied Mesopotamia by means of satrapies, and finally advanced to so great glory and power as to wage war even against the Romans at that time, and ever afterward down to the present day to be considered a match for them. They are really formidable in warfare, but nevertheless they have a reputation greater than their achievements, because, in spite of their not having gained anything from the Romans, and having, besides, given up certain portions of their own domain, they have not yet been enslaved, but even to this day hold their own in the wars they wage against us, whenever they become involved in them. Now about their race and their country and their peculiar customs many have written, and I have no intention of describing them. But I will describe their equipment of arms and their method of warfare; for the examination of these details properly concerns the present narrative, since it has come to a point where this knowledge is needed. The Parthians make no use of a shield, but their forces consis
t of mounted archers and pikemen, mostly in full armour. Their infantry is small, made up of the weaker men; but even these are all archers. They practice from boyhood, and the climate and the land combine to aid both horsemanship and archery. The land, being for the most part level, is excellent for raising horses and very suitable for riding about on horse-back; at any rate, even in war they lead about whole droves of horses so that they can use different ones at different times, can ride up suddenly from a distance and also retire to a distance speedily; and the atmosphere there, which is very dry and does contain the least moisture, keeps their bow strings tense, except in the dead of winter. For that reason they make no campaigns anywhere during that season; but the rest of the year they are almost invincible in their own country and in any that has similar characteristics. For by long experience they can endure the sun’s heat, which is very scorching, and they have discovered many remedies for the dearth of drinking-water and the difficulty of securing it, so that for this reason also they can easily repel the invaders of their land. Outside of this district beyond the Euphrates they have once or twice gained success in pitched battles and in sudden incursions, but they cannot wage an offensive war with any nation continuously and without pause, both because they encounter an entirely different condition of land and sky and because they do not lay in supplies of food or pay. Such is the Parthian state.
Source: Cassius Dio, Dio’s Roman History, translated by Ernest Cary (London: William Heinemann, 1914), XL:14–16.
Parthian Customs
Each particular man was allowed to have several wives, for the pleasure of variety, and they punish no crime so severely as adultery. To prevent it, they not only exclude their women from their feasts, but forbid them the very sight of men. They eat no flesh, but what they take by hunting. They ride on horseback at all times; on horse they go to feasts, pay civilities, public and private, march out, stand still, traffic, converse. This, in fine, is the difference between slaves and free-men that the slaves go on foot, free-men on horseback.
Source: Justin, History of the World, translated by G. Turnbull (London: Printed for S. Birt and B. Dod, 1746), XLI:III.
24. PERSONALITY AND CAMPAIGNS OF THE ARSACID KING MITHRIDATES I IN WESTERN SOURCES
Mithridates I (r. 171–139/138 BCE) was one of the most successful kings of the Arsacid (Parthian) dynasty. During his reign, the Parthian state was transformed from a kingdom centered in northeastern Iran into a major empire ruling a vast territory extending from the shores of the Oxus River (Amu Darya) in Central Asia to Mesopotamia in the heart of the ancient Near East. Mithridates I was a son of the Arsacid monarch Priapatius (r. 191–176 BCE) and the younger brother of the Arsacid king Phraates I (Frahata I) (r. 176–171 BCE). After the death of their father, Mithridates’s brother Phraates I ascended the throne. Phraates I defeated the Mardi, a tribal group who resided in the eastern regions of the Alborz mountain range, and expanded the boundaries of the Arsacid state from northeastern Iran to the lands south of the Alborz range and west of the Caspian Gates. When Phraates I died, he was succeeded by his brother Mithridates. Building on his brother’s military successes, Mithridates I embarked on an ambitious campaign of his own to expand the territory of the Arsacid kingdom. The exact dates of Mithridates’s impressive conquests are uncertain. However, it seems that his first major victory was achieved against the Greco-Bactrian kingdom based in present-day northern Afghanistan. He then pushed westward and conquered Media in present-day north-central and western Iran sometime in 148 or 147 BCE. The Parthian armies then moved into Mesopotamia and captured Babylonia, including the city of Seleucia-on-Tigris, by 141 BCE. Before he could complete his conquest of Mesopotamia, however, Mithridates I was forced to shift his focus to the eastern borders of his kingdom and guard against nomadic invasions from Central Asia. In the absence of their king, Parthian armies continued their military operations in southwestern Iran, defeating the Elymais in present-day southwestern Iran and seizing the important city of Susa. The impressive victories of Mithridates I forced the Seleucid monarch Demetrius II to respond by invading Mesopotamia and western Iran. This campaign proved to be disastrous for the Seleucid monarch, who was defeated and captured by the Parthians. The humiliated Demetrius was sent to Mithridates I in Hyrcania (modern-day Gorgan) in northern Iran. Mithridates treated the defeated Seleucid king with kindness and respect. He also arranged for a marriage between Demetrius and his daughter, Rhodogune. Between 139 and 132 BCE, Parthian armies reconquered southwestern Iran and southern Iraq, including the important city of Babylon. Mithridates I also extended the boundaries of his empire in the east, but the extent of his territorial conquests in this instance remains uncertain. After a long and successful reign of 43 or 44 years, Mithridates I, who had assumed the title “great king,” died in either 139 or 138 BCE and was succeeded by his son Phraates II. The two excerpts below, which have been taken from the writings of Diodorus Siculus and Justin, reflect the views of Greek and Roman historians on Mithridates I as a king and a leader.
Mithridates I According to Diodorus Siculus
18. King Arsaces [Mithridates I] by pursuing a set policy of clemency and humanity, won an automatic stream of advantages and further enlarged his kingdom. For he extended his power even to India, and without a battle brought under his sway the region once ruled by Porus. But, though raised to such heights of royal power, he did not cultivate luxury or arrogance, the usual accompaniments of power, but prided himself on the exercise of equity towards those who accepted his rule and courage towards those who opposed him. In short, having made himself master over many peoples, he taught the Parthians the best of the customs practiced by each.
Source: Diodorus of Sicily, translated by C. H. Oldfather (London: William Heinemann, 1933), XXXIII:18.
The Campaigns of Mithridates I
Almost at the same time as Mithridates among the Parthians, so Eucratides among the Bactrians, both princes of great merit, began to reign. But the uncommon good fortune of the Parthians, brought them, under this monarch, to the highest pitch of greatness. The Bactrians, on the other hand, being distressed by several wars, not only lost their sovereignty, but their liberty, for being exhausted by wars with the Sogdians, Drangians, and the Indians, were, like a people quite enfeebled and expiring, subdued by the Persians [Parthians], who had been, a little before, much weaker than they. However Eucratides carried on many wars with great vigour, and though his losses had weakened him, yet being besieged by Demetrius, king of the Indians, with only three hundred soldiers, he made continual sallies, and so fatigued the enemy, consisting of sixty thousand men, that he obliged them to raise the siege. Wherefore, being delivered from the siege, in the fifth month, he reduced India under his power, but in his return from thence, he was assassinated by his son, whom he had made his partner in the kingdom; who was so far from concealing the patricide, that, as if he had killed an enemy, and not his father, he drove his chariot through his blood, and ordered his body to be thrown out unburied. During these transactions in Bactria, a war breaks out between the Parthians and the Medes. After the success of this war had for some time been various, victory at last, fell to the Parthians. Mithridates, enforced with this addition to his strength, sets Bacasis over Media, and goes himself into Hyrcania, from whence returning, he made war upon the king of the Elymaeans, and, after the conquest of him, he added this nation likewise to his dominions, and so extended the Parthian empire, from among Caucasus, as far as the river Euphrates by reducing many nations under his yoke. After this, being seized with an illness, he died in an honourable old age, not at all inferior in glory to his grandfather Arsaces.
Source: Justin, History of the World, translated by G. Turnbull (London: Printed for S. Birt and B. Dod, 1746), XLI:VI.
25. DIODORUS SICULUS’S ACCOUNT OF THE VICTORY OF ARSACID KING PHRAATES II OVER THE SELEUCID KING ANTIOCHUS VII
Phraates II (Frahata II) was a monarch of the Arsacid dynasty who ruled from 139/138 to 128 BCE. He was the son of the Ars
acid monarch Mithridates I (Mithradata I). Phraates inherited an empire threatened by enemies in both the east and the west. The northeastern frontiers of the Parthian Empire had been breached by invading nomadic tribes from Central Asia. These tribes were known as Yüeh-chih (Yuezhi) in Chinese and Tochari by Greek and Roman writers. While Phraates was busy fighting the Tochari tribes in the east, the Seleucid king Antiochus VII (r. 138–129 BCE) attacked and seized Babylonia and Media, defeating Parthian armies in three separate military encounters. Phraates II sent an embassy to negotiate a peace agreement with the Seleucid monarch. Antiochus VII responded that he was willing to cease hostilities and conclude a treaty if the Arsacid monarch would release his brother Demetrius from captivity, withdraw from the provinces he had seized, and pay tribute to the Seleucid king as his overlord. Phraates rejected these demands. With winter arriving, Antiochus divided his army and scattered its various units in several cities in western Iran. The oppressive behavior of these army units, who demanded food and supplies, caused the populace to revolt against Antiochus VII. Phraates used this opportunity to march against the Seleucid forces. When the two armies clashed, the Parthians defeated the Seleucid army and killed Antiochus VII. The defeat and death of Antiochus VII put an end to Seleucid presence in Iran. The excerpt below, written by the historian Diodorus Siculus, describes the battle between the Seleucid king Antiochus VII and the Arsacid monarch Phraates II.
The Persian Empire Page 99
