The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires

adaptation and expansion

Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Michael Alram, Touraj Daryaee, Elizabeth Pendleton, Michael Alram, Touraj Daryaee

• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781785702082
• Topic: Histoire
• Subtopic: Histoire antique

Although much of the primary information about the Parthian period comes from coins, there has been much new research undertaken over the past few decades into wider aspects of both the Parthian and Sassanian Empires including the Arsacid Parthians, and their material culture. Despite a change of ruling dynasty, the two empires were closely connected and cannot be regarded as totally separate entities. The continuation of Parthian influence particularly into the early Sasanian period cannot be disputed. An historic lack of detailed information arose partly through the relative lack of excavated archaeological sites dating to the Parthian period in Iran and western scholars' lack of knowledge of recent excavations and their results that are usually published in Persian, coupled with the inevitable difficulties for academic research engendered by the recent political situation in the region. Although an attempt has been made by several scholars in the west to place this important Iranian dynasty in its proper cultural context, the traditional GrecoRoman influenced approach is still prevalent. The present volume presents 15 papers covering various aspects of Parthian and early Sasanian history, material culture, linguistics and religion which demonstrate a rich surviving heritage and provide many new insights into ideology, royal genealogy, social organization, military tactics, linguistic developments and trading contacts.

1

Some Aspects of Political History:
Early Arsacid Kings and the Seleucids

Jérôme Gaslain

AURORHE*

The beginnings of the Arsacid dynasty remain mysterious in many ways. It is difficult to determine accurately the process of the creation of the kingdom. The period that most challenges us is the third century BC, which does not provide information reliable enough to draw a detailed picture of the Arsacid world of that time. It is unfortunate, for example, that we are still unable to ascertain firmly the dates of the reigns of the first sovereigns,¹ to establish which territories were actually under their control, or to understand the intricacies of their domestic politics.²

Some events can, however, be used to establish landmarks in the first decades of the Arsacid dynasty in the context of the Upper Satrapies, when the transition between Seleucid power and Arsacid authority took place.

In this paper, far from considering the Arsacid kings as nomads arriving by chance to seize power in Parthia, we propose to evaluate, as much as possible, the knowledge of the Seleucid government that they could have had. One cannot indeed see them as ignorant of the political stakes in the region. In search of proof, we will focus on the first two Arsacid reigns, those of Arsaces I (238–210 BC) and his son Arsaces II (210–190 BC). This will give us the opportunity to show that the Parthians had a political consciousness from their very entry into history.³

Arsaces I and Seleucid satrapian power

The image of Arsaces is that he was a nomad who managed to seize power in Parthia with some companions in arms, after the murder of the satrap Andragoras, himself emancipated from Seleucid power in 247 BC.⁴ This version of events comes from the Greco-Latin texts, which, though often contradictory,⁵ all agree that Arsaces was an enigmatic character who took advantage of the weakness of the Seleucid government in the Upper Satrapies to establish his own authority. Without going into any detail, let us make a simple remark. Overthrowing a satrap who himself had been able to defect from Seleucid power could not have been an easy matter. It goes without saying that the warlord Arsaces was more than a simple thief, and saying, as Justin claimed (41, 4, 7), that he overthrew the satrap by “surprise” is pure historical fantasy. In other words, Arsaces could not have just been the enigmatic nomad at the time of the death of Andragoras (238 BC).

We know that even before his emancipation in 247 BC, Andragoras held an important position in the Seleucid administration at the time of Antiochus I.⁶ His authority was therefore well established and Arsaces could not ignore this situation when he attacked Parthia. Andragoras was not merely a rebellious satrap without military⁷ and economic resources. It therefore appears that Arsaces had real means to eliminate a satrap, who must himself have been fully aware of the dangers in and around Parthia.

*

Following Strabo (Geography) and Justin (Epitome of the Philippic Histories of Pompeius Trogus),⁸ the Parni, a part of the Dahae confederacy (Scythians), came from the Aral Sea region. They had migrated to the south, maybe early in the third century BC, and then were repelled by Bactrian forces (Strabo, 11, 9, 2–3).⁹ That is why they went to the west.¹⁰

It is difficult to reconstruct the exact movement of these nomads, the exact reasons for this movement, the true place and role of Arsaces in relation to these nomads¹¹ and how he finally arrived in Parthia and seized power.¹² For example, some scholars have supposed that Arsaces was a mercenary. This is an attractive hypothesis.¹³ Even if we have no actual evidence supporting it, it seems not impossible to see Arsaces as a member of the local “élite” of Parthia, with a real knowledge of the military and political spheres of the Seleucid satrapy. With early Parthian history, we must be very careful to remember that we can consider these assertions only as a hypothesis. Nevertheless, the role of Arsaces before 238 BC must not be understated, as we shall see.

What is important for us is that the Parni were well aware of the territories and knew the populations and political situation of the region. Following the texts, it seems that the migration of the Parni was progressive, rather than a single stride resulting in the conquest of Parthia proper.¹⁴ From 282/1 to 238 BC, the Parni had exerted a real influence around the Parthian area.¹⁵ Arsaces, as a member of this confederacy, seems therefore far from being the instigator of an accidental invasion. The presence of these nomads did not, however, profoundly disrupt the structure of the Upper Satrapies before the conquest of Media by the Arsacids (148/7 BC),¹⁶ but this position provided the Parthians with the means profitably to control the trade routes, and so the taxes, which connected Media to the cities of Margiana, Bactria and beyond.

The simultaneous Greco-Bactrian and Parthian “secessions” in the middle of the third century BC were in fact a response to the failure of Seleucid power combined with the will of the new leaders, Diodotus and Andragoras, to create new protective authorities for the region.¹⁷ This was not only a question of personal ambition, but also a necessary action to reassure the Greek and Iranian populations about these new leaders. When Arsaces seized power in 238 BC,¹⁸ this requirement still remained and he could devote no less effort to satisfy it. From a political point of view, Arsaces had a double mission: he needed to be recognised within his own kingdom as the new authority and, for this to happen, he had to confirm his presence at the head of Parthia in the eyes of the Bactrian leader especially and, afterwards, in the eyes of Seleucid central power. To achieve these goals, Arsaces needed to call upon every possible tool at his disposal, not only military,¹⁹ but also political and diplomatic.

When Justin indicates that Arsaces raised a large army in fear of Diodotus I, it proves not only that the threat was real for the Parthians but it also shows that, from early on, the Arsacids surely occupied an important place in the political game of the satrapies. That is why, when Strabo writes that Arsaces was Bactrian (11, 9, 3), we agree that it could signify that he had been in the Seleucid territories for a long time.²⁰ Justin (41, 4, 9) continues his comment by indicating that Arsaces finally became an ally of the second Bactrian ruler. This treaty of alliance - of which we know no details - at least proves that contacts between Arsacid and Bactrian leaders had probably been established for a long time. Thus negotiation formed part of the early Arsacids’ political practices and this established fact was not unknown to the Seleucids. At the time of the emancipation of Andragoras and Diodotus, it seems difficult to believe that on one hand both parties were unaware of the other’s actions; equally on the other hand both must have known the position of the Parni, as a buffer between Bactrian and Parthian territories. Consequently, when our sources state that a treaty of alliance was concluded between Arsaces I and Diodotus II, it seems to be merely a renewal of the practice introduced between Parthia and Bactria some years before, out of diplomatic necessity. This treaty of alliance must not be considered as an exceptional operation.

*

That said, although it is difficult to doubt that the Parthians were nomads who invaded the territory of Parthia, this does not mean that Arsaces was part of a sudden invasion. He maybe could have taken advantage of his favourable position to lead rather a revolution, which inevitably implied an invasion of the territory of Parthia-Hyrcania, as our sources emphasise. The fact that Arsaces was able to raise thereafter a large army (Justin 41, 4, 8) could confirm the importance of his military capacities.

A decade elapsed between the time Andragoras took power in 247 BC from the Seleucids and the time when Arsaces seized control from Andragoras (238 BC). Justin informs us that Parthians had already rebelled against the Seleucid government at the time of the First Punic War in the mid-third century BC (41, 4, 3-4). In a recent publication, historians have tried to involve Arsaces in these first revolts which they date back to 247 BC, which would explain why the Arsacid calendar was dependent on that year. In the same vein, they maintain that Arsaces emerged victorious from a battle against Seleucus II, then viceroy of the Upper Satrapies, and suppose that Arsaces would have been crowned king in 247 BC as a celebration of this victory.²¹

We are more than sceptical with regard to this vision of history.²² First, this supposed battle appears nowhere in the sources, as Justin simply tells us that the Parthians “rebelled”, adding that this defection “remained unpunished” (Justin, 41, 4, 3-4). Moreover, we should not forget that the inhabitants of Parthia are not interchangeable with Arsaces’s Parthians, and it is very difficult to grasp who the Parthians were for Justin in this passage of “his” Historiae Philippicae. Besides, if Arsaces had won a victory against the Seleucid armies, for which, we should remember, we have no evidence, either direct or indirect, then this would mean that there was on the political scene of Parthia a winner who not only did not exploit his victory but even allowed Andragoras to take power and then to emancipate his territory. If this scenario were correct, Arsaces must have allowed a decade to pass before eliminating the satrap, and yet no source mentions this failure to follow through. This version seems therefore difficult to accept.²³

So, let us remain cautious as to the progress of events. The year 247 BC may correspond to the seizure of power by Andragoras, who subsequently escaped from Seleucid power, maybe in 245.²⁴ Thus 247 BC might have been important enough to result in the creation of a calendar which is called “Parthian” rather than “Arsacid”, and which the Parthians took as the starting point of their territory’s independence.

Arsaces I, Arsaces II and the Seleucid military campaigns

The military campaigns of Seleucus II (228 BC) and Antiochus III (209 BC) in the Upper Satrapies aimed at restoring Seleucid authority in those regions and bringing back a semblance of order that had been lost for some years. During these two expeditions, the Seleucid armies faced the forces of the Arsacid sovereigns, Arsaces I and Arsaces II. In the light of the literary sources, it would be difficult to form a definitive opinion of the outcome of these confrontations:

• Strabo (11, 8, 8) comments that when faced with the Seleucid onslaught under Seleucus II, Arsaces I withdrew to the country of the Apasiacae. Justin (41, 4, 9), on the other hand, specifies that Arsaces “was victorious”.

• As for Arsaces II, we learn that he fought with an “admirable courage” and that in the end he became “the ally” of Antiochus III. But according to Polybius (10, 28, 6 and 10, 29, 1), Arsaces II also “retreated with his army” and “abandoned his own territory” as the Seleucid army marched on Parthia.

Given the above c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• HISTORICAL
• 1 Some Aspects of Political History: Early Arsacid Kings and the Seleucids
• 2 The Arsacids and Commagene
• 3 Dynastic Connections in the Arsacid Empire and the Origins of the House of Sāsān
• 4 From Terror to Tactical Usage: Elephants in the Partho-Sasanian Period
• 5 Remarks on the Location of the Province of Parthia in the Sasanian Period
• 6 The Birth of the Sasanian Monarchy in Western Sources
• 7 Kirder and the Re-organisation of Persian Mazdeism
• LINGUISTIC
• 8 The Parthian Language in Early Sasanian Times
• 9 From Aramaic to Pahlavi: Epigraphic Observations Based on the Persis Coin Series
• 10 Parthian Studies: Two New Notes
• ARCHAEOLOGICAL
• 11 A Note on Architectural Traditions in Arsacid Parthia: The Round Hall at Nisa
• 12 Women, Dance and the Hunt: Splendour and Pleasures of Court Life in Arsacid and Early Sasanian Art
• NUMISMATICS
• 13 Quantifying Monetary Production: Ecbatana and Media in Parthian Times
• 14 The Coinages of Paradan and Sind in the Context of Kushan and Kushano-Sasanian Numismatics