_Reign of Mithridates I. Position of Bactria and Syria at his accession.
His first war with Bactria. His great Expedition against the Eastern
Syrian provinces, and its results. His second war with Bactria,
terminating in its conquest. Extent of his Empire. Attempt of Demetrius
Nicator to recover the lost Provinces fails. Captivity of Demetrius.
Death of Mithridates._
The reign of Mithridates I. is the most important in the Parthian
history. [PLATE 1. Fig. 3.] Receiving from his brother Phraates a
kingdom of but narrow dimensions, confined (as it would seem) between
the city of Charax on the one side, and the river Arius, or Hori-rud,
on the other, he transformed it, within the space of thirty-seven years
(which was the time that his reign lasted), into a great and nourishing
Empire. It is not too much to say that, but for him, Parthia might have
remained a more petty State on the outskirts of the Syrian kingdom,
and, instead of becoming a rival to Rome, might have sunk shortly into
obscurity and insignificance.
[Illustration: PLATE 1.]
As commonly happens in the grand changes which constitute the
turning-points of history, the way for Mithridates’s vast successes was
prepared by a long train of antecedent circumstances. To show how the
rise of the Parthians to greatness in the middle of the second century
before our era was rendered possible, we must turn aside once more
from our proper subject and cast a glance at the condition of the two
kingdoms between which Parthia stood, at the time when Mithridates
ascended the throne.
The Bactrian monarchs in their ambitious struggles to possess themselves
of the tracts south of the Paropamisus, and extending from the Heri-rud
to the Sutlej and the mouths of the Indus, overstrained the strength
of their State, and by shifting the centre of its power injured
irretrievably its principle of cohesion. As early as the reign of
Demetrius a tendency to disruption showed itself, Eucratidas having
held the supreme power for many years in Bactria itself, while Demetrius
exercised authority on the southern side of the mountains. It is true
that at the death of Demetrius this tendency was to a certain extent
checked, since Eucratidas was then able to extend his sway over almost
the whole of the Bactrian territory. But the old evil recurred shortly,
though in a less pronounced form. Eucratidas, without being actually
supplanted in the north by a rival, found that he could devote to that
portion of the Empire but a small part of his attention. The southern
countries and the prospect of southern and eastern conquests engrossed
him. While he carried on successful wars with the Arachotians, the
Drangians, and the Indians of the Punjaub region, his hold on the more
northern countries was relaxed, and they began to slip from his grasp.
Incursions of the nomad Scyths from the Steppes carried fire and
sword over portions of these provinces, some of which were Even, it is
probable, seized and occupied by the invaders.
Such was, it would seem, the condition of Bactria under Eucratidas, the
contemporary of Mithridates. In Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes had succeeded
his brother Seleucus IV. (Philopator) about a year before Mithridates
ascended the Parthian throne. He was a prince of courage and energy;
but his hands were fully occupied with wars in Egypt, Palestine, and
Armenia, and the distant East could attract but a small share of his
thought or attention. The claim put forward by Egypt to the possession
of Coele-Syria and Palestine, promised to Ptolemy V. (it was affirmed)
as a dowry with Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus the Great, led to
hostilities in the south-west which lasted continuously for four years
(B.C. 171 to B.C. 168), and were complicated during two of them with
troubles in Judaea, rashly provoked by the Syrian monarch, who, unaware
of the stubborn temper of the Jews, goaded them into insurrection.
The war with Egypt came to an end in B.C. 168; it brought Syria no
advantage, since Rome interposed, and required the restitution of
all conquests. The war with the Jews had no such rapid termination.
Antiochus, having not only plundered and desecrated the Temple, but
having set himself to eradicate utterly the Jewish religion, and
completely Hellenize the people, was met with the most determined
resistance on the part of a moiety of the nation. A patriotic party
rose up under devoted leaders, who asserted, and in the end secured, the
independence of their country. Not alone during the remaining years
of Epiphanes, but for half a century after his death, throughout seven
reigns, the struggle continued; Judaea taking advantage of every trouble
and difficulty in Syria to detach herself more and more completely from
her oppressor; being a continual thorn in her side, a constant source of
weakness, preventing more than anything else the recovery of her power.
The triumph which Epiphanes obtained in the distant Armenia (B.C.
166-5), where he defeated and captured the king, Artaxias, was a poor
set-off against the foe which he had created to himself at his doors
through his cruelty and intolerance.
In another quarter, too, the Syrian power received a severe shake
through the injudicious violence of Epiphanes. The Oriental temples
had, in some instances, escaped the rapacity of Alexander’s generals and
“Successors;” their treasuries remained unviolated, and contained large
hoards of the precious metals. Epiphanes, having exhausted his own
exchequer by his wars and his lavish gifts, saw in these un-plundered
stores a means of replenishing it, and made a journey into his
south-eastern provinces for the purpose. The natives of Elymais,
however, resisted his attempt, and proved strong enough to defeat it;
the baffled monarch retired to Tabae, where he shortly afterward fell
sick and died. In the popular belief his death was a judgment upon him
for his attempted sacrilege; and in the exultation caused by the event
the bands which joined these provinces to the Empire must undoubtedly
have been loosened.
Nor did the removal of Epiphanes (B.C. 164) improve the condition of
affairs in Syria. The throne fell to his son, Antiochus Eupator, a boy
of nine, according to Appian, or, according to another authority, of
twelve years of age. The regent, Lysias, exercised the chief power, and
was soon engaged in a war with the Jews, whom the death of Epiphanes
had encouraged to fresh efforts. The authority of Lysias was further
disputed by a certain Philip, whom Epiphanes, shortly before his death,
had made tutor to the young king. The claims of this tutor to the
regent’s office being supported by a considerable portion of the army, a
civil war arose between him and Lysias, which raged for the greater
part of two years (B.C. 163-2), terminating in the defeat and death
of Philip. But Syrian affairs did not even then settle down into
tranquillity. A prince of the Seleucid house, Demetrius by name, the son
of Seleucus IV., and consequently the first cousin of Eupator, was at
this time detained in Rome as a hostage, having been sent there during
his father’s lifetime as a security for his fidelity. Demetrius, with
some reason, regarded his claim to the Syrian throne as better than that
of his cousin, the son of the younger brother, and being in the full
vigor of early youth, he determined to assert his pretensions in Syria,
and to make a bold stroke for the crown. Having failed to obtain the
Senate’s consent to his quitting Italy, he took his departure secretly,
crossed the Mediterranean in a Carthaginian vessel, and, landing in
Asia, succeeded within a few months in establishing himself as Syrian
monarch.
From this review it sufficiently appears that the condition of things,
both in Syria and Bactria, was favorable to any aspirations which
the power that lay between them might entertain after dominion and
self-aggrandizement. The Syrian and Bactrian kings, at the time of
Mithridates’s accession, were, both of them, men of talent and energy;
but the Syrian monarch was soon involved in difficulties at home, while
the Bactrian had his attention attracted to prospects of advantage in a
remote quarter, Mithridates might, perhaps, have attacked the territory
of either with an equal chance of victory; and as his predecessor had
set him the example of successful warfare on his western frontier, we
might have expected his first efforts to have been in this direction,
against the dependencies of Syria. But circumstances which we cannot
exactly trace determined his choice differently. While Eucratidas was
entangled in his Indian wars, Mithridates invaded the Bactrian territory
where it adjoined Parthia, and added to his Empire, after a short
struggle, two provinces, called respectively Turiua and that of
Aspionus. It is conjectured that these provinces lay towards the north
and the north-west, the one being that of the Turanians proper, and the
other that of the Aspasiacae, who dwelt between the Jaxartes and
the Oxus. But there is scarcely sufficient ground for forming even a
conjecture on the subject, since speculation has nothing but the names
themselves to rest upon.
Successful in this quarter, Mithridates, a few years later, having
waited until the Syrian throne was occupied by the boy Eupator, and the
two claimants of the regency, Lysias and Philip, were contending in arms
for the supreme power, made suddenly an expedition towards the west,
falling upon Media, which, though claimed by the Syrian kings as a
province of their Empire, was perhaps at this time almost, if not quite,
independent. The Medes offered a vigorous resistance to his attack;
and, in the war which followed, each side had in turn the advantage;
but eventually the Parthian prince proved victorious, and the great
and valuable province of Media Magna was added to the dominons of the
Arsacidae. A certain Bacasis was appointed to govern it, whether as
satrap or as tributary monarch is not apparent; while the Parthian king,
recalled towards home by a revolt, proceeded to crush rebellion before
resuming his career of conquest.
The revolt which now occupied for a time the attention of Mithridates
was that of Hyrcania. The Hyrcanians were Arians in race; they were
brave and high-spirited, and under the Persian monarchs had enjoyed some
exceptional privileges which placed them above the great mass of the
conquered nations. It was natural that they should dislike the yoke of a
Turanian people; and it was wise of them to make their effort to obtain
their freedom before Parthia grew into a power against which revolt
would be utterly hopeless. Hyrcania might now expect to be joined by the
Medes, and even the Mardi, who were Arians like themselves, and could
not yet have forgotten the pleasures of independence. But though the
effort does not seem to have been ill-timed, it was unsuccessful. No aid
was given to the rebels, so far as we hear, by any of their neighbors.
Mithridates’s prompt return nipped the insurrection in the bud; Hyrcania
at once submitted, and became for centuries the obedient vassal of her
powerful neighbor.
The conquest of Media had brought the Parthians into contact with
the rich country of Susiana or Elymais; and it was not long before
Mithridates, having crushed the Hyrcanian revolt, again advanced
westward, and invaded this important province. Elymais appears to have
a had a king of its own, who must either have been a vassal of the
Seleucidse, or have acquired an independent position by revolt after the
death of Epiphanes. In the war which followed between this monarch and
Mithridates, the Elymseans proved wholly unsuccessful, and Mithridates
rapidly overran the country and added it to his dominions. After this he
appears to have received the submission of the Persians on the one hand
and the Babylonians on the other, and to have rested on his laurels for
some years, having extended the Parthian sway from the Hindoo Koosh to
the Euphrates.
The chronological data which have come down to us for this period
are too scanty to allow of any exact statement of the number of years
occupied by Mithridates in effecting these conquests. All that can be
said is that he appears to have commenced them about B.C. 163 and to
have concluded them some time before B.C. 140, when he was in his turn
attacked by the Syrians. Probably they had been all effected by the
year B.C. 150; since there is reason to believe that about that time
Mithridates found his power sufficiently established in the west to
allow of his once more turning his attention eastward, and renewing his
aggressions upon the Bactrian kingdom, which had passed from the rule of
Eucratidas under that of his son and successor, Heliocles.
Heliocles, who was allowed by his father a quasi-royal position,
obtained the full possession of the Bactrian throne by the crime of
parricide. It is conjectured that he regarded with disapproval his
father’s tame submission to Parthian ascendency, and desired the
recovery of the provinces which Eucratidas had been content to cede for
the sake of peace. We are told that he justified his crime on the ground
that his father was a public enemy; which is best explained by supposing
that he considered him the friend of Bactria’s great enemy, Parthia.
If this be the true account of the circumstances under which he became
king, his accession would have been a species of challenge to
the Parthian monarch, whose ally he had assassinated. Mithridates
accordingly marched against him with all speed, and, easily defeating
his troops, took possession of the greater part of his dominion. Elated
by this success, he is said to have pressed eastward, to have invaded
India, and overrun the country as far as the river Hydaspes, but, if
it be true that his arms penetrated so far, it is, at any rate, certain
that he did not here effect any conquest. Greek monarchs of the Bactrian
series continued masters of Oabul and Western India till about B.C. 126;
no Parthian coins are found in this region; nor do the best authorities
claim for Mithridates any dominion beyond the mountains which enclose on
the west the valley of the Indus.
By his war with Heliocles the empire of Mithridates reached its greatest
extension. It comprised now, besides Parthia Proper, Bactria, Aria,
Drangiana, Arachosia, Margiana, Hyrcania, the country of the Mardi,
Media Magna, Susiana, Persia and Babylonia. Very probably its limits
were still wider. The power which possessed Parthia, Hyrcania, and
Bactria, would rule almost of necessity over the whole tract between the
Elburz range and the Oxus, if not even over the region between the Oxus
and the Jaxartes; that which held the Caspian mountains and eastern
Media could not fail to have influence over the tribes of the Iranic
desert; while Assyria Proper would naturally follow the fortunes of
Babylonia and Susiana. Still the extent of territory thus indicated
rests only on conjecture. If we confine ourselves to what is known by
positive evidence, we can only say that the Parthian Kingdom of this
period contained, at least, twelve provinces above enumerated. It thus
stretched from east to west a distance of fifteen hundred miles between
the Suleiman mountains and the Euphrates, varying in width from three or
four hundred miles--or even more--towards the west and east, to a
narrow strip of less than a hundred miles toward the centre. It probably
comprised an area of about 450,000 square miles; which is somewhat less
than that of the modern Persia.
Unlike the modern Persia, however, the territory consisted almost
entirely of productive regions. The excellent quality of the soil
in Parthia Proper, Hyrcania, and Margiana, has been already noticed.
Bactria, the next province to Margiana towards the east, was less
uniformly fertile; but still it contained a considerable proportion of
good land along the course of the Oxus and its tributaries, which was
cultivated in vineyards and cornfields, or else pastured large herds of
cattle. The Mardian mountain territory was well wooded; and the plain
between the mountains and the Caspian was rich in the extreme. Media,
where it adjoined on the desert, was comparatively sterile; but still
even here an elaborate system of artificial irrigation brought a belt of
land under culture. Further west, in the Zagros chain, Media comprised
some excellent pasture lands, together with numerous valleys as
productive as any in Asia. Elymais was, in part, of the same character
with the mountainous portion of Media, while beyond the mountain it
sank down into a rich alluvium, not much inferior to the Babylonian.
Babylonia itself was confessedly the most fertile country in Asia. It
produced wheat, barley, millet, sesame, vetches, dates, and fruits
of all kinds. The return of the wheat crop was from fifty to a
hundred-and-fifty-fold; while that of the barley crop was three
hundred-fold. The dates were of unusual size and superior flavor;
and the palm, which abounded throughout the region, furnished an
inexhaustible supply both of fruit and timber.
The great increase of power which Mithridates had obtained by his
conquests could not be a matter of indifference to the Syrian monarchs.
Their domestic troubles--the contentions between Philip and Lysias,
between Lysias and Demetrius Soter, Soter and Alexander Balas, Balas and
Demetrius II., Demetrius II. and Tryphon, had so engrossed them for the
space of twenty years (from B.C. 162 to B.C. 142) that they had felt it
impossible, or hopeless, to attempt any expedition towards the East,
for the protection or recovery of their provinces. Mithridates had
been allowed to pursue his career of conquest unopposed, so far as the
Syrians were concerned, and to establish his sway from the Hindoo Koosh
to the Euphrates. But a time at last came when home dangers were less
pressing, and a prospect of engaging the terrible Parthians with success
seemed to present itself. The second Demetrius had not, indeed, wholly
overcome his domestic enemy, Tryphon; but he had so far brought him into
difficulties as to believe that he might safely be left to be dealt
with by his wife, Cleopatra, and by his captains. At the same time the
condition of affairs in the East seemed to invite his interference,
Mithridates ruled his new conquests with some strictness, suspecting,
probably, their fidelity, and determined that he would not by any
remissness allow them to escape from his grasp. The native inhabitants
could scarcely be much attached to the Syro-Macedonians, who had
certainly not treated them very tenderly; but a possession of 170 years’
duration confers prestige in the East, and a strange yoke may have
galled more than one to whose pressure they had become accustomed.
Moreover, all the provinces which Parthia took from Syria contained
Greek towns, and their inhabitants might at all times be depended on
to side with their countrymen against the Asiatics. At the present
conjuncture, too, the number of the malcontents was swelled by the
addition of the recently subdued Bactrians, who hated the Parthian yoke,
and longed earnestly for a chance of recovering their freedom. Thus when
Demetrius II., anxious to escape the reproach of inertness, determined
to make an expedition against the great Parthian monarch, he found
himself welcomed as a deliverer by a considerable number of his enemy’s
subjects, whom the harshness, or the novelty, of the Parthian rule
had offended. The malcontents joined his standard as he advanced;
and supported, as he thus was, by Persian, Elymsen, and Bactrian
contingents, he engaged and defeated the Parthians in several battles.
Upon this, Mithridates, finding himself inferior in strength, had
recourse to stratagem, and having put Demetrius off his guard by
proposals of peace, attacked him, defeated him, and took him prisoner.
The invading army appears to have been destroyed. The captive monarch
was, in the first instance, conveyed about to the several nations which
had revolted, and paraded before each in turn, as a proof to them of
their folly in lending him aid, but afterwards he was treated in a
manner befitting his rank and the high character of his captor. Assigned
a residence in Hyrcania, he was maintained in princely state, and was
even promised by Mithridates the hand of his daughter, Ehodo-guns. The
Parthian monarch, it is probable, had the design of conquering Syria,
and thought it possible that he might find it of advantage to have
a Syrian prince in his camp, well disposed towards him, connected by
marriage, and thus fitted for the position of tributary monarch. But the
schemes of Mithridates proved abortive. His career had now reached its
close. Attacked by illness not very long after his capture of Demetrius,
his strength proved insufficient to bear up against the malady, and he
died after a glorious reign of about thirty-eight years, B.C. 136.