_Accession of Mithridates II. Termination of the Scythic Wars.
Commencement of the struggle with Armenia. Previous history of Armenia.
Result of the first Armenian War. First contact of Rome with Parthia.
Attitude of Rome towards the East at this time. Second Armenian War.
Death of Mithridates._
On the death of Artabanus II., about B.C. 124, his son, Mithridates II.,
was proclaimed king. Of this monarch, whose achievements (according to
Justin) procured him the epithet of “the Great,” the accounts which have
come down to us are extremely scanty and unsatisfactory. Justin, who is
our principal informant on the subject of the early Parthian history,
has unfortunately confounded him with the third monarch of the name, who
ascended the throne more than sixty years later, and has left us
only the slightest and most meagre outline of his actions. The other
classical writers, only to a very small extent, supplement Justin’s
narrative; and the result is that of a reign which was one of the most
important in the early Parthian series, the historical inquirer at the
present day can form but a most incomplete conception.
It appears, however, from the account of Justin, and from such other
notices as have reached us of the condition of things at this time in
the regions lying east of the Caspian, that Mithridates was entirely
successful where his father and his cousin had signally failed. He
gained a number of victories over the Scythic hordes; and effectually
checked their direct progress towards the south, throwing them thereby
upon the east and the south-east. Danger to Parthia from the Scyths
seems after his reign to have passed away. They found a vent for their
superabundant population in Seistan, Afghanistan, and India, and ceased
to have any hopes of making an impression on the Arsacid kingdom.
Mithridates, it is probable, even took territory from them. The
acquisition of parts of Bactria by the Parthians from the Scyths, which
is attested by Strabo, belongs, in all likelihood, to his reign; and
the extension of the Parthian dominion to Seistan may well date from the
same period. Justin tells us that he added many nations to the Parthian
Empire. The statements made of the extent of Parthia on the side of
Syria in the time of Mithridates the First render it impossible for us
to discover these nations in the west: we are, therefore, compelled to
regard them as consisting of races on the eastern frontier, who could at
this period only be outlying tribes of the recent Scythic immigration.
The victories of Mithridates in the East encouraged him to turn his
arms in the opposite direction, and to make an attack on the important
country of Armenia, which bordered his north-western frontier. Armenia
was at the time under the government of a certain Ortoadistus, who seems
to have been the predecessor, and was perhaps the father, of the great
Tigranes. Ortoadistus ruled the tract called by the Romans “Armenia
Magna,” which extended from the Euphrates on the west to the mouth of
the Araxes on the east, and from the valley of the Kur northwards to
Mount Niphates and the head streams of the Tigris towards the south. The
people over which he ruled was one of the oldest in Asia and had on many
occasions shown itself impatient of a conqueror. Justin, on reaching
this point in his work, observes that he could not feel himself
justified if, when his subject brought before him so mighty a kingdom,
he did not enter at some length on its previous history. The modern
historian would be even less excusable than Justin if he omitted such
a review, since, while he has less right to assume a knowledge of early
Armenian history on the part of his readers, he has greater means of
gratifying their curiosity, owing to the recent discovery of sources of
information unknown to the ancients.
Armenia first comes before us in Genesis, where it is mentioned as the
country on whose mountains the ark rested. A recollection of it was
thenceforth retained in the semi-mythic traditions of the Babylonians.
According to some, the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth and
nineteenth dynasties carried their arms into its remote valleys, and
exacted tribute from the petty chiefs who then ruled there. At any rate,
it is certain that from about the ninth century B.C. it was well known
to the Assyrians, who were engaged from that time till about B.C. 640
in almost constant wars with its inhabitants. At this period three
principal races inhabited the country--the Nairi, who were spread from
the mountains west of Lake Van along both sides of the Tigris to Bir
on the Euphrates, and even further; the Urarda (Alarodii, or people of
Ararat), who dwelt north and east of the Nairi, on the upper Euphrates,
about the lake of Van, and probably on the Araxes; and the Minni, whose
country lay south-east of the Urarda, in the Urumiyeh basin and the
adjoining parts of Zagros. Of these three races, the Urarda were the
most powerful, and it was with them that the Assyrians waged their most
bloody wars. The capital city of the Urarda was Van, on the eastern
shores of the lake; and here it was that their kings set up the most
remarkable of their inscriptions. Six monarchs, who apparently all
belong to one dynasty, left inscriptions in this locality commemorative
of their military expeditions or of their offerings to the gods. The
later names of the series can be identified with those of kings who
contended with Assyrian monarchs belonging to the last, or Sargonid
dynasty; and hence we are entitled approximately to fix the series to
the seventh and eighth centuries before our era. The Urarda must at this
time have exercised a dominion over almost the whole of the region
to which the name of Armenia commonly attaches. They were worthy
antagonists of the Assyrians, and, though occasionally worsted in
fight, maintained their independence, at any rate, till the time of
Asshur-bani-pal (about B.C. 640), when the last king of the Van series,
whose name is read as Bilat-duri, succumbed to the Assyrian power, and
consented to pay a tribute for his dominions.
There is reason to believe that between the time when we obtain this
view of the primitive Armenian peoples and that at which we next have
any exact knowledge of the condition of the country--the time of the
Persian monarchy--a great revolution had taken place in the region.
The Nairi, Urarda, and Minni were Turanian, or, at any rate, non-Arian,
races. Their congeners in Western Asia were the early Babylonians and
the Susianians, not the Medes, the Persians, or the Phrygians. But by
the time of Herodotus the Arian character of the Armenians had become
established. Their close connection with the Phrygians was recognized.
They had changed their national appellation; for while in the Assyrian
period the terms Nairi and Urarda had preponderated, under the Persians
they had come to be called Armenians and their country Armenia. The
personal names of individuals in the country, both men and women, had
acquired a decidedly Arian cast. Everything seems to indicate that a
strange people had immigrated into the land, bringing with them a new
language, new manners and customs, and a new religious system. From what
quarter they had come, whether from Phrygia as Herodotus and Stephen
believed, or, as we should gather from their language and religion, from
Media, is perhaps doubtful; but it seems certain that from one quarter
or another Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had
passed away from it; immigrants had nocked in, and a new people had
been formed--the real Armenian of later times, and indeed of the present
day--by the admixture of ruling Arian tribes with a primitive Turanian
population, the descendants of the old inhabitants.
The new race, thus formed, though perhaps not less brave and warlike
than the old, was less bent on maintaining its independence. Moses of
Chorene, the Armenian historian, admits that from the time of the Median
preponderance in Western Asia the Armenians held under them a subject
position. That such was their position under the Persians is abundantly
evident;25 and, so far as appears, there was only one occasion during
the entire Achaemenian period (B.C. 559 to B.C. 331) when they exhibited
any impatience of the Persian yoke, or made any attempt to free
themselves from it. In the early portion of the reign of Darius
Hystaspis they took part in a revolt raised by a Mede called Phraortes,
and were not reduced to obedience without some difficulty. But from
henceforth their fidelity to the Achaemenian Kings was unbroken; they
paid their tribute (apparently) without reluctance, and furnished
contingents of troops to the Persian armies when called upon. After
Arbela they submitted without a struggle to Alexander; and when in the
division of his dominions, which followed upon the battle of Ipsus, they
fell naturally to Seleucus, they acquiesced in the arrangement. It was
not until Antiochus the Great suffered his great defeat at the hands of
the Romans (B.C. 190) that Armenia bestirred itself, and, after probably
four and a half centuries of subjection, became once more an independent
power. Even then the movement seems to have originated rather in the
ambition of a chief than in a desire for liberty on the part of
the people. Artaxias had been governor of the Greater Armenia under
Antiochus, and seized the opportunity afforded by the battle of Magnesia
to change his title of satrap into that of sovereign. No war followed.
Antiochus was too much weakened by his reverses to make any attempt to
reduce Artaxias or recover Armenia; and the nation obtained autonomy
without having to undergo the usual ordeal of a bloody struggle. When at
the expiration of five-and-twenty years Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus
the Great, determined on an effort to reconquer the lost province, no
very stubborn resistance was offered to him. Artaxias was defeated and
made prisoner in the very first year of the war (B.C. 165), and Armenia
seems to have passed again under the sway of the Seleucidae.
It would seem that matters remained in this state for the space of about
fifteen or sixteen years. When, however, Mithridates I. (Arsaces VI.),
about B.C. 150, had overrun the eastern provinces of Syria, and made
himself master in succession of Media, Elymais, and Babylonia, the
revolutionary movement excited by his successes reached Armenia, and the
standard of independence was once more raised in that country. According
to the Armenian historians, an Arsacid prince, Wagharshag or Valarsaces,
was established as sovereign by the influence of the Parthian monarch,
but was allowed to rule independently. A reign of twenty-two years is
assigned to this prince, whose kingdom is declared to have reached from
the Caucasus to Nisibis, and from the Caspian to the Mediterranean. He
was succeeded by his son, Arshag (Arsaces), who reigned thirteen years,
and was, like his father, active and warlike, contending chiefly with
the people of Pontus. At his death the crown descended to his son,
Ardashes, who is probably the Ortoadistus of Justin.
Such were the antecedents of Armenia when Mithridates II., having
given an effectual check to the progress of the Scythians in the east,
determined to direct his arms towards the west, and to attack the
dominions of his relative, the third of the Armenian Arsacidse. Of
the circumstances of this war, and its results, we have scarcely
any knowledge. Justin, who alone distinctly mentions it, gives us no
details. A notice, however, in Strabo, which must refer to about this
time, is thought to indicate with sufficient clearness the result of the
struggle, which seems to have been unfavorable to the Armenians. Strabo
says that Tigranes, before his accession to the throne, was for a time
a hostage among the Parthians. As hostages are only given by the
vanquished party, we may assume that Ortoadistus (Ardashes) found
himself unable to offer an effectual resistance to the Parthian
king, and consented after a while to a disadvantageous peace, for his
observance of which hostages were required by the victor.
It cannot have been more than a few years after the termination of this
war, which must have taken place towards the close of the second, or
soon after the beginning of the first century, that Parthia was for the
first time brought into contact with Rome.
The Great Republic, which after her complete victory over Antiochus
III., B.C. 190, had declined to take possession of a single foot of
ground in Asia, regarding the general state of affairs as not then ripe
for an advance of Terminus in that quarter, had now for some time seen
reason to alter its policy, and to aim at adding to its European an
extensive Asiatic dominion. Macedonia and Greece having been absorbed,
and Carthage destroyed (B.C. 148-146), the conditions of the political
problem seemed to be so far changed as to render a further advance
towards the east a safe measure; and accordingly, when it was seen that
the line of the kings of Pergamus was coming to an end, the Senate set
on foot intrigues which had for their object the devolution upon Rome
of the sovereignty belonging to those monarchs. By clever management the
third Attalus was induced, in repayment of his father’s obligations
to the Romans, to bequeath his entire dominions as a legacy to the
Republic. In vain did his illegitimate half-brother, Aristonicus,
dispute the validity of so extraordinary a testament; the Romans, aided
by Mithridates IV., then monarch of Pontus, easily triumphed over such
resistance as this unfortunate prince could offer, and having ceded to
their ally the portion of Phrygia which had belonged to the Pergamene
kingdom, entered on the possession of the remainder. Having thus
become an Asiatic power, the Great Republic was of necessity mixed
up henceforth with the various movements and struggles which agitated
Western Asia, and was naturally led to strengthen its position among the
Asiatic kingdoms by such alliances as seemed at each conjuncture best
fitted for its interests.
Hitherto no occasion had arisen for any direct dealings between Rome
and Parthia. Their respective territories were still separated by
considerable tracts, which were in the occupation of the Syrians, the
Cappadocians, and the Armenians. Their interests had neither clashed,
nor as yet sufficiently united them to give rise to any diplomatic
intercourse. But the progress of the two Empires in opposite directions
was continually bringing them nearer to each other; and events had now
reached a point at which the Empires began to have (or seem to have)
such a community of interests as led naturally to an exchange of
communications. A great power had been recently developed in these
parts. In the rapid way so common in the East. Mithridates V., of
Pontus, the son and successor of Rome’s ally, had, between B.C. 112 and
B.C. 93, built up an Empire of vast extent, numerous population, and
almost inexhaustible resources. He had established his authority over
Armenia Minor, Colchis, the entire east coast of the Black Sea, the
Chersonesus Taurica, or kingdom of the Bosporus, and even over the whole
tract lying west of the Chersonese as far as the mouth of the Tyras,
or Dniester. Nor had these gains contented him. He had obtained half of
Paphlagonia by an iniquitous compact with Nicomedes, King of Bithynia;
he had occupied Galatia; and he was engaged in attempts to bring
Cappadocia under his influence. In this last-named project he was
assisted by the Armenians, with whose king, Tigranes, he had (about B.C.
96) formed a close alliance, at the same time giving him his daughter,
Cleopatra, in marriage. Rome, though she had not yet determined on war
with Mithridates, was resolved to thwart his Cappadocian projects, and
in B.C. 92 sent Sulla into Asia with orders to put down the puppet whom
Mithridates and Tigranes were establishing, and to replace upon the
Cappadocian throne a certain Ariobarzanes, whom they had driven from
his kingdom. In the execution of this commission, Sulla was brought
into hostile collision with the Armenians, whom he defeated with great
slaughter, and drove from Cappadocia together with their puppet king.
Thus, not only did the growing power of Mithridates of Pontus, by
inspiring Rome and Parthia with a common fear, tend to draw them
together, but the course of events had actually given them a common
enemy in Tigranes of Armenia, who was equally obnoxious to both.
For Tigranes, who, during the time that he was a hostage in Parthia,
had contracted engagements towards the Parthian monarch which involved
a cession of territory, and who in consequence of his promises had been
aided by the Parthians in seating himself on his father’s throne though
he made the cession required of him in the first instance had soon
afterwards repented of his good faith, had gone to war with his
benefactors, recovered the ceded territory, and laid waste a
considerable tract of country lying within the admitted limits of
the Parthian kingdom. These proceedings had, of course, alienated
Mithridates II.; and we may with much probability ascribe to them the
step, which he now took, of sending an ambassador to Sulla. Orobazus,
the individual selected, was charged to propose an alliance offensive
and defensive between the two countries. Sulla received the overture
favorably, but probably considered that it transcended his powers to
conclude a treaty; and thus nothing more was effected by the embassy
than the establishment of a good understanding between the two States.
Soon after this Tigranes appears to have renewed his attacks upon
Parthia, which in the interval between B.C. 92 and B.C. 83 he greatly
humbled, depriving it of the whole of Upper Mesopotamia, at this time
called Gordyene, and under rule of one of the Parthian tributary kings.
Of the details of this war we have no account; and it is even uncertain
whether it fell within the reign of Mithridates II. or no. The
unfortunate mistake of Justin, whereby he confounded this monarch with
Mithridates III., has thrown this portion of the Parthian history into
confusion, and has made even the successor of Mithridates II. uncertain.
Mithridates II. probably died about B.C. 89, after a reign which
must have exceeded thirty-five years. His great successes against
the Scythians in the earlier portion of his reign were to some extent
counterbalanced by his losses to Tigranes in his old age; but on the
whole he must be regarded as one of the more vigorous and successful of
the Parthian monarchs, and as combining courage with prudence. It is to
his credit that he saw the advantage of establishing friendly relations
with Rome at a time when an ordinary Oriental monarch might have
despised the distant Republic, and have thought it beneath his dignity
to make overtures to so strange and anomalous a power. Whether he
definitely foresaw the part which Rome was about to play in the East,
we may doubt; but at any rate he must have had a prevision that the
part would not be trifling or insignificant. Of the private character of
Mithridates we have no sufficient materials to judge. If it be true that
he put his envoy, Orobazus, to death on account of his having allowed
Sulla to assume a position at their conference derogatory to the dignity
of the Parthian State, we must pronounce him a harsh master; but the
tale, which rests wholly on the weak authority of the gossip-loving
Plutarch, is perhaps scarcely to be accepted.