_Short reigns of Phraataces, Orodes II., and Vonones I. Accession of
Artabanus III. His relations with Germanicus and Tiberius. His War with
Pharasmanes of Iberia. His First Expulsion from his Kingdom, and return
to it. His peace with Rome. Internal troubles of the Parthian Kingdom.
Second Expulsion and return of Artabanus. His Death._
The accession of Phraataces made no difference in the attitude of
Parthia towards Armenia. The young prince was as anxious as his father
had been to maintain the Parthian claims to that country, and at first
perhaps as inclined to believe that Augustus would not dispute them.
Immediately upon his accession he sent ambassadors to Rome announcing
the fact, apologizing for the circumstances under which it had taken
place, and proposing a renewal of the peace which had subsisted between
Augustus and his father. Apparently, he said nothing about Armenia, but
preferred a demand for the surrender of his four brothers, whom no
doubt he designed to destroy. The answer of Augustus was severe in the
extreme. Addressing Phraataces by his bare name, without adding the
title of king, he required him to lay aside the royal appellation, which
he had arrogantly and without any warrant assumed, and at the same time
to withdraw his forces from Armenia. On the surrender of the Parthian
princes he kept silence, ignoring a demand which he had no intention of
according. It was clearly his design to set up one of the elder brothers
as a rival claimant to Phraataces, or at any rate to alarm him with the
notion that, unless he made concessions, this policy would be adopted.
But Phraataces was not to be frightened by a mere message. He responded
to Augustus after his own fashion, dispatching to him a letter wherein
he took to himself the favorite Parthian title of “king of kings,” and
addressed the Roman Emperor simply as “Caesar.” The attitude of defiance
would no doubt have been maintained, had Augustus confined himself to
menaces; when, however, it appeared that active measures would be taken,
when Augustus, in B.C. 1, sent his grandson, Caius, to the East with
orders to re-establish the Roman influence in Armenia even at the cost
of a Parthian war, and that prince showed himself in Syria with all the
magnificent surroundings of the Imperial dignity, the Parthian monarch
became alarmed. He had an interview with Caius in the spring of A.D.
1, upon an island in the Euphrates; where the terms of an arrangement
between the two Empires were discussed and settled. The armies of the
two chiefs were drawn up on the opposite banks of the river, facing one
another; and the chiefs themselves, accompanied by an equal number
of attendants, proceeded to deliberate in the sight of both hosts.
Satisfactory pledges having been given by the Parthian monarch, the
prince and king in turn entertained each other on the borders of their
respective dominions; and Caius returned into Syria, having obtained an
engagement from the Parthians to abstain from any further interference
with Armenian affairs. The engagement appears to have been honorably
kept; for when, shortly afterward, fresh complications occurred, and
Caius in endeavoring to settle them received his death-wound before
the walls of an Armenian tower, we do not hear of Parthia as in any way
involved in the unfortunate occurrence. The Romans and their partisans
in the country were left to settle the Armenian succession as they
pleased; and Parthia kept herself wholly aloof from the matters
transacted upon her borders.
One cause--perhaps the main cause of this abstinence, and of the
engagement to abstain entered into by Phraataces, was doubtless the
unsettled state of things in Parthia itself. The circumstances under
which that prince had made himself king, though not unparalleled in the
Parthian annals, were such as naturally tended towards civil strife,
and as were apt to produce in Parthia internal difficulties, if not
disorders or commotions. Phraataces soon found that he would have a hard
task to establish his rule. The nobles objected to him, not only for the
murder of his father, but his descent from an Italian concubine, and the
incestuous commerce which he was supposed to maintain with her. They had
perhaps grounds for this last charge. At any rate Phraataces provoked
suspicion by the singular favors and honors which he granted to a woman
whose origin was mean and extraction foreign. Not content with private
marks of esteem and love, he departed from the practice of all former
Parthian sovereigns in placing her effigy upon his coins; and he
accompanied this act with fulsome and absurd titles. Musa was styled,
not merely “Queen,” but “Heavenly Goddess,” as if the realities of slave
origin and concubinage could be covered by the fiction of an apotheosis.
It is not surprising that the proud Parthian nobles were offended by
these proceedings, and determined to rid themselves of a monarch whom
they at once hated and despised. Within a few years of his obtaining
the throne an insurrection broke out against his authority; and after a
brief struggle he was deprived of his crown and put to death. The nobles
then elected an Arsacid, named Orodes, whose residence at the time and
relationship to the former monarchs are uncertain. It seems probable
that, like most princes of the blood royal, he had taken refuge in a
foreign country from the suspicions and dangers that beset all
possible pretenders to the royal dignity in Parthia, and was living in
retirement, unexpectant of any such offer, when a deputation of Parthian
nobles arrived and brought him the intelligence of his election.
It might have been expected that, obtaining the crown under these
circumstances, he would have ruled well; but, according to Josephus (who
is here, unfortunately, our sole authority), he very soon displayed so
much violence and cruelty of disposition that his rule was felt to be
intolerable; and the Parthians, again breaking into insurrection, rid
themselves of him, killing him either at a banquet or on a hunting
excursion. This done, they sent to Rome, and requested Augustus to allow
Vonones, the eldest son of Phraates IV., to return to Parthia in order
that he might receive his father’s kingdom. The Emperor complied
readily enough, since he regarded his own dignity as advanced by the
transaction; and the Parthians at first welcomed the object of their
choice with rejoicings. But after a little time their sentiments
altered. The young prince, bred up in Rome, and accustomed to the
refinements of Western civilization, neglected the occupations which
seemed to his subjects alone worthy of a monarch’s regard, absented
himself from the hunting-field, took small pleasure in riding, when he
passed through the streets indulged in the foreign luxury of a litter,
shrank with disgust from the rude and coarse feastings which formed a
portion of the national manners. He had, moreover, brought with him from
the place of his exile a number of Greek companions, whom the Parthians
despised and ridiculed; and the favors bestowed on these foreign
interlopers were seen with jealousy and rage. It was in vain that he
endeavored to conciliate his offended subjects by the openness of his
manners and the facility with which he allowed access to his person. In
their prejudiced eyes virtues and graces unknown to the nation hitherto
were not merits but defects, and rather increased, than diminished their
aversion. Having conceived a dislike for the monarch personally, they
began to look back with dissatisfaction on their own act in sending for
him. “Parthia,” they said, “had indeed degenerated from her former self
to have requested a king to be sent her who belonged to another world
and had had a hostile civilization ingrained into him.” All the glory
gained by destroying Crassus and repulsing Antony was utterly lost and
gone, if the country was to be ruled by Caesar’s bond-slave, and the
throne of the Arsacidse to be treated like a Roman province. It would
have been bad enough to have had a prince imposed on them by the will
of a superior, if they had been conquered; it was worse, in all respects
worse, to suffer such an insult, when they had not even had war made
on them. Under the influence of such feelings as these, the Parthians,
after tolerating Vonones for a few years, rose against him (ab. A.D.
16), and summoned Artabanus, an Arsacid who had grown to manhood among
the Dahee of the Caspian region, but was at this time king of Media
Atropatene, to rule over them.
It was seldom that a crown was declined in the ancient world; and
Artabanus, on receiving the overture, at once expressed his willingness
to accept the proffered dignity. He invaded Parthia at the head of an
army consisting of his own subjects, and engaged Vonones, to whom in his
difficulties the bulk of the Parthian people had rallied. The engagement
resulted in the defeat of the Median monarch, who returned to his own
country, and, having collected a larger army, made a second invasion.
This time he was successful. Vonones fled on horseback to Seleucia with
a small body of followers; while his defeated army, following in his
track, was pressed upon by the victorious Mede, and suffered great
losses. Artabanus, having entered Ctesiphon in triumph, was immediately
proclaimed king. Vonones, escaping from Seleucia, took refuge among
the Armenians; and, as it happened that just at this time the Armenian
throne was vacant, not only was an asylum granted him, but he was made
king of the country. It was impossible that Artabanus should tamely
submit to an arrangement which would have placed his deadly enemy in
a position to cause him constant annoyance. He, therefore, at once
remonstrated, both in Armenia and at Rome. As Rome now claimed the
investiture of the Armenian monarchs, he sent an embassy to Tiberius,
and threatened war if Vonones were acknowledged; while at the same time
he applied to Armenia and required the surrender of the refugee. An
important section of the Armenian nation was inclined to grant his
demand; Tiberius, who would willingly have supported Vonones, drew back
before the Parthian threats; Vonones found himself in imminent danger,
and, under the circumstances, determined on quitting Armenia and
betaking himself to the protection of the Roman governor of Syria. This
was Creticus Silanus, who received him gladly, gave him a guard, and
allowed him the state and title of king. Meanwhile Artabanus laid claim
to Armenia, and suggested as a candidate for the throne one of his own
sons, Orodes.
Under these circumstances, the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, who had recently
succeeded Augustus, resolved to despatch to the East a personage of
importance, who should command the respect and attention of the Oriental
powers by his dignity, and impose upon them by the pomp and splendor
with which he was surrounded. He selected for this office Germanicus,
his nephew, the eldest son of his deceased brother, Drusus, a prince of
much promise, amiable in his disposition, courteous and affable in his
manners, a good soldier, and a man generally popular. The more to
strike the minds of the Orientals, he gave Germanicus no usual title or
province, but invested him with an extraordinary command over all the
Roman dominions to the east of the Hellespont, thus rendering him a sort
of monarch of Roman Asia. Full powers were granted him for making peace
or war, for levying troops, annexing provinces, appointing subject
kings, and performing other sovereign acts, without referring back to
Rome for instructions. A train of unusual magnificence accompanied him
to his charge, calculated to impress the Orientals with the conviction
that this was no common negotiator. Germanicus arrived in Asia early in
A.D. 18, and applied himself at once to his task. Entering Armenia at
the head of his troops, he proceeded to the capital, Artaxata, and,
having ascertained the wishes of the Armenians themselves, determined
on his course of conduct. To have insisted on the restoration of Vonones
would have been grievously to offend the Armenians who had expelled
him, and at the same time to provoke the Parthians, who could not have
tolerated a pretender in a position of power upon their borders; to
have allowed the pretensions of the Parthian monarch, and accepted the
candidature of his son, Orodes, would have lowered Rome in the opinion
of all the surrounding nations, and been equivalent to an abdication of
all influence in the affairs of Western Asia. Germanicus avoided either
extreme, and found happily a middle course. It happened that there was
a foreign prince settled in Armenia, who having grown up there had
assimilated himself in all respects to the Armenian ideas and habits,
and had thereby won golden opinions from both the nobles and the people.
This was Zeno, the son of Polemo, once king of the curtailed Pontus,
and afterwards of the Lesser Armenia, an outlying Roman dependency. The
Armenians themselves suggested that Zeno should be their monarch; and
Germanicus saw a way out of his difficulties in the suggestion. At the
seat of government, Artaxata, in the presence of a vast multitude of the
people, with the consent and approval of the principal nobles, he placed
with his own hand the diadem on the brow of the favored prince, and
saluted him as king under the new name of “Artaxias.” He then returned
into Syria, where he was shortly afterwards visited by ambassadors from
the Parthian monarch. Artabanus reminded him of the peace concluded
between Rome and Parthia in the reign of Augustus, and assumed that
the circumstances of his own appointment to the throne had in no way
interfered with it. He would be glad, he said, to renew with Germanicus
the interchange of friendly assurances which had passed between his
predecessor, Phraataces, and Caius; and to accommodate the Roman
general, he would willingly come to meet him as far as the Euphrates;
meanwhile, until the meeting could take place, he must request that
Vonones should be removed to a greater distance from the Parthian
frontier, and that he should not be allowed to continue the
correspondence in which he was engaged with many of the Parthian nobles
for the purpose of raising fresh troubles. Germanicus replied politely,
but indefinitely, to the proposal of an interview, which he may have
thought unnecessary, and open to misconstruction. To the request for the
removal of Vonones he consented. Vonones was transferred from Syria to
the neighboring province of Cilicia; and the city of Pompeiopolis, built
by the great Pompey on the site of the ancient Soli, was assigned to him
as his residence. With this arrangement the Parthian monarch appears to
have been contented. Vonones on the other hand was so dissatisfied with
the change that in the course of the next year (A.D. 19) he endeavored
to make his escape; his flight was, however, discovered, and, pursuit
being made, he was overtaken and slain on the banks of the Pyramus. Thus
perished ingloriously one of the least blamable and most unfortunate of
the Parthian princes.
After the death of Germanicus, in A.D. 19, the details of the Parthian
history are for some years unknown to us. It appears that during this
interval Artabanus [PLATE II. Fig. 5.] was engaged in wars with several
of the nations upon his borders, and met with so much success that he
came after a while to desire, rather than fear, a rupture with Rome. He
knew that Tiberius was now an old man, and that he was disinclined to
engage in distant wars; he was aware that Germanicus was dead; and he
was probably not much afraid of L. Vitellius, the governor of Syria,
who had been recently deputed by Tiberius to administer that province.
Accordingly in A.D. 34, the Armenian throne being once more vacant
by the death of Artaxias (Zeno), he suddenly seized the country, and
appointed his eldest son, whom Dio and Tacitus call simply Arsaces, to
be king. At the same time he sent ambassadors to require the restoration
of the treasure which Vonones had carried off from Parthia and had left
behind him in Syria or Cilicia. To this plain and definite demand were
added certain vague threats, or boasts, to the effect that he was
the rightful master of all the territory that had belonged of old to
Macedonia or Persia, and that it was his intention to resume possession
of the provinces, whereto, as the representative of Cyrus and Alexander,
he was entitled. He is said to have even commenced operations against
Cappadocia, which was an actual portion of the Roman Empire, when he
found that Tiberius, so far from resenting the seizure of Armenia,
had sent instructions to Vitellius, that he was to cultivate peaceful
relations with Parthia. Apparently he thought that a good opportunity
had arisen for picking a quarrel with his Western neighbor, and was
determined to take advantage of it. The aged despot, hidden in his
retreat of Capreae, seemed to him a pure object of contempt; and he
entertained the confident hope of defeating his armies and annexing
portions of his territory.
[Illustration: PLATE 2.]
But Tiberius was under no circumstances a man to be wholly despised.
Simultaneously with the Parthian demands and threats intelligence
reached him that the subjects of Artabanus were greatly dissatisfied
with his rule, and that it would be easy by fomenting the discontent to
bring about a revolution. Some of the nobles even went in person to Rome
(A.D. 35), and suggested that if Phraates, one of the surviving sons of
Phraates IV., were to appear under Roman protection upon the banks of
the Euphrates, an insurrection would immediately break out. Artabanus,
they said, among his other cruelties had put to death almost all the
adult males of the Arsacid family; a successful revolution could not be
hoped for without an Arsacid leader; if Tiberius, however, would
deliver to them the prince for whom they asked, this difficulty would be
removed, and there was then every reason to expect a happy issue to
the rebellion. The Emperor was not hard to persuade; he no doubt argued
that, whatever became of the attempt and those engaged in it, one result
at least was certain--Artabanus would find plenty of work to occupy him
at home, and would desist from his foreign aggressions. He therefore
let Phraates take his departure and proceed to Syria, glad to meet the
danger which had threatened him by craft and policy rather than by force
of arms.
Artabanus soon became aware of the intrigue. He found that the
chief conspirators in Parthia were a certain Sinnaces, a nobleman
distinguished alike for his high birth and his great riches, and
a eunuch named Abdus, who held a position about the court, and was
otherwise a personage of importance. It would have been easy to seize
these two men, and execute them; but Artabanus was uncertain how far
the conspiracy extended, and thought it most prudent to defer bringing
matters to a crisis. He therefore dissembled, and was content to cause
a delay, first by administering to Abdus a slow poison, and then by
engaging Sinnaces so constantly in affairs of state that he had little
or no time to devote to plotting. Successful thus far by his own cunning
and dexterity, he was further helped by a stroke of good fortune, on
which he could not have calculated. Phraates, who thought that after
forty years of residence in Rome it was necessary to fit himself for
the position of Parthian king by resuming the long-disused habits of his
nation, was carried off, after a short residence in Syria, by a disease
which he was supposed to have contracted through the change in his mode
of life. His death must for the time have paralyzed the conspirators,
and have greatly relieved Artabanus. It was perhaps now, under the
stimulus of a sudden change from feelings of extreme alarm to fancied
security, that he wrote the famous letter to Tiberius, in which he
reproached him for his cruelty, cowardice, and luxuriousness of living,
and recommended him to satisfy the just desires of the subjects who
hated him by an immediate suicide.
This letter, if genuine, must be pronounced under any circumstances
a folly; and if really sent at this time, it may have had tragical
consequences. It is remarkable that Tiberius, on learning the death of
Phraates, instead of relaxing, intensified his efforts. Not only did he
at once send out to Syria another pretender, Tiridates, a nephew of the
deceased prince, in order to replace him, but he made endeavors, such as
we do not hear of before, to engage other nations in the struggle; and
further, he enlarged the commission of Vitellius, giving him a general
superintendence over the affairs of the East. Thus Artabanus found
himself in greater peril than ever, and if he had really indulged in the
silly effusion ascribed to him was rightly punished. Pharasmanes, king
of Iberia, a portion of the modern Georgia, incited by Tiberius,
took the field (A.D. 35), and proclaimed his intention of placing his
brother, Mithridates, on the Armenian throne. Having by corruption
succeeded in bringing about the murder of Arsaces by his attendants, he
marched into Armenia, and became master of the capital without meeting
any resistance. Artabanus, upon this, sent his son Orodes to maintain
the Parthian cause in the disputed province; but he proved no match for
the Iberian, who was superior in numbers, in the variety of his troops,
and in familiarity with the localities. Pharasmanes had obtained the
assistance of his neighbors, the Albanians, and, opening the passes
of the Caucasus, had admitted through them a number of the Scythic or
Sarmatian hordes, who were always ready, when their swords were hired,
to take a part in the quarrels of the south. Orodes was unable to
procure either mercenaries or allies, and had to contend unassisted
against the three enemies who had joined their forces to oppose him. For
some time he prudently declined an engagement; but it was difficult to
restrain the ardor of his troops, whom the enemy exasperated by their
reproaches. After a while he was compelled to accept the battle which
Pharasmanes incessantly offered. His force consisted entirely of
cavalry, while Pharasmanes had besides his horse a powerful body of
infantry. The battle was nevertheless stoutly contested; and the victory
might have been doubtful, had it not happened that in a hand-to-hand
combat between the two commanders Orodes was struck to the ground by his
antagonist, and thought by most of his own men to be killed. As usual
under such circumstances in the East, a rout followed. If we may believe
Josephus, “many tens of thousands” were slain. Armenia was wholly lost;
and Artabanus found himself left with diminished resources and tarnished
fame to meet the intrigues of his domestic enemies.
Still, he would not succumb without an effort. In the spring of A.D.
36, having levied the whole force of the Empire, he took the field and
marched northwards, determined, if possible, to revenge himself on
the Iberians and recover his lost province. But his first efforts were
unsuccessful; and before he could renew them Vitellius put himself at
the head of his legions, and marching towards the Euphrates threatened
Mesopotamia with invasion. Placed thus between two fires, the Parthian
monarch felt that he had no choice but to withdraw from Armenia and
return to the defence of his own proper territories, which in his
absence must have lain temptingly open to an enemy. His return caused
Vitellius to change his tactics. Instead of measuring his strength
against that which still remained to Artabanus, he resumed the weapon of
intrigue so dear to his master, and proceeded by a lavish expenditure of
money to excite disaffection once more among the Parthian nobles. This
time conspiracy was successful. The military disasters of the last two
years had alienated from Artabanus the affections of those whom his
previous cruelties had failed to disgust or alarm; and he found himself
without any armed force whereon he could rely, beyond a small body of
foreign guards which he maintained about his person. It seemed to him
that his only safety was in flight; and accordingly he quitted his
capital and removed himself hastily into Hyrcania, which was in the
immediate vicinity of the Scythian Dahse, among whom he had been brought
up. Here the natives were friendly to him, and he lived a retired life,”
waiting” (as he said) “until the Parthians, who could judge an absent
prince with equity, though they could not long continue faithful to a
present one, should repent of their behavior to him.”
Upon learning the flight of Artabamis, Vitellius advanced to the banks
of the Euphrates, and introduced Tiridates into his kingdom. Fortunate
omens were said to have accompanied the passage of the river; and these
were followed by adhesions of greater importance. Ornospades, satrap of
Mesopotamia, was the first to join the standard of the pretender with
a large body of horse. He was followed by the conspirator Sinnaces,
his father Abdageses, the keeper of the king’s treasures, and other
personages of high position. The Greek cities in Mesopotamia readily
opened their gates to a monarch long domiciled at Rome, from whom they
expected a politeness and refinement that would harmonize better with
their feelings than the manners of the late king, bred up among the
uncivilized Scyths. Parthian towns, like Halus and Artemita, followed
their example. Seleucia, the second city in the Empire, received the new
monarch with an obsequiousness that bordered on adulation. Not content
with paying him all customary royal honors, they appended to their
acclamations disparaging remarks upon his predecessor, whom they
affected to regard as the issue of an adulterous intrigue, and as no
true Arsacid. Tiridates was pleased to reward the unseemly flattery
of these degenerate Greeks by a new arrangement of their constitution.
Hitherto they had lived under the government of a Senate of Three
Hundred members, the wisest and wealthiest of the citizens, a certain
control being, however, secured to the people. Artabanus had recently
modified the constitution in an aristocratic sense; and therefore
Tiridates pursued the contrary course, and established an unbridled
democracy in the place of a mixed government. He then entered Ctesiphon,
the capital, and after waiting some days for certain noblemen, who had
expressed a wish to attend his coronation but continually put off their
coming, he was crowned in the ordinary manner by the Surena of the time
being, in the sight and amid the acclamations of a vast multitude.
The pretender now regarded his work as completed, and forbore any
further efforts. The example of the Western provinces would, he assumed,
be followed by the Eastern, and the monarch approved by Mesopotamia,
Babylonia, and the capital would carry, as a matter of course, the rest
of the nation. Policy required that the general acquiescence should
not have been taken for granted. Tiridates should have made a military
progress through the East, no less than the West, and have sought out
his rival in the distant Hyrcania, and slain him, or driven him beyond
the borders. Instead of thus occupying himself, he was content to
besiege a stronghold where Artabanus had left his treasure and his
harem. This conduct was imprudent; and the imprudence cost him his
crown. That fickle temper which Artabanus had noted in his countrymen
began to work so soon as the new king was well installed in his office;
the coveted post of chief vizier could but be assigned to one, and the
selection of the fortunate individual was the disappointment of a host
of expectants; nobles absent from the coronation, whether by choice or
necessity, began to be afraid that their absence would cost them dear,
when Tiridates had time to reflect upon it and to listen to their
detractors. The thoughts of the malcontents turned towards their
dethroned monarch; and emissaries were despatched to seek him out, and
put before him the project of a restoration. He was found in Hyrcania,
in a miserable dress and plight, living on the produce of his bow. At
first he suspected the messengers, believing that their intention was to
seize him and deliver him up to Tiridates; but it was not long ere they
persuaded him that, whether their affection for himself were true or
feigned, their enmity to Tiridates was real. They had indeed no worse
charges to bring against this prince than his youth, and the softness
of his Roman breeding; but they were evidently in earnest, and had
committed themselves too deeply to make it possible for them to retract.
Artabanus, therefore, accepted their offers, and having obtained the
services of a body of Dahse and other Scyths, proceeded westward,
retaining the miserable garb and plight in which he had been found, in
order to draw men to his side by pity; and making all haste, in order
that his enemies might have less opportunity to prepare obstructions and
his friends less time to change their minds. He reached the neighborhood
of Ctesiphon while Tiridates was still doubting what he should do,
distracted between the counsels of some who recommended an immediate
engagement with the rebels before they recovered from the fatigues of
their long march or grew accustomed to act together, and of others who
advised a retreat into Mesopotamia, reliance upon the Armenians and
other tribes of the north, and a union with the Roman troops, which
Vitellius, on the first news of what had happened, had thrown across
the Euphrates. The more timid counsel had the support of Abdageses, whom
Tiridates had made his vizier, and therefore naturally prevailed,
the prince himself being moreover of an unwarlike temper. It had, in
appearance, much to recommend it; and if its execution had been in the
hands of Occidentals might have succeeded. But, in the East, the first
movement in retreat is taken as a confession of weakness and almost as
an act of despair: an order to “retire” is regarded as a direction to
fly. No sooner was the Tigris crossed and the march through Mesopotamia
began, than the host of Tiridates melted away like an iceberg in the
Gulf Stream. The tribes of the Desert set the example of flight; and in
a little time almost the whole army had dispersed, drawing off either to
the camp of the enemy or to their homes. Tiridates reached the Euphrates
with a mere handful of followers, and crossing into Syria found himself
once more safe under the protection of the Romans.
The flight of Tiridates gave Parthia back into the hands of its former
ruler. Artabanus reoccupied the throne, apparently without having to
fight a battle. He seems, however, not to have felt himself strong
enough either to resume his designs upon Armenia, or to retaliate in
any way upon the Romans for their support of Tiridates. Mithridates,
the Iberian, was left in quiet possession of the Armenian kingdom, and
Vitellius found himself unmolested on the Euphrates. Tiberius, however,
was anxious that the war with Parthia should be formally terminated,
and, having failed in his attempts to fill the Parthian throne with a
Roman nominee, was ready to acknowledge Artabanus, and eager to enter
into a treaty with him. He instructed Vitellius to this effect; and that
officer (late in A.D. 36 or early in A.D. 37), having invited Artabanus
to an interview on the Euphrates, persuaded him to terms which were
regarded by the Romans as highly honorable to themselves, though
Artabanus probably did not feel them to be degrading to Parthia. Peace
and amity were re-established between the two nations. Rome, it may be
assumed, undertook to withhold her countenance from all pretenders
to the Parthian throne, and Parthia withdrew her claims upon Armenia.
Artabanus was persuaded to send his son, Darius, with some other
Parthians of rank, to Rome, and was thus regarded by the Romans as
having given hostages for his good behavior. He was also induced to
throw a few grains of frankincense on the sacrificial fire which burnt
in front of the Roman standards and the Imperial images, an act which
was accepted at Rome as one of submission and homage. The terms and
circumstances of the peace did not become known in Italy till Tiberius
had been succeeded by Caligula (March, A.D. 37). When known, they
gave great satisfaction, and were regarded as glorious alike to the
negotiator, Vitellius, and to the prince whom he represented. The false
report was spread that the Parthian monarch had granted to the new
Csesar what his contempt and hatred would have caused him to refuse
to Tiberius; and the inclination of the Romans towards their young
sovereign was intensified by the ascription to him of a diplomatic
triumph which belonged of right to his predecessor.
Contemporaneously with the troubles which have been above described,
but reaching down, it would seem, a few years beyond them, were other
disturbances of a peculiar character in one of the Western provinces
of the Empire. The Jewish element in the population of Western Asia had
been one of importance from a date anterior to the rise, not only of
the Parthian, but even of the Persian Empire. Dispersed colonies of Jews
were to be found in Babylonia, Armenia, Media, Susiana, Mesopotamia, and
probably in other Parthian provinces. These colonies dated from the time
of Nebuchadnezzar’s captivity, and exhibited everywhere the remarkable
tendency of the Jewish race to an increase disproportionate to that of
the population among which they are settled. The Jewish element became
perpetually larger and more important in Babylonia and Mesopotamia,
in spite of the draughts which were made upon it by Seleucus and other
Syrian princes. Under the Parthians, it would seem that the Mesopotamian
Jews enjoyed generally the same sort of toleration, and the same
permission to exercise a species of self-government, which Jews and
Christians enjoy now in many parts of Turkey. They formed a recognized
community, had some cities which were entirely their own, possessed
a common treasury, and from time to time sent up to Jerusalem the
offerings of the people under the protection of a convoy of 30,000 or
40,000 men. The Parthian kings treated them well, and no doubt valued
them as a counterpoise to the disaffected Greeks and Syrians of this
part of their Empire. They had no grievance of which to complain, and it
might have been thought very unlikely that any troubles would arise
in connection with them; but circumstances seemingly trivial threw
the whole community into commotion, and led on to disasters of a very
lamentable character.
Two young Jews, Asinai and Anilai, brothers, natives of Nearda, the city
in which the treasury of the community was established, upon suffering
some ill-treatment at the hands of the manufacturer who employed them,
gave up their trade, and, withdrawing to a marshy district between two
arms of the Euphrates, made up their minds to live by robbery. A band of
needy youths soon gathered about them, and they became the terror of
the entire neighborhood. They exacted a blackmail from the peaceable
population of shepherds and others who lived near them, made occasional
plundering raids to a distance, and required an acknowledgment
(bakhshish) from travellers. Their doings having become notorious, the
satrap of Babylonia marched against them with an army, intending to
surprise them on the Sabbath, when it was supposed that they would not
fight; but his approach was discovered, it was determined to disregard
the obligation of Sabbatical rest, and the satrap was himself surprised
and completely defeated. Artabanus, having heard of the disaster, made
overtures to the brothers, and, after receiving a visit from them at his
court, assigned to Asinai, the elder of the two, the entire government
of the Babylonian satrapy. The experiment appeared at first to have
completely succeeded. Asinai governed the province with prudence
and zeal, and for fifteen years no complaint was made against his
administration. But at the end of this time the lawless temper, held in
restraint for so long, reasserted itself, not, indeed, in Asinai, but
in his brother. Anilai fell in love with the wife of a Parthian magnate,
commander (apparently) of the Parthian troops stationed in Babylonia,
and, seeing no other way of obtaining his wishes, made war upon the
chieftain and killed him. He then married the object of his affections,
and might perhaps have been content; but the Jews under Asinai’s
government remonstrated against the idolatries which the Parthian woman
had introduced into a Jewish household, and prevailed on Asinai to
require that she should be divorced. His compliance with their wishes
proved fatal to him, for the woman, fearing the consequences, contrived
to poison Asinai; and the authority which he had wielded passed into the
hands of Anilai, without (so far as we hear) any fresh appointment from
the Parthian monarch. Anilai had, it appears, no instincts but those
of a freebooter, and he was no sooner settled in the government than he
proceeded to indulge them by attacking the territory of a neighboring
satrap, Mithridates, who was not only a Parthian of high rank, but had
married one of the daughters of Artabanus. Mithridates flew to arms to
defend his province; but Anilai fell upon his encampment in the night,
completely routed his troops, and took Mithridates himself prisoner.
Having subjected him to a gross indignity, he was nevertheless afraid to
put him to death, lest the Parthian king should avenge the slaughter
of his relative on the Jews of Babylon, Mithridates was consequently
released, and returned to his wife, who was so indignant at the insult
whereto he had been subjected that she left him no peace till he
collected a second army and resumed the war. Analai was no ways daunted.
Quitting his stronghold in the marshes, he led his troops a distance
of ten miles through a hot and dry plain to meet the enemy, thus
unnecessarily exhausting them, and exposing them to the attack of their
enemies under the most unfavorable circumstances. He was of course
defeated with loss; but he himself escaped and revenged himself by
carrying fire and sword over the lands of the Babylonians, who had
hitherto lived peaceably under his protection. The Babylonians sent to
Nearda and demanded his surrender; but the Jews of Nearda, even if they
had had the will, had no power to comply. A pretence was then made of
arranging matters by negotiation; but the Babylonians, having in this
way obtained a knowledge of the position which Anilai and his troops
occupied, fell upon them in the night, when they were all either drunk
or asleep, and at one stroke exterminated the whole band.
Thus far no great calamity had occurred. Two Jewish robber-chiefs had
been elevated into the position of Parthian satraps; and the result had
been, first, fifteen years of peace, and then a short civil war, ending
in the destruction of the surviving chief and the annihilation of the
band of marauders. But the lamentable consequences of the commotion were
now to show themselves. The native Babylonians had always looked with
dislike on the Jewish colony, and occasions of actual collision between
the two bodies had not been wholly wanting. The circumstances of the
existing time seemed to furnish a good excuse for an outbreak; and
scarcely were Anilai and his followers destroyed, when the Jews of
Babylon were set upon by their native fellow-citizens. Unable to make
an effectual resistance, they resolved to retire from the place, and, at
the immense loss which such a migration necessarily costs, they quitted
Babylon and transferred themselves in great numbers to Seleucia. Here
they lived quietly for five years (about A.D. 34-39), but in the sixth
year (A.D. 40) fresh troubles broke out. The remnant of the Jews at
Babylon were assailed, either by their old enemies or by a pestilence,
and took refuge at Seleucia with their brethren. It happened that at
Seleucia there was a feud of long standing between the Syrian population
and the Greeks. The Jews naturally joined the Syrians, who were a
kindred race, and the two together brought the Greeks under; whereupon
these last contrived to come to terms with the Syrians, and persuaded
them to join in an attack on the late allies. Against the combined
Greeks and Syrians the Jews were powerless, and in the massacre which
ensued they lost above 50,000 men. The remnant withdrew to Otesiphon;
but even there the malice of their enemies pursued them, and
the persecution was only brought to an end by their quitting the
metropolitan cities altogether, and withdrawing to the provincial towns
of which they were the sole occupants.
The narrative of these events derives its interest, not so much from any
sympathy that we can feel with any of the actors in it as from the
light which it throws upon the character of the Parthian rule, and the
condition of the countries under Parthian government. In the details
given we seem once more to trace a near resemblance between the Parthian
system and that of the Turks; we seem to see thrown back into the mirror
of the past an image of those terrible conflicts and disorders which
have passed before our own eyes in Syria and the Lebanon while under
acknowledged Turkish sovereignty. The picture has the same features of
antipathies of race unsoftened by time and contact, of perpetual feud
bursting out into occasional conflict, of undying religious animosities,
of strange combinations, of fearful massacres, and of a government
looking tamely on, and allowing things for the most part to take their
course. We see how utterly the Parthian system failed to blend together
or amalgamate the conquered peoples; and not only so, but how impotent
it was even to effect the first object of a government, the securing of
peace and tranquillity within its borders. If indeed it were necessary
to believe that the picture brought before us represented truthfully the
normal condition of the people and countries with which it is concerned,
we should be forced to conclude that Parthian government was merely
another name for anarchy, and that it was only good fortune that
preserved the empire from falling to pieces at this early date, within
two centuries of its establishment But there is reason to believe
that the reign of Artabanus III. represents, not the normal, but an
exceptional state of things--a state of things which could only arise
in Parthia when the powers of government were relaxed in consequence of
rebellion and civil war. We must remember that Artabanus was actually
twice driven from his kingdom, and that during the greater part of his
reign he lived in perpetual fear of revolt and insurrection. It is
not improbable that the culminating atrocities of the struggle above
described synchronized with the second expulsion of the Parthian
monarch, and are thus not so much a sign of the ordinary weakness of the
Parthian rule as of the terrible strength of the forces which that rule
for the most part kept under control.
The causes which led to the second expulsion of Artabanus are not
distinctly stated, but they were probably not very different from those
that brought about the first. Artabanus was undoubtedly a harsh
ruler; and those who fell under his displeasure, naturally fearing his
severity, and seeing no way of meeting it but by a revolution, were
driven to adopt extreme measures. Something like a general combination
of the nobles against him seems to have taken place about the year A.D.
40; and it appears that he, on becoming aware of it, determined to quit
the capital and throw himself on the protection of one of the tributary
monarchs. This was Izates, the sovereign of Adiabene, or the tract
between the Zab rivers, who is said to have been a convert to Judaism.
On the flight of Artabanus to Izates it would seem that the Megistanes
formally deposed him, and elected in his place a certain Kinnam, or
Kinnamus, an Arsacid who had been brought up by the king. Izates, when
he interfered on behalf of the deposed monarch, was met by the objection
that the newly-elected prince had rights which could not be set
aside. The difficulty appeared insuperable; but it was overcome by the
voluntary act of Kinnamus, who wrote to Artabanus and offered to retire
in his favor. Hereupon Artabanus returned and remounted his throne,
Kinnamus carrying his magnanimity so far as to strip the diadem from his
own brow and replace it on the head of the old monarch. A condition of
the restoration was a complete amnesty for all political offences, which
was not only promised by Artabanus, but likewise guaranteed by Izates.
It was very shortly after his second restoration to the throne that
Artabanus died. One further calamity must, however, be noticed as having
fallen within the limits of his reign. The great city of Seleucia, the
second in the Empire, shortly after it had experienced the troubles
above narrated, revolted absolutely from the Parthian power, and
declared itself independent. No account has reached us of the
circumstances which caused this revolt; but it was indicative of
a feeling that Parthia was beginning to decline, and that the
disintegration of the Empire was a thing that might be expected. The
Seleucians had at no time been contented with their position as Parthian
subjects. Whether they supposed that they could stand alone, or whether
they looked to enjoying under Roman protection a greater degree of
independence than had been allowed them by the Parthians, is uncertain.
They revolted however, in A. D. 40, and declared themselves a
self-governing community. It does not appear that the Romans lent them
any assistance, or broke for their sake the peace established with
Parthia in A.D. 37. The Seleucians had to depend upon themselves alone,
and to maintain their rebellion by means of their own resources. No
doubt Artabanus proceeded at once to attack them, but his arms made no
impression. They were successful in defending their independence during
his reign, and for some time afterwards, although compelled in the
end to succumb and resume a subject position under their own masters.
Artabanus seems to have died in August or September A.D. 42, the year
after the death of Caligula. His checkered reign had covered a space
which cannot have fallen much short of thirty years.