_Doubts as to the successor of Artabanus III. First short reign of
Gotarzes. He is expelled and Vardanes made king. Reign of Vardanes. His
ivar with Izates. His Death. Second reign of Gotarzes. His Contest with
his Nephew, Meherdates. His Death. Short and inglorious reign of Vonones
II._
There is considerable doubt as to the immediate successor of Artabanus.
According to Josephus he left his kingdom to his son, Bardanes or
Vardanes, and this prince entered without difficulty and at once upon
the enjoyment of his sovereignty. According to Tacitus, the person who
obtained the throne directly upon the death of Artabanus was his son,
Gotarzes, who was generally accepted for king, and might have reigned
without having his title disputed, had he not given indications of a
harsh and cruel temper. Among other atrocities whereof he was guilty
was the murder of his brother, Artabanus, whom he put to death, together
with his wife and son, apparently upon mere suspicion. This bloody
initiation of his reign spread alarm among the nobles, who thereupon
determined to exert their constitutional privilege of deposing an
obnoxious monarch and supplying his place with a new one. Their choice
fell upon Vardanes, brother of Gotarzes, who was residing in a distant
province, 350 miles from the Court. [PLATE II. Fig. 8.] Having entered
into communications with this prince, they easily induced him to quit
his retirement, and to take up arms against the tyrant. Vardanes was
ambitious, bold and prompt: he had no sooner received the invitation of
the Megistanes than he set out, and, having accomplished his journey to
the Court in the space of two days, found Gotarzes wholly unprepared to
offer resistance. Thus Vardanes became king without fighting a battle.
Gotarzes fled, and escaped into the country of the Dahse, which lay east
of the Caspian Sea, and north of the Parthian province of Hyrcania. Here
he was allowed to reign for some time unmolested by his brother, and to
form plans and make preparations for the recovery of his lost power.
The statements of Tacitus are so circumstantial, and his authority as
an historian is so great, that we can scarcely hesitate to accept the
history as he delivers it, rather than as it is related by the Jewish
writer. It is, however, remarkable that the series of Parthian coins
presents an appearance of accordance rather with the latter than
the former, since it affords no trace of the supposed first reign of
Gotarzes in A.D. 42, while it shows Vardanes to have held the throne
from Sept. A.D. 43 to at least A.D. 46. Still this does not absolutely
contradict Tacitus. It only proves that the first reign of Gotarzes was
comprised within a few weeks, and that before two months had passed
from the death of Artabanus, the kingdom was established in the hands of
Vardanes. That prince, after the flight of his brother, applied himself
for some time to the reduction of the Seleucians, whose continued
independence in the midst of a Parthian province he regarded as a
disgrace to the Empire. His efforts to take the town failed, however,
of success. Being abundantly provisioned and strongly fortified, it was
well able to stand a siege; and the high spirit of its inhabitants made
them determined to resist to the uttermost. While they still held
out, Vardanes was called away to the East, where his brother had been
gathering strength, and was once more advancing his pretensions. The
Hyrcanians, as well as the Dahse, had embraced his cause, and Parthia
was threatened with dismemberment. Vardanes, having collected his
troops, occupied a position in the plain region of Bactria, and there
prepared to give battle to his brother, who was likewise at the head of
a considerable army. Before, however, an engagement took place, Gotarzes
discovered that there was a design among the nobles on either side to
rid themselves of both the brothers, and to set up a wholly new king.
Apprehensive of the consequences, he communicated his discovery to
Vardanes; and the result was that the two brothers made up their
differences and agreed upon terms of peace. Gotarzes yielded his claim
to the crown, and was assigned a residence in Hyrcania, which was,
probably, made over to his government. Vardanes then returned to the
west, and, resuming the siege of Seleucia, compelled the rebel city to a
surrender in the seventh year after it had revolted (A.D. 46.)
Successful thus far, and regarding his quarrel with his brother
as finally arranged, Vardanes proceeded to contemplate a military
expedition of the highest importance. The time, he thought, was
favorable for reviving the Parthian claim to Armenia, and disputing
once more with Rome the possession of a paramount influence over
that country. The Roman government of the dependency, since
Artabanus formally relinquished it to them, had been far from proving
satisfactory. Mithridates, their protege, had displeased them, and had
been summoned to Rome by Caligula, who kept him there a prisoner until
his death. Armenia, left without a king, had asserted her independence;
and when, after an absence of several years, Mithridates was authorized
by Claudius to return to his kingdom, the natives resisted him in arms,
and were only brought under his rule by the combined help of the Romans
and the Iberians. Forced upon a reluctant people by foreign arms,
Mithridates felt himself insecure, and this feeling made him rule his
subjects with imprudent severity. Under these circumstances it seemed
to Vardanes that it would not be very difficult to recover Armenia, and
thus gain a signal triumph over the Romans.
But to engage in so great a matter with a good prospect of success it
was necessary that the war should be approved, not only by himself,
but by his principal feudatories. The most important of these was now
Izates, king of Adiabene and Gordyene who in the last reign had restored
Artabanus to his lost throne. Vardanes, before committing himself by any
overt act, appears to have taken this prince into his counsels, and to
have requested his opinion on affronting the Romans by an interference
with Armenian affairs. Izates strenuously opposed the project. He had a
personal interest in the matter, since he had sent five of his boys to
Rome, to receive there a polite education, and he had also a profound
respect for the Roman power and military system. He endeavored, both by
persuasion and reasoning, to induce Vardanes to abandon his design. His
arguments may have been cogent, but they were not thought by Vardanes
to have much force, and the result of the conference was that the Great
King declared war against his feudatory.
The war had, apparently, but just begun, when fresh troubles broke out
in the north-east. Gotarzes had never ceased to regret his renunciation
of his claims, and was now, on the invitation of the Parthian nobility,
prepared to came forward again and contest the kingdom with his brother.
Vardanes had to relinquish his attempt to coerce Izates, and to hasten
to Hyrcania in order to engage the troops which Gotarzes had collected
in that distant region. These he met and defeated more than once in the
country between the Caspian and Herat; but the success of his military
operations failed to strengthen his hold upon the affections of his
subjects. Like the generality of the Parthian princes, he showed himself
harsh and cruel in the hour of victory, and in conquering an opposition
roused an opposition that was fiercer and more formidable. A conspiracy
was formed against him shortly after his return from Hyrcania, and he
was assassinated while indulging in the national amusement of the chase.
The murder of Vardanes was immediately followed by the restoration of
Gotarzes to the throne. There may have been some who doubted his fitness
for the regal office, and inclined to keep the throne vacant till they
could send to Rome and obtain from thence one of the younger and more
civilized Parthian princes. But we may be sure that the general desire
was not for a Romanized sovereign, but for a truly national king, one
born and bred in the country. Gotarzes was proclaimed by common consent,
and without any interval, after the death of Vardanes, and ascended the
Parthian throne before the end of the year A.D. 46. It is not likely
that his rule would have been resisted had he conducted himself well;
but the cruelty of his temper, which had already once cost him his
crown, again displayed itself after his restoration, and to this defect
was added a slothful indulgence yet more distasteful to his subjects.
Some military expeditions which he undertook, moreover, failed of
success, and the crime of defeat caused the cup of his offences to brim
over. The discontented portion of his people, who were a strong party,
sent envoys to the Roman Emperor, Claudius (A.D. 49), and begged that he
would surrender to them Meherdates, the grandson of Phraates IV. and son
of Vonones, who still remained at Rome in a position between that of a
guest and a hostage. “They were not ignorant,” they said, “of the treaty
which bound the Romans to Parthia, nor did they ask Claudius to infringe
it.” Their desire was not to throw off the authority of the Arsacidse,
but only to exchange one Arsacid for another. The rule of Gotarzes had
became intolerable, alike to the nobility and the common people. He had
murdered all his male relatives, or at least all that were within his
reach--first his brothers, then his near kinsmen, finally even those
whose relationship was remote; nor had he stopped there; he had
proceeded to put to death their young children and their pregnant wives.
He was sluggish in his habits, unfortunate in his wars, and had betaken
himself to cruelty, that men might not despise him for his want of
manliness. The friendship between Rome and Parthia was a public matter;
it bound the Romans to help the nation allied to them--a nation which,
though equal to them in strength, was content on account of its respect
for Rome to yield her precedence. Parthian princes were allowed to be
hostages in foreign lands for the very reason that then it was always
possible, if their own monarch displeased them, for the people to obtain
a king from abroad, brought up under milder influences.
This harangue was made before the Emperor Claudius and the assembled
Senate, Meherdates himself being also present. Claudius responded to it
favorably. He would follow the example of the Divine Augustus, and allow
the Parthians to take from Rome the monarch whom they requested.
That prince, bred up in the city, had always been remarkable for his
moderation. He would (it was to be hoped) regard himself in his new
position, not as a master of slaves, but as a ruler of citizens. He
would find that clemency and justice were the more appreciated by a
barbarous nation, the less they had had experience of them Meherdates
might accompany the Parthian envoys; and a Roman of rank, Caius Cassius,
the prefect of Syria, should be instructed to receive them on their
arrival in Asia, and to see them safely across the Euphrates.
The young prince accordingly set out, and reached the city of Zeugma in
safety. Here he was joined, not only by a number of the Parthian nobles,
but also by the reigning king of Osrhoene, who bore the usual name of
Abgarus. The Parthians were anxious that he should advance at his best
speed and by the shortest route on Ctesiphon, and the Roman governor,
Cassius, strongly advised the same course; but Meherdates fell under
the influence of the Osrhoene monarch, who is thought by Tacitus to have
been a false friend, and to have determined from the first to do his
best for Gotarzes. Abgarus induced Meherdates to proceed from Zeugma
to his own capital, Edessa, and there detained him for several days
by means of a series of festivities. He then persuaded him, though the
winter was approaching, to enter Armenia, and to proceed against his
antagonist by the circuitous route of the Upper Tigris, instead of the
more direct one through Mesopotamia. In this way much valuable time
was lost. The rough mountain-routes and snows of Armenia harassed and
fatigued the pretender’s troops, while Gotarzes was given an interval
during which to collect a tolerably large body of soldiers. Still, the
delay was not very great. Meherdatos marched probably by Diarbekr, Til,
and Jezireh, or in other words, followed the course of the Tigris, which
he crossed in the neighborhood of Mosul, after taking the small town
which represented the ancient Nineveh. His line of march had now brought
him into Adiabene; and it seemed a good omen for the success of his
cause that Izates, the powerful monarch of that tract, declared in his
favor, and brought a body of troops to his assistance. Gotarzes was in
the neighborhood, but was distrustful of his strength, and desirous of
collecting a larger force before committing himself to the hazard of an
engagement. He had taken up a strong position with the river Corma
in his front, and, remaining on the defensive, contented himself with
trying by his emissaries the fidelity of his rival’s troops and allies.
The plan succeeded. After a little time, the army of Meherdates began
to melt away. Izates of Adiabene and Abgarus of Edessa drew off their
contingents, and left the pretender to depend wholly on his Parthian
supporters. Even their fidelity was doubtful, and might have given way
on further trial; Meherdates therefore resolved, before being wholly
deserted, to try the chance of a battle.
His adversary was now as willing to engage as himself, since he felt
that he was no longer outnumbered. The rivals met, and a fierce and
bloody action was fought between the two armies, no important advantage
being for a long time gained by either. At length Oarrhenes, the chief
general on the side of Meherdates, having routed the troops opposed
to him and pursued them too hotly, was intercepted by the enemy on his
return and either killed or made prisoner. This event proved decisive.
The loss of their leader caused the army of Meherdates to fly; and he
himself, being induced to intrust his safety to a certain Parrhaces, a
dependent of his father’s, was betrayed by this miscreant, loaded with
chains, and given up to his rival. Gotarzes now proved less unmerciful
than might have been expected from his general character. Instead of
punishing Meherdates with death, he thought it sufficient to insult him
with the names of “foreigner” and “Roman,” and to render it impossible
that he should be again put forward as monarch by subjecting him to
mutilation. The Roman historian supposes that this was done to cast
a slur upon Rome but it was a natural measure of precaution under the
circumstances, and had probably no more recondite motive than compassion
for the youth and inexperience of the pretender.
Gotarzes, having triumphed over his rival, appears to have resolved on
commemorating his victory in a novel manner. Instead of striking a new
coin, like Vonones, he determined to place his achievement on record by
making it the subject of a rock-tablet, which he caused to be engraved
on the sacred mountain of Baghistan, adorned already with sculptures and
inscriptions by the greatest of the Achaemenian monarchs. The bas-relief
and its inscription have been much damaged, both by the waste of ages
and the rude hand of man; but enough remains to show that the conqueror
was represented as pursuing his enemies in the field, on horseback,
while a winged Victory, flying in the air, was on the point of placing a
diadem on his head. In the Greek legend which accompanied the sculpture
he was termed “Satrap of Satraps”--an equivalent of the ordinary title
“King of Kings”; and his conquered rival was mentioned under the name
of Mithrates, a corrupt form of the more common or Mithridates or
Meherdates.
Very shortly after his victory Gotarzes died. His last year seems to
have been A.D. 51. According to Tacitus, he died a natural death, from
the effects of disease; but, according to Josephus, he was the victim of
a conspiracy. The authority of Tacitus, here as elsewhere generally,
is to be preferred; and we may regard Gotarzes as ending peacefully his
unquiet reign, which had begun in A.D. 42, immediately after the death
of his father, had been interrupted for four years--from A.D. 42 to
A.D. 46--and had then been renewed and lasted from A.D. 46 to A.D. 51.
Gotarzes was not a prince of any remarkable talents, or of a character
differing in any important respects from the ordinary Parthian type. He
was perhaps even more cruel than the bulk of the Arsacidae, though his
treatment of Meherdates showed that he could be lenient upon occasion.
He was more prudent than daring, more politic than brave, more bent on
maintaining his own position than on advancing the power or dignity
of his country. Parthia owed little or nothing to him. The internal
organization of the country must have suffered from his long wars with
his brother and his nephew; its external reputation was not increased by
one whose foreign expeditions were uniformly unfortunate.
The successor of Gotarzes was a certain Vonones. His relationship to
previous monarchs is doubtful--and may be suspected to have been remote.
Gotarzes had murdered or mutilated all the Arsacidse on whom he could
lay his hands; and the Parthians had to send to Media upon his disease
in order to obtain a sovereign of the required blood. The coins of
Vonones II. are scarce, and have a peculiar rudeness. The only date
found upon them is one equivalent to A.D. 51; and it would seem that
his entire reign was comprised within the space of a few months. Tacitus
tells us that his rule was brief and inglorious, marked by no important
events, either prosperous or adverse. He was succeeded by his son,
Volagases I., who appears to have ascended the throne before the year
A.D. 51 had expired.