The Provinces of the Roman Empire 54

The Provinces of the Roman Empire 54

This we learn from the fragments of Dio’s account in Xiphilinus,

Zonaras, and in the Excerpts; Zonaras has preserved the correct reading

Ἀλανοί instead of Ἀλβανοί; that the Alani pillaged also the territory

of the Albani, is shown by the setting of the exc. Ursin. lxxii.

 

[61] So he is named in Lucian, _Hist. conscr._ 21; if the same calls

him (_Alex._ 27) Othryades, he is drawing here from a historian of the

stamp of those whom he ridicules in that treatise, and of whom another

Hellenised the same man as Oxyroes (_Hist. conscr._ c. 18).

 

[62] Syria was administered when the war broke out by L. Attidius

Cornelianus (_C. I. Gr._ 4661 of the year 160; _vita Marci_, 8; _C.

I. L._ iii. 129 of the year 162), after him by Julius Verus (_C. I.

L._ iii. 199, probably of the year 163) and then by Avidius Cassius

presumably from the year 164. The statement that the other provinces of

the East were assigned to Cassius’s command (Philostratus, _vit. Soph._

i. 13; Dio, lxxi. 3), similarly to what was done to Corbulo as legate

of Cappadocia, can only relate to the time after the departure of the

emperor Verus; so long as the latter held the nominal chief command

there was no room for it.

 

[63] A fragment probably of Dio (in Suidas _s. v._ Μάρτιος), tells

that Priscus in Armenia laid out the Καινὴ πόλις and furnished it with

a Roman garrison, his successor Martius Verus silenced the national

movement that had arisen there, and declared this city the first

of Armenia. This was Valarshapat (Οὐαλαρσαπάτ or Οὐαλεροκτίστη in

Agathangelos), thenceforth the capital of Armenia. Καινὴ πόλις was, as

Kiepert informs me, already recognised by Stilting as translation of

the Armenian Nôr-Khalakh, which second name Valarshapat constantly

bears in Armenian authors of the fifth century alongside of the usual

one. Moses of Chorene, following Bardesanes, makes the town originate

from a Jewish colony brought thither under king Tigranes VI., who

according to him reigned 150-188; he refers the enclosing of it with

walls and the naming of it to his son Valarsch II. 188-208. That the

town had a strong Roman garrison in 185 is shown by the inscription _C.

I. L._ iii. 6052.

 

[64] That Sohaemus was Achaemenid and Arsacid (or professed to be) and

king’s son and king, as well as Roman senator and consul, before he

became king of Great Armenia, is stated by his contemporary Jamblichus

(c. 10 of the extract in Photius). Probably he belonged to the dynastic

family of Hemesa (Josephus, _Arch._ xx. 8, 4, _et al._) If Jamblichus

the Babylonian wrote “under him,” this can doubtless only be understood

to the effect that he composed his romance in Artaxata. That Sohaemus

ruled over Armenia before Pacorus is nowhere stated, and is not

probable, since neither Fronto’s words (p. 127 Naber), _quod Sohaemo

potius quam Vologaeso regnum Armeniae dedisset aut quod Pacorum regno

privasset_, or those of the fragment from Dio (?) lxxi. 1: Μάρτιος

Οὐῆρος τὸν Θουκυδίδην ἐκπέμπει καταγαγεῖν Σόαιμον ἐς Ἀρμενίαν point to

reinstatement, and the coins with _rex Armeniis datus_ (Eckhel, vii.

91, comp. _vita Veri_, 7, 8) in fact exclude it. We do not know the

predecessor of Pacorus, and are not even aware whether the throne which

he took possession of was vacant or occupied.

 

[65] This is shown by the Mesopotamian royal and urban coins. There are

no accounts in our tradition as to the conditions of peace.

 

[66] The beginning of the Ursinian excerpt of Dio, lxxv. 1, 2, is

confused. Οἱ Ὀρροηνοὶ, it is said, καὶ οἱ Ἀδιαβηνοὶ ἀποστάντες καὶ

Νίσιβιν πολιορκοῦντες καὶ ἡττηθέντες ὑπὸ Σεουήρου ἐπρεσβεύσαντο πρὸς

αὐτὸν μετὰ τὸν τοῦ Νίγρου θάνατον. Osrhoene was then Roman, Adiabene

Parthian; from whom did the two districts revolt? and whose side did

the Nisibenes take? That their opponents were defeated by Severus

before the sending of the embassy is inconsistent with the course of

the narrative; for the latter makes war upon them because their envoys

make unsatisfactory offers to him. Probably the supporting of Niger by

subjects of the Parthians and their concert with Niger’s Roman partisan

are now strictly apprehended as a revolt from Severus; the circumstance

that the people afterwards maintain that they had intended rather to

support Severus, is clearly indicated as a makeshift. The Nisibenes may

have refused to co-operate, and therefore have been attacked by the

adherents of Niger. Thus is explained what is clear from the extract

given by Xiphilinus from Dio, lxxv. 2, that the left bank of the

Euphrates was for Severus an enemy’s land, but not Nisibis; therefore

the town need not have been Roman at that time; on the contrary,

according to all indications, it was only made Roman by Severus.

 

[67] As the wars against the Arabians and the Adiabenians were in

fact directed against the Parthians, it was natural that the titles

_Parthicus_, _Arabicus_, and _Parthicus Adiabenicus_, should on that

account be conferred on the emperor; they are also so found, but

usually Parthicus is omitted, evidently because, as the biographer

of Severus says (c. 9), _excusavit Parthicum nomen, ne Parthos

lacesseret_. With this agrees the notice certainly belonging to the

year 195 in Dio, lxxv. 9, 6, as to the peaceful agreement with the

Parthians and the cession of a portion of Armenia to them.

 

[68] That Armenia also fell into their power is indicated by Herodian,

v. 9, 2; no doubt his representation is warped and defective.

 

[69] When at the peace in 218 the old relation between Rome and Armenia

was renewed, the king of Armenia gave himself the prospect of a renewal

of the Roman annual moneys (Dio, lxxviii. 27: τοῦ Τιριδάτου τὸ ἀργύριον

ὃ κατ’ ἔτος παρὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων εὑρίσκετο ἐλπίσαντος λήψεσθαι). Payment

of tribute proper by the Romans to the Armenians is excluded for the

period of Severus and the time before Severus, and by no means agrees

with the words of Dio; the connection must be what we have indicated.

In the fourth and fifth centuries the fortress of Biriparach in the

Caucasus, which barred the Dariel pass, was maintained by the Persians,

who played the part of masters here after the peace of 364, with a

Roman contribution, and this was likewise conceived as payment of

tribute (Lydus, _de Mag._ iii. 52, 53; Priscus, _fr._ 31, Mull.).

 

[70] Artaxares names his father Papacus in the inscription, quoted

at p. 83, note 1, king; how it is to be reconciled with this, that

not merely does the native legend (in Agathias ii. 27) make Pabek a

shoemaker, but also the contemporary Dio (if in reality Zonaras, xii.

15, has borrowed these words from him) names Artaxares ἐξ ἀφανῶν καὶ

ἀδόξων, we do not know. Naturally the Roman authors take the side of

the weak legitimate Arsacid against the dangerous usurper.

 

[71] Strabo (under Tiberius) xv. 3, 24: νῦν δ’ ἤδη καθ’ αὐτοὺς

συνεστῶτες οἱ Πἐρσαι βασιλέας ἔχουσιν ὑπηκόους ἑτέροις βασιλεῦσι,

πρότερον μὲν Μακεδόσι, νῦν δὲ Παρθυαίοις.

 

[72] When Nöldeke says (_Tabari_, p. 449), “The subjection of the

chief lands of the monarchy directly to the crown formed the chief

distinction of the Sassanid kingdom from the Arsacid, which had real

kings in its various provinces,” the power of the great-kingdom beyond

doubt is thoroughly dependent on the personality of the possessor,

and under the first Sassanids must have been much stronger than

under the last decayed Arsacids. But a contrast in principle is not

discoverable. From Mithradates I., the proper founder of the dynasty,

onward the Arsacid ruler names himself “king of kings,” just as did

subsequently the Sassanid, while Alexander the Great and the Seleucids

never bore this title. Even under them individual vassal-kings ruled,

_e.g._ in Persis (p. 81, note 2); but the vassal-kingdom was not then

the regular form of imperial administration, and the Greek rulers

did not name themselves according to it, any more than the Caesars

assumed the title of great-king on account of Cappadocia or Numidia.

The satraps of the Arsacid state were essentially the Marzbans of the

Sassanids. Perhaps rather the great imperial offices, which in the

Sassanid polity correspond to the supreme administrative posts of the

Diocletiano-Constantinian constitution, and probably were the model for

the latter, were wanting to the Arsacid state; then certainly the two

would be related to each other much as the imperial organisation of

Augustus to that of Constantine. But we know too little of the Arsacid

organisation to affirm this with certainty.

 

[73] According to the Persian records of the last Sassanid period

preserved in the Arabic chronicle of Tabari Ardashir, after he has cut

off with his own hand the head of Ardawan and has assumed the title

Shahan-shah, king of kings, conquers first Hamadhan (Ecbatana) in Great

Media, then Aderbijan (Atropatene), Armenia, Mosul (Adiabene); and

further Suristan or Sawad (Babylonia). Thence he returns to Istachr

unto his Persian home, and then starting afresh conquers Sagistan,

Gurgan (Hyrcania), Abrashahr (Nisapur in the Parthian land), Merv

(Margiane), Balkh (Bactra), and Charizm (Khiva) up to the extreme

limits of Chorasan. “After he had killed many people and had sent their

heads to the fire-temple of Anahedh (in Istachr), he returned from Merv

to Pars and settled in Gor” (Feruzabad). How much of this is legend, we

do not know (comp. Nöldeke, _Tabari_, p. 17, 116).

 

[74] The title runs in Greek (_C. I. Gr._ 4675), Μάσδασνος

(Mazda-servant, treated as a proper name) θεὸς Ἀρταξάρης βασιλεὺς

βασιλέων Ἀριανῶν ἐκ γένους θεῶν; with which closely agrees the title

of his son Sapor I. (_ib._ 4676), only that after Ἀριανῶν there is

inserted καὶ Ἀναριανῶν, and so the extension of the rule to foreign

lands is brought into prominence. In the title of the Arsacids, so

far as it is clear from the Greek and Persian legends of coins, θεός,

βασιλεὺς βασιλέων, θεοπάτωρ (= ἐκ γένους θεῶν) recur, whereas there

is no prominence given to the Arians and, significantly, to the

“Mazda-servant”; by their side appear numerous other titles borrowed

from the Syrian kings, such as ἐπιφάνης, δίκαιος, νικάτωρ, also the

Roman αὐτοκράτωρ.

 

[75] Frawardin, Ardhbehesht, etc. (Ideler, _Chronologie_, ii. 515).

It is remarkable that essentially the same names of the months have

maintained themselves in the provincial calendar of the Roman province

Cappadocia (Ideler, i. 443); they must proceed from the time when it

was a Persian satrapy.

 

[76] Such is the account of the trustworthy Dio, lxxviii. 1; the

version of Herodian, iv. 11, that Artabanus promised his daughter, and

at the celebration of the betrothal allowed Antoninus to cut down the

Parthians present, is unauthenticated.

 

[77] If there is any truth in the mention of the Cadusians in the

biography, c. 6, the Romans induced this wild tribe, not subject to the

government in the south-west of the Caspian Sea, to fall at the same

time upon the Parthians.

 

[78] The subsequently received chronology puts the beginning of the

Sassanid dynasty in the Seleucid year 538 = 1st Oct. A.D. 226-7, or

the fourth (full) year of Severus Alexander, reigning since spring 222

(Agathias, iv. 24). According to other data king Ardashir numbered

the year from the autumn A.D. 223-4 as his first, and so doubtless

assumed in this the title of great-king (Nöldeke, _Tabari_, p. 410).

The last dated coin as yet known of the older system is of the year

539. When Dio wrote between 230 and 234, Artabanus was dead and his

adherents were overpowered, and the advance of Artaxares into Armenia

and Mesopotamia was expected.

 

[79] The emperor remained probably in Palmyra; at least a Palmyrene

inscription, _C. I. Gr._ 4483, mentions the ἐπιδημία θεοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου.

 

[80] The incomparably wretched accounts of this war (relatively the

best is that drawn from a common source in Herodian, Zonaras, and

Syncellus, p. 674) do not even decide the question who remained victor

in these conflicts. While Herodian speaks of an unexampled defeat of

the Romans, the Latin authorities, the Biography as well as Victor,

Eutropius, and Rufius Festus, celebrate Alexander as the conqueror

of Artaxerxes or Xerxes, and according to these latter the further

course of things was favourable. Herodian vi. 6, 5, offers the means of

adjustment. According to the Armenian accounts (Gutschmid, _Zeitschr.

der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellschaft_, xxxi. 47) the Arsacids with

the support of the tribes of the Caucasus held their ground in Armenia down to the year 237 against Ardashir; this diversion may be correct and may have tended to the advantage of the Romans.