Roman relations with the Parthians and Sassanians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Parthian Empire had risen to power after defeating the Seleucids. During the first century BC it came into contact with Rome when the general Crassus attempted to invade the kingdom. Since that time it and its successors, the Sassanians, suffered numerous invasions from the Roman empire and many conflicts over the buffer state of Armenia. In this article the history of these conflicts is explored as well as the reason the Romans were so obsessed with this region.
Contents |
[edit] Relations during the Republic
The history of the international relations between the Romans and the Parthians and Sassanians is complex with conflict and diplomacy both taking part. For the Romans the kingdom of the East was seen as a civilised and stable power for which diplomatic relations could be fruitfully maintained while conquest would reward great riches and glory.
The first time the Romans came into direct military contact with Parthia came when Lucullus invaded Armenia in 92 BC, allowing Pompey to march through northern Mesopotamia unchallenged. This made many in Rome feel that the Parthians could be easily subdued and fitted well with their feeling that the Romans were the natural successors to the fallen Seleucid Empire. However, over the coming centuries the Parthians and Sassanians managed to thwart most Roman ambitions in the region. The first major indication of this occurred in 53 BC when Marcus Licinius Crassus invaded Mesopotamia. He suffered a massive defeat at Carrhae with himself and three quarters of his troops being killed – an event that dealt a blow to the army’s supposed invincibility.
Parthia was later involved in the civil war after the assassination of Julius Caesar. In 42 BC, when Antony placed a legion in Syria, Cassius’ envoy, Labienus, joined forces with king Orodes of Parthia and, lead by the Roman general Pacorus, attacked Antony’s republican forces. However, this was not to last as Antony successfully sent his general Publius Ventidius Bassus to recover the lost territory. After some difficulty dealing with local Parthian appointee kings, the Romans finally subdued the regained province and installed Herod the Great as an indigenous, yet senate appointed, king.
During this time Caesar had been planning an invasion in retribution for Carrhae, but his plans were transferred to Antony after his assassination. Antony’s forces attempted a crossing of Euphrates at the city of Zeugma but were held back by Parthian defences and had to settle for annexing the Armenian kingdom after deposing its king.
[edit] Relations during the Julio-Claudian dynasty
The previous defeats were a lesson to the emerging Augustus as he was loathe to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors despite a wane in Parthian influence. However, the coveted standards were still held by the Parthians and this was of great concern to Augustus, forcing him to regain them through a less conventional method. In 30 BC, Phraates IV usurped the throne of Tiridates who fled to Syria under the protection of the Romans, whence he launched an attack on his native land. Although this failed, an agreement was made whereby he could live under the Romans as a king in exile if he brokered the return of the Roman standards. The standards were returned to the future emperor Tiberius, who received them on an island in the Euphrates. This event is important because it demonstrated that Rome accepted the influence of Parthia and that its boundary lay at the Euphrates, allowing some form of diplomatic understanding to follow.
The next half century saw relations between the two nations antagonistic but not overtly hostile, with the Romans unsuccessfully supporting a series of pretender kings, including Claudius in 49 AD, indicating the extent to which Rome was attempting to influence Parthian politics for its own ends. However, this was all to change under Nero as Vologases I invaded Armenia. Retaliatory strikes needed to be organised by the emperor and the general Corbulo was employed to execute the retaking of the annexed province in 58 AD. After initial Roman success, the Parthians redoubled their efforts, defeating a legion and forcing the Romans to crown an Arsacid Parthian as vassal and accepting Parthian dominance over the province in order for diplomacy to again reign. It is possible that this move averted a major war between the two powers, evidence of Rome’s ability to handle some international relations with delicacy.
[edit] Relations during the Flavian dynasty
During Vespasian’s rule Parthia seemed to make some attempts to strengthening the ties between the two powers, such as asking to form an alliance at the Caucasus against belligerent Sarmatian tribes and offering assistance to Vespasian against the short lived emperor Vitellius once it became clear that Vespasian would rule. However, both of these Vespasian refused, possibly due to the propaganda value of hostility. Parthia is also guilty of the same meddling in foreign affairs, perhaps out of retaliation, with their support of Nero impostors during the reigns of Titus and Domitian.
During the rule of the Flavians, the province of Syria was consolidated to prevent future invasions by the Parthians and the possibility of further advance by the Romans.
[edit] Relations during the remainder of the Western Empire
The Flavian consolidation was the forerunner to Trajan’s march down the Euphrates, taking advantage of the instability of Parthia and Armenia, creating the province of Mesopotamia in his wake. However, this conquest was unstable and after Trajan’s retreat and death the Parthian states rebelled. His successor, Hadrian, decided to abandon Trajan’s conquests.
For this, the Parthians threatened Roman interests in the near east, but Antoninus Pius procrastinated in open conflict, leaving the job to his successors Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius in 162. The Romans under these emperors successfully waged war on Parthia, burning the cities of Ctesiphon and Seleucia on the Tigris and pushing the frontier to the river Khabur. This tactic was followed by Septimius Severus who formed three new legions against Parthia and taking them down the Euphrates in 197-8, recreating the province of Mesopotamia. Cassius Dio claims that the expedition was expensive and did little for Rome. However, it did shift the military focus of the Parthians further from real Roman interests. For the Parthians it fuelled their demise, allowing the Sassanian dynasty to assume control.
Under Caracalla an interesting twist in Parthian relations occurred. After submitting a request to marry the daughter of Persian king Artabanus (potentially allowing an heir to assume control of both empires) Caracalla massacred the diplomatic party sent to arrange the marriage and attempted a Persian invasion in 216. This was eventually unsuccessful and the Persians soon retaliated, inflicting heavy losses on the Romans. A further campaign by the Romans was begun in 231 as a three-pronged attack by Severus Alexander, bringing the Roman East to its greatest extent.
During an era of increased hostilities between the two nations, the Persians launched an attack on Roman interests in Syria, sacking cities including Zeugma, Dura and Antioch in the early 250s, marking the decline of Roman territory there. This was confounded by the emperor Valerian being taken prisoner in 260, never to be returned – a huge blow to Roman pride.
A decade later, a major assault was achieved on the Sassanian Empire by Carus, who managed to advance beyond the Tigris in 283 but soon died. This was continued under Diocletian who regained the province of Armenia as well as the northern part of Mesopotamia, which had to be repeated by Galerius after a counter-attack, managing to obtain a truce lasting 40 years.
After this period, the Persians, under Shapur II, made frequent unsuccessful attempts against Armenia, preceding aborted plans by Constantine for a major invasion, based on the pretext of Christian harassment. As Rome had become monotheistic like the Persians with their Zoroastrianism, conflicts attained the added religious dimension. It is in this format that the future of Roman-Persian relations would be played out over the remaining centuries, continuing into the Byzantine era. Neither side would wage an entirely victorious war against the other, and the alternation between hostilities and diplomacy would continue.
[edit] The reasons for Rome's obsession with Parthia and the Sassanians
The frequent wars between the two powers were immensely draining for both sides, requiring military resources that neither could easily spare. Many of the hostilities were initiated by the Roman side – why were they so obsessed with conquering the Parthians and Sassanians?
Firstly, the Romans saw themselves as the rightful heirs of the collapsing Seleucid Empire due to its Hellenistic tradition, and saw the Parthians as obstructions. However, as the Romans learnt more about the Parthians they recognised that their advanced society was on a different level to the barbarians of the west. Rome had not encountered a major contending power since the Punic wars when it made contact with Parthia. Here they discovered an old culture with a strong military tradition and organised state. This the Romans could understand and deal with. This would also increase the glory of conquest, as sacking cities, carrying home great treasures and subjugating a civilised society to Roman rule is more impressive than occupying a few mud huts. For any Roman leader to prove himself, great conquest was essential.
More important was the threat that Parthia and Persia presented to the Roman Empire. In order to keep the militarily competent state at bay, Rome needed to separate it using buffer states such as Armenia and Syria. The securitas reipublicae needed to be preserved from its only unified threat.
Another matter the Romans were aware of was the riches available in Persia. For instance, the loot brought to Rome after Septimius Severus’ campaign was enough to prevent an economic crisis in Rome, contributing greatly to the collapse of the Arsacid dynasty.
Finally, towards the waning years of the Western Roman Empire, Christianity played a part in the relations with the Persians, with the need to make conversions outside Rome. This put Rome in direct conflict with the Zoroastrian East.
For these reasons, Rome was obsessed with the Parthians and Persians. However, it must be remembered that Rome was able to be diplomatic with its eastern neighbours, seeing them at times as a civilising force against the barbarian outside. Despite their conflicts some form of mutual respect reigned.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- K. Butcher, Roman Syria and the Near East, Getty Publications, Los Angeles, 2003 ISBN 0-89236-715-6
- R. C. Brockley, East Roman Foreign Policy, Francis Cairns Publications, Leeds, 1992 ISBN 0-905205-83-9
