the formation of the Parthian dynasty of Armenia (Arshakuni dynasty)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Literature, Urmia University

2 Ph.D. Ancient History, University of Tehran, Iran

10.22103/jis.2019.12408.1854

Abstract

1. Introduction
Armenia has long been of importance for the Iranian plateau because of its geographical location. The formation of the Parthian Empire on the Iranian plateau and the advance of the Roman Empire to the eastern territories has doubled the significance of this land. That's why the rivalry between Iran and Rome intensified for influence on this land. However, the rivalry between Iran and Rome for the capture of Armenia after military conflicts led to the formation of a branch of the Parthian in Armenia, but the rivalry between Iran and Rome, as a result of the Romanian dissatisfaction, did not stop, and for the past century The sequel to the main conflict between Iran and Rome.
 
 
2. Methodology
This essay, based on descriptive analytical method, analyzes the formation of the Armenian Parthian dynasty by analyzing the political relations between Iran and Rome and identifying its factors and fields with the help of new sources and research. The main issue of the present article is that the influence of the Parthians on Armenia was influenced by the factors and how the Parthians, despite the intense rivalry of the Romans to dominate the region, succeeded in consolidating their dominance over Armenia in 63 AD.
3. Discussion
The succession crises of Phraates IV in Iran make the Romans easily interfere in Armenia's political affairs and protect Armenia. Instead, the Romans consider Phraates V as the Parthian and Euphrates empire as the border between the imperial monarchy and Roman Empire recognize) Velleius Paterculus, 1924, II, 101-102). Abandoning Phraates V from Armenia was contrary to the policy pursued by the Parthians from the time of Mithridates II to unite Armenia and influence in this land in front of the Roman, and perhaps Phraates's silence about this was one of the reasons for the dissident dissatisfaction with Phraates V. Because the Parthian liturgy ultimately set up a rebellion against him and, after a brief strike, removed him from the kingdom and killed him(cf. Josephus, 1969, Book XXXIII, 2). It is apparent that the Parthians were well aware of the strategic and influential importance of Armenia, and it was possible that the Roman influence in Armenia and even Iran, and the silence of Phraates V, would have been dangerous.
Augustus the Roman emperor, then held Armenia as a puppet kingdom, and appointed Vonon I to its kingdom (cf. Temporini & Haase, 1980, 1160). In this way, under the pressure of the imperial monarchy, the death of the emperor and Artabanus's pressure on his successor to drive Vonon from Armenia eradicated this danger from the Parthians. For the next three years, Wonon was removed from the Armenian throne by Romans(Garsoian, 1997, 64). Perhaps this was done by the Romans, following the pressure and compromise that Artabanus II had with the new Roman Emperor, because the Parthian monarchy felt the presence of one of his rivals on the throne of Armenia as a great danger, and as a result, It can take away this danger.
After more than fifteen years of peaceful coexistence between the two powers of Iran and Rome, this peaceful coexistence eventually came to an end in 35 AD, after the death of Artaxes III, the king of Armenia(cf. Schippmann, 1986,  647-50). Artabanus took the opportunity and took his son Arashk on his throne and in his letter to Tiberius he inherited the owner of the Achaemenid and Selukid(cf. Tacitus, 1959, Book VI, 31). Artabanus's goal was to restore the Achaemenid frontiers. Artabanus was able to some extent rebuild his influence over the rebellious nobility in different parts of the country, and also his success in foreign policy, and in particular his continuing involvement in the affairs of Armenia, pushed Rome to deflect the Parthians into internal affairs and conflicts Engage in power. As a result, Artabanus eventually fails to take Armenia's arrogance after several attempts to overthrow Armenia, but it does not appear that Artabanus has completely hoped for Armenia.
With the beginning of the second half of the first century, the first Vologases (about 51-79 AD) end tensions and conflicts within the royal dynasty and its main policy is directed towards Armenia. The classic sources confirm that the main axis of the policy was the first issue of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XV, 24). For this reason, he brings an army to Armenia and nominates his brother as the king of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XII, 50). The capture of Armenia took place without resistance and opposition from the indigenous population, indicating that the Armenians preferred the Parthians to the Romans(Garsoian,1997: 64). It seems that the Armenians were tired and sick of Romanism in Armenia, and they did not want to return to their own destiny and their country to the Romans who did not share them. Of course, Roman did not remain silent against this decision by the Armenians and the Parthian King of King, and after several occasions of fighting and defeat of the Parthians, it was finally possible to resolve the Armenian issue with peaceful and peaceful means.
Therefore, after negotiations, both sides agreed with Randia's agreement that Prince Arsachd would be the king of Armenia, provided that he received the royal crown only from the emperor. With this agreement, the Parthians became the real masters of Armenia, and at the same time recognized the validity of Rome's claim to create a secular kingdom.
3. Conclusion
During the Parthian period, Armenia, for each of the powers of Iran and Rome, was to exert influence over the territories of the other side and preserve the domination of the territories under their possession. The fall of the local Armenian dynasty in Armenia by the Roman Empire caused the Armenian nation's dissatisfaction with the Roman Empire and their tendency towards the Parthians. As a result, the Armenian armed forces undertook measures to overthrow the Roman influence in the area. In particular, during the Artabanus II period, which was of great importance to Armenia, and in the aftermath of the revival of the former monarchy, the Parthians, in competition with the Roman Empire, were able to slaughter Romanian kings many times from Armenia and instead put their children on the Armenian throne. But the Roman Empire, by incitement to the invading nations of Iran and the support of the Parthian princes in Rome, caused Artabanus's plight that he was unable to address in Armenia. Of course, the competition between the Romanized Greeks in Armenia and their quarrels over power sparked the Armenian hatred of the Romans and reasserted their long-standing ties to the Parthians again. As a result, the Arsacds King of King, with the support of the Armenian clans and after several fights with the Roman Empire, sacked his brother Tiridates, with the apparent confirmation of Rome, on the throne of Armenia. Although this was done by agreement between Iran and Rome, however, since the Roman Empire was forced to do so by diplomacy and by force of the Parthian Arms, it would use every chance to prevent the formation of the Arsacids of Armenia. But the support of the paratroopers from this dynasty in Armenia, because of the strategic position of this land, prevented the realization of this goal of Rome.

Keywords

References

  •  

    References  [In Persian]:

    • Alchebgyan, J. (2003). Armenia and Selukids (G. Sarksian, Trans.). Tehran: Naieri.
    • Hossein-Talaee P., & maleki, M. (2018). Rhandeia Peace consequences; the invasion of Traian and his successors to Armenia. Journal of Historical Reserches, 9 (4), 163-176.
    • Hossein-Talaee, P. (2018). Armenia during the Sassanian era. Tehran: Amir Kabir Press.
    • Maleki, M. (2018). Iran and Rome in the first century BC. Tehran: Ketab Rira Press. 
    • Maleki, M. (2017). Armenian political, social, cultural and cultural structures during the Armenian Parthian period. Journal of Research of History. 13 (49), 137-164.
    • Pirnia, H. (2006). Ancient Iran (Vol. 1, 2, 3). Tehran: Negah. 
    • Sargsian, K. Kh. et al. (1982). Armenian history (Vol 1., E. Germanic, Trans.). Tehran: Bina.  
    • Winter, E.,  & Dignas, B. (2007). Rome and Iran are two world powers (K. Jahandari., Trans.). Tehran: Farzan Research publication.
    • Wolski, J. (2004). The monarchy of Arsacids (M. Saqibfar, Trans.). Tehran: Ghoghnous.
    • Zarinkoob, R., & maleki, M. (2017). The position of Armenians in the relations between the Sassanian Empire and the Roman Empire in the third century AD. Journal of Historical Reserches of Iran and Islam, 11 (20), 51-80.

    References [In English]:

    • Adontz, N. (1971). Armenia in the period of Justinian: The political condition based on the Naxarar System (N. Garsoyan, Trans.). Lisbon: Calouste Golbenkian Foundation.
    • Appianus, (1912,1913). Roman history (J. Corter, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press
    • Arnaud, P. (1987). Les guerres des Parthes et de l'Arménie dans la première moitié du premier siècle av. n.è.: problèmes de chronologie et d'extension territoriale (95 B.C.-70 B.C.). Mesopotamia, 22, 129-146.
    • Bivar, H. D. H. (1968). The political history of Iran under the Arsacids. In The Cambridge history of Iran (Vol. 3.1., pp. 21-99) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Bunson, M. (2009). Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire. New York: Infobase.
    • Burney, C. A., & Lang, D. M. (1971). Peoples of the hills: Ancient Ararat and Caucasus. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
    • Butcher, K. (2003). Roman Syria and the Near East. London. British Museum Press.
    • Campbell, J. B. (1993). War and diplomacy: Rome and Parthia, 31 BC-AD 235. In J. Rich and G. Shipley (Eds.), War and society in the Roman world (pp. 213-40).   London. Routledge.
    • Chaumont, M. L. (1975). États vassaux dans l’empire des premiers Sassanides. In Monumentum H. S. Nyberg I. Acta Iranica 4. (pp. 89-156). Tehran-Liège.
    • Chaumont, M. L. (1986). Armenia and Iran II: The pre-Islamic period. In Encyclopaedia Iranica (Vol. II, pp. 418-438.)  London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    • Dabrowa, E. (1983). La politique de I'etat parthe a I'egard de Rome. Krakow: Nakadem Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego.
    • Debevoise, N. C. (1938). A political history of Parthia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Dedeyan, G. (2007).
    • History of the Armenian people. Toulouse: Éditions Privat.
    • Dobbins,  K. W. (1974). Mithridates II and his successors: A study of the Parthian crisis 90-70 BC. Antichthon, 8, 63-79.
    • Dio Cassius, (1955). Roman history (E. Cary, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Garsoian, N. (1997). The Arshakuni dynasty. In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), The Armenian people from ancient to modern times (Vol. 1, pp. 63-95). New York, St. Martin's Press.
    • Rawlinson, G. (1900). The sixth great monarchy or the history, geography, and antiquities of the Parthia. New York: Dodd Mead & Company.
    • Goldsworthy, A. (2007). Imperial legate: Corbulo and Armenia. In the name of Rome: the Men who won the Roman Empire (pp. 313–316). London. Phoenix.
    • Grousset, R. (1947). History of Armenia from its origins to 1071. Paris: Payot.
    • Isaac, B. (1992). The limits of empire: The Roman army in the East (2nd ed.). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Josephus, F. (1969). Antiquities of the Jews. (L. H. Feldman, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Justin, (1890).  History Of world, extracted From Trougus Pomoeius (J. Selby Watson, Trans.). London: George Bell & Sons.   
    • Keaveny, A. (1982). The king and the war-lords: Romano-Parthian relations circa 64-53 B.C. The American Journal of Philology. 103, 412-428.
    • Kennedy, D. (1996). Parthia and Rome: Eastern perspectives. In D. Kennedy (Ed.), The Roman Army in the East pp. 67-90. Ann Arbor.
    • Kent, R. (1950). Old Persian: Grammar, texts, lexicon. New Haven. Conn.: American Oriental Society.
    • Kévork, A. (1928). Études historiques sur le peuple arménien. Paris: Geuthner.
    • Kleiss, W. (1980). Zur Entwicklung der achaemenidischen Palastarchitektur. In Iranica Antiqua 15 (pp. 199-211). 
    • Kleiss, W. (1988). Achaemenidische Staudämme in Fars. In AMI 21 (pp. 63-68). 
    • Kleiss, W. (1991). Wasserschutzdämme und Kanalbauten in der Umgebung von Pasargadae. In AMI 24 (pp. 23-30).
    • Kleiss, W. (2008). Urartu in Iran. In Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/urartu-in-iran 
    • Lang, D. M. (1970). Armenia: Cradle of civilization. Boston: George Allen & Unwin.
    • Lang, D. M. (1983). Iran, Armenia and Georgia. In The Cambridge history of Iran (Vol. 3,1, pp. 505-536). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Manandian, H. (1975). A brief survey of the history of ancient Armenia. New York: Diocese of the Armenian Church of America.
    • Manandian, H. (1965).  The tred and cities of Armenia in relation to ancient world trade. Lisbon: Bertrand.
    • Millar, F. (1996). The Roman Near East: 31 B.C. - A.D. 337 (3rd ed.). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
    • Pliny, (1947). Natural history (J. Bostock, & H. Rackam, Trans.). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
    • Plutarch, (1975). Lives (B. Perrin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
    • Rostovtzeff, M. (1922). Iranian and Greeks in South Russia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    • Salvini, M. (1979). Die urartäischen Tontafeln aus Bastam. In W. Kleiss (Ed.). Bastam I: Ausgrabungen in den Urartäischen Anlagen 1972-1975 (pp. 115-131). Berlin.
    • Schippmann, K. (1986). Artabanus. In Encyclopaedia Iranica (Vol. II, pp. 647-650). London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    • Schottky, M. (1989). Media Atropatene und Gross-Armenien in helenistischer Zeit. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
    • Strabo. (1929). Geography (H. L. Jones, Trans.). London: William Heinemann.
    • Syme, R.,  & Birley, A. R. (1995). Anatolica: Studies in Strabo. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Tacitus, (1959). The Annals and the history (A. J. Church, & W. Jackson, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
    • Temporini, H., & Haase, W. (1980). Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    • Toumanoff, C. (1963). Studies in Christian Caucasian history. Washington D.C.: Georyetown university press.
    • Velleius Paterculus, (1924). Compendium of Roman history (F. W. Shipley, Trans.). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
    • Wolski, J. (1969). Der Zusammenbruch der Seleukidenherrschaft im Iran im 3. Jh. v. Chr. In F. Altheim, & J. Rehork (Eds.).  Der Hellenismus in Mittelasien. (pp.188-254).  Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
    • Ziegler, K. H. (1964). Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Journal of Iranian Studies
Volume 18, Issue 36
April 2020
Pages 149-185

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics