I) From the Ancient Times to 650 CE

Arsacid Empire

Chapter I: Successors of Alexander and the Selucid Empire
Chapter II: From Arsaces I to Mithradates II
Chapter III: From Gotarzes I to Vologases I

Chapter I: Successors of Alexander and the Selucids
The Empire after Alexander’s Death

Alexandert died in Babylon following a campaign in “India” (north-western part of the Indus Valley) in 328 BCE.  His young age and the hasty pace of conquests left him little time for organising his empire; consequently, immediately after his death the empire became the scene of power struggles among his generals.

The most powerful and respected of these generals was Antipater who claimed the over-lordship of all others and the throne of Macedonia, without any objections. Perdikkas, an important general, became the ruler of “Asia” (former Persian lands) and Ptolemy, another trusted general, got the rule of Egypt.

The destructive and authoritarian nature of Alexander’s rule and conquests also resulted in the rise of various rebellions around the empire.  One of the earliest one of these was taken up by the Greek city-states who had lost their independence to the policies of Philip and Alexander.  Antipater, as the ruler of Macedonia, rushed to suppress this rebellion, but was defeated and humiliated.  Other rebellions also took place, particularly in Asia Minor, prompting the creation of small kingdoms, such as that of Pontus, out of the old Achaemenid satrapies.

Eventually, Perdikkas, the ruler of Asia, decided to unite the empire of Alexander again and thus undertook a campaign against all other rulers and satraps.  His campaign was cut short when Seleukos, the leader of the famous “Silver Shields” murdered him (321 BCE).  The new council of rulers, which took place on Triparadise in Syria, reconfirmed Antipater’s ruler over Macedonia, appointed Antigonos Monophthalmos (the One Eyed!) as the ruler of Asia, gave Piphonos the rule of Asia Minor, and appointed Seleukos as the lord of Babylonia.

Other satrapies such as Parthia, Zrankia, and Bactria, were also divided, all of them nominally under the rule of Antigonos.  Among these was the satrapy of Media which was divided into three parts, among them Media Minora.  This satrapy was ruled by Atropat, Perdikkas’ father-in-law, since the time of Darius III.  The satrapy was renamed Media Atropatene, a name which survives to this day in the guise of Azerbaijan.

Following this division, Antigonos became the most powerful ruler in the Empire and with defeating Eumenes, a loyal general of Perdikkas, dreamt of restoring Alexander’s Empire under his own rule. In 315, Seleukos fled the onslaught of Antigonos and arrived at the court of his friend and comrade, Ptolemy I of Egypt, by now, the undisputed king of that country.  In 312 BCE, Seleukos, as the head of Egyptian navy, defeated Antigonos and his son, Demetrios Poliorketes, in the Battle of Gaza and returned to his position as the ruler of Babylonia.

At the time, Lysimachos and Kassander also allied themselves with Ptolemy I and declared war on Antigonos, defeating him in the process and gaining Asia Minor for Lysimachos and Macedonia for Kassander. Antigonos tried in vain to defeat Seleukos, but the power of Seleukos was on the rise.

Seleukos I Nikator

In 305-304 BCE, Seleukos undertook a campaign in the east to consolidate his power and managed to subdue Zrankia, Bactria, and the rest of the east, an indicator that Alexander probably never managed this.  In the banks of the river Indus, Seleukos clashed with the overwhelming power of the founder of the Gupta Empire, Chandragupta Mauriya who stopped the advancements of Seleukos.  The peace treaty that resulted gave Gandhara and Gedrosia and the rest of Indus Provinces to Mauriya and brought 500 Elephants to Seleukos.

In 301, Kassander, Lysimachos, Ptolemy, and Seleukos united themselves against Antigonos and defeated and killed him in the Battle of Ipsos.  The removal of Antigonos made Seleukos the most powerful man in Asia.  He declared himself king in 301, although for all practical purposes, we can date the foundation of the Seleucid power from 312 BCE. Seleukos established his western capital in Anthiochia-on-Oronthes (modern Atakya in Turkey) and his eastern capital in Seleukia-on-Tigirs.  The population of the ancient city of Babylon which was destroyed by Antigonos were moved to Seleukia and made it another successful commercial and cultural centre.

A good portion of the rule of Seleukos and his son, Antiochos I was spent in organising their empire.  Most of Achaemenid bureaucracy was left undisturbed, with minor exceptions such as making the provincial tax agents only responsible to the Imperial Treasurer, rendering him independent of the satraps. The polis system was also introduced, bringing about the semi-autonomy of cities and their rulers from the satraps, making them answerable only to the emperor.  Some cities even minted coins and called themselves “Allies of the Emperors”.  In this way, satraps were assigned to extract the revenues from the rural agricultural lands, setting up the foundations of Arsacid feudalism.  Cities were entrusted to their noble rulers and merchants and their agricultural hinterland was left at the control of this ruling class.  Although the polis system was not entirely alien to the Achaemenid lands, Babylon and Susa presenting examples of pre-Achaemenid city-state system, nevertheless, the creation of various poleis around the empire helped them to become centres of art, education, and trade.

From 294-286 BCE, much of Seleukos’ time was spent in fighting with Demetrios, son of Antigonos who had escaped the disaster at Ipsos.  Demetrios was defeated, but was held at the Seleucid court honourably where he nonetheless drank himself to death!

In 281, the subjects of Lysimachos in Asia Minor invited Seleukos to free them of the rule of the tyrannous king.  Seleukos embarked on a campaign against Lysimachos and defeated him in 281 at the Battle of Koroupedion. He next turned his attention to Macedonia and Antigonos II, son of Demetrios, who had recently established his rule in those regions.  For a time, Seleukos seemed to be successful in consolidating the empire of Alexander.  However, this was cut short by Ptolemy Keraunos, son of the late Ptolemy I of Egypt, who assassinated Seleukos I on the shores of Thrace.

Antiochos I Soter

Antiochos I Soter was the eldest son of Seleukos I and Apame, daughter of a Sogdian nobleman. At the time of his father’s death, Antiochos was the ruler of the east, centred in Bactria.  The assassination of Seleukos came as a complete shock to the young prince who had to spend much time establishing his rule over the east.

The first challenge for Antiochos was the continuation of his father’s campaign against Antigonos II.  However, at that time, Mithridates of Pontus, a local Persian satrap who had declared independence and established the royal house of Pontus, with the support of Ptolemy II Philadelphous of Egypt, started a rebellion against Antiochos.  The young king concluded a peace treaty with Antigonos II that was to guarantee peace between Seleucids and the Macedonian rulers for almost a century.

The rebellion of the satraps of Asia Minor was heightened when they invited two Celtic tribes to Asia Minor.  These tribes pillaged and destroyed lands under the rule of Antiochos for two years until they were defeated and settled in Galatia, part of modern day Turkey (275 BCE).

Between the years 274 and 271 BCE, a series of wars took place between Antiochos I and Ptolemy II of Egypt, often called the First Syrian War.  It was over the lands that Ptolemy I had taken from Seleukos who had not objected out of gratitude for Ptolemy’s earlier assistance.  However, when Ptolemy II started to expand his rule in Syria, Antiochos had to face him.  Unfortunately, he was unsuccessful in this campaign and in 271, a peace was reached, leaving western Syria and south-western Asia Minor in the hands of Ptolemy.

At the end of Antiochos’ reign, his eldest son, Seleukos who was the heir to the throne and the ruler of Bactria, rose in rebellion against his father.  Antiochos met and defeated his son and was forced to execute him in 267 BCE.  He himself died in 261 BCE and left the throne to his second son, Antiochos II Theos.

Antiochos II Theos and the Beginnings of Eastern Independence

Antiochos II became the ruler of a vast and stable Seleucid Empire in 261 BCE.  His reign is generally considered one of the less important and illustrious of Seleucid reigns, and he himself is portrayed as a flamboyant and hard drinking monarch.  However, his effort in stabilizing the Empire and also extending its influence cannot be ignored.

Antiochos II followed the unsuccessful struggle of his father against the growing Egyptian presence in Syria and Asia Minor and initiated the Second Syrian War in 259 BCE.  His early campaigns saw the removal of Timarchos, the Egyptian supported Tyrant of Miletus from the throne of that city (258 BCE), an act that brought the title of Theos (god) to him.  The freedom of Miletus initiated the local rebellions in other parts of Asia Minor against the Egyptian rule, and soon enough other cities such as Ephesos were freed from the rule of Ptolemey II.

In Europe, Antiochos brought the Seleucid rule to Thrace, a feat not even achieved by Seleukos I himself.  In 253, Ptolemy II Philadelphous was forced to sign a peace agreement that recognised the lordship of Antiochos II over Syria and Asia Minor and ended the Second Syrian War.  In order to strengthen the ties with Egypt, Antiochos II married Berenike, daughter of Ptolemy II.  However, since Antiochos was already married to Laodike and had two sons (the future Seleukos II and Antiochos Hierax) from her, this created a friction inside the royal house.  This was further strengthened when Antiochos unwisely decided to go back to Laodike.   The struggle that took place between the factions of royal household both during the life and after the death of Antiochos II in 247 BCE, threatened the very survival of Seleucid House and its power.

However, the largest threat to the Seleucid rule was to come from the forsaken states of the east.  In the eastern satrapy of Bactria – once the seat of the Seleucid heirs to the throne – a new ruler named Diodotos took power.  Soon after that, he managed to consolidate his power in the east and with the support of the Macedonian and Greek colonies, declared himself the independent ruler of Bactria.  Diodotos’ founding of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom made this area the bastion of Hellenic culture in the east for many centuries to come.  The Greco-Bactrian kingdom was to influence many succeeding dynasties.

Further to the west, around 249-47 BCE, another Macedonian-Iranian satrap named Andragoras declared the independence of his satrapy of Parthia from the Seleucid rule. Not much is known about the actual career of Andragoras, but we soon encounter a leader of the Parni tribe of the Dahae confederation as the ruler of Parthia. This man, named Arsaces (Arshak) was the leader of the Parni in their migration from the area west of Sogdiana south to the Achaemenid/Seleucid satrapy of Parthia.  The dynasty he founded, named Arsacids after him, was to become a strong force in the Near East and the longest ruling dynasties of Iran.  However, at the time, the internal struggles of the Seleucid court prevented it from noticing the newly created Arsacid rule, an oversight that was to cost heavily for the Seleucids.

Chapter II: From Arsaces to Mithradates II
The Foundations of the Arsacid Rule

Arsaces I (Parth. Arshak) was the ruler of the Parni tribe, part of the Dahae tribal confederation of Central Asia, probably themselves part of the various Eastern Iranian nomadic tribes which also included the Sakas mentioned in the Inscription of Behistun. We know little about Arsaces’ background, but we are told by various sources that sometimes between 247-239 BCE, he was crowned the king of Parthia, probably as a successor to Andragoras who has previously raised in rebellion against Antiochos II Theos. The circumstances surrounding these events are also quite confusing themselves, our sources often being from centuries later and written by Greek or Roman historians. Initially, it was believed, based on Arian’s account of Alexander’s life and the fragments of his lost Parthica that Arsaces rose in rebellion with the help of his brother Tirdat (Gk. Tirdates). However, newer research suggests that the existence of this brother, who supposedly also succeeds Arsaces I, is doubtful. Information gained from previously ignored sources (Justin) and newly discovered primary material (the Nisa ostraca) now lead us to believe that Arsaces was crowned king of Parthia and ruled in that region for about two decades, probably taking time to establish his rule over this vast satrapy.

Sometimes around 213 BCE, Arsaces I was succeeded by his son Arsaces II. Shortly afterwards, the Seleucid king Antiochos III (the Great) who had become aware of the Parthian threat, along with the quick rise of Bactria, decided to re-establish his rule over his eastern satrapies. Thus, in 209 Arsaces II was defeated by Antiochos and had to flee to Transoxiana, probably taking refuge with his native Parni tribe. Soon afterwards, however, Arsaces successfully sued for peace and managed to regain his throne in Parthia. At that time, Antiochos’ involvement with the Mediterrnean politics and his support for Hannibal against the Romans left the field peaceful enough for the Parthians to establish and strengthen their rule in the East.

From the rule of Arsaces II’s successor, Phriapatius, we don’t know much. A few ostraca found in a wine storage from Nisa (near present day Ashkhabad in Turkmenistan) give us his name, mostly by mentioning him as the ancestor of the kings who ruled at the time when the ostraca were written. It has often been alleged that Phriapatius was a nephew of Arsaces I and the son of the aforementioned Tirdat. However, with the new research showing that Arian’s account about Tirdat as a brother of Arsaces I was probably fictional, the issue of the relationship of this king to those before him has been thrown into the dark. The present author, however, believes that Phriapatius was indeed the son and successor of Arsaces II and proposes that the name Tirdat should be given to Arsaces I as his personal name, while Ardawan (Lat. Artabanus) should be used for Arsaces II. In any case, after this point, all Arsacid kings took the honorary, or family, name of Arsaces and used it on their coins as well, a fact that makes their identification and relationship quite difficult. Other than this, we know that it was during the rule of Phriapatius that the Arsacid rule also extended to Hyrcania (mod. Gorgan) to the east of the Caspian Sea and the first steps in Arsacid expansion were taken.

Phriapatius was followed in 176 BCE (or as it is sometimes alleged, 170 BCE) by his son, Phraates I (Path. Farhad). Not much is known about the reign of this king other than his subjugation of the Mardi tribe in central Alburz range. If accurate, this would mean that the Arsacids by this time had managed to enter eastern Media, still firmly in the hand of the Seleucids. Reportedly, however, their campaigns in Media proper were not successful as a confederation lead by the Sakas defeated their advances in that region. Phraates died in the battle at Media and was succeeded by his brother, Mithradates I (ca. 165 BCE).

From Mithradates I to Mithradates II

As an empire, we can date the foundation of the Arsacid rule to the succession of Mithradates I (Parth. Mithra-dhat). Prior to his rule, the Arsacid rule in Parthia was only one of the many autonomous kingdoms in the territories of the Seleucid Empire. However, with the succession of Mithradates I, we have the beginnings of a true empire, one that consciously or unconsciously was trying to recreate the empire of the Achaemenids and Alexander.

The early reign of Mithradates probably was spent in Parthia proper, re-establishing his rule over his core territories, securing it against the nomadic tribes of Central Asia, and making sure of the safety from the Bactrian side by effectively blocking off the Greco-Bactrian kingdom of Diodotos’ successors. Part of his time was also occupied by having to deal with the claims of his brother’s child who might have had designs for their own place on the throne of the Arsacids.

However, Mithradates appears again in the pages of history in 144 BCE when he is reported to have successfully captured Babylonia, well into the Seleucid territory. We should then assume that he had managed to conquer Media before this date, a task which had taken his brother’s life when he had attempted to realise it. We know that Mithradates minted coins in his name in 140 BCE in the city of Seleucia-on-Tigris, the eastern capital of the Seleucid empire. If precise, this would mean that Mithradates I had managed to control most of the heartland of the Achaemenid Empire by this time. We are also told that he managed to defeat and capture Demetrius II, the Seleucid king, who was sent into captivity in Mithradatokert (Nisa), one of the capitals of the Arsacids. In this sense, 140 BCE is a good date to assign for the end of the Seleucid rule in Iran and for the establishment of the Arsacid power as an empire in the same territories.

After securing the Arsacid rule over Parthia, Hyrcania, Media, Mesopotamia, and probably even Persis (Per. Pars; the home province of the Achaemenids), Mithradates I appears to have died peacefully sometimes around 132 BCE. He was succeeded by his son Phraates II. The new king had the misfortune of having to face off with Antiochos VII Sidetes, the Seleucid king who initially managed to cut ways into the Arsacid territories. He was, however, successfully defeated at a battle 129 BCE, leaving Phraates free to deal with a new threat, that of the Sakas who had invaded his territory from the northeast and east. He and his uncle and successor, Artabanus I were both quickly defeated and killed by the Sakas who had managed to penetrate the Arsacid lands as far as Media. We don’t know much about the next two or three kings of the Arsacid Empire who have left us nothing but their coins showing the short periods of their rule. It is safe to gather that they also perished in the battles against the mounting force of the Sakas.

The empire was however saved from the Sakas with the succession of Mithradates II, the younger son of Artabanus I. The new king was a brilliant organiser and military leader and managed to effectively defeat the Sakas and force them to a peace treaty, beneficial for both sides. By the early 110’s BCE, Mithradates II had settled the Sakas in their new homeland in eastern Iran, the later province of Sakestan (modern Iranian Sistan). He then took up the task of re-organising his empire by turning his attention to the west. He seems to have paid much attention to Media and Armenia and sometimes around 100 BCE, defeated and killed king Artavasdes I of Armenia and captured “70 Valleys” of his territory. It has recently been suggested that an uncle of Mithridates (thus the fourth son of Phriapatius) named Vologases (Parth. Valakhsh, Arm. Vagharshak) had been previously appointed as the autonomous king of Media, probably following Mithradates I’s conquest of that satrapy. However, the descendants of this Vologases, his son Arshak and grandson Artakhshir, appear to have created much trouble for their cousin Mithradates II, prompting him to invade their territory and annex it to the main Arsacid throne. This might have then be the event that has been interpreted as the Arsacid conquest of the 70 valleys of Armenia (in fact parts of Media Atropatene) and the initial Arsacid conflict with the Armenians. Whatever the case, Mithradates II had managed to subdue and control most of his uncle’s territory and leave a strong and centralised empire to his son, Gotarzes I (Parth. Gotarz) who succeeded him in 91 BCE.

Chapter III: From Gotarzes I to Vologases I
The Parthian Dark Ages

The stretch of time between the death of Mithradates II (91 BCE) and the accession of Orodes II (55 BCE) has been dubbed “The Parthian Dark Ages” by the scholars. The title is an allusion not to the Mediaeval European meaning of the word (as in lack of scientific and intellectual endeavors) rather to the Greek Dark Ages. In this sense, these years are dark because they have left us little information about themselves, and particularly the sequence of the kings that ruler during these forty years.

However, one can also suggest that the Dark Ages are largely a modern construct of historians and have become confusing and entangled because of the various criteria imposed upon the study of the age by the historians. These include a belief in the absolute firmness of Mithradates II’s grip over the empire and the “classical”, almost Achaemenid nature of his rule, as well as the use of various sources (numismatic, textual, or material) as points of departure for constructing the history of this era. In a sense, if one approaches the issues without any presupposition, the events might make more sense.

We know that while Mithradates II was still alive, another ruler by the name of Gotarzesalso minted coins.The minting of coins by Gotzrzes is then interpreted as signs of “open rebellion” against Mithradates II. This is reinforced by the problematic translation of a certain Parthian ostracon from Nisa which was thought to show the rebellion of Gotarzes against his father, while the correct translation might simply suggest Gotarzes’ succession to his father.

As previously mentioned, many pieces of evidence from the Arsacid times seem to suggest and electoral system of kingship in the Arsacid family. This is something similar to the position of the Holy Roman Empire in Mediaeval Europe where the independent ruler of a region was elected to become the Holy Roman Emperor and the nominal overlord of all other rulers. Certain evidence in the Arsacid history seem to suggest the presence of a similar system in the Arsacid structure, something which might have at its root either the tribal origins of the Arsacid family or the competition of other grand families known from their time. Among these evidence is the aforementioned rule of Vologases of Media, as well as the need for Mithradates II to put down the claims of Vologases’ son and grandson. This, particularly the competition from Media, once again shows up when another ruler by the name of Darius of Media claims the throne sometimes during the “Dark Ages”. It is also noticeable that one of the inscriptions from the time of Mithradates II himself is in Media, at the bottom of the Behistun cliff, showing Mithradates alongside his son Gotarzes who is dubbed “The Satrap of the Satraps”, a title alluding to Mithradates’ own title of “King of Kings”.

So, we might attempt to put the events in perspective. We know that Gotarzes indeed was the son of Mithradates and we in fact have no evidence of a rebellion by him against his father, save the minting of the coins. It seems, actually, that Gotarzes was groomed to succeed his father (if the title of “Satrap of the Satraps” means anything) and this might have even been reinforced by allowing him to mint coins, to establish and advertise his right to be the next king of kings, when in fact the position was elective.

It is then this rebellion that causes the turmoil in the Parthian Empire, and quite possibly after the death of Mithradates II. The turmoil then has become confusing since several kings who managed to mint coins during this era have escaped the notice of history. Among these is the famous figure of Sinatruces who declared himself “king of kings” in 77 BCE and is portrayed on his coins as an old man. It is suggested that he was a brother of Mithradates II and that he lived in exile among the Sakas and only made a comeback in face of internal rebellion when he was 80 years old. This might be a little exaggerated as Sinatruces was robust enough to put down several rebellions and indeed seems to have been quite a capable king.

The Armenian Interlude

During the time of rebellion, Tigranes of Armenia (95-55 BCE) managed to achieve magnificent gains in the region. He had established himself in the Caucasus and eastern Asian Minor by participating in the Mithridatic Wars on the side of Mithradates VI of Pontus. Although eventually a disastrous event, the alliance with Mithradates of Pontus gave Tigranes the momentum needed for establishing his position as a powerful king. He quickly managed to move against Parthia and capture the infamous “70 Valleys”, an achievement which was much hailed by the Roman sources. He then claimed the title of “king of kings”, previously belonging to the Parthian great king, for himself.

By this time, Tigranes was renowned enough to attract the attention of the Syrians who asked him to protect them, presumably against the internal strife of the last members of the Seleucid house. Tigranes thus conquered Syria and Cilicia and established his rule all over northern Mesopotamia. As a result, the empire of Tigranes the Great temporarily managed to overshadow the Arsacid Empire as the most important political power in the Near East. However, as with all following powers, Tigranes had to deal with the imperialistic ambitions of the Romans who were trying to establish themselves in a land faraway from the center of their empire and were thus militaristically quite aggressive. It was during the reign of Sinatruces that Tigranes was decisively defeated by the Cn. Pompeius Magnus (Pompey) in 66 BCE. He was left to rule Armenia, now reduced back to its old boundaries, as an ally of Rome until his death in 55 BCE, incidentally the date of the accession of Orodes II to the throne of Parthia.

The End of the Dark Ages

Several more kings followed Sinatruces, among them Phraates III (70-57 BCE) who managed to hold power after his father, as well as Darius of Media Atropatene. This supposed pretender to the Parthian throne minted a series of coins usually dated to the year 70 BCE, the year of the succession of Phraates III to the throne of his father Sinatruces. Although a few of these coins have been re-attributed to Phraates III himself, there is no doubt that Darius was indeed a claimant to the Arsacid high-kingship. The position of his fiefdom, Media Atropatene is interesting to notice. This satrapi was located to the north of Media proper and bordered Armenia and the territory of Tigranes the Great. Indeed, at the time we can assume that parts of Media Atropatene were incorporated to the empire of Tigranes. It is also not improbableto think that the much fought over 70 Valleys were located in Media Atropatene. Also noticeable is the fact that Media as a whole was the kingdom of Vologases of Media who, as mentioned before, claimed the Arsacid high kingship and whose descendants were subjugated by Mithradates II.

So, considering the above, we can again return to our theory that the issue of Parthian high-kingship was indeed unresolved and at least a rival family of the Arsacids, holding power in Media, presented constant challenges to the better known branch (the Ctesiphon Branch?). Darius himself would thus be the latest, and possibly the last, of these Arsacid princes of Media to revive and ancestral claim to high-kingship after the death of Sinatruces.

Phraates III was finally murdered by his own two sons, Mithradates III (57-55 BCE) and Orodes II (57-38 BCE). In the rivalry between the brothers, Mithradates III asked for help from Gabinius, the Roman governor of Syria, an incident which might demonstrate his lack of popularity at home. With the accession of Orodes II, traditional historians usually end the Dark Ages as the Roman sources again start talking about the Parthian history. It is indeed under Orodes II that Romans suffer their worst defeat in the east and thus realize a need for the realignment of their foreign policy and ideals of imperialistic subjugation.

source:iranologie.com