Dignas B., Winter E. Rome and Persia in late Antiquity. Neighbours and Rivals

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

chapter 6

Shared interests: Continuing conﬂicts

Although Roman–Persian relations were dominated by military conﬂicts

or diplomatic activities concerning these conﬂicts, there were a number

of issues that showed points of contact between the two powers, which,

however, could themselves become the starting point for further tensions.

These are above all economic and trade related issues, the protection of

the frontier and the integration of territories that had been contested for

centuries. It is noteworthy that the contemporary authors always give their

accounts on the basis of an ‘imaginary opposition’ between Occident and

Orient, which creates a typical ‘perspective of confrontation’. One cannot

fail to notice the prejudices the Roman historians held against the ‘oriental

barbarians’. Such commonplaces, which found their way into Western lit-

erature many centuries ago, and which were embellished in numerous sub-

sequent accounts given by those travelling between the cultures – soldiers

or diplomats, scholars or philosophers, artists or missionaries – have had

a tremendous impact on modern views until the present day. The second

part of this book thus emphasises the contrary, namely the efforts to recon-

cile differences, the openness for cooperation between the powers and the

solutions that were found in the process and thereby to gain a deeper under-

standing of Roman–Sasanian relations.

Given how the rivalries between

Rome and Persia persisted and how difﬁcult in particular the geographical

conditions in the border regions were, these solutions can indeed be called

innovative and forward-looking. At times, they certainly helped to stabilise

the difﬁcult political situation in the contested border territories along the

Euphrates and Tigris.

26 Armenia

It is not easy to say what exactly ‘Armenia’ was in (late) antiquity, let alone

to pinpoint the origins of those settling in the territorial entity between

In this context see also chapter 9 ‘Exchange of information’, below.

173

174 6 Shared interests: Continuing conﬂicts

the Black and the Caspian Seas that may be referred to as ‘Armenia’ by

contemporary or modern authors.

The meaning of ‘Armenia’ varies, and

this not only according to date and context but also according to perspective,

which means that at any given point the Armenians themselves would have

had a very different view from those adopted by the Romans and Persians.

From the beginning of Roman–Iranian relations, however, Armenia was an

object of rivalry between both powers, and for good reasons (map 11).

Because of its geographical location, the highland of Armenia to the south

and south-west of the Caucasus was a focal point throughout antiquity: it

was the area through which the majority of trafﬁc from the Near East to Asia

Minor passed and it was close to the strategically important Caucasus passes

(27). Apart from being a transit area, Armenia had remarkable economic

resources.

Among others, there were the gold mines of Pharangion,

men-

tioned by both Procopius and Malalas and famous already during Strabo’s

lifetime.

Accordingly, during the peace negotiations for the so-called ‘eter-

nal peace’ in 530/31 Kav

adh I insisted on these mines being returned by the

Romans.

Armenia beneﬁted not only from its ‘natural’ resources but also from its

important role in trade. Among those who travelled to Greater Armenia –

the larger part of the country, which, as we shall see, came to be controlled

by the Sasanians – in order to engage in trade were merchants from Persia as

well as from Syria and Palestine.

Procopius provides us with a description

of the most important Armenian city in the sixth century, Dv

ın.

The

Byzantine historian mentions a densely populated landscape surrounding

the new capital, which was also the economic centre of Armenia. He also

refers to fertile plains used for breeding horses. According to the author,

merchants came from neighbouring Ib

eria, from almost anywhere in Persia

and even from faraway India.

Armenia’s human resources were equally signiﬁcant and resulted from

the idiosyncratic structure of Armenian society. Considering the sporadic

For an excellent summary of early Armenian history see Garso

ıan 1997a: 63–94 and 1997b: 95–116;

for a sequence of maps see Hewsen 2001.

For a cautious assessment with an emphasis on the ‘diversity and incongruity’ of anything ‘Armenian’

see the forthcoming article by Greenwood.

On the economic resources of Armenia see Redgate 1998 (repr. 1999): 83–7.

Proc. BP i.15.26–9; Malal. 18.50–1 (pp. 455-6).

Strabo xi.14.9.

Chaumont 1987a: 433 correctly interprets this as an indication ‘that their exploitation yielded large

proﬁts for the Sasanian government’.

Malal. 18.63 (p. 469). Armenia’s intensive trade with the neighbouring regions during late antiquity

may be conﬁrmed by the large variety of coins found in the area; for references see Chaumont 1987a:

433.

Manandian 1965: 81–2.

Proc. BP ii.25.1–3.

40 °E

50 °E

40°N

50 °E

40 °E

40°N

Sinope

Trebizond

Mush

Amida

Antioch

Emesa

Palmyra

Dura Europos

SYRIA

CILICIA

GORDUENE

Tıgranocerta

Melitene

Edessa

Carrhae

Nimrud

Dagh

Echmıadzın

ARMENIA

MAJOR

Dvin

Artaxata

Gazaca

Ecbatana

0 100 km

0 100 miles

PARTHIA

Arbela

Hatra

Van

L.Thospitis

(L.Van)

Mt Ararat

L. Sevan

R. Araxes

L. Urmıya

Cabeira

R. Halys

R. Iris

MOSKHOI

Mtskheta

CASPIAN

SEA

R. Cyrus

TAOKHOI

COLCHI S

BLACK SEA

Map 11: Armenia at the time of the Parthian Empire

176 6 Shared interests: Continuing conﬂicts

character of our evidence, it is problematic to use the term ‘feudal system’.

However, the relationship between the king, who had his own resources, and

the hereditary Armenian nobility, the naxarars, was characterised by obliga-

tion as well as independence. There was also intense competition between

and within the princely families, whose prestige and landed property varied

but was often immense.

Below the nobility, the rest of the population was

primarily made up of peasants who owed military and labour service to

the respective families and ultimately to the crown. The contingents at the

king’s disposal were impressive and enhanced by monetary contributions

owed by the princes.

To the west of the river Euphrates, Lesser Armenia (Armenia Minor),

belonged to the Roman Empire from early on. Since Diocletian and Con-

stantine this part of Armenia formed the provinces Armenia i and ii.In

contrast, Greater Armenia (Armenia Maior), was often the reason for mil-

itary conﬂicts between Rome and Iran. Although both sides showed the

desire to resolve tensions peacefully, both also wanted to gain power in

this strategically important region. The following account by Suetonius

goes back to an earlier period of Roman–Parthian relations,

but it illus-

trates Armenia’s delicate situation between East and West – a situation that

remained difﬁcult throughout late antiquity.

Suetonius, Nero 13

(1) Among the spectacles that he staged I may well also report on the entrance of

Tiridates into the city. As foggy weather had prevented him from showing the man

to the people on the day determined by the edict, he produced this man, the

king of Armenia, who had been persuaded to come by great promises, when the

next possible opportunity arose; cohorts in full armour were displayed around

the temples in the Forum, he sat in a curule chair by the rostra in the attire of a

triumphant general and surrounded by military symbols and standards. (2) And

at ﬁrst he let the king, who was approaching via a sloping platform, go down on

his knees, then he kissed him after he had raised him with his right hand, and

ﬁnally he took his tiara away, as the king had asked him to, and replaced it with

the diadem,

while a man of praetorian rank translated the words of the suppliant

and announced them to the crowd. Then he led him to the theatre and placed

Redgate 1998: 97–8 on Toumanoff 1963: 34–144 and Adontz 1970: 343–61.

See Thomson 1999: xiii–xiv; Garso

ıan 1997a: 76–9; somewhat speculative Chaumont 1987a: 433.

Cf. Redgate 1998: 99 with further references.

On the history of Armenia during the Parthian period see Bedoukian 1980; Chaumont 1987a: 420–6;

1990: 19–31; Kettenhofen 1998: 325–52; see also Schottky 1989.

The tiara is a Persian headgear. Among the Parthians, it was the prerogative of the kings, who alone

were allowed to wear the battlemented tiara, often decorated with stars; the diadem was the royal

symbol granted and acknowledged by the Romans.

26 Armenia 177

him, who once more adopted the demeanor of a suppliant, on his right. Because

of this he was hailed as imperator, and after laying a laurel wreath in the Capitol

he closed the double doors of the temple of Janus, indicating that no war was left

anywhere.

In the year 54 the Parthian king Vologaeses I (51–76/80) had appointed his

brother Tiridates (52/54–60 and 61/66–72) as king of Armenia. This move

had threatened Roman interests and triggered war with Rome. Although

the Romans mobilised a large army in order to deal with the ‘Armenian

conﬂict’, a solution was reached only through a mutual agreement that

led to the events described by Suetonius. Right after the last battle in

Armenia, which had taken place at Rhandeia, Tiridates had paid tribute

to Nero before the emperor’s image and taken off his diadem, which Nero

himself returned to him three years later as part of a solemn ceremony.

Suetonius depicts the events as a spectacle that illustrated Rome’s greatness

and superiority, a representation that matches his efforts to praise Nero as

a triumphant victor. What we do not immediately see, however, is that

after a series of unsuccessful military activities the Romans had to waive

their claims for direct rule in Armenia; this was compensated for by the

willingness of the king to acknowledge that henceforth any Armenian king

would be an ofﬁcial dependant of Rome. At least in the year 66 the solution

proved to be a successful reconciliation of interests, which had a stabilising

effect. By agreeing on such a partition of sovereignty over Armenia both

sides came to terms with the fact that neither could rule in Armenia without

respecting the interests of the other. Ultimately, however, Armenia remained

a Parthian vassal state because the Parthian kings did not allow the Romans

to prescribe who would be the Arsacid on the Armenian throne. While the

investiture of the Armenian king was reserved to the Roman emperors, the

actual choice lay with the Parthian king.

Armenian history after Tiridates I is not well documented. We can say,

however, that for the next 150 years the situation was more or less peace-

ful and closely linked to the state of Roman–Parthian relations.

When

tensions between the great powers increased, this entailed turbulence for

Armenia. The following passage reveals how much the foundation of the

Sasanian Empire in the year 224 affected affairs within Armenia itself as

well as its role as a cause for conﬂict between West and East.

This was the customary symbolic act that indicated the end of war.

Chaumont 1987a: 424.

On the episodic character of Armenian history and the difﬁculties of ‘reconstructions’ see Garso

ıan

1997a and 2004; see also Redgate 1998: 88–94.

178 6 Shared interests: Continuing conﬂicts

Agathangelos, History (ed. Thomson) §§ 18–20

(§ 18) At the eclipse of the era of the Parthian kingdom, when sovereign rule was

taken from Artabanos son of Valar

s at his murder by Arda

ır son of Sasan – who was

a noble from the province of Stahr, who had come and united the Persian forces,

who then scorned and rejected the sovereign rule of the Parthians and were pleased

to choose the lordship of Arda

ır son of Sasan – when the sad news of his death had

reached Xusr

o, the king of Armenia – who was second in the sovereign rule of the

Persians, because whoever was the king of Armenia was second in the sovereignty

of the Persians

– although he soon heard the sorrowful news, he had no time at

all to complete preparations for warfare. After this, he returned in great sadness

at the course of events, because he had not been able to accomplish anything; in

great distress and at the completion of these matters, he turned and went to his

own country.

(§ 19) Now at the start of the next year, Xusr

o, the king of Armenia, began to

organise his army and to collect a force,

gathering the forces of the Albanians and

the Georgians, opening the gate of the Alans

and the pass of

Cor,

bringing the

forces of the Honkë ,

in order to campaign in Persian regions and attack the regions

of Asorestan,

as far as the gates of Kt

esiph

on. Having ravaged the whole land,

he brought populous cities and prosperous towns to ruin and left all the inhabited

land empty and devastated. He was attempting to eradicate and destroy utterly, to

overthrow the foundation; he was aiming to expunge the traditional institutions of

Persian sovereignty. He made an oath at the same time to seek revenge with great

resentment for their [i.e. the Parthian] loss of sovereignty . . .

(§ 20) For because of his close kinship to that house, he himself was also greatly

dejected, that they had submitted and entered into service, acknowledging the

kingdom of the Stahrac ë i,

and had joined with him. And although Xusr

o arranged

On this passage see also the references in Thomson 1976: 454–6; for a brief survey of Armenian

historiography see Thomson 2001: 106.

On Arda

ır and his career see Wieseh

ofer 1986a: 371–6.

On the close relations between the Armenian Arsacids and the Parthians see Chaumont 1969: 25–47;

on the representation of the Arsacids in the Armenian sources see Kettenhofen 1998: 325–53.

Cf. the account of Moses of Chorene ii.71–9, who describes Xusr

o’s support for the last Parthian

king Artabanos against Arda

ır; for discussion of this extremely problematic source see Chaumont

1969: ch. 2 and Toumanoff 1969: 251.

This refers to the Dariel pass, the main route through the Caucasus; cf. the commentary on 27, esp.

p. 188 n. 70.

This is the Derbend pass by the Caspian Sea (= Caspian Gates).

The Honkë are the Huns, which is an anachronistic term at this point and reﬂects the ﬁfth-century

perspective of the author; he has the K

an in mind, who at the beginning of the third century were

active along the North-eastern frontier of the Parthian Empire.

This is a frequently used geographical name for Sasanian Mesopotamia.

Istakhr is the main religious centre of the Sasanians in the Persis, a region in south-eastern Iran;

although there are no archaeological remains, the sources agree that from the late Parthian period

onwards it was home to a ﬁre sanctuary of the goddess Anahita. According to tradition, the ancestral

founder of the Sasanian dynasty, Sasan, presided over this sanctuary, which therefore was directly

linked to the rise of the Sasanians; see Wieseh

ofer 2001: index s.v. (Istakhr) and the glossary in this

volume.

26 Armenia 179

an embassy, [urging] that his relatives should come in support and should stand

against them with his kingdom, and that help would be given to him from the

regions of the K

an and from that border and from their own country, by brave

peoples and military forces, that they would come in support, the houses, the chiefs

and nobles and family-heads of the Parthians, did not pay heed because they had

accepted and submitted to the sovereign rule of Arda

ır rather than the sovereignty

of their own relative and brother.

During the Parthian and Sasanian eras the history of Armenia was closely

linked to that of Iran.

Accordingly, the testimonies of Armenian histo-

riography are very valuable for us, not least because they yield numerous

details regarding the history and culture of the Sasanian Empire. How-

ever, frequently these sources show a pro-Armenian or rather anti-Iranian

bias and – as they were composed during a later period – also confront us

with problems of chronology.

This applies above all to the early phases

of Sasanian history. The passage above is an excerpt from an Armenian

history, several revised editions of which have survived under the author’s

name ‘Agathangelos’. Although the author claims to have been an eye-

witness during the reign of Tiridates the Great (who ruled until c. 330),

his work is most likely a compilation of the ﬁfth century. Agathangelos

describes the reaction in Armenia immediately after the Arsacids had been

overthrown by the Sasanians.

Xusr

o, the king of Armenia and brother

of the last Parthian king, feared that the events would jeopardise his own

position. Being of Arsacid offspring himself, he did not want to acknowl-

edge the Sasanian dynasty and sought allies in order to continue the ﬁght

against the Sasanians.

Agathangelos’ list of Xusr

o’s various initiatives in the

Caucasian region once more points to Armenia’s geo-strategic signiﬁcance,

which steered the activities of the great powers in the region. However,

Xusr

o’s efforts were unsuccessful. In the face of the resolute actions of the

ﬁrst Sasanian king the initial resistance against Arda

ır within the Sasanian

Empire broke down quickly.

For a historical survey see Chaumont 1987a: 423–38.

As the Armenian script was invented between 410 and 420 and did initially not have any biblical

focus the work cannot predate c. 450; see also Wieseh

ofer 2001: 156.

On the conﬂicting accounts of Western and Armenian historiography and the resulting difﬁculties

in establishing a chronology of the events in Armenia see especially Schottky 1994: 226–31; cf. also

Toumanoff 1969: 233–81.

Cf. Chaumont 1987a: 426, ‘The dynastic upheaval in Iran transformed the political scene in Armenia.

The Armenian sources state that the country’s king at the time was Khosrov “the Great”. He was

probably a close relative of the last Parthian monarchs, and he evidently wanted to make his realm

an Arsacid bastion against the Sasanians. Since his own forces were too weak, he needed Roman

support and remained resolutely pro-Roman.’

180 6 Shared interests: Continuing conﬂicts

Ultimately, Armenia could not escape the ambitions of the early Sasanian

rulers. Xusr

o’s successor on the Armenian throne, his son Tiridates, had to

ﬂee and seek refuge in the Roman Empire. After Arda

ır had tried already in

227 to take possession of Greater Armenia,

from 252/53 onwards the coun-

try became part of the sphere of inﬂuence of the Sasanians, who followed

the Parthian tradition of appointing a member of their own dynasty as king

of Armenia. Hormizd-Arda

ır, the oldest son of the second Sasanian king

ur I became the ‘Great king of Armenia’.

He was the only member of

ur’s family who was allowed to use the title of ‘Great king’, a circum-

stance which reveals the important role Armenia played for the Sasanian

dynasty. During the reign of

ur I’s successor, Hormizd I, Armenia con-

tinued to be ruled by a Sasanian satellite king, probably the youngest son

ur I, Nars

It looks as if this phase of Sasanian rule introduced

some internal stability in Armenia, which among other aspects involved an

assimilation of local religion and orthodox Mazdaism.

However, in the face of the changing balance of power towards the end

of the third century we observe renewed Roman attempts to increase their

inﬂuence in Armenia. Bahr

am II (276–93) had to accept that Diocletian

invested Tiridates III and thereby once more a descendant of the Arsacid

dynasty as Armenian king, whose rule, however, was at ﬁrst limited to Lesser

Armenia.

As a consequence of Nars

e’s catastrophic defeat by Galerius

in the year 298 (6) and the resulting peace treaty of Nisibis strategically

important regions in southern Armenia became part of the Roman sphere

of inﬂuence (17); moreover, with Roman support Tiridates extended his

rule to all of Armenia. As Tiridates ‘the Great’, he captured a very special

place in Armenian history because during his reign the country turned

to Christianity.

Although the historical circumstances are complex and

the reconstruction of the ‘story’ subject to speculation,

one may say that

‘Armenia’ became the ﬁrst ever Christian state, not long before a similar

change took place in the West. Against the opposition of the Armenian

nobility, who largely followed Iranian traditions, the country increasingly

opened up to Western inﬂuence. The Armenian churches and monasteries

Widengren 1971: 758.

Cf.

SKZ, Greek text, ll. 40–1.

Cf. Humbach and Skjaervo 1983: iii 1, 28, 32 and 45; iii 2, 10–11, 36 and 72.

Chaumont 1987a: 426, with reference to Moses of Chorene ii.77.

For details cf. Winter 1988: 145–51.

Soz. ii.8.1; on the controversial dating of this crucial event within Armenian history – often the years

313 or 314 are given as the date but many Armenians prefer the year 301 – see Ananian 1961: 43–73

and 317–60.

There was already a Syrian current of Christianity that had percolated into southern districts; see

Garso

ıan 1997: 81–3.

26 Armenia 181

built during late antiquity and in particular the early Middle Ages can still be

admired today, which has led to the assumption that Armenia contributed

to the development of Christian religious architecture in general.

The

following passage attests to the consequences of Tiridates’ decision for

Armenia’s position between Rome and the Sasanian Empire.

Moses of Chorene (ed. Thomson)

iii

Copy of the letter of the Armenians

‘Head-bishop Vrt ëan

es and those bishops under him and all the nobles of Greater

Armenia, to our lord Constantius, emperor, autocrator, Greeting.

Remember the sworn agreement

of your father Constantine, which was [made]

to our king Tiridates; and do not give this country of yours to the godless Persians,

but assist us with forces, in order to create as king the son of Tiridates, Xusr

For God has made you lord not only of Europe but also all the Middle-lands, and

respect for your power has reached the ends of the earth. And we ask that your

rule may expand more and more. Be well.’

On hearing this, Constantius sent Antiochus, the overseer of his palace,

with a

substantial force and purple robes with a crown and a letter which had this original:

Letter of Constantius

‘Augustus, autocrator, emperor Constantius, to you the great Vrt‘an

es and all

your countrymen, greetings.

I have sent to you a force in assistance and the order to make as king for you

Xusr

o, son of your king Tiridates, so that, having been established in good order,

you may serve us faithfully. Be well.’

As is the case with the history of Agathangelos, the work of Moses of

Chorene confronts us with serious chronological difﬁculties, and this with

regard to its date of composition as well as the sequence of the narrative.

Moses himself claims to have composed his work in the ﬁfth century and

to have been a contemporary of St Ma

stocë . The debate over the date is

ongoing but recent scholarship has forcefully argued in favour of a date of

composition in the eighth or ninth century.

As far as the narrative itself

is concerned, in many places the work contradicts the information given

by other authors. Nevertheless, the text throws much light on the situation

of Armenia during the ﬁrst half of the fourth century. After the victory of

See Redgate 1998: 113–39.

On this passage see also Thomson 1980: 257–8.

Such an ‘agreement’ is also referred to by Agathangelos 877, ‘Similarly with great happiness he showed

love for king Tiridates as a dear brother especially because of his knowledge of God; furthermore he

made a treaty with him, holding the faith which was in Christ the lord as the common denominator,

so that they might preserve assuredly and for ever a steadfast friendship between the kingdoms’ (tr.

T. Greenwood); see also Epic Histories iii.21.

Cf. Thomson 1980: 258 with n. 3.

See Thomson 1980: 1–61;Mah

e and Mah

e 1993.

182 6 Shared interests: Continuing conﬂicts

Galerius over the Sasanians in the year 298 Tiridates had been placed on the

Armenian throne as a Roman client king. Presumably he had supported

Rome’s anti-Christian policy during the reign of Diocletian, and when

he decided to convert to Christianity and the Christian religion became

the ofﬁcial, publicly promoted religion also in the Roman Empire, this

brought the two states even closer.

In contrast, the relationship with the

Zoroastrian Sasanian Empire was bound to deteriorate dramatically.

The

persecutions of the Christians in the Sasanian Empire that began during

the reign of

ur II clearly reveal that the relationship between West

and East was changing for the worse after the Constantinian revolution.

Accordingly, Moses of Chorene’s letter of the Armenians to the Roman

emperor Constantius stems from the fear that the Sasanians would renew

their attempts to take possession of the country. The petition for military

support against the claims of the ‘godless Persians’ is now accompanied by

a reference to the emperor’s duty to act as the patron of Christianity as a

whole.

Elsewhere we also hear about the emperor’s all-embracing care for the

Christians, which applied also to the Christians in the Sasanian Empire

and inevitably irritated the Persian king (31). Numerous sources attest to

the continuing confrontations between the followers of the Christian faith

and those of the Zoroastrian ﬁre cult, which provoked intervention by the

great powers in Armenia. The changes with regard to the religious affairs

in Armenia meant that the already explosive situation in this region was

aggravated. It is thus not surprising that

ur II’s far reaching political

ambitions also took aim at Armenia.

Ammianus Marcellinus

xxvii

.12.1–4

(1) The Persian king, the now aged

ur (II),

who from the very beginning of

his reign had always been tempted by raids, seemed well disposed to us with his

people for a short while after the death of the emperor Julian and after the shameful

peace

was struck; but then he spurned the promise of the agreements made under

Jovian and laid his hand on Armenia in order to bring it under his rule as if the

validity of the agreements had been erased. (2) At ﬁrst he used various tricks and

inﬂicted fairly light harm on this densely populated country by soliciting some of

Again, scholars do not accept this reconstruction of events unanimously; see above, p. 128 with n. 47.

According to Chaumont 1987a: 427, ‘Christianization tended to strengthen Armenia’s link with the

Roman Empire and to set back the Iranian cultural inﬂuence.’

For another English translation that includes the following paragraphs see Greatrex and Lieu 2002:

21–2.

The author describes events of the last years of

ur II’s long reign, the years after 367.

This is the peace treaty of 363 which was concluded between Jovian and

ur II (18).