A Political History of Parthia/Chapter 10

by Neilson Carel Debevoise

 

CHAPTER X

TRAJAN IN ARMENIA AND MESOPOTAMIA

THE campaign of Corbulo had achieved a temporary though costly settlement of the Armenian succession which left that country well within the sphere of Roman influence. The inroads of the Alani broke upon Parthia about a.d. 72 and drew her attention again to her eastern frontier, where, from the middle of the first century, she had been gradually losing ground. At the time Josephus was writing, in the latter part of the first century, the Euphrates was still the western boundary.^[1] With Roman interests occupied elsewhere and Parthian arms engaged in the east, ancient historians of the western world found little of note to record.

In April, 78, a king by the name of Pacorus (II) began striking coins at the Seleucia-Ctesiphon mint; but Vologases I was able to continue his issues from the same place, and even during the same month.^[2] This evidence for the struggle between pretender and ruler continues until the end of the next year, when Vologases disappears from history.^[3] Pacorus II^[4] is seldom mentioned in our scanty literary sources, nor is there any hint as to what relation he bore to his predecessor, save that his succession was not a friendly one.

In 79 there appeared in the East a pseudo-Nero, in reality a Roman citizen from Asia Minor named Terentius Maximus. He progressed as far as the Euphrates, but was at last forced to take refuge with one of the pretenders to the Parthian throne, Artabanus (IV), who struck coins at the Seleucia mint in the years 80–81.^[5] The pseudo-Nero won a welcome from the Parthians on the ground that he had returned Armenia to Parthian control. Preparations were being made to restore him when his imposture was discovered and he died.^[6]

By 82/83 Pacorus II had apparently driven his rivals from the field; in any case they no longer had sufficient power to strike coins.^[7] The surrender of another pseudo-Nero was demanded by the emperor Domitian in 89, and Pacorus was at last constrained to give him up.^[8]

Toward the conclusion of his reign Domitian apparently planned to seek military honors in the East. Abascantius, his secretary, was ordered to learn what news came from the wandering Euphrates.^[9] The Euphrates was to be crossed at Zeugma, whence the army would turn north, pass over the Araxes, and perhaps conquer regal Bactra or even India. Other forces would invade Mesopotamia; the wealth of Babylon would be theirs. M. Maecius Celer was sent in advance to take charge of the Syrian legions, and his earlier experience in fighting in the East was expected to be of great value.^[10]

Although Domitian did not live to carry out this plan, it was not long before Trajan was engaged in a campaign which followed closely along the same lines. Trajan came to the throne in 98. Perhaps it was early in his reign that certain difficulties arose between him and Pacorus over some frontier question, for the Parthian claimed that neither had executed a certain agreement within thirty days and that the Romans had fortified enemy territory contrary to the oracle.^[11]

The last years of Pacorus appear to have been troubled. His coinage at the Seleucia-Ctesiphon mint contains lengthy gaps, including one of five years (88–93) and one of eight years (97–105). As early as 105/6 a rival king, perhaps Vologases II, made his appearance; and in 109/10 Osroes, the brother or brother-in-law of Pacorus, began to coin money.^[12] The struggle soon became one between Osroes and Vologases II, for with one exception the dated coinage of Pacorus ceases in 96/97.^[13]

In 97, during the reign of the emperor Ho, the protector-general Pan Ch'ao sent Kan Ying on a mission to Ta Ch'in (Syria). He reached Mesene, where sailors discouraged his crossing by telling him that the round trip took three months. Here is another indication of the growing importance of this region and of the southern route to Syria. Four years later, in 101, a king of Parthia named Man-ch'iu (identified as Pacorus) sent gifts of lions and ostriches from Mesene,^[14] the latter perhaps brought there by traders from Arabia.

We have further evidence that Pacorus was not dead, however; for Decebalus, the famous Dacian opponent of Trajan, presented the Parthian with a slave named Callidromus, presumably a Greek, taken from the Romans by one of the Dacian leaders. The Greek remained for a number of years with Pacorus, and eventually came to possess a beautiful gem engraved with the figure of the Parthian ruler.^[15] Possibly some of the heavy Parthian cavalry had aided the Dacians, for the armored warriors on Trajan's column that are usually called Sarmatians might also be Parthians.^[16] Perhaps it was to this Pacorus that Martial referred in one of his poems as deliberating in Arsacia (Rhages).^[17] In 110^[18] Pacorus sold the kingdom of Osroene to Abgarus VII, son of Izates, but the territory may have remained subject to Parthia in some manner. About the same time a ruler named Tiridates was deposed from the Armenian throne by Osroes, and Axidares, one of the two sons of Pacorus,^[19] was put in his place. This action, taken without consulting the Roman government, may have served as an excuse for the Armenian and Parthian campaigns which followed.^[20]

Only after the completion of the Dacian Wars did Trajan find time to devote his attention to the East, where the Armenian situation or the possibilities of further conquest made easy by the state of anarchy in Parthia may have attracted him. In the autumn of 113, perhaps on October 27,^[21] the Emperor set sail from Rome.^[22] On his arrival at Athens he was met by an embassy from Osroes, who desired peace and requested that Axidares, whom he had by now deposed from the Armenian throne, be replaced by the latter's brother Parthamasiris. The demand was not granted; it was not even answered, nor were the presents which accompanied it accepted.^[23]

Trajan then proceeded eastward, perhaps by sea, to Ephesus^[24] and thence through Lycia and adjoining provinces to Seleucia (in Cilicia?). From there he probably went by sea^[25] to Antioch,^[26] where he arrived early in 114. At Antioch he received messsages of friendship and gifts from Abgarus, prince of Osroene, who was attempting to preserve neutrality with both Parthians and Romans. Trajan consecrated a portion of the spoils of the Dacian Wars in the temple of Jupiter Casius, and Hadrian composed verses to accompany the offering.^[27] A trip was made to Heliopolis (Baalbek) to consult the oracle on the issue of the war.^[28]

Trajan drew his troops for the coming struggle from three main sources: from Pannonia (veterans of the Dacian Wars); from the garrisons and regular legions of Egypt; from the legions ordinarily stationed in Palestine and Syria.^[29] Though undoubtedly our information on the forces of Trajan is still far from complete, we know that four of the eastern legions were used, with at least part of a fifth. These were the IV Scythica^[30] and the VI Ferrata^[31] from Syria, the X Fretensis^[32] and at least a part of the III Cyrenaica^[33] from Judea, and the XVI Flavia Firma from Commagene.^[34] Other legions which may possibly have served are the I Adiutrix, II Traiana Fortis, VII Claudia,^[35] XI Claudia, XV Apollinaris, and XXX Ulpia.^[36]

Numerous auxiliaries were sent from Egypt under the command of Valerius Lollianus, prefect of the Cohors I Apamenorum sagittariorum equitata.^[37]

Early in 114 Trajan advanced to Melitene, which he fortified and enlarged.^[38] Parthamasiris wrote Trajan a letter couched in a lofty style, but without result. Another, in more humble terms, requested that Marcus Junius, governor of Cappadocia, be sent to him. Trajan did not halt in his advance but sent the son of Junius, then proceeded on to Arsamosata, which he took without a struggle.^[39] When he arrived at Satala he was visited by a number of rulers from the Caucasus and the region about the Caspian Sea. Presents were given to Anchialus, king of the Heniochi and the Machelones.^[40] Trajan also invested a king of the Albani and received kings of the Iberians, the Sarmatians, and the Colchians.^[41] These events were probably represented on coins bearing the legend REGNA ADSIGNATA.^[42] Amazaspus, brother of King Mithradates of Iberia, must have joined forces with Trajan at Satala. But he was destined never to engage in the fighting, for he died and was buried near Nisibis.^[43] It was probably at Satala that Trajan met reinforcements from the Danube region.^[44]

At Elegia (Ilidja, Turkish Ilıca), west of modern Erzurum, Parthamasiris at last secured the interview he had so long sought. Trajan received the Armenian monarch before all the army. Parthamasiris approached the Emperor, took off his diadem, and laid it at the feet of Trajan, expecting to have it replaced even as Nero had replaced the diadem on the head of Tiridates. The scene is represented on a gold coin which bears the inscription REX PARTHVS.^[45] The army received the act as one of surrender and raised the shout of "Imperator!"^[46] Trajan made no move to replace the diadem. When Parthamasiris saw that he was surrounded on all sides, he requested a private conversation, which was granted. This proved no more satisfactory, and the Armenian ruler eventually became angry and left camp, only to be brought back by the legionaries. Trajan then bade him speak out so that all might hear. Parthamasiris explained that he had not been defeated in battle but had come to be invested with the crown of Armenia, just as Tiridates had been. Trajan then declared that he would surrender Armenia to no one and that henceforth it was to be a Roman province.^[47] For promised security Parthamasiris thanked the Emperor, but he complained of his suffering and reproached him for the treatment accorded him.^[48] Trajan permitted the Armenian ruler to leave camp, escorted by his Parthian companions and a detachment of Roman cavalry. The Armenians with him, now Roman subjects, were not allowed to depart. As the cavalcade left the encampment, the leader of the Roman cavalry swung his horse against that of Parthamasiris, ordered him to rein in his mount,^[49] and then killed him.^[50] Trajan declared later that he himself, not Axidares, had taken the decision. There could be no dispute that Axidares had the best right to rule Armenia; it was Parthamasiris who had first broken the agreement,^[51] and he had suffered merited punishment.^[52]

Meantime Lucius Quietus had been sent with a column against the Mardi, who are supposed to have lived east of Lake Van.^[53] They are described as a poor but warlike people, without horses, inhabiting a rough country. Attacked front and rear, they were entirely destroyed, or at least so Arrian reports.^[54] Perhaps at this time a Roman guard was left at the boundaries of the Lazi and the Saginae,^[55] not far from the "Caspian Gates" (the Iron Gates?).^[56]

The conquest of Armenia was still to be accomplished. Trajan took part in this task, administering rebukes and punishments where necessary, sifting false rumors brought in by scouts or even starting them himself so that the army might be ever on the alert, and issuing commands so that the troops might advance in good order.^[57]

Armenia was made into a province^[58] and a procuratorial governor appointed. Three of the early officials are known: L. Catilius Severus,^[59] C. Atilius Claudius,^[60] and T. Haterius Nepos.^[61] In distant Crete a coin was struck with the legend ΑΡΜΕΝΙΑ.^[62] Trajan was particularly proud of the title "Optimus" which he added to his formal titulary about this time.^[63]

From Armenia Trajan turned south toward Mardin and Nisibis, perhaps then a part of Adiabene.^[64] A centurion named Sentius, dispatched earlier in the campaign as an envoy to Mebarsapes, ruler of Adiabene, was imprisoned in the fortress of Adenystrae (Dunaisir?).^[65] When the Roman advance swept through the country this centurion raised a revolt among the captives there, killed the commander of the garrison, and opened the gates to the Romans. Mebarsapes was probably forced to withdraw across the Tigris to Adiabene proper.^[66] Singara (Sindjar),^[67] Libana,^[68] and possibly also Thebeta^[69] were taken without fighting by Lucius Quietus, that invaluable Moorish veteran of the Dacian Wars. Mannus, said to have ruled a part of "Arabia" near Edessa, furnished Mebarsapes with troops, all of which were lost in action against the Romans.^[70] Some unknown ruler, who had sworn oaths and been pardoned by Trajan, later fled to Mannus.^[71]

The army moved westward and occupied Edessa. As Trajan approached this city Abgarus VII, its ruler, mindful of his previous failure to appear, sent his handsome young son, Arbandes, to meet the Emperor. Trajan chided the young man for his tardy arrival to share the labors of the campaign, to which Arbandes replied that he would have come before but for the Parthians, whom he feared. With the way thus paved by this agreeable emissary, Abgarus appeared before his city with a gift of two hundred and fifty horses and mailed horsemen, coats of mail, horses, and sixty thousand arrows. He also informed the Emperor that he would surrender claim to his land, even though he had purchased it at great price from Pacorus (cf. p. 217). Trajan took three coats of mail and returned the remainder. Abgarus was confirmed in his position as phylarch, though apparently there was a faction in Edessa which objected.^[72]

Manisarus, perhaps a rebel Parthian vassal, against whom Osroes was conducting a campaign,^[73] sent an embassy to seek peace from Trajan. Manisarus was ready to withdraw from those parts of Mesopotamia and Armenia which he had taken, but Trajan refused to treat with him until he came in person to make his promises good.^[74] Sporaces, phylarch of Anthemusia, the district between Carrhae and Apamea on the Euphrates, had not come with the others to pay his respects to Trajan. The expedition started to move against him; but as soon as he heard that troops were advancing, Sporaces fled, and his chief city, Batnae, was taken.^[75]

With the exception of the campaign of Osroes against Manisarus, mentioned above, there is no record of Parthian military movements. What opposition they offered to the Roman advance was apparently made through such faithful vassals as Mebarsapes. Where were the Parthians, and why did they remain inactive? Numismatic evidence provides an answer. The coins struck at the Seleucia-Ctesiphon mint from 105/6 onward show that a constant struggle was in progress between Vologases II and Osroes, with first one and then the other in possession of the mint (cf. p. 216). Pacorus may have been still alive and have been a third factor in the contest.^[76] With this picture in view, it is not difficult to understand why the Roman forces met with little opposition.^[77]

After his visit to Edessa, Trajan passed westward to Antioch, where he spent the winter of 114/15. For his exploits, particularly the taking of Nisibis and Batnae, Trajan was awarded the title of "Parthicus," but this was not confirmed until after the capture of the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon.^[78] Coins with the legend ARMENIA ET MESOPOTAMIA IN POTESTATEM P. R. REDACTAE commemorate the formation of the two provinces.^[79] At Antioch, early in 115,^[80] the emperor had a narrow escape during the terrible earthquake which destroyed a large part of the city. While the shocks rocked the city and towering Mount Casius, he was forced to take refuge in the open air of the hippodrome.

In the course of the winter those troops left about Nisibis^[81] occupied themselves with the construction of boats.^[82] In the spring, with the arrival of the Emperor, these vessels were transported to the Tigris. The crossing took place opposite the Gordyaean mountains^[83] under fire from the other bank. While a bridge of boats was being built, other boats loaded with heavy-armed troops and archers served as a screen and still others dashed hither and thither as though carrying landing parties. The opposing forces awaited the actual crossing, then withdrew without hostilities.^[84] No further mention is made of this fleet, and it may have been constructed solely for this crossing. All of Adiabene was taken, and a province designated as Assyria^[85] was formed out of this territory, which seems to have been under the control of Osroes during the Adiabene campaign.^[86]

Trajan's whole campaign followed the pattern set by Caesar, and comparison with later and better known expeditions makes fairly clear the route followed. That there was an army on the Euphrates is proved by numerous references to it^[87] and by a triumphal arch at Dura-Europus,^[88] there is no evidence for another on the Tigris. The erection of the arch and the presence of Trajan at Ozogardana,^[89] just below modern Hit, suggest that the Emperor accompanied the Euphrates force. Present evidence leads us to believe, then, that Trajan and his army descended the Euphrates River along with the fleet, which kept pace with the land forces. Only the steersmen and the lookouts were trained sailors; the other members of the crews were recruited from the villages along the banks. The horses placed on board suffered greatly from cramped quarters. Only occasionally were the fleet and the army separated by cliffs and bends, as they would be in passing Dura-Europus. Eddies in the currents of the winding river caused much difficulty.^[90]

A great wall, said to have been built by "Semiramis," was passed,^[91] the towns of Phaliga^[92] and Dura-Europus were visited, and the triumphal arch already mentioned was erected at the latter place. The army moved on past Anatha, then known by its later name of Tyre,^[93] to Ozogardana, where Trajan reviewed his troops^[94] and where his tribunal was still shown in the days of Ammianus Marcellinus.^[95] At some point below modern Baghdad, where the rivers came closest together, Trajan undertook to transport his fleet across to the Tigris. A canal was considered; but the Emperor was informed that the Euphrates was much higher than the Tigris, and his informants seem to have discouraged the plan. Perhaps the operation was impossible because of low water, for Trajan arrived in the late fall.^[96] Eventually machines were constructed and the boats were hauled to the other river. Ctesiphon fell without resistance. There is no mention of Seleucia, which perhaps was in the possession of Pacorus, for coins of his for 115/16 have been reported there.^[97] If Pacorus had sought Roman support to regain his power, there would have been no occasion for the Romans to storm Seleucia. The daughter of Osroes and his famous golden throne were among the spoils taken at Ctesiphon, but the great king himself had fled when Trajan entered the city.^[98] Here he was hailed "Imperator," and on February 20, 116, the Senate confirmed his title of "Parthicus."^[99] A tribute was imposed on the newly conquered territory.^[100] Coins issued about this time bear the legend PARTHIA CAPTA.^[101]

After the capture of Ctesiphon the Emperor set sail down the Tigris with a fleet of fifty ships, among them the large, clumsy imperial galley, elaborately decorated, upon which he expected to hold conferences en route.^[102] Various cities of Mesene were occupied, including Akra or Agra beyond the Tigris,^[103] Oratha,^[104] and an Apamea^[105] where the Tigris divided, the branch to the left being the true Tigris and the other the Selas.^[106] Attambelus V of Characene remained faithful to Trajan, even though ordered to pay tribute.^[107] Perhaps a statue was erected to the Emperor on the shore of the Persian Gulf.^[108]

On the return trip Trajan passed Borsippa (Birs Nimrud) and then stopped at Babylon, where he sacrificed in the room in which Alexander was reputed to have died.^[109] This trip to the Gulf must have occupied the winter of 115/16. While at Babylon in the early spring of 116 Trajan learned that most of the conquered territory had revolted and massacred or expelled the garrisons left there. The Romans were apparently caught without warning, probably because of inadequate intelligence service. Jerome's remark, written about two hundred and fifty years later, that Britain knew in the summer what Egypt and the Parthians had learned in the spring is illustrative of Parthian success along this line.^[110]

A brother of Osroes named Meherdotes (a later form of Mithradates) recovered for Parthia some of the region about the middle Euphrates. He died when thrown from his horse and was succeeded by his son Sanatruces. Sanatruces, at one time king of Armenia also, inflicted much damage upon the Romans.^[111] Two generals were at once ordered to put down the revolt in the north: Lucius Quietus and Maximus (perhaps Appius Maximus Santra). The former, in addition to other victories, besieged and captured Nisibis and sacked and burned Edessa. Abgarus VII, its ruler, fled to refuge in eastern Parthia.^[112] The Jews joined with the Parthians in this revolt, and Quietus was ordered to put them down.^[113] This was but one phase of a general Jewish revolt throughout the eastern past of the Roman Empire. Maximus was defeated and slain, possibly at a place named Balcia in the Taurus, by a certain Arbaces (Arsaces?).^[114] On the other hand, Erucius Clarus and Julius Alexander captured and burned Seleucia on the Tigris, which now for the first time came into Roman hands.^[115]

To counteract the success of Quietus on the middle Euphrates, Osroes sent a large Parthian army to the aid of Sanatruces under the command of his son Parthamaspates. But the disputes which soon arose between the two cousins reached the ears of Trajan, who saw therein an opportunity to fan into open flame one of those quarrels which so often proved the undoing of Parthian military strategy. The Emperor invited Parthamaspates to a secret conference at night, and as a result Sanatruces was defeated by his cousin, pursued, captured, and killed.^[116] To complete this diplomatic victory Trajan called together at Ctesiphon the Parthians (of the pro-Roman party?) and the Romans in the locality, appointed Parthamaspates as king, and placed a diadem on his head.^[117] The event is represented on coins inscribed REX PARTHIS DATUS.^[118]

The death of Sanatruces did not end opposition to the Romans in Armenia, for a son of Sanatruces named Vologases (II?) was able to force L. Catilius Severus, governor of that province, into such a position that just before the crucial battle Vologases demanded and received an armistice. Trajan sent envoys to him and granted him a portion of Armenia in return for peace. The situation in which Severus found himself was thus cleared up, and the danger which threatened to make Trajan's withdrawal from Mesopotamia impossible was removed.^[119]

In the late spring of 117 Trajan retreated^[120] northward along the Tigris, which he followed to the vicinity of Hatra. A siege of this desert city, which was perhaps the headquarters of the Parthian opposition,^[121] was undertaken, but after several days the Emperor was forced to abandon the attempt. The surrounding country offered nothing in the way of food for man or beast, and water was both scarce and bad. As Dio says, the Sun-god made a siege impossible, and the Romans were troubled by clouds of flies, which settled with maddening tenacity on food and drink. Trajan himself mixed in the fighting and had a narrow escape from death when his cavalry was driven back in disorder. A part of the wall was broken down, but the Roman troops failed to occupy the breach thus created, and the whole affair had to be abandoned.^[122] A general withdrawal of the Roman forces then took place, not only from the Tigris and the lower Euphrates, but even from towns as far north as Dura-Europus.^[123]

In the spring of 117 Trajan prepared for another expedition to Mesopotamia to make Roman control over the new provinces an actuality. The Parthians had rejected Parthamaspates, and there is some indication that Osroes had resumed control.^[124] The health of the Emperor had begun to fail shortly after the siege of Hatra, and illness now forced the abandon­ ment of his new plans and his return to Italy. Death overtook him early in August, 117.^[125]

Although for the first time the western capital of Parthia had fallen into Roman hands, this campaign of Trajan can scarcely be called an unqualified success.^[126] The very fact that the Emperor had to return the next year indicates its failure. On this first occasion the Roman forces had not encountered united Parthian resistance. Perhaps the approach or the preparation of such forces lay behind the general revolt which had cost the life of the Roman commander Maximus and the loss of his legions. Much remains to be done before an accurate and coherent account of this campaign can be written, and further archaeological evidence would be of great assistance.

 

1. Josephus Bell. iii. 107.
2. McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 192.
3. McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, pp. 119 f., rightly assigns to Vologases I the issues of 78–80 formerly given to Vologases II. This clears up the difficulty of a two-year reign of Vologases II in 78–80 and his reappearance thirty years later, in 111/112, when his real period of power commenced. Cf. Wroth, Parthia, p. lvi.
4. Not the ruler of Media (see p. 194), for his earliest coins (see Wroth, Parthia, p. lvi) show a youthful and beardless head.
5. Wroth, Parthia, p. 203; McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, pp. 193 and 230.
6. Dio Cass. lxvi. 19. 3b; Joan. Antioch. (FHG, IV, fr. 104); Zonaras xi. 18. C. Another pseudo-Nero appeared ten years later; to one of the two must refer the Orac. Sibyl. iv. 125. 138 f.
7. The early issues of Pacorus after his victory depict the king on horseback receiving a diadem from a Tyche and an untied diadem(?) from a male figure in the rear. This may well be the conquered Artabanus, as E. T. Newell suggests in the forthcoming Survey of Persian Art.
8. Suet. Nero 57. 2; Tac. Hist. i. 2.
9. Statius Silvae v. 1. 89. Abascantius was a friend of Statius, whose poems are filled with thoughts of the proposed expedition.
10. Statius Silvae i. 4. 77–81; ii. 6. 18 f.; preface to iii; iii. 2. 101 ff. and 135 f.; iv. 1. 40 ff.; 2. 49; 3. 137 and 154; 4. 30 f.; v. 1. 60 f.; 2. 140 f.; 3. 185 ff.
11. Arrian Parthica fr. 32. On the placing of this fragment cf. Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 12 f.
12. McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 193.
13. Wroth, Parthia, p. lvi. The issues of 107/8 usually assigned to Osroes are probably not his; possibly they belong to Vologases II, as McDowell, op. cit., p. 231, suggests.
14. Édouard Chavannes, "Les pays d'Occident d'après le Heou Han chou," T'oung pao, 2. sér., VIII (1907), 178 and n.
15. Pliny Epist. x. 74.
16. M. Dieulafoy, "L'Art antique de la Perse, V (Paris, n.d.), p. 54; Karl Lehmann-Hartleben, Die Trajanssäule (Leipzig, 1926), Pl. 17, No. 31, and Pl. 20, No. 37.
17. Martial Epig. ix. 35. 3.
18. Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, p. 140.
19. Dio Cass. lxviii. 17 and 19. The spelling Axidares comes from Arrian Parthica frs. 37 f. and 40; Dio Cass. loc. cit. gives Exedares. The other son was Parthamasiris.
20. So Dio Cass. lxviii. 17. 1.
21. Arrian Parthica(?) fr. 34 f.
22. Some of the principal works dealing with this campaign are as fol­lows: J. Dierauer, "Beiträge zu einer kritischen Geschichte Trajans," in M. Büdinger, Untersuchungen zur römischen Kaisergeschichte (Leipzig, 1868), pp. 152–86; C. de la Berge, Essai sur le règne de Trajan ("Bibliothèque de l'École des hautes études," XXXII [Paris, 1877]), pp. 155 ff.; W. D. Gray, A Study of the Life of Hadrian prior to His Accession, "Smith College Studies in History," IV 3 (Northampton, Mass., 1919), esp. pp. 183–94; A. von Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans (Tübingen, 1888), pp. 141 ff.; H. H. Sills, Trajan's Armenian and Parthian Wars (Cambridge, 1897), pp. 77 ff. (not available); Roberto Paribeni, Optimus princeps (Messina, 1926–27), II, 278–303; B. W. Henderson, Five Roman Emperors (Cambridge, 1927), pp. 318 ff.; R. P. Longden, "Notes on the Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 1–35; P. L. Strack, Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. I. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Traian (Stuttgart, 1931), 34 ff. and 213 ff.; A. Shalit, "The Oriental Policy of Rome from Nero to Trajan" (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, VII (1936), 159–80; Longden in CAH, XI, 236–52.
23. Dio Cass. lxviii. 17.
24. C. de la Berge, Essai, p. 161, n. 3; cf. the route taken by Pliny (Epist. x. 17A).
25. Helen McClees, "A Military Diploma of Trajan," AJA, XXX (1926), 418–21; see also the excellent article of Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 2 and n. 1.
26. Dio Cass. lxviii. 18. 1.
27. Anthol. Palat. vi. 332; Arrian Parthica fr. 36.
28. Macrobius Saturnalia i. 23. 14 ff. Strack, Untersuch. zur röm. Reichsprägung, I, 227, 230, and n. 977, places this in the spring of 116 on the basis of Macrobius and CIL, X, No. 1634 = Dessau 300. Juvenal Sat. vi. 405 ff. may refer to Trajan's campaign.
29. Fronto's comparison (Princ. hist. [Loeb, II, pp. 207–11]) of the troops of Verus and of Trajan suggests that the condition of the latter's forces was at least fair. Veget. Epit. rei mil. i. 8 perhaps refers to the time of Verus rather than that of Trajan.
30. CIL, III, No. 10336 = Dessau 1062.
31. CIL, X, No. 5829 = Dessau 2726.
32. CIL, VI, No. 1838 = Dessau 2727.
33. CIL, X, No. 3733 = Dessau 2083; Yale University, Excavations at Dura-Europos, Sixth Season (New Haven, 1936), pp. 480–82.
34. The location of the garrison post of this legion is very uncertain; see Longden, "Parthian Campaign of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 8 and n. 4, and cf. PW, art. "Legio (XVI Flavia)."
35. Arrian Parthica fr. 80 may refer to this legion.
36. PW, art. "Legio"; Paribeni, Optimus princeps, II, 285 f.
37. CIL, III, No. 600 = Dessau 2724. This inscription is applied by some writers to the expedition of Verus. The auxiliaries included the following troops: Ala I Praetoria civium Romanorum; Ala Augusta(?) Syriaca; Ala Agrippiana, possibly the Ala II Flavia Agrippiana; Ala Herculiana, perhaps the Ala I Thracum Herculiana.

    Other alae engaged in the war, but not necessarily under Valerius, were the Singularium, probably the I Ulpia Singularium (CIL, III, No. 11995, and X, No. 6426), and the I Flavia Augusta Britannica milliaria bis torquata ob virtutem from Pannonia (Dipl. XXXIX of 114 [pub. in CIL, III, p. 1975] and CIL, III, No. 6748).

    The cohorts under Valerius were the I and IV Lucensium, II Ulpia equitata civium Romanorum, I Flavia civium Romanorum, I Thracum, II and III Ulpia Paphlagonum, II equitum(?), I Ascalonitanorum Felix, V Chalcidenorum, I and V Ulpia Petraeorum, I Ulpia sagittariorum, III Dacorum, and I Sygambrorum (CIL, III, No. 600 = Dessau 2724). Another, apparently not under Valerius, was the I Pannoniorum et Dalmatarum (CIL, X, No. 5829 = Dessau 2726).

38. Procopius De aedificiis iii. 4. 15 ff.; cf. Tac. Ann. xv. 26 and Ruf. Fest. 15.
39. Dio Cass. lxviii. 19. 2: μέχρι σαμωσατου; emendation suggested by von Gutschmid. Cf. Strack, Untersuch. zurrdm. Reichsprägung, I, 214 f., n. 923, who does not believe a change is necessary.
40. Dio Cass. lxviii. 19.
41. Eutrop. Brev. viii. 3; see also the references given by Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 9, n. 8.
42. Mattingly and Sydenham, Rom. Imp. Coin., II, 291, No. 666; Strack, Untersuch. zur röm. Reichsprägung, I, 222 f.
43. Frag. choliambica, ed. A. D. Knox, fr. 1 (in "Loeb Classical Library," The Characters of Theophrastus, ed. J. M. Edmonds, p. 279); IG, XIV, No. 1374.
44. IGRR, III, No. 173; Longden, op. cit. p. 9 and n. 7.
45. Mattingly and Sydenham, Rom. Imp. Coin., II, 262, No. 263a, and 266, Nos. 310–12; Strack, {{lang|de|Untersuch. zur röm. Reichsprägung, I, 218–20 and Pl. III 220.
46. Strack, op. cit., I, 220 f., believes that the coins inscribed IMPERATOR VII do not represent this acclamation, which he feels must have been unnumbered.
47. Dio Cass. lxviii. 19–20.
48. Arrian Parthica fr. 38.
49. Arrian Parthica fr. 39.
50. Fronto Princ. hist. (Loeb, II, pp. 212–14). Cf. Eutrop. Brev. viii. 3; Victor Epit. 48. 10. The rather general attempt by classical scholars to clear Trajan of blame for this murder is quite unnecessary; this is not the first instance of treachery on either side.
51. The agreement referred to is unknown.
52. Arrian Parthica frs. 37–40.
53. Themistius Orationes xvi (ed. Dindorf, p. 250).
54. Arrian Parthica frs. 86–87.
55. Procopius De bellis viii. 2. 16.
56. Arrian Parthica viii. fr. 6.
57. Arrian Parthica fr. 41; Dio Cass. lxviii. 23.
58. Eutrop. Brev. viii. 3. 2. A coin bearing the legend ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΑΡΜΕΝΙΑϹ ΕΤΟΥϹ ΜΓ was struck by Trajan at about this time; see B. Pick, "Une monnaie du κοινὸν Ἀρμενίας," Revue des études anciennes, XVI (1914), 283–89.
59. Consul in 115 according to Rev. archéol., 4. sér., XVIII (1911), 486 No. 95, from Bolletino dell'Associazione archeologica romana, I (1911), 137 f.; in Armenia in 116 according to Dio Cass. lxviii (lxxv. 9. 6). CIG, II, No. 3509; PW, art. "Catilius," No. 4; Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 10; cf. Paribeni, Optimus princeps, II, 293.
60. CIL, X, No. 8291 = Dessau 1041. Rohden in PW, art. "Atilius," No. 40, says he is not identical with the Cuspius Rufinus mentioned by Paribeni, loc. cit., as the first governor; cf. also Longden, loc. cit.
61. CIL, XI, No. 5212 = Dessau 1058; CIL, XI, No. 5213 = Dessau 1338; PW, art. "Haterius," No. 8.
62. J. Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crète ancienne p. 347, No. 81, and Pl. XXXIV 19 (not available); W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia, Catpadocia, and Syria (London, 1899), p. 102 and Pl. XIV 5.
63. See Mattingly and Sydenham, Rom. Imp. Coin., II, 235, on this title. Cf. Dio Cass. lxviii. 23 and Pliny Paneg. 2.
64. Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 11.
65. Ibid. 22. 3. The fragment is probably out of place. Adenystrae was identified by G. Hoffmann in ZDMG, XXXII (1878), 741, as Dunaisir (a site now occupied by Tell Ermen and Koçhisar) southwest of Mardin; cf. Ritter, Erdkunde, XI, 366 and 374.
66. As Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 11, infers from Dio Cass. lxviii. 22.
67. Arrian Parthica fr. 50; Dio Cass. lxviii. 22.
68. Arrian Parthica ix. fr. 7. Cf. Libba in Polyb. v. 51. 2, also PW, art. "Labbana."
69. Thebetha or Thebida in Arrian Parthica xi. fr. 11, Thebata in Pliny Hist. nat. vi. 120, Thebeta in Peutinger Table between Nisibis and Singara; see also Amm. Marcel. xxv. 9. 3.
70. Dio Cass. lxviii. 22. 1.
71. Arrian Parthica fr. 49.
72. Arrian Parthica frs. 42–48.
73. Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, p. 143, makes him ruler of Gorduene.
74. Dio Cass. lxviii. 22. 1.
75. Arrian Parthica frs. 54-56; Dio Cass. lxviii. 23. 2; Eutrop. Brev. viii. 3; Ruf. Fest. 20.
76. McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, pp. 230 f., largely on a numismatic basis, places the centers of control of the various contenders as follows: Pacorus, northern Mesopotamia; Osroes, Elymais; and Vologases II, northern Iran. But Osroes is mentioned in Adiabene by Mšiḥa Zkha, p. 5 (tr. into French on p. 80), and in northern Mesopotamia by Dio Cass. lxviii. 22. 1; the supposed mention of Osroes in Susa is without foundation (see p. 233, n. 98). References to this king in the "Scriptores," in Mšiḥa Zkha, in Pausanias, and in Dio Cassius certainly imply that the Romans recognized him as the chief contender for the Parthian throne. On Pacorus cf. below, n. 97.
77. The numismatic evidence confirms the conclusion reached on the basis of other sources by Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 12, that Parthia was in a chaotic state.
78. Dio Cass. lxviii. 28; Longden, op. cit., pp. 5 f.; cf. Strack, Untersuch. zur röm. Reichsprägung., I, 36–42. A. von Domaszewski, "Die politische Bedeutung des Traiansbogens in Benevent," Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in Wien, II (1899), 185 ff., thinks the conquest of Mesopotamia shows on the Beneventum arch; but E. Groag, "Die Adoption Hadrians," Mitt. des Kaiserlich Deutschen archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung, XIV (1899), 273 f., objects, since he believes the arch was not finished until the time of Hadrian.
79. Mattingly and Sydenham, Rom. Imp. Coin., II, 289, No. 642; cf. also ibid., p. 270, No. 375; Strack, Untersuch. zur röm. Reichsprägung, I, 223; Eutrop. Brev. viii. 3; Malalas xi (ed. Dindorf, p. 274).
80. Upon this very uncertain date hangs the chronology of the succeeding years; nearly all the works mentioned take up this question. The system here followed is that of Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 2–7, which seems to agree consistently with the new material from Dura-Europus and Seleucia.
81. Cf. Arrian Parthica fr. 51.
82. Dio Cass. lxviii. 26.
83. See PW, arts "Γορδθαῖα ὅρη" and "Καρδοῦχοι." Longden, op. cit. p. 13, n. 5, suggests Zaʿfaran (Gertrude Bell, Amurath to Amurath [London, 1924], p. 286); Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, p. 143, proposes Jazīrat ibn ʿUmar.
84. Dio Cass. lxviii. 26; Arrian Parthica frs. 57–58.
85. Eutrop. Brev. viii. 3. Assyria probably included Nineveh, Arbela, and Gaugamela, mentioned by Dio Cass. lxviii. 26, as well as the Kirkuk district (Arrian Parthica xiii. fr. 13), Dobla (ibid. fr. 12), and Olbia in the district of Chazane on the "Euphrates" (ibid. fr. 14). Strabo xi. 1.1 correctly places Chazane on the Tigris; see A. G. Roos, ed., Arrianus, II, 230. Cf. von Gutschmid, "Aus Arrians parthische Geschichte," Kleine Schriften, III, 129, on the places listed by Arrian, who may refer to events other than the Adiabene campaign.
86. Mšiḥa Zkha, p. 5 (tr. p. 80), whose sources recalled the visit of Trajan. Another mention of Osroes as being in the north occurs in connection with his campaign against Manisarus (see p. 227). See also Pausanias v. 12. 6.
87. E.g., in Arrian, Dio Cassius, and Ammianus Marcellinus.
88. S. Gould in Baur, Rostovtzeff, and Bellinger, Excavations at Dura-Europos, Fourth Season, pp. 56–65.
89. See p. 232 and nn. 94 f. This place is above the point where he would have crossed over from the Tigris. If we are correct in assigning the places mentioned in Arrian Parthica xiii to the Adiabene campaign, the army must have gone as far south as Kirkuk. It might seem questionable that they should return north and cross to the Euphrates instead of continuing down the Tigris, but quite possibly we are misled by casual mentions of these places into believing that the campaign covered more territory and took longer than was actually the case.
90. Arrian Parthica frs. 59–63.
91. Could this be the spoil banks of the canal of "Semiramis" mentioned in Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 1?
92. Arrian Parthica x. fr. 8, Phalga; Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 1, Phaliga; Dura-Europus Parchment X, ed. Rostovtzeff and Welles in Baur and Rostovtzeff, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Second Season, p. 203, line 6, Paliga.
93. Arrian Parthica fr. 64.
94. Zosimus iii. 15.3, Zaragardia. Mattingly and Sydenham, Rom. Imp. Coin., II, 267, Nos. 322–23, and 290, No. 655, probably refer to this review. See also ibid., p. 265, No. 309 and n.**.
95. Amm. Marcel, xxiv. 2. 3.
96. The summer would have been spent in the Adiabene campaign, and the late fall and winter left for the attack on lower Mesopotamia, since the latter country is nearly impossible for summer campaigning. The fresh oysters sent to Trajan when he was many days from the sea (Athen. Deip. i. 7. d) probably went to Mesopotamia.
97. McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, pp. 193 and 232. Newell in AJA, XLI (1937), 515 f., questions the attribution of these coins to Pacorus.
98. Spart. Hadrian 13. 8; Capit. Antoninus Pius 9. 7. I am unable to locate the source for the statement found in Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., p. 312, n. 2, and McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, pp. 230, n. 63, and 232 f., that Osroes fled to Susa and was captured there by the Romans.
99. Dio Cass. lxviii. 28. For the date see G. Calza in R. Accademia dei Lincei, Notizie degli scavi di antichità, X (1934), 254–56.
100. Spart. Hadrian 21. 12.
101. Mattingly and Sydenham, Rom. Imp. Coin., II, 267, Nos. 324 f., and Pl. IX 149; Strack, Untersuch. zur röm. Reichsprägung, I, 224.
102. Arrian Parthica frs. 67–68.
103. Ibid. xvi. fr. 15.
104. Ibid. xvi. fr. 16.
105. Ibid. fr. 69.
106. Cf. PW s.v.
107. Dio Cass. lxviii. 28. 4.
108. Jordanes Romana 268.
109. Arrian Parthica fr. 75; Dio Cass. lxviii. 26. 4² and 27. 1a and 1, also 30. 1.
110. Jerome Epist. lxxvii. 10.
111. Arrian Parthica fr. 77; Malalas, pp. 269 f. On the use of Malalas as a source for events of this period see Alexander Schenk, Graf von Stauffenberg, Die römische Kaisergeschichte bei Malalas (Stuttgart, 1931), pp. 260–94. For the present the objections raised by Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 29–35, seem sufficient to prevent a wider use of Malalas. A "Sanatruk the king" is mentioned in an inscription at Hatra; see W. Andrae, Hatra nach Aufnahmen von Mitgliedern der Assur-Expedition (WVDOG, XXI [Leipzig, 1912]), p. 162, Fig. 279, and Pls. XIII and XXII. For transcription and translation see W. Andrae and P. Jensen, "Aramäische Inschriften aus Assur und Hatra aus der Partherzeit," MDOG, No. 60 (1920), pp. 49 f. On the possibility that this Sanatruces is the Parthian king see Herzfeld, "Hatra," ZDMG, LXVIII (1914), 659–61.
112. This is on the assumption that the Abgarus who returned from Bactria in 155 is the same man. The chief objection to this proposal is his age at his restoration, for he would have come to the throne in 109 and have been restored in 155.
113. Euseb. Hist. iv. 2. 1 ff. and Chron., ed. Karst, p. 219, also numerous other writers drawing on Eusebius.
114. Fronto Princ. hist. 16 (Loeb, II, p. 214) and De bell. Parth. 2 (Loeb, II, p. 22); Dio Cass, lxviii. 30. 1. See the discussion in Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 16 f.
115. Professor Leroy Waterman, of the University of Michigan, excavating at Seleucia found evidence for the burning of the building in block B (the area most thoroughly cleared) between the years 115 and 120; see McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 233, n. 71. No Parthian issues from the Seleucia-Ctesiphon mint for 116/17 are known, and at that time coins of Trajan were circulating there; see McDowell, op. cit., p. 194. This is strong confirmation of the dating system adopted by Longden, op. cit., pp. 2–7.
116. Malalas, pp. 269 f. and 273 f.
117. Dio Cass. lxviii. 30. 3; cf. Spart. Hadrian 5. 4, where "Parthamasiris" is obviously due to confusion with the earlier person of that name (see pp. 218 ff.), and 21. 10.
118. Mattingly and Sydenham, Rom. Imp. Coin., II, 291, Nos. 667 f. and 669(?), and Pl. XI 194. If No. 669 is of this series, then the description is incorrect and inconsistent with the text of p. 239. See also Strack, Untersuch. zur röm. Reichsprägung, I, 224 f.
119. Dio Cass. lxviii (lxxv. 9. 6); Longden, "Parthian Campaigns of Trajan," JRS, XXI (1931), 17.
120. The flies and heat mentioned by Dio Cass. lxviii. 31. 4 would be found in Hatra either in late spring or in early fall. "Retreat" is the word used by Fronto (Loeb, II, p. 202, § 7), who mentions Trajan in the same breath with Crassus and Antony; but his prejudice against Trajan must be taken into consideration.
121. This would seem the only satisfactory explanation of an attack on a place otherwise so unimportant, unless Hatra blocked the road to the Khabur River, which the Romans planned to follow.
122. Dio Cass. lxviii. 31; Arrian Parthica xvii. fr. 17.
123. Dura was evacuated before the autumn of 117; see Rostovtzeff, "Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art," Yale Classical Studies, V (1935), 201 and n. 52.
124. Dio Cass. lxviii. 33. 2; McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 194.
125. Probably at Selinus in Cilicia; see C. de la Berge, Essai, p. 189, n. 1, and PW, art. "Selinus," No. 11 (cols. 1308 f.).
126. Fronto Princ. hist. 7 (Loeb, II, p. 202) certainly did not consider it successful; cf. the much later tradition in Claudian Paneg. quarto cons. Hon. 315–17.