Showing posts with label APRIL 28. Show all posts
Showing posts with label APRIL 28. Show all posts

Thursday, 28 April 2022

MARJORIE KANE SILENT FILM ACTRESS 1909,APRIL 28 - 1992 JANUARY 8

 

MARJORIE KANE 

SILENT FILM ACTRESS  

1909,APRIL 28 - 1992 JANUARY 8




Marjorie Kane (April 28, 1909 – January 8, 1992) was an American film and stage actress born in Chicago. She appeared in more than 60 films between 1929 and 1951, occasionally under the name Babe Kane.


Career[edit]

She appeared on stage for 11 years before she was signed to a 5-year contract with Mack Sennett in 1929. Her contract was validated by Los Angeles superior Judge Keech due to her being under the legal signing age[1] (she was 20 years old at the time).

Her long run in the play Good News garnered her favorable reviews and interested two studios in giving her screen tests in 1928. "When I took my screen tests I was continually conscious of the fact that I was in front of a movie camera and had to act. I was scared to death and couldn't do a thing. I tried my best to be natural but failed terribly."[2]




Partial filmography[edit]

Sunday, 14 February 2021

DOROTHY, LOVETT ,HOLLYWOOD, ACTRESS, BORN, 1913, FEBRUARY 15, -1998 ,APRIL 28

 



DOROTHY LOVETT ,HOLLYWOOD ACTRESS 

BORN 1913 FEBRUARY 15 -1998 APRIL 28



Dorothy Lovett is a nice twist on the usual trope – she was a model who became an actress, based mostly on her looks, but before that, she was actually an actress who became an model because she couldn’t find thespian work. Dorothy actually had a pretty decent career in Hollywood, being featured prominently in a popular movie serial of the day, but gave up her career in order to raise family.  


Let’s learn more about her!


EARLY LIFE

Dorothy Elizabeth Lovett was born on February 15, 1913, in Providence, Rhode Island, to William Francis Lovett and Katherine E. Galligan. She was the youngest of three children and the only daughter – her siblings were William, born in 1909, and Thomas, born in 1910. Her father was a letter carrier (postman). 



Dorothy grew up in Providence in a happy family unit. had some early stage experience, as this story can attest:


Dorothy Lovett made a false start as an actress at the age of 5, with the Albee stock company. Burton Churchill was the star, and Dorothy was the little girl who got kidnaped in Only a Woman. Looking back at it now, she regards her earlier self with awe and wonderment because little Miss Lovett was bored by show business. She also was temperamental. After about the second performance, she began to sulk in the wings and refuse to go on until bribed with a new toy a football or a fire truck or a baseball bat. One evening she embellished her role by falling down a flight of stairs in the second act. Her two idolatrous brothers in the audience dashed down the aisle to her rescue and were halted only as they were trying to clamber over the musicians.





Dorothy gave up acting for the time being, attending elementary and high school, and devoting her time to becoming a top notch athlete. She became a typical tomboy, spending a great deal of her time in treetops, hacked off all her hair to be more mobile. Pretty soon, she was the fastest broken-field runner in her neighborhood. Her life changed one day in high school, when she was struck on the larynx by a hard-hit baseball. She fainted from the shock, and afterwards decided to change lanes in life once more. 


After she graduated from high school, Dorothy started to attend Pembroke college, and there she got feminine touches. She also got back into acting again –  she didn’t have any interest in the matter until she, by pure chance, got a speaking part in a little theater play, and slowly, bit by bit, upped the scale.  She did some summer theater, and ultimately decided to try her hand in showbiz for a living. After graduation, not being able to secure acting roles, she worked as a model. In a strange twist of fate, her first job was conducting a recipe program on the air. Dorothy at the time couldn’t cook, but she developed such a convincing manner on her cooking program that thousands’ of listeners would rush to their kitchens and do just what she told them. Pretty soon Dorothy progressed to a program about fashions, which she really knew something about. As time went by, Dorothy became a very successful model – she was voted the most beautiful model in New York City in 1940/41. 





All the while, she tried to getting roles but failed. Finally she heard about an interview for John Powers models that RKO was holding. The fact that she was not a Powers model did not deter her. The movie scouts saw her, liked what they saw, and she got her RKO contract. Thus her career started! 


CAREER

Dorothy started her career with Twelve Crowded Hours, a very minor Lucille Ball movie, a crime comedy by genre. In fact, it’s hardy a Lucy movie at all, although she does play the leading female role, but she relegated to being a second banana to leading man, Richard Dix, a reported who’s tracing Lucy’s wayward brother. Nothing special,  not bad but not really memorable. Next came something a bit more impressive – The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle, one of the Rogers/Astaire pairings. What to say, these movies are classics and remain a staple of the genre and 1930s in general. Then came The Flying Irishman,  an unusual movie where aviator Douglas Corrigan stars as himself “accidentally” flying across the ocean to Ireland. Corrigan got some fame in 1938 when this happened, and the movie was made in to cash that fame, since Corrigan is hardly known today, except to hard-core enthusiast. Corrigan, who was not a thespian by any stretch of imagination (albeit in possession of an easy, affable charm), was supported by an able body of RKO staples – Paul Kelly, Donald McBride, Robert Armstrong… 



Dorothy then appeared in Fixer Dugan, a Lee Tracy/Peggy Shannon teaming, with Virginia Wielder, where they play a couple of circus people who develop a deep affection for orphaned girl, Wielder, who mother just died in an aerial accident. Tracy was a specific actor who excelled playing smooth talking conman with just some traces of morality, and he’s always tops playing those roles, no matter the movie nor the story. As you can guess, he plays the fixer. The movie was sadly a B class affair, and Peggy Shannon not the greatest of all leading ladies, but she is cute and pert, Virginia is perky and heartwarming, and we get to see how a circus lived in the 1930s. Dorothy’s last uncredited role before breakthrough was in These Glamour Girls, a biting social satire disguised as a frilly upper class comedy. Lew Ayres plays a preppy boy who, by drunken design, invites a taxi dancer to his all-too-snobbish elite school and she unintentionally causes havoc. This is a role I think Lana Turner played best – naughty but nice independent woman who fight for themselves and know their way around men. She was very often miscast as a upper class lady – she never and could never be one, she just didn’t’ have the sheen, but had plenty of other attributes. The cast is outstanding, Turner, Ayres, Ann Rutherford, Anita Louise, Billie Burke.  


Dorothy’s claim to fame was her role in the Dr. Christian series of movies, where she played nurse Judy in five movies – Meet Dr. Christian, The Courageous Dr. Christian, Dr. Christian Meets the Women,Remedy for Riches, They Meet Again. Whoever loved medical series will probably like this more wholesome and slightly naïve take on the profession. Christian is played by Jean Hersholt, and his support is  good – Robert Baldwin, Edgar Kennedy, and a string of players from the RKO supporting roster. 


Between Dr. Christian movies, Dorothy appear in an odd-RKO feature. The first one was That’s Right – You’re Wrong, a Kay Kyser vehicle, where Kyser plays himself trying to make it in Hollywood. The plot is very thin, but the music is nice if you like Kyser, and there are some good supporting players – Adolphe Menjou, May Robson, Lucille Ball. Next Dorothy had a role in the movie serial The Green Hornet Strikes Again! – about the legendary Green Hornet character. 



Dorothy played a prominent role in Lucky Devils, a completely forgotten movie that doesn’t even have a summary on IMDB. Luckily, her next movie, Look Who’s Laughing, was better known, featuring Fibber McGee and Molly and Edgar Bergen. It’s a typical silly comedy, but for anyone who loved either the McGees or Charlie McCarthy will enjoy it immensely. More nostalgia than art, but who’s asking? 


Dorothy had an okay role in Call Out the Marines but it didn’t really help her career. As one reviewer perfectly wrote in IMDB: The tail end of McLagen and Lowe’s adventures as Flagg and Quirt from WHAT PRICE GLORY (the names are marginally changed) is a piece of production line entertainment that turns the battling buddies into Abbott & Costello substitutes complete with another undercranked chase for a finale. Too bad, those are two very talented actors. Sing Your Worries Away was another comedy, just this time with Bert Lahr and his own very specific brand of funny. You either like or don’t like him – his movies are mostly just for those who like him. 


Next up – Powder Town, a  low budget movie in it’s own category. Perhaps it can be called a SF-comedy-propaganda movie, it mixes a few genres so it’s impossible to really mark it down into one. Edmund O’Brien, who later in his career became a top class noir actor, plays against type here – he’s a scatterbrained, nutty scientist working on a secret formula for explosives. Then add some spies into the mix, and the fact that O’Brien is hot commodity, desired by all the women who live in his hotel. Vic McLagen plays his brawling sidekick, and he’s as good as always in such roles. Dorothy’s last RKO movie was The Mantrap, a very witty and funny mystery movie, with Henry Stephenson playing a Sherlock Holmes-like detective solving a murder. Lloyd Corrigan, known today as a B western hero, plays his Watson substitute, and the two make a dandy and very appealing companions. Too bad they didn’t make a movie serial out of it. 



Dorothy gave up her RKO contract to get married. She gave acting another go in the 1950s, appeared in TV series, and made another movie in 1960, Why Must I Die?, a weird little Debra Paget movie, conceived as a critique of capital punishment. 1950s brought with them an unusual genre (which did exist before, but not so prominently) – the sleazy, lurid movie, usually featuring young actors and actresses, often bordering on camp. Why must I die is one of those movies, a late 1950s relic, with little to recommend it except the over-the-top story and acting.


Dorothy’s last movie was one of her best, A Patch of Blue. The leads, Sidney Poitier and Elizabeth Hartman are both excellent in their roles – she plays a blind young woman, neglected and abused by her rough mother (played by Shelley Winters), and he is a idealistic African American teacher – she slowly falls for him without knowing his skin color, and when her mother finds out, all hell breaks loose. A very relevant movie, even today, with wonderful performances and plenty of positive subtext, it’s truly a 1960s classic. 


And that was it from Dorothy! 


PRIVATE LIFE 

Dorothy was famous in Hollywood for her good looks, and Motion Picture Fan Club voted her the most beautiful girl in B pictures. She was good friends with fellow actress Margaret Hayes.


In 1940 Dorothy started to date Jack Hively, best known as Gloria Swanson’s director. The got engaged in 191 and planned to wed that December, but  Hively’s enlistment in the Army Signal Corps and they had to change plans. In the end they married on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, 1942, in Patterson Field, where Hively was stationed. The base was decorated with many lovely flower arrangements to make it more in sync for a wedding revenue. Now something about the groom. Jack Besden Hively was born on September 5, 1910, in Denver, Colorado, to George and Georgenie Hively. His father was an Academy Award-nominated editor, and his brother, George Jr., would become a television editor. Jack grew up in an artistical environment, and when his family moved to California, he decided to go into showbiz himself. He worked at RKO from 1933, first as a editor, then, starting in 1939, as a director. 



The couple were pressed for time – since Dorothy was working at RKO, she was given two weeks off to get married and have a honeymoon, So they decided to honeymoon in vicinity of Patterson Field.  Dorothy cut short her honeymoon and rushed hack to the coast to tell her sailor brother goodbye— only to find him gone when she got here. See then returned to established a permanent home in Osborn. Hively started working with the training film unit of the signal corps place. 


Hively later served under General MacArthur in the Pacific Theater, all the while Dorothy worked back home, and was active in the war effort, selling war bonds and touring. After Jack was discharged from the army, he returned to Hollywood, where the couple settled. Their daughter Katherine Gordon Hively was born on December 8, 1945. Dorothy took some time off to devote herself to family life and only occasionally returned to acting. 


Hively and Dorothy divorced in the mid 1950s, about 1955, and Hively later remarried, in 1958, to Muriel Bixby. He died on December 19, 1995, in California. 


Dorothy chose not to remarry, remained living in California, and retired to Sherman Oaks, where she spent her golden years. 


Dorothy Hively died on April 28, 1998, in Sherman Oaks, California. 

Tuesday, 18 August 2020

PESWA BAJIRAO ,I BORN 1700 AUGUST 18 - 1740 APRIL 28




PESWA BAJIRAO ,I BORN 
1700 AUGUST 18 - 1740 APRIL 28


The real Peshwa Bajirao, only notorious for his alleged relationship with Mastani, was a far more superior warrior and statesman than depicted. He was not only intelligent in terms of political wisdom, but also equally skilled in terms of warfare. The lack of strong artillery that Peshwa Bajirao inherited at the time of assuming the Peshwa’s post was compensated during his rule by a very strong and efficient cavalry.

With his faithful brother and accomplice, Chimaji Appa Rao (certainly not the jealous, insensitive courtier as shown in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s movie), Bajirao had managed to conquer almost half of the Indian peninsula within a decade of his rule. Nobody, be it the Nizam of Hyderabador the Siddis of Janjira, the Nawabs of Awadhor even the Rohillas, could check his advance. Like the unstoppable horse synonymous with the Ashwamedha Yagna, Peshwa Bajirao’s expansion of the Maratha Empire proceeded smoothly, without any resistance.


However, what made Bajirao Ballal a household name before the advent of Marxist intellectuals and their nefarious designs that pushed him to the backwaters of Indian history books, was a battle that the Indian intellectuals don’t want you to know about. As once said by legendary martial arts expert Bruce Lee, “The successful warrior is an average man, with a laser like focus.”

This was the year 1737. It had been 17 years since Bajirao had assumed the post of the Peshwa (Prime Minister) in the Maratha Empire. He had been a successful warrior who had not lost any war till date. His administration was beyond any criticism. The following were some factors responsible for Bajirao’s highly successful reign.

Like his ideal Chattrapati Shivaji, he always inspired his subjects to fight for the higher ideal of ‘Hindavi Swarajya’, a state where the essential ideals of Bharatvarsha would be kept intact, under an able and efficient leadership.

He had an efficient, speedy and effective bureaucracy as well as an intelligence system, with no scope for an error, however minor. Of all things, one of the very few things that Sanjay Leela Bhansali depicted correctly in his movie on Bajirao was reflected in the dialogue, “Bajirao ki raftaar hi Bajirao ki pehchaan hai.” (The speed of Bajirao is his identity.)

In his administration, Bajirao chose young people who were barely out of their teens, who were unaffected by the malice senior and often rebellious nobles could pose to the sovereignty of the empire.



Not letting nepotism seep into his rule, he appointed such nobles purely on merit, which led to the rise of legendary warriors like Ranoji Shinde, Malhar Rao Holkar, Tukoji Holkar, Pawar brothers etc., who kept the spirit as well as the existence of Maratha Empire intact. They did not belong to those clans that held the hereditary Deshmukhi rights under the Deccan Sultanates.

These were a few qualities that Peshwa Bajirao kept up his sleeve as he decided to achieve the prime goal of his life: the unfurling of the saffron flag on the Red Fort. How he achieved this dream is also a prime example of how true warriors maintain the concept of ‘bro code’, long before this term officially became cool.

It all started with the death of Trimbak Rao Dabhade, the ex general of the Maratha forces who had betrayed the Peshwa by joining the rival forces. He had joined Muhammad Khan Bangash, the Nawab of Farrukhabad, who was decisively routed by the Maratha forces when he laid siege to the region of Bundelkhand. His death in 1731 at the Battle of Dabhoi broke the alliance against the Peshwas. 

The Mughal emperor recalled Bangash from Malwa and appointed Jai Singh II as the successor. However, he couldn’t keep the Marathas in check and was decisively defeated by Malhar Rao Holkar at the Battle of Mandsaur in 1733. It took another 3 years for Jai Singh to come to his senses and make an alliance with Peshwa Bajirao, when he joined hands with the Peshwa in 1736 at Kishengarh. It was here that he suggested Bajirao attack Delhi and weaken the remnants of the once strong Mughal Empire.

Bajirao had once himself said, sensing the decline of the Mughal Empire, “Strike, strike at the roots and even the biggest tree will also fall down.” He wasn’t wrong, considering the Mughal Empire was nowhere close to the regal charm it once sported under the likes of Babar, Akbar, Shah Jahan, even to a certain extent under Aurangzeb. Though Muhammad Shah had absolute control over his throne, his influence was only restricted to Delhi and the surrounding provinces. Besides, he was more focused on satisfying his individual pleasures than looking after the empire, which is why he was nicknamed ‘Rangeele Badshah’ (The wayward emperor).



It was on 12th November 1736 when the Peshwa marched towards Delhi from Pune, in two divisions : one led by himself, and the other led by his best friend and able warrior Malhar Rao Holkar, along with another commanding officer Pillaji Jadhav. The Holkar-Jadhav faction proceeded faster than the Peshwa division, almost reaching Doab, where the Ganga and the Yamuna converge.

Sensing danger to his reign, Muhammad Shah sent for the Nawab of Awadh, Saadat Ali Khan, to check the Maratha advance. However, before Saadat Ali Khan could intercept the Maratha forces, they had already crossed the Ganga and raided Mughal cantonments and towns at will, and compelled the Mughals to run for their lives. With a force of more than 150,000 soldiers, Saadat Khan finally intercepted the forces and gave them a shocking setback, defeating Malhar Rao and forcing him to retreat. However, the damage was already done.



Word had already reached the Peshwa, who was fuming about the humiliation his best friend and the rest of the force had to receive at the hands of the Nawab. He quickly advanced to Delhi in less than a month, and encamped near Talkatora. The Peshwa wasn’t only seeking revenge, he also aimed to give a blow to the Mughal Empire that they could never ever recover from. Like the Rajputs from the Rajputana province, none of the Marathas feared death. But the Peshwa knew that if they wished to win, they needed to attack, they needed to be assertive, and they needed to kill.  As George S. Patton later said, “A good plan executed violently now is much better than a perfect plan executed next week.”




With these thoughts in mind, the Maratha forces met for a final showdown on 28th March, 1737. They were outnumbered three to one, but not in spirit. Mir Hassan Khan Koka was leading the Mughal forces, and though they attacked first, confident of their win owing to their numerical superiority and technical brilliance, even when they were at their weakest position, they failed to take one thing into account: raw courage.

This is where they lost the battle, and it didn’t take Maratha forces very long to crush the entire Mughal army, after which Peshwa Bajirao marched towards the Red Fort. He had won his battle, and now, he achieved the objective every Maratha warrior dreamt of: unfurling the saffron flag on the Red Fort. Above all, he maintained the ‘bro code’ long before it was even considered cool.

The only place where Peshwa Bajirao faltered was not declaring Delhi as his new capital as he returned to Pune only three months after his victorious attack, but not before extracting a huge chunk of the Mughal exchequer. As the Maratha camps were returning, he was intercepted by a joint force of the Mughals- the Nizam’s forces and those of the Nawab of Awadh. Undeterred, Bajirao sent Chimaji Rao Appa back with 10,000 soldiers to guard the Deccan, while he himself marched towards Delhi with 80,000 soldiers. The two camps clashed at Bhopal on Christmas Eve 1737, where the Maratha forces comprehensively routed the joint forces under the Mughal Empire.  

The Nizam was forced to sign a peace agreement, this time at Doraha, which saw the transfer of Malwa’s ownership to the Marathas and a payment of 50 lakh rupees as compensation. The Nizam was forced to abide by the Koran on this treaty. This was a victory which not only weakened the Mughal Empire before the ultimate invasion of Nadir Shah, but also established the supremacy of Peshwa Bajirao over the Indian peninsula.

Today, it is sad to see that Bharatvarsha has not paid due tributes to such a legendary warrior, who not only won back our honor, but also fought throughout his life for the maintenance of our sovereignty. If only we had more warriors like Bajirao Ballal, maybe British would never have dared to even set their eyes on India.

In the memory of this glorious warrior,
Jai Bhavani! Har Har Mahadev!

Wednesday, 29 April 2020

BENITO MUSSOLINI DICTATOR OF ITALY BORN 1883 JULY 29 -MURDERED 1945,APRIL 28


BENITO MUSSOLINI DICTATOR OF ITALY BORN 
1883 JULY 29 -MURDERED 1945,APRIL 28


.பெனிட்டோ அமில்கார் அன்டிரியா முசோலினி (ஜுலை 29, 1883 - ஏப்ரல் 28, 1945) என்ற முழுப்பெயர் கொண்ட முசோலினி இத்தாலி நாட்டுக்கு 1922 - 1943 காலப்பகுதியில் தலைமை வகித்தவர். இத்தாலிய அரசை பாசிச அரசாக மாற்றி ஏகபோக சர்வாதிகார ஆட்சியை முசோலினி நடத்தினார். அரச கட்டமைப்புகளையும், தனியார் நிறுவனங்களையும், ஊடகங்களையும், திறனாளர்களையும் தன் கட்டுப்பாட்டுக்குள் வைத்து வன்முறை, பரப்புரை, ஏகபோக அணுகுமுறை ஊடாக பாசிச அரசை உருவாக்கி பேணினார். ஹிட்லருடன் சேர்ந்து இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரின் போது நேச நாடுகளுக்கு எதிராகப் போரிட்டுத் தோற்றார். ஏப்ரல் 1945 இல், முசோலினி தம் மனைவி கிளாரா பெட்டாசியுடன் சுவிட்சர்லாந்துக்குத் தப்பியோட முற்படுகையில், இத்தாலியின் கோமோ ஆற்றின் அருகில் பார்ட்டிசான்களால் பிடிபட்டு பின் அவரும் அவர் மனைவியும் சுட்டு கொல்லப்பட்டனர். இவரது உடல் மிலானுக்கு எடுத்துச் செல்லப்பட்டு அங்குள்ள ஒரு எண்ணெய் விற்பனை நிலையத்தில் தலைகீழாகக் கட்டித் தொங்கவிடப்பட்டு மக்கள் பார்வைக்காக வைக்கப்பட்டது.

இளமைக்காலம்
தோற்றம்

முசோலினி எமிலியா-ரொமக்னா என்னும் ஊரிலுள்ள போர்லி மாகாணத்தினலுள்ள டோவியா டை பிரிடாப்பியோ என்னும் நகரத்தில் ஓர் உழைக்கும் பாட்டாளியின் குடும்பத்தில் பிறந்தார். இவர் பெற்றோருக்கு இவரே மூத்தவர் இவரின் உடன் பிறந்தோர் அமால்டோ முசோலினி மற்றும் எட்விக் முசோலினி. இவர் தந்தை பெயர் அலெக்சாண்ட்ரோ முசோலினி. இவர் ஒரு இரும்பு அடிக்கும் கொல்லர். இவர் தாய் ரோசா முசோலினி ஆசிரியை. இவர் தாய் கத்தோலிக்க மதத்தில் அதிக இறை பற்றுடையவர்.

கல்வி
முசோலினி சிறு வயதில் தன் தந்தையின் தொழிலுக்கு மிகவும் உதவி புரிந்தார். தந்தையாரின் சீர்திருத்தக் கொள்கையினால் அவருக்கு ஞானஸ்நானம் செய்யப்படவில்லை. தன் தந்தையின் பொதுவுடமை, சீர்திருத்த கருத்துக்களால் ஈர்க்கப்பட்டு அதன் காரணமாக மெக்சிக்கன் சீர்திருத்தவாதியான பெனிட்டோ ஜீவாரசின் பெயரை தன் பெயரோடு சேர்த்து பெனிட்டோ முசோலினி என்று மாற்றி கொண்டார். பிறகு விடுதிப்பள்ளி ஒன்றில்
சேர்க்கப்பட்டார் அப்பள்ளியில் இவர் செய்த குறும்புகளின் காரணமாக பள்ளியைவிட்டு நீக்கப்பட்டு வேறு பள்ளியில் சேர்க்கப்பட்டார், அங்கு சிறப்பானதொரு கல்வி பயின்றார். 1901 ஆம் ஆண்டு பள்ளி இறுதி தேர்வுக்குப்பின் தொடக்க கல்வி ஆசிரியராக அப்பள்ளியிலேயே நியமிக்கப்பட்டார்.

இராணுவத்தில் பணிபுரிதல்

முசோலினி இராணுவத்தில் 1917
1902 ம் ஆண்டு முசோலினி தன் சொந்த மண்ணை விட்டு சுவிட்சர்லாந்துக்கு குடியேறினார்.அங்கு வேலை கிடைக்காமல் குடும்ப வறுமைக்கு தள்ளபட்டார். அதன் சோசலிச இயக்கத்தில் சேர்ந்தனினால் இத்தாலிக்கு நாடு கடத்தப்பட்டு அங்கு தன்னிச்சையாக இராணுவத்தில் சேர்ந்து பணி புரிந்தார். அவருடைய இராணுவப்பணியில் குறைகள் குற்றங்கள் ஏதுமின்றி சிறப்பான பணி புரிந்தார். இத்தகவல்கள் அவருடைய இராணுவத்தொழில் குறிப்பேடுகளில் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளது. 1917 வரை இராணுவத்தில் சிறப்பானதொரு பணிபுரிந்தமையால் 40 க்கும் அதிகமான பதக்கங்கள் அவர் உடையை அலங்கரித்தன. அதன்பின் டைபாய்டு விஷக்காய்ச்சலின் காரணமாகவும் மார்ட்டர் வெடிவிபத்தில் சிக்கி விபத்துக்கள்ளானதல் அப்பணியை தொடரமுடியாமல் போனது.

அரசியல் செயற்பாடுகள்
1912 இல் இத்தாலிய சோசலிஸ்ட் கட்சியின் தேசிய இயக்குநராக இருந்த முசோலினி. முதலாம் உலகப் போரில் இராணுவ தலையீட்டிற்கு நடுநிலைமை வகிக்காத்தால், கட்சியின் நடுநிலைப்பாட்டிற்கு எதிரான செயலைசெய்த்தாக கூறி, பிஎஸ்ஐ கட்சியிலிருந்து வெளியேற்றப்பட்டார். 1917 வரை போரின் போது அவர் ராயல் இத்தாலிய இராணுவத்தில் பணியாற்றினார். பின்பு அவர் காயமடைந்ததால் விடுவிக்கப்பட்டார்.


PSI கட்சியை முசோலினி கண்டனம் செய்தார், இப்போது அவருடைய கருத்துக்கள் சோசலிசத்திற்கு பதிலாக தேசியவாதத்தை மையமாகக் கொண்டு இருந்தது, பின்னர் பாசிச இயக்கத்தை நிருவ இதுவே காரணமாகியது.அவர் சமத்துவமற்ற வர்க்கமுரண்பாடுகளை எதிர்த்து வந்தார், அதற்கு பதிலாக புரட்சிகர தேசியவாத வர்க்கக் கோட்பாடுகளை கடந்து செல்லுமாறு பரிந்துரைத்தார். அக்டோபர் 1922 இல் ரோம் நகரில் மார்சில் இத்தாலிய வரலாற்றில் இளைய பிரதமராக ஆனார் (2014 பிப்ரவரி மாதம் மாட்டோ ரென்சி நியமனம் வரை).[1]

பின்னர், முசோலினி மற்றும் அவரது ஆதரவாளர்கள், ஒரு கட்சியை ஒரு கட்சி சர்வாதிகாரமாக மாற்ற தொடர்ச்சியான சட்டங்கள் மூலம் தங்கள் அதிகாரத்தை உறுதிப்படுத்தினர். ஐந்து ஆண்டுகளுக்குள் அவர் சர்வாதிகார அதிகாரத்தை சட்டப்பூர்வ மற்றும் அசாதாரணமான வழிகளில் நிறுவியதோடு ஒரு சர்வாதிகார அரசை உருவாக்க விரும்பினார். முசோலினி 1943 ஆம் ஆண்டில் கிங் விக்டர் இம்மானுவல் மூன்றாம் அதிகாரத்தை கைப்பற்றும் வரை பதவியில் இருந்தார். சில மாதங்களுக்குப் பிறகு, அவர் இத்தாலிய சமூக குடியரசின் தலைவராக ஆனார். 1945 ல் அவர் இறக்கும்வரை அவர் பதவியை வகித்தார்.

முசோலினி குறைந்தபட்சம் 1942 வரை ஐரோப்பாவில் ஒரு பெரிய போரை தாமதப்படுத்த முயன்றார். இருப்பினும், ஜெர்மனி 1 செப்டம்பர் 1939 இல் போலந்து மீது படையெடுத்தது. இதன் விளைவாக பிரான்ஸ் மற்றும் ஐக்கிய இராச்சியம்(United Kingdom) இரண்டாம் உலகப் போரின் தொடக்கத்தை அறிவித்தது.அறிவித்தது. ஜூன் 10, 1940-ல் பிரான்சின் வீழ்ச்சிக்கு உடனடியாக முசோலினி ஜேர்மனியின் போரில் அதிகாரப்பூர்வமாக போரில் நுழைந்தார், ஆனால் இத்தாலிக்கு பிரிட்டிஷ் சாம்ராஜ்யத்துடன் நீண்ட போர் நடத்தும் இராணுவ திறன் மற்றும் ஆதாரங்கள் இல்லை என்பதை அறிந்திருந்தார்.1941 ம் ஆண்டு கோடையில், முசோலினி இத்தாலிய படைகளை சோவியத் ஒன்றியத்தின் படையெடுப்பில் பங்கேற்க அனுப்பினார், மேலும் டிசம்பர் மாதம் அமெரிக்காவுடன் யுத்தம் நடந்தது.ஜூலை 24, 1943 இல் சிசிலி மீது கூட்டணிப் படைகளின் படையெடுப்பு தொடங்கியவுடன், அவர் பாசிச கிராண்ட் கவுன்சிலால் பதவி நீக்கம் செய்யப்பட்டார், ஜூலை 25 இல் கிங் வரிசையில் கைது செய்யப்பட்டார். செப்டம்பர் 12, 1943 இல், ஜெர்மன் சிறப்பு படைகளால் முசோலினி கிராஸ் சாஸோ தாக்குதலில் சிறையில் இருந்து மீட்கப்பட்டார். ஏப்ரல் இறுதியில் 1945 ஆம் ஆண்டின் பிற்பகுதியில், முசோலினி மற்றும் அவரது மனைவி கிளாரா பெட்ஸ்கி சுவிட்சர்லாந்துக்குச் செல்ல முயன்றனர், ஆனால் இருவரும் இத்தாலிய கம்யூனிஸ்டுகளால் கைப்பற்றப்பட்டுமற்றும் சுருக்கமாக துப்பாக்கி சூடு மூலம் கொல்லப்பட்டனர்.[2]


பாசிசம் உருவாதல்

முசோலியின் பாசிசம்
முதலாம் உலகப் போரில் நேச நாட்டு படைபிரிவுக்காக பணிபுரிந்து திரும்பியவுடன் தன் சோசலிச கருத்துக்களுக்கு முற்றுப்புள்ளி வைத்தார். சோசலிசம் தோற்றுப்போன ஓன்று. ஆகையால் தன்னை கொடுரகுணம் கொண்ட மனிதனாக மாற்றிக்கொண்டார். இப்படியிருந்தால் மட்டுமே இத்தாலியை அதன் பழையநிலைக்கு நிமிர்த்தமுடியும் என நம்பினார். சோசலிசம் இறந்துபோன ஓன்று; அவற்றால் நாட்டுக்கு பயன் இல்லை என்பதை அறிவித்தார்.

பாசிசத்தின் முக்கிய பங்கு

பாசிசம் வகுப்பு வாதத்தையும் வகுப்பு வாதக்கலவரங்களையும் எதிர்த்த்து. பாசிசம் தேசியவாதிகளின் உரிமைகளை நிறைவேற்றவும் அவர்களின் பங்கினால் தேசத்தை ஒருங்கிணைத்து இத்தாலியை அதன் பழைய உயரத்துக்கு உயர்த்தியது. பிரபுக்களையும் நடுத்தரவர்க்கத்தினரையும் இணைக்கும் பாலமாக பாசிசம் பயன்பட்டது. இதன் மூலம் ரஷ்யாவில் ஏற்பட்ட புரட்சியை இத்தாலியில் நுழைய முடியாமல் செய்தது. தொழிலாள வர்க்கத்துக்கு முசோலினி எதிரியல்ல என்றாலும் பாசிச கொள்கைக்கு எதிராக யார் செயல்படுவதையும் பாசிஸ்டுகள் தடுத்தனர். இதன் கொள்கை விளக்க அறிவிப்பான பாசிசப் போராட்ட அறிக்கை (The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle)[3] ஜூன்,1919 ஆண்டு வெளியிடப்பட்டது. இதில் குறைந்தபட்ச ஊதியம், பொதுத்துறை மற்றும் தனியார்த்துறை ஊழியர்களின் தொழிற்சங்க கோரிக்கைகளையும் உள்ளடக்கி வெளியிடப்பட்டது. இந்த கொள்கை பழமைவாதிகளையும், புதுமைவாதிகளையும் ஒரு சேர கட்டுபடுத்தியது. அனைவராலும் வித்தியாசமாகப் பார்க்கப்பட்டு பின் அனைவராலும் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப்பட்டது,

அரசியலின் மூன்றாம் வழி

முசோலினியின் கருஞ்சேனை

முசோலினியின் பாசிசக் கொள்கையில் அதிக பற்று கொண்ட முசோலினியின் நம்பிக்கைக்குரிய டினோ கிராண்டி என்பவர் இராணுவத்தில் ஒய்வு பெற்றவர்களிடம் பரப்புரை செய்து அவர்களை ஒன்று திரட்டி கருஞ்சேனை (Black Shirts) என்ற தனி இராணுவப்பிரிவை உருவாக்கினார். இந்த கருஞ்சேனைப் படையினர் கம்யூனிசவாதிகளையும், பொதுவுடமை வாதிகளையும் மற்றும் குழப்பவாதிகளையும் அடக்கும் பணியினை மேற்கொண்டது. இது அரசியலின் மூன்றாம் வழியாக (The Third Way) கையாளப்பட்டது. கம்யூனிசத்தை அப்போதய அரசு வெறுத்ததினால் இவற்றின் வளர்ச்சியையும், செயல்பாடுகளையும் அப்போதைய அரசு கண்டுகொள்ளவில்லை. இதன் காரணமாக பாசிஸ்டுகளின் எண்ணிக்கை இரண்டு வருடங்களில் கணிசமான எண்ணிக்கையை எட்டியது. பின் தேசிய பாசிசக் கட்சியாக (National Fascist Party) ரோமில் உருவெடுத்தது. 1921 தேர்தலில் முசோலினி முதன் முறையாக இத்தாலி கீழ் சபை பாரளுமன்றக்குழு தலைவராகத் (Chamber of Deputies) தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டார். இக்கொள்கையால் முசோலினி 1911 முதல் 1938 வரை யூதர்களின் கணிசமான எதிர்ப்பையும் பெற்றுக்கொண்டார்.

இட்லரும் முசோலினியும்
இட்லருடன் முரண்பாடு


முசோலினியும் இட்லரும் ஆரம்பத்தில் எதிரிகளாகத்தான் இருந்தனர். 1933 இல் முசோலினியின் நண்பர் எய்ஞ்பெட் டால்பஸ் மற்றும் அவருடைய நண்பரும் ஆஸ்திரிய நாசிக்களால் கொல்லப்பட்டனர். அது முதல் முசோலினி இட்லரை எதிரியாகத்தான் பாவித்தார். முசோலினியின் பாசிசக் கட்சியில் யூதர்கள், யூதரல்லாதவர், யூதபகைமை என்ற கோட்பாடுகள் கடைப்பிடிக்கப்படவில்லை. பாசிசக்கொள்கையை மட்டுமே வலியுறுத்தினார். ஆகையால் முசோலினிக்கு இட்லரின் கொள்கை பிடிக்கவில்லை. முசோலினி போப்பிடம் பற்றுகொண்டவர். அது மட்டுமில்லாமல் கலாச்சார பண்புகளையும், செயல்களையும் வைத்து ஒருவர் உயர்ந்தவர் தாழ்ந்தவர் என்ற வர்க்கபேதத்தை உருவாக்கலாம் ஆனால் பிறப்பினால் உயர்ந்தவர் தாழ்ந்தவர் என்ற பேதம் எடுபடாது என்ற நம்பிக்கையுடையவர் என்பதால் இட்லரின் நாசிசத்தை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளவில்லை. 1920 முதல் 1934 வரை உள்ள கால ஒட்டத்தில் யூதர்கள் சமூகத்தின் எல்லா மட்டங்களில் இருந்ததால் இத்தாலிய பாசிசம் யூதர்களுக்கு எதிரான வர்க்கபேதத்தையும், வகுப்புவாதத்தையும் வளர்க்கவில்லை. அவர்கள் ஒரு சிறு கூட்டமாக இருந்ததால் ரோம் அரசர் காலத்திலிருந்து அவர்களால் எந்த தொல்லையும் ஏற்படவில்லை.

இட்லருடன் இணக்கமாதல்
1938 ல் இட்லரின் தாக்கம் இத்தாலியில் அதிகமிருந்த நேரத்தில் இனவேறுபாட்டுணர்வு அறிக்கையை முசோலினி தயாரித்து வெளியிட்டார் அந்த அறிக்கை முழுக்க முழுக்க இட்லரின் கொள்கையை பறை சாற்றியது. அதில் எந்த நேரத்திலும் எந்த பதவியிலிருந்தும், குடியுரிமையிலிருந்தும் யூதர்களை விலக்க உரிமையுண்டு என்பதை அறிவித்தது. இந்த அறிக்கை இத்தாலிய பெரும்பான்மை பாசிசவாதிகளின் ஆதரவை பெறவில்லை மாறாக முசோலினிக்கு எதிர்ப்பை வளர்த்தது. ரோம ஆலயத்தின் போதகர் பதினேழாம் போப் பயஸ் இந்த அறிக்கைக்கு கண்டனம் தெரிவித்து கடிதம் எழுதினார்.

முசோலினியை கொல்ல முயற்சி
முசோலினியின் பரப்புரைகள் அவ்வப்போது எதிர்ப்புகளை காட்டத்தயங்காது பெரும்பாலும் சிறிய எதிர்ப்புகளை அவரே ஒன்றுமில்லாமல் செய்துவிடுவார். 7 ஏப்ரல், 1926 வையலட் ஜிப்சன் துப்பாக்கியால் சுட்டதில் அவர் மூக்கில் காயம் ஏற்பட்டது. பின் 31 அக்டோபர், 1926 ஐரிஷ் பெண்ணும் அவர் மகளும் சுட்டதில் தப்பித்துகொண்டார், 15 வயதுடைய ஆன்டியோ ஜாம்போனி சுடமுற்பட்டபோது பிடிபட்டு அங்கேயே மரண தண்டனை கொடுக்கப்பட்டது. ரோமிலும் அவரை கொல்ல இரு கலகக்காரர்கள் முயன்றனர். முயற்சி முறியடிக்கப்பட்டு இருவரும் சுட்டுக்கொல்லப்பட்டனர். 1938 ல் சிலோவேனிய பாசிசபகைமைவாதி கோபரிட் முயற்சித்தான் அவன் முயற்சி தோல்வியுற்றது.

வாழ்க்கைக் குறிப்பு
முசோலினியின் முதல் மனைவி பெயர் இடா டாலசர், 1914 ம் ஆண்டு டிரன்டோ வில் திருமணம் புரிந்தார் இவர்களுக்கு பெனிட்டோ அல்பினோ என்ற மகன் உள்ளார், ஓராண்டு கழித்து முசோலினி ராச்சிலி குடி என்பவரை 1915 ல் மணந்தார். 1910 ஆண்டே இவருக்கு திருமணம் நடந்ந்துவிட்டதாகவும் தன் அரசியல் கவுரவத்திற்காக இருவரிடமும் மறைத்துவிட்டார். முதல் மனைவியும் மகனும் பின்னாளில் அதிக தொல்லைகொடுத்தனர். ரேச்சலுக்கு இரு மகள்கள் எட்டா (1910-1995) அன்னா மரியா (3 செப்டம்பர் 1929- 25 ஏப்ரல் 1968), அதற்குபின் ரவேன்னாவை 11 ஜூன் 1960, நன்டோ புசி நெக்ரி ல் திருமணம் செய்துகொண்டார், இவர்களுக்கு விட்டோரியோ (1916-1997). புருனோ (அக்டோபர் 1918-7 ஆகஸ்டு 1947). ரோமேனோ (1927-2006) என மூன்று மகள்கள் பிறந்த்னர். முசோலினிக்கு பல தாரங்கள் உண்டு. மார்கெரிடா சபாட்டி கடைசியாக கிளாரா பெட்டாசி இன்னும் பல பெண்களுடன் லீலா விநோதங்கள் புரிந்துள்ளதாகவும் அதனால் பெண்களின் சூழல் அதிகம் இருந்ததாக அவருடைய சுயசரிதையாளர் நிக்கோலஸ் பேரல் குறிப்பிடுகிறார்.

முசோலியின் மரணம்

முசோலினி மற்றும் மனைவி கிளாரா பெட்டாசி மரணம்
28 ஏப்ரல் 1945 இல், முசோலினி தம் மனைவி கிளாரா பெட்டாசியுடன் சுவிட்சர்லாந்துக்குத் தப்பியோட முற்படுகையில், இத்தாலியின் கோமோ ஆற்றின் அருகில் பார்ட்டிசான்களால் பிடிபட்டு பின் அவரும் அவர் மனைவியும் சுட்டு கொல்லப்பட்டனர். 29 ஏப்ரல், 1945 ம் ஆண்டு முசோலினி மற்றும் அவர் மனைவி கிளாரா பெட்டாசியின் உடல்களும் மிலனில் உள்ள பியஜேல் லொரெட்டோ விற்கு எடுத்துசெல்லப்பட்டு தலைகீழாக எரிவாயு நிரப்பும் நிலையத்தின் கூரையிலுள்ள இறைச்சியை தொங்கவிடும் கொக்கியில் மாட்டித் தொங்கவிட்டனர். இந்த செயல்களின் நோக்கம் பாசிசவாதிகளை அச்சுறுத்துவதற்காகவும், இதற்குமுன் பார்ட்டிசான்களை இக்கொடுரமான முறையிலேயே முசோலினியும் அச்சு நாட்டு அதிகாரிகளும் செய்ததற்கு பழிவாங்கும் நோக்கில் தொங்கவிடப்பட்டது, அதன் கீழேயிருந்து அங்குவாழ் மக்கள் அவர்களின் உடல்கள் மீது கற்களைக்கொண்டு அடித்து தங்கள் ஆத்திரத்தை தீர்த்துகோண்டனர். பலரும் வசைவு மொழிகொண்டு பதவியிழந்த தலைவரின் அட்டூழியங்களை கேலியும் கிண்டலுமாக பேசினர். முசோலினியின் விசுவாசியும் தீவிர பாசிசவாதியுமான அக்கிலி ஸ்டாரேஸ் தன்னைத்தானே ஒப்படைத்து பின் மரணதண்டனை விதிக்கபட்டு முசோலினியின் உடல் தொங்கவிடப்பட்டிருக்கும் இடத்திற்கு அழைத்துச்சென்று காட்டினர் உன்னைவிட யார் இது மாதிரி செய்யமுடியும் முசோலினி நீ ஒரு கடவுள் என்று கூறி வீரவணக்கம் வைத்து என் தலைவனுக்காக நான் என்ன கொடுக்கமுடியும் என்று கூறியவுடன் அக்கிலி ஸ்டாரேஸ் தலையில் குண்டுகள் பாய்ந்தன தன் தலைவனின் பக்கத்தில் அந்த விசுவாசியும் சரிந்து விழுந்தார்

Tuesday, 28 April 2020

PARTHIAN EMPIRE CAME TO AN END 224 ,APRIL 28



PARTHIAN EMPIRE 
CAME TO AN END 224 ,APRIL 28


.பார்த்தியப் பேரரசு (Parthian Empire) (ஆட்சிக் காலம்; கி மு – 247 - கி பி 224), என்பதை அரசிட் பேரரசு (Arsacid Empire) என்றும் அழைப்பர். பண்டைய ஈரானின் பார்த்திய மொழி பேசும் மக்கள், ஈரானிலும், ஈராக்கிலும் அரசியல் மற்றும் நாகரீகத்தில் மிகவும் செல்வாக்குடன் விளங்கியவர்கள்.[6]

முதலாம் அராசஸ் கி மு மூன்றாம் நூற்றாண்டின் நடுவில் பாரசீகத்தின் வடகிழக்கில் உள்ள கொரசான் பெரு நிலப்பகுதிகளை ஆண்ட கிரேக்க செலுக்கியப் பேரரசிடமிருந்து கைப்பற்றி, (r. c. 171–138 BC) பார்த்தியப் பேரரசை நிறுவியவர் ஆவார். பின்னர் இராக்கின் வடமேற்கு பகுதிகளான மீடியா, மெசபடோமியா பகுதிகளையும் கிரேக்க செலுசிட் பேரரசிடமிருந்து கைப்பற்றி பேரரசை விரிவு படுத்தினார்.

பின்னர் மத்திய கிழக்கு துருக்கி முதல் ஈரான் வரை தங்கள் ஆட்சியை விரிவு படுத்தினர். மேற்கே மத்தியதரைக்கடலின் உரோம் பேரரசு முதல் கிழக்கே சீனாவின் ஹான் பேரரசு வரை செல்லும் பட்டுப் பாதையில் அமைந்த பார்த்திய பேரரசு வணிகம் மற்றும் பொருளாதார மையமாக விளங்கியது.பார்த்திய பேரரசின் பரப்பளவு
பார்த்தியப் பேரரசில் தற்போதைய ஈரான், ஆர்மீனியா, ஈராக், ஜார்ஜியா, கிழக்கு துருக்கி, கிழக்கு சிரியா, அசர்பைஜான், துர்க்மெனிஸ்தான், ஆஃப்கானிஸ்தான், பாகிஸ்தான், குவைத், பாரசீக வளைகுடா, சவுதி அரேபியாக் கடற்கரை, பஹ்ரைன், கத்தார், ஐக்கிய அரபு அமீரகம் ஆகிய நாடுகளைக் கொண்டது.

சமூகம் & பண்பாடு

பார்த்தியக் குதிரை வீரன்
கிரேக்க செலுசிட் பேரரசின் பண்பாடும், நாகரீகமும் பரவிய பார்த்தியப் பேரரசில், கிரேக்க பண்பாட்டின் தாக்கத்தால் மறுமலர்ச்சி பெற்ற பாரசீக பண்பாடு மற்றும் நாகரீகத்தை மக்கள் விரும்பி ஏற்றனர்.

கிரேக்கர்களை பின்பற்றி பார்த்தியப் பேரரசர்கள் தங்கள் உருவம் பதித்த நாணயங்களை வெளியிட்டனர்.


வெண் களிமண்னால் மனிதத் தலை வடிவில் செய்யப்பட்ட நீர் வைக்கும் பாத்திரம்; காலம்- கி மு 1 - 2-ஆம் நூற்றாண்டு

சமயங்கள்
பல்வேறு மொழி, பண்பாடு, நாகரீகங்கள் கொண்ட பார்த்தியப் பேரரசில் பல தெய்வ வழிபாடுகள் கொண்ட கிரேக்க சமயங்களும்; சரத்துஸ்திர சமயம், யூத சமயம், மானி சமயம், பௌத்தம் மற்றும் பாபிலோனிய சமயங்கள் மக்கள் பின்பற்றினர்.

கலை மற்றும் இலக்கியம்







பண்டைய ஹாத்ரா, தற்கால ஈராக், கட்டிய ஆண்டு; கி பி 50

பார்த்திய கலைகள், பிரதேசம் மற்றும் வரலாறு வாரியாக பாரசீகம், மெசபடோமியா மற்றும் பாத்தியன் மொசபடோமிய என மூன்று வகையான கலைகள் கொண்டது.












பழைய ஏற்பாட்டில் எஸ்தரின் நூலில் காணப்படும் ஒர் சுவர் சித்திரக் காட்சி; காலம் கி பி 245

பார்த்தியர்கள் ஈரானிய மற்றும் கிரேக்க கட்டிடக் கலை நயத்துடன், வளைவுகளுடன் கூடிய பெரும் கட்டிடங்கள் மற்றும் சிற்பங்களை வடித்தனர்.

மொழி
பார்த்தியப் பேரர்சில் அலுவல் மொழியாக கிரேக்க மொழியும்; பேச்சு மொழியாக பழைய அரமேய மொழியும், உள்ளூர் பார்த்திய மொழி, மத்திய கால பாரசீக மொழியும் விளங்கியது.

வீழ்ச்சி
சாசானியர் வம்சத்தின் முதலாம் அர்தசிர், கி பி 224-இல் பார்த்தியப் பேரரசின் இறுதி மன்னர் நான்காம் அர்தபனாஸை வென்றதன் மூலம் பார்த்தியப் பேரரசு வீழ்ச்சி கண்டது.




The Roman Empire, in the awareness of its inhabitants, was an unquestionable power, and the only one in the world. An unending stream of victories in successive wars that kept the Roman state steadily expanding seemed to confirm such beliefs. It was not until the Roman defeat at Carrhae in 53 bce that public awareness registered the existence of another power capable of challenging the Imperium Romanum and—contrary to official propaganda—commanding respect. That power was the Parthian state ruled by the Arsacid dynasty, which, when it flourished, extended from Mesopotamia all the way to the Indian peninsula, from Central Asia to the shores of the Indian Ocean. Although the Parthians originated in Central Asia, once they had conquered Iran and Mesopotamia their rulers made a claim to the Achaemenid heritage. Somewhat grotesque to the Romans, such claims became a driving force of Arsacid policies toward all their neighbors. Claims to former Achaemenid domains were not confined only to Asia Minor and the Middle East but extended to lands in Central Asia, Iran, and India.

Sources

Our knowledge of Parthian history and of the various aspects of political, social, religious, and cultural life in the Arsacid monarchy is limited by the nature and preservation of historical sources. It is, therefore, worth mentioning at least the principal sources, with due attention to who created them and for what purposes.

The primary historical data always consist of narrative sources whose authors present either the entire history of a given state or selected periods or events, showing them in a cause-and-effect chain. Unfortunately, no such historical record is (p. 165) extant that was created in Arsacid territory, as the Parthian History by Apollodorus of Artemita, born under Arsacid rule, has not been preserved in so much as an original fragment. All known records on the history of Parthia originated outside the country and in languages of neighboring peoples with whom the Parthians communicated. Works by Greek and Roman authors, to whom we owe our basic knowledge of facts and dates in Arsacid history, are the most important of such records. While indispensable, they do not all deserve equal trust, because their authors did not always possess full and plausible information, not did they fully grasp the social and political realities of the Parthian state. Moreover, they were almost invariably hostile to the Parthians and deliberately deprecated the significance of the Arsacids, who appeared as barbarians to the Greeks, and to the Romans as a burdensome obstacle in their imperial schemes.

Among the Greek authors of the Hellenistic period writing about matters concerning Parthia, Polybius has a special place. In his comprehensive historical work, preserved in fragments, he devoted much attention to the eastern policies of the Seleucids. It is he who transmits to us a description of Antiochus III's expedition to the east late in the third century ce, which was of much consequence for the development of Seleucid relations with the newly created Parthian state.

Intense mutual contacts and numerous conflicts between the Arsacids and Rome from the first century bce to the third century ce caused the Romans to take a closer interest in the affairs of their eastern neighbor. This led to more attention being devoted to it in works on geography as well as history. The earlier category includes Geographia by Strabo and Naturalis Historia by Pliny the Elder. Both contain descriptions of the Parthian state, complete with much historical background. The two authors drew from many no longer extant older and contemporary works. Strabo used, among others, works of Poseidonius of Apamea and Apollodorus of Artemita. Standing apart in this category is the little work Stathmoi Parthikoi written by a first-century ce author, Isidore of Charax, a Parthian subject, describing the route from Mesopotamia to Hyrcania, complete with information on stations along the way and historical events involved. The list of historical works offering broad discussions on Parthian matters is much longer. Of greatest value for the study of Parthia's earlier history is the Historiae Philippicae, a general history of the antique world from Philip II and Alexander of Macedonia to Augustus, written by the late first-century ce author Pompeius Trogus. The work has been preserved to this day as a comprehensive epitome by M. Junianus Iustinus as well as the original prologues to each of its forty-two books. Despite Justin's free dealing with his original text and occasional sentences that end with a different hero and event than they began with, the fruit of the epitomizer's labors affords us an outline of Parthian history from the making of their state in the mid-third century to the close of the first century bce.

Abundant with political and armed conflict, Roman rivalry with the Arsacids for influence in Armenia and the Middle East could not help having its episodes reflected in historical literature. In their stories, Roman authors writing in Greek and Latin often reached for examples from the more distant past, which enriched (p. 166) their accounts with otherwise unknown information. Notable among such works is the Historia Romana written at the turn of the first century ce by Velleius Paterculus, which deals with developments in the East in the times of Emperor Augustus. A comprehensive account of Parthian-Roman relations we owe to Tacitus, the author of the Annales and Historiae, works devoted to the history of Rome in the period from 14 to 96 ce, which unfortunately are not preserved in their entirety. Tacitus's contemporary was Josephus Flavius. Although his focus was the history of the Jews from Biblical times to the mid-first century ce (Antiquitates Judaicae) and the Jewish revolt against Rome in 66–73 ce (Bellum Iudaicum), his works contain much information on Parthian history. Later authors include Plutarch of Chaeronea, the biographer of notable historical figures, whose lives of M. Licinius Crassus and Mark Antony supply valuable data on the Parthian state and the conflicts with Parthia caused by those leaders. Cassius Dio (fl. third century ce) devotes much space to Parthian-Roman relations in his Historia Romana, spanning Rome's history from its founding to his own time. Owing to its value, the work occupies a special place in Roman historical writing. However, like others mentioned above, it did not survive to our time as a whole, which has prevented us from filling many gaps in our knowledge of the final stage of the Arsacid state, to which Cassius Dio bore witness.

It was an expression of special interest in Parthia that some of the Roman authors wrote books entirely devoted to the history of the latter. All that we know are scanty fragments, too short to be of much use, or just titles. This category includes Parthica, written in the first half of the second century ce by Flavius Arrianus.

The second century ce, thick with conflict between Rome and Parthia, saw the appearance in Rome of a large number of eulogistic works extolling the successes of Rome's rulers and military leaders in their struggles with the eastern neighbor. The veracity and credibility of such accounts was questionable even in the eyes of their contemporaries.

Narrative texts with a bearing on Parthian history also include those composed in Oriental languages. Of these, the most important are those in Chinese, but their value in reconstructing the history of the Arsacid state is rather limited, because of their fragmentary treatment and the difficult-to-identify names of heroes and places.

Although the primary narrative sources concerning the Arsacids are of foreign origin, this does not mean that no historical records are available from within their empire. At least a few categories can be distinguished. Chief among them are numismatic sources. We have available to us coins issued by Parthian rulers beginning from Arsaces I. Within the Arsacid state, the right of coinage belonged not only to monarchs (coins were issued also by sundry usurpers) but also to some Greek cities under their rule. Coins were also issued by chieftains of the different peoples under the scepter of the Arsacids from the moment they managed to shed Parthian rule. The variety of this coinage, including representations and legends on the coins, supplies numerous hints about the internal history of the Arsacid state, although (p. 167) many objective difficulties involved in this type of source prevent their full interpretation. Numismatic sources, like the seals found during archeological excavations, are indispensable to studies on Parthian iconography.

One type of local historical source is made up of signs accompanying the rock reliefs popular in the art of the Iranian cultural circle. Some of them are easily associated with known events and figures. Others lack characteristics needed for precise dating or feature figures bearing common names that are impossible to identify; they bear mute witness to unspecified events.

It is crucial to mention another kind of source that can be classified as documentary. These are records of legal acts and documents released by state institutions in the course of operations. The former are exemplified by unique parchments discovered in Avroman that detail land sale contracts. The latter include ostraca unearthed in great numbers during excavations at New Nisa; these are documents concerning business matters and were a product of Parthian bureaucracy in operation. This category of sources is also known from other sites.

Some material is available from Parthian territory that is of great value and has long been known, but has been made fully available to scholars only due to recent publications. It consists of cuneiform texts of the astronomical diaries produced in Mesopotamian temples. Their uniqueness as a historical source results from their continuity and the exact dating of their entries. The texts recorded astronomical phenomena. Whenever weather conditions allowed it, the sky was observed every day. In addition, from time to time the scribes noted important local events and various natural phenomena, and while they were at it, they even entered food prices. The result is an extraordinary local chronicle spanning several centuries. Many fragments of those astronomical texts originated from the period of Arsacid rule in Mesopotamia. Thanks to the historical data contained in them, researchers have gained an insight into events entirely absent from other records.

A separate body of evidence comes from archeological discoveries. This evidence, though of limited value, nevertheless casts much light on various aspects of Parthian art and material culture. Excavations at Old Nisa that unearthed the remains of a Parthian palace complex have enriched us with knowledge on the material and spiritual culture of the early Arsacids. Other aspects of this culture have been studied thanks to excavations at Dura-Europos, Seleucia on the Tigris, and many other sites.

Despite the great variety and growing number of sources, our knowledge of Parthian history still contains important blanks we are not able to fill. This is partly due to the fact that until recently, many researchers neglected the importance of the Parthian period in the history of ancient Iran, treating it as a transition period between the Achaemenid and Sasanian eras, and as such undeserving of closer attention. One result of this attitude, prevalent especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was the belittling and even the deliberate destruction of materials and finds from the Parthian era uncovered during excavations in Mesopotamia and Iran.

(p. 168) History

Our knowledge of the making of the Parthian state and of its chronology is full of gaps. We know that it was started by the nomadic tribe of Parni (or Aparni), belonging to the Dahae group of Iranian peoples. Following migrations from Central Asia in search of, among other things, more arable land, they managed in the first half of the third century bce to occupy territories belonging to the Seleucid state on the Atrek River and along the Kopet Dagh mountain range. Their expansion was facilitated by difficulties the Seleucids were facing just then; they were absorbed in heavy fighting with the Celts, who were making inroads into Asia Minor, and in wars with Egyptian rulers over Palestine. The first leader of the Parni known by name was Arsaces, who, perhaps in the mid-third century bce, conquered Astauene, a land lying between the river Atrek and the Caspian Sea. It is recognized that this event is connected with the beginning of the so-called Arsacid era in 247 bce, the starting date of the official Parthian chronology used throughout the state's existence; it is the first certain date in its history, perhaps connected with Arsaces’ assumption of the royal title in the city of Asaak, lying in Astauene. Yet we cannot state with confidence whether he really was crowned that year or later, especially since Arsaces’ possession of this title is not confirmed by legends on coins issued by him.

By 238 bce, the invaders had managed to colonize other lands, including Parthyene, after which they acquired the name of Parthians. Their expansion was made possible by the earlier rebellions of satraps of Bactria and Parthyene. Bactria's ruler Diodotus and the Parthyene satrap Andragoras had claimed independence; the former even adopted the title of king. Such centrifugal tendencies stripped the Seleucids of control over the lands that had belonged to them from the collapse of Alexander the Great's empire.

An attempt to regain the lost territory was made about 230 bce by Seleucus II. It put Arsaces in a difficult position, as he had simultaneously to face the Bactrian ruler. A truce with the Bactrians enabled him to avoid fighting on two fronts, but even then, faced with Seleucus II's army, he was forced to withdraw from captured territories and retreat into Central Asia. Finally, however, the Syrian ruler's retreat, caused by trouble in the western regions of the Seleucid empire, enabled Arsaces not only to reclaim full control over all the lands he had seized before but probably also to increase his holdings in the south. The successes he had won, combined with an alliance with the Bactrian ruler made after Seleucus II's withdrawal, reinforced Arsaces’ leadership and permitted him to start laying the foundations for Parthian statehood, which became necessary once the Parthians, having conquered vast arable lands guaranteeing subsistence, lost their interest in migrations in favor of settled life. Consequent to this development was a need to expand local administrative centers and to safeguard their own territory from aggression by neighbors and enemies. Arsaces chose his capital probably somewhere in Parthyene. Although excavations at Old Nisa have not so far yielded any finds identifiable with his activity, the center's exceptional political role in the times of his successors suggests his special (p. 169) links with it. Arsaces’ achievements won him enormous respect among the Parthians and the status of the “father of the nation.” His name became a royal honorific used by all his successors in the Arsacid dynasty he started.

For a long time, contradictory accounts led scholars to dispute the historicity of Arsaces I and the identity of his successor, since some ancient authors relate that after the brief reign of Arsaces I, the throne was occupied by his brother, Tiridates. New interpretations of the sources and the numismatic evidence have helped to modify this picture profoundly. It is now unquestionable that the figure of Tiridates is ahistorical and Parthia's first ruler continued to reign for decades, until ca. 217 bce, when he was succeeded by his son, known as Arsaces II (ca. 217 – ca. 191 bce). At the end of the third century bce, following prolonged peace with the Seleucids, the new ruler had to face Antiochus III, who had decided to restore Seleucid control over territories lost to Parthian and Bactrian rulers. The confrontation, although a hard trial for Arsaces II, ended in his major political success. Antiochus, probably for the price of formal subordination, allowed Arsaces to exercise power, thus consenting to a Parthian state. As Seleucid influence in Iran and Central Asia dwindled and their state was weakened as a result of Antiochus III's defeat in a war with Rome, Arsaces II's acknowledgment of Syrian domination had little lasting political effect in practice.

After the death of Arsaces II, the Parthian throne fell in ca. 191 bce to the so-called younger Arsacid line. Its first representatives were Phriapatius (ca. 191–176 bce) and his son Phraates (ca. 176 – ca. 171 bce). Sources are almost silent about this period in Parthian history. The few facts we know include Phraates I's conquest of the Mardi tribe inhabiting lands south of the Caspian Sea and its resettlement in Parthian-dominated lands of Choarene and Comisene to protect the strategically vital Caspian Gates area. This may suggest that Phraates continued a policy of expansion of his state. We also have grounds to suppose that he greatly helped strengthen the ruler's political position. This was demonstrated by his decision to hand the throne not, as was customary, to his son but rather to his younger brother, Mithradates (or Mithridates), who went down in history as Mithradates I the Great (ca. 171–ca. 132 bce).

Few rulers in Arsacid history were as distinguished as Mithradates I. During his reign, the Parthian state was transformed from an insignificant political center to a vast and mighty empire. The transformation was the fruit of his large-scale policy of expansion. The detailed chronology of his conquests, given the dearth of sources, is not well known. Even accepted dates are a matter of convention. Mithradates’ first booty is believed to have been Bactria, conquered probably in the 150s bce. By 148 bce, Media and Media Atropatene had been overrun. In 141 bce, Parthian armies, having occupied much of Mesopotamia, reached Seleucia on the Tigris and Babylon. Yet a complete subjugation of Mesopotamia took much more time and effort. Mithradates exchanged blows in defense of his possessions with Demetrius II, king of Syria, who launched an attempt to regain lost land in Mesopotamia in 139/138 bce. However, his greatest distress came from Hyspaosines, king of Characene—a state whose name is derived from its capital city of Charax, (p. 170) situated on the Persian Gulf—and the kings of Elymais. The Parthians did manage to break their resistance, but only after many years of heavy fighting. Although Mithradates I and his successors did force both rulers into submission, Parthian hegemony over their lands proved rather short-lived. In addition, some sources mention Mithradates’ conquest of lands between Iran and the Indian frontier, but the truth of such claims is beyond confirmation.

The state became with each new conquest an ever more colorful cultural and ethnic mixture, requiring of its ruler greater activity in administration and social policy. It seems that Mithradates I retained in conquered territories the existing administrative structures, entrusting leadership of them not only to his own men but also to representatives of local elites who pledged loyalty to the new overlord. He attempted to win the favor of the Greek populace, which, as territories grew, became an increasingly large proportion of his subjects. An expression of this attitude is the title Philhellene (Philhellên), which he included in his royal titulature.

During the reign of Phraates II (ca. 132–126 bce), another attempt was made by the Seleucids to recapture the lands of Media and Mesopotamia lost to the Parthians. In 131–129 bce, the king of Syria, Antiochus VII Sidetes, scored important successes, but his mistakes led to his death and decisively buried Seleucid hopes of recovering territorial losses. Almost immediately after that, Phraates had to make his way east to defend his frontiers from the nomadic Scythians, and his last years on the throne were marked by large-scale migrations of peoples inhabiting the vast territories of Central Asia and Afghanistan. Their arrival caused considerable political changes. Even though the Sakas were not an immediate threat to the Parthian state, their presence forced the ruler to take vigorous action to ensure the security of his eastern and northern borders. It was during struggles with them that Phraates lost his life. From then on, defense from invaders became a major challenge facing the Arsacids. The extent of the problem is proved by the fact that in the decades that followed, at least several Parthian kings, including Phraates II's successor, Artabanus I (ca. 126–123/122 bce), were killed in conflicts with those peoples.

Another period of rising Parthian imperial power came during the reign of Mithradates II (122–91 bce). Upon ascending to the throne, he first had to deal with king Hyspaosines of Characene, who had taken advantage of Artabanus I's engagement with the nomads not only to release himself from dependence on Parthia but also to overrun all of southern Mesopotamia, probably complete with Seleucia on the Tigris and Babylon. In ca. 122/121 bce, Mithradates forced him to submit to Parthian domination once again.

Soon after these events Mithradates took an interest in northern Mesopotamia and Armenia, thus far lying outside the sphere of Parthian politics. As a result of his political and military actions, more lands accrued and new rulers were subordinated: those of Adiabene, Gordyene, and Osrhoene, with additional influence won in Armenia. Additionally, Parthian interests were furthered in Asia Minor and the Middle East. The political program drawn by Mithradates II assumed Arsacid recapture of lands once belonging to the Achaemenid Persian Empire. His adoption in 109 bce of the title of “King of Kings” must have been a propaganda ploy designed (p. 171) as part of that program. Together with involvement in the west, Mithradates successfully pursued a policy of recovering lost terrain in Central Asia and eastern Iran. This accomplishment made it possible to open land routes between China and the Mediterranean world. Since they all crossed Arsacid imperial territories, revenues from duties and taxes on luxury goods being transported became an important source of wealth for Parthian rulers.

It is indicative of Mithradates II's determination in seeking to strengthen Parthian influences in eastern Anatolia and in Armenia that he sent in 96 bce a legation to Sulla, governor of the Roman province of Cilicia, proposing a treaty of friendship and cooperation, conditional on Rome's acceptance of the Euphrates as a line between their respective spheres of influence. As Parthia was still a completely unknown factor to the Romans, the Parthian king's initiative was ignored by Sulla; nevertheless, from then on relations between the two states became increasingly frequent and more formal. Toward the end of his reign, Mithradates actively joined in the struggles between Demetrius III and Philip, pretenders to the Seleucid throne, in hopes that his support of one of the rivals would help him gain powerful influence in Syria, which would enable him to have an active say in Mediterranean politics. Although Demetrius was taken prisoner, the plan never saw fruition. Its fulfillment was blocked by internal problems in the monarchy, as ca. 92 bce Mithradates was challenged by the usurper Gotarzes, who had probably gained control over the empire's eastern satrapies, supported by local rich and influential aristocratic families, and over a large part of Mesopotamia. However, civil war was prevented by the king's natural death.

After Mithradates II's death, the Parthian state found itself faced with a political crisis that lasted for more than ten years. It resulted in a weakening of central authority, territorial losses to the neighbors, and a decline in Parthia's international significance. Such domestic troubles in the Arsacid domain were grist for the mill of King Tigranes of Armenia, who quickly amassed vast lands under his scepter. His major successes included capture from Parthia of a strategic region in Armenia occupied years before by Mithradates II, subjugation of some Parthian-held areas in northern Mesopotamia, and ascent to the Seleucid throne. The last success came his way without much effort through support from local elites, tired from the decades-long struggle for the crown between members of Syria's ruling family. The crisis situation was only overcome by Sinatruces (or Sanatruces), who ascended to the Arsacid throne ca. 88/87 bce.

Soon after the passing of Mithradates II, the Parthian state found itself bordering a vast theater of war begun in 74 bce and, at its height, spreading into parts of Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Armenia, and Syria. The hostilities were triggered by a conflict between Mithradates VI Eupator, king of Pontus, and Rome. Although Mithradates VI attempted to draw the Parthians into the war, Sinatruces insisted on maintaining neutrality. His son and successor Phraates III (ca. 71/70–58/57 bce) acted likewise, first in response to an invitation to join an anti-Roman coalition envisaged by Mithradates VI and Tigranes, and again in 69 bce to demands from the Roman commander Lucullus to lend him support in his campaign against both (p. 172) rulers. It seems that Phraates III's consistent policies brought the Parthians some gains as Lucullus agreed to recognize the Euphrates as a line of division of the respective states’ spheres of influence. The same was confirmed by Cn. Pompeius (Pompey), from 66 bce Lucullus's successor, in the hope that it would help him secure the support of Phraates or at least prevent his joining the anti-Roman alliance, whose conclusion was again suggested to Phraates by Mithradates VI. Pompey's efforts failed to produce the desired result as the Parthian king kept aloof from the war being fought, concentrating on the conflict in Armenia between Tigranes and his son Tigranes the Younger. Although the younger challenger whom he supported lost his struggle for the throne, Phraates succeeded in recovering some Parthian lands captured years before by the king of Armenia. Interference in Armenian affairs led to tensions in Phraates III's relations with Pompey, but an all-out conflict with Rome was prevented. As an unexpected outcome of Pompey's policies toward the kings of Armenia and Parthia, the latter two made peace in 64 bce.

Phraates III's reign was terminated by a coup staged in 58/57 bce by his sons, Orodes II and Mithradates III. Conflicts between the two continued until ca. 54/53 bce. The final victor was Orodes, who immediately found himself having to defend his state from an unexpected assault by the Roman governor of Syria, M. Licinius Crassus. The attack was caused purely by the Roman's personal ambitions and hopes of an easy victory with abundant spoils. Encouraged by his good fortune in 54 bce, in the following year Crassus launched a massive campaign that ended at Carrhae in a rout of his army and his own death. Given the grave internal problems caused by struggles with aristocratic opposition, Orodes II could not immediately enjoy all the fruits of his victory. He succeeded only in subordinating king Artavasdes II of Armenia, earlier an ally of Crassus, and thus strengthening Parthian influence in that country. Only in 51 bce did his armies enter Syria. Still, with the opposition leaders scheming with the Romans, Orodes was forced to withdraw from there in 50 bce. Although the domestic situation prevented the king for many years from pursuing an active external policy, he would not let pass an opportunity to interfere in Roman affairs once that country found itself facing civil war. He decided to lend an armed hand to the killers of the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, who had gained control over Asia Minor and Syria. The political chaos that followed their defeat led Orodes again to attack Roman possessions in the East. In 40 bce, a Parthian corps under Q. Aetius Labienus, a Roman republican who had defected to Orodes, entered Anatolia; another, led by Pacorus, son of Orodes, invaded Syria. A Roman counteroffensive was launched soon afterwards by Mark Antony, obliterating Parthian successes. In 39 bce, pressure from Roman troops forced Labienus out of Asia Minor. Finally, defeat at Gindaros in 38 bce, in which Pacorus was killed, made the Parthians evacuate all their forces from Syria. On the death of his beloved son, Orodes II gave himself to mourning, relinquishing power to another son, Phraates IV.

Phraates IV (38–3/2 bce), probably fearing for the security of his position, upon ascending to the throne performed an unprecedented crackdown on actual and potential opponents. The measure had the opposite of the desired effect. Many aristocrats hostile to Phraates fled to Roman territory, from where, with Roman support, (p. 173) they began a successful struggle with the king. This situation, posing a danger to Phraates as it was combined with an expedition against Parthia being prepared by Mark Antony, made the king enter into negotiations with opposition leaders. These were successful, and the dangerous émigrés returned home. Despite losing such allies, Mark Antony persisted in his plan and in 36 bce struck at Media Atropatene, the geographical position of which facilitated attack on Parthian territory. However, cooperation between king Artavasdes of Media and Phraates IV led to a Roman defeat. A contributing factor was the neutrality in the conflict of king Artavasdes II of Armenia. In retribution, Mark Antony overran Armenia in 34 bce, taking captive the whole royal family except Artavasdes II's son Artaxes, who found refuge at the Parthian court. Mark Antony's preparations for war with Octavian left Phraates more freedom of action. In 33 bce he attacked Media Atropatene, whose ruler, after a short friendship with the king of Parthia, had made an alliance with Mark Antony, and conquered it in 32 bce. As his next goal, Phraates set his sights on Armenia, where he put on the throne the son of Artavasdes II, Artaxes II.

Such successes helped to strengthen Parthian influence in areas of great strategic significance for Parthian security, but they did little to pacify internal strife. In 31 bce, Phraates IV was challenged by Tiridates I, a usurper backed by some of the aristocracy, who took years of fighting to defeat and drive off. Tiridates took one of the king's sons with him, which made it easier for him to find refuge on Roman territory. Phraates demanded that the Romans release the son and extradite Tiridates, but years of diplomatic efforts only resulted in the return of the son. Octavian, having just defeated Mark Antony at Actium in 31 bce, started systematic action to restore Roman control over Armenia and neighboring lands. Yet it did not significantly affect the relations between Rome and the Parthian state. Change only occurred in 20 bce, when, faced with serious trouble at home and military pressure from Rome, Phraates decided to make some concessions: he returned some Roman legionary standards that the Parthians had captured in battle at Carrhae and released all Roman prisoners of war. This decision by the Parthian king was seen by some among the Armenian aristocracy as a sign of his weakness and led them to murder Artaxes II and turn to Rome for help in the enthronement of another monarch. These events opened a long period of fighting between Rome and the Arsacids for influence in Armenia, to be concluded in 1 ce, during the reign of Phraataces (Phraates V) (3/2 bce–2 ce), the son of Phraates IV. In the same year, a meeting was held between Gaius Caesar, the adoptive son of the Roman emperor, and the king of Parthia. In its aftermath, Rome recognized the Parthian state as an equal partner and, more importantly, stopped questioning Phraataces’ right to the crown in return for his giving up his claims to Armenia as well as his demands that the Romans return his brothers who had been living from 10/9 bce with their families in Rome, where they had been sent by Phraates IV to prevent a dynastic conflict in the Arsacid family.

Consent to Roman hegemony in Armenia resulted from Phraataces’ precarious position in the country. The Roman recognition of his right to the crown, much needed to confront his domestic opposition, did not protect him from loss of power. (p. 174) In 4 ce, a group of aristocrats put on the throne Orodes III, who, however, was murdered in 6 ce. On his death, some Parthian aristocrats requested the Roman emperor Augustus (27 bce–14 ce) to consent to hand the crown to the son of Phraates IV, Vonones, who was living in Rome. The new ruler quickly alienated his subjects, one important reason being his having become Romanized. This presented an opportunity to Artabanus II, a member of a side line of the Arsacids, who, after years of fighting Vonones and his supporters, succeeded in ca. 11/12 in achieving victory. The defeated rival took shelter in Armenia and soon became its king. An attempt by Artabanus II to replace him with his own son caused immediate reaction from Rome, which could tolerate Vonones but not the rise to power in Armenia of an Arsacid it considered a serious threat to its interests. To safeguard those, Emperor Tiberius (14–37 ce) sent to the east his stepson Germanicus in 18. His mission met with no opposition from the Parthians and concluded in the enthronement in Armenia of Rome's protégé, Artaxias III. Since Rome had desisted in supporting Vonones, Artabanus accepted the emergent situation in Armenia. To confirm the friendly relations between the two states, Germanicus and Artabanus met on an island in the Euphrates in 18 ce. Once the Parthian king had accepted the situation in Armenia, he was free to concentrate on his monarchy's internal affairs. He took steps to reinforce Arsacid positions in vassal lands, subordinate some lands in eastern Iran, and strengthen the king's authority. The success of this policy helped define his political program, which not only guided his own actions but later became a road sign for his successors. Called the neo-Iranian program, it had as its guiding idea a claim of the Arsacids on the legal heritage of the Achaemenids and their consequent right to lands once belonging to the Persian Empire.

In 35, more than ten years of peace between Parthia and Rome came to an end when after the heirless death of Artaxias III, Artabanus II made an attempt to put his own son on the Armenian throne. The rationale behind the move was to implement the program of Achaemenid imperial restoration. To stop the king, Tiberius decided to lend his ear to the requests of aristocrats opposed to Artabanus and sent on his way to Parthia another of Phraates IV's sons, also named Phraates. After his unexpected death in Syria, the emperor dispatched Tiridates, a grandson of Phraates IV, who succeeded in conquering a large part of the country and the capital at Ctesiphon. The situation in Armenia, already difficult for Artabanus, was further complicated as king Mithradates of Caucasian Iberia joined in the struggle for its throne. Despite that, in 36, with ample help from a group of loyal aristocrats, Artabanus forced Tiridates to withdraw. In the spring of 37, the Parthian king met with the then governor of Syria, L. Vitellius, and the two men made some important agreements whereby Artabanus resigned from further struggle for Armenia, Rome recognized the Euphrates as the border between the two empires, and the Parthian monarch's rule was vindicated as legal. While relations with Rome improved dramatically, Artabanus still faced serious domestic problems. One of them was the rebellion of Seleucia on the Tigris which broke out in 36 (his power over the city was not reasserted until 42); another was unrest in Parthian-controlled Adiabene. Although the time of Artabanus II was not peaceful, his reign helped strengthen the state.

(p. 175) With the death of Artabanus II, disturbances ensued and continued for over ten years, involving pretenders to the throne supported by various aristocratic groups. His son and successor, Vardanes I (ca. 39–45 ce) was not able to settle them. One of those involved pretenders was Rome-based Meherdates, the son of Vonones, who arrived in Parthia in 48. This stage of political strife was only concluded when Vologases I ascended to the throne (ca. 51–78/79 ce). It seems that from the start of his reign Vologases tried with consistency to implement the political program defined by Artabanus II. This is best exemplified by his attempts to strengthen the Arsacid position in lands within the Parthian sphere of influence by placing his own brothers on the respective thrones. The first such decision was to put Pacorus in power in Media Atropatene; the second, much more significant politically, was the enthronement of Tiridates in Armenia in 53. Vologases must have anticipated possible confrontation arising from this step, and he was determined to risk it. A Roman response came with Nero (54–68 ce) on the throne. Such as the conflict was, it favored the Parthian king until unexpected difficulties arose: the usurpation in 54/55 of his own son Vardanes and—a little later—disturbances in Hyrcania. These emergencies forced Vologases to recall his troops from Armenia, allowing the Romans to occupy it and install their own favorite on its throne. Once he settled the domestic disruption, Vologases rejoined the war for Armenia. Its turning point proved to be the Parthian victory over the Romans at Rhandeia in 62. The event brought the warring sides to the negotiating table, where they concluded in the following year a mutually satisfactory agreement on Armenia: the Parthian king obtained the right to appoint a candidate for the Armenian crown, while the Roman emperor enjoyed the privilege of crowning him. While this meant that formally Rome decided the holder of the Armenian crown, in reality it amounted to Rome surrendering Armenia to Arsacid political influence.

Once he put his Armenian affairs in order, Vologases could concentrate on internal problems. His attention was focused on reestablishing a real authority in southern Mesopotamia and neighboring Susiana and Elymais. While these lands were formally subordinated to the Parthian king, their leaders wasted no opportunity to loosen the ties that constricted them and even attempted to shake their dependence altogether. We may surmise that in ca. 73 Vologases regained seniority over Characene, as is suggested by an interruption, beginning that year and lasting decades, in its coinage. Soon afterward he restored his influence in Susiana and Elymais as well as in Persis. Under the reign of Vologases and that of his successor, Pacorus II, Parthian interest grew in the lands of Choresmia, Bactria, and the Hindu Kush. The presence of Parthian elements in the coinage of various political centers in those lands attests to the influences both rulers had in the area. Nor was Vologases I's activity restricted to political action. He put much effort into the building of strategically located fortresses and the founding of new cities. This proved beneficial to the whole state, as Parthian control over all of Mesopotamia afforded favorable conditions for trade and communication between the Mediterranean and the Orient, broadly understood. Such control over the Persian Gulf area helped navigation and exchange reaching as far as the Indian Peninsula. Guarantees of security on (p. 176) land routes across Iran and Central Asia intensified relations with China and assured Parthia a monopoly on trade with that country. Such contacts also concerned an alliance against the ever more powerful ruler of the Kushan kingdom. Involvement in the north and east notwithstanding, Parthian-Roman relations continued undiminished later in Vologases’ reign. The anti-Roman insurrection in Judea (66–70 ce) and later struggles between pretenders to the Roman throne in 68–69 were situations that the Parthian ruler tried, without much success, to use to his own advantage. Attempted interference in Rome's internal affairs caused tensions in mutual relations. These intensified when Vespasian (69–79 ce) became emperor. Rome's distrust for its eastern neighbor was demonstrated as he began a military buildup along the joint border on the Euphrates, continued by his sons Titus (79–81) and Domitian (81–96).

Vologases I's policies were continued by his son, Pacorus II (ca. 78–ca. 110), who probably had gained experience as a coruler at his father's side. He, too, late in his reign, shared his power with his son, Vologases III (ca. 110–147). Late in Pacorus II's and early in Vologases III's reigns, the usurper Osroes I made his presence felt. Most probably a native of Elymais, he succeeded in taking over a significant portion of the Parthian state, including a large chunk of Mesopotamia. His decisions regarding the holder of the Armenian throne violated the Rhandeia treaty and presented a pretext to Trajan (98–117) to launch an expedition against the Arsacid state in 113. Although the Romans scored some military successes (they captured Ctesiphon and reached the Persian Gulf), these lacked permanence. Having briefly taken the initiative in Armenian affairs and having installed on the Arsacid throne a candidate after their own hearts, they lost some of their gains even before Trajan's death and the remnant soon afterward, as his successor Hadrian (117–134) gave them up. Yet Osroes I's challenge to Parthia's legal authority did not disappear without trace. In unknown circumstances, Vologases III recognized his authority over the territories under his control, probably for the price of Osroes I's allegiance to the Parthian king. This solution would assure the Parthian state decades of relative domestic peace and later bring Osroes’ descendants the Arsacid crown. The peace greatly helped further development of trade links between the Mediterranean and the East (confirmed by numerous testimonies), with a particular role played in this by Palmyra in the second century ce. During the reign of Vologases III, Parthian-Roman relations were mostly satisfactory, though not without some tensions. Two meetings of Vologases and Hadrian in 123 and 129 did not bring about major changes. For Parthia, much more important at the time were events in other areas of its empire. In the Caucasus, tensions mounted, caused by the activities of Pharasmanes, king of Iberia, who was instrumental in an invasion of the nomadic Alans into Parthian lands in ca. 135. The growth and expansion of the Kushan kingdom forced the Parthians to pursue more vigorous political and military policies in the east to strengthen their position there.

A landmark in the reign of Vologases IV (147–191/192) was a restoration, one more time, about 150/151, of Parthian supremacy over Characene, which had been outside the Arsacid orbit of influence since Trajan's expedition. With the amount of (p. 177) trade going though that land, its independence was a loss of much revenue to the Parthians. In 161, Vologases unexpectedly launched a war on Rome. It was the first conflict between the two states in which the attackers were the Parthians. Its beginning coincided with the ascent to the Roman throne of Marcus Aurelius (161–179). The scenario of events suggests that Vologases meant to capture Armenia and Syria simultaneously. On the Armenian throne he put his own appointee, Pacorus, while an unexpected assault on Syria enabled him to defeat the Roman troops stationed there. Confidence in his own superiority prompted Vologases to reject a Roman peace proposal in 162. Despite their dire position early in 163, the Romans under Lucius Verus launched a counteroffensive and regained control over Armenia later in the same year. In 164, the Parthians lost Syria for good. Roman troops commanded by Avidius Cassius moved along the Euphrates to capture Dura-Europos. The success was of great significance to the Romans, as it caused many vassal rulers to leave the side of Vologases and put the initiative in Roman hands. In late 165 or early 166, Avidius Cassius subjugated Seleucia on the Tigris, and soon afterward Ctesiphon. Probably at more or less the same time, other Roman troops entered Adiabene and Media. The Romans’ Mesopotamian campaign concluded unexpectedly, for they were forced to withdraw in spring 166 because of heavy casualties inflicted on them by a plague that had broken out in Seleucia. Soon afterwards, the war terminated completely. As its result, Vologases IV lost to Rome a vast portion of his lands in northern Mesopotamia. Despite this setback, he would not stop struggling for influence in Armenia, yet with no lasting success. A lost war with Rome helped pacify relations between the two states, but a formal settlement of disputes did not come about until probably 176.

Renewed tensions between the two empires occurred under Vologases V (191/192–ca. 208). They were sparked off by the Parthian ruler taking the side of Pescennius Niger against Septimius Severus during a civil war in Rome (192–193) and interference in the internal affairs of Rome's vassal states in northern Mesopotamia (Adiabene, Osroene). In revenge, Septimius Severus (193–211), who had defeated other pretenders to the imperial purple, invaded northern Mesopotamia in 195 and transformed Osroene into a Roman province, thus putting an end to Parthian attempts to uphold their influence in the area. Actual combat with the Parthians took placed during a second expedition that Septimius Severus conducted in 198. He succeeded in reaching as far as Ctesiphon, but, as in the first expedition, his attempt to capture Hatra failed despite a long siege. The peace that concluded the hostilities reasserted Roman dominance in northern Mesopotamia and Armenia.

The mutual peace between Parthia and Rome was breached by the son and successor of Septimius Severus, Caracalla (211–217). He took advantage of internal conflicts in the Arsacid empire in the first years of Vologases VI's rule (ca. 208–221/22), caused by claims to the throne by the latter's younger brother, Artabanus IV, who had gained control over much of the country, including Media and Susiana. Confusion in the Parthian empire caused by its virtual split between two brothers led Caracalla to try to subjugate Armenia, an attempt that failed because of an anti-Roman insurrection. Nor did a simple continuation of his father's policy, in hopes (p. 178) of further successes, bring desired results. The excuse for the attack was claimed to be an escape to Parthia of two Roman subjects, but their handing over by Vologases VI left Caracalla without a pretext to declare war. An open conflict only came about following the Roman emperor's futile wooing of Artabanus IV's daughter. Whatever armed inroads the Romans made into Parthia did not bring Caracalla meaningful victories, as the Parthians avoided serious engagement. The expedition was terminated by the emperor's unexpected death in April 217, which came at a highly unfavorable moment for the Romans. A Parthian counteroffensive defeated them in the battle of Nisibis. In this situation, Macrinus, the emperor's successor, who had been instrumental in his death, sought immediate peace talks. In a treaty signed in 218, Macrinus pledged to pay the Parthians liberal compensation for the damage done by the Roman incursion and not to interfere in Armenian affairs. The accord also confirmed the existing border between the two states. The peace of 218 is the last known event in the history of Parthian-Roman relations.

Successful though the war with Rome was, it did not prevent Parthia's internal crisis, which soon led to its downfall. The crisis started in vassal rebellions that the Parthian monarchs were not able to deal with. Especially dangerous was the revolt of Ardashir, the ruler of Persis. No sooner had he risen to power in ca. 220 than he began vigorously to spread his influence into neighboring areas. He also secured the support of the Parthian vassal rulers of Media and Adiabene, as well as tribal chieftains, which enabled the coalition to overrun all of Mesopotamia except Hatra. At first, Artabanus IV thought little of the adversary and bided his time before he took steps against him. These were concluded by the king's death and Parthian defeat in a battle fought in September 224. By 226, Ardashir held control over Ctesiphon, previously belonging to Vologases VI. It was probably the capture of the Parthian capital that allowed him to take the title of “King of Kings.” It seems that Vologases VI stayed in power for a short period after that, since we know of coins with his name dating from 228. However, they are the last piece of evidence for the existence of the Arsacid state. In ca. 230, power over the lands that had made up the Parthian Empire was in Ardashir's hands. His rule opened a new, four-hundred-year-long chapter in the history of ancient Iran under the Sasanian dynasty.

The Parthian monarchy

From the time of Arsaces I, the Parthian state was an absolute inherited monarchy with a traditional principle of passing down the rule to the eldest son of the ruling monarch; there was also a tradition of the Parthian king appointing his sons as corulers. This principle of succession was not, however, always strictly adhered to, as a ruler could name as his successor his brother, bypassing his own offspring. One reason for the numerous dynastic conflicts and usurpations was certainly the Arsacid practice of polygamy. By practicing dynastic unions and placing members (p. 179) of their family on the thrones of dependent states, the Arsacids greatly broadened and strengthened their influence. Despite Roman countermeasures, supported by groups of native aristocrats, they proved especially well established in Armenia, where descendants of the Arsacids ruled as late as the fourth century ce.

At least as early as the second century bce, the Arsacids began to include in their dynastic ideology clear signs stressing their links with the tradition of the Achaemenids. These included a fictitious genealogical claim showing Arsaces I and his brother as descendants of the Persian king Artaxerxes, a legendary account of how Arsaces I and his brother rose to power (through a conspiracy made up of them and five other members, which, in replicating the circumstances and the number of participants, echoed the Persian king Darius's ascent to power), a comparison of Arsaces to Cyrus, and the use of Achaemenid titulature—starting from Mithradates I, Parthian kings sporadically, and from Mithradates II regularly, used the title “King of Kings.” Intimately connected with this tradition is the distinct political program defined under Artabanus II (although some of its tenets appeared in Arsacid propaganda much earlier) in which that ruler made claims to territories once part of the Achaemenid Empire. Such claims probably applied not only to their possessions in Asia Minor and the Middle East but to all that at one time or another had found themselves under the scepter of the kings of Persia, including those in Central Asia and on the Indian frontier. The significance of the program is not to be underestimated, for it certainly determined Parthian policies toward its neighbors for a considerable period of time. References to Iranian tradition could be seen also in other spheres of life, one example being attempts to accentuate the role of Iranian-originated Zoroastrianism in the state's religious life. The same purpose was probably served by introduction of Parthian inscriptions next to Greek on coins in the time of Vologases I. Unquestionably, the Iranism propagated by the Arsacids stemmed from a need to legitimize their rule and was an important tool in the ideological integration of the empire they built.

An important attribute of the power of the Parthian monarchs was their royal headgear. Early Parthian rulers wore a cap called a bashlyk tied with a diadem, fashioned after the headgear proper for Achaemenid-period satraps. From Mithradates I to the early years of Mithradates II's reign, the symbol of royal authority was a diadem. Later, Mithradates II began using a tiara derived from the Median tradition. It was also worn by his successors, and at a later time, as vassal thrones were occupied by members of the Arsacid dynasty, the privilege was extended to dependent rulers. An important political symbol of Parthian kingship was the golden throne of the Arsacids. Looted by the Romans from Ctesiphon during Trajan's expedition, it was never returned, despite Vologases III's appeals to Hadrian.

Institutions of the Arsacid monarchy exhibit many Greek traits borrowed from the Hellenistic tradition, which, however, left only a limited stamp on it. Therefore, despite occasionally voiced opinions that it was a barbarized form of a Hellenistic monarchy, it should be seen primarily as a typical Oriental monarchy.

An important role in shaping Arsacid royal tradition and ideology was played by several cities with which they were associated throughout their history. The first such (p. 180) center was Asaak (Astauene), established by Arsaces I, which served as the Arsacid royal necropolis. The same ruler was connected with the origins of New Nisa, a royal residence that enjoyed the special protection of successive rulers as the Arsacid birthplace up to the first century bce. At later stages, the functions of a capital city were also served by Hecatompylos, Ecbatana, Rhagae, Babylon, and Ctesiphon.

Institutions and Organization of the Arsacid Empire

A detailed scrutiny of the internal structure of the Parthian state is not possible. The reason is the limited number of historical sources and the fact that not all periods in Parthia's centuries-long history are covered in the sources that are available. As a further hindrance, those structures varied in time as the Arsacid state kept expanding. A vast empire necessitated an extended territorial administration. Its largest unit was the satrapy, which Roman authors called regnum. In the first century ce, Parthia was divided into eighteen satrapies, of which eleven, lying to the east of Armenia and the Caspian Sea, were called “upper” and the remaining seven “lower.” Their shape and extent principally reflected that of each new land conquered by the Arsacids in the course of their history. Source information suggests that typically they used for their own administrative purposes any organizational structures already existing in captured territories. In this respect, the Arsacids pursued a policy resembling that of the Seleucids, who built their administration on Achaemenid structures. Maintaining a continuity of administrative tradition and practice as preexisting in a given area and avoiding rapid changes facilitated its integration with the empire. For the same reason, Parthian rulers sometimes appointed members of local elites as officials in newly conquered lands. Rather than suggest their weak grasp of local affairs, such a policy was a deliberate and efficient method of winning the loyalties of new subjects, especially in lands where ancient traditions needed to be respected and upheld. An important element of this policy was respecting the privileges of particular social groups, especially those that helped shape the opinions and attitudes of others. This approach is exemplified by Parthian respect for the rights of priests and the autonomy of temples in Babylonia.

A somewhat different policy was pursued by Parthian rulers toward Greek cities founded by the Seleucids, under whom such settlements enjoyed considerable autonomy. This did not radically change under the Arsacids, although the history of Seleucia on the Tigris suggests that such autonomy was often the source of tensions and serious conflicts with Parthian rulers trying to restrain it. Their purpose was easier to achieve in smaller cities. As a result, they were made increasingly dependent on the king's local officials, whose authority enabled them to interfere in cities’ internal affairs, even down to elections of city administrators. As for the status of cities established by the Arsacids themselves, no evidence is available.

(p. 181) Parthian kings presided over a considerable body of specialized officials and functionaries of various levels dealing with the collection of duties and taxes and supervising local communities and administrative units. It should be noted that while provincial administration was extensive, central government was scant.

Parthian kings also had a say in the course of affairs in vassal states. Some dependent rulers voluntarily recognized Arsacid supremacy, possible reasons being dynastic, cultural, and religious links. Such lesser kings, often from local families, possessed a relatively large freedom of movement and autonomy, including the right to mint their own coin (Adiabene, Osroene). Not infrequently, however, some rulers of lands in the Parthian sphere of influence (Elymais, Characene) were made to recognize Arsacid domination by force. This method did not always bring lasting political effects. Weakness exhibited by some Parthian kings and internal crises that rocked the Arsacid empire provided encouragement to local leaders to seek political independence time and time again. Some of these attempts led to more or less long-lived success. Yet despite strong centrifugal tendencies, the Parthian state ultimately succeeded in maintaining unity even at the most precarious junctures of its history.

Our knowledge of the Parthian army is still highly limited, as we have no detailed records of its numbers and organization. We may only suppose that at least in some satrapies—those most vulnerable to unrest or aggression by a neighbor, or of vital importance for other reasons—it employed a military administration fashioned after Seleucid solutions, headed by a high-ranking officer commanding a number of troops and resorting to local draft whenever need arose.

When the Arsacids took to arms in offensive or defensive action, they mobilized an army centered on units supplied by grand aristocratic families. Its thrusting force depended mainly on cavalry composed of two historically well-documented formations, the cataphractari, or heavily armored cavalry, and mounted archers whose mobility and long-range combat capability made them formidable opponents, as the Romans found out to their chagrin in the battle of Carrhae. Infantry was of much lesser use on the vast plains of Mesopotamia, Iran, and Central Asia, and accordingly it played a secondary role in the Parthian military, probably mostly confined to defense of fortresses.

Mercenary forces served a marginal function in the Parthian army. While the Arsacids often resorted to the deployment of such troops, they did so only in particularly dire circumstances when their own forces proved insufficient to defend themselves, or if they met with a refusal from a vassal. In offensive operations, however, mercenaries played no part. On occasion, mutinies erupting in mercenary ranks occasioned serious difficulties.

Society

A picture of the complex social relations in the multicultural and multiethnic society of the Arsacid Empire is difficult to reconstruct for want of a sufficient number of sources covering this subject. Another serious obstacle is the ambiguity, even (p. 182) contradiction, of notions applied by antique authors with reference to the Parthian society. The terms they use are more fitting for the type of relations familiar to them from Rome than descriptive of Parthian society, which was different in many respects.

As the period of great expansion had reached its end, the Arsacid Empire probably developed a model of social relations that was to some extent common to all its lands as it reflected the outcome of all the Parthian conquests, because the kings, at the expense of the vanquished, generously rewarded all those that had contributed to their successes. This policy helped not only to reinforce Parthian rule but to raise the prestige of Parthian higher social orders. Their privileged status led to the growth of several powerful and extremely rich aristocratic clans who held sway in their respective lands and exerted potent influence on the life of the country and its monarchs. The best known families include Suren, connected with Sistan; Karin, based in Media; and Gev, dominating in Hyrcania. Members of these families enjoyed a guaranteed inherited place of significance at the king's side. As an exceptional honor this might include, for example, the privilege of placing the tiara on a newly crowned monarch's head. With the passage of time, representatives of grand families began to play a decisive role in feuds and struggles between pretenders to the Arsacid crown and in conflicts between the rulers and aristocracy. Out of their number came advisors, military commanders, and the highest officers of state. Upon being commissioned as a commander, an aristocrat thus honored was obliged to supply and organize an army whose core were usually soldiers recruited from his vassals and subjects.

The close ties between individual grand families and the lands in which their domains lay largely affected their political choices. This phenomenon became manifest from the first century bce, for then the first open conflicts occurred between Parthian rulers and aristocrats. They were born out of the ambitions of some aristocrats to usurp power, out of attempts by Orodes II, Phraates IV, and others to suppress political opposition and to limit the vast privileges the aristocracy enjoyed. In such confrontations, some groups among the aristocracy, those associated with western, Hellenized lands in the Parthian Empire, sought to obtain the support of Rome. Another example of political strife is visible in uprisings by clans linked with Iran and eastern satrapies motivated by an anxiety to maintain the national character of the monarchy against the successive sons of Phraates IV on the Arsacid throne who had returned to the fatherland after a prolonged stay in Rome, where they had become so enamored of the charms of Roman culture as to abandon completely the ways of their predecessors. It was no accident that the Iranism of the Arsacids found the greatest resonance and support among the aristocracies of the eastern, or “upper,” satrapies. Their cultivation of Iranian customs was an important element in their aristocratic ethos.

Of other groups in the Parthian society, their composition, rights, and obligations, we know very little. It is assumed that native inhabitants of Parthia, who made up the lower social orders, still stood higher in the social hierarchy than their equivalents (p. 183) in Parthian-conquered lands. The subjects’ legal status defined the type of military formation in which they served. Members of the higher orders joined the cataphractari, the heavy cavalry. Their vassals fought as mounted archers, a formation highly effective on the battlefield. Although slaves must have constituted a large social group, little can be discerned about their place and role in the Parthian society.

Apart from information concerning the social organization of the Parthians themselves, sources supply considerable data on two ethnic groups that played a prominent part in the empire's life. One was the Greek population that found itself under the scepter of the Arsacids as they conquered territories previously included in the Seleucid state; the other was Jews. Among the Parthian Greeks, the largest group consisted of the descendants of Greeks and Macedonians settled in the east from the time of Alexander the Great's expedition. Other than these, there were also all those who had become Hellenized and identified with Greek culture and tradition. In the Parthian empire, the Greek population numbered at least several hundred thousand. Owing to its size and sense of cultural identity, it was an especially significant minority. Its geographical spread across the empire's territory was uneven. Its largest centers were located in lands in which settlement under the Seleucids had been the strongest and in highly urbanized areas. Such regions especially included Media, Mesopotamia, and Susiana.

The largest population center and the greatest Greek city was Seleucia on the Tigris, the third largest city of the ancient world, numbering 600,000 inhabitants at its peak. Although not all inhabitants were of that nationality, a concentration of power in the city made the Greeks the dominant force culturally and politically. Thanks to this, Seleucia retained its Greek character until the collapse of the Parthian state. Their monopoly of power the Greeks owed to the autonomy that the city obtained from the Seleucids and preserved under the Arsacids. Mithradates I, shortly after capturing the city in 141 bce, not only confirmed earlier charters but granted the city new ones. Yet despite that, a number of times in the following century Seleucia manifested its independence by taking the side of various pretenders to the throne, and Vardanes I (ca. 39–45 ce) subdued it in 42 only after more than six years of siege. A sign of the city's exceptional legal status was its right to issue its own coinage.

In smaller centers, the situation of the Greek populace was also advantageous, since in rivalries between various groups it could effectively defend its privileged position. That the Arsacids fully recognized its importance and sought to curry its favor is best exemplified by Mithradates I's inclusion in his official royal titulature of the honorific title Philhellên; in his wake, many of his successors did the same. Although the real function of this title is still debated by researchers, it is difficult to accept the view that its adoption by Parthian kings was purely a propaganda stunt; some Arsacids did not use it at all, while others included it in their titulature years after ascending to the throne. Another sign of Greek importance is seen on Parthian coins bearing legends in their language. Yet despite such favorable Arsacid attitudes and cooperative spirit, Greeks were slow to discard their bias against a nation they regarded as full of barbarians. Such attitudes caused tensions that sometimes culminated in bloody conflicts.

(p. 184) One reason Parthian kings were forced to humor Greeks was their vital role in the empire's economy. At the same time, realizing the excessive preponderance of large Greek cities in their state, the Arsacids made renewed attempts to curb their autonomy. Their interference in the municipal autonomy of Seleucia brought limited results, which made them seek other courses of action. When attempts to limit Seleucia's privileges failed, Parthian kings began founding other cities meant to compete with it and diminish its economic position. It was with such a scheme in mind that Vologases I set up the city of Vologesias. Such foundations, located along Mesopotamia's main trade routes, were intended to capture as great a share of business as possible, to the detriment of Seleucia. Source records from the first and second centuries ce confirm that the Arsacids were largely successful in achieving their purpose. Seleucia on the Tigris was taken a further few pegs down by the Romans, who three times in the second century ce captured and plundered it, inflicting heavy damage to its material substance and debilitating the Greeks to the advantage of the Oriental element.

Sources have little to say about the place of Jews in the Arsacid Empire. Jewish subjects of Parthian kings were the descendants of Judeans deported to Mesopotamia in 587 bce. Although Persian rulers allowed them to return to their native land, a considerable group decided to stay in the new country. As to the size of the Jewish population of the Arsacid Empire, it is clear that they were far less numerous than Parthian Greeks. Jews, like Greeks, inhabited urban as well as rural areas. Rivalries for rights in the cities sometimes led the two nationalities to conflict. Any such tensions were skillfully taken advantage of by the Parthian authorities, who, in showing favor to the Jews, hoped for their support in clashes with other ethnic minorities, especially with the Greeks. There were also other, political reasons that the Jews readily cooperated with the Arsacids. They perceived them as the only power capable of standing against Rome, and pinned on Parthia their hopes of regaining the independent statehood they lost in 63 bce when Rome annexed Syria, subordinating Judea in the process. This attitude explains why Jews rose against Rome during Trajan's campaign, largely contributing to its failure.

In return for their loyalty, the Jewish population obtained the right to have a government of its own. Moreover, the Arsacids readily offered shelter to Jews fleeing Roman rule. Such favorable attitudes were conducive to the growth of the Jewish community. Thus, after the Romans demolished the temple at Jerusalem in 70 ce, Parthian Mesopotamia became an important center of Judaic tradition.

Culture

Any attempt to characterize the Parthian culture encounters numerous problems, arising out of the variety of elements that constituted it and also from the fact that cultural phenomena in respective lands in the Arsacid Empire are known in varying (p. 185) degrees. For many years, the main problem that caused disputes among scholars was defining the characteristics of Parthian art. Such a difficulty arose because attempts at a definition were made based primarily on relics discovered outside the native Parthian areas in centers that were merely in the Parthian orbit of influence, Palmyra, Dura-Europos, Hatra, and Assur. Based on such finds, the Parthian art was declared to be spiritualist, hieratic, linear, verist, and frontal. Discoveries at Old and New Nisa, as well as in Anatolia, Central Asia, Iran, and Afghanistan, obliged scholars to revise some earlier opinions. More important than strictly formal criteria, it became necessary to define the principal components of this art. Regarding it from this angle, it became possible to indicate at least three major ones: Greek (Hellenistic), Iranian derived from Achaemenid traditions, and Iranian associated with the world of nomads from which the Parthians’ ancestors, the Parni, had descended. Still, significant regional differences were observed in the proportions in which these constituents occurred. Depending on which of them prevailed in a given area, it was accentuated in the style and character of works created there.

The most outstanding relicts of Parthian art known today come from excavations at Old and New Nisa, where archeologists have discovered not only exceptionally valuable works of art (ivory rhytons, marble sculptures, terracotta statues, richly decorated metal utensils) but also imposing remains of palatial and residential architecture. Research conducted in Turkmenistan, ancient Hyrcania, and Khuzistan has revealed many remains of Parthian religious and residential architecture, especially in small towns and medium-sized cities, and also in rural settlements. The temples of Hatra occupy a place all their own among Parthia's historical monuments.

Rock reliefs, found mainly in Elymais, are deemed characteristic of Parthian art. Dating back to Achaemenid traditions, they are considered a precious historical source, as figures are usually accompanied by inscriptions. Representative examples of Parthian sculpture are statues of Hatra and a metal figure of a ruler found at Shami.

Just as material culture offered rich variety, so did forms of intellectual life. Sources permit us to state that Arsacid tolerance enabled respective ethnic groups under their rule to freely develop their cultures. Greeks inhabiting Babylon late in the second century bce lived according to native social, cultural, and religious traditions; they frequented the theater and the gymnasium, met at the agora, and experienced the enthusiasms of sports events. They could listen to the philosophical lectures of the stoic Archedemus in his own school. Greek men of letters under the Arsacid scepter included the geographer Isidore of Charax and historians Agathocles of Babylon and Apollodorus of Artemita. Nor did Greek culture benefit Greeks alone. Classical Greek literature was known and perused at the Arsacid court as well. The Greek language was among the most widely used in the Parthian empire, including at the royal chancery.

One phenomenon that well illustrates the cultural wealth of the Arsacid state was the functioning of old religious centers in Babylonia. They were exceptional not so much in the vitality of the cultic practices performed in them to the land's deities (p. 186) as in astronomical diaries recorded in cuneiform writing, uninterrupted from the creation of the Neo-Babylonian state. The last preserved records come from the first century bce.


What with local differences and the variety of its forms, content, and inspirations, Parthian culture evades any attempts at a simple, unambiguous classification. It faithfully reflected the nature of the empire of the Arsacids, who united under their scepter a great many peoples, but never managed—or wanted—to impose on them a uniform style and model of culture, which enabled those ethnic groups to maintain their own identities and allowed them to pursue their native cultural traditions.