Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/624

 596 PERSIA [PARTHIAN 66-53 B.C. Meantime Phraates had occupied the Parthian conquests of Tigranes, which the Romans had promised him, and invaded Corduene (Beth-Kardo, now Jezirat bent Omar), whence he sent an embassy to Pompey to intercede for his son-in-law. But the Romans had no further occasion for Parthian help ; and, instead of granting his request, Pompey commanded him to leave Corduene, and followed up the command by sending Afranius to clear the coun try and restore it to Tigranes. Immediately afterwards Pompey s officer marched into Syria through Mesopotamia, which by treaty had been expressly recognized as Parthian ; and it was another grievous insult that Pompey in writing to Phraates had withheld from him the style of &quot; king of kings.&quot; This no doubt was done out of regard to Tigranes, who claimed the sole right to the title, and had probably enforced his claim upon the weak predecessors of Phraates. Of the four subordinate kingships, the patronage of which was held to give a right to the title, Atropatene, Adiabene, Corduene are known, and the fourth was probably Or- rhoene. All these had once stood under Parthian suzerainty, and, now that Phraates had recovered the lost territory of his predecessors including these states, he resumed, as his coins show, the proud title which had dropped since the days of Mithradates I., and to which Tigranes had lost his real claim. Nevertheless Phraates at first contented him self with again sending a fruitless embassy to demand that Pompey would observe the treaty and acknowledge the Euphrates as the Parthian frontier, and it was only when Pompey had gone to Syria (6-4) that he again attacked and defeated Tigranes. Pompey declined to interfere by force and burden himself with a Parthian war while Mithradates of Pontus was still under arms, but, as both sides appealed to him, he sent umpires to settle the dis pute (which probably turned on the possession of Cor duene), and a peaceable solution was effected. 1 The Romans had done more than enough to irritate Parthia and not enough to inspire respect, but, as the Parthians were only beginning to recover from the inner and outer troubles of the last two decennia, they were not yet prepared to enter on a struggle with Rome. For a century and a half up to the death of Mithradates the Great there had been an unusual degree of unity in the house of the Arsacids ; but the corruptions to which every Eastern dynasty ultimately falls a prey appeared at length. About 57 Phraates, the restorer of the empire, Orodes I. was murdered by his two sons, one of whom, Orodes or Hyrodes I. (Zend, Huraodha took the throne, while his brother Mithradates III. got Media ; 2 but the latter ruled so cruelly that he was expelled by the Parthian nobles, and Orodes reigned alone. Mithradates, with a loyal follower, Orsanes, fled to Gabinius, proconsul of Syria, who had already crossed the Euphrates to restore him by force when he was summoned by Pompey to restore Ptolemy XI. to the throne of Egypt (55). Mithradates, dismissed by the Romans, now tried what he could do without help. Orodes had at first to flee, but soon regained his position, mainly through the help of Surenas, a young noble who had the hereditary right of croAvning the king, and was the second person in the empire in point of wealth, nobility, and 1 Dio, using in xxxvii. 6 a different source from that which lay before him at xxxvi. 51, has not observed that the former recapitulates the whole story from the beginning, including the rebellion and defeat of the younger Tigranes as related above. 2 This is Dio s account, and, though other writers dissent, it is justified by the coins. The coins of Arsaces Philopator (or Theopator) Euergetes Epiphanes Philhellen belong to Mithradates, not, as Gardner thinks, to his father, for Theopator denotes a king whose father was Arsaces Theos, and these coins call him only &quot; great king, &quot; while Orodes ( Arsaees Philo pator or Euergetes Dicaios Epiphanes Philhellen) is called &quot;king of kings.&quot; Both princes, it will be observed, ultimately give up the title of Philopator, which marks them as colleagues or recognized heirs of their father, an indirect confirmation of their guilt as parricides. influence, and the first in courage and political skill. Surenas took Seleucia by storm ; Babylon received Mithra dates, but was reduced by famine ; Mithradates then sur rendered to his brother and was killed before his eyes. These events carry us far into the year 54. Meantime Crassus, hoping for a rich and easy prey, Cam- had invaded Mesopotamia without a shadow of pretext, paign of had defeated a small Parthian force at Ichmv, and occu- ( - rassu s- pied a number of large towns, such as Nicephorium, Ichnse, Carrhai, whose Greek inhabitants welcomed the Romans as liberators. As Mithradates was at this time in arms in Babylonia, we can understand why Crassus was blamed for a grave error of judgment in not march ing direct from Nicephorium on Seleucia and Babylon (Plut., Crassus, 17). Instead of this, he retired to winter- quarters in Syria, leaving 7000 foot and 1000 horse to garrison the Mesopotamia]! cities. Thus his hands were tied for the following campaign, and he could not accept the invitation of Artavasdes II. of Armenia to advance through his country and have his co-operation. A Par thian embassy appeared in Syria in spring to remonstrate against the faithlessness of Rome, but at the same time the Parthians were ready for war. Surenas, with Silaces, satrap of Mesopotamia, was pressing the Roman garrisons, and prepared to confront Crassus with an army wholly composed of cavalry, Avhile Orodes in person invaded Armenia. In the spring of 53 Crassus crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma with seven legions and 8000 cavalry and light troops, making up a total of 42,000 or 43,000 men, 3 and was persuaded by Abgar of Orrhoene to leave the river and march straight across the plains against Surenas. At mid day, 6th May (9th June as the calendar then stood) the Romans had crossed the Balissus (Nahr Belik) and met Surenas half way between Carrhse and Ichnrc, or a little nearer the latter town. They were not, therefore, in the desert as the older account represents for it begins be yond the Chaboras. 4 Surenas kept the mass of his troops concealed by a wooded hill, showing only the not very numerous vanguard of cataphracts till the Romans were committed to do battle. The Roman cavalry under Publius Crassus, son of the proconsul, charged the enemy to pre vent a threatening flank movement, and were drawn away from the mass of the army by the favourite Parthian man oeuvre of a simulated flight, and then surrounded and cut to pieces. The mass of the Roman host lost courage at this disaster, and already had suffered terrible loss from the light-armed hordes of Parthian serfs who hovered round the enemy at a safe distance and galled it with arrows shot with deadly precision. The legionaries serried their ranks and covered themselves with their shields ; but in this close order they were easily broken by the charge of the Parthian freemen with their long heavy lances and almost impenetrable suits of complete armour. The heat, too, thirst, and dust oppressed the Romans, and this first day would have decided their fate but that the Parthians withdrew before evening, true to their rule of encamping 3 Florus says eleven legions and Appian 100,000 men ; but Appian has made the mistake of adding to the legion its auxiliaries and count ing the whole at the higher footing adopted under the empire. Seven such legions with the 8000 cavalry and light troops, and the 8000 men in garrison, make up his total. For the campaign of Crassus we have two independent narratives preserved in Plutarch and Dio ; Plutarch s is the older account, full of colour and valuable detail, but larking in topographical precision ; in this respect Dio s source is much to be preferred but it has suffered from that author s somewhat arbitrary way of meddling with his materials. The accounts based on Livy (Periodic lib., 106; Florus, iii. 11 ; Festus Ruftis, Ercii., 17, and Orosius, - i. 13) agree in all essential points with Plutarch, who, how ever, dra vs not from Livy but from some Greek writer, perhaps Nicolaus of Damascus. 4 Plutarch himself speaks of marshes (cap. 25) ; the only modern account that agrees with the facts is that of G. Kawlinson, p. 163 sq.