In the Name of Rome or, Britannicus Lives!

800px-Parther_reich.jpg


hb_32.145a,b.jpg


Recap: Regnum Parthorum - The Arsacid Dynasty of Parthian Persia


250 BCE - 60 CE


The Parthian Empire (247 BC – 224 CE IOTL), also known as the Arsacid Empire, was a major Persian political and cultural power in ancient Iran better known as ancient Persia. Its latter name comes from Arsaces I of Parthia who, as leader of the Parni tribe, founded it in the mid-3rd century BCE when he conquered the Parthia region in Persia's northeast, then a satrapy (province) in rebellion against the Seleucid Empire. Mithridates I of Parthia (r. c. 171–138 BCE) greatly expanded the empire by seizing Media and Mesopotamia from the Seleucids. At its height, the Parthian Empire stretched from the northern reaches of the Euphrates, in what is now south-eastern Turkey, to eastern Iran. The empire, located on the Silk Road trade route between the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean Basin and Han Empire of China, became a center of trade and commerce. The Parthians largely adopted the art, architecture, religious beliefs, and royal insignia of their culturally heterogeneous empire, which encompassed Persian, Hellenistic, and regional cultures. For about the first half of its existence, the Arsacid court adopted elements of Greek culture, though it eventually saw a gradual revival of Iranian traditions. The Arsacid rulers were titled the "King of Kings", as a claim to be the heirs to the Achaemenid Empire; indeed, they accepted many local kings as vassals where the Achaemenids would have had centrally appointed, albeit largely autonomous, satraps. The court did appoint a small number of satraps, largely outside Iran, but these satrapies were smaller and less powerful than the Achaemenid potentates. With the expansion of Arsacid power, the seat of central government shifted from Nisa, Turkmenistan to Ctesiphon along the Tigris (south of modern Baghdad, Iraq), although several other sites also served as capitals. The earliest enemies of the Parthians were the Seleucids in the west and the Scythians in the east. However, as Parthia expanded westward, they came into conflict with the Kingdom of Armenia, and eventually the late Roman Republic. Rome and Parthia competed with each other to establish the kings of Armenia as their subordinate clients. The Parthians soundly defeated Marcus Licinius Crassus at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE, and in 40–39 BCE, Parthian forces captured the whole of the Levant, excepting Tyre, from the Romans. However, Mark Antony led a counterattack against Parthia, although his success were generally achieved in his absence, under the leadership of his lieutenant Ventidius. Also, various Roman emperors or their appointed generals invaded Mesopotamia, in the course of the several Roman-Parthian Wars, which ensued during the next few centuries. The Romans captured the cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon on multiple occasions during these conflicts, but were never able to hold onto them. Frequent civil war between Parthian contenders to the throne proved more dangerous than foreign invasion, and Parthian power evaporated when Ardashir I, ruler of Estakhr in Fars, revolted against the Arsacids and killed their last ruler, Artabanus IV, in 224 CE OTL. Ardashir established the Sassanid Empire, which ruled Iran and much of the Near East until the Muslim conquests of the 7th century CE, although the Arsacid dynasty lived on through the Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia. Native Parthian sources, written in Parthian, Greek and other languages, are scarce when compared to Sassanid and even earlier Achaemenid sources. Aside from scattered cuneiform tablets, fragmentary ostraca, rock inscriptions, drachma coins, and the chance survival of some parchment documents, much of Parthian history is only known through external sources. These include mainly Greek and Roman histories, but also Chinese histories prompted by the market for Chinese goods in Parthia. Parthian artwork is viewed by historians as a valid source for understanding aspects of society and culture that are otherwise absent in textual sources.

drafeasvaran.png


Arsacid%20Parthian%20Horse%20Archers%20Invasion%201%20BC.jpg


Part I - The Origins of the Parthian Hordes - Offshoots of the Dahae Confederation

Our sources on the ancestry of the eponymous founder of the dynasty, Arsaces, vary irreconcilably. He is introduced as a bandit who seized Parthia by attacking and killing its satrap, Andragoras; as a Bactrian who found the rise of Diodotus unbearable, moved to Parthia, and securing the leadership of the province, rose against the Seleucids; or as a Parni chief of the Dahae Sacians, who conquered Parthia shortly before Diodotus’ revolt. A fourth account alleges that “the Persian” Andragoras whom Alexander left as satrap of Parthia was the ancestor of the subsequent kings of Parthia. A fifth version had been provided by Arrian in his Parthica, now lost, which was epitomized on this point by Photius (Bibliotheca 58) and the twelfth-century Syncellus. Photius’ epitome runs as follows: “Arsaces and Tiridates were brothers, descendants of Phriapites, the son of Arsaces [Syncellus: the brothers “were allegedly descendants of the Persian Artaxerxes”]. Pherecles [Syncellus: Agathocles], who had been made satrap of their country by Antiochus Theus, offered a gross insult to one of them, whereupon ... they took five men into counsel, and with their aid slew the insolent one. They then induced their nation to revolt from the Macedonians and set up a government of their own.” Finally, the Iranian national history traced Arsaces’ lineage to Kay Qobād, or to his son Kay Āraš, or to Dārā the son of Homāy, or even to the famous archer, Āraš. These reports reflect developments in political ideologies. Humble origin and robbery are folkstories told also of Cyrus, Sāsān, and other dynastic heroes. The association with Āraš the archer was occasioned by similarity in names and the fact that Arsaces is figured on Parthian coins as a bowman, although the bow was always regarded as a royal symbol. “The Persian Artaxerxes” in Syncellus has generally been taken to mean Artaxerxes II because Ctesias said that he was called Arsaces prior to his coronation. But this ignores the fact that Artaxerxes I also was called Aršak/Arsaces, Babylonian Aršu (A. Sachs, “Achaemenid Royal Names in Babylonian Astronomical Texts,” American Journal of Ancient History 4, 1979, pp. 131ff.). The tradition that Arsaces was a Parni chief is supported, as R. N. Frye has noticed, according to which Dastān (= Zāl), “Prince of the Sacas” and Aparnak, Lord of Aparšahr (later Nīšāpūr) were descendants of Sām: “Aparšahr is thus named because it is the land of the Aparnak” (corrected translation in Frye, loc. cit., with n. 3). By the middle of the third century B.C., the Parni appear to have been assimilated to the Iranian Parthians: They adopted the latter’s name, bore purely Iranian—even Zoroastrian—names. On his coins, Arsaces wears Sacian dress but sits on a stool (later ampholas) with a bow in hand, as Achaemenid satraps, such as Datames, had done before. He deliberately diverges from Seleucid coins to emphasize his nationalistic and royal aspirations, and he calls himself Kārny/Karny (Greek Autocratos), a title already borne by Achaemenid supreme generals, such as Cyrus the Younger. Later Parthian kings assumed Achaemenid descent, revived Achaemenid protocols, and Artabanus III, who named one of his sons Darius, laid claim to Cyrus’ heritage. On the whole, then, onomastic, numismatic, and epigraphic considerations point to the conclusion that the Parthian dynasty was “local, Iranian by origin;” on this ground “the Zoroastrian character of all the names of the Parthian kings, and the fact that some of these names... belong to the "heroic background" of the Avesta,” afford logical explanation.

The rise of the Arsacids is closely linked to the history of another dynasty, that of the Seleucids (q.v.). After 308 B.C. its founder, Seleucus I, had conquered the eastern part of Iran and also, after the battle of Ipsus (301 B.C.), annexed large portions of Syria. In the following decades the Seleucids were mostly to concentrate their interest and their power on the western half of their vast kingdom, particularly as a result of their struggles against the Lagids for dominance in Syria. This led to the Seleucids losing large parts of their Iranian possessions within a period of roughly fifteen years from 250 to 235 B.C. (Although there is some dispute amongst historians as to the chronological sequence of events, it is at least agreed that they occurred within this span of time.) The most important role during this period was played by the Parni, an Iranian tribe belonging to the Dahae who, according to the ancient writers, lived in the territories between the Oxus and the Jaxartes at the time of Alexander the Great. About the end of the fourth or at the latest by the middle of the third century B.C. the Parni had advanced as far as the frontiers of the Seleucid kingdom, whether in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea or on the river Tejen (Turkmenistan). The movements of the Parni and Dahae, beginning in the area between the Oxus and the Jaxartes and ending in the immediate vicinity of the Seleucid satrapy of Parthava, are difficult to reconstruct and therefore a matter of dispute among historians. Around 250 B.C. at any rate, the Parni, under their leader Arsaces, penetrated into the Astauene, that is to say probably into the territory along the Atrek valley. Shortly afterwards, probably ca. 247 B.C., Arsaces was proclaimed king in Asaak, the exact location of which has still to be identified. This event, it is widely assumed, marks the beginning of the Arsacid era. In about 245 B.C., during the reign of the Seleucid monarch Seleucus II (r. 246-25 B.C.), Andragoras, the Seleucid satrap of the province of Parthava, made himself independent. Soon afterwards, ca. 239 B.C., his example was followed by Diodotus, satrap of Bactria, a Seleucid satrapy which was to play a significant role for more than a hundred years as the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. The reasons for the defection of these two satrapies in such rapid succession are not known, nor is the extent to which the inhabitants, i.e. Macedonians, Greeks, and the natives, participated in the rebellions. At any rate, the Parni exploited the defection of these two eastern provinces of the Seleucid kingdom by launching an invasion into Parthia, ca. 238 B.C., in the course of which Andragoras met his death. Shortly afterwards they also occupied Hyrcania. It is likely that the term Parthians was applied to the Parni during this period after their occupation of the satrapy of Parthava and subsequently, no doubt, they came to use the designation themselves. Originally, therefore, Parthava is to be understood as a geographical term; then, in the form “Parthian,” it became the name of a people when the Parni invaders started to extend their kingdom. The Seleucids did not mount a counter-campaign in the east until the year 231-27 B.C., by which time it was already too late. Above all else it failed because unrest in Asia Minor soon forced Seleucus II to break off operations. Fully two decades passed before the great Seleucid ruler Antiochus III made a renewed attempt, ca. 209 B.C., to regain the Parthian and Greco-Bactrian territories, but this, too, was a failure. Although he was able to register a certain degree of success, in the end the warring parties concluded treaties, according to which the Parthians and Greco-Bactrians nominally recognized the Seleucids as overlords, but the letter conceded de facto independence to the two kingdoms. In the Parthian kingdom itself, from 217 B.C. onwards, Arsaces I had been succeeded by his son Arsaces II. Very little is known of events during the reign of Arsaces II or those of his successors Phriapatius (ca. 191-ca. 76 B.C.) and Phraates I (ca. 176-ca. 71 B.C.), but it is certainly true to say that their small kingdom had consolidated its position on the shores of the Caspian Sea.

Part II - The Rise and Conflicts of The Parthian Empire

The next ruler, Mithridates I, ushered in that great and decisive epoch in the history of his people during which Parthia rose to become a major power in the Ancient East. This Mithridates and his successors achieved in a series of campaigns against the Seleucids and later the Romans in the west, and in the east against the Greco-Bactrian kingdom and the nomadic peoples who again and again emerged from the steppes between the Oxus and the Jaxartes. More source materials are available for this period in Parthian history than for the initial phase, but the exact chronology of events is still in many ways unclear. The first campaign of Mithridates I was probably directed against the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (between 160 and 155 B.C.) with the aim of reconquering the territories that had been lost in that region during the reign of Arsaces I, especially the area around Nisa. What is certain is that the Parthians then conquered Media in the second half of 148 B.C. On the evidence of a cuneiform text it is also known that by 12 October 141, Mithridates’ power was recognized as far afield as the ancient Sumerian city Uruk in southern Mesopotamia. Shortly before this he had had himself crowned king in Seleucia. It is also possible that the capital was transferred to Ctesiphon as early as his reign. Not long afterwards the Parthians were for the first but not the last time forced to defend themselves against a fierce attack by nomads, possibly the Sakas, in the east. Mithridates took personal command of the campaign, even though the Seleucids were just then making ready to reconquer Mesopotamia. Presumably he considered the adversary in the east to be the more dangerous, an assessment of the situation which subsequent events confirmed as correct. The invasion in the northeast was successfully repulsed, then the Seleucid ruler Demetrius II, after making initial gains, was taken prisoner. Shortly before his death in 139/8 B.C. Mithridates also went on to conquer Elymais. His greatest achievement had been to make the Parthians a world power. It seems quite probable, as J. Wolski has suggested, that the western policies of the Parthian king were based on a strategy involving not only the conquest of Mesopotamia but also the subsequent overthrow of Syria in order to gain access to the Mediterranean. Certainly, the exploits of Mithridates can no longer simply be classified as a series of raids for the purpose of pillaging and capturing booty. His son and successor, Phraates II (ca. 139/8-ca. 28 B.C.) had to face the final, fruitless attempt on the part of the Seleucids to regain their power in the east. In 130 B.C., his adversary Antiochus VII Sidetes (139/8-29 B.C.) gained fairly substantially—reconquering Babylonia and Media, but soon afterwards the inhabitants of the Seleucid garrison towns revolted and allied themselves with the Parthians. The Seleucids then suffered a crushing defeat and Antiochus VII himself met his death. From this point on the Seleucid kingdom effectively ceased to be a rival for the Parthians. For their part, however, the Parthians were unable to rejoice in the victory for long because in the next few years they were again forced to come to terms with the nomads on their eastern frontier. As a result of the movements of the Huns in inner Asia various nomadic peoples began to appear in the region of the Oxus approximately during the period 133-129 B.C. The most important ones were the Yüeh-chih, who conquered the Greco-Bactrian kingdom and founded the empire of the Kushans (q.v.), the Sakas, and the Massagetae who turned against the Parthian empire. Both Phraates II and his successor Artabanus I (ca. 127-24/3) lost their lives in the course of these struggles. In addition to this, Hyspaosines, the ruler of the newly-founded kingdom of Characene in southern Mesopotamia, conquered fairly large parts of Mesopotamia, reaching as far up as Babylon. Under these difficult circumstances Mithridates II (ca. 124/3-88/7 B.C.), one of the most outstanding ruling figures of the ancient East, ascended the throne. First, he succeeded in defeating Hyspaosines (ca. 122/1), then he made the northern Mesopotamian kingdoms of Adiabene, Gordyene, and Osrhoene into vassal states, and conquered Dura-Europos in 113 B.C. Then he established contact between Parthia and Armenia (ca. 97 B.C.), deposed King Artavasdes and replaced him with his son Tigranes on the throne, in exchange for which he received “seventy valleys”. The two countries were henceforth to be in virtually constant contact with one another, whether on a friendly or a hostile basis. Mithridates II, known as “the Great” and from ca. 109/8 B.C. assuming the title “King of Kings,” also presided over events of a more peaceful nature. Around 115 B.C. he was visited by an embassy from the Chinese emperor Wu-ti, and the two rulers reached an agreement on the opening of the trade route later known as the “Silk Road.” A meeting also took place with Rome, the major world power in the West, on the Euphrates in 96 B.C. not in 92 B.C. as hitherto accepted. The Parthian ambassador Orobazos offered Sulla, the propraetor of the province of Cilicia, the “friendship” and “alliance” of his master. Though the exact outcome of this meeting is unclear, the agreements with China and Rome prove Parthia’s rise to world status. Even Mithridates II, however, soon came up against an internal problem which was eventually to prove a contributory factor in the downfall of the Parthian empire: the power and influence of the Parthian nobility, represented by a few great families, were from now on in a position to oppose the monarch frequently. The ancient writers characterize this period as a “time of internal disorder,” an indication of how difficult it is to reconstruct events precisely. One can not discount reports that Mithridates II had to contend at the end of his reign with a rival monarch called Gotarzes, probably the same Gotarzes who is depicted on the well-known bas-relief in Bīsotūn.

Disorder persisted after the death of Mithridates II in 88/7 B.C., and the Armenians seized the opportunity to reconquer the “seventy valleys” they had ceded to the Parthians. At this time a series of monarchs ruled in the Parthian empire, such as Gotarzes, Orodes I, Sinatruces, and Phraates III, of whom little more than names is known. Also Orodes and Mithridates, sons of Phraates III, who struggled for power after having murdered their father, are obscure figures. In 54/3 B.C. Mithridates defeated his brother, averting a fraternal strife, which would surely have diminished the chances of success in the impending great conflict with Rome. The Romans had no real reason to seek conflict. Its main cause lay rather in the ambition of Crassus. At the end of 60 B.C. or the beginning of 59 B.C. Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus had established an alliance, the so-called “triumvirate” in Rome, and shortly afterwards (55 B.C.) control of the province of Syria had been assigned to Crassus with special powers. He wanted to use this position to enhance his standing and authority by fighting a war against the Parthians. Even in Rome opinion was against such a campaign. Nevertheless, at the end of 55 B.C. Crassus marched off to Syria, where he arrived in the late spring of 54 B.C., and set out for Mesopotamia in the spring of 53 B.C. At this time the Romans knew little about the Parthians and their army, which explains why Crassus “in addition to the campaign itself, which was the greatest mistake of all” (Plutarch, Crassus 17), made every other conceivable mistake. At the beginning of May, 53 B.C. Crassus and his Roman army fell into a trap set by the Parthians under their young commander Surena at Carrhae. Roughly one half of the Roman army of about 40,000 men, including Crassus and his son perished, 10,000 men were made captive, and only ten thousand were able to escape. This victory produced a mighty echo amongst the peoples of the East without however causing any decisive shift in the balance of power. As for Surena, the victor of Carrhae, it soon cost him his life. Probably fearing that he would constitute a threat to himself, King Orodes II had him executed. In the next few years the Parthians proved incapable of exploiting their victory, even when, after 50 B.C., the Romans were preoccupied with the conflicts between Pompey and Caesar and the subsequent civil war. Not until 41 B.C. or the start of 40 B.C. did the Parthians launch a major attack. Their army was led by Pacorus, son of Orodes, and the Roman, Quintus Labienus, who had been sent as an ambassador by Cassius, the Roman commander in chief in Syria, to conduct negotiations at the Parthian court and had remained there after the defeat of the republicans in the Roman civil war. At the outset the Parthian attack was crowned with success: Labienus conquered large parts of Asia Minor, while Pacorus occupied Syria and Palestine. Soon, however, the situation changed. Mounting a counterattack in the year 39 B.C., the Romans defeated first Labienus and then Pacorus, who both lost their lives. The death of his son Pacorus caused Orodes to appoint his eldest son Phraates IV (ca. 40-3/2) as successor. This was to prove a fatal error because Phraates murdered not only his father and brothers but also his own son and persecuted the nobility, many of whom left the country. The Romans under Antony saw an opportunity to attack the Parthians when the latter rejected a peace offer, coupled with a demand to hand back the Roman standards and captives taken at Carrhae, and Antony began the war in 36 B.C. According to Plutarch he marched with 100,000 men across Armenia to Media. But this campaign, too, was destined to fail. The Parthians inflicted a crushing defeat on the Roman rearguard, destroying the siege engines, while Antony, marching on ahead with the main body of his troops, started to besiege Phraata (Phraaspa), the exact location of which remains unknown. The widely-held suggestion that it is identical with Taḵt-e Solaymān to the southeast of Lake Urmia, where excavations have been carried out by the German Archeological Institute since 1959, is unproven. Because his Armenian auxiliaries had withdrawn and since the season was advancing and his supplies were running low, Antony had to break off the siege and embark on what proved to be a costly retreat. Plutarch puts the Roman losses at 24,000 men. Like after Carrhae, however, the Parthians were unable to use this victory, because of a civil war which lasted from 32/1 B.C. to 25 B.C. A certain Tiridates revolted against Phraates IV, probably with the support of aristocratic circles and also, it seems likely, abetted by the Romans from time to time. After certain initial successes this rebellion failed, but the difficulties of the Parthian king were by no means at an end, as can be seen from the fact that his coinage ceased in about 24/3 B.C. Also, according to Josephus, Phraates had to contend with a further rival king by the name of Mithridates in the years 12-9 B.C. For their part the Romans under Augustus exploited this difficult situation of the Parthian king. In 20 B.C. they sent an army against Armenia, then ruled by King Artaxes who was hostile to Rome. In the circumstances, Phraates felt obliged to comply with the frequently expressed demands of the Romans that the captives and standards of the legions seized at Carrhae and other standards taken from Decidius Saxa (40 B.C.) and Marc Antony (36 B.C.) should be returned. In Rome this act of restoration was celebrated as if a great victory had been won over the Parthians on the field of battle. In the context of these events both sides seem also to have concluded an informal peace treaty. Rome recognized the Euphrates as a frontier whilst the Parthians on their side accepted Roman overlordship over Armenia. Now, however, the “personal” difficulties of Phraates IV really began. Augustus had sent the Parthian monarch a “Greek gift,” an Italian slave-girl called Musa. She rose to become his favorite wife and bore him a son named Phraataces, the later Phraates V. Hoping to obviate any problems over the succession, Phraates IV sent his four first-born sons to Rome where they would be protected by loyal hands, but Musa seized the opportunity to poison him, and her own son mounted the throne.

Soon afterwards conflict arose between Rome and Parthia over the question of Armenia. As a result the Romans appeared with a large force in Syria. Phraates gave way, and negotiations held in A.D. 1 ended with the Parthians relinquishing any claims to influence affairs in Armenia and the Romans granting recognition to Phraataces as a legitimate and sovereign ruler. Only a few years later, however, an uprising led to his being driven from the country (A.D. 4), and he died shortly afterwards in Syria. His successor, Orodes III, was murdered two years later in A.D. 6.
The Parthian nobility now turned to one of the sons of Phraates IV who had been sent to Rome. Augustus returned the eldest of them, Vonones, to Parthia where he was crowned king in 8/9. But life in Rome, in the opinion of the Parthians at least, had made Vonones “soft,” and they were unhappy about his tight budgetary control, so a rival candidate was set up by a section of the nobility. This was Artabanus who came from the northeast of Iran, probably Hyrcania. When he first tried to seize power he was defeated by Vonones. Only at the second attempt was he successful, being crowned king in Ctesiphon in 10/11. Vonones withdrew to Armenia where he occupied the vacant throne for a short time, probably with Roman approval. However, when Artabanus threatened military action against him, the Romans withdrew their support from Vonones. Encouraged by the Romans’ willingness to yield to him in this way, Artabanus now attempted to make his own son king of Armenia, but Rome was not prepared to accept this. Instead, the emperor Tiberius sent his adoptive son Germanicus to Armenia at the head of a large army, and he appointed a son of the king of Pontus as monarch there with the title Artaxes III. After this Artabanus gave way, with the result that about 18/19, amicable relations were apparently re-established on the pattern of the treaties concluded in 20 B.C. and 1 B.C. The main loser was Vonones who was deported to Cilicia by the Romans and died there in A.D. 19 when attempting to escape. The following decade and a half was a period of peaceful coexistence for the two powers, and Artabanus profited from this to consolidate his own position within the Parthian empire. In Media Atropatene, Mesene-Characene, Persis, and Elymais the native dynasties were removed and replaced by Parthian secundogenitures. Only in the eastern part of the empire did Artabanus encounter difficulties. Here a dynasty of Parthian provincial rulers, frequently referred to as “Pahlawa,” held sway (probably the Surena family from eastern Iran.) In A.D. 35 conflict with Rome was to break out again, and once more Armenia was the cause: King Artaxes had died without leaving an heir, and Artabanus moved to install his eldest son Arsaces on the throne. However, fearing that Artabanus was becoming too powerful, the nobility negotiated with the Romans against him: Emperor Tiberius then sent them Phraates, one of the four sons of Phraates IV, and when he died en route in Syria, Tiridates, a grandson of Phraates IV, was sent in his place. The Romans in addition appointed Mithridates, a brother of the ruler of Iberia, as king of Armenia. An Iberian army then conquered Armenia and beat off a counter-attack by the Parthians. With the backing of a Roman army commanded by L. Vitellius, the governor of Syria, Tiridates was crowned supreme king in Ctesiphon, and Artabanus withdrew to Hyrcania. However, Rome’s efforts to maintain “Roman” Parthians on the throne met with little success. Very quickly the Parthians became dissatisfied with Tiridates; indeed, before the year 36 was out, a section of the nobility was inviting Artabanus to take over the monarchy again. The Romans therefore arranged a meeting on the Euphrates between Vitellius and Artabanus in the spring of A.D. 37. The precise outcome of these negotiations is not known, but in all likelihood “status quo” was re-established: the Parthians agreed not to intervene in Armenia, and the Romans recognized the existing frontiers as well as Parthian sovereignty. However, the internal political problems of Artabanus were not over yet. Seleucia, one of the most important cities in the Parthian empire rose in rebellion from A.D. 36 to 42 perhaps due to a struggle between the indigenous and the Greek aristocracies. Furthermore, Artabanus had to contend with a rival who enjoyed the support of the Parthian nobility, Cinnamus, one of his own foster sons. Eventually the ruler of Adiabene, Izates II, into whose kingdom Artabanus had withdrawn, managed to reconcile the two rivals. Artabanus probably died in A.D. 38 after a reign of some twenty-eight years. He was succeeded by his son Vardanes I (ca. 39-ca. 45). A rival monarch, Gotarzes II, (43/4-51), a nephew of Artabanus caused several years of conflicts which ended with the murder of Vardanes. Dissatisfied with Gotarzes, the Parthians requested the return of a rival, Meherdates, son of Vonones, who lived in Rome. In A.D. 49, however, Gotarzes managed to win a decisive victory over his new rival in Kurdistan. A famous bas-relief on the rock at Bīsotūn may refer to this event. The joys of victory were, however, short-lived since Gotarzes died in A.D. 51. It is not clear whether a certain Vonones, brother of Artabanus II and king of Armenia now took over the reins of power, to be followed by his son Vologases, or whether the latter succeeded directly. Certainly, Vologases I (r. 51-77) reigned for a long time by Parthian standards; even though he too had to come to terms with a series of political problems at home and abroad, including the Armenian Question...


530px-faravahar-gold-svg.png



Part III - Religion in The Parthian Empire

Nothing is known of the religion of the Parni before they entered Parthia, but it seems likely that it was essentially the ancient Iranian polytheism, perhaps already influenced by Zoroastrianism. The immigrants are known to have adopted the Parthians’ language, and with it they presumably took over elements of their culture, including their more evolved, Zoroastrian religion. Since, moreover, it is politically expedient for ruler and ruled to be of one faith, it may reasonably be assumed that, at least from the time they seized power, the Arsacids were professed Zoroastrians. Evidence concerning their religion remains scanty, considering the length of their rule. It is possible nevertheless to trace some important developments in observance, notably in the fire cult. Temple fires had been established only late in the Achaemenian period, and it is possible that the Parthian sacred fire of Ādur Burzēn-Mihr was the first one to enjoy more than local fame. It is likely that the Arsacids deliberately promoted its legendary sanctity and encouraged pilgrimage to it, as later Shah ʿAbbās encouraged pilgrimage to Mašhad in the same region, for religious, political, and economic motives. Further, the first known regnal fire seems to be that recorded by Isidore of Charax (Parthian Stations 11): “Beyond is Astauene...and the city of Asaak, in which Arsakes was first proclaimed king; and an everlasting fire is guarded there.” The custom of establishing a temple fire at a king’s coronation appears to have been a regal development of the age-old one of a new householder kindling his hearth fire; and it spread under the Arsacids to their vassal-kings. Another Arsacid development of the cult of temple fires was perhaps that of endowing such a fire for the soul (pad ruwān) of an individual. This development is in accord with traditional Zoroastrian care for the soul (which was held to benefit from the merit of the fire’s consecration and that of all pious acts performed for it thereafter); but it could not have taken place before the institution of temple fires had become well established. The earliest evidence relating possibly to such foundations comes from ostraca excavated from the Arsacids’ first capital of Nisa, and relates to deliveries of goods from estates which formed part of some royal endowment. The kings concerned are Priapatius (ca. 191-76 B. C.), Mithradates I (ca. 171-38), Artabanus I (ca. 127-24/3), and Gotarzes I (ca. 90-78). In the case of the last-named, the record comes from his lifetime; and it may be that all the foundations concerned were made by the kings for their own souls. Arsacid Nisa provides the oldest term known for a priest tending a sacred fire, namely ʾtwršpt “master of a fire”. The Western Iranian title magus (spelt mgwšh) for priest also occurs, suggesting the spread of a common terminology among Zoroastrian communities in Achaemenian times. The Nisa ostraca show further that the Arsacids continued the Achaemenian innovation of shrines dedicated to particular divinities. Another Achaemenian practice adopted by the Arsacids (and continued by the Sasanians) was that of embalming the bodies of kings and laying them in mausoleums. The royal tombs are said by Isidore (Parthian Stations 12) to have been at Nisa. The practice conformed, though elaborately, to the Zoroastrian law that the earth must be protected from the impurities of a corpse. That the Arsacids’ subjects widely practiced exposure of the dead is attested by Pompeius Trogus. The Nisa ostraca also show that the Arsacids used the Zoroastrian calendar (created under the Achaemenians, probably in the fourth century B.C.), in conjunction with their own era, in daily life. The earliest ostracon so dated belongs to 90/89 B.C. Arsacid use of this calendar is further attested by the Parthian legal document from Awromān, and an inscription of Ardabān V. One of the Greek Awromān documents establishes moreover that the Arsacids practiced the Zoroastrian custom of close-kin marriage (xwēdōdah, q.v.), a custom also well-attested among their subjects. In A.D. 62 the Arsacid king Vologases I put his younger brother Tiridates on the throne of Armenia. Tiridates was noted for his strict piety; and under him and his descendants Armenia became predominantly and devoutly Zoroastrian (see Armenia, religion.). Either this Vologases (Valaxš), or one of the other Arsacid kings of that name, is honored in Zoroastrian tradition for taking measures to preserve “in each province whatever had survived in purity of the Avesta and Zand, as well as every teaching derived from it... whether written or in oral transmission”. A coin of Vologases IV (A.D. 147-91) has on its reverse a fire-holder, which, it has been suggested, may indicate a strengthening of the iconoclastic movement which was to triumph under the next dynasty IOTL.


parthian_silver_rhyton.jpg


parthian_prince.JPG

Part IV - Parthian Administration, Society and Culture - with Hellenistic Influences

Compared with the earlier Achaemenid Empire, the Parthian government was notably decentralized. An indigenous historical source reveals that territories overseen by the central government were organized in a similar manner to the Seleucid Empire. They both had a threefold division for their provincial hierarchies: the Parthian marzbān, xšatrap, and dizpat, similar to the Seleucid satrapy, eparchy, and hyparchy. The Parthian Empire also contained several subordinate semi-autonomous kingdoms, including the states of Caucasian Iberia, Armenia, Atropatene, Gordyene, Adiabene, Edessa, Hatra, Mesene, Elymais, and Persis. The state rulers governed their own territories and minted their own coinage distinct from the royal coinage produced at the imperial mints. This was not unlike the earlier Achaemenid Empire, which also had some city-states, and even distant satrapies who were semi-independent but "recognised the supremacy of the king, paid tribute and provided military support", according to Brosius. However, the satraps of Parthian times governed smaller territories, and perhaps had less prestige and influence than their Achaemenid predecessors. During the Seleucid period, the trend of local ruling dynasties with semi-autonomous rule, and sometimes outright rebellious rule, became commonplace, a fact reflected in the later Parthian style of governance. The King of Kings headed the Parthian government. He maintained polygamous relations, and was usually succeeded by his first-born son. Like the Ptolemies of Egypt, there is also record of Arsacid kings marrying their nieces and perhaps even half-sisters; Queen Musa married her own son, though this was an extreme and isolated case. Brosius provides an extract from a letter written in Greek by King Artabanus II in 21 AD, which addresses the governor (titled "archon") and citizens of the city of Susa. Specific government offices of Preferred Friend, Bodyguard and Treasurer are mentioned and the document also proves that "while there were local jurisdictions and proceedings to appointment to high office, the king could intervene on behalf of an individual, review a case and amend the local ruling if he considered it appropriate." The hereditary titles of the hierarchic nobility recorded during the reign of the first Sassanid monarch Ardashir I most likely reflect the titles already in use during the Parthian era. There were three distinct tiers of nobility, the highest being the regional kings directly below the King of Kings, the second being those related to the King of Kings only through marriage, and the lowest order being heads of local clans and small territories. By the 1st century AD, the Parthian nobility had assumed great power and influence in the succession and deposition of Arsacid kings. Some of the nobility functioned as court advisers to the king, as well as holy priests. Of the great noble Parthian clans listed at the beginning of the Sasanian period, only two are explicitly mentioned in earlier Parthian documents: the House of Suren and the House of Karen. The historian Plutarch noted that members of the Suren clan, the first among the nobility, were given the privilege of crowning each new Arsacid King of Kings during their coronations. Later on, some of the Parthian Kings would claim Achaemenid descent. This has recently been corroborated via the possibility of an inherited disease (neurofibromatosis) demonstrated by the physical descriptions of rulers and from evidence of familial disease on ancient coinage. The Parthian Empire had no standing army, yet were able to quickly recruit troops in the event of local crises. There was a permanent armed guard attached to the person of the king, comprising nobles, serfs and mercenaries, but this royal retinue was small. Garrisons were also permanently maintained at border forts; Parthian inscriptions reveal some of the military titles granted to the commanders of these locations. Military forces could also be used in diplomatic gestures. For example, when Chinese envoys visited Parthia in the late 2nd century BC, the Shiji maintains that 20,000 horsemen were sent to the eastern borders to serve as escorts for the embassy, although this figure is perhaps an exaggeration. The main striking force of the Parthian army was its cataphracts, heavy cavalry with man and horse decked in mailed armor. The cataphracts were equipped with a lance for charging into enemy lines,but were not equipped with bows and arrows which were restricted to horse archers. Due to the cost of their equipment and armor, cataphracts were recruited from among the aristocratic class who, in return for their services, demanded a measure of autonomy at the local level from the Arsacid kings. The light cavalry was recruited from among the commoner class and acted as horse archers; they wore a simple tunic and trousers into battle. They used composite bows and were able to shoot at enemies while riding and facing away from them; this technique, known as the Parthian shot, was a highly effective tactic. The heavy and light cavalry of Parthia proved to be a decisive factor in the Battle of Carrhae where a Persian force defeated a much larger Roman army under Crassus. Light infantry units, composed of levied commoners and mercenaries, were used to disperse enemy troops after cavalry charges. The size of the Parthian army is unknown, as is the size of the empire's overall population. However, archaeological excavations in former Parthian urban centers reveal settlements which could have sustained large populations and hence a great resource in manpower. Dense population centers in regions like Babylonia were no doubt attractive to the Romans, whose armies could afford to live off the land. (Military units can be viewed here). Usually made of silver, the Greek drachma coin, including the tetradrachm, was the standard currency used throughout the Parthian Empire. The Arsacids maintained royal mints at the cities of Hecatompylos, Seleucia, and Ecbatana. They most likely operated a mint at Mithridatkert/Nisa as well. From the empire's inception until its collapse, drachmas produced throughout the Parthian period rarely weighed less than 3.5 g or more than 4.2 g. The first Parthian tetradrachms, weighing in principle around 16 g with some variation, appear after Mithridates I conquered Mesopotamia and were minted exclusively at Seleucia.

Although Greek culture of the Seleucids was widely adopted by peoples of the Near East during the Hellenistic period, the Parthian era witnessed an Iranian cultural revival in religion, the arts, and even clothing fashions. Conscious of both the Hellenistic and Persian cultural roots of their kingship, the Arsacid rulers styled themselves after the Persian King of Kings and affirmed that they were also philhellenes ("friends of the Greeks"). The word "philhellene" was inscribed on Parthian coins until the reign of Artabanus II. The discontinuation of this phrase signified the revival of Iranian culture in Parthia. Vologases I was the first Arsacid ruler to have the Parthian script and language appear on his minted coins alongside the now almost illegible Greek. However, the use of Greek-alphabet legends on Parthian coins remained until the collapse of the empire. Greek cultural influence did not disappear from the Parthian Empire, however, and there is evidence that the Arsacids enjoyed Greek theatre. When the head of Crassus was brought to Orodes II, he, alongside Armenian king Artavasdes II, were busy watching a performance of The Bacchae by the playwright Euripides (c. 480–406 BC). The producer of the play decided to use Crassus' actual severed head in place of the stage-prop head of Pentheus. On his coins, Arsaces I is depicted in apparel similar to Achaemenid satraps. According to A. Shahbazi, Arsaces "deliberately diverges from Seleucid coins to emphasize his nationalistic and royal aspirations, and he calls himself Kārny/Karny (Greek: Autocratos), a title already borne by Achaemenid supreme generals, such as Cyrus the Younger." In line with Achaemenid traditions, rock-relief images of Arsacid rulers were carved at Mount Behistun, where Darius I of Persia (r. 522–486 BC) made royal inscriptions. Moreover, the Arsacids claimed familial descent from Artaxerxes II of Persia (r. 404–358 BC) as a means to bolster their legitimacy in ruling over former Achaemenid territories, i.e. as being "legitimate successors of glorious kings" of ancient Iran. Artabanus III named one of his sons Darius and laid claim to Cyrus’ heritage. The Arsacid kings chose typical Zoroastrian names for themselves and some from the "heroic background" of the Avesta, according to V.G. Lukonin. The Parthians also adopted the use of the Babylonian calendar with names from the Achaemenid Iranian calendar, replacing the Macedonian calendar of the Seleucids. Parthian art can be divided into three geo-historical phases: the art of Parthia proper; the art of the Iranian plateau; and the art of Parthian Mesopotamia. The first genuine Parthian art, found at Mithridatkert/Nisa, combined elements of Greek and Iranian art in line with Achaemenid and Seleucid traditions. In the second phase, Parthian art found inspiration in Achaemenid art, as exemplified by the investiture relief of Mithridates II at Mount Behistun. The third phase occurred gradually after the Parthian conquest of Mesopotamia. Common motifs of the Parthian period include scenes of royal hunting expeditions and the investiture of Arsacid kings. Use of these motifs extended to include portrayals of local rulers. Common art mediums were rock-reliefs, frescos, and even graffiti. Geometric and stylized plant patterns were also used on stucco and plaster walls. The common motif of the Sassanid period showing two horsemen engaged in combat with lances first appeared in the Parthian reliefs at Mount Behistun. In portraiture the Parthians favored and emphasized frontality, meaning the person depicted by painting, sculpture, or raised-relief on coins faced the viewer directly instead of showing his or her profile. Although frontality in portraiture was already an old artistic technique by the Parthian period, Daniel Schlumberger explains the innovation of Parthian frontality: 'Parthian frontality', as we are now accustomed to call it, deeply differs both from ancient Near Eastern and from Greek frontality, though it is, no doubt, an offspring of the latter. For both in Oriental art and in Greek art, frontality was an exceptional treatment: in Oriental art it was a treatment strictly reserved for a small number of traditional characters of cult and myth; in Greek art it was an option resorted to only for definite reasons, when demanded by the subject, and, on the whole, seldom made use of. With Parthian art, on the contrary, frontality becomes the normal treatment of the figure. For the Parthians frontality is really nothing but the habit of showing, in relief and in painting, all figures full-face, even at the expense (as it seems to us moderns) of clearness and intelligibility. So systematic is this use that it amounts to a complete banishment de facto of the side-view and of all intermediate attitudes. This singular state of things seems to have become established in the course of the 1st century A.D.

Parthian art, with its distinct use of frontality in portraiture, was lost and abandoned with the profound cultural and political changes brought by the Sassanid Empire OTL. However, even after the Roman occupation of Dura-Europos in 165 AD, the use of Parthian frontality in portraiture continued to flourish there. This is exemplified by the early 3rd-century AD wall murals of the Dura-Europos synagogue, a temple in the same city dedicated to Palmyrene gods, and the local Mithraeum. Parthian architecture adopted elements of Achaemenid and Greek architecture, but remained distinct from the two. The style is first attested at Mithridatkert/Nisa. The Round Hall of Nisa is similar to Hellenistic palaces, but different in that it forms a circle and vault inside a square space. However, the artwork of Nisa, including marble statues and the carved scenes on ivory rhyton vessels, is unquestionably influenced by Greek art. A signature feature of Parthian architecture was the iwan, an audience hall supported by arches and/or barrel vaults and open on one side. Use of the barrel vault replaced the Hellenic use of columns to support roofs. Although the iwan was known during the Achaemenid period and earlier in smaller and subterranean structures, it was the Parthians who first built them on a monumental scale. The earliest Parthian iwans are found at Seleucia, built in the early 1st century AD. Monumental iwans are also commonly found in the ancient temples of Hatra and perhaps modeled on the Parthian style. The largest Parthian iwans at that site have a span of 15 m (50 ft). The typical Parthian riding outfit is exemplified by the famous bronze statue of a Parthian nobleman found at Shami, Elymais. Standing 1.9 m (6 ft), the figure wears a V-shaped jacket, a V-shaped tunic fastened in place with a belt, loose-fitting and many-folded trousers held by garters, and a diadem or band over his coiffed, bobbed hair. His outfit is commonly seen in relief images of Parthian coins by the mid-1st century BC. Examples of clothing in Parthian inspired sculptures have been found in excavations at Hatra, in northwestern Iraq. Statues erected there feature the typical Parthian shirt (qamis), combined with trousers and made with fine, ornamented materials. The aristocratic elite of Hatra adopted the bobbed hairstyles, headdresses, and belted tunics worn by the nobility belonging to the central Arsacid court. The trouser-suit was even worn by the Arsacid kings, as shown on the reverse images of coins. The Parthian trouser-suit was also adopted in Palmyra, Syria, along with the use of Parthian frontality in art. Parthian sculptures depict wealthy women wearing long-sleeved robes over a dress, with necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and headdresses bedecked in jewelry. Their many-folded dresses were fastened by a brooch at one shoulder. Their headdresses also featured a veil which was draped backwards. As seen in Parthian coinage, the headdresses worn by the Parthian kings changed over time. The earliest Arsacid coins show rulers wearing the soft cap with cheek flaps, known as the bashlyk (Greek: kyrbasia). This may have derived from an Achaemenid-era satrapal headdress and the pointy hats depicted in the Achaemenid reliefs at Behistun and Persepolis. The earliest coins of Mithridates I show him wearing the soft cap, yet coins from the latter part of his reign show him for the first time wearing the royal Hellenistic diadem. Mithridates II was the first to be shown wearing the Parthian tiara, embroidered with pearls and jewels, a headdress commonly worn in the late Parthian period and by Sassanid monarchs. It is known that during the Parthian period the court minstrel (gōsān) recited poetic oral literature accompanied by music. However, their stories, composed in verse form, were not written down until the subsequent Sasanian period. In fact, there is no known Parthian-language literature that survives in original form, since it was written down in the following centuries. It is believed that such stories as the romantic tale Vis and Rāmin and epic cycle of the Kayanian dynasty were part of the corpus of oral literature from Parthian times, although compiled much later. Although literature of the Parthian language was not committed to written form, there is evidence that the Arsacids acknowledged and respected written Greek literature.

Part V - The Vassal Kingdoms of Parthian Hegemony

Persis: The sources for Persis between about 140 BCE and 224 CE are scant, and it is very difficult to write its history. The archeological evidence for the Parthian period yields very little. Aside from the mostly late literary evidence for the rise of the Sasanian dynasty in the early 3rd century CE, only a few sources are available: coins issued by the regional kings of Persis; religious accounts of the Christian proselytization in Persis from much later periods; reports in Strabo (64/63 BCE-12 CE?) and the Periplus Maris Erythraei (1st century CE) which only document Parthian rule in the region; and the Iranian national history which suggests a disappearance of southwestern Iranian historical traditions in the Parthian period. Most scholars are still convinced that, from the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 2nd century BCE onwards, Persian dynasts ruled Persis as Seleucid representatives and issued their own coinage. Shortly before the appearance of the Parthians, this Seleucid phase ended when an independent dynast seized the rule of Persis. The numismatic evidence documents that the Arsacid coinage finally began to dominate Persis’ local coinage after the second series of coins issued by Wādfradād III (early 1st century BCE). But this phase should be separated from a preceding period, the beginning of which is marked by the coins of Wādfradād (II?), and which also includes the coins of the Unknown King I (2nd half of 2nd century BCE) and Dārāyān I (end of the 2nd century BCE), as well as the early coins of Wādfradād III. These coins are iconographically still related to the Fratarakā coinage, but show Parthian influence because tetradrachms were no longer issued and drachms became the leading denomination. Because of the disappearance of the legends with the dynast’s name and title during the time of Wādfradād (II?) and the ’Unknown King I,’ Michael Alram has suggested that these coins are linked to an effort of the Arsacid overlord to suppress the rebellious behavior of the rulers of Persis. The historical background for such a countermeasure could be that in the years before 123 BCE the Parthians, with difficulties though in the end successfully, attempted to maintain their position against the aspirations of both the Seleucid Antiochus VII (r. 138-129 BCE) and of Hyspaosines (r. ca. 127-122/21 BCE), the dynast of Characene. Therefore, Wahbarz (1st half of 2nd century BCE) and/or Wādfradād I (1st half of 2nd century BCE) initiated the separation of Persis from the Seleucids, and afterwards Wādfradād II (ca. 140 BCE) was forced to acknowledge Arsacid overlords. Presumably, the Arsacids followed Seleucid custom when they granted the right to issue coins to vassals in southwestern Iran. The local dynasts were probably allowed to assume the role of regional kings because the Arsacids did not perceive a threat in the Fratarakā’s limited ambitions after their secession from the Seleucids. The sources for Persis during the pre-Christian era comprise archeological remains , some minor testimonies, and the coins of the Persian dynasts: A historiographical fragment and a Middle-Persian inscription on a silver cup, both mention Artaxares (II), and so the coins constitute the most important body of evidence. The dynasts are called kings because the title appears in their legends: e.g. Dārāyān the King, son of Wādfradād the King. Despite unique characteristics in the typology of the reverse and the obverse, the influence of Arsacid coinage is unmistakable. The coins, considered as medium for the representation of power, do not indicate that at this time the Persian vassals started to distance themselves from their overlords. This impression is supported by Strabo’s report that at the time of Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) the kings of the Persians were as subservient to the Parthians as they had been earlier to the Macedonians. For the 1st century of the Christian era, the coinage of the Persian kings does also not provide any evidence to the contrary. Yet it has been suggested that the so-called Periplus Maris Erythraei provides a snapshot of the political situation in southwestern Iran that supports the thesis of the political independence of the kings of Persis. Regardless of the exact period in which this text originated, it belongs undoubtedly to the 1st and not the 3rd century CE. It is stated that major areas of the Gulf region, including the port cities of Apologus (in Characene) and Omana (probably near El-Dūr, not far from the Strait of Hormuz on the Arab side), as well as southeastern Arabia belonged to the basileia tēs Persidos. But the overall picture of the political landscape of the Arsacid empire changes, depending on whether basileia is linked with the Parthians or with the kings of Persis, and depending on whether this basileia is understood as Parthian rule over Persian vassals, regional rule of these vassals, or the rule of independent kings of Persis. In the author’s view, the only possible interpretation of the Periplus is that Persis refers to the Parthians. Since Omana is described as heteron emporion tēs Persidos the Periplus author must have included the emporion Apologus in the political sphere of Persis. But there is no evidence that the reach of the kings of Persis extended as far as Characene. Consequently, the basileia tēs Persidos must refer to the Arsacid empire, and Characene, the territory of today’s United Arab Emirates, and south-eastern Arabia must have been under Parthian rule or influence During this period, there is no evidence for the independence of the kings of Persis. Moreover, the absence of the Parthians from the archeological record corresponds with the western written sources, in which Persis is not identified as a trouble spot. Both seem to indicate that the Arsacids did not need to employ any particular political-military force to keep this territory within their sphere of influence. The picture of this period may slightly change if a large hoard of Persis coins, which was discovered in the 1980s, is taken into consideration. The hoard contained some previously unknown small silver coins. Based on typological characteristics, they have been classified as the local coinage of a kyrios (Vologases?) who was closely affiliated with the Arsacids and controlled a part, or an outlying area, of Persis at the end of the 1st century CE. If it were correct to draw the political conclusion that a prince loyal to the Arsacids opposed the regional dynasty of the kings of Persis, it were possible to argue that there were conflicts between the Persian regional kings and their Parthian overlords. But these coins do not suffice as evidence for a temporary independence of the kings of Persis. Contrary to the view of many scholars that Persis was a rather troubled Parthian vassal state, the only serious reference to a rebellious Persis in Parthian times is provided by a Syriac source, known as the Chronicle of Arbela. In connection with the episcopate of Hāb˚ēl, it is mentioned that Vologases fielded an army of 120,000 men against the Persians who had been preparing for war for a long time and that after heavy fighting he succeeded in defeating them in Khorasan. However, the value of this report has been questioned (Kettenhofen).

Elymais: semi-independent state frequently subject to Parthian domination, which existed between the second century B.C.E. and the early third century C. E. in the territories of Ḵūzestān (Susiana), in southwestern Persia. The earliest reference to the Elymaeans is by Nearchus, the admiral of Alexander the Great, in a passage preserved by Strabo. He relates that the “Elymaei” were one of the four predatory tribes in what is now southwestern Persia, who extracted tribute from the Persian (Achaemenid) kings. Strabo describes Elymais as a mostly rugged country bordering on Susis and inhabited by brigands who waged war against the Susians. It is clear from this account that the homeland of the Elymaeans comprised only a part of the present province of Ḵūzestān. To the Assyrians and the Neo-Babylonians, the whole of these lands were Elam. The Achaemenids identified Ḵūzestān as the satrapy of hŪvja, and to the Seleucid successors of Alexander, it was the satrapy of Susaina with its capital at Susa. The Elamites of the second millennium B.C.E. differentiated between the region or district of Susa, which comprised the Ḵūzestān plain and the separate district of Elam proper. In Sumerian this “regional” Elam was written with the sign NIM, which conveyed the idea of “highland.” In the present context Elam is most probably to be identified with the foothills and valleys of the Zagros mountains, which rise to the east and north of the Ḵūzestān plain. This location would be consistent with Strabo’s description of Elymais as being mostly rugged. The name Elymais may be understood to mean Elam minor, a usage most probably intended to differentiate this district from the major part of the old Elamite territories comprising the plains of Susiana. But from time to time over the centuries the kings of Elymais also controlled Susiana. It has been suggested that the Elymaeans were of Persian origin and that they had been established in this part of Ḵūzestān since the eighth century B.C.E. But the hostility shown by the Elymaeans to the Achaemenid kings, as recorded by Nearchus, and the fact that the Elymaeans worshipped non-Iranian gods would seem to suggest that the people of Elymais were descendants of the traditional Elamite inhabitants of these regions. A comparative study of Elymaean religious iconography supports the view that the Elymaeans worshipped Semitic gods of Babylon and Assyria, possibly in syncretization with traditional Elamite deities. Following the conquests of Alexander, the Elymaeans are not mentioned in the sources for over a century. In 220/219 B.C.E. Molon, the acting Seleucid satrap of Media, revolted against Antiochus III and invaded Babylonia and Susiana. In his campaigns Molon was aided by contingents from Elymais, but the revolt failed. In 190 B.C.E., 4,000 mixed Cyrtii (Kurdish) slingers and Elymaean archers were among the forces gathered by Antiochus III for an invasion of Greece, which proved abortive. Appian described these Elymaean archers as riding on swift camels and shooting arrows with dexterity from their high mounts. In 187 B.C.E., being short of funds to pay tribute to Rome, Antiochus III attempted to rob a considerable treasure of gold and silver kept in a temple of Bēl in Elymais, but his intentions became known, and he was killed by the local people. In reference to this incident, it is noteworthy that a rock inscription in Elymaean Aramaic, which mentions an altar of Bēl, was found near the Šīmbār valley in the upland country of northeastern Ḵūzestān. The Seleucid king Antiochus IV also sought to rob a wealthy Elymaean sanctuary, the temple of Artemis-Nanaia. But again the Elymaeans foiled the attempt, and Antiochus retreated to Gabae (Isfahan), where he died in 164 B.C. (Polybius, XXI.11; on these various Elymaean temples, see Tarn, pp. 463-66). Among the coins excavated at the site of Susa, were four of a ruler called Hyknopses. Le Rider suggests (pp. 346-47) that he was a local usurper of Seleucid authority who reigned about 162-161 B.C.E. shortly after the death of Antiochus IV. In about 155 B.C.E. Mithradates I, king of Parthia, took Media from the Seleucids, and by 141 B.C.E. most of Mesopotamia had fallen to the Arsacid forces. Le Rider suggests that in about 147 B.C.E., a period of weakened Seleucid control, the Elymaean king Kamnaskires I took possession of Susiana and replaced the Seleucid contender Alexander Balas as ruler at the capital Susa. He postulates this because certain coins of Kamnaskires known to have been minted at Susa are close in style to an issue of the contemporary Elymaean ally Demetrius II. They also show a monogram which is found on coins of Alexander Balas. Using other evidence, Le Rider further suggests that some years before 147 B.C.E., Kamnaskires could have taken the important Elymaean town of Seleucia on the Hedyphon. In 140 B.C.E. the Seleucid king Demetrius II endeavored to regain Mesopotamia from the Parthians, and in this attempt he was joined by contingents of troops from Elymais and from other parts of Persia (Justin, 36.1). A late cuneiform text relates that the Elymaeans made incursions in the neighborhood of the Tigris in the territories of Hyspaosines, king of the state of Characene (q.v.) in southernmost Mesopotamia. Hyspaosines gained independence from the Seleucids before 141 B.C.E., and the Elymaeans could have invaded Characene while allied with Demetrius II during his campaign to reestablish Seleucid authority throughout Mesopotamia. In the event, the Elymaean leader Pittit was defeated by the generals of Hyspaosines, and the whole of Elymais was then “smitten with the sword”. This attack on the Elymaean homeland may be related to the invasion of that country by Mithradates I in 140-139 B.C.E. in punishment of Elymais for assisting Demetrius II, whose forces had also been defeated by the Parthians. During this campaign Arsacid forces occupied the two major Elymaean cities, Seleucia on the Hedyphon river and Socrates on Mount Casyrus. The Hedyphon river has been identified with the Jarrāḥī river of southeastern Ḵūzestān and Seleucia with the archeological site called Jānešīn, which is surrounded by earthern embankments and located on the west bank of the Jarrāḥī. Le Rider further suggests that several decades after the Parthian invasion, the Elymaeans again began to mint their own coins. He theorizes this because the geography of Pliny relating to a political situation existing prior to 45 C. E. would seem to place the Elymaeans of that period in control of much of eastern Ḵuzestān, but not of the city of Susa. Le Rider also suggests that the Elymaeans retook Seleucia on the Hedyphon from the Parthians sometime after the conquests of Mithradates I and that, thereafter, Seleucia served as the Elymaean capital. It is argued that the Elymaeans established a mint at Seleucia, and that this was where silver tetradrachms, commencing with those ascribed to Kamnaskires II and dated to the year 82/81 B.C.E., were struck. As an alternative to this theory, we may consider that Elymais remained subject to the Parthians until after the death of the capable and conquering king Mithradates II in 87 B.C.E. Moreover, it would seem reasonable to consider that the date of 82/81 B.C.E., given on the coins of Kamnaskires II, could commemorate the year in which the Elymaeans regained their independence or semi-independence from the Parthians. Some of the coins of Kamnaskires II show a profile of the king jurgate with that of his queen Anzaze. Coins of the next ruler in the Elymaean line, a son of Kamnaskires II who is designated Kamnaskires III by numismatists, include silver tetradrachms dated either 62/61 or 59/58 B.C.E. This Kamnaskires, too, may have issued tetradrachms which are dated 36/35 B.C.E.

In 65 B.C.E. a king of Elymais, probably Kamnaskires III, sent presents to the Roman general Pompey, who then was in Lesser Armenia. The Elymaeans may have sought the support of Rome against the Parthian king Phraetes III (71-57 B.C.E.). Bronze coins of Phraetes are unique to the mint of Susa, and he may have ruled from there at times to menace of the neighboring Elymaeans. In 36 C.E. the Parthian usurper Tiridates III, a nominee of the Roman emperor Tiberius, seized most of Mesopotamia from the rightful ruler Artabanus III. At this time the Elymaeans were allied with Tiridates. But the revolt failed, and Artabanus regained Mesopotamia in the same year. From at least 82/81 B.C.E., the Elymaeans appear to have maintained a semi-independent existence in their mountainous homelands for over a century . They also controlled parts of the eastern Ḵuzestān plain, with their capital at Seleucia on the Hedyphon. But coins of successive Parthian rulers, showing the mint signature of Susa, indicate that the Arsacids retained control of western Ḵuzestān in these times. Le Rider presents numismatic evidence in support of the theory that the Elymaeans retook Susa from the Parthians and then moved their own capital from Seleucia to Susa in about 45 C.E. This is deduced, in part, because no Parthian coins are known to have been minted at Susa after the reign of the Parthian king Vardanes I (41-45 C.E.). In addition, bronze drachmas of Elymais, which date from about 75 C.E. onward, have been found in such numbers at Susa that Le Rider believes were they struck there. He further suggests that the Parthians may have lost Susa in about 45 C.E. because the realm was weakened by opposition to Vardanes from his brother, the rival king Gotarzes. This could have favored the conquest of Susiana by Elymais. Tetradrachms of one of the Elymaean kings called Kamnaskires bear the dates 55/56 C.E. and 58/59 C.E. From this period the coins of Elymais show a progressive deterioration in quality and style. The silver tetradrachms and drachmas of the earlier kings are replaced by bronze issues, and the inscriptions and busts shown on the obverse of these larger coins gradually become debased. They are eventually omitted altogether and replaced by simple dashed lines. The latest known date recorded on an Elymaean coin is 71/72 C.E. The Elymaean name Kamnaskires may be related to the title kapnuškira appearing in Elamite in the Persepolis fortification texts and carrying the meaning of “treasurer” (for occurrences of this latter title, see Hallock, s.v. kapnuškira). During the last half of the 1st century C.E., a new line of Elymaean kings appears. Rostovtzeff suggests that this dynasty may have been descended not from the Kamnaskires kings but perhaps from members of the Arsacid family using Parthian royal names. But the second king of this line bore the title of Kamnaskires Orodes, son of Orodes, who was the first of the new line. This could suggest a connection with the old dynasty of Kamnaskires or merely that Kamnaskires was at times used as a regal title rather than as a personal name. Le Rider dates the beginning of this new series of coins from 76 C.E. The usually accepted sequence of these later kings of Elymais begins with Orodes I. Next, there is the aforementioned Kamnaskires Orodes (II), son of Orodes. The third king of the line was Phraates, son of Orodes. Phraates is sometimes considered to have been succeeded by a king called Chosroes. Coins of this Chosroes show a frontal bust of a king with broad hair masses. This feature closely resembles that shown on coins of the Parthian king Osroes I (r. 109-29 C.E.), who warred with Trajan in Meso potamia. These similarities and the fact that Chosroes and Osroes are forms of the same name has led to the suggestion that both names identify the same Parthian king, who may have ruled sometimes from Susa. But it is equally possible that a king of Elymais copied the portrait of Osroes for his own coins. In 117 C.E. Trajan was warmly received in Mesene (Characene). It has been suggested that both Characene and the neighboring state to the west, Elymais, supported the Roman invasion of Mesopotamia (Nodelman, p. 110). The tetradrachms and drachmas of the series of Kamnaskires Elymaean coinage always show Greek inscriptions, which are debased on the later issues. The tetradrachms of post-Kamnaskires Elymaean coins are inscribed in Aramaic. The drachmas of Orodes I show Greek inscriptions, those of Kamnaskires-Orodes Aramaic, and those of Phraates either Greek or Aramaic. Le Rider suggests that the tetradrachms with Aramaic inscriptions were minted at the former Elymaean capital of Seleucia on the Hedyphon, perhaps mainly for internal circulation. He suggests that the drachmas with Greek inscriptions were minted at the more cosmopolitan city of Susa, where elements of a Hellenistic past survived. A later interpretation of symbols attested on these coins suggests that, while Le Rider’s mint indentifications are generally correct, Aramaic inscribed tetradrachms were occasionally struck at Susa and those with Greek inscriptions were infrequently struck at Seleucia.

Characene: The city, founded by Alexander the Great as Alexandria on the Tigris, was constructed on an artificial mound to protect the site from the flood waters of the adjoining rivers. Alexander probably intended the new town to serve as a major commercial port for his eastern capital of Babylon, a port which would handle the rich sea trade both from newly conquered India, and from the Arabian peninsula. To provide a sufficient population Alexander directed that the city should be settled partly by invalid Macedonian soldiers drawn from the ranks of his returning armies and partly by a transfer of residents from the city of Durine nearby. The Macedonians were established in a quarter (dēmē) of the port called Pella after Alexander’s own town of birth. During the subsequent years Alexandria did not wholly live up to its founder’s expectations. We know, for example, that by the latter half of the 3rd century b.c.e., the independent Arab city of Gerrha, situated on the lower Persian Gulf, had become the major trans*shipping port for goods from India and Arabia, to both the Seleucid territories and to Ptolemaic Egypt. Alexandria on the Tigris, meanwhile, was destroyed by floods. These established channels of commerce in the Persian Gulf thereafter remained largely unchanged until Antiochus IV (q.v.) acceded to the Seleucid throne. Antiochus proved to be an energetic and ambitious ruler, who was determined to remedy the faltering economy of his realm. To further this end he attempted to divert the Indian sea trade to his own domains. A key factor in the scheme had been the rebuilding of Alexandria as an Antiochia. At the completion of the restored port Antiochus appointed Hyspaosines, son of a certain Sardodonacus, as governor (eparch) of Antiochia and its surrounding district. Both of these names are Hellenized Persian forms, and we may deduce from this that the family of Hyspaosines was of Persian background. Though Antiochia did enjoy a new measure of prosperity, the effect on the whole kingdom was to prove of little lasting value, for the early death of Antiochus in 163 b.c.e. marked the end of the king’s plans to revitalize the economy of Mesopotamia. Now too, moreover, centralized Seleucid control throughout the entire realm was greatly weakened, as rival claim*ants to the throne continued to wage civil strife in Syria. As an eventual result of this period of internal instability, several small areas from within the empire cast off their political ties with the Seleucids and declared themselves to be independent states. Elymais, which comprised much of the territory of Ḵūzestān in south Iran, a region that lay to the east of Mesene, was a notable example. Hyspaosines, on the other hand, seems to have remained loyal to the Seleucid dynasty, though he too most probably found himself a virtually independent sovereign at Antiochia. His willingness to continue as governor only was possibly prompted by the knowledge that if his present position was maintained, there would be no interruption in the lucrative trade which the refounding of Antiochus had caused to be channeled through that city to the empire capital of Seleucia on the Tigris. Other former vassals of the Seleucids proved more ambitious. By 141 b.c.e. Mithradates I of Parthia had defeated the Seleucid contender Demetrius II in Mesopotamia and shortly thereafter took Seleucia (for an account of these events and references see Debevoise, p. 25). Although Demetrius later regained a part of Mesopotamia, the threat and closeness of the Parthian menace apparently persuaded Hyspaosines to declare himself independent ruler in Antiochia. Nodelman suggests that this final break from Seleucid authority occurred sometime between 141 and 139 b.c.e., when Demetrius was again defeated and further taken captive by Mithradates. During the latter part of his reign Hyspaosines struck silver tetradrachms patterned after the coins of contemporary Seleucid rulers. Their Greek legend is basileōs yspaosinoy “of the king Hyspaosines,” with dates calculated in the Seleucid era of ĒPR, QR, or AQR, 125-121 b.c.e. (Le Rider, p. 230). Alone, Hyspaosines could not indefinitely forestall the renewed Parthian advance and in 121/20 b.c.e. we find bronze coins of his being overstruck with a type of Mithradates II. This occurrence would indicate final and complete conquest by the Parthians (Bellinger, pp. 60-61). Though defeated Hyspaosines was allowed to retain his small kingdom at the head of the Persian Gulf. As a vassal to the Parthian throne his old authority, however, was much weakened. During the continuing reign of Hyspaosines the embankment walls of Antiochia were again de*stroyed by flood. Pliny notes that to protect his capital Hyspaosines caused new embankments to be raised which extended in length a distance of nearly 2 miles, or 3.2 km (Pliny, 6.31.138). Because of this impressive rebuilding Josephus and other writers of the late Classical period, refer to the city as Charax Spasinou, literally, Palisade of Spasines or Hyspaosine (Josephus, Antiquities 1.6.4). In the Palmyrene inscriptions the city was usually given the Aramaic form Kark Ispasina (Corpus Inscr. Semit. II, no. 3928). It was sometimes also called Karka de Maysān or fortress of Maysān (Starcky, pp. 13-14). Dated and inscribed tetradrachms in Greek attest that Hyspaosines was followed as Parthian vassal in Mesene by Apodakos ca. 110 b.c.e.; Tiraios I (ca. 95-88) and Tiraios II (ca. 78-44). A unique tetradrachm of the next succeeding ruling prince, Artabazos, is dated DXS (48-47 b.c.) and displays on the reverse an extended Greek inscription: basileōs artabazo theopatoros aytokratoros sōtēros philopatoros kai philellēnos “of the king Artabazes, of divine descent, ruler in his own right, the deliverer, who loves his father and the Greeks”. The square arrangement of this epithet spaced around a typical Greek Herakles, is copied from the conventional style of contemporary Parthian coinage. When the Roman emperor Trajan descended the Tigris in 116 c.e., he received the temporary submission of Attambelos, the ruling prince in Mesene (Dio Cassius, 78.28). Apart from this occasion, however, the Parthian state presumably remained in at least nominal control of Mesene during the nearly 350 years they dominated Mesopotamia east of the Euphrates River. Continued vassalage to Parthia did not interrupt the prosperity which the people of Mesene enjoyed as major agents of east-west commerce. By the first century of our era new and quite lucrative overland trade routes had been established with the Nabatean city of Petra in what is now southern Jordan. For more than a century the Nabateans, through Charax, became major providers of a considerable eastern trade with the rich Roman west. Still other caravan routes joined Charax with the Syrian desert emporium of Palmyra. Following the assimilation of the Nabatean kingdom by Rome in 106 c.e., the Palmyrenes were to enjoy a practical monopoly of such trade. The center of commerce within the kingdom of Mesene, meanwhile, appears gradually to have moved south. By the third quarter of the first century Pliny mentions the city of Forāt, which was subject to the Kings of Characene (Mesene) as being frequented by the people from Petra. Palmyrene inscriptions of the second century also testify to success*ful caravan journeys undertaken between that city and both Charax and Forāt. Forāt was located some 11 miles or 17.7 km below Charax on the Tigris. Nodelman suggests that Mithradates IV of Parthia (r. 128-47) moved the capital from Charax to Forāt.

Adiabene: a district near the present-day borders of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, corresponding with the heartland of the ancient empire of Assyria. However, after the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, in 612 B.C., the general hatred aroused by its genocidal policies precluded any immediate revival of its name. The Seleucid empire, founded in the aftermath of Alexander’s invasion, split many of the relatively unwieldy Achaemenid satrapies into much smaller divisions. These retained the title satrapy and were often characterized by names ending in -ane or -ene, a practice that continued among all officially Greek-speaking successor states, whether they were indigenously ruled or not. One of these late creations, Adiabene came into prominence with the advent of the Parthians, who dispossessed the Seleucids of their territories first in Iran and subsequently in Mesopotamia. The Arsacids, the ruling dynasty of Parthia, allowed very considerable freedom to their feudatories; the satrap of Adiabene was usually permitted to call himself king and was recognized as such by his contemporaries. He did not exercise the privilege of striking his own coinage, though some of his equals have left evidence of much numismatic activity. Tiny, base metal issues, with no indication of the authority responsible but of the Parthian period and probably used for minor transactions in the market place, have been found on the site of Nineveh, which had perhaps been refounded by the Macedonians as a semi-autonomous Greek city similar to Seleucia on the Tigris. It seems likely, though, that the capital of Adiabene was not Nineveh but Arbela, the modern Erbel, which lies farther east and which gave its name to the last battle between Darius and Alexander. Because Parthian records were systematically destroyed by the Sasanians, much of our present knowledge of the limits of Adiabene stems from the geographers of contemporary Greece and Rome such as Strabo, Ptolemy (6.1, 2) and Pliny, who specifically mentions “Armenian Adiabene which was formerly called Assyria.” Later Byzantine writers were not unnaturally confused and anachronistically refer, for example, to “Sardanapalus of Adiabene.” The most extended historical details are to be found in Josephus (Antiquities 20) and Tacitus (Annales 12). The Parthian king, Phraates IV (37-2 B.C.), chose as his successor his last-born son Phraataces and, for the latter’s safety sent the older brothers into exile in Rome. In a similar fashion, the ruler of Adiabene, Monobazus, in the first decades of the Christian era intended his heir to be a younger child, Izates (Ezad), but for protection sent the youth away instead to reside with Abinerglos, king of Characene or Mesene (Maišān). The latter gave Izates his daughter Samacha in marriage as well as a country estate. During his stay in Spasinu Charax, Abinerglos’ capital, Izates was converted to Judaism by Ananias, (Ḥannan), a Jewish merchant. Meanwhile, at the court of Monobazus, his wife Helena, mother of Izates, also took up the same faith, perhaps by the persuasion of the Jews of neighboring Nisibis (Naṣībīn), led at this time by Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. The main trade route across upper Mesopotamia ran through Edessa (Urfa), Nisibis and Adiabene, the more southerly one by way of Carrhae (Ḥarrān) being much less frequented because of Bedouin activities; the merchants using these roads and those down to Characene at the head of the Persian Gulf were among the major instruments for the diffusion of culture and religion. Furthermore, the Jews of Adiabene soon became famous for their strict attention to the spirit of the Law, and it was remarked that they always placed a mezuzah or Biblical text on the doors of their lodging when they traveled. Conscious that his end was imminent, Monobazus summoned home Izates and then lodged him in the adjacent countryside. As soon as Monobazus’ death was announced, Helena called an assembly of the noblemen, district governors, and army commanders (clearly the equivalent of a senate). They welcomed the deceased king’s choice of Izates as the new monarch but, for additional security, advised the wholesale killing of his brothers and kinsmen. A sound precedent lay in earlier Parthian history, Phraates IV having acted in just this manner when he came to the throne. Somewhat naively, Helena entrusted Monobazus, the elder brother of Izates, with the diadem and insignia of office until Izates could be informed of this recommendation. Disappointing cynical expectation, Monobazus duly surrendered his temporary powers, and Izates was crowned in A.D. 36. Perhaps inspired by his brother’s unselfishness or his own religious scruples, Izates also acted with a clemency extraordinary for the age and sent away his relatives as hostages to Rome or Parthia. As further testimony of his acceptance of Judaism he now had himself circumcised; Helena had opposed this, because she feared it would be interpreted by the population of Adiabene as inimical to its own customs. However, she herself was sufficiently in sympathy with him to go in A.D. 46 on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem where she was able to relieve the worst effects of a famine by importing shiploads of grain from Alexandria and figs from Cyprus. The Parthian tiara was more easily reached for than retained and, at the very beginning of Izates’ reign, Artabanus II (Ardavān), the ruling Arsacid, found himself in danger at home. Accordingly, he and his entourage sought refuge in Adiabene. The suppliant was kindly received by Izates, who promised that he would risk his own kingdom in an attempt to restore Artabanus. This was so far successful that Cinnamus, the nominee of the Parthian senate, led the recall of Artabanus, took the diadem from his own brow, and put it on that of his royal rival. Artabanus, naturally grateful for so effectual an intervention, rewarded Izates with the privilege of wearing an upright tiara and of sleeping on a golden couch as well as an extension of territory to include Nisibis on the western side of the Tigris. Artabanus died shortly afterwards, and his son, Vardanes I (Bardān), attempted to persuade Izates to accompany the Parthians in an expedition against the Romans. The prince of Adiabene knew the danger and was reluctant to commit himself, so provoking in turn the anger of Vardanes. However, the latter soon perished during a civil war with his brother Gotarzes II (Gōdarz): Such a providential escape convinced the nobility of the superiority of Izates’ religion, and many of them turned to it. The Roman riposte was to dispatch in A.D. 49 a hostage of Arsacid blood, Mithradates (Mehrdād), as a pretender to the throne. This young man dallied too long among the entertainments supplied by king Abgar of Edessa, so that, when the latter passed him on to Izates, the majority of his supporters had already disappeared. Whether with Izates’ connivance or not, Gotarzes captured Mithradates and cropped his ears, this disfigurement disbarring him from any further prospect of the throne. The Adiabenian aristocracy remaining unconverted brought in an Arab chieftan, Abia, to overthrow Izates; when he proved inadequate, they appealed to the new Parthian monarch, Vologases I (Walaš), to appoint as their ruler one of his own family who would observe ancestral practices. Nothing loath, Vologases manufactured a casus belli by demanding back the privileges granted by Artabanus to Izates, who thereupon prepared to resist, although he realized the relative weakness of his forces and relied as much on prayers. These were answered with commendable promptitude by an unanticipated invasion of Parthia by nomads, and Vologases’ attention was diverted from attack to defense. Izates’ death occurred in A.D. 60, and his mother, Helena, did not long survive him. Both were buried at Jerusalem on the orders of Monobazus, chosen by Izates in preference to one of his own twenty-four sons as the next monarch in recognition of his earlier disinterested help. Probably tempted by the unsettled conditions associated with a new reign, Tigranes, ruler of Armenia, invaded Adiabene in A.D. 61 with the apparent intention of permanent occupation. It seems likely that Tigranes had at least the tacit approval of Nero’s general, Corbulo, then in Syria, but the Adiabenian armies themselves received Parthian aid led by Monaeses, who eventually thrust the invaders back to Tigranocerta. An armistice was arranged with concessions on both sides, although, as usual, the Romans represented the affair as a victory for themselves. Forcibly convinced of the necessity for maintaining anti-Roman friendships, Monobazus, also a convert to Judaism, supplied golden handles for all the vessels used on the Day of Atonement in the Temple at Jerusalem. His sympathies were more practically engaged later on, since two of his relatives died in the Jewish ranks fighting valiantly against Vespasian and Titus in the war of A.D. 66-70.

Osroene: was a historical kingdom located in upper Mesopotamia, which enjoyed semi-autonomy to complete independence from the years of 132 BC to AD 244. It was a Syriac-speaking kingdom. Osroene, or Edessa, acquired independence from the collapsing Seleucid Empire through a dynasty of the nomadic Nabatean tribe called Orrhoei from 136 BC. The name Osroene is derived from Osroes of Orhai, a Nabatean sheik who in 120 BC wrested control of this region from the Seleucids in Syria. Most of the kings of Osroene are called Abgar or Manu and they were Syriac kings who settled in urban centers. Under its Nabatean dynasties, Osroëne became increasingly influenced by Aramaic culture and was a centre of national reaction against Hellenism. By the 5th century, Edessa had become the headquarters of Syriac literature and learning. In 608, Osroëne was taken by the Sāsānid Khosrow II, and in 638 it fell to the Muslims OTL. The kingdom's area, the upper course of the Euphrates, became a traditional battleground for the powers that ruled Asia Minor, Persia, Syria, and Armenia. On the dissolution of Seleucid Empire, it was divided between Rome and Parthia. At this time Osrhoene was within Parthian suzerainty. However, the Romans later made several attempts to recover the region. Abgarus of Osrhoene had signed a peace treaty with the Romans during time of Pompey and was initially an ally of the Roman general Crassus in his campaign against the Parthians in 53 BC. Later on, however, he secretly switched sides and became a spy for the Parthian king Orodes II in the war effort by providing faulty intelligence to Crassus. This was one of the main factors in Crassus' defeat. He influenced Crassus' plans, convincing him to give up the idea of advancing to the Greek city of Seleucia near the Euphrates, whose inhabitants were sympathetic to the Romans. Instead Abgarus persuaded him to attack Surena; however, in the midst of the battle he himself joined the other side. Abgarus has been identified as an Arab shaikh in another source. In this campaign, an Armenian force of 16,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry accompanied Crassus. Orodes also managed to keep the Armenian force out by making peace with Artavazd. During Trajan's time, around 116 AD, the Roman general Lucius Quietus sacked Edessa and put an end to Osrhoene's independence. After the war with Parthians under Marcus Aurelius, forts were built and a Roman garrison was stationed in Nisibis. Osrhoene attempted to throw off the Roman yoke, however in 216, its king Abgar IX was imprisoned and exiled to Rome and the region became a Roman province. In the period from Trajan's conquest (116) to 216, Christianity began to spread in Edessa. Abgar IX (179-186 AD) was the first Christian King of Edessa. It is believed that the Gospel of Thomas emanated from Edessa around 140 AD. Prominent early Christian figures have lived in and emerged from this region such as Tatian the Assyrian who came to Edessa from Hadiab (Adiabene). He made a trip to Rome and returned to Edessa around 172-173. He had controversial opinions, seceded from the Church, denounced marriage as defilement and maintained that the flesh of Christ was imaginary. He composed Diatessaron or "harmony of the Gospels"(Ewangelion da-mhalte) in Syriac, which contained eclectic ideas from Jewish-Christian and dualistic traditions. This became the Gospel par excellence of Syriac-speaking Christianity until in the 5th century Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, suppressed it and substituted a revision of the Old Syriac Canonical Gospels (Ewangelion da-mfarshe). After this, Edessa was again brought under Roman control by Decius and it was made a center of Roman operations against the Persian Sassanids. Amru, possibly a descendant of Abgar, is mentioned as king in the Paikuli inscription, recording the victory of Narseh in the Sassanid civil war of 293. Historians identify this Amru as Amru ibn Adi, the fourth king of the Lakhmid dynasty which was at that time still based in Harran, not yet moved to Hirah in Babylonia. Many centuries later, Dagalaiphus and Secundinus duke of Osrhoene, accompanied Julian in his war against the Sassanid king Shapur II in the 4th century. In his writings Pliny refers to the natives of Osroene and Commagene as Arabs and the region as Arabia. According to Pliny, a nomadic Arab tribe called Orrhoei occupied Edessa about 130 BC. Orrhoei founded a small state ruled by their chieftains with the title of kings and the district was called after them Orrhoene. This name eventually changed into Osroene, in assimilation to the Parthian name Osroes or Chosroes (Khosrau).


Next Recap: The Hellenistic Client Kingdoms of Pontus and Bosporus, then the Sarmatian Tribes...
 
Last edited:
Recap: The Hellenistic Client Kingdoms of Pontus, Bosporus and Judea

1200 BCE - 60 CE

mithridates.jpg


mithridates4.jpg


mithridates3.png


Part I - Upon the Pontic Euxine - The Kingdom of Pontus

Shielded by the Pontic Alps from the central Anatolian plateau the shore of the Pontos Euxinus (Black Sea) has often had a history separate from that of the rest of Anatolia. The name Pontos is geographical, not ethnic, in origin, and was first used to designate that part of Kappadokia which bordered on the "Pontos," as the Euxine was often termed. The configuration of the country included a beautiful but narrow, riparian margin, backed by a noble range of mountains parallel to the coast, while these in turn were broken by the streams that forced their way from the interior plains down to the sea; the valleys, narrower or wider, were fertile and productive, as were the wide plains of the interior such as the Chiliokomon and Phanaroea. The mountain slopes were originally clothed with heavy forests of beech, pine and oak of different species, and when the country was well afforested, the rainfall must have been better adequate than now to the needs of luxuriant vegetation. Between 2000 BC and 1800 BC, Assyrian merchants from northern Mesopotamia established a number of trading colonies in the central and eastern Anatolian cities, thereby drawing the region into wider Middle Eastern culture. The unification of Anatolia was achieved by the Hittites and this region became the center of power for the Hittites. As the Hittite power shrunk under the hammer blows of the Sea Peoples and other invaders hardy Greek adventurers appeared from the West sailing along the Euxine main in quest of lands to exploit and conquer and colonize. Miletus, sent out colonists through the Bosporus, and along the southern shore of the Black Sea. Greek culture by slow degrees took root along the coastal towns mixing with the local cultures and the later Persians. Following the Persian overthrow of Lydia, Pontos was loosely joined to the great Achaemenid Empire and rule was by Persian satraps.

During the domination of the Achaemenid Persian Empire eastern Asia Minor was colonized by the Persians. The uplands of Anatolia resembled those of Persia in climate and soil, and were especially adapted to the raising of horses. The main influence on the societies of Pontos had come from Persia with its temple priests and Persianized feudal nobles which ruled over villages inhabited by a heterogeneous population. Greek culture would have some influence but mostly superficially until later in the kingdoms history. In Kappadokia and even in Pontos the aristocracy who owned the soil belonged to the conquering Persians. Under the various governments which followed after the death of Alexander, those landlords would remain the real masters of the country. They retained their hereditary holdings throughout the political turmoil until the time of the Romans. This military and feudal aristocracy furnished Mithradates Eupator a considerable number of the officers who helped him in his long defiance of Rome, and later defended the threatened independence of Armenia against the enterprises of the Romans. These warriors worshiped Mithra as the protecting god of their arms, and this is the reason why Mithra always, even in the Latin world, remained the “invincible” god, the lord of armies, held in special honor by warriors. Alongside them were the native clan chieftains governing the districts where the Anatolian tribes held dominion. These tribes residing in the eastern part of Northern Anatolia were known to the Greeks as the Mossynoecians, Makrones, Tibarenians and Leucosyrians as well as the Chalybes or Chaldaei. The Tzanoi lived mainly in Pontic Alps, their range extending into the land of the Colchians or Kolchoi, to whom they are related and the Tibareni and Chaldaei, who also extend as far as Colchis. It is from these men that the bulk of the tribal levy is formed. Besides the Persian nobility a Persian clergy had also become established in the peninsula. It officiated in famous temples, at Zela in Pontos and Hierocaesarea in Lydia. The sacrifices of the fire priests which Strabo observed in Kappadokia recall all the peculiarities of the Avestan liturgy. The same prayers were recited before the altar of the fire while the priest held the sacred fasces and the same offerings were made of milk, oil and honey, and the same precautions were taken to prevent the priest's breath from polluting the divine flame. Recent discoveries of bilingual inscriptions have succeeded in establishing the fact that the language used, or at least written, by the Persian colonies of Asia Minor was not that of their ancient Aryan homeland, but rather Aramaic. Under the Achemenides this was the diplomatic and commercial language of all countries west of the Tigris. In Kappadokia and Armenia it remained the literary and probably also the liturgical language until it was slowly supplanted by Greek during the Hellenistic period.

Pontos had acquired nominal independence from Persia around 363 BC and was able to maintain it during the Macedonian period. Following the Anatolian conquests of Alexander the Great attempts were made to rule Kappadokia through a Macedonian appointed commander, but the ruling classes and people resisted and declared a Persian aristocrat, as king. Alexander had never conquered this country completely, and this last Persian satrap, a man named Ariarathes, had created a kingdom of his own. Kappadokia and Paphlagonia fell to Eumenes in the settlement of Babylon, who was charged with defending the region as far as Trapezus and with continuing hostilities against this Ariarthes, the only chieftain refusing alliance to Macedon. His claims were made good in 322 by the regent Perdikkas who crucified Ariarathes; but in the dissensions following Eumenes death, the son of Ariarathes recovered his inheritance and left it to a line of successors, who mostly bore the name of the founder of the dynasty. Pontos became a separate kingdom later in the 3rd Century, and here forges its own history separate from that of Kappadokia. In Pontos Mithradates I, was the son of a Persian satrap taking advantage of the confusion caused by the Wars of the Diadochi, came to Pontos with only six horsemen and was able to assume the title of king, he died in 266 after a reign of thirty-six years. The kings of Pontos, Persian by descent, formed close ties with Greece and from the beginning Hellenistic culture found an entrance into Pontos. Upon his death Mithridates' son Ariobarzanes succeeded him as king of Pontus. Ariobarzanes may have lacked the ambition of his father, but he made up for it with his competence and cool temperament. His reign was quiet and uneventful save for his acquiring of the city of Amastris, which was surrendered to him for reasons unknown. He dies somewhere between 258 and 240 BC and was succeeded by his young son Mithridates II. Mithridates II was only a minor when he ascended the throne, but later in his adult life he proved himself to be as ambitious as his grandfather and a competent general on the battlefield. Early in his reign his kingdom was invaded by a horde of Galatians (Gauls), which were eventually defeated and driven out by his forces. Later on he married the Seleucid princess Laodice, and was given the land of Phrygia as a dowry by her brother Seleucus II Callinicus. Despite Seleucus' generosity and favor Mithridates attacked him during the "War of the Brothers" when Seleucus was fighting his brother Antiochus Hierax for control of the Seleucid territories in Anatolia. Soon after Mithridates inflicted a crushing defeat upon Seleucus killing nearly twenty thousand of his soldiers near the city of Ancyra. Many years later he gave his daughter Laodice III in marriage to a young Antiochus III shortly after he ascended the Seleucid throne. Following this he dedicated the last years of his reign unsuccessfully attempting to incorporate the great city of Sinope into his kingdom. He was succeeded by his son Mithridates III. The reign of Mithridates III is unfortunately shrouded in mystery. Its reasonable to assume that his reign was fairly quiet and peaceful given that the Seleucid Empire was dealt a telling blow by the Romans and reduced to impotence as far as Anatolia was concerned, and therefore no longer posed a threat to the Pontic kingdom. In its absence the Attalids of Pergamon emerged as the new overlords of Anatolia, but unlike the Seleucids they were content with simply upholding the status quo between the various kingdoms and city-states. Mithridates III was succeeded by his son Pharnaces I who quickly revealed himself to possess a lust for power and conquest far surpassing that of his grandfather. His reign, which began somewhere between 200 and 183 BC, was initially marked by his conquest of Sinope, a feat that not even his celebrated grandfather could accomplish. A few years later he went to war against both Eumenes II of Pergamon and Ariartahes IV of Cappadocia. This war raged on and off for two years before Pharnaces came to the realization that he could not defeat both kings alone, and so in return for peace he yielded all of the conquests he had made to the victors with the sole exception of Sinope. He reigned for somewhere between fifteen and twenty more years before he was succeeded by his brother Mithridates IV. Mithridates IV Philopater/Philadelphus (of brotherly/fatherly love) succeeded his brother as king somewhere in the 150's BC. Not much is know of his reign, save that he sent a body of troops to aid the Pergamene king Attalus II against forces Prusias II of Bithynia. This show of support marks the beginning of a period of friendship between the Pontic kings and the Roman Republic and her allies. Mithridates V Euergetes (Benefactor) was the son of Pharnaces I who ascended to the throne after the death of his uncle. Following the example set by his uncle he set out to strengthen his kingdoms alliance with the Romans by sending ships and soldiers to aid them in the Third Punic War, and in the war against Aristonicus of Pergamon who was a pretender or bastard successor to the Pergamene throne. Out of gratitude the Roman consul Manius Aquillius awarded him with the land of Phrygia, which, despite opposition from the Roman senate, remained in his possession until his death in 120 BC. Despite his political and territorial successes a conspiracy formed around him, fueled perhaps by his philroman and philhellenic tendencies. He was assassinated sometime in 120 BC by a combination of traitorous underlings and relatives. His son would prove to become the most illustrious and powerful ruler of Pontus, capable of challenging even Rome itself...

Mithridates VI was surnamed Eupator and Dionysus to distinguish him from his father, Mithridates V Euergetes, who had been king of Pontus (northern Turkey) between 152/151 and 120. Euergetes was allied to Rome, which he supported during the Third Punic War (149-146). With this alliance, Euergetes could expand the power of Pontus from the shores of the Black Sea to central Anatolia, where he fought against king Ariarathes VI Epiphanes of Cappadocia and forced the Paphlagonian ruler Pylaemenes to bequeath his realm to Pontus. His capital Sinope was home to a Hellenistic court, and Euergetes was willing to present himself in the Greek world as champion of Hellenism in Anatolia. In 120, he was murdered in Sinope, and left his kingdom to his wife, the Seleucid princess Laodice, and their two sons, Mithridates Eupator and Mithridates Chrestus. Civil war was inevitable, but the boys were still young and their mother was able to postpone the conflict. Yet, in 116 (?), Mithridates Eupator was able to remove his mother from the throne, and not much later, his younger brother disappeared from the scene. Maybe the ruler of the Seleucid empire, Antiochus VIII Grypus, wanted to intervene on behalf of Laodice, but the Seleucids were involved in a civil war. In this way, Mithridates Eupator became sole ruler of Pontus. The young king continued his father's expansionist policy. In 115/114, he crossed the Black Sea and intervened in a conflict between the hellenistic kingdom at the Crimea (the "Bosporan kingdom") and its northern neighbor, the Scythians. The result of this intervention was that the Crimea was added to Pontus and a large part of the northern shore of the Black Sea became Mithridates' protectorate. New successes were to come. Paphlagonia was finally inherited and shared with the king of Bithynia, Nicomedes III Euergetes. In 104/103, Colchis (modern Georgia) was added and not much later, parts of western Armenia were conquered as well. Until now, the Roman Senate had not been really interested: after all, Anatolia was far away and besides, Rome was involved in wars against the Numidian king Jugurtha and against the Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and Teutones. However, the conquest of Paphlagonia was not acceptable to the Senate, and the two kings had to evacuate the country they had seized. Mithridates was not deterred. Almost immediately, in 101, he intervened in Cappadocia and Galatia (in central Anatolia), but again, the Romans were not happy with this state of affairs, and their praetor Lucius Cornelius Sulla put a new king on the Cappadocian throne, Ariobarzanes I Philoromaeus. Both men were to play a role in the next quarter of a century: Sulla became Mithridates' nemesis, and Ariobarzanes was to lose and regain his throne at least six times. The conflict with Rome that was to last for the rest of Mithridates' life became inevitable in 94, when Nicomedes III of Bithynia died and was succeeded by Nicomedes IV Philopator. The king of Pontus wanted to install Philopator's brother Socrates Chrestus in Bithynia, which was unacceptable to Rome: the Romans feared that Mithridates, whose empire consisted now of all countries surrounding the Black Sea, would become too powerful if a puppet would be king in Bithynia. The immediate cause, however, was Mithridates' attempt to replace Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia with his son Ariarathes Eusebes. In 90, the Senate sent Manius Aquilius to the east, and he restored Nicomedes to Bithynia and Ariobarzanes to Cappadocia. The Roman leader also urged Nicomedes to raid Pontus, thinking that Mithridates would understand the lesson. However, the king of Pontus, learning that the Romans were now also involved in a civil war against their Italian allies, decided to retaliate, and in 89, war broke out.

Rome was unprepared. It had insufficient manpower to overcome its rebellious allies, and in 90, one of the consuls, Lucius Julius Caesar, had proposed to do concessions to the rebels. There were not enough Roman troops in Asia to protect this province; the fact that Aquilius had left the retaliatory raid against Pontus to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia suggests as much. As a consequence, Mithridates started the war spectacularly successful. Within weeks, he conquered all of Rome's Asian possessions, hardly encountering resistance. In the spring of 88, he ordered the execution of all Romans and Italians in the conquered area. According to our sources, about 80,000 were killed. Any possibility to reach a compromise was now blocked. In the summer, Mithridates was invited by the Athenians to liberate them from the Romans, and he sent his armies across the Aegean. In Athens, a man named Aristion became tyrant, and elsewhere Mithridates' general Archelaus was successful. Things would have gone terribly wrong for Rome, had not Quintus Braetius Sura, the deputy (pro quaestore) of the governor of Macedonia, offered resistance. Only parts of Greece were lost; Macedonia remained under Roman control, although another Pontic army was active in the north and captured Amphipolis. At the same time, the Romans and their allies had finally ended their conflict, and the Romans sent their consul Sulla to the east. However, his appointment had been contested by his rival Gaius Marius, and Sulla had not been able to leave until he had marched on Rome and won a brief civil war. It was 87 when he finally crossed the Adriatic Sea, landed in Epirus, marched with five legions on Athens and started to besiege Aristion. At the same time, he tried to take Piraeus, the Athenian port, which was defended by Archelaus. The war was, even for ancient standards, harsh and bitter. The Mithridatic forces had already looted the sanctuary of Delos to obtain money to hire mercenaries; with the same purpose, the Romans looted Delphi. This was unusual. After a long siege, Athens and Piraeus fell. The columns of the temple of Zeus Olympius were sent to Rome, where they were used to decorate the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter. Mithridates' general Archelaus managed to escape and joined the army that had been operating in the north, which had by now reached Thessaly. Sulla immediately marched against the united troops, and defeated them at Chaeronea and Orchomenus. This was the end of the invasion of Europe by Mithridates' armies, and Sulla, who still was involved in a civil war at home and was in a hurry, started negotiations. At this moment, the situation became really complex. In Rome, the adherents of Sulla had suffered several setbacks, and the adherents of Marius' successor Cinna had reorganized the state. They had also sent an army against Mithridates, commanded by Lucius Valerius Flaccus and Gaius Flavius Fimbria, and Sulla wanted to receive the surrender of the king of Pontus before the latter would negotiate with Flaccus and Fimbria. Even worse (for Sulla) was that Fimbria invaded Asia itself and defeated Mithridates on the banks of the river Rhyndacus. Although beaten, the king was for some time able to play off Sulla against Fimbria, until Sulla arrived in Asia too. In the summer of 85, Mithridates and Sulla concluded the Peace of Dardanus. The king of Pontus surrendered a part of his fleet, evacuated all conquered territories, and was forced to pay a moderate indemnity of a mere 2,000 talents. Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia and Nicomedes of Bithynia were restored. Having achieved something that was essentially nothing but an armistice, Sulla could return to Italy, where he was able to overthrow the government, become dictator, and reorganize the republic. Mithridates had survived.

The Second Mithridatic War was a brief intermezzo of the Peace of Dardanus, based on a misunderstanding. The first war had been expensive and several parts of Mithridates' empire had become restless. Therefore, the king started to recruit soldiers. The Roman governor of Asia, Lucius Licinius Murena, thought that the king wanted to avenge himself and prepared for war. He invaded Pontus but was defeated. The conflict could have escalated, but Sulla, who was now sole ruler of Rome, ordered Mithridates to desist, which he did. He had restored his prestige. In the next years, he was able to restore his army too. He also allied himself to king Tigranes II the Great of Armenia, the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, the Roman rebel Sertorius in Hispania, Thracian tribes, and the notorious Cilician pirates. When war finally broke out, he even negotiated with the rebellious slave leader Spartacus. Moreover, his troops had been trained by a Roman officer, who had been sent to him by Sertorius. The immediate cause of the Third Mithridatic War was the death of king Nicomedes IV Philopator of Bithynia in 75/74. In his will, he bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans. Mithridates declared this will to be a falsification, occupied Bithynia, and installed a pretender, Nicomedes IV. The Senate replied that this man was a bastard, and war was declared. Rome was involved in several other dangerous wars (against Sertorius and Spartacus), but Mithridates had to discover that his enemies could be dangerous even when they were occupied in other theaters of war. The war was officially conducted by the Roman general Marcus Aurelius Cotta, who arrived in 73, was repelled by Mithridates, and found himself under siege at Calchedon. Far more dangerous was the governor of Asia and Cilicia, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, who easily outwitted the king at Calchedon and Cyzicus, and forced him back from Bithynia to Pontus. The war could by now have been ended in a compromise, but Lucullus was confident that he could achieve more if he invaded Pontus, and Mithridates was confident that in Pontus, he could overcome his opponent. So in 72, the theater of war was transferred to the east. Fortress after fortress was besieged and taken by the Romans, the king had to retreat, and in 70, Lucullus had occupied all Mithridates' territories west of the river Euphrates, including Sinope, the capital of Pontus. The defeated king fled to Armenia, where he hoped to find support from his son-in-law, king Tigranes the Great. Lucullus immediately sent envoys to ask for the king's extradition, and in the meantime reorganized the Asian provinces of the Roman empire, lowering the taxes and interest rate. This made him a lot of enemies in Rome, where many wealthy people had shares in tax-farming companies and saw their profits reduced. When king Tigranes II the Great of Armenia refused to extradite Mithridates, Lucullus launched a bold attack on Armenia. In 69, he crossed the Euphrates, proceeded through Mesopotamia, reached the Upper Tigris valley, defeated his enemies, besieged Tigranes' capital Tigranocerta, and finally took it after what had been -in spite of the fact that Tigranes had been able to escape- one of the most brilliant campaigns in ancient history. On his return to Mesopotamia, Lucullus also took Nisibis, and in 68, he invaded eastern Armenia, where he reached Artaxata (modern Yerevan). However, his enemies in Rome managed to secure his recall before he could achieve something. Even worse, Mithridates had been able to return to Pontus with an army that had been given to him by Tigranes. He invaded his own country, and overcame Lucullus' deputies (67). At the same time, the Cilician pirates were becoming increasingly dangerous towards the Romans, who decided to send their best commander, Pompey the Great, to deal with them. In a swift campaign, he overcame them, and in 66, he was allowed to finish the Third Mithridatic War as well. He allied himself to the Parthian king Phraates III, who invaded Armenia while Pompey was invading Pontus. Mithridates was again forced to flee to Armenia, but this time, his ally was unable to help him. Pompey finally defeated Mithridates at a place named Dasteira, which was later called Nicopolis, "City of victory". But still, Mithridates was not dispirited. Early in 65, he reached his possessions north of the Black Sea, which were governed by his son Machares. The latter was not willing to take up arms against the Romans -after all, Lucullus had recognized him- and was therefore killed by his father, who was still hoping to build an army of Scythian and Thracian horsemen, and wanted to invade Rome's possessions on the Balkans. However, his luck was now running out. His son Pharnaces revolted and gained support of the last soldiers that were loyal to Mithridates. He committed suicide, and was later buried in Sinope, the capital of the kingdom he had lost. The three Mithridatic wars had important consequences. The eastern part of the Mediterranean world consisted of an unequal mix of Greek, Iranian, and other cultures. They could have been united in a large hellenistic empire that could rival with Rome; in fact it had been attempted before by the Seleucid kings Seleucus I Nicator and Antiochus III the Great. Mithridates was the third to try. Once his failure was understood, all countries east of the Euphrates fell to Rome: Pontus, Cilicia, the remains of the Seleucid empire, Judaea, and Crete. They became new provinces of the Roman empire, and had close ties to the center of power, being protected by powerful politicians like Sulla, Lucullus, and Pompey.

Pharnaces II was the last true king of the great dynasty to rule Pontus. Following his father's death he made several overtures to Pompey Magnus to bring peace to his exhausted kingdom, including sending the body of his father as proof of his sincerity. Content wit this display, Pompey agreed to a peace treaty and awarded Pharnaces with the Bosporan kingdom as an appendage to his own. Fourteen years later during the civil war between Pompey and Caesar, and having perhaps lost his fear of the Romans, Pharnaces broke the peace treaty and conquered Colchis and parts of Armenia with an overwhelming army. He later defeated an inexperienced Roman army sent against him, but his temperament quickly changed when he found out that Caesar himself was marching against him. His attempts to buy time for his army to recover from their recent conquests failed, and he was swiftly defeated by Caesar at the Battle of Zela after a mere five-day campaign leading to the famous quote "Veni, vidi, vici". Following this he fled to the Bosporus and managed to muster a small army made up of Scythians and Sarmatians before he was killed in battle. After his death his son Darius was placed as a puppet king of Pontus by Marc Antony. His daughter would be placed upon the Bosporan Throne, and her descendents would continue to rule the Crimea until the 4th Century CE IOTL. Darius' reign would be short, and he would be succeeded by his brother Arsaces, who would reign just as briefly. In 36 BCE the Mithridatic Dynasty would be replaced by that of Polemon I's, an Anatolian Greek Aristocrat with ties to Mark Antony. In 36 BC, Polemon assisted Antony in his military campaign against Parthia. The Parthians defeated Antony and Polemon. Polemon was captured and taken prisoner by the Parthian King. After a ransom was allowed, Polemon was released. By this time, Polemon was ruling from Iconium (modern Konya) in Lycaonia. In 35 BC, Polemon assisted Antony in making an alliance with Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene with Rome, whom the Median King was an ally to Parthia. Both Antony and Polemon, succeeded in this alliance to happen. During the naval Battle of Actium in 31 BC, Polemon had sent Antony an auxiliary force. Before Actium, Polemon made peace with the triumvir Octavian and became his ally. After the death of Antony, Octavian became the Roman emperor Augustus. Augustus early in his reign had acknowledged and recognized Polemon as a Roman Client King and the Client Kingdoms he ruled. Augustus awarded Polemon with an ivory scepter; an embroidered triumphal robe and he greeted Polemon as king, ally and friend. This recognition was a tradition, which recognises and awards the allies to Rome. As King of the Bosporan, he extended the Kingdom as far to the river Tanais. Polemon reigned as a long and prosperous king. In 8 BC, Polemon engaged in a military campaign against the Aspurgiani, a nomad tribe that lived above the mountains of Phanagoria. Polemon was defeated by them, taken as their prisoner and was put to death. His stepson Aspurgus succeeded him in the Bosporus, and his second wife, Pythodorida, succeeded him in Pontus. She married King Archelaus of Cappadocia afterwards and reigned also as Queen of Cappadocia until his death in 17 CE, which Rome turned into a province hereafter. In later years her son, Polemon II assisted his mother in the administration of the kingdom. When Pythodorida died, Polemon II succeeded her. Pythodorida was a friend and contemporary to the Greek geographer Strabo. Strabo is said to have described Pythodorida as a woman of virtuous character. Strabo considered her to have a great capacity for business and considered that under Pythodorida’s rule, Pontus had flourished.

Polemon II is the current King of Pontus and IOTL the final King, getting deposed by Nero in 62 CE so Pontus could become a Roman Province. The Pontic royal family was of mixed Anatolian Greek and Roman origin. His paternal grandmother is unknown; however his paternal grandmother could have been named Tryphaena, while his paternal grandfather was Zenon, a prominent orator and aristocrat, who was an ally to Roman Triumvir Mark Antony. His maternal grandparents were Pythodoros of Tralles, a wealthy Greek and friend of Pompey, and Antonia. Polemon II was the namesake of his parents and his maternal grandparents. Through his maternal grandmother he was a direct descendant of Mark Antony and his second wife Antonia Hybrida Minor. Antony and Antonia Hybrida were first paternal cousins. He was Antony’s second born great grandson and great grandchild. Polemon II is the only known male descendant of Mark Antony that carries his name. The other male descendant of Mark Antony who carries a form of his name Antonius was the consul Quintus Haterius Antoninus. Through Antony, his great maternal aunt was Queen Cleopatra Selene II of Mauretania. Through Antony, he was a distant cousin to Roman Client King Ptolemy of Mauretania and the princesses named Drusilla of Mauretania. Through Antony, he was also a distant cousin to Roman emperors Caligula, Claudius and Nero and Roman empresses Valeria Messalina, Agrippina the Younger and Claudia Octavia. Polemon II’s father died in 8 BC. His mother then married King Archelaus of Cappadocia, and the family had moved to Cappadocia, where Polemon II was raised, along with his siblings, at the court of his stepfather. Archelaus died in 17, whereupon Polemon II and his mother moved back to Pontus. From 17 until 38, Polemon II lived as a private citizen in Pontus and assisted his mother in the administration of their realm. When his mother died in 38, Polemon II succeeded his mother as the sole ruler of Pontus, Colchis and Cilicia. According to an honorary inscription at Cyzicus in 38, Polemon II participated in celebrating the local games in the city, honoring Julia Drusilla, the late sister of Caligula; in this way Polemon II expressed his loyalty to the emperor and the Roman state. Polemon II with another Roman Client King Antiochus IV of Commagene, held athletic games in honor of Claudius in Cilicia in 47. Antiochus IV with Polemon II had showed favor towards Claudius in which they offered significant services to him. Around 50, Polemon II was attracted to the wealth and beauty of the Judean princess Julia Berenice, whom he had met in Tiberias during a visit to King Agrippa I. Berenice in turn wanted to marry Polemon II to end rumors that she and her brother were committing incest. Berenice was previously widowed in 48 when her second husband, her paternal uncle Herod of Chalcis, died. She had two sons by him, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus. Berenice however set the condition that Polemon II had to convert to Judaism, which included undergoing the rite of circumcision, before marriage. Polemon II assented, and the marriage went ahead. It did not last long however, and Berenice left Pontus with her sons and returned to the court of her brother. Polemon II abandoned Judaism and, according to the legend of Bartholomew the Apostle, he accepted Christianity, but only to become a pagan again. At an unknown date perhaps after the early 50s, Polemon II married a princess called Julia Mamaea who was from the Syrian Roman Client Emesene Kingdom. Mamaea was of Assyrian, Armenian, Greek and Median ancestry. Polemon II married Mamaea as his second wife and the circumstances that lead Polemon II to marry her are unknown. Through Mamaea’s marriage to him, she became a Roman Client Queen of Pontus, Colchis and Cilicia. The relationship between Polemon II and Mamaea is unknown. Mamaea marrying Polemon II is only known through surviving evidence. Her name and identity is revealed from surviving bronze coinage. Surviving coinage that was issued from Polemon II and Mamaea is extremely rare, as only three specimens are known. On surviving coinage, shows her royal title in Greek (of Julia Mamaea the Queen) (of Queen Julia Mamaea). These coins can be dated from the second half of Polemon II’s reign from 60 until 74. She bore Polemon II two sons who were Polemon and Rheometalces. Her sons that she bore to Polemon II are known from a restored surviving inscription from Amphipolis Greece, that is commemorating Polemon II, Polemon and Rheometalces is dated from the second half of the 1st century. Polemon II renamed the town Fanizan and named the town after himself to Polemonium (modern Fatsa Turkey). In 62, Nero induced Polemon II to abdicate the Pontian throne, and Pontus, including Colchis, became a Roman province. From then until his death, Polemon II only ruled Cilicia IOTL. Perhaps Brittanicus shall be kinder to the fate of his realm, and keep it's client status like Armenia...


Phiale_de_Tmutarakan.jpg


cimmerian-bosporus.png



Part II - The Breadbasket of The Steppe - The Kingdom of Cimmerian Bosporus

The Bosporan Kingdom (also known as the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus) was an ancient state located in eastern Crimea and the Taman Peninsula, on the shores of the Cimmerian Bosporus (now known as the Strait of Kerch). It was named after the Bosphorus, also known as Istanbul Strait, a different strait that divides Asia from Europe. The Bosporan Kingdom was the longest surviving Roman client kingdom IOTL. It was a Roman province from 63 to 68, under Emperor Nero. The 1st and 2nd centuries BCE saw a period of renewed golden age of the Bosporan state. In the end of the 2nd century, the King Sauromates II inflicted a critical defeat to the Scyths and included all the territories of the Crimea in the structure of his state. The prosperity of the Bosporan Kingdom was based on the export of wheat, fish and slaves.The profit of the trade supported a class whose conspicuous wealth is still visible from newly discovered archaeological finds, excavated, often illegally, from numerous burial barrows known as kurgans. The once-thriving cities of the Bosporan left extensive architectural and sculptural remains, while the kurgans continue to yield spectacular Greco-Sarmatian objects, the best examples of which are now preserved in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. These include gold work, vases imported from Athens, coarse terracottas, textile fragments and specimens of carpentry and marquetry. The whole area was dotted with Greek cities: in the west, Panticapaeum (Kerch)—the most significant city in the region, Nymphaeum and Myrmekion; on the east Phanagoria (the second city of the region), Kepoi, Germonassa, Portus Sindicus and Gorgippia. These Greek colonies were originally settled by Milesians in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE. Phanagoria (c. 540 BCE) was a colony of Teos, and the foundation of Nymphaeum may have had a connection with Athens; at least it appears to have been a member of the Delian League in the 5th century. Spartocus founded a dynasty which seems to have endured until c. 110 BCE, known as the Spartocids. The Spartocids left many inscriptions, indicating that the earliest members of the house ruled under the titles of archons of the Greek cities and kings of various minor native tribes, notably the Sindi (from central Crimea) and other branches of the Maeotae. Surviving material (texts, inscriptions and coins) do not supply enough information to reconstruct a complete chronology of kings of the region. Satyrus (431 – 387 BCE), successor to Spartocus, established his rule over the whole region, adding Nymphaeum to his kingdom and besieging Theodosia, which was wealthy because, unlike other cities in the region, it had a port which was free of ice throughout the year, allowing it to trade grain with the rest of the Greek world, even in winter. Satyrus' son Leucon (387 – 347 BCE) would eventually take the city. He was succeeded jointly by his two sons, Spartocus II, and Paerisades; Spartocus died in 342, allowing Paerisades to reign alone until 310. After Paerisades' death, a civil war between his sons Satyrus and Eumelus was fought. Satyrus defeated his younger brother Eumelus at the Battle of the River Thatis in 310 BCE but then was killed in battle, giving Eumelus the throne. Eumelus' successor was Spartocus III (303 – 283 BCE) and after him Paerisades II. Succeeding princes repeated the family names, so it is impossible to assign them a definite order. The last of them, however, Paerisades V, unable to make headway against increasingly violent attacks from nomadic tribes in the area, called in the help of Diophantus, general of King Mithridates VI of Pontus, leaving him his kingdom. Paerisades was killed by a Scythian named Saumacus who led a rebellion against him.
The house of Spartocus was well known as a line of enlightened and wise princes; although Greek opinion could not deny that they were, strictly speaking, tyrants, they are always described as dynasts. They maintained close relations with Athens, their best customer for the Bosporan grain exports: Leucon I of Bosporus created privileges for Athenian ships at Bosporan ports. The Attic orators make numerous references to this. In return the Athenians granted Leucon Athenian citizenship and made decrees in honour of him and his sons. After his defeat by Roman General Pompey in 63 BCE, King Mithridates VI of Pontus fled with a small army from Colchis (modern Georgia) over the Caucasus Mountains to Crimea and made plans to raise yet another army to take on the Romans. His eldest living son, Machares, regent of Cimmerian Bosporus, was unwilling to aid his father, so Mithridates had Machares killed, acquiring the throne for himself. Mithridates then ordered the conscriptions and preparations for war. In 63 BCE, Pharnaces, the youngest son of Mithridates, led a rebellion against his father, joined by Roman exiles in the core of Mithridates's Pontic army. Mithridates VI withdrew to the citadel in Panticapaeum, where he committed suicide. Pompey buried Mithridates VI in the rock-cut tombs of his ancestors in Amasia, the capital of the Kingdom of Pontus. After the death of Mithridates VI (63 BCE), Pharnaces II (63 – 47 BCE) suplicated to Pompey, and then tried to regain his dominion during Julius Caesar's Civil War, but was defeated by Caesar at the Zela and was later killed by his former governor and son-in-law Asander. Before the death of Pharnaces II, Asander had married Pharnaces II’s daughter Dynamis. Asander and Dynamis were the ruling monarchs until Caesar commanded a paternal uncle of Dynamis, Mithridates II to declare war on the Bosporan Kingdom and claimed the kingship for himself. Asander and Dynamis were defeated by Caesar’s ally and went into political exile. However, after Caesar’s death in 44 BCE, the Bosporan Kingdom was restored to Asander and Dynamis by Caesar’s great nephew and heir Octavian. Asander ruled as an archon and later as king until his death in 17 BCE. After the death of Asander, Dynamis was compelled to marry a Roman usurper called Scribonius, but the Romans under Agrippa intervened and established Polemon I of Pontus (16 – 8 BCE) in his place. Polemon married Dynamis in 16 BCE and she died in 14 BCE. Polemon ruled as king until his death in 8 BCE. After the death of Polemon, Aspurgus, the son of Dynamis and Asander, succeeded Polemon.


After the death of Polemon I, Aspurgus succeeded his stepfather. Little is known on Aspurgus’ reign; however he seemed to have been a strong and capable ruler. Due to previous dynastic conflicts during the Roman Republic and around the period of Asander’s death, the first Roman Emperor Augustus and the Roman Senate finally in 14, accepted Aspurgus as the legitimate Bosporan King. Aspurgus adopted the Roman names "Tiberius Julius", because he received Roman citizenship and enjoyed the patronage of Augustus and his heir Tiberius. He was succeded by his son Mithridates III in 38 CE. Mithridates was the first son of Roman Client Monarchs Aspurgus and Gepaepyris. His younger brother was prince and future King Cotys I. He was a prince of Greek, Iranian and Roman ancestry. He was the first grandchild and grandson of Bosporan Monarchs Asander and Dynamis and Roman Client Rulers of Thrace, Cotys VIII and Antonia Tryphaena. Through his maternal grandmother Antonia Tryphaena, he was a descendant of Roman triumvir Mark Antony. Tryphaena was the first great granddaughter born to the triumvir. Through Tryphaena, Mithridates was also related to various members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Through Aspurgus, Mithridates was a descendant of the Greek Macedonian Kings: Antigonus I Monophthalmus, Seleucus I Nicator and Regent, Antipater. These three men served under King Alexander the Great. Mithridates was named in honor of his ancestor King Mithridates VI of Pontus. Mithridates VI was the paternal grandfather, of his paternal grandmother Dynamis. Little is known on the early life of Mithridates. When Aspurgus died in 38, Mithridates had become joint ruler with his mother, Gepaepyris. Sometime before 45, the Roman Emperor Claudius, had given Mithridates the whole Bosporan Kingdom to rule. Claudius recognised and appointed him as the legitimate Bosporan King. In 45 for unknown reasons Claudius, deposed Mithridates from the Bosporan throne and replaced him with his younger brother Cotys I. Claudius had withdrawn the Roman garrison under Aulus Didius Gallus from the Bosporan Kingdom and a few Roman cohorts were left with the Roman Knight Gaius Julius Aquila in the Bosporan. Mithridates despised the situation. He mistrusted Cotys I, Aquila and attempted to regain his throne. Mithridates was able to entice the leaders of the local tribes and deserters into his allies. He was able to seize control of the local tribes and collect an army to declare war on Cotys I and Aquila. When Cotys I and Aquila heard news of this war, they feared that the invasion was imminent. Both men knew they had the support of Claudius. Mithridates with his army, engaged in war with Cotys I’s army and Aquila’s battalions, in a three-day war, which Cotys I and Aquila won unscathed and triumphant at the Don River. Mithridates knew that resistance was hopeless and considered an appeal to Claudius. Mithridates turned to a local tribesman called Eunones, to help him. Eunones, sent envoys to Rome to Claudius with a letter from Mithridates. In Mithridates’ letter to the Emperor, Mithridates greeted and addressed him with great honor and respect from one ruler to another ruler. Mithridates asked Claudius for a pardon and to be spared from a triumphal procession or capital punishment. Claudius wasn’t sure how to punish or deal with Mithridates. Mithridates was captured and brought to Rome as a prisoner. He was displayed as a public figure beside the platform in the Roman Forum along with his guards and his expression remained undoubted. Claudius was impressed with Mithridates’ mercy from his letter and allowed Mithridates to live. He was spared from any capital punishment and was exiled. Mithridates lived as a destitute exiled monarch until his death. He never married nor had children. The current Bosporan King is his brother Cotys I, rulings since 46 CE. Little is known on the life of Cotys I. When Aspurgus died in 38, his brother had become joint rulers with his mother. Sometime before 45, the Roman Emperor Claudius, had given his brother the whole Bosporan Kingdom to rule. Claudius recognised and appointed Mithridates as the legitimate Bosporan King. In 45 for unknown reasons Claudius, deposed Mithridates from the Bosporan throne and Claudius replaced Mithridates with him. Claudius had withdrawn the Roman garrison under Aulus Didius Gallus from the Bosporan Kingdom and a few Roman cohorts were left with the Roman Knight Gaius Julius Aquila in the Bosporan. Cotys I’s brother despised the situation and mistrusted him and Aquila. Mithridates attempted to regain his throne. Mithridates was able to entice the leaders of the local tribes and deserters into his allies. He was able to seize control of the local tribes and collect an army to declare war on Cotys I and Aquila. When Cotys I and Aquila heard news of this war, they feared that the invasion was imminent. Both men knew they had the support of Claudius. Mithridates with his army, engaged in war with Cotys I’s army and Aquila’s battalions, in a three-day war, which Cotys I and Aquila won unscathed and triumphant at the Don River. Mithridates was forced by Claudius to surrender. Mithridates was captured and taken to Rome as a prisoner. He was displayed as a public figure beside the platform in the Roman Forum along with his guards and his expression remained undoubted. Mithridates appealed to the Emperor for mercy to be spared from a triumphal procession or capital punishment. Claudius was impressed with Mithridates’ mercy from his letter and allowed Mithridates to live. He was spared from any capital punishment and was exiled. Cotys I’s brother lived as a destitute exiled monarch until his death. From 45 until 63, Cotys I reigned as Roman Client King of the Bosporan Kingdom. Sometime during his reign, Cotys I had married a Greek noblewoman called Eunice, through whom had a son called Tiberius Julius Rhescuporis I. Cotys I named his son, after Rhescuporis II, a Thracian prince and king, who was a paternal uncle of his maternal grandfather. The prosperity of his kingdom now lies in the hands of the new Emperor Brittanicus...


Arch_of_Titus_Menorah.png



Jerusalem-Herodian-Temple-in-Israe-.jpg



Diego-Velazquez-The-Crucifixion-Christ-on-the-Cross-Oil-Painting.jpg



Part III - Venerating the Hanukkah and Crucifix - The Herodian Client Kingdom of Judea


Israel and Judah were related Iron Age kingdoms of the ancient Levant. The Kingdom of Israel emerged as an important local power by the 9th century BCE before falling to the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE. Israel's southern neighbor, the Kingdom of Judah, emerged in the 8th century and enjoyed a period of prosperity as a client-state of first Assyria and then Babylon before a revolt against the Neo-Babylonian Empire led to its destruction in 586 BCE. Following the fall of Babylon to the Persian king Cyrus the Great, 539 BCE, some Judean exiles returned to Jerusalem, inaugurating the formative period in the development of a distinctive Judahite identity in the Persian province of Yehud. Yehud was absorbed into the subsequent Hellenistic kingdoms that followed the conquests of Alexander the Great, but in the 2nd century BCE the Judaeans revolted against the Hellenist Seleucid Empire and created the Hasmonean kingdom. This, the last nominally independent Judean kingdom, came to an end in 63 BCE with its conquest by Pompey of Rome. The eastern Mediterranean seaboard – the Levant – stretches 400 miles north to south from the Taurus Mountains to the Sinai desert, and 70 to 100 miles east to west between the sea and the Arabian desert. The coastal plain of the southern Levant, broad in the south and narrowing to the north, is backed in its southernmost portion by a zone of foothills, the Shephelah; like the plain this narrows as it goes northwards, ending in the promontory of Mount Carmel. East of the plain and the Shephelah is a mountainous ridge, the "hill country of Judah" in the south, the "hill country of Ephraim" north of that, then Galilee and the Lebanon mountains. To the east again lie the steep-sided valley occupied by the Jordan River, the Dead Sea, and the wadi of the Arabah, which continues down to the eastern arm of the Red Sea. Beyond the plateau is the Syrian desert, separating the Levant from Mesopotamia. To the southwest is Egypt, to the northeast Mesopotamia. The location and geographical characteristics of the narrow Levant made the area a battleground among the powerful entities that surrounded it. Canaan in the Late Bronze Age was a shadow of what it had been centuries earlier: many cities were abandoned, others shrank in size, and the total settled population was probably not much more than a hundred thousand. Settlement was concentrated in cities along the coastal plain and along major communication routes; the central and northern hill country which would later become the biblical kingdom of Israel was only sparsely inhabited although letters from the Egyptian archives indicate that Jerusalem was already a Canaanite city-state recognising Egyptian overlordship. Politically and culturally it was dominated by Egypt, each city under its own ruler, constantly at odds with its neighbours, and appealing to the Egyptians to adjudicate their differences. The Canaanite city-state system broke down at the end of the Late Bronze period, and Canaanite culture was then gradually absorbed into that of the Philistines, Phoenicians and Israelites. The process was gradual rather than swift: a strong Egyptian presence continued into the 12th century BCE, and, while some Canaanite cities were destroyed, others continued to exist in Iron I. The name Israel first appears in the stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah c. 1209 BCE, "Israel is laid waste and his seed is no more." This "Israel" was a cultural and probably political entity of the central highlands, well enough established to be perceived by the Egyptians as a possible challenge to their hegemony, but an ethnic group rather than an organised state; Archaeologist Paula McNutt says: "It is probably ... during Iron Age I [that] a population began to identify itself as 'Israelite'," differentiating itself from its neighbours via prohibitions on intermarriage, an emphasis on family history and genealogy, and religion. In the Late Bronze Age there were no more than about 25 villages in the highlands, but this increased to over 300 by the end of Iron I, while the settled population doubled from 20,000 to 40,000. The villages were more numerous and larger in the north, and probably shared the highlands with pastoral nomads who left no remains. Archaeologists and historians attempting to trace the origins of these villagers have found it impossible to identify any distinctive features that could define them as specifically Israelite – collared-rim jars and four-room houses have been identified outside the highlands and thus cannot be used to distinguish Israelite sites, and while the pottery of the highland villages is far more limited than that of lowland Canaanite sites, it develops typologically out of Canaanite pottery that came before. Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes some of the earliest highland sites, and the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites, could be taken as a marker of ethnicity, but others have cautioned that these can be a "common-sense" adaptation to highland life and not necessarily revelatory of origins. Other Aramaean sites also demonstrate a contemporary absence of pig remains at that time, unlike earlier Canaanite and later Philistine excavations. Modern scholars therefore see Israel arising peacefully and internally in the highlands.


Unusually favourable climatic conditions in the first two centuries of Iron Age II brought about an expansion of population, settlements and trade throughout the region. In the central highlands this resulted in unification in a kingdom with the city of Samaria as its capital, possibly by the second half of the 10th century BCE when an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I, the biblical Shishak, records a series of campaigns directed at the area. Israel had clearly emerged by the middle of the 9th century BCE, when the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III names "Ahab the Israelite" among his enemies at the battle of Qarqar (853). At this time Israel was apparently engaged in a three-way contest with Damascus and Tyre for control of the Jezreel Valley and Galilee in the north, and with Moab, Ammon and Damascus in the east for control of Gilead; the Mesha stele (c. 830), left by a king of Moab, celebrates his success in throwing off the oppression of the "House of Omri" (i.e., Israel). It bears what is generally thought to be the earliest extra-biblical Semitic reference to the name Yahweh (YHWH), whose temple goods were plundered by Mesha and brought before his own god Kemosh. French scholar André Lemaire has reconstructed a portion of line 31 of the stele as mentioning the "House of David". The Tel Dan stele (c. 841) tells of the death of a king of Israel, probably Jehoram, at the hands of a king of Aram Damascus. A century later Israel came into increasing conflict with the expanding neo-Assyrian empire, which first split its territory into several smaller units and then destroyed its capital, Samaria (722). Both the biblical and Assyrian sources speak of a massive deportation of people from Israel and their replacement with settlers from other parts of the empire – such population exchanges were an established part of Assyrian imperial policy, a means of breaking the old power structure - and the former Israel never again became an independent political entity. Judah emerged somewhat later than Israel, probably during the 9th century BCE, but the subject is one of considerable controversy. There are indications that during the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, the southern highlands had been divided between a number of centres, none with clear primacy. During the reign of Hezekiah, between c. 715 and 686 BCE, a notable increase in the power of the Judean state can be observed. This is reflected in archaeological sites and findings, such as the Broad Wall; a defensive city wall in Jerusalem; and Hezekiah's Tunnel, an aqueduct designed to provide Jerusalem with water during an impending siege by the Assyrians led by Sennacherib; and the Siloam Inscription, a lintel inscription found over the doorway of a tomb, has been ascribed to comptroller Shebna. LMLK seals on storage jar handles, excavated from strata in and around that formed by Sennacherib's destruction, appear to have been used throughout Sennacherib's 29-year reign, along with Bullae from sealed documents, some that belonged to Hezekiah himself and others that name his servants; King Ahaz's Seal is a piece of reddish-brown clay that belonged to King Ahaz of Judah, who ruled from 732 to 716 BCE. This seal contains not only the name of the king, but the name of his father, King Yehotam. In addition, Ahaz is specifically identified as "king of Judah." The Hebrew inscription, which is set on three lines, reads as follows: "l'hz*y/hwtm*mlk*/yhdh", which translates as "belonging to Ahaz (son of) Yehotam, King of Judah." In the 7th century Jerusalem grew to contain a population many times greater than earlier and achieved clear dominance over its neighbours. This occurred at the same time that Israel was being destroyed by Assyria, and was probably the result of a cooperative arrangement with the Assyrians to establish Judah as an Assyrian vassal controlling the valuable olive industry. Judah prospered as an Assyrian vassal state (despite a disastrous rebellion against Sennacherib), but in the last half of the 7th century BCE Assyria suddenly collapsed, and the ensuing competition between the Egyptian and Neo-Babylonian empires for control of Palestine led to the destruction of Judah in a series of campaigns between 597 and 582.


Babylonian Judah suffered a steep decline in both economy and population and lost the Negev, the Shephelah, and part of the Judean hill country, including Hebron, to encroachments from Edom and other neighbours. Jerusalem, while probably not totally abandoned, was much smaller than previously, and the town of Mizpah in Benjamin in the relatively unscathed northern section of the kingdom became the capital of the new Babylonian province of Yehud Medinata. (This was standard Babylonian practice: when the Philistine city of Ashkalon was conquered in 604, the political, religious and economic elite [but not the bulk of the population] was banished and the administrative centre shifted to a new location). There is also a strong probability that for most or all of the period the temple at Bethel in Benjamin replaced that at Jerusalem, boosting the prestige of Bethel's priests (the Aaronites) against those of Jerusalem (the Zadokites), now in exile in Babylon. The Babylonian conquest entailed not just the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, but the liquidation of the entire infrastructure which had sustained Judah for centuries. The most significant casualty was the state ideology of "Zion theology," the idea that the god of Israel had chosen Jerusalem for his dwelling-place and that the Davidic dynasty would reign there forever. The fall of the city and the end of Davidic kingship forced the leaders of the exile community – kings, priests, scribes and prophets – to reformulate the concepts of community, faith and politics. The exile community in Babylon thus became the source of significant portions of the Hebrew Bible: Isaiah 40–55; Ezekiel; the final version of Jeremiah; the work of the priestly source in the Pentateuch; and the final form of the history of Israel from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. Theologically, the Babylonian exiles were responsible for the doctrines of individual responsibility and universalism (the concept that one god controls the entire world) and for the increased emphasis on purity and holiness. Most significantly, the trauma of the exile experience led to the development of a strong sense of Hebrew identity distinct from other peoples, with increased emphasis on symbols such as circumcision and Sabbath-observance to sustain that distinction. The concentration of the biblical literature on the experience of the exiles in Babylon disguises the fact that the great majority of the population remained in Judah; for them, life after the fall of Jerusalem probably went on much as it had before. It may even have improved, as they were rewarded with the land and property of the deportees, much to the anger of the community of exiles remaining in Babylon. The assassination around 582 of the Babylonian governor by a disaffected member of the former royal House of David provoked a Babylonian crackdown, possibly reflected in the Book of Lamentations, but the situation seems to have soon stabilised again. Nevertheless, those unwalled cities and towns that remained were subject to slave raids by the Phoenicians and intervention in their internal affairs by Samaritans, Arabs, and Ammonites.


When Babylon fell to the Persian Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE, Judah (or Yehud medinata, the "province of Yehud") became an administrative division within the Persian empire. Cyrus was succeeded as king by Cambyses, who added Egypt to the empire, incidentally transforming Yehud and the Philistine plain into an important frontier zone. His death in 522 was followed by a period of turmoil until Darius the Great seized the throne in about 521. Darius introduced a reform of the administrative arrangements of the empire including the collection, codification and administration of local law codes, and it is reasonable to suppose that this policy lay behind the redaction of the Jewish Torah. After 404 the Persians lost control of Egypt, which became Persia's main rival outside Europe, causing the Persian authorities to tighten their administrative control over Yehud and the rest of the Levant. Egypt was eventually reconquered, but soon afterward Persia fell to Alexander the Great, ushering in the Hellenistic period in the Levant. Yehud's population over the entire period was probably never more than about 30,000 and that of Jerusalem no more than about 1,500, most of them connected in some way to the Temple. According to the biblical history, one of the first acts of Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Babylon, was to commission Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple, a task which they are said to have completed c. 515. Yet it was probably not until the middle of the next century, at the earliest, that Jerusalem again became the capital of Judah. The Persians may have experimented initially with ruling Yehud as a Davidic client-kingdom under descendants of Jehoiachin, but by the mid–5th century BCE, Yehud had become, in practice, a theocracy, ruled by hereditary high priests, with a Persian-appointed governor, frequently Jewish, charged with keeping order and seeing that taxes (tribute) were collected and paid. According to the biblical history, Ezra and Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem in the middle of the 5th century BCE, the former empowered by the Persian king to enforce the Torah, the latter holding the status of governor with a royal commission to restore Jerusalem's walls. The biblical history mentions tension between the returnees and those who had remained in Yehud, the returnees rebuffing the attempt of the "peoples of the land" to participate in the rebuilding of the Temple; this attitude was based partly on the exclusivism that the exiles had developed while in Babylon and, probably, also partly on disputes over property. During the 5th century BCE, Ezra and Nehemiah attempted to re-integrate these rival factions into a united and ritually pure society, inspired by the prophesies of Ezekiel and his followers. The Persian era, and especially the period between 538 and 400 BCE, laid the foundations for the Jewish and Christian religions and the beginning of a scriptural canon. Other important landmarks in this period include the replacement of Hebrew as the everyday language of Judah by Aramaic (although Hebrew continued to be used for religious and literary purposes) and Darius's reform of the empire's bureaucracy, which may have led to extensive revisions and reorganizations of the Jewish Torah. The Israel of the Persian period consisted of descendants of the inhabitants of the old kingdom of Judah, returnees from the Babylonian exile community, Mesopotamians who had joined them or had been exiled themselves to Samaria at a far earlier period, Samaritans, and others.

The Hasmonean Dynasty was the ruling dynasty of Judea and surrounding regions during classical antiquity. Between c. 140 and c. 116 BC, the dynasty ruled semi-autonomously from the Seleucids in the region of Judea. From 110 BC, with the Seleucid empire disintegrating, the dynasty became fully independent, expanded into the neighbouring regions of Galilee, Iturea, Perea, Idumea and Samaria, and took the title "basileus". Some modern scholars refer to this period as an independent kingdom of Israel. In 63 BC, the kingdom was conquered by the Roman Republic, broken up and set up as a Roman client state. The Kingdom had survived for 103 years before yielding to the Herodian Dynasty in 37 BC. Even then, Herod the Great tried to bolster the legitimacy of his reign by marrying a Hasmonean princess, Mariamne, and planning to drown the last male Hasmonean heir at his Jericho palace. The dynasty was established under the leadership of Simon Maccabaeus, two decades after his brother Judas the Maccabee ("Hammer") defeated the Seleucid army during the Maccabean Revolt. According to historical sources, including 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees and the first book of The Wars of the Jews by OTL Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100), after Antiochus IV's successful invasion of Ptolemaic Egypt was turned back by the intervention of the Roman Republic, Antiochus instead moved to assert strict control over Israel, sacking Jerusalem and its Temple, suppressing Jewish religious and cultural observances, and imposing Hellenistic practices. The ensuing revolt by the Jews (167 BC) began a twenty-five-year period of Jewish independence potentiated by the steady collapse of the Seleucid Empire under attacks from the rising powers of the Roman Republic and the Parthian Empire. However, the same power vacuum that enabled the Jewish state to be recognized by the Roman Senate c. 139 BC was later exploited by the Romans themselves. Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, Simon's great-grandsons, became pawns in a proxy war between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great. The deaths of Pompey (48 BC), Caesar (44 BC), and the related Roman civil wars temporarily relaxed Rome's grip on Israel, allowing a very brief Hasmonean resurgence backed by the Parthian Empire. This short independence was rapidly crushed by the Romans under Mark Antony and Octavian. The installation of Herod the Great (an Idumean) as king in 37 BC made Israel a Roman client state and marked the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. In AD 6, Rome joined Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea (biblical Edom) into the Roman province of Iudaea. In AD 44, Rome installed the rule of a Roman procurator side by side with the rule of the Herodian kings (specifically Agrippa I 41–44 and Agrippa II 50–100).

The first intervention of Rome in the region dates from 63 BCE, following the end of the Third Mithridatic War, when Rome created the province of Syria. After the defeat of Mithridates VI of Pontus, Pompey (Pompey the Great) sacked Jerusalem in 63 BCE. The region at the time was not a peaceful place. The Hasmonean Queen of Judea, Salome Alexandra, had recently died and her sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, turned against each other in a civil war. In 63 BCE, Aristobulus was besieged in Jerusalem by his brother's armies. He sent an envoy to Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, Pompey's representative in the area. Aristobulus offered a massive bribe to be rescued, which Pompey promptly accepted. Afterwards, Aristobulus accused Scaurus of extortion. Since Scaurus was Pompey's brother in law and protégée, the general retaliated by putting Hyrcanus in charge of the kingdom as Prince and High Priest. When Pompey was defeated by Julius Caesar, Hyrcanus was succeeded by his courtier Antipater the Idumaean, also known as Antipas, as the first Roman Procurator. In 57-55 BCE, Aulus Gabinius, proconsul of Syria, split the former Hasmonean Kingdom into five districts of Sanhedrin/Synedrion (councils of law). After Julius Caesar was murdered in 44 BCE, Quintus Labienus, a Roman republican general and ambassador to the Parthians, sided with Brutus and Cassius in the Liberators' civil war; after their defeat Labienus joined the Parthians and assisted them in invading Roman territories in 40 BCE. The Parthian army crossed the Euphrates and Labienus was able to entice Mark Antony's Roman garrisons around Syria to rally to his cause. The Parthians split their army, and under Pacorus conquered the Levant from the Phoenician coast through the Land of Israel: "Antigonus... roused the Parthians to invade Syria and Palestine, [and] the Jews eagerly rose in support of the scion of the Maccabean house, and drove out the hated Idumeans with their puppet Jewish king. The struggle between the people and the Romans had begun in earnest, and though Antigonus, when placed on the throne by the Parthians, proceeded to spoil and harry the Jews, rejoicing at the restoration of the Hasmonean line, thought a new era of independence had come." When Phasael and Hyrcanus II set out on an embassy to the Parthians, the Parthians instead captured them. Antigonus, who was present, cut off Hyrcanus's ears to make him unsuitable for the High Priesthood, while Phasael was put to death. Antigonus, whose Hebrew name was Mattathias, bore the double title of king and High Priest for only three years, as he had not disposed of Herod, the most dangerous of his enemies. Herod fled into exile and sought the support of Mark Antony. Herod was designated "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate in 40 BCE. The struggle thereafter lasted for some years, as the main Roman forces were occupied with defeating the Parthians and had few additional resources to use to support Herod. After the Parthians' defeat, Herod was victorious over his rival in 37 BCE. Antigonus was delivered to Antony and executed shortly thereafter. The Romans assented to Herod's proclamation as King of the Jews, bringing about the end of the Hasmonean rule over Judea. King Herod has become known among the archaeologists as Herod the Builder, and under his reign Judea experienced an unprecedented construction, still obtaining an impact on the landscape of the region. Under his enterprise, such projects as the Masada fortress, the Herodion and the great port of Caesarea Maritima were built. During King Herod's reign the last representatives of the Hasmoneans were eliminated. Antigonus was not, however, the last Hasmonean. The fate of the remaining male members of the family under Herod was not a happy one. Aristobulus III, grandson of Aristobulus II through his elder son Alexander, was briefly made high priest, but was soon executed (36 BCE) due to Herod's jealousy. His sister, Mariamne was married to Herod, but fell victim to his notorious jealousy. Her sons by Herod, Aristobulus IV and Alexander, were in their adulthood also executed by their father. Hyrcanus II had been held by the Parthians since 40 BCE. For four years, until 36 BCE, he lived amid the Babylonian Jews, who paid him every mark of respect. In that year Herod, who feared that Hyrcanus might induce the Parthians to help him regain the throne, invited him to return to Jerusalem. The Babylonian Jews warned him in vain. Herod received him with every mark of respect, assigning him the first place at his table and the presidency of the state council, while awaiting an opportunity to get rid of him. As the last remaining Hasmonean, Hyrcanus was too dangerous a rival for Herod. In the year 30 BCE, charged with plotting with the King of Arabia, Hyrcanus was condemned and executed.

The later Herodian rulers Agrippa I and Agrippa II both had Hasmonean blood, as Agrippa I's father was Aristobulus IV, son of Herod by Mariamne I, but they were not direct male descendants, and thus not seen legitimate rulers by much of the Jewish population. He died in 4 BCE, and his kingdom was divided among his sons, who became tetrarchs ("rulers of a quarter part"). One of these quarters was Judea corresponding to the region of the ancient Kingdom of Judah. Herod's son Herod Archelaus, ruled Judea so badly that he was dismissed in 6 CE by the Roman emperor Augustus, after an appeal from his own population. Another, Herod Antipas, ruled as tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 BCE to 39 CE, being then dismissed by Caligula. At the time of his death Herod ruled over most of the South Western Levant, as a client-state of the Roman Empire. Antipas was not Herod's first choice of heir. That honor fell to Aristobulus and Alexander, Herod's sons by the Hasmonean princess Mariamne. It was only after they were executed (c. 7 BCE), and Herod's oldest son Antipater was convicted of trying to poison his father (5 BCE), that the now elderly Herod fell back on his youngest son Antipas, revising his will to make him heir. During his fatal illness in 4 BCE, Herod had yet another change of heart about the succession. According to the final version of his will, Antipas' elder brother Archelaus was now to become king of Judea, Idumea and Samaria, while Antipas would rule Galilee and Perea with the lesser title of tetrarch. Philip was to receive Gaulanitis (the Golan Heights), Batanaea (southern Syria), Trachonitis and Auranitis (Hauran). Because of Judea's status as a Roman client kingdom, Herod's plans for the succession had to be ratified by Augustus. The three heirs of Herod therefore travelled to Rome to make their claims, Antipas arguing he ought to inherit the whole kingdom and the others maintaining that Herod's final will ought to be honored. Despite qualified support for Antipas from Herodian family members in Rome, who favoured direct Roman rule of Judea but considered Antipas preferable to his brother, Augustus largely confirmed the division of territory set out by Herod in his final will. Archelaus had, however, to be content with the title of ethnarch rather than king. Eventually, after his death the kingdom was divided between three of Herod's sons: Archelaus, his son by his fourth wife Malthace the Samaritan, received the lion's share of the kingdom; Idumaea, Judea and Samaria, and the title of Ethnarch ("ruler of the people"; in this case, the Jews, Samaritans, and Idumeans). Herod Antipas, Archelaus’ brother, became Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. Philip I, Herod’s son by his fifth wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem, became Tetrarch of the northern part of Herod’s kingdom. St. Luke the Evangelist lists Philip’s territories as Iturea and Trachonitis: Josephus gives his territories variously as Batanea, Gaulanitis, Trachonitis and Paneas ( Antiquities XVII, 8 : 1) and Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and "a certain part of what is called the House of Zenodorus" (Ant XVII, 11 : 4). A number of these names refer to the same places, found now in modern-day Syria and Lebanon. In a turbulent period of history, the rule of the tetrarchs was relatively uneventful. The most trouble fell to Archelaus, who was faced with sedition by the Pharisees at the beginning of his reign, and crushed it with great severity. After ruling for 10 years he was removed by the emperor Augustus in 6 CE, following complaints about his cruelty and his offences against the Mosaic law. He was replaced by a Roman prefect, and his territory re-organized as the Roman province of Iudaea.

In 6 CE Judea became part of a larger Roman province, called Iudaea, which was formed by combining Judea proper (biblical Judah) with Samaria and Idumea (biblical Edom). Even though Iudaea is simply derived from the Latin for Judea, many historians use it to distinguish the Roman province from the previous territory and history. Iudaea province did not include Galilee, Gaulanitis (the Golan), nor Peraea or the Decapolis. Its revenue was of little importance to the Roman treasury, but it controlled the land and coastal sea routes to the bread basket Egypt and was a border province against the Parthian Empire because of the Jewish connections to Babylonia (since the Babylonian exile). The capital was at Caesarea, not Jerusalem, which had been the capital for King David, King Hezekiah, King Josiah, the Maccabees and Herod the Great. Quirinius became Legate (Governor) of Syria and conducted the first Roman tax census of Syria and Iudaea, which was opposed by the Zealots. Iudaea was not a Senatorial province, nor exactly an Imperial province, but instead was a "satellite of Syria" governed by a prefect who was a knight of the equestrian order (as was Roman Egypt), not a former consul or praetor of senatorial rank. Pontius Pilate was one of these prefects, from 26 to 36 CE. Caiaphas was one of the appointed High Priests of Herod's Temple, being appointed by the Prefect Valerius Gratus in 18. Both were deposed by the Syrian Legate Lucius Vitellius in 36 CE. The 'Crisis under Caligula' (37–41) has been proposed as the first open break between Rome and the Jews. Between 41 and 44 CE, Iudaea regained its nominal autonomy, when Herod Agrippa was made King of the Jews by the emperor Claudius, thus in a sense restoring the Herodian Dynasty, though there is no indication Iudaea ceased to be a Roman province simply because it no longer had a prefect. Claudius had decided to allow, across the empire, procurators, who had been personal agents to the Emperor often serving as provincial tax and finance ministers, to be elevated to governing magistrates with full state authority to keep the peace. He elevated Iudaeas's procurator whom he trusted to imperial governing status because the imperial legate of Syria was not sympathetic to the Judeans. Following Agrippa's death in 44 CE, the province returned to direct Roman control for a short period. Agrippa's son Marcus Julius Agrippa was designated King of the Jews in 48. Tensions are currently high between Romans and Jews, and if due process and diplomacy don't work out in the future, rebellion and suffering will spark across the Roman Levant. And did I mention Jesus got crucified? (You know that already)...




Next Recap: The Sarmatian and Scythian Tribes, then Dacia and India/The Kushans...

 
Scythians_Map.jpg


untitled72sdfk9.jpg


Recap: The Iranian Hordes of The Steppe - The Sarmatians, Alans, Roxolani and Saka

400 BCE - 40 CE


untitled10znmx4.jpg



untitled29dpny3.jpg



untitled32keag9.jpg


Part I - Saddles and Amazons - The Sarmatians

The Sarmatians comprised a number of groups of nomads who roamed, generally in a westward direction, over the western portion of the Eurasian steppes. They were related culturally and, in all likelihood, ethnically to the Scythians and both spoke Iranian languages that appear to have been quite similar. The first traces of the Sarmatians are archeological. They date from the seventh century BCE and come from an area east of the Don, or Tanais, River, south of the Ural Mountains and north of the Caspian Sea. Findings seem to be concentrated along the courses of the Ural and lower Volga rivers and constitute an archeological culture that extends up to the fourth century BCE and has been linked with certainty to the Sauromatae of the Greek sources. These Sauromatae represent the first appearance of the Sarmatian peoples in western sources and the adaptation, or corruption, of their name into Greek and, later, Latin has given us our current name of Sarmatians. The name Sauromatae appears to be clearly of Iranian origin and seems to have meant 'black mantles' (*sau-roma-ta, where sau = black, roma = fur and -ta is the plural marker). Other etymologies have been suggested, but this seems the most likely as Herodotus, who first spoke of the Sauromatae and located them east of the Scythian domains, also recorded the Melanchlainos (Greek for 'black capes') to the northeast of the Scythians. Also, a decree from the Greek city of Olbia, on the northern coast of the Black Sea near the mouth of the Dnieper River, from the early second century BCE mentions the Saudarates (*sau-dâra-ta = wearers of black) among several neighboring barbarian tribes. We do not know with certainty how the Sarmatians called themselves. In this account, however, we will use the name Sauromatae in a restricted sense to refer to the peoples corresponding to the archeological culture of the seventh to fourth centuries BCE. It seems plausible that the Sarmatians might have referred to themselves with their own variation of the ancient auto-ethnonym 'Arya,' attested from very old times and widespread among the Indo-Iranian peoples (Avestan Airyô, Sanskrit Âryas, Old Persian Ariyâ). For example, Pliny speaks of the 'Arraei Sarmatians, also called Areatas' (*Arya-ta). With dialectal labdacism (the evolution of the group 'ry' to 'l'), 'Arya' also appears in the name of the Alans (Alana < *Aryana) and of the Roxolani Sarmatians (*Rôxš-Alan < **Rauxša-Aryana = white, bright or luminous Alans). However, we do not know to what extent this applies to all the other Sarmatian groups. The names history has preserved for them (Aorsi, Iazyges, Siracae, Urgi, Sai, etc.), while often clearly of Iranian origin, do not seem related to 'Arya,' although those designations may not be the names they used for themselves. Consequently, we have opted for Sauromatae.

Herodotus, reporting events of the late sixth century BCE, reports the Sauromatae to be the eastern neighbors of the Scythians and their allies against the invading Achaemenid Persians and has them living on the left, i.e. eastern, bank of the Don and beyond. He also explained that the Sauromatae were the descendants of Scythian young men who took runaway Amazons as wives and settled in the lands between the Don and the lower Volga, an area which is one of the hot spots of the archeological Sauromatian culture. Herodotus also ascribes the role played by women in Sauromatian society to this Amazonian inheritance: he describes Sauromatae women riding, hunting, and fighting alongside the men. Archeology has also provided some support for these claims by turning up substantial numbers of graves of females, both Sauromatian and of later cultural stages of the Sarmatian peoples, containing weaponry. Also, skeletons of girls aged thirteen to fourteen already showed bowed legs, indicative of a life spent on horseback. Sometime during the fourth century BCE, the Sarmatians started expanding, mostly westwards. This was accompanied by changes in the archeological culture, such as details of funerary rites, pottery, weaponry (swords with straight guards and antennae pommels, instead of the akinakes-like angled guards of the Sauromatian phase), to what is commonly called ancient Sarmatian or Prokhorovka culture, which would last up to the first century BCE. By the second half of the fourth century BCE, the pseudo-Scylax, a Greek source, still speaks of the Sauromatae east of the Don but also knows about the Syrmatae west of that river. Already by the century’s end, Sarmatian tombs are found on the eastern bank of the Dnieper, and in the third and second centuries they become numerous there. In the late third or very early second century BCE, the Sarmatians may have crossed west beyond the Dnieper, as attested by at least one Sarmatian grave on its right, i.e. west, bank dating from that period. It is certain that, during the second century BCE, the Sarmatians completed their occupation of almost all the steppe between the Dnieper and the Danube, the last remnants of what was once ancient Scythia.

Since the early second century BCE, Sarmatian groups also appear diversely involved in the affairs of the BosporanKingdom and the Greek cities on the northern coast of the Black Sea. Sarmatians sometimes even extorted tribute from the cities. On other occasions, they would ally with a Greek city against the Late Scythians, now relegated to the eastern half of the CrimeanPeninsula and the lower Dnieper, though they could also side with the Late Scythians in their constant conflicts with the Greek cities. Thus, in 110 BCE, Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontos, sent his general Diophantes to aid of the city of Chersonesos against a coalition of Sarmatians and Scythians. Diophantes was victorious and Mithridates gained a foothold on the northern coast of the Black Sea. Eventually, those events would lead to Mithridates gaining control of that whole area, the BosporanKingdom included, and to continued Sarmatian support for the Pontic Kingdom in its conflicts against Rome up to the defeat of Pharnaces I, Mithridates’ son, at Zela by Julius Caesar. Sarmatian expansion up to the second century CE occurred largely at the expense of the formerly powerful Scythians, the previous masters of the Pontic steppe between the Don and the Danube. Diodorus Siculus, writing many years after the events, stated that the Scythians were all exterminated in the course of numerous battles, but archeological data do not support such a claim. To what extent Scythian replacement by the Sarmatians involved displacement, annihilation, and assimilation is far from clear, however. It seems well established that all three processes, which are not mutually exclusive, occurred, but their relative importance is by no means evident. This expansion occurred mostly, though not exclusively, westward. For example, some Sarmatian groups moved southwest from the Volga area into Ciscaucasia, occupying the steppes between and directly beside the Kuban and Terek rivers. Archeology shows they were already present in the area between the Don, the Sea of Azov, and the Kuban river in the fourth century BCE. The Siracae Sarmatians would later be placed in that area by Greek and Roman sources. It has been in this southern appendix of the great Pontic steppe where, through the Medieval Alans of the Caucasus, some descendants of the Sarmatians, the modern Ossetians, have remained. There are also traces of Sarmatian presence in Central Asia. For example, numerous findings from the Ustyurt Plateau, between the Caspian and AralSeas, are stylistically very close to the Sauromatian and Prokhorovka cultures. Also, nomad graves from near Bukhara in modern Uzbekistan, dating to the end of the fourth or early third century BCE, show Sarmatian traits. Finally, swords closely similar to the Prokhorovka type have shown up in ancient Bactria in contexts dated to the second to first century BCE. It is not clear what set the Sarmatians in motion, and a variety of causes have been advanced: climate changes (a persistent drought affecting areas of the steppe is hinted at by a lower level of the Caspian Sea during the third century BCE), increases in Sarmatian population, or events in Central Asia, such as Alexander’s campaigns and the rise of the Xiongnu, eliciting a sort of chain reaction. However, none of those seems to offer a perfect, all-encompassing explanation. All may have contributed, but, again, it is unknown to what extent.

After their occupation of old Scythia, the Sarmatians kept expanding west and, therefore, would eventually come into contact with Rome. The Iazyges hugged the Black Sea coast and moved on to the lower Danube. Here they seem to have been stopped for a while by the powerful Dacian kingdom of Burebista, and from there, in 16 BCE, they launched their first incursion into Roman territory in Macedonia. Sarmatian raids across the Danube like this would plague the Romans for the next three hundred years. When Dacian power diminished, the Iazyges moved northwest to eventually settle in the plain between the Danube and Tisza rivers where, now often in conjunction with Germanic tribes, they kept being a thorn in the side of Rome, despite brief stints as Roman allies, even after their defeat by Emperor Marcus Aurelius in his Sarmatian War in 174 CE. As part of the peace conditions imposed upon them, the Iazyges had to provide the Roman army with eight thousand cavalrymen. Nonetheless, in 184 and during the whole third century CE Roman Emperors had to keep campaigning against them. When the Iazyges left the lower Danube, the Roxolani, who had remained between the Danube and the Dnieper, moved into this area and took up the raiding of the Roman provinces across the river. During the first of Emperor Trajan’s Dacian Wars, the Roxolani were allied with the Dacians against the Romans. Again, their defeat would not preclude their resuming raiding, and Roman money subsidies proved a more effective way to keep the peace along the frontier. During the third and fourth centuries CE, Sarmatian power suffered greatly from the arrival of, first, the Goths and other eastern Germans and, later, of the Huns into Sarmatian dominions. The Sarmatians and Alans, either a Sarmatian group or very close relatives, became less and less independent peoples and masters of their own destiny and more and more part of confederations ruled by other nations. The wanderings of those leagues and the tumults of the time of the Great Migrations would carry Sarmatians and Alans as far as the Iberian Peninsula and northern Africa. There, like in their original homelands, they would eventually vanish, assimilated into more powerful nations, but not without having added their contribution to what would become medieval Europe.

Sarmatians are remembered as mounted warriors. In particular, the most common image of them that has come down to us is of armored lancers whose charge was nearly irresistible. Nonetheless, the lancer can be considered a relatively late development of the Sarmatian military. For much of their history, and certainly for most of that history that is within EB, Sarmatian armies, like those of so many steppe nomads before and after them, were mostly composed of horse archers. Even after the lancer had appeared and risen to prominence, mounted archery appears to have remained an integral and important component of Sarmatian tactics, with even the lancers themselves carrying a bow besides their long contus sarmaticus and longswords. Similarly, finds of armor from the Sauromatian period show that the earliest Sarmatian armies already had a core of heavy cavalry which was provided by the upper classes able to afford protective gear for themselves and, sometimes, even their horses. This structure with a nucleus of heavier, aristocratic cavalry better prepared for melee surrounded by swarms of light horse archers is common to many steppe armies. This switch towards a more direct approach needs to be correctly understood, as the battle descriptions found in the sources show that it remained firmly within the steppe traditions of mounted warfare. The sources speak abundantly of the powerful charge of the contus-wielding Sarmatians. However, those same sources also indicate that, despite outward appearances, those were not mad, potentially suicidal, actions. If faced with a solid battle line, a firm wall of spears held by men resolved to stand their ground, the seemingly wild charge would turn into an apparently equally wild retreat. Of course, more often than not, it was a feigned retreat, a maneuver no less controlled than the previous charge and designed to lure an enemy into a pursuit that had good chances to throw its formation into disorder, prevent units from providing mutual support, and that would open up chances for such maneuvers as outflanking and charges to the rear for the Sarmatians.

The shift from a harass and evade doctrine towards greater emphasis on hand-to-hand combat and shock action is not easy to date precisely. Of course, it could well have been a fairly gradual process that occurred over a substantial amount of time. Written sources suggest that the transition had not happened yet in the late second century BCE, at least in the area around the AzovSea, but that it was completed by the first decades of the first century CE. The Sarmatians that fought against the Pontic general Diophantes in the Crimea in 110 BCE are described as lightly armed and unable to stand their ground against heavier troops. In contrast, by 35 CE we find the Sarmatians eschewing mounted archery contests and instead charging headlong into Parthian cavalry. By 69 CE, the Romans dealing with Roxolani raids already have it as an established fact that their charges are very dangerous and nearly unstoppable. Archeology provides some additional pointers on when the switch occurred. The kit of the armored lancer, consisting of scale armor, large spearhead and longsword, begins to appear in Sarmatian graves in the Volga region in the third and second centuries BCE. The troop type might have been copied from the neighboring Massagetae and Sakas. Those peoples had a tradition of armored cavalry dating back to the fifth century BCE and beyond, and Alexander’s campaigns presumably put them into contact with Macedonian Companion cavalry that were able and willing to charge home with their xysta. A terracotta from Koï-Krylgan-Kala in Uzbekistan of the fourth or early third centuries BCE shows an apparently unarmored lancer wielding a long lance and another from Khumbuz-Tepe shows an armored one on an equally protected horse. In any case, it seems clear that there were armored lancers in Transoxiana in the third century BCE and that the troop type spread from there.

Evidence about the religion of the Sarmatians is extremely scarce and heterogeneous. No ancient ethnographer or historian recorded the names or number of their deities or wrote down their myths. We are, therefore, left to deal with occasional allusions in the sources, archeological material, and inferences from other, presumably related, religious systems and from archaic elements in the folk religion of the modern Ossetians. Moreover, it is likely that religion varied among Sarmatian groups and along time.
One of the few certainties in this matter is that the Sarmatians worshipped a god of war on whose name, as in the case of its Scythian cognate, there seems to have been a prohibition to be spoken aloud. Again as in the Scythian case, it was represented by a naked sword thrust into the ground and received offerings of blood as part of its cult. Generally, that cult does not seem to have entailed temples or a distinct priest class, the lack of which is a general feature of Sarmatian religious practices. Greek sources from the third century BCE claim that the Sarmatians also adored the Fire. There is archeological support for this in the importance of the Fire in Sarmatian funerary rites. Further backing comes from the importance that the Fire has retained in the cult of the Medieval Caucasian Alans and the modern Ossetians. Also, Tabiti, the main Scythian deity, whom their king Idanthyrsus called queen of the Scythians, seems to have been a goddess of the hearth, as Herodotus likened her to Hestia. It seems likely that, as with other Iranian peoples, the Fire was a purifier for the Sarmatians because the Ossetian word for pure, saint' is sygdag, which comes from an Iranian root with the sense 'burn'. Possibly related to the cult of the Fire, there seems to have been a cult of the Sun as well. Herodotus and Strabo register such a practice for the Massagetae and Armenian sources record it among the Medieval Alans of the Caucasus. Among the modern Ossetian descendants of the latter, the fire of the hearth is called 'son of the Sun,' pointing to the link between fire and sun cults.
untitled54ijqs1.jpg


Part II - A Brief Look at the Sarmatian Sub-Tribes - The Alans, Roxolani, Lazyges, Basternae, etc.


Alans: The Alans, or the Alani, occasionally termed Alauni or Halani, were a group of Sarmatian tribes, nomadic pastoralists of the 1st millennium AD who spoke an Eastern Iranian language which derived from Scytho-Sarmatian and which in turn evolved into modern Ossetian IOTL. The Geography (XXIII, 11) of Strabo (64/63 BC–ca. 24 AD), who was born in Pontus on the Black Sea, but was also working with Persian sources, to judge from the forms he gives to tribal names, mentions Aorsi that he links with Siraces and claims that a Spadines, king of the Aorsi, could assemble two hundred thousand mounted archers in the mid-1st century BC. But the "upper Aorsi" from whom they had split as fugitives, could send many more, for they dominated the coastal region of the Caspian Sea: "and consequently they could import on camels the Indian and Babylonian merchandise, receiving it in their turn from the Armenians and the Medes, and also, owing to their wealth, could wear golden ornaments. Now the Aorsi live along the Tanaïs, but the Siraces live along the Achardeüs, which flows from the Caucasus and empties into Lake Maeotis." By the beginning of the 1st century, the Alans had occupied lands in the northeast Azov Sea area, along the Don and by the 2nd century had amalgamated or joined with the Yancai of the early Chinese records to extend their control all the way along the trade routes from the Black Sea to the north of the Caspian and Aral seas. The written sources suggest that from the end of the 1st century to the second half of the 4th century the Alans had supremacy over the tribal union and created a powerful confederation of Sarmatian tribes.

Roxolani: The Roxolani ( from Alanic ruxsalan- "bright alan" ) were a Sarmatian people, who are believed to be an off-shoot of the Alans. Their first recorded homeland lay between the Don and Dnieper rivers; they migrated in the 1st century BC toward the Danube, to what is now the Baragan steppes in Romania. The Greco-Roman historian Strabo (late 1st century BC-early 1st century AD) described them as "wagon-dwellers" (i.e. nomads) (Geographika, Book VII). Around 100 BC, they invaded the Crimea under their king Tasius in support of the Scythian warlord Palacus but were defeated by Diophantus, general of Mithradates VI. In the mid-1st century AD, the Roxolani began incursions across the Danube into Roman territory. One such raid in AD 68/69 was intercepted by the Legio III Gallica with Roman auxiliaries, who destroyed a raiding force of 9,000 Roxolanian cavalry encumbered by baggage. Tacitus (Hist. Bk1.79) describes the weight of the armor worn by the 'princes and most distinguished persons' made 'it difficult for such as have been overthrown by the charge of the enemy to regain their feet' The long two-handed kontos lance, the primary melee weapon of the Sarmatians, was unusable in these conditions. The Roxolani avenged themselves in AD 92, when they joined the Dacians in destroying the Roman Legio XXI Rapax. During Trajan's Dacian Wars, the Roxolani at first sided with the Dacians, providing them with most of their cavalry strength, but they were defeated in the first campaign of AD 101–102. They appear to have stood aside as neutrals during Trajan's final campaign of AD 105–106, which ended in the complete destruction of the Dacian state. The creation of the Roman province of Dacia brought Roman power to the very doorstep of Roxolani territory. The Emperor Hadrian reinforced a series of pre-existing fortifications and built numerous forts along the Danube to contain the Roxolani threat. Later, Marcus Aurelius also campaigned against the Roxolani along the Danubian frontier. They are known to have attacked the Roman Province of Pannonia in 260; shortly afterwards contingents of Roxolani troops entered Roman military service. Like other Sarmatian peoples, the Roxolani were conquered by the Huns in the mid-4th century IOTL.

Siraces: The Siraces (Greek: Sirakoi, Latin: Siraci, also Siraceni and Seraci) were a hellenized Sarmatian tribe that inhabited Sarmatia Asiatica; the coast of Achardeus at the Black Sea south of the Caucasus mountains, Siracena is mentioned by Tacitus as one of their settlements. They were said to be relatively small nation but with great moral. They were neighbours to the later enemy tribe of Aorsi. They migrated from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea region. By the late 4th century, they had occupied lands between the Caucasus mountains and the Don, becoming masters of the Kuban region. They were the first Sarmatian tribe to have contact with the Hellenic groups on the coast of the Black Sea. In 310-309 BC their king Aripharnes took part in the succession war of the Bosporan Kingdom and lost at a battle on the Thates (a tributary of the Kuban river). In the 1st century BC during the rule of Pharnaces II of Pontus, King of Siraces Abeacus organized 20,000 horses after the Roman occupation of the Kingdom of Pontus (63-62 BC). They and the Aorsi were merchants who traded with goods of Babylonia and India through the Armenians and Medes, with camels. They profited greatly from this, seen in their clothing attributed with much gold. King Zorsines fought in the Bosporus under Mithridates of Armenia, the king of Armenia, against the Dandaridae. Their ally Mithridates later turned against the Romans who had put Mithridates on the throne in 41. Mithridates eluded the Romans and recovered his kingdom. In the Bosporan War, The Aorsi under Prince Eunones, sent by Aquila and Cotys is sent after Mithridates and his lands, fights with Zorsines and sieges Uspe in 49 AD (The town offers 10,000 slaves for their capitulation but the assault continues as the Romans decline), Zorsines finally decides to leave Mithridates to rule his paternal lands, after giving hostages to the Romans and thus making peace. He acknowledged Roman superiorty before the image of Emperor Claudius and the power of the Siraces is greatly weakened. They were the most hellenized of the Sarmatians, and maintained good relations with the Bosporans. In 193 AD, after another conflict in the Bosporus, the Siraces disappears from the history.

Iazyges: The Iazyges (Jazyges is an orthographic variant) were an ancient Iranian nomadic tribe. Known also as Jaxamatae, Ixibatai, Iazygite, Jászok and Ászi, they were a branch of the Sarmatian people who, c. 200 BC, swept westward from central Asia onto the steppes of what is now Ukraine. Little is known about their language, but it was one of the Iranian languages. The Iazyges first make their appearance along the Sea of Azov, known to the Ancient Greeks and Romans as the Maeotis. They are referred to by the geographer Ptolemy as the Iazyges Metanastae (wandering or migrant Iazyges). From there, the Iazyges moved west along the shores of the Black Sea to what is now Moldova and the southwestern Ukraine. They served as allies of Mithradates VI Eupator, king of Pontus (in what is now North-Western Turkey), in his wars against the Romans (c. 88-84 BC). In 78-76 BC, the Romans sent a punitive expedition over the Danube in an attempt to overawe the Iazyges. The prime enemy of Rome along the lower Danube at this time were the Dacians. In 7 BC, when the Dacian kingdom built up by Burebista began to collapse, the Romans took advantage and encouraged the Iazyges to settle in the Pannonian plain, between the Danube and the Tisa Rivers. They were divided into freemen and serfs (Sarmatae Limigantes). These serfs had a different manner of life and were probably an older settled population, enslaved by nomadic masters. They rose against them in 34 AD, but were repressed with foreign assistance. The Romans wanted to finish off Dacia, but the Iazyges refused to cooperate. The Iazyges remained nomads, herding their cattle across what is now southern Romania every summer to water them along the Black Sea; a Roman conquest of Dacia would cut that route. The Roman emperor Domitian became so concerned with the Iazyges that he interrupted a campaign against Dacia to harass them and the Suebi, a Germanic tribe also dwelling along the Danube. In early 92, the Iazyges, in alliance with the Sarmatians proper and the Germanic Quadi, crossed the Danube into the Roman province of Pannonia (mod. Croatia, northern Serbia, and western Hungary). In May, the Iazyges shattered the Roman Legio XXI Rapax, soon afterwards disbanded in disgrace. The fighting continued until Domitian's death in 96. In 101-105, the warlike Emperor Trajan finally conquered the Dacians, reducing their lands to a Roman province. In 107, Trajan sent his general, Hadrian, to force the Iazyges to submit. In 117, Trajan died, and was succeeded as emperor by Hadrian, who moved to consolidate and protect his predecessor's gains. While the Romans kept Dacia, the Iazyges stayed independent, accepting a client relationship with Rome. As long as Rome remained powerful, the situation could be maintained, but in the late second century, the Empire was becoming increasingly overstretched. In the summer of 166, while the Romans were tied down in a war with Parthia, the peoples north of the Danube, the Marcomanni, the Naristi, the Vandals, the Hermanduri, the Lombards and the Quadi, all swept south over the Danube to invade and plunder the exposed Roman provinces. The Iazyges joined in this general onslaught in which they killed Calpurnius Proculus, the Roman governor of Dacia. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius spent the rest of his life trying to restore the situation (see the Marcomannic Wars). In 170, the Iazyges defeated and killed Claudius Fronto, Roman governor of Lower Moesia. Operating from Sirmium (today Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) on the Sava river, Marcus Aurelius moved against the Iazyges personally. After hard fighting, the Iazyges were pressed to their limits. But in 175, Avidius Cassius led a revolt in the East, interrupting the campaign. At this point, the leading king among the Iazyges, Zanticus, made peace with Marcus Aurelius, yielding up, it is said, 100,000 Roman captives. The Iazyges were also forced to provide the Romans with 8,000 cavalry to serve in the Roman army as auxiliaries. Some 5,500 of these were shipped off to serve in the Roman army in Britain; it is theorized they may have played a part in the development of the Arthurian legend. Marcus' victory was decisive in that the Iazyges did not again appear as a major threat to Rome. Around 230, the Asding Vandals pushed in to the north of the Iazyges. The Vandals, and new Germanic tribal coalitions like the Alamanni and the Franks now became the Roman's primary security concerns. But as late as 371, the Romans saw fit to build a fortified trading center, Commercium, to control the trade with the Iazyges.

ahmetjanovsakaeu8.jpg


800px-TilliaTepeReconstitution.jpg


576px-Sun_emperor.JPG


Part III - The Eastern Iranian Steppe Hordes - The Saka Tribes


The "Saka" peoples of Central Asia and Southern Siberia were the successors of a branch of the people who belonged to what Soviet archaeologists call the "Andronovo" culture, a distinctive Bronze Age culture of the 2nd millenium BC considered by most scholars to be proto Indo-Iranian. "Andronovo" is named after the first finds of the remains of this culture in 1914 near the village of Andronovo in the Yenisei River Valley of southern Siberia, and thus was subsequently used as a conventional name for this cultural complex of mixed farming and herding based on the breeding and raising of cattle, sheep, goats, and horses and the cultivation of wheat, barley and millet. Although most Soviet scholars in the past asserted that specialized pastoral nomadism in its pure form originated after the end of the Andronovo period (ca. 1100 B.C. to 900 B.C.) and subsequently replaced the mixed farming and herding system of the Andronovo culture during a transitional stage c. 800 - 500 BC, recent finds in the Tianshan region of modern-day southeastern Kazakhstan and dendrochronological analysis of these finds show that specialized pastoral nomadism without farming may have appeared as early as the period from c. 1770 - 1380 BC or earlier, ie during the early-mid Andronovo period, and that mixed herding and farming did not disappear after the Andronovo culture and existed even into early Iron Age times, at least during and after c. 800 - 500 BC. Subsequently, the descendants of the Andronovo culture who remained on the steppes of Central Asia were known to the Greeks and Persians as "Skythians" and "Saka", respectively. "Saka" was used by the Persians to label the Indo-Iranian nomads of the south Russian and Central Asian steppes in general, as Herodotos in the 5th century BC tell us. His information appears to be correct as the relief carvings and inscriptions at Persepolis and Naqsh-i-Rustam show; 3 different groups of Saka are listed - the Saka Tigrakhauda (the "pointed hat" Saka), the Saka Taradraya/Paradraya (the Saka beyond the Black Sea - those Iranian-speaking nomads whom Herodotos calls "Skuthas"/"Skythians"), and the Saka Haomavarga (the "haoma-drinking" Saka). The Greek version of "Saka" was "Skythian" though the Skythians were also used by Herodotos to refer to a specific kingdom in the south Russian/Pontic steppes who replaced the earlier Kimmerians there. Conventionally, they are called "Skythians proper" for ease of clarification; archaeologically, they could've been descended from both the local Srubnaya culture (possibly Kimmerians as well as Skythians) and the Andronovo culture, since Herodotos tells us that either the Massagetai or the Issedones pushed the Skythians out of Asia into Europe, and so, they could've been more culturally distinct from the other Saka/Skythian tribes east of the Volga-Ural area. Again, for ease of clarification, we will call the Saka/Skythian tribes east of the "Skythians proper" by the Persian label of "Saka". A brief summary of the main Saka/Skythian tribes east of the Volga-Ural Srubnaya cultural complex (with the exception of the Sarmatian tribes and the later Daha-Arsakids since the former do not appear in Persian sources and are treated by most historians and archaeologists as distinct from both the "Skythians proper" and the other Saka tribes east of them while the latter the Persians curiously did not consider them a Saka people but called them "Daha") known to Greek and Persian historians appear below.


Massagetae: The origins and identity of the Massagetai can be interpreted, according to some linguistic experts, using the dissection of the name into "Mas" and "Sagetai" where "Mas" equates to "Great" and "Sagetai" into "Saka" where the "tai" in "Sagetai" is an inconsequential suffix and the "ai" a Greek plural, so that the full name is really "Mas-Saga" or "Great Saka". There does not seem to be any serious objections to this proposed etymology of "Massagetai" and, additionally, most of the classical Greek historians considered them to be a "Skythian nation". So, in all probability, they were a confederacy of Saka tribes; some scholars connect them with the Saka Tigrakhauda, though this identification is by no means certain. The classical Greek historians connect the location of the Massagetai with the "Araxes" river, a name which Herodotos applied to several rivers of Asia, possibly as a result of confusion on his part. However, here we need only to deal with the Massagetan Araxes river which, evident from its description, must have been the ancient arm (possibly the dried-up Uzboi channel of modern times) of the Oxus/Amu-Darya that connected said river with the Caspian sea or it could've possibly been the entire ancient Oxus itself. Considering this interpretation and the accounts of later Greek historians, notably Alexandrian historians like Arrian and Quintus Curtius as well as the Greek geographer Strabo, the Massagetai possibly lived in the area between the Caspian-Aral seas, including Chorasmia (at least most of it), extending as far east as the lower Syr-Darya region and as far south as the deserts of the Kara-kum and Kyzyl-kum north of ancient Sogdiana. As such, they were possibly the westernmost "Saka" tribes east of the Sarmatians. As mentioned above, Herodotos says that either the Issedones or the Massagetai were responsible for driving the Skythians into Europe from Asia, which might indicate the strength of either the Issedones or the Massagetai. Additionally, Herodotos records a famous story, often repeated by later historians, of the Massagetan queen Tomyris defeating Kyros (Cyrus/Kuros) the Great of Achaimenid Persia. He has it that Kyros, after conquering Babylon, intended to subdue the Massagetai. Taking Kroisos' (Croesus, the former Lydian king) advice, he crossed the Araxes river, left grand Persian food and wine in his encampment, retreated, and later sneak-attacked a third of the Massagetan army who at the time was enjoying the food and wine. This gave him initial victory over the Massagetai and even the capture of Tomyris' son Spargapises. Tomyris was infuriated with Kyros and requested her son back from Kyros but when Kyros took no heed, she prepared an army to fight Kyros; Spargapises eventually killed himself before this was done. Kyros was defeated and when Tomyris found his body took his head and dipped it in human blood held by a wineskin. The Massagetai appear again in Alexandrian times, when they are recorded by Arrian as sheltering Spitamenes and joining him in raids and assaults on the Makedonian garrisons of Baktria and Sogdiana. The Massagetai later betrayed Spitamenes after being disheartened by defeats inflicted by Alexander's generals on him and upon learning that Alexander was going to pursue the Massagetai into desert country; they cut off his head and presented it to Alexander. The Massagetai seemed to have never been subdued by Alexander or his successors, at least not their main force. In Quintus Curtius' version of Alexander, the Massagetai are recorded to have taken part in a rebellion against Alexander with the Baktrians but later fled after Krateros approached them.

Mention must be made regarding the military innovations of the Massagetai. Herodotos in the 5th century BC mentions that the Massagetai used bronze breastplates to protect the chests of their horses, which is possibly a reference to the development of heavily-armoured cavalry along the lines of kataphraktoi first appearing in history among these Saka people. Additionally, there is further evidence to suggest a Massagetan origin for kataphraktoi cavalry, from both the written sources as well as archaeology. According to Arrian, at Gaugamela, Dareios III (Darius III) had with his army Baktrian cavalry supported by Daai (Dahai) and Arachotian troops as a part of his left wing; in front of Dareios' left wing were posted Skythian cavalry along with 1,000 Baktrians and 100 scythe-chariots. Later, Arrian adds that these Skythian cavalrymen, aided by Baktrian cavalry, routed the Greek cavalry mercenaries that Alexander initially sent against them. Immediately, they fought a fierce battle against the combined Makedonian, Greek, and Paionian cavalry of Alexander and inflicted huge casualties on Alexander's right wing, almost putting them to rout, for Arrian says that in addition to outnumbering them, the Skythian cavalrymen also had much more armour protecting their horses than did Alexander's cavalry. Though there is a possibility that these "Skythian" cavalry included the Dahai, Arrian was rather vague when he described the heavily armoured cavalry as "Skythian". In Quintus Curtius' version of Gaugamela, the events of the battle differ from Arrian's version as well as even the numbers, yet the order of battle of Dareios' army appears to be almost the same; both agree that Dareios' left wing consisted mostly of Baktrians, Dahai, Arachotians/Arachosians, Persians, and Susians, in particular the first 3 peoples. Quintus Curtius also adds that there were 2,000 Massagetai cavalry in the rear of Bessus and that later Dareios had ordered the Massagetan horsemen to charge Alexander's left wing (correction: should be right wing) on its flank. Thus, Arrian's "Skythian" cavalry that almost routed the Makedonians at Gaugamela were probably Massagetai. We know that they had heavily armoured cavalry along the lines of proto-kataphraktoi by at least the 5th century BC from Herodotos. Furthermore, there is a depiction of a fully armoured kataphraktoi on a fragmentary terracotta flask piece from Khumbuz-tepe in southern Chorasmia/Khorezmia, dated to the 4th-early 3rd centuries BC; this find may be the earliest archaeological depiction of a fully armoured kataphraktoi. Strabo states that Spitamenes fled to the Chorasmioi and that the Chorasmioi were a tribe within the Massagetai confederation. According to Arrian, Spitamenes fled to the Massagetai, yet he also mentions the Chorasmioi without ever mentioning their connections to the Massagetai; Quintus Curtius says that the Chorasmii were neighbours of the Massagetai and Dahai. Probably what Strabo meant was that Spitamenes fled to the area that by the time of Strabo were inhabitted by the Chorasmioi who were by that time also part of the Massagetan confederation. More recent archaeological discoveries and an analysis of the texts of both Hekataios and Herodotos suggests that in the earlier Achaimenid period the Chorasmioi were not living in Chorasmia, but actually south of the steppe in Khurasan and that it was only during the time when Achaimenid control had begun to slacken that the Chorasmioi moved down the Oxus into Chorasmia; perhaps during Alexander's time, the Chorasmioi had not moved into Chorasmia and joined the Massagetai yet but were in a transitional period. Nevertheless, this apparent Chorasmian-Massagetan connection seems to point to the origin of the kataphraktoi among either of these peoples. Finally, both Ammianus Marcellinus and Dio Cassius state that the Alans were the descendants of, or, in the latter historian's case, were Massagetai; a more recent archaeological survey shows that the Alans were more heavily armoured than all other Sarmatian groups except the Sirakes and although the archaeological data suggests the appearance of armoured lancer equipment appearing among at least some of the Sarmatian tribes by the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC, there is no clear written description of the armoured lancer among the Sarmatians until at least the early 1st century AD, corresponding to roughly the same time the Alans first raided the Pontic steppes from the northeastern Caspian area. Finally, while the Massagetai weren't affected much by Alexander's invasion of Central Asia, they certainly were so by the great nomadic migrations of the Da Yuezhi and other nomad groups, especially by the establishment of Kangju in the modern-day Tashkent oasis and their subsequent expansion in all directions. While the majority of the Kangju tribesmen were possibly Indo-Iranian speakers, including absorbed Saka Rauka tribesmen who remained in western Semirechye and other Saka groups as well, their ruling elite were quite possibly Kuchean-Agnean (or more popularly known as "Tokharian") speakers, and there are references to Kangju in later histories of their ruling elite being descended from a Yuezhi clan. From the Han historian Ban Gu, we know that during the late 2nd - middle 1st centuries BC, Chorasmia was under Kangju control. From Fan Ye, we know that during the 1st - 2nd centuries AD, Kangju controlled large parts of northern Central Asia, extending their sway as far west as the southern Urals, and having conquered Yancai, known by that time as Alanliao (evidently the Alans), who were situated near the Caspian sea, corresponding with Josephus' mention of an Alan incursion coming from east of the Caspian sea as late as the late 1st century AD. Thus, Kangju, established by Yuezhi tribesmen in the wake of the Yuezhi migration from Dunhuang-Qilian all the way to Graeco-Baktria as a result of defeat inflicted on them by the Xiongnu, was largely responsible for the destruction of the Massagetai confederacy and quite possibly for the Alan migration to the Pontic steppes from the northeast Caspian area.

Apasiakai: The widely accepted etymology of Apasiakai is "Apa-saka", which means "water-Sakai". It is possible that the name appears in an earlier form as "Pausikai", who are listed by Herodotos as a people belonging to the 11th province of Dareios I's empire, along with the Kaspioi, the Pantimathoi and the Dareitai; the Kaspioi lived on the west side of the Caspian Sea, so we can suppose, in vague terms, that the Apa-saka lived within range of the Caspian Sea region. According to Polybius and Stephanus Byzantius the Apasiakai lived between the Oxus and the Tanais rivers; the "Tanais" here is probably confused with the Jaxartes, so this would place the Apasiakai in the area between the Oxus and the Jaxartes, ie the eastern coast of the modern-day Aral Sea. One Soviet scholar had, more recently, assigned the Apa-saka to the Iron Age culture that was discovered in the waste south-east of the Aral which once formed the delta lands of the Syr-Darya. Not much is recorded of their history, but if they were indeed the "Pausikai" of Herodotos, then they were at one time under Achaimenid rule, at least by the time of Dareios I. Later, Strabo indicates that Arsakes (r. 247 - 211 BC), the legendary founder of the Parthian empire, fled from Seleukos Kallinikos (Seleukid king r. 246 - 226 BC) into the lands of the Apasiakai. Considering their geographical location, it is possible, as some modern sources claim, that they were, at least one point in their history, part of the Massagetan confederation of Saka tribes. As such, they may have existed well beyond the Alexandrian era until perhaps the great nomadic migrations in the middle of the 2nd century BC.

Saka Haomavarga: The Saka Haomavarga were known to Herodotos and subsequent Greek historians as the "Skuthas Amurgious" or "Amyrgian Skythians". Curiously, while the Greeks chose to call the Indo-Iranian tribes of the Pontic and Central Asian steppes by the general name of "Skythian", this tribe was subsequently known to the Greeks as the "Sakai", Persian "Saka". Apart from the "Haoma" in "Haomavarga" being associated with the drink "Haoma" used in Zoroastrian rituals, some have suggested that "Haomavarga"/"Amyrgioi" may have also referred to a plain that these Saka lived on or from which the "Haoma" plant grows; a fragment from Hellanikos speaks of this plain and the geographical origin of the name "Amyrgioi". From Herodotos and the frequent mentioning of these Amyrgian Saka with the Baktrians even in later histories, one can suppose that they lived near Baktria, as vague as that is. As analyses of later Greek accounts show, the Saka Haomavarga lived beyond the eastern frontier of the modern Syr-Darya river, specifically the Ferghana valley, which could've been Hellanikos' "Amyrgion pedion"/"Amyrgian plain" and possibly territories in the eastern Hissar range or east of it; most scholars seem to agree to this allocation of the Amyrgians. From Strabo, we have references to what is probably the earliest historical events of these Saka. According to him, these Saka in their early history made raids like the Kimmerians (the tribe whom Herodotos tells us were displaced by the "Skythians proper") and the Treres (they were a separate tribe of Kimmerians), some raids into neighbouring regions like Baktria which they occupied. Their empire at its height, probably sometime in the 7th-6th centuries BC once extended as far west as Armenia, from which the best lands in that region they left their mark by renaming them "Sakasene", and even into Pontik Kappadokia near the Euxine. According to Ktesias' Persika, Books 7-13, in which some of the materials are preserved and summarized in Photios' review of Ktesias' Persika in Bibliotheca, Section 72, right before Kyros besieged Kroisos at Sardis, Kyros did battle against these Saka and defeated them, capturing Amorges, the king of these Saka. However, Amorges' wife Sparethra subsequently raised an army of, according to Ktesias, an army of 300,000 men and 200,000 women, and defeated Kyros, taking Parmises (Kyros' brother-in-law) as well as his 3 sons prisoners. He states that Kyros then exchanged prisoners with Sparethra, Kyros giving Amorges back to Sparethra and Sparethra giving Parmises and his 3 sons back to Kyros. Shortly after this event, Kyros seems to have been on good terms with the Sakai, making them his allies, for we find that Amorges assisted Kyros in his expedition against the Lydian king Kroisos at Sardis. Kyros' initial war against these Saka, although curiously not stated by Herodotos (some have argued that they were the Massagetai of Herodotos; it is possible that these Saka Haomavarga could've been a tribe within the Massagetai confederation that were later defeated by Kyros' successors), whom Ktesias accuses of falsehood, probably happened right before 547/546 BC, since that was the year Kyros conquered Sardis and captured Kroisos, according to the fragments from the Babylonian "Chronicle of Nabonidus". Later, Kyros seems to have turned on these Saka, for we find that Strabo's account of their eventual defeat by the Achaimenid ruler Kyros the Great has it that Kyros made an expedition against them and he was defeated but that his own carelessness or, possibly his own cunning, by leaving behind his supplies during his retreat, eventually gave him a great victory over these Saka. It is said that his abundant supplies, consisting especially of wine, were taken by these Saka who then enjoyed themselves to the full with the newly captured booty. Kyros then turned back and found the drunken and crazed Saka unready for battle, taking the advantage to attack them, which resulted in his great victory. Kyros and his generals were so proud of the victory that they constructed a temple dedicated to Anaitidos, Omanou, Anadatou, and other Persian gods, on top of a hill located on the plain of the battle and created an annual sacred festival which they called "Sakaia" that mocked the drunken and crazed Saka. If Ktesias' account of these Saka is reliable, Kyros' battle against these Saka, as will be shown below, probably happened sometime between 547/546 - 530/529/528 BC.


This blow to Amyrgian Saka power was rather cataclysmic because in later references to them, we find that they were tributary vassals of the Achaimenids and at times served in the Achaimenid army. For example, from Ktesias, we find that when Kyros and Amoraios, king of the Derbikes who was assisted with elephants from the Indians, were stalemated with both sides suffering heavy casualties, Amorges went in great haste to assist Kyros with 20,000 Saka cavalry, which proved to be the decisive factor in the battle against the Derbikes; the aid Kyros received allowed his army to kill 30,000 Derbikes along with Amoraeus and his 2 sons. Although the cause of Kyros' death is a controversial and debatable issue, as we have Herodotos telling us that he was killed by the Massagetai while Ktesias tells us that in this battle Kyros was mortally wounded by an Indian with a javelin under the thigh and that shortly after his victory he died, most sources place the time of his death in the range of c. 530-528 BC. If Ktesias' account of Kyros' death is correct, then this battle against the Derbikes in which Amorges' Saka cavalry played an important role in the Achaimenid victory can be dated to the same date. Presumably, Amorges was compelled to assist Kyros with his 20,000 Saka cavalry because Kyros, at some point in time between 547/546 - 530/529/528 BC, finally subdued these Saka in a war against them. Herodotos tells us that by the time of Dareios I, they formed part of the 15th Achaimenid satrapy along with the Kaspii (not the same as the Kaspii of the Hyrcanian - Caspian Sea region) and payed 250 in tribute to the Achaimenids. Saka units participated in Dareios I's invasion of Greece, particularly in 490 BC at Marathon where Saka and Persian soldiers were able to break through the center of the combined Athenian-Plataean army led by Miltiades and Callimachus, although the Athenians and the Plataeans from both wings were able to encircle and defeat them. We also see Saka units in service in Xerxes' army when he invaded Greece in 480 BC, where Herodotos describes them as wearing tall, erect, and stiff caps that tapered to a point and trousers for their clothing, while carrying bows, daggers, and battle-axes called "sagaris"; they were, along with the Baktrians, under the command of Hystaspes, son of Dareios and Atossa (Kyros' daughter). Saka units are even present as marines in Xerxes' fleet. Saka cavalry fought under the Achaimenid general Mardonius at Plataea in 479 BC and were considered by Herodotos to have been among the best soldiers Mardonius had with him.

In the late 4th century BC, Saka cavalry are found in Dareios III's army helping the Achaimenids in the defense of their empire against Alexander the Great; at Gaugamela in 331 BC, the Saka cavalry contingent there seemed to have been independent of the Achaimenids but bound to them by alliance, suggesting that perhaps the Achaimenids had lost their former control over these Saka by the time of Dareios III. Under their chief, Mavakes, they were situated, along with the Parthians (the natives of Parthia, not the Dahai-Parthians of later times) on the right wing of Dareios' army, left of the Syrian, Mesopotamian and Median troops, from the point of view of Dareios' right. Additionally, the force of "Asian Skythians" who opposed Alexander at the frontier of the Jaxartes/Syr-Darya near modern Khujand were quite possibly brigands from the Amyrgian state, though Arrian does not directly state that they were "Sakai"; an allusion to the fact that these "Asiatic Skythians" were at least affiliated with the Amyrgian Saka confederacy is supplemented by Quintus Curtius' "Historiae" of Alexander when he mentions in Book 7, sections 17-19 that after Alexander defeated these "Asiatic Scythians", "accordingly the Sacae sent envoys to promise that they would submit...." and that Alexander "had sent back all the prisoners without a ransom". Furthermore, Arrian states that the "Skythian king" (king of the Sacae of Quintus Curtius) attempted to make clear that the force of "Asiatic Skythians" were a pack of brigands and in no sense the deliberate policy of their state, quite possibly meaning that they were outlaws of the Amyrgian state. After this encounter, these Amyrgian Saka probably nominally submitted to Alexander, but later caused much trouble for his successors on their northeastern frontiers. For example, according to Polybius, Euthydemus was besieged at Zariaspa/Baktra by Antiochus (III), c. 209/208 BC, and in his solution to stop Antiochos from fighting him much further, he speaks of a common worry they both share, that of the nomads beyond the frontier of which there were a huge number of and who were close by and that if they continued fighting and let them in, everything would be "barbarized". Antiochus immediately consented to stop the fighting, which is proof of the grave danger that these nomads imposed for the Seleukids and Graeco-Baktrians. Considering that these nomads were near Baktriane, they were possibly Amyrgian Saka, even though Euthydemus' mention of "nomads" was rather vague. After these events, it is possible, though by no means proven, that the Amyrgian Saka came under the influence of the expanding Graeco-Baktrians after Euthydemus, particularly under Demetrius and Menander, and became Hellenized and adopted settled ways, which is evident in Zhang Qian's description of Ferghana, ie Dayuan. Later c. 130 BC, Zhang Qian's report on the kingdoms of Central Asia contains information on Ferghana, known to him as "Dayuan", and may have actually referred to this same Hellenized and settled Amyrgian Saka kingdom in the Ferghana valley, during a time when the Da Yuezhi and other nomad peoples such as the Saka Rauka allied with each other to conquer the Graeco-Baktrian kingdom. It is curious that Strabo explicitly states that the four nomad peoples who conquered Graeco-Baktria came from territory that was ruled by the Amyrgians but did not list the Amyrgians as among those who conquered Graeco-Baktria, evidently suggesting that the Amyrgian Saka had little to no hand in the establishment of the Indo-Saka kingdoms of the late 2nd century BC - 1st century AD. It is possible that during the course of these events, the Amyrgian Saka established a settled state in Ferghana allied to the state of Kangju and were later conquered by the latter during the 1st - 2nd centuries AD.

Saka Rauka: "Saka Rauka" is the original form of Greek Sakaraukoi/Sakaurakoi/Sakarauloi or Latin Sacaraucae/Sa[ca]raucae. According to linguistic experts, "Saka Rauka" meant something like "Saka lords/kings/commanders". The Saka Rauka were, as their name suggests, an eastern concentration of Saka tribes who lived in the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region north of the present-day Tianshan range, in the areas of southeastern Kazakhstan, northern and eastern Kyrgyzstan, and the northwestern part of the PRC/China. Both the Greek and Latin versions appear in Strabo's geographical treatise and the Prologi of Pompeius Trogus in relation to the events of the middle-late 2nd century BC, during the fall of the Graeco-Baktrian kingdom to the nomad peoples from the northeast; they were unknown to the Greeks and Romans as well as the Persians and Indians before that time since the early Saka Rauka lived in an area beyond their geographical ken. "Saka Rauka" also appears in the Han Shu as "Saiwang", read in its Middle Chinese form "Sak-giwang", and possibly appears in its Indian form as "Saka-murunda". The Han Shu contains the earliest events of the Saka Rauka but we can perhaps trace them back to one of the Rong tribes who bordered the Western Zhou dynasty to their northwest. From the archaeological evidence and their affinities with the evidence of Saka groups from the Altai and Tuva, the Saka peoples probably maintained close cultural relations and trade with each other. During the Achaimenid period, Saka art shows great affinities with Baktrian art, particularly those objects from the Oxus treasure, dated to the 5th-4th centuries BC, suggesting that the Saka peoples maintained cultural relations with the Achaimenid-Baktrians as well. Greek influence on their art, although perhaps minor, can be seen as we find a kneeling figure of a warrior unearthed in the northern Tianshan region and who appears to be wearing a mix of Saka and Greek clothing, now in the Xinjiang Regional Museum in Urumqi; for the Saka Rauka, this could possibly suggest earlier cultural contacts and trade relations with the Graeco-Baktrians. Curiously, the Saka peoples, particularly those who lived in the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region, ie the Saka Rauka, seemed to have had a special preference for constructing their sacrificial tables and cauldrons out of cast iron and bronze. There is significance in this fact because cast iron was known only in China at this time; Chinese bronzes have also been observed by one authority to display distinct Central Asian nomadic influences. This may mean that the Saka Rauka, like their cousins in the Altai, conducted extensive trade with the Chinese as well. All this suggests that the Saka peoples maintained extensive trade networks and cultural exchanges with neighbouring and distant polities, both settled and nomadic, as well as with each other. As rather recent archaeological expeditions to sites in the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region and their analyses have shown, a diverse set of economic practices had been existent during the "Saka period" in the region, ranging from pure nomadic pastoralism to semi-nomadic pastoralism and even settled farming on the lowland steppe areas. This type of economic strategy employed by a nomadic polity probably reached its height c. 200 BC - 100 AD, during the "Wusun period"; this conclusion seems valid as the Han Shu notes that the capital of the Wusun when they controlled the region was the walled town of Chigu and it is also noted that Wusun tribesmen, along with practicing pastoral nomadism, also planted trees. This type of mixed economy of both nomadic pastoralism as well as settled farming existing among nomadic tribes receives further confirmation in the written sources as well; Herodotos mentions Skythian farmers as a tribe of the Skythian kingdom in south Russia while events recorded by both Sima Qian and Ban Gu indicate that the Xiongnu occasionally practiced farming, during times of crisis or shortage of food. Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that, while the Saka Rauka were mainly pastoral nomads, there were also limited farming communities within the confederacy.

Not much is heard of the Saka Rauka from the written sources until the middle of the 2nd century BC, when the upheaval and subsequent migrations of the Da Yuezhi and Wusun peoples from eastern Central Asia completely altered the course of power in the region where the Saka Rauka lived. In east Asia, the unification of the former Zhou vassal states under the militant Qin empire in 221 BC and its subsequent rapid collapse that resulted in a short period of civil war, allowed the Xiongnu, probable Turkic-speaking steppe nomads living to the north of the former Yan state in southeastern Inner Mongolia, to unite under a powerful leader called Maodun, who by 202 BC had turned the Xiongnu into a superpower and expanded his empire in all directions. Among the peoples affected by this expansion were a probable Tokharian-speaking tribe called by the Han "Yuezhi", whom before Maodun's time owned a large and powerful empire in eastern Central Asia and had constantly pressed the Xiongnu. The Yuezhi finally fled their homeland between Dunhuang (modern Dunhuang on the western edge of the Hexi corridor) and Qilian (the modern Tianshan range) after suffering their 3rd recorded defeat by the Xiongnu in which Lao Chanyu killed the Yuezhi king and made his skull into a drinking cup, an event that happened sometime between 174 - 158 BC, as both Sima Qian in his Shiji and Ban Gu in his Han Shu tell us. The Yuezhi split up into two groups - the first group, who were the main body of the Yuezhi, fled to the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region and were subsequently known to the Han as the "Da Yuezhi" ("Greater Yuezhi"); the second group consisted of a minority of Yuezhi who instead fled south to the Nanshan range in southern Gansu and lived among the proto-Tibetan Qiang tribes there, subsequently known to the Han as the "Xiao Yuezhi" ("Lesser Yuezhi"). In relativity to the Saka Rauka, it is the Da Yuezhi who we must concern ourselves with, since they are a key factor in the history of the Saka Rauka. Many of the Saka Rauka who were living in the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region were driven out by the Da Yuezhi, but there is also reason to believe that many of them remained there as control in the region passed from one polity to another. In the Han Shu, Chapter 96B, Section 2B, it is stated that because of the subsequent passing of control of the region from first the Saiwang (Middle Chinese form pronounced as "Sak-giwang", equatable with the "Saka Rauka") to the Da Yuezhi and then to the Wusun that the current Wusun state contained both Da Yuezhi and Sai (Middle Chinese "Sak" - equatable with "Saka") elements. In another passage, Ban Gu states that the people of Xiuxun and Juandu, polities located to the northwest of Shule (modern Kashgar), consisted largely of Sai/Sak/Saka people who had been driven out of their territories by the Da Yuezhi, and that the clothing the people wore in those states were the same as that of the Wusun people; this may suggest that the majority, or at least a noticeable part of the Wusun polity were Saka Rauka tribesmen who had stayed behind in the region. In the Han Shu, Chapter 96B, Section 2B, it is stated that the territory the Wusun ruled at the time (late 2nd century BC) had originally belonged to the Saiwang (Sak-giwang = "Saka king" = Saka Rauka) but that the Da Yuezhi later drove them out of the region when they were fleeing from the Xiongnu, and subsequently the Wusun, with Xiongnu aid, drove the Da Yuezhi out as well; this region must have been the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region, as a variety of sinologists and Central Asian historians have shown. The fate of the Saka Rauka is transferred in the Han Shu texts mainly to the description of the kingdom of Jibin in Gandhara/Kapisa, since the main body of Saka Rauka fled there to establish the Indo-Saka kingdom. However, an analysis of Han Shu texts have also shown that a considerable body of Saka Rauka tribesmen remained behind in the steppes of Semirechye; as such, a considerable group of them seem also to have left Semirechye along with the Da Yuezhi to Baktria, accounting for their appearance in Greek and Roman sources as one of the allied nomadic peoples who took part in the destruction of the Graeco-Baktrian kingdom.

368px-Scythian_devotee_Butkara_I.jpg


486px-BimaranCasket2.JPG



Part IV - The Scythian Invasions of Bactria and Parthia

A significant number of Saka Rauka also migrated out of the region; Ban Gu states that the rulers of Jibin were Sai/Sak/Saka people who had been driven from their territories by the Da Yuezhi and that the states of Xiuxun and Juandu, both northwest of Shule (modern Kashgar), were also descendants of those fleeing Sai/Sak/Saka people. Here we have perhaps the only surviving written source that contain detailed descriptions of some of the Indo-Saka kingdoms. Both Xiuxun and Juandu appear to have kept their former nomadic customs since it was stated that they went after water and pasture with their stock animals. On the other hand, the Sai of Jibin appear to have become a settled people and, from Ban Gu's description, was a large and powerful state with a large trained army and many elaborate and developed industries. Jibin was described as having flat land and a temperate climate. Lucerne, a variety of vegetation and rare trees, sandalwood, oaks, catalpa, bamboo and lac tree exist in the area. The five field crops, grapes and various sorts of fruit were grown by the people, who also manure their orchards and arable land. The land, by virtue of it being low and damp, produced rice, and fresh vegetables were eaten in the winter. The people there were skilled at decorative work, engraving and the art of inlay, building residences, weaving woollens and at patterned embroidery, and were fond of wine and food. Gold, silver, copper and tin were used to make utensils, and markets with stalls exist there. Gold and silver were also used to make coins, which contain the image of a mounted rider on the obverse side and a human face on the reverse side (one authority suggests that these coins resembled those of the later Indo-Greeks and Saka, especially that of Heraios). Humped cattle, water-buffalo, elephants, large dogs, monkeys, peacocks, different kinds of pearls, coral, amber and beryl as well as a variety of stock animals were all produced by Jibin. Scholars have proposed several theories regarding the location of Jibin; some claim it is Kapisa or Kashmir or even Kabul (this region was controlled by a relatively powerful Indo-Greek kingdom), though archaeological evidence does not support such a theory for the latter two. It is probable that Jibin was the Swat Valley (Uddiyana) and Gandhara (and also a part of Kapisa); the description of Jibin fits very well with this theory and there is definitely archaeological evidence of the Indo-Saka in this area although they date to a much later period than the description of Jibin's first recorded ruler. Regarding the political history of Jibin, it is stated that communications with the Han empire started during the time of Emperor Wu (Han Wudi - ruled 140-86 BC), but that their king Wutoulao, believing that Jibin's distance from the Han could let it get away with offenses committed against the Han, frequently menaced and killed Han envoys. When Wutoulao died, his son succeeded him, but we are left not knowing what the name of this king was. Nevertheless, this king sent an envoy with tribute to the Han. The Han emperor in turn sent Wen Zhong, "Commandant of the Barrier", to escort the envoy back to Jibin, but because the king tried to kill him, Wen Zhong conspired with Yinmofu, son of the Rongqu king (one authority suggests that he was a lesser noble), to kill the king, and invested Yinmofu as the ruler of Jibin with a seal and ribbon. Surprisingly, Yinmofu later resorted to a hostile attitude towards Han envoys when in one instance, he bound up Zhao De, an army captain sent as a Han envoy to Jibin, and executed 70 members of his mission including his deputy. He asked forgiveness of the Han Emperor Xiao Yuan (ruled 48 - 33 BC) by submitting a written account of what had happened, but Xiao Yuan considered the events too distant to matter and decided to break off relations with Jibin. In 25 BC, Jibin sent an embassy to reestablish relations with the Han, but the Han ignored him and treated the Jibin ambassadors as tradesmen. The time and setting of this story coincide with the Saka cursions and the collapse of the last Indo-Greek kingdoms in the Indo-Iranian borderlands, but Yinmofu has not been successfully identified, at least not convincingly, with any of the rulers from numismatic evidence that have been proposed, which include Hermaeus, Maues, and even Kanishka. Contributing to this difficulty in interpretation are the highly debated dates, chronology, and even the identity of the Indo-Saka rulers known from numismatic evidence.

Among the Saka in India, the first king whose royal name we know from numismatic evidence is Maues, although there exists earlier anepigraphic coins of Indo-Saka rulers in Arachosia commonly dated to 110-100 BC. His name appears as Moasa in Kharoshthi. The dating of his reign has been a heated subject of debate among scholars, as is commonly the case with this period of history in this region of northern India, due to the lack of clear evidence. Among the inscriptions found associated with Maues is a copper-plate from Taxila which records that one Patika, the son of Liaka Kusuluka, established the relics of Buddha in a stupa and built a sangharama in the 78th year, during the reign of the great king, the great Moga. This "Moga" from the copper plate is usually identified with Maues on the basis that "Moga" was a northwestern Prakrit transliteration of "Maues", though a minority of scholars differentiate between the two. Scholars are concerned with, in particular, which era the "78th year" referred to because, evidently, this little fragment offers a clue as to when Maues-Moga ruled. Again, scholarly opinion is rather divided on the issue, and suggested eras include a Parthian era (based on the Parthian influences on Maues' coins), a Saka era (some based on the suggestion that the Saka of Drangiana-Sakastana-modern Seistan established a new era shortly after the Parthian king Mithridates II's death in 88 BC), or the Vikrama Samvat which began in 58-57 BC. All this had lead to suggestions of the time of Maues' as early as even 120-95 BC and as late as 20-21 AD, which seem a bit extreme. Both dates are improbable, the former because it coincides with the reign of the Indo-Greek King Antialcidas and the latter coinciding with the reign of the great Indo-Parthian king Gondophares, both in the same region as the Indo-Saka . However, using rather newer evidence such as the dated Kharoshthi inscriptions of the Taxila silver scroll and the Kalawan copper-plate, it seems very probable that the era of the Taxila copper plate probably commenced sometime in c. 155-150 BC as one authority had suggested and that Maues was ruling about c. 77-72 BC; it seems that many modern authorities on the subject have come to this conclusion and also fits in well with their chronological scheme of this period.

Minted in silver and copper, his coins share affinities with those of the later Indo-Greek king Apollodotus I, whom he could have been related in both time and space. The fact that his coins, for the most part, retained the Hellenic emblems that had been in existence in the area before his appearance indicates that Maues' Saka kingdom was probably receptive to Greek cultural influences and retained many Hellenic customs and infrastructure after the fall of the Greek kingdoms in the area. For example, an abundance of Greek deities appear on his coins, a common motif being that of Zeus and Nike. The Greek goddess Artemis, equated with both Nanaia and Anahita, appear as well. A Hellenic city goddess appears on several of his other coins, with Tyche standing and holding a wheel. The legendary golden winged staff with 2 entwined snakes of the Greek messenger god, Hermes, is another common motif and Hermes himself seems to have been a popular deity among the Saka. To this, we witness Herakles and Helis the Sun God (Surya) in his chariot on several other coins of Maues. Though rather out of place, we even see representations of the Sea God Poseidon, to which some scholars have suggested that it symbolized Maues' understanding of the naval control necessary to dominate the extensive river system of the Panjab. A rather rare coin type of Maues shows a striding male figure with club, trident, and/or vase, reflecting the Saka's reception to an early form of the cult of Siva. The large and varied coinage of Maues suggests that his reign was rather long and prosperous. Most of his coins were minted and found at Taxila, and also in Gandhara and the Swat Valley as well as Kapisa to the north of Gandhara, but rarely in the Kabul Valley. If we can somehow corroborate what we know about Maues' kingdom from his coins with what was stated in the Han Shu, Ch. 96 about Jibin being a great kingdom with a large trained army, we can also extrapolate that he was part of a lineage of rulers with much power and prestige, and that his ancestors were probably those Saka who were driven out of the north Tianshan region by the Da Yuezhi into Taxila and Gandhara, while some of his kinsmen formed small nomadic states to the northwest of the Kashgar oasis. However, it is not entirely clear from which group of Saka did Maues originate from, since we find that scholarly opinion on this subject is rather divided. Some believe that he was connected with the Saka who directly fled the north Tianshan region from the Da Yuezhi onslaught as suggested above. Others think that he originated from the other group of Saka, the ones who had formerly threatened the entire existence of Parthia, settled down in Drangiana-Sakastana and intermingled with the Parthians of Arachosia; they reason that Maues was really a Parthian because of the fact that he used the Parthian title "Basileus Basileon" on some of his coins and that his successors were closely involved with the Parthian kings of Arachosia. Some scholars have pointed out that some of the coin symbols of Maues and his successors undoubtedly show an origin from Central Asia rather than from the Pahlavas. Nevertheless, it is clear that the two groups of Saka were closely connected in later history. Additionally, it should be mentioned that there is some evidence that suggests that Maues or, rather, his affiliates in Arachosia, formed occasional alliances, possibly even intermarriages, with the Indo-Greeks; Zoilos' coins contain the club of Herakles as well as a nomad gorytos and shares affinities with the Arachosian Saka-Pahlavas while Hermaios, an Indo-Greek king who was a contemporary of the Indo-Saka, is depicted on some of his coins with a nomad gorytos.

The successor of Maues at Taxila was Azes I, who is again obtained from the dated numismatic evidence. In Kharoshthi, it is "Ayasa". Azes I's coin types continue the same emblems as that of his predecessor, those of Zeus, Athene, Demeter, Tyche, Hermes, and Herakles, suggesting the same type of reception and open-mindedness toward the culture of the peoples they had just conquered, in this case, the Indo-Greeks. Like Maues', his coins also show nomadic and Indian influences (Uma on some of his coins), the former a legacy of the Indo-Saka ' nomadic origins from the Central Asian steppe. Like the dating problem associated with Maues-Moga, the problem still remains with that of Azes I. It is significant that modern scholars, for the sake of clarity, identify him as "Azes I" rather than simply "Azes" because there were apparently 2 different Saka rulers in this region bearing the name "Azes" that were not contemporaries of each other; Azes I's successor was most likely Azilises while Azes II was Azilises' successor. It is usually accepted and almost very clear that the numismatic evidence suggests the identification of two separate Azes; certain coins issued in the joint names of Azes-Ayilisha and Azilises-Aya suggest that Azilises was the subordinate viceregal colleague of Azes I before Azilises came to power and that Azes II was, similarly, the subordinate viceregal colleague of Azilises before Azes II came to power. Back to the issue of dating Azes I, if the dated method suggested for his predecessor, ie Maues-Moga, is correct, then Azes I's reign would've probably been around sometime near the middle of the 1st century BC. Other pieces of evidence which suggest such a date for Azes come from Taxila and Kalawan (near Taxila), the former a silver scroll and the latter a copper-plate. The Kalawan copper-plate states "samvatsaraye 134 ajasa" while the Taxila silver scroll states "sa 136 ayasa"; many scholars have suggested that aja and aya of the 2 records are 2 different transliterations of Azes into northwestern Prakrit. Clearly, the first evidence indicates the use of the Vikrama Samvat era, which has commonly been accepted as starting c. 58-57 BC; one authority has even suggested that the Vikrama Samvat era was really the era of Azes I, which would indicate that Azes I's first year was c. 58-57 BC. Even if we assume that this theory takes on too many assumptions, the rather well-established regnal year of the Indo-Parthian king Gondophares in AD 19 would necessarily place Azes I as ruling somewhere in the middle of the 1st century BC. There is a wide range of opinions about the exact origins of Azes I; some argue that he was a Pahlava (based on his intimate involvement with the Arachosian Saka -Pahlavas of Spalarises) while others maintain that he was a Saka, reasoning that his coins share more affinities with Maues and his successor, Azilises, than those of the Arachosian Saka -Pahlavas. Although there does not seem to be a general scholarly consensus on this issue because of the highly debatable interpretations of the limited evidence available to us, it seems that the second argument bears more weight and reason than the first, simply because there is more numismatic evidence that points to a Saka origin for Azes I rather than a Pahlava one and, in any case, the historical origins of the people of the Arachosian kingdom of Vonones' dynasty were a mix of Saka -Pahlava anyway, even though some have chosen to conventionally call it a Pahlava kingdom. Like Maues, his coins are extremely abundant, but even more so that they appear in the Swat Valley, Taxila, and even in Arachosia (from which the other group of Saka -Pahlavas were holding sway) and the Paropamisadae (Indo-Greek territory of Hermaeus). Although it is a highly debatable issue, Azes I may have penetrated the Paropamisadae after Hermaeus' fall. By looking at the manner in which his name appears with Spalarises (whose origin belongs to the other group of Saka -Pahlavas holding sway in Arachosia and the surrounding regions - to the west of Maues' kingdom) on certain coin types, he may have been a subordinate king or closely allied to Spalarises. What is clear though is that both the descendants of the kingdoms of Maues and Vonones (founder of the Arachosian Saka -Pahlava kingdom) were closely involved with each other, to the extent that their kingdoms could've possibly been "combined" into a single empire. One authority reasonably suggests, based on numismatic evidence, that at the beginning of Azes I' reign right after Maues' fall, the Indo-Greek kings Apollodotus II and Hippostratus most likely recaptured Gandhara and Taxila from Azes I for a brief time and that it was only after he had allied with Sparalises' Arachosian Saka -Pahlavas that he was able to reclaim these regions from the Indo-Greeks. The latter king, Hippostratus, being driven back to his territory in the eastern Panjab, was later extinguished by Azes I. Azes I greatly extended the territories of his Indo-Saka kingdom, for he later gained hegemony over Arachosia, Gandhara (which he retook from the Indo-Greeks), the western Panjab, and possibly even Mathura further east in northern central India. Azes I's successor was one prince by the name of Azilises, whose name in Kharoshthi is "Ayilisasa" (one version). Azilises' coins continue the same motifs as those of his predecessor, Azes I, but he introduces some strikingly original devices on his coins. In particular, some of his coins contain the typically Indian deity Abhisheka-Lakshmi, who appears regularly in ancient and medieval Indian art and had already been adopted by several other foreign and indigenous rulers of India from very early times. In addition, there appear other deities, some of which seem to be identifiably Indian, of both sexes on some of his coins. All this suggests an increasing contact and perhaps adoption of Indian culture, just as Azilises' predecessors had retained and adopted some elements of Greek culture in their empires.

Like his predecessors, Azilises' coins are extensive and appear in various regions. According to one authority, they "are the most handsome of any of the Saka-Pahlava series....", which may be testimony to the prosperity and strength of the Indo-Saka during his reign. Interestingly, the mounted and standing Dioscuri, who in Greek literature were the refuge and protectors of sailors and who in battles would appear on white horses to give victory to the side they favored, also appears on the coins of Azilises. According to one authority, the presence of these varieties of the Dioscuri on Azilises' coins show that the territories of Diomedes and Archebius, and other later members of Eucratides' Indo-Greek dynasty were being annexed by Azilises. On other coins and some on the same coins as those of Dioscuri, there contain images of Zeus holding the small figure of Nike, the winged goddess of victory. These coins, both of the Dioscuri and Zeus with Nike, probably had the primary meaning of military triumph; in fact, there are other forms of evidence that point to a gradual expansion of the empire by Maues' 2 successors, ie Azes I and Azilises. Besides the mentioned conquest of the descendants of Eucratides' Indo-Greek dynasty, Azilises extended his empire far within the borders of Kashmir, if not into the valley proper; this is based on several finds of silver coins of Azilises in Kashmir and the Hazara valley, the former containing a magnificent find of 5 silver coins, all of which were in mint condition. Additionally, the Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Justinus, states that during the reign of Phraates IV (c. 38 - 2 BC), the "Scythians" helped him regain the throne from the Parthian usurper Tiridates I. As explained below, "Scythians" in the sense used by Justinus in references to these events on the eastern Parthian border included the Da Yuezhi and their Saka Rauka allies; since by this time, the dynasty of Vonones and his descendants, Spalahores, Spalagadames, and Spalirises, who were most likely the descendants of these Saka Rauka, was already conquered/united by the dynasty of Maues during the reign of Azes I, the "Scythians" referred to here were probably those mobile Saka units employed by Azilises (this could not have happened during the reign of the declining empire of Azes II) to interfere in Parthian affairs. It was under the reign of this great emperor Azilises that the Indo-Saka reached the height of their power.

Azilises' successor was Azes II, who could've been the son of Azilises. Unlike the coins of his predecessors, Azes II's coins are much debased in quality, with some of them being billon and often with corrupt Greek script. His coins also bear few of the usual designs found on the coins of his predecessors, and there is little variety among his issues. All this may suggest that the empire that he had inherited was in decline, very much so that his territories were probably restricted to the central and western parts of the Panjab. Almost certainly, Azes II lost his western domains, those in Kandahar (Arachosia) and Baluchistan (Gedrosia and Drangiana-Sakastana), to the semi-independent local Parthian king Orthagnes, who was ruling in those regions with Gondophares, then his viceregal associate and later the legendary founder of the Indo-Parthian empire. Interestingly, the fact that Azes II's coins contain an increased admixture of lead in the silver alloy may indicate that the empire had extensive trade relations with the Andhras in southern India, where the metallic value of money was much lower. Among his billon coins, there is issued on the reverse the Prakrit legend "Indravarmaputrasa aspavarmasa strategasa jayatasa", or "of the victorious strategos Aspavarma, son of Indravarma". This man, probably an Indo-Greek general as his name suggests, also appears on a coin type closely related to those of Gondophares, the founder of the Indo-Parthian kingdom that later conquered the Indo-Saka kingdom of Azes II, which has lead to the suggestion that Aspavarma first served Azes II as a general ruling jointly with Azes II in the western Panjab and then later turned his allegiance to the conquering power - Gondophares and the Indo-Parthian kingdom. These pieces of evidence, linking Azes II with Gondophares by Aspavarma, suggest that there is almost no doubt Azes II fell to the expanding power of Gondophares, whose regnal year most scholars seem to conclude was AD 19. From this, we can possibly deduce, according to one authority, that Azes II was ruling "within a decade or two of the birth of Christ", ie c.20-10 BC.

Strabo lists four nomadic peoples who took Baktria from the Greeks, the four being the Asioi, Pasianoi, Tokharoi, and Sakarauloi. This information seems to be corroborated by both the Shi Ji, Ch. 123 and the Han Shu, Chs. 61 and 96, all of which mention the Da Yuezhi conquest of Daxia (Baktria) after the Xiongnu Lao Chanyu killed the Yuezhi king and made his skull into a drinking cup; the Han Shu is more specific in its mention of this event, which has it that the Yuezhi initially fled to the region that was later inhabitted by the Wusun (Issyk-kol/Semirechye) and that the Wusun, seeking revenge for what the Da Yuezhi did to their people in the past, obtained "permission" from the Xiongnu Chanyu and subsequently drove the Da Yuezhi to Daxia/Baktria. In the past, there had been many complex arguments advanced to try to prove the connections between Strabo's list of the nomadic conquerors of Baktria and their relation to the Da Yuezhi. One theory has it that "Daxia" [Middle Chinese "d'âd-g'å"] was an approximate transcription of "Tokharoi" and that these people were not Yuezhi but another Tokharian people who fled before the Da Yuezhi into Baktria but were later subjugated by the Da Yuezhi. Another school pointed out the mythological connotations of "Daxia" given to Baktria by Zhang Qian, with "Daxia" being the westernmost polity that Zhang Qian knew and that "Daxia" was not an approximate transcription of "Tokharoi" or the name of any people, for that matter. It seems that the latter theory, even though it is questionable that Zhang Qian's designation of Baktria was propogated by his dedication to an ancient fable, holds more weight than the former because the "Da" in "Daxia" was a Chinese character for "great" and wasn't necessarily part of the real name of a polity since they would not designate themselves using Chinese terms. Ptolemy also mentions the Tokharoi being present in Baktria and Sogdiana (albeit in a variant form - Takhoroi) and says that they were a great people. As had been explored above, there appears to have been a large body of Saka Rauka who remained in the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region and were later ruled by the Da Yuezhi and the Wusun. There is no reason to doubt that the Da Yuezhi was a composite horde of both Kuchean-Agnean ("Tokharian", which seems to have been the dominant component of the Da Yuezhi before the rise of the Kushanas) and Indo-Iranian speakers, especially after the Yuezhi fled to the Issyk-kol/Semirechye region that was previously inhabitted by Indo-Iranian Saka Rauka. It is possible that the first two nomad peoples, if not all of them, mentioned by Strabo, were part of the Da Yuezhi composite horde that conquered Graeco-Baktria. The "Tokharoi" could've been the main component of the Da Yuezhi while the Asioi of Strabo and the Asiani of Trogus (Prologus of Book 42 says that the Asiani became/were the kings of the Tochari [Tokharoi]) could've been the Eastern Iranian/Saka-speaking Kushanas/Guishuang clan who later became the ruling clan of the Da Yuezhi composite horde and established the Kushana empire in the early 1st century AD. The Sakarauloi, on the other hand, could've been allies/nominal vassals of the Da Yuezhi but probably became independent later on because they were later separately destroyed, as Trogus tells us in his Prologus of Book 42. Additionally, this group of Saka Rauka could've conquered Sogdiana as well, since Trogus in Prologus of Book 41 states, albeit in very vague terms, that the Sa[ca]raucae and the Asiani occupied Baktria and Sogdiana (Ptolemy mentions that the Sakaraukoi occupied territory below the Jaxartes [Syr-Darya] which may point to the fact that at one point in their history the Sakaraukoi/Saka Rauka had been there), which may indicate a Sa[ca]raucae/Saka Rauka alliance with the Asioi/Asiani. The conquest of Graeco-Baktria by the Da Yuezhi and their Asioi and Saka Rauka allies must have happened sometime between 145 BC (the date of the destruction of Ai-Khanoum on the Oxus, according to the archaeologists who excavated the site) and 130 BC (the date suggested by Zhang Qian's report on Central Asia). The Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Justinus contains references to the attacks that the nomadic alliance, designated by Justinus as simply "Scythians", inflicted on Parthia. He says that Artabanus I was killed by a wound he received in battle against the Tochari, who were part of the nomadic alliance that included the Asioi and the Saka Rauka and had been previously responsible for the conquest of Graeco-Baktria. He states in Book 42 that these "Scythians" invaded and laid waste to Parthia during the reign of the Parthian king Phraates (Phraates II, r. 138 - 127 BC) because they were disappointed at not having arrived in time to do what they were called upon to do, which was to aid Phraates in his war against the Syrian king Antiochus (Seleukid king Antiochus VII, r. 138 - 129 BC). Phraates II was killed by his own Greek mercenaries after they had defected to the nomadic alliance, who were defeating the army of Phraates II. Artabanus I (r. 127 - 124 BC), the successor of Phraates II, did no better; he received a fatal wound in his arm, probably from a poisoned weapon, when he was fighting the Tochari. It was only during the reign of Mithridates II ("the Great", c. 123 - 88 BC) that the nomadic alliance was driven back. Trogus states that the Sa[ca]raucae were destroyed. Apart from the incredible vagueness of the statement, it is possible that Mithridates II, in his ventures against the nomadic alliance, he could've driven back the Da Yuezhi/Tochari/Tokharoi but, because the Da Yuezhi were too strong to oust out of Baktria-Sogdiana, the Parthians were only able to totally defeat the Saka Rauka; it is even possible that this statement refers to the Indo-Parthian conquest of Azes II's kingdom further east and all-together unrelated to Mithridates II. It is possible that these Saka Rauka fled towards the south, to a part of Drangiana (in the region of Zaranj around the Sistan Lake) and later gave their name to this region by at least the 1st century BC, when Isidore of Charax in "Parthian Stations" called the region "Sakastana". In this rather complicated field of study regarding the Saka contingent of Sakastana-Drangiana, again we find several opinions regarding their origins and the date of their establishment in this area. One scholar had suggested that a group of Saka established themselves in this region at a very early time, such as the 7th century BC or even earlier, and that they remained in this region all during the Achaimenid and Hellenistic periods even though Sakastana as a name does not appear until the revival of Saka power in the 2nd century BC, and that this revival of Saka power had nothing to do with an invasion of Saka from the Central Asian steppes. Very few scholars accept this theory in its entire form. Some scholars had chosen a more moderate view, e.g. "there is good evidence that the earlier Scythian [Saka] settlements in Iran were reinforced about the time the Cakas [Sakas] first occupied Bactria." Others flatly deny this theory of an earlier occupation of Sakastana-Drangiana by the Saka and insist that they first arrived there when they were expelled from their Central Asian homelands. While there may be some truth regarding the earlier settlement of Saka in this region and the revival of Saka power due to an invasion of Saka from Central Asia, there is also reason to believe that the majority of the Saka of Sakastana-Drangiana were the Saka Rauka. Regardless of the date and origins of the Saka contingent of Sakastana-Drangiana, it is clear that these Saka played a very important role in the history of the eastern Iran-northern India region.

As mentioned earlier, there appear anepigraphic coins in the Arachosia region dated to c. 110-100 BC attributed to the Saka. If we corroborate this evidence with the theory that Mithridates II drove the Saka out of Baktria, we may suppose that by this time, the Saka had already settled in Sakastana-Drangiana and had a presence in Arachosia and that by this time up to 88 BC the Saka in this region mixed with the Parthian/Pahlava conquerors who destroyed the last remnants of Indo-Greek power in Arachosia. The first Indo-Saka/Pahlava ruler of this region whose name is obtainable from numismatic evidence is Vonones, who undoubtedly was culturally a Parthian but whose ethnicity was probably a Saka-Pahlava mix. It is significant that some scholars, perhaps overwhelmingly and unnecessarily, emphasize the Parthian/Pahlava elements of this kingdom. As several authorities had rightly suggested, the Sakas and Pahlavas of the Indo-Saka kingdoms were so closely associated that "it is not always possible to distinguish between them", the same family including both Pahlava and Saka names; this is further backed up by a close linguistic survey conducted by one scholar of the various names of the early foreign chiefs, both royal and satrapal, known from their coins and inscriptions. It is highly probable that the tribes of the Indo-Saka kingdoms of both Maues and, in this case, Vonones, contained diverse elements. Regarding the date of Vonones' reign, the high-sounding titles of his coins suggest a date most probably after 88 BC, the last year of the reign of Mithridates II, because a great king such as that of Mithridates II would not have tolerated such pomp displayed by his subjects. One authority, in his analysis of the numismatic evidence regarding the rulers of this region, noticed that the square form of omicron (15th letter of the Greek alphabet - looks like an "o") appeared side by side with the round form on the coins of Hippostratus (an Indo-Greek/Yavana ruler) and Azes I (middle of the 1st century BC, 1st regnal year possibly 58-57 BC) and that the change of omicron from a round form to a square form on coins happened during the reign of the Parthian king Orodes I (c. 57-38 BC). Vonones' coins happen to use the round form of omicron, which may suggest a date for Vonones earlier than c. 40 BC. Additionally, Vonones' coins are few in both number and variety and in each of them he issues his name jointly with those of his subordinate rulers, his brother Spalahores (this is presumably his Saka-Pahlava name, just like "Spalagadames" is also - his name in Greek is "Spalyris", with its genitive form being "Spalyrios") and his nephew Spalagadames (son of Spalahores); all this suggests that Vonones' rule could not have lasted long. Vonones was probably a younger comtemporary of Maues and probably ruled about the sixties of the 1st century BC. Vonones was succeeded by his subordinate rulers, the above-mentioned Spalahores and Spalagadames, father and son. The names of these father-son rulers in Kharoshthi are Spalahora and Spalagadama, respectively. Like Vonones' coins, those of Spalahores with his joint subordinate ruler Spalagadames are few in both number and variety, which again suggests that this joint rule of father-son, was short and brief.


Spalahores' joint rule with Spalagadames was followed by the rule of Spalirises (Kharoshthi "Spalirisha"), who was probably another brother of Vonones. His coins differ from those of his predecessors in that he has issued coins of himself as sole king while he also issued coins jointly with Azes, who can be identified with Azes I, the immediate successor of Maues. Since he was a contemporary of Azes I, we may establish that Spalirises was also ruling somewhere in the middle of the 1st century BC. The fact that his coins and those of his predecessors, Vonones, Spalahores, and Spalagadames, contain the same emblems, objects, and motifs on their coins as those of Maues' dynasty which continued the local tradition of the Indo-Greeks, suggests, again, that Vonones and his successors were probably receptive to Greek cultural influences and retained many Hellenic customs and infrastructure presumably after the fall of the Indo-Greek kingdoms in Kandahar (Arachosia) and Baluchistan (Gedrosia and Drangiana-Sakastana). The use of the Kharoshthi script on their coins also suggests Indian cultural influences, probably those acquired by the preceeding Indo-Greeks. Interestingly, the numismatic evidence suggests that during his time, he greatly expanded his domains from Arachosia all the way to the Paropamisadae and destroyed the last remnants of Indo-Greek power in the Kabul and Herat regions. It is significant that in his joint issues with Azes I, his name appears on the obverse in the Greek legend "Basileos Megalou Spalirisou" while Azes I's name appears on the reverse in the Kharoshthi legend "maharajasa mahatakasa Ayasa". This may suggest that Azes I was in a subordinate position in his alliance with Spalirises; this is totally understandable since the beginning of Azes I's reign was marked by the recapture of Gandhara and Taxila by the Indo-Greek kings Apollodotus II and Hippostratus and perhaps desperation drove Azes I, who had lost a large swap of territory that was formerly owned by his predecessor Maues, to consult an alliance with the powerful Spalirises. Spalirises acted in conjunction with Azes I to recapture the lost domains from the Indo-Greeks and thus saved Azes I's kingdom. Spalirises was a great king and was probably the most remarkable Indo-Saka/Pahlava king of Vonones' line. Spalirises' coins forcibly suggest that he was the last ruler of Vonones' kingdom and that during his time his domains were later incorporated into Maues' kingdom by Azes I; his disappearance from the archaeological record does not seem to be explainable by any theory, but however he lost his position as ruler of his empire, this signifies the end of Vonones' Indo-Saka/Pahlava dynasty.


501px-Indo-ScythiansMap.jpg



800px-Kushan%2C_Brahma%2C_Indra%2C_Indian.JPG



800px-Indo-GreekStupaIII.jpg



Part V - The Saka Invasion of India - The Indo-Scythians and The Western Satraps

The oldest traces of the Saka at Mathura who preceded the Kushanas come from a series of coins minted probaby in the middle of the 1st century BC by four rulers who carry the title Khatapa (in Brahmi) or, Satrap, its Hellenized form, with the "Indianized" form being "Kshatrapa". The title "Satrap" undoubtedly stems from the old Persian title Kshathra-pavan (means "protector of the realm") which was first introduced into northern and northwestern India by the Achaimenid conquerors. In the Achaimenid empire, the satraps were somewhat subordinate rulers with a varying degree of political importance but even during Achaimenid times, these powerful administrators showed a tendency toward independence. The Mathura Saka are covered in a separate section because, as the name "Satrap"/"Kshatrapa" suggests, these rulers probably maintained a good level of autonomy even though they were subjects of the powerful Indo-Saka of Taxila-Gandhara. Regarding the 4 rulers of the coins, they were named Sivaghosha, Sivadatta, Hagamasha, and Hagana, and it has been suggested that the latter 2 names seem to show definite Saka ancestry. It is possible that these Kshatrapas were subordinates of Azes I but these 4 rulers probably preceded Rajuvula and his son-successor Sodasa. As will be shown below, these Saka were probably descended from the Saka of Sakastana-Drangiana and Arachosia, who were probably ultimately descended from the Sakaraukoi who took part in the conquest of Greco-Baktria.

Among the evidence of the Saka at Mathura is the rather well-known Mathura Lion Capital, now in the British Museum. It is composed of lion-griffins turned back to back and the stone is inscribed on all sides in Kharoshthi. Although the order of the sentences is so uncertain due to the script being so worn, the readings and interpretations by a number of scholars suggest that it may be the record of a ceremonial gathering of a large number of Saka princes at Mathura. Unfortunately, it is one of the most vexing historical documents imaginable and it is a pity that although the inscriptions on the capital contain so many potentially valuable information, only a limited amount of data can be safely extracted due to its worn state. Chief among these princes is the Mahakshatrapa Rajula. This Rajula is a short form of the well-known Prince Rajuvula, whose power was based in the eastern Panjab. Ayasia Kamuia is listed as his queen, whose father is listed twice as Yuvaraja Kharaosta, or Crown Prince Kharaosta. This Kharaosta may be the same Satrap Kharaosta who is found on some rare coins in the northwestern Panjab as the son of a certain Arta. Among the other Saka princes listed on the capital and not found elsewhere include a Prince Khalamasa, a Kshatrapa Mevaki Miyika, and a Kshatrapa Khardaa. Mention should be made to some rather controversial names listed whose identity is not entirely certain and have vexed a number of scholars who have attempted to interpret them. They are Mukisriraya (illustrious King Muki) and the Mahakshatrapa Kusuluka Patika. The "illustrious King Muki" has often been identified with Maues, the Indo-Saka king at Taxila and Gandhara, but this interpretation is questionable considering the fact that it is difficult to explain why Maues' name would lack its proper titles and its occurrence so late in time. The name Mahakshatrapa Kusuluka Patika is a bit confusing in that Patika as the name of one man and Kusuluka as his father also appear on the Taxila copper plate of the year 78 in the reign of King Moga (Maues). It is difficult to account for their appearance in a different form at Mathura but, nevertheless, it is quite possible and likely that this personality may have been the Patika of the Taxila copper plate of the year 78. This may necessarily indicate that the Saka at Mathura had strong ties and connections with those of Maues' dynasty in Taxila-Gandhara - indeed, the city of Taxila is also mentioned in the Mathura Lion Capital. Mention is also made to the "whole of Sakastana", which may indicate the origins of these Saka at Mathura as being descended from the Saka of Sakastana-Drangiana in the modern Helmand River Basin who later intermingled with the Parthians to form Vonones' Saka kingdom centered in Arachosia - these were probably ultimately descended from a branch of the Saka Rauka who took part in the conquest of Sogdiana and Graeco-Baktria.
Mention should be made regarding the date of Rajuvula's reign. On the basis of the close affinities that his most common coins show with the late coins of the Indo-Greek kings Strato I and Strato II, Rajuvula must have ruled after c. 75 BC, probably even a generation later than Maues if Mahakshatrapa Kusuluka Patika was the same as the Patika of the Taxila copper plate of 78. It seems most probable, according to a number of scholars, that Rajuvula was a contemporary of Azes I and his successors Azilises and Azes II, attesting a rather long reign for Rajuvula; this would place him as ruling sometime in the middle of the 1st century BC or slightly after to the last quarter of the 1st century BC. Like his affiliates/kinsmen at Taxila-Gandhara, Rajuvula's coins seem to show many Indo-Greek motifs and influences, particularly in one of his coin types with his portrait on the obverse and Pallas Athene on the reverse holding the aegis in her left hand and hurling a thunderbolt with her right. On other coin types also appear other Greek deities, again suggesting the same type of receptivity toward Greek cultural influences and customs that his affiliates in Taxila-Gandhara and Arachosia-Sakastana so commonly evinced on their respective coin types. Rajuvula's other coin types also show that he adapted and picked up Hindu influences, particularly those in the Gangetic Doab in the eastern part of his extensive empire, as a typical coin type over there were simply adaptations of the local Mathura Hindu issues with the typical Gaja-Lakshmi motif on the reverse. These coin types and hence his exposure to Hindu influence may have been rather late in his reign because this coin type was continued by his son and successor Sodasa. Finally, there is evidence that Rajuvula and his contemporaries at Mathura as well as his successors actively engaged in Buddhist activities. From the Mathura Lion Capital mentioned above, there is mention that these Saka actively supported the Sarvastivadin sect against the Mahasamghikas. Additionally, on one of Rajuvula's coin types, there appears the Kharoshthi legend "apratihata cakrasa chatrapasa rajuvulasa" or, "the Satrap Rajuvula whose discus (cakra) is irresistible". This is rather quite interesting in that the traditional Buddhist use of the cakra was an emblem of the Dharma while in this instance Rajuvula has turned the cakra into a weapon of war. This militant interpretation of the cakra, although a sign that Rajuvula and his Mathura Saka were active participants and perhaps followers of Buddhism, is also an indication of the preservation of some of their traditional militant ideals and a legacy of their heritage from the Central Asian steppes. These coin types appear extensive, for they are found in an area from Sankasya along the Ganges in the middle of the Doab and into the eastern Panjab. Rajuvula rightly deserved the title Mahakshatrapa and was, no doubt, a powerful Kshatrapa. As had just been mentioned, his coins extend as far southeast as Sankasya along the Ganges in the middle of the Doab region in modern Uttar Pradesh province in north-central India and northwest into the eastern Panjab. In addition, Rajuvula must have supplanted the above-mentioned Indo-Greek kings Strato I and Strato II as paramount lord in the district of Sagala. Like his Indo-Greek predecessors, he probably continued trade relations with the Andhras to his south as his coinage in the region continued the previous debasement of silver with lead.
At Mathura, Rajuvula's chief successor was his son Sodasa, or Sudasa of the coins. It is significant to note that although his reign was marked by flourishing artistic and religious activity, his power and domains were probably greatly limited in size and strength, as the "unambitious and narrow provenance" of his coins suggest, as one modern authority puts it; he was probably limited to only the Mathura region and the previous domains of his father Rajuvula in the northwest were probably succeeded by Prince Bhadrayasa. It is also significant that he discontinued the Hellenic features of Indo-Saka coinage that were so commonly employed by his predecessors and affiliates/kinsmen elsewhere but instead adopted native, local issues showing strong Hindu influences. On the obverse is probably Lakshmi and on the obverse, the abhiseka of Lakshmi, showing further Hindu influences during his reign. The rarity of his coins where he uses the "Great Satrap" title, ie Mahakshatrapa, suggests that his period as the paramount ruler of Mathura was relatively short. As the dating of his father, the Great Satrap Rajuvula, suggests, Sodasa was probably an older contemporary of the Indo-Parthian king Gondophares, suggesting a date for Sodasa as ruling somewhere in the last years of the 1st century BC or the early decades of the 1st century AD.

So far, the sequence of kings at Mathura beyond Sodasa has not been traced and the political situation between him up to the time of the Kushana emperor Vima or Kanishka is unclear. Considering the strong cultural and political links the Indo-Saka of Mathura had with those of Taxila-Gandhara to their northwest, it is possible, although by no means certain or settled, that the rise of the Indo-Parthians under Gondophares and his subsequent conquest of Azes II and the remnants of the once-great Indo-Saka empire at Taxila-Gandhara destroyed the political system there and caused a decline and possible disuse of the political system at Mathura as well. However, there have been no major traces of the Indo-Parthians, as of yet, in the middle Doab region where the Mathura Indo-Saka ruled, and so it must be concluded that Gondophares and his Indo-Parthians probably did not overthrow Indo-Saka power in Mathura; additionally, a Jaina carving from the Kankali Tila mentions the old Saka title Mahakshatrapa along with an anonymous "Ma...." and another fragmented pedestal also gives the rank of a Kshatrapa, albeit the man's name is lost. The work is later than Sodasa but shows no Kushana influences. Regardless of the political situation at Mathura, the sculpture workshops in the area continued to flourish as they had once did under Sodasa and his precedessors and, as has just been mentioned, it is from these works that there are vague references to Saka power still being present in Mathura at so late a date.

As has been previously suggested, the Indo-Saka of Mathura finally succumbed to the rising power of the Kushanas and were conquered by either Vima or Kanishka. Still, reference should be made to a certain Zeionises (or Jihonika in Kharoshthi-Prakrit) who appears to have succeeded the Indo-Parthians at Taxila after the Kushana conquest of the entire Panjab region. He was a Satrap of Chukhsa and was probably installed at Taxila by either of the great Kushana emperors Kujula or Vima. It is interesting that besides the nandipada monogram commonly found on Vima's coins, which may indicate his subordinate position to the Kushanas, most of the features of his coins continued the Hellenized traditions of the Indo-Saka that had once ruled the region centuries before his time. This may suggest that he was even an Indo-Saka, probably a subordinate ruler employed by the Kushanas. This shows that even though the Indo-Saka of Mathura eventually lost their power to the Kushanas, they played a role in the Kushana empire. Perhaps one example would not suffice, but there are many instances in which men with the title of Kshatrapa appear in many Kushana inscriptions, especially the early ones. It might be that these men were Saka who had been absorbed into the Kushana empire or it is possible that the Kushanas employed their own version of the Satrapal system, no doubt influenced by their Indo-Saka predecessors. Considering that along with the title of "Kshatrapa" comes a great deal of individual autonomy and administrative as well as military power as had been the tradition in the Achaimenid empire and, later, the Indo-Saka empire, this suggests that the role the Indo-Saka played in the Kushana empire was an important one.

A militant group of Saka, conventionally designated the "Western Kshatrapas", settled far to the south in western and central India, in the regions of Malwa, Gujaradesa, and Kathiawar. These Saka appear to have penetrated far into the interior regions of India and, unlike the rather short-lived empires founded by their kinsmen to the northwest, these Saka retained their independence for quite a while and survived as a relatively powerful polity for nearly four hundred years, their rise and fall almost being contemporary to that of the Kushanas. They fought with the Satavahanas, native Indian rulers of the Andhra kingdom in the Deccan Plateau (in south India), as well as the Yaudheyas in the Sindh region.
The chief seats of power of these Western Kshatrapas were Ujjayini in Malwa and Junagadh in Kathiawar. Regarding their origins, if there is some truth in the medieval legend of the Jaina saint Kalaka in the "Kalakacarya kathanaka", the Western Kshatrapas may have, like their kinsmen in Mathura, originated from the Saka of Sakastana-Drangiana and Arachosia and, thus, being ultimately descended from the Sakaraukoi. The legend has it that a group of Saka kings called Sahis were induced to come to India from a place called "Sagakula" and, after crossing the Indus, they captured Kathiawar and divided it among themselves. Ujjayini was also captured by these Saka and they installed their own Sahi as "King of Kings", beginning a dynasty. Later, the Indian King Vikaramaditya of Malwa uprooted this foreign dynasty and established his own era, the Vikrama Samvat of 57 BC, but after 135 years, he was ousted by another Saka king, who established the Saka Samvat (Saka era). It is significant that both these eras are still in use in India today, both employed for religious purposes while the latter was chosen for the Indian National Calendar. If the legend is factual, which many scholars have come to doubt, then the fact that the Saka Samvat was chosen for the Indian National Calendar clearly shows the legacy and significance that the Saka played in the history of India.

Although the Jaina legend describes Saka activities in Kathiawar and Malwa as early as possibly the first half of the 1st century BC, at least before 58-57 BC, numismatic and epigraphic evidence for the Western Kshatrapas does not trace their activities well until the early 2nd century AD. The first ruler known to us from such evidence is one called Nahapana, who probably reigned c. 120 - 125 AD and whose father and predecessor was one Bhumaka. His rule is attested in the Western Ghats range of western India, in the northern part of the range near modern Bombay on the tip of western India. Nahapana was probably related to a powerful dynasty of Kshatrapas to his north, the dynasty of Castana. Castana probably ruled as sole ruler until c. 130 AD when he was ruling jointly with his grandson and later, successor, Rudradaman I, in the region of the Kutch district in the modern Indian state of Gujarat in western India. His successor, Rudradaman I, was undoubtedly the most powerful Kshatrapa among the Saka princes in the south. By 150 AD, he conquered large portions of western and central India which included the upper Narbada region, eastern and western Malwa including Vidisa, northern Konkan, Kutch, Surastra, most of Kathiawar, and the lower to middle Indus region (Sindhu-Sauvira), and possibly even Kausambi, rendering Kshatrapa power extending as far east as the heart of the Ganges basin in north-central India. Furthermore, Rudradaman I twice defeated the Satavahana King Satakarni and regained the upper hand in the struggle for control of the Western Ghats region and the trading ports on the Indian Ocean and later defeated the Yaudheyas at the Sindh region, the latter who were based in northern Rajputana and the southeastern Panjab and who, along with the Kunindas, were a constant menace to the Kushanas in the region between Gandhara and Mathura. For all intents and purposes, Rudradaman I was an extremely powerful Kshatrapa, and his defeat of the Yaudheyas and the conquest of so many regions in western and central India may even put his empire on par with those of the Kushanas, who were probably their nominal allies. Furthermore, the dynasty of Castana lasted for nearly 200 years and the total length of time of the Kshatrapas in western and central India lasted for over 400 years, the empires of these Saka Kshatrapas far outlasting those to their northwest; Castana's dynasty lasted until about c. 300 AD, the last dated coins of the Kshatrapa kings being the year 388 AD and, finally, by 401 AD, the Guptas under Chandragupta II finally succeeded in what other regional and local powers failed to do, that is, subdue this ancient powerful Saka kingdom of the Kshatrapas.

indo_saka_theme1a_by_dariotw-d5sh8ak.jpg


Part VI - The Indianized Culture and Religions of The Indo-Scythians

Mention must be made of the fact that studies have shown that a number of Zoroastrian deities existed before the advent of the Zoroastrian religion and thus, the Saka worship of deities known in Zoroastrianism and by their Zoroastrian terms does not, in any way, indicate that the Saka tribes worshipped Zoroastrianism; consequently, the Zoroastrian deities Ahura Mazdah and Spenta Armaiti were pre-Zoroastrian deities which existed before the advent of Zoroastrianism and probably as far as the time of the proto-Indo-Iranian Andronovo peoples. On the basis of linguistic analysis of the religious terminology of contemporary as well as surviving Saka languages, the Saka tribes before the great migrations and Indo-Saka periods probably worshipped primarily Ahura Mazdah as "God of Heaven" with strong solar features and Svanta Armati as "Goddess of Earth". In the Saka language, "urmaysde", which means "sun", can be linguistically traced to Old Iranian "Ahura Mazdah; the evidence for the strong solar features of Ahura Mazdah among the Saka tribes may be seen when Herodotos states that the Massagetai, a confederacy of Saka tribes, worshipped the sun exclusively and sacrificed horses to the sun, believing that the swiftest of creatures should be given to the swiftest of gods. Saka "ssandramata" can be traced to Old Iranian "Spenta Armaiti"; in later Zoroastrianism, Spenta Armaiti was the patron of the Earth, the fertile land, and of sacred space. Additionally, some of the Saka tribes must have worshipped the cult of Haoma, since one of the Saka tribes known to the Achaimenid Persians and seen on the inscriptions at Persepolis and Naqsh-i-Rustam were "Saka Haomavarga" or "Haoma-drinking/Haoma-consuming Saka". Haoma was the name of both a plant and a deity in the Zoroastrian religion; in the past, much controversy existed over the identity of the "Haoma" plant but a rather recent study indicates that it was most likely the harmel plant, a plant resembling tumbleweed in appearance and containing some very powerful psychoactive alkaloids, harmine and harmaline. It was used in the Zoroastrian ritual of Yasna where the plant was pounded in a mortar partly filled with water and then its juice squeezed into a cup to be drank by a Zoroastrian priest reciting religious texts; besides harmel, this "Haoma juice" was probably prepared along with ephedra. In addition, known northeastern Saka languages are rich in religious terminology, which suggests the Saka worship of divine beings such as daivas, yazatas, and bagas. Due to the lack of direct sources, we must assume that the Saka Rauka worshipped such deities and divine beings as the ones suggested above concerning other Saka tribes.

The above, of course, only pertains to the period before the great nomadic migrations of the middle 2nd century BC and the subsequent Indo-Saka period. After the Saka Rauka tribes conquered Graeco-Baktria and Gandhara/Kapisa and made their mark on Central and South Asia and eastern Iran, they were exposed to the religions of the settled peoples that they conquered, and thus readily adopted some of the Greek and Indian religious ideas and deities that they came across during that time, for both religious and propaganda purposes. As suggested above, the Greek deities Zeus and Nike were common motifs of the coins of the Indo-Saka rulers, along with Artemis, Tyche, Hermes, Herakles, Helis, Poseidon, Athene, Demeter, and Dioscuri. As the Indo-Saka expanded further toward the south and east, they came to pick up Indian deities as well, such as Siva, Abhisheka-Lakshmi, and Gaja-Lakshmi, showing Hindu influence on the Indo-Saka. Buddhism also seems to have, at least in later times, been readily adopted by some Indo-Saka groups, especially the Mathura Kshatrapas; in fact, the Mathura Lion Capital shows that the Indo-Saka actively supported the Sarvastivadin sect against the Mahasamghikas and, interestingly, the Mathura Indo-Saka ruler Rajuvula seems to have attached a militaristic use to the cakra, whose traditional Buddhist use was an emblem of the Dharma.

As was the case for the nomads of the Eurasian steppes, a typical Saka Rauka army before the great migration period would've been composed largely of highly mobile horse-archers armed with the typical nomad recurved composite bow as a primary weapon and a short sword of the akinakes type or a sagaris battle-axe as secondary close-combat weapons and equipped with little to no armour. For a typical nomadic army to function "properly" and utilize its mobility and tactics to the maximum on both the strategic and tactical level, the army would need at least two horses for each soldier. This was usually not a problem for steppe nomads since their whole ecological and economic strategy was based largely upon the rearing of cattle, sheep and, more importantly, horses and the seasonal migration from one grazing ground to another within a general area of grazing grounds under their control; they were transhumant pastoralists. In fact, the Han Shu explicitly mentions that there were large numbers of horses in the region ruled by the Wusun and that some wealthy people own as many as 4,000 - 5,000. The majority of tribesmen would've ridden the steppe pony known today as the Przewalski which had once been widespread across the Eurasian steppes but is now considered an endangered species. Wealthier tribesmen would've ridden larger and more powerful horses, a breed of horses possibly indigenous to the region and one which the Han emperor Wudi (r. 140-86 BC) termed as an "excellent breed"; in fact, before Han Wudi later decided to call the magnificent "blood-sweating horses" from Ferghana "heavenly horses", the term was originally used for Wusun horses, but later the Wusun horses came to be known as "horses from the western extremity", the honor of being designated "heavenly horses" later transferred to the Ferghanian horses. This might be testimony to the good quality of horses from the Semirechye region, and thus we can safely assume that the Saka Rauka polity which ruled the region before the Da Yuezhi and the Wusun and who many of their tribesmen later joined the Da Yuezhi and the Wusun had access to such good-quality horses.

Archaeological evidence, in the form of "anectdotal" gold plaques from the Siberian collection of Peter the Great, dated to the "Saka period", presumably from northern and eastern Kazakhstan, and now in the Hermitage Museum in Leningrad, show that at least the eastern concentration of Saka tribes used a new larger type of recurved composite bow different from the "Skythian" recurved composite bow used by the other Saka, Skythian, and Sarmatian tribes further west, possibly as a result of contact with the Yuezhi, Wusun, Xiongnu, and other tribes of eastern Central Asia who by that time were probably using a larger recurved composite bow with the additional enlarged "siyahs" at the tips, conventionally called the "Sassanian-type" recurved composite bow by some authorities. This "eastern Saka" bow was probably a "transitional-stage" bow that reached its end product in the form of the said "Sassanian" bow, which was later carried west into the western Central Asian and Pontic steppes by groups such as the Da Yuezhi, Kangju, and Wusun, eventually reaching the Pontic steppes by way of the Massagetai-Alans; it later replaced the "Skythian bow" all across the continent. Thus, if these gold plaques can be attributable to such eastern Saka groups as the Saka Rauka, then they were using these bows by at least the 5th-4th centuries BC or even earlier.

As noticed above, possibly the earliest full depiction of the kataphraktoi in archaeology belong to the Massagetai-Chorasmioi peoples, who were a confederacy of western Saka tribes in the Caspian-Aral Sea region and the lower reaches of the Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya rivers; the Khumbuz-tepe terracotta piece also verifies that the kontos lance so commonly attributed to the Sarmatians in later history by Greco-Roman historians possibly originated among the Saka tribes like the Massagetai-Chorasmioi. We know that by at least the 5th century BC, the Massagetai had heavily armoured cavalry developed along the lines of the kataphraktoi. As one authority had noticed, the high collar, the flaring skirt, and the articulated armour of Khalchayan, dated c. 1st century BC - 2nd century AD and commonly attributed to the Kushanas, appears to be very similar to the armour of the Qin chariot fighter from Qin Shihuang Di's famous mausoleum (3rd century BC) near Xian. In fact, a suit of armour made of large lacquered leather plates from a tomb at Suixian, Hubei, just north of the ancient kingdom of Chu, dated to the 5th century BC, presumably that of a Chu infantryman, appears strikingly similar in design to the upper body armour of some of the armoured cavalrymen (presumably Kangju or Saka cavalrymen in Kangju service) depicted on a bone plaque from Orlat, Uzbekistan (the part of ancient Sogdiana), especially in regards to the high neck-guard; they also appear roughly similar to the kataphraktoi depicted on some of the Indo-Saka coins of Maues' dynasty in Gandhara/Taxila. This has possibly lead one noted military historian to conclude that the full set of armour of the kataphraktoi "came into use amid the westernmost and the easternmost Saka tribes: in the west owing to the fight against Persian rule, in the east due to their active participation in the turmoil on the northwest frontier of China", probably a reference to the Massagetai and the Saka tribes of the Rong peoples, respectively. He indicates that the Saka "method of securing their sword belt and accoutrements, was borrowed from China. Even the pommels, the guards, the loops or scabbard slides, the scabbard tips, often made of jade, were directly imported from China."; he further indicates that in general the weapons of the kataphraktoi cavalryman had all been previously used by the Skythians, Persians, and Chinese chariot fighters and infantryman but that it was only among the westernmost and easternmost Saka tribes that the kataphraktoi equipment was fully developed by the late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC. Thus, the Saka Rauka, stemming from a tribe of the Rong peoples, quite possibly had the full kataphraktoi panoply and such a heavy cavalry arm by at least the late 4th - 3rd centuries BC; this might explain the appearance of the armoured riders on the Indo-Saka coins of Gandhara/Taxila.

Saka warfare at this time was relatively innovative, employing both the original highly mobile and lightly-armoured horse-archers typical of steppe nomads but armed with a larger, more powerful recurved composite bow in a transitional stage, in conjunction with the newly innovated armoured heavy cavalry. However, mention must be made of the fact that the heavy cavalry arm by no means comprised the majority, or even a considerable amount of a Saka army, or any steppe army for that matter; evidently, the costly defensive weapon set for such a heavy cavalry arm was probably not attainable by the majority of tribesmen, as was the case for the excellent breed of horses in Issyk-kol/Semirechye mentioned above. The heavy cavalry was usually made up of tribesmen from the higher ranks of the aristocracy. The standard method of attack used by these Saka against, say, a mainly heavy-infantry army, was probably similar to the later Parthians at Carrhae against the Romans, marked by often-repeated tactics such as showering the enemy with arrows at long-range with a demoralizing effect on the enemy, drawing certain contingents of the enemy into ambushes by feigned retreats and the such, using the heavy cavalry arm to possibly tighten the enemy formations and annihilating any enemy soldiers who dared to stray too far away from their main body, and, if no decisive victory was to be obtained in a pitched battle, by virtue of the mobility of their horsemen would go behind enemy lines and continually harass them and attack their supply lines until the enemy yielded. In fact, such tactics and strategies probably marked the type of warfare employed by steppe nomads who had at least an armoured heavy cavalry arm with them, until the advent and widespread usage of the stirrup, whose combined effects with more effective and stable saddles, significantly increased the shock capability and power of the kataphraktoi/armoured heavy cavalryman many centuries to come; these nomads would include such groups as the Dahai-Parthians and the Alano-Sarmatians. Against armies like their own, ie those of other Eurasian steppe nomads, probably one of the most important factors to victory lay in the amount of resources, ie more horses, their basic economic unit, because mobility mattered even more in this type of warfare; in fact, fighting between the pastoral tribes usually involved the seizure of their neighbour's pastures for their herds to graze on or, in extreme cases, the seizure of their neighbours' herds, as ethnographers noticed about the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz of the 19th century. Sometimes this fighting occurred either because of a drought or a murraine among one group's herds, produced by extreme snow or spring freezing after thaw. Against a well-rounded army with overwhelming firepower, like those of the Han, the nomads would have to rely almost totally on harassing and attacking the enemy supply lines on the strategic level and constant raiding, as the battles between the Han and the Xiongnu in later history show.

Later, after groups of Saka Rauka left the steppes and invaded the Graeco-Baktrian kingdom and Gandhara/Kapisa and established settled Indo-Saka kingdoms in northern India, they seemed to have maintained a considerable amount of the preceding Greek and native infrastructures, possibly due to the want of stable administration of the newly established empire. It can be supposed that, while the original cavalry-oriented element of their ancestors had been maintained, the Indo-Saka also employed native and Greek troops who were mainly infantry-oriented, and thus a general increase in the amount of infantry in their armed forces. Probably many Indo-Saka, being settled down, took to infantry-oriented fighting during this time due to the general decrease in the supply of horses since they had lost control of the Central Asian steppes long ago; on a pillar relief from the palace area at Nagarjunikonda is displayed a foot guard holding a spear dressed in Indo-Saka costume and although dated to a later period, he may well be representative of those settled Indo-Saka who took to infantry-oriented fighting. After the conquest of most of the Indo-Saka kingdoms by the Indo-Parthians and later the Kushanas, some Indo-Saka nobles still seemed to have held high positions in the Kushana court, thus indirectly suggesting that Indo-Saka elite cavalry, like the kataphraktoi on the coins of Maues' dynasty, may have been continually employed by the Kushanas.

638px-IndoParthianMap.jpg

614px-IndoParthianReveling.JPG


Indo-Scythians02_full.jpg


Part VII - The House of Gondophares - The Indo-Parthian Kingdom

The Gondopharid dynasty and other Indo-Parthian rulers were a group of ancient kings from Central Asia, who ruled parts of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, during or slightly before the 1st century AD. For most of their history, the leading Gondopharid kings held Taxila (in the present Punjab province of Pakistan) as their residence, but during their last few years of existence the capital shifted between Kabul and Peshawar. These kings have traditionally been referred to as Indo-Parthians, as their coinage was often inspired by the Arsacid dynasty, but they probably belonged to a wider groups of Iranian tribes who lived east of Parthia proper, and there is no evidence that all the kings who assumed the title Gondophares, which means ”Holder of Glory”, were even related. Gondophares I originally seems to have been a ruler of Seistan in eastern Iran, probably a vassal or relative of the Apracarajas. Around 20–10 BCE, he made conquests in the former Indo-Scythian kingdom, perhaps after the death of the important ruler Azes. Gondophares became the ruler of areas comprising Arachosia, Seistan, Sindh, Punjab, and the Kabul valley, but it does not seem as though he held territory beyond eastern Punjab. Gondophares called himself "King of Kings", a Parthian title that in his case correctly reflects that the Indo-Parthian empire was only a loose framework: a number of smaller dynasts certainly maintained their positions during the Indo-Parthian period, likely in exchange for their recognition of Gondophares and his successors. These smaller dynasts included the Apracarajas themselves, and Indo-Scythian satraps such as Zeionises and Rajuvula, as well as anonymous Scythians who struck imitations of Azes coins. The Ksaharatas also held sway in Gujerat, perhaps just outside Gondophares' dominions. After the death of Gondophares I, the empire started to fragment. The name or title Gondophares was adapted by Sarpedones, who become Gondophares II and was possibly son of the first Gondophares. Even though he claimed to be the main ruler, Sarpedones’ rule was shaky and he issued a fragmented coinage in Sind, eastern Punjab and Arachosia in southern Afghanistan. The most important successor was Abdagases, Gondophares’ nephew, who ruled in Punjab and possibly in the homeland of Seistan. After a short reign, Sarpedones seems to have been succeeded by Orthagnes, who became Gondophares III Gadana. Orthagnes ruled mostly in Seistan and Arachosia, with Abdagases further east, during the first decades AD, and was briefly succeeded by his son Ubouzanes Coin. After 20 AD, a king named Sases, a nephew of the Apracaraja ruler Aspavarma, took over Abdagases’ territories and became Gondophares IV Sases. According to Senior, this is the Gondophares referred to in the Takht-i-Bahi inscription. There were other minor kings: Sanabares was an ephemeral usurper in Seistan, who called himself Great King of Kings, and there was also a second Abdagases Coin, a ruler named Agata in Sind, another ruler called Satavastres Coin, and an anonymous prince who claimed to be brother of the king Arsaces, in that case an actual member of the ruling dynasty in Parthia. But the Indo-Parthians never regained the position of Gondophares I, and from the middle of the 1st century AD the Kushans under Kujula Kadphises began absorbing the northern Indian part of the kingdom. The last king Pacores (perhaps before 100 AD) only ruled in Seistan and Kandahar.

The city of Taxila is thought to have been a capital of the Indo-Parthians. Large strata were excavated by Sir John Marshall with a quantity of Parthian-style artifacts. The nearby temple of Jandial is usually interpreted as a Zoroastrian fire temple from the period of the Indo-Parthians. Some ancient writing describe the presence of the Indo-Parthians in the area, such as the story of Saint Thomas the Apostle, who was recruited as a carpenter to serve at the court of king "Gudnaphar" (thought to be Gondophares) in India. The Acts of Thomas describes in chapter 17 Thomas' visit to king Gudnaphar in northern India; chapters 2 and 3 depict him as embarking on a sea voyage to India, thus connecting Thomas to the west coast of India. As Senior points out, this Gudnaphar has usually been identified with the first Gondophares, who has thus been dated after the advent of Christianity, but there is no evidence for this assumption, and Senior’s research shows that Gondophares I could be dated even before 1 AD. If the account is even historical, Saint Thomas may have encountered one of the later kings who bore the same title. The Greek philosopher Apollonius of Tyana is related by Philostratus in Life of Apollonius Tyana to have visited India, and specifically the city of Taxila around 46 CE. He describes constructions of the Greek type,[7] probably referring to Sirkap, and explains that the Indo-Parthian king of Taxila, named Phraotes, received a Greek education at the court of his farther and spoke Greek fluently: "Tell me, O King, how you acquired such a command of the Greek tongue, and whence you derived all your philosophical attainments in this place?" [...]-"My father, after a Greek education, brought me to the sages at an age somewhat too early perhaps, for I was only twelve at the time, but they brought me up like their own son; for any that they admit knowing the Greek tongue they are especially fond of, because they consider that in virtue of the similarity of his disposition he already belongs to themselves." The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea is a surviving 1st century guide to the routes commonly being used for navigating the Arabian Sea. It describes the presence of Parthian kings fighting with each other in the area of Sindh, a region traditionally known at that time as "Scythia" due to the previous rule of the Indo-Scythians there: "This river (Indus) has seven mouths, very shallow and marshy, so that they are not navigable, except the one in the middle; at which by the shore, is the market-town, Barbaricum. Before it there lies a small island, and inland behind it is the metropolis of Scythia, Minnagara; it is subject to Parthian princes who are constantly driving each other out." To the contrary of the Indo-Greeks or Indo-Scythians, there are no explicit records of Indo-Parthian rulers supporting Buddhism, such as religious dedications, inscriptions, or even legendary accounts. Also, although Indo-Parthian coins generally closely follow Greek numismatics, they never display the Buddhist triratna symbol (apart from the later Sases), nor do they ever use depictions of the elephant or the bull, possible religious symbols which were profusely used by their predecessors. They are thought to have retained Zoroastrianism, being of Iranian extraction themselves. This Iranian mythological system was inherited from them by the later Kushans who ruled from the Peshawar-Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa region of Pakistan. On their coins and in the art of Gandhara, Indo-Parthians are depicted with short crossover jackets and large baggy trousers, possibly supplemented by chap-like over-trousers. Their jackets are adorned with rows of decorative rings or medals. Their hair is usually bushy and contained with a headband, a practise largely adopted by the Parthians from the 1st century CE. Individuals in Indo-Parthian attire are sometimes shown as actors in Buddhist devotional scenes. It is usually considered that most of the excavations that were done at Sirkap near Taxila by John Marshall relate to Indo-Parthian layers, although more recent scholarship sometimes relates them to the Indo-Greeks instead. These archaeological researches provided a quantity of Hellenistic artifacts combined with elements of Buddhist worship (stupas). Some other temples, such as nearby Jandial may have been used as a Zoroastrian fire temple. The statues found at Sirkap in the late Scythian to Parthian level (level 2, 1–60 CE) suggest an already developed state of Gandharan art at the time or even before Parthian rule. A multiplicity of statues, ranging from Hellenistic gods, to various Gandharan lay devotees, are combined with what are thought as some of the early representations of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas. Today, it is still unclear when the Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhara exactly emerged, but the findings in Sirkap do indicate that this art was already highly developed before the advent of the Kushans. Some pocket of Parthian rule remained in the East, even after the takeover by the Sassanids in 226. From the 2nd century several Central-Asian Buddhist missionaries became in the Chinese capital cities of Loyang and sometimes Nanjing, where they particularly distinguished themselves by their translation work. The first known translators of Buddhist texts into Chinese are actually Parthian missionaries, distinguished in Chinese by their Parthian surname "An", for "Anshi", "country of the Arsacids".


Next Recap: Dacia, then the Kushans and other Indian Kingdoms...

 
Last edited:
No, I'm just recapping the 1st century world for thy patron, to bring everyone up to speed. This is volunteer work.
 
I'm sorry for giving you all vital, detailed info about the World of Brittanicus. By all means let me finish.
 

total-war-rome-2-imagine-7.jpg


Recap: The Germannic Tribes and The Dacians - Beyond The Danube and Rhine


1000 BCE - 50 CE


03_07_Ger_00.jpg


Ancient%20Germanic%20village.jpg


Part I - General Life and Society in Ancient Germannia

The Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe (5th/4th - 1st century BC) designates the earliest part of the Iron Age in Scandinavia, northern Germany, and the Netherlands north of the Rhine River. These regions feature many extensive archaeological excavation sites, which have yielded a wealth of artifacts. Objects discovered at the sites suggest that the Pre-Roman Iron Age cultures evolved without a major break out of the Nordic Bronze Age, but that there were strong influences from the Celtic Iron-Age Hallstatt culture in Central Europe. During the 1st century BC, Roman influence began to be felt even in Denmark. Archaeologists first made the decision to divide the Iron Age of Northern Europe into distinct pre-Roman and Roman Iron Ages after Emil Vedel unearthed a number of Iron Age artifacts in 1866 on the island of Bornholm. They did not exhibit the same permeating Roman influence seen in most other artifacts from the early centuries AD, indicating that parts of northern Europe had not yet come into contact with the Romans at the beginning of the Iron Age. Out of the Late Bronze Age Urnfield culture of the 12th century BCE developed the Early Iron Age Hallstatt culture of Central Europe from the 8th to 6th centuries BCE, which was followed by the La Tène culture of Central Europe (450 BCE to 1st century BCE). Albeit the metal iron came into wider use by metalworkers in the Mediterranean as far back as c. 1300 BCE due to the Bronze Age Collapse, the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe started only as early as the 5th/4th to the 1st century BCE. The Iron Age in northern Europe is markedly distinct from the Celtic La Tène culture south of it, whose advanced iron-working technology exerted a considerable influence in the north, when, around 600 BC northern people began to extract bog iron from the ore in peat bogs, a technology acquired from their Central European neighbours. The oldest iron objects found have been needles, but edged tools, swords and sickles, are found as well. Bronze continued to be used during the whole period, but was mostly used for decoration. Funerary practices continued the Bronze Age tradition of burning the corpses and placing the remains in urns, a characteristic of the Urnfield culture. During the previous centuries, influences from the Central European La Tène culture spread to Scandinavia from north-western Germany, and there are finds from this period from all the provinces of southern Scandinavia. Archaeologists have found swords, shield bosses, spearheads, scissors, sickles, pincers, knives, needles, buckles, kettles, etc. from this time. Bronze continued to be used for torcs and kettles, the style of which were continuous from the Bronze Age. Some of the most prominent finds are the Gundestrup silver cauldron and the Dejbjerg wagons from Jutland, two four-wheeled wagons of wood with bronze parts. In Southern Europe Mediterranean climates, the forest at that time, immemorial for the most part, was open evergreen leaves and pine forests. After slash and burn, this forest had less capacity for regeneration than the forest north of the Alps. In Northern Europe, there was usually only one crop harvested before grass growth took over, while in the south, suitable fall was used for several years and the soil was quickly exhausted. Slash and burn shifting cultivation therefore ceased much earlier in the south than the north. Most of the forests in the Mediterranean had disappeared by classical times. The classical authors wrote about the great forests (Semple 1931 261-296).

Homer writes of wooded Samoth Race, Zacynthos, Sicily and other wooded land. The authors give us the general impression that the Mediterranean countries had more forest than now, but that it had already lost much forest, and that it was left there in the mountains (Darby 1956 186). It is clear that Europe remained wooded, and not only in the north. However, during the Roman Iron Age and early Viking Age, forest areas drastically reduced in Northern Europe, and settlements were regularly moved. There is no good explanation for this mobility, and the transition to stable settlements from the late Viking period, as well as the transition from shifting cultivation to stationary use of arable land. At the same time plows appears as a new group of implements were found both in graves and in depots. It can be confirmed that early agricultural people preferred forest of good quality in the hillside with good drainage, and traces of cattle quarters are evident here. The Greek explorer and merchant Pytheas of Marseilles made a voyage to Northern Europe ca. 330 BC. Part of his itinerary is kept at Polybios, Pliny and Strabo. Pytheas had visited Thule, which lay a six-day voyage north of Britain. There "the barbarians showed us the place where the sun does not go to sleep. It happened because there the night was very short -- in some places two, in others three hours -- so that the sun shortly after its fall soon went up again." He says that Thule was a fertile land, "rich in fruits that were ripe only until late in the year, and the people there used to prepare a drink of honey. And they threshed the grain in large houses, because of the cloudy weather and frequent rain. In the spring they drove the cattle up into the mountain pastures and stayed there all summer. " This description may fit well on the West-Norwegian conditions. Here is an instance of both dairy farming and drying/threshing in a building. In Italy, shifting cultivation was a thing of the past at the birth of Christ. Tacitus describes it as the strange cultivation methods he had experienced among the Germans, whom he knew well from his stay with them. Rome was entirely dependent on shifting cultivation by the barbarians to survive and maintain "Pax Romana", but when the supply from the colonies "trans alpina" failed, the Roman Empire collapsed. Tacitus writes in 98 AD about the Germans: fields are proportionate to the participating growers, but they share their crops with each other by reputation. Distribution is easy because there is great access to land. They change soil every year, and mark some off to spare, for they seek not a strenuous job in cramming this fertile and vast land even greater ydelser, by planting apple orchards, cultivated spesial beds or watering gardens; grain is the only thing they insist that the ground will provide. The original text reads, "agri pro numero cultorum ad universis vicinis occupantur, quos mox inter se secundum dignationem partientur, facilitate partiendi camporum spatial praestant, arva per annos mutant, et superest ager, nec enim cum ubertate et amplitudine soli labore contendunt, ut pomaria conserant et prata separent et hortos rigent, sola terrae seges imperatur." Tacitus discusses the shifting cultivation. The Migration Period in Europe after the Roman Empire and immediately before the Viking Age suggests that it was still more profitable for the peoples of Central Europe to move on to new forests after the best parcels were exhausted than to wait for the new forest to grow up. Therefore, the peoples of the temperate zone in Europe slash and burners, remained for as long as the forests permitted. This exploitation of forests explains this rapid and elaborate move. But the forest could not tolerate this in the long run; it first ended in the Mediterranean. The forest here did not have the same vitality as the powerful coniferous forest in Central Europe. Deforestation was partly caused by burning for pasture fields. Missing timber delivery led to higher prices and more stone constructions in the Roman Empire (Stewart 1956 123). The forest also decreased gradually northwards in Europe, but in the Nordic countries it has survived. The clans in pre-Roman Italy seemed to be living in temporary locations rather than established cities. They cultivated small patches of land, guarded their sheep and their cattle, traded with foreign merchants, and at times fought with one another: etruscans, umbriere, ligurianere, sabinere, latinos, campaniere, apulianere, faliscanere, and samniter, just to mention a few. These Italic ethnic groups developed identities as settlers and warriors ca. 900 BC. They built forts in the mountains, today a subject of much investigation. The forest has hidden them for a long time, but eventually they will provide information about the people who built and used these buildings. The ruin of a large samnittisk temple and theater at Pietrabbondante is under investigation. These cultural relics have slumbered in the shadow of the glorious history of the Roman Empire. Many of the Italic tribes realized the benefits of allying with the powerful Romans. When Rome built the Via Amerina 241 BC, the Faliscan people established themselves in cities on the plains, and they collaborated with the Romans on road construction. The Roman Senate gradually gained representatives from many Faliscan and Etruscan families. The Italic tribes are now settled farmers. (Zwingle, National Geographic, January 2005). An edition of Commentarii de Bello Gallico from the 800AD. Julius Caesar wrote about Svebians, "Commentarii de Bello Gallico, "book 4.1; they are not by private and secluded fields, "privati ac separati agri apud eos nihil est", they cannot stay more than one year in a place for cultivation’s sake, "Neque longius anno remanere uno in loco colendi causa licet ". The Svebes lived between the Rhine and the Elbe. About the Germans, he wrote: No one has a particular field or area for themselves, for the magistrates and chiefs give fields every year to the people and the clans, which have gathered so much ground in such places that it seems good for them to continue on to somewhere else after a year." Strabo (63 BC - about 20 AD) also writes about sveberne in Geographicon VII, 1, 3. Common to all the people in this area is that they can easily change residence because of their sordid way of life; that they do not grow any fields and do not collect property, but live in temporary huts. They get their nourishment from their livestock for the most part, and like nomads, they pack all their goods in wagons and go on to wherever they want. Horazius writes in 17 BC (Carmen säculare, 3, 24, 9 ff .) about the people of Macedonia. The proud Getae also live happily, growing free food and cereal for themselves on land that they do not want to cultivate for more than a year, "vivunt et rigidi Getae, immetata quibus iugera liberal fruges et Cererem freunt, nec cultura placet longior annua." Several classical writers have descriptions of shifting cultivation people. Many peoples’ various shifting cultivations characterized the migration Period in Europe. The exploitation of forests demanded constant displacement, and large areas were deforested.

Common elements of Germanic society can be deduced both from Roman historiography and comparative evidence from the Early Medieval period. A main element uniting Germanic societies is kingship, in origin a sacral institution combining the functions of military leader, high priest, lawmaker and judge. Germanic monarchy was elective; the king was elected by the free men from among eligible candidates of a family (OE cynn) tracing their ancestry to the tribe's divine or semi-divine founder. In early Germanic society, the free men of property each ruled their own estate and were subject to the king directly, without any intermediate hierarchy as in later feudalism. Free men without landed property could swear fealty to a man of property who as their lord would then be responsible for their upkeep, including generous feasts and gifts. This system of sworn retainers was central to early Germanic society, and the loyalty of the retainer to his lord was taken to replace his family ties. Early Germanic law reflects a hierarchy of worth within the society of free men, reflected in the differences in weregild. Among the Anglo-Saxons, a regular free man (a ceorl) had a weregild of 200 shillings (i.e. solidi or gold pieces), classified as a twyhyndeman "200-man" for this reason, while a nobleman commanded a fee of six times that amount (twelfhyndeman "1200-man"). Similarly, among the Alamanni the basic weregild for a free man was 200 shillings, and the amount could be doubled or tripled according to the man's rank. Unfree serfs did not command a weregild, and the recompense paid in the event of their death was merely for material damage, 15 shillings in the case of the Alamanni, increased to 40 or 50 if the victim had been a skilled artisan. The social hierarchy is not only reflected in the weregild due in the case of the violent or accidental death of a man, but also in differences in fines for lesser crimes. Thus the fines for insults, injury, burglary or damage to property differ depending on the rank of the injured party. They do not usually depend on the rank of the guilty party, although there are some exceptions associated with royal privilege. Free women did not have a political station of their own but inherited the rank of their father if unmarried, or their husband if married. The weregild or recompense due for the killing or injuring of a woman is notably set at twice that of a man of the same rank in Alemannic law. All freemen had the right to participate in general assemblies or things, where disputes between freemen were addressed according to customary law. The king was bound to uphold ancestral law, but was at the same time the source for new laws for cases not addressed in previous tradition. This aspect was the reason for the creation of the various Germanic law codes by the kings following their conversion to Christianity: besides recording inherited tribal law, these codes have the purpose of settling the position of the church and Christian clergy within society, usually setting the weregilds of the members of the clerical hierarchy parallel to that of the existing hierarchy of nobility, with the position of an archbishop mirroring that of the king. In the case of a suspected crime, the accused could avoid punishment by presenting a fixed number of free men (their number depending on the severity of the crime) prepared to swear an oath on his innocence. Failing this, he could prove his innocence in a trial by combat. Corporal or capital punishment for free men does not figure in the Germanic law codes, and banishment appears to be the most severe penalty issued officially. This reflects that Germanic tribal law did not have the scope of exacting revenge, which was left to the judgement of the family of the victim, but to settle damages as fairly as possible once an involved party decided to bring a dispute before the assembly.

Historical records of the Germanic tribes in Germania east of the Rhine and west of the Danube do not begin until quite late in the ancient period, so only the period after 100 BC can be examined. What is clear is that the Germanic idea of warfare was quite different from the pitched battles fought by Rome and Greece. Instead the Germanic tribes focused on raids. The purpose of these was generally not to gain territory, but rather to capture resources and secure prestige. These raids were conducted by irregular troops, often formed along family or village lines, in groups of 10 to about 1,000. Leaders of unusual personal magnetism could gather more soldiers for longer periods, but there was no systematic method of gathering and training men, so the death of a charismatic leader could mean the destruction of an army. Armies also often consisted of more than 50 percent noncombatants, as displaced people would travel with large groups of soldiers, the elderly, women, and children. Large bodies of troops, while figuring prominently in the history books, were the exception rather than the rule of ancient warfare. Thus a typical Germanic force might consist of 100 men with the sole goal of raiding a nearby Germanic or foreign village. According to Roman sources, when the Germanic Tribes did fight pitched battles, the infantry often adopted wedge formations, each wedge being led by a clan head. Though often defeated by the Romans, the Germanic tribes were remembered in Roman records as fierce combatants, whose main downfall was that they failed to unite successfully into one fighting force, under one command. After the three Roman legions were ambushed and destroyed by an alliance of Germanic tribes headed by Arminius at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, the Roman Empire made no further concentrated attempts at conquering Germania beyond the Rhine. Germanic tribes would eventually overwhelm and conquer the ancient world, giving rise to modern Europe and medieval warfare. For an analysis of Germanic tactics versus the Roman empire see tactical problems in facing the Gauls and the Germanic tribes...

Germanic settlements were typically small, rarely containing much more than ten households, often less, and were usually located at clearings in the wood. Settlements remained of a fairly constant size throughout the period. The buildings in these villages varied in form, but normally consisted of farmhouses surrounded by smaller buildings such as granaries and other storage rooms. The universal building material was timber. Cattle and humans usually lived together in the same house. Although the Germans practiced both agriculture and husbandry, the latter was extremely important both as a source of dairy products and as a basis for wealth and social status, which was measured by the size of an individual's herd. The diet consisted mainly of the products of farming and husbandry and was supplied by hunting to a very modest extent. Barley and wheat were the most common agricultural products and were used for baking a certain flat type of bread as well as brewing beer. The fields were tilled with a light-weight wooden ard, although heavier models also existed in some areas. Common clothing styles are known from the remarkably well-preserved corpses that have been found in former marshes on several locations in Denmark, and included woolen garments and brooches for women and trousers and leather caps for men. Other important small-scale industries were weaving, the manual production of basic pottery and, more rarely, the fabrication of iron tools, especially weapons. Julius Caesar describes the Germani in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico, though it is still a matter of debate if he refers to Northern Celtic tribes or clearly identified Germanic tribes. "[The Germani] have neither Druids to preside over sacred offices, nor do they pay great regard to sacrifices. They rank in the number of the gods those alone whom they behold, and by whose instrumentality they are obviously benefited, namely, the sun, fire, and the moon; they have not heard of the other deities even by report. Their whole life is occupied in hunting and in the pursuits of the military art; from childhood they devote themselves to fatigue and hardships. Those who have remained chaste for the longest time, receive the greatest commendation among their people; they think that by this the growth is promoted, by this the physical powers are increased and the sinews are strengthened. And to have had knowledge of a woman before the twentieth year they reckon among the most disgraceful acts; of which matter there is no concealment, because they bathe promiscuously in the rivers and [only] use skins or small cloaks of deer's hides, a large portion of the body being in consequence naked. They do not pay much attention to agriculture, and a large portion of their food consists in milk, cheese, and flesh; nor has any one a fixed quantity of land or his own individual limits; but the magistrates and the leading men each year apportion to the tribes and families, who have united together, as much land as, and in the place in which, they think proper, and the year after compel them to remove elsewhere. For this enactment they advance many reasons-lest seduced by long-continued custom, they may exchange their ardor in the waging of war for agriculture; lest they may be anxious to acquire extensive estates, and the more powerful drive the weaker from their possessions; lest they construct their houses with too great a desire to avoid cold and heat; lest the desire of wealth spring up, from which cause divisions and discords arise; and that they may keep the common people in a contented state of mind, when each sees his own means placed on an equality with [those of] the most powerful." The age at first marriage among ancient Germanic tribes, according to Tacitus, was late for women compared to Roman women: "The young men marry late and their vigor is thereby unimpaired. The girls, too, are not hurried into marriage. As old and full-grown as the men, they match their mates in age and strength, and their children reproduce the might of their parents." Where Aristotle had set the prime of life at 37 years for men and 18 for women, the Visigothic Code of law in the 7th century placed the prime of life at twenty years for both men and women, after which both presumably married. Thus it can be presumed that most ancient Germanic women were at least twenty years of age when they married and were roughly the same age as their husbands.

Tacitus describes both animal and human sacrifice. He identifies the chief Germanic god with the Roman Mercury, who on certain days receives human sacrifices, while gods identified by Tacitus with Hercules and Mars receive animal sacrifice. The largest Germanic tribe, Suebians, also make sacrifices, allegedly of captured Roman soldiers, to a goddess who is identified by Tacitus with "Nerthus." Nerthus is revered by Reudignians, Aviones, Angles, Varinians, Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones. Nerthus is believed to directly interpose in human affairs. Her sanctuary is on an island, specifically in a wood called Castum. A chariot covered with a curtain is dedicated to the goddess, and only the high priest may touch it. The priest is capable of seeing the goddess enter the chariot. Drawn by cows, the chariot travels through the countryside, and wherever the goddess visits, a great feast is held. During the travel of the goddess, the Germanic tribes cease all hostilities, and do not lay their hands upon arms. When the priest declares that the goddess is tired of conversation with mortals, the chariot returns and is washed, together with the curtains, in a secret lake. The goddess is also washed. The slaves who administer this purification are afterwards thrown into the lake. According to Tacitus, the Germanic tribes think of temples as unsuitable habitations for gods, and they do not represent them as idols in human shape. Instead of temples, they consecrate woods or groves to individual gods. Divination and augury was very popular: "To the use of lots and auguries, they are addicted beyond all other nations. Their method of divining by lots is exceedingly simple. From a tree which bears fruit they cut a twig, and divide it into two small pieces. These they distinguish by so many several marks, and throw them at random and without order upon a white garment. Then the Priest of the community, if for the public the lots are consulted, or the father of a family about a private concern, after he has solemnly invoked the Gods, with eyes lifted up to heaven, takes up every piece thrice, and having done thus forms a judgment according to the marks before made. If the chances have proved forbidding, they are no more consulted upon the same affair during the same day: even when they are inviting, yet, for confirmation, the faith of auguries too is tried. Yea, here also is the known practice of divining events from the voices and flight of birds. But to this nation it is peculiar, to learn presages and admonitions divine from horses also. These are nourished by the State in the same sacred woods and groves, all milk-white and employed in no earthly labour. These yoked in the holy chariot, are accompanied by the Priest and the King, or the Chief of the Community, who both carefully observed his actions and neighing. Nor in any sort of augury is more faith and assurance reposed, not by the populace only, but even by the nobles, even by the Priests. These account themselves the ministers of the Gods, and the horses privy to his will. They have likewise another method of divination, whence to learn the issue of great and mighty wars. From the nation with whom they are at war they contrive, it avails not how, to gain a captive: him they engage in combat with one selected from amongst themselves, each armed after the manner of his country, and according as the victory falls to this or to the other, gather a presage of the whole." The reputation of Tacitus' Germania is somewhat marred as a historical source by the writer's rhetorical tendencies. The main purpose of his writing seems to be to hold up examples of virtue and vice for his fellow Romans rather than give a truthful ethnographic or historical account. While Tacitus' interpretations are sometimes dubious, the names and basic facts he reports are credible; Tacitus touches on several elements of Germanic culture known from later sources. Human and animal sacrifice is attested by archaeological evidence and medieval sources. Rituals tied to natural features are found both in medieval sources and in Nordic folklore. A ritual chariot or wagon as described by Tacitus was excavated in the Oseberg find. Sources from medieval times until the 19th century point to divination by making predictions or finding the will of the gods from randomized phenomena as a tradition among Germanic cultures. While there is rich archaeological and linguistic evidence of earlier Germanic religious ideas, these sources are all mute, and cannot be interpreted with much confidence. Seen in light of what we know about the medieval survival of the Germanic religions as practiced by the Nordic nations, some educated guesses may be made. However, the presence of marked regional differences make generalization of any such reconstructed belief or practice a risky venture. We do know, however, that in Tacitus' day the Germans discerned a divinity of prophecy in women, and virgin prophetesses, such as Veleda, were honored as true and living goddesses.

TuetonespassingfromItalytoGaul.gif


zpage272.gif



Part II - The Cimbrian-Teutonic Invasion (120-100 BCE)

The Cimbri people were an enigma. Virtually unknown until they appeared around 120 BC during a mass migration in search of a new homeland. They had joined with the Teutones and other tribes to swell their ranks to well over 600,000. They came in contact with the Romans, due to a dispute with Rome’s ally the Taurisci in Noricum in 113 BC. Respectfully they acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome and made a request of consul Gnaeus Papirius Carbo for land on which to settle. They offered themselves as auxiliaries to Rome should the need arise. Carbo informed them that there was no land in Noricum, but that guides would direct them to a rich and bountiful area a short march away. But Carbo had already planned an ambush to rid the world of these “barbarians”; an act that would cause Rome more pain than Carthage ever inflicted...and put Rome once again under the threat of occupation.

The Cimbri are known to have resided in the area of present day County of Himmerland, Denmark, on the northern part of the Jutland peninsula. Detailed historical authors and references still argue as to whether they were Germans or Celts. For this presentation they are to be referred to as Germania or Germans. They were of gigantic stature, (there are references to many of their warriors being seven feet in height), of fair complexion, fierce blue eyes and long yellow hair. Germanic peoples were divided into states or communities. Each state into cantons and each canton into hundreds, or a hundred families. They fought within their cantons to prove their valour, but also to protect their chief or family patriarch. "Affairs of smaller moment the chiefs determine: about matters of higher consequence the whole nation deliberates; yet in such sort, that whatever depends upon the pleasure and decision of the people, is examined and discussed by the chiefs. Where no accident or emergency intervenes, they assemble upon stated days, either, when the moon changes, or is full: since they believe such seasons to be the most fortunate for beginning all transactions. They sit down as they list, promiscuously, like a crowd, and all armed. It is by the Priests that silence is enjoined, and with the power of correction the Priests are then invested. Then the King or Chief is heard, as are others, each according to his precedence in age, or in nobility, or in warlike renown, or in eloquence; and the influence of every speaker proceeds rather from his ability to persuade than from any authority to command. If the proposition displease, they reject it by an inarticulate murmur: if it be pleasing, they brandish their javelins. The most honorable manner of signifying their assent, is to express their applause by the sound of their arms." These gatherings also had some interesting, shall we say extra-curricular activities. One treat for all the members in attendance was the youngest of the cantons would dance naked amidst drawn swords and presented spears. Practice conferred skill and grace at this exercise, which was a hazardous one, but was done solely for the pleasure of the spectators. The other habit was playing at dice when sober, or sometimes not so sober. There are accounts that before battles, and in the line, they were rolling the dice to decide on booty. What was incredible was that after all had been gambled away, they sometimes staked their freedom on a single roll. Amazingly, these terrible warriors would meekly subject themselves to being bound and sold into servitude having lost all, land, wives, children and bondsmen at the game of chance. Bondsmen or slaves were given land and allowed to erect their own homes, but had to give a portion of crops or animals to their graf. They were also expected to defend him against his enemies. Most slaves and bondsmen were kindly treated by their grafs, far better than the Romans treated theirs. Every freedman was a warrior and was expected to have his arms ready at all times. The Germania would not even conduct business without having their weapons by their side. He was also expected to be in shape, being overweight was regarded in the same manner as cowardice, not to be tolerated and would be punished severely. During a battle some Priestesses, with the wives, would beat on hides stretched over the wicker bodies of the wagons, and produce an un-earthly noise. It has been recorded that this noise, was the most terror inflicting action that the Romans ever encountered. Many veterans actually refused to face it again. Another aspect of this nation was a very deep respect for their environment. Tales of emissaries returning from Rome report their disdain of the Roman cities and their bloated use of natural (stone / wood) materials. The Cimbri, rather, wished to live in harmony with their natural surroundings and would offer prayers to their deities for taking wood or stone.

For a century and a half after the Gallic Invasions of Greece, no important southward movement of the northern nations took place. The destruction of one great host of Gaul and the permanent settlement of another in Western Asia must have diminished the population of the region beyond the Alps, and lightened the pressure on the means of living. Rome was not called upon to meet any powerful army of invaders; a fortunate circumstance, when we consider the exhaustion that must have followed the terrible struggle of the Second Punic War. After the wars of the first half of the second century B.C., which practically reduced the successors of Alexander to insignificance, Rome even began to advance her frontiers northward. Curiously enough these successes had the effect of bringing down on the Republic a more formidable attack, the invasion led by Brennus not excepted, than she ever had had to meet before. For some years previous to the year 113 B.C., a homeless people called Cimbri, a word variously translated by friends and enemies as "champions" or "robbers," had been wandering about in the regions north of the Danube. The word suggests the well-known name of Cymri, but the resemblance of sound is deceptive. The Cimbri were really of the Germanic stock. In fact a remnant of the tribe preserved the name for many years afterwards in what seems to have been its original habitation, the peninsula of Denmark. What cause drove them southward cannot be stated with certainty. An ancient writer records one account that had come to his ears, that large tracts of land occupied by the tribe on the shores of the Baltic had been overflowed by the sea, and that its inhabitants were compelled to migrate or to starve. The story seemed incredible to the writer who preserved it. To us, who can easily find a parallel in the history of the great migrations of mankind, it appears not improbable. And this, in the absence of evidence, which indeed is not likely to be forthcoming, is all that we can say. For some time the Celtic tribes that occupied the banks of the Danube had kept the Cimbri from reaching that river. But when the Celts had been seriously weakened by the armies of Rome, they were no longer able, or, it may be, no longer willing to continue this resistance. It is quite likely indeed that they welcomed as allies the people which they had been accustomed to regard as enemies. One thing is certain, that either then, or during their previous wanderings, the Cimbri had added to their hosts many Celtic comrades. The Celts were better armed, more advanced in the military art, and—a most important consideration—more familiar with the Roman methods of warfare. Hence we are not surprised to find among the leaders of the invading host, Germanic as it was in the main, some unquestionably Celtic names.

The movement was on a scale and of a kind new to Roman experience. It was no expedition of warriors. The whole nation had come. The Cimbri had a vast array of waggons with them, containing their wives, their children, and all that belonged to them. There was a curious resemblance between them—something of the same kind may be seen to-day in a shipload of Scandinavian emigrants—for all were huge of stature, the women falling little short of the men, and all fair-haired. For weapons they had a javelin and a long sword; every man carried a long narrow shield, and the chiefs among them were also protected by coats of mail. The first relation between the Romans and the Cimbri was not other than friendly. Papirius Carbo, the Consul in command of the Roman army, required them to abstain from interfering with the Taurisci, a Celtic tribe inhabiting the northern bank of the Danube, on the ground of being in alliance with Rome. The Cimbri did not refuse obedience. Then Carbo was guilty of a shameful act of treachery, which, as we shall see, met with its due reward. He offered the strangers guides, who were to lead them to a region which they might occupy without hindrance. These guides had in fact instructions to lead the Cimbri into an ambush which had been carefully prepared for them. The plot succeeded in a way, but the result was very different from what Carbo had expected. The Cimbri turned upon their betrayers, inflicted upon them a heavy loss, and, but for the opportune breaking of a great storm over the battlefield, would have entirely destroyed them. The conquerors did not move southwards, as might have been expected, but marching west through Northern Switzerland and South-eastern Gaul, remained quiet for a while. They were, however, still in need of land which they could call their own, and they asked the help of the Roman general who was in command at the frontier to help them in obtaining it. His own reply was to attack them, with no better result than a terrible slaughter among his troops and the loss of his camp. The Cimbri sent an embassy to Rome, repeating the request that they made to the Consul, and while they waited for the reply employed themselves in subjugating their Celtic neighbours. Eight years had now passed since the defeat of Carbo, and the unexpected reprieve which Rome had enjoyed was at an end. The Cimbri, disappointed at receiving no reply to their demands from Rome, and recognising that it would be more profitable to invade Italy than to fight for less desirable regions in Gaul, marched to the Rhone under the command of their king Boiorix. The Romans had no less than three armies on the spot. The weakest of the three, commanded by the ex-Consul Æmilius Scaurus, was the first to be attacked. It was routed, and its commander taken prisoner. Brought before King Boiorix, Scaurus warned the invader not to venture on invading Italy, and was put to death for what was judged to be presumption. The two remaining armies were concentrated at Arausio, on the left bank of the Rhone. Unhappily the two officers in command were enemies. They would not occupy a common camp, nor would they deliberate on the plan of campaign that was to be followed. The result was a frightful disaster. It is possible that a conflict might have been avoided altogether. Even after the defeat of Scaurus the two consular armies presented so formidable an appearance that Boiorix expressed himself willing to treat. Negotiations were actually in progress when Cæpio, an ex-Consul, who was inferior in rank to the Consul Maximus, committed an act of surprising folly. Fearing that his colleague might gain all the credit if the negotiations with the Cimbri were successful, he attacked the enemy with the force under his immediate command. The battle of Arausio, fought on October 6, 105 B.C., was not less fatal than Allia and Cannæ, followed as it was by the defeat of the other army. Eighty thousand soldiers are said to have been slain on the field, or to have perished in the retreat.

At Rome the result was something like a revolution. The political history of the time is outside my province. It will be enough, therefore, to say that the most renowned general of the time, C. Marius, was put in supreme command. He was made Consul, in spite of the law that forbade especial election to this office, and he was continued in command for five years in succession. The Cimbri had not actually carried out their intention of invading Italy. They had turned aside to plunder South-western Gaul, and even to cross the Pyrenees into Spain. Marius made use of the delay, which it is scarcely too much to say was the salvation of Rome, to strengthen the defences of Northern Italy, to recall the wavering tribes of Cisalpine Gaul to their allegiances, and to find auxiliaries among the peoples which had as much reason as had Rome herself to dread the success of the Cimbri. This people had now received considerable reinforcements. They had been joined by some Helvetian tribes, and by the Teutones, old neighbours in Northern Europe, and now, by a curious chance, associated with them in their invasion of the south. The first intention of the allies was to force their way into Italy in one vast army. This was given up, probably on account of the mechanical difficulty connected with transport. It was finally arranged that the Teutones, with the Helvetian tribe of the Amburones and a Cimbrian contingent, were to invade Italy by the western passes of the Alps, and that the Cimbri, also reinforced by some Helvetians, should try the passes to the east. It is with the former of these two divisions that I am first concerned. Marius had taken up his position in a strongly fortified camp at the junction of the Rhone and the Isere. Here he resolutely refused to risk the chances of a battle. It was no question, he represented to the impatient spirits in his army, of victories and of triumphs, but of the safety of Rome, which would be lost if her last army were defeated. To the soldiers, who were not less impatient, he used different arguments, appealing, for instance, to their superstition. He affirmed that he was in possession of oracles which promised Rome a decisive victory, which was to be won, however, at a certain place and time. There was a prophetess in his camp, a Syrian, very possibly a Jewess by birth, whom he professed to consult, and who, we may reasonably suppose, accommodated her answers to his ideas of the military necessities of the time. The barbarians were encouraged by the inaction of the Romans to make an attack on the camp. They were easily repulsed, and speedily abandoned the attempt, marching forward as if the Roman force might safely be neglected. For six days so vast was their array of fighting-men and baggage, they filed past the camp, uttering insulting cries as they went. When they had passed, Marius broke up his camp and followed them. He never relaxed, however, his precautions. He chose every night a strong position for his camp, and fortified it to resist an attack. At Aquæ Sextiæ (Aix) he determined to bring the enemy to an engagement. About 15 miles to the north of Marseilles. It must be distinguished, of course, from Aix-les-Bains.
The story ran that he deliberately chose a position for his camp where the supply of water was short, and that when the soldiers complained he pointed to the river that ran close to the position of the barbarians, saying, "There is drink, but you must buy it with blood." "Let us go then," cried the soldiers, "while our blood still flows in our veins." Marius insisted upon their first fortifying the camp. The legion was too well disciplined not to obey him, but there were others less amenable to discipline, and a collision with the enemy took place before the day was out. The camp followers, who had no water for their beasts, or even for themselves flocked down to the river, having armed themselves as well as they could. Here they came into collision with the Amburones, who, taken at first by surprise, soon recovered their courage, and raising their war-cry with what is described as a terrific volume of sound, advanced to repel the newcomers. The light-armed Ligurians on the Roman side came to the help of their comrades, and these again were supported by some of the regular troops. The affair was a skirmish on a very large scale rather than a battle. The Romans had much the best of it, but they were far from feeling the security of conquerors. They spent the night under arms, expecting from hour to hour an assault upon their camp. The barbarians, however, were less confident than Marius supposed. For two days they remained inactive, and even then it was not they who challenged the conflict. Marius, who had great gifts as a general, had observed a convenient place in the rear of the enemy's position where an ambush might be conveniently laid. Here he posted three thousand men under the command of Marcellus. In the battle that followed the unexpected onslaught of this force on the barbarian rear did much to decide the issue of the day. Attacked both in front and in rear the Teutones gave way. To give way under such circumstances meant utter destruction. What the numbers of the slain and the captured may have been it is impossible to say. Levy says that 200,000 were slain, 180,000 taken prisoners. Other authorities reduce the number of the slain by a half. One thing, however, is certain, that the Teutones ceased to exist. Those who did not fall on the field or in the rout put an end to their own lives. The women also killed themselves rather than fall into the hands of the enemy. It is curious that the name of the tribe was preserved by the remnant left behind in its original seat when the great host migrated southward, and that it is now used to designate one of the great families of the human race. Marius was just about to set fire to a huge pile of the spoils of the dead when messengers from Rome reached the field, announcing that he had been elected for the fifth time to the Consulship. But Rome was not yet out of danger, for the Cimbri were yet to be accounted for. They had forced their way into Italy, Lutatius Catulus, the colleague of Marius in the Consul, finding himself unable to stop them. His original intention had been to defend the passes of the Tyrol, but he relinquished the idea and took up a strong position on the Athesis (Adige). Even here he did not feel safe. His troops indeed were so terrified by the report of the barbarians' advance that they refused to remain, and Catulus, making a merit of necessity, putting himself at their head, retreated to the southern side of the Po, leaving the richest plains of Northern Italy to the mercy of the foe.

When news of the threatening position of affairs reached Rome Marius was summoned to the capital to advise on the course to be pursued. As soon as he arrived the people, with whom he was in the very highest favour, offered him a triumph for his victory over the Teutones. He refused to accept the honour so long as the Cimbri remained on Roman soil. He at once went northwards, and summoning to him the elite of his legions, marched to reinforce Catulus. He effected a junction with this general near Vercellæ (Vercelli). The Cimbri had not heard, it seems, of the disaster which had overtaken the Teutones, and put off fighting in the hope of being joined by them. They even sent envoys to the Roman generals, demanding an allotment of land for themselves and their kinsmen. "We have given your kinsmen their portion, and they are not likely to be disturbed in it," replied Marius with grim humour. "You shall pay dearly for your jest," they replied, and prepared to depart. "Nay," said the Roman, "you must not depart without saluting your relatives," and he ordered the captive kings of the Teutones who had been captured in an attempt to cross the Alps to be produced. After this nothing remained but to fight with as little delay as possible. The combined forces of the Romans numbered between 50,000 and 60,000. We have no trustworthy account of the battle which followed, Plutarch's narrative being borrowed, it would seem, from writers not favourable to Marius, from Catulus himself, who left a history of his campaign, and from the notebook of Sulla, who was serving with Catulus. His story is that Marius missed his way in a dust-storm that suddenly swept over the plain, and that he wandered about vainly seeking the enemy till the battle had been practically decided by the courage of the troops commanded by Catulus and his lieutenant, Sulla. It is certain, however, that at Rome the credit of the victory was, in the main, assigned to Marius. About one part of the battle there is, however, no doubt. Never has there been seen a more tragic spectacle. The scene that closed the day at Aquæ Sextiæ was repeated on a larger scale and with added horrors at the Campi Raudii. The Cimbrian women stood on the waggons robed in black. They slaughtered the fugitives when these sought temporary shelter behind the barricade, sparing neither father, brother, or husband. Then they slaughtered their children, and finally put an end to their own lives. As many as sixty thousand prisoners, however, were taken, while the number that fell on the field of battle is said to have been twice as great. The Cimbri perished as utterly as the Teutones. The triumph which Marius and his colleague celebrated on their return to Rome was indeed well deserved if we consider the consequences of the victory which it was given to reward. For more than two centuries Rome was not again called upon to fight for her life against barbarian foes. Her armies met indeed more than once with serious disasters, but these defeats were incurred in campaigns of aggression. And if, as might easily happen, her frontiers were sometimes crossed, it was a mere matter of hordes of casual plunderers, whose movements did not really affect the general course of events...

428px-Otto_Albert_Koch_Varusschlacht_1909.jpg


arminius.jpg



Part III - Varus Give Me Back My Legions! - A Short Summary of The Battle of Teutoburg Forest (9 CE)

The victories of Marius and of Cæsar had been complete, but they did not crush the race. Their numbers and the solidity of their character, moulded as it was by a tenacity and a power of resistance which neither the Spaniard nor the Gaul had shown, made them practically unconquerable. The early Empire was not without ambitions in this direction. Drusus, the stepson of Augustus, carried on several campaigns in Lower Germany, and executed besides some important engineering works, in the way of canals and embankments, which were intended to make the country more accessible. But he came, once at least, very near to a terrible disaster. In B.C. 11 he had got as far as the Weser, thanks, in part at least, to the absence of his most formidable enemies, the Sicambri, who were busy fighting with the Chatti. At the Weser he felt that it would be prudent to halt and to retrace his steps. It was well that he did, for the Sicambri had settled their quarrel with their neighbours, and were now in the opposite ranks. At a place called Arbalo, which we have no means of locating, he was almost surrounded. The allied tribes threw away, by their rashness, a victory which was almost in their hands. They divided, so to speak, the Roman wolfskin before they had captured the wolf. Each tribe chose its own share of the spoil, rushed in a headlong charge to secure it, and were driven back with heavy loss, Drusus built two forts which might be convenient centres for future operations, and returned to Rome, where he had so much of the honours of a triumph as the jealousy of the Emperor permitted a subject to enjoy. In the following year (B.C. 10) he returned to the same country, and in B.C. 9 he did the very same thing again, It was in this campaign that he reached his furthest point, making his way as far as the Elbe itself. Here indeed—so it seemed to the men of the time—was the fate-appointed limit of the Roman arms. As he was making ready to cross the Elbe, a female figure, of more than human proportions, appeared to him. "Whither goest thou, insatiable Drusus?" cried the strange apparition. "Destiny forbids thee to go further. Here is the end of thy exploits and thy life." He erected trophies on the river bank to mark the spot which he had reached, and turned back. But he never reached the Rhine. He was thrown from his horse, and received injuries from which he died. His younger brother Tiberius arrived just in time to see him alive. The last duties to the dead performed—Tiberius is said to have walked before the bier all the way from the Rhine bank to Rome—he returned to prosecute the campaign. For some years the Roman arms met no serious check, and by A.D. 9 so much had been done in subjugating the country that Augustus conceived the idea of making it into a Roman province. For this purpose he sent an officer of high rank, who had for some years administered the province of Syria—Quintilius Varus. The new-comer was totally mistaken about the real condition of the country, which was on the brink of revolt. The native chiefs, at whose head was the famous Arminius (the Latin form of Hermann), pretended friendship and submission, assisting at the courts which he held after the fashion of an Indian durbah, and promptly executing his orders. The report of an insurrection in South Germany reached him while thus employed, and he marched southward to quell it. Arminius and his fellow-countrymen left him, under a promise to return, but really with the intention of preparing an attack. His road lay through the valleys of what is now called the Teutoburgerwald Wald, between Osnabruck and Paderborn, in Westphalia. He marched without any suspicion of danger, his army in a straggling line, encumbered with baggage and a multitude of noncombatants. Half-way through the pass they were attacked. There were three legions and a considerable force of cavalry, and for a time they successfully resisted the enemy. The camp which they pitched at the end of the first day's battle was of such a size, when it was discovered some years afterwards, as to show that the three legions were then substantially intact. The next day, after destroying his baggage, for he recognised that his position was one of extreme peril and that his only hope was to give to his army all the mobility possible, he made for the fortress of Aliso on the Lippe. All the day he was attacked, and had to struggle for every yard of road. By evening his forces had been greatly diminished, for the second camp was seen to be much smaller than the first. The third day's march brought them out of the woods, but only to encounter a fresh multitude of the enemy. Their strength was now exhausted, and they could no longer keep their ranks. Varus killed himself; his army, a very few excepted who contrived to reach Aliso, was destroyed. The effect in Germannia was to throw back the frontier of Rome to the Rhine; in Rome the news produced something like a panic. The disaster embittered the remaining years of Augustus. Again and again he was known to start from his sleep and cry in tones of agony, "Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!" Rome could not, of course, submit to such a defeat without vindicating her honour. This was not an easy task. In A.D. 14, Germanicus, the son of Drusus, marched into the country with a powerful force. He narrowly escaped disaster. Had not the divisions between the German chiefs hindered them from following up their successes—both Germanicus and his lieutenant, Cæcina, suffered serious reverses—he might have met with the fate of Varus. In the campaign of 16 he was more fortunate, and, if the Roman narratives are not exaggerated, restored the old frontiers. Arminius himself was nearly taken, and Northern Germany, between the Rhine and the Elbe, was once again Roman. But Tiberius did not like a "forward" policy. Tacitus, who abhorred the man, tells us that his motive was a mean jealousy of Germanicus, but it is likely that he saw that the resources of the Empire might be better expended. Anyhow, Germanicus was recalled, and Germany recovered her freedom; nor was any serious attempt again made, as far as the northern part of the country was concerned, to reassert the authority of Rome. It was to the south that Rome limited her efforts for dominion.

818px-Germanic_bracteate_from_Funen%2C_Denmark_%28DR_BR42%29.jpg


700px-Suebi_berserkers_TWR2.png


Part IV - The Various Tribes of Post-Teutoburg Germannia

Batavians: The Batavians were a tribe that were originally part of the Chatti tribe, but moved westwards after a tribal dispute, and settled between the rivers Waal and Rhine. They were known for their excellent discipline, and were, conforming to the Roman stereotype of Germanic troops, tall and fair- or red-haired, but their most famous skill was their ability, whether mounted or on foot, to cross rivers whilst fully equipped with arms and armour. Within thirty years of Germanicus' campaign, the Batavians and other Germanic tribes west of the Rhine were supplying troops to the Roman army, in the form of cohorts of infantry and cavalry ala. Large numbers of these troops were gathered in northern Gaul, along with four legions and numerous auxiliaries from Gaul, Belgium, and other parts of the Empire, for the Emperor Claudius' invasion of Britannia in 43 AD. The Batavians, despite their small population, provided eight auxiliary cohorts, a cavalry ala, and had, since the time of Augustus, constituted the German Guard, who provided part of the Imperial Bodyguard. This was a direct emulation of Julius Caesar's bodyguard of Germanic horsemen. As a result, the Batavians were exempt from taxes - the only tithes they paid the Empire were in the form of manpower. Uniquely, the Batavians were led by their own noblemen, who were given Equestrian status and the rank of Praefectus by the Romans, and their unique skills were put to good use during the invasion, such as at the Battle of the Medway in south-east Britain in 43 AD, as described by Cassius Dio: "...The barbarians thought the Romans would not be able to cross [the River Medway] without a bridge, and as a result had pitched camp in a rather careless fashion on the opposite bank. Plautius, however, sent across some Celts who were practised in swimming with ease fully armed across even the fastest of rivers. These fell unexpectedly on the enemy..." In AD 60, the Roman general Suetonius Paulinus, determined to break the power of the Druids, attacked the Isle of Anglesey, just off the coast of North Wales (known to the Romans as Insula Mona - hence the modern Welsh name, 'Ynys Môn'). The druids had fled to Anglesey following the Roman invasion, and were believed to lead the resistance to Roman rule from the island, which was also held to be sacred to the Druidic cult. Tacitus references the Batavians cavalry in his description of the attack on the island: "...[Suetonius Paulinus] therefore prepared to attack the island of Mona which had a powerful population and was a refuge for fugitives. He built flat-bottomed vessels to cope with the shallows, and uncertain depths of the sea. Thus the infantry crossed, while the cavalry followed by fording, or, where the water was deep, swam by the side of their horses." The famous Batavian Revolt that gripped the Northern Rhine from 69 to 70 CE shall be butterflied away, since Nero became Emperor and thusly the Year of the Four Emperors never occurs...

Frisii:
The Frisii were an ancient Germanic tribe living in the low-lying region between the Zuiderzee and the River Ems. In the First Century CE the Frisii and the related Chauci, Saxons, and Angles inhabited the Continental European coast from the Zuyder Zee to south Jutland. All of these peoples shared a common material culture, and so cannot be defined archaeologically. The Frisii were bordered on the south by Germans who would later coalesce into the Frankish confederation in the 3rd century. On the east they were bordered by the Ampsivarii who lived at the mouth of the Ems until AD 58, at which time the Chauci expelled them and gained a border with the Frisii. What little is known of the Frisii is provided by a few Roman accounts, most of them military. Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79) said their lands were forest-covered with tall trees growing up to the edge of the lakes. They lived by agriculture and raising cattle. In the late 1st century the Romans referred to the 'Greater Frisii' as living to the east of the Zuiderzee, and the 'Lesser Frisii' to the west of it, so-called for their proportional power, and with the settlements of both stretching along the border of the Rhine to the ocean. In his Germania Tacitus would describe all the Germanic peoples of the region as having elected kings with limited powers and influential military leaders who led by example rather than by authority. The people lived in spread-out settlements. He specifically noted the weakness of Germanic political hierarchies in reference to the Frisii, when he mentioned the names of two kings of the 1st century Frisii and added that they were kings "as far as the Germans are under kings". Early Roman accounts of war and raiding do not mention the Frisii as participants, though the neighboring Canninefates (to the west and southwest) and Chauci (to the east) are named in that regard. The earliest mention of the Frisii tells of Drusus' 12 BC war against the Rhine Germans and the Chauci. The Romans did not attack them after devastating the lands of the Rhine Germans, but merely passed through their territory and along their coast in order to attack the Chauci. The account says that the Frisii were "won over", suggesting a Roman suzerainty was imposed. Over the course of time the Frisii would provide Roman auxiliaries through treaty obligations, but the tribe would also appear in its own right in concert with other Germanic tribes, opposing the Romans. Accounts of wars therefore mention the Frisii on both sides of the conflict, though the actions of troops under treaty obligation were separate from the policies of the tribe. The Frisii were little more than occasional and incidental players in Roman accounts of history, which focus on Roman actions that were of interest to Roman readers. As a consequence, references to them are disjoint and offer little useful information about them. When Drusus brought Roman forces through Frisii lands in 12 BC and "won them over", he placed a moderate tax on them. However, a later Roman governor raised the requirements and exacted payment, at first decimating the herds of the Frisii, then confiscating their land, and finally taking wives and children into bondage. By AD 28 the Frisii had had enough. They hanged the Roman soldiers collecting the tax and forced the governor to flee to a Roman fort, which they then besieged. The propraetor of Lower Germany, Lucius Apronius, raised the siege and attacked the Frisii, but was defeated at the Battle of Baduhenna Wood after suffering heavy losses. For whatever reason, the Romans did not seek revenge and the matter was closed. The prestige of the Frisii among the neighboring Germanic tribes was raised considerably. After their experiences with the predatory Roman governor and Lucius Apronius, the Frisii became disaffected towards Rome. In AD 47 the Frisii along with the Chauci were led by a certain Gannascus of the Canninefates. They raided along the then-wealthy coast of Gallia Belgica. The Roman military commander, Corbulo, campaigned successfully against the Germanic tribes, For the and for the Frisii this meant Roman occupation, with the Romans specifying where they must live, with a fort built among them, and forcing a Roman-style senate, magistrates, and constitution upon them. The Frisii are next mentioned in 54, when they occupied empty, Roman-controlled land near the Rhine, settling into houses and sowing and plowing fields. The Romans attempted to persuade them to leave, and even invited two Frisii kings to Rome to meet Nero, who ordered them to leave. The Frisii refused, whereby a Roman military force coerced them, killing any who resisted. In AD 69 the Batavi and other tribes rose against Roman rule in the Revolt of the Batavi, becoming a general uprising by all the Germans in the region, including the Frisii. Things went well for the Germans at first. One of the early leaders, Brinno of the Canninefates tribe, quickly defeated a Roman force of 2 cohorts and took their camp. The capable Civilis ultimately succeeded to leadership of the Germanic side and inflicted huge casualties on the Romans, even besieging Roman strongholds such as Vetera. On the sea, a Roman flotilla was captured by a Germanic one. However, the war would not end well for the Germans. Led by Cerialis, the Romans ultimately gave as good as they had gotten, forcing a humiliating peace on the Batavi and stationing a legion on their territory. In the course of the war, both the Frisii and the Chauci had auxiliaries serving under the Romans, and in a siege and assault by Civilis at Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis (at modern Cologne), a cohort of Chauci and Frisii had been trapped and burned.

Chauci: The Chauci were an ancient Germanic tribe living in the low-lying region between the Rivers Ems and Elbe, on both sides of the Weser and ranging as far inland as the upper Weser. Along the coast they lived on artificial hills called terpen, built high enough to remain dry during the highest tide. A dense population of Chauci lived further inland, and they are presumed to have lived in a manner similar to the lives of the other Germanic peoples of the region. Their ultimate origins are not well understood. In the Germanic pre-Migration Period (i.e., before c. 300 AD) the Chauci and the related Frisians, Saxons, and Angles inhabited the Continental European coast from the Zuyder Zee to south Jutland. All of these peoples shared a common material culture, and so cannot be defined archaeologically. The Chauci originally centered on the Weser and Elbe, but in c. AD 58 they expanded westward to the River Ems by expelling the neighboring Ampsivarii, whereby they gained a border with the Frisians to the west. The Romans referred to the Chauci living between the Weser and Elbe as the 'Greater Chauci' and those living between the Ems and Weser as the 'Lesser Chauci'. The Chauci entered the historical record in descriptions of them by classical Roman sources late in the 1st century BC in the context of Roman military campaigns and sea raiding. For the next 200 years the Chauci provided Roman auxiliaries through treaty obligations, but they also appear in their own right in concert with other Germanic tribes, opposing the Romans. Accounts of wars therefore mention the Chauci on both sides of the conflict, though the actions of troops under treaty obligation were separate from the policies of the tribe. The Germans of the region were not strongly hierarchical. This had been noted by Tacitus, for example when he mentioned the names of two kings of the 1st century Frisians and added that they were kings "as far as the Germans are under kings". Haywood says the Chauci were originally neither highly centralised nor highly stratified, though they became more so after 100 AD. Yorke, speaking of the 5th century, describes the 'Continental Saxons' (which then included the Chauci) as having powerful local families and a dominant military leader. Writing in AD 79, Pliny the Elder said that the Germanic tribes were members of separate groups of people, suggesting a distinction among them. He said that the Chauci, Cimbri and Teutoni—the people from the River Ems through Jutland and for some distance inland—were members of a group called Ingaevones (a "Cimbri" people were also given as members of a different group, and this is likely a different people). Tacitus, writing in AD 98, described the inland, non-coastal Chauci homeland as immense, densely populated, and well-stocked with horses. He was effusive in his praise of their character as a people, saying that they were the noblest of the Germans, preferring justice to violence, being neither aggressive nor predatory, but militarily capable and always prepared for war if the need arose. Pliny (AD 23–79) had visited the coastal region and described the Chauci who lived there. He said that they were "wretched natives" living on a barren coast in small cottages (or huts) on hilltops, or on mounds of turf built high enough to stay dry during the highest tide (i.e., terpen). They fished for food, and unlike their neighbors (i.e., those living inland, away from the coast) they had no cattle, and had nothing to drink except rainwater caught in ditches. They used a type of dried mud (i.e., "surface peat") as fuel for cooking and heating. He also mentioned their spirit of independence, saying that even though they had nothing of value, they would deeply resent any attempt to conquer them.

The record is incomplete. The bulk of historical information about the Chauci is from the Annals of Tacitus, written in 117. Many parts of his works have not survived, including an entire section covering the years AD 38–46, as well as the years after AD 69. The earliest mention of the Chauci is from 12 BC and suggests that they were assisting other Germanic tribes in a war against the Romans. Drusus campaigned against those Germans along the lower Rhine, and after devastating the lands west and north of the Rhine he won over (or defeated or intimidated) the Frisians. He was in the process of attacking the Chauci when his vessels were trapped by an ebb tide. Drusus gave up the attack and withdrew. The Germans under Arminius had destroyed 3 Roman legions under Varus at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in AD 9. The Romans recoiled at first but then Germanicus initiated destructive campaigns against those Germans whom the Romans blamed for their defeat. The Chauci were not among them, and were said to have promised aid, and were associated with the Romans in "military fellowship". However, in defeating Arminius' own tribe (the Cherusci) the Romans were unable to capture or kill Arminius, who escaped. There were Chauci among the Roman auxiliaries, and they were rumored to have allowed the escape. In one of the campaigns a Roman fleet (probably riverine, not ocean-going) was broken up by a storm, causing many casualties. Germanicus himself managed to survive by reaching the lands of the Chauci, who provided him with a safe haven. A parenthetical note concerns the Ampsivarii. They had not supported the German cause led by Arminius in 9 AD and had been ostracized as a result. The Chauci had suffered no such disaffection from the other Germanic tribes in the aftermath of Teutoburg Forest, nor had they alienated the Romans. Many years later, c. AD 58, the Chauci seized an opportunity to expel the Ampsivarii and occupy their lands at the mouth of the River Ems, whereby they gained a border with the Frisians to the west. In AD 47 (and perhaps for some time earlier), the Chauci along with the Frisians were led by a certain Gannascus of the Canninefates. They raided along the then-wealthy coast of Gallia Belgica (i.e., the land south of the Rhine and north of the Rivers Marne and Seine), and the Chauci made inroads into the region that would later become the neighbouring Roman province of Germania Inferior, in the area of the Rhine delta in what is now the southern Netherlands. Corbulo was made the local Roman military commander. He successfully engaged the Germans on both land and water, occupied the Rhine with his triremes and sent his smaller vessels up the estuaries and canals. The Germanic flotilla was destroyed in a naval engagement, Gannascus was driven out, and Frisian territory was forcibly occupied. A negotiation between the Romans and Gannascus was arranged under the auspices of the 'Greater Chauci', which the Romans used as an opportunity to assassinate their opponent. The Chauci were outraged by the act of bad faith, so the emperor Claudius forbade further attacks on the Germans in an effort to ease tensions, and the Romans withdrew to the Rhine. The Chauci were one of the most prominent early Germanic sea raiders. They are probable participants in the Germanic flotilla that was destroyed by Drusus in 12 BC. They were raiding the coasts of Roman Belgica in AD 41, long before they participated in further raids of the same coasts under Gannascus in AD 47. It is likely that their raiding was endemic over the years, as the few surviving accounts probably do not reflect all occurrences. Tacitus describes the Chauci as 'peaceful' in his Germania (AD 98), but this is in a passage describing the non-coastal, inland Chauci, whereas sea raiders are necessarily a coastal people. By the late 2nd century Chauci raiding was ongoing and more serious than before, continuing in the North Sea Channel until their last recorded raids c. 170–175. While there are no historical sources to inform us one way or the other, it is likely that the Chauci continued their raiding and then played a role in the formation of the new Germanic powers, the Franks and Saxons who were raiders in the 3rd century. There is archaeological evidence of destruction by raiders between 170–200, ranging along the Continental coast down to the Bay of Biscay, to northwest Belgica (e.g., fire destruction at Amiens, Thérouanne, Vendeuil-Caply, Beauvais, Bavai, Tournai and Arras), to coastal Britain (e.g., fire destruction at the eastern Essex sites of Chelmsford, Billericay, Gestingthorpe, Braintree, Wickford, Kelvedon, Great Chesterford and Harlow). The perpetrators are unknown, but Chauci raiders are among the prime suspects. The Romans responded with defensive measures. Caistor-by-Norwich, Chelmsford and Forum Hadriani (present day Voorburg) (the civitas of the Canninefates near The Hague) were all fortified c. 200, and the Romans began a defensive system of protection especially along the coasts of Britain and the Continent. This system would be continually maintained and improved upon, which the Romans would not have done unless there was a continuing threat to be addressed. The system would continue to evolve through the disappearance of Chauci raiders and their replacement by the Frankish and Saxon ones, up to the end of the 4th century. By then it would be known as the Saxon Shore, a name given it by the Notitia Dignitatum.

Sicambri: The Sicambri, also known as the Sugambri or Sicambrians, were a Germanic people who during Roman times lived on the right bank of the Rhine river, in what is now Germany, near the border with the Netherlands. They were first reported by Julius Caesar. Whether or not the Sicambri spoke a Germanic or Celtic language, or something else, is not certain, because they lived in the so-called Nordwestblock zone where these two language families came into contact and were both influential. By the 3rd century the region in which they and their neighbours had lived had become part of the territory of the Franks, which was a new name that possibly represented a new alliance of older tribes, possibly including the Sicambri. The Sicambri appear in history around 55 BC, during the time of conquests of Gaul by Julius Caesar and his expansion of the Roman Empire. Caesar wrote in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico that near the confluence of the Rhine and Meuse River a battle took place in the land of the Menapii with large a large number of Tencteri and Usipetes, who then proceeded to move south. When these two peoples were routed by Caesar, their cavalry escaped and found asylum back across the river with the Sicambri. Caesar then built a bridge across the river to punish the Sicambri. In 53 BC, Caesar confronted a raiding army of Sicambri who had crossed the Rhine to take advantage of the Roman war with the Eburones. When Caesar defeated the Eburones, he invited all of the peoples that were interested to destroy the remainder. The Sicambri responded to Caesar's call. They took large amounts of cattle, slaves and plunder. Caesar commented that "these men are born for war and raids", "No swamp or marsh will stop them". After the raid on Eburones they moved on against the Romans. They destroyed some of Caesars units, in revenge of his campaign against them and when the remains of the legion withdrew into the city Atuatuca the Sicambri went back across the Rhine. Claudius Ptolemy located the Sicambri, together with the Bructeri Minores, at the most northern part of the Rhine and south of the Frisii who inhabit the coast north of the river. Strabo located the Sicambri next to the Menapii, “who dwell on both sides of the river Rhine near its mouth, in marshes and woods. It is opposite to these Menapii that the Sicambri are situated". This information places the Sicambri near the lower Rhine in or near what is now the Netherlands. In 16 BC their leader Melo, brother of Baetorix, organised a raid and defeated a Roman army under the command of Marcus Lollius, which sparked a reaction from the Roman Empire and helped start the series of Germanic Wars. Later the Sicambri under Deudorix, son of Baetorix, joined the rebellion of Arminius which subsequently annihilated the 3 Roman legions of Publius Quinctilius Varus. In 11 BC, the tribe was living to the south of the Lippe river, with the Usipetes now settled to their north, but at least a part was forced by Nero Claudius Drusus to move to the south side of the lower Rhine, where they possibly formed a part of the Tungri or of the Cugerni. The main part of the Sicambri "migrated deep into the country anticipating the Romans" according to Strabo. It has been suggested that the Marsi were a part of the Sicambri who managed to stay east of the Rhine after most had been moved from the area. In 26 AD some Sicambrian auxiliaries allied to Rome were involved in crushing an uprising of Thracian tribesmen. Like the Cimbri, and like their neighbours across the Rhine, the Eburones, many names of Sicambrian leaders end in typical Celtic suffixes like -rix (Baetorix, Deudorix, etc.). If the Sicambri were not Celtic speakers themselves, this could also indicate intense contacts with Celtic peoples across the Rhine in Gaul.

Chatti: The Chatti (also Chatthi or Catti) were an ancient Germanic tribe whose homeland was near the upper Weser. They settled in central and northern Hesse and southern Lower Saxony, along the upper reaches of the Weser River and in the valleys and mountains of the Eder, Fulda and Weser River regions, a district approximately corresponding to Hesse-Kassel, though probably somewhat more extensive. According to Tacitus, the Batavians of his time were descended from a part of the Chatti, who left their homeland after an internal quarrel drove them out, to take up new lands at the mouth of the Rhine. While Julius Caesar was well informed about the regions and tribes on the eastern banks of the Rhine, he never mentions the Chatti. Julius Caesar does not mention the Chatti by name, but noted the Suebi and suggested that they had previously driven out the Celts to the south of the Hesse-Kassel region in the prior centuries BC. Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History grouped the Chatti and Suebi together with the Hermunduri and the Cherusci, calling this group the Hermiones, which is a nation of Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus as living in inland Germany. Some commentators believe that Caesar's Suebi were possibly the later Chatti, a branch of the Suebian movement of people who had become more clearly identifiable.) If not then the Chatti may represent a successful resistance to the Suevi, as opposed to the Tencteri, Usipetes, and Ubii who were all forced from homelands in the same region by the Suebic incursions. The first ancient writer to mention the Chatti is Strabo, some time after 16 AD, who includes the Chatti in a listing of conquered Germanic tribes who were more settled and agricultural, but also poorer, than the nomadic tribes in central and eastern Germania such as the Suebi. They were poor because they had fought the Romans, and had been defeated and plundered. For the first century AD, Tacitus provides important information about the Chatti's part in the Germanic wars and certain elements of their culture. He says that: "[The Chatti's] settlements begin at the Hercynian forest, where the country is not so open and marshy as in the other cantons into which Germany stretches. They are found where there are hills, and with them grow less frequent, for the Hercynian forest keeps close till it has seen the last of its native Chatti. Hardy frames, close-knit limbs, fierce countenances, and a peculiarly vigorous courage, mark the tribe. For Germans, they have much intelligence and sagacity; they promote their picked men to power, and obey those whom they promote; they keep their ranks, note their opportunities, check their impulses, portion out the day, intrench themselves by night, regard fortune as a doubtful, valour as an unfailing, resource; and what is most unusual, and only given to systematic discipline, they rely more on the general than on the army. Their whole strength is in their infantry, which, in addition to its arms, is laden with iron tools and provisions. Other tribes you see going to battle, the Chatti to a campaign. Seldom do they engage in mere raids and casual encounters. It is indeed the peculiarity of a cavalry force quickly to win and as quickly to yield a victory. Fleetness and timidity go together; deliberateness is more akin to steady courage." Tacitus also notes that like other Germanic tribes, the Chatti took an interest in traditions concerning haircuts and beards. "A practice, rare among the other German tribes, and simply characteristic of individual prowess, has become general among the Chatti, of letting the hair and beard grow as soon as they have attained manhood, and not till they have slain a foe laying aside that peculiar aspect which devotes and pledges them to valour. Over the spoiled and bleeding enemy they show their faces once more; then, and not till then, proclaiming that they have discharged the obligations of their birth, and proved themselves worthy of their country and of their parents. The coward and the unwarlike remain unshorn. The bravest of them also wear an iron ring (which otherwise is a mark of disgrace among the people) until they have released themselves by the slaughter of a foe. Most of the Chatti delight in these fashions. Even hoary-headed men are distinguished by them, and are thus conspicuous alike to enemies and to fellow-countrymen. To begin the battle always rests with them; they form the first line, an unusual spectacle. Nor even in peace do they assume a more civilised aspect. They have no home or land or occupation; they are supported by whomsoever they visit, as lavish of the property of others as they are regardless of their own, till at length the feebleness of age makes them unequal to so stern a valour." Between the Rhine and the Chatti, Tacitus places the Tencteres and Usipetes, who had apparently been moved since the time of Caesar into the old homeland of the Ubii, who had in turn settled in Cologne. (Caesar had described these three tribes as under pressure from Suebi to their east, and attempting to move across the Rhine.) To the south, Tacitus also says that the Chatti's land is beyond the questionable lands, the so-called tithe lands, or agri decumates, that adventurers from the Roman sides of the Rhine and Danube had been trying to settle. It is possible that at first the Chatti themselves moved into place on the Rhine, in the old territory of the Ubii. Cassius Dio describes Drusus establishing a fort in Chatti territory on the Rhine itself in 11 BC, and that in 10 BC they moved out of an area where the Romans had permitted them. The Chatti successfully resisted incorporation into the Roman Empire, joining the Cheruscan war leader Arminius' coalition of tribes that annihilated Varus' legions in 9 AD in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Germanicus later, in 15, raided their lands in revenge, but Rome eventually responded to the Chatti's belligerent defense of their independence by building the limes border fortifications along the southern boundary of their lands in central Hesse during the early years of the 1st century. A major raid by the Chatti into Germania Superior was defeated decisively by the legions in 50 AD.

Cherusci: The Cherusci were a Germanic tribe that inhabited parts of the plains and forests of northwestern Germany, in the area possibly near present-day Hanover, during the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. Ethnically, Pliny the Elder groups them with their neighbours the Suebi and Chatti, as well as the Hermunduri, as Hermiones, one of the Germanic groupings said to descend from an ancestor named Mannus. They led an important war against the Roman empire. Subsequently they were probably absorbed into the tribal confederations such as the Franks and Allemanni. Arminius himself was from this tribe. The etymological origin of the name Cherusci is not known with certainty. According to the dominant opinion in scholarship, the name may derive from the ancient Germanic word *herut (Modern English hart, i.e. 'deer'). The tribe may have been named after the deer because it had a totemistic significance in Germanic symbolism. A different hypothesis, proposed in the 19th century by Jacob Grimm and others, derives the name from *heru-, a word for 'sword' (cf. Gothic hairus, Old English heoru) Hans Kuhn has argued that the derivational suffix -sk-, involved in both explanations, is otherwise not common in Germanic. He suggested that the name may therefore be a compound of ultimately non-Germanic origin, connected to the hypothesized nordwestblock. The first historical mention of the Cherusci occurs in Book 6.10 of Julius Caesar's De Bello Gallico, which recounts events of 53 BC. Caesar relates that he crossed the Rhine again to punish the Suebi for sending reinforcements to the Treveri. He mentions that the Bacenis forest (a relatively impenetrable Beech forest, possibly the Harz) separated the territory of the Cherusci from that of the Suebi. In 12 BC, the Cherusci and other Germanic tribes were subjugated by the Romans. They appear to have been living in the same homeland when Tacitus wrote, 150 years later, describing them as living east of the Chauci and Chatti. This is generally interpreted to be an area between the rivers Weser and Elbe. As Rome tried to expand in northern Europe beyond the Rhine, it exploited divisions within the Cherusci, and for some time the tribe was considered a Roman ally. At this time the tribe was split between Arminius (known in modern German as "Hermann der Cherusker", although his actual Germanic name was more likely Erminaz) and Segestes. Arminius advocated breaking allegiance to Rome and declaring independence, while Segestes wanted to remain loyal. By about 8 AD, Arminius had gained the upper hand and began planning rebellion. Segestes repeatedly warned Publius Quinctilius Varus, the governor of Gaul, that rebellion was being planned, but Varus declined to act until the rebellion had broken out. In 9, in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, an army of allied Germanic tribes under the command of Arminius (the Cherusci, Bructeri, Marsi, Sicambri, Chauci and Chatti) annihilated three Roman legions commanded by Varus. The legions' eagle standards, of great symbolic importance to the Romans, were lost. The numbers of these three legions, Legio XVII, Legio XVIII, and Legio XIX, were never used again. After the mutinies of the German legions in 14, Germanicus decided, at the urging of his men, to march into Germany to restore their lost honor. In 15, after a quick raid on the Chatti, invaded the lands of the Marsi in 14 AD with 12,000 legionnaires, 26 cohorts of auxiliaries and eight cavalry squadrons. According to Tacitus (Annals 1, 51), an area 50 Roman miles wide was laid to waste with fire and sword: "No sex, no age found pity." A Legion eagle from Varus's defeat, either from the XVII or XVIII, was recovered. Then he began a campaign against the Cherusci. He received an appeal to rescue Segestes, who was besieged by Arminius. Segestes was rescued along with a group of relatives and dependents, including Thusnelda, Segestes' daughter and the wife of Arminius. Germanicus spared them and gave them land in Gaul. He then found the site of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. His men buried the dead and built a funeral mound. A series of battles followed. Inflicting minor casualties on the Romans, Arminius seemed to be gaining the upper hand, but in 16 Germanicus defeated Arminius at Idistaviso and in 18 at the Battle of the Angrivarian Walls. In 19, Adgandestrius, a chief of the Chatti, asked Rome for poison to kill Arminius. Tacitus claimed the request was refused on the "noble" grounds that (as related by Tacitus) "Romans take vengeance on their enemies, not by underhanded tricks, but by open force of arms." Following the decisive Roman victories, Arminius increasingly became embroiled in tribal disputes; his opponents accused him of trying to make himself king. In 21 Arminius "succumbed to treachery from his relations" (Tacitus) and a client king was appointed on the Germans by Rome. After Arminius' death, the Romans left the Cherusci more or less to their own devices. In 47 AD. the Cherusci asked Rome to send Italicus, the nephew of Arminius, to become king, as civil war had destroyed their nobility. He was initially well liked, but since he was raised in Rome as a Roman citizen he soon fell out of favor.

Suevi: The Suebi or Suevi were a large group of Germanic peoples who were first mentioned by Julius Caesar in connection with Ariovistus' campaign in Gaul, c. 58 BC. While Caesar treated them as one Germanic tribe, though the largest and most warlike, later authors such as Tacitus, Pliny and Strabo specified that the Suevi "do not, like the Chatti or Tencteri, constitute a single nation. They actually occupy more than half of Germany, and are divided into a number of distinct tribes under distinct names, though all generally are called Suebi". "At one time, classical ethnography had applied the name "Suebi" to so many Germanic tribes that it appeared as though in the first centuries C.E. this native name would replace the foreign name "Germans"." Classical authors noted that the Suebic tribes were very mobile, and not reliant upon agriculture. Various Suebic groups moved from the direction of the Baltic sea and river Elbe, becoming a periodic threat to the Roman empire on their Rhine and Danube frontiers. Caesar placed the Suebi east of the Ubii apparently near modern Hesse, in the position where later writers mention the Chatti. Some commentators believe that Caesar's Suebi were the later Chatti or possibly the Hermunduri, or even the Semnones. Later authors use the term Suebi more broadly, "to cover a large number of tribes in central Germany". Although no classical authors explicitly call the Chatti Suevic, Pliny the Elder (23 AD – 79 AD), reported in his Natural History that the Hermiones were a large grouping of related Germanic gentes or "tribes" including not only the Suebi, but also the Hermunduri, Chatti and Cherusci. Whether or not the Chatti were ever considered Suevi, both Tacitus and Strabo distinguish the two partly because the Chatti were more settled in one territory, whereas Suevi remained less settled. The definitions of the greater ethnic groupings within Germania were apparently not always consistent and clear, especially in the case of mobile groups such as the Suevi. Whereas Tacitus reported three main kinds of German peoples, Hermiones, Istvaeones, and Ingvaeones, Pliny specifically adds two more genera or "kinds", the Bastarnae and the Vandili. This means that tribes east of the Elbe which Tacitus treats as Suebic, or at least living in the Suebic area, are in some cases categorized differently by Pliny. That the Vandals might be a separate type of Germanic people is a possibility Tacitus noted also. But for example the Varini are named as Vandilic by Pliny, and specifically Suebic by Tacitus. Also the modern term "Elbe Germanic" covers a large grouping of Germanic peoples that at least overlaps with the classical terms "Suevi" and "Hermione". However this term was developed mainly as an attempt to define the ancient peoples who must have spoken the Germanic dialects that lead to modern Upper German dialects spoken in Austria, Bavaria, Thuringia, Alsace, Baden-Württemberg and German speaking Switzerland. This was proposed by Friedrich Maurer as one of five major Kulturkreise or "culture-groups" whose dialects developed in the southern German area from the first century BC through to the fourth century AD OTL. Tacitus's Germania, describes a series of very powerful states, running along the north of the Danube in the south of Germany, and stretching into the lands where the Elbe originates in the modern day Czech Republic. Going from west to east the first were the Hermunduri, living near the sources of the Elbe and stretching across the Danube into Roman Rhaetia. Then came the Naristi, the Marcomanni, and then the Quadi. The Quadi are on the edge of greater Suebia, having the Sarmatians to the southeast. Strabo (64/63 BC – c. 24 AD), in Book IV of his Geography—a text in Greek—says of the Soēboi "excel all the others in power and numbers." He describes Suebic peoples (Greek ethnē) as having come to dominate Germany between the Rhine and Elbe, with the exception of the Rhine valley, on the frontier with the Roman empire, and the "coastal" regions north of the Rhine. He does not say much about their presence east of the Elbe, saying that this region was still unknown to Romans, but mentioning that a part of the Suebi live their, naming only specifically the Hermunduri and the Langobardi. But he mentions these are there because of recent defeats at Roman hands which had forced them over the river. (Note the comment of Tacitus, mentioned above, about how the Hermunduri were later welcomed on to the Roman border.) In any case he says that the area near the Elbe itself is held by the Suebi. Strabo especially associates the Suebi with the Hercynian Forest in the south of Germania, where a chain of mountains is formed north of the Danube that is like a lower extension of the Alps (possibly the Swabian Alps), and also with the Gabreta forest, which is closer to the empire's borders on the Danube (possibly the modern Bohemian forest). In Book VII Strabo mentions as Suevic peoples the Marcomanni, who live in the same forest as the Coldui (possibly the Quadi), and the Semnones. Some of these tribes were "inside the forest" and some "outside of it". The geographer, Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. AD 168), in a fairly extensive account of Greater Germany, makes several mentions of Suebi, in many cases naming specific nations within this designation. Unusually, between the Rhine and the Elbe he describes their position as stretching out in a band from the Elbe, all the way to the northern Rhine, near the Sugambri. The "Suevi Langobardi" are the Suevi located closest to the Rhine, far to the east of where most sources report them. To the east of the Langobardi, are the "Suevi Angili", extending as far north as the middle Elbe. It has been speculated that Ptolemy may have been confused by his sources, or else that this position of the Langobardi represented a particular moment in history.

Caesar noted that rather than grain crops, they spent time on husbandry and hunting. They wore animal skins, bathed in rivers, consumed milk and meat products, and prohibited wine, allowing trade only to dispose of their booty and otherwise they had no goods to export. They had no private ownership of land and were not permitted to stay resident in one place for more than one year. They were divided into 100 cantons each of which had to provide and support 1000 armed men for the constant pursuit of war. Strabo describes the Suebi and people from their part of the world as highly mobile and nomadic, unlike more settled and agricultural tribes such as the Chatti and Cherusci: ...they do not till the soil or even store up food, but live in small huts that are merely temporary structures; and they live for the most part off their flocks, as the Nomads do, so that, in imitation of the Nomads, they load their household belongings on their wagons and with their beasts turn whither-soever they think best. Notable in classical sources, the Suebi can be identified by their hair style called the "Suebian knot", which "distinguishes the freeman from the slave"; or in other words served as a badge of social rank. The same passage points out that chiefs "use an even more elaborate style". Tacitus mentions the sacrifice of humans practiced by the Semnones in a sacred grove and the murder of slaves used in the rites of Nerthus practiced by the tribes of Schleswig-Holstein. The chief priest of the Naharvali dresses as a woman and that tribe also worships in groves. The Harii fight at night dyed black. The Suiones own fleets of rowing vessels with prows at both ends. Julius Caesar lived 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC. The Suebi he describes in his firsthand account, De Bello Gallico were "largest and the most warlike nation of all the Germans". Caesar confronted a large army lead by a Suevic King named Ariovistus in 58 BC who had been settled for some time in Gaul already, at the invitation of the Gaulish Arverni and Sequani as part of their war against the Aedui. He had already been recognized as a king by the Roman senate. Ariovistus forbade the Romans from entering into Gaul. Caesar on the other hand saw himself and Rome as an ally and defender of the Aedui. The forces Caesar faced in battle were composed of "Harudes, Marcomanni, Tribocci, Vangiones, Nemetes, Sedusii, and Suevi". While Caesar was preparing for conflict, a new force of Suevi was led to the Rhine by two brothers, Nasuas and Cimberius, forcing Caesar to rush in order to try to avoid the joining of forces. Caesar defeated Ariovistus in battle, forcing him to escape across the Rhine. When news of this spread, the fresh Suebian forces turned back in some panic, which led to local tribes living near the Rhine to take advantage of the situation and attack them. Suetonius (c. 69 AD – after 122 AD), gives the Suebi brief mention in connection with their defeat in 9 BC. He says that the Suebi and Sugambri "submitted to him and were taken into Gaul and settled in lands near the Rhine" while the other Germani were pushed "to the farther side of the river Albis." He must have meant the temporary military success of Drusus, as it is unlikely the Rhine was cleared of Germans. Elsewhere he identifies the settlers as 40,000 prisoners of war, only a fraction of the yearly draft of militia. Florus (c. 74 AD – c. 130 AD), gives a more detailed view of the operations of 9 BC. He reports that the Cherusci, Suebi and Sicambri formed an alliance by crucifying twenty Roman centurions, but that Nero Claudius Drusus defeated them, confiscated their plunder and sold them into slavery. Presumably only the war party was sold, as the Suebi continue to appear in the ancient sources. Florus's report of the peace brought to Germany by Drusus is glowing but premature. He built "more than five hundred forts" and two bridges guarded by fleets. "He opened a way through the Hercynian Forest", which implies but still does not overtly state that he had subdued the Suebi. "In a word, there was such peace in Germany that the inhabitants seemed changed ... and the very climate milder and softer than it used to be." In the Annales of Tacitus, it is mentioned that after the defeat of 9 BC Augustus divided the Germans by making a separate peace with the Sugambri and Suebi under their king Maroboduus. This is the first mention of any permanent king of the Suebi. Augustus planned in 6 AD to destroy the kingdom of Maroboduus, which he considered to be too dangerous for the Romans. The later Emperor Tiberius commanded twelve legions to attack the Marcomanni. But the outbreak of a revolt in Illyria, and the need for troops there, forced Tiberius to conclude a treaty with Maroboduus and to recognize him as king. Subsequently Augustus placed Germanicus, the son of Drusus, in charge of the forces of the Rhine and he after dealing with a mutiny of the troops proceeded against the Cherusci and their allies, breaking their power finally at the battle of Idistavisus, a plain on the Weser. All eight legions and supporting units of Gauls were required to do that. Germanicus' zeal led finally to his being replaced (17 AD) by his cousin Drusus, Tiberius' son, as Tiberius thought it best to follow his predecessor's policy of limiting the empire. Germanicus certainly would have involved the Suebi, with unpredictable results. Arminius, leader of the Cherusci and allies, now had a free hand. He accused Maroboduus of hiding in the Hercynian Forest while the other Germans fought for freedom, and accused Maroboduus of being the only king among the Germans. The two groups "turned their arms against each other." The Semnones and Langobardi rebelled against their king and went over to the Cherusci. Left with only the Marcomanni and Herminius' uncle, who had defected, Maroboduus appealed to Drusus, now governor of Illyricum, and was given only a pretext of aid. The resulting battle was indecisive but Maroboduus withdrew to Bohemia and sent for assistance to Tiberius. He was refused on the grounds that he had not moved to help Varus. Drusus encouraged the Germans to finish him off. A force of Goths under Catualda, a Marcomannian exile, bought off the nobles and seized the palace. Maroboduus escaped to Noricum and the Romans offered him refuge in Ravenna where he remained the rest of his life. He died in 37 AD. After his expulsion the leadership of the Marcomanni was contested by their Suebic neighbours and allies, the Hermunduri and Quadi. The Langobardi, Semmones and Hermunduri are all offshoots of the Suebi.

Marcomanni: Scholars believe their name derives possibly from Proto-Germanic forms of "march" ("frontier, border") and "men". The Marcomanni settled in the Main River valley soon after 100 BC. To escape Roman aggression in 9 BC they migrated east to Bohemia, where their king Maroboduus established a powerful kingdom that Augustus perceived as a threat to Rome. Before he could act, however, the revolt in Illyria intervened. Eventually Maroboduus was deposed and exiled by Catualda (AD 19). Catualda was in turn deposed by Vibilius of the Hermunduri the same year, and succeeded by the Quadian Vannius. Around 50 AD, Vannius was himself also deposed by Vibilius, in coordination with his nephews Vangio and Sido. Tacitus, in the late 1st century mentions (Germania I.42) the Marcomanni as being under kings appointed by Rome. In the 2nd century AD OTL, the Marcomanni entered into a confederation with other peoples including the Quadi, Vandals, and Sarmatians, against the Roman Empire. This was probably driven by movements of larger tribes, like the Goths. According to the historian Eutropius, the forces of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius battled against the Marcomannic confederation for three years at the fortress of Carnuntum in Pannonia. Eutropius compared the war, and Marcus Aurelius' success against the Marcomanni and their allies, to the Punic Wars. The comparison was apt in that this war marked a turning point and had significant Roman defeats; it caused the death of two Praetorian Guard commanders. The war began in 166, when the Marcomanni overwhelmed the defences between Vindobona and Carnuntum, penetrated along the border between the provinces of Pannonia and Noricum, laid waste to Flavia Solva, and could be stopped only shortly before reaching Aquileia on the Adriatic sea. The war lasted until Marcus Aurelius' death in 180. It would prove to be only a limited success for Rome; the Danube river remained as the frontier of the Empire until the final fall of the West.

The Quadi were a smaller Germanic tribe, about which little is definitively known. We only know the Germanic tribe the Romans called the 'Quadi' through reports of the Romans themselves. No pottery style or other remains of material culture serve to distinguish Quadi encampments from those of closely related groups. In the 1st century BC, according to Roman written sources, the Quadi were migrating alongside the more numerous Marcomanni, whose name simply means the "men of the borderlands" living on the frontiers of Germany, where it was bordered by the River Danube, south of which lay Roman territory. Perhaps originating north of the River Main, the Quadi and Marcomanni migrated into what is now Moravia, western Slovakia and Lower Austria where they displaced Celtic cultures and were first noticed by Romans in 8–6 BC, briefly documented by Tacitus in his Germania. A further Marcomannic confederation that included the Quadi fought the future emperor Tiberius in 6 AD. There may be an earlier reference to the Quadi in the Geography of Strabo (7.1.3). In a parenthetical expression, often removed from the main text, he mentions a branch of the Suevi called the Koldouoi, transliterated to Latin Coldui (Strabo wrote in Greek). Part of their range is Bohemia, the domain of Maroboduus. The emendment of Coldui to Coadui (Quadi) is generally considered correct. Tacitus in Germania only mentions the Quadi in the same breath as the Marcomanni, alike in warlike spirit, alike governed by "kings" of their own noble stock, "descended from the noble line of Maroboduus and Tudrus," the "Tudric" line apparently kings among the Quadi. The royal powers of both tribes were also alike, according to Tacitus, in being supported by Roman silver. In The Annals, Tacitus writes that Maroboduus was deposed by the exile Catualda around 18 AD. Catualda was in turn defeated by the Hermunduri Vibilius, after which the realm was ruled by the Quadian Vannius. Vannius was himself also deposed Vibilius, in coordination with his nephews Vangio and Sido, who divided his between themselves as Roman client kings. Their frontiers for the next 350 years or more IOTL were the Marcomanni to the west, Buri to the north, Sarmatian Iazgyians and Asding Vandals arriving to the east somewhat later, and the Roman Empire to the south.

Gotini: who are generally equated to the Cotini in other sources, were a Gaulish tribe living during Roman times in the mountains known today as the Sudetes approximately near the modern borders of the Czech Republic and Poland. The spelling "Gotini" is only known from one classical source, the De Origine et situ Germanorum of Tacitus. Tacitus clearly distinguishes the Gotini from the similarly named Gotones, who he discussed in the immediately following passage. Tacitus described the Gotini as speaking a Gaulish language and working, to their degradation, in mining. Like their neighbours in the mountains, the Osi, they had to pay tribute to both the neighbouring Quadi and Sarmatians. Although the Gotoni live in the midst of Suevic peoples, they are not Germanic. They most probably living in the area of modern western Slovakia, Moravia, and Silesia. They were probably identical or constituted a significant part of the archaeological Púchov culture, with the center in Havránok. It has also been suggested that the same people are reported by Claudius Ptolemy as the Κῶγνοι. Ptolemy places them south of the Sidones, south of the Askiburgi mountains (probably the modern Sudeten mountains) but north of Hercynian valley. So as in Tacitus they are near the Buri and north of the Quadi. The tribe was apparently first mentioned in 10 BC in the so-called Elogium of Tusculum, an inscription from the time of Augustus found in Tusculum, south of Rome. It records how a legate of Illyricum entered relations of peace or war with the Cotini and Anarti. The "Cotini" are later mentioned by Dio Cassius in connection with the Marcomannic Wars. He reports that around 172 AD, the Cotini asked the Romans for land if they would attack the Marcomanni, and that they failed to do so, leading to their destruction. It has been suggested that to punish them, Marcus Aurelius moved all or some of the Cotini to Lower Pannonia, which happened not later than 180 AD. Roman inscriptions of 223-251 AD mention a Pannonian people known as the "cives Cotini" - the Cotini people.

Rugii: The Rugii had possibly migrated from southwest Norway to Pomerania in the 1st century AD. Rogaland or Rygjafylke is a region (fylke) in south west Norway. Rogaland translates "Land of the Rygir" (Rugii), the transition of rygir to roga is sufficiently explained with the general linguistic transitions of the Norse language. Scholars suggest a migration either of Rogaland Rugii to the southern Baltic coast, the other way around, or an original homeland on the islands of Denmark in between these two regions. None of these theories is so far backed by archaeological evidence. Another theory suggests that the name of one of the two groups was adapted by the other one later without any significant migration taking place. Scholars regard it as very unlikely that the name was invented twice. The Rugii were first mentioned by Tacitus in the late 1st century. Tacitus' description of their contemporary settlement area, adjacent to the Goths at the "ocean", is generally seen as the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, the later Pomerania. Tacitus characterized the Rugii as well as the neighboring Goths and Lemovii saying they carried round shields and short swords, and obeyed their regular authority. Ptolemaeus in 150 AD mentions a place named Rhougion (also transliterated from Greek as Rougion, Rugion, Latinized Rugium or Rugia) and a tribe named Routikleioi in the same area, both names have been associated with the Rugii. They neighbored the Baltic Tribes.

(Germannic Units can be viewed here.)


Dacian_symbols.png


Guerreros-Dacios.jpg


dacians_q.jpg



Part V - Amongst The Carpathians - The Flowering Dacian Civilization

Introduction: The Dacians (Latin: Daci, Ancient Greek: Δάκοι, Δάοι, Δάκες) were an Indo-European people, part of or related to the Thracians. Dacians were the ancient inhabitants of Dacia, located in the area in and around the Carpathian Mountains and east of there to the Black Sea. This area includes the present-day countries of Romania and Moldova, as well as parts of Ukraine, Eastern Serbia, Northern Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. The Dacians spoke the Dacian language, believed to have been closely related to Thracian, but were culturally influenced by the neighbouring Scythians and by the Celtic invaders of the 4th century BC. In the absence of written historical records, the origins of the Dacians (and Thracians) remain obscure. Evidence of proto-Thracians or proto-Dacians in the prehistoric period depends on the remains of material culture. It is generally proposed that a proto-Dacian or proto-Thracian people developed from a mixture of indigenous peoples and Indo-Europeans from the time of Proto-Indo-European expansion in the Early Bronze Age (3,300–3,000 BC) when the latter, around 1500 BC, conquered the indigenous peoples. The indigenous people were the Danubian farmers, and the invading people of the BC 3rd millennium were the Kurgan warrior-herders from the Ukrainian and Russian steppes. Indo-Europeanization was complete by the beginning of the Bronze Age. The people of that time are best described as proto-Thracians, from whom there developed in the Iron Age Danubian-Carpathian Geto-Dacians on the one hand, and Thracians of the eastern Balkan Peninsula on the other. The eastern branch, who lived between the Isker, Yantra and Danube rivers, were called the Getae, and the western group became known as Dacian. They all spoke a Thracian dialect of Indo-European, and were mainly sedentary grain farmers who also mined gold, silver and later iron. The tribes were headed by chieftains with religious responsibilities and practice similar to the Brahmins of India, the magi of the Persians and the druids of Ireland. Between BC 15th–12th century, the Dacian-Getae culture was influenced by the Bronze Age Tumulus-Urnfield warriors who were on their way through the Balkans to Anatolia. When the La Tene Celts arrived in BC 4th century, the Dacians were under the influence of the Scythians. Alexander the Great attacked the Getae in BC 335 on the lower Danube, but by BC 300 they had formed a state founded on a military democracy, and began a period of conquest. More Celts arrived during the BC 3rd century, and in BC 1st century the people of Boii tried to conquer some of the Dacians’ territory, on the eastern side of the Teiss river. The Dacians drove the Boii south across the Danube and out of their territory, at which point the Boii abandoned any further plans for invasion.

Identification: North of the Danube, Dacians occupied a larger territory than Ptolemaic Dacia, stretching between Bohemia in the west and the Dnieper cataracts in the east, and up to the Pripyat, Vistula and Oder rivers in the north and north-west. In BC 53, Julius Caesar stated that the Dacian territory was on the eastern border of the Hercynian forest. According to Strabo's Geographica, written around AD 20, the Getes (Geto-Dacians) bordered the Suevi, who lived in the Hercynian Forest, which is somewhere in the vicinity of the river Duria, the present-day Vah (Waag). Dacians lived on both sides of the Danube. According to Strabo, Moesians also "lived on both sides of the Danube". According to Agrippa, Dacia was limited by the Baltic Ocean in the North and by the Vistula in the West. The names of people and settlements confirm Dacia’s borders as described by Agrippa. Dacian people also lived south of the Danube. The Dacians and Getae were always considered as Thracians by the ancients (Dio Cassius, Trogus Pompeius, Appian, Strabo and Pliny the Elder), and were both said to speak the same Thracian language. The linguistic affiliation of Dacian is uncertain, since the ancient Indo-European language in question became extinct and left very limited traces (in the form of place names, plant names and personal names). Thraco-Dacian (or Thracian and Daco-Mysian) seems to belong to the eastern (satem) group of Indo-European languages. Linguists such as Polome and Katičić expressed reservations about both theories. Tărtăria tablets, dated to around 5300 BC, bear incised symbols that represent the earliest known form of writing in the world. The Dacians are generally considered to have been Thracian speakers, representing a cultural continuity from earlier Iron Age communities loosely termed Getic. Since on one interpretation, Dacian is a variety of Thracian, for the reasons of convenience, the generic term ‘Daco-Thracian” is used, with "Dacian" reserved for the language or dialect that was spoken north of Danube, in present-day Romania and eastern Hungary, and "Thracian" for the variety spoken south of the Danube. There is no doubt that the Thracian language was related to the Dacian language which was spoken in what is today Romania, before that area was occupied by the Romans. Also, both Thracian and Dacian have one of the main satem characteristic change of Indo-European language, *k and *g to *s and *z. With regard to the term "Getic" (Getae), even though attempts have been made to distinguish between Dacian and Getic, there seems no compelling reason to disregard the view of the Greek geographer Strabo that the Daci and the Getae, Thracian tribes dwelling north of the Danube (the Daci in the west of the area and the Getae further east), were one and the same people and spoke the same language. Another variety that has sometimes been recognized is that of Moesian (or Mysian) for the language of an intermediate area immediately to the south of Danube in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romanian Dobruja: this and the dialects north of the Danube have been grouped together as Daco-Moesian. The language of the indigenous population has left hardly any trace in the anthroponomy of Moesia, but the toponymy indicates that the Moesii on the south bank of the Danube, north of the Haemus Mountains, and the Triballi in the valley of the Morava, shared a number of characteristic linguistic features with the Dacii south of the Carpathians and the Getae in the Wallachian plain, which sets them apart from the Thracian though their languages are undoubtedly related. Vladimir Georgiev disputes that Dacian and Thracian were closely related for various reasons, most notably that Dacian and Moesian town names commonly end with the suffix -DAVA, while towns in Thrace proper (i.e. South of the Balkan mountains) generally end in -PARA (see Dacian language). According to Georgiev, the language spoken by the ethnic Dacians should be classified as "Daco-Moesian" and regarded as distinct from Thracian. Georgiev also claimed that names from approximately Roman Dacia and Moesia show different and generally less extensive changes in Indo-European consonants and vowels than those found in Thrace itself. However, the evidence seems to indicate divergence of a Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects, not so different as to rank as separate languages. Polome considers that such lexical differentiation ( -dava vs. para) would, however, be hardly enough evidence to separate Daco-Moesian from Thracian.

Tribes: An extensive account of the native tribes in Dacia can be found in the ninth tabula of Europe of Ptolemy’s Geography. The Geography was probably written in the period AD 140–150, but the sources were often earlier; for example, Roman Britain is shown before the building of Hadrian’s Wall in the AD 120s. Ptolemy's Geography also contains a physical map probably designed before the Roman conquest, and containing no detailed nomenclature. There are references to Tabula peutingeriana, but it appears that the Dacian map of the Tabula was completed after the final triumph of Roman nationality. Ptolemy's list includes no fewer than twelve tribes with Geto-Dacian names. The fifteen tribes of Dacia named by Ptolemy, starting from the northernmost ones, are as follows. First, the Anartes, the Teurisci and the Coertoboci/Costoboci. To the south of them are the Buredeense (Buri/Burs), the Cotense/Cotini and then the Albocense, the Potulatense and the Sense, while the southernmost were the Saldense, the Ciaginsi and the Piephigi. To the south of them were Predasense/Predavensi, the Rhadacense/Rhatacenses, the Caucoense (Cauci) and Biephi. Twelve out of these fifteen tribes listed by Ptolemy are ethnic Dacians, and three are Celt Anarti, Teurisci, and Cotense. There are also previous brief mentions of other Getae or Dacian tribes on the left and right banks of the Danube, or even in Transylvania, to be added to the list of Ptolemy. Among these other tribes are the Trixae, Crobidae and Appuli. Some peoples inhabiting the region generally described in Roman times as "Dacia" were not ethnic Dacians. The true Dacians were a people of Thracian descent. German elements (Daco-Germans), Celtic elements (Daco-Celtic) and Iranian elements (Daco-Sarmatian) occupied territories in the north-west and north-east of Dacia. This region covered roughly the same area as modern Romania plus Bessarabia (Rep. of Moldova) and eastern Galicia (south-west Ukraine), although Ptolemy places Moldavia and Bessarabia in Sarmatia Europaea, rather than Dacia. After the Dacian Wars (AD 101-6), the Romans occupied only about half of the wider Dacian region. The Roman province of Dacia covered just western Wallachia as far as the Limes Transalutanus (East of the river Aluta, or Olt) and Transylvania, as bordered by the Carpathians.

The main view is that the Costoboci were ethnically Dacian. Others considered them a Slavic or Sarmatian tribe. There was also a Celtic influence, so that some consider them as a mixed Celtic and Thracian group that appear, after Trajan's conquest, as a Dacian group with Celtic superstratum. The Costoboci inhabited the southern slopes of the Carpathians. Ptolemy named the Coestoboci (Costoboci in Roman sources) twice, showing them divided by the Dniester and the Peucinian (Carpathian) Mountains. This suggests that they lived on both sides of the Carpathians, but it is also possible that two accounts about the same people were combined. There was also a group, the Transmontani, that some modern scholars identify as Dacian Transmontani Costoboci of the extreme north. The name Transmontani was from the Dacians' Latin, literally "people over the mountains". Mullenhoff identified these with the Transiugitani, other Dacian tribe north of the Carpathian mountains. Based on the account of Dio Cassius, Heather (2010) considers that Hasding Vandals, around 171 AD, attempted to take control of lands which previously belonged to the free Dacian group called the Costoboci. Hrushevskyi (1997) mentions that the earlier widespread view that these Carpathian tribes were Slavic, has no basis. This would be contradicted by the Coestobocan names themselves that are known from the inscriptions, written by a Coestobocan and therefore presumably accurately. These names sound quite unlike anything Slavic. Scholars such as Tomaschek (1883), Shutte (1917) and Russu (1969) consider these Costobocian names to be Thraco-Dacian. This inscription also indicates the Dacian background of the wife of the Costobocian king "Ziais Tiati filia Daca". This indication of the socio-familial line of descent seen also in other inscriptions (i.e. Diurpaneus qui Euprepes Sterissae f(ilius) Dacus) is a custom attested since the historical period (beginning in the 5th century BC) when Thracians were under Greek influence. It doesn’t necessarily mean it originated from Thracians since it could be just a fashion borrowed from Greeks for specifying the ancestry and for distinguishing homonymous individuals within the tribe. Shutte (1917), Parvan, and Florescu (1982) pointed also to the Dacian characteristic place names ending in '–dava' given by Ptolemy in the Costoboci’s country. The Carpi were a sizeable Dacian (North Thracian) group of tribes living outside the boundaries of Roman Dacia. The majority view is that they were a Thracian tribe, a subgroup of the Dacians. Some historians classify them as Slavs. According to Heather (2010), Carpi were the Dacians from the eastern foothills of the Carpathian range – modern Moldavia and Wallachia – who had not been brought under direct Roman rule at the time of Trajan's conquest of Transylvania Dacia. After they generated a new degree of political unity among themselves in the course of the third century, these Dacian groups came to be known collectively as the Carpi. The ancient sources about the Carpi, before 104 AD, located them on a territory situated between the western side of Eastern European Galicia and the mouth of Danube. The name of the historically well-known Dacian tribe Carpi is homonymous with the Carpathian mountains. Carpi and Carpathian are Dacian words derived from root (s)ker- "cut" cf. Albanian Karp "stone" and Sanskrit kar- "cut". A quote from the 6th-century Byzantine chronicler Zosimus referring to the Καρποδάκαι (Latin: Carpo-Dacae or "Carpo-Dacians"), who attacked the Romans in the late 4th century, is seen as evidence of their Dacian ethnicity. In fact, Carpi/Carpodaces is the term used for Dacians outside Dacia. However, that the Carpi were Dacians is shown not so much by the form Καρποδάκαι (Latin: Carpo-Dacae) of Zosimus as by their characteristic place-names in –dava given by Ptolemy in their country. The origin and ethnic affiliations of the Carpi have been debated over the years; in modern times they are closely associated with the Carpathian Mountains, and a good case has been made for attributing to the Carpi a distinct material culture, "a developed form of the Geto-Dacian La Tene culture", often known as the Poienesti culture, which is characteristic of this area.

Dacians are represented in the statues surmounting the Arch of Constantine, and on Trajan's Column. The artist of the Column took some care to depict, in his purview, a variety of Dacian people—from high-ranking men, women, and children to the near-savage. Although the artist looked to models in Hellenistic art for some body types and compositions, he does not represent the Dacians as generic barbarians. Xenophanes described Thracians as having blue eyes and red hair. Physically, the Dacians and the Getae had similar characteristics to other barbarians around them (Thracians, Celts, and Scythians). Unlike the Greeks, or Scythians and Germanics, Dacians are generally described as being much taller, their skin whiter and with less hair with straight, light-coloured (red?) hair and blue eyes. On Trajan’s column, Dacian soldiers are shown with relatively short hair (although not as short as the Romans') and trimmed beards. Body-painting was customary among the Dacians. It is probable that the tattooing originally had a magical significance. They practiced symbolic-ritual tattooing or body painting for both men and women, with hereditary symbols transmitted up to the fourth generation.

Society: Dacians were divided into two classes: the aristocracy (tarabostes) and the common people (comati). Only the aristocracy had the right to cover their heads, and wore a felt hat. The common people, who comprised the rank and file of the army, the peasants and artisans, might have been called capillati in Latin. Their appearance and clothing can be seen on Trajan's Column. The chief occupations of the Dacians were agriculture, apiculture, viticulture, livestock, ceramics and metal working. They also worked the gold and silver mines of Transylvania. They engaged in considerable external trade, as is shown by the number of foreign coins found in the country (see also Decebalus Treasure). At Pecica, Arad had been found a Dacian atelier with equipment for minting coins along with evidence of bronze, silver, and iron-working that suggests a broad spectrum of metal-smithing. Evidence for the mass production of iron is found on many Dacian sites, indicating guild-like specialization. Dacian ceramic manufacturing traditions continue from the pre-Roman to the Roman period, both in provincial and unoccupied Dacia, and well into the fourth and even early fifth centuries. On the northernmost frontier of "free Dacia", coin circulation steadily grew in the first and second centuries, with a decline in the third and a rise again in the fourth century; the same pattern as observed for the Banat region to the southwest. What is remarkable is the extent and increase in coin circulation even after Roman withdrawal from Dacia, and as far north as Transcarpathia. The first coins produced by the Geto-Dacians were imitations of silver coins of the Macedonian kings Philip II and Alexander III (the Great). Early in the 1st century BC, the Dacians replaced these with silver denarii of the Roman Republic, both official coins of Rome exported to Dacia, and locally made imitations of them. The Roman province Dacia is represented on the Roman Sestertius coin as a woman seated on a rock, holding aquila, a small child, on her knee. Aquila holds ears of grain, and another small child is seated before her holding grapes.
Dacians had developed the Murus dacicus (double-skinned ashlar-masonry with rubble fill and tie beams) characteristic to their complexes of fortified cities, like their capital Sarmizegetusa in what is today Hunedoara County, Romania. This type of wall has been discovered not only in the Dacian citadel of the Orastie mountains, but also in those at Breaza near Fagaras, Tilisca near Sibiu, Capalna in the Sebes valley, Banita not far from Petrosani, and Piatra Craivii to the north of Alba Iulia. The degree of their urban development can be seen on Trajan's Column and in the account of how Sarmizegetusa was defeated by the Romans. The Romans identified and destroyed the aqueducts or pipelines of the Dacian capital, only thus being able to end the long siege of Sarmizegetusa.

Culture: According to archaeological findings, the cradle of the Dacian culture is considered to be north of the Danube towards the Carpathian mountains, in the modern-day historical Romanian province of Muntenia. It is identified as an evolution of the Iron Age Basarabi culture. The earlier Iron Age Basarabi evidence in the northern lower Danube area connects to the iron-using Ferigile-Birsesti group. This is an archaeological manifestation of the historical Getae who, along with the Agathyrsae, are one of a number of tribal formations recorded by Herodotus. Specific Dacian material culture includes: wheel-turned pottery that is generally plain but with distinctive elite wares, massive silver dress fibulae, precious metal plate, ashlar masonry, fortifications, upland sanctuaries with horseshoe-shaped precincts, and decorated clay heart altars at settlement sites. There are difficulties correlating funerary monuments chronologically with Dacian settlements; a small number of inhumations are known, along with cremation pits, and isolated rich burials as at Cugir. From the point of view of archaeology, "free Dacians" are attested by the Puchov culture (in which there are Celtic elements) and Lipiţa culture to the east of the Carpathians. The Lipiţa culture has a Dacian/North Thracian origin. This North Thracian population was dominated by strong Celtic influences, or had simply absorbed Celtic ethnic components. Lipiţa culture has been linked to the Dacian tribe of Costoboci. Dacian burial ritual continued under Roman occupation, and into the post-Roman period. The Dacians are generally considered to have been Thracian speakers, representing a cultural continuity from earlier Iron Age communities. Some historians and linguists consider Dacian language to be a dialect of, or the same language as Thracian. The vocalism and consonantism differentiate the Dacian and Thracian languages. Others consider that Dacian and Illyrian form regional varieties (dialects) of a common language. (Thracians inhabited modern southern Bulgaria and northern Greece. Illyrians lived in modern Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Croatia.) The ancient languages of these people became extinct, and their cultural influence highly reduced, after the repeated invasions of the Balkans by Celts, Huns, Goths, and Sarmatians, accompanied by persistent Hellenization, Romanisation and later Slavicisation. Therefore, in the study of the toponomy of Dacia one must take account of the fact, that some place-names were taken by the Slavs from still unromanised Dacians. A number of Dacian words are preserved in ancient sources, amounting to about 1150 anthroponyms and 900 toponyms, and in Discorides some of the rich plant lore of the Dacians is preserved along with the names of 42 medicinal plants.

Permanent contacts with the Graeco-Roman world brought the use of the Greek and later the Latin alphabet. It is also certainly not the case that writing with Greek and Latin letters and knowledge of Greek and Latin were known in all the settlements scattered throughout Dacia, but there is no doubt about the existence of such knowledge in some circles of Dacian society. However, the most revealing discoveries concerning the use of the writing by the Dacians occurred in the citadels on the Sebes mountains. Some groups of letters from stone blocks at Sarmisegetuza might express personal names; these can not now be read because the wall is ruined, and because it is impossible to restore the original order of the blocks in the wall. Fragments of pottery with different "inscriptions" with Latin and Greek letters incised before and after firing have been discovered in the settlement at Ocnita – Valcea. An inscription carries the word Basileus (Βασιλεύς in Greek, meaning king) and seems to have been written before the vessel was hardened by fire. Other inscriptions contain the name of the king, believed to be Thiemarcus, and Latin groups of letters (BVR, REB). BVR indicates the name of the tribe or union of tribes, the Buridavensi Dacians who lived at Buridava and who were mentioned by Ptolemy in the second century AD under the name of Buridavensioi. The Dacian gold bracelets depict the cultural and aesthetic sense of the Dacians. They were made from a gold ore mixed with a very small quantity of silver, using techniques that are considered technologically very advanced for that period. Dio Chrysostom described the Dacians as natural philosophers. The Dacians knew about writing. Not that we know anything about that...

Religion: Dacian religion was considered by the classic sources as a key source of authority, suggesting to some that Dacia was a predominantly theocratic state led by priest-kings. However, the layout of the Dacian capital Sarmizegethusa indicates the possibility of co-rulership, with a separate high king and high priest. Ancient sources recorded the names of several Dacian high priests (Deceneus, Comosicus and Vezina) and various orders of priests: "god-worshipers", "smoke-walkers" and "founders". Both Hellenistic and Oriental influences are discernable in the religious background, alongside chthonic and solar motifs. According to Herodotus' account of the story of Zalmoxis or Zamolxis, the Getae (speaking the same language as the Dacians, according to Strabo) believed in the immortality of the soul, and regarded death as merely a change of country. Their chief priest held a prominent position as the representative of the supreme deity, Zalmoxis, who is called also Gebeleizis by some among them. Strabo wrote about the high priest Decaeneus: "a man who not only had wandered through Egypt, but also had thoroughly learned certain prognostics through which he would pretend to tell the divine will; and within a short time he was set up as god (as I said when relating the story of Zamolxis)." The Goth Jordanes in his Getica (The origin and deeds of the Goths), gives an account of Dicineus (Deceneus), the highest priest of King Burebista, and considered Dacians a nation related to the Goths. Besides Zalmoxis, the Dacians believed in other deities, such as Gebeleizis, the god of storm and lightning, possibly related to the Thracian god Zibelthiurdos. He was represented as a handsome man, sometimes with a beard. Later Gebeleizis was equated with Zalmoxis as the same god. According to Herodotus, Gebeleizis (*Zebeleizis / Gebeleizis who is only mentioned by Herodotus) is just another name of Zalmoxis. Another important deity was Bendis, goddess of the moon and the hunt. By a decree of the oracle of Dodona, which required the Athenians to grant land for a shrine or temple, her cult was introduced into Attica by immigrant Thracian residents, and, though Thracian and Athenian processions remained separate, both cult and festival became so popular that in Plato's time (c. 429-13 BC) its festivities were naturalised as an official ceremonial of the Athenian city-state, called the Bendideia. Known Dacian theonyms include Zalmoxis,Gebeleïzis and Darzalas. Gebeleizis is probably cognate to the Thracian god Zibelthiurdos (also Zbelsurdos, Zibelthurdos), wielder of lightning and thunderbolts. Derzelas (also Darzalas) was a chthonic god of health and human spirit's vitality. The pagan religion survived longer in Dacia than in other parts of the empire; Christianity made little headway until the fifth century.

Warfare: The Dacian tribes were part of the greater Thracian family of peoples. They established a highly militarized society and, during the periods when the tribes were united under one king (82 -44 BC, 86-106 AD), posed a major threat to the Roman provinces of Lower Danube. Dacia was conquered (except for the Free Dacians) and transformed into a Roman province in 106 after a long, hard war. The most important weapon of the Dacian arsenal was the falx. This dreaded weapon, similar to a large sickle, came in two variants: a shorter, one-handed falx called a sica, and a longer two-handed version. The shorter falx was called sica (sickle) in the Dacian language. The two-handed falx was a polearm. It consisted of a three-feet long wooden shaft with a long curved iron blade of nearly-equal length attached to the end. The blade was sharpened only on the inside, and was reputed to be devastatingly effective. However, it left its user vulnerable because, being a two-handed weapon, the warrior could not also make use of a shield. Alternatively, it might be used as a hook, pulling away shields and cutting at vulnerable limbs. Using the falx, the Dacian warriors were able to counter the power of the compact, massed Roman formations. During the time of the Roman conquest of Dacia (101 - 102, 105 - 106), legionaries had reinforcing iron straps applied to their helmets. The Romans also introduced the use of leg and arm protectors (greaves and manica) as further protection against the falxes. That's right: The Romans had to create Segmentata just so Legionaries wouldn't crumble before Dacian arms! The Dacians were adepts of surprise attacks and skilful, tactical withdrawals using the fortification system. During the wars with the Romans, fought by their last king Decebalus (87-106), the Dacians almost crushed the Roman garrisons south of the Danube in a surprise attack launched over the frozen river ( winter of 101-102 ). Only the intervention of Emperor Trajan with the main army saved the Romans from a major defeat. But, by 106, the Dacians were surrounded in their capital Sarmizegetusa. The city was taken after the Romans discovered and destroyed the capital's water supply line. Dacians decorated their bodies with tattoos like the Illyrians and the Thracians. The Pannonians north of the Drava had accepted Roman rule out of fear of the Dacians. Dacians that could afford armor wore customised Phrygian type helmets with solid crests (intricately decorated), domed helmets and Sarmatian helmets. They fought with spears, javelins, falxes, one-sided battle axes and used "Draco" Carnyxes as standards. Most only used shields as a form of defense. Cavalry would be armed with a spear, a long bronze La Tène sword and an oval shield. Most of the infantry would wield a falx and perhaps a sica and would wear no armor at all even shunning shields. Dacian mercenaries were uncommon in contrast to the Thracians and the Illyrians but they could be found in the service of the Greek Diadochi and of the Romans. A 2nd century chieftain would wear a bronze Phrygian type helmet,a corselet of iron scale armor,an oval wooden shield with motifs and wield a sword. The Dacians had no navy to speak of, being landlocked. Dacians were shown by Trajan as dignified and heroic but still dangerous and unable to stand against the might of Rome. 1st century BC poet Horace writes of them in one of his works and mentions them along with the Scythians as tyrants and fierce barbarians. Later historian Tacitus writes that they are a people that can never be trusted. The Ancient Greeks expressed admiration and respect for Burebista.

276px-Captive_dacian_pushkin.JPG


burebista.png


dacian-war-host.jpg


Part VI - The History of the Dacian States

In the absence of historical records written by the Dacians (and Thracians) themselves, analysis of their origins depends largely on the remains of material culture. On the whole, the Bronze Age witnessed the evolution of the ethnic groups which emerged during the Eneolithic period, and eventually the syncretism of autochthonous elements and Indo-European elements from the steppes and the Pontic regions. Various groups of Thracian population had not separated out by 1200 BC, but there are strong similarities between the ceramic types found at Troy and the ceramic types from the Carpathian area. About the year 1000 BC, the Carpatho-Danubian countries were inhabited by a northern branch of the Thracians. At the time of the arrival of the Scythians (c. 700 BC) the Carpatho-Danubian Thracians were developing rapidly towards the Iron Age civilization of the West. Moreover, the whole of the fourth period of the Carpathian Bronze Age had already been profoundly influenced by the first Iron Age as it developed in Italy and the Alpine lands. The Scythians, arriving with their own type of Iron Age civilization, put a stop to these relations with the West. From roughly 500 BC (the second Iron Age), the Dacians developed a distinctive civilization, which was capable of supporting large centralised kingdoms by 1st BC and 1st AD. Since the very first detailed account by Herodotus, Getae/Dacians are acknowledged as belonging to the Thracians. Still, they are distinguished from the other Thracians by particularities of religion and customs. The first written mention of the name Dacians is in Roman sources, but classical authors are unanimous in considering them a branch of the Getae, a Thracian people known from Greek writings. Strabo specified that the Daci are the Getae who lived in the area towards the Pannonian plain (Transylvania), while the Getae proper gravitated towards the Black Sea coast (Scythia Minor). Since the writings of Herodotus in the 5th century BC, Getae/Dacians are acknowledged as belonging to the Thracians. Despite this, they are distinguished from other Thracians by particularities of religion and custom.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEOltean200745-134 Geto-Dacians and Thracians were kin people but they were not the same.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParvan1926661-142 The differences from the Southern Thracians or from the neighboring Scythians were probably faint, as several ancient authors make confusions of identification with either one or other. In the 19th century, Tomaschek considered a close affinity between Besso-Thracians and Getae-Dacians, an original kinship of both people with Iranian peoples. They are Aryan tribes, several centuries before Scolotes of the Pont and Sauromatae left the Aryan homeland and settled in the Carpathian chain, Haemus (Balkan) and Rhodope mountains. Besso-Thracians and Getae-Dacians separated very early from Aryans, since their language still maintains roots that are missing from Iranian and it shows non-Iranian phonetic characteristics (i.e. replacing the Iranian l'’ with r’'). He considered that Geto-Dacians and Besso-Thracians would represent a new layer of people that extended in the autochthonous fund, probably Illyrian.


Geto-Dacians inhabited both sides of the Tisa River before the rise of the Celtic Boii, and again after the latter were defeated by the Dacians under king Burebista. During the second half of the 4th century BC, Celtic cultural influence appears in the archaeological records of the middle Danube, Alpine region, and north-western Balkans, where it was part of the Middle La Tène material culture. This material appears in north-western and central Dacia, and is reflected especially in burials. The Dacians absorbed the Celtic influence from the northwest in the early third century BC. Archaeological investigation of this period has highlighted several Celtic warrior graves with military equipment. It suggests the forceful penetration of a military Celtic elite within the region of Dacia, now known as Transylvania, that is bounded on the east by the Carpathian range. The archaeological sites of the third and second centuries BC in Transylvania revealed a pattern of co-existence and fusion between the bearers of La Tène culture and indigenous Dacians. These were domestic dwellings with a mixture of Celtic and Dacian pottery, and several graves of the Celtic type containing vessels of Dacian type. There are some seventy Celtic sites in Transylvania, mostly cemeteries, but most if not all of them indicate that the native population imitated Celtic art forms that took their fancy, but remained obstinately and fundamentally Dacian in their culture. The Celtic Helmet from Satu Mare, Romania (northern Dacia), an Iron Age raven totem helmet, dated around 4th century BC. A similar helmet is depicted on the Thraco-Celtic Gundestrup cauldron, being worn by one of the mounted warriors (detail tagged here.) Around 150 BC, La Tène material disappears from the area. This coincides with the ancient writings which mention the rise of Dacian authority. It ended the Celtic domination, and it is possible that Celts were driven out of Dacia. Alternatively, some scholars have proposed that the Transylvanian Celts remained, but merged into the local culture and thus ceased to be distinctive. Archaeological discoveries in the settlements and fortifications of the Dacians in the period of their kingdoms (1st century BC and 1st century AD) included imported Celtic vessels, and others made by Dacian potters imitating Celtic prototypes, showing that relations between the Dacians and the Celts from the regions north and west of Dacia continued. In present-day Slovakia, archaeology revealed evidence for mixed Celtic-Dacian populations in the Nitra and Hron river basins. After the Dacians subdued the Celtic tribes, the remaining Cotini stayed in the mountains of Central Slovakia, where they took up mining and the working of metals. Together with the original domestic population, they created the Puchov culture that spread into central and northern Slovakia, including Spis, and penetrated northeastern Moravia and southern Poland. Along the Bodorog River in Zemplin they created Celtic-Dacian settlements which were known for the production of painted ceramics. Greek and Roman chroniclers record the defeat and capture of the Macedonian general Lysimachus in the 3rd century BC by the Getae (Dacians) ruled by Dromihete, their military strategy, and the release of Lysimachus following a debate in the assembly of the Getae. Herodotus says: "before Darius reached the Danube, the first people he subdued were the Getae, who believed that they never die". It is possible that the Persian expedition and the subsequent occupation may have altered the way in which the Getae expressed the immortality belief. The influence of thirty years of Achaemenid presence may be detected in the emergence of an explicit iconography of the "Royal Hunt" that influenced Dacian and Thracian metalworkers, and of the practice of hawking by their upper class.



Dacian states arose as an unstable tribal confederacy that included the Getae, the Daci, the Buri, and the Carpi (cf. Bichir 1976, Shchukin 1989), united only periodically by the leadership of Dacian kings such as Burebista and Decebal. This union was both military-political and ideological-religious.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTETaylor2001215-144 The following are some of the attested Dacian kingdoms: The kingdom of Cothelas, one of the Getae, covered an area near the Black Sea, between northern Thrace and the Danube, today Bulgaria, in the 4th century BC. The kingdom of Rubobosteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBerresford_Ellis199661-167 controlled a region in Transylvania in the 2nd century BC. Gaius Scribonius Curio (proconsul 75-3 BC) campaigned successfully against the Dardani and the Moesi, becoming the first Roman general to reach the river Danube with his army. His successor, Marcus Licinius Lucullus, brother of the famous Lucius Lucullus, campaigned against the Thracian Bessi tribe and the Moesi, ravaging the whole of Moesia, the region between the Haemus (Balkan) mountain range and the Danube. In 72 BC, his troops occupied the Greek coastal cities of Scythia Minor (the modern Dobruja region in Romania and Bulgaria), which had sided with Rome's Hellenistic arch-enemy, king Mithridates VI of Pontus, in the Third Mithridatic War. Greek geographer Strabo claimed that the Dacians and Getae had been able to muster a combined army of 200,000 men during Strabo's era, the time of Roman emperor Augustus. The Dacian kingdom reached its maximum extent under king Burebista (ruled 82 - 44 BC). The capital of the kingdom was possibly the city of Argedava, also called Sargedava in some historical writings, situated close to the river Danube. The kingdom of Burebista extended south of the Danube, in what is today Bulgaria, and the Greeks believed their king was the greatest of all Thracians.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrumeza200954-171 During his reign, Burebista transferred the Geto-Dacians' capital from Argedava to Sarmizegetusa.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMacKendrick197548-172http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGoodmanSherwood2002227-173 For at least one and a half centuries, Sarmizegethusa was the Dacians' capital, reaching its acme under king Decebal. Burebista annexed the Greek cities (55-48 BC). Augustus wanted to avenge the defeat of C. Antonius at Histria (Sinoe) 32 years before, and to recover the lost standards. These were held in a powerful fortress called Genucla (Isaccea, near modern Tulcea, in the Danube delta region of Romania), controlled by Zyraxes, the local Getan petty king. The man selected for the task was Marcus Licinius Crassus, grandson of Crassus the triumvir, and an experienced general at 33 years of age, who was appointed proconsul of Macedonia in 29 BC. Who knows what relations will develop between the Romans and Dacians with Brittanicus around...


Next Recap: The Kushans and Hindu Dynasties, then North Africa, Non-Iranian Inner Asia, and The Eastern Han...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#cite_note-FOOTNOTETomaschek1883400-401-143
 
I'm sorry for giving you all vital, detailed info about the World of Brittanicus. By all means let me finish.

It's hardly vital for the reader. It's great for the person writing the timeline to have this information though, so it should really belong in a PM. It just clutters the thread really.
 
Reason and Judgement

News of his father’s death reached Britannicus very quickly, due to them being in the same building. Tacitus, Britannicus’s biographer, records that the new Princeps was eager to assert his rule over the Principate. He began preparations for this immediately.

The Senate, meanwhile, was unprepared for the death of Claudius. While many contemporaries believed they were planning a coup upon the Princep’s death, this is not entirely likely, and if they were, it is clear that they were not yet ready for such action. Tacitus tells us that the Senators hastened to the Curia Julia, only to find Rome’s Urban Cohorts waiting for them, their commander having been given a letter informing him of Claudius's death, alongside a nice sum of money.

If they had had more time to gather their forces and allowed a little time to deliberate on the matter, the Senate may well have been able to overthrow Britannicus and install one of their own, if they had ever intended to do so in the first place. Alas, as it happened, they were collectively force marched from the Curia Julia to the Principal Palace, where they were metaphorically thrown at Britannicus’s feet. Each of them paid their respects and he led them and his Praetorians on horseback back down to the Curia Julia to be formally invested as Princeps. This piece of theatrics would not endear him to the Senate.

814 AUC [61 AD], the first year of Britannicus’s reign, was marked by great gladiatorial games, tours of the provinces and the beginnings of public works projects. The new emperor was clearly attempting to win over the masses of Rome - not a bad strategy for a Princeps to keep his head, as later rulers would discover.

Britannicus ordered the construction of the Forum of Claudius in honour of his father. Within the forum was the Temple of Romulus, a rather unremarkable structure compared to some of the other religious structures of the Principate. He also built the Temple of Apollo Capitolinus and the Temple of Claudius on the Campus Martius, amongst others. These somewhat superfluous temples are in contrast to the wholly practical constructions of the later years of the reign of Claudius, who succeeded in reducing Lake Fucine to around a third of its original size [1]. Other public works of Claudius's late reign include the Aqua Britannica, which brought water from Lake Bracciano to the city of Rome [2]. It was originally called the Aqua Agrippina, but humbly renamed by Britannicus shortly after the start of his reign.

roman20aqueduct20segovidy5.jpg


In order to help secure his rule, Britannicus agreed to marry Ulpia Marciana, daughter of charismatic senator, Marcus Ulpius Traianus [3]. Senator Marcus was popular and somewhat powerful in the Senate, despite being of middling rank. Britannicus hoped that the man would help keep the Senators reasonably content. Ulpia, his new wife, was only twelve years old at the time and so the actual ceremony and subsequent consummation was postponed for a few years.
Senator Marcus certainly prospered from the situation, achieving the rank of praetor in that year and he would eventually go on to become consul. This marriage and the empowerment of Marcius Traianus would have important consequences for the Principate in the future, for the present, his charisma and influence could placate many of the recently humbled senators.

It would not be until 815 AUC that Britannicus began to truly take the reins of the Principate and turn his attention away from gladiators and architects.
The building projects of Britannicus and his predecessor had left the Empire’s treasury somewhat depleted. He sought to rectify that in the best way he knew how - taxes. He levied a series of new taxes, these struck particularly hard in Judea.

The reasons for this aren’t fully clear. There was, of course, a lot of tension in the province of Judea; religious tension and class tension specifically. But the fog of history has concealed many of the events which led up to the revolt [4].
In 813 AUC [60], a renovation on the Temple of Jerusalem was completed. With no more work to be had, the unemployment levels rose. This, combined with the new tax and a sense that the priesthood was corrupt and freely working with the Roman occupiers created a recipe for rebellion. In 814 AUC, a comet was sighted. This increased the religious unrest of the province. There was a prophecy in the Jewish holy text which said that “I see him, but not now; I behold him; but not near; A star will come out of Jacob; a sceptre will rise out of Israel” [5] This was taken as a sign that the messiah of the Jews would be coming soon.

The situation escalated in late 815 [62 AD] when the Jewish High Priesthood put a man named Lacomus (brother of the Christian prophet name Iesus) to death, against the wishes of the Roman authorities, who saw the man as having committed no crime.

Countless other acts of rebellion and civil disobedience were committed, with an equal number of reprisals. The province finally erupted into full blown rebellion in 819.

Francesco_Hayez_017.jpg


[1] OTL, Claudius cut the lake in size by about a half, Hadrian would later reduce it further to about 60km^2. ITTL, Claudius gets it down to this.
[2] Trajan built this OTL.
[3] Father of OTL's Emperor Trajan
[4] We actually know a lot about said events. But ITTL there are butterflies because of what happens later... spoilers.
[5] This comet did actually appear in OTL at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I forgot this part...

This should be in there with the stuff about Armenia... Sorry.

The Parthians counterattacked in 814, hoping to capitalise on the chaos caused by Claudius’s demise. They were successful in their attack, but mostly due to poor preparation on the part of the Romans than a vacuum of leadership.
The Roman plan had been to incite the Parthians to attack north, where they would be held down by a Roman army, while another army would march out of Syria to crush the Parthians from behind.[1] The plan did not go into action, the commander of the northern army was not present and Corbulo was unable to lead two armies across a vast distance. Instead, Corbulo offered a compromise to the Parthian king, the Romans would relinquish Armenia for the time being, while the Parthians would lift the siege of Tigranocerta [2] which had been besieged at the start of the year.

By late summer 814, the northern Roman commander finally arrived. Lucius Caesennius Paetus commanded the IV Scythica and XII Fulminata legions. The war was back on. Corbulo crossed the Euphrates into Mesopotamia while Paetus attacked Armenia. Unfortunately, it was a trap and Paetus was besieged in a town called Arsamosata.
Corbulo marches north with V Macedonia and XI Ferrata legions towards Paetus in the hopes of smashing the Parthians. He was too late however. The Romans had suffered a defeat at Rhandeia.

Peace negotiations were held over the winter, but the Romans believed that their position was still strong and so they refused to make many concessions.
The following spring, Corbulo invaded once again, accompanied by the III, V, VI and X legions, with the IV and XII in reserve and the XV on its way from the Danube.
The Parthians knew that they had little chance of defeating the Romans now that they had such masive numbers. But at the same time, Corbulo was unwilling to fight a war in such mountainous terrain and he refused to leave the disgraced XII legion to guard Cappadocia should he be required to go through Mesopotamia instead.

In the end, a peace treaty was reached. Rome would appoint all Armenian kings in future, while the current Roman candidate, Tiridates, would step down.

The war’s result was not a good one. While Britannicus attempted to paint the stalemate as a victory, it is clear from his biographers' accounts that he was unconvinced. As it happened, Britannicus would get another victory to solidify his rule from elsewhere.

As for Corbulo, he returned to Rome where he remained somewhat influential and a close advisor to the Princeps, yet he did not command another army before his death in 822.


[1] OTL plan.
[2] Siirt
 
Last edited:
Nice. I'm not entirely sure where we have our information on the Jewish War, but if I were to render a guess, it would be from Josephus. Since he was a Jewish commander in the war, I'm going to assume he is going to be killed.

Anyway, nice updates. Two things I noticed though: on the second to last update you mixed up the footnotes 2 and 3. Also, you said Brittanicus was trying to paint the stalemate as a defeat-I think you mean victory unless you mean a Parthian defeat.

Regardless, great updates.
 
Romanes Eunt Domus!

Judea became a Roman province in 759 AUC [6 AD]. Before this, Herod Archelaus, ruled a portion of the future province as a vassal king. He was not popular among his subjects, he was not seen as fully Jewish; merely a puppet of foreign gentiles. In addition to his foreign-ness, he was also not a good ruler; his people implored Augustus to depose him. Augustus, being the merciful ruler that he was, complied with their requests. The Roman governors who took over in his wake were even less popular.

Galilee_to_Judea.gif
The Province of Judea at the time.

Judea was, inevitably, always going to be a difficult province to deal with. The monotheistic nature of the Judaism (and later Christianity) was seen as abhorrent to the polytheists of the Empire, even those who did not worship the Roman gods. The Jews denied the very existence of all gods but their own. Jewish aristocrats did not excel at serving Rome, their religious taboos made it almost impossible to fully integrate, which meant that while the nobility of Greece and Aegyptus had been absorbed and thoroughly Romanised by the system, the Jews remained Jews.

In an attempt to control the populace, the Roman governors gave the Jewish religious leaders a lot of power in administration of the province. However their hold over hearts and minds was limited. The Judeans were a tightly-knit people. Every year they celebrated their freedom from the Aegyptians which served to create a proto-pseudo-quasi-nationalist identity of a type which would not be seen elsewhere in the world for centuries to come.

Although their religion was their strength, it was also their weakness. They were divided into sects which squabbled fiercely over how their laws as laid out in their holy texts should be interpreted. The three largest of the sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes who disagreed on everything amongst themselves and agreed on little within themselves.

All in all, Judea was an unhappy place. Constantly chafing under the rule of governors who had little understanding of the region’s religion and customs and who were often corrupt and brutal in their dealings. There were sporadic outbreaks of minor rebellion and insurrection from 748 until the greater rebellion of 817.

The governor at the time, Gessius Florus, attempted to squash the uprising quickly with a show of brute force. He was slain on the streets of Caesarea for his efforts, cut down by a mob of angry Jews.

Following this, Gaius Durmius Ummidius Quadratus, governor of Syria and veteran of the Armenian War, brought the XII Fulminata Legion south from the province of Syria. It was not a large army, nor was there a lot of planning or strategy involved in its descent from Syria. Quadratus was doing what every Roman in a position of power had ever done when faced with rebellion; he tried to crush it hard and fast.

The XII Fulminata fought a few skirmishes and won a few victories, but Quadratus realised he could not hope to capture Jerusalem, centre of the Jewish people and rebellion with his current forces. So he attempted to withdraw to the River Jordan and await reinforcements. The Legion was constantly harried on their route to the river. They were ambushed somewhere near the Sea of Galilee. No record of the battle survives. Fulminata was destroyed and its commander was killed, the Legion’s Eagle was captured by the rebels and there were very few survivors. When the Princeps Britannicus heard this news, it is reported that he said, in an admittedly poor attempt at profundity “Quadratus, like my ancestor Augustus, I implore you to give me back my legion.” Not exactly dramatic; a bit wordy, perhaps, but Britannicus was not much of a poet.
Following this crushing defeat, the Princeps appointed his father’s confidante, Titus Flavius Vespasianus (the elder) as leader of a new force which would be tasked with recapturing the province and subduing the rebels. Vespasianus was a good choice as commander; he had a good amount of military experience in Britannia, was of a high rank and had not yet had the honour and glory of a military victory.

Vespasianus arrived in Antiochaea win late 817, alongside Legio XV Apollonaris. Waiting for him were the VI Ferrata, III Gallica and elements of the X Fretensis legions. The general marched south with his troops in the spring of 818 and defeated the rebels in Galilee in a mostly unremarkable campaign before continuing south into Judaea proper in the summer.

379px-Vespasianus01_pushkin_edit.png

Titus Flavius Vespasianus the Elder

Throughout Vespasianus’ campaign, the Judaeans performed poorly in field battles due to the lack of a cohesive field army. And Vespasianus’ caution made most attempts at ambush ineffective. The conflict was dominated by lengthy sieges. The rebel general, Josephus, surrendered at Jotapata and was imprisoned, rather than crucified, for his cooperation.

Jerusalem was encircled in the year 819 and was placed immediately under siege. The city was at a disadvantage in that its food stocks were lower than they should have been due to infighting amongst the various Jewish factions. But the city resisted anyway.

In late 819, Titus Flavius Vespasianus (the younger)[1] arrived at the city, sent by the Princeps Britannicus to be his personal liaison with Vespasianus the elder. The newly created Legio I Italica and elements of Legio X Fretensis came along with Titus.

The city of Jerusalem was a sturdier opponent than the rest of the cities in that part of the Principate; its defences were admirable, but at his command Vespasianus had five legions to do his bidding, admittedly, they had all been somewhat depleted by the campaign but not so much as to overly harm their combat effectiveness. In support of the Legionnaires, Vespasianus also has around twenty cohorts of auxillia infantry to command as well as an unknown number of troops raised from Roman vassals states. In total, Vespasianus had over 35,000 soldiers with which to subdue the Jews. At his side was his son, Vespasianus (henceforth referred to as Titus), who helped to organise the logistics of the siege, and who would eventually take command of the Roman forces.

Jerusalem was an old city, and very well defended by both natural and artificial fortifications. There were two hills in Jerusalem, with the one to the east being noticeably smaller than the other. It was upon the eastern hill that the city was originally founded, and so it had its own set of walls, which had the Second Grand Temple contained within, which had recently been completed. The Temple was a fortress unto itself, featuring a large tower, named the Fortress of Antonia, after King Herod's patron, Marcus Antonius. Besides this, the temple also featured large stone walls and thick doors.

In later years, the city had expanded to the second hill, the New Town, which was also surrounded by a wall. There was also the suburbs, around which a third wall had been constructed to protect. The third wall was the weakest of the three, not yet being fully completed, though it did fully encompass the city [2]. It was also of poorer quality in terms of workmanship, it had been hurriedly constructed to as close to finished as possible, after all. As for natural defences, the eastern hill was defended by the Kidron valley, which then rose into the Mount of Olives, assaults from this direction were not even attempted, as they could not have succeeded. The city was populated by approximately 800,000 people [3], mostly Jews.

The defenders were split into three factions; two of which were based of zealotry, and a third which was lead by a man named Simon. In the period of time before the Romans reched the city, the factions had fought each other, damaging he city and destroying food stores. By the time Vespasianus arrived, the zealots had gotten over their differences and chosen a new leader named John. Relations between the zealots and Simon were still hostile, but not violent, for the time being.

640px-Ercole_de_Roberti_Destruction_of_Jerusalem_Fighting_Fleeing_Marching_Slaying_Burning_Chemical_reactions_b.jpg

The Fate of Jerusalem?

[1] OTL Emperor Titus, the elder is OTL Vespasian.
[2] IOTL, the wall was finished ca. 66 AD
[3] Josephus claims it was 1,000,000 people, and Tacitus says 600,000, those figures seem a little too high to me, but I've said 800,000 as a compromise. Who am I to contradict the contemporaries? If you disagree, feel free to tell me why.
 
Matthew 7:7

The first years if Britannicus' rule saw him trying to gain favour with the people of Rome.
His reign began with an ostentatious funeral for Claudius. Britannicus delivered a speech to the people of Rome himself at the funeral, and then promptly had his father deified and enlisted amongst the ranks of the gods. Shortly after the funeral, Britannicus declared that he would rule as befits a son of Apollo, an equal to Augustus. To show his magnificence and generosity, he cut taxes across the Principate, and distributed a sum of three hundred sesterces to every Roman citizen.

In his early years, Britannicus kept the Senate at a distance, wary if republican tendencies, that said, he did not shy from allowing the Senate to regain a few small powers which had previously been lost to them. The Senate was slightly less comfortable with their new leader, Britannicus made it so that they could never betray him; he had his Praetorians observe meetings of the Senate and hired people to follow some of the senators of more suspect loyalty.

Culturally, Britannicus was fond of gladiatorial games and he attended and organised many of them. But he had a distaste for drama and theatre, believing them to be distinctly un-Roman; far too Greek for his tastes. He constructed a sizeable arena on the Campus Martius. Here, he ordered all the criminals of Rome to be sentenced to die fighting each other. The winner of these games was often simply thrown into another match, nobody ever earned a pardon. Britannicus had a good grasp of what it took to be loved by the Roman people: "If fed and entertained, the people will die for their first citizen."

He passed laws dictating the minimum width of streets and spacing between houses throughout all the Empire. He also increased the size of the Vigiles, the police and fire fighting service of Rome and built more fire stations throughout the city.

Britannicus was fond of architecture and architects. He ordered the construction of a school intended to train architects and develop their art. This architectural school later developed into a school for engineers and sculptors too.
In 819, Britannicus ordered the construction of a large bronze statue in the centre of Rome, the Colossus of Rome. It was to be a statue of Apollo, the god of the sun, it was mostly a replica of the larger Colossus of Rhodes.
 
Top