Artabanus II

Tacitus says Seleucia called Artabanus “an Arsacid indeed on his mother’s side, but as in all else degenerate”. Josephus calls him “king of Media”. Iranica says he came from the north-east, probably Hyrcania. Vonones I had been sent by Rome, and, Iranica says, the nobles disliked both his Roman “softness” and his tight control of spending.

Artabanus’ family link is unclear. Some make his father a Dahae prince, others a member of the Atropatene house. What is clear is that with him a new Arsacid branch, based in the east, came to power and held it for half a century.

The nobles chose the king and the nobles removed him. That was dangerous, but it also meant power was not in one hand: a king who forced his spending and his orders on others without their consent did not last.

Armenia was the flashpoint. In 18 CE Artabanus backed down before Germanicus. In 35 CE he made his son Arsaces king of Armenia and, Tacitus says, wrote to Tiberius demanding Vonones’ treasure and speaking of ancient borders. Rome answered by sending pretenders of Phraates IV’s line and drawing the Iberians into Armenia.

Tacitus calls the “lands of Cyrus and Alexander” a “vainglorious threat”. Some scholars read it as Parthian awareness of the Achaemenid legacy; others say it is a Roman idea put in a Parthian king’s mouth. We do not have the letter, only Tacitus’ report of it.

The two powers went to the brink several times and each time came back through talks. The meeting on the Euphrates bridge shows that both sides knew the cost of war.

Iranica says that after the peace with Rome Artabanus put Arsacid princes in place of the local kings in Media Atropatene, Characene, Persis and Elymais. In the east a dynasty of Parthian governors, probably the Suren, stayed strong. Tacitus says Artabanus had killed most of his relatives; the nobles who rose against him said there was “not a single Arsacid” they could crown.

The two pictures fit together: a king who concentrated power in his own family frightened the old nobility. Tacitus makes a moral judgement (“tyranny to his subjects”); scholars such as Dąbrowa look more at a struggle for power between the king and the great houses.

The cost of concentrating power at court fell on the provinces, and each time the king grew too strong the nobles turned to a foreign power. Real stability comes from law and agreements that bind both sides, not from killing rivals.

Josephus tells of two weaver brothers from Nehardea who, after mistreatment by an employer, formed an armed band, took dues from herdsmen and beat the satrap of Babylonia. Instead of sending an army, Artabanus summoned them, gave his right hand as a pledge of safety and handed Asineus a territory to rule. Josephus says he did it “to curb his own governors of provinces”.

The story goes on: Josephus says Asineus flourished for fifteen years, but Anileus’ marriage to a Parthian woman whose husband he had killed broke the band from within, and in the end the Jews of Babylonia paid the price. The years and the details are Josephus’ and have no other source.

The Parthian kingdom was a web of pledges, not a single machine. The king gave his right hand and swore; and, says Josephus, whoever broke that pledge lost all standing. An order built on promises rather than raw force left room for local self-rule.

In 36 CE the discontented nobles sided with Rome and Tiridates III, a grandson of Phraates IV, was crowned at Ctesiphon with Vitellius’ backing. Artabanus went to Hyrcania. But Tiridates soon lost his supporters, and before the year was out part of the nobility recalled Artabanus. Josephus has a different story: Artabanus, driven out by the governors, went with a thousand men to Adiabene and Izates restored him.

Tacitus and Josephus are hard to reconcile. There may have been two exiles, or one told two ways. Izates’ reward, says Josephus, was the right to wear his tiara upright, to sleep on a golden bed, and the land of Nisibis.

A throne that could be taken and handed back by the nobles’ consent was more like a compact than personal property. Artabanus and his rivals alike had to earn others’ support.

Tacitus calls Seleucia on the Tigris a powerful, walled city that “had never lapsed into barbarism”. Three hundred citizens, chosen for wealth or wisdom, formed a senate, and the people had powers of their own. Seleucia welcomed Tiridates III with great pomp and Tiridates handed the city’s government to the people. From about 36 to 42 CE the city was in revolt.

The cause of the revolt is unclear. McDowell saw a struggle between native and Greek aristocracies; Pigulevskaya a “class struggle” between rich and poor. Iranica gives both and does not decide.

Seleucia is an example of a city that governed itself and defended that right. A single city holding out against the King of Kings for seven years shows how much civic freedom was worth to its people.