Artabanus IV

Herodian, a contemporary: Caracalla wanted the title “Parthicus” and to report to Rome that he had conquered the whole East, “even though there was peace everywhere”. So he wrote to Artabanus with costly gifts asking for his daughter: Rome and Parthia were the greatest empires in the world, Roman infantry and Parthian horse archers complemented each other, and Parthian spices and cloth and Roman metals would no longer be smuggled. Artabanus at first refused, then agreed. The Parthians came to the feast without horses or bows, and at a signal the Romans fell on them. Artabanus barely escaped.

Iranica gives another version: Artabanus turned the request down, and that gave Caracalla his pretext for war. The request itself, Iranica says, is clear evidence that Artabanus was then the king. Caracalla got as far as Arbela but achieved no decisive victory.

The two versions do not agree: in one the king accepts and is tricked; in the other he refuses and war follows. Herodian likes to dramatize, and the massacre at the feast is in his account alone. Still, both versions agree on one thing: Caracalla started a war without cause. Herodian himself has Macrinus say: “We provoked him by breaking the treaty, and in a time of complete peace we started a war.”

Caracalla’s letter paints a fine picture of free trade between two empires: goods would no longer be “scarce and smuggled”. Yet the same letter was cover for a trick. A promise of free markets from a man who does not keep treaties is worthless; trade rests on trust, and trust rests on keeping one’s word.

Caracalla was killed in April 217 CE and the army, after two days without an emperor, chose Macrinus. Herodian: Artabanus came for revenge with a great army, strong cavalry, archers and mail-clad soldiers who threw spears from camels. The battle lasted three days. The Parthians did heavy damage with arrows and spears; the Romans brought down horses and camels with a feigned retreat and caltrops. On the third day the Parthians tried to outflank the Romans, who widened their front. In the end Macrinus sent peace terms and promised to return the captives and property.

Iranica: the Parthians demanded Rome’s withdrawal from Mesopotamia and restitution for the damage. Macrinus refused, the war went on, and the Romans were defeated at Nisibis, as the peace terms show: early in 218 CE Rome paid the Parthian king and nobles fifty million denarii in cash and gifts.

Herodian, a Roman, calls the battle a draw. But a winning army does not pay reparations; Iranica infers from this that the victory was Artabanus’. It was the last great Arsacid victory over Rome. The diagram below shows the battle step by step, schematically and on Herodian’s account alone.

Artabanus came for revenge but made peace once the captives and property were returned. A war begun by deceit ended with restitution: as close to justice as that age came.

Iranica (Schippmann): Ardashir, a minor vassal in Persis, from about 220 CE took neighbouring and more distant lands such as Kerman. When Artabanus moved against him it was too late. The decisive battle, “probably” on 28 April 224 CE near modern Golpayegan, between Isfahan and Nahavand, cost the Parthian Great King his life.

Iranica (Wiesehöfer): the battle was on the plain of Hormozgan in Media. A detailed account was probably written for the official Sasanian history and is likely Tabari’s ultimate source. Ardashir had the scene carved in a relief at Firuzabad and took the title “King of Kings” on the battlefield. Iranica treats Tabari’s story of letters between Ardashir and Artabanus as a literary dramatization of Ardashir’s claim to the throne. Herodian says only that Ardashir killed Artabanus.

Iranica says Ardashir could not have won without “a widespread mood of discontent with the Parthian régime”: many nobles and local rulers joined him. Two Arsacid kings, Artabanus and Vologases VI, were fighting each other. Some sources date Ardashir’s formal coronation at Ctesiphon to 226 CE, and Hatra and Arsacid Armenia resisted him for years.

The Arsacid kingdom was a league of houses and provinces, each with its share and its rights. When the kings fought over the throne and the nobles saw their interest elsewhere, the league fell apart. The Sasanians built a more centralized state; the price was less freedom for the provinces.