Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Arsacid dynasty"

In the eighth book of Lucan's Bellum Ciuile, Pompey sends the Galatian king Deiotarus into the distant East to seek an alliance with Parthia, the vast empire beyond the Euphrates ruled by the Arsacid dynasty. His instructions to Deiotarus begin with these lines (8.211–14):‘quando’ ait ‘Emathiis amissus cladibus orbis,qua Romanus erat, superest, fidissime regum,Eoam temptare fidem populosque bibentisEuphraten et adhuc securum a Caesare Tigrim.’

The campaign of the Seleucid king Antiochus VII led against the newly expanded empire of the Parthians (the Arsacid dynasty) is a very important, but largely forgotten episode of ancient military history. Conducted during 130 and 129 BC, it was the final attempt by the Macedonian dynasty of Seleucids to preserve its position as the leading power in Western Asia, against growing Arsacid might that gradually took control over Iran, Mesopotamia and parts of Central Asia. Apart from marking the definitive end of Seleucids as a great power, this event is noteworthy because of the consequences it had for the Parthian military organization and doctrine. The very beginning of the war was marked by massive defeats on the side of the Parthians, with battles, entire armies and regions lost. The Parthian king Phraates II learnt appropriate lessons from the defeat and reorganized what was left of his army for the type of warfare: instead of leading massive positional battles, the victory is to be won through maneuver warfare, exhaustion of the enemy and the elimination of the smaller and isolated parts of the hostile force. There is significant support for the claim that the changes brought on by this experience had a character of a true military revolution - a revolution that shaped the classical Parthian way of warfare. This was one of the most important factors for the later (and mostly successful) Parthian resistance to the Romans, and particularly in their greatest military triumph: the victory over the Army of Marcus Crassus at Carrhae in 53 BC.

A serpentine path created by the river Tang-āb through the Zagros Mountains has always been the only access from north to the city of Ardašīr-Xwarrah, located at five kilometers west from the modern Fīrūzābād, in Iran. This inaccessibility prompted the king of Fārs Ardašīr to found his stronghold against the Arsacid power here. This path endured the fall of the Sasanian Empire throughout Islamic times as a crossroads of the routes connecting the port of Sīrāf to other cities. The impervious path allowed both the coup d'État that marked the rise of the Sasanian dynasty and the development of trades through Fīrūzābād. The reliefs of Ardašīr's victory over the Arsacid King and his investiture by the god Ohrmazd are carved in the gorge, ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Furthermore the rose-water produced in Fīrūzābād travelled on the steep path farsakh by farsakh (literally, parasang by parasang) so it could spread through the entire dār al-Islam. The movement of goods and populations on this road has survived with the Qashqaii nomads, who travel along this path even today, during their seasonal migration.

The priority for the Sasanid rulers was to eliminate from the throne of Armenia, the Parthian Arsacid dynasty, linked by blood ties to the formerly abolished Iranian ruling dynasty. In 298, the Battle of Satala took place in Armenia, in which the Roman army commanded by Caesar Galerius won a crushing victory over the Sassanian troops headed by King Narseh. The Romans captured huge amounts of booty and captured the Persian royal family. The campaign ended with a peace treaty very favourable to Rome, in which Narseh renounced Trans-Tigritania, pledged non-intervention in Armenia, and recognised the Roman protectorate in Iberia. The revision of the so-called Treaty of Nisibis was the foundation of the Persian-Roman wars in the 4th century carried out by Shapur II. In this study, it is aimed to give information about the effect of the Battle of Satala on the beginning of the Persian-Roman wars in the 4th century and its results.

Abstract This article analyzes how Zoroastrian holy sites as celebrated in the Avesta or elaborated in later, related traditions, emerged as important architectural and ritual centers in late antiquity. Instead of ancient foundations whose details were lost in the depths of time, this paper argues that some of the holiest sanctuaries of the Zoroastrian religion, including Ādur Gušnasp, Ādur Farnbāg, Ādur Burzēn-Mihr, Ādur Karkōy and Lake Kayānsīh, emerged no earlier than the Arsacid era, and were actively manipulated and augmented by the Sasanian dynasty. These ‘Avestan’ sites of memory emerged at locales with no previous Achaemenid monumental construction, but did benefit from beautiful and dramatic natural features. In late antiquity these natural features, usually mountains or lakes, took on the names and significance of the sacred geography of as found in the Avesta. The Sasanian dynasty in particular built grand monumental complexes as its sovereigns sought to take control of these ancient Iranian traditions.

Throughout the Talmudic era, the Jewish community of Babylonia lived under Persian rule while Zoroastrianism, serving as a state religion, was enjoying something of a renaissance. In Babylonia, known in the later geographical literature as the Persian heartland, Jews lived alongside Persians. Babylonian Jews had also already experienced Persian rule for centuries prior to the Talmudic era under the Achaemenids, and later under the persianized Arsacid dynasty. This alone should have sufficed to lure a number of scholars into exploring various cross-cultural contacts between the two neighboring religious communities during this period. Until recently, however, scholarship has not been greatly drawn to this field, despite an exhaustive focus, of venerable antiquity, on the relationship between Israel and Persia in the biblical and Second Temple periods, including the Qumran library.

The article is devoted to the issues of clarifying the Chronology of official Christianization of Caucasian Albania, which took place in the beginning of 4th century AD. The study of the information from the “Life of Gregory” (a variant of Agathangelos’ “History”), “Letter of Giut to Saint Vachē”, “Tale of Vachagan”, “History of Albania” by Movses Daskhurançi and other Armenian sources suggest that Christianity in the Albanian kingdom was officially adopted in 313 or 315 years. The king of the country then was the founder of the Arsacid dynasty of Albania Vachagan I the Brave (but not his grandson Urnayr), and the king of Armenia was Tiridat III the Great, also Arsacid. As M.-L. Chaumont established in 1969, the latter, with the help of Gregory the Illuminator, adopted the Christian faith at the state level in June 311, two months after the publication of the Edict of Sardica “On Tolerance” by Emperor Galerius (293–311). In 313, after the appearance of the Edict of Milan, Tiridat attracted the younger allies of Armenia Iberia-Kartli, Albania-Aluank' and Lazika-Egerk' (Colchis) to the process of Christianization. In the first half of 315, Gregory the Illuminator baptized the Albanian king (who had arrived in Armenia) and ordained the first bishop Tovmas (the founder of the Albanian church, with the center in the capital Kapalak) for his country: he was from the city of Satala in Lesser Armenia. Probably, at the same stage, Christianization covered the whole of antique Albania, i.e. territory north of the Kura River, to the Caspian Sea and the Derbend Pass.

In the southern regions of Iran (Persia), Zoroastrianism was represented by numerous temples and pantheons of gods, while in the Northern provinces, fire worship retained its early form, recognizing one deity - Ahramazda. With the coming to power of the Sassanids, the number of temples began to increase. The fact that peregrine And his son were priests of the Anahita temple also set priorities during their rule. When the Sassanids came to power, Ardeshir imposed a special tax (one-tenth) on the temples of fire-worshippers. However, environmental analysis shows that during the reign of various rulers, Mazdeism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and even Christianity gained moderate ascendancy in the Sassanid state, albeit temporarily. For the first 300 years after Christ, there was a serious struggle in Eastern Anatolia to become a strong and lasting religion. The first Christian Church in Parthia played a leading role in this struggle. The lack of information about the history of Parthia, and sometimes very little, enriches this period with legends. The Parthian aristocracy maintained its influence in the Northern regions of Persia. The reign of the Arshakids (of aranshah) continued in Albania until the 6th century. The Parthians understood and practiced fire worship differently than in Persia. The Parthian nobles saw and knew the important role of the temple of Anahita in the victory of the sons of Sassanids. Along with various traditional religions, many new religions spread in the Persian province and in Persian geography, new concepts were synthesized between religions, there was fierce competition between religions, and religious clans sought access to large palaces. The early Christians who settled in the Northern provinces of Parthia in the middle of the third century gained a large following. In 252-326, Gregory (his Church name) was the son of Apak (Anak) of the Arshakid dynasty , and he was baptized in Cappadocia and received a Christian upbringing. When another of the Arsacid dynasty, Prince Tridad, together with Gregory, founded the first Christian Church, of course, the Central government did not like it, and the persecution increased. However, by the will of the sons of A, they were able to hold and preserve the Church. The younger son of Gregory, Arastun (Armenians call him Aristakes), led the Church in 325-333, and then his older brother, the first son of Gregory erfan (Arfan) (Armenians call him Vrtanes), took over the leadership of the Church in 333-341 on the advice of his father was brought to the leadership. Arastun took part in the creation of the churches of Albania and Iveria, became their first Bishop, and participated in the first world Council of Christians (Nicaea-Syria). Early Christians quickly forgot the important decisions made at the first meeting of the apostles of Jesus, and Christians all over the world are involved in intrigues between the two churches - the Church of Nicaea (Syria) and the Church of Alexandria. After the formation of the Church of Constantinople, competition increased, and although the Christian Church in Eastern Anatolia and Cappadocia was subordinate to Constantinople, the Syriac Church sent representatives to Cappadocia and Eastern Anatolia in search of supporters. The church, founded by Gregory, son of Apak, acts as a true Christian church under the leadership of 10 generations after him and proclaims that Christianity is a divine religion. Only in 437, with the appointment of Hovhannes, a disciple of the Syrian missionary and provocateur Mesrop Mashtos (educated in Syria), the leadership of the church changed the character of the first Christian Church of the Parthians, covering a large area from Eastern Anatolia to Albania. The first Christian Church of the Parthians changed its essence, defining the status of a national church, and not a propagandist of common Christian values.

The last ruler of the Severan dynasty, Emperor Severus Alexander had to face an entirely new threat in Mesopotamia, because in 224 AD the Parthian royal house of the Arsacids, which had ruled in the East for nearly half a millennium, was dethroned by the Neo-Persian Sasanian dynasty and the new rulers of Persia were extremely hostile to the Roman Empire. The vast majority of the late antique Latin sources (Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Festus, Jerome, Orosius, Cassiodorus, Iordanes) call the first Sasanian monarch, Ardashir I (reigned 224–241 AD), who was at war with Rome between 231 and 233 AD, Xerxes, although the Greek equivalent of the Middle Persian name Ardashir is Artaxerxes, as used by the Greek sources. In the Latin textual tradition we can find the correct Greek name of Ardashir only in the Historia Augusta. The paper seeks answers to the question of why Ardashir was usually called Xerxes by late antique Latin sources.

Depuis l'époque achéménide, la Médie occupe une place singulière entre la Mésopotamie et les pays du Plateau iranien. Elle commande l’accès de l’une et de l’autre et est traversée par la Grande Route Royale qui permet de relier Bactres. Les souverains achéménides ont d’ailleurs fait d’Ecbatane leur résidence estivale, ce qui leur a permis de contrôler un territoire réputé hostile, celui des montagnes du Zagros, habitées ici par les Cosséens. Ce sont en réalité les auteurs grecs postérieurs à Alexandre qui nous livrent un témoignage négatif de ces peuples montagnards : aussi, l’étude conjointe de la documentation disponible – littéraire, numismatique et épigraphique – suggère une analyse diachronique nouvelle de l’organisation territoriale en Médie de la conquête macédonienne à l’avènement de la dynastie sassanide. Les Séleucides firent à leur tour d'Ectabane un relais important du pouvoir royal, l’autorité du satrape de Médie s’étendant également aux Hautes Satrapies. Mais, jusqu’au règne d’Antiochos III, le contrôle de la Médie séleucide paraît tout de même avoir été inachevé. D’ailleurs, si Ecbatane conservait son statut de capitale politique des Hautes Satrapies, Séleucie du Tigre en était, semble-t-il, devenue la capitale économique et financière. La politique des souverains parthes, pour partie héritage de celle des Séleucides, a marqué une étape supplémentaire dans l’appropriation de l’espace, avec une intégration territoriale à l’échelle interrégionale, englobant la Médie et la Babylonie : les monogrammes séleucides communs et contemporains des ateliers de Séleucie et d’Ecbatane puis la division du travail opérée à l’époque parthe entre les deux ateliers en sont la preuve
Since the achaemenid period, Media lies a singular place between Mesopotamia and countries of the Iranian Plateau. It orders the access of both and is crossed by the Royal Main road which allows to connect Bactra. The Achaemenid kings make moreover of Ecbatana their summer residence, allowing them to control a hostile renowned territory, that of the mountains of Zagros, lived here by Cosseans. In fact, these are the Greek authors posterior to Alexander that deliver us a negative testimony of these mountain peoples : so, a re-examination of the literary documentation, numismatics and epigraphy allows to encircle the consequences of the Macedonian conquest in Media and to see the evolution of the territorial organization from the Seleucids to the Parthians. Seleucid kings make Ecbatana an important relay of the royal power, the authority of the satrap of Media also extending farther East, but, until the reign of Antiochus III, the territory of seleucid Media appears all the same to have missed coherence. Moreover, since Antiochos I, if Ecbatana certainly keeps its status of political capital of the High Satrapies, it is Seleucia on the Tigris who henceforth seems to have become the economic and financial capital. The policy of the Parthian kings, partly inheritance of that of Seleucid, marks a supplementary stage in the appropriation of the space, with a territorial integration in the interregional scale, containing Media and Babylonia : seleucid commons and contemporaries monograms of the mints of Seleucia and Ecbatana, then the division of labor operated in the parthian period between both mints are the proof

Entre 193 et 235, les empereurs romains de la dynastie sévérienne menèrent au Proche-Orient une série de guerres qui recouvrent l’ensemble de la typologie des conflits antiques : guerres civiles, conquêtes territoriales, défense des provinces frontalières, expéditions de pillage et répressions de révoltes locales. Cette thèse cherche à analyser les articulations politiques de ces conflits sur les plans chronologique et géopolitique. Elle s’appuie sur une étude systématique des campagnes militaires menées par les Romains au Proche-Orient et sur une prosopographie des acteurs politiques de la région. La politique menée par les Sévères en Syrie et Mésopotamie s’inscrivit dans le cadre de l’impérialisme romain et porta l’empire romain à son extension territoriale maximale. Se faisant, elle rompit les équilibres géopolitiques qui prévalaient jusque là et assuraient la paix entre les Romains et les Parthes. Si la dynastie arsacide finissante ne put s’opposer à cette extension du pouvoir romain en Mésopotamie, la révolution sassanide des années 224-226 réactiva la mémoire de la perse achéménide et remit en cause le rapport de force établi par Septime Sévère au Proche-Orient. La période sévérienne n’est cependant pas une rupture avec le Haut-Empire ni une charnière avec la « crise » du IIIe siècle car le dispositif militaire mis en place au début de la période ne différait en rien du modèle augustéen et résista néanmoins à la première attaque perse en territoire romain
From 193 to 235, Severan emperors lead several wars in the Near East. These wars included all the type of conflicts known to the Ancient world : civil wars, local rebellions, defensive wars against the barbarians, raids into ennemy territory and territorial conquest. This dissertation discuss the political aspects of these conflicts from a chronological and geopolitical standpoint. It is composed of an analytical narration of the Severan wars in the East and a prosopography of the political actors of the area. The action of the Severan dynasty in Syria and Mesopotamia was rooted in Roman imperialism and expanded the Empire’s territory to its maximum. In doing so, the Severans destroyed the geopolitical equilibrium that had, so far, insured a relative degree of peace between Rome and the Parthian Empire. The Arsacid dynasty failed to stop the growth of Roman influence in Mesopotamia, the rise of the Sassanid in 224-226 rekindled the Achemenid ambitions and threatened the power structures established by Septimius Severus in the Near East. But the Severan age is not the breaking point of the High Empire, nor is it merely a transition between the Antonine age and the 3rd century crisis. The military system the Severan put in place in the East was heavily influenced by the Augustean military system and yet managed to repell the first Persian attack against Rome

This chapter examines the development of the Arsacid (ca. 238 BCE–ca. 224 CE) and Sasanian (224–642 CE) empires of Iran. It investigates the establishment of a new Iranian empire under the Arsacid dynasty and the transformation of that loosely structured empire into a more centralized and bureaucratically intensive system through the Sasanian period. The chapter tracks the changes the Arsacids instituted as the dynasty asserted control over a multifarious collection of Seleucid city-states dominated by culturally Greek aristocracies and a range of kingdoms, e.g. Hatra or Armenia, with diverse cultural and political traditions. It then investigates the changes that occurred over the course of the Sasanian period as the dynasty asserted greater and greater control over their empire’s economy, infrastructure, and military, urban, and agricultural resources, as well as religious traditions, especially as they progressively created a new “orthodox” formulation of Zoroastrianism overshadowing alternative traditions of Iranian religion.

Chapter 4 argues that the Arsacids, through their tenure as the Iranian world’s longest-lived dynasty, created foundational architectural and cultural forms that shaped Iranian kingship through the early modern period. While they portrayed themselves in their coins in Persian satrapal costume, the early Arsacids were equally driven to engage and reinvent the traditions of Seleucid kingship. After initially taking over the topography that the Seleucids had established, the Arsacids began to claim Western Asia landscapes, rebuilding and reinvigorating ruined urban and sacred centers, such as Assur and Nippur and establishing new cities and parallel foundations, like Ctesiphon and Vologasias. With Nippur’s ziggurat standing as an important case study, the Parthians neither obliterated nor faithfully restored these ancient cityscapes, but harnessed and strategically reshaped them to serve their new imperial vision.

This chapter considers the reasons for the success of the Parthians in their rise from a minor nomadic group to a dominant imperial force. It analyzes the most important cultural factors of the early Parthian state, namely the versatility of Parthian society, the innovations of the Parthian military, and the early Arsacids’ ability to manage and exploit these qualities to the benefit of the state through their capable leadership and dynastic stability. These important qualities of the Parthian state established the exceptional advantages the Parthians needed to create, maintain, and expand their power and influence within the hotly contested and dangerously competitive international environment of the Hellenistic Middle East.

This chapter introduces the establishment of the Parthian state on the Iranian plateau in the middle third century. The unexpected decline of the power of the Seleucid Empire in the 240s because of dynastic turmoil caused a crisis in the Hellenistic Middle East. This crisis encouraged eastern satraps to rebel and the nomadic Parni tribe (known afterward as the Parthians) to invade northeastern Iran. The successful invasion of the Parni to seize Parthia and establish a new kingdom, paired with the sudden rise of their regional power and the failure of the Seleucids to eliminate this new threat, helped create a new interstate system in which the Seleucids, Parthians, and the newly independent Bactrians shared power. The sweeping success of the first Parthian king, Arsaces I, established Parthia as a limited regional power; however, its existence for several decades remained precarious.