In 113, Trajan decided that the moment was ripe for a final resolution of the "eastern question" by the decisive defeat of Parthia and the annexation of Armenia. His conquests marked a deliberate change of Roman policy towards Parthia and a shift of emphasis in the empire's "grand strategy".[5] In 114, Trajan invaded Armenia; annexed it as a Roman province and killed Parthamasiris, who had been placed on the Armenian throne by his relative, Parthian king Osroes I.[6]
In 115, the Roman emperor overran northern Mesopotamia and annexed it to Rome as well. Its conquest was deemed necessary since otherwise, the Armenian salient could be cut off by the Parthians from the south.[6] The Romans then captured the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, before they sailed downriver to the Persian Gulf.
However, revolts erupted that year in the Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa and northern Mesopotamia, while a major Jewish revolt broke out in Roman territory, which severely stretched Roman military resources. Trajan failed to take Hatra, which avoided a total Parthian defeat. Parthian forces attacked key Roman positions, and Roman garrisons at Seleucia, Nisibis and Edessa were evicted by the local populaces. Trajan subdued the rebels in Mesopotamia; installed a Parthian prince, Parthamaspates, as a client ruler and withdrew to Syria. Trajan died in 117 before he could renew the war.[7]
Trajan's Parthian campaign is considered in different ways the climax of "two centuries of political posturing and bitter rivalry".[8] He was the first emperor to carry out a successful invasion of Mesopotamia. His grand schemes for Armenia and Mesopotamia were ultimately "cut short by circumstances created by an incorrect understanding of the strategic realities of eastern conquest and an underestimation of what insurgency can do".[8]
Background
In 113, Trajan embarked on his last campaign, provoked by the Parthian Empire's decision to put an unacceptable king on the throne of Armenia,[9] a kingdom over which both empires had shared hegemony since the time of Nero, some 50 years earlier.[10]
Many modern historians consider that Trajan's decision to wage war against Parthia might have had economic motives. After Trajan's annexation of Arabia, he built a new road, Via Traiana Nova, that went from Bostra to Aila on the Red Sea.[11]Charax on the Persian Gulf was thus the sole remaining western terminus of the Indian trade route outside direct Roman control,[12] which was important to lower import prices and to limit the supposed drain of precious metals created by the deficit in Roman trade with the Far East.[13]
That Charax traded with the Roman Empire is certain since actual connections with merchants from Palmyra during the period are well documented in a contemporary Palmyrene epigraph that tells of various Palmyrene citizens honoured for holding office in Charax.[14] Also, Charax's rulers' domains possibly then included the Bahrain islands (where a Palmyrene citizen held office, shortly after Trajan's death, as satrap,[15] but the appointment was made by a Parthian king of Charax[16]), which offered the possibility of extending Roman hegemony into the Persian Gulf itself.[17] The rationale behind Trajan's campaign would then be to break down a system of Far Eastern trade through small Semitic ("Arab") cities under Parthia's control and to put it under Roman control instead.[18]
In his Dacian conquests, Trajan had already resorted to Syrian auxiliary units, whose veterans, along with Syrian traders, had an important role in the subsequent colonization of Dacia.[19] He had recruited Palmyrene units into his army, including a camel unit,[20] which apparently procured Palmyrene support to his ultimate goal of annexing Charax. It has even been ventured that in his campaign, when Trajan had annexed Armenia, he was bound to annex the whole of Mesopotamia to prevent the Parthians from interrupting the flux of trade from the Persian Gulf and/or fomenting trouble at the Roman frontier on the Danube.[21]
Other historians reject those motives, as the supposed Parthian "control" over the maritime Far Eastern trade route was at best conjectural and based on a selective reading of Chinese sources: trade by land through Parthia seems to have been unhampered by Parthian authorities and left solely to the devices of private enterprise.[22] Commercial activity in second century Mesopotamia seems to have been a general phenomenon, shared by many peoples within and without the Roman Empire, with no sign of a concerted imperial policy towards it.[23] As in the case of the alimenta, scholars like Moses Finley and Paul Veyne have considered the whole idea of a foreign trade "policy" behind Trajan's war anachronistic. According to them, the sole Roman concern with the Far Eastern luxuries trade, besides collecting toll taxes and customs,[24] was moral and involved frowning upon the "softness" of luxuries but no economic policy.[25][26] In the absence of conclusive evidence, trade between Rome and India might have been far more balanced in terms of quantities of precious metals exchanged. One source for the notion of the Roman gold drain, Pliny the Younger's uncle Pliny the Elder, had earlier described the Gangetic Plains as one of the gold sources for the Roman Empire.[27] In his controversial book on the ancient economy, Finley considers Trajan's "badly miscalculated and expensive assault on Parthia" to be an example of the many Roman "commercial wars" that existed only in the books of modern historians.[23]
The alternative view is to see the campaign as triggered by the lure of territorial annexation and prestige,[23] which was the sole motive ascribed by Cassius Dio.[28]
As far as territorial conquest involved collecting taxes,[29] especially of the 25% tax levied on all goods entering the Roman Empire, the tetarte, Trajan's Parthian War could have an "economic" motive.[30] Also, there was the propaganda value of eastern conquests that would emulate, in Roman fashion, those of Alexander the Great.[31] The fact that emissaries from the Kushan Empire might have attended to the commemorative ceremonies for the Dacian War may have kindled in some Greco-Roman intellectuals like Plutarch, who wrote that only about 70,000 Roman soldiers were necessary to a conquest of India, and in Trajan's closer associates, speculative dreams about the booty to be obtained by reproducing Macedonian Eastern conquests.[32]
Also, it is possible that the attachment of Trajan to an expansionist policy was supported by a powerful circle of conservative senators from Hispania committed to a policy of imperial expansion, especially the all-powerful Sura.[33] One can explain the campaign by the fact that for the Romans, their empire was, in principle, unlimited and that Trajan only took advantage of an opportunity to make idea and reality coincide.[34]
Finally, there are other modern historians who think that Trajan's original aims were purely military and quite modest: to assure a more defensible eastern frontier for the empire crossing Northern Mesopotamia along the course of the Khabur River to offer cover to a Roman Armenia.[35] That interpretation is backed by the fact that all later Roman wars against Parthia aimed at establishing a Roman presence deep into Parthia itself.[36]
Timeline
Plans
The campaign was carefully planned in advance: ten legions were concentrated in the Eastern theatre. Since 111, the correspondence of Pliny the Younger witnesses to the fact that provincial authorities in Bithynia had to organise supplies for passing troops, and local city councils and their individual members had to shoulder part of the increased expenses by supplying troops themselves.[37] The intended campaign, therefore, was immensely costly from its very beginning.[38]
Armenia
Trajan marched first on Armenia, deposed the Parthian-appointed king (who was afterwards murdered while he was kept in the custody of Roman troops in an unclear incident that was later described by Fronto as a breach of Roman good faith[39]) and annexed it to the Roman Empire as a province. He received in passing the acknowledgement of Roman hegemony by various tribes in the Caucasus and on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea, a process that kept him busy until the end of 114.[40] At the same time, a Roman column under the legate Lusius Quietus, an outstanding cavalry general[41] who had distinguished himself during the Dacian Wars by commanding a unit from his native Mauretania,[42] crossed the Araxes river from Armenia into Media Atropatene and the land of the Mardians (present-day Ghilan).[43]
It is possible that Quietus's campaign had as a goal to extend the newer more defensible Roman border eastwards towards the Caspian Sea and northwards to the foothills of the Caucasus.[44]
Mesopotamia
The chronology of subsequent events is uncertain, but it is generally believed that in early 115, Trajan launched a Mesopotamian campaign and marched down towards the Taurus mountains to consolidate territory between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. He placed permanent garrisons along the way to secure the territory.[45] While Trajan moved from west to east, Lusius Quietus moved with his army from the Caspian Sea towards the west, both armies performing a successful pincer movement[46] whose apparent result was to establish a Roman presence into the Parthian Empire proper, with Trajan taking the northern Mesopotamian cities of Nisibis and Batnae and organizing a province of Mesopotamia, including the Kingdom of Osrhoene, where King Abgar VII submitted to Trajan publicly,[47] as a Roman protectorate.[48] The process seems to have been completed by 116, when coins were issued announcing that Armenia and Mesopotamia had been put under the authority of the Roman people.[49] The area between the Khabur River and the mountains around Singara seems to have been considered as the new frontier and so received a road surrounded by fortresses.[50]
Sestertius issued by the Senate (SC, Senatus Consultus) during 116 to commemorate Trajan's Parthian victories. Obverse: bust of Trajan, with laurel crown. Caption: Trajan's titulature. Reverse: Trajan standing between prostrate allegories of Armenia (crowned with a tiara) and the Rivers Tigris & Euphrates. Caption: "Armenia & Mesopotamia put under the authority of the Roman People".Bronze bust of Trajan in his later years, Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey
After wintering in Antioch during 115/116 and, according to literary sources, barely escaping from a violent earthquake that claimed the life of one of the consuls, Marcus Pedo Vergilianus,[51][52] Trajan again took to the field in 116, with a view to the conquest of the whole of Mesopotamia, an overambitious goal that eventually backfired on the results of his entire campaign. According to some modern historians, the aim of the campaign of 116 was to achieve a "pre+emptive demonstration" aiming not toward the conquest of Parthia but for tighter Roman control over the Eastern trade route. However, the overall scarcity of manpower for the Roman military establishment meant that the campaign was doomed from the start.[53] It is noteworthy that no new legions were raised by Trajan before the Parthian campaign perhaps since the sources of new citizen recruits had already been overexploited.[54]
As far as sources allow a description of the campaign, one Roman division seems to have crossed the Tigris into Adiabene, swept south and captured Adenystrae; a second followed the river south and captured Babylon; Trajan himself sailed down the Euphrates from Dura-Europos, where a triumphal arch was erected in his honour, through Ozogardana, where he erected a "tribunal" that was still seen during Julian the Apostate's campaigns in the same area. Having come to the narrow strip of land between the Euphrates and the Tigris, Trajan then dragged his fleet overland into the Tigris and captured Seleucia and finally the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon.[55][56]
He continued southward to the Persian Gulf, and after his fleet escaped a tidal bore on the Tigris,[57] he received the submission of Athambelus, the ruler of Charax. He declared Babylon a new province of the Empire and had his statue erected on the shore of the Persian Gulf,[58] when he sent the Senate a laurelled letter that declared the war to be at a close and bemoaned that he was too old to go on any further and repeat the conquests of Alexander the Great.[48]
Since Charax was a de facto independent kingdom whose connections to Palmyra were described above, Trajan's bid for the Persian Gulf may have coincided with Palmyrene interests in the region.[59] Another hypothesis is that the rulers of Charax had expansionist designs on Parthian Babylon, which gave them a rationale for alliance with Trajan.[60] The Parthian city of Susa was apparently also occupied by the Romans.[61]
According to late literary sources not backed by numismatic or inscriptional evidence, a province of Assyria was also proclaimed,[62] apparently covering the territory of Adiabene.[63] Some measures seem to have been considered regarding the fiscal administration of Indian trade or simply about the payment of customs (portoria) on goods traded on the Euphrates and Tigris.[64][59] It is possible that it was the "streamlining" of the administration of the newly-conquered lands according to the standard pattern of Roman provincial administration in tax collecting, requisitions and handling of local potentates' prerogatives that triggered later resistance against Trajan.[65]
According to some modern historians, Trajan might have busied himself during his stay on the Persian Gulf by ordering raids on the Parthian coasts,[66] probing into extending Roman suzerainty over the mountaineer tribes holding the passes across the Zagros Mountains into the Iranian Plateau eastward and establishing some sort of direct contact between Rome and the Kushan Empire.[67] No attempt was made to expand into the Iranian Plateau itself, where the Roman army, with its relative weakness in cavalry, would have been at a disadvantage.[68]
However, as Trajan left the Persian Gulf for Babylon, where he intended to offer sacrifice to Alexander in the house in which he had died in 323 BC,[69] a sudden outburst of Parthian resistance, led by a nephew of the Parthian king, Sanatruces, who had retained a cavalry force, possibly strengthened by the addition of Saka archers,[70] imperilled Roman positions in Mesopotamia and Armenia, which Trajan sought to deal with by forsaking direct Roman rule in Parthia proper at least partially.[71]
Trajan sent two armies towards Northern Mesopotamia. One, under Lusius Quietus, recovered Nisibis and Edessa from the rebels and probably had King Abgar deposed and killed in the process,[71] Another, under Appius Maximus Santra, probably a governor of Macedonia, was defeated, with Santra being killed.[72] Later in 116, Trajan, with the assistance of Quietus and two other legates, Marcus Erucius Clarus and Tiberius Julius Alexander Julianus,[73][72] defeated a Parthian army in a battle in which Sanatruces was killed. After retaking and burning Seleucia, Trajan formally deposed Parthian King Osroes I and put his own puppet ruler, Parthamaspates, on the throne. That event was commemorated in a coin that was presented as the reduction of Parthia to client kingdom status: REX PARTHIS DATUS, "a king is given to the Parthians".[74]
Trajan retreated north to retain what he could of the new provinces of Armenia, where he had already accepted an armistice in exchange for surrendering part of the territory to Sanatruces's son Vologeses[75] and Mesopotamia.[71]
It was then that Trajan's health started to fail him. The fortress city of Hatra, on the Tigris in his rear, continued to hold out against repeated Roman assaults. He was personally present at the siege, and it is possible that he suffered a heat stroke while in the blazing heat.[71]
Jewish uprising
Shortly afterwards, the Jews in the Eastern Roman Empire, in Egypt, Cyprus and Cyrene, the last province being probably the original trouble hotspot, rose in what probably was an outburst of religious rebellion against the local pagans. The widespread rebellion was later called the Kitos War.[76] Another rebellion flared up among the Jewish communities of Northern Mesopotamia, probably as part of a general reaction against Roman occupation.[77]
Trajan was forced to withdraw his army to put down the revolts and saw the withdrawal as simply a temporary setback, but he was destined never to command an army in the field again. He turned his eastern armies over to Lusius Quietus, who had been made governor of Judaea and might have had to deal earlier with some kind of Jewish unrest in the province.[78] Quietus discharged his commission so successfully that the war was afterward named after him, Kitus being a corruption of Quietus.[79]
Quietus was promised a consulate[80] in the following year (118) for his victories, but he was killed before that could occur during the bloody purge that opened Hadrian's reign, in which Quietus and three other former consuls were sentenced to death after they had been tried on a vague charge of conspiracy by the secret court of Praetorian Prefect Attianus.[81]
It has been theorised that Quietus and his colleagues were executed on Hadrian's direct orders out of fear of their popular standing with the army and their close connections to Trajan.[75][82]
In contrast, the next prominent Roman figure in charge of the repression of the Jewish revolt, the equestrian Marcius Turbo, who had dealt with the rebel leader from Cyrene, Lukuas,[83] retained Hadrian's trust and eventually became his Praetorian Prefect. Apparently, Hadrian could not allow the continued existence alongside him of a group of independently-minded senatorial generals inherited from his predecessor.[84] As all four consulars were senators of the highest standing and so were generally regarded as able to take imperial power (capaces imperii), Hadrian seems to have decided on a pre-emptive strike against those prospective rivals.[85]
Sources
As the surviving literary accounts of Trajan's Parthian War are fragmentary and scattered,[86] it is difficult to assign them a proper context, which has led to a long-running controversy about the war's precise events and ultimate aims.
Related Research Articles
Trajan was a Roman emperor from AD 98 to 117, the second of the Five Good Emperors of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty. He was a philanthropic ruler and a successful soldier-emperor who led the Roman Empire to its greatest territorial extent by the time of his death. He was given the title of Optimus by the Roman Senate.
The 110s was a decade that ran from January 1, AD 110, to December 31, AD 119.
Parthamaspates was a Parthian prince who ruled as a Roman client king in Mesopotamia, and later of Osroene during the early second century AD. He was the son of the Parthian emperor Osroes I.
Vologases III was king of the Parthian Empire from 110 to 147. He was the son and successor of Pacorus II.
Osroes I was a Parthian contender, who ruled the western portion of the Parthian Empire from 109 to 129, with a one-year interruption. For most of his reign he contended with the rival king Vologases III who was based in the eastern provinces. In 116, Osroes I was briefly ousted from his throne at Ctesiphon during an invasion by Roman emperor Trajan, who installed Osroes' son, Parthamaspates. After Trajan's death the following year, Osroes I's rule was reinstated by the Parthian nobility. In 129, he was removed from power by Vologases III.
Vologases IV was King of Kings of the Parthian Empire from 147 to 191. He was the son of Mithridates V. Vologases spent the early years of his reign re-asserting Parthian control over the Kingdom of Characene. From 161 to 166, he waged war against the Roman Empire; although initially successful, conquering Armenia and Syria, he was eventually pushed back, briefly losing control of the Parthian capitals of Seleucia and Ctesiphon to the Romans. The Romans suffered heavy losses from a plague erupting from Seleucia in 166, forcing them to withdraw. The war ended soon afterward, with Vologases losing most of northern Mesopotamia to the Romans. He died in 191 and was succeeded by his son Vologases V.
The Kitos War was one of the major Jewish–Roman wars (66–136). The rebellions erupted in 115 when most of the Roman armies were fighting Trajan's Parthian War on the eastern border of the Roman Empire. Major uprisings by Jews in Cyrenaica, Cyprus and Egypt spiralled out of control, resulting in a widespread slaughter of the remaining Roman garrisons and Roman citizens by Jewish rebels.
Relations between the Roman and Iranian states were established c. 92 BC. It was in 69 BC that the two states clashed for the first time; the political rivalry between the two empires would dominate much of Western Asia and Europe until 628. Initially commencing as a rivalry between the Parthians and Rome, from the 3rd to mid-7th centuries the Roman Empire and its rival Sassanid Persia were recognized as two of the leading powers in the world.
Lusius Quietus was a Roman Berber general and 11th legate of Judaea from 117. He was the principal commander against the Jewish rebellion known as the Kitos War. As both a general and a highly acclaimed commander, he was notably one of the most accomplished Berber statesmen in ancient Roman history. After the death of the emperor Trajan, Quietus was murdered or executed, possibly on the orders of Trajan's successor Hadrian.
The Roman–Persian Wars, also known as the Roman–Iranian Wars, were a series of conflicts between states of the Greco-Roman world and two successive Iranian empires: the Parthian and the Sasanian. Battles between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Republic began in 54 BC; wars began under the late Republic, and continued through the Roman and Sasanian Empires. A plethora of vassal kingdoms and allied nomadic nations in the form of buffer states and proxies also played a role. The wars were ended by the early Muslim conquests, which led to the fall of the Sasanian Empire and huge territorial losses for the Byzantine Empire, shortly after the end of the last war between them.
Assyria was a short-lived Roman province in Mesopotamia that was created by Trajan in 116 during his campaign against the Parthian Empire. After Trajan's death, the newly proclaimed emperor Hadrian ordered the evacuation of Assyria in 118.
The Arsacid dynasty, called the Arshakuni in Armenian, ruled the Kingdom of Armenia, with some interruptions, from 12 to 428. The dynasty was a branch of the Arsacid dynasty of Parthia. Arsacid kings reigned intermittently throughout the chaotic years following the fall of the Artaxiad dynasty until 62, when Tiridates I, brother of Parthian King Vologases I, secured Arsacid rule in Armenia as a client king of Rome. However, he did not succeed in establishing his line on the throne, and various princes of different Arsacid lineages ruled until the accession of Vologases II, who succeeded in establishing his own line on the Armenian throne, which ruled the kingdom until its abolishment by the Sasanian Empire in 428.
The Parthian Empire, also known as the Arsacid Empire, was a major Iranian political and cultural power centered in ancient Iran from 247 BC to 224 AD. Its latter name comes from its founder, Arsaces I, who led the Parni tribe in conquering the region of Parthia in Iran's northeast, then a satrapy (province) under Andragoras, who was rebelling against the Seleucid Empire. Mithridates I 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 central-eastern Turkey, to present-day Afghanistan and western Pakistan. The empire, located on the Silk Road trade route between the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean Basin and the Han dynasty of China, became a center of trade and commerce.
Charax Spasinu, also called Charax Spasinou, Charax Pasinu, Spasinu Charax, Alexandria or Antiochia in Susiana, was an ancient port at the head of the Persian Gulf in modern day Iraq, and the capital of the ancient kingdom of Characene.
Mesopotamia was the name of a Roman province, initially a short-lived creation of the Roman emperor Trajan in 116–117 and then re-established by Emperor Septimius Severus in c. 198. Control of the province was subsequently fought over between the Roman and the Sassanian empires until the Muslim conquests of the 7th century.
Roman Armenia refers to the rule of parts of Greater Armenia by the Roman Empire from the 1st century AD to the end of Late Antiquity. While Armenia Minor had become a client state until it was incorporated into the Roman Empire proper during the 1st century AD, Greater Armenia remained an independent kingdom under the Arsacid dynasty. Throughout this period, Armenia remained a bone of contention between Rome and the Parthian Empire, as well as the Sasanian Empire that succeeded the latter, and the casus belli for several of the Roman–Persian Wars. Only in 114 would Emperor Trajan conquer and incorporate it as a short-lived Roman province.
The Roman–Parthian Wars were a series of conflicts between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Republic and Roman Empire. It was the first series of conflicts in what would be 682 years of Roman–Persian Wars.
Romans in Persia is related to the brief invasion and occupation of western and central areas of Parthia by the Romans during their empire. Emperor Trajan was even temporarily able to nominate a king of western parts of Parthia, Parthamaspates, as ruler of a Roman "client state" in Parthia.
The Treaty of Rhandeia was a peace treaty concluded between the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire at the frontier town of Rhandeia in what is now Turkey in 63 CE. The treaty, which finalized the Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, stipulated that henceforth a Parthian prince of the Arsacid line would sit on the Armenian throne, but his nomination, or right of investiture, was given to the emperor of Rome. Even though this essentially made Armenia a de jure client kingdom of Rome in, various contemporary Roman sources thought that Nero had de facto ceded Armenia to the Parthian Empire through this treaty. This compromise between Parthia and Rome lasted for several decades, until 114 CE, when Rome under Trajan broke the peace by invading Armenia and subsequently Parthia itself, taking direct control of Arsacid Armenia and incorporating it into a short-lived Roman province which lasted for a mere four years before it was outwardly relinquished under Trajan's successor Hadrian in 118 CE.
Abgar VII was king of Osrhoene from 109-116 CE. His primary goal was to remain independent of both the major powers in the region, the Roman and the Parthian Empires. Toward this end, he supported the Roman Emperor Trajan's military campaign into Mesopotamia against the Parthian king Osroes I in 114-116 CE, ending an era of Edessan neutrality toward the Roman Empire. However, in 116 CE, Abgar also supported a Parthian revolt against Trajan. The Roman general Lusius Quietus responded promptly by capturing and sacking Edessa. Abgar VII died at this time.
References
↑ Grainger, John. D. (2016). Syria: An outline history. Pen & Swords Books. ISBN9781473860834. Trajan parthian war was a roman victory in a tactical sense
1 2 Clifford Ando, 2008, Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire: The Dacian Wars: "Holding on to the territory across these inhospitable swaths of desert was very hard for Trajan. Trajan found himself especially fighting in the North, Middle and South and the same time; He had overextended his resources".
↑ Bennett, J. Trajan: Optimus Princeps. 1997. Fig. 1
↑ Lightfoot (1990), 115: "Trajan succeeded in acquiring territory in these lands with a view to annexation, something which had not seriously been attempted before [...]. Although Hadrian abandoned all of Trajan's conquests [...] the trend was not to be reversed. Further wars of annexation followed under Lucius Verus and Septimius Severus". Sicker (2000), 167–168
↑ George Fadlo Hourani, Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Princeton University Press, 1995, ISBN0-691-00170-7, page 15
↑ Paul Erdkamp, The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study. Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN978-0-521-83878-8 , page 5
↑ Michael Alexander Speidel: "Bellicosissimus Princeps". In: Annette Nünnerich-Asmus ed., Traian. Ein Kaiser der Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit? Mainz 2002, pages 23/40.
↑ Nathanael John Andrade, "Imitation Greeks": Being Syrian in the Greco-Roman World (175 BCE – 275 CE). Doctoral Thesis, University of Michigan, 2009, page 192. Available at . Retrieved June 11, 2014
↑ Raoul McLaughlin, Rome and the Distant East: Trade Routes to the Ancient Lands of Arabia, India and China. London: Continuum, 2010, ISBN978-1-84725-235-7, page 130
↑ Hermann Bengtson, Römische Geschichte: Republik und Kaiserzeit bis 284 n. Chr. Munich: Beck, 2001, ISBN3-406-02505-6 , page 289
↑ Alfred S. Bradford, With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001, ISBN0-275-95259-2 , page 232
↑ Maurice Sartre,The Middle East Under Rome. Harvard University Press, 2005, ISBN0-674-01683-1, p.146. According to Cassius Dio, the deal between Trajan and Abgaros was sealed by the king's son offering himself as Trajan's paramour—Bennett, 199
↑ Patrick Le Roux, IN Ségolène Demougin, ed., H.-G. Pflaum, un historien du XXe siècle: actes du colloque international, Paris les 21, 22 et 23 octobre 2004. Geneva: Droz, 2006, ISBN2-600-01099-8 , pages 182/183
↑ T. Olajos, "Le monument du triomphe de Trajan en Parthie. Quelques renseignements inobservés (Jean d'Ephèse, Anthologie Grecque XVI 72)". Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 1981, vol. 29, no1-4, pp. 379–383. The statue was torn down by Sassanids in 571/572
↑ Christopher S. Mackay, Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History.Cambridge University Press, 2004, ISBN0-521-80918-5 , p.227
↑ Various authors have discussed the existence of the province and its location: André Maricq (La province d'Assyrie créée par Trajan. A propos de la guerre parthique de Trajan. In: Maricq: Classica et orientalia, Paris 1965, pages 103/111) identifies Assyria with Southern Mesopotamia; Chris S. Lightfood ("Trajan's Parthian War and the Fourth-Century Perspective", Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990), pp.115–126), doubts the actual existence of the province; Maria G. Angeli Bertinelli ("I Romani oltre l'Eufrate nel II secolo d. C. - le provincie di Assiria, di Mesopotamia e di Osroene", In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Bd. 9.1, Berlin 1976, pp.3-45) puts Assyria between Mesopotamia and Adiabene; Lepper (1948, page 146) considers Assyria and Adiabene to be the same province.
↑ Janos Harmatta and others, eds., History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations, 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1999, ISBN81-208-1408-8, p.135
↑ Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, Security and Territoriality in the Persian Gulf: A Maritime Political Geography,London: Routledge, 2013, ISBN0-7007-1098-1, page 120
↑ Axel Kristinsson, Expansions: Competition and Conquest in Europe Since the Bronze Age. Reykjavík: ReykjavíkurAkademían, 2010, ISBN978-9979-9922-1-9 , p.129
↑ A precise description of events in Judaea is impossible, because of the non-historical character of the Jewish (rabbinic) sources and the silence of the non-Jewish ones: William David Davies,Louis Finkelstein,Steven T. Katz, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman–Rabbinic Period.Cambridge U. Press, 2006, ISBN978-0-521-77248-8 , p.100
↑ Gabriele Marasco, ed., Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiquity: A Brill Companion. Leiden: Brill, 2011, ISBN978-90-04-18299-8 , p.377
↑ R. P. Longden, "Notes on the Parthian Campaigns of Trajan". The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 21 (1931), pp. 1–35. Available at . Retrieved November 15, 2014
Bradford, Alfred S. (2001). With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Praeger Publishers.
Choisnel, Emmanuel (2004). Les Parthes et la Route de la Soie (in French). Paris: L'Harmattan. ISBN978-2-7475-7037-4.
Des Boscs-Plateaux, Françoise (2005). Un parti hispanique à Rome?: ascension des élites hispaniques et pouvoir politique d'Auguste à Hadrien, 27 av. J.-C.-138 ap. J.-C (in French). Madrid: Casa de Velázquez. ISBN978-84-95555-80-9.
Edwell, Peter (2007). Between Rome and Persia: The Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra Under Roman Control. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN978-0-203-93833-1.
Finley, M.I. (1999). The Ancient Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN978-0-520-21946-5.
Găzdac, Cristian (2010). Monetary Circulation in Dacia and the Provinces from the Middle and Lower Danube from Trajan to Constantine I (AD 106–337). Cluj-Napoca: Mega. ISBN978-606-543-040-2.
Luttwak, Edward N. (1979). The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN978-0-8018-2158-5.
Mommsen, Theodor (1999). A History of Rome Under the Emperors. London: Routledge. ISBN978-0-203-97908-2.
Petit, Paul (1976). Pax Romana. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN978-0-520-02171-6.
Sidebotham, Steven E. (1986). Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa: 30 B.C. – A.D. 217. Leiden: Brill. ISBN978-90-04-07644-0.
Veyne, Paul (2001). La Société Romaine (in French). Paris: Seuil. ISBN978-2-02-052360-8.
Veyne, Paul (2005). L'Empire Gréco-Romain (in French). Paris: Seuil. ISBN978-2-02-057798-4.
Young, Gary K. (2001). Rome's Eastern Trade: International Commerce and Imperial Policy 31 BC – AD 305. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN978-0-203-47093-0.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
