Media were still subject to him.

in Persis (163 B.C.; cf. Polyb. xxxi. 11; Maccab. i. 6, ii. 9; Jos. Ant. Jud. xii. 9, 1), the Romans took advantage of the dynastic broils to destroy the Seleucid Empire. They reduced its army and fleet, and favoured every rebellion: among others, that of the Jews. In spite of all, Demetrius I. Soter (161-150) succeeded in suppressing (159) a revolt of Timarchus of Miletus, governor of Babylon, who had occupied Media, assumed the title of great king," and had been recognized by the Romans (Appian, Syr. 45-47; Trogus, Prol. 34; Diod. xxxi. 27 A: cf. the coins of Timarchus).1

VII. The Parthian Empire of the Arsacids.-Meanwhile, in the east, the Arsacids had begun their expansion. Phraates I. (c. 175-170) subdued the Mardians in Elburz. His brother Mithradates I. (c. 170-138) had to sustain a difficult war with Eucratides of Bactria, but eventually succeeded in wresting Mithra- from him a few districts on the Turanian frontier. dates I. and Indeed, he penetrated as far as, and farther than, the Phraates II. Indus (Diod. xxxiii. 18; Oros. v. 4, 16). In the west he conquered Media, and thence subdued Babylonia. He further reduced the Elymaeans, sacked their temple in the mountains, and captured the Greek city of Seleucia on the Hedyphon (Strabo xvi. 744; Justin xli. 6). The Seleucids, meanwhile, were harassed by aggravated disorders and insurrections. Nevertheless, in 140, Demetrius II. Nicator took the field in order to save the east, but was defeated and captured. Shortly afterwards Mithradates I. died. His son Phraates II. (c. 138-127) was attacked in 130 by Antiochus VII. Sidetes, the brother of Demetrius II., on which the Parthian king released the latter. Antiochus pressed successfully on, and once more recovered Babylonia, but in 129 was defeated in Media and fell in a desperate struggle. With this battle the Seleucid dominion over the countries east of the Euphrates was definitely lost. The Babylonian towns, especially Seleucia (q.v.), were handed over by Phraates to his favourite, the Hyrcanian Himerus, who punished them severely for their resistance.

Mithra

During these wars great changes had taken place in eastern Iran. In 159 Mongolian tribes, whom the Chinese call Yue-chi and the Greeks Scythians, forced their way into dates II. and Sogdiana, and, in 139, conquered Bactria (Strabo his Suc- xi. 571; Justin xlii. 1; Trog. Prol. 41; see BACTRIA). cessors. From Bactria they tried to advance farther into Iran and India. Entering into an alliance with Antiochus VII., they assailed the Parthian Empire. Phraates II. marched to encounter him, but was himself defeated and slain, and his country ravaged far and wide. His successor Artabanus I. (c. 127-124), the uncle of Phraates, also fell in battle against the Tocharians, the principal Scythian tribe (Justin xlii. 1, 2; Jos. Ant. fr. 66); but his son Mithradates II., surnamed "The Great" (c. 124-88), defeated the Scythians and restored for a while the power of the Arsacids. He also defeated Artavasdes, the king of Great Armenia; his son Tigranes, a hostage in the hands of the Parthians, was only redeemed by the cession of 70 valleys (Strabo xi. 532). When Tigranes attempted to seize Cappadocia, and the Roman praetor P. Cornelius Sulla advanced against him, Mithradates in 92 B.C. concluded the first treaty between Parthia and Rome (Plut. Sulla, v.; Liv. epit. 70). The dynastic troubles of the Seleucids in Syria gave him an opportunity for successful intervention (Jos. Ant. Jud. xiii. 13, 4; 14, 3). Shortly afterwards he died; and, with his death, the Arsacid power collapsed for the second time. The possession of the western provinces and the dominant position in western Asia passed to the Armenian Tigranes (q.v.), who wrested from the Parthians Mesopotamia and the suzerainty of Atropatene, Gordyene, Adiabene, Osroene. Simultaneously began a new and severe conflict with the Scythians. Parthian coins, probably dating from this period (Wroth, Catal. of the Coins of Parthia, 1903, p. xxx. and p. 40), mention victorious campaigns of Parthian kings and a conquest of the provinces of Aria, Margiane and (?) Traxiane (cf. Strabo xi. 505). But how 1 For the whole of this period see further ANTIGONUS; ANTIOCHUS I.-IV.; SELEUCID DYNASTY; HELLENISM.

Conflicts with the Romans.

| A fact of decisive significance was that the Romans now began to advance against Tigranes. In vain Mithradates of Pontus and Tigranes turned to the Parthian king, the latter even proffering restitution of the conquered frontier provinces. Phraates, though rightly distrusting Rome, nevertheless concluded a treaty with Lucullus (69 B.C.) and with Pompey, and even supported the latter in his campaign against Tigranes. in 66. But after the victory it was manifest that the Roman general did not consider himself bound by the Parthian treaty. When Tigranes had submitted, Pompey received him into favour and extended the Roman supremacy over the vassal states of Gordyene and Osroene; though he had allured the Parthian king with the prospect of the recovery of his old possessions as far as the Euphrates. Phraates complained, and simultaneously attacked Tigranes, now a Roman vassal (64 B.C.). But when Pompey refused reparation Phraates recognized that he was too weak to begin the struggle with Rome, and contented himself with forming an alliance with Tigranes, in hopes that the future would bring an opportunity for his revenge (Dio Cass. xxxvi. 3, 5; xxxvii. 5 sqq.; Plut. Luc. 30; Pomp. 33, 38; cf. Sallust's letter of Mithradates to Arsaces).

Although Phraates III. had not succeeded in regaining the full power of his predecessors, he felt justified in again assuming the title "king of kings"—which Pompey declined to acknowledge— and even in proclaiming himself as gód" (Phlegon, fr. 12 ap. Phot. cod. 97; and on part of his coins), but in 57 B.C. the "god" was assassinated by his sons Orodes and Mithradates.

Organiza

tion.

The Parthian Empire, as founded by the conquests of Mithradates I. and restored, once by Mithradates II. and again by Phraates III., was, to all exterior appearance, a continuation of the Achaemenid dominion. Thus the Arsacids now began to assume the old title "king of kings" (the shahanshah of modern Persia), though previously their coins, as a rule, had borne only the legend "great king." The official version, preserved by Arrian in his Parthica (ap. Phot. cod. 58: see PARTHIA), derives the line of these chieftains of the Parnian nomads from Artaxerxes II. In reality, however, the Parthian Empire was totally different from its predecessor, both externally and internally. It was anything rather than a worldempire. The countries west of the Euphrates never owned its dominion, and even of Iran itself not one half was subject to the Arsacids. There were indeed vassal states on every hand, but the actual possessions of the kings-the provinces governed by their satraps-consisted of a rather narrow strip of land, stretching from the Euphrates and north Babylonia through southern Media and Parthia as far as Arachosia (north-west Afghanistan), and following the course of the great trade-route which from time immemorial had carried the traffic between the west of Asia and India. We still possess a description of this route by Isidore of Charax, probably dating from the Augustan period (in C. Müller, Geographi graeci minores, vol. i.), in which is contained a list of the 18 imperial provinces, known also to Pliny (vi. 112; cf. 41). Isidore, indeed, enumerates nineteen; but, of these, Sacastene formed no part of the Parthian Empire, as has been shown by von Gutschmid.

The lower provinces (i.e. the districts west of Parthia) are: (1) Mesopotamia, with northern Babylonia, from the Euphrates bridge at Zeugma to Seleucia on the Tigris; (2) Apolloniatis, the plain east of the Tigris, with Artemita; (3) Chalonitis, Provinces. the hill-country of Zagros; (4) Western Media; (5) Cambadene, with Bagistana (Behistun)—the mountainous portions of Media; (6) Upper Media, with Ecbatana; (7) Rhagiane or Eastern Media. Then with the Caspian Gates-the pass between Elburz and the central desert, through which lay the route from west Iran to east Iran the upper provinces begin; (8) Choarene and (9)

Comisene, the districts on the verge of the desert; (10) Hyrcania; (11) Astabene, with the royal town Asaac on the Attruck (see PARTHIA); (12) Parthyene with Parthaunisa, where the sepulchres of the kings were laid; (13) Apavarcticene (now Abiward, with the capital Kelat); (14) Margiane (Merv); (15) Aria (Herat); (16) Anauon, the southern portion of Aria; (17) Zarangiane, the country of the Drangians, on the lake of Hamun; (18) Arachosia, on the Etymander (Helmand), called by the Parthians "White India,” extending as far as Alexandropolis (Kandahar), the frontier city of the Parthian Empire.

On the lower Etymander, the Sacae had established themselves -obviously on the inroad of the Scythian tribes-and after them the country was named Sacastene (now Sejistan, Seistan). Through it lay the route to Kandahar; and for this reason the district is described by Isidore, though it formed no part of the Parthian Empire. Round these provinces lay a ring of numerous minor states, which as a rule were dependent on the Arsacids. They might, however, partially transfer their allegiance on the rise Vassal of a new power (e.g. Tigranes in Armenia) or a Roman States. invasion. Thus it is not without. justice that the Arsacid period is described, in the later Persian and Arabian tradition, as the period of "the kings of the part-kingdoms among which the Ashkanians (i.e. the Arsacids, from Ashak, the later pronunciation of the name Arshak Arsaces) had won the first place. This tradition, however, is nebulous in the extreme; the whole list of kings, which it gives, is totally unhistorical; only the names of one Balash (=Vologaeses) and of the last Ardewan (= Artabanus) having been preserved. The period, from the death of Alexander to the Sassanid Ardashir I., is put by the Persian tradition at 266 years; which was afterwards corrected, after Syro-Grecian evidence, to 523 years. The actual number is 548 years (i.e. 323 B.C. to A.D. 226). The statements of the Armenian historians as to this period are also absolutely worthless.

The ten most important of the vassal states were:—

1. The kingdom of Osroene (q.v.) in the north-east of Mesopotamia, with Edessa as capital, founded about 130 B.C. by the chieftain of an Arabian tribe, the Orrhoei, which established itself there. 2. To this must be added the numerous Arabian tribes of the Mesopotamian desert, under their chiefs, among whom one Alchaudonius comes into prominence in the period of Tigranes and Crassus. Their settlement in Mesopotamia was encouraged by Tigranes, according to Plutarch (Luc. 21) and Pliny (vi. 142). In later times the Arabic town Atra in an oasis on the west of the Tigris, governed by its own kings, gained special importance. 3 and 4. To the east of the Tigris lay two kingdoms: Gordyene (or Cordyene), the country of the Carduchians (now Bohtan), a wild, mountainous district south of Armenia; and Adiabene (Hadyab), the ancient Assyria, on either side of the Zab (Lycus).

5. On the farther side of Zagros, adjoining Adiabene on the east, was the kingdom of Atropatene in north Media, now often simply called Media (q.v.).

While the power of Armenia was at its height under Tigranes (86-69 B.C.) all these states owned his rule. After the victories of Pompey, however, the Romans claimed the suzerainty, so that, during the next decades and the expeditions of Crassus and Antony, they oscillated between Rome and Parthia, though their inclination was generally to the latter. For they were all Orientals and, consciously or unconsciously, representatives of a reaction against that Hellenism which had become the heritage of Rome. At the same time the loose organization of the Parthian Empire, afforded them a greater measure of independence than they could hope to enjoy under Roman suzerainty.

6. In the south of Babylonia, in the district of Mesene (the modern Maisan), after the fall of Antiochus Sidetes (129 B.C.), an Arabian prince, Hyspaosines or Spasines (in a cuneiform inscription of 127, on a clay tablet dated after this year, he is called Aspasine) founded a kingdom which existed till the rise of the Sassanian Empire. Its capital was a city (mod. Mohammerah), first founded by Alexander on an artificial hill by the junction of the Eulaeus (Karun) with the Tigris, and peopled by his veterans. The town, which was originally named Alexandria and then rebuilt by Antiochus I. as Antiochia, was now refortified with dikes by Spasines, and christened Spasinu Charax ("the wall of Spasines"), or simply Charax (Plin. vi. 138 seq.). In the following centuries it was the main mercantile centre on the Tigris estuary.

The kingdom of Mesene, also called Characene, is known to us from occasional references in various authors, especially Lucian (Macrobii, 16), as well as from numerous coins, dated by the Seleucian era, which allow us to frame a fairly complete list of the kings.' The Arabian dynasty speedily assimilated itself to the native population; and most of the kings bear Babylonian-in a few cases, Parthian-names. The official language was Greek, till, on the destruction of Seleucia (A.D. 164), it was replaced on the coinage by Aramaic. Another Babylonian dynast must have 1 See Saint-Martin, Recherches sur la Mésène et la Characène (1838); Reinaud, Mémoires sur le royaume de la Mésène (1861); E. Babelon, "Numism. et chronol. des dynastes de la Characène,' in Journ. internat. d'archéol. numism. vol. i. (1898).

been Hadadnadinaches (c. 100 B.C.), who built in Tello the fortified palace which has been excavated by de Sarzec.

7. East of the Tigris lay the kingdom of Elymais (Elam), to which belonged Susa and its modern representative Ahwaz, farther down on the Eulaeus. The Elymaeans, who had already offered a repeated resistance to the Seleucids, were subdued by Mithra dates I., as we have mentioned above; but they remained a separate state, which often rebelled against the Arsacids (Strabo xvi. 744; cf. Plut. Pomp. 36; Tac. Ann. vi. 50). Of the kings who apparently belonged to a Parthian dynasty, several bearing the name Cammascires are known to us from coins dated 81 and 71 B.C. One of these is designated by Lucian (Macrobii, 16) "king of the Parthians "; while the coinage of another, Orodes, displays Aramaic script (Allotte de la Fuye, Rev. num., 4me série, t. vi. p. 92 sqq., 1902). The kingdom, which is seldom mentioned, survived till Ardashir I. In its neighbourhood Strabo mentions "the minor dynasties of the Sagapenians and Silacenians" (xvi. 745). The Uxians, moreover, with the Cossaeans and other mountain tribes, maintained their independence exactly as under the later Achaemenids (Strabo xvi. 744; Plin. vi. 133).

8. The district of Persis, also, became independent soon after the time of Antiochus IV., and was ruled by its own kings, who perpetuated the Achaemenian traditions, and on their coins-which bear the Persian language in Aramaic characters, i.e. the so-called Pahlavi-appear as zealous adherents of Zoroastrianism and the Fire-cult (see PERSIS). They were forced, however, to acknowledge the suzerainty of Parthia, to which they stood in the same position as the Persians of Cyrus and his forefathers to the Median Empire (cf. Strabo xv. 728, 733, 736; Lucian, Macrob. 15). In later times, before the foundation of the Sassanid dominion, Persis was disintegrated into numerous small local states. Even in Carmania we find independent kings, one of whom gave his name to a town Vologesocerta (Balashkert).

9. The east of Iran-Bactria with Sogdiana, Eastern Arachosia and Gedrosia was never subject to the Arsacids. Here the | Graeco-Bactrian and Graeco-Indian kingdoms held their own, till, in 139 B.C., they succumbed before the invading Mongolian and Scythian tribes (see BACTRIA and works quoted there). But in the Indus district the Greek kings held their ground for an appreciably longer period and, for a while, widely extended their power (see MENANDER OF INDIA). Among the kings then following, only known to us from their coins, there appears a dynasty with Iranian and sometimes peculiarly Parthian names which seems to have reigned in the Punjab and Arachosia. Its best-known representative, Gondophares or Hyndopherres, to whom legend makes the apostle Thomas write, reigned over Arachosia and the Indus district about A.D. 20. Further, about A.D. 70, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea mentions that the great commercial town of Minnagar in the Indus Delta was under Parthian kings, who spent their time in expelling one another." Here, then, it would seem there existed a Parthian dynasty, which probably went back to the conquests of Mithradates I. (cf. Vincent A. Smith, "The Indo-Parthian Dynasties from about 120 B.C. to A.D. 100," in the Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenl. Gesellsch. 60, 1906). Naturally, such a dynasty would not long have recognized the suzerainty of the Arsacids. It succumbed to the Indo-Scythian Empire of the Kushana, who had obtained the sovereignty of Bactria as early as about A.D. 50, and thence pressed onward into India. In the period of the Periplus (c. A.D. 70) the Scythians were already settled in the Indus valley (pp. 38, 41, 48), their dominion reaching its zenith under Kanishka (c. A.D. 123-153).

This empire of the Kushana merits special mention here, on account of its peculiar religious attitude, which we may gather from the coins of its kings, particularly those of Kanishka and his successor Huvishka, on which an alphabet adapted from the Greek is employed (cf. Aurel Stein, "Zoroastrian Deities on Indo-Scythian Coins," in The Babylonian and Oriental Record, vol. i., 1887). Kanishka, as is well known, had embraced Buddhism, and many of his coins bear the image and name of Buddha. Iranian divinities, however, predominate on his currency: Mithras (Mihro or Helios); the Moon Mah (also Selene); Athro, the Fire; Orthragno (Verethragna); Pharro = Farna (hvarena), "the majesty of kingship "; Teiro=Tir (Tistrya "the archer "); Nana (Nanaia); and others. Here, then, we have a perfect example of syncretism; as in the Mithras cult in Armenia, Asia Minor, and still further in the Roman Empire. Buddhism and Zoroastrianism have been wedded in the state religion, and, in characteristic Indian fashion, are on the best of terms with one another, precisely as, in the Chinese Empire at the present day, we find the most varied religions, side by side, and on an equal footing.

10. Originally a part of the Turanian steppe belonged to the Arsacids; it was the starting-point of their power. Soon, however, the nomads (Dahae) gained their independence, and, as we have seen, repeatedly attacked and devastated the Parthian Empire in conjunction with the Tocharians and other tribes of Sacae and Scythians. In the subsequent period, again, we shall frequently

meet them.

It may appear surprising that the Arsacids made no attempt to incorporate the minor states in the empire and

create a great and united dominion, such as existed under the Achaemenids and was afterwards restored by the Sassanids. This fact is the clearest symptom of the inner weakness of Character of their empire and of the small power wielded by the the Parthian king of kings." In contrast alike with its predeEmpire. cessors and its successors, the Arsacid dominion was peculiarly a chance formation a state which had come into existence through fortuitous external circumstances, and had no firm foundation within itself, or any intrinsic raison d'être.

Three elements, of widely different kinds, contributed to its origin and defined its character. It was sprung from a predatory nomad tribe (the Parnian Dahae, Scythians) which had established itself in Khorasan (Parthia), on the borders of civilization, and thence gradually annexed further districts as the political situation or the weakness of its neighbours allowed. Consequently, these nomads were the main pillar of the empire, and from them were obviously derived the great magnates, with their huge estates and hosts of serfs, who composed the imperial council, led the armies, governed the provinces and made and unmade the kings (Strabo xi. 515; Justin xli. 2; the former terming them σvyyevels, kinsmen of the king, the latter, probuli). Of these great families that of Surenas held the privilege of setting the diadem on the head of the new king (Plut. Crass. 21; Tac. Ann. vi. 42).

The military organization, moreover, was wholly nomadic in character. The nucleus of the army was formed of armoured horsemen, excellently practised for long-distance fighting with bow and javelin, but totally unable to venture on a hand-to-hand conflict, their tactics being rather to swarm round the enemy's squadrons and overwhelm them under a hail of missiles. When attacked they broke up, as it seemed, in hasty and complete flight, and having thus led the hostile army to break its formation, they themselves rapidly reformed and renewed the assault. How difficult it was for infantry to hold their own against these mounted squadrons was demonstrated by the Roman campaigns, especially in broad plains like those of Mesopotamia. In winter, however, the Parthians were powerless to wage war, as the moisture of the atmosphere relaxed their bows. The infantry, in contrast with its earlier status under the Persians, was wholly neglected. On the other hand, every magnate put into the field as many mounted warriors as possible, chiefly servants and bought slaves, who, like the Janissaries and Mamelukes, were trained exclusively for war. Thus Surenas, in 53 B.C., is said to have put at the king's disposal 1000 mailed horsemen and, in all, 10,000 men, including the train, which also comprised his attendants and harem (Plut. Crass. 21; description of the military organization; Dio Cass: 40, 15; Justin xli. 2). In the army of 50,000 mounted men which took the field against Mark Antony there were, says Justin, only 400 freemen. How vital was the nomadic element in the Parthian Empire is obvious from the fact that, in civil wars, the deposed kings conThe Iranian sistently took refuge among the Dahae or Scythians and were restored by them. But, in Parthia, these Population. nomads were amalgamated with the native peasantry, and, with their religion, had adopted their dress and manners. Even the kings, after the first two or three, wear their hair and beard long, in the Iranian fashion, whereas their predecessors are beardless. Although the Arsacids are strangers to any deep religious interest (in contrast to the Achaemenids and Sassanids), they acknowledge the Persian gods and the leading tenets of Zoroastrianism. They erect fire-altars, and even obey the command to abandon all corpses to the dogs and fowls (Justin xli. 3). The union, moreover, recommended by that creed, between brother and sister and even son and mother-occurs among them. Consequently, beside the council of the nobility, there is a second council of "Magians and wise men (Strabo xi. 515).

Again, they perpetuate the traditions of the Achaemenid Empire. The Arsacids assume the title "king of kings and derive their line from Artaxerxes II. Further, the royal apotheosis, so common among them and recurring under the Sassanids, is probably not so much of Greek origin as a development of Iranian views. For at the side of the great god Ahuramazda there stands a host of subordinate divine beings who execute his will-among these the deified heroes of legend, to whose circle the king is now admitted, since on him Ahuramazda has bestowed victory and might.

This gradual Iranianization of the Parthian Empire is shown by the fact that the subsequent Iranian traditions, and Firdousi in particular, apply the name of the Parthian magnates (Pahlavan) to the glorious heroes of the legendary epoch. Consequently, also, the language and writing of the Parthian period, which are retained under the Sassanids, received the name Pahlavi, i.e. "Parthian." The script was derived from the Aramaic. But to these Oriental elements must be added that of Hellenism, the dominant world-culture which had penetrated into Parthia and Media. It was indispensable to every state which hoped to play some part in the world and was not so utterly secluded as Persis and Atropatene; and the Arsacids entertained the less thought of opposition as they were destitute of an independent national basis. All their

Relation towards Hellenism.

external institutions were borrowed from the Seleucid Empire: their coinage with its Greek inscriptions and nomenclature; their administration also. In the towns Greek merchants were everyAttic standard of currency; and, doubtless, a great part of their where settled. Mithradates I. even followed the precedent of the Seleucids in building a new city, Arsacia, which replaced the ancient panded the deeper they penetrated into the province of Hellenism Rhagae (Rai, Europus) in Media. The further the Arsacids exthe first Mithradates himself assumed, after his great conquests, the title of Philhellen, "the protector of Hellenism,' which was retained by almost all his successors. Then follow the surnames Epiphanes "the revealed god," Dicaeus "the just," Euergetes the benefactor," all of them essentially Greek in their reference, and also regularly borne by all the kings. After the conquest of the Euphrates and Tigris provinces it was imperative that the royal residence should be fixed there. But as no one ventured to horsemen, to the Greek town of Seleucia, and thus disorganize its transfer the royal household and the army, with its hordes of wild commerce, the Arsacids set up their abode in the great village of Ctesiphon, on the left bank of the Tigris, opposite to Seleucia, which accordingly retained its free Hellenic constitution (see CTESIPHON and SELEUCIA). So, also, Orodes I. spoke good Greek, and Greek tragedies were staged at his court (Plut. Crass. 33). In spite of this, however, the rise of the Arsacid Empire marks the beginning of a reaction against Hellenism-not, indeed, a conscious or official reaction, but a reaction which was Reaction all the more effective because it depended on the impetus of circumstances working with all the power of a natural Hellenism. force. The essential point is that the East is completely divorced from the Mediterranean and the Hellenic world, that it can derive no fresh powers from that quarter, and that, consequently, the influence of the Oriental elements must steadily increase. This process can be most clearly traced on the coins-almost the sole memorials that the Parthian Empire has left. From reign to reign the portraits grow poorer and more stereotyped, and the inscriptions more neglected, till it becomes obvious that the engraver himself no longer understood Greek but copied mechanically the signs before his eyes, as is the case with the contemporary Indo-Scythian coinage, and also in Mesene. Indeed, after Vologaeses I. (51-77), the Aramaic script is occasionally employed. The political opposition to the western empires, the Seleucids first, then the Romans, precipitated this development. Naturally enough the Greek cities beheld a liberator in every army that marched from the West, and were ever ready to cast in their lot with such a disposition for which the subsequent penalty was not lacking. The Parthian magnates, on the other hand, with the army, would have little to do with Greek culture and Greek modes of life, which they contemptuously regarded as effeminate and unmanly. Moreover, they required of their rulers that they should live in the fashion of sultans, not as Grecian kings. their country, practise arms and the chase, and appear as Oriental

against

These tendencies taken together explain the radical weakness of the Parthian Empire. It was easy enough to collect a great army and achieve a great victory; it was absolutely impossible to hold the army together for any longer period, or to conduct a regular campaign. The Parthians proved incapable of creating a firm, united organization, such as the Achaemenids before them, and the Sassanids after them gave to their empire. The kings themselves were toys in the hands of the magnates and the army who, tenaciously as they clung to the anointed dynasty of the Arsacids, were utterly indifferent to the person of the individual Arsacid. Every moment they were ready to overthrow the reigning monarch and to seat another on his throne. The kings, for their part, sought protection in craft, treachery and cruelty, and only succeeded in aggravating the situation. More especially they saw an enemy in every prince, and the worst of enemies in their own sons. Sanguinary crimes were thus of everyday occurrence in the royal household; and frequently it was merely a matter of chance whether the father anticipated the son, or the son the father. The conditions were the same as obtained subsequently under the Mahommedan Caliphate (q.v.) and the empire of the Ottomans. The internal history of the Parthian dominion is an unbroken sequence of civil war and dynastic strife.

For the literature dealing with the Parthian Empire and numismatics, see PARTHIA, under which heading will be found a complete list of the kings, so far as we are able to reconstitute them.

These conditions elucidate the fact that the Parthian Empire, though founded on annexation and perpetually menaced by hostile arms in both the East and the West, yet Later Hisnever took a strong offensive after the days of tory of the Mithradates II. It was bound to protect itself Arsacid against Scythian aggression in the East and Roman aggression in the West. To maintain, or regain, the suzerainty over Mesopotamia and the vassal states of that region, as also over Atropatene and Armenia, was its most imperative task. Yet it always remained on the defensive and even so was

Empire.