DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45399#0015
THE PARTHIAN COINAGE.
5
before he hacl been humbled by the Roman arms. Polybius gives an account of the campaign,1
which ended, as usual, after a series of barren victories won by the Greeks, in the substantial
advantage of Parthia. We are told2 that Antiochus made an ally of his enemy; at any rate
a considerable period elapsed before a Syrian monarch again molested the Eastern Power.
The fourth King of Parthia was Phraapates or Priapatius. Of him we are told nothing
except that he reigned fifteen years, and left two sons, who in turn succeeded him. Of these,
Phraates I., the elder, conquered the Mardi, and removed them, after the manner of Oriental
despots, to Charax.3 The Parthian succession was not strictly one of primogeniture. The new
King must be an Arsacid; but if the sons of the deceased monarch were young or unpopular,
a brother or a cousin was often substituted by the aristocratic council. So Phraates was
succeeded, even it is said at his own request, by his brother Mithradates I.
The reign of Mithradates witnessed the expansion of the Parthian dominions into a
mighty empire. His first war was with the Medes, who, being vanquished, were obliged to
accept a king of his choosing, one Baeasis, and probably lost most of the privileges of inde-
pendence. The Elymsei, the people of Susiana, who apparently had established themselves in
independence of the Kings of Syria, were next reduced. Ear to the east, Eucratides, the able
King of Bactria, was compelled by force of arms to cede Turiua and Aspionus, districts of
Bactria.4 Diodorus5 even states that Mithradates advanced into the region of India where
Porus had ruled. ITe reigned supreme, as Justin says, from the Himalayas to the Euphrates.
Mithradates set the fashion, which almost all his Parthian successors followed,, whenever
they were particularly prosperous, of overrunning Armenia. It became one of the fixed ideas
of Parthian politics that the King os Armenia should be, if possible, a near relation of the
ruling Arsacid; at all events devoted to his service, and resolute in protecting him against
aggression by the peoples of the West. Mithradates placed on the throne os Armenia his brother
Valarsaces, whom Moses,6 with a perhaps pardonable patriotic exaggeration, makes ruler of an
empire which stretched from the Caspian to the Mediterranean. It is to be observed, however,
that the name os this prince is mentioned by no other writer, and that whatever rests upon
the unsupported assertion of the Armenian historian has small claim on our belief.
Mithradates was equally fortunate in his dealings with Syria. The Syrian throne was at
this time occupied by the young Demetrius Nicator, who was anxious to stop, by a striking
example, the secession of small states from the yoke of the Seleucid family. He defeated the
great Parthian king in many battles,7 but at length was captured, through treachery, and
detained in a captivity, which was made light to him in order that he should retain a not
unkindly feeling for the Parthian king in case the latter should find it desirable to bring him
back to his kingdom. He even received in marriage the Parthian princess Rhodogune. The
expedition of Demetrius is assigned to the year b.c. 140, and Mithradates did not long survive
1 Polybius, x. 27, 28.
5 Diodor, xxxiii. 20.
2 Justin, xli. 5. 3 Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 7.
6 Moses of Choren, ii. 3-7, French translation.
4 Strabo, xi. 11, 2.
7 Justin, xxxvi. 1.
5
before he hacl been humbled by the Roman arms. Polybius gives an account of the campaign,1
which ended, as usual, after a series of barren victories won by the Greeks, in the substantial
advantage of Parthia. We are told2 that Antiochus made an ally of his enemy; at any rate
a considerable period elapsed before a Syrian monarch again molested the Eastern Power.
The fourth King of Parthia was Phraapates or Priapatius. Of him we are told nothing
except that he reigned fifteen years, and left two sons, who in turn succeeded him. Of these,
Phraates I., the elder, conquered the Mardi, and removed them, after the manner of Oriental
despots, to Charax.3 The Parthian succession was not strictly one of primogeniture. The new
King must be an Arsacid; but if the sons of the deceased monarch were young or unpopular,
a brother or a cousin was often substituted by the aristocratic council. So Phraates was
succeeded, even it is said at his own request, by his brother Mithradates I.
The reign of Mithradates witnessed the expansion of the Parthian dominions into a
mighty empire. His first war was with the Medes, who, being vanquished, were obliged to
accept a king of his choosing, one Baeasis, and probably lost most of the privileges of inde-
pendence. The Elymsei, the people of Susiana, who apparently had established themselves in
independence of the Kings of Syria, were next reduced. Ear to the east, Eucratides, the able
King of Bactria, was compelled by force of arms to cede Turiua and Aspionus, districts of
Bactria.4 Diodorus5 even states that Mithradates advanced into the region of India where
Porus had ruled. ITe reigned supreme, as Justin says, from the Himalayas to the Euphrates.
Mithradates set the fashion, which almost all his Parthian successors followed,, whenever
they were particularly prosperous, of overrunning Armenia. It became one of the fixed ideas
of Parthian politics that the King os Armenia should be, if possible, a near relation of the
ruling Arsacid; at all events devoted to his service, and resolute in protecting him against
aggression by the peoples of the West. Mithradates placed on the throne os Armenia his brother
Valarsaces, whom Moses,6 with a perhaps pardonable patriotic exaggeration, makes ruler of an
empire which stretched from the Caspian to the Mediterranean. It is to be observed, however,
that the name os this prince is mentioned by no other writer, and that whatever rests upon
the unsupported assertion of the Armenian historian has small claim on our belief.
Mithradates was equally fortunate in his dealings with Syria. The Syrian throne was at
this time occupied by the young Demetrius Nicator, who was anxious to stop, by a striking
example, the secession of small states from the yoke of the Seleucid family. He defeated the
great Parthian king in many battles,7 but at length was captured, through treachery, and
detained in a captivity, which was made light to him in order that he should retain a not
unkindly feeling for the Parthian king in case the latter should find it desirable to bring him
back to his kingdom. He even received in marriage the Parthian princess Rhodogune. The
expedition of Demetrius is assigned to the year b.c. 140, and Mithradates did not long survive
1 Polybius, x. 27, 28.
5 Diodor, xxxiii. 20.
2 Justin, xli. 5. 3 Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 7.
6 Moses of Choren, ii. 3-7, French translation.
4 Strabo, xi. 11, 2.
7 Justin, xxxvi. 1.