DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45399#0017
THE PARTHIAN COINAGE.
7
in battle against these barbarians. It would seem that during all the reign of Artabanus a
sort of imperium in imperio had been going on. Phraates, when he set out against the
Scythians, had left as viceroy (vicarius) at Babylon a young Hyrcanian named Himerus. In
the troubles which followed, this viceroy appears to have enjoyed a practical independence. He
made war on his own account on Mesene,1 and perpetrated all kinds of cruelties against the
people of Babylon and Seleucia, even going so far as to sell whole families into slavery.
He is spoken of by some writers as a Parthian king,2 and there is reason to believe that in
the year in which Artabanus fell, b.c. 123, he issued money bearing his own effigy, with the
dynastic title of Arsaces.
The Parthian state was now in great peril, and might have fallen to pieces, but for the
talents of the great Mithradates II., who succeeded his father Artabanus. His first task was
to drive back the Sakas, whom he defeated in many battles, and from whom he wrested no in-
considerable part of Bactria.3 We know from coins that at about this period several Parthian
princes, whose names, Pacores, Gondophares and others, are still to be read, ruled near the
Himalayas. Having thus secured his eastern borders, Mithradates turned his attention to
Armenia. This country was at that time ruled by a prince called by Justin Artavasdes, but
apparently, by native historians, Artaxias, who in any case was probably the descendant and
representative of that Artaxias who had successfully revolted against Antiochus III. os Syria.
Of the circumstances under which Mithradates attacked him, and of the events of the war, we
know nothing beyond the single fact that Artavasdes’ son, Tigranes, was a hostage in Parthia,4
and that hostages are more often given by the defeated than by the victorious State. This same
Tigranes, however, when he came to the throne of Armenia, soon turned the tables. He
humbled the Parthian power, says Plutarch,5 more than any enemy before or since, and de-
prived it of a large part os Asia. Media Atropatane, Susiana, and Mesopotamia, while still
remaining under their native princes, paid homage to Tigranes instead of Mithradates.6 In his
dealings with the Kings of Syria, Mithradates was more fortunate. It was to him that
Antiochus Eusebes fled after he had lost his throne,7 and one of his generals carried into
captivity Demetrius III.8
On the whole, the later years of Mithradates were less prosperous than his earlier ones.
Plutarch talks of border and civil wars which wasted the Parthian resources.9 The epitome
of Trogus Pompeius hints at disputed successions and pretenders to the throne. All that we
can be certain of is that Mithradates was still King of Parthia in the year 87, to which we
can fix, by means of Syrian coins, the captivity of Demetrius. And we have, as will be
presently seen, some reason for placing the accession of Sinatroces in the year b.c. 76. We
thus get a space of eleven years, which may or may not include the reigns of other kings,
1 Trogus Pompeius, prolog. 2 Posidonius, frag. 21. Diodorus, xxxiv. 21.
4 Strabo, xi. 14, 15. Justin, xxxviii. 3, 1. 5 Plutarch, Lucull. 14 and 21.
7 Porphyrius Tyrius in Eusebius. 8 Josephus, Ant. Jud. 13, 14.
3 Strabo, xi. 9, 2.
6 Strabo, 1. c.
9 Plutarch, Lucull. 36.
7
in battle against these barbarians. It would seem that during all the reign of Artabanus a
sort of imperium in imperio had been going on. Phraates, when he set out against the
Scythians, had left as viceroy (vicarius) at Babylon a young Hyrcanian named Himerus. In
the troubles which followed, this viceroy appears to have enjoyed a practical independence. He
made war on his own account on Mesene,1 and perpetrated all kinds of cruelties against the
people of Babylon and Seleucia, even going so far as to sell whole families into slavery.
He is spoken of by some writers as a Parthian king,2 and there is reason to believe that in
the year in which Artabanus fell, b.c. 123, he issued money bearing his own effigy, with the
dynastic title of Arsaces.
The Parthian state was now in great peril, and might have fallen to pieces, but for the
talents of the great Mithradates II., who succeeded his father Artabanus. His first task was
to drive back the Sakas, whom he defeated in many battles, and from whom he wrested no in-
considerable part of Bactria.3 We know from coins that at about this period several Parthian
princes, whose names, Pacores, Gondophares and others, are still to be read, ruled near the
Himalayas. Having thus secured his eastern borders, Mithradates turned his attention to
Armenia. This country was at that time ruled by a prince called by Justin Artavasdes, but
apparently, by native historians, Artaxias, who in any case was probably the descendant and
representative of that Artaxias who had successfully revolted against Antiochus III. os Syria.
Of the circumstances under which Mithradates attacked him, and of the events of the war, we
know nothing beyond the single fact that Artavasdes’ son, Tigranes, was a hostage in Parthia,4
and that hostages are more often given by the defeated than by the victorious State. This same
Tigranes, however, when he came to the throne of Armenia, soon turned the tables. He
humbled the Parthian power, says Plutarch,5 more than any enemy before or since, and de-
prived it of a large part os Asia. Media Atropatane, Susiana, and Mesopotamia, while still
remaining under their native princes, paid homage to Tigranes instead of Mithradates.6 In his
dealings with the Kings of Syria, Mithradates was more fortunate. It was to him that
Antiochus Eusebes fled after he had lost his throne,7 and one of his generals carried into
captivity Demetrius III.8
On the whole, the later years of Mithradates were less prosperous than his earlier ones.
Plutarch talks of border and civil wars which wasted the Parthian resources.9 The epitome
of Trogus Pompeius hints at disputed successions and pretenders to the throne. All that we
can be certain of is that Mithradates was still King of Parthia in the year 87, to which we
can fix, by means of Syrian coins, the captivity of Demetrius. And we have, as will be
presently seen, some reason for placing the accession of Sinatroces in the year b.c. 76. We
thus get a space of eleven years, which may or may not include the reigns of other kings,
1 Trogus Pompeius, prolog. 2 Posidonius, frag. 21. Diodorus, xxxiv. 21.
4 Strabo, xi. 14, 15. Justin, xxxviii. 3, 1. 5 Plutarch, Lucull. 14 and 21.
7 Porphyrius Tyrius in Eusebius. 8 Josephus, Ant. Jud. 13, 14.
3 Strabo, xi. 9, 2.
6 Strabo, 1. c.
9 Plutarch, Lucull. 36.