DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45399#0025
THE PARTHIAN COINAGE.
15
of Armenia, came to the aid of Sinatruces, but quarrelling with him, went over to the Roman
side. Malala gives as his authorities, one Domninus, as far as the quarrel of Sinatruces and
Parthamaspates, and after that Apecavos 6 ^povoypa^o'i, whom one would naturally suppose to
be the historian Arrian. But I do not think that we can attach any value to the confused
story of Malala, which is in itself improbable, and is rendered less acceptable by two further
considerations. Firstly, it is absurd to suppose that if a Parthian chief had captured Antioch,
so important an event would have been passed over in silence by the Boman historians. And
secondly, the whole story is distinctly inconsistent with the account of Parthamaspates given
in an extant sragment of Arrian. There may have been a germ of truth in Malala’s narrative,
but it is quite impossible to separate the corn os wheat from the husk. It is curious that in
a fragment os Dio (75, 9), it is recorded that Severus fought Vologeses, son of Sinatruces,
and afterwards gave him part of Armenia (ewt ry elppvp fyapitraTo). If for Severus, we read
Verus, we may suppose that Vologeses IV., whose ancestry is unknown, was the son of the
Sinatruces mentioned by Malala.
Chosroes, son of Pacorus, succeeded his father as early as 107, and spent a most stormy
reign in constant fighting against the relentless and ambitious Emperor Trajan. The subject
of dispute was, as usual, Armenia. Chosroes, early in his reign, expelled Exedares, King of
that country, explaining, with quiet cynicism, that he was useful neither to Parthia nor to
Borne, and proceeded to demand the throne for his brother Parthamasiris. Trajan, having
finally reduced Dacia, seized the opportunity of marching a great army into Armenia and
Parthia, with the thinly disguised intention os adding Central Asia to the already unwieldy
mass os the Boman Empire. It is well known how successful was his advance, how disastrous
his retreat. The puppet-prince, Parthamaspates, whom he had set up in Parthia, could not
survive his departure, and all that Trajan gained by his expedition was Armenia and most
of Mesopotamia,1 which were held as Boman provinces. Hadrian, however, on his accession,
withdrew the Boman legions at once to the Euphrates, exhibiting a rare moderation in the
midst of success; part of the territory conquered by his warlike predecessor he restored to
Parthia, over part he placed Parthamaspates,2 who was now a fugitive dependent of Borne. At
a later period, Chosroes was inclined to try once more the fortune of war against Borne,3 but
Hadrian, who was then in the East, invited him to a personal conserence, and showed him
reason for desisting. Hadrian even restored, as a favour, his daughter, who had been carried
captive by Trajan—a course of behaviour which produced harmony between Borne and Parthia,
and so deprives our history of material for a considerable period.
Coins which bear the portrait of Chosroes continue until the year 127-8. But we have
another series partly contemporary with these, and beginning certainly as early as 119-20,
which bear quite another portrait, and the name of Vologeses. This latter king, then, must
1 Dio C. lxviii. 33.
2 Ael. Spart. Hadrian v. The name of the prince as given in the copies is corrupt, but the context leaves no doubt as to
who is meant.
3 Ael. Spart. Hadrian xii.
15
of Armenia, came to the aid of Sinatruces, but quarrelling with him, went over to the Roman
side. Malala gives as his authorities, one Domninus, as far as the quarrel of Sinatruces and
Parthamaspates, and after that Apecavos 6 ^povoypa^o'i, whom one would naturally suppose to
be the historian Arrian. But I do not think that we can attach any value to the confused
story of Malala, which is in itself improbable, and is rendered less acceptable by two further
considerations. Firstly, it is absurd to suppose that if a Parthian chief had captured Antioch,
so important an event would have been passed over in silence by the Boman historians. And
secondly, the whole story is distinctly inconsistent with the account of Parthamaspates given
in an extant sragment of Arrian. There may have been a germ of truth in Malala’s narrative,
but it is quite impossible to separate the corn os wheat from the husk. It is curious that in
a fragment os Dio (75, 9), it is recorded that Severus fought Vologeses, son of Sinatruces,
and afterwards gave him part of Armenia (ewt ry elppvp fyapitraTo). If for Severus, we read
Verus, we may suppose that Vologeses IV., whose ancestry is unknown, was the son of the
Sinatruces mentioned by Malala.
Chosroes, son of Pacorus, succeeded his father as early as 107, and spent a most stormy
reign in constant fighting against the relentless and ambitious Emperor Trajan. The subject
of dispute was, as usual, Armenia. Chosroes, early in his reign, expelled Exedares, King of
that country, explaining, with quiet cynicism, that he was useful neither to Parthia nor to
Borne, and proceeded to demand the throne for his brother Parthamasiris. Trajan, having
finally reduced Dacia, seized the opportunity of marching a great army into Armenia and
Parthia, with the thinly disguised intention os adding Central Asia to the already unwieldy
mass os the Boman Empire. It is well known how successful was his advance, how disastrous
his retreat. The puppet-prince, Parthamaspates, whom he had set up in Parthia, could not
survive his departure, and all that Trajan gained by his expedition was Armenia and most
of Mesopotamia,1 which were held as Boman provinces. Hadrian, however, on his accession,
withdrew the Boman legions at once to the Euphrates, exhibiting a rare moderation in the
midst of success; part of the territory conquered by his warlike predecessor he restored to
Parthia, over part he placed Parthamaspates,2 who was now a fugitive dependent of Borne. At
a later period, Chosroes was inclined to try once more the fortune of war against Borne,3 but
Hadrian, who was then in the East, invited him to a personal conserence, and showed him
reason for desisting. Hadrian even restored, as a favour, his daughter, who had been carried
captive by Trajan—a course of behaviour which produced harmony between Borne and Parthia,
and so deprives our history of material for a considerable period.
Coins which bear the portrait of Chosroes continue until the year 127-8. But we have
another series partly contemporary with these, and beginning certainly as early as 119-20,
which bear quite another portrait, and the name of Vologeses. This latter king, then, must
1 Dio C. lxviii. 33.
2 Ael. Spart. Hadrian v. The name of the prince as given in the copies is corrupt, but the context leaves no doubt as to
who is meant.
3 Ael. Spart. Hadrian xii.