Considering the Failures of the Parthians Against the Invasions of the Central Asian Tribal Confederations in the 120S Bce
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NIKOLAUS OVERTOOM WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY CONSIDERING THE FAILURES OF THE PARTHIANS AGAINST THE INVASIONS OF THE CENTRAL ASIAN TRIBAL CONFEDERATIONS IN THE 120S BCE SUMMARY When the Parthians rebelled against the Seleucid Empire in the middle third century BCE, seizing a large section of northeastern Iran, they inherited the challenging responsibility of monitoring the extensive frontier between the Iranian plateau and the Central Asian steppe. Although initially able to maintain working relations with various tribal confederations in the region, with the final collapse of the Bactrian kingdom in the 130s BCE, the ever-wide- ning eastern frontier of the Parthian state became increasingly unstable, and in the 120s BCE nomadic warriors devastated the vulnerable eastern territories of the Parthian state, temporarily eliminating Parthian control of the Iranian plateau. This article is a conside- ration of the failures of the Parthians to meet and overcome the obstacles they faced along their eastern frontier in the 120s BCE and a reevaluation of the causes and consequences of the events. It concludes that western distractions and the mismanagement of eastern affairs by the Arsacids turned a minor dispute into one of the most costly and difficult struggles in Parthian history. Key-words: history; Parthians; Seleucids; Central Asia; nomads; frontiers. RÉSUMÉ Lorsque, au milieu du IIIe siècle av. J.-C., les Parthes se rebellèrent contre l’État séleucide en s’emparant d’une grande partie du nord-est de l’Iran, ils héritèrent de la tâche difficile de surveiller la vaste frontière séparant le plateau Iranien de la steppe d’Asie centrale. Bien qu’au début des relations de coopération avec les diverses confédérations tribales dans la région aient pu être maintenues, avec l’effondrement final du royaume bactrien dans les années 130, la frontière orientale de l’État parthe, toujours plus ouverte, est devenue plus instable et, dans les années 120, des guerriers nomades ont dévasté les territoires orientaux vulnérables de l’Etat parthe, éliminant temporairement le contrôle que celui-ci exerçait sur le plateau iranien. Cet article examine la faillite des Parthes pour affronter et surmonter les obstacles rencontrés le long de leur frontière orientale dans les années 120 et réévalue les causes et les conséquences des évènements. Il conclut que les problèmes à résoudre à l’ouest et la mauvaise gestion des affaires de l’est par les Arsacides ont transformé un conflit mineur en l’une des luttes les plus couteuses et les plus difficiles de l’histoire parthe. Mots-clés : histoire ; Parthes ; Séleucides ; Asie centrale ; nomades ; frontières. 77 STUDIA IRANICA 48, 2019, pp. 77-111 78 N. O V E R T O O M StIr 48, 2019 After Arsaces I established the Parthian state in northeastern Iran in the 240s BCE, its existence within the Iranian plateau remained precarious and continually challenged by aggressive and highly militarized neighbors.1 For over a century, the Parthians’ main rivals were the Seleucids in the west and the Bactrians in the east; however, the international environment shifted drastically by the 120s BCE.2 In the west the Seleucids launched two major invasions of the Parthian state in the 130s BCE that failed utterly.3 The death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE at the hands of the Parthians and the subsequent destruction or capture of much of the royal Seleucid army was the most decisive defeat in the history of the Seleucid Empire, the consequences of which far outstripped those of Magnesia.4 It was a disaster from which the Seleucid state never recovered. Meanwhile, in the east continual dynastic conflicts and an ongoing rivalry with the Indo-Greek Kingdom gradually turned the attention of the Bactrian kings away from their precarious northern and western borders, and Bactria became increasingly vulnerable to nomadic and Parthian aggression in this chaotic environment.5 The recurrent deterioration of the Bactrian state also coincided with growing hardships and instability on the Central Asian steppe. In the 170s-160s BCE a nomadic tribal confederation from modern day Xinjiang in northwestern China known as the Yuezhi lost a series of conflicts with a neighboring tribe, the Hsiung-nu, and were forced to migrate to the southwest.6 In so doing they displaced another tribal confederation known as the Saka, who also chose to migrate to the southwest, descending 1 See Overtoom 2016a.; Id. 2019a. 2 Ibid.; Overtoom 2016d; Id. 2017b. 3 For the failed invasion of Demetrius II, see Justin 36.1.5, 38.9.2; Justin Prol. 35-6; Appian Syr. 11.67; Jos. Ant. 13.186, 218-9; I Maccabees 14.2-3; Diod. 33.28.1; Eus. Chron. (Smith ed.): 255. For the failed invasion of Antiochus VII, see Justin 38.10.1- 6; Diod. 34/35.15-17; Jos. Ant. 13.253-4, 271; Appian Syr. 11.68; Athen. 10.53; Hieron. Chron. 163.1; Orosius 5.10.8; Moses 2.2; Eus. Chron. (Smith ed.): 255; I Maccabees 15.3, V Maccabees 21.19, 21-4; Sebeos in Thomson 1978: 364-5. 4 Note Taylor 2013, p. 157; Overtoom 2016b; Id. 2016d. 5 For the successes of the Indo-Greek kings in India and their rivalry with the Bactrian kings, see Grainger 2013, pp. 71-76. Note also Narain 1957; Holt 1999, p. 135; Lerner 2015, pp. 309-311. The Indo-Greek king Menander conducted widespread conquests within India, even reaching Pataliputra. Strabo 11.11.1; Justin Prol. 41. 6 See Mair 2014, pp. 8-15, 23-26, 29, 90, 144, 161-163; Daryaee 2015, p. 288. For the culture of Xinjiang, see Yong & Binghua 1999. For the Hsiung-nu, see Yü 1990; Ishjamts 1999; Yong & Yutang 1999; Di Cosmo 2004, Chapter 5. For recent reconstructions of Yuezhi history, see Enoki, Koshelenko & Haidary 1994; Id. 1999; Benjamin 2007; Lerner 2015, p. 311-318. The Han emperor Wudi later tried to make an alliance with the Yuezhi to defeat the Hsiung-nu. See Tao 2007, pp. 91-92. C O N S I D E R I N G T H E F A I L U R E S O F T H E P A R T H I A N S 79 into Sogdiana.7 The Saka, seeking security and recognizing the vulnerability of the Bactrians, began to put mounting pressure on the northern frontier of Bactria, and by the end of the 130s BCE, the Saka and Yuezhi had overrun what remained of the Kingdom of Bactria.8 The Parthians and Bactrians had forged working relations with nume- rous tribal groups for generations, even recruiting them into their armies.9 Yet, since the reign of Mithridates I (ca. 165/164-132 BCE) the eastern frontier of the Parthian state had become increasingly unstable, and in the 120s BCE belligerent warrior bands poured into the vulnerable eastern territories of the Parthian state and devastated these regions.10 The Parthians’ struggle against the Central Asian tribal confederations was one of the most costly and difficult in their history. Two Parthian kings died in the conflict, destabilizing Parthian hegemony throughout the Hellenistic Middle East. Within a few years of their greatest victory, the Parthians found themselves beleaguered and nearly broken, temporarily losing control of the Iranian 11 plateau. I. THE MERCENARY REBELLION OF THE SAKA The extensive efforts of Mithridates I in the 140s BCE to secure a much- expanded and vulnerable eastern frontier and the subsequent collapse of the Kingdom of Bactria foreshadowed a major crisis for the Parthian state.12 7 See Mair 2014, pp. 17-18, 20, 144. For the Saka, see esp. Puri 1999; Harmatta 1999; Callieri 2016. 8 Mukherjee 1969; Grainger 2013, pp. 58-59. Some scholars point to the sudden abandonment of the prosperous town, Ai Khanum, in this period as an indication of Bactria’s collapse in the face of growing nomadic incursions. For the debate, see esp. Holt 2012, pp. 97, 99-112, 124-130, 132-133, 136, 138-143, 148, 154, 156, 164-167, 176-181, 183, 185-193, 195-196, 200, 206, 217, 219. Note also Grainger 2013, pp. 59- 62; Lerner 2015, pp. 308-313; Olbrycht 2016b. For a recent reconstruction of life at Ai Khanum, see Lecuyot 2007. Note also Bernard 1985; Rapin 1992; Bernard 2008. Some scholars argue that the last Greek king of Bactria, Heliokles I (ca. 125-190 BCE), ruled over the city of Baktra as a tributary vassal of the Yuezhi, who did not forcefully annex the region until the mid-first century BCE. See Cribb 2005, pp. 212- 214; Lerner 2010; Id. 2015, p. 313. 9 Debevoise 1938, p. 36; Wolski 1965; Bivar 1983, p. 38; Wolski 1996; Gaslain 2005; Assar 2005, p. 47; Id. 2006c, p. 111; Mairs 2013; Dąbrowa 2016. See Strabo 11.8.8; Justin 42.1.2. 10 For the recently revised chronology of Mithridates’ reign, see Assar 2005, pp. 41-45; Id. 2006a; Id. 2006b, pp. 88-98; Id. 2011, p. 117. Note also Grainger 2013, p. 72. 11 For recent reconstructions of the image of the Parthians, see Lerouge-Cohen 2007; Id. 2009; Id. 2010; Id. 2013; Id. 2017. For the Parthians in Iran, note Pigulevskaja 1963; Wolski 1991; Id. 1993; Callieri 2007; Callieri & Chaverdi 2013; Boucharlat 2014. 12 From 147-141 BCE Mithridates worked diligently to consolidate and secure the expanded frontiers of the Parthian state, also perhaps subduing tribes in southeastern 80 N. O V E R T O O M StIr 48, 2019 Perhaps by the early 130s BCE, the Saka confederation had advanced into what is modern day Turkmenistan and soon after began to impinge upon the Parthians’ frontier.13 Soon after Phraates II’s decisive victory over Antiochus VII in late 129 BCE, conflict between the Saka and the Parthians erupted.