The Parthians in Augustan Rome CHARLES BRIAN ROSE Abstract the political relationship between the opposing This article considers the conception and commemo- forces. ration of foreigners, especially Parthians, as diagrammed Ancient Rome was different. Victor and van- in the triumphal imagery of Augustan Rome. The inter- quished were regularly represented together, both action of Trojan and Parthian iconography during the on the field of battle and in subsequent triumphal Augustan period is analyzed, as is the new attitude to- ward the representation of foreigners that developed in processions. Poses of mourning were employed only Rome during the early Empire, when barbarians were for the subjugated, who were frequently presented presented as contributors to peace rather than its oppo- as family units, and in general the women and chil- nents. The focus is the general topographical context of dren shown in these scenes belonged to the side of the Parthian Arch on the east side of the Roman Forum, the vanquished rather than the victors.2 The power but the article also includes new iconographic readings of the Primaporta cuirass, the Ara Pacis, the Basilica Aemilia relationship between Roman and non-Roman, as it Parthians, and the altar from the Vicus Sandaliarius, as existed at the time of dedication, was always clearly well as triumphal monuments in Athens, Corinth, and diagrammed in the associated texts and images. As Antioch-in-Pisidia. The cuirassed figure facing the is the case with most war memorials, however, that Parthian on the Primaporta breastplate is identified as relationship changed over time, as did the topog- Roma, and the Eastern woman and child on the south frieze of the Ara Pacis are linked to the Parthian royal raphy of the adjacent areas, and both would have family resident in Rome during the Augustan period. A modified the ways in which the images were per- triumphal arch celebrating Gaius Caesar’s success over ceived. In other words, the meaning of the monu- the Parthians is reconstructed between the Basilica ment was dependent on its temporal and spatial Aemilia and the temple of Divus Julius, and its decora- contexts, and the associated iconography was there- tion was clearly designed to complement that of the ad- jacent Parthian Arch and the Temple of the Dioscuri. fore never static. The imagery on the eastern side of the Roman Forum Roman triumphal monuments that advertised the can be read as a program outlining the Julian dynasty’s growing scope of the empire regularly featured the involvement with the Parthians, and suggesting that the disparate regions of Europe, Africa, and Asia in East had finally been domesticated. personified form, but the polyvalent iconography of the eastern provinces always distinguished them War memorials of the 20th century, regardless of from the others in this group.3 The status inherent location, tend to focus on only one side of the con- in Eastern costume could be either high or low, flict, which is, of course, the side associated with the since it signified the Trojan foundations of Rome dedicators of the monument. From the Battle of as well as its fiercest foe, the Parthians. The design- Gallipoli to Vietnam, memorials typically showcase ers of victory monuments contended with this dual the alliance of the soldiers, their courage under fire, identity of the East throughout the Imperial pe- or the suffering of their fellow citizens, but the op- riod, but their most innovative projects were ex- ponent is generally absent, and this is true as well for ecuted in Rome during the Augustan period. With many of the monuments constructed in the early these projects came a new conception of enemy ico- Modern period.1 If women or children are included nography, vastly different from late Republican in the design, they are of the same ethnicity as the schemes, as well as a new construction of the com- dedicators, usually under their protection, and of- ponents of peace. ten shown in mourning. Although the visual pro- When Augustus composed the Res gestae, he de- gram sometimes attempts to persuade the viewer that voted more space to the pacification of Parthia and the war in question was justified, one generally re- Armenia than to his policies in any other region.4 ceives little information from the images per se about Roman determination to install client kings in the 1 Borg 1991; Young 1994; Winter 1998; Winter and Sivan 3 For groups of personified nations during the empire, 2000. see Kuttner 1995, 73–86. 2 Zanker 2000; Ferris 2000, 167; Rawson 2003, 54–9. For a 4 Res gestae 27, 29, 32, 33; Timpe 1975; Sherwin-White recent overview of the iconography of war in Greece and Rome, 1984, 323–41; Sonnabend 1986; Campbell 1993; and see Hölscher 2003. Wiesehöfer 1998 for Parthian attitudes toward Rome. 21 American Journal of Archaeology 109 (2005) 21–75 22 CHARLES BRIAN ROSE [AJA 109 latter area often led to war with the former, and 20,000 men killed on the battlefield, Carrhae did although no wars with Parthia per se occurred dur- not rival the death toll of Cannae, which appears to ing the principate of Augustus, the image of the have been more than four times that number; but humbled Parthian was ubiquitous in the monu- Carrhae was unique in that 10,000 Romans had ments, coinage, and literature of the Augustan pe- been taken prisoner, and they would ultimately stay riod.5 At various points the Augustan poets spoke in Parthia for 33 years. of exacting revenge against the Parthians for their Caesar was reportedly planning a major campaign past annihilation of so many Roman legions, but against the Parthians before his assassination, and Parthian imagery on contemporary coinage and the following decade would, in fact, witness several monuments, which is the focus of this article, tells a new campaigns against them, provoked primarily different story.6 by their invasion of Syria and murder of the prov- Several scholars have recently examined the role ince’s governor.7 The product of those campaigns— of the Parthians in Roman society, but the attic statu- led by L. Decidius Saxa in 40 B.C. and Antony in ary group on the Parthian Arch in the Roman Fo- 36—was the loss of more Roman standards, and cries rum, and its relationship to the surrounding for revenge against the Parthians grew increasingly structures, have never been systematically exam- louder in the works of Roman authors.8 ined, nor have they been tied to the broader issue Augustus’s strategy to ensure the return of the of Asian iconography during the early Empire. standards involved diplomacy backed by force: ear- Doing so requires a comprehensive survey of ly in the summer of 20 B.C., his stepson Tiberius Parthian iconography on the monuments of Au- brought a large legion to Armenia, while Augustus gustan Rome, including the emperor’s statue from himself traveled to Syria to effect the transfer of Primaporta, the Ara Pacis, and the interior decora- both standards and hostages.9 Some of the Roman tion of the Basilica Aemilia, as well as the provincial hostages could no longer be found, and a few com- commemoration of the eastern campaign of Gaius mitted suicide rather than return, but most trav- Caesar (2 B.C.–A.D. 4). All of these monuments eled to Rome along with the standards in October reveal a new attitude toward the East in Augustan of 19 B.C.10 The Senate voted Augustus a trium- foreign policy, which would continue to shape Ro- phal arch, and the standards were installed in a man commemoration of eastern conquest through- new circular temple of Mars Ultor on the Capito- out the remainder of the dynasty. line, thereby effectively redefining ultor (avenger) as a word that signified Roman victory over the representing parthia and rome Parthians.11 The new temple was reportedly built Of the military defeats suffered by the Romans in imitation of that of Jupiter Feretrius, also on the in the course of the Republic, three battles stand Capitoline, which had allegedly been founded by out in terms of catastrophic losses: two against Han- Romulus to receive the spolia opima of the Canin- nibal during the Second Punic War (Lake Trasim- ians.12 That shrine had recently been restored by ene and Cannae), and one against the Parthians Augustus himself, and although the two buildings (Carrhae in 53 B.C.), when the armies of Crassus apparently featured different ground plans, the lost the Roman standards to the enemy. Even with link between the military success of Romulus and 5 Van der Vin 1981; Schneider 1986, 1998; Rich 1998; us, Suetonius notes that Tiberius recovered the standards (Tib. Schäfer 1998. 9), but all other authors indicate that they were recovered by 6 For the theme of Parthia in Augustan poetry, see Wisse- Augustus (including Suetonius, in his life of Augustus), and mann 1982. the Tiberian reference is generally assumed to be an error. 7 Caesar’s Parthian campaign: Plut. Vit. Caes. 58.6; Malitz 1984; See Van der Vin 1981, 120–1. Sonnabend 1986, 179–85. 11 Dio Cass. 54.8.2–3; Res gestae 29; Fuchs 1969, 74–6; Reuss- 8 Goldsworthy 2001 (Cannae); Gallorini 1994 (Lake Trasim- er 1996; Rich 1998, 79–91. ene); Timpe 1962; Sherwin-White 1984, 218–26, 279–90, 307– 12 Fuchs 1969, 38, 73–5; Anderson 1984, 68; Simpson 1993a; 21; Nedergaard 1988a, 103–7; Invernizzi 2001 (Carrhae and Herbert-Brown 1994, 95–108; Gurval 1995, 283; Coarelli 1996; subsequent Parthian campaigns). An iron vexillum of third cen- Rich 1998, 79–97; Hannah 1998, 425–30; Schäfer 1998, 49– tury A.D.