مجله مطالعات ایرانی (Feb 2020)
the formation of the Parthian dynasty of Armenia (Arshakuni dynasty)
Abstract
1. Introduction Armenia has long been of importance for the Iranian plateau because of its geographical location. The formation of the Parthian Empire on the Iranian plateau and the advance of the Roman Empire to the eastern territories has doubled the significance of this land. That's why the rivalry between Iran and Rome intensified for influence on this land. However, the rivalry between Iran and Rome for the capture of Armenia after military conflicts led to the formation of a branch of the Parthian in Armenia, but the rivalry between Iran and Rome, as a result of the Romanian dissatisfaction, did not stop, and for the past century The sequel to the main conflict between Iran and Rome. 2. Methodology This essay, based on descriptive analytical method, analyzes the formation of the Armenian Parthian dynasty by analyzing the political relations between Iran and Rome and identifying its factors and fields with the help of new sources and research. The main issue of the present article is that the influence of the Parthians on Armenia was influenced by the factors and how the Parthians, despite the intense rivalry of the Romans to dominate the region, succeeded in consolidating their dominance over Armenia in 63 AD. 3. Discussion The succession crises of Phraates IV in Iran make the Romans easily interfere in Armenia's political affairs and protect Armenia. Instead, the Romans consider Phraates V as the Parthian and Euphrates empire as the border between the imperial monarchy and Roman Empire recognize) Velleius Paterculus, 1924, II, 101-102). Abandoning Phraates V from Armenia was contrary to the policy pursued by the Parthians from the time of Mithridates II to unite Armenia and influence in this land in front of the Roman, and perhaps Phraates's silence about this was one of the reasons for the dissident dissatisfaction with Phraates V. Because the Parthian liturgy ultimately set up a rebellion against him and, after a brief strike, removed him from the kingdom and killed him(cf. Josephus, 1969, Book XXXIII, 2). It is apparent that the Parthians were well aware of the strategic and influential importance of Armenia, and it was possible that the Roman influence in Armenia and even Iran, and the silence of Phraates V, would have been dangerous. Augustus the Roman emperor, then held Armenia as a puppet kingdom, and appointed Vonon I to its kingdom (cf. Temporini & Haase, 1980, 1160). In this way, under the pressure of the imperial monarchy, the death of the emperor and Artabanus's pressure on his successor to drive Vonon from Armenia eradicated this danger from the Parthians. For the next three years, Wonon was removed from the Armenian throne by Romans(Garsoian, 1997, 64). Perhaps this was done by the Romans, following the pressure and compromise that Artabanus II had with the new Roman Emperor, because the Parthian monarchy felt the presence of one of his rivals on the throne of Armenia as a great danger, and as a result, It can take away this danger. After more than fifteen years of peaceful coexistence between the two powers of Iran and Rome, this peaceful coexistence eventually came to an end in 35 AD, after the death of Artaxes III, the king of Armenia(cf. Schippmann, 1986, 647-50). Artabanus took the opportunity and took his son Arashk on his throne and in his letter to Tiberius he inherited the owner of the Achaemenid and Selukid(cf. Tacitus, 1959, Book VI, 31). Artabanus's goal was to restore the Achaemenid frontiers. Artabanus was able to some extent rebuild his influence over the rebellious nobility in different parts of the country, and also his success in foreign policy, and in particular his continuing involvement in the affairs of Armenia, pushed Rome to deflect the Parthians into internal affairs and conflicts Engage in power. As a result, Artabanus eventually fails to take Armenia's arrogance after several attempts to overthrow Armenia, but it does not appear that Artabanus has completely hoped for Armenia. With the beginning of the second half of the first century, the first Vologases (about 51-79 AD) end tensions and conflicts within the royal dynasty and its main policy is directed towards Armenia. The classic sources confirm that the main axis of the policy was the first issue of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XV, 24). For this reason, he brings an army to Armenia and nominates his brother as the king of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XII, 50). The capture of Armenia took place without resistance and opposition from the indigenous population, indicating that the Armenians preferred the Parthians to the Romans(Garsoian,1997: 64). It seems that the Armenians were tired and sick of Romanism in Armenia, and they did not want to return to their own destiny and their country to the Romans who did not share them. Of course, Roman did not remain silent against this decision by the Armenians and the Parthian King of King, and after several occasions of fighting and defeat of the Parthians, it was finally possible to resolve the Armenian issue with peaceful and peaceful means. Therefore, after negotiations, both sides agreed with Randia's agreement that Prince Arsachd would be the king of Armenia, provided that he received the royal crown only from the emperor. With this agreement, the Parthians became the real masters of Armenia, and at the same time recognized the validity of Rome's claim to create a secular kingdom. 3. Conclusion During the Parthian period, Armenia, for each of the powers of Iran and Rome, was to exert influence over the territories of the other side and preserve the domination of the territories under their possession. The fall of the local Armenian dynasty in Armenia by the Roman Empire caused the Armenian nation's dissatisfaction with the Roman Empire and their tendency towards the Parthians. As a result, the Armenian armed forces undertook measures to overthrow the Roman influence in the area. In particular, during the Artabanus II period, which was of great importance to Armenia, and in the aftermath of the revival of the former monarchy, the Parthians, in competition with the Roman Empire, were able to slaughter Romanian kings many times from Armenia and instead put their children on the Armenian throne. But the Roman Empire, by incitement to the invading nations of Iran and the support of the Parthian princes in Rome, caused Artabanus's plight that he was unable to address in Armenia. Of course, the competition between the Romanized Greeks in Armenia and their quarrels over power sparked the Armenian hatred of the Romans and reasserted their long-standing ties to the Parthians again. As a result, the Arsacds King of King, with the support of the Armenian clans and after several fights with the Roman Empire, sacked his brother Tiridates, with the apparent confirmation of Rome, on the throne of Armenia. Although this was done by agreement between Iran and Rome, however, since the Roman Empire was forced to do so by diplomacy and by force of the Parthian Arms, it would use every chance to prevent the formation of the Arsacids of Armenia. But the support of the paratroopers from this dynasty in Armenia, because of the strategic position of this land, prevented the realization of this goal of Rome.
Keywords
