Parthian-Pontic Alliance and Armenia as Parthian Vasall State

In the struggle between the two great empires of the Romans and Parthians, some states were able to maintain their existence, albeit in a constant state of dependence. It is interesting to observe that among these states were those whose leadership was of mixed origin and had an Eranian ancestry. Among them were the kingdom of Pontus, Ariarathia and Kommagene.

A Narrative by Varan

North of Kalan and Erez (Erezengan) and thus on the most northwestern border of the Parthian Empire bordered the Kingdom of Pontus. The kingdom had been founded by Mithridates I Ktistes of Pontus. The relations between the Parthians and Pontians began at a time when Armenia was a vassal of the Parthians. The Pontians, on the other hand, were not vassals but allies of the Parthian Empire.

Mihrdāt II of Parthia, after 25 years, in 95 B.C., installed Tigran II in Armenia as a vassal. Previously, he had defeated Tigran’s uncle, Artawasdes I, and dictated the conditions that Tigran II had to be a friend of the Parthians and had to surrender seventy valleys to the Parthian Empire (Strabon 11.15.15). This new circumstance made Pontus a direct neighbor of the Arsacid Empire.

From the Parthian parchments of Hawraman (88 B.C.), which were written in the rich Parthian language at the same time it can be learned that the daughter of Tigran II, Aryzante, was the second wife of Mihrdāt II, the Parthian “king of kings” (Schottky 1990: 214). It also appears that Tigran II was a vassal at this time (Olbrycht 2009: 169).

The Parthian Empire and its vassal state Armenia under Tigran II, as well as the Parthian satellite states in the Caucasus played a major role in the behavior of the Pontic Mihrdāt IV Eupator and Rome. Mihrdāt VI Eupator (ca. 120-63 BC. ) of Pontus, who was himself also an Eranian, favored aggressive action against the growing Roman Empire, unlike many Anatolian petty kingdoms (Reinach 1890, 1895, Molev 1976, McGing 1986, Hind 1994, Strobel 1996, Ballesteros-Pastor 1996, Callatay 1997, Olshausen 1978, 2000, Heinen 1991, 2005a, 2005b, Saprykin 1996, Olbrycht 2004, Hojte 2005).

The kingdom of Pontus, led by Mihrdāt Eupator, set the great military operations to the eastern and even northern coasts of the Black Sea (Olbrycht 2009: 164). Eupator aimed at strengthening his Pontic kingdom, which led to serious conflicts of interest between Pontus and Rome (Olbrycht 2009: 163). Mithridates Eupator of Pontus then later turned his attention to Anatolian kingdoms such as Paphlagonia and Galatia (Olbrycht 2009: 164). His other conquest targets then included Cappadocia. These actions, especially with the risk of attracting Roman suspicion, could hardly have been dared by Mithridates Eupator of Pontus without the backing of the Parthian Empire. Strabon gives us a picture of how strong the Parthian imperial power was in this hemisphere, emphasizing that the Parthians were even the masters of Cilicia – “and this before the Armenians” (Olbrycht 2009: 167, Strabo 14.5.2). If we consider where Cilicia is geographically located, between the Taurus and the northeastern Mediterranean coast, the Parthians’ vast sphere of influence at the time in question becomes clear to us.

Also the massive occurrence of Parthian coins in Iberia and the Ardxan region indicates the enlarged Parthian sphere of influence. Iberian (Georgian) regents also acted as Parthian vassals and supported the kingdom of Pontus in accordance with the Arsacid policy (Olbrycht 2009: 171). Pontus thus found itself emboldened by the large backing of the Parthians and its vassals to move aggressively against Rome and attack it head-on.

In the 90s BC, the situation between the Parthian vassal state of Armenia, Pontus and the Roman Empire escalated. Tigran II invaded Cappadocia under the care and backing of the Parthians, and Dura Europhos in Syria came under direct Parthian rule (ibid.: 167). Commagene, west of the Euphrates, came under Parthian control for a time (ibid.). Moreover, in the later period, Commagene’s king Antiochos I gave his daughter Laodike in marriage to the Parthian king Werod II (also called Orod or Arad, 57-38 BC), thus securing the ties between Commagene and Parthia through a kinship relationship (Ellerbrock, Winkelmann 2012: 102).

The Pontic-Parthian alliance was indispensable to Eupator, and a lively relationship is reported between Mihrdāt VI Eupator of Pontus and Mihrdāt II of Parthia (Olbrycht 2009: 163). The presence of Parthian envoys at the Pontic court and even an inscription from the Delos Herron venerating the Parthian Mihrdāt II as king of kings make clear the special relations of Mithridates VI Eupator with Parthia (ibid.: 168).

Appian the Historian reports a conversation shortly before the first Mithridatic war, which is addressed to the Roman generals, wherein Eupator’s allies are enumerated. Among them are mentions of Colchis, the Greeks of the Black Sea, and “the barbarians beyond these”. The Scythians, Sarmatians, Thracians, Bastarnai, Taurians and all the tribes wandering around the Tanais (Don), Ister (Danube) and Lake Maitis (Azov Sea) are also listed. Finally, Tigranes II of Armenia is also mentioned and “Arsakes of Parthia – his philos” (friend) (Olbrycht 2009: 171). The Parthian backing, the Parthian control over Armenia and the Parthian alliance with Pontus as well as all the Caucasian satellite states of the Parthians led to a great concern for the Romans. The political entanglements and friendly relations that the vassals and satellite states had with the Parthians must have been a serious threat to the Romans (ibid.).

The conflict between the two great powers erupted, among other places, in the kingdom of Ariarathia (Er. Ariaramnes “the guardian of the Aryans”) in Cappadocia. This was triggered by the dispute over the succession to the throne of Ariarathia, for which reason Parthia waged a proxy war over Tigran II. The invasion of Tigran II into the Cappadocian kingdom of Ariarathia also provoked a revelation of Roman positioning to the powers in the area. For instead of negotiating with Tigran, in which the Romans saw no benefit, they wanted to talk with Parthia (ibid.: 174).

Mithridates Eupator sent his son Ariarathes against Ariobarzan (“the most exalted of the Aryans”), the regent of Ariarathia in Cappadocia. Ariobarzan was quickly ousted from the land.

In 89 BC, Mithridates Eupator of Pontus came to his peak with the help of several nomadic Aryan tribes from north of the Black Sea and also his greatest supporter Mihrdāt II. During the first Mithridatic war against Rome, the Arsacid Empire took advantage of the opportunity and made Syria its protectorate in 88/87 BC (ibid.: 177). But a turning point was approaching that would abruptly change the politics of the region.

In 87 BC, the Parthian “Mihrdāt the Great” died, with which Parthava lost its greatest emperor, Mithridates Eupator, on the other hand, his most important and powerful supporter (Olbrycht 2009: 177). The Parthian Arsacid Empire fell into a dark period, which was marked by throne disputes and lasted until the end of the 70s BC (Ziegler 1964: 20-32).

Mihrdāt II’s son, Godarz, assumed the throne until 80 BCE (Olbrycht 2009: 177). Werod, who was his rival, is also mentioned as ruler during this turbulent period, along with Godarz (Olbrycht 2009: 177, Olbrycht 1998b: 109), which is why a power conflict was sparked among the Parthians. The throne soon changed again, with which Sinatruk appeared on the scene. Toward the end of the 70s B.C.E., a devastating balance emerged as a result of a decade of internal conflict in the daily life of the Arsacid court.

Fig. 1: Reanimation of Mithridates II

After the death of the Parthian king of kings Mihrdāt II in 87 BC and the dispute between Godarz and Werod, Tigran II saw his hour as come and led a shady game. The intra-dynastic conflicts also led to discontent in Syria, which is why the people in the area were looking for a strong king and thus a stable situation. Tigran II took advantage of this opportunity and his position as a Parthian vassal and nested himself in Syria. The Syrians met him amicably, knowing him to be a Parthian vassal and thus a Parthian representative. His kinship relationship with the Arsacids supported this assumption. However, Tigran II used this misconstrued association for his own plans (Olbrycht 2009: 177).

At the time of Tigran II’s capture of Antioch and proclamation of himself as king, he was officially still a Parthian vassal. This reputation and the formal authority to act on behalf of the Parthian empire allowed him to be recognized and accepted by the population of Antioch (Antakya) in the first place (ibid., Bellinger 1949: 80, Sullivan 1990: 373).

Thus, Tigran appropriated the trust of the people of Syria and the Levant through this unusual duplicitous action as a Parthian vassal. His feigned intention to protect and stabilize the region was basically a silent capture of the region for his own power-political interests. Through the good faith of the Levantine victims, Tigran II succeeded – more through diplomatic actions than militarily – in capturing Syria and large parts of the Levant.

Tigran II immediately took advantage of the civil war in Parthia and, during the reign of Sinatruk, annexed Gordyene, Xosrowan, Nisibis, and parts of Adurpadagan-all territories under the control of the Parthian state (Olbrycht 2009: 177-178). He then gave himself the title “King of Kings” and founded the new capital Tigrankerta (ibid: 178).

For Pontus, the situation did not bode well. Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus tried to restore the alliance and asked for a rapprochement with Sinatruk and Frahāt III. In 73 BC, Mithridates asked for support from Sinatruk. However, his request remained without consequences. Tigran, meanwhile, was making plans of his own.

As a result of the whole unstable situation, another Mithridatic war breaks out (all three in total between 89-63 BC), which shakes Anatolia. In the 3rd Mithridatic war, Mithridates Eupator ultimately loses to the Romans without the support of Parthia and flees to Tigran, who, however, does not hand him over to Rome (Olbrycht 2009: 178). In the face of growing Roman power in the west, both rulers try to re-establish a good relationship with Parthia in order to maintain any independence at all, or even the existence of their state, and not fall under Roman control. But the betrayal of Tigran was still too present for the Parthians.

The then Arsacid king Frahāt III does negotiate with them, Mithridates even brings forth new strategies. But Frahāt III is new to the office of king and was not Mihrdāt II, which is why Pontus is eventually conquered outright by the Romans and Tigran II degenerates into a Roman vassal. His plans to establish a great Armenian empire from his kingdom perishes as quickly as it had come. His act of betraying Parthia probably also led sooner or later to the downfall of Pontus and of Tigran II himself, although this cannot be seen as the key event of the matter. The main factor in the success of Roman expansion was much more likely the death of Mihrdāt the Great of Parthia. Without the Parthian Empire behind them, Pontus and Armenia were at the mercy of Rome – leading to their demise.

The loss of Anatolia to Rome ushered in a new era. For the region could have been under Parthian-Eranian hegemonic power, as it had been before with the Achaemenids, which would have had far-reaching consequences into the modern era.

Ballesteros-Pastor, L. 1996. Mitridates Eupator, rey del Ponto. Granada.

Bellinger, A.R. 1949. The end oft he Seleucids. Transaction of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 38.

Callatay, F. de. 1997. L’histoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies. Louvain-La-Neuve.

Ellerbrock, U., Winkelmann, S. 2012. Die Parther – Die vergessene Grossmacht. Philipp von Zabern Verlag, Darmstadt.

Heinen, H. 1991. Mithridates VI. Eupator und die Völker des nördlichen Schwarzmeerraums. HambBeitragA 18.

Heinen, H. 2005a. Die Anfänge der Beziehungen Roms zum nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum. Die Romfreundschaft der Chersonesiten.

Heinen, H. 2005b. Mithridates VI. Eupator, Chersonesos und die Skythenkönige. Kontroversen um Appian, Mithr. 12f. und Memnon 22,3f.

Hind, J.G.F. 1994. Mithridates, in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic. Cambridge.

Højte, J.M. 2005. Mithridates VI af Pontos – Roms perfekte fjende. Arhus.

Manandian, Hagop. 1963. Tigrane II & Rome. Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian.

Manaserjan, P.L. 1985. Bor’ba Tigrana protiv ekspansii Rima v Kappadokii v 93-91 gg. Do n.e., VDI 3.

McGing, B.C. 1986. The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden.

Molev, E.A. 1976. Mitridat Evpator. Saratov.

Oelsner, J. 1975. Randbemerkungen zur arsakidischen Geschichte anhand von babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, Altorientalische Forschungen 29.

Olbrycht, M.J. 1998b. Parthia et ulteriores gentes. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen dem arsakidischen Iran und den Nomaden der eurasischen Steppen. München.

Olbrycht, M.J. 2004. Mithridates VI. Eupator, der Bosporos und die sarmatischen Völker, in: J. Chochorowski (ed.), Kimmerowie, Scytowie, Sarmaci. Ksiega poswiecona pamieci Profesora Tadeusza Sulimirskiego. Krakow, 331-347.

Olbrycht, M.J. 2009. Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran, in Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom. Aarhus.

Olshausen, E. 1978. S.v. Pontos, RE Suppl. 15.

Olshausen, E. 2000. Mithradatische Kriege, DNP 8.

Reinach, Th. 1890. Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont. Paris.

Reinach, Th. 1895. Mithridates Eupator, König von Pontos, mit Berichtigungen und Nachträgen des Verfassers ins Deutsche übertragen von A. Goetz. Leipzig.

Saprykin, S.Ju. 1996. Pntijskoe carstvo. Moskva.

Schottky, M. 1990. Gibt es Münzen atropatenischer Könige?, AMI 23.

Schottky, M. 2002; Garsoian 2005. Tigranes, DNP 12.

Strabo. Geography, Perseus.tufts.edu. URL: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0197%3Abook%3D11%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D1, retrieved in May 13th, 2022.

Sullivan, R.D. 1990. Near Eastern Royalty and Rome. Toronto.

Strobel, K. 1996. Mithridates VI. Eupator von Pontos. OrbTerr.

Ziegler, K.H. 1964. Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich. Wiesbaden.