How Parthian Kingship Evolved and Developed - Essay Example

How Parthian Kingship Evolved and Developed Insert Insert The royal image of the Parthian kings has been analyzed by the use of the coinage that initially belonged to the early Arsacids who are also known as Parthian kings. The Parthian empire grew enormously and was vast. The Arsacids were able to overtake the territory of the Seleucid and at time; they fended off their previous primitive overlords. Finally, the Parthians survived as Seleucid dynasty finally disappeared. They remained a challenging force, rivals to small states and the Roman Empire. Hence, it becomes now the Parthian Empire. The study of Parthian Empire has been aided through the study of the coins of the earlier Arsacids in the mid-second century BCE. Mithradates I who was able to take most territories of the Seleucid established the Parthian Empire. At this time, he developed a Parthian reign over a period of four hundred years in the Iran area. Mithrades shifted his army from the native land in Parthia and moved to the west and south, powerfully into the heartland of the Seleucids. He ruled for thirty years and ended up with autonomy from the Seleucids and a larger empire that Parthians had never had before (Bloom & Downey, 1989). After his reign, Mithradates II took over the territory that brought drastic changes in the empire. Mithradates II initiated a new reign, enlarging the Empire after unrest period and diminished territory. He managed to implement a distinctive visual language from the previous period. Mithradates II is known to be one of the ultimate Parthian kings. His greatness results from the extension and consolidation of the empire. He also came with new ways of communication as well as new symbols. Under Mithradates II iconography became much of Iranian including the implementation of a detailed tiara. It can be established that the Parthian kings who trailed Mithradates I were the rulers a future empire flung with occupants from various category of cultures and background (Colledge, 1967). Throughout Parthian kingship evolvement, the Parthian kingdom transformation from the local power to an empire was a great step. When it comes to royal identity display, Mithradates used various ways to legitimize their rule through certain identity projection. Dynastic legitimization enabled him to get attached to the former rulers in the Arsacid line. With this regard, Mithradates managed to show that he was rational next in line. Through idolizing his father and not Arsakes I, he was guaranteed of a godly ancestor. Through his usage of Arsacid name, he managed to position himself in line of the Parthian empire development. As a result, it gave Mithradates a firm identity as a Parthian, whereas allowing other communication means and culture open (Curtis & Stewart, 2007). In addition, the use of multi- interpretable and Greek elements on the coin displayed royal identity. It is viewed that the obverse faced similar way as obverses of the Seleucid faced. The diadem in various cultures had a meaning was adopted by Mithradates connected him with distanced him from the population of the Greek. The symbol of the beard was a vow for victory among the Parthian culture. Parthian coinage transformed from the traditional shape to something meaningful for Seleucid coinage and use of other cultural symbols to appeal to a greater audience. For this to work, certain conditions had to be fulfilled. The cultural elements had to be known by the targeted people and that the occupants of the empire were required to associate with their ruler (Ghirshman, 1962). The kingship institution is a remarkable element of political order among pre-Islamic Iran. The Achaemenids laid the base for the kingship ideology in pre-Islamic Iran. The ruler of this dynasty termed himself as Old Persian to mean one who is described by a kingdom. This title is known to have originated from the Median language following a Mesopotamian model. The Achaemenids on the other hand established themselves relative to the kings of the leading kingdoms of Assyria, Babylon, Media, and Urartu, demanding to be their legitimate heirs. The king of king’s title was initially of Mesopotamian origin but was derived by the Persians from Urartu. Hence, in this period, it became the title of the Iranian leaders (Mesopotamian religious architecture: Alexander through the Parthians, 1988). Kingship in Persia is rooted more specifically in the Persis and attached to its origin family of Achaemenes. At the time when Darius was in power, the Achaemenids acquired throne names at consent that at times seemed to have exemplified a Kings program. The Parthian Empire had various cultures that must have been multi-faceted. The Parthian conception of culture has changed over years. The cultures included the Iranian culture, Semitic culture, and the Greek culture. The Greek culture were rich and had a strong political influence, but their social status was limited that led to worn out of their cultural aspects that included a gymnasium. Throughout the impact of Semetic and Greek population, it can be seen that the ancestor cults obtained popularity in the period of Parthians (Rose, 2005). Many developments took place in the Semitic culture throughout the Parthian and Seleucid reign. During this period, the Iranian religion had a minimal influence on the area. According to Persian member’s tribal aristocracy, the king of the Achaemenid has been known to be a primus inter pares. Such informal leadership if practiced in developed societies is not consistent with the ruler’s propagated position. The period of the Arsacids and Achaemenids was the era of Seleucid leadership in Iran. It is clear that Seleucus including his successors sensitively and skillfully employed the native traditions to legitimize their own rule. The transformation of the political structures, their rule of perception that acquired the traditions of the subjugated people spread to their successor’s era. By second century BC, the Parthians enlarged their monarchy and attacked most parts of the Seleucid and Mesopotamia. In addition, they became owners of culturally, ethnically, and politically heterogeneous empire and to deal with cultural traditions, religion, and multiplicity of political institutions. As Iranians, and as Seleucid’s successors, the Arsacids had to look for their own ways of legitimizing and developing their own rule in their kingdom (Rose, 2005). The history of Parthian kingship dates back to mid-3rd century BC. The information acquired from Parthian Mesopotamian cuneiform texts, material culture, and coins distributed by Parthian kings provide detailed information about ideological and material aspects of the royal power of the Parthian concept. Archeologically, the first leader of the Parthian was Arsaces whose career started as Aparni tribe leader. It is through Arsaces leadership that Parthian kingship evolved which was borne by his successors. The political achievement of Arsaces 1 became a paramount citation fact in the Parthian concept shaping of their kingship. The development of the monarchy established a base for the integration of a state that constitute several culturally and ethnically various lands incorporated by subjugation. The ideology of the royalty was affected since Arsaces was the national dynasty founder as well as a national hero. The dynasty ruled the Parthian state and was never interrupted by its fall down at about 228 AD. However, this favored both cultivation and preservation of the dynasty tradition and the monarchical ideology development (Wolman & Colledge, 1968). The monarchy established by Arsaces was hereditary and absolute. The succession principle of the dynasty functioned from Arsaces 1 onwards. This was based on the customary rule of the appointment of the eldest son to the throne. With this regard, a ruler could name a brother or a younger son to succeed him. The brothers in the royalty stood high in the hierarchy of the Arsacid dynasty. They represented a great part in executing plans of political rulers. This can be illustrated when Vologases 1 appointed his two brothers to rule vassal states. He gave his elder brother; Pacorus the throne of Media Atropatene while the younger brother, Tiridates, the throne of Armenia. Therefore, this was meant to strengthen Parthian rule in areas that are politically and strategically sensitive, which for decades had been the contention bone and arena with Rome rivalry (Ghirshman, 1962). At times, the king’s sons were delegated with political tasks that are major. This is seen when Orodes son, Pacorus was sent out to his father to Syria to head a large army to conquer it on Arsacids behalf when the Romans had a civil war against them. The Arsacid family’s departure from traditional succession rules resulted in dynastic usurpations and conflict. As a result, it leads to polygamy, which Parthian kings, practiced. The competition among various royal sons resulted in the removal of the pretenders by the winner. Throughout Arsacid rule, the names of some Arsacid wives appeared subsequent to their husbands in the formula of dating in particular documents. Hence, the Queens name in the formula of dating showed royal consorts as public persons appearing at the side of the king. A paramount factor used by the Arsacids in their wives choosing was commonality in their cultural traditions (Colledge, 1967). Besides, a ruler used self-presentation as a way to communicate messages to his followers, as well as the outside world. Arsacids portraits evolved as decades passed. The portrait on the coins clearly illustrates how the Arsacids kingship has evolved. The coin portrait of the early kingship shows a customary royal title. As centuries passed on, the coin portrait indicated a standardized kingship showing a royal title. Since then, the royal power of kingship changed from customary to a standardized representation. As such it acquired an increasingly diverse Iranian character. In addition, the important outward signs of royal power of the Arsacid was a diadem. The essential attributes included a throne and a bow. The throne represented the Arsacids might. The loss of the might throne was a major loss to Parthian prestige. It is clearly shown when they attempted to acquire back their throne after the Romans had seized it at the time of Emperor Trajan’s expedition between 113-117 AD. However, since then, a new throne has always differed from the previous one in its design and shape enhancing kingship evolvement. Parthian monarchy was also associated with royal capitals and palaces where the king was symbolically or physically present for his people (Colledge, 1967). The descending lessons were well-received and brought development to the kingdom. The capital and palaces were visible symbols of king’s power that strengthen the emotional attachment to his people. Some royal palaces represented a great role in upholding the dynastic tradition of the Arsacids. Therefore, they were places where the Arsacid traditions was propagated and cultivated. For instance, the Arsacid royal palace residence at Old Nisa established before Mithradates 1 kingship (Bloom & Downey, 1989). Apart from being a residence, the palace served as the main Arsacid center of dynastic propaganda. Early Parthian statehood history reveals that during periods of great subjugations, the kings tended to select for their succeeding capitals, major centers of the lands they subjugated. As they relocated their capital to the subsequent location, they retained status of their earlier seats, which served as authority regional centers visited by the kings on a periodic basis. After Mesopotamia conquest in 141 BC, winter residence was established in Ctesiphon that served as Arsacids capital until the fall down of Parthian empire. The Parthian monarchs attitudes of the subject were negatively influenced by several factors especially the majesty of the king, his faithfulness to national traditions as well as his personal bravery. The king’s majesty of the Parthians in relation to his surroundings has various meaningful mentions that still exist. It clearly shows that the king’s dignity was greatly valued by the Arsacids, particularly with their Rome relations (Bloom & Downey, 1989). The envoy of Mithradates II to Sulla, Orobazes who had been offered the duty 2 triumphant Roman compliance to Parthian claims to impact in Anatolia, was immediately sentenced to death since he failed to adequately represent his king’s mighty in dialogue with Sulla. With this regard, he failed to achieve the outcome of the mission. A paramount factor of the majesty of the king was his bearing against enemies.Arsacid empire history is full of armed conflicts. On several occasions, the kings of Parthians directed their armies against their enemies that resulted in the death of their majority during the battle. His subjects, adding to his self-presentation indicating his courage and conferring on him the magnificence of victory, anticipated Kings Presence in battle. Such insolence could have been subjected by ethnicities going back to the Parthians tribal past including borrowed patterns from the world of Hellenists (Bloom & Downey, 1989). The relevance attached to propaganda victory is well showed by various subjects of Parthian king’s coins on whose obverses a definite allegory denotes Nike crowning head of the ruler. A vital factor, in manipulating the main attitudes towards their subsequent rulers, was the treatment of the origin of Iranian national tradition as well as dress code, lifestyle, and widely known customs. The Parthian aristocracy who view in an establishing constituent of their cultural and political identity valued this traditional compliance. While acknowledging the Arsacids right to occupy the throne, the aristocrats hoped in return conduct in harmony and a style of government with such traditions. However, breach of compliance more than once resulted in the political struggle and tension in the aristocracy (Curtis & Stewart, 2007). It also led to failure to obey the king as well as other groups providing aid to candidates to the throne who considered their expectations. The deep attachment of the Parthian magnificent choice to national traditions cannot be seen apart from the royal ideology of the Arsacids. The evaluation of the transformation in the ideology points out that the Iranian traditions existed even at the time of the early reigns. Although, it involved elements of royal ideology appropriate to the Hellenistic world, the Seleucids ruling Mesopotamia and Central Asia including Alexander of Macedon inheritance. The traditions of the Iranians in the Arsacid royal ideology that could become the basis Arsacids Iranism achieved importance at the time of Mithrades II (Curtis & Stewart, 2007). It was during this time that major transformations were familiarized to royal iconography including new genealogical traditions that came up, which revealed blood relations among the Achaemenids and the Parthian dynasty. The use of such elements in the royal ideology of the Arsacid was intended to point out that the Arsacids are the heirs of the Achaemenids. Hence authenticating the Parthian kings claim to rule lands, which had been once part of the Achaemenid state. It also provides the reason for the Arsacid claims of the heritage ideology of the Persian kings. To verify the deceptions, the Parthian kings titulature was enlarged to cover the title ‘’King of Kings’’. Mithradates I started it at his reign end and as from Mithradates II onwards, his successors used the title often (Ghirshman, 1962). It therefore, became a culture that the Arsacids employed the title actively especially by those involved in external policies with a target to own new territories and to reinforce their influence in lands, which had been once a part of Achaemenid state as well as Alexander of the Macedon’s empire. As a result, the policy was based on the Arsacid political program until the fall down of Parthian empire. Religion dimension remains to be the least known factor among the Parthian monarchy. The royal ideology of the Arsacid promotes Arsaces I as the Parthian state maker and the initiator of the ruling dynasty. With this regard, there is no historical justification stating that he was holy neither was any object of worship mentioned. However, efforts were made to divinize the monarch rule hence the practice never gained acceptance in that society reason being that it was unknown to believers in Zoroastrianism (Ghirshman, 1962). On the other hand, the coinage use of a ruler’s divinity indicates that the Arsacids found its advantage since it promoted their dynastic propaganda. The royal ideology of the Arsacid provides a wealth of particular messages that made up the original system of notions and values developed by putting together different provenance of elements. As identified in this ideology, Greek elements were steadily removed out of importance and replaced by widely known Iranian tradition that predominated at the end, which resulted in a national character. The monarchy of the Arsacid must not be viewed as a replica of any previous version neither as a Hellenistic monarchy barbarized form (Ghirshman, 1962). Therefore, the monarch was the initial form of the oriental kingship. A paramount factor in this material is the coin that gives more image of the Parthian kingship. Mithradates coinage could communicate to various people at the same time. Therefore, Parthian kingship was intelligent and diverse. It managed to aim various groups at once in a violent and unstable time when required within a short term. Mithradates portrayed is seen as a strong king who never feared to challenge a hegemonic power. Similarly, he did not hold a grudge against those who previously associated with the power he had won. He was friendly to the cities elite and could speak to the other cultures identities. He stayed a Parthian with a heritage that was strong. References Bloom, J., & Downey, S. (1989). Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians. American Journal Of Archaeology, 93(4), 612. doi:10.2307/505343 Colledge, M. (1967). The Parthians. New York: Praeger. Curtis, V., & Stewart, S. (2007). The age of the Parthians. London: I.B. Tauris. Ghirshman, R. (1962). Iran: Parthians and Sassanians. [London]: Thames and Hudson. Mesopotamian religious architecture: Alexander through the Parthians. (1988). Choice Reviews Online, 26(03), 26-1327-26-1327. doi:10.5860/choice.26-1327 Rose, C. (2005). The Parthians in Augustan Rome. American Journal Of Archaeology, 109(1), 21-75. doi:10.3764/aja.109.1.21 Wolman, H., & Colledge, M. (1968). The Parthians. The Classical World, 62(1), 28. doi:10.2307/4346652 Read More