[Previous][Contents][Next]

Shapuhr's account and certainly were not in his hands (see below), but started from southern Mesopotamia. He broke through the southern frontier of Syria at Anath25 and followed the Euphates road up the river. On his way he took three fortified Roman towns: Birtha, Sura, and Barbalissus, all on the right bank of the Euphrates. (2) At Barbalissus Shapuhr met a strong Roman force of 60,000 and defeated it. After this defeat, apparently of the Syrian army, not including the whole of the army of Mesopotamia (no operations in Mesopotamia are mentioned in the section of the report under review, which proves that Mesopotamia was not without means of defense), the province of Syria was practically defenseless and the campaign was transformed into a pillaging raid or several raids. (3) It appears that after Barbalissus the army or part of it made a dash to the North and took the rich city and temple of Hierapolis-Bambyce. After that the army may have been divided into two parts, each one carrying out a pillaging raid. (4) One section moved South-West, conquered the important cities Beroea and Chalcis, and marched farther South, taking the two great military centers. of Syria - Apamea and Raphanaeae. (5) Meanwhile another part of the army marched to the North, took Zeugma and probably advanced as far as Urima.26 The purpose of this operation may have been to prevent whatever of the Mesopotamian army remained in Mesopotamia from appearing in the rear of Shapuhr. Having thus secured his rear to a certain extent he was free to attack and capture the richest and most important cities of Syria. Passing through Gindarus and Larmenaza27 he attacked first Seleucia in Pieria,

25. The history of Anath is very little known. We know from two inscriptions (CIS, 11, 3973 and A. Cantineau, Syria, XIV, 1933, pp. 179 f.) that in this important city of the Euphrates' road were stationed in A.D. 152 and 225 detachments of the Palmyrene militia under the command of a strategos (the same is known for Dura in A.D. 168 and 170, Dura, Rep. VII-VIII, pp. 83 f., nos. 845 and 846). Whether and when Anath was taken by the Romans, with the consequence that in addition to a detachment of the Palmyrene militia a Roman garrison was stationed there, is unknown. The circular letter of Marius Maximus of A.D. 2 1 1 found at Dura gives at the end a list of Roman military posts on the Middle Euphrates. These posts are enumerated from North to South. The last in the South is Bi ... probably (Belesi) Bi[bladal of Isidorus of Charax recently identified first by A. Musil and later by Sir Aurel Stein with the modern Ertadge on the left bank of the Euphrates, where the latter discovered remains of a Parthian castle and of a regular Roman castellum (Sir Aurel Stein, C. r. Ac. Inscr. 1939, p. 266 and Geogr. Journ., XCV, 1940, p. 431). Since in the letter of Marius Maximus the list of military posts is complete, Anath in A.D. 211 was still in the hands of the Parthians. It may have been occupied by Roman troops later, perhaps during the expe

   

dition of Alexander Severus rather than during that of Gordian III, as has been suggested by Professor A. T. Olmstead (op. cit. p. 256). It is hard to believe that Shapuhr in his treaty with Philip would leave Anath in the hands of the Romans. On the letter of Marius Maximus (D.P. 4), see my papers in C. r. Ac. Inscr., 1930, pp. 309 ff. and Münch. Beitr., XIX, 1939, pp. 373 ff., cf. E. T. Silk and C. B. Welles, Dura Rep. V, p. 297, no. 4 and pl. XXX, and J. F. Gilliam, Transactions of the American Philological Association, LXXII, 1941, p. 171.
26. This is the enigmatic or of our inscription which certainly is not Edessa , this city being in the hands of Valerian during the third campaign of Shapuhr, see below, p. 30. On Urima (Antioch on the Euphrates on the right bank opposite Epiphancia), see A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 937, pp. 233, 252, 269, and map IV. On Zeugma (Seleucia on the Euphrates) cf. ibid. pp. 245, 263 f., 269 f.
27. Larmenaza is identified by Sprengling and Olmstead with modern Armenaza, Ass. Tarmanaji, R. Dussaud, Topographie historique, p. 215, and this identification is very probable. Gindarus is named before Armenaza (the other way would be correct geographically) for reasons unknown to us, perhaps because Gindarus was more important.

[Previous][Contents][Next]
Created by the Digital Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with Al Mashriq of Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.

981217 MB - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb