Sunday, November 9, 2014

Rome & Parthia: Power, Politics and Profit


Rome And Parthia: Power, Politics and Profit


Rome & Parthia by the Australian historian Daryn Graham was published by CreateSpace, an Amazon company, in 2013. The subtitle is Power, Politics and Profit. The introduction says this account will focus on these three aspects of Romano-Parthian relations. But a fourth word is missing here: war. This book is primarily an account of the military conflict between the two empires. There is almost no information about Parthian society in general, its organization and structure, or its culture and religion.
 
The main text is divided into eleven chapters which follow a chronological line from the first century BC (the first official contact between Rome and Parthia) to the third century AD (the fall of the Parthian Empire). Each chapter is divided into several shorter sections by subheadings, which is very reader-friendly.

Notes with references and additional comments are placed at the end of the book, which is not so reader-friendly. Here we also find a bibliography that is quite extensive (more than twenty pages) and an index that is much too short (only names; only three pages).

What about illustrations? There are nine black-and-white illustrations, and the quality is not high. Here is the list:

** Page 04 – a map which shows the Parthian Empire in 53 BC (poor quality: it is almost impossible to read the names printed on this map)
** Page 07 – a portrait of Sulla
** Page 34 – a portrait of Crassus

** Page 45 – a Parthian coin issued by King Orodes II (obverse and reverse)
** Page 74 – Augustus, the so-called prima porta statue
** Page 76 – detail of the prima porta statue (poor quality: not sharp)

** Page 173 – the temple of Bel in Palmyra
** Page 182 - a Parthian coin issued by King Vologases IV (obverse and reverse)
** Page 203 – the Arch of Septimius Severus in Forum Romanum
 
All illustrations (except the map) are borrowed from Wikipedia. Archaeological objects such as Parthian statues and reliefs are mentioned several times, for instance on pp. 12, 42, and 77-78, but they are never shown in the book.

As you can see from the above, I have some negative feelings about this book. But my observations about the illustrations and the index are only the beginning. When we turn to the text, it gets worse, much worse.

This book looks like the first draft of a manuscript which an inexperienced author has submitted to a publisher. Before the script is published, the author and the book-editor must go over it together, checking the facts and correcting any misprints. It seems this was not done here; it seems the author and the publisher decided to go ahead and publish the script without doing any proofreading at all. This is a serious accusation, and therefore I am going to support it with several examples. I am afraid the evidence is quite substantial.

PART ONE:
FACTUAL MISTAKES

** The Roman commander and politician Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus – known in English as Pompey the Great – is mentioned several times in chapter one. On page 20 he is called “Gnaeus Pompeiius.” The last name is wrong. The same mistake appears on page 62 when his son is called “Sextus Pompeiius.” Since the wrong name appears two times, we can be sure that this is not a mere misprint.

** The conference in Lucca is mentioned on page 32, although the location is not given:

“When the end of Caesar’s command approached in 55 BC the three parties recommitted themselves to their triumvirate alliance…”

In fact this conference took place in 56 BC.

** The so-called Salt Men are mentioned on page 78:

“In 1993 a group of miners working in a salt mine cave in Chehrabad in the Zanjan province of northwest Iran came across a grizzly [sic!] discovery: the bodies of six men.”

In fact only one man was discovered in 1993. More bodies were discovered later. By 2010 six Salt Men had been discovered. [Instead of “grizzly” read “grisly.”]

** When Caracalla was emperor in Rome, there were two rival kings in Parthia, as the author explains on page 212: “Vologases VI and his brother Artabanus VI.” The first name and the first number are correct. The second name is also correct, but the number is wrong. This king is Artabanus V. These kings ruled at the end of the Parthian Empire. There never was an Artabanus VI.

** Caracalla demanded that the Parthians hand over two refugees: Antiochus the Cynic and Tiridates the Armenian, as Graham explains on page 213. When the demand was refused, the Roman emperor threatened to go to war. This made the Parthians change their mind:

“When Artabanus … returned Antiochus and Tiridates, Caracalla called the war off.”

Who returned the refugees? The answer is Vologases, and not Artabanus.

** The end of the Parthian Empire is described in chapter 11. On pp. 219-220 the author writes: “Artabanus, the last Parthian king, died in battle fighting the Sassanid armies in c.226AD.” As far as I know, Artabanus died in AD 224. As far as I know, he was not the last Parthian king, because his rival, Vologases, was not defeated until AD 228.

PART TWO:
DOUBTFUL OR UNFORTUNATE STATEMENTS

** On page 20 the author says:

“Pompey had recently proved himself a consummate general by virtually clearing the Mediterranean Sea of pirates.”

This is what Pompey wanted everyone to think, but it is not true. This claim is part of Pompey’s propaganda, which seems to be working quite well, even today, since Graham believes it. For more information on this issue, see chapter 5 of Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World by Philip de Souza (1999, 2002). This book is not listed in Graham's bibliography.

** On the same page we are told Pompey wanted to take over the command of the war against Mithridates VI, king of Pontus:

“So Pompey arranged with his political friend and ally, the tribune C. Manilius, to propose in the Senate that Pompey take over from Lucullus.”

In fact, Lucullus had already been replaced by Manius Acilius Glabrio, who is not mentioned in this book. More importantly, Manilius did not propose anything in the Senate. As a tribune of the people, he proposed a law in the popular assembly, and when this law was adopted, Pompey got his new command, against the wishes of the Senate.

Graham says:

“Back in Rome, frustration with Lucullus’ command was seething, and the Senate promptly decided to replace him with Gnaeus Pompeiius.”

But this version is unfortunate, for two reasons: # 1: Lucullus had already been replaced by Glabrio. # 2: the decision was not made by the Senate. When Graham has the tribune making a proposal in the Senate, it shows that he is not familiar with the political institutions of Republican Rome.

** On page 21 the author says:

“Defeated, Mithridates fled to the Crimean Bosporus where he was later killed by the hand of his own mutinous troops.”

In fact we do not know the exact circumstances of his death.

** Chapter five covers events after the battle of Actium in 31 BC. On pp. 70-71 Graham says:

“Wishing to make political capital out of his pride, the Roman Senate voted him honour upon honour, and Octavian, the wager of civil war, became Augustus, the leader of Roman interests in one swoop.”

The battle of Actium took place in 31 BC, while the Augustus title was offered in 27 BC. The transformation from Octavian to Augustus did not take place overnight; it took four years. To say that this happened “in one swoop” gives a false impression.

** Chapter seven covers events during the Flavian dynasty. On page 136 the author says: “An inscription left by Roman soldiers during Domitian’s time as emperor on the Apsheronsky peninsula on the Caspian coast near Baku, indicates that he definitely had designs on Armenia and Parthia.”

On the next page the inscription is quoted in the following way:

“Imp(eratore) Domitiano Caesare Aug(usto) Germanic(o) L.
Ilius Maximus (centurion) leg(ionis) XII Ful(minatae.”

The Latin text is quoted from The Limits of Empire by Benjamin Isaac (1990, 1993). I should say misquoted, because the third word in line 2 should be “centurio” and not “centurion.” Graham does not translate the inscription, even though it is quite short. Here is a translation:

“Lucius Ilius Maximus, a centurion from legio XII Fulminata, [set up this inscription] to honour Emperor Domitian Caesar Augustus Germanicus.”

How does this inscription indicate that Domitian had designs on Armenia and Parthia? The answer is: it does not. Benjamin Isaac is more cautious. Having mentioned this and another inscription, he says:

“These two inscriptions show that Roman troops were occasionally dispatched to an area which otherwise remained on the fringes of the empire.”

This cautious statement is completely true.

** On page 193 the author wonders why “the great philosopher-king [Marcus Aurelius] would allow the succession of his son Commodus when such a move seems to us today as sheer folly.” His answer:

“Commodus was [the] rightful heir to the principate and seemed innocent enough…, and if Marcus [had] rejected his own son civil war would no doubt have engulfed the whole empire.”

During most of the second century AD the adoptive emperors picked the best man for the job, not a family member. When Marcus Aurelius died in 180, this system had been in operation for almost one hundred years and it had worked quite well. Thus, to describe Commodus as the “rightful heir to the principate” is highly inaccurate. Obviously, nobody can know what would have happened if Marcus Aurelius had chosen another candidate, but Graham’s statement that “civil war would no doubt have engulfed the whole empire” is not at all well founded.

** In chapter 11 the author tries to rehabilitate Caracalla (pp. 209-217). If you ask me, he should not do this, because it is not convincing.

** On page 224 Graham seeks to explain why the Parthian Empire was overthrown by the Persians and why the Roman Empire descended into a long crisis of civil war. His answer:

“…it was the glaring inequalities in these societies which ultimately destabilized Rome’s and Parthia’s vast empires and hastened their demise.”

The conflicts of the Roman and the Parthian Empires were not caused by social and economic inequality. Members of the elite were fighting against each other. Concern over the gap between the rich and the poor is a modern phenomenon. This issue is never mentioned anywhere else in the book. Why bring it up on the very last page? It is an anachronism.

PART THREE:
A FAR-FETCHED INTERPRETATION

I welcome new interpretations of ancient history, but what we have on pp. 73-75 is too far-fetched to be taken seriously. Graham’s interpretation comes in five stages. Step 1 = he presents the so-called prima porta statue of Augustus. Step 2 = he mentions the relief on the chest which shows a Parthian handing the Roman standards back to a Roman (Tiberius?). Step 3 = he says the Parthian looks like a man who allows another man to make love to him. Step 4 = he introduces the Latin term for this man, “pathicus.” Step 5 = he says this word looks and sounds almost like “Parthicus.” Then he concludes as follows:

“Thus, by denigrating all Parthians to such an unmanly stereotype, the Romans were in effect portraying them in a similar manner in which they often characterized Cleopatra: depraved, dangerous, and open to abuse.”

Steps 1 and 2 are fine, but step 3 is absurd. Step 4 is correct in itself, but step 5 is absurd. Therefore, the conclusion does not make any sense.

His conclusion is followed by note 195, which is a reference to Latin Literature by S. Braund (2001), pp. 82f. Does this book support his interpretation? No, it does not. In fact it says the opposite. On these pages Braund quotes the famous poem about Cleopatra by Horace (Odes, 1.37). At the end of the poem Horace says Cleopatra killed herself in order to avoid the alternative, being paraded in a Roman triumph, and as Braund points out, Horace praises her for having the courage to do this. In short: Graham’s reference does not back him up. In fact, it undermines him. This is a clear case of manipulation.

PART FOUR:
A SURPRISING CONCLUSION

Chapter 8 covers Trajan’s Parthian war. The author praises Trajan as a good emperor: he was not only a competent soldier, he also understood the world of business. Trajan prepared his war against Parthia, then he went to war and created three new Roman provinces. Graham also mentions the wealth of Parthia which the Roman emperor might secure for his empire with this war.

Everything seems fine until we get to the end of the chapter where Graham reveals that all of this is based on “wishful thinking.” On page 156 we are told “this whole last, greatest conquest turned out to be his most foolish,” and on page 158 he says: “His Parthian war was a complete and utter disaster.”

Strong words indeed, but I agree completely with them. At the same time I must say I am surprised, because the facts and the tone of the chapter do not build up to this conclusion. Perhaps the author should read this chapter one more time and revise the text?

PART FIVE:
MISPRINTS

Graham’s misprints are numerous and come in many forms and shapes: one word is missing; one word is printed even though it should have be deleted; one word should be replaced with another word; sometimes the text says the opposite of what the author wants to say; in other cases the order of the words is wrong. Here are some examples (missing words are added in square brackets). If you do not care much about this issue, just skip to the next section:

Page 6 – “Unfortunately, Plutarch had little else to [say] about this epoch-making event.”

Page 15 – “Babylonian as cuneiform tablets state.” It should be: as Babylonian tablets state.

Page 16 – “… the Roman generals Lucullus and Pompey the Great, and who, like Sulla, were a rule totally onto themselves.” Delete the second “and.”

Page 24 – “Lucullus … likened Pompey as a vulture…” The preposition is wrong. It should be: to a vulture.

Page 27 – “Parthian kings like Mithridates II and Sinatruces did, as was the case in Rome, could either be for or against the idea of unprovoked conquest.” Delete “did.”

Page 28 – “… any plans for a wars of conquest.” Delete “a” or change “wars” to “war.”

Page 30 – “The reason so was to convey…” Delete “so.”

Page 35 – “… when his consulship end.” We need the past tense. It should be: ended.

Same page – “… the drama of it all warranted a place in [his] own narrative of Roman history.”

Page 38 – “… the conditions for war… were harsher that he had anticipated.” Instead of “that” read “than.”

Page 40 – “Crassus himself ordered that his army to build a camp-site next to the nearby Balissus River.” Two expressions are mixed up here. Choose “ordered his army to build” or “ordered that his army build.”

Page 49 – “… their never was any Parthian threat.” Instead of “their” read “there.” Embarrassing!

Page 51 – “Caesar had planned to escape Crassus’ fat.” It should be: fate.

Page 52 - “Caesar was stabbed to death bu furious senators.” It should be: by.

Page 58 – “Their spirits could not have been [more] different.”

Page 61 – “… Antony’s design to eradicate the last vestibules of Parthian military presence there.” Instead of “vestibules” read “vestiges.” Embarrassing!

Page 63 – “he sought about reversing that humiliation.” It should be: he sought to reverse…

Page 67 – “That did not signal the end to Alexander’s imperialist vision.” The name is wrong. The context says it should be: Octavian’s imperialist vision.

Page 70 – “receiving a delegation and from the king as well as one of his sons.” Delete “and.”

Page 71 – “… underneath this amicable venire were two other motives…” Instead of “venire” read “veneer.” The same mistake appears on page 134. Incidentally, “venire” is the infinitive of a Latin verb which means “to come.”

Pages 71-72 – “Even two years after the agreement the return of the standards and prisoners was still forthcoming.” Graham wants to say: After two years the Romans were still waiting for the standards and the prisoners to be returned. His choice of words is unfortunate.

Page 77 – “… it would be unwise to entertain for the notion that…” Delete “for.”

Page 78 – “Fortunately, we can tell that the Parthians’ own sculptural imagery was closer to those in Rome.” In fact, the Parthian imagery was very different from those in Rome. Graham’s text says the opposite of what he wants to say.

Page 86 – “Phraates, who had suspected in his family sedition…” It should be: Phraates, who had suspected sedition in his family…

Same page: “outshine’s.” It should be: outshines.

Page 90 – “Roman armies were not shier and more cautious…” Instead of “not” read “now.” Again, Graham’s text says the opposite of what he wants to say.

Page 103 – “Gaius ordered the construction [of] a long bridge.”

Page 105 – “… for the condescending benefit [of] his subjects.”

Page 106 – “Vardanes who was left to remain within Parthia itself…” Delete “who.”

Page 107 – “Vardanes was able to rebuild Parthia’s military forces … thus restoring its confidence, discipline and effectiveness.” We need the plural. Instead of “its” read “their.”

Page 111 – “Vologases took advantage [of] Nero’s youth.”

Page 112 – “Cnaeus.” The correct spelling is Gnaeus.

Page 114 – “Only if…” Reverse the order of the words: If only…

Page 115 – “Corbulo equipped his with a force of 1,000 Roman soldiers…” Instead of “his” read “him.”

Page 116 – “Vologases bought Paetus to battle…” Not “bought” but “brought.”

Page 122 – “… the full brevity…” He wants to say: the full breadth.

Page 126 – “… established merely [to] defend the empire…”

Page 131 – “… the Jewish wat.” It should be: the Jewish war.

Page 132 – “Parthian kings [who] sent their children to Rome did so to maintain their own position.”

Page 137 – “The detachment from the XII Fulminatae…” The name of the legion is Fulminata. Graham gives us the word in the genitive!

Same page – “It murder happened…” Replace “It” with “This.”

Page 140 – “… by the time of Trajan began his Parthian war…” Delete “of.”

Page 149 – “… Roman merchants were taking such an interest [in] Indian Ocean trading that…”

Page 150 – “It is my view that [the] main reason…”

Page 154 – “… since that he travelled throughout Mesopotamia…” Delete “that.”

Page 155 – “… just as Dio had sated all along.” Not “sated” but “stated.”

Page 160 – “… far less clear-cut as many have presumed…” Replace “as” with “than.”

Page 168 – “It also signalled that Hadrian, unlike Trajan…, he would not be leading armies abroad.” Delete “he.”

Page 173 – “Of the some 2832 inscriptions…” Delete “some.”

Page 183 – “… the Antonines were not generally prone to praise there own military exploits.” Not “there” but “their.” Embarrassing!

Page 187 – “As his brother Verus had since died as a result of a stroke.” Delete “since.”

Page 189 – “… inscriptions in Palmyra [are] severely lacking.”

Page 193 – “Fortunately Commodus’ foreign policy exhibited a certain degree of sober-mindedness than did his private life.” Instead of “certain” read “higher.”

Same page – “Commodus at last began exhibiting signs of his notorious corruptibility…” The words “at last” signify something we have been waiting and hoping for, i.e. something positive, and therefore they should be deleted.

Page 196 – “… because Mesopotamia at that time [had] little to yield…”

Page 198 – “Others kingdoms fared better.” Not “Others” but “Other.”

Page 207 – “As can be seen from [a] papyrus from Dura-Europos…”

Page 208 – “… at Rhesaina coins minted there bare the name of the third Parthian legion.” Instead of “bare” read “bear.” Embarrassing!

Page 209 – “… and that [he] had no real talent…”

Page 213 – “… that only infuriated Caracalla’s…” It should be: Caracalla.

Page 216 – “… rather that a strong willed emperor like Caracalla…” Instead of “that” read “than.”

Page 220 – “… until when it was finally conquered by Muslim armies in the seventh century.” Delete “when” and “finally.”

Same page – “A new period, the Sassanid period, had finally begun.” Delete “finally.”

Page 224 – “… which spurred Roman and Parthian commanders on to make to make war with each other…” We do not need “to make” two times!

PART SIX:
THE STYLE OF WRITING

Graham’s style of writing could be better. What is wrong with it? There are unnecessary repetitions and generalisations. Moreover, he is inconsistent when it comes to the spelling of names and factual information. Here are some examples.
 
(A) Repetitions:

** On page 15 he says: “In fact, civil wars so often ravaged the Parthian Empire that some Romans like the historian Tacitus even believed that they were an established Parthian tradition.” An almost similar passage appears on page 200.

** On page 67 we have the colloquial phrase “make no mistake.” The same phrase is used on page 215.

** On page 129 we are told the Roman customs collection posts in Syria “reaped a handsome 25 percent duty on all foreign goods passing through.” An almost similar passage appears on page 175.

** On page 64 he says: “… once again Roman politicians once again found the courage…”

** On page 116 he says: “Now that the Hyrcanian war was now decisively won by Vologases…”

** On page 169 the last word of one sentence is also the first word of the next sentence: “… Pharasmanes. Pharasmanes…”

(B) Generalisations:

** Page 62 - “In Rome, there was panic.”

** Page 64 – “It [the capital city] breathed a sigh of relief.”

** Page 66 – “The whole of Rome was outraged.”

** Same page – “The Romans were furious.”

(C) Inconsistency:

** On page 61 a high-ranking Parthian is mentioned two times. The first time his name is spelled Monaeses. The second time Monaesaes. As far as I know, the first version is right, while the second is wrong.

** On page 189 we are told Vologases IV ruled from ca. 147 to 191. In other words, he died in 191. But on page 191 he says this king died in AD 192. As far as I know, the former date is right, while the latter is wrong.

** On page 202 we are told the Roman wars against Parthia had “quickened the demise of Parthian power.” This means the state and the economy were having problems. But just three pages further down, on page 205, he says the Parthian Empire was doing well: “In fact by all accounts Parthia’s wealth was booming considerably at this time.” This is confusing. What is Parthia’s situation at this time? Is the state strong or not? Is the economy booming or not? It seems the author cannot make up his mind.

** On page 134 there is a cross reference: “See Chapter Seven.” But we are already in the middle of chapter seven! So where are we supposed to look? This cross reference is not very helpful.

PART SEVEN:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS

** Mithridates VI, king of Pontus is mentioned several times in chapter one. But the bibliography does not include two recent books about him: Mithridates the Great by Philip Matyszak (2008) and The Poison King by Adrienne Mayor (2009, 2011).

** The three false Neros are mentioned on pages 132-133. This topic is discussed in Bandits in the Roman Empire by Thomas Grünewald (2004, 2008) pp. 151-154. This book is not listed in Graham’s bibliography.

** The abbreviation PAT is used several times in the notes (pp. 250, 251, and 256), but it is never explained. What do the three letters stand for? The answer: Palmyrene Aramaic Texts edited by Delbert Hillers (1932-1999) and Eleonora Cussini (published in 1996). Graham’s bibliography includes a book edited by Cussini: A Journey to Palmyra: Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers (2005). It is listed under A. Gianto, who is one of the contributors to this volume.

** According to Graham, there is a sharp contrast between Hadrian’s Wall in Britannia and the Euphrates River in the east (page 175). The latter is described as a highway of trade, linking the peoples on both sides, while the former is seen as a barrier dividing the Romans from the people who lived beyond it. This contrast is not accurate: Hadrian’s Wall was not a confining border, separating Romans on one side and barbarians on the other.

CONCLUSION
I must apologize for the numerous negative comments in this review. I felt I had to document my accusation in full. I tried to like this book, but I did not succeed. It is a shame, I think, because I can see the author put a lot of effort into this project. His commitment and his dedication is obvious from the first to the very last page. His intentions are good. But when we are dealing with books, the only thing that matters is the result, and in this case it is simply not good enough. That is why I cannot give his book more than two stars.

PS. If this volume is ever reprinted, the author and the publisher should join forces and correct the flaws I have pointed out here. In any case, I can only hope Daryn Graham will be more careful in his future work as an author and as an historian.

* * *
 
Daryn Graham,
Rome & Parthia: Power, Politics and Profit,
CreateSpace, paperback, 2013, 287 pages
 
* * *
 
 
 
 

Friday, November 7, 2014

Rome on the Euphrates: The Story of a Frontier


Rome on the Euphrates: The Story of a Frontier

Freya Stark (1893-1993) was a famous travel writer who lived to be a hundred years old. She travelled all over the Middle East and wrote several books about her experiences in this part of the world.

Her book Rome on the Euphrates: The Story of a Frontier was published in 1966 by John Murray and reprinted in 2012 by Tauris Parke Paperbacks, an imprint of I. B. Tauris & Co.

It is a long book; with more than 500 pages. The main text is divided into 16 chapters which follow a chronological line from the battle of Magnesia in the second century BC to the age of Justinian in the sixth century AD; a span of eight centuries. In each chapter the text is broken up into shorter sections by subheadings, which is very reader-friendly. Here is the table of contents:

01 The Battle of Magnesia
02 The Tax Collectors

03 Mithradates
04 Across the Euphrates

05 The Seleucid Kings and the Empire of Trade
06 The Parthians and the Trade Route

07 The Rome of Augustus
08 Nero’s Armenian Wars

09 The Trade Routes and Trajan’s Wars
10 The Antonine Climax

11 The Lower Euphrates and the End of Parthia
12 The Revolt of the Poor

13 The End of Palmyra
14 The Government of the Cross

15 The Last Offensive
16 The Age of Justinian

At the end of the book we find the following items: a list of kings, emperors, and dynasties; notes with references and additional comments; a bibliography; and an index.

What about illustrations? There are 55 black-and-white pictures (most of them taken by the author herself) and a map of the ancient trade routes on pp. 104-105. Note 7 on page 423 says: “See main pull-out map.” Where is this map? It is nowhere! It seems the hardcover version of the book (published in 1966) came with a large fold-out map which is not reprinted in the paperback version of 2012. This is a shame, because so many locations are mentioned in the text and the map which is included is too small and not really helpful.

On the back cover of the book there is a brief biography of the author. There is also a short presentation of the book, which ends with the following words:

“Tracing the path of this ancient river [the Euphrates] and highlighting her travels with the vibrant history of eight hundred years of Roman warfare and the history of this mighty river, Freya Stark ultimately reveals the futility of war, of arbitrary boundaries and territorial conquest. ‘Rome on the Euphrates’ - at once travel and history - is one of her most magnificent and highly acclaimed works of history.”

This is, in my opinion, a very interesting project. Unfortunately, this presentation promises more than the sixteen chapters deliver. My expectations were high, but they were not fulfilled, and therefore I have to say that this book is a huge disappointment.

The key message – the futility of war – pops up from time to time throughout the book. Here are some examples:

** “The crusading centuries, the campaigns of Belisarius or Napoleon, have in their total account achieved less than peaceful trade and intercourse might have achieved without them” – page 3.

** “Where supply and demand are advantageous to both sides of a frontier, war is unnecessary” – page 64.

** “… a strategy based on the non-aggressive nature of Parthia was too subtle for Rome before Hadrian” – page 160.

** Nero’s “brief interlude with Parthia gained more influence than all the triumphs of the succeeding reigns” – page 178.

** “… eight centuries of unnecessary war is the melancholy subject of this book” – page 191.

** “… the warfare carried on by Trajan, and after him by [Lucius] Verus, [Septimius] Severus, Caracalla, to Valerian and beyond, was doomed to failure even before it began” – page 251.

** “… transit is more important than possession wherever a trade route is concerned, and armies were constantly conducted to destroy what their governments most wished to treasure” – page 312.

I agree with the key message: the Roman Empire and the eastern superpower (first the Parthians and later the Sassanians) waged war against each other for centuries, and by doing so they wasted precious resources and weakened not only their opponent but also themselves. During the brief interludes of peace, both sides were able to benefit from trade between east and west. But it seems none of them learned this lesson. According to Stark, the Romans are more to blame for the endless line of wars than their eastern neighbour. I think she is right.

My problem is not with the key message, but with the way in which the whole project is implemented. She does not focus on the main topic; she allows herself to get side-tracked by other aspects which are not relevant for the issue at hand. Thus, the book is far too long. Let me explain what is wrong here:

In her preface, Stark tells us that he has visited almost all the locations mentioned in this account. Before reading the book you might think this is an asset, but once you have read it you will understand that it is not, because her personal memories are not relevant. The basic historical account is not supported but interrupted by the brief anecdotes which pop up in connection with almost every location mentioned.

Given that Stark is a famous and experienced author, it is a surprise to discover that it is not always easy to understand what she says. The first five chapters are simply hopeless. Chapter 6 - about the campaign of Crassus in 53 BC and the campaign of Mark Antony in 36 BC - is a little bit better, but not much.

Three chapters are completely irrelevant, because they are not connected with the main topic: chapters 7, 12, and 14.

In the remaining chapters there is too much background information. It takes forever for Stark to get to the point. Chapter 8 is supposed to be about Nero’s war with Armenia. There are more than 20 pages here, but less than half of them are devoted to his war. The same thing happens in the next chapter which is supposed to be about Trajan’s war with Parthia. Again there are more than 20 pages, but less than half of them are devoted to his war.

So far I have covered unnecessary background information and irrelevant personal anecdotes. But there is more: Stark also fills up her book with poetic descriptions of nature, such as mountains, rivers, and towns. Here is a typical example from page 221:

“The Aegean sea shows no horizon before the summer dawn. The morning breeze has not yet come to step between the islands; and in that enchanted hour day lies as if with closed eyes, iridescent as pearl and still involved in night. When the sun springs up with its spiked rays sea and sky separate, the horizon takes on its cutting edge of sapphire and the colour of the day is born.”

She goes on and on like this. How is this relevant? How does this help us understand the conflict between Rome and her eastern neighbour? This answer is: it is not relevant. It does not help us in any way. Throughout the book there are numerous cases like this. If you ask me, they should all have been deleted.

What about reviews? Here are two examples:

(a) The English scholar Rex Warner (1905-1986) reviewed this book in the Saturday Review of 25 March 1967 (page 31). His review, which is available online, has the headline “Occidental Encounters.” It is very positive, as you can see from the following quote:

“The long story from the late republic to the age of Justinian is packed with fascinating detail; yet the main thread is firmly grasped and the argument is firmly and convincingly developed. One has the utmost admiration for the author’s ability to handle so great a theme with such cogency and ease. And the writing is not only powerful and lucid but absolutely charming.”

Obviously, I do not agree with this evaluation.

(b) The American scholar Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) reviewed the book in the Washington Sunday Star of 12 March 1967. His review, which is available online, has the headline “Brilliant Historical Work by Freya Stark.” He begins on a positive note, calling the book “a very significant contribution to history.” He adds: “Miss Stark sees the issues very clearly, at least for the Roman period with which she is concerned, and deals with it in an illuminating way.” Finally, he says: “Miss Stark’s understanding of the issues … is outstanding.”

But towards the end of his review, Quigley admits that this book is not quite perfect: “All these outstanding virtues are somewhat diluted by a less than faultless execution of the task.” To illustrate his point, he says Miss Stark “constantly lapses backward as historian to her earlier career as a rather garrulous tourist, so that her book is too verbose by far and is constantly interrupted by irrelevant personal reminiscence at almost every historical site mentioned.”

While I cannot accept the positive statements in this review, I agree completely with the statement about her “less than faultless execution of the task.”

In many cases there is something wrong with the way Stark works and the way she uses her sources, whether ancient or modern. To illustrate my point, I will pick an example from chapter 8 (page 162) where she says: “… Augustus sent an expedition to Arabia.” The statement is true, but at this point she does not say more than that. She does not say when it happened or who was in charge. Nor does she say if she will return to this topic later on or not. There is not even a reference to an ancient or a modern source.

However, a few pages further down, the topic suddenly pops up again. A subheading on page 165 reads “The Arabian Expedition” and the next three pages are devoted to this topic. On page 166 she says: “Aelius Gallus, Augustus’ prefect in Egypt in 24 BC, led his troops into the deserts of Sheba…” And further down on the same page we are told: “Aelius Gallus failed, but extricated his army after many months of near disaster, through one of the most stubborn desert marches in history.”

Now we have the date: 24 BC, although modern scholars think the expedition took place a bit earlier, 26-25 BC. Now we also have the name of the officer in charge: Aelius Gallus. So far so good, but something is missing: even though three pages are devoted to this topic, she does not give us any hard facts about the expedition. For instance, she does not explain why it was a disaster. What went wrong? In the notes she provides a reference to Strabo, calling him “A friend of Aelius and well informed.”

Strabo blames the Nabataean guide Syllaeus. Why? Stark does not ask this question. Maybe Strabo wants to protect his friend Aelius, who was after all the man in charge. Stark does not consider this possibility, and this is a general problem with her. In this book, she refers to hundreds of ancient sources, but she never stops to discuss their credibility. She offers a quote and a reference. That is all. She never asks questions about them, such as: it is true? Why does this person say what he does? Could he have an ulterior motive? Is there something he does not tell us?

The three pages devoted to the Arabian expedition are filled up with background information (not necessary) and a personal anecdote (not relevant). Meanwhile, important points and important questions are simply ignored.

For more information about this topic, see Philip Mayerson, “Aelius Gallus at Cleopatris (Suez) and on the Red Sea,” Greek, Roman & Byzantine Studies, vol. 36, 1995, pp. 17-24; available online.

So far I have covered only the text. Now I will turn to the illustrations, because I noticed two problems here:

(a) On page 181 there is a picture of a man. The caption reads: “Corbulo.” The portrait is mentioned in the text on page 187. This caption is doubtful. Today this portrait is known as “Pseudo-Corbulo.” Modern scholars no longer support the old identification with the famous general. They think it shows an unknown man from the first century AD.

(b) On page 261 there is a picture of a rock relief. The caption reads: “The emperor Valerian kneeling before Shapur.” This caption is wrong. There are two persons in front of the Persian king. The kneeling man is Philip the Arab (244-249) who met with Shapur and was forced to pay a huge ransom to return alive. The standing man is Valerian (253-260) who was captured by Shapur in 260. Behind Shapur there is a fourth person: the Persian high-priest Kartir saluting the king on his horse.

Now I will return to the text, because I have to mention some minor flaws:

** Page 267: Speaking about the weather, Stark recalls a day in April when the thermometer showed “107º in the shade.” The temperature is given Fahrenheit which is used in the US and almost nowhere else. Most countries in the world use Celsius. 107º Fahrenheit = 42º Celsius - why not use both?

** Page 286: Stark claims the Emperor Tacitus died in AD 275. This is not true. He died in 276 (as stated in the chronological table on page 394).

** Page 300: Stark claims the Emperor Gallienus was murdered in AD 266. This is not true. This happened in 268 (as stated in the chronological table on page 394). The correct year also appears on page 297.

** Page 354: Stark claims the Emperor Theodosius ruled from 378 to 395. This is not true. He ruled from 379 (as stated in the chronological table on page 395).

** Page 359: Two lines of the Latin poet Claudian are quoted by Stark:

“nec terminus umquam //
Romance dicionis erit.”

The Latin words are not translated and no source is provided. Moreover, the first word in the second line “Romance” is misspelled. It should be “Romanae.” The source is De Consulatu Stilicionis, liber III (XXIV) lines 170-171. In English: “Nor will there ever be a limit to the empire of Rome.”

** Page 369: Speaking about the Emperor Justinian, Stark says: “Peace then lasted from 562 to the end of his reign in AD 578.” Perhaps peace lasted until 578, but Justinian did not. He died in 565.

** Page 374: “The Emperor Arcadius (395-408) appointed, as guardian over his son, the Persian King Isdigerdes (Yezdegeird).” This statement is followed by a reference to Procopius. While the reference is correct, Stark fails to tell the reader that some scholars regard the information as unreliable. Procopius is not a contemporary source; he lived about one hundred years after Arcadius. At least Stark should let us know that the story is doubtful.

** Page 377: Speaking about different interpretations of Christianity, Stark says: “The controversy between these two sects, over the single or the double nature of Christ, need not be detailed here.” What happens next? Over the following 5-6 pages she proceeds to do exactly what she promised not to do: she details the controversy between the two sects!

Several absurd misprints make me suspect that the publisher used an optical reader for the paperback version:

** “sHghtest” instead of “slightest” – page 151

** “rninimum” instead of “minimum” – page 264

 
** “hberal” instead of “liberal” – page 367

** “Tacitus, Annab” instead of “Annals” – note 221 on page 418

 
** “Mommsen, Prov. of Rotn. Emp.” Instead of “Prov. of Rom. Emp.” – note 18 on page 433

** “Flarnininus” instead of Flamininus” – note 49 on page 442

How many stars does this volume about eight centuries of Roman history deserve? Freya Stark is a famous author, but my judgement cannot be influenced by this fact. Rome on the Euphrates is not a “brilliant historical work” as Carroll Quigley claims in his review; and the writing is not “powerful and lucid” as Rex Warner claims in his review.

As I have demonstrated above, there are several problems with this book, some of them quite serious. The text is not always easy to understand. The first five chapters are simply hopeless, and three later chapters are not connected with the main topic. Moreover, the historical account is often interrupted by poetic descriptions and personal anecdotes which are irrelevant. Finally, the author refers to numerous ancient sources, but fails to discuss their credibility. On the other hand, she does have an interesting project, an interesting angle, on ancient history, and when she allows herself to focus on the main topic – the futility of war – there are some good passages here and there.

When I weigh the negative elements against the positive, I think this book cannot get more than two stars.

PS # 1. There is a good chapter about Rome and Parthia written by Brian Campbell in War and Society in the Roman World edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley (hardcover 1993, paperback 1995).

PS # 2. For more information about Rome and Parthia, see Rome’s Wars in Parthia by Rose Mary Sheldon (2010) and Rome & Parthia by Daryn Graham (2013).

PS # 3. For more information about Rome and Persia, see Rome and Persia by Beate Dignas and Engelbert Winter (2007)

PS # 4. The history of the eastern frontier is covered in Between Rome and Persia by Peter Edwell (2010)

***
Freya Stark,
Rome on the Euphrates: The Story of a Frontier,
John Murray (hardcover), 1966; Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2012, 504 pages

 
***