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.
“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.”]
“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.
“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.
“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.”
“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.”
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.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
** 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.”
“…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.
