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

 

***