Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

6 Galerius defeats Narsē in 298 87
Fig. 10 Medallion of Galerius, 298
(Cohen, H. (1955 2 ) Description historique des monnaies frapées sous l’empire romain
communément appelées médailles impériales VII/2: Galerius Valerius Maximianus nr. 204)
(Médaillon de bronze)
the greatest Roman triumphal arches. 56 The relief cycles on the monument
depict and glorify the Persian campaign of the year 298. In succession, the
following themes appear: Roman victorious battles, submission and submissiveness,
prisoners being brought forward, the end of the war, peace
negotiations, tribute, and again decisive battles and victory. In a large representation
of a battle on the north-eastern side of the monument we see
the Romans as victors over the Persians. Foot soldiers frame two mounted
figures, the Roman emperor and the Sasanian ‘King of kings’. The representation
of the two rulers fighting each other on horseback 57 is part of the
Eastern royal ideology, and as an iconographic motif the royal duel carries
high symbolic meaning. In spite of his defeat, the enemy is not viewed as
submissive but as equal in rank. 58 Although the arch of Galerius attests to
Rome’s military superiority over the Eastern opponent, 59 the fact that an
Eastern iconographic motif was chosen and interpreted 60 implies that the
Sasanian king was attributed equal status as a ruler. This is confirmed by
the peace negotiations following the Roman triumph and by the specific
56 Laubscher 1975 and Meyer 1980: 374–444. 57 Gall 1990. 58 Chrysos 1976: 16.
59 The central scene, which depicts the duel between Galerius and Narsē, does not lack details which
express this superiority; Narsē e.g. sits on the skin of a panther, which points to his ‘barbarian’
character; the right front hoof of Galerius’ horse strides across Narsē’s left leg. But this does not
diminish the idea of the equal status of both rulers.
60 Rodenwaldt 1940: 55–6 points to Galerius’ deliberate decision to use the iconographic language of
his enemy. He (56) suggests that the representation on the arch was a monumental response to
ˇSāpūr’s triumphal relief; in contrast see Laubscher 1975: 135.