Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

17 The peace treaty of 298 129
Rome thereby ruled over Kolchis and Ibēria, which together make up the
territory of modern Georgia. 48 By placing Ibēria under their supremacy the
Romans gained crucial strategic advantages over the Sasanian Empire.
The last paragraph of the treaty of 298 concerned primarily economic
questions (see also 28). 49 The city of Nisibis, which was situated on the
Tigris, was named as the only place of trade between the two empires.
Peter the Patrician mentions that Narsē complained about this condition
whereas he seems not to have shown any reaction against the other terms for
peace proclaimed by Sicorius Probus. The king’s protest as well as Rome’s
firm attitude reveal how much importance both sides attributed to this
matter. Narsē rejected the clause for good reasons because it entailed that
the exchange of goods within Mesopotamia, in particular the local
trade along the borders, would be impeded. Correctly, W. Seston interprets
this ‘economic clause’ of the peace treaty as complementing the Roman
defence system. 50 The many caravan routes in upper Mesopotamia and in
particular the main waterway, the Euphrates, represented natural conditions
for intensive trade and also for close contacts between the neighbouring
regions of both states. The official frontier between the Roman and the
Persian Empires was therefore somewhat artificial. From a Roman point of
view, trying to declare Nisibis as the only place for an exchange of goods
between the two empires makes sense, also with regard to the safety of the
empire (28). 51 After Narsē had agreed to Rome’s terms his relatives were
returned to him. 52 Festus tells us that the king’s family had been treated
very mercifully and that this impressed the Persians so much that they
admitted to being inferior to the Romans not only in arms but also with
regard to common decency. 53 It is certainly possible that the return of the
captives had been part of the official peace treaty. 54 Apparently the treaty
was concluded in the autumn of 298 and was ratified by the signatures of
Narsē and Sicorius Probus. It was a foedus that fulfilled the technical and
legal conditions for an agreement that would bind both parties.
48 Braund 1994: 245–6; on the history of this region in general see Lang 1983: 505–36 and Lordkipanidse
and Brakmann 1994: 12–106.
49 Winter 1987: 47–58 and 1988: 192–9. 50 Seston 1946: 176–7.
51 According to Andreotti 1969: 217–18 the strict supervision of trade was not crucial for military
considerations; cf. ibid. 215–57 for a detailed discussion of the relationship between national safety
and the control of trade.
52 Malal. 12.39 (p. 308); Zon. xii.31.
53 Fest. 25; Eutr. ix.27.2 and Zon. xii.32 claim that Diocletian paraded Narsē’s family in his triumph
but these statements must be seen as part of a literary embellishment surrounding the great triumph
that Diocletian celebrated in 303.
54 Cf. Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg 1931: 400.