Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

132 4 The diplomatic solutions
(12) In addition there was another dreadful and shameful condition, namely that
after the conclusion of these negotiations, our longstanding and faithful friend
Arsaces, if he asked for it, should not be given help against the Persians. This was
designed with a double purpose, so that a man who with the emperor’s instruction
had devastated Chiliocomum 66 would be punished and that there would be the
opportunity immediately after to invade Armenia without opposition. This is why
later the same Arsaces was captured alive and the Parthians under dissensions and
turmoils seized the longest stretch of Armenia, 67 which borders Media, as well as
Artaxata. 68 (13) After this shameful peace had been sealed distinguished men were
given as hostages on both sides so that nothing was done contrary to the agreement
during the truce . . .
(14) Thus a peace of thirty years was concluded and sealed by sacred oaths . . .
The majority of ancient authors judge the treaty of 363 as one of the most
unfortunate treaties that Rome ever concluded with a foreign power. 69
Although Ammianus Marcellinus tends to be critical of the emperor Jovian,
his account reveals a balanced view. We learn that the agreement of 363
cancelled important stipulations of the foedus of 298, which had been disadvantageous
for the Sasanians. From a Roman perspective there was a clear
loss of territories that had formed an integral part of the empire. Losing
much of north-eastern Mesopotamia, in particular the cities Nisibis and
Singara, had an immediate effect on Rome’s prestige. Ammianus Marcellinus
describes in detail the exodus of the inhabitants of Nisibis and the
take-over by the Persians. 70 The urgency of his account reveals how much
significance contemporaries attributed to the event and how important the
city was for Roman security and trade. 71
According to the wording of the treaty Nisibis and Singara had to be
handed over ‘without their inhabitants’ (sine incolis), which means the cities
were taken over ‘naked’ by their new rulers. 72 Apparently the inhabitants
of the two cities were to be spared captivity and deportation. 73 Eutropius
and Festus, who composed their breviaria ab urbe condita shortly after the
events, describe the surrender of Nisibis as a unique event in all of Rome’s
history. 74
66 Chiliocomum was a fertile region north of Karduēnē; cf. also Amm. xxiii.3.5 and xxiv.8.4.
67 On Armenia’s and Arsaces’ fate during the reign of ˇ Sāpūr II see 26.
68 This is the capital of Armenia, situated in the left banks of the Araxes river, and the modern Artashat
southeast of Yerevan; Diod. xxxi.17a states that Artaxios I built the city in 188 bc; cf. also Plut. Luc.
31; Strabo xi.14.6 claims that Hannibal was involved in the foundation of the city.
69 Fest. 29; Lib. Or. 1.134; 18.277–8; Agath. iv.26.6–7; as can be expected, the Christian authors are
polemical against the pagan emperor Julian and hold him responsible for the loss of Roman territories.
70 Amm. xxv.9.1–12; see also Teixidor 1995: 499–510.
71 Turcan 1966: 875–90.
72 Malal. 13.27 (p. 336).
73 On the deportations of Roman prisoners to the Sasanian Empire see 36.
74 Eutr. x.17; Fest. 29; in this context see also Bird 1986: 11–22.