Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

18 The peace treaty of 363 133
On first sight the regulation regarding the so called ‘provinces beyond
the Tigris’ is ambiguous. According to Ammianus Marcellinus ˇ Sāpūr II
obstinately demanded (petebat obstinatius) the return of the territories that
had been ceded to the Romans in 298 but was not given all of these:
apparently Sophanēnē and Ingilēnē remained under Roman influence. 75
Although the author states that Jovian instantly complied with all demands
it would appear that ˇ Sāpūr II eventually was prepared for concessions in
363. After Jovian’s death the Sasanians pursued an aggressive policy against
Armenia, which suggests that ˇ Sāpūr II used the first opportunity to achieve
with arms what he had not accomplished in 363 (26). The two sides failed
in their attempt to come to an understanding with regard to the status of
the traditional ‘bone of contention’ Armenia; the stipulation that Armenia
henceforth was not to receive Western support did not bring about a long
term solution to the problem. 76 ˇ Sāpūr II adhered to what was spelled out in
the treaty of 363 only as long as Jovian was alive. With the emperor’s death
Persian attempts to conquer Armenia began and before the end of ˇ Sāpūr
II’s reign an agreement was reached between the two great powers that
envisaged the actual partition of Armenia. Shortly after, this was confirmed
by a formal agreement. 77
Our sources do not explicitly mention that the foedus of 363 targeted
economic considerations or those relating to trade. However, the negotiations
regarding the Mesopotamian centres of trade and the influence
in Armenia have to be viewed in such a context. 78 The clause that stipulated
the surrender of Nisibis ‘eliminated the Roman monopoly of the
income from the trans-borderia Nisibis’. 79 From the Syriac chronicle of
Joshua the Stylite, 80 which was composed in Edessa at the beginning of the
sixth century, we learn that the Sasanian king Balāˇs (484–8) approached
the Roman emperor Zeno asking him for financial support for his war
against the Hephthalites. Complaining that the taxes of Nisibis granted to
Persia many years before were high enough, 81 the emperor refused to
pay any money to Balāˇs although his predecessor Perōz (459–84) had
received such payments. 82 According to Joshua the Stylite it was agreed
in 363 that the Persians would take possession of Nisibis for 120 years
75 Chrysos 1976: 24; see the commentary by Paschoud 1971–89: 216–20 on Zos. iii.31 and Chrysos 1993:
174–7.
76 On the ‘Armenia clause’ of the treaty of 363 see Chrysos 1976: 32–6; Blockley 1984: 36; 1987: 223–6
and Seager 1996: 275–874.
77 Cf. p. 185 n. 56. 78 Winter 1987: 58–62. 79 Blockley 1984: 36.
80 See 26, esp. pp. 186–7. 81 Ios. Styl. 18. 82 Ibid. 9.