Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

24 The Arab prince Imru ulqais 163
we cannot make firm statements about Zenobia’s fate it becomes clear
that she inspired people’s imagination. Ancient observers compared her to
Cleopatra. These comparisons corresponded to Zenobia’s own claim for
Palmyrene rule and laid the ground for further stories about the queen. 68
Aurelian reveals that he spared Zenobia’s life because of her deeds for
Rome and thus recalls the special role Palmyra played in the history of
Roman–Sasanian relations. As long as Palmyra sided with Rome the city
contributed significantly to the protection of the Roman East and thus
helped to maintain the political status quo. 69 When Palmyra was destroyed
an important buffer state between the great powers disappeared. 70 In the following
period the Romans were forced to protect their borders themselves,
both against the Sasanians and against the Arabs in this region. Although
the fall of Palmyra left a vacuum barely filled by Rome, the great powers
continued with their Arabia policy. Rome as well as the Sasanian Empire
sought to win allies among the Arab rulers of the border territories by the
Syrian and Arabian deserts. These were supposed to fend off nomadic tribes
and could also be directly included in the military confrontations between
Rome and Persia. Although this proxy policy did not reach its peak before
the sixth century, the foundations for such a development were already
built during the third century.
24: The Arab prince Imru ulqais between Romans and Sasanians
Hatra and Palmyra controlled the numerous nomadic Arab tribes of the
steppes around them in a way that the great powers were not or hardly
able to. 71 They protected the traffic of goods, and they achieved economic
prosperity and along with it political power. 72 The fall of the Parthian
Empire changed this situation fundamentally. The destruction of Hatra
by the first Sasanian ruler Ardaˇsīr I in the year 240 73 led to a vacuum of
political power in the central Mesopotamian steppe, which significantly
jeopardised the transport of goods in this area. The destruction of Dura-
Europos by Ardaˇsīr’s successor ˇ Sāpūr I 74 amounted to the loss of a further
68 See Kornemann 1947: 288–313. 69 Nakamura 1993: 133–50.
70 On the consequences of this see Funke 1996: 228–35.
71 Isaac 1993: 114–15 (= Isaac 1998: 422–3) assumes that the Roman Eastern limes was above all designed
to control the nomads in the Roman Empire; see also Sommer 2003a: 83 and n. 48; in general on
the function of ‘frontier lines’ in the East see Isaac 1992: 408–16; on the general discussion regarding
the strategic aims of the Roman policy in the East see ibid.: 372–426 and Sommer 2004: 96–8.
72 On the crucial role of the caravan cities for long-distance trade see Millar 1998a: 119–37; on caravan
cities in general see Rostovtzeff 1932.
73 Chaumont 1979: 217–37; Wiesehöfer 1982: 437–47.
74 Rostovtzeff 1943: 17–60; James 1985: 111–24; Mac Donald 1986: 45–68; Gilliam 1941: 157–75; Millar
1996: 445–71; 1998b: 473–92; Pollard 2000 s.v. and 2004: 119–44.