Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

176 6 Shared interests: Continuing conflicts
character of our evidence, it is problematic to use the term ‘feudal system’. 11
However, the relationship between the king, who had his own resources, and
the hereditary Armenian nobility, the naxarars, was characterised by obligation
as well as independence. There was also intense competition between
and within the princely families, whose prestige and landed property varied
but was often immense. 12 Below the nobility, the rest of the population was
primarily made up of peasants who owed military and labour service to
the respective families and ultimately to the crown. The contingents at the
king’s disposal were impressive and enhanced by monetary contributions
owed by the princes. 13
To the west of the river Euphrates, Lesser Armenia (Armenia Minor),
belonged to the Roman Empire from early on. Since Diocletian and Constantine
this part of Armenia formed the provinces Armenia i and ii. In
contrast, Greater Armenia (Armenia Maior), was often the reason for military
conflicts between Rome and Iran. Although both sides showed the
desire to resolve tensions peacefully, both also wanted to gain power in
this strategically important region. The following account by Suetonius
goes back to an earlier period of Roman–Parthian relations, 14 but it illustrates
Armenia’s delicate situation between East and West – a situation that
remained difficult throughout late antiquity.
Suetonius, Nero 13
(1) Among the spectacles that he staged I may well also report on the entrance of
Tiridates into the city. As foggy weather had prevented him from showing the man
to the people on the day determined by the edict, he produced this man, the
king of Armenia, who had been persuaded to come by great promises, when the
next possible opportunity arose; cohorts in full armour were displayed around
the temples in the Forum, he sat in a curule chair by the rostra in the attire of a
triumphant general and surrounded by military symbols and standards. (2) And
at first he let the king, who was approaching via a sloping platform, go down on
his knees, then he kissed him after he had raised him with his right hand, and
finally he took his tiara away, as the king had asked him to, and replaced it with
the diadem, 15 while a man of praetorian rank translated the words of the suppliant
and announced them to the crowd. Then he led him to the theatre and placed
11 Redgate 1998: 97–8 on Toumanoff 1963: 34–144 and Adontz 1970: 343–61.
12 See Thomson 1999: xiii–xiv; Garsoïan 1997a: 76–9; somewhat speculative Chaumont 1987a: 433.
13 Cf. Redgate 1998: 99 with further references.
14 On the history of Armenia during the Parthian period see Bedoukian 1980; Chaumont 1987a: 420–6;
1990: 19–31; Kettenhofen 1998: 325–52; see also Schottky 1989.
15 The tiara is a Persian headgear. Among the Parthians, it was the prerogative of the kings, who alone
were allowed to wear the battlemented tiara, often decorated with stars; the diadem was the royal
symbol granted and acknowledged by the Romans.