Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

16 1 To the beginning of the third century
The king’s refusal led to war. 43 Caracalla’s request was certainly unrealistic
and the Roman emperor may have anticipated the refusal in his political calculations.
Nevertheless, Herodian’s account of the situation is revealing. 44
It mentions a Roman embassy dispatched to propose the marriage to the
Parthian king. The ambassadors claimed that if the empires of the Romans
and the Parthians, which in their words were the greatest of the world, were
no longer separated by a river and frontier but formed a single empire, no
opposition would arise because the other barbarian nations would be an
easy prey to these. Although we have to be cautious when using Herodian
as a historical source, his ideas reflect contemporary views and throw light
on the relations between the two single great powers at the beginning of
the third century. 45
Caracalla’s war of aggression is therefore surprising. In order to explain
his political goals, in particular the dream of succeeding Alexander the
Great, 46 we have to take into account the character and personality of this
Roman emperor. After Caracalla’s assassination, his successor Macrinus
(217–18) immediately announced that his predecessor had done wrong by
the Parthians and restored peace. In 218, after a battle fought at Nisibis
during which both sides suffered heavy losses, a treaty was signed. According
to Herodian, the Roman emperor Macrinus was delighted about having
won the Iranian opponent as a reliable friend. 47
Be that as it may, until its downfall the Parthian kingdom was and
remained an openly acknowledged serious opponent, who required constant
Roman vigilance. 48 Internal developments in Iran made it impossible
to intensify Roman–Parthian relations and to strengthen emerging signs of
an international law. In 224 the rise of the Sasanians, fostered, to be sure,
by the confrontations and tensions between Parthians and Romans during
the first two decades of the third century, led to the fall of Arsacid rule.
Modern scholars long underestimated the Arsacid dynasty and regarded
Parthian–Roman relations solely from the Roman perspective. Inevitably,
scholars did not acknowledge an ‘active’ Western policy on the part of
the Arsacids. Above all the many works of G. Wolski 49 have opened the
discussion to new views, and the era of the Parthian kings within the
43 The historicity of Caracalla’s plans is controversial; see Ziegler 1964: 132–4.
44 Herodian iv.10.2–4.
45 Ziegler 1964: 133–40.
46 On Caracalla’s imitatio Alexandri see Cass. Dio lxxviii.7.1–4; Herodian iv.8.1–3.
47 Herodian v.1.4.
48 There has been a lively scholarly discussion regarding the goals and character of Rome’s military and
strategic policy along the Eastern frontier of the empire. Cf. Luttwak 1976; MacMullen 1976; Isaac
1989: 231–4; 1992 and Zyromski 1998.
49 Wolski 1966: 65–89; 1976: 195–214; 1985: 163–73; 1983b: 137–49.