Marek Jan Olbrycht

Marek Jan Olbrycht, Alexander the Great versus the Iranians – an Alternative Perspective, Folia Orientalia 42/43, 2006/2007, 159-172.

Alexander’s  conquests  in  Asia  led  to  the  creation  of  a  new  empire
combining -  as once the state of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great had -  many  peoples  with  their varied  cultures  and  traditions.  Like  the  first
Achaemenids before him, Alexander contributed -  partly by deliberate action (his images on coins, in painting  and sculpture) -  to the creation of a royal iconography  and  an  “imperial  style.”  The  Macedonian  conqueror  became an admirer of Iranian customs and adopted the chief regalia of the Achaemenids. Conscious borrowing from Iranian tradition in iconographie elements (such as the  diadem  as  a  royal  insigne  of Hellenistic  rulers)  and  choice  of  subjects defined the main tendencies in art at the time of Alexander as the king of Asia and in the Diadochoi period.
In 330, Alexander initiated a new policy toward the Iranians
as was manifested by the acceptance of Iranian ceremonial, dress, and regalia, by Alexander’s  marriage  to  Rhoxana,  the  marriages  of his  companions  with Iranian  women  from Central  Asia  (327),  later by  the  marriages  of the  king and the hetairoi with Iranian women at Susa (324). In 330, Alexander, moreover, began to introduce Iranians to his army and formed Iranian guards. Alexander consciously styled himself as an Iranian ruler rather than just a Persian one; his court and ceremony reforms and his colonization he initiated not  in  Persis,  but  in  north-eastern  Iran  (Parthia).

Modern historiography speaks of a Baktrian-Sogdian revolt in 329-27, although
it was not just a rebellion but rather a war of the peoples of Central Asia against
Alexander III’s invasion. Baktria and Sogdiana (northern Afghanistan and
Transoxania, at present in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) were a crucial component of
the Achaimenid Empire and had multiple links with the world of the nomadic
Dahai, Massagetai, and Sakai beyond the Iaxartes/Syr Darya. When Alexander
entered the southern regions of the vast satrapy of Baktria-Sogdiana (in spring
329), his goal was to conquer the country and eliminate the powerful satrap and
then claimant → Bessos Artaxerxes (related by blood to the → Achaimenids:
Bessos, whose failure became evident, was arrested by his followers Spitamenes and Dataphernes and handed over to Alexander to be mutilated and executed. Spitamenes and Dataphernes  did not surrender to Alexander.

Marek Jan Olbrycht, The Political-Military Strategy of Artabanos /Ardawān II in AD 34-37, in: Marek Jan Olbrycht (editor-in-chief), Jeffrey D. Lerner (editor): Studies in Memory of V. M. Masson (= Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia 3, Rzeszów 2012), 215-237.

Artabanos (in Parthian Ardawān) II, king of Parthia, has had quite a number of studies devoted to him, but in spite of this his achievements and assessment still arouse controversy. Germanicus’ intervention in Armenia in AD 18 led to the conclusion of a compromise settlement between Rome and the Parthians that secured over a decade of peace between the two empires. From his accession the legitimacy of Artabanos II’s reign was challenged by the Phraatid faction, which was supported by Rome. Artabanos did not manage to eradicate all the deep divisions lacerating Parthia, but he did achieve a substantial degree of success, eliminating the opposition of the powerful Sūrēn clan. The patent improvement in Parthia’s relations with Rome during Caligula’s reign may have to some extent been due to Artabanos’ respect for the new emperor, the son of Germanicus.

The author draws his information on Parthia from an array of disparate sources, including authors from the Mediterranean world and China, epigraphy and numismatics from Iran, as well as archaeologi­cal remains. The focus of the work concerns the reconstruction of the political associations be­tween Arsakid Iran and its nomadic neighbors on the Eurasian steppe. By seeking to as­certain the  impact  of political alliances, which enabled the Parthians to establish and maintain their kingdom, with various steppe peoples, the author demonstrates that the nature of Arsakid and
nomadic  relations  was  based  on  the  fundamental  principle  of mutual  reciprocity  in  which  the Arsakids were themselves a clan of steppe origin of whom most -  though not all -  became inhabi­tants of sedentary Iran. Thus the work is focused on three primary areas: Parthyaia and the Trans­caspian steppe on the Uzboi constituting the heartland of the Arsakids. The author has succeeded in taking the Parthians out of the conception by the Greeks in the Mediterranean and the Romans as constituting a world by themselves, alter orbis or alius orbis, and thus beyond the limited scope of “nomadism” and “periphery”. He places the Arsakid kingdom within the larger context of the history of Iran and Central Asia:  a steppe people not unlike others before and after them who underwent a transformation from a “nomadic” existence to one in which they adopted the Iranian and Hellenistic traditions of those whom they conquered. The Arsakids thereby blended their nomadic tradition with that of the “sedentary” world to which they now belonged, and in doing so created a successful political synthesis.

Olbrycht, Marek Jan (М. Ольбрыхт),
The Archaeology of Northern Parthia under the Early Arsakids
АРХЕОЛОГИЯ  СЕВЕРНОЙ  ПАРФИИ ПРИ  РАННИХ  АРШАКИДАХ
Arkheologiya Severnoy Parfii pri pervykh arshakidakh),
In: ASYRLARYŇ YZLARY / TRACES OF AGES СЛЕДЫ ВЕКОВ / I HALKARA  YLMY  ÝYGYNDY /  INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFIC  ALMANAC / МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ  НАУЧНЫЙ  СБОРНИК, Aşgabat (Türkmen döwlet neşirýat gullugy), 2023, vol. 1, 115-137.
Translted by Ruslan Muradov.

Dynastic connections in the Arsacid Empire and the origins of the House of Sāsān, in: The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and expansion, Editors: Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis; Elizabeth Pendleton; Touraj Daryaee; Michael Alram, Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow, 2016, 23-35.

See http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/the-parthian-and-early-sassanian-empires.html [Published by the British Institute of Persian Studies (BIPS) Archaeological Monographs Series]

ABSTRACT
The old rivalry between branches of the Parthian royal house
and clans, including the Younger (western) Arsacids, the
Gondopharids in Indo-Parthia, the Sūrēn and Kārin, revived
when a rebellion broke out in Persis under the leadership
of Ardashir I, son of the Gondopharid prince Sāsān. The
connections between the Gondopharids of Sakastan and
the Sūrēn with Persis under Ardashir eventually led to the
overthrow of the Younger Arsacids.
A comparison of the diverse traditions about Sāsān shows
that the Persian writings and Sasanian inscriptions were
manipulated for specific political reasons. The Shahnameh
tradition traces Sāsān’s ancestry to the late Kayanids, harking
back to the historical Achaemenids. The same tradition
suggests that the ancestral seat of Sāsān’s forebears was in
India, where they had fled in fear of Alexander. Sāsān was
in fact a member of the Arsacid Gondopharid line, the ruling
dynasty of Indo-Parthia, who reigned in Afghanistan and the
north-western regions of India. Even under Farn-Sāsān they
held Sakastan, Arachosia and probably part of Sind.
Most probably Sāsān was the father of Ardashir, as
indicated by the Shahnameh, Agathias and the Armenian
authors, and as implied by Narseh’s inscription at Paikuli.
The coins and inscriptions of Ardashir I and Shapur I say
Ardashir I was the son of Pābag. Tabari, Kārnāmāg and
Bundahishn give a version that Ardashir’s father was Pābag,
but include Sāsān in the genealogy.
For reasons of propaganda Ardashir I, and later Shapur I,
endeavoured to downplay Sāsān’s role, so as not to be
perceived in Persis/Fars as a foreign dynasty. The paradox
is that, assuming Sāsān was Ardashir’s father, the Sasanian
dynasty in fact had a Parthian, and perhaps even an Arsacid
ancestry. Moreover, the early Sasanians built up their empire
thanks to the support of the chief clans of Parthia including
the Sūrēn and Kārin. That is why the Sasanian Ērānšahr
has been referred to as “the empire of the Persians and
Parthians”. And that is why Ammianus perceived the royal
house of Persia as the Arsacids.

Creating the formation of Epigones or “Descendants” (Greek ἐπίγονοι, Latin epigoni) was one of Alexander's most daring reforms. The Epigones were an Iranian phalanx trained the Macedonian way. They first appeared as a fully fledged combat formation at Susa in 324. Alexander's monarchy was military by nature and had army for its chief support. The composition and character of the armed forces, therefore, reflected the nature of the empire. In this respect, a meaningful indicator is in rapid promotions of Iranians who, from 330 on, were increasingly recruited for the king's armed forces. The origin of the unit of the Epigones involves not only the military but also some principal questions in the king's relations with Iranians and the structure of Alexander's empire.

Some Remarks on the Rivers of Central asia in Antiquity, in: Gaudeamus igitur. Sbornik statey k 60-letiyu A.V. Podosinova, edd. T.N. Jackson, I.G. Konovalova, G.R. Tsetskhladze, Moskva 2010, 302-309.

Gaudeamus igitur: Сборник статей к 60-летию А.В.Подосинова
Author(s): Джаксон Т.Н., Коновалова И.Г., Цецхладзе Г.Р.
Publisher: Русский фонд содействия образованию и науке, Year
ISBN: 9785912440205

ABSTRACT
Rivers and seas were crucial reference points for ancient peoples of Eurasia and the identification of watercourses is essential to any historical analysis. In attempts to identify rivers of ancient Central Asia, a philological or historical approach will not suffice, what with the complex water system in the area between the Caspian Sea and the Pamir Mountains changing over the millen­nia. For this reason, it is difficult to make a link between ancient sources and old hydrographic system. At the core of that arrangement in Central Asia was the river called Oxos by the ancients, now known as the À m ü  D a ryä  (Greek Oxos, Latin Oxusy Old Iranian WaxSu). But unlike today, when the river flows into the Aral Sea, in antiquity it fed into Lake Sarykamysh and was con­nected with the Caspian Sea, as is made clear by many classical accounts. And yet, publication after scholarly publication, the assumption was that the hydrographic network of ancient Central Asia was the same as or very similar to the present state.
Careful analysis of Strabos data and other ancient accounts proves that the name Ochos used in them refers to the Usboi in the northern periphery of Hyrcania and the Àb-e Qaysar/Andkhùy river in western Bactria (Afghan Turkestan)

(2023) M.J. Olbrycht, Autokrator Philopator, King of Parthia, in: Ruslan Muradov, Aleksei Fribus and Nadezhda Dubova (edd.), Ot Kopetdaga do Oksa. Sbornik stateī v chest’ V.N. Pilipko Moskva/Staryī Sad 2023, . (ТРУДЫ МАРГИАНСКОЙ АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ ЭКСПЕДИЦИИ, Том 9), pp. 184-188.
ISBN 978-5-89930-171-1
DOI: 10.33876-978-5-89930-171-1-1-216
Summary. The period of over two decades following the close of Mithradates II’s rule (ca. 122-87) is regarded in the literature as a time of deep crisis in the Parthian Empire (ca. 90–70/69). During this
time, the succession to the Arsakid throne turned out to be disputed and fights over the crown took place. One of the kings of that period used the titles of Autokrator Philopator on his coins (type Sellwood 31). The S31 coins were issued earlier than the S30 and S33 series, which are definitely associated with the Sinatrukids, i.e. with Sinatrukes and Phraates III. The coinages minted by the Autokrator Philopator prove that almost the entire Parthian Empire was under his control, as he struck coins in Seleukeia and in mints in Iran. The new royal epithets used by Autokrator Philopator prove that he was not the obvious candidate for the Arsakid throne and had to compete for power. Philopator, or “Loving Father,” is an epithet suggesting that the monarch’s father was a well-known and significant ruler who represented a certain point of reference for his successors. At the same time, the issuer of S31 emphasized his own achievements by introducing the very rare title of Autokrator, or “Self-Appointed.” The only ruler to whom Autokrator Philopator conceivably referred to was Mithradates I (ca. 165-133/2). He was therefore one of the numerous sons of Mithradates I alongside Phraates II and possibly Sinatrukes. In this way, Autokrator Philopator took a stand against the dynastic line of Mithradates II, including Gotarzes I. Autokrator Philopator may be identified as Orodes I, whose rule is attested to in cuneiform texts from ca. 80 until 75. Autokrator Philopator may have been connected to the line of Sinatrukes. The name “Orodes” became known in the Sinatrukid line: Phraates III, son of Sinatrukes gave one of his sons the name Orodes (II).

Резюме. Период более двух десятилетий после окончания правления Митридата II (ок. 122–87 гг. до н.э) рассматривается в литературе как время глубокого кризиса в Парфянской империи (ок. 90–70/69 гг. до н.э.). В это время наследование престола Аршакидов оказалось спорным и имела место борьба за корону. Один из царей того периода использовал на своих монетах титул Автократор Филопатор (тип Sellwood 31). Монеты S31 были выпущены раньше серий S30 и S33, которые определенно связаны с Синатрукидами, т.е. с Синатруком и Фраатом III. Монеты, отчеканенные Автократором Филопатором, доказывают, что почти вся Парфянская империя находилась под его контролем, так как он чеканил монеты в Селевкее и на монетных дворах в Иране. Новые царские эпитеты, которыми пользуется Автократор Филопатор, доказывают, что он не был очевидным кандидатом на аршакидский престол и должен был бороться за власть.
Филопатор, или «Любящий отца», — это эпитет, предполагающий, что отец монарха был известным и значительным правителем, который представлял определенную точку отсчета для своих преемников. При этом эмитент S31 подчеркнул собственные достижения, введя очень редкое звание Autokrator, или «Самодержец». Единственным правителем, на которого предположительно ссылался Автократор Филопатор, был Митридат I (ок. 165–133/2 гг. до н.э.). Таким образом, он был одним из многочисленных сыновей Митридата I наряду с Фраатом II и, возможно, Синатруком. Автократор Филопатор выступил против династической линии Митридата II, включая Готарза I. Автократор Филопатор может быть идентифицирован как Ород I, правление которого засвидетельствовано в клинописных текстах приблизительно с 80 по 75 г. до н.э. Автократор Филопатор мог быть связан с линией Синатруков. Имя «Ород» стало известно в линии Синатрукидов: Фраат III, сын Синатрука, дал одному из своих сыновей имя Ород (II).

Die Beziehungen der Steppennomaden Mittelasiens zu den hellenistischen Staaten (bis zum Ende des 3. Jahrhunderts vor Chr.), in: B. Funck (ed.), Hellenismus. Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters. Akten des Internationalen Hellenismus-Kolloquiums 9. - 14. März in Berlin, Tübingen 1996, 147-169.

The problem of the relations between the nomads of Central Asia and the Hellenistic states has not yet been sufficiently researched.  However, this is an important
desideratum, as it was the steppe peoples of Central Asia who overran Graeco-Macedonian rule in Iran and Bactria and subsequently founded the Arsacid and Kushan states, which played a dominant role in the East for several centuries. Many aspects of this process still need to be analyzed, for example with regard to the reasons for and course of the nomadic expansion that put an end to the Hellenistic hegemony in the Near East. If the cultural-historical development of the regions is to be treated as a unified process, the history of the Hellenistic states must be seen in close connection with the so-called "barbarian periphery". Northeastern Iran (Hyrcania, Parthyene, Areia and Margiane) and the steppe stretches bordering it to the north (today's Turkmenistan) occupied a special position in the relations between the Central Asian nomads and the rural and urban world of Iran. The population of the region consisted of both sedentary farmers and livestock-raising tribes.  Khorasmia, Sogdia and, to a certain extent, Bactria also formed a contact zone with the steppe peoples.

(2021) Marek Jan Olbrycht, Parthian Warfare Under the Early Arsacids, in: Waldemar Heckel, F. S. Naiden, E. Edward Garvin, John Vanderspoel (eds.), A Companion to Greek Warfare, Wiley-Blackwell 2021 , pp. 185-201. Publisher Wiley Blackwell; Hoboken NJ.
ISBN: 9781119438847
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119438847.ch14
First published: 01 May 2021

(2022) Marek Jan Olbrycht, The Arsakid Empire and its Internal Structure in the First Century AD, in: U. Hartmann, F. Schleicher, T. Stickler (eds.), Imperia sine fine?. Der römisch-parthische Grenzraum als Konflikt- und Kontaktzone, Stuttgart 2022, 357-369.

Marek Jan Olbrycht (Poland)
Alexander the Great in Sittakene and the Reorganization of his Army (331 B.C.)
In: Marek Jan Olbrycht, Jeffrey D. Lerner (eds.), Macedones , Persia et ultima Orientis. Alexander’s Anabasis from the Danube to the Syr Darya, Rzeszów 2018
(= Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia 9, 2018), 80-92.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5650728

Abstract

Following the subjugation of Babylonia, Alexander’s next major target was Susa, one of the Achaemenid metropolises on the plains of Khuzestan, located at the gateway to the Iranian Plateau. Iran was a separate theatre of war with huge mountains, deserts and long, vulnerable communication routes. The new conditions and challenges of the planned campaign in Iran required the creation of a deeply modified armed force. Alexander urgently needed new missile troops, light infantry javelineers, and a stronger cavalry. He also had to reorganize the army to better coordinate his actions, and flexibly divide and combine strike units. To achieve these goals, Alexander decided to introduce military reforms in Sittakene, located between Babylonia and Susiana.

In contrast to Parthian political affairs, where pragmatic considerations were the decisive factor, and in economic matters, determined chiefly by the principles of profit and gain, Hellenic influence in the arts and culture was associated with the tastes of the Parthian elite. However, Hellenization of the elite and of the Arsacid dynasty in particular was never profound and never affected matters that were of fundamental importance to the Parthian ethos. The fate of Vonones shows that succumbing to Western – particularly Hellenic – influence at the expense of identity, was not tolerated by the Parthian elite. The Roman ethos, like that of the Parthians, did not accept full Hellenization.
Many scholars overrate Greek culture and fail to understand how it affected Asian cultures. The Greeks and Macedonians in the East did not live in a vacuum, as some overly Eurocentric historians seem to think. Therefore, their political activities, economic development as well as their culture were conditioned by their relations with Oriental peoples. Their cultural activities developed against a political backdrop. Occasionally, the Greek cities would rise against Arsacid rule. Usually this would happen within the framework of domestic strife in Parthia. The Greeks living east of the Euphrates became an important component of the population of the Arsacid Empire, but they were certainly not its dominant part. At the same time the Parthians appreciated the vivacity of Greek culture and many of them were its avid enthusiasts. The Arsacids were superbly adroit in combining the preservation of the main components of the Iranian and nomadic culture that made up the core of their ethos with the political pragmatism which may be observed in their pro-Hellenic propaganda.

ORODES II (r. 58/57-37 BCE), king of Parthia, son of Phraates III (r. 70-57 BCE), and father of Phraates IV (q.v.). During his reign, the empire of the Arsacids reached the zenith of its power and scored significant victories against Rome.

After the profound changes that occurred in eastern Parthia in 58-55 BCE in connection with the civil war and the fall of the Sakaraukan supremacy in Bactria, Orodes seems to have been able to retain his dominance in Sakastān and the Indo-Scythian region. He was put on the throne of Parthia by the Sūrēn clan and the Sakas of the east. Following the execution of Surenas, Orodes fell out with the Sūrēn, but his
eastern connections were still strong. Azes’ dynasty of the Indo-Scythian region was closely connected with the Parthians. Its rule began in 58/7 BCE, approximately at the same time as that of Orodes II. In the northwest, Orodes II built up a firm block of dependent kingdoms including Armenia and Commagene. Armenia’s links with the
Arsacids would not have been possible if Atropatene (see AZERBAIJAN iii.) had not been another of Parthia’s vassal states. Iberia and Albania appear to have been included into the circle of Arsacid dependent states. The end of Orodes II’s reign was tragic for him. But despite the civil war and Phraates IV’s coup d’état, Parthia was still a powerful
state, as would be seen in its great war against Rome in 36 BCE. Orodes II led his empire to a zenith of power and the dramatic change on the throne linked with his death did not undermine the strength of Parthia.

M.J. Olbrycht,
Arsacid Iran and the Nomads of Central Asia – Ways of Cultural Transfer, in: Complexity of Interaction along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the First Millenium CE, Edited by Jan Bemmann, Michael Schmauder (Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 7) Bonn 2015 [Vor- und Fruhgeschichtliche Archäologie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn], 333-390.

ABSTRACT
Arsacid Iran and the Nomads of Central Asia – Ways of Cultural Transfer'

One of history’s greatest paradoxes is the phenomenon of military needs serving as an essential spur to technological progress (thanks to the invention of new kinds of weaponry) and to the furtherance of numerous aspects of culture. Moreover, wars promote mutual contact and exchange between different peoples. This applies in particular to Iranian and Central Asian history, which has been determined to a great extent by warlike nomadic peoples. Arsacid Iran faced a number of invasions from Central Asia, and the invading tribes more than once brought new types of arms which were then adopted by the Parthians. Mutual influences also resulted from peaceful contacts (the Silk Road trade, diplomatic contacts, tributes, bridal exchange between royal houses). The Parthians were not averse to assimilating new military technologies, such as enhanced types of the bow (the Hunnic and Sasanian types), swords, daggers, and scabbard slides, developed by the nomads of South Siberia, Mongolia, and Central Asia, or created in China.
The perennial contacts the Arsacids kept up with the steppe peoples and principalities under dynasties of steppe origin augmented the nomadic features in Parthia’s culture and aristocracy’s ethos. Principalities of this kind – the Indo-Saka of Greater Sakastan and the Kushans on the area of today’s Afghanistan and Pakistan – flanked Parthia on the east, while on the west the Parthians neighbored on Arab nomads, troublemakers in Babylonia penetrating right into northern Mesopotamia, where they set up their local power centers at Edessa and Hatra. The nomadic ethos, which remained strong even after the settlement of the Arab elites, made them ready to adopt salient elements of Parthian culture.
Throughout the Parthian Empire and along its marches the lifestyle of the nomadic shepherds proliferated, but at the same time trade, craftsmanship, agriculture, and life in the cities flourished. The Arsacids managed to combine all these different social and ethnic building-blocks into the core of a vast cultural community which R. Ghirshman has called an “Oriental koine”, stretching from Syria to the borders of China, from the Crimea and Sarmatia to the Indo-Saka. The koine went well beyond the borders of the Parthian Empire. The culture of the ruling groups in the Arsacids’ vassal and neighboring states followed Parthian customs, hence the similarities in dress, arms, and ethos. We may speak of an peculiar network of elites looking up to and emulating the same cultural patterns.

Marek Jan Olbrycht, Iranian Satraps and Their Armed Fores under Alexander of Macedonia (Media, Parthia-Hyrkania, and Areia), In: Καθηγητής: studies in ancient history, warfare and art presented to Nick Sekunda on his seventieth birthday, Ulanowski Krzysztof, Burliga Bogdan (edd.) [Philippika, No 171] 2023, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 127-135. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.8973378.15

PHRAATES IV (r. 37-3/2 BCE), king of Parthia, son of Orodes II (r. 57-37 BCE) and grandson of Phraates III (r. 70-57 BCE). He began his reign with the murder of his father, son, and brothers. In the alliance with Artavasdes of Atropatene (q.v.; see also AZERBAIJAN iii. Pre-Islamic History), Phraates IV gained a victory over Mark Antony (q.v.) in 36 BCE. He faced several rebellions against his rule. In external policy, he was a successful opponent of the emperor Augustus. Accession and civil war in Parthia. After the death of the Parthian king Pacorus I (63-38 BCE), son of Orodes II, in the battle of Gindaros (q.v.) in the summer of 38 BCE, the eldest of Orodes' remaining sons, Phraates (Parth. prht/Frahāt, see Schmitt, no. 357), was designated heir to the throne (Justin, Epit., 42.4.11-16; Dio Cassius, 49.23.2-3). Apparently, he was initially acknowledged as his father's co-regent in line with the tradition of the Sinatrucids, who did not practice solitary monarchy, but appointed a junior king (rex iunior) alongside the King of Kings.

Trotz aller Spärlichkeit der Quellen ermöglichen uns doch einschlägige Notizen des Polybius, Strabon, Appian, Iustinus und anderer Autoren in Verbindung mit der epigraphischen Überlieferung, die tiefgreifenden politischen Wandlungen zu betrachten, die sich im 2. Jh. und im 1. Jh. v. Chr. allenthalben im nordpontischen Bereich und in den nordkaukasischen Gebieten vollzogen haben. Im Laufe des 2. Jhs. v. Chr., hauptsächlich im dritten Viertel dieses Jahrhunderts, etablierten sich neue mächtige Stämme in den Steppenbereichen östlich des Don und nördlich des Kaukasus, die später explizit als Aorser und Siraker belegt werden. Diese Neuankömmlinge aus Zentralasien verdrängten die Stämme der Königlichen Sarmaten, der Iazyges und andere kleinere Gruppen aus ihren Gebieten in den kaspisch-pontischen Steppen weiterhin westwärts, hinter den Don und Dnjepr. Der Raum zwischen Don und Dnjepr zählte seitdem zum Einflussbereich der Aorser. Von den Aorserstämmen und Sirakern ging eine ständige Bedrohung für das bosporanische Reiches und die Krimskythen aus. Konflikte der Skythen und Sarmatenstämme paralysierten die Wirtschaftsentwicklung im nordpontischen Bereich, dabei wurden auch die griechischen Städte der Region beeinträchtigt.

Die verfügbaren Quellen, in erster Linie Strabon, betonen öfters die Rolle der Steppenstämme und ihre kriegerischen sowie handelsökonomischen Verbindungen mit der seßhaften Welt. Zwischen den griechischen und bosporanischen Städten einerseits und den Sarmatenstämmen andererseits bildeten sich Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse. Diese Beziehungen beruhten auf der Tributerhebung durch die Barbaren. Als eine der Folgen des politischen und militärischen Druckes der Steppenstämme sieht Strabon etwa die Machtübernahme durch Mithradates VI. im bosporanischen Reich. Der letzte König aus der Dynastie der Spartokiden, Pairisades, überreichte die Herrschaft an Mithradates VI.

Der Nordschwarzmeerraum geriet in das Blickfeld des pontischen Königs Mithradates VI. Eupator seit Beginn seiner Alleinherrschaft. Er trachtete danach, einen gesamtpontischen Staat zu bauen, und diese Zielsetzung knüpfte an die Politik des Pharnakes I. an. Zunächst unterwarf Mithradates VI. die Skythen der Krim sowie das bosporanische Reich. Die auf der Krim gelegene Polis Chersonesos ernannte Mithradates zu ihrem Prostates. Der pontische Herrscher errichtete ferner ein Protektorat über die meisten griechischen Städte am Pontos Euxeinos und vermochte, die größten Völker vom ganzen Schwarzmeerraum an sich zu binden. Dabei setzte er geschickt sowohl diplomatische als auch militärische Mittel. Das pontische Reich umfaßte dementsprechend unter Mithradates VI. nicht nur Territorien in Kleinasien, sondern erstreckte sich auch bis in das nördliche, westliche sowie östliche Schwarzmeergebiet.

In den Plänen des Mithradates VI. Eupator spielten die Völkerschaften des Nordschwarzmeerraumes eine relevante Rolle. Der pontische König verwendete vielmals ihre menschlichen und materiellen Ressourcen. Der Einsatz starker Kontingente sarmatischer Hilfstruppen, insbesondere der Reiterei, trug wesentlich zum Gelingen der Mithradatischen Offensiven bei. Dabei fällt auf, daß sich die Sarmaten des Raumes östlich des Don und nördlich des Kaukasus, d.h. die Aorserstämme und Siraker, vom Reich des Mithradates VI. fernhielten bzw. feindlich blieben. Sie wurden durch die Eroberungen des pontischen Königs in den Küstenregionen vielfach beeinträchtigt. Die östlichen Sarmatenstämme griffen öfters die Besitzungen des Mithradates VI. an, und mit derartigen Offensiven gegen den Bosporos mußte sich der pontische Feldherr Neoptolemos auseinandersetzen. Die östlichen Sarmatenstämme müssen zeitweise wohl auch einige andere dem pontischen König feindlich eingestellte Völker für ihre Aktionen gewonnen haben, etwa die Achaier. Mithradates VI. erhielt keine Truppenkontingente von den östlichen Sarmatenstämmen. Dagegen stellten die westlichen Sarmatenstämme und andere Völker westlich des Borysthenes/Dnjepr vielmals Söldner und Kontingente zur Vefügung.

Nach seiner Niederlage im 3. Krieg gegen Rom floh Mithradates VI. nach dem Bosporos und beabsichtigte, die nordpontischen Gebiete erneut zu konsolidieren. Es ist wohl anzunehmen, daß er damals die mächtigen Stämme der Aorser und Siraker für seine Pläne zu gewinnen suchte. Diese Absichten konnten jedoch nicht mehr verwirklicht werden. Inzwischen wendete sich Pharnakes II. gegen seinen Vater und brachte ihn zum Tode. Die Aorser, die Oberen Aorser und die Siraker erschienen unter ihren speziphischen Namen erst um 48-47 v. Chr. als Völker, die Pharnakes II. Beistand leisteten. Zu jenem Zeitpunkt bildeten diese Stämme die vorherrschenden Machfaktoren im Steppenbereich östlich des Tanais/Don und nördlich des Kaukasus.

Abstract
A number of studies have been published on a variety of aspects of the Tillya-tepe necroplis, its cultural associations and ethnic interpretations. However, the determination both of its date and origin, as well as of
the ethnicity of the nomads who established the necroplis has proved an extremely controversial issue. A closer examination is needed of the coins and the attributes of power discovered in the furnishings of the Tillya-tepe graves. The necropolis should be seen in the context of Parthian history in the 40s and 50s A.D., when during the reigns of Vardanes, Gotarzes II and Vologases I the clans of Bactria engaged in the Parthian domestic conflict. Taking the historical developments into account, it seems reasonable to reduce the time interval for the death of the prince of Tillya-tepe to ca. A.D. 41-53, when the Sakas and other peoples of the north-eastern marches of Parthia were taking an active part in the battle of the Parthian giants.

Keywords:
Tillya-tepe, Parthia, Arsacids, Bactria, Afghanistan, Indo-Parthians, attributes of power, numismatic evidence.

DOI: 10.19272/201603501001 PARTHICA 18, 2016, Pagine: 9-29 (21)

M.J. Olbrycht, The Royal Insignia of Alexander the Great: Arrian’s Evidence and Omissions
IN The World of Alexander in Perspective: Contextualizing Arrian
Edited by Robert Rollinger and Julian Degen, Wiesbaden: harrassowitz 2022


https://sites.google.com/view/anabasiss/new-studies/olbrycht-royal-insignia-of-alexander-in-arrian?authuser=0

Marek Jan Olbrycht, ‘Seleukid Women’, in: The Routledge Companion to Women and Monarchy in the Ancient Mediterranean World, edited by Elizabeth D. Carney and Sabine Müller, London and New York, Routledge – Taylor and Francis Group, 2021, 173-185.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348235400_Seleukid_Women


This chapter explores the role of women belonging to the Seleukid dynasty and closely related to the kings of this house as mothers, wives, sisters, and concubines. The Seleukids drew on the heritage of Argead (Temenid) Macedonia, the practices of Alexander the Great, and Achaimenid heritage. Generally, the Seleukid kings were polygamous and lived in a milieu which featured different forms of hierarchizing female members of the ruling house. Polygamy undoubtedly prevailed in the royal houses in Asia in the Hellenistic period. In addition, different forms of next-of-kin marriages occurred. As a rule, the king had one wife of primary rank, who was by definition the mother of the heir to the throne. In commonly accepted legal terms, royal succession was male primogeniture. In the Seleukid House, from the very beginning the succession was secured by the co-regency of the eldest son (“crown prince”) accompanied by his consort.

The tetradrachms with a standing archer and with an archer in a chariot were special issues struck at Alexander’s orders upon his return from India in 324–323. The Indian war had demonstrated that Iranian-Macedonian cooperation could be effective not only in military but also in political terms. Such cooperation was the foundation of Alexander’s policies from 330 to 323,47 particularly during his war in India (327–325); given this, the references to Iranian traditions in the coin imagery are not surprising. After the Indian war, Alexander mobilized his armed forces to conduct a new wave of pro-Iranian reforms at Susa, Opis, and Babylon (324–323), even as he was mustering a new army for the planned Arabian war. The India-related tetradrachms were special issues addressed to the commanders and soldiers from Iranian units that took part in the Indian war. Iranian potentates and commanders, including Oxyartes, the father-in-law of Alexander, were a key audience for them. The findspots of most of these
coins near Babylon further support this hypothesis, especially since the coins are dated to the eve of the Arab war, for which Alexander mobilized a huge number of bowmen from western Iran at Babylon. Beyond immediate military affairs, the coinage also offers insight into Alexander’s conception of his own kingship and into his imperial policy. The iconography referring to his victory in India provides proof of the great importance of political propaganda to the king in his last years and shows it to be largely directed at the Iranians. More broadly, the India-related coins demonstrate pivotal elements of royal policy in the emerging imperial system, which linked traditions of the Achaemenid period with political developments and propaganda messages under Alexander the Great.

Marek Jan Olbrycht, ‘Augustus versus Phraates IV. Some Remarks on the Parthian-Roman Relations’ in: Kai Ruffing, Kerstin Droß-Krüpe (eds.), Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Beiträge zur Wirtschafts-, Sozial-, Rezeptions- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Antike. Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Drexhage zum 70. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018, 389-397.

(2023) MJ Olbrycht, Prorocze sny, Kserkses i atak Persji na Grecję / Prophetic dreams, Xerxes, and Persia’s invasion of Greece Przegląd Religioznawczy/ The Religious Studies Review  3(289)/2023, 67-73.



In the traditions of Ancient Western Asia, including Assyria and Babylonia (and perhaps Elam as well), dreams were treated as important points of reference for political decisions, and this was given expression in royal documents. Things were no different in the Persian Achaemenid Empire. Persian kings sought explanations from the priests called Magi about their dreams and extraordinary phenomena. Prophetic dreams concerning rulers appear repeatedly in Herodotus' Histories. This pertains to the dreams of the Median king Astyages (Hdt. 1.107.1; 1.108.1); Cyrus the Great (Hdt. 1.209−210), and Kambyses (Hdt. 3.30; cf. 3.64.1; 3.65.2). Xerxes' third dream (7.19), the last of a series of three dreams that prompted the Great King to attack Greece, belongs to this group. In the account of Xerxes' preparations to invade Greece, persuasions to undertake the expedition from many quarters are depicted, but dreams play a key role (Hdt. 7.12−19). The speeches in the Persian council have all assumed that the invasion is a matter of choice for Xerxes. But the final decision to attack Greece comes from the dreams which are interpreted by the Magi. The visions mean that if Xerxes does not make his Greek campaign, he will be changing the nomoi of Persia, and thereby endangering his rule and empire. Abandoning the Greek campaign meant abandoning the nomoi of Persia. Herodotus takes advantage of the existence of the Magi to build his narrative, and places in the king's dreams the threads and motifs (olive wreath) that put together the particulars of his story. The role of the Magi as interpreters of royal dreams can be considered a tenable element in the historical narrative of Herodotus. The Magi are found in Greek sources as priests, experts in rituals, seers and dream interpreters.

The Shaping of Political Memory: Cyrus the Great and the Achaemenids in the Royal Ideologies of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods, in: M. Rahim Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great. Life and Lore, Boston, Cambridge, London (Ilex Foundation), 2018) , 198-220.

M.J. Olbrycht, Parthia, Bactria and India: The Iranian Policies of Alexander of Macedonia (330–323), in: With Alexander in India and Central Asia Moving East and Back to West, edited by Claudia Antonetti and Paolo Biagi, Oxford & Philadelphia (Oxbow Books) 2017, 194-209.

ABSTRACT
Abstract: Alexander’s empire included many peoples, but the Iranians joined the Macedonians as the core of the imperial elite. Alexander created a concept of monarchy based mostly on Iranian traditions, but it was not a direct continuation of the Achaemenid rule in terms of monarchical ideology. In the few years between 330 and 323 B.C., the Iranians took a crucial position in the empire of Alexander and in the army. This phenomenon should infl uence the way we assess Alexander’s rule. The coins of Alexander displaying his victories in India prove that political propaganda was a vital part of the king’s policies that were largely directed at the Iranians.

Der Fernhandel in Ostsarmatien und in den benachbarten Gebieten (zweite Hälfte des 2. - 1. Jh. v. Chr.), Laverna 12, 2001, 86-122. (in German) ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH The Distant Trade in Eastern Sarmatia and in the Neighboring Areas (second half of the 2nd c. BC-1 c. BC) The second half of the 2nd and the 1st century BC witnessed in the area of Southeastern Europe the establishment and development of a profitable commerce between the tribes of Eastern Sarmatia in the Caspian-Pontic and North Caucasian steppes (the Upper Aorsi, Aorsi and Siraci) and the neighboring regions. The strong policy of Mithradates VI Eupator made the Eastern Pontic area a more tranquil region than it had been before. At the same time Parthia obtained a paramount economic influence in the Transcaucasian regions, attested by a striking influx of Parthian currency into that area from Mithradates II (123-87 BC) through the whole 1st century BC. The Eastern Sarmatians played a prominent role in the commercial activities and, in the enjoyment of lasting peace (in spite of some struggles and devastating conflicts) and prosperity, they appear to have served as intermediaries in the trade between Parthia, Transcaucasia (including Albania, Iberia and Armenia), Pontic cities, Central Asia and peoples of the Eurasian forest zone. Archaeological materials, finds of Parthian, Bosporan and Graeco-Bactrian coins and written evidence point to the existence of some trade routes crossing the area of the Eastern Sarmatian tribes which conducted from Parthia and Transcaucasia to the peoples of the northern forest zone and to the Pontic commercial centers, and from the Pontic emporia to Central Asia and China as well. Moreover, the nomadic interest in trade was not passive and the nomads brought their goods (furs, hides, wax, honey), livestock and, most importantly, slaves to the Pontic cities (Tanais, Panticapaeum, Phanagoria, Dioscurias, Gorgippia) and to Transcaucasia. Vivid descriptions of Strabon and archeological finds supply information about the articles of merchandise imported by the Eastern Sarmatians from the Pontic centres of commerce (luxury goods, ceramics, wine, oil, clothes), from Western Asia including Parthia and Transcaucasia (jewelry, phalerae) and from Central Asia as well as China (Han mirrors and silk textiles). ABSTRACT IN GERMAN Aus der besonderen geographischen Lage zwischen dem Kaukasus, dem Pontos Euxeinos, der nördlichen Waldzone Eurasiens und den westkasachischen Steppen Zentralasiens erwuchs die relevante Rolle der ostsarmatischen Stämme im überregionalen Fernhandel. Grundsätzlich gilt danach zu fragen, ob die vorwiegend nomadischen Sarmaten selbst am Handel beteiligt waren. In der modernen Forschung kommt öfters die Meinung zum Ausdruck, daß die Steppenbewohner kein Interesse für den Handelverkehr, im besonderen für den Fernhandel zeigten. Im Gegensatz zu derartigen Einschätzungen kann anhand der oben angeführten Informationen auf eine aktive Teilnahme der Sarmaten am Fernhandel geschlossen werden . Die Sarmaten spielten z.T. die Vermittlerrolle, etwa im Karawanenhandel zwischen Tanais und bosporanischen Städten einerseits und Transkaukasien andererseits. Ähnliches gilt für den Handel mit Pelzen aus der Waldzone, die über Sarmatien etwa nach Parthien gelangten. Die Mehrzahl der ausländischen Kaufleute hat sich wohl damit begnügt, die großen Warenumschlagplätze, wie etwa Tanais, Pantikapaion, Dioskurias bzw. Handelszentren in Albanien, aufzusuchen und dort die jeweiligen Handelspartnern, unter denen die Sarmaten die größte Gruppe bildetet, zu treffen. In der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jhs. und im 1. Jh. v. Chr. trat im ostsarmatischen Bereich ein Wandel ein. Nördlich des Kaukasus und östlich des Don hatten sich nämlich neue Stammesgruppen der Aorser, Oberen Aorser und Siraker niedergelassen. Die macht- und wirtschaftspolitischen Verschiebungen, die sich in dieser Zeit in der Region und in den Nachbarländern (Transkaukasien, Parthien, Zentralasien, der Schwarzmeerraum) vollzogen, wirkten sich auf die intensive Entwicklung der Fernhandelsbeziehungen aus. Der Fernhandel griff über die pontischen Küstengebiete und über den Kaukasus und stieß in den ostsarmatischen Bereich vor. Die Aorserstämme und andere Völkergruppen im kaspisch-pontischen Raum, deren Tributzügen gegen die Städte am Pontos Euxeinos die Annexionen des Mithradates VI. Eupator einen Riegel vorschieben, suchten beharrlich nach neuen Möglichkeiten, ihre ökonomische Position zu verbessern. Es scheint, daß sie genötigt wurden, sich vielmehr dem Handel zuzuweneden. Diese Tatsache wird folglich nicht zuletzt in den politischen Verhältnissen der Region begründet gewesen sein. Sie muß aber auch umgekehrt auf jene Verhältnisse zurückgewirkt haben. Sicher ist, daß der machtpolitische Aufstieg, den die mächtige Staatenbildung der Oberen Aorser nahm, nicht ohne die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen zu denken ist, die sich herausbildeten, nachdem Ostsarmatien in den Fernhandel einbezogen…

Academia.edu is not a reliable site
academia.edu used to be a good platform for sharing research. However, in the autumn of 2019 I noticed manipulations about the number of total views with regard to my papers placed in my academia.edu account. In the autumn, the maximum number of views was 86.300 and since that point it has not exceeded this limit. At the same time, the number of views was repeatedly (at least 20 times)  reduced to below 86.00, then the counter worked up to 86.300, and was again set below 86.000. Even though the list of my publications has increased. So academia.edu is not a reliable site for the number of views of publications.
I informed the site’s managers about the distortion of data. One of the responses was as follows: “Thanks for letting us know about this issue. We're aware that it's not working right. Unfortunately, since we're working on so many different features, this problem might not be solved right away. Thanks for your patience as we continue to build an awesome site! Thanks! Hannah, Academia User Operations”.
These are the usual slogans in many letters. They do not want to solve the problem. Academia.edu shows a disrespectful attitude towards the users of the site.
Marek Jan Olbrycht

Marek Jan Olbrycht,  Slipper Coffins and Funerary Practices in Parthia, In: Collectanea Iranica et Asiatica. Iran and Western Asia in Antiquity. New Perspectives, edited by M.J. Olbrycht (= Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia 8, 2017), 301-313.

The aim of this study is to analyse the Roman-Parthian relations under Artabanos II and Tiberius, and the political role played by Armenia, focusing on the agreement between the Roman prince Germanicus and Artabanos II. A scrutiny of military and diplomatic measures taken by Rome, Parthia, and minor kings of Kappadokia, Pontos and Armenia suggests a new perspective of the Roman and Parthian policies towards Armenia under Tiberius and Artabanos II. Artabanos IIʼs triumph over Vonones compelled Rome to revise her policy toward Parthia. Arta-banos agreed on a compromise with the ruler of Kappadokia Archelaos, a Roman client king, that involved installing Archelaosʼ stepson, Zeno, on the throne of Armenia. Germanicusʼ intervention in Armenia in A.D. 18 led to the conclusion of a compromise settlement between Rome and the Parthians, securing over a decade of peace between the two powers. Zeno Artaxiasʼ coronation at the hands of Ger-manicus was commemorated by the issue of a set of meaningful silver coins.

M.J. Olbrycht, The Significance of the Arsacid Kingdom in the History of Central Asia, in: V.M. Masson (ed.), Izučenie kulturnogo nasledija Vostoka: Kulturnye tradicii i preemstvennost v razvitii drevnich kul'tur i civilizacij. Materialy Meždunarodnoj konferencii v Sankt-Peterburge (23-25 nojabria 1999), Sankt-Peterburg, 1999, 101-104.

This article addresses selected issues concerning the nomads of the South Ural region (= SUR), and their relations with Iran and the lands of the Trans-Caspian and Aral region as well as the Oxos/Amudarya Basin (including Chorasmia), in the Achaemenid and early post-Achaemenid
periods. The cultures of the SUR were created by the Sauromatian and Sarmatian tribes belonging
to the northern branch of the Iranian speaking peoples. Iran’s close political and cultural relations
with the steppes stretching from Karakum and the northern marches of Hyrkania to the SUR had important repercussions for the history of Western and Central Asia, giving rise to the powerful Arsacid state. The Arsacids were descended from the nomadic Dahae, but they also had close connections with the Massagetae, another people inhabiting the Trans-Caspian and Aral region. Historical records on these peoples are sparse, which makes the archaeological material invaluable. A recently published volume by L. Yablonsky and M. Treister entitled Einflüsse der achämenidischen
Kultur im südlichen Uralvorland (5.- 3. Jh. v.Chr.) (Vienna, 2013) contains an enormous amount of new material which will provide food for vigorous academic discussion on the nomads of the South Ural area and their mutual contacts with the Achemenid Empire, Central Asia, and
post-Achemenid states of Western and Central Asia. The research conducted in the SUR over the past thirty years has yielded an astonishing number of artefacts defined as imports from Iran and Central Asia, or as imitations of luxury goods.

Anabasis 5, 2014
A variety of headdresses could be observed in Macedonia prior to the times of Alexander III: the petasos with a headband, the kausia, and the tainia as the Olympic champion’s attribute. But there was no diadem. Justin (12.3.8) states quite clearly that the diadem was not in use in Macedonia before Alexander. In the same passage, Justin emphatically claims that Alexander assumed the dress and the diadem of the Persian kings (Alexander habitum regum Persarum et diadema insolitum antea regibus Mace-
donicis, uelut in leges eorum quos uicerat, transiret, adsumit). Alongside Justin,
other sources stress that Alexander adopted the ʽPersianʼ diadem at a specific
moment in history: in 330, when he was in eastern Iran.16 By that time he was
well into Asia, having left the confines of Greece and Macedonia a considerable
while before; and he was not competing in the Olympic games, but vying for
rule over virtually the whole of the civilised world in the contemporary sense of
the term. At such a historic time looking back to the Greek agonistic tradition
would have been groundless and politically unrealistic. Alexander was in the
Iranian world, and endeavouring to win recognition in the eyes of the Iranians as
their rightful monarch. Such a historical context rules out a derivation of the
diadem as Alexander’s attribute of royal power from Greek traditions.

Alexander the Great at Susa (324 B.C.)  in: Cincia Bearzot, Franca Landucci (eds). ALEXANDER’S LEGACY. Atti del Convegno Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milano 2015, Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider 2016, 61-72.

ABSTRACT
After his return from India Alexander was faced with the need to reorganise his state. In some satrapies the governors and military commanders had taken advantage of the many years when he was away, busy on other fronts, and there had been atrocities, embezzlements, and rebellions. Alexander had to bring the building of his empire to completion and restructure his armed forces completely. These changes show very clearly the nature of his political programme in the period when he was continuing the pro-Iranian policy he had announced in Parthia/Khorasan in 330. The main decisions defining Alexander’s policy in 324 and 323 were made at Susa, and they will be the subject of this article. They have to be examined in the wider context of Alexander’s policy.

M. Я. Ольбрыхт , Иранская фаланга Александра Великого, В:  IRANICA. ИРАНСКИЕ ИМПЕРИИ И ГРЕКО-РИМСКИЙ МИР
В VI В. ДО Н. Э. – VI В. Н. Э., под ред. О. Л. Габелко, Э. В. Рунга, А. А. Синицына, Е. В. Смыкова. – Казань: Изд-во Казан. ун-та, 2017, 234-247.
[translated by E. Rung]

M.J. Olbrycht, The Iranian Phalanx of Alexander the Great, in: IRANICA: Iranian Empires and the Greco-Roman World from the Sixth Century BC to the Sixth Century AD / O. L. Gabelko, E. V. Rung, A. A. Sinitsyn, E. V. Smykov (eds). – Kazan: Kazan University Press, 2017, 234-247.

From the editorial:
Предлагаемая вниманию читателей коллективная монография посвящена различным аспектам взаимодействий Греко-римской цивилизации и Ирана. В разделах, составляющих книгу, рассматри-ваются контакты Запада и Востока в широком хронологическом диапазоне – с момента зарождения этих отношений и до завершения античной истории. На основе значительного круга источников и обширной историографии историки и археологи России и зарубежных стран (Австрии, Великобрита-нии, Германии, Испании, Польши, Украины, Франции) обсуждают взаимоотношения Эллады и Ахе-менидской империи, взаимное восприятие греков и персов, политику Александра Македонского в отношении иранcских народов, роль иранского политического наследия в истории эллинистическо-го мира, военно-политическое противостояние Римской республики и империи с Парфией, а затем с Сасанидским Ираном.
Коллективная монография адресована специалистам в области антиковедения и ориентали-стики, международных отношений, истории культуры, преподавателям и студентам гуманитарных факультетов вузов, а также всем, кто интересуется историей и культурой древнего мира

This multi-author monograph is the first historical study specifically dealing with the different kinds of contacts between Greco-Roman civilization and Iran in a broad chronological framework – from the origins of these contacts to the end of the ancient world. Distinguished historians and archaeologists from Russia and number of other countries (Austria, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, UK, Ukraine), drawing on many sources and an extensive historiography, consider political relations between Greece and the Achaemenid Empire, the mutual perception of the Greeks and Persians, the policy of Alexander the Great towards the Ira-nians, the Iranian component in the history and culture of the Pontic Kingdom as well as the relationship be-tween Rome, Parthia, and Sasanian Iran.
The multi-author monograph is intended for specialists in the field of ancient history, oriental studies, international relations, history of culture, teachers and students in university departments of humanities, as well as for anyone interested in the history and culture of the ancient world.

The Aparnoi in Arsacid History,  in: V. A. Alekshin, L.B. Kircho, Antiquities of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Southern Siberia in the Context of Connections and Interactions in the Eurasian Cultural Space (new data and concepts): Proceedings of the International Conference, 18-22 November 2019, St. Petersburg. VOL. I. Ancient Central Asia in the context of Eurasian cultural space (new data and concepts). To the 90th anniversary of the birth of Vadim Mikhailovich Masson, Patriarch of Eurasian Archaeology. - St. Petersburg: IMC RAS, Nevskaya Printing House, 2019, vol. 1, 161-165.
DOI: 10.31600/978-5-907053-34-2-161-165  http://www.archeo.ru/doi/2019/2019-drevnosty/vol_1/69Olbrycht.pdf

Published in: , Ancient Society 46, 2016, 291-338.

ABSTRACT
As the territory of the Arsakid state (248 bc – ad 226) increased in size, the Parthians were able to expand their demographic and economic base. This led to an increase in the size and military might of the armed forces. The military strength and effectiveness of the army were key factors in determining the Parthians' political relations with their neighbours, especially the Seleukid empire, Rome, the Caucasus lands, the nomadic peoples of the Caspian – North Caucasus region, and the peoples of Central Asia.

Arsaces’ concept of government was, in fact, very distant from the Hellenistic monarchic idea
and can better be likened to the ideology of the early Kushans, who, like the Arsacids, had arrived
from the steppes and started a powerful state in Bactria.72 If on his later coins Arsaces I (or Arsaces
II) appears as a bare name, it does not reflect a setback in ideology, but, on the contrary, a reinforcement,
as Arsaces’ name had acquired the rank of a title in itself. Arsaces’ stature lay the foundations
for the high status of his descendants. His successors, who subjugated vast territories of
Iran with Greek-Macedonian cities taking them away from the Seleucids, assumed new royal titles

Parthia’s domestic troubles in the first half of the first century AD made it easier for some of the neighboring peoples to grow in strength and expand their influence. This was the time when the consolidation of the Kushan clans started in Bactria.The Gueishang clan subordinated the other Kushan tribes to its primacy and a strong state began to develop. In the east the Indo-Parthian kingdom emerged during the Arsacid authority crisis in Iran. Its relations with the western
Parthians were changeable: phases of co-operation were interspersed with spells of conflict. The main partner and adversary of the Arsacid empire on the west was Rome. From Augustus to Claudius, Rome made adroit use of the power struggles going on in Parthia, proffering those pretenders who had the backing of the powerful clans – the descendants of Phraates IV.
The compromise Vardanes and Gotarzes entered on in AD 41 in Bactria turned out to be short-lived. The main sources of dissension were not removed and the
empire continued to be divided. Gotarzes mobilised his army, launching a new phase of strife.

Marek Jan Olbrycht, Vardanes contra Gotarzes II. - einige Überlegungen zur arsakidischen Politik ca. 40 - 51 n. Chr., Folia Orientalia 33, 1997, 81-100.

In the first decades of the 1st century AD, the Arsacid Empire underwent profound changes. The older dynastic line of the Arsacids had apparently died out in Parthia, although its representatives were still living in Rome. One of them, Vonones, was able to establish himself as ruler of Parthia for a short time. Artabanos II, a politician of high rank, finally emerged victorious from the struggle for the Parthian throne. On the whole, his long reign (ca. 11/12 - 40 AD) was a successful period for the Parthian Empire, although there were some tendencies towards crisis, especially at the end of his reign. After Artabanus II's death, there was no legitimate successor who could have effectively exercised governmental power. The question of succession thus developed into a serious crisis in Parthia.  A struggle for rule in the Imperium Parthicum was now to unfold with all its fierceness.  Various Parthian factions fighting for power were caught up in the whirlwind of events, with two protagonists dominating the political stage, Vardanes and Gotarzes (II).  Vardanes, a brilliant figure of those days, is described by the otherwise pragmatic Tacitus in the terms of a legendary hero. Another important successor of Artabanus, whose paths often crossed with those of Vardanes, was Gotarzes II. He was able to come to power, but was ultimately eliminated.  The polarizations between certain Parthian groups with regard to their claims to power illustrate the multitude of contrasts and levels of conflict that pervaded Parthia at this time and are only partially comprehensible to us.

Marek Jan Olbrycht, Early Arsakid Parthia (ca. 250-165 B.C.). At the Crossroads of Iranian, Hellenistic, and Central Asian History. Leiden/Boston: Brill 2021 (Series: Mnemosyne, Supplements, Volume: 440).

In his new monograph Early Arsakid Parthia (ca. 250-165 B.C.): At the Crossroads of Iranian, Hellenistic, and Central Asian History, Marek Jan Olbrycht explores the early history of the Arsakid Parthian state. Making use of literary and epigraphic evidence as well numismatic and archaeological sources, Olbrycht convincingly depicts how the Arsakid dynasty created a kingdom (248 B.C.-A.D. 226), small at first, which, within a century after its founding, came to dominate the Iranian Plateau and portions of Central Asia as well as Mesopotamia. The “Parthian genius” lay in the Arsakids’ ability to have blended their steppe legacy with that of sedentary Iranians, and to have absorbed post-Achaemenid Iranian and Seleukid socio-economic, political, and cultural traditions.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2006.03.41
Marek Jan Olbrycht, Aleksander Wielki i swiat iranski [Alexander the Great and the Iranian World]. Rzeszow, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, 2004. Pp. 412. ISBN 83-7338-134-1.

Reviewed by Tytus K. Mikolajczak, University of Gdansk, Poland (tytus@mikolajczak.org)
Word count: 1916 words

Marek Jan Olbrycht, a scholar from the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Rzeszow, has recently published a book entitled Alexander the Great and the Iranian world, which is a historical and archaeological study about Iranian presence in Alexander's empire. The author uses a wide collection of sources, both traditionally known classical sources and a large amount of written sources concerning Achaemenid Persia (the period occupying an important place in his study). He also analyses the results of archaeological excavations and iconographical sources. He is well acquainted with those different kinds of sources and provides thorough analysis.

This book presents different aspects of Alexander's activity towards Iranians in quite a new perspective. The author defines Iranians at the end of the Achaemenian empire and during Alexander's conquest as a community of people existing in the region of the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia. This Iranian community included Persians and Medes, as well as all East-Iranian people like Bactrians or Sogdians. They were joined together by language, ethnicity, religious rituals and numerous other customs. These peoples called themselves Ariya, a term from which modern 'Iran' and 'Iranian' originated. Olbrycht describes in details the role of these ancient Iranians within the structure of Alexander's empire.

Olbrycht argues that Iranians played a significantly more important role in Alexander's state than the majority of scholars think. The author discusses the opinions of well-known experts on the Macedonian conquest (A.B. Bosworth, N.G.L. Hammond, E. Badian, etc.) but he also challenges more recent views (e.g., M. Brosius, Alexander and the Persians, in: Brill's Companion to Alexander the Great, 2003). From his detailed analysis emerges quite a new look at this issue. Olbrycht's conclusions point to the Iranians' consistent impact on Alexander and his favorable attitude towards them.

The first part of the book, entitled Alexander in Iran and Central Asia (pp. 20-76), focuses on actions taken by the king towards Iranians and transformations of his empire. In the first phase of his conquest this activity was led by the need of the pacification of hostile territory. Olbrycht thinks that the turning point in Alexander's policy towards Iranians occurred in 330 B.C., in Parthia. The king accepted Iranian dress and royal insignia at this time, and new officials, with traditional Persian titles, appeared in Alexander's court. Other elements of Achaemenid royal traditions, e.g., harem and Iranian courtly guard, were re-initiated as well. In the author's opinion these reforms could not have been accomplished without a previous plan and must have been introduced during a longer stay in Parthia.

The next step in Alexander's 'pro-Iranian policy' followed, in 327 B.C., namely the wedding with Roxana, a daughter of the Bactrian nobleman Oxyartes. It appears that after this event Iranians realized that Alexander changed his attitude toward them to peaceful and conciliatory relationships. Continuously large number of former enemies were taking Macedonian's side. However, the king's new policy caused opposition among the Macedonian army and triggered the well-known matters of Philotas, Clitus and Callisthenes. It was also connected with introducing the Persian custom of proskynesis in the royal court in 327 B.C. Scholars agree that proskynesis concerned Asian subjects of the king, but the author thinks, unlike many scholars, that despite opposition Alexander used proskynesis for Macedonians in some scope.

One of the main notions of the book is that Alexander aspired to create the elite of his new empire from Macedonians and Iranians together. Olbrycht sees a famous wedding between circa 90 Macedonian companions (hetairoi) and Iranian aristocrat women (at Susa in 324 B.C.), as an attempt to join these two groups. A bit later there was a mutiny of the Macedonian army in Opis, which, significantly, was suppressed by Iranian units.

Despite the common view, Greeks did not have a high place in the hierarchy of Alexander's empire. According to Olbrycht, it seems that after 330 B.C. Iranians received more and more influence in Alexander's court and in the army. In fact, between 324-323 B.C. they were dominant. The king's pro-Iranian policy cannot be explained by the necessity of adjusting to new conditions and the protection of power. On the contrary, it led to conflict with the Macedonians. According to Olbrycht, the sources support the opinion that Alexander intended to unify the Macedonians and Iranians as an elite of his empire. However, Olbrycht notes that this was an utopian plan.

The next part of his book is entitled Iranians in Alexander's army and Iranian influence upon his art of warfare (pp. 77-204). Olbrycht is especially interested in the military history of this period. With a great exactitude he enumerates several Iranian formations and their increasing significance during the reign of the Macedonian conqueror. He begins with a description of the Achaemenian and Macedonian armies. Remarks about changes in Alexander's army, in the period between 330-324 B.C. follow. The author also analyses the corps of Alexander's individual satraps. According to Olbrycht, these officials had quite extensive prerogatives and military power. Moreover, satraps of East Iran and Central Asia, Iranians generally, had wider entitlements than their counterparts in the West. In the East, instead of strong occupying garrisons independent from satraps, the king assigned them supervisors and trusted in their loyalty.

In previous scholarly literature the issue of reinforcements for the Macedonian army was raised quite often. Scholars usually agree that the majority of reinforcements were Macedonians, as well as Greek and other mercenaries. According to Olbrycht, this is true only for the period before 330 B.C. After that date it seems that Iranians were more and more numerous in Alexander's army. The first significant Iranian formations are testified in his service in 328 B.C. However the author finds evidence that Iranian cavalry units appeared in Alexander's army already in 330 B.C.

Then the author provides examples of royal guards consisting of Iranians which Alexander formed following the model created by Achaemenid kings. One such troop, called δορυφόροι, appeared already in 330 B.C. and was commanded by Oxyathres, Darius III's brother. As in the Achaemenid court, the Macedonian king called up a guard, known as ῥαβδοφόροι / ῥαβδοῦχοι, which held courtly service. Olbrycht also convincingly argues that horsed javelineers (ἱππακοντισταί) were recruited from Iranians. Alexander was forced to include more Iranian cavalry in his army during warfare with Spitamenes. Only the significant participation of Iranian forces in Coenus' corps caused his victory over Spitamenes. The author calculates that in 328 B.C. Alexander recruited a considerable amount of Iranians into his army, including circa 9000 cavalry and significant reinforcements to the hetairoi. Olbrycht also suggests that Achaemenian traditions had serious influence upon the formation of the argyraspids -- the famous Silver Shields. The importance of Iranians in the Macedonian army rose in following campaigns. The author estimates Alexander's forces during India campaign in 326 B.C. at about 120 000 soldiers, most of them recruited from Iran and Central Asia.

These changes found their culmination in military reforms in Opis. Iranian formations replaced or duplicated Macedonian ones. For example in the phalanx, Macedonian veterans were dismissed, with soldiers recruited in their stead from among the epigonoi, i.e., from known Iranian units trained in the Macedonian way. Olbrycht in detail describes all the new formations and argues that between 324-323 B.C. Iranians were dominant in Alexander's army, about 75000 in the field army. Scholars usually depreciate the significance of Iranian formations and suggest that positions of power (like commanders and officials) were held by Europeans. Similarly, reforms in Opis, where Iranians took over numerous commands, are often seen as ephemeral. In Olbrycht's opinion these changes lasted until Alexander's death.

In the next part of the book, entitled Alexander's colonies in North-Iranian satrapies (pp. 205-281), the author enumerates all the new cities founded in this region, like Alexandropolis in Parthia, Alexandria in Margiana, Prophtasia in Drangiana and others. He tries to gather all available information from literary sources, archaeological excavations and scholarly works, but sometimes this knowledge is very scant. The most debatable issue in this part is the exact location of each settlement. Often the author gives only a hypothesis about this, based on fragile premises. Unfortunately nothing more can be done in face of insufficient data. Then Olbrycht provides a summary description of new foundations: origin and status of inhabitants, ethnicity and social structure, dependence on the king, etc. The author suggests that Iranian settlers had formally equal rights with Macedonians and Greeks. This status was the result of Alexander's pro-Iranian policy after 330 B.C.: Iranians' significance was greater after the formation of new phalanx from among themselves. There was also a group of Iranian slaves, who probably worked to support settlers. The colonies' population was also created by families of settlers. Greeks and Mecedonians often had Iranian wives, and their children were raised the Iranian way. Because of these reasons these cities in which the majority of people were Iranians can hardly be similar to Greek poleis.

The last part of Olbrycht's monograph is The iconography of Alexander and Diadochi's epoch towards tradition of Achaemenid's period (pp. 282-326). In the introduction to this part the author describes the royal dress and insignia of Persian kings. Olbrycht argues that Alexander adopted elements of dress and insignia from Persians. He used an Iranian diadem (διάδημα) and probably an upright tiara (τιάρα ὀρθή), which is confirmed by written sources but also by numismatics. However, in the case of the tiara scholars raise some doubts. The king also induced his hetairoi to wear Iranian dress and used a Persian custom of giving robes to his courtiers. It appears that Alexander's coinage also reflected some Achaemenian ideas. In Olbrycht's opinion these coins were also addressed to Iranians and therefore showed some depictions familiar to them. Also the art of this period was connected to Alexander's new ideology. The author analyses ancient descriptions of Hephaestion's pyre and the king's funerary carriage in the Iranian and oriental context. Iranian influence is also clearly seen on the famous Alexander sarcophagus and other objects. Olbrycht concludes that in this period Iranian tradition was intentionally adopted into iconography connected with Alexander's new empire. Some of this trends survived in Hellenistic times as well.

According to Olbrycht, the role of Iranians in Alexander's empire was gradually rising. The policy of its ruler intended to establish a new elite composed of Macedonians and Iranians. Almost all Alexander's activities toward native inhabitants of Iran and Central Asia after 330 B.C. supported this policy. This is quite a daring thesis, especially in comparison to more traditional literature. However, Olbrycht sustains this view with a lot of evidence and detailed analysis. Therefore, this is an important voice in the debate about the history of the Macedonian conquest.

The author enumerates different reasons for such policy: Alexander's quite utopian vision of his own empire and his attempt to strengthen the state by incorporating Iranian people into administration and army. Olbrycht also states that Iranian culture and ethos had a tremendous influence upon Alexander and the people around him.

Olbrycht's book brings up many aspects of Alexander's empire and simultaneously makes wide reference to Achaemenian period. The author feels at home with sources and the enormous secondary literature about Alexander the Great and the Achaemenids, and he is up-to-date with all recent titles. However, some issues are described without explanation of terms or events, requiring some background from the reader. For that reason mainly experts can take advantage of this book. For others this publication can be a fine supplement of any biography of Alexander to uncover an area usually not discussed there.

Review of: Sonja Plischke: Die Seleukiden und Iran. Die seleukidische Herrschaftspolitik in den östlichen Satrapien. in: Gnomon, Jahrgang 88 (2016), Heft 8, Seite 716 - 720
ISSN print: 0017-1417, ISSN online: 0017-1417.


http://elibrary.chbeck.de/10.17104/0017-1417-2016-8-716/sonja-plischke-die-seleukiden-und-iran-die-seleukidische-herrschaftspolitik-in-den-oestlichen-satrapien-jahrgang-88-2016-heft-8?select-row=abstract

M.J. Olbrycht, Review of: Frank Holt, Into the Land of Bones. Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. IN: GNOMON. Kritische Zeitschrift für die gesamte klassische Altertumswissenschaft 79, 2007, 705-708.

ANABASIS
Studia Classica et Orientalia

2 (2011)



REVIEWED BY
Prof. Jacek Rzepka (Warsaw University)



EDITOR
Marek Jan Olbrycht
email: saena7@gmail.com

EDITORIAL BOARD
Daryoush Akbarzadeh (Iran, National Museum, Tehran)
Agustí Alemany (Spain, Autonomous University of Barcelona)
Touraj Daryaee (USA, Irvine University, California)
Jangar Ilyasov (Uzbekistan, Academy of Sciences of the Republic Uzbekistan)
Ryszard Kulesza (Poland, University of Warsaw)
Jeffrey D. Lerner (USA, Wake Forest University)
Sabine Müller (Germany, University of Kiel)
Ruslan Muradov (Turkmenistan, National Department for Protection, Research and Restoration, Ashgabad)
Valery P. Nikonorov (Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Sankt-Petersburg)
Tomasz Polański (Poland, Jan Kochanowski University)
Karolina Rakowiecka (Poland, Jagiellonian University)
Eduard V. Rtveladze (Uzbekistan, Academy of Sciences of the Republic Uzbekistan)
Martin Schottky (Germany)


ISSN 2082-8993




CONTENTS

Malcolm Davies, Sabine Müller
Deioces the Mede - Rhetoric and Reality in Herodotus 1.99

Ryszard Kulesza
Marathon and Thermopylae in the mémoire collective

Sabine Müller
Onesikritos und das Achaimenidenreich

Marek Jan Olbrycht
First Iranian military units in the army of Alexander the Great

Franca Landucci Gattinoni
Diodorus 18. 39.1-7 and Antipatros’s Settlement at Triparadeisos

Jeffrey D. Lerner
A Reappraisal of the Economic Inscriptions and Coin Finds from Aï Khanoum

Eduard V. Rtveladze
Parthians in the Oxus Valley. Struggle for the Great Indian Road

Michał Marciak
Seleucid-Parthian Adiabene in the Light of Ancient Geographical and Ethnographical Texts

Leonardo Gregoratti
A Parthian port on the Persian Gulf: Characene and its trade

Martin Schottky
Sanatruk von Armenien

Tomasz Polański
A Collection of Orientalist Paintings in the Imperial Private Gallery  in Naples

Massimiliano Vitiello
The “Light, Lamps, and Eyes” of the Persian Empire and the Gothic Kingdom in Justinian’s Time: A Note on Peter the Patrician and Cassiodorus


REVIEWS
RECENT BOOKS OF INTEREST
ADDRESSES OF AUTHORS
ABBREVIATIONS

Prolegomena to a King List of Caucasian Iberia 1. Pharnabazid Beginnings

Medieval Georgian historiography connects the rise of an Iberian kingdom with Alexander the Great. On the other hand, Iberian rulers are mentioned in classical sources only since late-Hellenistic times. This is a strong argument for the opinion of Meißner (2000) to date the emer-gence of Iberian kingship not before the epoch of Mithradates VI of Pontus. The genesis was nevertheless not due to Mithradates himself. It was his ally and son-in-law Tigranes II of Armenia, who was able to subjugate the Iberians soon after his own accession (95 BC). He installed a gov-ernor, who was (more or less tacitly) allowed to call himself “king“, like other vassals of the king of kings Tigranes. This ruler was perhaps called Pharnabazus, in Georgian Parnawas (transliterat-ed also P´arnawaz), what was the name of the legendary first Iberian king in the time after Alex-ander. With the decline of the Pontic-Armenian alliance, the first name of a king appears in classi-cal sources: in 65 BC Pompey subdued a certain Artoces. In 36 BC we hear of Pharnabazus (II), who was very probably Artoces´ son and a grandson of his name-sake, the founder of the dynasty. So, at the turning point from Hellenism to the Roman Empire, Pharnabazid rule was firmly estab-lished in Iberia.

The practice of using a sword in a funerary context as one of the items that accompanied the deceased varied considerably in ancient societies. The appearance of ornate swords in a funerary context might indicate that different societies had similar lifestyles and values. The North Pontic
region in the “Sarmatian era” is one such territory where decorated swords of barbarian elites have been recovered. The region also consisted of different kinds of societies – Greek poleis, the Greco-Barbarian Bosporan Kingdom, and nomadic and sedentary societies that depended to varying degrees on state structures. It is with these considerations in mind that we will focus on the practice of using decorated swords in the burial tradition of this region.

The graffito from Dura-Europos depicting a heavily armored cavalryman is one of the most important sources used to reconstruct the armament of Iranian cavalry units seen in the middle of the third century A.D. The graffito presents a hybrid cuirass that is composed of mail and lamellas. It was probably originally an Iranian construction. The use of hybrid armor should be connected with the process of the adaptation of mail in the Parthian empire and then adjusting this new type of body armor to the realities of cavalry combat. The new hybrid cuirass served its purpose well. It not only survived the Parthian era but also the Arabic conquest of Sasanian Iran in the middle of the seventh century A.D., which is evidently demonstrated by the fact that it was present in the military equipment of Muslim armies in the 16th and 17th centuries A.D.

Although Hephaestion launched a remarkable career under the reign of Alexander, as a his-torical person, he is rather obscure. The evidence on him is either biased or romanticized. There-fore, it is especially important to analyze his portrait in the fragments of the History of Alexander written by his fellow officer and presumable close friend Ptolemy. He treats Hephaestion in a different way than his other fellow officers. While he tends to be silent about the achievements of Antigonus, Lysimachus, and Seleucus, and does not treat Perdiccas favourably he memorizes Hephaestion and his role in Alexander’s empire trying to protect him against any reproaches. This paper examines Ptolemy’s image of Hephaestion and its probable background.