Chapter Nineteen: The Reigns of Vardanes I and Gotarzes II

Parthian Resilience in an Age of Imperial Transition

Introduction: The Geopolitical Landscape of the Mid-First Century CE

The period following the death of Artabanus III in 38 CE represents a pivotal moment in the complex tapestry of ancient Near Eastern geopolitics. The mid-first century witnessed unprecedented transformations across the Mediterranean and Iranian worlds, marked by profound socio-economic upheavals, religious innovations, and shifting imperial paradigms. The Roman Empire, despite its apparent military supremacy, grappled with internal instability, dynastic violence, and the challenges of governing an increasingly diverse population spanning from Britain to the Euphrates. Simultaneously, the Iranian Parthian Empire faced the dual pressures of maintaining territorial integrity while adapting to new religious currents, including the nascent Christian movement and the continued influence of Judaism in its western satrapies.

The economic foundations of both empires remained fundamentally agrarian, yet their commercial networks had become increasingly sophisticated. The Silk Road trade routes, passing through Iranian territory, generated substantial revenues that enabled the Arsacid dynasty to maintain its vast military apparatus and elaborate court system. Roman economic policy, conversely, relied heavily on tribute extraction from client kingdoms and provinces, creating a system of dependency that often bred resentment among subject peoples. This economic dynamic would prove crucial in understanding the diplomatic and military maneuvering that characterized the reigns of Vardanes I and Gotarzes II.

Religiously, the period marked the emergence of Christianity as a nascent force in the eastern Mediterranean, while Zoroastrianism continued to provide ideological legitimacy to Parthian rule. The conversion of Izates of Adiabene to Judaism, and the presence of Christian communities in regions like Edessa under King Abgar, demonstrated the religious pluralism that characterized Parthian governance—a marked contrast to the increasingly rigid imperial cult demanded by Rome.

The Succession Crisis and Roman Interference

The illustrious Artabanus III, whose reign had significantly restored Parthian prestige, passed away in 38 CE, leaving behind a complex succession scenario that would test the resilience of Arsacid dynastic structures. His demise did not immediately precipitate the internal conflicts that had plagued previous transitions, yet the specter of Roman interference loomed large over the succession process. Emperor Caligula, despite earlier peace accords with Artabanus, had maintained his predecessor's policy of destabilizing Iranian territories through financial support for mercenaries and the orchestration of revolts in strategically important satrapies.

The historical record of this period, while fragmented, reveals the inherent biases of our primary sources. Josephus provides what appears to be an abbreviated account of the events following Artabanus's death, offering crucial details that complement the more comprehensive, albeit prejudiced, narrative presented by Tacitus. The latter historian, despite his exceptional analytical abilities, consistently portrayed the Arsacid rulers through the distorting lens of Greco-Roman cultural superiority, employing the pejorative term "barbarian kings" to diminish the sophistication of Iranian governance and culture.

This historiographical bias becomes particularly problematic when modern scholars fail to acknowledge the comparable, if not superior, levels of cruelty displayed by contemporary Roman emperors. While Tacitus chronicles the alleged bloodthirstiness of Parthian rulers, he conveniently overlooks the systematic brutality of Caligula, who had witnessed the torture chambers of Tiberius on Capri and was implicated in his predecessor's murder. Caligula's reign of terror exceeded even Tiberius's cruelty, exemplified by his practice of ordering random spectators in the Colosseum to be executed when gladiatorial casualties proved insufficient for his entertainment. His treatment of his own family members defied contemporary standards of decency, leading some modern scholars to attribute his behavior to mental illness, whether schizophrenia or syphilis-induced dementia.

The Brother-Kings: Vardanes I and Gotarzes II

According to Tacitus, the succession should have passed to Artabanus's eldest son, Vardanes, following established Arsacid protocol. However, his younger brother Gotarzes initially usurped the throne, creating a dynastic crisis that threatened to fragment the empire. Tacitus records that Gotarzes, "among his numerous atrocities, caused the death of his brother Artabanus, and his wife and child." This alleged brutality prompted the Parthian senate of nobles to summon Vardanes, who demonstrated characteristic Arsacid efficiency by covering more than five hundred kilometers in two days, forcing the surprised Gotarzes to flee.

Vardanes's rapid consolidation of power, bringing "all the nearby satrapies under his command with firm resolve," demonstrated the continued effectiveness of Parthian administrative structures. However, his inability to capture Seleucia revealed the persistent challenge posed by this Hellenistic stronghold, which had maintained its rebellion against Arsacid authority since the reign of Artabanus II, sustained by Roman financial support.

The siege of Seleucia proved problematic for Vardanes, as the city's strategic position behind the Tigris River, combined with its formidable fortifications and abundant supplies, made it virtually impregnable. Simultaneously, Gotarzes had strengthened his forces with contingents from the Dahae and Hyrcanian tribes, forcing Vardanes to abandon the siege and confront his brother's army in the western plains.

The Discovery of the Roman Conspiracy

The confrontation between the brother-armies produced a remarkable revelation that fundamentally altered the nature of their conflict. As Tacitus records, when the opposing forces were arrayed for battle, Gotarzes disclosed to Vardanes the existence of a widespread conspiracy against Parthian interests. While Tacitus provides no details regarding the nature of this conspiracy, allowing historians like Rawlinson to speculate about internal military plots, a more logical interpretation suggests that Gotarzes had uncovered evidence of Roman-orchestrated subversion.

The subsequent agreement between the brothers, as described by Tacitus, indicates that Gotarzes, like his father, possessed considerable strategic acumen and patriotic commitment. The text reveals their reconciliation: "They first met each other with distrust, then clasped hands and swore before the altar to take revenge on their common enemies and to grant each other mutual concessions. Vardanes was recognized as worthy of retaining the royal crown, and Gotarzes departed to distant Hyrcania to avoid any possibility of rivalry."

This arrangement demonstrates sophisticated political calculation rather than mere sibling accommodation. Gotarzes's withdrawal to Hyrcania was strategically designed to counter Roman-financed revolts in the eastern satrapies, where Scythian incursions from the Kushan Empire threatened Iranian territorial integrity in regions including Drangiana, Arachosia, and Sakastan.

Roman Imperial Transition and Iranian Diplomacy

The assassination of Caligula in 41 CE created a temporary power vacuum in Rome that affected the broader geopolitical balance. Claudius (41-54 CE), who ascended to the imperial throne despite being disparaged within his own family due to physical infirmities and perceived mental instability, brought a different approach to eastern policy. His fourteen-year reign was characterized by a paranoid focus on survival and an obsessive fear of overthrow, resulting in the execution of thirty-five senators and three hundred Roman citizens for alleged participation in various plots against him.

The pathological behavior of Claudius's wife Messalina, documented by multiple historians including Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, further destabilized the imperial court. Her eventual conspiracy with Senator Gaius Silius to overthrow Claudius and install his son Britannicus on the throne demonstrated the precarious nature of Roman imperial authority during this period.

Given Rome's internal instability, Claudius proved more cautious than his predecessors regarding direct confrontation with Parthian Iran. As a keen student of history who had authored extensive works on Roman affairs, Claudius understood that open warfare with the Arsacid Empire was not in Rome's strategic interests. Instead, he pursued a policy of containment through the deployment of client kings in Asia Minor, seeking to limit Iranian influence through diplomatic rather than military means.

The Dawn of Christianity and Religious Pluralism

The conversion of King Izates of Adiabene to Judaism, as recorded by Josephus, offers a striking example of the religious tolerance that flourished under Parthian Mithraic governance.[1] In contrast to Roman imperial policy, which increasingly treated participation in the imperial cult as a litmus test of political loyalty,[2] the Arsacid Mithraic worldview embraced a pluralistic ethos. 

While Touraj Daryaee correctly emphasizes the decentralized structure of the Parthian state and the considerable autonomy of its local dynasties, his suggestion that Parthian religious inclusivity was primarily a by‑product of this administrative arrangement overlooks a deeper ideological foundation [3]. The Arsacid approach to religious pluralism was not simply an incidental outcome of political decentralization—an administrative feature that, in fact, characterized not only the Parthians but also the earlier Achaemenid and later Sasanian empires of Iran. Rather, it was rooted in the Arsacids’ pre‑Zoroastrian Mithraic heritage, which, as we argued in  Chapter Three: The Empire of Cyrus the Great, King of Anshan, was inherently tolerant toward diverse systems of belief.

This religious worldview, shaped by an Iranian Mithraic sacred kingship tradition that honored multiple divine manifestations and localized cults, created an ideological predisposition toward accommodation long before the Arsacids inherited the Achaemenid model of imperial governance. The decentralized political structure certainly facilitated the practical implementation of this tolerance, but it was the Mithraic cosmology—with its emphasis on oath‑keeping, sacred order, and the coexistence of multiple deities within a universal moral framework—that supplied the underlying philosophical justification.

Thus, to reduce Parthian religious inclusivity to a mere consequence of political decentralization risks obscuring the continuity of a distinctly Iranian imperial ethos—one in which the ruler’s legitimacy derived as much from his role as a guarantor of cosmic and moral order as from his ability to maintain a network of semi‑autonomous client states. 

Under this model, allegiance to the king did not require religious conformity, allowing diverse faiths—including Judaism, early Christianity, and various Hellenistic cults—to coexist and even thrive within the same political framework. This religious flexibility was not purely philosophical; it served a calculated strategic purpose. Client kingdoms such as Adiabene, situated in the politically volatile Mesopotamian frontier between Iran  and Rome, acted as crucial buffers in the imperial security system.[4] By allowing rulers like Izates to adopt Judaism without fear of imperial reprisal, the Arsacids ensured the loyalty of these semi-autonomous states while shielding them from Roman cultural assimilation and political influence. In this way, the Parthians preserved both a defensive military perimeter and a network of culturally resilient allies in the contested borderlands.[5] 

 The same environment proved hospitable to emerging religious movements. Early Christian communities began to flourish in cities like Edessa, the capital of the small but strategically important kingdom of Osroene. According to later tradition, King Abgar V corresponded with Jesus and extended an invitation to Christian missionaries—an account preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.[6] While modern scholars debate the historicity of this correspondence, with some viewing it as a later Christian interpolation designed to legitimize Edessa’s early Christian identity,[7] the persistence of the tradition underscores the perception of Osroene as a welcoming environment for the new faith. 

Whether or not the Abgar letters are authentic, the fact that such a story could gain wide acceptance speaks to the reality of religious openness under Parthian suzerainty. In this respect, the Parthian Mithraic model stood in marked contrast to Rome’s increasingly rigid fusion of political authority and religious obligation. The Roman insistence on the imperial cult as an instrument of loyalty would eventually alienate both Jewish and Christian populations in the eastern provinces—contributing to cycles of unrest and revolt—whereas the Arsacids’ more flexible approach fostered a measure of stability across their religiously diverse frontier realms.[8] 

Vardanes's Military Campaigns and Administrative Achievements

Following the agreement with Gotarzes circa 40-45 CE, Vardanes demonstrated his commitment to his father's vision of extending Iranian influence to the traditional Achaemenid boundaries along the Mediterranean coast. His return to Seleucia in 46 CE resulted in the successful suppression of the city's seven-year rebellion, marking a significant victory over Roman-sponsored insurrection.

The earlier agreement between Artabanus III and the Roman general Vitellius on the banks of the Euphrates had stipulated the removal of Mithridates, Tiberius's client king in Armenia and brother of the deceased king of Iberia. Consequently, Armenia had rejoined the Parthian sphere of influence for the first time since Tiberius's reign. However, Claudius's release of Mithridates from Roman captivity represented a calculated attempt to preempt Vardanes's anticipated invasion of the region.

With Roman military support, Mithridates dismantled Armenian fortifications and advanced into the country, forcing the young Armenian king Cotys, a Parthian ally, to abandon his resistance when confronted with Roman reinforcements. This development compelled Vardanes to prioritize the reclamation of Armenia, though he first needed to suppress rebellions in major satrapies threatened by Roman-sponsored insurgencies.

Vardanes's approach to Izates, the Parthian client king of Adiabene who had converted to Judaism, reveals the diplomatic complexities of the period. Josephus records that Vardanes was unable to persuade Izates to join his army, likely because the astute Adiabene ruler recognized that the timing was unfavorable for an attack on Rome. Vibius Marsus, the Roman governor of Syria, was actively reorganizing Asia Minor, and the kings of Roman vassal states feared that supporting Iran might result in territorial reductions as punishment.

Vardanes's subsequent conflict with Izates over his refusal to participate in anti-Roman operations demonstrates the challenges faced by Parthian rulers in maintaining unity among their diverse client kingdoms. However, the walls of Adiabene proved impregnable, forcing Vardanes to seek alternative strategies.

The Eastern Campaigns and Scythian Threats

Tacitus's account of Gotarzes's alleged betrayal of the brotherhood agreement appears inconsistent with subsequent events and the known character of both brothers. Rather than representing treachery, Gotarzes's actions in the eastern Iranian territories likely reflected his role as defender against Scythian incursions from the Kushan Empire, which threatened Parthian control over crucial trade routes west of the Indus River.

The collaboration between the brothers in addressing these eastern threats demonstrates the effectiveness of their strategic division of responsibilities. Vardanes's rapid response to assist Gotarzes in suppressing rebellions "in the eastern parts of the country as far as the Indus River" resulted in what Tacitus describes as "brilliant victories." These campaigns extended Iranian influence to regions that, according to Tacitus, "no Achaemenid king had ever exacted tribute from before."

Vardanes's eastern triumphs represented a significant expansion of Parthian power and prestige, establishing Arsacid authority over territories that had remained beyond direct Achaemenid control. However, these victories came at considerable cost, as Tacitus notes that "the Parthians, though victorious, were no longer in a position to engage in further campaigns."

The Assassination of Vardanes and Its Implications

The assassination of Vardanes in 47 CE during a hunting expedition marked the end of a reign that had demonstrated both the potential and limitations of Parthian military power. Tacitus's assessment of the young king—"if he had tried to win the hearts of his people as much as he had struck fear in the hearts of his enemies, few of the previous kings could have equaled him"—suggests that perhaps Vardanes's focus on military conquest had come at the expense of domestic political consolidation.

The circumstances of his death remain mysterious, though the fact that it occurred during a hunt suggests either a conspiracy among his immediate entourage or an opportunistic attack by opponents who had gained access to the royal court. The timing of the assassination, coming at the height of his military successes, indicates that domestic opposition may have viewed his aggressive expansionism as threatening to the traditional balance between central authority and regional autonomy that characterized Parthian governance.

Gotarzes II: Consolidation and Diplomatic Innovation

With Vardanes's death, Rome anticipated that the Iranian government would descend into chaos, as competing factions within the senate of nobles debated the succession. Many favored Gotarzes, while others, influenced by Roman financial incentives, supported Mithridates, a descendant of Phraates IV who had been held hostage in Rome. However, Gotarzes demonstrated remarkable political acumen in overcoming these challenges and securing recognition as king in 47 CE.

Gotarzes's strategic approach to the Roman threat involved a sophisticated understanding of client-kingdom politics in Asia Minor. Around 47 CE, following Caligula's assassination, he established diplomatic relations with five regional kings and encouraged them to revolt against Roman authority. This initiative reflected his recognition that the escalating taxes and tributes imposed by unstable Roman emperors had created widespread resentment among client rulers.

Herod Agrippa, whose father had ruled Judea and Jerusalem before his death, proved receptive to Gotarzes's overtures. In 43 CE, Agrippa convened a conference in Tiberias that included the kings of Commagene, Emesa, Lesser Armenia, Pontus, and his brother Herod of Chalcis. However, the unexpected arrival of Vibius Marsus, the Roman governor of Syria, disrupted these proceedings.

Marsus's understanding of the strategic implications of this gathering—particularly given the proximity of Pontus and Lesser Armenia to Armenia proper of Iran, and Commagene's border with Iran—led him to order the immediate dispersal of the assembled kings. His knowledge of Agrippa's previous involvement in reporting his uncle Antipas's conspiracy with Artabanus III made him particularly suspicious of renewed Parthian connections.

Although Gotarzes's plan for a coordinated revolt in Asia Minor did not fully materialize, his financial support for Pharasmanes, the Iberian king of Georgia, produced significant results. Pharasmanes's son Rhadamistus successfully invaded Armenia and overthrew his uncle Mithridates, the Roman client king. The incompetent response of the Syrian governor Ummidius Quadratus, who merely demanded Rhadamistus's abdication without providing effective military support, demonstrated the limitations of Roman administrative capacity in the region.

The Diplomatic Victory of 49 CE

In 49 CE, Gotarzes achieved perhaps his greatest diplomatic triumph through a carefully orchestrated deception that resulted in the capture and humiliation of the Roman-sponsored pretender Mithridates. By dispatching envoys to Claudius with a fabricated request for Mithridates's return, Gotarzes successfully lured the Roman protégé into Parthian territory.

The message delivered by Gotarzes's envoys represented a masterpiece of psychological manipulation, portraying the Parthian king as a tyrant whose cruelty had alienated his subjects and created an opportunity for Roman intervention. This stratagem played directly into Roman assumptions about "barbarian" instability and their own civilizing mission in the East.

Claudius's response, as recorded by Tacitus, reveals the extent to which Roman imperial ideology had become divorced from political reality. His grandiose comparison of himself to Augustus, "from whom the Parthians had requested a king," conveniently ignored the subsequent failures of Roman-sponsored rulers in Parthia. His patronizing advice to Mithridates about practicing "justice and mercy" with the "barbarous Persians" demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of Parthian political culture and administrative sophistication.

The deployment of Gaius Cassius, governor of Syria, to escort Mithridates to the Euphrates border represented a significant Roman investment in the success of this intervention. However, when Mithridates's forces, exhausted from traversing the snow-covered Armenian highlands, descended to the plains, they found themselves increasingly isolated as their supposed allies abandoned them.

The defection of Izates of Adiabene and Abgar of Edessa from Mithridates's army at the crucial moment highlights another dimension of Parthian diplomatic success. Both rulers, representing Jewish and Christian communities respectively, ultimately chose to honor their commitments to Gotarzes rather than support the Roman pretender. This decision reflects not only personal loyalty but also the recognition that Parthian governance offered greater religious tolerance and political autonomy than Roman imperial administration.

The  Behistun Victory and Its Commemoration

Mithridates's crushing defeat at the hands of Gotarzes represented more than a mere dynastic struggle; it constituted a decisive Parthian victory over Roman imperial ambitions in the region. The capture and ritualistic humiliation of Mithridates—including the cutting off of his ears as both a mark of "forgiveness" and a symbol of disgrace to the Arsacid family—demonstrated Gotarzes's understanding of the symbolic dimensions of political authority.

The significance of this victory is underscored by Gotarzes's decision to commemorate it with a stone monument at  Behistun, the same location where Darius I had recorded his triumphs over rebellious pretenders five centuries earlier. This choice of venue deliberately invoked the memory of Achaemenid imperial glory while asserting Arsacid legitimacy as the rightful heirs to Iranian imperial tradition.

The victory's strategic importance extended beyond its immediate political implications. By demonstrating that Roman-sponsored interventions could be successfully countered through a combination of military prowess and diplomatic sophistication, Gotarzes established a template for Iranian resistance that would influence subsequent Arsacid policy for generations.

Conclusion: The Legacy of Arsacid Resilience

The reigns of Vardanes I and Gotarzes II illuminate the remarkable adaptability and strategic sophistication of the Parthian Empire during a period of unprecedented external pressure and internal challenge. Their combined achievements—Vardanes's military expansion to the Indus River and Gotarzes's diplomatic triumph over Roman intervention—demonstrated that the Arsacid system retained the capacity for both territorial aggrandizement and political innovation despite the constant threat of Roman interference.

The period also reveals the crucial role of religious pluralism in Parthian governance, as evidenced by the loyalty of Jewish and Christian client rulers who found greater accommodation under Arsacid authority than they could expect from Roman imperial administration. This religious tolerance, combined with respect for local autonomy within the broader imperial framework, provided the Parthian Empire of Iran with a degree of social cohesion that Roman efforts at subversion consistently failed to undermine.

Perhaps most significantly, the events of this era established patterns of Romano-Iranian competition that would persist for centuries. The Roman reliance on client kings and pretenders, the importance of Armenia as a contested buffer zone, and the effectiveness of Parthian diplomatic countermeasures all became recurring themes in subsequent conflicts between the two empires.

The deaths of both Vardanes (47 CE) and Gotarzes (51 CE) within a relatively brief period marked the end of a crucial transitional era in Parthian history. Their successors, beginning with the brief reign of Vonones II and continuing with Vologases I, would inherit an empire that had successfully weathered the storms of Roman intervention while maintaining its territorial integrity and cultural identity. The legacy of their combined reigns demonstrates that the Iranian Empire, far from being the declining "barbarian" kingdom portrayed by hostile Roman sources, remained a formidable opponent capable of matching Roman ambitions with equal measures of military prowess and diplomatic sophistication.

In the broader sweep of ancient Near Eastern history, the reigns of Vardanes I and Gotarzes II mark a pivotal juncture when the balance of power between East and West hung in a fragile but critical equilibrium. Through a combination of military resolve and deft diplomacy, they projected Iranian power, safeguarded territorial integrity, and prevented the eastern frontier from tipping into permanent Roman dominance. In doing so, they preserved the essential geopolitical role of Iran as a counterweight to Western imperial expansion—a role first articulated under the Achaemenids, whose imperial vision combined defensive depth with a policy of balancing rival powers along shifting frontiers.

This continuity of strategic thinking ensured that the Arsacid state did more than merely survive; it sustained the Iranian political and cultural tradition as a coherent and self-conscious alternative to the Roman world. The lessons of their reigns—leveraging client states, exploiting Rome’s internal distractions, and reinforcing a multi-ethnic imperial coalition—would be inherited and refined by the Sasanian Empire. Under the Sasanians, these same principles would be deployed with even greater centralization and ideological clarity, transforming the perennial rivalry into a more direct and sustained challenge to Roman hegemony across the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.

Yet the Sasanian period, as we will see in later chapters,  also revealed the limits of this imperial model when undermined by internal religious rigidity. The rise of powerful Zoroastrian clerics—figures such as Kartir, Tansar, and Arda Viraf—introduced a zealous drive to impose doctrinal uniformity across the empire. In regions long accustomed to religious pluralism, this policy alienated diverse communities, eroded the local loyalties that had been a strength under the Achaemenids and Arsacids, and weakened the empire’s internal cohesion. By narrowing the ideological base of Iranian kingship to a single, exclusivist interpretation of Zoroastrianism, these policies inadvertently diminished the very cultural breadth and political flexibility that had enabled Iran to endure as a great power for centuries.

.