No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Ambitions of Quintus Labienus ‘Parthicus’*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Extract
Late in 41 or early in 40 BC a force of Parthians embarked upon an unusually vigorous and penetrative irruption into the Roman province of Syria. Prominent among those commanding the Parthians was Q. Labienus who had earlier been sent to the court of the Parthian king by the assassins of Caesar as they made their own preparations for war with the dead dictator's supporters. Marooned by the outcome of the battle of Philippi, Labienus became resident at the court of the Parthian king Orodes, returning to Roman territory in the company of the invaders. The force concentrated first on Syria and surrounding territory but by the spring of 40 BC a thrust was made with Labienus at its head into the provinces of Asia Minor. Initially, prominent citizens of the region were left to make their own responses to Labienus but presently a successful Roman counter-attack was mounted under the leadership of P. Ventidius Bassus. The invaders were swiftly defeated but not before Labienus had deployed the striking self-designation ‘Parthicus’. Bassus himself duly triumphed in November 38 BC and became the only non-imperial holder of ‘Parthicus’ as a cognomen.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2007
Footnotes
*
I am grateful to Professors Fergus Millar, Brian Campbell and Richard Talbert for comments on drafts of this article.
References
1 See the splendid images at www.Darthia.com/labienus.htm. Also Hersh, C., ‘The Coinage of Quintals Labienus Parthicus’, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 59 (1980) 41-9Google Scholar.
2 Bengston, H., Marcus Antonius. Triumvir und Herrscher des Orients (Munich 1977) 255Google Scholar; RE 15. 813-14 (Gundel)Google Scholar.
3 See Syme, R., Roman Papers 1 (Oxford 1979) 62-3Google Scholar; RE 12, 257 (Münzcr)Google Scholar. The last Labienus recorded in Roman history staged an elaborate suicide in Augustus’ later years following publication of a history deemed unacceptable by the emperor: Sen. Controv. 10 praef. 4.
4 Sherk, R.K., Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore 1969) no. 59Google Scholar (from Mylasa in Caria). The tenn was used also of other civil war personalities (including Lepidus, Brutus, Cassius and Sex. Pompeius); see Noe, E., ‘Province, Parti e guerra civile: il caso di Labieno’, Athenaeum 85 (1997) 409-36Google Scholar at 426 n. 125.
5 Dio, 48.26.4Google Scholar.
6 Plut, . Ant. 28Google Scholar.
7 Strabo, 14.2.24Google Scholar.
8 Tarn, W.W., ‘The Triumvirs’, in Cook, S.A., Adcock, F.E., Charlesworth, M.P., (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History X: The Augustan Empire (Cambridge 1934) 47–51Google Scholar.
9 Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor: To the End of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton 1950) 430-1Google Scholar.
10 E.g. Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C). (Nancy 1967) 457Google Scholar: Syria and Caria ‘submergées par les cavaliers iraniens. . . . Tout l'orient remain semblait devoir passer sous la souzerainetg d'Orode'. Cf. Debevoise, N.C., A Political History of Parthia (New York 1938/1968) 108-14Google Scholar whose understanding of the two campaigns seems to assume a strategic unity.
11 Buchheim, H., Die Otientpolitik des Triumvirn Marcus Antonius (Heidelberg 1960) 75-6Google Scholar.
12 Timpe, D., ‘Die Bedeutung der Schlacht von Carrhae’, Museum Helveticum 19 (1962) 104-29Google Scholar at 116-8.
13 Ziegler, K.-H., Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts (Wiesbaden 1964) 35Google Scholar.
14 Crawford, M.H., Roman Republican Coinage (London 1974) 529Google Scholar; Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome: Documents from the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias Conducted by Professor Kenan T. Erim, Together with Some Related Texts (London 1982) 51Google Scholar.
15 Schalit, A., König Herodes: der Mann undsein Werk (Berlin 1969) 761-2Google Scholar.
16 Pelling, C., ‘Political History 30 B.C. to A.D. 14’, in Bowman, A.K., Champlin, E., Lintott, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History X: The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C. - A.D. 69 (Cambridge 1996) 13Google Scholar.
17 Noé, (n. 4) 425Google Scholar and 435.
18 Plut, . Sull. 5.7–8Google Scholar; Liv, . Epit. 70Google Scholar; Festus, Brev. 15Google Scholar; Veil. Pat. 2.24.3. Orobazus was later reportedly executed for suffering the indignity of high-handedness by Sulla: Plut. Sull 5.10. For discussion on the precise date, see Keaveney, A., ‘Roman Treaties with Parthia circa 95 -circa 64 B.C.’, AJP 102 (1981) 195–212Google Scholar at 195 n. 3.
19 Flor, . 1.46.4Google Scholar.
20 Keaveney, (n. 18), 197-8Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, A.N., Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 168 B.C. to A.D. 1 (London 1984) 219-20Google Scholar.
21 Keaveney, (n. 18) 195–212Google Scholar; idem, ‘The King and the War-Lords: Romano-Parthian Relations circa 64-53 B.C.’, AJP 103 (1982) 412-28Google Scholar. On Romano-Parthian relations generally, see still Debevoise, (n. 10) 46–117Google Scholar; Schippmann, K., Grundzüge der Parthischen Geschichte (Darmstadt 1980) 33–43Google Scholar; Ziegler (n. 13); Frézouls, E., ‘Les fluctuations de la frontiere orientale de l'empire romain’, in La Géographie administrative et politique d'Alexandre a Mahomet (Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg. Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce Antiques 6) (Leiden 1981) 177–225Google Scholar; Sonnabend, H., Fremdenbild und Politik. Vorstellungen aer Römer von Ägypten und dem Partherreich in der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit (Frankfurt 1986)Google Scholar; Syme, R., Anatolica. Studies in Strabo (Oxford 1995) 87–124Google Scholar. Additional bibliography in Noé (n. 4) 413 n. 38.
22 Festus Brev. 15; Flor. 1.46.4. Ores. 6.13.2 refers to agreements made by ‘Lucullus and Pompey'.
23 Sail. Hist. 4 fr. 67. See McGushin, P., Sallust. The Histories 2 (Oxford 1994) 47–51Google Scholar.
24 Dio 36.3.2-3; App. Mith. 87; Memnon fr. 38.8 in Jacoby FGH 3B, 366. See RE ‘Sextilius’ 2. Keaveney (n. 18) 201 thought that Sextilius stayed on in Parthian territory and offered military assistance on the strength of Dio 36.3.2-3: ‘Later, when he saw Secilius [Sextilius], who had come to him, he began to suspect that he was there to spy out the country and his power, it was for this cause, he thought, and not on account of the compact which had already been made, that a man distinguished in warfare had been sent. Hence he no longer gave him any aid.’
23 Keaveney (n. 18) 201. See Oros. 6.13.2 on the question addressed by the Parthian king to Crassus: cur contra foedus Luculli et Pompei avaritia inductus Euphraten transient? Cf. Flor. 1.46.4.
26 Dio, 36.6.1Google Scholar.
27 Plut, . Luc. 30Google Scholar.
28 Dio 36.45.3; Liv. Epit. 100 with Keaveney, (n. 18) 202-3Google Scholar.
29 Dio, 36.45.3Google Scholar. Cf. 36.51.1. Debevoise (n. 10) 72 prefers the latter.
30 Dio, 36.51.1–3Google Scholar. Cf. App. Mith. 104; Plut. Pomp. 33.1.
31 For the creation of the province as an explicitly anti-Parthian act, compare Cumont, F., Syria 6 (1925) 282CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 1, followed by Sonnabend (n. 21) 165 n. 32, with Syme (n. 21) 121 where Roman annexation of Syria was not a defensive act in the face of an expansionist Parthia. See Downey, G., ‘The Occupation of Syria by the Romans’, TAPA 82 (1951) 149-63Google Scholar.
32 Dio, 37.5.2Google Scholar.
33 Dio, 35.5.2–4Google Scholar. Plut, . Pomp. 33.7Google Scholar has Pompey delivering the memorable response that ‘justice’ would guarantee the frontier between Rome and the Parthians.
34 Dio, 37.6.1–3Google Scholar; Plut, Pomp. 38.2Google Scholar (reportedly to please a number of local potentates in the Black Sea region).
35 Dio, 37.5.5Google Scholar; Plut, Pomp. 36.2Google Scholar.
36 Dio, 37.6.3–4Google Scholar; App. Mith. 106: ‘As Pompey did not think it good to fight the Parthians without a decree of the senate, he sent mediators to compose their differences.’; Dio, 37.5.3–4Google Scholar; Plut, Pomp. 39Google Scholar.
37 Dio, 39.56.2Google Scholar. See also App. Syr. 51.
38 Joseph, . BJ 1.176Google Scholar.
39 See Plut, Crass. 17–18Google Scholar; Dio, 40.12.27Google Scholar. For Crassus’ strategy, see Sherwin-White, (n. 20) 279-90Google Scholar; Bivar, A.D.H., ‘The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids’, in Yarshater, E. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran 3: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods (Cambridge 1983) 49–50Google Scholar.
40 Dio, 40.16.3Google Scholar; Plut, . Crass. 18.1–2Google Scholar.
41 Plut, . Crass. 21.6–9Google Scholar, 33. 8 with Timpe (n. 12) 109.
42 The phrase is that of Sherwin-White (n. 20) 290. Cf. too Noé (n. 4) 413 n. 37: ‘una strategia aggressiva contro i territori romani’.
45 Seen clearly by Debevoise (n. 10) 100. Timpe (n. 12) 109 also noted the apparent absence of any idea of revenge for Crassus’ invasion. Sherwin-White (n. 20) 290 understood the Parthian ‘policy’ of westward expansion to have been suspended in the face of domestic difficulties in 55 but resumed in 53 BC.
44 Cic. Att. 5.21.2Google Scholar.
45 Joseph, . BJ 1.180Google Scholar. The raids were led by prince Pacorus and the general Osaces.
46 Dio, 40.30.2Google Scholar.
47 Plut, Crass. 31.4Google Scholar. Cf. 18.1.
48 Sherwin-White, (n. 20) 298Google Scholar: ‘In this general mobilisation of forces for internal strife issues of foreign policy in the normal sense were no longer operative on the Roman side.’
49 Caes, . BC 3.31.3–4Google Scholar.
50 Caes, . BC 3.82.4–5Google Scholar. Cf. by contrast the romanticised version of Luc. BC 2.633,637 f; also Dio, 41.55.4Google Scholar. See Frézouls (n. 20) 187 n. 33 on Parthian undertakings to Pompey as proposed ‘prudemment'. Also Sonnabend (n. 20) 179. For Hirrus, see RE 13.2, 1644 (Münzer)Google Scholar.
51 Dio, 41.55.4Google Scholar.
52 For domestic Parthian politics, see Dabrowa, E., ‘L'attitude d'Orode II a l'égard de Rome de 49 à 42 av. n. è.’, Latomus 45 (1986) 119-24.Google Scholar
53 Dio, 42.2.5Google Scholar.
54 Luc, . BC 8.322-27Google Scholar: ‘Rome, smile on my enterprise! For no greater boon can Heaven confer on you than that you should use Parthians to fight your civil wars, and so destroy that great nation and make them share in calamities.’ Cf. 8.211 f.
55 Plut, Pomp. 76Google Scholar.
56 Plut, . Pomp. 76.4Google Scholar. App, Cf.. BC 2.83Google Scholar; Luc, . BC 8.396Google Scholar ff.
57 White, Sherwin (n. 20) 225-6Google Scholar; Sonnabend, (n. 20) 163-5Google Scholar (citing in particular Dio 37.7.2). See too Wirth, G., ‘Pompeius-Armenien-Parther. Mutmassungen zur Bewältigung einer Kreisen-situation’, BJ 183 (1983) 1–60Google Scholar at 57-60.
58 App, . BC 2.110Google Scholar; Strabo, 11.9.2Google Scholar. See Noé, (n. 4) 410Google Scholar; Timpe, (n. 20) 114Google Scholar. Specifically on Caesar's plans: Justin, 42.4.6Google Scholar; App, . BC 2.110Google Scholar; Dio, 43.51.1Google Scholar; McDermott, W.C., ‘Caesar's Projected Dacian-Parthian Expedition’, Ancient Society 13-14 (1982-83) 223-31Google Scholar; Malitz, J., ‘Caesars Partherkrieg’, Historia 33 (1984) 21–59Google Scholar.
59 App, . BC 2.460Google Scholar.
60 Cic, . Fam. 12.19.2Google Scholar.
61 App, . BC 3.77-8Google Scholar, 4.58; Dio, 47.26.3Google Scholar - 27.5; Cic, . Fam. 12.17.1Google Scholar, 12.18.1; Liv, . Epit. 114Google Scholar; Joseph, . AJ 14.268Google Scholar; Joseph, . BJ 1.216Google Scholar; Strabo, 16.2.10Google Scholar.
62 47.27.4-5. Strabo, Cf. 16.2.10Google Scholar. See Frézouls, (n. 20) 182Google Scholar for the importance of ‘les royaumes périphériques’ in Asia and, by extension, the province of Syria.
63 Dio, 47.26.3–27Google Scholar.5.
64 Sherwin-White, (n. 20) 298Google Scholar. Cic, . Att. 14.9.3Google Scholar mentions also thai the Caesarian C. Antistius Vetus who had been worsted by Bassus and hoped that the involvement of the Parthians in the episode might spare his shame. Other sources: Joseph, . AJ 14.268–272Google Scholar; App, . BC 3.77–78Google Scholar; Dio, 47.26.3Google Scholar - 27.5; Strabo, 16.2.10Google Scholar.
65 App, . BC 3.78Google Scholar.
66 App, . BC 4.59Google Scholar: ‘[they] were attracted by the reputation he had acquired among them from the time when as quaestor to Crassus, he had shown himself to be more skilful than that general.’ Cf. 63, 88, 99. Cic, Cf.. Fam. 12.12.3Google Scholar on the clearly disparate nature of the force. Cleopatra was also invited to contribute but aligned with Caesarians instead: App, . BC 4.61Google Scholar. See Sonnabend, (n. 20) 184Google Scholar.
67 Joseph, . BJ. 1.239Google Scholar; AJ 14.297Google Scholar. App, Cf.. BC 5.7.31Google Scholar.
68 App, . BC 4.88Google Scholar, 99 (for Arabs, Medes and Parthians). Flor, Cf.. 2.19.4Google Scholar; Justin, 42.4.7Google Scholar. For Cassius’ unsuccessful attempt to gain support from Cleopatra, see App, . BC 4.61Google Scholar.
69 App, . BC 5.65Google Scholar. Justin, Cf.. 42.5.3Google Scholar. See Schippman, (n. 21) 41Google Scholar; Bengston, (n. 2) 255Google Scholar; Schrieber, A.S., ‘Antony and Parthia’, RSA 9 (1979) 105-24Google Scholar.
70 Dio, 48.24.3Google Scholar.
71 Plut. Ant. 25.2. Cf. 28.1.
72 App, . BC 5.10.42Google Scholar. See Buchheim, (n. 11) 25–27Google Scholar; also Rostovtzeff, M.I., Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1959) 1008Google Scholar and n. 121.
73 And of course to escape the post-Philippi proscriptions of the victors: Ziegler, (n. 13) 34Google Scholar.
74 Flor, . 2.19.4–5Google Scholar.
75 Dio, 48.24.5–6Google Scholar. Plut, Cf.. Ant. 30.1Google Scholar for Labienus at the head of a Parthian army.
76 Epitome Historiarum Philippicarum P. Trogi 42.4.7–10Google Scholar. The point is noted by Noé (n. 4) 416. For the sources of Trogus, see Forni, G., Bertinelli, M., ‘Pompeo Trogo come fonte di storia’, ANRW 30.2 (1982) 1298–1362Google Scholar at 1351-3.
77 Alonso-Núñez, J.M., ‘An Augustan World History: The ‘Historiae Philippicae' of Pompeius Tragus’, G&R (1987) 56–72Google Scholar at 64. Idem, , CR 40 (1990) 284-5Google Scholar saw speeches in Tragus in the mouths of barbarians as an indication of ‘objectivity’. See too Syme, R., ‘The Date of Justin and the Discovery of Tragus’, in Birley, A.R. (ed.), Roman Papers 6 (Oxford 1991) 68Google Scholar for Trogus' robust critique of Roman imperialism. Also Urban, R., ‘“Gallisches Bewufitsein” und “Romkritik” bei Pompeius Tragus’, ANRW 30.2 (1982) 1424-3Google Scholar.
78 Dio, 48.24.7Google Scholar. Cf. 8 ‘[Labienus] . . . assured Orodes that if allowed to follow this course he would detach many of the provinces, inasmuch as they were clearly estranged from the Romans through the constant ill-treatment they had experienced.’
79 Noé, (n. 4) 417-8Google Scholar.
80 Dio, 48.25.1Google Scholar.
81 Dio, 48.25.4 – 26.2Google Scholar; Joseph, . AJ 14.363–369Google Scholar, 15.12-15; BJ 1.268–270Google Scholar. See Noé, (n. 4) 421Google Scholar.
82 Dio, 48.41.4–5Google Scholar; Flor, . 2.19.4–5Google Scholar: ‘the enemy making conquests for themselves on the pretence of helping others.’
83 Joseph, . AJ 14.372Google Scholar.
84 Dio, 49.20.5Google Scholar; Plut, Ant. 34.3Google Scholar.
85 Dio, 48.41.5Google Scholar.
86 Dio, 48.25.2–4Google Scholar.
87 Veterans of Brutus and Cassius ‘scarcely credible in so sensitive an area’ according to C. Pelling (n. 16) 13. Their reported presence described as ‘an exaggeration’ in Brunt, P.A., Italian Manpower (Oxford 1971) 497Google Scholar. Dio indicates quite plausibly, however, that these soldiers were a component of Antony's army of the east and had been mixed with other forces by design. Biblia at Dio, 48.25.3Google Scholar. See Noé, (n. 4) 420Google Scholar.
88 Noé, (n. 4) 420Google Scholar.
89 Strabo, 14.2.24Google Scholar.
90 The decision to divide the force may have been a detail of the plans for invasion from the outset, see RE 18.4 s.v. ‘Parthia’, 1993 (Schus). Noé (n. 4) 418 understood it as ‘compromise’.
91 Crawford, (n. 14) no. 524Google Scholar. See too n. 1 above.
92 Dio, 48.26.5Google Scholar.
93 Plut, . Ant. 28.1Google Scholar has Labienus as ‘Parthian commander-in-chief. Cf. 30.1 (‘Labienus at the head of Parthians’).
94 Strabo, 14.2.24-5Google Scholar.
95 Strabo, 14.2.24Google Scholar. For interesting remarks on the possible semantic difference between the phrases ‘Parthikos autokrator’ and ‘Parthicus imperator’, see Sonnabend, (n. 21) 187Google Scholar.
96 Timpe, (n. 12) 118Google Scholar n. 90. See too Kienast, D., ‘Augustus und Alexander’, Gymnasium 76 (1969) 430-56Google Scholar at 441 n. 38; Wallmann, P., Triumviri Rei Publicae Constituendae: Untersuckungen zur Politischen Propaganda im Zweiten Trhmvirat (43-30 v. Chr.) (Frankfurt 1989) 232-3Google Scholar has the symbol as a message for his troops that he had Parthian backing, not a reference to Mithras-worship.
97 Crawford, (n. 14) no. 524Google Scholar.
98 Pelling, (n. 16) 13Google Scholar.
99 Noé, (n. 4) 424-5Google Scholar.
100 Noé, (n. 4) 425-6Google Scholar.
101 See Robert, L., ‘Inscriptions d'Aphrodisias’, L Aniquité classique 35 (1966) 397–432Google Scholar.
102 Dio, 48.26.4Google Scholar; Strabo, 14.3.24Google Scholar. See Noé, (n. 4) 422-3Google Scholar; Habicht, Ch., ‘Zur Personenkunde des griechisch-römischen Altertums’, Bulletin of the American Journal of Papyrologists 21 (1984) 69–75Google Scholar at 69-70. Also Jones, C.P., ‘Diotryphes of Antioch’, Chiron 13 (1983) 369-80Google Scholar. For Mylasa possessing libertas, see Plin. HN 5.108. Like several communities in the region, the former had unsuccessfully held out against Mithradates: App. Mith. 21. See Noé, (n. 4) 422Google Scholar.
103 Sherk, (n. 4) no. 59Google Scholar.
104 See Noé, (n. 4) 422Google Scholar n. 92.
105 Strabo, 14.2.24Google Scholar. See Robert, L., in des Gagniers, J., Devambez, P., Kahil, L., Ginouvès (eds), R., Laodicée du Lycos. Le nymphée (Campagnes 1961-63) (Paris 1969) 306-9Google Scholar.
106 Reynolds, (n. 14) nos. 12Google Scholar and 8; Sheik, (n. 4) no. 28Google Scholar. The identity of the rebel leaders is unknown, although Reynolds discusses the suggestive testimony concerning the freedman C. Iulius Zoilus: Reynolds, (n. 14) 156-8Google Scholar.
107 Dio, 48.26.3–4Google Scholar.
108 Strabo, 12.8.9Google Scholar. See also Jones, A.H.M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford 1971) 164Google Scholar.
109 Dio, 48.26.3Google Scholar.
110 Strabo, 14.2.24Google Scholar.
111 Reynolds, (n. 14) no. 11Google Scholar.
112 Robert, L., ‘Iraniens à Aphrodisias’, Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 107 (1983) 505-9Google Scholar; L., and Robert, J., Revue des Études grecques 96 (1983) no. 372Google Scholar.
113 Brutus: see Magie, (n. 9) 423Google Scholar. Antony: Dio, 48.24.1–3Google Scholar; App, . BC 5.6.26–7Google Scholar; Noé, (n. 4) 419Google Scholar; Reynolds, (n. 14) 101Google Scholar explicitly connects disenchantment with Antony's demands and unrest; see too Münzer, (n. 3) 258Google Scholar.
114 Dio, 48.24.8Google Scholar, 49.20.4.
115 Reynolds, (n. 14) 51Google Scholar. For the coins, see Hersh, (n. 1) 48Google Scholar: ‘Labienus certainly struck his silver and gold pieces primarily to pay the Roman soldiers that had joined his forces in Syria and Asia Minor after his invasion of the former Roman province.’
116 Dio, 48.39.3Google Scholar. Cf. 48.25.2.
117 Dio, 48.39.4Google Scholar.
118 Dio, 48.40.2Google Scholar where Dio attributes Parthian actions to ‘over-confidence’. Frontin, Cf.. Strat. 2.5.36Google Scholar: ‘... he attacked them by surprise and so overwhelmed them that the Parthians refused to follow Labienus and evacuated the province.’ For a discussion of numismatic evidence of Ventidius’ achievements, see Buttrey, T.V. Jr., ‘The Denarius of P. Ventidius’, The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 9 (1960) 95–108Google Scholar.
119 Dio, 48.39.3 – 40.4Google Scholar, 49.20.5.
120 Dio, 48.40.5Google Scholar.
121 Macrob, . Sat. 1.11.18Google Scholar.
122 App, . BC 5.133Google Scholar.
123 App, . BC 5.133Google Scholar.
124 Noé, (n. 4) 436Google Scholar.