The History of Rome: Rise and Fall of the Empire. John Bagnell Bury
but by judicious improvements, among which must be especially mentioned the re-opening and clearing of the Nile canals, he enabled the country to bear them, and Egypt soon recovered from the financial distress in which the rule of Cleopatra had plunged it. The chief product was grain, with which it supplied Rome. In the production of linen Egypt rivaled Syria; in glass manufactures it stood first; and it supplied the world with papyrus. Excellently situated for traffic, Alexandria might claim to be the second city in the Empire; as a centre of commerce, she then stood at the head of all cities in the world. The traffic of the East and the West met in her streets and on her quays; Greek philosophies and oriental religions mingled in her schools. The buildings were magnificent, above all, the Temple of Serapis, the Museum, and the Royal Palace. There were attractions for the scholar, as well as for the merchant, and the sight-seer; the Greek library was the richest, and the Greek professors of the Museums the most learned, in the Empire. Everything, a Greek writer says, was to be had in Egypt, wealth, quiet, sights, philosophers, gold, a Museum, wine, all one may desire! There was a very large Jewish population in Alexandria, composing a distinct community, with its own chief (entitled the ethnarch); and the city was too often the scene of riots and tumults, as was wont to be the case where there were large colonies of Jews.
The capture of Alexandria by Caesar was commemorated by the building of a suburb called Nicopolis, which served as a sort of fortress to command the city, as a legion was stationed there. The temple of Antonius, incomplete when the city was taken, was finished and dedicated to Caesar. At a later period Augustus set up an obelisk in Alexandria, which survives to the present day, although no longer in its old station, under the name of Cleopatra’s needle.
Egypt had been accustomed to reckon time by the regnal year of the Ptolemies, and the same system was continued under its new sovran. The era of the first Roman ruler was counted, not from the day of his victory, August 1 (30B.C.), but from August 29, corresponding to the first day of the month Thoth, which the Egyptians reckoned as the first day of the new year. Cleopatra lived during the greater part of August, and this circumstance may have determined the choice of the beginning of the new era.
LIST OF PROVINCES AT THE DEATH OF AUGUSTUS.
1. Senatorial
a. Governed by consular proconsuls.
Asia
Africa
b. Governed by praetorian proconsuls
Sicily.
Baetica.
Narbonensis.
Macedonia.
Achaia.
Bithynia and Pontus.
Cyprus.
Crete and Cyrene.
2. Imperial
a. Governed by legati Augusti propraetore.
(1) Governed by consular legati.
Tarraconensis.
Pannonia.
Dalmatia.
Moesia.
Syria.
(2) Governed by praetorian legati.
Lusitania.
Aquitania.
Lugudunensis
Belgica.
Galatia.
b. Governed by prefects or procurators.
Egypt (pref.).
Sardinia and Corsica.
Raetia (pref.)
Noricum.
Alpes Maritima; (pref.
Alpes Cottiae(pref.
Judea (procur.)
Chapter VIII.
Rome and Parthia — Expeditions to Arabia and Ethiopia
The Arsacid dynasty, which, after the fall of the Greek Seleucids, ruled over the Iranian lands from the Euphrates to the borders of India, derived their origin from Parthia, a land situated between Media and Bactria, south-east of the Caspian Sea. Their empire is called Parthia, in contrast to the earlier Persian empire of the Achaemenids, and the later Persian empire of the Sassanids. But it must not be forgotten that these kings were of Iranian race, speaking an Iranian language, maintaining the religion of Zoroaster, and that the whole character of their court was Persian. Thus it is quite true to say that the Romans in their Parthian wars not only maintained the same cause but fought against the same foe as Themistocles when he repulsed Xerxes, and as Alexander when he overthrew Darius. The Parthian kingdom was composed of a number of subordinate kingdoms or satrapies. The Greek cities in Mesopotamia formed an exception, to which we must add the flourishing mercantile city of Seleucia, which had taken the place of ancient Babylon. In this respect, the Parthian and Roman states have been sometimes contrasted. In the Parthian realm dependent kingdoms were the rule, city communities the exception; in the Roman Empire cities were the rule, dependent kingdoms the exception.
Before the overthrow of their rival Mithradates, the Parthian kings regarded Rome as a friendly power. But after the victories of Pompeius, when the common enemy had fallen, Rome and Parthia stood face to face and became rivals themselves. Syria then became a Roman province, and the Euphrates was fixed by treaty as the boundary between the great European and the great Asiatic power. But there were many causes for discord. Armenia, like Cappadocia, became a Roman dependency; and this circumstance could not fail to lead to war. That country, very important to both states from a military point of view, was destined to be tossed continually backwards and forwards between Parthia and Rome. In language, society, and nationality, Armenia was far nearer to the eastern than to the western power; and the political bonds which united it to Rome were always somewhat artificial. Another source of discord lay in Atropatene, the land south of Armenia; for the vassal king of that country, desiring to free himself from Parthian supremacy, often sought to become the vassal of Rome. The actual violation of the treaty came from the Romans, who assumed overlordship over the Mesopotamian city of Edessa, and attempted to extend the borders of the dependent kingdom of Armenia into Parthian territory. How Parthia declared war against Armenia, how this led to the fatal expedition of Crassus and the field of Carrhae, how in consequence of that defeat, Armenia fell into the power of the Parthians, need not be repeated here.
Elated by their success, the Parthians began to demand the cession of Syria; while on the side of Rome it was regarded as a matter of honor to revenge the defeat at Carrhae and recover the standards of Crassus. The Civil Wars prevented the accomplishment of such designs. One great defeat, indeed, the enemy experienced when they invaded Syria in 38 B.C., at the hands of Ventidius Bassus; Pacorus, the son of the great king, fell on the field of Gindaros. Marcus Antonius at length seriously faced the Parthian question, in connection with his own ambitious design of founding a great Eastern empire, composed of dependent kingdoms. It will be remembered how his expedition came to naught. At that time, the king of Parthia was Phraates, who was highly unpopular with his subjects, and Antonius supported the pretender Monaeses. The king of Armenia was Artavasdes, and he, wishing to increase his dominion by the addition of Atropatene, ardently supported Antonius. Another Artavasdes was king of Atropatene. Antonius blamed the Armenian king for his failure, repaired to Armenia in 34 B.C., seized him and carried him to Egypt, where he was put to death by Cleopatra. His son Artaxes fled to the Parthians. At the same time Antonius became reconciled with Artavasdes of Atropatene, obtained his daughter in marriage for a son of his own, whom he set up as king of Armenia. But at this moment Antonius was called upon to deal with Caesar; and Phraates, seizing the opportunity, deposed the two kings, and combined both Armenia and Atropatene under the rule of Artaxes, son of the Armenian Artavasdes. Fortunately for Roman interests, intestine struggles broke out in Persia, simultaneously with the final