Hatra and Palmyra controlled the numerous nomadic Arab tribes of the steppes around them in a way that the great powers were not or hardly able to.71 They protected the traffic of goods, and they achieved economic prosperity and along with it political power.72 The fall of the Parthian Empire changed this situation fundamentally. The destruction of Hatra by the first Sasanian ruler Ardasir I in the year 24073 led to a vacuum of political power in the central Mesopotamian steppe, which significantly jeopardised the transport of goods in this area. The destruction of Dura-Europos by Ardasir’s successor Sapur I74 amounted to the loss of a further
Important centre of trading and trans-shipment.577 Neither in Hatra nor in Dura-Europos did new settlements emerge afterwards.
More than anything else, however, the conquest of Palmyra by Aurelian in the year 273 and the end of Palmyrene rule were decisive.578 Within a few decades the established local powers in Syria and Mesopotamia had disappeared, and the vacuum they had left was not filled by either of the two great powers.579 As a consequence, the infrastructure and protection that the autonomous centres Hatra and Palmyra had provided for the entire Eastern trade collapsed. The geographer Strabo refers to the possible problems this caused for the individual merchant who had to cover long distances safely. As part of his description of the trading routes in Mesopotamia he mentions that the nomadic or semi-nomadic Arabs along the Euphrates demanded such high tolls that several routes had become entirely unprofitable.580
In the fourth century the risks for travellers in the region were still enormous. According to Hieronymus, nomadic Saracens were notorious in the barren country along the public road between Beroia and Edessa. Travellers formed larger groups in order to resist the threat but this did not always help. In much detail the church historian describes how the nomads, riding horses or camels, attacked a group of about seventy travellers, robbed them and then disappeared.581 From the end of the second century onwards Rome reacted to these dangers with a stronger military presence in the Eastern provinces.582 However, in particular the introduction of a new saddle for camel riders during the fourth century increased the threat posed by the now extraordinarily mobile and united Saracens. Interestingly, in the first century Palmyra made use of a militia made up of camel-riders, cavalry, mounted archers and light infantry, which was in charge of protecting not only the territory of Palmyra but also its trading routes against
In many ways the history of Hatra and Palmyra thus illustrates the crucial role Arabia played in Roman—Persian relations as early as in the third century. Odaenathus’ activities on behalf of Rome (260—6/7) reveal the impact of individual Arab leaders and how much these could further their own position. The early Persian attempt to include Arab tribes outside their territory in their political strategies accelerated this development.583
During the reign of the first Sasanian king Ardasir I, Hira was the other important centre apart from Hatra (map 10).584 For the numerous Arabs in this region the fall of Arsacid rule entailed a period of change. According to the author Tabari many Arab tribes did not want to remain on Sasanian territory because they feared that they would lose their autonomy under Sasanian rule.585 When towards the end of Parthian rule the people of Hatra concluded an alliance with the Romans (22)Arda5iIr I turned his attention to Hira. Here the family of the Lahmids, who had been of importance already during the Arsacid period, were the focus of attention. During Ardasir’s reign the leading man was 'Amr ibn 'Adi.586 Ardasir I wanted to cooperate with him in order to weaken Rome and to control new Arab Bedouin tribes. Tabari informs us about the position of the son and successor of'Amr ibn 'Adi, Imru’ulqais as follows.587
Tabari, Tarih i 833—4
After the death of ‘Amr b. ‘Adi b. Nasr b. Rabl‘a, one of his sons called Imru’ulqais al Bad was at that time a governor of Sapur I,588 then of Hormizd I and (finally) of Bahram I, ruling over the frontier territory of the Arabs of Rabi‘a, Mudar and the other tribes who lived in the deserts of Iraq, the Higaz and of Mesopotamia. He was the first of the kings of the clan of Nasr b. Rabi‘a and the governors of the Persian kings to convert to Christianity. According to Hisam b. Muhammad, he lived as a vassal king in his district for 114 years,589 of which 23 years and one month were under Sapur I, one year and ten days under Hormizd I, three years, three months and three days under Bahram I, and eighteen years under Bahram II.
If Tabari is right, ImrTulqais was appointed Sasanian governor over the Arabs in the vast deserts of ‘Iraq, Higaz and Mesopotamia during the
Map io: Lahmids and Ghassanids along the Roman—Sasanian frontier
Reign of Sapur I (240—72). This meant that he controlled the Arabs living within the Sasanian Empire. ImrTulqais’ political activities, however, are discussed without agreement among scholars. In particular the statements made in the grave inscription of this Arab ruler do not correspond with Tabari’s account. The former was discovered by the French scholars R. Dussaud and F. Macler in 1901 when they found an inscription in the rubble of a completely destroyed mausoleum southeast of an-Namara (modern Jordan), carved into a large basalt block. Originally the block had served as a door-lintel of the entrance to the grave. It is the oldest Arabic inscription that has been found so far and also the only one that was incised in the Nabataean alphabet. Since its first publication in 1902 it has received much attention from both epigraphists and historians.590
According to the inscription the Arab ruler Imru’ulqais died on the seventh day ofthe month Keslul in the year 223 (= 328). The dating formula uses the era of Bostra, an Arabic centre in the north-western part of the Arabian Peninsula.591 Imru’ulqais’ name, descent and title are given. The Arab ruler had the right to call himself‘king of all Arabs’.592 With regard to the Roman—Sasanian relations it is noteworthy that Imru’ulqais appears as a Roman client king and that he took measures to make this relationship with Rome last beyond his death.593 On first sight the alliance between Rome and Imru ulqais seems to contradict the role accredited to him by Tabari, namely that of Sasanian governor. It would appear, however, that he changed sides at some point, probably during the reign of the Sasanian king Bahram III (293), so that his sphere of influence shifted to the West. Henceforth he was a Roman client king and in this role allowed to call himself ‘king of all Arabs’, as we learn from his grave inscription. We can only speculate about his motives for the ‘change of front’. According to Tabari Imru’ulqais was a declared Christian but this can hardly have been the main reason. It is more likely that his decision was motivated by the unstable situation that arose after the death of Bahram III. Given that he had been the king’s supporter and could expect the new Persian ruler Narse to be hostile he must have decided to escape.594
His example did not alter the general Persian policy and the Sasanians continued to entrust individual Arab rulers with the control of the restless Arab tribes along their borders.595 In the so called Inscription of Paikuli, an inscription of Narse (293—302), we read that once more a ‘king of the Lahmids’ paid his respect to the Sasanian king on the occasion of his accession to the throne.596 Apparently the Persians had put him in charge as an allied vassal along their Western frontier so that he would continue the tasks carried out by Imru’ulqais before.
It thus looks as if — corresponding to the Persian policy — the Romans also tried to protect their own border by using local Arabs as commanders in these areas. Inevitably this Arabia policy’ extended the geographical scope of the conflict between the great powers and introduced a new element to the Roman—Iranian relations. Whereas henceforth the Sasanians always entrusted one powerful family, namely the Lahmids, with the protection of their interests in the Arab territories, the Romans always used several phylarchs who, in return for pay, performed services that helped with the protection of the border and controlling the restless Arab tribes. This rather loose state of dependence, which is alluded to in the grave inscription of Imru’ulqais, did not change before the beginning of the sixth century when the Ghassanid dynasty became to Byzantium what the Lahmids had been to the Sasanians for a long time.597 In the sixth century the ‘proxy policy’ of the great powers, that is the policy of including Arab rulers in their own political considerations, reached its peak.
World History
