The Euphrates appears to have played the role of a boundary between the north-eastern part of the Roman province of Syria, the Roman client-kingdoms of Commagene and Cappadocia and the Parthian-aligned kingdom of Osrhoene in the first century BC.5 In this sense it represented a symbolic division between Roman and Parthian interests on sections of the upper and middle Euphrates. Indeed, the Parthians asked Pompey to recognize the Euphrates as a boundary of Roman control, indicating that this was how they conceived of the extent of their own power in the middle of the first century bc.6 Pompey evaded the request, but the treatment of the Euphrates as a symbolic boundary by the Romans seems to have been the reality over the following 130 years.
The poet Vergil made three references to the Euphrates that are reflective of how the Euphrates represented a point where Roman and Parthian power met and conflicted under Octavian/Augustus. Two references in the Georgies show the employment of the Euphrates as a literary device for strife and war in territory on the upper and middle Euphrates during the civil war between Octavian and Antonius.7 These references not only indicate a concern about a possible Parthian invasion during the civil war but in particular the support of the client-kingdoms on the Euphrates for Antonius.8 In Georgies 4.561, Octavian deals with the client-kingdoms on the Euphrates as part of the settlement following Actium, and in the Aeneid Augustus receives honours from conquered peoples and the submission of the Euphrates - undoubtedly representatives of the client-kingdoms on the Euphrates that had supported Antonius.9 The Euphrates is portrayed by Vergil as a source of war and difficulty which Octavian/Augustus succeeded in subduing. The potentially unstable nature of territory on either side of the river in political and military terms is clearly reflected in these passages, and over the following century the loyalty of the client-kingdoms to Rome was at times questionable. The Euphrates was representative, therefore, of a point at which Roman power was under potential threat and in this sense represents a boundary.
An interesting reference made by Velleius Paterculus also conveys the idea of the Euphrates as symbolizing a boundary on its upper reaches between Roman and Parthian interests in the Augustan period.10 In his coverage of Gaius Caesar’s tour of the eastern provinces in ad1, Velleius tells the story of an event he witnessed in which Gaius met Phraates V of Parthia on an island in the Euphrates. The Roman army was arrayed on one side of the river while the Parthian army faced them on the opposite bank. Gaius then entertained Phraates on the Roman side (‘nostra ripa’) before dining with Phraates on enemy soil (‘regem in hostili epulatus est’)
On the opposite bank. This is reflective of the representation of the Euphrates by Vergil. There is no indication as to where specifically this meeting took place; however, it immediately follows a report of Gaius meeting Tiberius while he was still in self-exile on Rhodes. It presumably took place in the vicinity of Zeugma. Late in the reign of Tiberius, a similar meeting took place between Vitellius and the Parthian king, which is discussed in more detail on p. 16.
From the establishment of the province of Syria by Pompey until shortly before the reign of Vespasian (ad69-79) there is no evidence for a permanent Roman or Parthian military presence on the Euphrates, demonstrating that the Euphrates acted more as a symbolic or notional boundary rather than a practically defended one during this period. For a stretch of approximately 250km downstream from the point at which the Euphrates emerges from the Taurus range at Commagene it was relatively easy in antiquity to cross the river as it had few significant obstacles on either bank. The river was not, therefore, a significant natural barrier on this section. The Syrian coastline in the vicinity of Antioch was potentially vulnerable for the Romans and the plains of Osrhoene and northern Mesopotamia were at risk for the Parthians, but there seems to have been no attempt to locate fortifications on the Euphrates in this period, indicating that neither empire sought the strict enforcement of the river as a boundary.11
Conflict between Rome and Parthia in the first 30 years of the existence of the province of Syria was often begun by the Romans, and it took place on both sides of the Euphrates. The most famous example is Crassus’ battle with the Parthians near Carrhae, which ended disastrously in 53 bc. In 38bc, as part of Marcus Antonius’ abortive Parthian campaign, Roman forces besieged Samosata, the capital of Commagene, located close to the Euphrates on its right bank.12 In the same campaign, Antonius’ general, Bassus, was powerless to stop a Parthian force crossing the Euphrates; Zeugma was described as the bridge that the Parthians customarily used to cross the river.13
World History
