A small region of the East, southwest of the Caspian Sea and north of the Persian Gulf, that became an empire, stretching from Syria to India. The Parthians were actually a nomadic people called the Parni and were related to the fierce Dahae who had fought Alexander the Great. Like the Dahae, the Parni were at first subject to the Persians, later falling under the power of the Seleucids.

Internal organization seemed to coalesce in the 3rd century B.C., allowing them to strike out and seize vast stretches of land in PERSIA, at the expense of their Seleucid overlords. They came to occupy the region called Parthava or Parthia. Dating from 247 B.C., their kings established themselves as the heirs of the defunct Seleucids. Parthia was an amalgam of territories and minor states, all beholden to the Arsacid Dynasty, ruling from CTESIPHON and ECBATANA. Politically, the Arsacids drew their power from the noble families of the Pahlavi. The nobles, in turn, wielded administrative rights, such as the appointment of governors and contributions to the armies. In actual government, the Parthians relied upon the readily available system of the Seleucids, meaning that they were heavily influenced by the Greeks. Two councils made major decisions. The first was a board of advisors, the so-called Magi (from the ancient clan of Magus), and the other was composed of the nobility. Any new king of Parthia was chosen by them, a freedom of decision making that often resulted in the most qualified heir, not necessarily the oldest son, being crowned. This system was handicapped by corruption and internal decay, intrigues, murder and ambition, all of which undermined the dynastic stability of the Arsacids. This deterioration was offset only temporarily by the rise of a fresh line, c. 10 A.D., from Atropatene.

It was a major but unavoidable flaw in the Parthian system that its nobles and vassals were allowed such a free hand in their own rule. The aristocracy, it was hoped, would always be reliable, but even the family of the Surens formed an eastern domain, the Indo-Parthian kingdom. To the south, furthermore, were to be found the kingdoms of the Characene, Elymais and especially the Persis. The latter, under the Sassanids, were victorious in 226 A.D. over the weakened Parthians. Culturally, the Parthians brought little to the throne aside from excellent military skills and a willingness to adopt facets of other social systems. Despite speaking the Parthian Pahlavi dialect, the Arsacids relied upon Greek as a useful means of organizing the empire and connecting it to the outside world. Thus, councils, titles, literature, philosophy of rule and bureaucracy were all Hellenic, though superficially, leaving them susceptible to foreign influences, both from the East and the West. Greek practices of warfare, such as the phalanx, bodies of infantry or balanced attacks of foot and horse were abandoned in the face of the realities of Parthian strength and geographical necessities. The cavalry became the basis of the Parthian military might. They used the heavy cataphract, fast horse archers and other types of mailed horsemen. In their early wars with Rome, this strategy worked perfectly, as was obvious at CARRHAE against Crassus in 53 B.C. Wars with Roman legions, however, soon proved costly and disastrous. In war the Romans faced few equals, and Parthia could not match the financial and industrial resources of the Roman provinces.

The fully armoured cataphracts with metal face masks and complete arm and leg defences, mounted on horses whose head, neck, chest and sides were similarly protected by metal armour, were the most impressive part of the army. However, the least successful Parthian armies were those using most cataphracts and fewest horse archers. A Sassanid triumphal sculpture shows the defeat in 224 AD of Parthian dignitaries who are fully armoured in cataphract style, but mounted on apparently unarmoured horses, but close examination shows that horse armour is in fact depicted. Cataphract camels used in 217 AD may have been Hatrene. The Suren were one of the great families of Parthia, who, after the reconquest of Parthia’s eastern provinces from the Saka, took over management of the eastern provinces then co-operated with the Saka in conquering various Indian and Bactrian Greek territories. At the start of the Ist century AD, Gondophares declared himself king, and the kingdom survived in defiance of Parthia until conquered by the Kushans.

Economically, the Parthians relied upon trade as their mainstay of expansion. They successfully moved the lines of communication from the Far East to the West through their lands. Caravans traveled from China and India across the Indo- Parthian kingdom to Ecbatana and then to distribution centers such as HATRA, DOURA, PETRA and ANTIOCH.

While trade brought prosperity, the Parthians contributed few cultural innovations. They had brought their own gods with them, nurtured by their Magi; these deities, becoming eclipsed by Mazdaism, were adopted by the Arsacids as a popular gesture. Religious tolerance was an important policy of the Parthians, and in Persia the ancient faith of the Zoroastrians was still alive, waiting for the day when it could flower and return. Artistically there were perhaps three streams of influence in Parthia; the Hellenic, an Iranian style and the crude form practiced by the Parni nobles. Each made an impact on Parthian art.