The Banu Tanukh (196-275 CE), the Tanukhid Phylarchate (275-295 & 383-639 CE), and

the Tanukhid Kingdom (295-383 CE)

The origins of the Banu Tanukh are obscure. They are first mentioned in Arab legend as allies of the Banu Kalb in the Nafud Desert region—these legends make them Kahlans, a branch of the Azd federation that had migrated into Central Arabia some time in the second century CE, at which time they were united under the leadership of Malik ibn Fahm (196-231 CE). The Tanukh and Kalb were enemies of the Hellenistic Syrian city-state of Palmyra, which was a Roman protectorate (ca. 14-264 CE), and the lynchpin of Rome’s frontier defenses in Syria. There are several Arab legends regarding the conflict between the Tanukhid chief, Jadhima ibn Malik (233-268 CE), and the Palmyrene queen, Zenobia bat Zabbai (240-275 CE)—Jadhima is believed to have killed Zenobia’s father, Zabbai, and Zenobia later captured Jadhima and had him executed. However, when Palmyra rebelled against Rome and its leaders made their own bid for empire (ca. 264-273 CE), the Tanukhid chief, Amr ibn Adi (269-295 CE), is believed to have formed an alliance with the Roman emperor, Aurelian (270-275 CE), and to have aided Aurelian in destroying Palmyra. As reward, the Tanukh were allowed to settle in Roman Syria which, after the fall of Palmyra, was divided into the provinces of Syria Phoenice and Syria Coele, and they became federates of the Roman Empire (a branch of the Kalb were settled as federates in the Samawah Desert region, to the east of the Tanukh). Unfortunately, sources for the Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire (235-284 CE) are poor, and Arabic sources for this period of Tanukhid history are either legendary (i.e., fantastical folk-stories built around kernels of history) or were first compiled at a much later date (during the Islamic Period). Our primary Roman sources are Ammianus Marcellinus (325-391 CE), a secular Latin-language historian, Salminius Hermius Sozomenos, known as Sozomen (400-450 CE), a Greek ecclesiastical historian, and Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, known as Jerome (347-420 CE), a Biblical scholar and Roman Catholic saint. The primary Arab source for most of the Arab federates of Rome during the late third and early fourth centuries CE is the epitaph of Imru al-Qays ibn Amr, the Christian king of the Lakhmids (268-295 CE) who was forced to flee to Syria with a number of his Christian Arab followers by the Sassanian emperor, Shapur II (309-379 CE)(see my History of the Lakhmids). In touting the accomplishments of Imru al-Qays, the epitaph/inscription gives a general picture of the geopolitical balance of power in northern Arabia during the third and fourth centuries CE. As I said, this is only supplemented by Arab legends and much later Islamic histories, although the work of the primary Islamic Arab source for pre-Islamic Arabia, Hisham ibn al-Kalbi (737-819 CE), is considered by modern historians to be very good (most later, and more famous, Islamic historians of pre-Islamic Arabia, like Tabari, Baladuri, and Masudi, are believed to have largely based their work on that of Hisham ibn al-Kalbi).

 

Meanwhile, the Banu Lakhm under Amr ibn Uday (268-295 CE) had established themselves in southern Mesopotamia (modern Najaf Province, Iraq). His son and successor, Imru al-Qays (295-328 CE), called Amorges in Persian sources, expanded Lakhmid control to the east (from Najaf into modern Muthanna Province, Iraq), then built a fleet on the Euphrates to take control of the Euphrates river trade, as well as its adjacent caravan trade routes. He raided Persian Mesopotamia and, sailing down the Euphrates to the Persian Gulf, he also raided the Kingdom of Gerrha (an eastern Arabian coastal city-state) and the heartlands of Persia (Fars Province, Iran). Imru al-Qays made a marriage alliance with the childless Tanukhid king, Amr ibn Adi (268-295 CE), that allowed him to temporarily unite the thrones of the Tanukhid and Lakhmid kingdoms when Amr ibn Adi died (ca. 295 CE)—from that point, he was known as Imru al-Qays ibn Amr (ca. 295-328 CE). Imru al-Qays had converted to Christianity as a condition of his marriage to the Tanukhid princess, and the prospect of a large Christian Arab kingdom on the southern borders of Persia was viewed with growing alarm by the Sassanids. The Tanukhids were by that time the chief Arab federates of the Roman Empire, and Imru al-Qays ibn Amr assumed the title, “King of all the Arabs.” The Romans seemed all too willing to support Imru al-Qays ibn Amr in his pretensions. Since the fall of Palmyra (ca. 273 CE), the empire had struggled to re-establish security along its Syrian frontier, and the Tanukhid-Lakhmid kingdom promised to be strategically invaluable in the interminable wars between Rome and Persia—not only could the Tanukhid-Lakhmid kingdom raid Persian Mesopotamia, it could support Roman invasions, and their control of the Euphrates would provide Roman traders with the ability to bypass Persian middlemen in the trade with India (they seemed to think the Arabs would give them better terms than the Persians). However, Rome was somewhat distracted at the time—Constantine I (306-337 CE) had fought a series of civil wars to secure his sole rule as emperor, and the empire was also wracked with religious strife—and unfortunately for Rome, the Sassanid Dynasty of Persia had just seen the ascension of a shahanshah (Middle Persian, “king-of-kings,” i.e., emperor), Shapur II (309-379 CE), who would prove to be one of Persia’s greatest leaders. In 325 CE, the young Shapur (he was only 16 at the time) launched a massive campaign (his army likely numbered in excess of 60,000 men) to bring the Arab tribes of Bahrayn and southern Mesopotamia to heel. The coastal Kingdom of Gerrha was conquered, the tribes of the interior beaten, and Bahrayn was made part of the Marzubanate (i.e., military border province) of Meshan/Maishan (roughly corresponding to the former territories of the Arabo-Aramaean city-state of Charakene, centered in what is today Kuwait). Shapur’s army then moved north along the Euphrates and defeated the Lakhmids and their allies, and Shapur placed a pro-Mazdayan Lakhmid puppet king on the throne in Hira—Aws ibn Qallam (325-328 CE). Imru al-Qays ibn Amr fled to Syria, and plotted to take back the Lakhmid Kingdom with Roman support, but he died before an opportunity arose (his epitaph, mentioned above, which lists his deeds, remains one of the most important pieces of evidence for the northern and central Arabian peoples during the late third and early fourth centuries CE). Ironically, upon the death of Imru al-Qays ibn Amr, his son, Amr ibn Imru al-Qays (328-363 CE), repudiated his Christianity and his claim to the Tanukhid throne, defected back to Persia, and was made king of the Lakhmids. Roman sources for this period are not good, but it is believed that a chief known as Gadhimat al-Hawari became king of the Tanukhids. Aws ibn Qallam had proven unable to secure the support of the Lakhmid chiefs, but the son of Imru al-Qays had both close ties of kinship with the Lakhmid chiefs and the luster of his father’s name. As it was, Amr ibn Imru al-Qays justified the faith of his Sassanian overlord, who acquiesced in his taking back the throne of the Lakhmids, and Amr ibn Imru al-Qays carried out a highly successful attack on Roman Syria in 337 CE, and helped the Persians to defeat the army of the Roman emperor, Julian (361-363 CE), at the Battle of Tisfon/Ctesiphon (29 May 363 CE). Julian was slain, one of his sub-commanders, Jovian (363-364 CE), was hastily proclaimed emperor and forced to make a humiliating peace treaty with Shapur in return for the safe passage of his troops back to Roman territory—much of Upper Mesopotamia was ceded to Persia, and the Romans were expected to sever diplomatic ties with their client kingdom of Armenia in the Caucasus. It is probably at this time that the Lakhmids were given authority over the Arab tribes of Arabiya (modern Jazira region, Iraq). Thus, the short-lived Tanukhid-Lakhmid kingdom of Imru al-Qays (ca. 295-325 CE), which held such promise to Rome’s strategic interests, gave way to a status quo that would last for almost three centuries, with the Lakhmids and Sassanids on one side, and the Romans and their Arab federates (Tanukhids, Salihids, and then Ghassanids) on the other.

 

After the fall of Palmyra, the Romans had shifted their Mesopotamian trade entrepôt from Palmyra north to the city of Nisibis (northwestern Mesopotamia), impoverishing the Syrian provinces, and thus the Tanukhid takeover in Syria had to have been something of a disappointment. Julian’s defeat in Mesopotamia also saw the Persians take over much of Upper Mesopotamia, including Nisibis, and thus the Tanukhid position in Syria was precarious. Not much is known of Imru al-Qays’ successor as king of the Tanukhids, known only as Gadhimat al-Hawari (328-375 CE)—indeed, the sources for the Tanukhid Kingdom only provide us with a great amount of detail toward the end of the Tanukhid period of ascendancy, with the rebellion of the Tanukhid warrior-queen, Mawiyya (Latin, Mavia)(375-425 CE). Mawiyya was a Kalbite princess who had been married to Ghadimat al-Hawari and seems to have succeeded him as queen of the Tanukhids (considering her long reign, it is likely she was very young when first married to Ghadimat al-Hawari, and was likely not his first wife). The Tanukhids and Kalbites were by that time mostly Orthodox Christians (it was likely a condition of their treaty of settlement as federates), but the emperor at the time, Valens (328-378 CE), was an Arian sect Christian, and when the Orthodox bishop of Aleppo died (the Tanukhid capital was at Aleppo, in northern Syria), Valens attempted to appoint an Arian bishop as his replacement. The emperor refused to listen to the queen’s arguments and went ahead with the installation of his candidate without her consent. Mawiyya took command of the Tanukhid federate troops in the region, including her Kalbite kinsmen in the Samawah Desert (and may also have recruited the Banu Kalb from beyond the borders), raised the banner of revolt, and began to raid throughout the Diocese of Oriens (the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire had by that time been reorganized and made a part of this administrative district). Mawiyya reputedly led her main army in person (ca. 377-378 CE), defeating the local forces of the Roman governors of Palaestina, Syria Coele, and Syria Phoenice, as well as the central field army of the Diocese of Oriens under the command of Valens’ Prefect of the East (Latin, Praefectus Oriens). Valens sued for peace—at that time, he was facing revolts in the Anatolian provinces of Isauria and Cilicia (Diocese of Asiana), and the Sassanid Persians under Shapur II had invaded Armenia and Iberia (Roman client states in the western Caucasus region). Valens had led the imperial field army (Latin, praesentalis) into Asiana to put down these revolts and prepare for a campaign against the Persians, and the specter of a possible alliance between Shapur and Mawiyya was probably one of his foremost concerns (the memory of the Palmyrene queen, Zenobia, to whom Mawiyya is often compared, and with whom she is sometimes confused, was likely still fresh in Valens’ mind). As if this weren’t enough, a large force of Goths that had been encamped in Thrace awaiting permanent settlement as federates of the Roman Empire had also revolted (see my Late Imperial Rome and East Germanic Peoples galleries), and with the bulk of the eastern imperial army in Asiana, Valens was struggling to detach forces from his army sufficient to contain the Goths until he was able to stabilize the situation in the east and return to Thrace in force. Valens confirmed Mawiyya’s candidate for the bishopric of Aleppo, an Orthodox Arab monk named Moses, confirmed her as the queen of the federate Kingdom of the Tanukhids (who were required to return to their Roman allegiance under the original terms of treaty), and a marriage was arranged between Mawiyya’s daughter, Chasidat, and Valens’ consul posterior (a kind of imperial adjutant), Victor. Mawiyya also agreed to send a force of Tanukhid federate auxiliaries to aid Valens against the Goths. To make a long story short, Valens’ treaty with Mawiyya allowed him to make a hasty treaty with Shapur and to put down the revolts in Asiana, but when he moved into Thrace and met the Goths in battle (Hadrianopolis, 9 August 378 CE) his army was annihilated and he was slain.

 

Valens was succeeded as eastern emperor by Flavius Theodosius I (347-395 CE), a retired Roman general from Hispania who was hauled out of retirement by the western emperor, Gratian (359-383 CE), after Valens’ demise. Theodosius was faced with a formidable task trying to make peace with the Goths and to restore order to the eastern empire. Unfortunately for the Tanukhids, however, Theodosius had spent his career as a western Roman army commander, had never fought alongside Tanukhid federate troops, and had no personal connections to any of the established members of the eastern Roman bureaucracy and military high command. Although Theodosius was Orthodox (like the Tanukhids), and the Goths were mostly Arian Christians, Theodosius was at great pains to appease the Goths and to settle them as federates (they were at the time of his accession rampaging through the Balkan provinces). As a first step, he called the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE and invited Gothic representatives to try to make some rapprochement with the Orthodox faith (a temporary détente was achieved). The Tanukhids, who had a reputation as being un-bending in their Orthodoxy, either chose not to send representatives or were not invited. The Goths were formally settled as federates within the eastern empire under the terms of a treaty in 382 CE, and Gothic colonies were established in Thrace, Macedonia, Asiana, and Syria. Gothic nobles received key appointments to magisterial (i.e., civil bureaucracy) and army command posts in the eastern empire. Like the Franks along the Rhine frontier, the Goths essentially managed to establish themselves as a semi-independent power along the Danube. An attempt to re-negotiate the terms of the Roman-Tanukhid treaty to grant the Tanukhids a similar position along the Euphrates frontier was apparently rebuffed by Theodosius. This was particularly galling to the Tanukhids because, after Mawiyya’s revolt ended, they had returned to loyal service and had, in fact, helped the eastern Roman army to recover after the debacle at Hadrianopolis. Indeed, Tanukhid federate cavalry had been instrumental in defeating Fritigern’s Goths at the Battle of Constantinople (autumn, 378 CE), although the Tanukhids had suffered heavy casualties. The spark that set off the powder-keg was, apparently, the failure of the Roman fiscal officials in Oriens to deliver the Tanukhid’s annona and salaria for 383 CE (amazingly short-sighted, in light of the recent Gothic revolt). The Tanukhids again rebelled (we do not know whether Mawiyya was still queen), but Theodosius was able to quickly crush this rebellion, in part through the use of Gothic federate troops commanded by his magister militum (Latin, “Master of the Army”), Richomeres (adding insult to injury, Richomeres was a Germanic Frank and a pagan). Theodosius dissolved the Tanukhid Kingdom, and although some Tanukh and Kalb fled to the Lakhmids, a federate Tanukhid phylarchate remained in Syria, subordinate to the Salihids and then the Ghassanids—Tanukhid federate troops fought with the Byzantines against the Ghassanid king, Jabala ibn al-Harith (518-528 CE), prior to his acceptance of federate status, fought with the Byzantines and Ghassanids against the Rashidun Caliphate at the Battle of Yarmuk (15-20 August 636 CE), and helped the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610-641 CE) in his attempt to re-conquer Syria from the Muslims (ca. 639 CE). Heraclius’ campaign is the last we hear of Tanukhid federates in Byzantine service.

 

Following the conquest of Syria (ca. 634-640 CE) by the Rashidun Caliphate, the Tanukh in Syria remained Christian but temporarily came to terms with their Muslim overlords, even supplying auxiliary contingents (ajnad) to the armies of the Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs, but they resisted the Abbasid Revolution (750-752 CE) that saw the overthrow of the Umayyad caliphs. Syria became the locus of several rebellions against Abbasid rule in the late eighth and early ninth centuries CE, resulting in a fierce campaign to subdue the region by the Abbasid caliphs, Harun al-Rashid (786-809 CE) and Muhammad ibn Harun al-Rashid al-Amin (809-813 CE). Many Tanukh fled to Christian Armenia, where they were assimilated into the local population, while those that remained in Syria were forcibly converted to Islam, and those that refused were massacred.

 

The Salihid Phylarchate (117-383 CE) & the Salihid Kingdom (383-498 CE)

The Salihid Kingdom is without doubt the most obscure of Rome’s Arab federate states. Sozomen (see above) is the only contemporary/primary source to mention them by name, and he did so only in relation to ecclesiastical history. According to later Muslim historians, they had a reputation for being even more zealous in their Orthodoxy than the Tanukhids (salih means “pious” in Arabic), and at least two of their kings—Zodjom as-Salih and Dahman ben Amlak—were more famous for their piety than for their political or military leadership. Indeed, the conclusion of many later historical sources was that the Salihids sacrificed martial vigor for Christian piety. It is difficult to escape this conclusion when one looks at the military record for their period of ascendancy, scant as it is. There were several major incursions by nomadic Arab federations into Rome’s eastern frontier during the Salihids’ tenure, and the Salihids seem to have been ineffective in stopping them. These incursions came about as the result of Persian-Lakhmid machinations, which were aimed at diverting the Tafarruq al-Azd (Arabic, “the Dispersion of the Azd”) into Roman territory, in the hopes that this would divert Roman attention from northern Syria, Upper Mesopotamia, and the Caucasus, where the Sassanids and Lakhmids made several key gains. The Dispersion of the Azd was a mass migration of Kahlan peoples (mostly from the large Banu Azd federation) from southern Arabia into eastern, western, central, and northern Arabia between the first and sixth centuries CE—some modern western scholars compare this to the Volkerwanderung of Germanic peoples across Rome’s Rhine and Danube frontiers. Although early Islamic sources stated that this migration came about due to the collapse of the Marib Dam (see my South Arabian History page), modern analysis tends to suggest that there were a series of collapses of this important dam (in 449, 450, 542, 548, and 570 CE) leading up to its final collapse (575 CE), and they point out that these collapses came near the end of the Dispersion of the Azd. The dam was also located in what had once been the Kingdom of Saba, and by the time of the dam’s final collapse this territory had already faded into insignificance (it had been conquered by the coastal Kingdom of Himyar)—the series of collapses are therefore viewed as symptoms of regional decline, not causes. Modern studies tend instead to portray this phenomenon as the result of the growing weakness of the inland kingdoms of southern Arabia, as well as their Kahlan allies, as a result of the shift of the bulk of trade from overland caravans to sea trade. The nomadic Kahlans traditionally guarded or raided these caravans, and as this trade declined, the tribes were left with ever-smaller slices of the pie. Some groups (particularly the Kindah) sought to drive out their competitors, while others willingly migrated north in search of greater prosperity along the Roman and Persian frontiers. The Tanukhids were among the first of these tribal groups to arrive on the borders of Rome/Byzantium, and their success in finding a place within the empire seems to have emboldened other groups to try to do the same. Indeed, the Salihids may also have been part of this migration, although there are some sources that claim they were actually one of the constituent groups of the Nabataean Kingdom who emerged after the annexation of that state by Rome (ca. 106 CE). After becoming federates, the Salihids failed to stem the tide of Kahlan migration, and there were several devastating nomad invasions of Roman Syria, Arabia, and Palestine during their tenure. One of the groups involved in these invasions—the Banu Ghassan—are believed to have destroyed the Salihids and to have supplanted them. The Ghassanids were believed to have had a nomad martial vigor that the Salihids had lost (see Ghassanids on the next page).

 

We only have a tentative timeline of six rulers for the Salihid Kingdom, and as you can see, the regnal dates for most are unknown, although the order is fairly certain—Zodjom as-Salih/Zokomos (?-? CE), Hayul ben Zodjom (?-410 CE), Ziyad ben Hayul (410-425 CE), Amlak ben Hayul (425-450 CE), Dahman ben Amlak/Da’ud/Dawud (450-453 CE), Salih ben Halwan (?-?), and Zodjom ben Habula (?-498 CE). The origins of the Salihids before they entered the service of the Romans is unknown. The first mention of the Salihids comes from the writings of Sozomen, who gives us a tale of how the Arab chief, Zodjom as-Salih (Zodjom “the Pious”), was converted to Christianity by a desert-dwelling Christian monk who promised Zodjom that his wife would become pregnant if he allowed himself to be baptized (the couple had been childless). Zodjom was baptized by the monk, and soon thereafter his wife was with child. Sozomen uses a Greek name for Zodjom—Zokomos—and hence in Greek histories the Salihids are often known as the Zokomids, but later Muslim writers referred to them as the Banu Salih. Zokomos is also believed to have been the first king of the Salihids, taking over as the nominal leader of the Arab phylarchs of Rome. His conversion, and the foundation of the Salihid Kingdom, is believed to have occurred sometime between the fall of the Tanukhids (ca. 383 CE) and the accession of the East Roman emperor, Flavius Arcadius (395-408 CE)—lacking a certain date, it seems reasonable to assume that the Salihids took over after the fall of the Tanukhids (ca. 383 CE). At that time, Sozomen says they had been living in the Wadi Sirhan region of eastern Jordan, which means they could have originated in central Arabia or may have been among the Kahlan migrants that were part of the Dispersion of the Azd (the Wadi Sirhan is essentially a topographic funnel, dotted with oases, that leads from the central Arabian oasis of Sakakah into Jordan, and was a common path taken by tribes from central Arabia into Jordan). However, later Muslim sources claim they originated in Ammon and Moab, under the dominion of the Nabataeans, but this could simply be the area where the Romans allowed them to settle after becoming federates. Nevertheless, it is intriguing to consider their possible origins as descendants of indigenous Jordanian Arab tribes, which might explain their use of Judaean, rather than Arabic, nomenclature (e.g., Hayul ben Zodjom, not Hayul ibn Zodjom). The Nabataeans were heavily influenced by the Judaeans prior to the conquest of Judaea by the Romans (ca. 37 BCE), and if the Salihids originated in Ammon or Moab (instead of later migrating there), they would likely have been among the Nabataean sub-groups most heavily influenced by the Judaeans since Ammon and Moab were essentially the border regions between Nabataea and Judaea. However, this style of nomenclature could simply be a reflection of their religiosity (i.e., they switched from traditional Arabic nomenclature to Biblical nomenclature following their conversion to Christianity).

 

Regardless, as I stated above, their military record was not particularly impressive. Hayul ben Zodjom was killed trying to repel an invasion of Syria by the Banu Kalb (ca. 410 CE), but his son and successor, Ziyad ben Hayul, had better luck against the Lakhmids, when they too invaded Syria (ca. 413 CE). The Roman emperor, Theodosius II (402-450 CE), carried out two major campiagns in Upper Mesopotamia against the Sassanids (ca. 420-422 & 440-442 CE), and Ziyad ben Hayul and Amlak ben Hayul may have led the Arab federate contingents (the campaigns were, however, bloody stalemates). Another major invasion of Roman Syria, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Palestine by the Kindah, the Banu Ghassan, and the Banu Tamim (ca. 453 CE) brought the short reign of Dahman ben Amlak to an untimely end—the Roman emperor, Marcian (450-457 CE), repelled the invasion with great difficulty (it is suspected that one of the reasons he repudiated the treaty with Attila the Hun, whereby the Romans were required to pay Attila a sizeable annual tribute, is that he used the savings to pay off the Arabs). The Salihids declined precipitously thereafter, and we know very little about the last two kings—Salih ben Halwan and Zodjom ben Habula (the names seem to indicate that there was also some sort of break in the father-son succession after the death of Dahman/Dawud).

 

The Roman emperor, Leo I Thrax (“the Thracian”)(457-474 CE), attempted to restore order to the West Roman Empire with the appointment of his candidate to the western throne, Procopius Anthemius (467-472 CE), and by launching a massive invasion of the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa (the Vandals had been operating as pirates throughout the western Mediterranean and had become a serious threat to Italy). Leo put together an armada of over a thousand ships to transport a huge army (over 100,000 men), with troops drawn from all over the eastern empire, under the command of his brother, Basiliscus (the expedition cost 130,000 pounds of gold and 700 pounds of silver). Basiliscus dropped anchor off the Promontorium Mercurii (modern Cape Bon), near Carthage (the Vandal capital city), in what had been the Roman Province of Africa (modern Tunisia). However, rather than immediately landing his troops, Basiliscus allowed himself to be gulled into waiting until the following day—the Vandal king, Gaiseric (389-477 CE), claimed he wanted to negotiate a surrender—and in the night the Vandals launched fire-ships against the Roman fleet. 900 Roman ships were destroyed, 70,000 Roman troops were drowned, and the survivors made a fighting retreat across North Africa into Egypt, being harried all along the way by Gaiseric’s Vandals. Every element of the eastern army had contributed troops to this debacle, including the Arab federates, and it is believed that Salihid losses may have been heavy (keep in mind that they had already taken substantial casualties in earlier campaigns, and such losses in ancient warfare often led to demographic shifts that left groups short of warriors until/if the population could recover). As if this was not enough, the Salihids also fell out of favor during the reigns of the Monophysite Christian emperors, Zeno (474-491 CE) and Anastasius (491-518 CE)—the Monophysites were a Christological faction that had arisen in the eastern empire following the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). The Christological Controversy that emerged from the Council of Chalcedon was basically due to the development of various factions that chose to interpret the nature of Jesus Christ in different ways, and the Salihids were aligned with the majority opinion of the council (subsequently known as Chalcedonian Orthodoxy), but Zeno and Anastasius supported the Monophysite faction. The Roman Diocese of Oriens was again targeted by a major Arab invasion during the reign of Anastasius (ca. 491-498 CE)—there were three major prongs to this attack, with the Lakhmids under Nu’man ibn al-Aswad (497-503 CE) driving through northern Syria toward Antioch, the Banu Ghassan under Harith ibn Hijr (486-512 CE) driving through southern Syria into the Auranitis, and the Kindah under Harith Talaban ibn Amr (489-528 CE) driving through the Wadi Sirhan into Jordan and Palestine. The Lakhmids were eventually defeated and driven off by Eugenius, the dux of Euphratensis (one of the Upper Mesopotamian provinces), and the Kindah were defeated and driven off by Romanus, the dux of Palaestina (modern Israel), but the Ghasssanids defeated the Salihids and killed their king, Zodjom ben Habula. It is believed the Salihids were basically wiped out by the Ghassanids, and ceased to be a significant presence in Rome’s eastern provinces thereafter. The Ghassanids were able to use their success against the Salihids to leverage concessions from the Romans, and they were settled under favorable terms as federates in the Auranitis (i.e., the Harran Desert) and the Gaulanitis (i.e., the Golan Heights)(ca. 498-502 CE).