HELLENISTIC SYRIANS

(586 BCE - 654 CE)

 

 

Nabataean Kingdom (586 BCE - 106 CE)

Malkûtâ Nabatu (Aramaic), Nabatene (Greek), Nabataea (Latin)

Kingdom of Adiabene (559 BCE - 224 CE)

Hadyab or Hedayab (Aramaic), Nodshirakan (Old Persian), Adiabene (Greek)

Kingdom of Atropatene (323 BCE - 643 CE)

Atropatkan (Old Persian), Atropatene (Greek),

Aturpatakan (Pahlavi), Adurbadagan (Middle Persian)(“Land of Fire”)

Kingdom of Hatra (300 BCE - 241 CE)

Ḥaṭra (Aramaic), al-Ḥaḍr (Arabic), Átra (Greek), Hatra (Latin)

Kingdom of Palmyra (217 BCE - 264 CE)

Empire of Palmyra (264 - 273 CE)

Tedmurta (Aramaic), Tadmor (Arabic),

Palamepolis (Greek), Palmyra (Latin) (“City of Palms”)

Kingdom of Elymais (220 BCE - 224 CE)

Haltamti (Elamite), Elamtu (Akkadian), Ilam (Old Persian), Elamais (Greek), Elymais (Latin)

Kingdom of Osrohene (132 BCE - 244 CE)

Osroes-Orhai (Aramaic), Osrohene (Greek), Osroene (Latin)

Kingdom of Charakene/Mesene (127 BCE - 222 CE)

Charakene (Greek), Mesene (Greek), Meshan (Middle Persian), Characene (Latin)

Kingdom of Emesa/Hamesa (64 BCE - 217 CE)

Ham-esa (Aramaic), Emesos (Greek), Emesus (Latin)

 

This gallery and these notes are devoted to the minor Hellenistic states of ancient Syria. There are several historic terms that have been used to circumscribe this region (or portions of it)—the Fertile Crescent, Greater Syria, the Near East, the Middle East, Southwestern Asia, or the Levant. Fertile Crescent, Near East, Middle East, and Southwestern Asia are each terms that are too broad to be useful here, including as they do geographical regions and cultures beyond the scope of this gallery. Levant is often used only to refer to a portion of the geographical and cultural range discussed here, and includes some regions that lie outside our focus. Usage of the term “Greater Syria” corresponds to the Hellenistic usage of the term “Syria,” denoting a broad region that included the former territories of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-605 BCE) and those areas on the edges of it that were influenced by Aramaic language and culture (see below for the connection between the Assyrians and Aramaeans). However, the term Greater Syria is also linked to modern irredentist geopolitical concepts. Thus, I prefer to use the term Syria herein in the sense meant by ancient Greek and Roman writers—an area roughly analogous to the modern nations of Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, as well as the Sinai Peninsula, northwestern Saudi Arabia, southeastern Turkey, and southwestern Iran. Following the Greco-Macedonian conquest of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, the nascent Syrian states covered by this list became strongly influenced by Hellenic culture and grew to prominence through a combination of economic acumen, political pragmatism, and military efficiency. These were small states that spent centuries dancing on a knife's edge between major imperial powers—the Seleukid, Arsakid, and Sassanid dynasties of Persia; the Roman Empire and its Byzantine successor; the Pontic Empire; and the Kingdom of Armenia—before succumbing to the political and cultural conquest of Islam under the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid caliphates. Nabataea, Emesa, Palmyra, Osrohene, Hatra, and Adiabene together formed a string of buffer states between Persia and Rome, running from Nabataea in the south (modern Jordan) through Emesa and Palmyra (modern Syria), to Hatra and Osrohene (Upper Mesopotamia). Each dominated important trade routes between Persia and Rome, maintained strings of caravanserai at oasis outposts, provided armed escorts to caravans, and served as entrepôts for the western terminals of the great Silk and Spice Road trade networks. Adiabene (Iraqi Kurdistan) and Atropatene (modern Azerbaijan) served much the same function in the South Caucasus region, and Charakene and Elymais dominated the coastal areas at the western end of the Persian Gulf and thus played an important role in maritime trade between Persia and India. This gallery does not include the peoples and polities of the southwestern Levant—Idumaea (the Hellenized Jewish kingdom of the Edomites), Judaea/Judah and Samaria (the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Jewish Israelites), and the four kingdoms of the Herodian Tetrarchy (Judea, Qinnasrin/Khalkis, Perea, and Auranitis/Hauran—nor the Hellenistic kingdoms of Greater Armenia (Armenia, Gordyene/Corduene, Sophene, Kommagene/Commagene), the Hellenistic kingdoms of Caucasian Georgia (Kholketi/Kolkhis/Colchis/Lazica and Kartli/Iberia), the Caucasian Albanian kingdom (Aghuank/Ardhan/Arran), or the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Anatolian Peninsula (Pergamon, Bithynia, Galatia, Pontos/Pontus, Kappadokia/Cappadocia, Lykia/Lycia). Of these, only the Hellenistic kingdoms of the southwestern Levant were considered by ancient Greek and Roman writers as part of the geopolitical and ethno-cultural region of Syria, and although the peoples of these kingdoms had linguistic and cultural ties with their Syrian neighbors (in particular, the Aramaic and Greek languages and associated cultural practices), they often considered themselves distinct and held themselves aloof from their Syrian neighbors. In particular, the monotheism of the Jewish peoples, coupled with strong traditions of political independence, and a unique cultural heritage, make the history of the southwestern Levantine Hellenistic Syrian states (Judaea, Samaria, Idumaea, and the Herodian Tetrarchy) and their military system(s) best dealt with separately.      

 

Although the Aramaeans and their language and culture, which originated in modern Syria (archaic Aram, hence, “Aramaeans”), were the commonality that led Greek and Roman writers to describe the entire sphere of Aramaic cultural influence as “Syrian,” each of these states were centered on a city or cities that had developed cosmopolitan populations from an early date (some include cities that are among the longest continuously inhabited places on Earth). By the time covered by this gallery, each would have had very mixed populations (click on the History in Depth button below for more details), so some background seems in order. The Aramaeans were an ancient northwestern Semitic people that originated in what is today Syria during the Bronze Age (3300-1200 BCE). They were initially nomadic pastoralists (goats, sheep, cattle, in that order), but during the Late Bronze Age Collapse that saw the fall of the Hittite and New Kingdom Egyptian empires, the Aramaeans spread into southeastern Anatolia, where they were essential to the formation of the Syro-Hittite States (1180-700 BCE), and into Mesopotamia, where they founded a string of small kingdoms that stretched from modern Syria down the Euphrates as far as the Persian Gulf (1115-911 BCE). All of these states were conquered and incorporated into the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-609 BCE). Under Assyrian hegemony, the Aramaeans lost their political independence, but their far-flung network of colonies placed them in a great position to monopolize regional trade networks, and the Aramaic language became a kind of lingua franca throughout southwestern Asia. It is this association with the Assyrians that earned the Aramaeans the name “Syrians” in Greek and Roman works—i.e., “Syrian” is derived from the Greek transliteration of “Assyrian.” In this sense, the Hellenistic Syrians can be seen as the descendants of both the Aramaeans and the Assyrians, although as we will see, other groups were also important to early Syrian identity. The growing socio-economic importance of the Aramaeans continued to develop after the Assyrians were replaced by the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 BCE), and the Babylonians were in turn replaced by the Median Empire (678-549 BCE) and the Achaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE). By the time of the Persian conquest of Mesopotamia, there were Aramaean enclaves in most of the major urban centers of Syria-Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, southeastern Anatolia (modern Turkey), and along the Persian Gulf coasts, although the ubiquitousness of the Aramaic language sometimes makes it difficult for modern historians to distinguish between ethnic Aramaeans and various other Semitic groups living under Persian hegemony—the Akkadians (e.g., Assyrians and Babylonians), the Amorites, and the Eblaites—because they all wrote in Aramaic. This likely represents the culmination of a long period of linguistic and cultural assimilation. Into this milieu the Medes and Persians (southern Aryan/Iranian peoples) inserted themselves (ca. 678-330 BCE), although Median and Persian dominion did not go hand-in-hand with widespread colonization beyond the southeastern Caucasus/northeastern Mesopotamia (mainly colonized by the Medes) and Elam/southwestern Iran (mainly colonized by the Persians). Thus, the influence of Medio-Persian language and culture under the Medes and Persians was felt most strongly in these areas, while the emerging Syriac language and Syrian culture remained strong elsewhere.

 

Another group that benefited greatly from the geopolitical shifts that occurred following the Late Bronze Age Collapse was the Arabs. I discuss the pre-Islamic Arabs more thoroughly in their own gallery on this site, so suffice it to say here that with the collapse of Egyptian power in the eastern Mediterranean, and the struggles between various imperial powers for control of Mesopotamia, the Aramaic expansion was accompanied by the expansion of Semitic-language speaking nomadic peoples from the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula (here, we are talking mainly about the Nafud and Dahna deserts of northern Arabia). For the most part, these peoples expanded into regions considered marginal by the agro-pastoralist and urban peoples of Israel, Syria, and Mesopotamia (e.g., the Sinai, Negev, Harra, and Syrian deserts, as well as the dry steppes to the south of the Euphrates). Like the Aramaeans, these early Arabian peoples were primarily nomadic pastoralists (in this case, mainly dromedaries and goats) that alternated between raiding and trading, and several northern Arabian groups developed symbiotic relationships with their Aramaean/Syrian neighbors. As happened with the Aramaeans and eastern Semitic groups, there was a high degree of cultural assimilation between the Aramaeans and Arabians in the areas where these two ethnic-linguistic groups co-habited (Sinai, Negev, Hauran, Jordan, Syria, Mesopotamia), thus adding an Arabian element to the formation of early Syrian identity.

 

The Elamites inhabited the northwestern coastal strip of the Persian Gulf (Elam) from at least 2700 BCE. Their language was an isolate language (i.e., not related to any neighboring peoples), indicating that they may have descended from an indigenous Neolithic population. By contrast, the neighboring Semitic and Aryan-language speakers were migrants into the region, and the native Zagros highlanders, known as the Kassites, were also isolate language speakers probably descended from a distinct Neolithic population (i.e., although the Kassites and Elamites were indigenous neighbors, they seem to have been linguistically distinct from each other). During the Old Elamite Period (2700-1400 BCE), a kingdom based on the city of Susa frequently clashed with the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian states, culminating in the foundation of the Elamite Empire (1400-539 BCE). The Middle Elamite Period (ca. 1400-1100 BCE) saw extensive cultural assimilation with the neighboring Kassites and Babylonians, and during the Neo-Elamite Period (ca. 1100-539 BCE) the Aramaeans and Assyrians exerted strong influences. However, the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires destroyed the Elamite state and incorporated it into their respective empires (ca. 646-539 BCE), and beginning in about 770 BCE Aryan language speakers (mainly Persians) began to migrate into Elam in large numbers. The destruction of the Elamite state accelerated the Aryanization of the region (it became known as Xuzistan/Khuzistan in Persian sources), although there was also some migration of Arabian groups in the south (mainly in the area known today as the Shatt al-Arab), and as in Mesopotamia the cities and merchant classes continued to develop a hybridized Aramaic-eastern Semitic language and culture. By the time Alexander conquered the region (ca. 323 BCE), the whole western littoral of the Persian Gulf seems to have had a culture that could best be described as Syro-Persian—certainly, later Greek and Roman writers included Elamais/Elymais (the northwestern Persian Gulf littoral) and Charakene/Characene (the southwestern Persian Gulf littoral) as part of the Syrian cultural sphere, and under the Seleukids the region became Hellenized as well.

 

Following the conquest of the Achaemenid Persian Empire by Alexander the Great (ca. 332-323 BCE), Anatolia, Caucasia, Syria-Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, and Bactria-Margiana were all united under Greco-Macedonian hegemony. Alexander's conquests were accompanied by the introduction of fairly large numbers of Greek colonists to most of the major urban centers of his empire (in addition to new foundations), and these were supported by deliberate imperial policies aimed at cultural assimilation with the native Syrian, Semitic, Arabian, Iranian, and Caucasian populations (there were already significant numbers of Greek mercenaries in Persia that had been serving with the Persians at the time of Alexander's conquest, and these were encouraged to switch sides and join Alexander's Greek auxiliaries in colonizing and garrisoning his newly conquered realm). Alexander's attempt to force his own Macedonians to assimilate with the Persians, on the other hand, was strongly resisted by many of his generals and Macedonian soldiers, who wanted to maintain their cultural supremacy, and when Alexander died, they quickly abandoned these policies. Thus, while the Macedonians remained somewhat aloof, ruling as a distinct ethnic class of conquerors, the Greeks were gradually absorbed into the emerging Syrian ethno-cultural class. Symbolic of this shift in cultural emphasis was the gradual supplanting of Aramaic by the Attic-based koine (“common”) language as the primary regional language of trade and diplomacy. Following Alexander's death, a series of wars between various contenders for his throne was fought—the Wars of the Diadochi (322-275 BCE)—eventually leading to the dismemberment of his empire and its division into a number of successor states. The chaos of this period led many local rulers—kings that had been client rulers of the Achaemenids and/or Alexander, and satraps (i.e., governors) of Perso-Macedonian provinces—to leverage greater independence in return for support of one contender or another (and often switching sides as the wind blew). Regional economic interests, however, favored stability (trade caravans were easy targets for marauding armies and generals looking for ways to pay them), not to mention the desire of local inhabitants for peace. Seleukos I Nikator (358-281 BCE) managed to emerge victorious in Syria-Mesopotamia, and went on to establish his hegemony over the lion's share of Alexander's empire, including southern Anatolia, Syria-Mesopotamia, the Iranian Plateau, and Bactria-Margiana (i.e., modern Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, with parts of southern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan). Of the states covered by this list, only the Nabataean Kingdom emerged outside Seleukid hegemony, although it too was strongly influenced by Hellenization. The Wars of the Diadochi, however, severely depleted the ranks of the Macedonian soldiers serving in the east, and the various Hellenistic successor states to Alexander's empire continued to vie for control of Anatolia, Syria, and Palestine—of particular importance here, the Ptolemaic Dynasty (305-30 BCE) controlled Egypt and eastern Libya, but Ptolemaic rulers repeatedly sought to extend their hegemony into Judaea-Palestine, Syria, and southern Anatolia, while the Antigonid Dynasty (306-168 BCE) initially controlled Anatolia, Syria, and Judaea-Palestine, but lost Syria, Judaea-Palestine, and southeastern Anatolia to the Seleukids, while the remaining Anatolian territories of the Antigonids broke up into a number of competing minor states (Bithynia, Pontos, Armenia, Kappadokia, and Pergamon). The Seleukid Empire (312-63 BCE), sometimes called the Seleukid Dynasty of Persia, held by far the most territory, and by most accounts the empire seems to have been overextended from the start—although many Seleukid rulers were able to achieve relatively short-term imperial supremacy, they were forced to accept a high degree of autonomy from various regional rulers, especially in border regions. Ultimately, the rivalry of the growing power of Rome in the eastern Mediterranean, a series of civil wars, and crippling palace intrigues, fed the centrifugal forces that increased the power of local dynasts, and the late Seleukid period saw the emergence of several breakaway states—the Kingdom of Armenia in the South Caucasus, the Kingdom of Sophene in eastern Anatolia, the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in Bactria-Margiana, the Parthian Kingdom in Transoxania (i.e., east of the Caspian Sea), the Kingdom of Atropatene in the southeastern Caucasus, and the city-state of Palmyra in Syria.

 

The Parthians ultimately sought to extend their dominion over the former Seleukid hegemony, while the Romans sought to impose their sense of order on the Hellenistic states of the eastern Mediterranean, leading to a showdown between the two growing empires in Syria-Mesopotamia. Initially, Roman policy was aimed at creating a stable network of alliances between the various minor Hellenistic states, although this ultimately led to outright annexation in the Balkans, Egypt, Anatolia, western Syria, and Judaea-Palestine. Although the Parthian Empire (247 BCE-224 CE), sometimes called the Arsacid/Arsakid Dynasty of Persia, ultimately came to control most of the former Seleukid territories (Bactria-Margiana, the Iranian Plateau, central and lower Mesopotamia, and the south Caucasus region), the Arsakid dynasts do not seem to have tried to impose anything like a centralized administration (although they inherited an intact Achaemenid-Seleukid bureaucracy in many places), and large areas of the empire were ruled by semi-autonomous client kings. The central territories of the Parthian Empire were dominated by scions of seven great noble houses in a quasi-feudal system of political power-sharing. In the east, the Parthian Gondopharid Dynasty took over the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek states (although they were in turn toppled by the Kushans); the Bazrangid Dynasty ruled Persia (southern Iranian Plateau); Charakene and Elymais emerged as semi-independent states dominating the western coastal regions of the Persian Gulf; Atropatene was joined by Adiabene as semi-independent states dominating the southern Caucasus border region (an independent Armenian Kingdom lay to the north of these); and as has been mentioned, the remainder of the states covered by this list emerged as semi-independent buffer states in the frontier region between the Roman and Partho-Persian empires (on an axis from the Sinai and Jordan in the south to Syria, southeastern Anatolia, and Upper Mesopotamia in the north). The Gondopharids, Bazrangids, Charakene, Elymais, Atropatene, Adiabene, and Hatra were nominal vassals of the Arsakids, while Palmyra, Osrohene, Emesa, the Herodian Tetrach states, and Nabataea were generally clients of Rome. Although the Parthians were Aryans, related to the Persians and Medes, and they retained much of their language and culture after migrating into the Seleukid Empire, they did not impose their cultural norms on their subjects (although influence was inevitable). The same can be said of the Romans, who deplored what they saw as the dynastic corruption and political weakness of the Hellenistic states, but had a keen appreciation for Hellenic culture. This relative tolerance came to an end when the Persians overthrew the Parthians and established the Sassanid Dynasty of Persia (224-651 CE). Under the Sassanids, the Persian Empire experienced an Avestan/Aryan/Iranian renaissance purposely encouraged (or enforced) by imperial policies aimed at restoring the glories of Achaemenid Persia (or at least the Sassanian interpretation of them). The Sassanids also imposed a much higher degree of bureaucratic centralization, bringing to a close the period of autonomy enjoyed by the eastern Hellenistic Syrian states (those formerly Parthian vassals). The Sassanids and Romans also engaged in a long series of costly wars for control of the eastern Mediterranean (ca. 92 BCE-629 CE) that led to an end to the autonomy enjoyed by the western Hellenistic Syrian states (as both sides tightened control of the frontier), and after the Christianization of the Roman Empire (ca. 253-312 CE) the forced cultural assimilation of the western Syrians proceeded apace. Ultimately, however, the chronic Roman-Persian Wars fatally weakened Persia and loosened the hold of Rome on the eastern Mediterranean, paving the way for the Muslim Conquest (ca. 622-750 CE), which brings the period covered by this gallery to a close.

 

The armies of the Hellenistic Syrian states were small, especially when compared to those fielded by their imperial neighbors, but perhaps by necessity the military systems of these states were efficient and dynamic, reflecting many of the tactical advances of the period. This made putting together and modeling figures appropriate to these states both fun and challenging, because I really wanted to reflect the evolution of arms as well as the cultural nuances. Unfortunately, no one really makes great figures that are specific to these states, but through a combination of careful selection of figures (a combination of Essex, Xyston, Miniature Wars, Museum, War & Empire, Old Glory 15s, and Splintered Light) and judicious modification of them, I think I've managed to deliver as close an approximation as possible. Finding appropriate figures was especially challenging for the Palmyrenes, but I hope you will enjoy their gallery (see the button below) as much as I enjoyed putting it together. These armies were composed primarily of horse cavalry, foot archers, and both mounted and infantry skirmishers, sometimes supplemented with heavy infantry and camelry. The cavalry evolved from lightly armored units armed primarily with javelins and swords to more heavily armored lancers on the Aryan/Iranian model, followed by fully armored cataphracts (man and horse covered in armor, operating in tight formations). Horse archers became increasingly important, especially under Parthian influence. Infantry bowmen were usually unarmored, although often used in large numbers (both as skirmishers and in massed archery). As these states began to become increasingly militarized, armored guard bowmen began to appear, strongly influencing the development of Roman bow-armed infantry auxiliaries. There was little in the way of a heavy infantry tradition in southwest Asia, but the Greek colonist-garrisons installed by Alexander and the Seleukids introduced their traditions. Initially, the Greek colonies in Syria-Mesopotamia, Iran, and Afghanistan provided a type of medium infantry known as thureophoroi, thyreophoroi, or thorakitai—armed with a long thrusting spear, a collection of javelins, and a sword as a sidearm, and carrying a ridged oval shield called a thureos—although with the rise of Rome in the eastern Mediterranean, many of the western Hellenistic Syrian states also developed imitation legionaries. However, by the early third century CE, distinct Greek-style infantry seems to have disappeared in most of the states covered by this list. The Roman-Sassanian wars saw the culmination of the evolution of arms in Syria, with typical late classical syncretism that drew together elements of Roman, Syrian, and Partho-Persian military equipment and tactics. The last of the Syrian states could boast cataphracts, horse archers, armored guard units of infantry bowmen, armored frontier garrisons of spearmen, unarmored levies of infantry bowmen, camelry, and a growing number of Arab auxiliaries.