What was most important opposing power in the denial of Arsacid expansionism?

[John7755 يوحنا]

In 250 BCE, the Arsacid state burst onto the scene of Central Asia under a certain Arsaces , who conquered Astauene in 249 BCE and in 247 BCE, was crowned king or elected as such by the tribal elites of the Dahae and the second foremost clan, the clan Suren. The Dahae were a people who had lived just beyond the 'Parthian Gates' in the steppes north of the Seleucid Empire. In old days, the Dahae inhabited the lands of Scythia and represented a branch of Scythians who had migrated further south after the collapse of the Achaemenid empire. As the Seleucid empire pushed west during the reigns of Antiochus I (281-261 BCE) and Antiochus II (261-246 BCE), Seleucid influence in the eastern reaches of the empire was designated to varied Macedonian satraps.

These Macedonian satraps or even surely Persian ones (such as the Hyrcanian satrapy or the Farataka realm ruling Persia proper) were tasked with the maintenance of Seleucid rule in the east, most especially the states of Parthia and Bactria. However, Seleucid fadings in the west and the obvious draining of its power in bloody wars in Syria and Anatolia, inspired rebellious actions from its satraps and inspired the expansion of the Dahae southward, who had crept south steadily as the Seleucid empire turned west in the later reign of Seleucus I (305-281 BCE).

The first of these breaks in the satrap scheme of the Seleucids was the satrap of Parthia. Andragonas (245-238 BCE) the satrap of Parthia declared himself autokrator and declared his independence from the Seleucids in 245 BCE and attacked the Seleucids in Iran in an attempt to display power. Andragonas seems to have succeeded in capturing several fortresses and of routing Seleucid field armies in Iran, drawing the ire of the new emperor, Seleucus II. Despite these initial victories, Andragonas was attacked from the north by Arsaces I and his Dahae noble allies between 241-238 BCE. Finally in 238 BCE, Andragonas was deposed in Parthia and killed attempting to escape into Hyrcania by Arsaces I and slain. The Dahae nomads ravaged Parthia, destroying and sacking city after city and carrying the goods and loot to their new city of Arsaska (Arsaces) just north of Parthia central.

In 237 BCE, Arsaces I conquered the remnants of Andragonas' state in Hyrcania and subjugated that region to his authority. After that successful conquest, Arsaces I moved north and east and attacked the Bactrian satrap under Diodotus I (255-235 BCE) and shortly after, Diodotus II (235-225 BCE). These battles in Bactria proved fruitless as the two armies attacked one another in raids and skirmishes along the border zone of Parthia. Most likely, Bactria initiated the conflict as a way to restore order in Parthia after the fall of Andragonas. We might speculate, that the state of Andragonas had conspired with Diodotus I in his rebellion, but few expected the Dahae to be so skillful in their invasion.

Regardless, between 230-228 BCE, Seleucus II gathered a supposedly immense force and set forth to the east, the first time a Seleucid emperor had ventured past the Zagros since Antiochus I, in order to defeat the Dahae and also restore Seleucid authority in Bactria. Seleucus II appears to have defeated the Dahae in Hyrcania and set them into a flight or retreat north into the steppe, where Arsaces and the rest of the horde traveled to Scythia proper under the protection of the Scythian clans therein. Seleucus II would restore Seleucid rule in Bactria. Seleucus II made for Syria after a successful 3 year eastern campaign.

Seleucid ascendance however was shortlived and in 224 BCE, Arsaces I returned to Parthia with an even larger horde and pushed forth the Seleucid garrisons and set a capitol at the city of Nisa just north of the Parthian Gates. Arsaces I would continue intermittent attacks upon the Seleucid empire and its many satraps for the next seven years until Arsaces I passed in 217 BCE to be succeeded by Arsaces II.

Arsaces II (217-191 BCE) would see a changing of the fortunes for the Seleucids once more under Antiochus III. Arsaces II invaded Iran and attacked many centres in 211 BCE and spurred Antiochus III into a counter, especially after Arsaces II entered overt alliance with Euthydemus I (220-195 BCE) and the two worked in tandem at chipping away at the Seleucid state in the east. Antiochus III reached Parthia in 209 BCE and decisively defeated Arsaces II; forcing Arsaces II to submit to becoming the official satrap of Parthia, Hyrcania and the lands north of that. Antiochus III also dealt with Euthydemus I at the siege of Bactra, forcing the Bactrians back into submission.

However, as was always the great hindrance to Seleucid power, Antiochus III went back to Syria to oversee issues in the west, leaving the east to return to its original state of conflict. Antiochus III too, famously lost his grand war in the west against Rome and the Seleucids increasingly became pacific and unable to enforce their authority. Arsaces II began the trend of breaking Seleucid authority and was followed by his son Priapatius (Arsaces III)(191-176 BCE) who began minting coins with the title of 'Autokrator.' Phraates I (Arsaces IV) resumed overt invasion of other satrtaps in 177 BCE when it destroyed the Amardi satrapy in Gilan and then invaded Media before Phraates I expired in 171 BCE, succeeded by Mithridates I (171-132 BCE).

Mithridates I (Arsaces V) is famous for completing the possible southern ambitions of Arsaces I. Mithridates I completed the invasion and subjugation of Media in the 160s BCE, forming a vassal state over Media and Amardia. Turning south, Mithridates I vassalized the Farataka priest king states in the region of Persia in the later 160s and then struck east, enforcing terms of alliance and possibly submission upon Eucratides I (171-145 BCE) despite having had an alliance prior (the opinion goes that the two had a falling out which Mithridates I re-enforced agreement to). In 148 BCE, after solidifying all lands east of the Zagros and forcing Bactrian friendship, Mithridates crossed the Zagros and attacked the feeble Seleucid state in Mesopotamia. In this campaign, the Arsacids are said to have cut a bloody swath through the Seleucid field armies, understaffed and frightened. Mithridates I personally entered the holy cities and devoted himself to the Akkadian Great Gods after conquering Assyria, Karduniash (Babylonia), Sumer and then pushing back east, enforced vassalage upon the Macedonian governor of Elam, who declared submission to the Arsacids. Mithridates I traveled to Ectbatana to stay for the remainder of the 140s BCE.

In 138 BCE, Antiochus VII attempted to retake Babylonia but was defeated. Likewise, Demetrius II the last important Seleucid attempt on Babylonia was made alongside an alliance and rebellion by the Persian priest kings and the Greco-Elamite state. Despite these factors, Mithridates I personally crushed the rebellion in Persia and installed a new priestking and then routed and captured Demetrius II and shamed him before sending back to Syria.


--------------------------------------------------------

Arsacid power at the beginning of Phraates II (Arsaces VI) (132-127 BCE) was truly ascendant. They had outlasted and destroyed the Seleucid kingdom east of the Euphrates and built a complex and vast realm. Mithridates I died in 132 BCE with grand visions of a Dahae empire exceeding that of Alexander's empire or that of Cyrus. Plans were in the work for an Arsacid invasion of Syria, Levant and Egypt and eventually the subjugation of the tenuous eastern allies, the Bactrian state and its devolving Indo-Greek counterparts. This though, was not to be.....

Rumblings in the steppe north of China stirred the world. The Xiongnu state had formed a steppe empire, composed of refugees from both the east and west and had begun a trend of centralization of the steppe, forcing out more conservative or otherwise unnecessary bands. Scythian and Yuezhi hordes en masse fled in a long term movement west. Wusun, Scythian and Yuezhi hordes struck the Bactrian kingdom in 148 BCE, by 145 BCE, the Scythians had moved on and into India, striking the Indo-Greek states therein and conquering Arachosia, Ariana and Gedrosia in a tide of devastation, laying waste to the region. Also, in 145-144 BCE, the last bastion of Eucratides I was lost as a Yuezhi confederation captured his last stronghold and the Yuezhi formed a confederate kingdom in Bactria, while the Scythians pushed west, south and southeast in a relentless tide of destruction.

The era of Scythian adventurism had begun, as Scythian high nobles tested their merits and banner by conquering realms in India and challenging the old Dahae realm of the Arsacid. Phraates II never one to back down, called off the Arsacid invasion of Syria and subjugation of the Seleucids in 129 BCE and crossed the Zagros and made for Bactria to bring an end to the Scythian-Yuezhi-Wusun threat. Phraates II and his people, the Dahae were surely prepared for the war, both were of steppe nomadic origin and Phraates II was at the height of Arsacid youth, energy and power.

Despite this situation, Phraates II engaged the Scythians in his homeland of Parthia, seeking to decisively break their will in the steppe before enforcing Arsacid rule on the collapsing Greek realms under Scythiana and Yuezhi rule. Phraates II was however, decisively defeated in 127 BCE by a Yuezho-Scyhtian-Wusun army in Parthia and a Scythian horde invaded Parthia, destroying Nisa, Arsaska and subjugating the region of Parthia. Phraates II was slain in the filed of battle by a Scythian host and the Arsacid state lost its homeland region to the Scythians and Wusun who established a confederacy over the area.

Artabanus I (Arsaces VII) (127-124 BCE) succeeded his brother Phraates II and regained the Arsacid army, and rose the Dahae nobles and the vassals of the realm into a grand army. With said army, he attacked the Yuezhi who had turned on their Scythian allies in Parthia in 125 BCE and had asserted a Yuezhi rule over Parthia. Artabanus made some early success against the Yuezhi in 125 BCE, but in 124 BCE, was slain in battle by the Yuezhi and the Dahae were driven from the field and the Arsacid state was driven into chaos after two defeats and slain kings. Rebellion crept around the corner and the Arsacids seemed to be short for the world.

-----------------------------------


Mithridates II (Arsaces VIII) would succeed his father Artabanus I in 123 BCE after a series of crises. The Arsacids began paying tribute to the Scythians and Yuezhi states while Mithridates II solidified rule in Babylonia, devoting himself to ancient Babylonian traditions and declaring himself King of the Universe and King of Kings. Likewise, he solidified more clearly, the Arsacid rule over Babylonia and began a period of Arsacid recovery, but never again would the Arsacid aspire to the great empire of Alexander and would focus upon more pragmatic goals, namely deterring the Seleucid possible threat, creating strings of western feudatories and destroying the Scythian and Yuezhi menaces which slew the great men of their dynasty and sacked the Arsacid royal tombs at Arsaska and Nisa.

Mithridates II would make moderate gains against the Yuezhi and Scythians, especially with the aid of the Dahae noble houses, who under House Suren, conquered Sakastan. For the next century, Arsacid policy would be a slow push against the Scythian and Yuezhi realms and then raiding, deterring and holding off the Roman empire growing on its west.


-------------------------------

As this post is becoming a bit long, what would be the opinion of the board on the topic? Which state, Rome, ala the western threat or the eventual Kushan empire or the eastern threat, had the greatest effect on denial of Arsacid expansionism. Which attempted, to despite its conundrums after Mithridates I, to conquer a vast realm from the Indus to Europe, Egypt and the wider west. Mithridates I even was so keen on the conquest of the Hellenic world, that he married a Macedonian noblewoman and in the case of the Akkadian populace, in emulation of old Babylonian kings and of the Seleucids, took the title as 'King of the Universe.'

In the east, the Arsacids were stalled by the Scytho-Yuezhi hordes, which transformed in reaction to the renewed Arsacid-Suren offensives in the reign of Vonones II (Arsaces XXI, 11-51 CE) and Vologases I (Arsaces XXII,, 51-78 CE) into the Kushan Emprie under Kujula Khadphises (30-87 CE), which would end for good all Arsacid expansions in the east and at varied points force the Arsacids to pay tribute during the reign of Vima I (87-99), Vima II (99-101 CE), Kanishka I (101-147 CE), Vashishka (147-155 CE), Huvishka (155-187 CE) and Vasudeva I (187-230 CE) until Ardashir I abolished the Arsacid monarchy in 227 CE and in 229 CE, conquered the Kushan empire's central corridor, breaking the empire into two (Northern and Southern kingdoms).

The western threat is known. Rome obviously applied many defeats upon the Arsacids, but only after the Arsacid had been bloodied in the east. However, the Romans would impose Roman rule over Babylonia at varying periods and upon other sectors of traditional Arsacid ranges. We can go into more depth on the specifics of this as the topic goes, hopefully.

Another short clarification; Rome and the Kushans both had a role to play in the denial of the true recovery oft he Arsacid state and each hemmed the great empire into a much more condensed realm in modern Iran and Iraq. A true farcry from the old great ambitions of its early rulers, who envisioned a universal empire over most of the known world. So, in the opinion of the board, which power or events had the greatest effect on denying this great recovery of the Arsacids?

 

[Falecius]

It is hard to tell particularly because our sources about pre-Islamic Eran (be it Achaemenid, Arsacid or Sasanid) tend to be heavily skewed toward documenting their dealings with the West, if not entirely "Western" in perspective, and the sources which don't are later redactions (usually Islamic relying on Sasanid-era material).
It seems safe to say that this reflected a historical actual Western focus for the Sasanids, but for the Parthian period it gets hard to overcome the source bias since we know relatively little of the Arsacid (or Kushan indeed) viewpoint. Clearly, the Roman Imperial period dynastic ties with Armenia loomed large and the Roman threat was obvious, but for the earlier, expansionist phase it gets fuzzier. The Arsacid state had ambitions and rivals on both sides. It sounds tempting to analyse the Arsacid strategy as Western-oriented, with the foray into India (in the late first century BCE) as an attempt to get "depth" facing the Romans after the failed campaign with Labienus in Syria. After all, since Mithridates II (IIRC) the Parthian court chose the Western-facing Ctesiphon as the primary capital.
But this is a guess and an argument that the memory of the "Scythian" ancestry of the Parni/Dahae led to a recurrent "Eastern" priority could also be made, especially in the light of the decent relationships between Rome and Parthia before Crassus' ill-fated invasion in 53 BCE and the modest showing of the first Roman offensives beyond the Euphrates (Crassus' own and Anthony's ones). Picking a capital in Mesopotamia could be read as a defensive move facing more threating Eastern rivals.
In the crucial period between the conclusive conquest of Mesopotamia and the battle of Carrhae, it seems to me that the East was more critical than the Romans (though Tigranes the Great's Armenia also deserves a mention here) in preventing the Parthians to consolidate further West in the relative chaos before the Romans could truly soldify their grip the Mediterranean Middle East, while later on the strategic Roman threat was the long term main factor capturing Parthian energies and blocking them from dealing with the East in full force. So a kind of a swinging pendulum really.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

It is hard to tell particularly because our sources about pre-Islamic Eran (be it Achaemenid, Arsacid or Sasanid) tend to be heavily skewed toward documenting their dealings with the West, if not entirely "Western" in perspective, and the sources which don't are later redactions (usually Islamic relying on Sasanid-era material).
It seems safe to say that this reflected a historical actual Western focus for the Sasanids, but for the Parthian period it gets hard to overcome the source bias since we know relatively little of the Arsacid (or Kushan indeed) viewpoint. Clearly, the Roman Imperial period dynastic ties with Armenia loomed large and the Roman threat was obvious, but for the earlier, expansionist phase it gets fuzzier. The Arsacid state had ambitions and rivals on both sides. It sounds tempting to analyse the Arsacid strategy as Western-oriented, with the foray into India (in the late first century BCE) as an attempt to get "depth" facing the Romans after the failed campaign with Labienus in Syria. After all, since Mithridates II (IIRC) the Parthian court chose the Western-facing Ctesiphon as the primary capital.
But this is a guess and an argument that the memory of the "Scythian" ancestry of the Parni/Dahae led to a recurrent "Eastern" priority could also be made, especially in the light of the decent relationships between Rome and Parthia before Crassus' ill-fated invasion in 53 BCE and the modest showing of the first Roman offensives beyond the Euphrates (Crassus' own and Anthony's ones). Picking a capital in Mesopotamia could be read as a defensive move facing more threating Eastern rivals.
In the crucial period between the conclusive conquest of Mesopotamia and the battle of Carrhae, it seems to me that the East was more critical than the Romans (though Tigranes the Great's Armenia also deserves a mantion here) in preventing the Parthians to consolidate further West in the relative chaos before the Romans could truly soldify their grip the Mediterranean Middle East, while later on the strategic Roman threat was the long term main factor capturing Parthian energies and blocking them from dealing with the East in full force. So a kind of a swinging pendulum really.

Well, it should be reckoned that the choosing of a capitol in regards to the Arsacid state is far different than the choosing of a capitol in the case of say the Roman Empire. The Arsacids were a level of decentralized rule that exceeds that of the majority of the states that it was competing with and the Arsacid realm was in true reality, a confederation of varied Dahae-Parthava nobles, Macedonian vassal realms (such as that of Elam [that seems to have mixed Greek, Elamite and Persian cultures to a large degree]), the Median vassals, the Ardami vassals of Mazandran, the Priest Kings of Persia (which seem to have devolved into an unknown large number of small priest kingly realms), etc etc etc...

It was the sort of state that ruled lands as ancient holdings, wherein its varied vassals held lands that were sacrosanct to a large degree. The area of Babylonia that the Arsacids came to rule, often shared a capitol with that of the cities of Ectbatana, the summer capitol and the supposed spiritual capitol of Nisa and Arsaska, often outside of the Arsacid realm. This city complex of Arsaska and Nisa served as the royal tombs and the spiritual capitol during the reign of Mithridates I. Hecamtypolos and Ectbatana were however the capitols or areas of firm Arsacid holdings until Mithridates I placed a royal holding in Seleucia-Cteshipon, while the rest of Babylonia remained under Macedonian rule or gifted to local Babylo-Macedonian states as satraps and feudatories. Yet, despite capturing this rich land, Mithridates I simply distributed or assured the local rulers, except taking control of the capitol district;Mithridates I retunred to Ectbatana and traveled between it and Hecamtypolos in his last 2 years. His sons, Phraates II and Artabanus I never would return to Babylonia, as both were slain battling over their capitol regions in the north and east. Phraates II himself took the war into the steppe against a seemingly formidable steppe host, which slew him and proceeded to ravage Parthia and Hecamtypolos, including the burial sites of all the entombed kings and nobles of the Parni host of the Dahae.

Artabanus I attempted to recover these lands and he was slain by the Yuezhi after Artabanus I had gathered an army in Media. It is in that critical juncture, that the young heir of the Arsacid throne, Mithridates II was taken across the Zagros as the nomads were ranging deep into Media already. Mithridates II thus only adopted the new capitol over old Ectbatana out of the necessity of fear from the surging Scytho-Yeuzhi adventurist realms. In the reign of later Arsacid rulers, the recovery of Arsaska and Nisa and the protection of Ectbatana would become the priamry foreign policy goal. After these were achieved, the Arsacids and their vassal realms, especially the Surens pushed far east, with the House Suren eventually conquering the Scythian confederacy ruling Ariana and the Lower Indus Valley, before said expansionism and Arsacid recovery was countered by Kujula and the imminent rise of the Kushan empire. Chinese sources point to the Kushan rise to power as a reaction against the recovery of Anxi and its attempts to establish a grander eastern realm in Central Asia and of the Surens to hold and solidify gains unto the Indus.


-------------------------

Regarding the other topic. We could break the Arsacid realm into two periods. The first being prior to year 1 CE and the other after. Each comprising some 250 years more or less. In the early period, the Arsacids are extremely successful at breaking apart the Seleucid realm with intermittent changes in scenario such as the early reign of Antiochus III. At its apogee, Mithridates I ruled an empire exceeding that of the Seleucid realm prior and seemed poised to expand further and establish a realm rivaling that of Alexander (it already exceeded the realm gained by Cyrus the Great).

The inability to push further west and cement the supposed Hellenic destiny of the Arsacid realm under Phraates II and Artabanus I, in a sense blunted the possibility for a realm to recreate the empire of Alexander in a much more manageable form. Considering this, it is my opinion that in order to cement conquests in the west, the realm required the ability to subdue the eastern threats and likewise, gather wealth from those areas and likewise, protect its noble kings who provided the Arsacid with their army. To be deprived of such lands meant more of the empire was focused upon defense than able to invade the Roman empire, Armenia or whomever.

In my opinion, you see this play out in otl with the Arsacid realm. When reaching a goal of creating a general Arsacid dominion in the east, it instead induced the rise of the Kushan empire, which forever dominated the Arsacid in the east. According to Chinese sources, Anxi paid tribute to the Kushan and that the Kushan were masters of the lands between Khursan and China indisputably. Kushan coinage markers also bear this point in fact, as Kushan coinage and production centres predominate in the old homelands of the Parni. Surely, the Kushan had the authority over most of the regions east of Hecamtypolos that the realm of Mithridates I had once taken for granted as his patrimony (in other words, the great steppe nomadic army of the Arsacids was out done by the Scytho-Yuezhi Kushan forces in the lands that the Arsacid should have had the greatest advantage; this to my view is a truly great feat).

A smaller point to add, though not an argument of high value, is that the Sassanids in their rise, seemed to have taken the Kushan empire as the greater threat than Rome. Despite Rome having very recently posed threats and supported the Arsacids, the Sassanids invaded the realm of Vasudeva I first and only after solidifying the conquest of the Kushan central kingdom, did the Sassanids turn their gaze to Rome. How would you think is the best way to describe this situation?

 

[Falecius]

Well, it should be reckoned that the choosing of a capitol in regards to the Arsacid state is far different than the choosing of a capitol in the case of say the Roman Empire. The Arsacids were a level of decentralized rule that exceeds that of the majority of the states that it was competing with and the Arsacid realm was in true reality, a confederation of varied Dahae-Parthava nobles, Macedonian vassal realms (such as that of Elam [that seems to have mixed Greek, Elamite and Persian cultures to a large degree]), the Median vassals, the Ardami vassals of Mazandran, the Priest Kings of Persia (which seem to have devolved into an unknown large number of small priest kingly realms), etc etc etc...

It was the sort of state that ruled lands as ancient holdings, wherein its varied vassals held lands that were sacrosanct to a large degree. The area of Babylonia that the Arsacids came to rule, often shared a capitol with that of the cities of Ectbatana, the summer capitol and the supposed spiritual capitol of Nisa and Arsaska, often outside of the Arsacid realm. This city complex of Arsaska and Nisa served as the royal tombs and the spiritual capitol during the reign of Mithridates I. Hecamtypolos and Ectbatana were however the capitols or areas of firm Arsacid holdings until Mithridates I placed a royal holding in Seleucia-Cteshipon, while the rest of Babylonia remained under Macedonian rule or gifted to local Babylo-Macedonian states as satraps and feudatories. Yet, despite capturing this rich land, Mithridates I simply distributed or assured the local rulers, except taking control of the capitol district;Mithridates I retunred to Ectbatana and traveled between it and Hecamtypolos in his last 2 years. His sons, Phraates II and Artabanus I never would return to Babylonia, as both were slain battling over their capitol regions in the north and east. Phraates II himself took the war into the steppe against a seemingly formidable steppe host, which slew him and proceeded to ravage Parthia and Hecamtypolos, including the burial sites of all the entombed kings and nobles of the Parni host of the Dahae.

Artabanus I attempted to recover these lands and he was slain by the Yuezhi after Artabanus I had gathered an army in Media. It is in that critical juncture, that the young heir of the Arsacid throne, Mithridates II was taken across the Zagros as the nomads were ranging deep into Media already. Mithridates II thus only adopted the new capitol over old Ectbatana out of the necessity of fear from the surging Scytho-Yeuzhi adventurist realms. In the reign of later Arsacid rulers, the recovery of Arsaska and Nisa and the protection of Ectbatana would become the priamry foreign policy goal. After these were achieved, the Arsacids and their vassal realms, especially the Surens pushed far east, with the House Suren eventually conquering the Scythian confederacy ruling Ariana and the Lower Indus Valley, before said expansionism and Arsacid recovery was countered by Kujula and the imminent rise of the Kushan empire. Chinese sources point to the Kushan rise to power as a reaction against the recovery of Anxi and its attempts to establish a grander eastern realm in Central Asia and of the Surens to hold and solidify gains unto the Indus.


-------------------------

Regarding the other topic. We could break the Arsacid realm into two periods. The first being prior to year 1 CE and the other after. Each comprising some 250 years more or less. In the early period, the Arsacids are extremely successful at breaking apart the Seleucid realm with intermittent changes in scenario such as the early reign of Antiochus III. At its apogee, Mithridates I ruled an empire exceeding that of the Seleucid realm prior and seemed poised to expand further and establish a realm rivaling that of Alexander (it already exceeded the realm gained by Cyrus the Great).

The inability to push further west and cement the supposed Hellenic destiny of the Arsacid realm under Phraates II and Artabanus I, in a sense blunted the possibility for a realm to recreate the empire of Alexander in a much more manageable form. Considering this, it is my opinion that in order to cement conquests in the west, the realm required the ability to subdue the eastern threats and likewise, gather wealth from those areas and likewise, protect its noble kings who provided the Arsacid with their army. To be deprived of such lands meant more of the empire was focused upon defense than able to invade the Roman empire, Armenia or whomever.

In my opinion, you see this play out in otl with the Arsacid realm. When reaching a goal of creating a general Arsacid dominion in the east, it instead induced the rise of the Kushan empire, which forever dominated the Arsacid in the east. According to Chinese sources, Anxi paid tribute to the Kushan and that the Kushan were masters of the lands between Khursan and China indisputably. Kushan coinage markers also bear this point in fact, as Kushan coinage and production centres predominate in the old homelands of the Parni. Surely, the Kushan had the authority over most of the regions east of Hecamtypolos that the realm of Mithridates I had once taken for granted as his patrimony (in other words, the great steppe nomadic army of the Arsacids was out done by the Scytho-Yuezhi Kushan forces in the lands that the Arsacid should have had the greatest advantage; this to my view is a truly great feat).

A smaller point to add, though not an argument of high value, is that the Sassanids in their rise, seemed to have taken the Kushan empire as the greater threat than Rome. Despite Rome having very recently posed threats and supported the Arsacids, the Sassanids invaded the realm of Vasudeva I first and only after solidifying the conquest of the Kushan central kingdom, did the Sassanids turn their gaze to Rome. How would you think is the best way to describe this situation?

Well, you described it very well.
I'll stick to two points: there was somewhat of a swinging pendulum of Eastern or Western focus for Iranian Empires. The Western focus is better documented, which is part of why it looks like it dominates the historical narrative, and is also more stable, so that I would still contend that the Roman Empire as a single polity was more critical in curbing Arsacid aspirations than the Kushan Empire, if only because the latter lasted a shorter period.
However, to put in another way, the ensemble of Northeastern peoples as a whole may actually be a more critical worry for the Arsacids as they created a constant "two-fronts" situation for them (and for the Sassanids).
At fist glance, it seems that Arsacids and Sasanids alike tended to think of strategic defensive for the East and strategic offensive for the West as a broad trend - though as you noted, there are so many "exceptions" that we can barely call this a trend at all.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Well, you described it very well.
I'll stick to two points: there was somewhat of a swinging pendulum of Eastern or Western focus for Iranian Empires. The Western focus is better documented, which is part of why it looks like it dominates the historical narrative, and is also more stable, so that I would still contend that the Roman Empire as a single polity was more critical in curbing Arsacid aspirations than the Kushan Empire, if only because the latter lasted a shorter period.
However, to put in another way, the ensemble of Northeastern peoples as a whole may actually be a more critical worry for the Arsacids as they created a constant "two-fronts" situation for them (and for the Sassanids).
At fist glance, it seems that Arsacids and Sasanids alike tended to think of strategic defensive for the East and strategic offensive for the West as a broad trend - though as you noted, there are so many "exceptions" that we can barely call this a trend at all.

An interesting point of discussion on this topic. Craig Benjamin who compiled a very insightful research into the topic, suggested the fame of the Yuezhi and hence the later Kushan as the reason that Phraates II dropped any prepared invasion of Syria (then under the now in terminal decline Seleucids) and gathered an army to face the Yuezhi who apparently arrived with also conglomerated Scythians and so forth. The theory goes that the Yuezhi Tocharians were originally the strongest power in the East, dominating the trade links between east and west and held a hegemony over the Scythians and other 'Scythic' or nomadic semi-pastoralists/fully pastoral communities and peoples. These Yuezhi were defeated in a series of wars from 176-162 BCE by the rising Xiongnu and the Wusun (who seem to have been integrated as a major enforcer on behalf of the Xiongnu royal caste). These Yuezhi forced west, fled from the Xiongnu. Each stop of the way, the Yuezhi would turn and battle the Xiongnu who would hunt the Yuezhi or their enforcers, the Wusun clans (whom Pulleybank claims were Tocharians like the Yuezhi, but had forged a hatred borne from tribal conflict with the Yuezhi royal caste). Regardless, by the year 139 BCE, the Yuezhi had conquered the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (this is the year that the Han, who had been searching for the Yuezhi, in hope of an alliance finally discovered the Yuezhi).

Generally, Han records report the Yuezhi as being the dominant authority. So shocked was the Han Dynasty when the Xiongnu defeated the Yuezhi, that the Han officials declared that the Xiongnu cannot be defeated in battle. This depicted the Yuezhi as the ancient power in the area whom the Chinese states of the Central Valley, felt to be their most trusted 'barbarian' partner. Once they were defeated and driven from the Gansu pass in 162 BCE, Han officials were unaware of the scale of the defeat until Xiongnu armies began overtly marched from the west and when captured or deserted Xiongnu were questioned, the Xiongnu informants revealed that the Yuezhi were massacred and fled westward and were being hunted as they spoke.

All of this to say, that in steppe nomad terms (and these people had flows across each other's lands, surely they knew of distant hegemonic powers in the steppe), the founders of the Kushan realm, the Yuezhi were of great renown among the people of the region and this is why they apparently arrived and carried such fame that the Arsacids prematurely stopped all advances on their ancient foe in the west and looked to engage this famous steppe foe. Arsacid forces, an undeniably nomadic styled army was then defeated twice consecutively in what could be termed climatic battles in the region of first the Kwarezm and then in Parthia proper and the loss of two emperors. Such was the defeat, that the Arsacid nobility felt themselves to escape as far west as possible, even if that meant proximity to their ancient Seleucid foes, the rising Roman Republic or the Armenian kingdom.

Just an interesting addition. ^

 

[Falecius]

An interesting point of discussion on this topic. Craig Benjamin who compiled a very insightful research into the topic, suggested the fame of the Yuezhi and hence the later Kushan as the reason that Phraates II dropped any prepared invasion of Syria (then under the now in terminal decline Seleucids) and gathered an army to face the Yuezhi who apparently arrived with also conglomerated Scythians and so forth. The theory goes that the Yuezhi Tocharians were originally the strongest power in the East, dominating the trade links between east and west and held a hegemony over the Scythians and other 'Scythic' or nomadic semi-pastoralists/fully pastoral communities and peoples. These Yuezhi were defeated in a series of wars from 176-162 BCE by the rising Xiongnu and the Wusun (who seem to have been integrated as a major enforcer on behalf of the Xiongnu royal caste). These Yuezhi forced west, fled from the Xiongnu. Each stop of the way, the Yuezhi would turn and battle the Xiongnu who would hunt the Yuezhi or their enforcers, the Wusun clans (whom Pulleybank claims were Tocharians like the Yuezhi, but had forged a hatred borne from tribal conflict with the Yuezhi royal caste). Regardless, by the year 139 BCE, the Yuezhi had conquered the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (this is the year that the Han, who had been searching for the Yuezhi, in hope of an alliance finally discovered the Yuezhi).

Generally, Han records report the Yuezhi as being the dominant authority. So shocked was the Han Dynasty when the Xiongnu defeated the Yuezhi, that the Han officials declared that the Xiongnu cannot be defeated in battle. This depicted the Yuezhi as the ancient power in the area whom the Chinese states of the Central Valley, felt to be their most trusted 'barbarian' partner. Once they were defeated and driven from the Gansu pass in 162 BCE, Han officials were unaware of the scale of the defeat until Xiongnu armies began overtly marched from the west and when captured or deserted Xiongnu were questioned, the Xiongnu informants revealed that the Yuezhi were massacred and fled westward and were being hunted as they spoke.

All of this to say, that in steppe nomad terms (and these people had flows across each other's lands, surely they knew of distant hegemonic powers in the steppe), the founders of the Kushan realm, the Yuezhi were of great renown among the people of the region and this is why they apparently arrived and carried such fame that the Arsacids prematurely stopped all advances on their ancient foe in the west and looked to engage this famous steppe foe. Arsacid forces, an undeniably nomadic styled army was then defeated twice consecutively in what could be termed climatic battles in the region of first the Kwarezm and then in Parthia proper and the loss of two emperors. Such was the defeat, that the Arsacid nobility felt themselves to escape as far west as possible, even if that meant proximity to their ancient Seleucid foes, the rising Roman Republic or the Armenian kingdom.

Just an interesting addition. ^

I did not know this part, very fascinating.
Clearly, if the Yuezhi were Tocharians (which AFAIK all evidence supports) they were not really exterminated/assimilated by the Xiongnu entirely, since Tocharian is linguistically documented many centuries later in the Tarim basin. Although their ruling elite and associated political identity (only to resurface further West in the form of the Kushan Empire). But then, it appears that steppe socio-political identities were often mixed in origin and multilingual (that could help understanding the messy state of our understanding of linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu and Wusun for instance, and clearly the Kushana themselves incorporated Scythian and other elements too).

 

[Gloss]

I did not know this part, very fascinating.
Clearly, if the Yuezhi were Tocharians (which AFAIK all evidence supports) they were not really exterminated/assimilated by the Xiongnu entirely, since Tocharian is linguistically documented many centuries later in the Tarim basin. Although their ruling elite and associated political identity (only to resurface further West in the form of the Kushan Empire). But then, it appears that steppe socio-political identities were often mixed in origin and multilingual (that could help understanding the messy state of our understanding of linguistic affiliation of the Xiongnu and Wusun for instance, and clearly the Kushana themselves incorporated Scythian and other elements too).

I thought the Yuezhi were native to Gansu, were Tocharians so far East?

 

[Falecius]

I thought the Yuezhi were native to Gansu, were Tocharians so far East?

My understanding is that they were from modern Xinjiang and surroundings (which, yes, would include western Gansu and Inner Mongolia. They may have included both Tocharians and other groups - but at least a Tocharian component is both plausible and what the scholarly consensus points to. The Ordos Culture, even farther East (and earlier), is often associated with some Indo-Europeans - whether Tocharians or Iranians, I don't think anyone knows.
All these ethnolinguistic connections of ancient steppe peoples are based on spotty evidence - the languages in particular can be sometimes only guessed through a few names transmitted by other peoples and possibly garbled in the process, not to mention that the sources are often in Old Chinese - with the problems inherent in its writing system especially for foreign names.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

My understanding is that they were from modern Xinjiang and surroundings (which, yes, would include western Gansu and Inner Mongolia. They may have included both Tocharians and other groups - but at least a Tocharian component is both plausible and what the scholarly consensus points to. The Ordos Culture, even farther East (and earlier), is often associated with some Indo-Europeans - whether Tocharians or Iranians, I don't think anyone knows.
All these ethnolinguistic connections of ancient steppe peoples are based on spotty evidence - the languages in particular can be sometimes only guessed through a few names transmitted by other peoples and possibly garbled in the process, not to mention that the sources are often in Old Chinese - with the problems inherent in its writing system especially for foreign names.

According to Craig Benjamin who quotes others such as Mallory, Pulleybank among others, that the Yuezhi inhabited eastern Gansu at the edge of the Yello River valley. Living amongst them, was the Wusun whom it would seem, was also an Indo-European people. Some even going so far as to say, it was also a Tocharian speaking people. North of the Gansu was inhabited by the Hu and the Xiongnu, considered by Pulleybank to be a conglomeration of Indo-European, Siberian and Turkic peoples. With the earlier Hu (possibly they first true nomads in the region) being described by some scholars as ‘Scythic.’ Then east of the Xiongnu and Hu, was the Dong Hu, typically considered to be Proto-Mongolian peoples and related to the Xianbei and so forth.

This was the status of the region according to these scholars at the ascension of Qin power. With the major claim by scholars, the the Yuezhi were the dominant and most wealthy of the barbarians to the north, west or east. Commanding according to Benjamin, an enormous fame. Perhaps derived from its interactions with the prior Zhou and Shang dynasty as he speculates.

It is also an issue regarding Chinese naming, that Chinese sources at times refer to rulers of these lands by titles or praises instead of names. Laosheng for the Xiongu king Jizhou is one example. Though much of the work on the linguistic and cultural designation is gathered from archaeological evidences, perhaps more so than any linguistic defining. Much of the Yuezhi Tocharian link is derived from common descriptions by the Chinese sources + Greek sources material ++ the archaeological link and transition from the middle Bronze Age until the Zhou dynasty.

also for @Gloss ^

 

[Falecius]

According to Craig Benjamin who quotes others such as Mallory, Pulleybank among others, that the Yuezhi inhabited eastern Gansu at the edge of the Yello River valley. Living amongst them, was the Wusun whom it would seem, was also an Indo-European people. Some even going so far as to say, it was also a Tocharian speaking people. North of the Gansu was inhabited by the Hu and the Xiongnu, considered by Pulleybank to be a conglomeration of Indo-European, Siberian and Turkic peoples. With the earlier Hu (possibly they first true nomads in the region) being described by some scholars as ‘Scythic.’ Then east of the Xiongnu and Hu, was the Dong Hu, typically considered to be Proto-Mongolian peoples and related to the Xianbei and so forth.

This was the status of the region according to these scholars at the ascension of Qin power. With the major claim by scholars, the the Yuezhi were the dominant and most wealthy of the barbarians to the north, west or east. Commanding according to Benjamin, an enormous fame. Perhaps derived from its interactions with the prior Zhou and Shang dynasty as he speculates.

It is also an issue regarding Chinese naming, that Chinese sources at times refer to rulers of these lands by titles or praises instead of names. Laosheng for the Xiongu king Jizhou is one example. Though much of the work on the linguistic and cultural designation is gathered from archaeological evidences, perhaps more so than any linguistic defining. Much of the Yuezhi Tocharian link is derived from common descriptions by the Chinese sources + Greek sources material ++ the archaeological link and transition from the middle Bronze Age until the Zhou dynasty.

also for @Gloss ^

Nice. You have certainly a fresher and deeper reading on this topic than I do.

 

[Gloss]

Genetics could also help answering the question, right now we have an immense amount of stuff on Kazakhstan and recently a lot of stuff from Mongolia too, but we need more from Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Gansu to see how east Indo-Europeans went physically.

I'll look at the recent Mongolian stuff to investigate the exact geographical spread during the Bronze Age.

Edit: For the curious:

A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe

The Eastern Eurasian Steppe was home to historic empires of nomadic pastoralists, including the Xiongnu and the Mongols. However, little is known about the region’s population history. Here we reveal its dynamic genetic history by analyzing new genome-wide data for 214 ancient individuals...

www.biorxiv.org

 

[Death's Little Helper]

I voted for the Kushan Empire, Rome despite its capabilities never seemed to be an existential threat to the Arsacids, certainly Rome was capable of doing tremendous damage and occupying some of the richest provinces on the Arsacid Empire, but these were never mortal blows nor were they permanent. On the same note the Arsacids were capable of retaliating in kind with invasions and raids into Syria. Neither Rome nor the Arsacids were able to land a death blow to the heartlands of the other.

By contrast the Kushan were well positioned to attack and devastate the traditional territories of the Arsacids and the other royal clans. Moreover I would venture that it would weigh heavily in the mind of the Arsacids that just as they had come down from the steppe to conquer Iran and Mesopotamia, so it would be that the Kushan could do the same to them if the borders were left unguarded.

In this way even though it would seem that the Arsacids directed their expansionist attempts to the west against Rome the Kushan threat constantly divided their attention, and moreover would seem to have prevented most attempts at any eastern expansionism.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Genetics could also help answering the question, right now we have an immense amount of stuff on Kazakhstan and recently a lot of stuff from Mongolia too, but we need more from Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Gansu to see how east Indo-Europeans went physically.

I'll look at the recent Mongolian stuff to investigate the exact geographical spread during the Bronze Age.

Edit: For the curious:

A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe

The Eastern Eurasian Steppe was home to historic empires of nomadic pastoralists, including the Xiongnu and the Mongols. However, little is known about the region’s population history. Here we reveal its dynamic genetic history by analyzing new genome-wide data for 214 ancient individuals...

www.biorxiv.org

I am not well versed in what genetics studies exist. Though it is almost certain that two distinct people, the Wusun and Yuezhi, often both identified as Indo-European or Tochari were identified as residing in the central and eastern fringes of the Gansu. According to the Chinese sources at least, the Yuezhi seem to have held hegemony of these lands directly west of the Yellow River in the Gansu. Craig Benjamin argues that the Yuezhi was a particular sort of Tocharian group, a 'dynasty' or 'royal clan' as he terms it. That by the year 220 BCE, these Yuezhi ruled an 'oasis empire' of sorts across the eastern Xinjiang, most especially, the secret and rare outcroppings of jade in the southern sector of Tocharia, giving the Tocharians their famed reputation in China, as powerful nomadic warriors and the foremost merchants, producers and experts of jade. At the time, this would have been the only place wherein jade might have been procured by the Chinese and tests of the stores and remains of jade artifacts from both the Shang and Zhou periods indicate that the jade were entirely derived from Tocharia proper.

As such, the only firm passage from Tocharia proper into the Chinese Central Valley, was the Gansu, whom the Chinese records claim to be the primordial domain of the Yuezhi. It should be noted, that the Chinese sources of the Qin dynasty, seem to have believed that the 'Yuezhi' were ruling the Gansu as early as the Shang Dynasty. This may be an extrapolation, but it at least describes that from the Chinese prospective of the III century BCE, the Yuezhi were very old and seen as an ancient realm. Whereas, some other groups, are considered more new, such as the Xiongnu.

Regardless, the opinion of some scholars is that the Yuezhi powerbase in the Gansu was simply a front for a wider Tocharian enterprise extending a distance into Xinjiang. There is even an opinion in minority in the study, that the flight of the Yuezhi, was not a true migration, but a 'falling-back' into a western portion of what was their old western frontier. If this is truly the case, that would more than surely explain the deadly seriousness that the Arsacids had in attempting to stymie the Yuezhi. It then too explains the skill, military capabilities and the eventual rise to dominance in the region that the Yuezhi and the Kushan displayed in the coming century. To not only defeat the Arsacids, but come to dominate lands once taken for granted as Arsacid heartlands and the birthplaces of the Arsacid founders and ancestors. Also, it describes the extent to which the Yuezhi were able to cross so many different boundaries between sedentary life, nomadic pastoralism and so forth and create a harmony of sorts between these different modes of life. Few aside from a kingdom based in the Gansu and Xinjiang would have the experiences with which to do these sorts of crossing of traditional boundaries.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I voted for the Kushan Empire, Rome despite its capabilities never seemed to be an existential threat to the Arsacids, certainly Rome was capable of doing tremendous damage and occupying some of the richest provinces on the Arsacid Empire, but these were never mortal blows nor were they permanent. On the same note the Arsacids were capable of retaliating in kind with invasions and raids into Syria. Neither Rome nor the Arsacids were able to land a death blow to the heartlands of the other.

By contrast the Kushan were well positioned to attack and devastate the traditional territories of the Arsacids and the other royal clans. Moreover I would venture that it would weigh heavily in the mind of the Arsacids that just as they had come down from the steppe to conquer Iran and Mesopotamia, so it would be that the Kushan could do the same to them if the borders were left unguarded.

In this way even though it would seem that the Arsacids directed their expansionist attempts to the west against Rome the Kushan threat constantly divided their attention, and moreover would seem to have prevented most attempts at any eastern expansionism.

That is a good point, about weighing heavy that a new nomadic host could enter and depose them just as they had done to the Seleucids. This especially would be understood due to the epic defeats that the Arsacids suffered in against the Yuezhi (the predecessors of the Kushan), wherein two consecutive Arsacid kings were slain (Phraates II and Artabanus I). They most certainly were aware of the danger posed by these peoples. Fortunately for them and their noble houses, the Yuezhi threat subsided as Hindustan seems to have presented a more grand prize indeed and eventually the vast majority of Scythian adventurism was directed at Hindustan or remained shuffling about in Central Asia, rather than attempting to cross the Zagros and invade the Arsacids.

 

[Falecius]

I voted for the Kushan Empire, Rome despite its capabilities never seemed to be an existential threat to the Arsacids, certainly Rome was capable of doing tremendous damage and occupying some of the richest provinces on the Arsacid Empire, but these were never mortal blows nor were they permanent. On the same note the Arsacids were capable of retaliating in kind with invasions and raids into Syria. Neither Rome nor the Arsacids were able to land a death blow to the heartlands of the other.

By contrast the Kushan were well positioned to attack and devastate the traditional territories of the Arsacids and the other royal clans. Moreover I would venture that it would weigh heavily in the mind of the Arsacids that just as they had come down from the steppe to conquer Iran and Mesopotamia, so it would be that the Kushan could do the same to them if the borders were left unguarded.

In this way even though it would seem that the Arsacids directed their expansionist attempts to the west against Rome the Kushan threat constantly divided their attention, and moreover would seem to have prevented most attempts at any eastern expansionism.

Note that Western Arsacid expansionism against Rome came mostly before the repeated campaigns that Rome could successfully pursue into Mesopotamia. Rome was generally always on a strategic offensive posture toward the Parthians, even when both parties tried "peaceful coexistence" of sorts like (mostly) under Augustus. By the time the Romans were able to invade Mesopotamia with near-impunity (three times in a century, all the way to Ctesiphon) the area had certainly become a Parthian heartland. The Arsacid vulnerability to such offensives was clearly critical to their eventual demise. But in the end, I think I can agree that the Eastern threat was arguably the most critical. It made impossible to pursue either offense or (later) defense to the West with full force.
Again I refer now to Sasanian, not Arsacid, perception, but it seems to me that Iranian rulers tended to regard Rome as a "civilized" enemy with which it was possible to coexist and reach a mutual grudging respect, even if in underlying rivalry. This, in particular, after the Romans (very grudgingly) began to recognise themselves the Parthians as peers, somehting with had little precedent in the Roman political outlook.
Whoever ruled the steppe ("Turan") was more often depicted as an existential threat in what I can understand of Iranian dominant perspective.
(Yes, I partly changed my mind on this).
This seems to paint a bleak picture of the Arsacid viewpoint on their geopolitical position after the late first century BCE: surrounded by potentially larger or otherwise scarier powers (at least the Romans were, indeed, overall more powerful) and terrified by both. I am not sure this extrapolation reflects reality - the Arsacids seemed quite confident of themselves, and their state remained remarkably stable for centuries even with repeated defeats. But they were forced to play defensively after a certain point, and Josephus for instance actually suggests they were indeed afraid to confront Rome (though it referred to just after Corbulo's expedition, so maybe a specific phase when the Arsacid court, having had a taste of defeat very recently, was very understably unwilling to try again).

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Note that Western Arsacid expansionism against Rome came mostly before the repeated campaigns that Rome could successfully pursue into Mesopotamia. Rome was generally always on a strategic offensive posture toward the Parthians, even when both parties tried "peaceful coexistence" of sorts like (mostly) under Augustus. By the time the Romans were able to invade Mesopotamia with near-impunity (three times in a century, all the way to Ctesiphon) the area had certainly become a Parthian heartland. The Arsacid vulnerability to such offensives was clearly critical to their eventual demise. But in the end, I think I can agree that the Eastern threat was arguably the most critical. It made impossible to pursue either offense or (later) defense to the West with full force.
Again I refer now to Sasanian, not Arsacid, perception, but it seems to me that Iranian rulers tended to regard Rome as a "civilized" enemy with which it was possible to coexist and reach a mutual grudging respect, even if in underlying rivalry. This, in particular, after the Romans (very grudgingly) began to recognise themselves the Parthians as peers, somehting with had little precedent in the Roman political outlook.
Whoever ruled the steppe ("Turan") was more often depicted as an existential threat in what I can understand of Iranian dominant perspective.
(Yes, I partly changed my mind on this).
This seems to paint a bleak picture of the Arsacid viewpoint on their geopolitical position after the late first century BCE: surrounded by potentially larger or otherwise scarier powers (at least the Romans were, indeed, overall more powerful) and terrified by both. I am not sure this extrapolation reflects reality - the Arsacids seemed quite confident of themselves, and their state remained remarkably stable for centuries even with repeated defeats. But they were forced to play defensively after a certain point, and Josephus for instance actually suggests they were indeed afraid to confront Rome (though it referred to just after Corbulo's expedition, so maybe a specific phase when the Arsacid court, having had a taste of defeat very recently, was very understably unwilling to try again).

Terror may induce better skills in a defensive sense. Perhaps the level of threat from both the east and west, hemming this power in could be partly why the Eranshahr confederacy was so stable, a nigh 900 years under only two royal houses and all under a relatively stable system of governance. There may be something to necessity in this case, Arsacid nobility were willing to not vie for the crown or accept their perceived lessers (the Sassanids) in rank due to the understanding that the Kushan or the Romans would be far worse for their royal domains. Likewise, no king would buck the tradition for fear of losing his military prowess and hence forced the high royalty to enact constant compromises and leagues with their royal comrades, the nobles of the realm. Roman sources report that these Arsacid and Sassanid kings lead their armies even in a coalition fashion, with the king sitting in a council where each party had equal say on matters (like a more northern Indo-European realm or people).

On the point of Rome, it is very true. As I see it, though I am no expert on Rome, Rome initially had issues with the Arsacid armies upon early engagements. I am not sure as to why, but my guess is that the Romans did not expect an army made up of primarily of light cavalry archers. Once Rome came to understand more that their foe was not the Persian empire of the days of Alexander, not one of combined arms, they resorted to using their engineering works to outplay the Arsacids. Arsacid forces drained themselves in attacks upon static fortifications, as the Romans pushed the frontiers with forts and static field armies, gaining a leverage of strategic space over the Arsacids. Playing to Rome's favor here, is that the region was a tight border for wars between the two and filled with rivers that required crossings and to the north mountains and hill country. This allowed Rome to have the advantage defensively, which turned into an offensive advantage. Eventually, Roman armies were able to simply waltz into the Arsacid empire nigh unopposed. Arsacid armies made up for this issue in terms of resilience and in terms of being extremely skilled in pitched battles, but the Arsacids were no doubt beaten soundly by Rome in logistical and strategic terms.

In contrast, the wars in the east, were more to the advantage of the Arsacids. Favoring raids and pitched battles. This worked in the favor of the Arsacids in the days of Seleucus II, Seleucus III and Antiochus III, where the Arsacids held the offensive initiative and could raid at will and choose the times of pitched battles. Seleucid strategies also are not advisable, amounting to chasing the Arsadcid nomads a few dozen km and then as if knocking a bug from one's face, returned to Syria.... In otherwords, there was no grand plan or strategy to end these attacks.

Yet, on the defensive, the Arsacids engaged the Yuezhi and the Scythians as a steppe nomadic army battling a rival horde. That is, unlike say the Kwarezmshahs who attempted to wait out the Mongols, the Arsacids raided the Yuezhi and challenged them to a battle in the open steppe. Over a century later, the Arsacids were once more pushing the frontier in the east, by the year 4 BCE, most of their lands in the Iranian plateau were firmly in their rule and the region of Arachosia and Gandahra was conquered by the Surenid king Gondophares between 22-44 CE, ending the Scythian kingdoms of Arachosia, Gandhara, Minagara or the Indo-Scythian kingdom and the Kambojan Scythian king called Azas. These successes however, would be the last moment of Arsacid respite, for in the midst of the 40s CE, Kujula of the Kushan had brought the Kangju under his vassalage and apparently defeated the Surenids somewhere in Ariana (Herat). Kujula's successors Vima I and Vima II would continue these gains, destroying the divided Surenid cadet branches, conquering Arachosia, Kamboja, Gandahra, Gedrosia and the Indus Valley.

With less information, it is then apparent that any Arsacid gains into northern central Asia were snuffed during the reign of Kujula and Vima I. Kushan rule in the Kwarezm and the Dahae lands was assured. Arsacid authority in the east would never recover, it is unknown how the Arsacids felt regarding this. It is plausible that they paid immense tribute to the Kushan or were informal vassals of the Kushan empire. To further this point, of possible tributary status, it may be the case that the Sassanids invaded alongside the noble houses, the Kushan empire in 227 CE, defeating Vasudeva I in the region of Aria most likely. Vasudeva I then fled north into the region of western Tocharia and presented himself as a vassal of the Wei dynasty of China, perhaps for protection against the Sassanids (this is important, as earlier in the reign of Vasudeva I, the Kushan were firm foes and antagonistic to China,, Vasudeva's predecessors had consistently took hostile action since Kanishka I against the Han dynasty in Tocharia).

Perhaps Ardashir I engaged the Kushan first so as to affirm the new policy of Eranshahr, that of not paying tribute to any eastern foe and of resisting such advances. Likewise, this may have been a huge reward to cement his coronation, a massive gift to the nobles, who supported him, but only if he is strong. Ardashir I complied by returning vast lands to these nobles in the east, lost by the Kushan empire in the prior decades. No doubt, this campaign was the bedrock for Sassanid success against Rome, an enthusiastic nobility who maintained a steppe nomadic army, and the addition of an excited Persian addition to the military of the Eranshahr that implemented innovative siege and infantry measures in conjugation with the nomadic styled horse archers and heavy cataphracts. Rome was not prepared for the change and we know the results.