Technical Aspects of the Eastern campaign of Mark Antony

  • Сергей Дмитриевич Литовченко V. N. Karazin National University, Associate Professor of Department of the Ancient and Medieval History https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4880-8909
Keywords: Mark Anthony, Rome, Artavazdes II, parthian campaign, siege engines

Abstract

The article discusses the features of the technical equipment of the Roman troops during Antony’s parthian campaign. plutarch mentions a large army train, which includes a giant battering ram. Greek author reported that the ram had to be driven for a long distance, because in the area where the Romans were going to fight, it was not a suitable tree. However, the Roman legions lead their way through Armenia, which can not be called treeless. The Romans didn’t use a battering ram during the siege of phraaspa as well. Giant slow train thus became one of the reasons for the defeat of the Romans. The author suggested that Antony had objec- tive reasons to carry a train with a battering ram. Probably, Antony assumed trekking route through Northern Mesopotamia to the parthian capitals. In this way it was really difficult to find wood for siege engines. But the encounter with the parthian forces near the Euphrates crossings has forced Antony to turn to the north of Armenia. Under these conditions, the huge train has appeared unnecessary and only broken movement of troops.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Amantini L. S. Commento // Plutarco. Le vite di Demetrio e di Antonio/ A cura di L. S. Amantini, C. Carena, M. Manfredini. — Milano, 1995.

Kromayer J. Der Partherzug des Antonius // Hermes. — 1891. — Bd. 31.

Фереро Г. Величие и падение Рима: В 5 т. — М., 1916. — Т. 3.

Craven L. Antony’s Oriental Policy until the Defeat of the Parthian Expedition. — Columbia, 1920.

Huzar E. G. Mark Antony. — L., 1978.

Pelling C. The Triumviral Period // CAH. — 2-nd ed. — 2005. — Vol. 10.

Моммзен Т. История Рима / Пер. с нем.: В 4 т. — Ростов-на-Дону, 1997. — Т. 4.

Дельбрюк Г. История военного искусства в рамках политической истории: В 7 т. — СПб., 1999. — Т. 1.

Asdourian P. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und Rom von 190 v. Chr. bis 428 n. Chr. Ein Abriss der Armenischen Geschichte in dieser Periode. — Venedig, 1911.

Günther A. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kriege zwischen Römern und Parthern. — Berlin, 1922.

Бокщанин А. Г. Парфия и Рим: В 2 ч. — М., 1966. — Ч. 2.

Тер-Исраэлян С. Г. К вопросу о причинах возвращения армянской конницы во время парфянского похода М. Антония // Науч. труды Армян. гос. пед. ин-та. Серия обществ. наук. — 1967. — Вып. 2.

Алиев И. Очерк истории Атропатены. — Баку, 1989.

Freyburger M.-L., Roddaz J.-M. Notice // Dion Cassius Histoire romain livres 48 et 49 / Texte établi, traduit et annoté par Marie-Laure Freyburger et Jean-Michel Roddaz. — P., 1994.

Смыков Е. В. Парфянский поход Марка Антония (36-й год до н. э.) // Вопросы отечественной и всеобщей истории. — Саратов, 1987.

Traina G. Marco Antonio. — Roma; Bari, 2003.

Farrokh K. Shadows in the Desert. Ancient Persia at War. — Oxford, 2007.

Van-Wijlick H. Rome and Near Eastern Kingdoms and Principalities, 44–31 BC: A Study of Political Relations during Civil War. — Durham, 2013.

Sherwin-White A. N. Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 B. С. to A. D. 1. — L., 1984.

Bouché-Leclercq A. Histoire des Lagides. — P., 1904. — T. 2.

Tarn W. W. Antony’s Legions // The Classical Quarterly. — 1932. — Vol. 26. — № 2.

Dąbrowa E. Marc Antoine, les Parthes et l’Arménie // Rudiae. — 2006. — № 18.

Roth J. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War: (264 B. C.—A. D. 235) — Leiden; Boston; Köln, 1998.

Kern P. Ancient Siege Warfare. — Bloomington, 1999.

Southern P. The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History. — Oxford, 2007.

Goldsworthy A. War // The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare. — Cambr., 2007. — Vol. 2.

Pelling C. Introduction // Plutarch: Life of Antony/ Ed. by C. Pelling. — Cambr., 1988.

Patterson L. E. Antony and Armenia // TAPA. — 2015. — Vol. 145, № 1.

Литовченко С. Д. Армения в восточной политике Марка Антония // ВХУ. — 2000. — № 485. Серія: Історія. — Вип. 32.

Minorsky V. Roman and Byzantine Campaigns in Atropatene // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. — 1944. — Vol. 11, № . 2.

Bivar A. D. H. The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids // CHI. — Cambridge, 1983. Vol. 3(1).

Chaumont M. L. Antony, Mark // Encyclopaedia Iranica. — L., 1987. — Vol. II, Fasc. 2. http://www. iranicaonline.org/articles/antony-mark-roman-gencral-ca

Rice-Holmes T. Architect of the Roman Empire. — Oxford, 1928.

Faszcza M. N. The Problem of Mark Antony’s speculatores // Marcus Antonius. History and Tradition/ Ed. By D. Słapek, I. Łuć. — Lublin, 2016.

Sonnabend H. Fremdenbild und Politik. Vorstellungen der Römer von Ägypten und dem Partherreich in der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit. — Frankfurt am Main; Bern; N. Y., 1986.

Bartenstein F. Bis ans Ende der bewohnten Welt: Die römische Grenz- und Expansionspolitik in der augusteischen Zeit. — München, 2014.

Bengtson H. Zum Partherfeldzug des Antonius. — München, 1974.

Дибвойз Н. К. Политическая история Парфии / Пер. с англ. — СПб., 2008.

Prantl H. Artavasdes II. — Freund oder Feind der Römer? in A. Coşkun (hg), Freundschaft und Gefolgschaft in den auswärtigen Beziehungen der Römer (2. Jh. v.Chr. — 1. Jh. n.Chr.). — Frankfurt am Main, 2008.

Published
2018-08-16
Cited
How to Cite
Литовченко, С. Д. (2018). Technical Aspects of the Eastern campaign of Mark Antony. Antiquities (Drevnosti). Kharkiv Historical & Archaeological Annual, 14(14), 36-43. Retrieved from https://periodicals.karazin.ua/drevnosti/article/view/11185