فهرست مطالب مهرداد قدرت دیزجی

Armenia has long been of importance for the Iranian plateau because of its geographical location. The formation of the Parthian Empire on the Iranian plateau and the advance of the Roman Empire to the eastern territories has doubled the significance of this land. That's why the rivalry between Iran and Rome intensified for influence on this land. However, the rivalry between Iran and Rome for the capture of Armenia after military conflicts led to the formation of a branch of the Parthian in Armenia, but the rivalry between Iran and Rome, as a result of the Romanian dissatisfaction, did not stop, and for the past century The sequel to the main conflict between Iran and Rome.
 Methodology:

This essay, based on descriptive analytical method, analyzes the formation of the Armenian Parthian dynasty by analyzing the political relations between Iran and Rome and identifying its factors and fields with the help of new sources and research. The main issue of the present article is that the influence of the Parthians on Armenia was influenced by the factors and how the Parthians, despite the intense rivalry of the Romans to dominate the region, succeeded in consolidating their dominance over Armenia in 63 AD.

The succession crises of Phraates IV in Iran make the Romans easily interfere in Armenia's political affairs and protect Armenia. Instead, the Romans consider Phraates V as the Parthian and Euphrates empire as the border between the imperial monarchy and Roman Empire recognize) Velleius Paterculus, 1924, II, 101-102). Abandoning Phraates V from Armenia was contrary to the policy pursued by the Parthians from the time of Mithridates II to unite Armenia and influence in this land in front of the Roman, and perhaps Phraates's silence about this was one of the reasons for the dissident dissatisfaction with Phraates V. Because the Parthian liturgy ultimately set up a rebellion against him and, after a brief strike, removed him from the kingdom and killed him(cf. Josephus, 1969, Book XXXIII, 2). It is apparent that the Parthians were well aware of the strategic and influential importance of Armenia, and it was possible that the Roman influence in Armenia and even Iran, and the silence of Phraates V, would have been dangerous.
Augustus the Roman emperor, then held Armenia as a puppet kingdom, and appointed Vonon I to its kingdom (cf. Temporini & Haase, 1980, 1160). In this way, under the pressure of the imperial monarchy, the death of the emperor and Artabanus's pressure on his successor to drive Vonon from Armenia eradicated this danger from the Parthians. For the next three years, Wonon was removed from the Armenian throne by Romans(Garsoian, 1997, 64). Perhaps this was done by the Romans, following the pressure and compromise that Artabanus II had with the new Roman Emperor, because the Parthian monarchy felt the presence of one of his rivals on the throne of Armenia as a great danger, and as a result, It can take away this danger.
After more than fifteen years of peaceful coexistence between the two powers of Iran and Rome, this peaceful coexistence eventually came to an end in 35 AD, after the death of Artaxes III, the king of Armenia(cf. Schippmann, 1986,  647-50). Artabanus took the opportunity and took his son Arashk on his throne and in his letter to Tiberius he inherited the owner of the Achaemenid and Selukid(cf. Tacitus, 1959, Book VI, 31). Artabanus's goal was to restore the Achaemenid frontiers. Artabanus was able to some extent rebuild his influence over the rebellious nobility in different parts of the country, and also his success in foreign policy, and in particular his continuing involvement in the affairs of Armenia, pushed Rome to deflect the Parthians into internal affairs and conflicts Engage in power. As a result, Artabanus eventually fails to take Armenia's arrogance after several attempts to overthrow Armenia, but it does not appear that Artabanus has completely hoped for Armenia.
With the beginning of the second half of the first century, the first Vologases (about 51-79 AD) end tensions and conflicts within the royal dynasty and its main policy is directed towards Armenia. The classic sources confirm that the main axis of the policy was the first issue of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XV, 24). For this reason, he brings an army to Armenia and nominates his brother as the king of Armenia(Tacitus, 1959: Book XII, 50). The capture of Armenia took place without resistance and opposition from the indigenous population, indicating that the Armenians preferred the Parthians to the Romans(Garsoian,1997: 64). It seems that the Armenians were tired and sick of Romanism in Armenia, and they did not want to return to their own destiny and their country to the Romans who did not share them. Of course, Roman did not remain silent against this decision by the Armenians and the Parthian King of King, and after several occasions of fighting and defeat of the Parthians, it was finally possible to resolve the Armenian issue with peaceful and peaceful means.
Therefore, after negotiations, both sides agreed with Randia's agreement that Prince Arsachd would be the king of Armenia, provided that he received the royal crown only from the emperor. With this 

During the Parthian period, Armenia, for each of the powers of Iran and Rome, was to exert influence over the territories of the other side and preserve the domination of the territories under their possession. The fall of the local Armenian dynasty in Armenia by the Roman Empire caused the Armenian nation's dissatisfaction with the Roman Empire and their tendency towards the Parthians. As a result, the Armenian armed forces undertook measures to overthrow the Roman influence in the area. In particular, during the Artabanus II period, which was of great importance to Armenia, and in the aftermath of the revival of the former monarchy, the Parthians, in competition with the Roman Empire, were able to slaughter Romanian kings many times from Armenia and instead put their children on the Armenian throne. But the Roman Empire, by incitement to the invading nations of Iran and the support of the Parthian princes in Rome, caused Artabanus's plight that he was unable to address in Armenia. Of course, the competition between the Romanized Greeks in Armenia and their quarrels over power sparked the Armenian hatred of the Romans and reasserted their long-standing ties to the Parthians again. As a result, the Arsacds King of King, with the support of the Armenian clans and after several fights with the Roman Empire, sacked his brother Tiridates, with the apparent confirmation of Rome, on the throne of Armenia. Although this was done by agreement between Iran and Rome, however, since the Roman Empire was forced to do so by diplomacy and by force of the Parthian Arms, it would use every chance to prevent the formation of the Arsacids of Armenia. But the support of the paratroopers from this dynasty in Armenia, because of the strategic position of this land, prevented the realization of this goal of Rome.

Sasanian Empire in the early 7th century AD, due to long years of wars with Byzantine Empire (603-626 AD) and its later defeat, lost its military and defensive strength, and went through a political crisis. Before this time, based on numismatic studies, it was revealed that following this defeat, only some provinces of the empire minted coins in the name of the Sasanian emperors, and it shows that other provinces were out of Sasanian’s control. Furthermore, literary sources have illustrated that Arab regions of the Sasanian Empire, after Sasanian’s defeat from Byzantine were out of Sasanian’s rule. The author, in this article has showed that according to archeological and numismatic evidence, Azerbaijan province which was the scene of Sasanian-Byzantine battlefield, received the most damages, and since about 623 AD was out of Sasanian’s control. The fall of the Sasanian hegemony in the provinces, was undoubtedly an important factor in weakening of Sasanian military and financial power and consequently contributed considerably to its defeat by Arab Muslims. This factor had also a significant role in Arabs’ penetration in the provinces which were out of Sasanian rule

Islamic conquests in Iran took place at the beginning of the reign of Yazdgerd III 632-651 A.D. occupying most of the parts in less than a decade revealed that the Sasanid government had lost its previous military and defensive power. The historical texts of the early Islamic centuries which were highly referred to by the contemporary historians proved this hypothesis as well. These texts mentioned about a turbulent period beginning with the death of Khosrow II (590-628 A.D.) during which several kings and queens reigned in a short while. However, these sources did not mention about the Sasanids political power as well as the limits of their geographical territory. It is necessary to note that these issues were clearly reflected in the coins of that era which were not referred to and somehow neglected. The numismatic evidence and its comparison with the written sources in the present work revealed that the kings of that era who were reigning for a short while and most often were governing several states at the same time, were not able to stabilize their political and military power due to the limitations in human and financial resources. When Yazgerd III became the king which was contemporary with the Muslims’ conquests, the Sasanid government had lost its political authority and economic power long time ago and was at the state of decline and collapse.

Although the term “Pars” applied to the land in southern Iran from Achaemenid Period, according to linguistic studies on Assyrian documents, before the above-menthioned period, several areas in Iran were called Pars, or other variants of it (Parsua, Parsuaš, and Parsumaš). These areas included around of Urmia Lake, Kirmānshāh, and Elam. Even according to these studies the term Parth, the ancient name for Khurāsān, is another variation of the same origin which means “boundary” or “side”. As it is revealed through historical documents, the term Parsua is used in Assyrian documents first in 9th century B.C. and later in Assyrian inscriptions of that era, was called a subdued land. The first term for historical Parsua is pinpointed in descriptions of Assyrian invasions to Northern Zagros and along with it we witness mentioning of places around north western Iran. Despite arguments about the original land of Parsua, in most of these studies it is mentioned that the present day southern Azerbaijan or northern Kurdistan was one of the first residential places of Persians in Iran.