Herod the Great: Friend of the Romans and Parthians?
Jason M. Schlude explores how King Herod manipulated his position between two regional powers
Jason M. Schlude
March 01, 2017
16 Comments
29539 views
King Herod is remembered as a Friend of the Romans. Jason Schlude suggests that Herod exploited the broader geopolitical circumstances of the day. Photo: Hulton-Archive/Getty Images.
Another view of Herod, however, complicates this picture. Herod was not merely a passive subject of Rome. In fact, if we only view Herod against the Roman backdrop, we risk misunderstanding the circumstances of his rise to power and underestimating his accomplishment. While the Romans were indeed a key source of Herod’s authority, he rose to power and maintained his position through timely manipulations of the contentious geopolitics that defined his day.
FREE ebook: Masada: The Dead Sea’s Desert Fortress. Discover what archaeology reveals about the Jewish rebels’ identity, fortifications and arms before their ultimate sacrifice.
Rome was not the undisputed master of the Near East. The empire of Parthia stretched from modern Afghanistan through Iran to the Euphrates River in Iraq, encompassing territories once ruled by Persian kings and then by Alexander the Great and his successors. Existing for nearly 500 years (c. 250 B.C.E. to the 220s C.E.), the Parthian state was the only advanced civilization that bordered the Roman Empire. And the two states were not without violent encounters. In 53 B.C.E. the famed Crassus led Roman legions into the Parthian empire only to see his troops massacred and to die violently himself near Carrhae. Later, between 40 and 39 B.C.E., the Parthian king Orodes II conquered and controlled the Roman Near East, including Israel, until Mark Antony organized a counter-offensive that drove his forces from the region. But for the Romans, the damage was done; henceforth, no one would see the Romans as invincible and their control of the Near East certain.
Herod faced this volatile situation and exploited it to his advantage. Indeed it was no coincidence that the Romans entrusted the throne of Judaea to Herod the Great at the close of 40 B.C.E., the same year of the Parthian conquest. During the campaign the Parthians installed Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II and scion of the Hasmonean dynasty, as king of Judaea. Herod fled to Rome to use this event to make a bid for kingship. He sought out Antony and underscored the Parthian threat (and threw in a bribe for good measure!). As the ancient sources make clear, the strategy worked; the Parthian actions motivated the Senate to make Herod the Great king. In this situation, Herod is best seen as a manipulator of Rome’s confrontation with Parthia for his own advantage.
Herodium excavator Ehud Netzer was a member of BAR’s editorial advisory board for 30 years. In commemoration of his scholarship, we’ve made all of his publications in the BAS Library available for free. Click here to read a collection of works by the illustrious scholar.
Herod then took the first opportunity to further his position by working with the Parthians. On the Roman side, Herod was in good shape. After the Senate made him king and Herod pacified his new kingdom, Antony had Antigonus executed in 37 B.C.E. and thus eliminated Herod’s most potent rival. But Herod still had a Parthian problem. He must have feared another Parthian invasion of the Roman Near East.
When the Parthians invaded Palestine in 40 B.C.E., they arrested Hyrcanus II, a high priest and member of the Hasmonean family, and cut off his ears. The Parthians then carried him back to their empire in retreat from Roman troops. Despite the disfigurement, which disqualified him from holding the high priesthood, Hyrcanus remained the ranking member of the royal Hasmonean family. Might the Parthians not try to make Hyrcanus their own vassal king in Judaea? Herod hedged his bets. He wanted to have Hyrcanus in his own possession and to have the Parthians as friends. To achieve these ends, after Orodes perished in 37 B.C.E.—and with him, the worst of the bad blood between Herod and the Parthians—Herod immediately opened diplomatic relations with his successor Phraates IV in 36 B.C.E. He sent the new king presents and pledges and requested permission for the return of Hyrcanus, which was granted. Though not explicitly mentioned in the sources, this exchange must have resulted in some level of official amicability between Herod and the Parthians. In short, it was to the advantage of Herod to be friend of the Romans and the Parthians.
King Herod is carried off by servants in a 17th-century German engraving. Hulton-Archive/Getty Images
To come to a full appreciation of Herod the Great, we must understand him as more than a one-dimensional Roman front man. He actively and aggressively manipulated the complex imperial circumstances of his day to secure a position of authority for himself. In the process, the “Friend of the Romans” also became a friend of the Parthians, even if the friendship appears short-lived. After more than a century of intense scholarly scrutiny, there remains much more to learn about Herod the Great.1
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on March 29, 2013.
Jason Schlude is an Assistant Professor of Classics at College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University and specializes in the relationships shared by ancient Rome, the Near East and the Parthian empire. He is an Associate Director of the archaeological excavations at Omrit in northern Israel.
Read more in Bible History Daily:
Herod the Great and the Herodian Family Tree
Herodium: The Tomb of King Herod Revisited
Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey
Monumental Entryway to King Herod’s Palace at Herodium Excavated
Ehud Netzer Publications Available to Public
The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History
The Masada Siege: The Roman assault on Herod’s desert fortress
Machaerus: Beyond the Beheading of John the Baptist
Notes
1. For the events of Herod’s career recounted here, see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14.330–491, 15.1-21, 161-196; Jewish War 1.248–357, 386–393, 433–434.
Related Posts
Mar 16
How Bad Was Jezebel?
Mar 11
Abraham and Lot in the Bible
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Very good summary.
But I do not know how the Parthians became part of the Holy Roman Empire. They are mentioned as being part of a congregation of Christian emperors along with those of Rome, Spain, Hungary, Bavaria, England, etc. by the great Italian missionary Beschi in his Tamil Classic THEMBAVANI. (Please see internet).
He calls them PAARTHTHAVAR.
I first mistook it for Portugal.
I find Parthia is more correct because he says that “they have won victories swallowing even the speed of arrows . . . and who possess flower-soft garments like the foam of milk.”
But they were supposed to be always fighting with the Romans.
Anyway I am sticking to Parthia in my English translation of THEMBAVANI.
Your article has shown that by the time the HRE was at its peak, Parthia might have joined it, especially Armenia.
If you go by the actual date of the birth of Jesus, we would be living in about .2022 AD or 2011 AD, depending on whether you go by Matthew or Luke.
As this is Biblical archaeology, why are the dates given as “BCE” and “BC”? Would any Biblical student be offended by the traditional “BC” and “AD”? After all, both hinge on the once-calculated (albeit slightly wrongly) date for the birth of HaMashiach – the Messiah!
The episode circa BCE 40-36 during which Herod defeated the Parthians and brought Hyrcanus II back to Jerusalem as head of his council was the fulfillment of the first part of the prophecy recorded in the Book of Daniel, chapter 9, verse 25. If you have an interest, you can read about it on pages 22-24 of my book, HE IS THE ONE. A free copy is available for download in PDF format at: http://www.prophecysociety.org/PDF/HITO_FREE.pdf
Thank you Jason for this interesting hindsight of international politics of the Empires of the past.
One comment to the A/M article, you state:
” Herod executed Hyrcanus and thereby eliminated the last surviving Hasmonean heir. ”
Hyrcanus was not the last surviving Hasmonean heir. To appease the Jews for his political manipulations and his military campaigns in the service of Rome against Jewish insurgents, Herod married Mariamne I, daughter of Hasmonean Alexandros, whom he executed on 29 BCE.
Then he executed her sons with him:
Alexander, executed 7 BCE
Aristobulus IV, executed 7 BCE
daughter Salampsio
daughter Cypros
The record indicates that the Parthians took Herod for their implacable foe. They wanted him dead in the year 40 Before the Common Era (that is why they tried to kill him in Jerusalem) before he escaped their siege and fled to Masada, Petra, Egypt, and then on to Rome. Herod was the master of political manipulation with the Romans. That is so true.
It is one thing to say something based on speculation; it is quite another thing to base something on historical accounts that you are reading, such as Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. If there is written evidence that Herod was at one-time pro-Parthian, let’s see the evidence. If it is speculation, then let us call it that. Herod lined up with Rome and that is why he was the enemy of Parthia.
Jerry Knoblet
Author of Herod the Great
University Press of America
The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320 A.D., alludes to Jewish roots of the Scots much earlier than the Victorian era.
Since this is a Biblical post, I feel free to comment. None of these figures are worth further study. It’s funny thought History how man tries to justify Nations and rulers. As I was reading I got a sense of poor Rome…..poor Herod…..they were doing the best they could. I disagree. Science and technology has been used as a cover for great violations of Humanity. Rome on its own was not better than any other Nation. It was their ownership of collective knowledge and the withholding of it to the rest of Humanity. As is being done to this very day. They are credited with achievements built on what they took by force. I believe if we truly followed the Bible instead of dissecting it, we would find our selves so advanced that we would drop the fantasy of Aliens.
One aspect of Herod’s service to himself and to Rome was his valuable service as a guarantor of peace on the sea between Egypt and Rome. In Roman times grain ships could not traverse a straight line from Alexandria to Italy. Grain ships hugged the Levantine coast on their Rome-ward journey. The Mediterranean had not yet become Rome’s “mare nostrum” at the turn of the era. Rome depended on grain sent from Egypt (and to a lesser degree from Herod’s “granary” in the trans-Jordan which garnered him a financial killing because it got to Rome weeks before ships from Egypt). Politically Egyptian grain was to Rome what Middle Eastern oil has been to the West in modern times. Rome’s aristocratic Senate had an historic aversion against maintaining an organized maritime presence on the Mediterranean. Roman ships defeated Carthage, but were burned after victory was assured. Roman fleets with Roman naviarchs and Roman sailors policing the Mediterranean would come later in the first and second centuries CE. At Herod’s time client kingdoms like Mauretania, Cilicia and Thrace served Augustus by keeping sea lanes open. In this regard Herod was the alpha dog among client kings. Herod built Caesarea Maratima, an ancient maritime marvel that would have its engineering (example: underwater concrete) copied by Rome in Ostia, but only under Augustus’ successors. The legacy of Pompey’s clearance of the eastern Mediterranean of pirates in the early 1st century BCE was bequeathed to Herod at the end of that century. Herod did a great job. Grain arrived year after year in Rome because Herod’s fleet was on maritime duty. The Romans even used Herod’s triremes to police the Black Sea if Josephus is to be believed. Herod’s overall greatness cannot be fully appreciated without factoring in his bargain to do for Augustus on the sea what the Roman Senate was reluctant to do.
What was Herod The Great first name?
Heroe, called ‘The Great’ possibly did deserve the title. As the above says he concluded some clever diplomacy. This was also evident after the defeat of Antony after Actium, Herod went to Octavian/Augustus with his diadem in his hand. He also had a highly skilled and forceful Lawyer friend, Nicholas of Damascus who undertook diplomatic missions for him.
It was only in late life that his control began to bread down because of his terrible disease causing his body to corrupt and to stink. Even then he tried to outwit the ‘Wise Men’ who were warned by God to avoid him and his manipulation.
My Book on Herod sees him as a Statesman, Commander and Builder.
How might the Parthian line of kings named Orodes relate to the Nabatean line of kings named Aretas, and were the Nabateans considered by the Parthians to be under their sphere of influence? Not mentioned in this analysis is the Nabatean angle and the (promise of the) marriage of Aretas IV’s daughter to Antipas as part of the peace settlement between Aretas and Herod I. Nevertheless, there is the continuance of Herod I as “Friend of the Romans” during the relatively sudden transfer of Judea’s immediate animosity to Nabatea from Parthia. Pilate’s “Friend of Caesar” title sounds to be a similar – or same – reward.
I think that the dating of Antipas’ divorce of Aretas’ daughter and marriage to Herodias was crucual to dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.
British and American fundamentalists have claimed since Victorian times that the lost tribes became English, Scottish, or whatever. There is no scientific evidence either in culture (Britons and other Celts were pre-literate headhunters — literally — with animistic beliefs until the Romans brought Christianity), language (Celtic tongues like Welsh, Irish and Scots Gaelic, and Germanic tongues spoken by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, are part of the Indo-European family, which includes all but a few of the languages spoken across Europe, Persia and India, while Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic are Semitic languages with no connection to Indo-European tongues), or history. The lost tribes were broken up into individual households and deported to various parts of the Assyrian Empire, which came nowhere near Greece, much less Britain, and households from other conquered nations were imported into Samaria. The few remaining Israelites and the newcomers formed the Samaritans, who are the closest remnant of the lost tribes (apparently the hatred they received from Jews moved some Samaritans to become Christian, and there was a significant Samaritan-Assyrian church until recently, with a few remaining members even today). The deportees assimilated into the national identity of their new neighbors wherever they went, and so are truly LOST to history.
The Persians may have had some Israelite deportees among them, but they left no cultural stamp on Persian culture in ancient times, except possibly for Darius the Great being friendly to the Jewish people. In later times, Islam, based upon Judaism, conquered Persia and left that indirect stamp on modern Iran. And of course, the early British settlers of America INCLUDED Puritans (while others were mostly Anglicans), from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The fact that Puritan clergy considered themselves a “new Israel” and promoted the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language (which went nowhere) may mislead some “researchers” of a fundamentalist tradition into assuming an Israelite ancestry for Anglo-American settlers.
Steven Collins is author of the book The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel Found. In it, he explains that it was at least some of the tribe that owned the Parthian empire. He, among some other researchers, convincingly show that these United States are also an Israelite nation.
Nice article.
I have a couple of questions here for the author or others here who can help or point me in the right direction.
1. From Josephus we know that Herod was able to secure (from the Romans) the safe transfer of “sacred” money from Jews living outside Judea to the temple. Did Herod get a cut of this money? – and if so – what would have been his “share”? If no proof I would appreciate an educated guess.
2. Did he also have a deal like this with the Parthians for the large Jewish population within their territories? And did the Babylonian Jews typically travel to Jerusalem for the festivals?
Thank you in advance.
“To come to a full appreciation of Herod the Great, we must understand him as more than a one-dimensional Roman front man.”
I agreed, completely.
“The high-profile murder, however, had its downside. It likely alienated Herod from Phraates IV, who would have been irritated by the political black eye Herod’s action created for him.”
Considering ancient “great kings” constant need for wealth, the black-eye of Phraates IV; who would have wanted no more Roman incursions into his newly acquired “Great King” lands with a new infusion of Herodian wealth couldn’t heal.
Nice article, thanks.