Shortly afterwards, however, his successful campaign against Ptolemy V. Epiphanes led to a war with Rome in which the power of the Seleucid empire was shattered (190 B.c.), Asia Minor lost, and the king compelled to pay a heavy contribution to Rome for a long term of years. In order to raise money he plundered a wealthy temple of Bel in Elam, but was killed by the inhabitants, 187 B.C. (Diod. xxviii. 3, xxix. 15; Strabo xvi. 744; Justin xxxii. 2; S. Jerome [Hieronymus] on Dan. xi. 19; Euseb., Chron. I. 253). The consequence of this enfeeblement of the empire was that the governors of Armenia asserted their independence. Artaxias founded the kingdom of Great Armenia; Zariadris, that of Sophene on the Euphrates and the sources of the Tigris (Strabo xi. 531). In other districts also, rebellions occurred; and in the east, Euthydemus and his successors (Demetrius, Eucratidas, etc.) began the conquest of the Indus region and the Iranian borderland (Arachosia, Aria). (See BAC TRIA ; EUTHYDEMUS ; EUCRAT1DES ; DEMETRIUS ; MENANDER.) But the energetic Seleucids fought desperately against their fate. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (176-163) restored once more the Eastern dominion, defeated Artaxias of Armenia (Appian, Syr. 45; Diod. xxxi. 17a; S. Jerome on Dan. xi. 40), restored several towns in Babylonia and subdued the Elymaeans. His attempt, however, to plunder the sanctuary of Nanaia failed (Polyb. xxxi. I ; cf. Maccab. i. 6, ii. 1,13 ; App. Syr. 66). Persis, also, and Media were still subject to him. He tried to strengthen Hellenism throughout his empire by settling Greek colonists and mercenaries in the native towns—then, also, in Babylon and Jerusalem—and granting them the right of Greek cities. But after his death at Gabae (Isfahan) in Persis (163 B.C. ; cf. Polyb. xxxi. I I ; Maccab. i. 6, ii. 9; Jos. Ant. Jud. xii. 9, 1), the Romans took advantage of the dynastic broils to destroy the Seleucid empire. They reduced its army and fleet, and favoured every re bellion : among others, that of the Jews. In spite of all, Demetrius I. Soter (161-150) succeeded in suppressing (159) a revolt of Timarchus of Miletus, governor of Babylon, who had occupied Media, assumed the title of "great king," and had been recognized by the Romans (Appian, Syr. ; Trogus, Prol. 34; Diod. xxxi. 27 A; cf. the coins of Timarchus).' The Parthian Empire.—Meanwhile, in the east, the Arsacids had begun their expansion. Phraates I. (c. 175-17o) subdued the Mardians in Elburz. His brother Mithradates I. (c. 17o 138) had to sustain a difficult war with Eucratides of Bactria, but eventually succeeded in wresting from him some districts on the Turanian frontier. Indeed, he penetrated as far as, and farther than, the Indus (Diod. xxxiii. 18; Oros. v. 4, 16). In the west he conquered Media, and thence subdued Babylonia. He 'For the whole of this period see further ANTmoNus; ANTIOCHIJS ; SELEIJCID DYNASTY ; HELLENISM.
further reduced the Elymaeans, sacked their temple in the moun tains, and captured the Greek city of Seleucia on the Hedyphon (Strabo xvi. 744; Justin xli. 6). The Seleucids, meanwhile, were harassed by aggravated disorders and insurrections. Neverthe less, in 140, Demetrius II. Nicator took the field in order to . save the east, but was defeated and captured. Shortly after wards Mithradates I. died. His son Phraates II. (c. 138-127) was attacked in 13o by Antiochus VII. Sidetes, the brother of Demetrius II., on which the Parthian king released the latter. Antiochus pressed successfully on, and once more recovered Babylonia, but in 129 was defeated in Media and fell in a des perate struggle. With this battle the Seleucid dominion over the countries east of the Euphrates was definitely lost. The Baby lonian towns, especially Seleucia (q.v.), were handed over by Phraates to his favourite, the Hyrcanian Himerus, who punished them severely for their resistance.
During these wars great changes had taken place in eastern Iran. In 159 Mongolian tribes, whom the Chinese call Yue-chi and the Greeks Scythians, forced their way into Sogdiana, and, in 139, conquered Bactria (Strabo xi. 571; Justin xlii. 1; Trog. Prol. 41; see BACTRIA). From Bactria they tried to advance farther into Iran and India. Entering into an alliance with Antiochus VII., they assailed the Parthian empire. Phraates II. marched to encounter him, but was himself defeated and slain, and his country ravaged far and wide. His successor Artabanus I. (c. 127-124), the uncle of Phraates, also fell in battle against the Tocharians, the principal Scythian tribe (Justin xlii. 1, 2-, Johannes Antiochen. fr. 66) ; but his son Mithradates II., sur named "The Great" (c. 124-88), defeated the Scythians and restored for a while the power of the Arsacids. He also defeated Artavasdes, the king of Great Armenia; his son Tigranes, a hostage in the hands of the Parthians, was only redeemed by the cession of 7o valleys (Strabo xi. 532). When Tigranes attempted to seize Cappadocia, and the Roman praetor P. Cornelius Sulla advanced against him, Mithradates in 92 B.C. concluded the first treaty between Parthia and Rome (Plut. Sulla, v.; Liv. epit. 7o). The dynastic troubles of the Seleucids in Syria gave him an opportunity for successful intervention (Jos. Ant. Jud. xiii. 13, 4; 14, 3). Shortly afterwards he died; and, with his death, the Arsacid power collapsed for the second time. The possession of the western provinces and the dominant position in western Asia passed to the Armenian Tigranes (q.v.), who wrested from the Parthians Mesopotamia and the suzerainty of Atropatene, Gordyene, Adiabene, Osroene. Simultaneously began a new and severe conflict with the Scythians. Parthian coins, probably dating from this period (Wroth. Catal. of the Coins of Parthia, 1903, p. xxx. and p. 40), mention victorious campaigns of Parthian kings and a conquest of the provinces of Aria, Margiane and (?) Traxiane (cf. Strabo xi. 505). But how confused the situation was is shown by the fact that in 76 B.C. the octogenarian king Sanatruces was seated on the Parthian throne by the Scythian tribe of the Sacaraucians (cf. Strabo xi. 511; Trog. Prol. 42). The names of his predecessors are not known to us. Obviously this period was marked by continual dynastic feuds (cf. Trog. Prol. 42). Not till Sanatruces's successor Phraates III. (7o-57) do we find the kingdom again in a settled state.
A fact of decisive significance was that the Romans now began to advance against Tigranes. In vain Mithradates of Pontus and Tigranes turned to the Parthian king, the latter even proffering restitution of the conquered frontier provinces. Phraates, though rightly distrusting Rome, nevertheless concluded a treaty with Lucullus (69 B.c.) and with Pompey, and even supported the latter in his campaign against Tigranes in 66. But after the victory it was manifest that the Roman general did not con sider himself bound by the Parthian treaty. When Tigranes had submitted, Pompey received him into favour and extended the Roman supremacy over the vassal states of Gordyene and Osroene; though he had allured the Parthian king with the pros pect of the recovery of his old possessions as far as the Euphrates. Phraates complained, and simultaneously attacked Tigranes, now a Roman vassal (64 B.c.). But when Pompey refused reparation Phraates recognized that he was too weak to begin the struggle with Rome, and contented himself with forming an alliance with Tigranes, in hopes that the future would bring an opportunity for his revenge (Dio Cass. xxxvi. 3, 5; xxxvii. 5 sqq.; Plut. Luc. 3o; Pomp. 33, 38; cf. Sallust's letter of Mithradates to Arsaces).