Although Phraates III. had not succeeded in regaining the full power of his predecessors, he felt justified in again assuming the title "king of kings"—which Pompey declined to acknowledge —and even in proclaiming himself as "god" (Phlegon, Jr. 12 aP. Phot. cod. 97; and on part of his coins), but in 57 B.C. the "god" was assassinated by his sons Orodes and Mithradates.
Organization.—The Parthian empire, as founded by the con quests of Mithradates I. and restored, once by Mithradates II. and again by Phraates III., was, to all exterior appearance, a continuation of the Achaemenid dominion. Thus the Arsacids now began to assume the old title "king of kings" (the shahanshah of modern Persia), though previously their coins, as a rule, had borne only the legend "great king." The official version, preserved by Arrian in his Parthica (ap. Phot. cod. 58: see PARTHIA), de rives the line of these chieftains of the Parnian nomads from Artaxerxes II. In reality, however, the Parthian empire was totally different from its predecessor, both externally and internally. It was anything rather than a world-empire. The countries west of the Euphrates never owned its dominion, and even of Iran itself not one-half was subject to the Arsacids. There were in deed vassal states on every hand, but the actual possessions of the kings—the provinces governed by their satraps—consisted of a rather narrow strip of land, stretching from the Euphrates and north Babylonia through southern Media and Parthia as far as Arachosia (north-west Afghanistan), and following the course of the great trade-route which from time immemorial had carried the traffic between the west of Asia and India. We still possess a description of this route by Isidore of Charax, probably dating from the Augustan period (in C. Milner, Geographi graeci minores, vol. i.), in which is contained a list of the 18 imperial provinces, known also to Pliny (vi. 112 ; cf. 41). Isidore, indeed, enumerates 19; but, of these, Sacastene formed no part of the Parthian empire, as has been shown by von Gutschmid.
The lower provinces (i.e. the districts west of Parthia) are: (I) Mesopotamia, with northern Babylonia, from the Euphrates bridge at Zeugma to Seleucia on the Tigris; (2) Apolloniatis, the plain east of the Tigris, with Artemita; (3) Chalonitis, the hill country of Zagrus; (4) Western Media; (5) Cambadene, with Bagistana (Behistun) the mountainous portions of Media; (6) Upper Media, with Ecbatana; (7) Rhagiane or Eastern Media.
Then with the Caspian Gates—the pass between Elburz and the central desert, through which lay the route from west Iran to east Iran—the upper provinces begin; (8) Choarene and (9) Comisene, the districts on the verge of the desert; (io) Hyrcania ; (I I) Astabene, with the royal town Asaac on the Attruck (see PARTHIA) ; (1 2) Parthyene with Parthaunisa, where the sepulchres of the kings were laid; (is) Apavarcticene (now Abiward, with the capital Kelat) ; (i4) Margiane (Merv) ; (i5) Aria (Herat) ; (i6) Anauon, the southern portion of Aria; (i7) Zarangiane, the country of the Drangians, on the lake of Hamun; (i8) Arachosia, on the Etymander (Helmand), called by the Parthians "White India," extending as far as Alexan dropolis (Kandahar), the frontier city of the Parthian empire.
On the lower Etymander, the Sacae had established them selves—obviously on the inroad of the Scythian tribes—and after them the country was named Sacastene (now Sejistan, Seistan). Through it lay the route to Kandahar ; and for this reason the district is described by Isidore, though it formed no part of the Parthian empire.
Round these provinces lay a ring of numerous minor states, which as a rule were dependent on the Arsacids. They might, however, partially transfer their allegiance on the rise of a new power (e.g. Tigranes in Armenia) or a Roman invasion. Thus it is not without justice that the Arsacid period is described, in the later Persian and Arabian tradition, as the period of "the kings of the part-kingdoms"—among which the Ashkanians (i.e.
the Arsacids, from Ashak, the later pronunciation of the name Arshak=Arsaces) had won the first place. This tradition, how ever, is nebulous in the extreme; the whole list of kings, which it gives, is totally unhistorical; only the names of one Balash (=Vologaeses) and of the last Ardewan (=Artabanus) having been preserved. The period, from the death of Alexander to the Sassanid Ardashir I., is put by the Persian tradition at 266 years; which was afterwards corrected, after Syro-Grecian evidence, to 523 years. The actual number is 548 years (i.e. 323 B.C. to A.D. 226). The statements of the Armenian historians as to this period are also absolutely worthless.