PHRAATES V (Phraataces, r. 3/2 BCE-4 CE), Parthian king, son and successor of Phraates IV.

Accession . Phraataces’ reign (partly alongside his mother Musa) in Parthia was relatively short, but it abounded in important events in both domestic and foreign policy (Anderson, pp. 273-77; Debevoise, pp. 143-51; Ziegler, pp. 51-57; Pani, pp. 44-55; Dąbrowa, 1983, pp. 42-45; Karras-Klapproth, pp. 145-47; Schottky, 1991, pp. 61-63; Wolski, pp. 148-49; Swan, pp. 112-37; Gaslain, pp. 106-11; Bigwood; Huber and Hartmann, pp. 495; Strugnell; Luther; Olbrycht, 1998, pp. 115-19, 125; 2013, pp. 26-29; PIR ² P 394). The name Phraataces (Parth. prhtk/Frahātak) attested in Old Nisa 2692, 7 (Livshits, p. 130, no. 471; Schmitt, no. 358) is a diminutive variant of the name Phraates (Parth. prht/Frahāt).

Phraataces assumed power in 3/2 BCE, by which time he must have reached the age of majority; in other words, he must have been at least 15, the age ancient Iranian societies considered adulthood (see Yasna 9.5; Yašt 5.64; 8.13; 14.17; cf. Schwartz, p. 655). Hence, he must have been born in 18-17 BCE at the latest.

In all likelihood, Phraataces and his mother, Musa, murdered Phraates IV. In this mysterious case, the meaning of the sources is not unambiguous. Flavius Josephus (AJ 18.39-43) claims that Phraataces and his mother conspired against Phraates IV and indicates that patricide was committed (see also Ovid, Ars am. 1.198). Justin’s epitome of Trogus’ Philippic Histories (42.4.16) refers to patricides in Parthia and mentions the ruler named “Phrahates,” but there were several of them, and it is not known which one is concerned. Phraates I, II, and III were not patricides, so Phraates IV (who killed his father, see Justin, 42.5.1) and Phraates V come into play. Trogus seems to offer no information later than 10 BCE (van Wickevoort Crommelin, p. 207), but a possible reference to Phraates V may have been added by Justin as the epitomist of the work of Trogus.

The first firmly dated Phraataces’ coins come from the Macedonian month Oloios (i.e., Loios, corresponding to July) 2 BCE. Some coins mentioned by Sellwood (types S56.4-56.5, not illustrated) seem to bear the dates Audynaios (December) 3 BCE and Artemisios (April) 2 BCE. If these dates are accurate, the beginning of Phraataces’ rule should be placed in late 3 BCE. His last coins were minted in 4 CE (S56, 57, 58).

Phraataces turned out to be an ambitious ruler who continued his father’s active foreign policy. The then political game between Rome and Parthia was primarily about Armenia (q.v.; Pani, pp. 44-55; Sherwin-White, pp. 325-28; Chaumont, pp. 73-84; Olbrycht, 2013, pp. 26-29).

Coin iconography and royal titles. The first issues of Phraataces were tetradrachms and drachms (see DIRHAM), the latter produced at Mithradatkart (mintmark M+TH) and Nisa (q.v.), all of debased silver (S56). The S56 and S57 tetradrachms of Phraataces bear the typical Arsacid legend “Of the King of Kings, Arsaces, the Beneficent, Just, (God) Manifest, Philhellene” (see ARSACIDS 03. Arsacid Coinage). The wart on the brow is usually absent contrary to the coin depictions of Phraataces’ father Phraates IV (cf. Invernizzi, pp. 39-40). The S56 tetradrachms (2 BCE) depict the king’s bust with the broad diadem and the segmented torque on the obverse. The reverse shows the king enthroned, receiving a diadem or wreath from a goddess with the cornucopia (Tyche?). The S56 drachms show the king’s bust (with a spiral torque) and Nike, a star, and a crescent (S56.6-14). Further coins (S57) are mainly tetradrachms from Seleucia on the Tigris (see CTESIPHON), and drachms and bronzes, issued at Ecbatana (q.v.) and perhaps Marv (S57.14). The S57 tetradrachms are dated from Audynaios (December) 2 BCE (S 57.2, 57.12) to Hyperberetaios (September) 1 BCE (S57.9). The king is depicted wearing a diadem and a three-band spiral torque. His bust is accompanied by two figures of Nikai. The reverse shows the royal archer. These coins clearly commemorate a significant military victory, presumably against opponents in Parthia, and against Roman adherents in Armenia.

The last type of coins (S58) are issues on behalf of Phraataces and Musa, including tetradrachms (from Xandikos [March] 1 CE to Hyperberetaios [September] 4 CE), drachms (from Ecbatana, Rhagai, and Susa, partly of debased silver), and bronzes from Ecbatana. The tetradrachms’ obverse shows the bust of Phraataces with Nike and the laconic legend “Of the King of Kings,” while the reverse depicts the bust of Musa to the right, with a diadem, and a mural (three-tiered) crown, accompanied by Nike and the legend “Of Goddess, Heavenly, Musa, Queen.” Thus, the royal titulature of Musa is more vainglorious than that of her son and husband. The S58 remarkable coins became so famous that Chinese envoys to Parthia described them as a peculiarity of the Arsacid Empire (Anxi; see AN-HSI): “They use silver to make coin, the obverse being decorated exclusively with the [image] of the king’s face and the reverse with that of his consort” (Hanshu, chap. 96A, Hulsewé, p. 116). The quality of Phraataces’ coins deteriorated significantly compared to his father’s emissions, which proves Parthia’s economic difficulties. The production of drachms in the mints of Iran was quite meager in comparison with Phraates IV’s era. Coins of Phraataces and their imitations circulated in Bactria (q.v.; Rtveladze, 1995, p. 23; Gorin, 2010). Local rulers in western Bactria, Tanlismaidates and his wife Rangodeme, imitated the pattern of coins minted in the name of Phraataces and Musa.

Musa is the first Parthian queen to use the title of Thea, “Goddess”, with the addition of Urania, or “Heavenly” (Muccioli, pp. 325-26). The title Urania may be linked to the goddess Anāhitā (ANĀHĪD; see Herodotus, 1.131.3; Strabo, 15.3.13; cf. Huber and Hartmann, p. 495, n. 34). In Pergamon, Commagene (q.v.), and among the Seleucids (q.v.) some queens were called Thea (Bigwood, pp. 50-56). More common was the male equivalent of this title, Theos, which appeared in the Arsacid titulature already under Mithradates I (ca. 165-132; see Muccioli, pp. 281-309). During Phraates IV’s reign, one can observe the expansion of the royal titulature, including the epithets Theos Pankrator, “God Almighty” (SEG VII 12, line 4; 13, line 4; Canali De Rossi, nos. 213-14). The title of Urania corresponds to the tendency stressed in the royal titulature of Phraates IV that highlighted divine aspects of kingship. The title of queen (Gk. basilissa) is a customary epithet of royal wives in Parthia. It is known from the text Avroman I (see AVROMAN DOCUMENTS), lines 2-5, that the three wives of the king of the Parthians are called “wives” (gynaikes) and “queens” (basilissai) (year 88/87 BCE, see Canali De Rossi, no. 454). In the text of Avroman II (22/21 BC), four basilissai as wives of Phraates IV are listed (Canali De Rossi, no. 455; Bigwood, pp. 40-41).

A marble sculpture discovered at Susa (female bust with a mural crown) is perceived by some scholars as a portrait of Musa (Cumont, p. 333), but this identification remains speculative (Bigwood, p. 62; Strugnell, p. 287). Likewise, it is uncertain whether the word Musa (Gk. Mousa), partly preserved in a mosaic at Susa, refers to Queen Musa (Canali De Rossi, no. 217).

Phraataces versus Armenia and Rome. In the description of events of year 1 BCE, Cassius Dio (q.v.; 55.10.18-19) recalls the Armenian rebellion supported by the Parthians after the defeat of the pro-Roman pretender Artavasdes III. The account of Cassius Dio is retrospective, and the Parthian aid refers to Armenian king Tigranes IV who was supported by both Phraates IV and Phraataces. The then Armenian rulers, Tigranes IV and his sister and wife Erato (ca. 6 BCE-1CE; for their coins, see Kovacs, p. 29; cf. Pani, pp. 23-44) needed Parthian backing against pro-Roman circles in Armenia and possibly against the Iberians, the traditional foes of Armenia at the time. The Iberians had entered the orbit of Rome’s interests in 65 BCE during the expedition of Pompey and then maintained diplomatic contact with the Roman Empire under Augustus (RGDA 31.1) and Tiberius (Tac., Ann. 4.5.2; cf. Gagoshidze).

In his correspondence with Phraataces (1 CE), Augustus demanded that the Parthians withdraw from Armenia (Dio Cassius, 55.10.20), which implies an open Parthian presence there (Herz, 1984, p.123; Swan, p. 114). The defeat of the Roman nominee Artavasdes III in Armenia and Parthian predominance in that country were serious blows to the Roman Emperor Augustus. His vexation is demonstrated by his silence about Artavasdes III in the imperial document commonly referred to as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (RGDA) and by the account of Cassius Dio (55.10.18). At last, Augustus sent prince Gaius Caesar to deal with the situation in Armenia.

The news of Gaius Caesar’s mission gave rise to Phraataces’s concern; the Parthian king first turned to Augustus, trying to probe out Roman intentions and set the negotiations. He demanded the surrender of his half-brothers staying in Rome (including Vonones; see Olbrycht, 2018; PHRAATES IV) and expressed his readiness to accept a peace deal (Dio Cassius, 55.10.19-20). Cassius Dio’s account illustrates a serious diplomatic conflict between Parthia and Rome: “The emperor sent him a letter in reply, addressed simply to Phraataces, without the title of ‘king,’ in which he directed him to lay aside the royal name and to withdraw from Armenia. Thereupon the Parthian, so far from being cowed, wrote back in a generally haughty tone, calling himself ‘King of Kings’ and addressing Augustus simply as ‘Caesar’.” The account implies that Phraataces fully controlled Armenia. The refusal of Augustus to recognize Phraataces as king (see Ovid, Ars am. 1.195-196, ed. Hollis, pp. 77-78; Luther, p.108) implies that the Roman emperor intended to play out the case of the alleged lack of legitimacy of power for Phraataces. Surprisingly, even after such a fierce diplomatic exchange, Augustus was ready to make a compromise with the Parthian king, for Rome was not ready for an open war with the Parthians. Phraataces himself was also afraid of a conflict with Rome, as the opposition in Parthia became pronounced. The demand for the surrender of his half-brothers proves that Phraataces feared their role as rivals to the throne in the hands of the emperor (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.4).

The meeting between Phraataces and Gaius Caesar. Gaius Julius Caesar, Augustus’s adopted son and princeps iuventutis, received, together with special powers of authority, a mission to settle Armenian affairs (Dio Cassius, 55.10.18-19; on Gaius Caesar’s itinerary and mission, see Zetzel; Herz, 1980, 1984; Romer; Swan, pp. 112-20, 125-34; Luther). Gaius left Rome in the autumn of 2 or in 1 BCE. In 1 CE, Gaius appeared in Syria, planning to intervene in Armenia and enforce concessions from the Parthians (Dio Cassius, 55.10.20-21; Orosius, 7.3.5-6). The mission of Gaius is called epistrateia or expeditio, which indicates military objectives (Dio Cassius, 55.10.21; 55.10a.3, cf. 4; 55.10.18-19). The sources stress that he was dispatched to the war against the Armenians (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.3; Tacitus, Ann. 2.4.1, 3.48.1; cf. Plutarch, Mor. 207E) and the Parthians (Seneca, Polyb. 15.4; Ovid, Ars am. 1.177-228; see Strabo, 1.1.17), although a full confrontation with the Parthian Empire was feared in Rome (Dio Cassius, 55.10.21, 55.10a.3; cf. Swan, p. 115).

During Gaius Caesar’s stay in Syria, Phraataces once again wrote to Augustus. Facing rebellions in Parthia, the Parthian king intended to come to terms with the Romans, on condition that he himself should renounce Armenia and that his brothers should remain beyond the sea (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.4). A next step was a personal meeting between Phraataces and Gaius Caesar that took place in the spring or early summer of 2 CE (Anderson, p. 275: spring 2 CE; Luther, p. 122: spring-early summer 2 CE; see Ziegler, pp. 53-56; Swan, pp. 125-28). This meeting is described in detail by its eyewitness, Velleius Paterculus, an officer of the rank of tribunus militum in Gaius’ retinue: “On an island in the Euphrates, with an equal retinue on each side, Gaius had a meeting with the king of the Parthians, a young man of distinguished presence. This spectacle of the Roman army arrayed on one side, the Parthian on the other, while these two eminent rulers not only of the empires they represented but also of mankind thus met in conference—truly a notable and a memorable sight” (Velleius, 2.101.1-2. Cf. Herz, 1984, p. 121). Phraataces revealed to Gaius that his counselor Lollius accepted huge bribes from Asiatic rulers. Thereafter, Lollius died and was replaced by Sulpicius Quirinius (Velleius, 2.102; Pliny, HN 9.118; Tacitus, Ann. 3.48). This episode demonstrates not only the mutual trust between both rulers, but it also shows that the Parthians had an excellent intelligence network in Rome that provided materials compromising a high-ranking Roman official.

Phraataces’ meeting with Gaius was an unprecedented event in Rome’s relations with Parthia. The ceremony emphasized the equality of both sides. An agreement was concluded between Phraataces and Gaius. Tacitus (Ann. 2.58.1-2) uses the terms foedus, amicitial, and societas for this agreement. Foedus points to the conclusion of a lasting alliance (Ziegler, pp. 54-56; Sherwin-White, pp. 326-27 speaks of the treaty of “permanent friendship and alliance”). Rome recognized Phraataces as king, which was a concession to the Parthians in comparison with Augustus’s recent offensive letter. To Phraataces, the Roman recognition was crucial because of the growing threat of rebellions in Parthia. Presumably, Augustus promised to retain the sons of Phraates IV in Italy so that they would not threaten Phraataces. The agreement recognized Tigranes IV (and his wife Erato) as the king of Armenia who, in fact, was an ally of Phraataces.

Parthia on the defensive and the Romans in Armenia. Gaius Caesar’s deal with Phraataces proved unsustainable due to the unstable situation in Armenia and growing political tensions in Parthia. Tigranes fell in fighting among unspecified “Barbarians,” while Erato resigned from power (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.5). This happened in 2 or 3 CE (Herz, 1984, p. 124 opts for the summer of 2 CE). We do not know who killed Tigranes IV. The two most likely options, which are completely opposite, can be considered. One is based on the assumption that Tigranes IV made a pro-Roman turn and was killed by the Parthians (Anderson, p. 276). Another scenario points to the pro-Roman faction, which led to the overthrow of the ruler associated with the Parthians. Perhaps Augustus was not satisfied with Gaius’ compromise and prepared a rebellion, having “at hand” a new nominee for the throne of Armenia; he was a prince called Ariobarzanes (q.v.) who originated from Media Atropatene (see Azarbaijan iii; Pani, pp. 51-58). The surprising speed of the Roman intervention suggests that the latter option is more likely. When Gaius Caesar and Ariobarzanes entered Armenia, the people of the country resisted strongly (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.5), and the invaders had to destroy numerous points of resistance (Velleius, 2.102.2; L. Annaeus Florus, 2.32; Dio Cassius, 55.10a.6-9; Strabo, 11.14.6; Rufus Festus, 19; Tacitus, Ann. 1.3; CIL IX 5290; see Swan, p. 127). Sources mention treasures hidden in the fortress of Artagira by the “king of the Parthians,” namely, Phraataces. Roman troops besieged Artagira, located in the Upper Euphrates basin (Strabo, 11.14.6). Its commander was a Parthian called Addon (cf. Strabo, 11.14.6: Ador). Addon, Arsacid governor of Armenia (L. Annaeus Florus, 2.32: “quem rex Arsaces Parthis praefecerat”), induced Gaius to come up close to the wall, pretending that he would reveal to him some of the Parthian king’s secrets, and then wounded him, whereupon he was besieged (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.6). After a long siege, the stronghold fell and “Augustus as well as Gaius assumed the title of imperator.” Gaius was injured in September 3 CE (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.5-7) and died of his wounds a few months later (21 February 4 CE).

The throne of Armenia was given by Augustus first to Ariobarzanes (who in ca. 3-4 CE “met with a fatal accident”; Tacitus, Ann. 2.4) and then, upon his death a little later (ca. 4-6 CE) to his son Artavasdes IV/Artabazos (Dio Cassius, 55.10a.7; Schottky, 1989, p. 243). Occupied with the struggle against the opposition, Phraataces did not intervene openly in Armenia, partially captured by Roman nominees, but the resistance of the Armenians was strong, and none of the pro-Roman rulers was able to hold the throne for more than a few years.

Phraataces and Thea Musa . During the reign of Phraataces, his mother, Musa, played a major role in politics. According to Flavius Josephus, Phraataces had sexual relations with Musa. This act is said to have horrified the Parthians (Josephus, AJ 18.42-43; see also Lucan, De bello civ. 8.401-410; Sibylline Oracles 7.38-50; Minucius Felix, Oct. 31.3; cf. Debevoise, pp. 148-49). The marriage is commonly perceived as historical (Schottky, 1991, p. 62; Wolski, p.149; Huber and Hartmann, p. 495, n. 34). Josephus basically does not speak directly about the marriage of Phraataces and Musa, but coins with images of both Phraataces and Musa suggest that an official wedding took place; Phraataces was of the age of majority, so it was not about the regency of his mother. Incidentally, it is not known if Phraataces—apart from the case of Musa—had a wife. We also hear nothing about his children. Some scholars claim that the coins with the effigy of Musa were minted after her death (Bigwood, p. 62). However, the specimens feature no symbols indicating the demise of the queen.

In ancient Iran, marriage between close relatives is usually considered in the context of Zoroastrianism (q.v.). The Parthians were essentially followers of Zoroastrianism; however, evidence for their religious beliefs is extremely scant. Justin (41.3.6) stresses that the Parthians were all very devout with regard to religion and the worship of the gods. At the same time, he mentions just one custom linked to Parthian religion, namely the characteristic disposal of the dead (41.3.5: corpses were exposed to be torn and cleaned by birds or dogs; cf. Silius Italicus xiii. 473-74). According to Zoroastrian Middle Persian texts, next-of-kin marriage (Mid. Pers. xwēdōdah, see MARRIAGE ii.) was allowed (Callieri; Wolski, p.149; Debevoise, pp. 148-49; Schottky, 1991, p. 62; Huber and Hartmann, pp. 490-93). Some scholars refute the view that the Parthians practiced next-of-kin marriages (Bigwood, pp. 44-45), but this appears not persuasive. Next-of-kin marriages occurred among the Arsacids and the local elites, apparently by borrowing the Arsacid custom. There were marriages of some Parthian rulers with sisters: parchment Avroman I 2-5 mentions two king’s wives who are his half-sisters (Canali De Rossi, no. 454). It is not known if behind the term “sister” is a half-sister or a sister of birth (Bigwood, p. 45). It is probably no coincidence that in Armenia, simultaneously with Phraataces and Musa, there reigned the couple Tigranes IV and Erato, who were siblings.

Parthian factions. The Parthian rebellion against king Phraataces and queen Musa is ascribed partly to the detestation of the xwēdōdah, and partly to the detestation of the plot against Phraates IV (Josephus, AJ 18.42-43). The latter factor seems to be particularly weighty. Phraataces positioned himself as the foe of the Sūrēn and Kārin (q.v.) clans who preferred his half-brother Vonones (Karras-Klapproth, pp. 210-13) as possible claimant to the Parthian throne (see PHRAATES IV). In the reign of Phraataces, the conflict within the Parthian elite was already firmly established and, in the opening decades of the 1st century CE, led to the crystallizing out of three main factions: the Phraatids-Vononids along with the Sūrēn and part of the Kārin clan, who supported the descendants of Phraates IV staying in Rome (Vonones and his three brothers); the Median Atropatenian faction (the line of Artabanus II); and the Dahaean-Hyrcanian faction from Hyrcania, Dahestān, and Parthia proper (Olbrycht, 1998, pp. 138-175; 2013; 2014). Phraataces seems to have been associated with the Atropatenian and Hyrcanian-Dahaean factions. Links to Atropatene may be surmised by Phraataces’ persistent activities in Armenia, aiming at virtual subjugation of the country. These activities required a firm control of Atropatene as the staging area for actions in Armenia (Olbrycht, 2013).

The fall of Phraataces. Phraataces was overthrown as a result of the civil war and fled to Roman Syria, where he died (Josephus, AJ 18.43; RGDA 32; Wolski, pp. 148-49). His last coins were minted in 4 CE. The Phraatid-Vononid faction took the lead for a moment, opting for the sons of Phraates IV who stayed in Rome and were hostile to Phraataces. Josephus (AJ 18.44) actually describes the faction acting against the circle of Phraataces and his successors, including ephemeral Orodes III (ruled ca. 6 CE)—they wished for someone from the Arsacid family, according to custom, but had enough of the depreciation of the monarchy and the descendant of the “Italian concubine,” namely, Musa. In 6 CE, Orodes III (Josephus, AJ 18.44) minted his coins (S59) but was soon overthrown by Vonones I. Both Parthia and Armenia witnessed a period of internal crisis and dynastic conflicts.

Despite his short reign, Phraataces achieved significant results. Parthian engagement in Armenia led to the inflammation of the old dispute with Rome and to a series of negotiations, culminating in the Phraataces’ famous agreement with Gaius Caesar. It was suddenly deconstructed by the death of Armenian king Tigranes IV. By and large, Phraataces retained the power of the Arsacid Empire during his reign; however, the internal split in Parthia led to his fall and a deep dynastic-political crisis.