Worud of Ahwaz

[dwkay57]

Re-reading the Osprey book "Rome's Enemies: The Desert Frontier" in an attempt to put more structure to my evolving Palmyran and Hatrene 6mm armies, I came across a reference to this chap.

According to the book's author (David Nicolle) he was an ally of Palmyra and potentially provided them with "clibanarii equipped in the Iranian manner". The author advises that Ahwaz geographically is now the Iranian province of Khuzistan and historically was autonomous under the Parthians.

I haven't managed to find any more information, but wondered if others had? In particular, could Worud be included as an ally to the Palmyrans? If so that means I'll have to rename my current Marya of Hatra as he is also called Worod and I wouldn't want my little figures to get confused.

[DBS]

Well, for starters, you could always Hellenise his name to Vorodes to avoid confusion; some historians of early Arabia use that trick when you have multiple al Mundhirs running around on opposing sides.

There is a lot of uncertainty about the structure of the Parthian empire and the autonomy or otherwise of sub kingdoms.  Ahwaz/Khuzestan was an early conquest of Ardashir when he challenged Ardavan for the empire, as the Parthian shahanshah ordered the governor of Susa to eliminate the upstart Persian; it did not end well for the governor, who may well have been a local shah strictly speaking.

[lionheartrjc]

The only possible reference I could find was in the Encyclopedia Iranica and mentions under the entry for Elymais:

A coin with the name Orodes, sometimes designated by numismatists as Orodes III, has on its obverse the bust of a woman and the name Ulfan written in Aramaic. This Orodes may be the king of Elamais at Susa identified in an inscription at Palmyra dated 138 C.E. The inscription commemorates the assistance given by a citizen of that city to a Palmyrene embassy to Orodes (Seyrig, pp. 253-55). The lady Ulfan may be identified as the consort of Orodes.

H. Seyrig, "Antiquités syriennes," Syria 22, 1941, pp. 256 ff.

I am not sure if this is the same context.

Richard

[DBS]

I fear Nicolle may be stretching the evidence...  There are thought to be three 2nd Century AD kings of Elymais with the name Orodes, based on the coin evidence.  There is a fragmentary inscription from Palmyra that mentions a Worod and Susa, so possibly one of those three.  Now, given that evidence of possible Palmyrene trade posts/colonies has been detected in Characene and on Kharg island, Potts and others speculate that there may have been a Palmyrene mercantile presence in Susa.  That of course does not quite equal evidence for Elymaian cataphracts fighting with Palmyrene forces.  Not impossible, but it would be more honest to say that any western element of the Parthian empire might have ended up as a friend or foe of Palmyra, but all parties would have been very concerned about the risks of annoying either Rome or Ctesiphon...

A separate question is how much Elymais at this period embraced cataphract type cavalry.

[dwkay57]

Thanks for the feedback.

Looks like Worod of Hatra can continue to rule content to know his name isn't being purloined and my 6mm Palmyran army can have a lot simpler structure.

[Imperial Dave]

 

[Duncan Head]

A separate question is how much Elymais at this period embraced cataphract type cavalry.

One of the best reliefs of "Parthian" cataphracts is Tang-e Sarvak, which is an Elymaian site, so cataphracts do seem to have been in use.

[DBS]

I perhaps expressed myself poorly. I am not suggesting no Parthian cataphract influence; as you say, certainly one is clearly portrayed at Tang e Sarvak. I was rather questioning whether they would be a distinctive or numerically significant element of Elymaian forces during this period.  After all, the very same relief shows a couple of infantry in the background; not as artistically important as the important chap on his charger, but still deemed worthy of inclusion. So perhaps more of an infantry tradition than is commonly ascribed to Parthian types?

[Duncan Head]

I was rather questioning whether they would be a distinctive or numerically significant element of Elymaian forces during this period.  After all, the very same relief shows a couple of infantry in the background; not as artistically important as the important chap on his charger, but still deemed worthy of inclusion. So perhaps more of an infantry tradition than is commonly ascribed to Parthian types?

Ah, right. Certainly an infantry tradition, Strabo (XVI.1) says:

The Elymæi occupy a country larger in extent, and more varied, than that of the Parætaceni. The fertile part of it is inhabited by husbandmen. The mountainous tract is a nursery for soldiers, the greatest part of whom are archers.

These would be the descendants of the Elymaian foot-archers in the Seleucid army at Magnesia, presumably. What I would wonder about in the Elymaian army is not so much the cataphract nobles as how many horse-archers they might field - it's not exactly steppe terrain!

[Jim Webster]

I was rather questioning whether they would be a distinctive or numerically significant element of Elymaian forces during this period.  After all, the very same relief shows a couple of infantry in the background; not as artistically important as the important chap on his charger, but still deemed worthy of inclusion. So perhaps more of an infantry tradition than is commonly ascribed to Parthian types?

Ah, right. Certainly an infantry tradition, Strabo (XVI.1) says:

The Elymæi occupy a country larger in extent, and more varied, than that of the Parætaceni. The fertile part of it is inhabited by husbandmen. The mountainous tract is a nursery for soldiers, the greatest part of whom are archers.

These would be the descendants of the Elymaian foot-archers in the Seleucid army at Magnesia, presumably. What I would wonder about in the Elymaian army is not so much the cataphract nobles as how many horse-archers they might field - it's not exactly steppe terrain!

I do wonder if the horse archers were 'presumed' rather than evidence produced