Family:
Marriage:
Children:
- Artabanos II King Of Medie, King Of Persia Birth: 15 BC
Death: Abt 40
- Vononnes II King Of Persia Birth: 10 BC
Death: 51
Bibliography
-
Settipani, Christian, Response to Baldwin on the Commagenian DFA link. Posting to soc.genealogy.medieval (email list GEN-MEDIEVAL) by Chris Bennett on 8/17/1998. Subject: [Long]: Settipani on Baldwin on the Commagenian DFA link Part 1/2/3 of 3. Available at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/cRMrdUIz-tg/m/srPPEwp7H0AJ, https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/Z7IICins6Aw/m/jvhCmRCYtxUJ, https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/eq9Z3KKE5NA/m/e80ldm3b3o0J, and https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/NMDc32AU1wE/m/PHApcC6mNhMJ. Author address: cbennett at adnc dot com. Information from this source tagged as [Ref: Christian Settipani SGM 8/17/1998].
-
Mommaerts, T Stanford, Ancient Genealogy chart - Arsakunik. Available at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/ancient_genealogy/files/arsakunik.gif, version of 4/28/2005. Information from this source tagged as [Ref: Mommaerts chart-Arsakunik].
-
Settipani, Christian, Nos Ancetres de L'Antiquite, Etudes des possibilites de liens genealogiques entre les familles de l'Antiquite. Paris: Editions Christian, 1991. NYPL #ARB-93-7430. Information from this source tagged as [Ref: Settipani LGA p[0-9]*].
-
Baldwin, Stewart, Comments on Iberian route DFA line. Posting to soc.genealogy.medieval (email list GEN-MEDIEVAL) on 6/8/1996. Subject: Comments on "Iberian route" DFA line. Available at https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/jRFyqatMNxc/m/KlsaVH7XxjEJ. Author address: sbald at AUBURN dot CAMPUS dot MCI dot NET. Information from this source tagged as [Ref: Stewart Baldwin SGM 6/8/1996].
- date:
- [Ref: Settipani LGA p94],
- parents:
- Artavazd I & (Iotape?) of Kommagene dau Antiochos I [Ref: Mommaerts
chart-Arsakunik]
- dotted line to Artavasdes & dotted line daughter of Antiochos I [Ref:
Settipani LGA p94],
- name:
- (Dareios) de Medie [Ref: Settipani LGA p94]
Sources with Information about marriage to (Unk Dau) Of Persia
- names:
- (Dareios) & dau Phraates IV [Ref: Mommaerts chart-Arsakunik]
- (Dareios) & dotted line daughter of Phraates IV [Ref: Settipani LGA
p94],
- child:
- [Ref: Mommaerts chart-Arsakunik, Settipani LGA p94]
Research Notes:
Atropatide prince, of the family of the king of Medie [Ref: Settipani LGA p90]
Strabon, contemporary geographer, writes c.18/19 on the continuity of
Atropatides: "Of the during proclaims king, Atropates organised the Medie in
independant state and the dynasty originating from himself maintained there
even has our days, its successors having known to contract marriages with the
Armenie royal families and of Syria, and more recently of Persia" Before
their ascession to the Persian throne, both Artabanos II and Vonones II
reigned in Medie; therefore both belonged to the local dynasty of Atropatides.
Further, their descendants have arsacide names, based on their mother being an
Arsacide princess. [Ref: Settipani LGA p90]
Strabo, in his Geography, 11, 13, 1, describing Media, has a passage which is
important enough to quote in full, from the translation given in the Loeb
Classical Library edition:
..."The other part is Atropatian Media, which got its name from the
commander Atropates, who prevented also this country, which was a part of
Greater Media, from becoming subject to the Macedonians. Furthermore, after he
was proclaimed king, he organised this country into a separate state by
itself, and his succession of descendants is preserved to this day, and his
successors have contracted marriages with the kings of the Armenians and
Syrians, and, in later times, with the kings of the Parthians."
That is pretty much it as far as evidence is concerned. [Ref: Stewart
Baldwin SGM 6/8/1996]
There is no evidence for the Syrian marriage other than Strabo, and Settipani
suggests that the Syrian marriage was between king Artavazd of Media
Atropatene and a daughter of king Antiochos I of Commagene (located in Syria),
and that they were the parents of a son who never appears in any known
records, and whom he supplies with the conjectural name of Darius (because
Artabanos II had a son of that name, and a previous king of Media Atropatene
also had that name). [Ref: Stewart Baldwin SGM 6/8/1996]
M Baldwin essentially focusses on our generations 35 to 38. We argue there
that Vonones II, king of Media Atropatene, then of Parthia was linked through
his anonymous father, possibly a "Darius", to a marriage between the Median
king Artavasdes and the daughter of Antiochus I, king of Commagene. Our basis
for this is essentially the evidence of Strabo, who wrote, c18-19AD, that the
kings of Media Atropatene, descendants of Atropates, reigned again after being
successively linked in marriage to the Armenians, the Syrians, and more
recently to the Parthians. M Baldwin admits that Vonones II and Artabanus II
must have been brothers, although this is, as we noted, unproven. He also
admits that of the three Atropatenian marriages cited by Strabo, the first
concerns the union of Mithridates with the daughter of Tigranes II of Armenia,
and the third that of the (unknown) father of Artabanos II and Vonones II with
a Parthiam princess. On the other hand, he underscores that the whole
filiation would break down if any of the following were true:
a)That the second marriage concerns an Atropatenian princess and not a
prince
b)That the "Syria" of which Strabo speaks is not Commagene
c)That, even if we were correct on the above points, Antiochos was not the
father of the princess
d)Or if the prince were the son of a king other than Artavasdes
e)Or if the father of Vonones II, be he prince or Median king, was not an
issue of this union.
In truth, we will not seek here to deny the validity of the objections he
has raised. Rather to the contrary, we willingly recognise that they are
well-founded. None of these points are proven, and it suffices for any one of
them to be in error for the whole linkage to break down. Yet this does not
mean that we were wrong to pursue this path, nor is this absence of proof
necessarily synonymous with a manifest error.
First, it is appropriate to review the evidence of Strabo, which is at the
heart of the problem. If he had simply recounted that in the course of their
history the dynasty of Media had concluded marital alliances with the
dynasties of Armenia, Syria and Parthia, we could legitimately doubt the
exactitude which we have allowed ourselves to draw from him. But this is not
exactly so. Here is what this author wrote in 18/9 AD:
"Having been proclaimed king, Atropates organised Media as an independent
state, and the dynasty descended from him maintains itself there in our own
times, his successors having contracted marriages with the royal families of
Armenia, Syria and, more recently, Parthia."
We must press further the exegesis of the Strabonian text. Strabo does not
content himself to say that there had been marriages between the Median kings
and their neighbours. He states this to explain the survival and longevity of
the Median dynasty. If the Greek text does not explicitly note the point (the
passage on the marriages is introduced by "further" [pros te]), the sequence
of the two facts (survival of the dynasty and the glorious alliances that it
has concluded) has certainly been understood by the majority of translators as
indicating a cause-and-effect relationship.
As a matter of fact:
He gives the marriages in chronological order, as is proved by the phrase
"and more recently" for the last.
He means, and the context of the phrase shows it, since the marriages are
precisely cited only to this sole end, that they played a role in the
maintenance of the dynasty. From this one can legitimately suspect that these
alliances concern the unions of Median kings with foreign princesses and not
the reverse. Clearly, only in this sense could the Median dynasty have found a
motive to pride itself on the marriages, and not in the fact of having
furnished a Median princess to the harem of the Armenian, Syrian or Parthian
kings. Further, one can suspect that the unions were fertile, since otherwise
their political importance would be singularly reduced, and their mention
would have much less justification.
Footnote: On this obvious point, we may note that A Tardieu has translated
(interpreted in fact) the passage in question thusly (vol II Paris 1894, 449):
"His dynasty has perpetuated itself to our times THANKS to a succession of
FORTUNATE unions contracted by his descendants with PRINCESSES of Armenia and
Syria, and more recently of Parthia." The words emphasised do not explicitly
figure in the Greek text but have been logically inferred by the translator in
his interpretation of the passage.
These consideration are not simply hypotheses or personal preferences, but
are really the obvious meaning of Strabo's text placed in context. The
principal commentator on this passage, Sullivan (1990, pp295-300) notes
moreover, concerning the Syrian union: "But Strabo probably had in mind the
well-known ones with effects still visible when he wrote" (op cit n. 62, p.
453). The only "visible" effect of a matrimonial alliance several decades
later consists of the descendants who issued from it and/or any territorial or
political gain which resulted from it. And indeed two of the three unions are
identifiable, the first and the last.
So, what have we established? That they conform to the schema that we have
deduced, in their chronological order, in the fact that they indeed consist of
marriages between foreign princesses and Median kings, and finally in the fact
that the following Median kings were their issue. This being said, we should
note that, most often, diplomatic marital alliances were exchanges, and that
it is therefore probable that, in the same fashion, Median princesses were
given to Armenian, Syrian or Parthian kings. Moreover, we actually know of a
(supposed) marriage between a king of Commagene and a Median princess. But if
this marriage supports our identification of Commagene as actually being
Syria, of which there is elsewhere a question, we do not believe it is the
marriage mentioned in Strabo. Thus, while it remains possible that our
precision is illusory, even "ridiculous" as M Baldwin assesses it (p 10), we
frankly do not believe so, and, indeed without being assured, it appears to
us, to the contrary, that our position has a certain solidity.
Let us reply now to each of the points raised by M Baldwin's analysis:
a)We come to reply to the first point by noting that, in context, it is
logical, and in fact extremely probable, that the unions mentioned by Strabo
concern Atropatenian princes marrying foreign princesses, which is actually
verifiable in two of the cases.
b)We know precisely what Strabo meant by "Syria" since he defines it
elsewhere. It consists of Commagene, Seleucid Syria, Coile-Syria and Emesa.
Here again our choice does not depend on chance or an arbitrary decision to
choose the solution which favours us (of which there are two of the four).
Here again, Strabo's context serves as a guide. This Syrian alliance was
concluded between the Armenian and Parthian alliances, between 95 and 15 BC,
and more likely between 70 and 30 BC (see the following point). And it was
politically important and beneficial to Media. This allows us to discard
Coile-Syria, which is excluded since it did not have a hereditary dynasty. The
same applies to Emesa, which some have sometimes considered a possibility. But
it is only a generation later that the semitic dynasty of Emesa, of recent
origin, began to ally itself to neighbouring dynasties. Around 40BC, the
latest date for the marriage, their dynasty was not yet firmly established,
and Strabo (XVI,2,10) still only knew their princes as phylarchs, and did not
always give them a royal title. Their kingdom was still in the process of
formation (Cf R Sullivan, 1990, p199-200). And, similarly for the Seleucids,
whose dynasty was certainly most prestigious, but who were then politically
non-existent and about to disappear completely. A diplomatic marriage with the
Seleucids is very unlikely after 90, and almost certainly excluded after 65.
Only Commagene remains. And it is indeed with a king of Commagene that the
Median princess Iotape is joined at this moment.
c)The Armenian marriage concerns Mithridates of Media (
67 to before 65)
who had married a daughter of Tigranes II (95-56). The union is attested in
67, but we don't know when it took place. All the same, the name of the Median
king Artavasdes (
56-31) allows us to suppose that he was issue from it,
since the name Artavasdes seems characteristic of the Armenian dynasty and the
descendants of Artvazdes inherited the throne of Armenia [Pace M Schottky,
1989, p73, one cannot reasonably assimilate "Artabazanes" with "Artavasdes"].
Artavasdes of Media, already king in 56, must be born towards 75. As we know
that his father was called Ariobarzanes, it is the latter who must have been
born to king Mithridates and the Armenian princess, thus towards 95 [we will
correct therefore the dates of birth given in our table (p100) for Tigranes II
(c130), his daughter (c110) and his son-in-law Mithridates of Media (c120)].
As to the Parthian marriage, if it indeed concerns the parents of Artabanos II
and Vonones II, it occurred around 15BC, the likely birthdate of Artabanos
considering his tumultuous career. Thus the second marriage is situated
between these two dates. Two or three kings of Media Atropatene are known in
this interval: Darius (after 67-65), [Ariobarzanes I (65-before 56)],
Artavasdes (
56-31). Whichever of these kings married a Commagenian princess,
she was probably a daughter of the king of Commagene who reigned throughout
this period -Antiochos I (70-36).
d)We have supposed that of these three kings it was Artavasdes who must have
been the spouse of the Syrian princess. If it were in fact his father
Ariobarzanes. This would change none of our conclusions. But it is true that
it could also have been Darius, probable uncle of Artavasdes, who has no known
posterity. We recognise that we don't know enough to be affirmative, and that
the ensemble is weakened at this point. But the reign of Darius was very
short, less than two years, and perhaps only a few months. He did not leave
any known posterity. The likelihood that it was his marriage which was one of
the glories of the dynasty seems extremely remote. It is also true that there
remains the possibility that the king concerned was the successor of
Artavasdes, i.e. Ariobarzanes II (20-8 BC). But what makes this possibility
very unlikely is the fact that the third marriage seems to have been quite
distant in time from the preceding ones. Strabo says that the Medians kings
formed unions with the Armenian, the Syrian, and MORE RECENTLY ("meta tauta")
the Parthian kings. It does not seem therefore that the third union could be
contemporary, or very close to, the second.
e)That being said, obviously nothing proves that the Median prince (or
king), father of Artabanos and Vonones, was issue of the union concluded
between one of his predecessors and the Syrian princess. We think so, not
because it suits us, but because it is the best way to give full meaning to
Strabo's phrase if the contemporary Median kings of whom he speaks were indeed
issue of the three unions which he enumerates in connection with them. And
again, it is actually verifiable for two of the three marriages which
encourages us to accept the same principle for the third.
In this connection, M Baldwin reproaches us for having invented the [Darius]
who we give as father of Artabanos II and Vonones II. It is absolutely correct
that this personage is hypothetical and that his name could have been anything
else, or, better, that he was simply king Ariobarzanes II. It seems to us more
prudent not to retain an identification in our table in order to show clearly
that it is not necessary. Perhaps we were finally in error and at least we
should leave this generation anonymous rather than to dress it up with the
name [Darius].
In summary, the data which we deduced from Strabo's text goes well beyond
what M Baldwin considers as an arbitrary and preferential choice on our part,
on the one hand because we studied this passage based on the text itself, and
not in translation, and on the other hand because we have fully considered the
context of the citation and the aims of the author.
We come now to the possibility proposed by M Baldwin as an alternative to
ours. It is certainly very interesting. Indeed we have already researched a
similar route through the Mithridatids, without however adopting this
solution, which is nevertheless one of the first which came to mind. The
reason is simple, and is noted by M Baldwin himself: we do not know if the
daughter of Tigranes II who married Mithridates of Parthia was herself issue
of the Mithridatid wife of Tigranes. Now, as M Baldwin always reminds us,
multiple marriages were the rule. To decide, then, in the absence of any
indicator, that a given child was born to a given mother is totally arbitrary,
and risks giving rise to the following reflections: "It is rather disturbing
that among all of the possible ways
the one is chosen which gives the
desired conclusion. It is not a proper use of evidence to take the most
desirable possibility amongst the numerous alternatives
" Not having found
any argument in favour of this hypothesis, it is wiser to abstain from it.
Even wiser when one considers the following calculation: Tigranes married the
daughter of Mithridates in 89 or 93 (Sullivan, 1990, p346 n. 2). A daughter
born of this union would thus see light of day at best in 92, and rather in
88. If this daughter was the link between the Armenian kings and the Atropatid
dynasy, then Artavsdes I of Media descends from it and can only be her
grandson. But Artvasdes was already king in 56 and his first children must
have been born around 45/40 or later. It is hardly likely, in consequence,
that Artavasdes was descended from the daughter of Mithridates of Pontus. On
the other hand, the occurrence of the names of Mithridates and Ariobarzanes
among the Atropatids could be an indication that one of their ancestors was a
princess of Pontus. Strabo may not have mentioned this alliance because it was
too distant, or because he did not know of it. On yet another tack, suppose
that Vonones I of Parthia inherited Armenia because he was issue of a marriage
between his father and Cleopatra, and that the latter was a descendant
(granddaughter?) of Tigranes II of Armenia and Cleopatra of Pontus. It remains
to know whether Vonones II also descended (through his mother) of this
marriage between Phraates IV and Cleopatra. Perhaps the phrase of Tacitus,
noted by M Baldwin and which escaped us, provides a pointer in this direction?
Bibliography:
BALDWIN (1996): S. Baldwin, Comments on "Iberian route" DFA line, web, 8
juin 1996
BRAUND (1994): D. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity. A history of Colchis and
Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC-AD 562 , Oxford 1994.
MARQUART (1903): J. Marquart, Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge.
Ethnologische und historisch-topographische Studien zur Geschichte des 9. Und
10. Jahrhunderts (c. 840-940) , Leipzig 1903
MARTIN-HISARD (1996 (a)): B. Martin-Hisard & N. Garsoian, Unité et
diversité de la Caucasie médièvale (VIIe-XIee s.), in Il Caucaso, 1996, p.
275-348
REGULA (1995): W. Regula, Genealogie, 22,3/4 (1995) (non vidimus ).
SCHOTTKY (1989): M. Schottky, Media Atropatene und Gross-Armenien in
hellenistischer Zeit , Bonn 1989
SETTIPANI (1992): C. Settipani, La transition entre mythe et réalité ,
Archivum 37 (1992), p.27-67
SIGNES CODONER (1991): J. Signes Codoner, Los origenes del emperador Leon el
Armenio (813-820) , in Mnemosynum. C. Codoner a discipulis oblatum , éd. A.
R. GUERREIRA, Salamanque 1991, p. 309-320.
SULLIVAN (1990): R. D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome 100-30 BC
(Toronto, 1990)
THOMSON (1996): R. W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval
Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles, Oxford 1996
[Ref: Christian Settipani SGM 8/17/1998]
Pedigree of (Dareios) Of Medie
/-----
(Unk Son) Prince Of Persia
/-----
Phriapites King Of Persia
/-----
Artabanos I King Of Persia
/-----
Mithridates II King Of Persia
/-----
Gotarz I King Of Media
| | /-----
Zariadres Prince Of Orontide
| | /-----
Artaxias King Of Armenia
| | /-----
Tigranes I King Of Armenia
| \-----
Aryazate
/-----
Mithridates King Of Medie
| \-----
Bilit Ashiabatum
/-----
Ariobarzanes King Of Medie
| | /-----
Zariadres Prince Of Orontide
| | /-----
Artaxias King Of Armenia
| | /-----
Tigranes I King Of Armenia
| | /-----
Tigranes II King Of Armenia
| \-----
(Unk Dau) Of Armenia
| | /-----
Mithradates II King Of Pont
| | /-----
Pharnaces I King Of Pont
| | | \-----
Laodice
| | /-----
Mithridates V King Of Pont
| | | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | | \-----
Nysa
| | | \-----
Laodice
| | /-----
Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysius King Of Pont
| | | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | | | /-----
Antiochus IV Epiphanes King Of Syria
| | | | | \-----
Laodice
| | | \-----
Laodice
| | | \-----
Laodice
| \-----
Cleopatra
/-----
Artavasdes King Of Medie
(Dareios) Of Medie
| /-----
Samos I King Of Armenia
| /-----
Arsames King Of Armenia
| /-----
Orontes IV King Of Armenia
| /-----
Ptolemaios King Of Kommagene
| /-----
Samus I Theosebes Dikaios King Of Kommagene
| /-----
Mithridates I Kallinikos King Of Kommagene
| | \-----
Isias Philostorgos
| /-----
Antiochos I Theos Dikaios Epiphanes King Of Kommagene
| | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | | /-----
Seleucus IV Philopator King Of Syria
| | | | \-----
Laodice
| | | /-----
Demetrius I Soter King Of Syria
| | | | | /-----
Phillip V King Of Macedonia
| | | | \-----
Laodike IV
| | | /-----
Demetrios II King Of Syria
| | | | \-----
Laodike V
| | | /-----
Antiochus VIII King Of Syria
| | | | | /-----
Ptolemy IV Philopator King Of Egypt
| | | | | /-----
Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos King Of Egypt
| | | | | | \-----
Arsinoe III
| | | | | /-----
Ptolemy VI Philometor King Of Egypt
| | | | | | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | | | | | \-----
Cleopatra I
| | | | | | \-----
Laodice
| | | | \-----
Cleopatra Thea Eueteria
| | | | | /-----
Ptolemy IV Philopator King Of Egypt
| | | | | /-----
Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos King Of Egypt
| | | | | | \-----
Arsinoe III
| | | | \-----
Cleopatra II
| | | | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | | | \-----
Cleopatra I
| | | | \-----
Laodice
| | \-----
Laodike Thea Philadelphos
| | | /-----
Ptolemy III Euergetes Tryphon King Of Egypt
| | | /-----
Ptolemy IV Philopator King Of Egypt
| | | | \-----
Berenice II
| | | /-----
Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos King Of Egypt
| | | | | /-----
Ptolemy III Euergetes Tryphon King Of Egypt
| | | | \-----
Arsinoe III
| | | | \-----
Berenice II
| | | /-----
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Tryphon King Of Egypt
| | | | | /-----
Seleucus II Callincus King Of Syria
| | | | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | | | | | \-----
Laodice
| | | | \-----
Cleopatra I
| | | | | /-----
Mithradates II King Of Pont
| | | | \-----
Laodice
| | | | \-----
Laodice
| | \-----
Cleopatra Tryphaena
| | | /-----
Ptolemy IV Philopator King Of Egypt
| | | /-----
Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos King Of Egypt
| | | | \-----
Arsinoe III
| | | /-----
Ptolemy VI Philometor King Of Egypt
| | | | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | | | \-----
Cleopatra I
| | | | \-----
Laodice
| | \-----
Cleopatra III
| | | /-----
Ptolemy IV Philopator King Of Egypt
| | | /-----
Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos King Of Egypt
| | | | \-----
Arsinoe III
| | \-----
Cleopatra II
| | | /-----
Antiochus III King Of Syria
| | \-----
Cleopatra I
| | \-----
Laodice
\-----
(Unk Dau) Of Kommagene
| /-----
Ariobarzanes I King Of Cappadace
\-----
Isias Philostorgos
\-----
Athenais Philostorgos
Descendants of (Dareios) Of Medie
2nd generation
3rd generation
4th generation
5th generation
