#odenathus

[ancientcharm]

Zenobia of Palmyra was known as the «Warrior Queen of the East»

According to the Historia Augusta, Zenobia was: “wise in counsel, tenacious in planning, firm with soldiers, generous and harsh when necessary.” “She rode a horse and walked with her soldiers for three or four miles.” She was cultured and erudite. In addition to her native Palmyrene Aramaic, she was fluent in Latin, Greek and Egyptian Aramaic. Palmyra is the name given by the Romans to Tadmor, an ancient city located in the Syrian desert, in present-day Homs province.

Zenobia was the second wife of one of Rome's allied kings, Septimius Odaenathus. When the Persian king captured and executed the Emperor Valerian around 260, Odaenathus aligned himself with Valerian's son and successor, Gallienus. After defeating the Sassanid Empire of Persia, favoring Roman interests, King Odenathus brought Palmyra to unprecedented power.

But around 267 Odaenathus was assassinated along with his eldest son, Hairan, son by his first wife. Zenobia's cousin Maeonius was accused and she sentenced him to death. Zenobia succeeded her husband and ruled Palmyra as regent; her son, Vaballathus, was 1 year old.

After consolidating her control over Palmyra and its surrounding territories, she launched a series of military campaigns . Zenobia and her army, with general Zabdas, conquered Egypt. The Roman prefect of Egypt, Probus Tenaginus, and his soldiers attempted to drive them out, but Zenobia's army captured and beheaded Probus. Zenobia declared herself queen of Egypt and minted coins in her name.

At that time, her kingdom extended from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Aurelian, who had ascended the throne in 270, was determined to restore order to the Roman Empire, which had been in chaos for nearly 40 years. After pacifying the western borders (the so-called barbarians had been raiding for decades), he began a campaign against Zenobia, culminating in the siege of Palmyra in 272 ; according to Roman historians, this campaign was the most difficult that Aurelian had to face during his entire reign.

'Queen Zenobia Addressing Her Soldiers' (1730) by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo

The Roman army marched on Palmyra, where Zenobia held out. According to the Historia Augusta, Aurelian offered Zenobia terms of surrender but she escaped to seek support; she was captured before crossing the Euphrates and Palmyra's brief empire came to an end.

'Queen Zenobia's Last Look Upon Palmyra' by Herbert Gustave Schmalz, 1888. This painting shows Zenobia, handcuffed in gold, looking imposing; the painter represents her as a warrior displeased at having lost her kingdom - instead of showing her crying or looking at the ground - and the Roman soldier who escorts her, coming down the stairs, looking at her thoughtfully.

According to Trebellius Pollio, Zenobia was taken to Rome in Aurelian's triumphal procession in 274. And according to the Greek historian Zosimus, her son, then eight years old, died during the journey to Rome. But Zenobia's ultimate fate remains uncertain; some sources claim she was executed; Other sources claim that Aurelian ordered her to be escorted to a villa near Hadrian's Villa, where she spent the rest of her life.

In Roman chronicles, she was portrayed as an ambitious and dangerous queen but also as worthy of admiration for her bravery and political skills.

In Syria, Zenobia became a national and patriotic symbol.

Roman theatre in Palmyra

World Heritage Site

[rnsulentic]

Foot archers for Palmyra. Odenathus has to look out for Shapur. Mix of figures: minifigs, possibly Asgard, and old Table Top Games. The usual contrast paints.

[dayoldpepsi]

odenathus is that you?

Don't care + you were killed in a hunting accident 3 summers ago and never received proper burial + you're forever a deer now...

[thelastromanemperor117]

Underrated Romans of History: Odenathus 220-267

Septimius Udhayna, Latinised as Odenathus, in the year 220AD in the city of Palmyra. Palmyra was one of the cities that made up the Syria Phoenice province of the Roman Empire. Odenathus was born shortly before the period known as the ‘Crisis of the Third Century‘. He was born to a noble family but not one of Royal blood as the City was ruled by a council and not a Royal family.

The rise of the aggressive Sassanid Empire and the fall of the Parthian Empire resulted in increased Persian raids. These raids would affect Palmyrene income as the cities primary source of income was through trade caravans. This as well as the weakening of the Roman Empire was, possibly, one of the main reasons behind the decision by the Palmyra Council to elect a Ras (Lord) to lead a strengthened army in the field.

The earliest known mention of Odenathus as Ras is in an inscription from 251AD. There is also mention of Odenathus as a Roman Senator, but when his ascension to the Senatorial Class happened is unknown. It is possible that this occurred after his appointment to the rank of Ras, but it is also possible that both events occurred at the same time. Odenathus didn’t waste any time and bolstered the Palmyrene army by recruiting Desert Nomads and increasing the number of armoured heavy cavalry in the Army.

The Sassanids would cross the Euphrates in 252AD under the leadership of King of Kings Shapur the First. The Persians widely raided Roman Lands and destroyed many Palmyrene trade colonies on the Euphrates. It is said that Odenathus attempted to negotiate with Shapur, but it is said that these attempts were rejected and gifts Odenathus had tried to give to the Persians were thrown in the river.

By 258AD, at the latest, Odenathus was appointed as Governor of Syria Phoenice; this would make him the highest authority in the province and the commander of all Roman forces in the province. Starting not long after his appointment as Governor, Odenathus would begin to strengthen his position and political standing. In 260AD by the time of the battle of Edessa, Odenathus held the power, rank and standing to pacify the chaos that would grip the Roman East.

The battle of Edessa would prove to be a disastrous for the Roman Empire as the Emperor Valerian and his entire army of between 60,000 and 70,000 men were defeated and Valerian was captured. This defeat would be catastrophic for the Empire.

Odenathus was declared King of Palmyra almost as soon as news reached the city. Odenathus would have been faced with a number of choices at this point; he could have chosen to declare Palmyrene independence and ruled as King, he could have sided with the Sassanids and he could have thrown his lot in with the Rebellion of Fulvius Macrianus and his sons. But instead Odenathus chose to remain loyal to Valerians son and successor Gallienus. When he declared his loyalty to the current Emperor is unknown, but it is widely believed to be after the defeat of Macrianus in the Balkans.

In the summer of 260AD, Odenathus marched North to attack the Sassanid invaders. He fell upon them just west of the Euphrates and defeated the Persian forces - expelling the King of Kings Shapur from Syria. After news of the defeat of Fulvius Macrianus reached Odenathus, the King marched on Emessa where the imperial pretenders two remaining sons were. The locals killed Quietus and Balista was captured and executed by Odenathus

The defeat of the usurpers left Odenathus as by far the most powerful man in the East and while he remained loyal to the Emperor, true power in the region belonged with Palmyra and Odenathus. There is a source which claims that Odenathus was proclaimed Augustus (co-emperor) following his defeat of the Persians, but this source is widely discredited.

In the spring of 262AD, Odenathus invaded Sassanid Lands and crossed the Euphrates. He marched south towards the Sassanid capital at Ctesiphon, he liberated the Roman province of Mesopotamia on his way and defeated many Persian Garrisons and by late 262AD, he had besieged the Sassanid Capital.

Though he would be unsuccessful in his siege (The logistics of fighting in enemy territory was too much to over come) and he would return to Roman Lands laded with the spoils of war (Gold and Prisoners). In 263AD he would send the prisoners to Rome and be awarded a triumph by the Emperor.

Also in 263AD after returning to Palmyra, Odenathus would declare himself King of Kings of the East and crown his son as Co-King. This declaration was a direct insult upon Shapur, but not to Gallienus. While Odenathus had taken this new title, he did not show any kind of disloyalty to the Emperor and submitted to the Emperors authority.

In 266AD, Odenathus would again invade Persia and reach the Sassanid Capital, but he would again be forced to abandon his siege and march north to deal with invaders striking at Anatolia (Modern Turkey). These raiders were most likely either Scythian or Gothic in origin, but by the time Odenathus arrived in Anatolia, they would have already left.

In 267AD possibly at the conclusion or at the tail end of the Anatolian campaign, Odenathus and his son Hairan would be assassinated. Who struck at the King and who planned the assassination is something lost to history, but there are many theories from Gallienus to Shapur being involved and to his Second Wife Zenobia being the one responsible, but it is likely we will never know the truth about the death of Odenathus.

Odenathus was succeeded as King of Kings of the East and King of Palmyra by his ten-year old son Vaballathus, though true power would lie with Queen Regent Zenobia. Zenobia would later proclaim Palmyra independent of Rome in one of the key moments of the Third Century Crisis.

Overall, Odenathus proved a loyal man to his Emperor against what was normality for powerful Roman Generals of the time and he wold successfully limit Sassanid Power in the East as well as reestablishing Roman control over the area. The rise in power of Palmyra and the eventual establishment of Zenobias’ Palmyrene Kingdom was only possible due to the hard work and skill of Odenathus.

[fuckyeaharchaeology]

The Pitfalls of “Charismatic Archaeology” - Part One: What’s in a Name?

All right, as promised, we’re going to take a look at the phenomenon of “charismatic archaeology” (Munawar 2017, 41) as it applies to the so-called Arch of Triumph in Palmyra, which was destroyed by Islamic State militants in 2015 and whose modern cultural context has seemingly superseded its archaeological context in the years since. Because there’s a lot to go over here, I’m going to have to split this up into a few parts. But the main takeaway of this series is that this arch—or tripylon—is still fascinating, even if it isn’t necessarily as ‘Roman’ as we are led to believe and that branding it as such does a disservice to the local Palmyrene builders responsible for its innovative construction in the late second to early third centuries AD (but more on that in later installments).

We already encounter an issue with the classification of this monument as a triumphal arch. Once it was torn down by the Islamic State in October 2015, the tripylon was introduced to the public on a global scale. In their reporting, numerous international news outlets used this term to describe the structure. However, this inaccurate classification pre-dates the arch’s destruction: my thesis advisor told me that when she last visited Palmyra in 2005, the archaeological park guided tourists to the monument and the adjacent section of the city’s Great Colonnade with a sign that read “Triumph Arc (sic) and the Long Street.” That said, the vast majority of the archaeological literature that was written prior to 2015 more accurately designates it as simply a monumental arch or, more commonly in the German-speaking world, a tripylon.

Other common misattributions the monumental arch is given are those of “Hadrian’s Arch/Gate” and the “Arch of Septimius Severus,” though the former is more often a fixture in the German-speaking world (where it’s called the Hadrian Bogen or Hadrianstor). In AD 129/130, Hadrian did himself travel to Palmyra, and during his stay, he granted the city his name (Hadriana Palmyra; Browning 1979, 27). And while it is true that there was an uptick in monumental civic construction and ‘Romanization’ in the city afterwards, the tripylon had not begun to be built until roughly the late Antonine period, around AD 175/180 (Barański 1995, Fig. 1; Tabaczek 2001, 128), so it could not have feasibly been built for Hadrian (in contrast to Hadrian’s Arch in Gerasa, Jordan). Similarly, this start date places its chronology too early to have been built for Septimius Severus, either, as his reign lasted from AD 193–211. That said, a number of scholars do date its construction to his reign or to post-212 more broadly (e.g. Browning 1979, 88; Burns 2017, 245; or Will 1983, 74). However, in doing so, they fail to take into consideration that a structure as large and complicated as the tripylon (more on that later) would have taken years and years to complete, and it was most likely finished sometime in the late Severan period (Tabaczek 2001, 38. 130). Therefore, any commemorative/honorific purpose for this arch is called into question (though statues to Odenathus and his family were placed in niches in the central passageway well after its initial construction in the mid-late 3rd century AD; Burns 2017, 245). 

The monument’s designation as a ‘triumphal’ arch or the Arch of Hadrian/Septimius Severus immediately brings it firmly into the realm of ‘Roman’ archaeology, but naming it as such ignores the tripylon’s indigenous Palmyrene context, which in itself tells a much richer story than its apparent association with the Roman Empire. It should be stressed that the term ‘triumphal arch’ was seldom used in antiquity (Cassibry 2018, 246) and that scholars from over a century ago had even expressed the need to use caution when defining these monuments as such (Densmore Curtis 1908, 27). Not only does this term signal the ‘Romanness’ of these structures, but it tends to evoke a sense of particular importance or gravitas to the modern layperson on account of how modern Western powers have adapted the architectural form and used it to express their own “cultural statement,” whether at home or abroad in colonized territories (e.g. the Arc de Triomphe in Paris or the Gateway of India in Mumbai; Ball 2016, 286).

In reality, the eastern Roman territories of Syria and Provincia Arabia have no known ‘true’ triumphal arches, such as those that we’d associate with the city of Rome itself (e.g. the Arch of Septimius Severus or the Arch of Constantine; Ball 2016, 286), but there are three known commemorative/honorific arches to the emperors Trajan (Dura Europos) and Hadrian (Jerusalem and Gerasa; Segal 1997, 131). The point of such monuments was to serve as imperial propaganda “in Wort und Bild” (“in word and image”; Kader 1996, 184). As we will see in later parts of this series, this was not necessarily the case where Palmyra’s tripylon is concerned.

Speaking of cultural statements and propaganda, it is also possible that the concept of triumph was used to the advantage of the Institute for Digital Archaeology of Oxford and Harvard Universities when it decided to use digital methodologies to create a physical reconstruction of the tripylon in 2016 (and believe me, there will be an entire separate post about everything that was wrong with this replica). The IDA’s branding of the tripylon as such in the wake of the Islamic State’s retreat from Palmyra may have delivered a different kind of political message in the sense that the arch and its subsequent reconstruction could represent a triumph of the Syrian people and their cultural heritage over the militants and their wanton destruction of it—perhaps as a 21st-century parallel to Zenobia’s liberation of Palmyra from the Roman Empire (Munawar 2019, 152). Whatever the reason, the emphasis on the monument’s charismatic ‘triumphal’ nature obfuscates its ancient urbanistic context, which will be discussed more in detail in the next part of this series.

Thanks for reading!

Works Cited:

W. Ball, Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, 2nd Edition (London 2016).

M. Barański, The Great Colonnade of Palmyra Reconsidered, Aram Periodical 7(1), 1995, 37–46.

R. Burns, Origins of the Colonnaded Streets in the Cities of the Roman East (Oxford 2017).

I. Browning, Palmyra (Park Ridge 1979).

K. Cassibry, Reception of the Roman Arch Monument, AJA 122 (2), 2018, 245–275.

C. Densmore Curtis, Roman Monumental Arches (New York 1908).

I. Kader, Propylon und Bogentor. Untersuchungen zum Tetrapylon von Latakia und anderen frühkaiserzeitlichen Bogenmonumenten im Nahen Osten (Mainz am Rhein 1996).

N. Munawar, Reconstructing Cultural Heritage in Conflict Zones: Should Palmyra be Rebuilt?, EX NOVO Journal of Archaeology 2, 2017, 33–48.

N. Munawar, Competing Heritage: Curating the Post-Conflict Heritage of Roman Syria, Bulletin - Institute of Classical Studies 62(1), 2019, 142–165.

A. Segal, From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia (Oxford 1997).

M. Tabaczek, Zwischen Stoa und Suq. Die Säulenstraßen im Vorderen Orient in römischer Zeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Palmyra (Diss. University of Cologne 2001).

E. Will, Le développement urbain de Palmyre, Syria 60, 1983, 69–81.

Image Source: x (the first is from a PowerPoint I presentation I gave in January)

[aic-american]

Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, Harriet Hosmer, 1852, Art Institute of Chicago: American Art

Harriet Hosmer was the leader of a small group of women who studied sculpture in Rome in the 1850s. Her work frequently addresses the theme of strong, independent women who are ultimately punished for seeking a level of power and ambition thought to be inappropriate to their sex. This portrait depicts Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra, who ruled the Syrian city after her husband, Odenathus, died in A.D. 267. Zenobia conquered Egypt and much of Asia Minor before her defeat by the Roman emperor Aurelian in A.D. 272. Portraying the queen at the moment of her capture, Hosmer emphasized Zenobia’s dignity, remarking, “I have tried to make her too proud to exhibit passion or emotion of any kind; not subdued, though a prisoner; but calm, grand, and strong within herself.” Restricted gift of the Antiquarian Society Size: 86.4 × 57.2 × 31.8 cm (34 × 22 1/2 × 12 1/2 in.) Medium: Marble

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/125652/

[historical-nonfiction]

The Mysterious Fate of A Queen And An Empress

Zenobia, the ancient queen who ruled the kingdom of Palmyra after her husband, Odenathus' death. She declared Palmyra no longer a client kingdom of Rome, but an independent state, with her son its king and her its regent. A weak short-lived emperor, Claudius Gothicus, recognized her sovereignty in 268. She quickly began taking land which had once been Roman, including the breadbasket Egypt and the wealthy city of Antioch. Palmyra became known as the Palmyrene Empire. But it was not to last.

A new and more able Roman emperor, Aurelian, consolidated his power then moved on the new Palmyrene Empire. Aurelian besieged Palmyra in 272. The empress tried to flee east, toward Persia, but was captured when she reached the Euphrates River. Empress Zenobia, and Palmyra, was defeated.

Then things get mysterious. No one knows what exactly happened to Queen Zenobia after 273. Some Arab sources claim she committed suicide to avoid capture. Roman sources say that Emperor Aurelian, not willing to execute a woman, brought Queen Zenobia to Rome as a captive, to be shown before Rome during his triumphal parade. Some sources say she was then decapitated. Others claim she married a Roman senator, and lived the rest of her life as a Roman matron. To this day no one knows which story is the truth.

[aqueensgamble-blog]

People of Palmyra - King Odainat

Septimius Odenathus, or Odainat, was the head of the Julii Aurelii Septimii tribe.  He rose to power in Palmyra, and then quickly proved himself to be an amazing general and a fearless leader.  His wife, Semptimia Zenobia, Bat Zenabai, or Queen Zenobia, was said to hunt and ride with him.  His death at Emesa, after either a battle with Parthian renegades, or possibly a hunt, is known to be an assassination, possibly by his cousin.  While Zenobia has been blamed for his death, there is really very little to support that, other than the fact that she took the power when her son inherited the throne.

[rnsulentic]

Odenathus of Palmyra rides again. 15mm Irregular, TTG, Essex, minifigs,and Asgard figures. Really cleaned out the bits box for these guys. Fun fact: Since Odenathus was styled both Dux Romanorum and Corrector Toitus Orentis, this is a Roman Army!

[aic-american]

Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, Harriet Hosmer, 1852, Art Institute of Chicago: American Art

Harriet Hosmer was the leader of a small group of women who studied sculpture in Rome in the 1850s. Her work frequently addresses the theme of strong, independent women who are ultimately punished for seeking a level of power and ambition thought to be inappropriate to their sex. This portrait depicts Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra, who ruled the Syrian city after her husband, Odenathus, died in A.D. 267. Zenobia conquered Egypt and much of Asia Minor before her defeat by the Roman emperor Aurelian in A.D. 272. Portraying the queen at the moment of her capture, Hosmer emphasized Zenobia’s dignity, remarking, “I have tried to make her too proud to exhibit passion or emotion of any kind; not subdued, though a prisoner; but calm, grand, and strong within herself.” Restricted gift of the Antiquarian Society Size: 86.4 × 57.2 × 31.8 cm (34 × 22 1/2 × 12 1/2 in.) Medium: Marble

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/125652/

[aic-american]

Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, Harriet Hosmer, 1852, Art Institute of Chicago: American Art

Harriet Hosmer was the leader of a small group of women who studied sculpture in Rome in the 1850s. Her work frequently addresses the theme of strong, independent women who are ultimately punished for seeking a level of power and ambition thought to be inappropriate to their sex. This portrait depicts Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra, who ruled the Syrian city after her husband, Odenathus, died in A.D. 267. Zenobia conquered Egypt and much of Asia Minor before her defeat by the Roman emperor Aurelian in A.D. 272. Portraying the queen at the moment of her capture, Hosmer emphasized Zenobia’s dignity, remarking, “I have tried to make her too proud to exhibit passion or emotion of any kind; not subdued, though a prisoner; but calm, grand, and strong within herself.” Restricted gift of the Antiquarian Society Size: 86.4 × 57.2 × 31.8 cm (34 × 22 1/2 × 12 1/2 in.) Medium: Marble

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/125652/