Reconsidering and Reconstructing the First Meeting of the Parthians and Romans: The Cappadocian Affair of the Middle 90 s BCE.

In the middle 90 s, the geopolitical interests of Pontus, Armenia, Rome, and Parthia in the Near East converged on the minor kingdom of Cappadocia in Anatolia. Although there were many different motivations, intentions, and perspectives concerning this emerging international affair in Cappadocia, this phenomenon reflects the increasingly complex geopolitical realties of the international environment of the Near East at this time. Cappadocia was not only within the edges of the Parthians' and Romans' separate spheres of influence, but it also became a target of the ascending powers of Pontus and Armenia. The emergence of Tigranes II as the Parthians' vassal king of Armenia in the middle 90 s, adjacent to Cappadocia, gave Mithridates VI of Pontus a new opportunity to control the region, and the two kings agreed to work together against their common regional rival. Although it is important to consider the place of Parthia within the contexts of the wider Cappadocian affair, one should not overestimate the involvement or cooperation of Parthia in the progressively tense geopolitical atmosphere surrounding the region. That said, these developments facilitated the first official meeting between the Parthians and Romans, even though neither side had much interest in such a meeting nor appreciated its potential implications. For centuries, the origin and impact of the first meeting of the Parthians and Romans in Cappadocia have been exaggerated and diluted by the anachronistic and myopic perspectives of the surviving Greco-Roman sources. Because of this, the focus of scholarship has been and continues to be on the agency of the Romans at the expense of the agency of other important eastern actors. Yet with a renewed focus on the Cappadocian affair, this article will challenge Rome-centric understandings of these developments, emphasizing instead new interpretations that highlight the considerable agency and motivations of various eastern actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]