By now, I am sure you’re aware of the destruction that ISIS wrought upon Palmyra. And as if the city hasn’t experienced enough, it seems that after being recaptured, Syrian troops might be looting the city for their own share of the booty. I generally try to keep this light-hearted, but the stealing of a people’s history is unforgivable.

Khaled al-Asaad would likely agree with me. He was the 82-year-old scholar who was beheaded for failing to lead ISIS militants to valuable historic artefacts. Nevertheless, even he would have to acknowledge that the ruins of Palmyra are hardly the first to be destroyed by depraved fanatics, nor are they liable to be the last. There’s a reason they’re “ruins” after all.

Fortunately, it appears only about 20% of the ruins were seriously damaged. And with the city’s recapture, UNESCO is already discussing restoration works; although there are doubts as to how successful they will be. Also, in a spectacular show of defiance, the Russian Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra has played a concert in the Roman amphitheatre where ISIS held its executions.

Nevertheless, the question that ought to be asked is “What is this history that Khaled al-Asaad deemed to be worth dying for?”

The Rise of Palmyra

Palmyra is a literal oasis town, or rather was a literal oasis town until its main spring dried up in the 19th century. The establishment of the city is lost in time, but likely involved the settling down of nomadic tribes around the oasis. The town remained small for a long time, and might have forever remained a footnote in history if it weren’t for the Romans’ need for fancy things. Although, as pointed out by Winsbury, you should avoid having too romantic an image of the city. Although desert caravans stretching off into the dunes loaded with spice and incense makes for a beautiful mental scene; inscriptions from the time speak of taxes to be paid on slaves and prostitutes, “which casts a rather more lurid light on Palmyrene trade” (p. 27).

Exactly how trade began in Palmyra us up for contention. Certainly its location directly between Rome and Persia gave the city a prime position to control Roman trade not just with Arabia and Mesopotamia, but also with India and China. Still, Palmyra’s sudden transition from agricultural oasis town to mercantile oligopoly is difficult to explain. One theory is that the Palmyrenes were desert nomads and bandits who set about getting square, changing from bandits to guards to merchants. Apart from offering an explanation of how Palmyrene trade could spring from nowhere, it also offers an explanation for Palmyra’s surprising martial prowess for a trading city.

Palmyra had a strong militia; however, it was used for far more than just protecting caravans. Being wedged between the Romans and the Persians made for a precarious position. As the Romans expanded into the Middle-East, Palmyra came further and further under their sway, eventually becoming a Roman city; although they did retain special privileges, such as the right to maintain security forces. In this way, Palmyra became responsible for not just guaranteeing trade, but also the Eastern border of the empire.

This became crucially important in the third century AD when things were starting to look pretty grim for Rome. There were separatist movements in Britain, Hispania and Gaul (France) in the west; and in the east, the relatively peaceful Parthians were replaced by the aggressive Sassanians as the pre-eminent power in Persia. Sass wasn’t only in their name, but in their nature. Not entirely enthused about Rome’s recent meddling in the region, the Sassanians were keen to kick them out. More than this, they wanted to restore the empire of Darius and Xerxes (of 300 fame).

The Roman emperor, Valerian, was not going to stand for this in any way, and headed east to deal with this upstart dynasty. Unfortunately for him, however, he was resoundingly defeated, and even captured by the Sassanian king, Shapur.

It is here that the Palmyrans truly started to make a name for themselves. Odenathus, the Palmyran king, stepped into the breach. Gathering an army of Palmyrans, Syrian peasants and whatever Roman forces would rally to his cause, he pursued the withdrawing Persian forces, catching them on the banks of the Euphrates. There he dealt Shapur an embarrassing defeat, failing to free Valerian, but supposedly managing to capture Shapur’s harem. In the following years, Odenathus launched a second campaign against the Persians and, despite an unsuccessful siege against their capital, by 267AD had restored all of the perviously Roman lands. The historian Winsbury describes this as “the Empire Strikes back” (p. 68). Odenathus, even found time to crush a rebellion against Rome in the meantime. For his deeds, Odenathus was granted the title corrector totius orientis or “Restorer of the East.”

What is remarkable about Odenathus, beyond his military successes, was that at a time of rebellion, he stayed loyal to Rome. He took Arabic titles, such as “King of Kings”, but appeared content with the Roman titles he was granted (and the Romans couldn’t care less what other titles he took). Of course, there are other interpretations of his actions. Winsbury, for instance, prefers to see Odenathus as a ruler that worked more for Palmyran interests. He makes much of a tale in which Odenathus gave a number of gifts to Shapur to improve relations, but the Persian king simply threw them in a river. Furthermore, in their attack on Rome, the Persians had destroyed Palmyran trading posts all along their advance. In this light, Odenathus’s military campaigns can be seen as opportunistic reprisals as much as valiant conquests for Rome.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Odenathus definitely upset somebody, as both he and the son he bore to his first wife were assassinated in roughly 267AD. To this day, the motives and perpetrators are up for contention, with everyone from wary Roman emperors to his wife who would succeed him, Zenobia, being accused at some point. Either way, the assassination of Odenathus would irrevocably change Palmyran history.

As we’ll see next week, these actions would indirectly spark the sudden expansion of Palmyra’s sphere of influence. Within five years, Palmyra would have become a proper empire, comprising of roughly the eastern third of Rome. However, as fast as it would flare into existence, the Palmyran Empire would be extinguished, and within ten years the city would be sacked, and never again be a world power. All of this would occur at the hands of the beautiful Queen Zenobia, Odenathus’s second wife, who we will learn about next week.

Academic Sources

Smith II, AM 2013, Roman Palmyra: identity, community and state formation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Southern, P 2008, Empress Zenobia: Palmyra’s Rebel Queen, Continuum, London.

Stoneman, R 1994, Palmyra and Its Empire: Zenobia’s revolt against Rome, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Winsbury, R 2010, Zenobia of Palmyra: History, Myth and the Neo-Classical Imagination, Bloomsbury Academic, London.