Ancient history · A companion for fiction readers

Rome and Parthia Two Empires Behind the Fiction

Rome’s eastern rival was a power it could fight, negotiate with, and sometimes defeat, but never permanently absorb as a whole.

The relationship between Rome and Parthia involved devastating campaigns, disputed crowns, diplomatic settlements, and commercial exchange. Understanding that variety makes their shared frontier a more interesting setting for historical fiction.

This guide introduces the geography, the military challenges, and the political compromises behind the rivalry. It then explains how that historical setting relates to Peyman Golkar’s Lost in the Wind saga.

The rivalry began while Rome was still a republic and continued under its emperors. The examples below span several centuries; they are historical context, not a timeline of events in the novels.

The historical setting

Who were the Parthians?

The Parthian Empire, conventionally dated 247 BCE–224 CE, was ruled by the Arsacid dynasty. From origins in northeastern Iran, it expanded into a major power across Iran and Mesopotamia. Ctesiphon, on the Tigris in what is now Iraq, became an important royal centre.

Its cities and material culture brought Iranian, Mesopotamian, and Hellenistic traditions into contact. Calling Parthia simply “Rome’s enemy” misses the society beyond the campaigns: royal courts, local communities, religious traditions, and artistic exchange.

A river frontier

The Euphrates

The Euphrates often marked the effective boundary between Roman and Parthian power. It was also a route for movement and trade. A frontier river did not prevent armies or goods from crossing it.

Routes and cities

Mesopotamia

The lands of the Tigris and Euphrates connected major settlements and routes between the two powers. Control of crossings and cities could shape both a military advance and commercial travel.

A disputed kingship

Armenia

Armenia became a recurring focus of Roman and Parthian competition. Who occupied its throne, and who recognised that ruler, mattered to the prestige and influence of both empires.

War and its limits

Why was Parthia so difficult for Rome to conquer?

No single weapon explains the rivalry. Battlefield tactics, supplies, allies, political instability, and the difficulty of holding occupied territory all mattered. Three campaigns show why victory could be difficult to achieve or sustain.

53 BCE Carrhae

Cavalry could deny the battle Rome wanted.

At Carrhae, near modern Harran, the Parthian commander commonly called Surena defeated the Roman army of Marcus Licinius Crassus. This was a battle in Mesopotamia, not an attack on the city of Rome.

Plutarch describes mounted archers working alongside heavily armoured cavalry. Roman attempts to close with their opponents exposed them to continued missile attacks. He also describes camels carrying replacement arrows, allowing the archers to replenish their supplies.

His account helps explain the combination of mobility, pressure, and resupply. It is also a later literary narrative, not a neutral eyewitness transcript of the fighting.

36 BCE Antony’s campaign

A large army still depended on supplies.

Mark Antony’s invasion suffered when Parthian forces destroyed siege equipment moving behind his main army. The loss of Armenian support, dwindling supplies, and the advancing season contributed to the abandonment of the siege and a costly retreat.

114–117 CE Trajan’s campaign

Taking territory was not the same as keeping it.

Roman armies could penetrate deep into Parthian territory. Trajan captured Ctesiphon and reached the Persian Gulf, but rebellions and continuing resistance challenged his gains. After his death, Hadrian relinquished the major eastern acquisitions.

For a reader of historical fiction, the useful question is not simply “Who had the better army?” It is “What could that army achieve, supply, and hold under the conditions of this campaign?”

Beyond the battlefield

Rivalry also meant negotiation.

20 BCE · Prestige and diplomacy

The return of Rome’s standards

Under Augustus, diplomacy secured the return of Roman military standards held by the Parthians. Their recovery became an important statement of Roman prestige, commemorated in imperial imagery.

The episode shows how a negotiated outcome could be presented as a triumph. Military symbols carried political value even when their recovery did not follow a victorious battle.

63–66 CE · The Armenian settlement

One crown, two claims to influence

The settlement at Rhandeia in 63 CE recognised the Arsacid prince Tiridates as king of Armenia, while preserving a Roman role in his investiture. In 66, Tiridates travelled to Rome and received his crown from Nero.

The arrangement accommodated both dynastic ties to Parthia and Roman claims to authority. It did not erase the rivalry, but it demonstrates how compromise could replace an attempt at outright conquest.

The people between the powers

A frontier of exchange

Palmyra offers a different view of the region. Its merchants participated in networks linking the Mediterranean with Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf. Inscriptions record Palmyrene commercial communities in cities under Parthian rule.

Art and urban culture also reveal encounters between local, Iranian, and Greco-Roman traditions. The people living between empires had identities and interests of their own. Their world cannot be reduced to two armies facing each other across an empty border.

From history to fiction

Where Lost in the Wind enters this world.

Peyman Golkar’s Lost in the Wind saga uses the encounter between Rome and Parthia as the setting for captivity, forbidden love, and divided loyalties. Its characters and events take creative liberties with history; the novels are not a reconstruction of the campaigns described above.

Book I · Begin here

The Captive Commander

Defeat takes Surena from military command into Constantia’s Roman household. His struggle for dignity and freedom becomes entangled with a relationship shaped by unequal power.

Explore The Captive Commander →

Book II · Continue the story

The Crimson Return

Surena’s return to Parthia brings military responsibility and court rivalry. His attachment to Constantia keeps Rome central to a conflict between personal desire and public duty.

Explore The Crimson Return →

A few useful distinctions

Is the saga’s Surena the historical victor of Carrhae?

No. The saga’s Surena is a fictional protagonist. The historical commander associated with Carrhae defeated Crassus in 53 BCE. The novels should not be read as his biography.

Did the historical Parthians conquer the city of Rome?

No. Defeating a Roman army in Mesopotamia was not the same as conquering Rome itself. Carrhae belongs to the history of Rome’s eastern campaigns, not to a Parthian occupation of the imperial capital.

Were the Parthians and Sasanians the same dynasty?

No. Parthia was ruled by the Arsacids. The Sasanians replaced their rule in Iran in the third century CE. Later Roman–Persian wars therefore belong to a different dynastic setting.

Sources & further reading

The historical sections draw on museum resources and specialist reference articles. Plutarch is included as an ancient narrative source, to be read critically alongside modern scholarship. These sources support the historical background, not the invented events of the saga.