Latest / The Story of Armenia: Survival Through Empires and Genocide — Fexingo History / Arshak II: The Last Arsacid King of Armenia
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about the Bagratids, the Mamikonians, the Urartians — but there's one Armenian king whose story reads like a Shakespearean tragedy, and we haven't touched him yet. Arshak II, the last Arsacid king of Armenia. Luna: Arshak II — I've heard the name, but I don't know much about him. Lucas: He ruled in the fourth century CE, and his reign is this brutal, desperate struggle to keep Armenia independent when it was literally caught between the Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire. By his time, the Arsacid dynasty had been ruling Armenia for nearly four centuries, but they were on their last legs. Lucas: The thing is, Arshak II came to power around 350 CE, right after his father Tiran was blinded and imprisoned by the Sassanid king Shapur II. So he inherited a kingdom that was already bleeding. And he had to navigate between two superpowers that both wanted to control Armenia. Luna: And Shapur II — that's the same Persian king who fought the Romans for decades, right? Lucas: Exactly. Shapur II was one of the most formidable Sassanid rulers. He'd been king since birth — they literally crowned him in utero. And he was determined to bring Armenia back under Persian control. So Arshak II's first move was to try to buy time by sending tribute and hostages to Persia, including his own son. But that didn't hold for long. Lucas: Arshak then turned to Rome. He went to Constantinople to meet the emperor Constantius II, and he got a treaty: Rome would support him, and in return, Armenia would be a loyal ally. But that alliance came at a cost — Arshak had to accept Roman garrisons in some Armenian fortresses, which a lot of the nakharars, the Armenian nobles, saw as a betrayal. Luna: So he's caught between Persia and Rome, and his own nobles are suspicious of him. Lucas: Exactly. And it gets worse. In 363 CE, the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate launched a massive invasion of Persia. He had a huge army, and Arshak II supported him with Armenian troops. But Julian was killed in battle, and his successor Jovian made a humiliating peace — he surrendered all Roman claims to Armenia and Mesopotamia. That left Arshak II completely exposed. Luna: So Rome just abandoned him. Lucas: Abandoned is the word. Jovian's treaty with Shapur II explicitly said that Rome would not aid Armenia. So Shapur II saw his chance. He invaded Armenia with a massive army. And Arshak II's situation was made worse by treachery from within. One of his own nobles, Meruzhan Artsruni, defected to the Persians. And another key figure, Vasak Mamikonian, who was the sparapet — the supreme military commander — stayed loyal, but he was up against overwhelming odds. Luna: Meruzhan Artsruni — that name sounds familiar. Wasn't he involved in later conflicts too? Lucas: He became a byword for treachery in Armenian history. Meruzhan went over to Shapur II, converted to Zoroastrianism, and actively helped the Persians conquer Armenian territory. He even married a Persian noblewoman. So Arshak II was fighting a two-front war: the Persian army from outside, and collaborators from within. Lucas: Vasak Mamikonian fought a series of desperate battles, but eventually, the Persians overran most of Armenia. Arshak II retreated to a fortress called Bagrevand, but he was captured through a trick. The Persians promised him safe conduct if he surrendered, but instead they took him prisoner. Luna: And that's where the Castle of Oblivion comes in. Lucas: Yes. Shapur II didn't execute Arshak II — which was unusual. Instead, he imprisoned him in a fortress in Khuzestan, in southwestern Iran, that was called the Castle of Oblivion. The idea was that the king would simply be forgotten — cut off from the world, no visitors, no news. It was a psychological torture as much as a physical one. Lucas: And the story goes — and this is from the Armenian historian Faustus of Byzantium — that Arshak II's wife, Queen Pharantzem, held out in the fortress of Ani. She defended it for months, maybe longer, with a garrison of loyal soldiers. Luna: Pharantzem — she's a figure we haven't covered at all. Tell me more. Lucas: She was remarkable. After Arshak was captured, she became the de facto leader of the Armenian resistance. She fortified Ani and withstood a Persian siege. According to Faustus, when food ran out, she ordered the garrison to slaughter all the horses and oxen, and when that was gone, she had them throw the hides and bones over the walls to make the Persians think they still had supplies. But eventually, after about 14 months, the Persians stormed the fortress. Pharantzem was captured and, according to some accounts, taken to Persia where she was executed or died in captivity. Luna: That's an incredible story of resistance. And Arshak II — what happened to him in the Castle of Oblivion? Lucas: He died there, probably around 367 or 368 CE. The exact date isn't certain. He was never released. The castle lived up to its name — he was effectively erased from the world. But the tragedy didn't end there. After Arshak's death, the Persians tried to install a puppet king, but the Armenian nobles, led by Vasak Mamikonian's brother, eventually revolted and fought a guerrilla war. Lucas: And interestingly, Arshak II's legacy is mixed. Some Armenian historians portray him as a heroic patriot who fought to the end. Others criticize him for trusting Rome too much and for not being able to unite the nakharars. But there's no doubt that his reign marked the beginning of the end for the Arsacid dynasty in Armenia. Luna: It reminds me of the theme we keep coming back to in Armenian history — survival through impossible odds, often alone. Lucas: Exactly. And that's a thread through so many of these stories. If you've been stepping into history with us episode by episode, you know that listener support is what keeps this show ad-free and independent. It's a small way to help us keep telling these stories of resilience — stories like Arshak II's that might otherwise be forgotten. You can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it's a simple way to support the kind of deep dives we do. Lucas: Right. So back to Arshak — after his death, the struggle continued. The sparapet Vasak Mamikonian was eventually captured and executed by the Persians, but his brother succeeded him, and the Mamikonians kept fighting. It took another three decades before the Arsacid line finally ended with the death of Arshak III, but Arshak II's story really captures the essence of that era. Luna: What about the Castle of Oblivion itself? Is there any archaeological evidence of it? Lucas: There's debate. The location is traditionally identified with a fortress near modern-day Shushtar in Khuzestan, but the actual site hasn't been definitively excavated. Some scholars think it might be the fortress of Qaleh-ye Manujan in Kerman province. The name 'Castle of Oblivion' — or 'Andmesh' in Armenian — comes from the Persian 'Andarjān' or 'Andarān', meaning 'forgotten place'. But the exact ruins haven't been confirmed. Lucas: And there's a later legend that says Arshak II, in his despair, carved a cross into the wall of his cell — a symbol of his Christian faith. Armenia had adopted Christianity as the state religion under Tiridates III just a few decades earlier, so Arshak II was one of the early Christian kings. That detail might be apocryphal, but it speaks to how later generations remembered him. Luna: So even in captivity, he's seen as holding onto his identity. Lucas: Exactly. And that's a powerful image — a king alone in a fortress, forgotten by the world, but refusing to let go of his faith and his people. It's no wonder Armenian historians made him a symbol of national suffering and endurance. Luna: It makes you wonder how many other rulers in similar situations just disappeared from history entirely. Lucas: Many did. The fact that we're still talking about Arshak II 1,600 years later is partly because of that legend, and partly because the Armenians have always been meticulous about remembering their history. Even in defeat, they preserved the stories. Luna: It's a good reminder that history isn't just about winners — often the most compelling stories are about those who lost but never surrendered.