Palmyra's third century rebellion against Rome remains one of the most unique and fascinating events from late antiquity, featuring a cast of colorful characters, exotic locales, and fierce battles that would not be out of place in a work of fiction today. Palmyra was neither the largest, the richest, nor the most significant city in the Roman Near East, yet it alone was able to capitalize on Rome's third century weakness and lead an independence movement which took over some of Rome's wealthiest provinces for a brief period. While it might at first seem ill-suited to lead such a widespread rebellion, it actually had a unique background that gave it the ability to spearhead the revolt against Rome.

Before we get into it, however, let me preface this by reminding everyone that very few primary sources survive from the third century Roman Empire. It was a period of intense turmoil, and little of the writing that did happen survived, and that which did has been influenced by later factors. It is difficult to get all of the facts straight, but here’s a summary of what we do know.

Let’s start with the why. To understand the Palmyrene Empire, we need to know more about the context of the time, that is, the crisis of the third century. From approximately 225-275 AD Rome faced a period of civil war, with multiple usurpers rising and falling simultaneously. Some historians estimate that more than 200 different individuals claimed to be emperor during this period [David Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay]. The empire was at its weakest point in centuries, and faced rebellions by Roman generals and their legions, yet few of the provinces supported local rebellions. In fact, only two large-scale breakaway movements occurred during the third century crisis, Palmyra and the Gallic Empire in Gaul, and the latter was led by a Roman, so essentially Palmyra was the only local independence movement to occur during the crisis of the third century.

So why did Palmyra revolt? The crisis of the third century began because of a combination of internal and external factors. Internally, the lack of succession laws made imperial succession a constant problem, ready to be exploited by ambitious men. Externally, Rome faced a renewed enemy in the form of the resurgent Sassanid Persian Empire, which constituted the only major organized state that fought with Rome at the time. As the crisis wore on, Rome found itself unable to support constant campaigns against the Sassanids due to the continued infighting. Located directly on the border between the two empires, Palmyra found itself hard-hit by the instability.

Palmyra only existed as a city because of its location on the caravan trade route between the East and West. Its freshwater springs allowed it to house traders on their route (for a fee, of course). The city became rich off of the trade, and as the third century Roman Empire proved itself incapable of protecting the trade in the region, being part of the empire seemed less appealing to the Palmyrenes. Furthermore, the Palmyrenes already had a local military force in the form of caravan guards who could be hired to protect travels from desert bandits. Palmyra’s rulers, urged on (according to the sources) by Zenobia, took advantage of this in 270 AD to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and assert Palmyrene independence.

Now let’s move onto the how. Palmyra’s army was first used by the local Palmyrene ruler, Septimius Odenathus, to fight off Persian incursions. The sources tell that he was extremely successful in this endeavour, earning accolades from the Emperor (at least the one in Rome), Gallienus. In 267 AD Odenathus was assassinated, and his wife Zenobia became regent over their son Vabalathus. At first she appears to have maintained the same policy of loyalty toward Rome, until abruptly in 270 AD the Palmyrene army slaughtered the Roman garrison in Arabia, then conquered Egypt, and finally Asia Minor. The Roman forces were stretched extremely thin after the decades of warfare, and it is likely that the Palmyrene army remained the only significant military force in the whole Roman Near East (after Roman and Persian losses in the previous decade). The Palmyrenes began minting their own coins, and their Empire was on its feet.

However, the new Emperor in Rome, Aurelian, was having none of it. He gathered a large army, larger than any the Palmyrenes could assemble, and set about restoring the empire. He quickly swept through the east in 273 AD, defeating the Palmyrenes twice and taking the city, famously sending Zenobia back to Rome in golden chains to march in his triumph. Even with all of the resources of the provinces between Egypt and Asia Minor, the Palmyrenes were still no match for the forces of a united Rome that marched with Aurelian, himself a skilled general. Palmyra was initially spared by Aurelian, but after it revolted a second time it was razed to the ground.

In conclusion, Palmyra revolted against Rome because several factors aligned: Palmyra relied heavily on trade, which was disrupted by war. Rome was too weak to defend Palmyra, so the city saw to its own defense. At some point, it transitioned from defending Roman provinces to conquering them, and it held onto its empire for three years before a Roman Emperor became strong enough to march against the rebellious city.

Primary Sources: Zosimus

Historia Augusta

Secondary Sources: Potter, David. The Roman Empire at Bay

Smith, Andrew. Roman Palmyra