The middle-man: Sohaemus
What can we tell about Sohaemus? Quite frankly, very little. He was obviously put in place by the Romans, but should we really regard him as a ‘puppet’ of the Roman authorities? Was Sohaemus loved by the Armenian people? Was the Roman protection wanted by them in any way? How was the relationship of Sohaemus with the Romans?
Let us start with what the Romans might have thought of Sohaemus. He was actually already the king installed by Romans at the time the Parthians came. However, when Pacorus was installed in 161, Sohaemus returned to Rome. As compensation for his loss of kingship, we can assume that Roman authorities might have made him a senator and a consul. At the same time, according to the 2nd century Greek historian Asinius Quadratus, Pacorus sought to stabilize his position in Armenia and get Roman approval. His behavior was not too pro-Parthian (e.g., he did not stay in Armenia during his reign), which supposedly created goodwill with the Roman emperors. He even traveled to Rome with his family to gain official recognition; this was done by multiple rulers from the distant areas of the Roman Empire. Whether Asinius’ story is valid or not, it seems acceptable that Pacorus attempted to keep his position. Though, it says a lot that Lucius Verus installed Sohaemus (again) as king in 164, as if he was the only ‘lawful’ king for Armenia. Sohaemus was seen as the ideal candidate, most likely because of his pro-Roman views. The relationship between Sohaemus and the Romans on a personal level will probably remain unknown, but politically they were fond of each other. Sohaemus was lawfully brought to power, but was clearly under Roman control - he even wears the same Roman clothing on this coin.
As previously mentioned, the exact nature of Sohaemus’ relationship with his own people is hard to tell. In the realm of suppositions, we are able to guess and imagine how a person like him could have been perceived back home. All we can do is either to embrace the unknown or speculate on possible theories. A method worthy of using is that of comparison. Given similar situations from human history, there are three possibilities: Sohaemus was an outsider to his native community, ‘deserting’ his own people, thus isolated by his peers. A second possibility is that his ‘desertion’ was accepted by the Armenians in order to assert a certain level of ‘peace’ with the Romans. The third option can be characterized by a dangerous game of ‘neutrality’, whereby Sohaemus was trying to please everyone. One thing is sure: we currently do not have sufficient sources to confirm or to infirm this hypothesis.