%0 Journal Article %T Analysis of Armenia's Geopolitical Landscape in the Parthian Period; According to the Archaeological Findings %J Geopolitics Quarterly %I Iranian Association of Geopolitics %Z 1735-4331 %A Rezaloo, Reza %A Hariri, Nemat %A Hajizadeh, Karim %A Mohammadi, Shabbo %D 2017 %\ 09/23/2017 %V 13 %N 47 %P 203-230 %! Analysis of Armenia's Geopolitical Landscape in the Parthian Period; According to the Archaeological Findings %K Armenia %K Iran %K Parthian %K Roman %K Geopolitical landscape %K Archaeology %R %X IntroductionArmenia has attracted the attention of many different nations because of its geopoliticalsituation, that's why this country with its strategic location has been epicenter of the wars inIran and Rome in the Parthian era. Finally, during of the Sassanid period conflicts had beenended with dividing of Armenia between the two great powers. Roman army failed repeatedlyin the face of Parthians guerrilla forces in Mesopotamian plains and finally used the naturalgeography campaign to Iran. For this purpose, that roman army chose Armenia to march intoIran, Parthian government built a string of defensive fortifications to confronting with theirintermittent attacks at the entrance of road to the Iranian plateau in north western. MethodologyIn this research, used analytical and descriptive approach based on field and library study, historicalwritten sources and archaeological data which includes Parthian fortresses of the northwest to thestudy of communication and conflicts between powerful nations during the Parthian period. Results and DiscussionIn our survey in Meshkin Shahr we recognized 8 fortresses in this period that built todefensing of roman and Armenian attack to Iran. It seems that in the beginning of wares inthe Orod one time and failing of roman from Parthian in Horan ware, roman understood thathe did not conquered to Parthian in plains because of the power and mobility of Parthiancavalry. In the fourth Farhad, roman under the leader ship of Mark Anthony attacked to Iranfrom north western and blockade Fraspa (The center of Atropathen). This study alsorecognizes the relationship between the two empires mentioned above and consequently hasattended political and military geographical knowledge of Armenia. ConclusionThe results showed important geopolitical situation of Armenia in the Iranian military andpolitical relations with neighboring and competitors countries. %U https://journal.iag.ir/article_55812_b38e08894ebc8fe3cb997ddd2bf5a24a.pdf