Arcadius, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. He once ruled alongside his father Theodosius I (383-395). Before his death, the father divided the empire between his two sons. He has the east, and his brother Horno has the west. The Roman Empire split into two countries from east to west.
Starting from 395 AD, he was the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. In 402 AD, his son Theodosius II was designated as the same emperor of the same dynasty. During his reign, he devoted himself to Christianity and allowed powerful officials to rule, and the border was often invaded by the Goths.

Flavius Arcadius Augustus (377/378-May 1, 408) was an Eastern Roman Emperor who ruled over half of the Roman Empire. He ascended to the throne in 395 and passed away in 408.
Arcadius was the eldest son of Theodosius I (347-395, 379-395 Emperor of the Roman Empire) and Aelia Flaccilla (died 385), and the older brother of Flavius Honorius (384-423, 395-423 Emperor of the Western Roman Empire).
After the death of Emperor Gratien in 383 AD, Emperor Arcadius obtained the title of "Augustus" at the age of 5. But it was not until the death of Emperor Theodosius I in 395 that he rightfully became the supreme ruler of the Eastern Empire. The emperor of the Western Empire who ruled over Xinjiang during the same period was his 11 year old brother Flavius Augustus Honorius.
Although Arcadius was nominally the emperor of the Eastern Empire, he did not care much about politics and instead entrusted state and military affairs to his subordinates.
These ministers, who were authorized by the emperor to act recklessly, naturally became the actual rulers of the Eastern Empire. The name of the minister who initially wielded power and disorderly governance was Flavius Rufinus (died in 395). He was promoted during the reign of Emperor Theodosius, and Yoshimoto disdainfully evaluated this personnel change by "tarnishing the glory of his rule.". This ambitious and greedy courtier used cruel and malicious tactics to eliminate his allies and enemies on his way forward, ultimately ruling out the elderly Emperor Theodosius and the weak Emperor Arcadius, and monopolizing power. However, since he planned to marry his daughter to Emperor Arcadius. After the failure, he gradually lost his power and was ultimately killed by the famous general of the Western Empire, Flavius Stilico (359-408), which also caused friction between the Eastern and Western empires.

After Rufinus was deposed for his wrongdoing, Arcadius trusted the eunuch Eutropius (died in 399). The rule of two favored ministers led to a dark political state during his fourteen years of rule over the Eastern Roman Empire, and his weak style became the object of emulation for most Eastern Roman emperors thereafter. However, even so, the rule of Emperor Arcadius continued to be dominated by his wife Aelia Eudoxia and the commander of the Imperial Guard, Flavius Anthemius (died 414). He himself only nominally ruled over the vast empire, and it was not until 408 that this devout Christian passed away.
After his death, Prince Theodosius II succeeded to the throne, and due to his young age (only seven years old), Empress Eudoxia became regent.
Arcadius's "Tortoise"
In 408 AD, before the death of the Eastern Roman Emperor Arcadius, he made a will entrusting his young son Theodosius II to his archenemy, the King of Sassanid Persia, Isiji I. On the one hand, the reason why Arcadius left his enemies behind was due to the severe division and tense relationship between the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire. The eastern part of the empire did not consider the western part as its supporter; On the other hand, due to the relatively relaxed relationship between the Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanian Persia at this time, it was possible for Arcadius to entrust his young son and empire to the Sassanian king. For King Ishij I of Sassanid Persia, his territorial and economic demands were greatly satisfied during his confrontation with Rome. At the same time, Sassanid Persia itself faced internal and external conflicts, and he had no reason to actively break the peace situation. The perfect ending of the Arcadian "Torgu" incident not only enabled a smooth transition of rule in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, but also had important promoting significance for the development of late ancient Christianity in the East, had a significant impact on trade exchanges between the East and the West in late ancient times, and provided a new paradigm for the transformation of late ancient state relations.

The initial record of the incident between the Eastern Roman Emperor Arcadius and the Sassanian Persian king Isiji I, known as the "Torgu", comes from the book "History of War" written by Byzantine historian Procopius (c. 500-565): "When the Roman Emperor Arcadius passed away in Byzantium (with a son Theodosius who was not yet weaned), he was not only deeply concerned about his son, but also about his government. He did not know how to make wise arrangements for the two. Because he believed that if he arranged a co ruler for Theodosius, he was actually using a royal cloak." The enemy came to destroy his own son. If he allowed his son to rule the empire alone, many people, as they may have expected, would take advantage of the child's helplessness to attempt to ascend the throne. These people would oppose the government and effortlessly make themselves tyrants after destroying Theodosius, as this boy had no relatives in Byzantium as his guardian（ ε’ π ι＇τρο π ο)。 Acadius did not expect the boy's uncle Honorius to help him, as the situation in Italy was already very troublesome. He also felt uneasy about the attitude of the Mides, fearing that these barbarians would overthrow the young emperor and cause irreparable harm to the Romans. When Arcadius faced this dilemma, although he himself did not show much wisdom in other things, he made a plan to ensure that his son and throne were not in question, either because he had spoken to some wise men such as the advisors to the monarch, or because some divine inspiration had descended upon him. When drafting his will, he designated this child as his heir to the throne, but made Persian King Isiji the guardian of his son. In his will, he sincerely requested Isiji to do everything in his power to protect his empire for Theodosius. After arranging his personal and imperial affairs in this way, Arcadius passed away. But when the Persian king Isiqi saw this official document handed to him, even though his noble character had earned him a great reputation before becoming a ruler, he immediately exhibited a surprising and extraordinary virtue. Because he faithfully followed the will of Arcadius and maintained a policy of peaceful coexistence with the Romans, thus preserving the empire for Theodosius. In fact, he immediately wrote a letter to the Senate, expressing his willingness to become the guardian of Theodosius and threatening to wage war against anyone attempting to frame him [9]

After Procopius, Agathias (c. 532-579/582) also mentioned this event. He wrote: On his deathbed, Arcadius designated Isius I as the guardian of Theodosius II and the entire Roman state（ φυ＇λαξ and κηδεμω＇ν) This event has been passed down by word of mouth for generations and is still recited by the upper class and ordinary people of Rome to this day. However, I have not encountered it in any literature or in the works of historians, even those that recount the death of Arcadius, except for Procopius. Procopius read almost all historical works with his encyclopedic knowledge, and he should have found a written version of this event in some earlier historians that I am not aware of so far. I am not surprised by this. But he also believed that "entrusting a person's close relatives to a foreigner, a barbarian, a ruler of a hostile country, an unknown person in terms of honor and justice, and most importantly, a believer in a false religion, is almost unreasonable." [10] Agathias' statement became a direct reason for later scholars to doubt the historical authenticity of the event.
After Agathias, Byzantine chronicler Theophanes (c. 758/760-817/818) also recorded this event. Moreover, Theophanes first mentioned that Isiji I sent a eunuch named Antiochus to Byzantium as his representative and became the steward of Theodosius II（ ε’ π ι＇τρο π ο) And educators (π αιδαγωγ ó), Isuji I claimed to be the guardian of Theodosius II（ κουρ á τωρ)。 [11] Afterwards, in the 11th century, Byzantine historian Cadelenus not only recounted the same events as Theophanes, but also mentioned that Arcadius sent 1000 pounds of gold to Isi I to ensure the execution of his will. [12] In the 12th century, chronicler and theologian Jonaras said that Theodosius II was raised by his sister Pulcheria, and Iski I appointed Antiochus as his protector and guardian（ φυ＇λαξ and κηδεμω＇ν)。 [13] At the same time, although Manassez of Constantinople also recorded the arrangements after the death of Arcadius and the role of Isi I, he was also known as the protector（ φυ＇λαξ)， But the story of Antiochus was not mentioned. [14] The Greek church historian who finally mentioned this event was Nicephrus Callistus Ksantoplus, who referred to Isiji I as his guardian（ κουρ á τωρ，κηδεμω＇ν)， The story of Antiochus is consistent with the description of Theophanes. [15]

In addition to Greek language materials, the 13th century Syrian scholar Bar Hebriss also mentioned the "Torgu" incident in his chronicles, and his description is similar to that of Theophanes, but does not mention the story of Antiochus. [16]
According to Agathias, the story of "entrusting orphans" seems to be more of a verbal transmission in society. The works of Procopius are the only written records he can see, although he also speculates that Procopius has an earlier source of written historical materials. Antiochus did not appear in any of the earliest written records, which raises doubts about whether he is a character in the oral "orphan" story. A common feature of oral stories is that the version is not unique. The inconsistency in the details of the Byzantine historians' accounts of the "orphan" in the middle period may suggest that they were all influenced by different versions of oral historical materials. We cannot rule out the possibility that Antiochus was artificially added as a character in the process of spreading the story of the Tortoise.
Despite the complexity of the details mentioned above, the basic event of Arcadius' testament to Isuqi as an orphan is consistent in all records, and Procopius, who first recorded this event, is about a century away from the time of Arcadius and Isuqi. In other words, people's memory of basic historical facts has only been passed down for about three generations and is still within a relatively accurate time span. As for Agathias' questioning, it was not actually aimed at the reliability of Prokous's records, but at the incredible practice of Arcadius willing to entrust his close relatives to the enemy monarch. In his era, the relationship between Rome and Persia was once again tense, and it was normal for him to have such doubts, but this does not mean that such an event would not have occurred in the 5th century.
In fact, what is quite intriguing about the "orphanage" incident is why Acadius "orphaned", and whether the reason for his "orphanage" is really as simple as the "worry" of Acadius recorded by Procopius? Why was Ishiki entrusted? He kept his promise and maintained peace with Rome for a long time. Is it only because of his amazing extraordinary virtues? What was the impact of the "Togo Incident" on the relationship between Eastern Rome and Sassanid Persia at that time, as well as the direction of the late ancient world? These questions are worth further questioning and exploring in depth.

2、 Arcadius' act of entrusting loneliness is a helpless act [1]
The Roman Empire and the Sassanian Persian Kingdom have always been enemies. At the beginning of Isi I's accession (399 AD), Roman society harbored a fear of him becoming another Shapur II. [17] So, why was he willing to entrust his young son to Ishiki I before the death of Arcadius? This was actually determined by the situation of the Eastern Roman Empire itself at that time.
Firstly, after 395 AD, the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire were divided and the relationship was tense, and the Eastern Romans would not consider the Western Romans as their supporters. After the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD, Western Rome was ruled by Honorius, who was only ten years old, while Eastern Rome was ruled by Arcadius, who was seventeen or eighteen years old. Due to their young age, the actual rulers in both the eastern and western parts of the empire were not the emperor himself. Stilicho actually controlled and ruled the western part of the empire until 408 AD. He claimed that when Theodosius I passed away, he appointed him as the guardian of both Honorius and Arcadius. Stilico has been trying to control the eastern part of the empire, but has never been successful. After the second expedition to Alaric by Stilico in 397 AD, the Eastern government subsequently encouraged Gildo to rebel in Africa, and the relationship between East and West Rome deteriorated to the point of maritime trade embargo. Stilico continuously pursued policies to control the eastern part of Illikum, especially between 405-408 AD, when he was ready to use military means to control the region. This further intensified the conflict between the eastern and western parts of the empire, and it can be said that the relationship between the eastern and western parts of the empire at this time was not too much like that of foreign enemies. [18] Therefore, Arcadius and his government could not rely on Western Rome as their own, entrusting their young children and the Eastern Roman government to the Western Roman court, which was equivalent to "bringing wolves into the house" for them. At the same time, Alaric invaded Italy twice in the early 5th century, and from 405 to 408 AD, the western part of the empire was deeply embroiled in the invasion of barbarians and the so-called usurpation of the Styrian throne. [19] As Procopius said, in the early 5th century, Western Rome was in dire straits and the situation in Italy was very bad. Arcadius could not have hoped for the help of Western Roman Emperor Honorius. [20]

Secondly, after 363 AD, the relationship between Rome and Sassanid Persia remained relatively relaxed, which made it possible for Arcadius to entrust his young son and empire to the Sassanid Persian king who had a relaxed relationship with him. The relationship between Rome and Sassanid Persia was in a fluctuating state of sometimes easing and sometimes tense for a long time. Before the second half of the 3rd and 4th centuries, Sassanian Persia and the Roman Empire were at odds with each other, and their relationship was mainly hostile. During the reign of Ardashir I, the founding monarch of Sassanid Persia, he repeatedly attempted to invade the eastern borders of Rome, including Armenia and Mesopotamia. During the reign of Shapur I, he launched three wars against Rome, and Roman Emperor Philip was forced to sign a treaty with him, ceding Greater Armenia, later known as Persia, to Sassanian Persia. But after the death of Shapur I, Sassanid Persia experienced a period of political turmoil. After Diocletian ascended to the throne, the Romans forced the Sassanian king Narses to sign a treaty of cession in 299 AD [22], which was a turning point in Roman Persian relations. For a long time thereafter, Sassanian Persia failed to change its relatively weak position in bilateral relations. The year 363 AD was another turning point in Roman Persian relations. After Julian's expedition to Persia and his death due to injury, Jovian ascended to the throne and was forced to sign a treaty of cession with Sassanid Persia. From then on until the 6th century, with the exception of Bahram V's brief invasion of Rome in 421-422 AD and Isis II's brief invasion in 439 AD, the relationship between Rome and Sassanid Persia in the eastern frontier was basically in a state of peace. After Shapur III ascended the throne in 383 AD, the relationship between Rome and Sassanid Persia improved, and both sides began to send envoys to each other for negotiations and other matters. After Ishiki I ascended the throne in 399 AD, the way of exchanging envoys for communication between the two countries was further developed, and the friendly relationship between the two countries was further consolidated. At the beginning of Isi I's accession to the throne, the Eastern Roman government sent envoys to Sassanid Persia to congratulate and resolve disputes, striving for tolerance for Christians. This mission is reportedly led by Anthemius, but it can be confirmed that Marutha, the Archbishop of Armenia, is a member of the mission. According to records, he healed the sick son of Isikaga I, who was unable to be cured by the Zoroastrianism, and may have also relieved Isikaga I's long-term headache. This left a deep impression on Isiji I and therefore promised to release the Roman prisoners who were taken from the Xiongnu in 395/396 AD. His outstanding performance on the road has laid a solid foundation for the development of friendly relations between the two countries. Afterwards, both sides frequently exchanged envoys. From 404 to 414 AD, the Eastern Roman government was led by Antiochus. Antiochus was rich in management experience and established lasting peace with Sassanid Persia during his reign. [

Therefore, in the situation where the eastern part of the empire and the western part of the empire are considered enemies, and the western part of the empire is difficult to protect itself, and on the other hand, the relationship with Sassanid Persia is harmonious, in order to ensure a smooth transition to the throne, to ensure that Sassanid Persia will not take advantage of the situation after his death, and to maintain friendly relations between the two countries, it is very likely that before his death, Arcadius "reluctantly" entrusted his young son to Ishiji I.
3、 Izuki I's "trustworthiness" is the optimal choice
On the Sassanian Persian side, Isiji I was willing to serve as the guardian of the young Theodosius II and maintain long-term peace with Rome, without taking the opportunity to attack the eastern borders of Rome, which was also the result of multiple factors.
Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the year 363 AD was a turning point in Roman Persian relations. The peace treaty signed between Jovian and Sassanid Persia largely satisfied Sassanid Persia's long-standing demands, making them satisfied with their vested interests and unwilling to disrupt this state of peace.
In 299 AD, Narses was forced to sign a treaty of cession with Diocletian, which stipulated that: 1. Sassanid Persia ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris River, including Intilene, Sophene, Arzanena, Corduena, and Zabdichena, to the Romans; 2. The Tigris River serves as the border between the two countries; 3. The Zintha on the Media border is the border of Armenia; 4. The king of Iberia received his royal power from the Romans as a symbol; 5. Nisibis on the Tigris River is the only trading point. [28]

According to the treaty, Sassanid Persia not only lost important border territories and control over important neighboring countries, but also became the only trading point between the two countries, allowing the Romans to enjoy the income brought by Eastern luxury goods trade taxes, resulting in significant economic losses for Sassanid Persia. In fact, the provision that Nicibis was the only trading point was opposed by Narses at that time. Since then, Sassanid Persia has been trying to reverse this situation. After Shapur II ascended the throne, he besieged Nisibis three times in an attempt to reclaim the land lost from Narses, but all suffered setbacks. Julian's injury and death brought an opportunity to Sassanid Persia. Jovian quickly signed a treaty with Shapur II to quickly withdraw his troops from Persia and reduce losses. According to the records of Marcellinus, the content of the treaty is roughly as follows: 1. The Romans ceded 5 provinces outside the Tigris River [31] along with 15 fortresses, as well as Nisibis, Singara, and the very important fortress Castra Maurorum to Sassanid Persia; 2. Allow the Romans to withdraw their troops from the aforementioned fortresses and evacuate residents from Nisibis and Sinhala; 3. The Romans will not be able to assist the Armenian king Arsaces in dealing with the Persians; The term of the treaty is 30 years. [32]
Based on this treaty, Sassanid Persia not only regained the previously lost territory, but also gained more. The cession of cities such as Nisibis and their surrounding territories destroyed Rome's defense system in eastern Mesopotamia, greatly enhancing Sassanid Persia's defense against Adiabene and Assyria. Not only that, the cession of Nicibis also eliminated Rome's monopoly on cross-border trade revenue, which greatly impacted Rome's cross-border trade. Since then, Nisibis has been under the control of the Persians, and no treaty has been signed between the two sides to change the border of Mesopotamia. In the situation where both territorial and economic demands were met, Ishiki I had no reason to take the initiative to break this peaceful situation.

Secondly, Sassanid Persia was also facing internal and external difficulties at this time. Internally, Isiji I, like all Sassanian monarchs, had to face an independent and easily angered aristocratic class, as well as a Pyrrhotic priestly class dedicated to developing their religion into the sole religious belief in Persia and its affiliated regions. He needed to limit the influence of the noble and priestly classes. In order to break free from the influence and control of the aristocracy and priestly class, Isai I needed to win the support of minority groups in Sassanian Persia, such as Jews and Christians. At that time, Rome was the main refuge of Christians, so Isai I needed to maintain a good relationship with Rome. More importantly, in addition to relying on Christians and Jews, the military power of the Saracen of al Hira [35] was the main reliance of Ismail I on the Persian nobility. Isiji I needed a large amount of money to strengthen his relationship with the Saracens of Hera, so maintaining friendly relations with Rome would allow him to receive significant diplomatic and economic compensation from Constantinople. [36]
Externally, in 395 and 396 AD, the Xiongnu invaded Armenia and Mesopotamia, plundering footprints as far as Ctesiphon. Cappadocia, Galatia, and even Syria in Rome were also affected. The invasion of the Xiongnu put immense pressure on the northeastern border area of Sassanid Persia. At the same time, Rome also needs to guard against invasions from nomadic tribes in the north. Therefore, protecting the Caucasus passage and resisting the invasion of northern enemies became a common interest of Rome and Sassanid Persia. Moreover, although the Treaty of 363 AD weakened the defense of Rome's eastern border, the Romans began to strengthen their defense in the eastern border again ten years after the signing of the Treaty. Therefore, at this time, it was very difficult for Rome and Sassanid Persia to invade or conquer each other. Adhering to the treaty and maintaining peace was the ideal state.
Finally, Ishiki I's acceptance of being an orphan is also related to his personal personality and experience. After the accession of Ishiki I, he ceased the long-term persecution of Christians within the Sassanian Persian region. In Sassanian Persian and Arab sources, he was referred to as a "sinner" due to his excessive tolerance for non Zoroastrian beliefs. [39] Ishiki I no longer regarded Christians as strangers and enemies of the kingdom, although for the aforementioned political reasons, it also indirectly reflected his inclusive personality. Most previous Sassanian Persian monarchs satisfied the needs of the Sassanian nobility and priestly class by launching wars and obtaining spoils of war, thereby consolidating their throne. And Ishiki I adopted non war methods, even if he used the military power of the Saracens, more of it was just deterrence rather than actual war, and there were no fierce battles during his reign. Christians also played a positive role during this period, promoting the development of friendly relations between the two countries. In addition to the aforementioned road, it is said that Persian Bishop Yabalaha also demonstrated another miracle to Ishiji I, winning favor with the Romans. [41]

Therefore, under the premise that the Treaty of 363 AD basically met the long-standing territorial and economic demands of Sassanid Persia, he also witnessed the "miracles" of Christians in the face of external invasion from northern ethnic groups, internal need to weaken the influence and control of Persian nobles and priests, and need to maintain cooperation with Rome. Accepting the "orphan" of Arcadius was the best choice made by Ishiji I, who had a tolerant personality.
4、 Arcadian "Torgu" and the Changes in the Late Ancient Eastern and Western Situations
Arcadian "Torgu" had a profound impact on the changes in the late ancient Eastern and Western situations, and also provided a new dimension for understanding the changes in the late ancient Eastern and Western situations. Firstly, for the Eastern Roman government, after the death of Arcadius, the young Theodosius II was neither harmed by conspirators from Constantinople nor "unified" by Western Rome, nor threatened by Sassanian Persia. The rule of the Eastern Roman Empire achieved a smooth transition. During the reign of Isi I, peace was maintained with Rome for a long time, and the tranquility of the eastern borders of the Roman Empire provided sufficient breathing time for the government of Theodosius II, allowing Eastern Rome to concentrate its military forces against the Xiongnu led by Uldin and avoid two fronts of warfare. In 408/409 AD, the Xiongnu invaded the Roman Empire again. Under the leadership of Uldin, the Xiongnu crossed the Danube, first occupying Moesia, and then invading Thrace. Urding claimed that if he wanted, he could conquer every piece of land under the sunshine. Although Uldin's invasion was ultimately crushed by the Romans, it also exposed the fragility of the Roman Empire's border defense. Antemius immediately strengthened the border defense, especially the strength of the Danube Fleet. In 413 AD, the walls of Constantinople were also rebuilt and supplemented. If Arcadius had not been left alone, then at the beginning of Theodosius II's accession to the throne, he was likely to face both threats from other potential usurpers within the empire and ambitions for unification from the western part of the empire. On the other hand, he would also face external disturbances from Sassanopos and the Xiongnu. In this situation, whether the Eastern Roman government could survive is a question, and whether it could revive in the future is even more unknown.

Secondly, the "orphanage" incident had significant promoting significance for the development of late ancient Christianity in the East. Christians not only promoted the friendly development of Roman Persian relations, but also benefited themselves greatly. The friendly relationship between Rome and Persia allowed Christianity to develop rapidly in the East, especially in Sassanid Persia. During the reign of Ishikah I, Christianity's influence even surpassed that of Zoroastrianism. In 409 AD, Iski I officially allowed Christians to openly believe in Sassanian Persia and rebuilt the Christian Church. He ordered the release of the "confessors" in prison and allowed bishops to move freely within their diocese, while also recognizing the right of Christians to organize and to make laws for themselves. Yisiqi I officially recognized the legitimacy of Christianity in Sassanid Persia in law, which was a huge progress for the Christian Church that had been persecuted in Sassanid Persia since Constantine established the Christian faith in the Roman Empire, and provided a necessary foundation for the future development of Christianity in the East. In 410 AD, Isiji I approved the convening of a religious council by Maruta and others in Seleucia Ctesiphon, resolving disputes between Eastern and Western Christian churches, and establishing a single structured church composed of Christians in Sassanid Persia, later known as the "Eastern Church.". This has milestone significance in the development history of the Eastern Church and Christianity in the East. [45]
Thirdly, this event also had a significant impact on the trade exchanges between the East and the West in late ancient times. The friendly political relationship between Rome and Persia has promoted cooperation between the two countries in regulating cross-border trade between the East and the West. According to the Justinian Code [46], in 408/409 AD, Honorius and Theodosius II promulgated laws on commerce and merchants, as follows:

The merchants who submit to our rule and the merchants who submit to the Persian king shall not place the market outside the places agreed upon in the treaties signed with the aforementioned countries, in order to prevent the secrets of any kingdom from being disclosed. Therefore, no subject of our empire shall purchase or sell goods outside of Nicibis, Callinicum, and Artaxata in the future, nor shall they trade with Persians in any place outside these cities. Because both parties signing the treaty know that any goods sold or purchased outside of these places will be confiscated by our sacred treasury, and in addition to these goods, the price paid in cash or in kind will also be confiscated, and the offender himself will be permanently exiled; 2. Judges and their subordinates from both parties signing the treaty who enter places outside the above-mentioned scope will also be fined 30 pounds, including those from Rome or Persia who cross their borders to trade in prohibited areas; 3. But this does not apply to Persian envoys who carry goods for exchange. Out of humanity and respect for the envoys, we do not deny that these people have the privilege to engage in trade outside of fixed locations. Unless they have stayed in a certain province for a long time under the guise of an envoy and have not returned to their own country. When these people participate in transactions, they must be punished by such sanctions, including those who trade with them and reside with them.
This law summarizes the official guidelines for trade between Byzantium and Sassanid Persia, limiting cross-border trade to designated cities. From the perspective of both countries, this is also an important step in ensuring common border security. This principle was in effect until the end of Roman Persian relations in the 7th century. [47]

Finally, Arcadius's "orphanage" provided a new paradigm for seeking a change in the relationship between late ancient Rome and Sassanid Persia. In ancient society, the usual way to solve conflicts and problems between nations was through war, as Finley pointed out. In the ancient world, war was everywhere, and he agreed with Plato's view, calling it a "merciless law.". However, in fact, the perfect ending of the Arcadian "orphan" incident opened up another new paradigm for ancient countries to seek changes in their relationships, namely the non war "orphan" paradigm. King Kavadh I of Sassanid Persia also attempted to have Justin I adopt his son Khusro I. From 502 to 506 AD, Cavad I went to war with Byzantium due to his refusal to request payment of funds to the Byzantines and his request to return Nesibis. After Justin I (reigned 518-527) succeeded to the throne, conflicts arose between the two sides over the issues of Lazika, Siberia, and the Caspian Sea Pass, leading to renewed tensions. But when Kavad I, who was in his seventies, was preparing to make arrangements for the succession of the kingdom and throne after him, his first thought was to have Justin I adopt his beloved son, Kusilau, to ease relations with Byzantium and ensure that Kusilau could inherit his throne. It is difficult to say that this is not an imitation of the "Torgu" paradigm created by Arcadius. Arcadius's "orphan" paradigm is a new attempt in late ancient international relations.