The Persian Empire

by Kia, Mehrdad;

  In the fourteenth year, however, expected dispatches from the governors of Syria and Mesopotamia revealed that Artaxerxes [Ardashir I], the Persian king had conquered the Parthians and had seized their Eastern empire, killing Artabanus, who was formerly called the Great King and wore the double diadem. Artaxerxes then subdued all the barbarians on his borders and forced them to pay tribute. He did not remain quiet, however, or stay on his side of the Tigris River, but, after scaling its banks and crossing the borders of the Roman Empire, he overran Mesopotamia and threatened Syria. The entire continent opposite Europe, separated from it by the Aegean Sea and the Propontic Gulf, and the region called Asia he wished to recover for the Persian Empire. Believing these regions to be his by inheritance, he declared that all the countries in that area, including Ionia and Caria, have been ruled by Persian governors, beginning with Cyrus who first made the Median empire Persian, and ending with Darius, the last of the Persian monarchs, whose kingdom was seized by Alexander the Great. He asserted that it was therefore proper for him to recover for the Persians the kingdom which they had formerly possessed. When the Eastern governors revealed these developments in their dispatches, Alexander [Alexander Severus] was greatly disturbed by these unanticipated tidings, particularly since, raised from childhood in an age of peace, had spent his entire life in urban ease and comfort. Before doing anything else, he thought it best, after consulting his advisers, to send an embassy to the king and by his letters halt the invasion and disappoint the barbarian’s hopes. In these letters he told Artaxerxes that he must remain within his own borders and not initiate any action; let him not, deluded by vain hopes, stir up a great war, but rather let each of them be content with what was already his. … But Artaxerxes ignored Alexander’s effort; believing that the matter would be settled by arms, not by words, he took the field, pillaging and looting all the Roman provinces. He overran and plundered Mesopotamia, trampling it under the hoofs of his horses. He laid siege to the Roman garrison camps on the banks of the rivers, the camps which defended the empire. … The considerations which led him to wish for an expanded empire were not small. He was the first Persian to dare to launch an attack on the Parthian empire and the first to succeed in winning back that empire for the Persians. …

  … After thus setting matters in order, Alexander considering that the huge army he had assembled was now nearly equal in power and numbers to the barbarians, consulted his advisers and then divided his force into three separate armies. One army he ordered to overrun the land of the Medes after marching north and passing through Armenia, which seemed to favor the Roman cause. He sent a second army to the eastern sector of the barbarian territory, where, it is said, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers at their confluence empty into very dense marshes; these are the only rivers whose mouth cannot be clearly determined. The third and most powerful army he kept himself, promising to lead it against the barbarians in the central sector. He thought that in this way he would attack them from different directions when they were unprepared and not anticipating such strategy, and he believed that the Persian horde, constantly split up to face their attackers on several fronts, would be weaker and less unified for battle. The barbarians, it may be noted, do not hire mercenary soldiers as the Romans do, nor do they maintain trained standing armies. Rather, all the available men, and sometimes the women, too, mobilized at the king’s orders. At the end of the war, each man returns to his regular occupation, taking as his pay whatever falls to his lot from the general booty. They use the bow and the horse in war, as the Romans do, but the barbarians are reared with these from childhood, and live by hunting; they never lay aside their quivers or dismount from their horses, but employ them constantly for war and the chase.

  Alexander [Severus], therefore, devised what he believed to be the best possible plan of action, only to have Fortune defeat his design. The army sent through Armenia had an agonizing passage over the high, steep mountains of that country. … Then, plunging down into the land of the Medes, the Roman soldiers devastated the countryside, burning many villages and carrying off much loot. Informed of this, the Persian king led his army to the aid of the Medes, but met with little success in his efforts to halt the Roman advance. This is rough country; while it provided firm footing and easy passage for the infantry, the rugged mountain terrain hampered the movements of the barbarian cavalry and prevented their riding down the Romans or even making contact with them. Then men came and reported to the Persian king that another Roman army had appeared in eastern Parthia and was overrunning the plains there. Fearing that the Romans, after ravaging Parthia unopposed, might advance into Persia, Artaxerxes left behind a force which he thought strong enough to defend Media, and hurried with his entire army into the eastern sector. The Romans were advancing much too carelessly because they had met no opposition and, in addition, they believed that Alexander and his army, the largest and most formidable of the three, had already attacked the barbarians in the central sector. They thought too that their own advance would be easier and less hazardous when the barbarians were constantly being drawn off elsewhere to meet the threat of the emperor’s army. All three Roman armies had been ordered to invade the enemy’s territory, and a final rendezvous had been selected to which they were to bring their booty and prisoners. But Alexander failed them: he did not bring his army or come himself into barbarian territory either because he was afraid to risk his life for the Roman Empire or because his mother’s feminine fears or excessive mother love restrained him. She blocked his efforts at courage by persuading him that he should let others risk their lives for him, but that he should not personally fight in battle. It was this reluctance of his which led to the destruction of the advancing Roman army. The king attacked it unexpectedly with his entire force and trapped the Romans like fish in a net; firing their arrows from all sides at the encircled soldiers, the Persians massacred the whole army. The outnumbered Romans were unable to stem the attack of the Persian horde; they used their shields to protect those parts of their bodies exposed to the Persian arrows. Content merely to protect themselves, they offered no resistance. As a result, all the Romans were driven into one spot, where they made a wall of their shields and fought like an army under siege. Hit and wounded from every side, they held up bravely as long as they could, but in the end all were killed. The Romans suffered a staggering disaster; it is not easy to recall another like it, one in which a great army was destroyed, an army inferior in strength and determination to none of the armies of old. The successful outcome of these important events encouraged the Persian king to anticipate better things in the future.

  Source: Herodian, History of the Roman Empire: From the Death of Marcus Aurelius to the Accession of Gordian III, Book 6, translated by Edward See Ecles (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961), 3, 5. Reprinted with permission.

  33. EXCERPT FROM NAMEH-YE TANSAR [LETTER OF TANSAR]

  In 224 CE Ardashir, the governor of Istakhr in the province of Fars in southern Iran, defeated and killed Artabanus IV (Ardavan IV), the last monarch of the Arsacid dynasty, on the battlefield. The death of Artabanus signaled the end of Arsacid rule and the emergence of Ardashir as the founder of the Sasanian dynasty, which ruled until 651. Throughout their long reign the Sasanian monarchs tried to propagate the notion that the reason for the rebellion of Ardashir was partially the neglect that religion had suffered during the long reign of the Arsacids. This argument was revived during the reign of the Sasanian monarch Khosrow I Anushiravan (r. 531–579 CE). Khosrow I unleashed a campaign of terror against the members of the Mazdakite movement who had demanded fundamental social and economic reforms. The document below is an excerpt from Nameh-ye Tansar [Letter to Tansar], which may have been originally written in the 3rd century CE by the high priest (herbed) under Ardashir I to the ruler of Tabaristan, the lush and mountainous Caspian province of northern Iran. In this letter the high priest speaks of the neglect of religion by the Arsacids and the need to revive and support the religious establishment
, which should serve as a close ally and supporter of the ruling monarchy. This letter was apparently reintroduced during the reign of Khosrow I as a tool of state propaganda against those who questioned the legitimacy of the Sasanian dynasty. In the 9th century, the Letter of Tansar was translated from Persian into Arabic. Then in the 13th century, the letter was translated from Arabic into Persian by the author Ibn Esfandiyar, who included it in his Tarikh-e Tabaristan [History of Tabaristan].

  Long afterwards Ardashir son of Papak, son of Sasan, took the field. … Apart from Ardavan, the man of most might and dignity at the time was Gushnasp, king of Parishwar and Tabaristan. … When it became clear to Gushnasp that he could not avoid submitting and paying fealty, he wrote a letter to Tansar, chief herbad of Ardashir son of Papak. Tansar read the letter … and wrote the answer which follows: (2) (pp. 5–8) The chief herbad, Tansar has received a letter of Gushnasp, prince and king of Tabaristan and Parishwar. … He has studied each point, good or bad, and is pleased with it. … Do not marvel at my zeal and ardour for promoting order in the world, that the foundations of the laws of the faith may be made firm. For Church and State were born of the one womb, joined together and never to be sundered. … (3) (pp. 10–12) Now as to the question which you put concerning the decrees of the King of kings: … you wrote, ‘although the king seeks the truth of the ancients yet he may be accused of forsaking tradition; and right though this may be for the world, it is not good for the faith.’ … In the beginning of time men enjoyed perfect understanding of the knowledge of religion. … Yet it is not to be doubted that even then, through new happenings in their midst, they had need of a ruler of understanding; for till religion is interpreted by understanding it has no firm foundation. … (4) (pp. 16–17) You declared: ‘There is much talk about the blood shed by the king and people are dismayed.’ The answer is that there are many kings who have put few to death, yet have slain immoderately if they have killed but ten; and there are many who if they put men to death in their thousands should slay still more, being driven to it at the time by their people. … Punishments, you must know, are for three kinds of transgressions; first that of the creature against his God … when he turns from the faith and introduces a heresy into religion. … For (this) the King of kings has established a law far better than that of the ancients. For in former days any man who turned from the faith was swiftly … put to death. … The King of kings has ordered that such a man should be imprisoned and that for the space of a year learned men should summon him at frequent intervals and advise and lay arguments before him and destroy his doubt. If he becomes penitent and contrite and seek pardon of God, he is set free. If obstinacy and pride hold him back, then he is put to death. (5) (p. 22) Next for what you said, that the King of kings has taken away fires from the fire temples, extinguished them and blotted them out, and that no one has ever before presumed so far against religion; know that the case is not so grievous but has been wrongly reported to you. The truth is that after Darius (III) each of the ‘kings of the peoples’ [i.e., the Parthians’ vassal kings] built his own [dynastic] fire temple. This was pure innovation, introduced by them without the authority of kings of old. The King of kings has razed the temples, and confiscated the endowments, and had the fires carried back to their places of origin. … (6) (p. 26) Then you said: ‘he has exacted money from men of wealth and merchants.’ … The idea that the king of the day should seek help for the common people from the superfluity of the wealthy is a religious principle and clearly justified in reason. … (7) (pp. 42–3) The King of kings has cast the shadow of his majesty over all who have acknowledged his pre-eminence and service and have sent him tribute. … In the space of fourteen years … he thus brought it about that he made water flow in every desert and established towns and created groups of villages. … Good order in the affairs of the people affects him more than the welfare of his own body and soul. Whoever considers his achievements … will agree that since the power of the world’s Creator arched this azure sphere the world has not known so through a king. (8) (pp. 38–9) So that when the world is abandoned by the King of kings … they will take up that prince [his heir] and seat him on the throne and place the crown on his head, and taking him by the hand will say: ‘Do you accept the kingship from God? … according to the religion of Zardusht [Zoroaster], upheld by the King of kings, Gushtasp [= Vishtasp], son of Luhrasp, and restored by Ardashir son of Papak?’ The king will accept that covenant.

  Source: “Nameh-ye Tansar,” in Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, edited and translated by Mary Boyce (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 109–111. Reprinted with permission.

  34. INSCRIPTION OF THE ZOROASTRIAN HIGH PRIEST KARTIR AT NAQSH-E ROSTAM ON THE KA’BA-YE ZARDOSHT (KA’BA OF ZOROASTER)

  Kartir (Kerdir) was a powerful Zoroastrian priest who lived during the reigns of the Sasanian kings Shapur I (r. 239/240/241/242–270/272 CE), Hormozd I (r. 270/272–273 CE), Bahram I (r. 273–276 CE), Bahram II (r. 276–293 CE), and Bahram III (r. 293 CE). He was also mentioned in the Paikuli inscription from the reign of Narseh (r. 293–302 CE). Kartir symbolized the growing influence and interference of the Zoroastrian religious hierarchy in the political life of the Sasanian Empire. He organized the campaign to persecute the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu communities of the Sasanian Empire. He also has been credited for organizing the persecution of the Iranian prophet Mani (216–276 CE) and his followers. Kartir wrote proudly that “Jews and Buddhists and Brahmans and Aramaic and Greek-speaking Christians and baptizers and Manichaeans were assailed in the land,” and “images were overthrown, and the dens of demons were (thus) destroyed,” and fire temples were established in their place. Given his enormous power in religious and judicial spheres of the government, it is not surprising that he played an important role in the forced abdication of the young Sasanian monarch Bahram III, instead lending his support to Bahram’s great-uncle, Narseh, who marched from Armenia to seize the Sasanian throne. Kartir’s inscriptions were designed to portray the Zoroastrian high priest as a pious, dedicated, and ethical man who had devoted his life to the expansion and consolidation of Mazdaism in the Iranian and non-Iranian populated regions of the Sasanian Empire. They were also intended to portray the high priest as a man of god who had lived in accordance with the teachings of his religion. The inscription below, which was incised on the wall of Ka’ba-ye Zardosht (Ka’ba of Zoroaster) in Naqsh-e Rostam near Persepolis in the southern Iranian province of Fars, was composed during the reign of the Sasanian monarch Bahram II.

  (1) And I, Kirder [Kartir] the Mobad have been acknowledged to be of good service and loyal to the yazads and to Shabuhr, King of kings. … Shabuhr, King of kings, made my position independent and authoritative over religious matters at court and in every province and place, and over the priesthood throughout the empire. (2) And at the command of Shabuhr, King of kings, and with the support of the yazads and the King of kings, religious services were multiplied in every province and place, and many Vahram Fires were founded. And many a priest became joyful and prosperous. And charters were sealed for many fires and priestly colleges, and much benefit reached Ohrmazd and the yazads, and there was much confusion for Ahriman and the devs. … (3) And the documents, charters and records which were then made under Shabuhr, King of kings … were written upon thus: ‘Kirder the Herbad’. And after Shabuhr, King of kings, had departed to the Place of the Gods, and his son Ohrmazd, King of kings, was in the land, then Ohrmazd, King of kings, bestowed on me cap and girdle, and increased my dignity and honor … and I was styled ‘Kirder the Mobad of Ohrmazd’, in the name of Ohrmazd the Lord. … (4) And after Ohrmazd, King of kings, had departed to the Place of the Gods, and Vahram, King of kings, son of Shabuhr, King of kings … was in the land, then Vahram also, King of kings, advanced and honored me. … (5) And after Vahram, King of kings, son of Shabuhr had departed to the Place of the Gods, Vahram, King of kings, son of Vahram, was in the land, who in rule is generous and upright and kind a
nd beneficent and virtuous. And for love of Ohrmazd and the yazads, and for his own soul’s sake, he increased my dignity and honour yet more. He gave me the dignity and honour of a nobleman; and … throughout the empire I was made more authoritative and independent than formerly over religious matters. And I was made Mobad and Judge of the whole empire, and I was made Master of Ceremonials and Warden of the Fires of Anahid-Ardashir and Anahid the Lady at Istakhr. (6) And I was styled ‘Kirder by whom Vahram’s soul is saved, Mobad of Ohrmazd’. And in every province and place of the whole empire the service of Ohrmazd and the yazads was exalted, and the Mazda-worshipping religion and its priests received much honour in the land. And the yazads, and water and fire and cattle, were greatly contented, and Ahriman and the devs was driven out of the land and deprived of credence. (7) And Jews and Buddhists and Brahmans, and Aramaic and Greek-speaking Christians and baptizers and Manicheans were assailed in the land. And images were overthrown, and the dens of demons were (thus) destroyed, and the places and abodes of the yazads [i.e., fire temples] were established. … (8) And from the first I, Kirder, underwent much toil and trouble for the yazads and the rulers, and for my own soul’s sake. And I caused many fires and priestly colleges to flourish in Iran, and also in non-Iranian lands. There were fires and priests in the non-Iranian lands, which were reached by the armies of the King of kings. The provincial capital Antioch and the province of Syria, and the districts dependent on Syria; the provincial capital Tarsus and the province of Cilicia, and the districts dependent on Cilicia; the provincial capital Caesarea and the province Cappadocia, and the districts dependent on Cappadocia, up to Pontus and the province of Armenia, and Georgia and Albania and Balasagan, up to the ‘Gate of the Alans’—these were plundered and burnt and laid waste by Shabuhr, King of kings, with his armies. There too, at the command of the king of kings, I reduced to order the priests and fires which were in those lands. And I did not allow harm to be done them, or captives made. And whoever had thus been made captive, him indeed I took and sent back to his own land. And I made the Mazda-worshipping religion and its good priests esteemed and honoured in the land. (9) And heretics and harmful men, who being in the priesthood did not in their expositions further the Mazda worshipping religion and the service of the yazads, them I punished and rebuked until through me they were amended. (10) And I drew up many documents and charters for fires and priestly colleges. And with the support of the yazads and the King of kings, and by my act, many Vahram Fires were founded in the land of Iran, and many next-of-kin marriages were made, and many people who had not believed, became believers. And there were many who had held the religion of the devs, and by my act they abandoned the religion of the devs and accepted the religion of the yazads. (11) And many seasonal observances were held, and many religious accountings, in various ways, and other services for the yazads too were greatly increased and exalted which have not been written of in this inscription; for if they had been written of, then it would have been too much. And at my own cost I founded many Vahram Fires in different places. … And let whoever may see this record and read it aloud, be just and generous, even as I have been, for the sake of the yazads and rulers and his own soul, so that good fame and fortune may come to him in the flesh and blessedness attend his soul hereafter.