In the Footsteps of Rome: A History of Europe in Late Antiquity

[volksmarschall]

Oh I don't know - I think the position "The world is going to hell these days" was quite a popular opinion all in all

Joe Rogan believes we're going to create hell on earth! (It's actually a very funny sketch, coming from a guy who actually knows a lot of about science but communicates it in a comedic way, c.p.).

Unfortunately, that means our ultimate trump card of Fr. Georges Lemaître being the man who theorized the big bang and convinced, of all people, Einstein of its validity, disappears!

 

[volksmarschall]

Chapter 5: Persia in Late Antiquity

Chapter 5: Persia in Late Antiquity​

It might be said, and true, that the Roman Empire was the dominant emperor of Antiquity and into Late Antiquity, but their great rival during this same period – the Persians, more specifically the Sassanids, were to Rome what the Soviet Union was to the United States during the Cold War. The Sassanid Empire was born in the legacy of the great Achaemenid Empire before Alexander the Great brought that empire to its knees. The successor kingdom of the Parthians was also a forerunner, which gave lineage to the historical animosity and rivalry between Rome and Persia for nearly 400 years.

As I covered earlier in Chapter 2: Crisis and Collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, the Roman-Sassanid Wars, although ending in a Roman victory, it was a pyrrhic one as the Roman West was made destitute from the wars that was principally fought by the eastern half of the empire against the rising power that was the Sassanids. The Sassanids were not just Persian, and therefore, Zoroastrian, the oldest of the world’s known monotheisms, but a high culture that mixed both ancient Persian and Greek Hellenistic thought.

They were lovers of poetry, a moral people, and deeply pious. Although the Roman concept of civilization limited civilization to only Romans, and therefore everyone one was a barbarian[1], an argument can be made the Persians were more civilized than the Romans. The Roman insistence on violent justice was generally absent in Persian notions of justice, which centered around order and benevolence: The earth is a garden, and the ruler its gardener[2]. The entire idea of the circle of justice lays with the notion that the ruler that is good maintains order in society for the people to practice their daily lives freely and happily. As long as a ruler has maintained order, he is legitimate, and there is no legitimacy in revolution. Unlike in Rome, where civil wars and murderous politics carried the political day, Persia was generally free of civil wars and bloodthirsty politics for much of its history.

This 16th century artwork depicts the King Bahram V, who was one of the great patrons of the arts, poetry, and literature during his reign (420–438 C.E.).
​

As a result, the Sassanids were a much more centralized society than the Parthians, who were really a confederation of Persian tribes that were only loosely united in times of great crisis. The Sassanid understanding of order and the circle of justice demanded a strong military, a strong state, and an activist religious class to achieve the perpetual harmony desired in the garden state. For these reasons, it is no surprise that another great eastern power was an empire. As I have stated, the east was home to the great empires of Late Antiquity while the west was home to fractured city-states, counties, duchies, and kingdoms (and only loosely an empire, in name only, in the Holy Roma Empire). Whereas Roman infrastructure was the reason for the Byzantine Empire’s continued existence as an imperial power, political philosophy and political theology are the causes for empire in Persia, for even after centuries of flourishing, much the empire was hardly united by the highways and aqueducts that dotted across the Byzantine Empire.

During its first golden age, in the aftermath of the Roman-Sassanid Wars ending at the Roman triumph at the Battle of Satala, an age of great learning, wisdom, and literature proliferated across Persia. Court poets and artists were often invited by the Persian rulers into the royal palaces, painting and writing lively tales of the high culture life of the Persian elite, and the bustling trade in the cities merchant quarters. Not only was there a great proliferation and flourishing of the arts, but music was also a common practice that rose during the fourth century in Persia.

Musical instruments like the harp and guitar (the lute) were not only valued by the elites, but also by the commoners, many of whom pioneered the art of street music. The Persians also formed the first bands in the world, with musicians who played the harp, drum, flute, and horns coming together to produce harmonious music that was pleasant for the ear, rather than the prior use of instruments as battlefield weapons and forms of communication.

This stone relief in the mountains of Iran depict a band of Persian harpists playing their instruments in unity. As mentioned, the Persians were among the first people to start the musical tradition of band playing for purely musical purposes, compared to the often individual "soothing" performances of single musicians in Classical Antiquity.
​

The society of Persia in the fourth century can be described as being hedonistic, there was a value of the human body, love, and emotion – three things that were absent in the strict Christian civilization of the Romans where the human body was seen as tainted and corrupt, love was meant for procreation, and emotionalism was often associated with demonic possession. Even homoerotic poetry and narrative was widely celebrated in Persian culture and literature. It could be said that almost every day in Persian life was a day of party, celebration, love, and the general embrace of human identity. Of course, the negative fallout of emotivism was never entrenched in Persian society as in modern Western societies, for the people were never opposed to one another in emotionalist politics since, as an empire, an in accordance to Persian political philosophy, the people were always content to live under their King. The King of Kings, Ruler of Other Kings, the common motto associated with the Sassanid rulers of their day – which the later Byzantine dynasties would eventually incorporate into their political culture.

The flourishing of the arts also gave rise to a renewed interest in Greek philosophy, influenced by Persian culture. The Sassanid King, Khosrau I, had read Plato’s Republic, and had embraced the idea of the philosopher king, where the ruler was to be well educated, a philosopher by nature, able to understand the essence of justice and fairness (in the Aristotelian sense)[3]. The Greek philosophies were widely read and discussed in Persian culture, this is seen today, where modern Iranians are among the most philosophically well-versed peoples in the world[4]. Original philosophy was also produced during this great proliferation of philosophical inquiry and thought. When one looks at the great Islamic philosophers and theologians, especially after the Islamic conquest of Persia, almost all, with a few notable exceptions, like the Mamluk philosopher and historian Ibn Khaldun, most of the great Islamic philosophers during the Abbasid Golden Age and aftermath are of Persian descent.

Yet, despite this great flourishing of culture, arguably superior to any golden age of Rome (Pax Romana), all good things come to an end. Renewed hostilities with the Byzantines would bring another century of war between the two great empires, and toward the end of the second great century of war between the Romans and Persians, a new religion was on the rise in the Arabia, that would shoot out of the desert like a storm on a mission, and the Sassanid Empire would fear the full brunt of the Arab conquests.

>>> Continue​

[1]This is true, the Romans thought only Roman civilization as being “civilized.” While they saw a difference between the nomadic barbarians and the Persian “barbarians,” despite the high cultivation of culture and urban living (in some cities) that the Sassanids possessed, they were still considered barbarian by the Romans.

[2]This idea is known as the “Circle of Justice.” It later influenced Muslim understanding of political philosophy – which is why the Islamic World values order and can be described as tending towards benevolence centralization, where a leader is legitimate as long as he maintains order for the subjects to practice sharia without external or internal “sinful” influences.

[3]Aristotle’s notion of justice rests with the essence of things. Fairness is not what is fair, per se, to people, but to what is being debated. For example, 10 flutes are created. What is the fairest way to distribute the flutes? The liberal might say by lottery, and the capitalist might say by first-come first serve. Aristotle rejects both. He says the flute should go to the best flute players. Why? Most people will probably say “because we all benefit from good music.” Aristotle rejects this mode of thinking. He says the flutes should go to the best flute players because the flute is designed to be played by a flutist. Therefore, fairness and equality is not rooted in who gets the flute, but rooted in the flute itself. It is fair and equal to the flute that it go into the hands of the best flute players because that is what is was fundamentally designed for. FYI, I am a philosopher by training, and have been versed in Aristotelian ethics of justice.

[4]This is true for OTL. Persia is widely regarded, even among its lower classes, to have an incredibly mastery of philosophy. I was told that you could walk into a bar and discuss Kierkegaard and Nietzsche or Marx with your average Iranian, and they would have a competent understanding of their philosophies. Oh how I wish American bars could be like that!

 

[Enewald]

And one of the few times the Sassanids were stupid enough to engage in civil wars, the Muslims came and finished it all.

 

[stnylan]

Clearly they spent too much time doing philosophy

Actually very interesting. Later Persian history is something I know relatively little about.

 

[volksmarschall]

And one of the few times the Sassanids were stupid enough to engage in civil wars, the Muslims came and finished it all.

Yes, an untimely civil war by all accounts. Poor, poor, them! I guess we don't need the next update(s) and chapter about the Persians in Late Antiquity now since you already know what is happening!

Clearly they spent too much time doing philosophy

Actually very interesting. Later Persian history is something I know relatively little about.

I had a class where we covered Persian culture, ca. 500-1500s, part of my Islamic studies. Pretty fascinating stuff. Too bad us stuck up Americans think "diplomacy" with the guys who overran the embassy a generation ago makes us appear weak...especially since Iran helped us out (ssshhhh...we're not supposed to know this) during the Invasion of Afghanistan. They really aren't that bad, plus, what else people might find shocking is that their Shi'ism is so heavily influenced by "pagan" Persian philosophy and political concepts that this also serves as part of the rift between Sunni's and Shi'a. Oh well. I'm just an observer...

...but I guess the Sunni's forgot they were influenced by Hellenistic philosophy too, which I'll eventually get to when discussing the Abbasids.


Greek philosophy, dominating 2 of the 3 Abrahamic religions since their beginning!

 

[tnick0225]

I had a class where we covered Persian culture, ca. 500-1500s, part of my Islamic studies. Pretty fascinating stuff. Too bad us stuck up Americans think "diplomacy" with the guys who overran the embassy a generation ago makes us appear weak...especially since Iran helped us out (ssshhhh...we're not supposed to know this) during the Invasion of Afghanistan.

Haha not only that but their helping us help Maliki fight that pesky newly minted Islamic State.

But when it comes down to it, our policy on Iran in fact the whole Middle East usually completely and totally defies all logic and rationale. Mostly because our foreign policy operates the same way most laws work, its dictated by the highest bidder and when it comes to Middle East diplomacy that lays in the hands of AIPAC and other pro-Israel anti-Iran lobbying groups.

But I'm venturing way off topic lol Great update and I too wish people at the local bar were more intelligent! Be nice to meet someone that doesn't think Iraq is in Africa lol.

 

[volksmarschall]

Haha not only that but their helping us help Maliki fight that pesky newly minted Islamic State.

But when it comes down to it, our policy on Iran in fact the whole Middle East usually completely and totally defies all logic and rationale. Mostly because our foreign policy operates the same way most laws work, its dictated by the highest bidder and when it comes to Middle East diplomacy that lays in the hands of AIPAC and other pro-Israel anti-Iran lobbying groups.

But I'm venturing way off topic lol Great update and I too wish people at the local bar were more intelligent! Be nice to meet someone that doesn't think Iraq is in Africa lol.

Personally, I think the US needs to abandon the imperial ethic and the insane Enlightenment idea that liberalism is a one-size fits all ideology (because it's not, the weight of history supports this) and return to a soft internationalist position akin to Metternich and Castlereagh and the "Concert of Europe" but I digress. Iran gets a bad rap, they aren't even pursuing a nuclear bomb despite all the hysteria and misinformation. I mean, they haven't enriched beyond 20% for the last 15 years, which is the level for domestic nuclear power -- just like what they said. And even if they did really want a bomb, it would never happen because a certain country in the Middle East would never allow it to happen, just like how they bomb the Iraqi Nuclear Facilities in 1981...

Too bad the Sassanid-Persians spent too much time philosophizing, and too much time waging four centuries of war with the Byzantines... because the storm from the Arabian Peninsula is about to cut them down. Although for the evolution of Islam and Islamic philosophy, the incorporation of all this Persian and Greek philosophy is really really important if you truly want to understand their culture. I'll delve into in the proper posts on the Abbasids, but for example, their preference toward benevolent autocratic government isn't rooted in the Qur'an, which I own, its rooted in Greek and Persian Philosophy. The Circle of Justice concept is incorporated by the Muslims after their conquest of Persia, and the semi-democratic (primitive democracy like the Greek City States) of the early "believers" (the name they gave themselves before the evolution of the word "Muslim") was displaced.

My Chapter on the Arabs and Abbasids might upset a lot of people who don't actually study Islamic history, but I think it's fascinating stuff. And Happy 4th!

 

[Nathan Madien]

Sassanids and Abbasids...what?

Who comes up with these names?

Just like the conservative blogosphere's obsession with "Sharia" Law. If they actually studied Islamic Law and history, as I just barely covered in concentrated studies, they would know that Sharia Law is nothing more than the laws that govern a particular land/country: Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., all have different versions of "Sharia" which is not the monolithic entity that certain bloggers who shall not be named claim. :glare:

So Sharia Law isn't the evil, oppressive, "kill everyone who isn't a woman-stoning Muslim" monster that Right-wing "please send us money" mail solictions would have me to believe?*

*I get a lot of Right-wing mail solictions. At least once a month I will get a warning about how evil Sharia Law is...followed by a request for money.

 

[Pezito]

Sassanids and Abbasids...what?

Who comes up with these names?

Both were names of dynasties,so I suppose you should blame the founders.

 

[ScribleScrable]

Volksmarschall, I am excited to see you start a new AAR over here in the CK2 forums, especially in what happens to be my regionish of specialty. One thing you mentioned that interests me is the Persian thought on the centralization of power and their relative lack of civil war at least compared to the Romans. However, this never exempted the Parthians and Sassanids from court intrigues and squabbles for power, but rather seemed to centralize it as it had everything else around the person of the shahanshah.

In fact, a professor of mine also use to compare and the Roman-Sassanid dynamic to the Cold War. One of my favorite memories of that class was whether or not the Sassanids were the original pioneers of focusing internal unrest externally through conflicts with Rome.

 

[volksmarschall]

Sassanids and Abbasids...what?

Who comes up with these names?

Dynastic founders. See Pezito's post below!

So Sharia Law isn't the evil, oppressive, "kill everyone who isn't a woman-stoning Muslim" monster that Right-wing "please send us money" mail solictions would have me to believe?*

*I get a lot of Right-wing mail solictions. At least once a month I will get a warning about how evil Sharia Law is...followed by a request for money.

NO! Do not listen to ignorant right-wing Islamophobic propaganda. I actually study Islamic history and philosophy by contrast. The Sharia is nothing more than "the governing law of the land" (in that sense, it's like the Constitution -- Article 6, Sec. II: "The constitution is the supreme law of the land." So from this too, Sharia Law would never be permitted as existing in the US since Sharia (historically, although some revisionists are trying to change it - like Al Qaeda) by definition is the US Constitution because it is the governing law of the United States and the Sharia is not a monolith. The Sharia Law in Turkey is different than the Sharia in Iraq which is different from the Sharia in Iran which is different than the Sharia in Tunisia, etc. etc. because again, Sharia is just the governing law of the land. The law itself is built upon customs and traditions of said cultures, which is why in Turkey, the Sharia is very "liberal" and "secular" because of the Hanafi Legal School (1 of the 5 major judicial schools of Islam, and also the most liberal and secular because of the influence of Hellenistic philosophy in its development) that dominated the Ottoman Empire. This is why Saudi Arabai's Sharia is much more conservative and theocratic, because the Wahhabists were the Sunni equivalent of the Puritans, wanting to remove saint worship/reverence, and Jahiliyyah influences upon Islamic culture (Hellenistic and Enlightenment philosophy, etc.) and follow the jurisprudence of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, namesake of the much more conservative and internalized (only accept the Hadith and Qur'an as law influences) of the Hanbali School.

In fact, the Sharia of Egypt (Mamluks) was very benevolent towards women. It allowed women to own property, have representation in court, engage in commerce, have rights to divorce, etc., but when Napoleon invaded and imposed French Enlightenment law onto Egypt, and Enlightenment Law wasn't enlightening towards women - women were treated as male property and forbade from practicing commerce, this infected the Mamluk Sharia and created the modern basis of laws in Egypt. Many Islamic scholars and Western historians who study this point this out repeatedly in fact, that much of the "Sharia" that governs ME countries are old Enlightenment laws that Europe amended with things like Suffragist amendments or tainted by Marxism (Revolutionary Islamic philosophy, according to Dr. Keith Ward, an English Anglican philosopher at Oxford, retired, wrote a book that says Marxist revolutionary thought is at the heart of the modern "Radical" sects in Islam).

Chapter 6 on the Arabs and Abbasids should be very long (only because I have concentrated Islamic studies and have a fondness toward the region and religion -- at least philosophically) and want to counter a lot of misinformation that makes us academics pissed off. Plus, there are some interesting in-game developments when I played as the Abbasids that I'll report on as well...

Both were names of dynasties,so I suppose you should blame the founders.

Ditto!

Volksmarschall, I am excited to see you start a new AAR over here in the CK2 forums, especially in what happens to be my regionish of specialty. One thing you mentioned that interests me is the Persian thought on the centralization of power and their relative lack of civil war at least compared to the Romans. However, this never exempted the Parthians and Sassanids from court intrigues and squabbles for power, but rather seemed to centralize it as it had everything else around the person of the shahanshah.

In fact, a professor of mine also use to compare and the Roman-Sassanid dynamic to the Cold War. One of my favorite memories of that class was whether or not the Sassanids were the original pioneers of focusing internal unrest externally through conflicts with Rome.

Hi ScribleScrable! Thanks for the comment!

When in particular are we talking about squabbles, it really isn't until the last decade of the Sassanid rule that revolts and civil wars do break out (as a result of the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars). However, I too am intrigued by what your professor said about taking potential internal struggles and focusing them against the Byzantines to preserve stability, although I myself have not come across such sources. Maybe you'd care to refer me to a few since I'd really like to read about that? I confess, the politics of Persian society is something I only covered briefly in a couple weeks in a course. Most of my research in Persia is on their culture and philosophy (since I am more of a cultural historian and philosophy in my own work), but I'd rather note bore you all with an 18 page philosophy paper about the origins of the Circle of Justice and how it relates to Social Contract Theory. A pity that their squabbles that did happen, 630 CE, allowed for the Arabs to have quick pickings over what truly was an Enlightened and benevolent society for much of its history...

 

[volksmarschall]

Chapter 5: Persia in Late Antiquity

Chapter 5: Persia in Late Antiquity​

The Roman-Persian Wars, which are the longest continuous conflict in human history, played an important role in the rise of the Arabs, which I will cover in Chapter 6, was the closest equivalent to total war that the world of Late Antiquity had to offer. As it relates to the Sassanid Empire, their four centuries of existence, although it had great spurts of cultural activity rivaling or surpassing anything from Rome or Constantinople, was also dominated by their rivalry with the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium over the Syrian and Turkish provinces.

Although the Sassanids were checked, with great loss to both them and Rome, in the First Roman-Sassanid War (see Chapter 2), 7 additional wars between the two great powers erupted between 421 and 628 C.E. For our sake, the final two wars, from 572-591, and final titanic struggle from 602-628 will be the most important to us and will be the focus on the coverage I lay out in this brief section.

The two powers, like any two great powers nearby, were constantly bidding to maintain their hegemony (the Byzantine Empire) or assert their own dominance in regions perceived to be rightfully theirs (the Sassanid Empire). For 19 years, the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Empire struggled for control over Armenia, although the Sassanids would periodically cross into Byzantine Syria and take the fight to the Byzantines in their own territories. These wars brought about an evolution of the Byzantine Army, which quickly “easternized” its forces to combat the swift and mobile armies of the Sassanid Empire which the Western model army inherited from the old Roman Empire was not well-suited to confront.

The Sassanids were a classic eastern power – emphasizing the use of archers, light horsemen, and mobile light infantry able to traverse the hills and long open plains that dominated the Near East. Suitable for fighting and movement in the blistering sun, without the fear of heat stroke (as later Western Crusaders, in their heavy armor, would find out by literally baking to death in their armored suits), the Sassanids were pioneers in how warfare ought to be fought. However, they also possessed the heavy cavalry – which we now call Cataphracts (Greek: Kataphractoi), and were the original knights of ancient warfare. Able to crush anything in their path, the eastern armies were the first to employ these heavy horsemen as the elite guard, if you will, of their armies. Over centuries of conflict, the Byzantines would eventually adopt their style and flare to counter these ancient tanks of the battlefield.

Completely encased in armor, and armed with a lance for first strike than a sword or mace for close-quarters combat, the Cataphracts were the most feared military unit for nearly half a millennium, and the modern Western Knights of Europe can trace their lineage to the Central Asian and Persian warrior. Their armor however, was not like the cast-body plates of Western Knights, but a series of overlapping “dragon scales” (scaled lamellar armor) which afforded the men a high degree of mobility, flexibility, and protection. Lamellar armor, which many of the Byzantine soldiers would also adopt, was the most ingenious suit of armor ever devised, and was far superior to even the heavy armored suits of the West.

A scale-model replica of a Sassanid Cataphract. Despite being heavily armored, they were surprisingly mobile and flexible on the battlefield. They were, for half a millennium, the most powerful unit on any battlefield.
​

After nearly 20 years of brutal conflict, the Persians were growing tired of war, and towards its end, the Byzantines finally had weathered the Sassanid onslaught and was turning the tides, with victories at Solachon (586 C.E.) and Martyropolis (588 C.E.) and seemed ready to emerge victorious. At this point in time, a rare civil war erupted in Persia, the first in 139 years, where a pretender - Wahrām Chōbēn, a Persian noble, seized the throne.

Never letting a good opportunity go to waste, the disposed nobility, led by Khosrau II (he will be known as Khosrau II) sought help from the Byzantines. The Byzantines agreed to restore the “rightful” monarchy with Khosrau, with the compensation of being given the undisputed right to Armenia – the main province of the conflict. The allied army of Persian nobles loyal to Khosrau combined with the Byzantine Army under John Mystacon, a powerful Byzantine general who had convinced Emperor Maurice that it was in their best interests to aid Khosrau in the de-stabilization/re-stabilization of the Sassanid Empire (the Byzantines knew that proliferating the civil war was beneficial to them for the draining of Persian manpower it would bring, in addition, the Byzantines recognized that by helping Khosrau, they could finally gain control over Armenia, long contested between the two powers).

At the Battle of Blarathon (591 C.E.), a coalition of Byzantine and Persian rebels loyal to Khosrau II fought with the Persian loyalists of Wahrām Chōbēn. The usurping king was present leading the Sassanid troops, and was whipped from the field with heavy losses. Wahrām Chōbēn was captured him and sent him into exile. However, once Khosrau II was crowned Shah, he had Wahrām assassinated, and formalized their peace with the Byzantines partitioning much of the Caucasus Mountains and giving Byzantium their control of Armenia.

A Safavid manuscript portraying the Battle of Blarathon, where Byzantine and Sassanid forces loyal to Khosrau defeated the usurping King Wahrām Chōbēn.
​

For the next 11 years, Khosrau II and Maurice of Byzantium were allied and personal friends, often interacting with one another. Indeed, it seems sad of the reversal of the Sassanid-Byzantine alliance these two men had forged in Maurice helping Khosrau ascend to the throne. In 602, when Maurice was murdered by the traitorous and deceitful Flavius Phocas Augustus, who became Emperor Phocas, Khosrau declared war to avenge the death of his friend (perhaps not the wisest of decisions all things considered, but some have also speculated that Phocas, who was much more militant in his beliefs toward the Sassanids, couldn’t be trusted as well).

This final war between the Byzantines and Sassanids came at the eve of the rise of new religion in the heart of Arabia, and would have profound consequences on the whole of the Middle East. The Byzantines were not in a good position, emerging in the aftermath of the murder of their emperor and the subsequent civil war that followed. The Sassanids quickly swept in and captured Jerusalem in a brutal siege. The Sassanid Army continued into Egypt, taking Alexandria. By 620 C.E., the Emperor Heraclius (crowned emperor in 610) embarked on a delaying action in the Cappadocian Mountains where he managed to halt the Sassanid armies, albeit briefly.

This bought the Byzantines much needed time to recover, and this was critically important to their survival. On the ropes, a major Sassanid campaign from 624-626 managed to capture all of Asia Minor, and the Sassanid Army of 60,000 men crossed the Bosphorus and began to lay siege to Constantinople itself! For many, it appeared the end was nigh for the Byzantines. Yet, the walls of Constantinople, so instrumental in the city’s protection and rise to great wealth and power, threw back the Sassanids. Lacking the ability to conduct a proper siege, and with the Byzantines possessing superior technology, the Sassanids were forced back. The Byzantines launched a bold counter-offensive where the Emperor Heraclius managed to force the removal of the Sassanid allies and corner the Sassanid Army (alone) at the fields of Nineveh.

Above, the Siege of Constantinople, 626 C.E. Like many times before, and many times in the future, the walls of Constantinople saved the city and the Byzantine Empire from destruction. Below, a Renaissance fresco of a battle between the Byzantines and the Sassanids. Note the historical inaccuracy as the combatants are equipped in Renaissance era armor and weaponry and standards. The depiction might be one of the Battle of Nineveh.
​

In traditional accounts, Heraclius prayed to the Holy Madonna herself, and she granted him a promise of victory and would slay the Sassanid general by his own hands. During the battle between some 25,000 Byzantines and about 10,000-12,000 Sassanids, Heraclius was challenged to single combat by the Sassanid general, who he promptly slayed[1]. The Byzantine victory gave them the advantage, and when King Khosrau II died in 628, a year after the battle, civil war erupted in Persia as various noble families, including those of the old Parthian lineage, rose up to seek power and glory for themselves.

As Persia descended into civil war, the Arabs, like a storm out of the desert, would take quick advantage of the two decade struggle (and four decade struggle over the last 50 years) and become the undisputed master of the Middle East in the matter of a single century – overturning two centuries old superpowers who had bludgeoned each other to the point of near death. The civil war in Persia however, would seal her fate when the Arab armies came crashing into the hills and cities of the ancient Zoroastrian empire. It would be incorrect to assessment to coming Arab-Persian War that the Arab victory was a result of superiority or superior numbers, but more a result of Sassanid instability and civil war making her an amble and easy target for invasion.

>>> Continue​

[1]This comes from the account of Bishop Nikephoros of Constantinople, who was not present at the battle (he lived a full century after the fact). It was probably written for religious purposes, as the story of Heraclius’s prayer is also found in his works. In reality, the Sassanid general – Rhahzadh, probably died in the middle of the chaotic battle. I include it because I like the story.

 

[Enewald]

Were the cataphractoi not originally Parthian design? Sassanids merely inheriting the Parthian military tactics?

One of the greatest 'random events' of our world, when in 620s two grand nations were bleeding each other dry, a decade later a new third power had beaten both of the previous 'superpowers'. Must have felt absurd for the citizens of that era.

 

[volksmarschall]

Were the cataphractoi not originally Parthian design? Sassanids merely inheriting the Parthian military tactics?

One of the greatest 'random events' of our world, when in 620s two grand nations were bleeding each other dry, a decade later a new third power had beaten both of the previous 'superpowers'. Must have felt absurd for the citizens of that era.

...the Cataphracts were the most feared military unit for nearly half a millennium, and the modern Western Knights of Europe can trace their lineage to the Central Asian and Persian warrior.

(must have missed that sentence)

But yes, the great rise of the Arabs is coming, and so important to "how the game got to be the way it is" (which is more or less what this AAR is doing, with just about 40 years or so of actual intended gameplay to write about so it is still technically an AAR rather than the musings of a semi-professional historian trying to encourage the study of this period of history! Of course, I'll be explaining why the Arabs rose to power on the periphery of the two great empires of Late Antiquity as well.

 

[oxfordroyale]

I am extremely interested in pre-Modern history (especially in regions I am unfamiliar with, like Persia) and I love your writing, so this is a perfect read for me. Really enjoying it so far!

 

[stnylan]

Yes, the history of the world would be quite different if Persuade and Rome hadn't basically destroyed their own ability to resist.

 

[ScribleScrable]

When in particular are we talking about squabbles, it really isn't until the last decade of the Sassanid rule that revolts and civil wars do break out (as a result of the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars). However, I too am intrigued by what your professor said about taking potential internal struggles and focusing them against the Byzantines to preserve stability, although I myself have not come across such sources. Maybe you'd care to refer me to a few since I'd really like to read about that? I confess, the politics of Persian society is something I only covered briefly in a couple weeks in a course. Most of my research in Persia is on their culture and philosophy (since I am more of a cultural historian and philosophy in my own work), but I'd rather note bore you all with an 18 page philosophy paper about the origins of the Circle of Justice and how it relates to Social Contract Theory. A pity that their squabbles that did happen, 630 CE, allowed for the Arabs to have quick pickings over what truly was an Enlightened and benevolent society for much of its history...

Actually, your paper sounds quite interesting, since I've always been fascinated by the inner workings of the Sassanids. It always seemed to me that the Sassanid empire is often glossed over when it comes to both Roman and Islamic history courses, since their peak correlates with the decline of Rome and their fall occurs near the beginning of the spread of Islam. They're nestled right at a natural division of time periods in the Near East and Iran (pre and post Islam), so they're easily overlooked which is shame, since they left a large and lasting impression on both groups.

As far as sources for our discussion, Ammianus Marcellinus is probably the best and most common primary source, but take a look at this link: http://www.academia.edu/329117/Rome_and_the_Sassanid_Empire_Confrontation_and_Coexistence. It mentions several of the same points that my professor did with better sources than I'll be able to give you.

With the rise of the Sassanids and especially before the reign of Khosrau I, power became more centralized within the court and person of the Shahanshah than it had previously with the Parthians. However, the Shahanshah was still very dependent on nobles for support, and one of the ways a new ruler would "legitimize" himself in the early part of his reign was to go to war with the Romans.

Most times these were little more than border clashes and large raids, but the best examples I have of this are from the reigns of Ardashir and Shapur I and II. They all pursued very aggressive policies towards the Romans early in the reigns, possibly as a means of gaining support and focusing the upper castes energies outward. Also, going from memory, I seem to remember reading that it was very common for later Shahanshahs to pursue similar courses.

Now, most of our discussion was definitely conjecture, but I do believe it is a very interesting point and definitely within the realm of possibility. However, it also highlights another problem with studying the Sassanids. A severe lack of primary sources; most all the sources I remember working with were either Greek and Roman in origin, or used the Greek and Roman sources as their foundation, so you have to be careful what conclusions you can draw from them. There's just not enough information from the Sassanid point of view to really prove anything, but then again, this is a problem for most all of ancient history.

Anyways, I'm just rambling now, but I am interested to hear what you think since you appear to be very well versed in the area. As a former history major who focused on Roman and Islamic studies (I double majored in Biology as well and have pursued a career in science instead), the Sassanids were one of my favorite topics, and it always pleases me for them to get the "credit" that they deserve.

 

[volksmarschall]

I am extremely interested in pre-Modern history (especially in regions I am unfamiliar with, like Persia) and I love your writing, so this is a perfect read for me. Really enjoying it so far!

Well, I'm glad to know you're enjoying this oxfordroyale! Thanks for the comment... and maybe you'll delve into this period of history more on your own. I could always provide an appendix of resources if interested!

Yes, the history of the world would be quite different if Persuade and Rome hadn't basically destroyed their own ability to resist.

Alas, history only gets one run... can't live in the past, must live in the present.

Actually, your paper sounds quite interesting, since I've always been fascinated by the inner workings of the Sassanids. It always seemed to me that the Sassanid empire is often glossed over when it comes to both Roman and Islamic history courses, since their peak correlates with the decline of Rome and their fall occurs near the beginning of the spread of Islam. They're nestled right at a natural division of time periods in the Near East and Iran (pre and post Islam), so they're easily overlooked which is shame, since they left a large and lasting impression on both groups.

As far as sources for our discussion, Ammianus Marcellinus is probably the best and most common primary source, but take a look at this link: http://www.academia.edu/329117/Rome_and_the_Sassanid_Empire_Confrontation_and_Coexistence. It mentions several of the same points that my professor did with better sources than I'll be able to give you.

With the rise of the Sassanids and especially before the reign of Khosrau I, power became more centralized within the court and person of the Shahanshah than it had previously with the Parthians. However, the Shahanshah was still very dependent on nobles for support, and one of the ways a new ruler would "legitimize" himself in the early part of his reign was to go to war with the Romans.

Most times these were little more than border clashes and large raids, but the best examples I have of this are from the reigns of Ardashir and Shapur I and II. They all pursued very aggressive policies towards the Romans early in the reigns, possibly as a means of gaining support and focusing the upper castes energies outward. Also, going from memory, I seem to remember reading that it was very common for later Shahanshahs to pursue similar courses.

Now, most of our discussion was definitely conjecture, but I do believe it is a very interesting point and definitely within the realm of possibility. However, it also highlights another problem with studying the Sassanids. A severe lack of primary sources; most all the sources I remember working with were either Greek and Roman in origin, or used the Greek and Roman sources as their foundation, so you have to be careful what conclusions you can draw from them. There's just not enough information from the Sassanid point of view to really prove anything, but then again, this is a problem for most all of ancient history.

Anyways, I'm just rambling now, but I am interested to hear what you think since you appear to be very well versed in the area. As a former history major who focused on Roman and Islamic studies (I double majored in Biology as well and have pursued a career in science instead), the Sassanids were one of my favorite topics, and it always pleases me for them to get the "credit" that they deserve.

Thankfully, with the rise of "Late Antiquity" paradigm instead of that horrible phrase "Dark Ages", more people are being exposed to the great culture, philosophy, and even political culture that flourished from 400-1000, and that includes the Sassanids/Sassanians. (I've always spelled it Sassanid, hence why I write it that way, although I think more people spell it the other way now?). I'll certainly read the article, and probably keep it in one of my many folders (because I keep all articles I read in their associated folder: Byzantine History, Modern Islam, Religion, etc.)

And it's always nice to meet someone else who studied the same category of history (I concentrated in US Social and Islamic, also studied Philosophy -- concentrating in the Enlightenment and German Idealism (Kant, Hegel, Fichte, etc.) and Economics -- Neo-Keynesian Macro theory), although I actually write on the Byzantines (my department didn't have a Classics History program, I've just been collecting and reading Roman and Greek history for a long time, so that's who I actually write on, with 1 paper under review and another being worked upon). So do you author science papers or do you just work in, like, a lab or something?

Thanks again for the paper link, I'll make sure to tell you what I think. But if it has a lot of sources, I'll be well-pleased (references are the "quantifying" variable, if you will, on what is "good" history by my standards -- that's not to bash "popular histories" which I think are important, but such works are generally useless to what I do -- unless writing historiography, which I also do).

Cheers!

 

[Bah_meh]

This is great! Out of interest can anyone recommend any good books for someone looking to get into Persian history?

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

This is great! Out of interest can anyone recommend any good books for someone looking to get into Persian history?

Shadows in the Desert is a good book.