Cam Rea

March 20, 2017October 29, 2024

Alexander the Great and The Business of War – Part 2

“As Persepolis had exceeded all other cities in prosperity, so in the same measure it now exceeded all others in misery.”

Miseries along with poverty, for the people were raped of their land and their self. However, with such great turmoil came lasting hope that those affected would be redeemed. If Alexander felt that unity was close, the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau would not forget the sacking of Persepolis, among other distasteful actions before and after.

Famous Alexander Mosaic, showing Battle of Issus. Alexander is depicted mounted, on the left

Famous Alexander Mosaic, showing Battle of Issus. Alexander is depicted mounted, on the left (Public Domain)

[Read Part I]

However, many accounts of Alexander’s sacking and destruction of Persepolis may be exaggerated. Still, then again, much of it could very well be true, as this was a war of revenge to some extent due to the Persians supposedly burning down Greek temples during the Greco-Persian War.

Sacrifices to the Gods and Cultural Unity

I only say ‘supposedly’ because the Persians respected other cultures’ religions. Xerxes himself, during the Greco-Persian War, was accompanied not only by the Magi but also by Greek diviners and specialists. Xerxes even sacrificed a thousand bulls at Ilion to the goddess Athena, and speaking of Athena, he ordered the Greek exiles to make a sacrifice to Athena at the Acropolis. However, this could have been due to Xerxes making alms to his gods and theirs as a sign of respect and sorrow for the burning of the Acropolis—but this still does not answer whether the burning did or did not happen.

A map showing the Greek world at the time of the invasion

A map showing the Greek world at the time of the invasion (CC BY-SA 3.0)

This is just a small showing of Xerxes’ respect towards other cultural beliefs. But it should not go unnoticed, for it provides a glimpse into Greece’s events during the war. The Persian invasion did leave death, destruction, and looting, which is obvious in all nations in war. Still, one has to be careful in suggesting that Xerxes intended to take direct aim at holy temples with the few sources provided without considering the nature of the Persian respect toward other gods, as demonstrated by Xerxes. On the other hand, we have Alexander, who invaded under the pretense of a just cause or just war to avenge the Greeks for Persian wrongs. However, if you intend to invade and conquer, to bring about social harmony through cultural unity, burning down the Persian house is not a great start towards promoting peace.

Persepolis. Limestone. Reign of Xerxes, 486-465 BC

Persepolis. Limestone. Reign of Xerxes, 486-465 BC (CC BY-SA 2.0)

This harmony never materialized, not even during the Seleucid Empire, which controlled most of the former lands of the Persian Empire. Even with many Greek colonists settling in the former lands of the once mighty Achaemenid Empire, they never truly penetrated or influenced the indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau with their Hellenistic culture. In time, the Greek settlements looked like mere islands spread out too far from one another to make a true cultural impact in the regions they settled. Many of the tribal societies in Iran and further to the east held on to their traditional ways and looked at the Greeks settling in their areas as unwanted guests or, in the modern sense, illegal aliens.

This demonstrates that Alexander the Great’s grand strategy of united racial harmony through Hellenism was not even in the best interest of his successor to his eastern lands, Seleucus, or with the Greeks settling within the eastern lands. Because of this alienation imposed upon the indigenous people on the Iranian plateau, rebellion would soon rise out of this and attack the very masters who preached harmony.

Alexander the Not-So-Great?

The notion of Alexander being Μέγας “Great” is indeed a mistake written by those who romanticized the idea later on, which in turn created an argument based on Western ethnocentrism that continues. If there is anything great that can be said about Alexander, it surely was not his foreign or domestic policy but rather his ability to innovate on the battlefield, which was a marvel. However, a question remains: why did you invade Persia?

Herma of Alexander (Roman copy of a 330 BC statue by Lysippus). According to Diodorus, the Alexander sculptures by Lysippus were the most faithful to his true appearance.

Herma of Alexander (Roman copy of a 330 BC statue by Lysippus). According to Diodorus, the Alexander sculptures by Lysippus were the most faithful to his true appearance. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

A Lucrative Adventure

So why did Alexander invade the Persian Empire? You are right if you said it was revenge against the Persians. But there is another reason— and that was money. Alexander invaded Persia not only to get some payback but also because he needed the money. Persia had vast wealth that could whet his appetite and pay for the armies and debts.

Entry of Alexander into Babylon

Entry of Alexander into Babylon (Public Domain)

The looting began once he was on the move. At Babylon, the amount Alexander confiscated is unknown. But given that it was Babylon, one can assume the amount plundered was great. When he took Susa, he acquired 50,000 talents; Persepolis 120,000; Pasargadae 6,000; Ecbatana 26,000. 202,000 talents (excluding Babylonia) of gold and silver from these cities alone were now in his hands. From the amount of money taken, Alexander handed out bonuses to his men totaling 12,000 talents, with another 2,000 going to Thessalain soldiers. Moreover, many of Alexander’s men, including Alexander himself, likely came across gold and silver coins that the Persians had looted from the Greek treasuries during the Greco-Persian Wars. Understand that the amount of money mentioned only pertains to the area of western Iran and a portion of Mesopotamia. Moreover, considering the wealth his soldiers looted during the campaign, many lost coins would have been everywhere. When considering the reminder of his conquests, Alexander may have looted 400,000 talents before he died.

Estimates:

250,000 Talents – looted from Persia

400,000 Talents – total loot during Alexander’s career

A rough valuation of the Talents plundered in dollars:

Persia – $7,000,000,000,000, or $7 trillion

Grand total, including Persia – $11 trillion

When considering the amount taken by his men, the number only increases.

Head of helmeted Athena right. Obverse of a gold stater minted in Babylon during the reign of Philip III or Philip IV of Macedon.

Head of helmeted Athena right. Obverse of a gold stater minted in Babylon during the reign of Philip III or Philip IV of Macedon. (CC BY 2.5)

The Truth Comes Out

The Roman historian Arrian tells us that Alexander set out to conquer Persia as revenge for past wrongs. Alexander addresses this in his letter to Darius: “Your ancestors came into Macedonia and the rest of Greece and treated us ill, without any previous injury from us. I, having been appointed commander and chief of the Greek, and wishing to take revenge on the Persians, crossed over into Asia, hostilities being begun by you.” But was it all about revenge, or was there something more to it— is it possible that Alexander needed money?

Most books discussing Alexander’s invasion of Persia tell of revenge as the motivator due to the Greco-Persian Wars of the past. But it is rather odd that Alexander suddenly decides to mount his horse and lead his army into the lands of Persia, even though the war has been over for more than one hundred years.

However, Arrian provides another passage. Alexander gave a speech at Opis 324 BCE when his men mutinied for a second time, the first being at Hyphasis River a few years back. Arrian explains why Alexander declared war on Persia: “I inherited from my father a few gold and silver cups, and less than 60 talents in the treasury; Philip had debts amounting to 500 talents, and I raised a loan of a further 800.”

[Top] Gold vessels, Achaemenid; 5th century BC (CC BY 2.0) [Bottom] and with twelve-petaled rosettes - Achaemenid gold, Persepolis, 550-330 BC

[Top] Gold vessels, Achaemenid; 5th century BC (CC BY 2.0) [Bottom] and with twelve-petaled rosettes – Achaemenid gold, Persepolis, 550-330 BC (Public Domain)

Alexander’s father, Philip, had already set his eyes on Persia and was preparing an invasion force but was assassinated before he could accomplish his objective. With his death, Alexander was left with a semi-professional army. They were a paid fighting force paid directly by the king himself.

For Alexander to pay for this army if he wished to keep it, he had to disband a portion to save money, which was unacceptable, or go on the march to save his kingdom. It seemed he had little choice but to save his kingdom and pay the bills by conquering and confiscating Persia besides other lands.

Death of a Man, Death of an Era

It seems reasonable to assume that Alexander used Persia to pay for the troops his father left behind. One might think this would be ludicrous, but why would it? Alexander was given a well-trained and organized fighting force. His youth may have also played a part, as history has often been written by young people willing to take on a challenge or great risk since the life expectancy during this period was short. Because of this, Alexander felt that Persia was a grand prize if he could take it. Once he took the Persian Empire, the cold, hard reality soon set in, and the new problem was dealing with two cultures.

Alexander the Great and physician Philip of Acarnania.

Alexander the Great and physician Philip of Acarnania. (Public Domain)

How unified were the two cultures after the fall of Persia? In a sense, it makes relatively no sense to say “two cultures.” However, for clarity, we shall keep it as two cultures. It was one culture (Hellenism) versus a smorgasbord of various Oriental cultures.

Those living on the Iranian Plateau did seem to be, for the most part, followers of the Zoroastrian religion, but religion does not indicate ethnic or tribal affiliations and allegiances. Instead, the various tribes that dotted the landscape had many different customs and practices that came with diverse languages. This division of cultures was, in and of itself, a huge obstacle for the Greco-Macedonians. Hellenism would take root and thrive much more in Western Asia, whereas, in the East, it had little effect. It was present but not always noticeable. This does not mean that Hellenism in Iran was not present, nor hadn’t an effect on the local population, but rather that it was established, yet minuscule, like the military force assigned to protect the vital trade arteries of the eastern empire.

The unity quickly ended with Alexander’s death. It looked hypocritical of Alexander to promote unity in life when, on death, his men asked, “To whom do you leave the kingdom?” and he replied: “To the strongest.” This would not be the case, however. Seleucus and those who ruled after could never establish a loyal political base of influential proportions, nor were they capable of centralizing the entire empire effectively, at least not in the east. Furthermore, they never truly penetrated or influenced the indigenous peoples on the Iranian plateau with their Hellenistic culture.

Dr. Richard Frye says, “The Seleucids controlled the main trade routes in Iran but little else.” This may indicate that Alexander controlled not much more after proclaiming the land as his and moving on.

Alexander’s dream became a reality that ultimately overtook him in death. Before Alexander died, he was approached concerning who the successor would be. Alexander replied, “To the best man; for I foresee that a great combat of my friends will be my funeral games.” His statement that his empire went to the “best man” suggests that even if he had no confidence in his men, why not? Alexander saw himself as a god; What mortal among them could be his equal? He knew that none of his men could do what he did, so he foresaw conflict.

The empire Alexander left was too complex to be governed by one man. Had he lived to be very old, his empire may have stayed intact, but this is conjecture. He took on the customs of those he conquered to show love and appreciation for all things Eastern, but in reality, it was just a political maneuver. Once Alexander died, his Macedonian men divorced their Iranian wives; Cassander, the son of Antipater the general, who supported both Philip and Alexander, murdered Alexander’s widow Roxanna and son Alexander around 310 BCE; and all of the Iranian satraps were removed from power. The Macedonians wanted only revenge and nothing to do with Eastern, for it was barbaric. However, this did not help, for even the Macedonians fought amongst themselves over the glory and riches Alexander provided as they did at Persepolis in 330 BCE.

Top Image: Detail of the Alexander Sarcophagus located in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. (CC BY-SA 2.5) Gold coins (Public Domain), Deriv.

By Cam Rea

References

Arrian. Anabasis. Translated by Aubrey De Seliucount. England: Penguin Classics, 1958.

Bourne, Randolph. War and the Intellectuals: Collected Essays, 1915-1919. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Curtis, John, Nigel Tallis, and Béatrice André-Salvini. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Diodorus.

Farrokh, Kaveh. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007.

Larson, Jennifer. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York: 2007, Routledge.

Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962.

—. The Parallel Lives: The Life of Alexander. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

Stoneman, Richard. Alexander the Great. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2004.

Tarn, William. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Ulvog, Jim. “Guess on the Value of All Loot Taken by Alexander the Great.” July 15, 2016. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://attestationupdate.com/2016/07/15/guess-on-the-value-of-all-loot-taken-by-alexander-the-great/.

Yarshater, Ehsan. “Iranian National History.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Selecuid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, by Ehsan Yarshater, 359-477. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

March 15, 2017October 29, 2024

Alexander the Great and The Business of War – Part 1

Alexander the Great has gained immortality in his strong presence in our minds and history books. Known for his great military genius and diplomatic skills, he conquered most of the world of his time and brought on a new era of the Hellenistic World. But who was Alexander, the man?

The intention of this article is not to go into the history of Alexander’s invasion and conquest of the Near East but rather to look at the man himself. In doing so, we will understand why Alexander invaded and dispel some of the myths about Alexander’s intentions, helping us understand why the Greco-Macedonian Empire broke apart a little over a hundred years after his death. Nearly all traces of his once glorious empire had been tossed into the ash heap of history.

A bust of Alexander the Great

A bust of Alexander the Great (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The War Business

The army that King Philip II of Macedon left to his son Alexander was semi-professional and a paid fighting force. For Alexander to pay for this army, either he had to disband a portion of it to save money, risking much in doing so, or he had to go on the march to save his kingdom. Alexander chooses to save his kingdom at another empire’s expense. Alexander needed to pay the bills and would do so by looting Persia.

He proved what Randolph Bourne once stated; “War is the health of the state.” Alexander was the state, and war was his business. Therefore, revenge was the excuse to avoid personal monetary debt. Besides Alexander’s dilemma of possibly going into debt within a matter of weeks, he also had a rather large personal ego to contend with.

Upbringing and Education

Alexander’s ego is said to have been rather massive. His mother had huge expectations for him, leading him to believe he would conquer Persia. If you think about it, the only huge deed at the time to prove one’s destiny was to conquer Persia, for it was the biggest challenge in the known world, at least in the Greco-Macedonian sense. Besides being hounded about his destiny, he also was a competitor from birth, as he would try to outdo his father in combat, being more aggressive in battle and showing absolute courage in the face of danger just to win Papa’s approval. Alexander worried that nothing would be left to achieve beyond the successes of his father, Philip.

Bust of Philip II of Macedon, a 1st-century Roman-era copy of a Greek original.

Bust of Philip II of Macedon, a 1st-century Roman-era copy of a Greek original. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Besides his home life, Alexander was enthralled by the epic poems of Homer and his detailed journeys into war and individual heroism. These themes fueled the young Alexander’s imagination as he grew, along with the help of his tutor, Aristotle. The works of Homer instilled the romantic rebels of the Greek legends, such as Achilles or even Hercules—who Alexander modeled himself and who he claimed to be descended from—while Aristotle provided the reasoning in Alexander’s curriculum. Alexander’s father, Philip, taught him war.

Aristotle tutoring Alexander.

Aristotle tutoring Alexander. (Public Domain)

However, once Philip was dead, Alexander set off on his journey, and the rest is history. What set Alexander East was debt, but had his ego not been so bold and his character not so bold for risk-taking, history would have been very different. Like Achilles, Alexander died before accomplishing his dream or destiny, but the outcome was necessary. Achilles died at Troy before he could see it fall, but his name lived on, while Alexander died before he could conquer the entire world, but his name is forever etched into mankind’s memory.

Triumphant Achilles dragging Hector's lifeless body in front of the Gates of Troy.

Triumphant Achilles dragging Hector’s lifeless body in front of the Gates of Troy. (Public Domain)

Alexander has indeed left a memorable account that has survived through the ages. However, many do not consider his actions and the consequences that would afflict the Near Eastern region after his death. Therefore, it is important to examine his views about those he conquered.

Upheaval in the Orient

This battle for supremacy over the Orient started when a young Alexander first stepped foot on Persian soil. The readings Aristotle assigned him as a youth were now real, and the adventure ahead was unknown. Alexander could only rely on the readings and the philosophers who would later travel with him. As Alexander moved forward with his ambitions, his achievements rocked those in the Orient and those back home, let alone his own men and officer staff, particularly the future Diadochi or “successors.”

Alexander’s dream was to unite East and West. Still, even this notion of a united East and West is in dispute due to his prayer that insisted on harmony “between Macedonians and Persians.” In reality, this prayer was nothing more than a shadow in that it favored the Macedonians and Greeks over the Persians. Alexander must have understood that when you burn down the house you conquered, there will be little room for unity and trust.

The Persian palace he set on fire, though General Parmenion urged him to save it, arguing, among other things, that it was not seemly to destroy what was now his property and that the Asians would not thus be induced to join him if he seemed determined not to hold fast the sovereignty of Asia, but merely to pass through it in triumph. Alexander, on the contrary, replied that he proposed to punish the Persians in recompense for what they had done in their invasion of Greece, for their wrecking of Athens, their burning of the temples, and for all the other cruel things they had done to the Greeks; for these, he said, he took vengeance.

Ruins of the Palace of Artaxerxes I, Persepolis.

Ruins of the Palace of Artaxerxes I, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Interestingly, some felt that Alexander did not do as Aristotle taught him (even though the burning of Persian property would seem to fit what Aristotle would want against the barbarians). It seems that this action may have been a little too much, for Plutarch states:

Alexander did not follow Aristotle’s advice to treat the Greeks as if he were their leader and other peoples as if he were their master, to regard the Greeks as friends and kindred, but to conduct himself toward other peoples as though they were plants or animals.

The Great Double Staircase at Persepolis.

The Great Double Staircase at Persepolis. (CC BY 2.0)

Alexander did treat others as Aristotle advised; he just kept it concealed by promising the illusion of unity between east and west— like when the Macedonians were said to have taken Persian wives, but one will see that there is not a trace mentioned of Persian nobles being offered the women of Macedonia for marriage.

When one takes another look at Alexander’s empire after his death, his name is scattered all about the Iranian landscape, as is the Hellenistic culture he brought with him. All things Persian remained in the countryside, unseen and out of mind, while Hellenism took root in the urban centers of civilization. The historian Ehsan Yarshater makes the distinction between the genuine Iranian aspects, which are later mixed in with the romantic, when he states:

“According to genuine Iranian tradition, Alexander destroyed the integrity of the Iranian empire by undermining the authority of its kings and dividing the land among feudatory lords. Further, he ruined fire temples, killed Zoroastrian priests and destroyed their manuscripts, transferring Persian science and philosophy to Rum (Greece). On the other hand, the legendary tale of Alexander, written by pseudo-Callisthenes sometime before the 4th century, was translated into Middle Persian during the 6th century, and its content, with some modifications, was later adopted by the body of Iranian historical traditions. In the Iranian form of the romance, Alexander becomes a son of Dara I and a half brother of his adversary, Dara II.”

Alexander the Accursed and the Sacking of Persepolis

Alexander’s conquest of Persia and the sources that speak against him have labeled him, according to Zoroastrian sources, as gojastak or “the accursed.” These mention Alexander as “the great destroyer” due to the murdering of Magi priests. It’s written that he “killed the magi … many teachers, lawyers, Herbats, Mobads.” In addition, much of the literature in Persia was burnt during the conquest, including the sacred Avesta text. Alexander’s men burned copies of the original Avesta texts kept at Dez-Nepesi, the ‘Castle of Inscriptions’ or ‘Fortress of Archives’. From then on, Zoroastrian priests would memorize the text and pass on the information through oral tradition until the Parthian king Vologases I had them written down again.

Ruins of the Tachara, Persepolis.

Ruins of the Tachara, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

If destroying literature was not enough, Alexander also looted the treasury. Thousands of pack animals were utilized to remove 2500 tons of gold at Persepolis! A staggering amount. Alexander would take part of the treasury to fund the war while depositing the rest in Susa. Adding insult to injury, Diodorus Siculus mentions that Alexander also allowed his:

“Soldiers to plunder, all but the palaces. It was the richest city under the sun and the private houses had been furnished with every sort of wealth over the years. The Macedonians raced into it slaughtering all the men whom they met and plundering the residences; many of the houses belonged to the common people and were abundantly supplied with furniture and wearing apparel of every kind. Here much silver was carried off and no little gold, and many rich dresses gay with sea purple or with gold embroidery became the prize of the victors. The enormous palaces, famed throughout the whole civilized world, fell victim to insult and utter destruction.”

Alexander’s men were getting rich quickly at the expense of the locals. Still, even that was not enough, for many of Alexander’s men turned on one another and began to kill each other in the name of profit due to one fellow soldier having more than the other. Moreover, the Persian males whom the soldiers encountered were murdered, and the women were taken to be made slaves.

Bull capital at Persepolis.

Bull capital at Persepolis. (CC BY 2.0)

The sacking of Persepolis went beyond greed and momentarily resembled a landscape of unbridled nihilism. Alexander had effectively taken Persepolis, a city that he “described it to the Macedonians as the most hateful of the cities of Asia,” and rendered it useless after all was looted of its former glory. This was not the official end of Persepolis, but as a city of importance, its light quickly dimmed. However, Alexander gave the city one last “hoorah,” when he held a great funeral party at the people’s expense. “As Persepolis had exceeded all other cities in prosperity, so in the same measure it now exceeded all others in misery;” Miseries along with poverty, for the people were raped of their land and their self. However, with such great turmoil comes lasting hope that those affected will be redeemed. If Alexander felt that unity was close, the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau would not forget the sacking of Persepolis, among other distasteful actions before and after.

Gate of All Nations, Persepolis.

Gate of All Nations, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Top Image: Detail of the Alexander Sarcophagus located in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. Here Alexander fights the Persians at the Battle of Issus. (CC BY-SA 2.5)

By Cam Rea

References

Arrian. Anabasis. Translated by Aubrey De Seliucount. England: Penguin Classics, 1958.

Bourne, Randolph. War and the Intellectuals: Collected Essays, 1915-1919. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Curtis, John, Nigel Tallis, and Béatrice André-Salvini. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Diodorus.

Diodorus Siculus 70. 1-3.

Farrokh, Kaveh. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007.

Larson, Jennifer. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York: 2007, Routledge.

Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962.

—. The Parallel Lives: The Life of Alexander. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

Stoneman, Richard. Alexander the Great. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2004.

Tarn, William. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

March 6, 2017March 15, 2017

The House of Arsacid Falls to the House of Sasan – Part 2

Ardashir proclaimed himself king of Persis by 208 CE. His brothers protested this and Ardashir disposed of them. If his brother challenges were not enough, many local petty kings of Persis refused to acknowledge Ardashir rule. Ardashir responded by going to war in which he crushed them. He thus solidified his position as the rightful king of Persis. However, Parthian leadership in Ctesiphon thought otherwise, and sounded the alarm.

[Read Part I here]

The House of Sasan ruled the Sasanian Empire from 224 to 651. Ardashir I named the dynasty in honor of his grandfather, Sasan. The Sassanian Royal Symbol and the Mythology of Persia.

The House of Sasan ruled the Sasanian Empire from 224 to 651. Ardashir I named the dynasty in honor of his grandfather, Sasan. The Sassanian Royal Symbol and the Mythology of Persia. (Public Domain)

Ardashir Challenges the Parthians

Ardashir made his challenge known in 224 CE. While risky, he knew that the Parthian power base at Ctesiphon was impotent and the confederation that supported the Arsacid throne weak and tired of Arsacid rule. Ardashir understood that so long as the Arsacid’s stayed in power, the next Roman invasion of Iranian lands would go roughly unchecked. To avoid this from happening, there was a crucial need for a much stronger central government capable of fielding a tough, well-disciplined army with the ability to meet, engage, discharge, and have the ability to give chase and conquer former territory once under Achaemenid rule.

Ardashir I is receiving the Kingship's ring.

Ardashir I is receiving the Kingship’s ring. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Ardashir, uncertain, but ready for the challenge, soon gained support beyond the borders of Persis. Many supporters from the provinces of Media, Media Atropatene, Adiabene, and Kurdistan, came to join in the rebellion. But that would not be enough if he was to defeat King Artabanus V. To seal the deal, Ardashir needed the support of the Iranian highlanders in the northwest.

This is mentioned in the Arbela Chronicles which state: “And this was recognized by the Persians and the Medes and they closed a union with Šahrat, the king of Hedajjab, and Domjtana, the king from Karek Selok and made a hefty assault on the Parthians in spring.” With many nations now backing Ardashir, particularly the western Iranians, which was extremely important (for the Parthian seat of power was right in the middle), Ardashir made his move to battle.

Artabanus V, like any king during a time of crises, assembled his forces and marched on the province of Persis to crush Ardashir.

Coin of the Parthian king Artabanus IV.

Coin of the Parthian king Artabanus IV. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com /CC BY-SA 3.0)

The fate of the Iranian peoples was decided by three battles. The first battle was won by Ardashir but at a considerable cost for both sides. According to the Book of the Deeds of Ardashir son of Babag, Ardashir “came to battle with Ardavan (Artabanus) but Artabanus was not in command of the Parthian forces. Instead, Bahman, the son of Artabanus, led the forces and was killed along with his entire army. Afterwards, Ardashir “seized their wealth, property, horses; and portable lodges, and settled himself in Stakhar.” Some may view this battle as a draw.

The second battle also was a victory for Ardashir and proved pivotal, for the Parthians suffered a great loss of men. With Parthia wounded, Ardashir took advantage of the situation and pressed on. The final battle between the two powers took place at Hormizdeghan, near the modern city of Bandar Abbas, 28 April 224 CE.

Ardashir chose this area, which gave him access to the water supplies, crucial to quench the thirst of men and horses. As for Artabanus, his force took up a position near an inadequate water supply. In such a hot area and with a lack of water, both man and beast grew weary the longer they waited. This may have been Ardashir’s strategy. Taking advantage of the water supply physically weakened the Parthians, which in turn caused psychological distress.

When both armies formed battle lines, the forces of Ardashir were better equipped, as some of his horsemen were wearing the Roman-style, flexible chain armor. Artabanus fielded a much larger force. However, his forces were hastily assembled, ill equipped, and less prepared for battle, for even the king of the Parthians was wearing the old style lamellar armor considered cumbersome at the time. While details of the final battle are scant, Ardashir was victorious as “He killed Ardavan, whose entire wealth and property fell into the hands of Ardashir, who married Ardavan’s daughter, and went back to Pars.”

Details of this battle can be seen at Firuzabad, Iran. The rock carving shows Ardashir unhorsing and killing Artabanus V from his horse in a joust. This ended the House of Arsaces and established the House of Sasan.

Drawing of French orientalist painter and traveler Eugene Flandin (1840): Sasanian king Ardachir Babakan's rock relief (Firuzabad 1), Scene showing an equestrian victory over Parthian king Artabanus V, province of Fars, Iran.

Drawing of French orientalist painter and traveler Eugene Flandin (1840): Sasanian king Ardachir Babakan’s rock relief (Firuzabad 1), Scene showing an equestrian victory over Parthian king Artabanus V, province of Fars, Iran. (Public Domain)

Ghal'eh Dokhtar (or "The Maiden's Castle") in present-day Fars, Firuzabad, Iran, built by Ardashir in 209, before he was finally able to defeat the Parthian empire.

Ghal’eh Dokhtar (or “The Maiden’s Castle”) in present-day Fars, Firuzabad, Iran, built by Ardashir in 209, before he was finally able to defeat the Parthian empire. (Public Domain)

Ardashir’s Military Reform and Forces

After defeating the Parthians, Ardashir turned his attention towards driving Rome back into the sea and restoring the former glory of Persia when it was under Cyrus the Great. However, Ardashir needed a professional army, an army that was organized, and not only in structure, but also in capability.

Rome was not an easy army to fight, just look at the many battles fought between Rome and Parthia over time. They were equals to one another. However, one was better at going on the offensive while the other excelled at remaining defensive. Ardashir needed an army that could do both, for he could not afford just a defensive army.

Ardashir consolidated and centralized his forces directly under his command. He was absolute, and an absolute monarchy needed a subjective army that would forcefully submit to the nobility without contestation. In order to do this, the command must start at the very top, which was the king himself, Ardashir.

Bust of a Sasanian king, most likely Shapur II (309 to 379 CE) Representative image.

Bust of a Sasanian king, most likely Shapur II (309 to 379 CE) Representative image. (Public Domain)

The Chain of Command

Ardashir was not only King of Persia, but he was the Shahenshah, “King of kings.” Ardashir’s military chain of command started with the Vuzurg-Framander. The Vuzurg-Framander was in charge of state affairs when the Shahenshah was off on a military campaign. The person in charge of the military forces was the Eran-Spahbad. Under the Eran-Spahbad was the Spahbad who was a general and could be a military governor of a province. The Spahbad received help from his assistants, known as the “Padgospan.” The Padgospan, otherwise known as “Padan” were lower officers assisting the Spahbad. Under the Padan was the Framandar, which were the battlefield commanders. This list provides a somewhat clear detail as to the day-to-day duties of the military chain of command whether in peace or in war. However, other titles are mentioned, but many remain unclear as to their job description or role in war.

Artistic rendering of a Sasanian spahbed.

Artistic rendering of a Sasanian spahbed. (Public Domain)

Now that we have a glimpse into the command structure of the Sassanid military, one can see that it was highly organized due to its centralized role. Nevertheless, good command structure needs a good army to function, in order to go on the offensive or stay on the defensive when needed.

The Sassanid military was heavy and built for shock for its sole purpose was to dominate the battlefield and beyond. The Sassanid military force was a mirror image of the Parthian military. In other words, cavalry ruled the day throughout the empire. Cavalry was tradition in these parts and the Sassanids continued in that tradition, but with better organization.

The Sassanids primarily relied on two types of cavalry in combat; the heavy cavalry consisted of cataphracts, the clibanarii, and the lighter horse archer cavalry. In addition to the cavalry, the Sassanids also relied upon infantry and elephants as well as having an effective siege train. However, cavalry was the cornerstone of the Sassanid army.

Historical re-enactment of a Sassanid-era cataphract, complete with a full set of scale armor for the horse.

Historical re-enactment of a Sassanid-era cataphract, complete with a full set of scale armor for the horse. (GFDL)

As mentioned before, the cataphracts and the clibanarii were the cornerstone of the Sassanid army, the reason is that they were heavy. What made them heavy was the use of scale or plate armor. Both horse and rider were covered in an elaborate array of armor. This gave the horse and its rider full protection and provided the Sassanid forces with a shock element that could ride down, fleeing enemy forces or piercing through enemy formations thus breaking enemy cohesion into pieces and exposing them.

Horse archers also were pivotal in regards to mounted combat; they provided the heavy cavalry windows of opportunity. Horse archer’s main role was to not only fix an enemy unit or army but to lead them out in open pasture for annihilation by the heavy cavalry once exposed. Nevertheless, horse archers could also be considered psychological warfare, for once the arrows began to rain down the end never seemed to come and when doubt set in, either the enemy fled or its officers made irrational decisions that ultimately exposed the men, which led to certain death.

Cataphracts fighting Roman cavalry during the Dacian wars circa 101 AD.

Cataphracts fighting Roman cavalry during the Dacian wars circa 101 AD. (Public Domain)

An example of both heavy and light cavalry elements combined comes from the battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE. This battle highlights the effective use of both heavy and light cavalries that the Sassanids were accustomed.

Elephants were also deployed upon the field of battle. The elephants the Sassanids used were from India. Every elephant was mounted with howdahs, which carried the armed men including the driver.

Elephant in Battle, Kota, Rajasthan, India circa 1750-70.

Elephant in Battle, Kota, Rajasthan, India circa 1750-70. (Public Domain)

A medieval Armenian miniature representing the Sasanian War elephants in the Battle of Vartanantz.

A medieval Armenian miniature representing the Sasanian War elephants in the Battle of Vartanantz. (Public Domain)

Another aspect that sometimes is easily forgotten, or overlooked, is the fact that elephants scare horses due to their smell. Horses that were not accustom to the beasts’ smell, became upset and restless with fear, causing panic among the ranks. This also prompted fear among the Roman ranks who had never encountered such an intimidating and powerful beast. In many ways, the Sassanid use of the elephant was a psychological shock weapon for both men and animals on the opposing side.

Infantry was the weak link to the Sassanid military structure and organization throughout their long history. The reason was due to the Sassanids being grounded in a cavalry based culture that was very much pastoral as well as agricultural. However, it is the pastoral way of life that controlled the Sassanid Empire and the way it fought. Nevertheless, we are not at a complete loss concerning the role of infantry in the Sassanid military apparatus.

The infantry, for the most part, was not what one would think as a traditional infantryman; frankly, they resembled nothing of an infantryman. The historian Procopius, describes the Sassanid infantry as being, “nothing more than a crowd of pitiful peasants who come into battle for no other purpose than to dig through walls and despoil the slain and in general to serve the other soldiers.” As for weapons, it seems that many had none at all, for Procopius states that the only thing between them and the enemy was, “enormous shields.” However, the Sassanid military did have an infantry unit that was effective and heavy, but not great in numbers. They were known as the Dailamites.

A Sasanian army helmet. “There were several different types of army helmet worn by Sassanian soldiers. This rare helmet likely resembled the tall headdresses (kulah) depicted on Sassanian portrait seals and dates to the 6th century AD.”

The Dailamites (or Daylamites) were a different breed of infantry warrior men. The Dailamites came from Northern Persia and were spoken highly about among the Romans. They were known for sword and dagger skills, but also carried a battle-axe, a two-pronged spear, and to top it all off, they also carried a rather large decorative shield. In addition, they were hardy and able to fight with the best of them—whomever or whatever was thrown their way. However, the only problem was they lacked numbers, as it seems that only four thousand were employed as the king’s elite guard.

A Daylamite mounted soldier.

A Daylamite mounted soldier. (Public Domain)

Foot archers were another highly prized infantry force among the Sassanid military. An officer known as a “Tribad” led foot archers. Foot archers could add to the already heavy volume of arrows being delivered by the horse archers. It was raining death on a massive scale, as the quantity of arrows would increase and come closer as the foot archers moved forward, showering the enemy with arrows. This tactic did not always work, but it seems to have been effective overall, offsetting the enemy formation on both the offensive and defensive. Nevertheless, foot archers are used for siege operations, as they were placed in the tops of towers to shower arrows down on the enemy protecting the walls and to protect the towers from any would-be saboteur.

Ardashir I was known as the Adashir the Unifier. It was his intelligence, energy, and talent for organization and strategy that enabled him to overthrow an empire and create another, forming a dynasty that would last four hundred years.

The Sasanian Empire at its greatest extent c. 632 CE (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Top Image: Deriv; Sassanid-era Cataphract Renactor (GFDL), and The Battle of Hormozdgan, April 28, 224 CE. (Public Domain)

By Cam Rea

References

Al-Tabari. he Conquest of Iran: History of al-Tabari, Volume 14. Edited and translated by G. Rex Smith. Albany, New York: University of New York, 1994.

Bowman, Alan K, Peter Garnsey and Averial Cameron. The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Debevoise, Neilson Carel. A Political History of Parthia. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1938.

Dio Cocceianus, Cassius. Dio’s Roman History, trans. E Cary, Loeb Classical Library, 9 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954.

Dixon, Karen R., and Pat Southern. The Roman Cavalry: From the First to the Third Century AD. London: Batsford, 1992.

Erdkamp, Paul. A Companion to the Roman Army. Chicago: Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2007.

Falk, Avner. A Psychoanalytic History of the Jews. Lewisburg, PA: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996.

Farrokh, Kaveh and Angus McBride. Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 . Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2005.

Farrokh, Kaveh. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007.

Herodian. Herodian, History of the Roman Empire since the Death of Marcus Aurelius, trans. Edward C. Echols. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961.

Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. London: Duckworth, 2005.

Plutarch. The Fall of the Roman Republic: Six Lives. London: Penguin Classics, 1984.

Sheldon, Rose Mary. Rome’s Wars in Parthia: Blood in the Sand . London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2010.

Sidnell, Phil. Warhorse: Cavalry in the Ancient World. London: Hambledon & London, 2007.

March 3, 2017

The Fall of the Arsacid Dynasty Started with a Wedding – Part 1

Incredibly, the end of the Parthian Empire started with a fake wedding.

Before the wedding took place, a civil war had been raging in Parthia between Vologases VI and his brother Artabanus V. After much warring between the two contesting parties, Artabanus came out as the winner and inherited the Empire. While Artabanus was enjoying his new throne, many miles to the west, the Roman Emperor Caracalla moved his headquarters to Antioch in the summer of 215 CE. The reason for Caracalla’s temporary move was that he was desirous of the title ‘Parthicus’, which would grant him great renown throughout the Roman Empire, and so he devised a plan in 216 CE.

Coin of the Parthian king Artabanus IV. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.

Coin of the Parthian king Artabanus IV. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com /CC BY-SA 3.0)

He decided that the best way to win over the Parthians was to write Artabanus a letter. Once the last scribbles were written, he gave it to his embassy, along with expensive gifts of fine workmanship.

Artabanus enjoyed the gifts, and when he opened the letter, Caracalla made it very clear that he wished to marry one of his daughters. Caracalla’s objective was to unite two empires under one great power, which would benefit both men, since not only would a much stronger army emerge from this union, but the trade restrictions could be lifted. Artabanus at first did not approve of the request, saying, “that it was not proper for a barbarian to marry a Roman” and “it was not fitting that either race be bastardized.”

Bust of the emperor Caracalla.

Bust of emperor Caracalla. (CC BY 2.5)

Therefore, Artabanus declined the offer. Artabanus was no fool; he knew of Caracalla’s deceitfulness when dealing with other nations. But this was not the end of the matter. Caracalla persisted, offering more gifts and showing enthusiasm for the marriage and for the union between the two powers. Artabanus finally believed that Caracalla was telling the truth. Artabanus felt that a permanent peace had finally arrived and publicly announced the wedding.

Caracalla crossed the rivers and was welcomed with sacrifices, decorated altars, incense scattered in his path, and all sorts of entertainment. Once he was near the palace at Ctesiphon, Artabanus came out to meet his future son-in-law in the plain before the city, with his daughter nearby. With an entire city jubilant over the event, crowned with flowers in their hair and wearing the finest robes, the populace danced to the music of flutes and drums. The men left their horses and their bows to partake in the drinking. Nothing out of the ordinary was suspected. When the Parthians were good and drunk, especially the men, the decisive moment was to be unveiled.

Caracalla gave the signal, and the happy party—celebrating what they thought was to be a peaceful end to many centuries of bloodshed—was slaughtered. Artabanus nearly died, but was helped onto a horse and escaped with a few men. The Roman troops took much booty and many prisoners. Caracalla then gave the order to pull out, and marched away unopposed. However, this was not to be the end, for Caracalla gave his men permission to loot and burn all the towns and villages they came across and to carry as much as they could, for it was all theirs for the taking. How far they went into Parthian territory remains unknown.

Caracalla’s great raid across the western portion of the Parthian Empire was short lived, for as soon as he enjoyed his spoils, one of his own men assassinated him. For roughly three days, the Romans were without an emperor until they chose a Praetorian Prefect, Macrinus, who was not a soldier by any means. There was no time for mourning Caracalla’s death or rejoicing in Macrinus’ ascension, for the Parthians were fast approaching.

Medallion with Roman Emperor Caracalla, circa 215 and circa 243 (Imperial Roman).

Medallion with Roman Emperor Caracalla, circa 215 and circa 243 (Imperial Roman). (Walters Art Museum/Public Domain)

The Bloody Battle of Nisibis 217 CE

Artabanus was seeking retribution, and once he entered Roman territory, he burned several cities in Mesopotamia. Word eventually reached Macrinus of the coming Parthians, who were great in number, “including a strong cavalry contingent and a powerful unit of archers and those mail-clad soldiers who hurl spears from dromedaries.”

A Westerner on a camel. (386 – 534 CE)

A Westerner on a camel. (386 – 534 CE) (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Macrinus assembled his forces and moved out. The new emperor understood the severity of the situation and took to diplomacy in the hope it could avert battle and restore peace in the region. Macrinus sent the captives and a friendly message to Artabanus, urging him to accept peace and arguing that he was not to be blamed for Caracalla’s actions. Artabanus looked over the letter and rejected it immediately. He responded to Macrinus that if peace were to exist between the two, Rome must “rebuild the forts and the demolished cities, abandon Mesopotamia entirely, and make reparation for the injury done to the royal tombs as well as for other damage.” Further deliberation ceased when the Parthian army arrived outside the Roman headquarters at Nisibis.

At sunrise, the vast Parthian army appeared. Artabanus, along with his men, saluted the sun, as was their custom, and with loud cheers, the cataphract charged while the horse archers fired over their heads. The cataphract horsemen and dromedary riders inflicted considerable damage to the Roman ranks along with the relentless shower of arrows from above.

A Chinese terracotta figurine of a cataphract horse and rider. (386–534 CE)

A Chinese terracotta figurine of a cataphract horse and rider. (386–534 CE) (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Parthian horseman.

Parthian horseman. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

But even the Parthians suffered considerable losses since the Romans were at their best in close combat. After a while, the Romans began to feel the pressure and had to make a quick decision while the Parthians were regrouping. The Romans pretended to retreat, and as they did, they threw down caltrops and other pointed devices, which the sand concealed, making them nearly invisible. The Parthians, thinking that the Romans were fleeing the battlefield, gave chase, and when the horses and the soft-footed camels stepped on the sharp devices, they suffered great injury and would throw the rider. The rider was now vulnerable to be captured or killed since his armor weighed him down. Or, if he were to get up, he could not run far, for his robe would trip him.

Antique Roman Caltrop made of iron.

Antique Roman Caltrop made of iron. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

For two days, the armies fought in this manner, with disastrous results from morning until night, both celebrating in their camps as if they had won. On the third day, the Parthians tried to encircle the Romans, but the Romans had given their divisions and extended their front line to avoid this. The Romans were being worn down by the relentless attacks of the Parthians, who had numerical superiority. But, they could extend their lines to avoid being outflanked for only so long. The consistent Parthian onslaught eventually wore down and demoralized the Romans, causing their lines to collapse and Macrinus to flee, but the arrival of night saved them. With nothing left to gain, especially with the piled-up dead bodies creating barriers, the Romans acknowledged defeat and retired to their camp.

The slaughter of both men and animals was so great that the entire plain was covered. Bodies were piled in huge mounds; camels lay in heaps. The number of corpses that littered the battlefield hampered any further attacks, for not only could one not gain a foothold without stumbling but even finding the enemy was a problem since the piled remains of dead comrades blocked each other’s view.

Macrinus, who had lost the respect of his men, knew that he had lost something else, a victory. Macrinus forgot that the forces of Artabanus were merely a militia, as Parthia had no standing army, and he could only hold onto his men for so long because they were unaccustomed to sustained efforts. Having been in the field for some months now, the Parthians had grown weary and wished to return home. With a temporary armistice in place, Macrinus could rethink his plans.

The Parthians carried off their dead and the Romans carried theirs off the field as well. Once the battlefield had been cleared, it was just a matter of time before a renewal of combat was to ensue. Macrinus was not going to let that happen, but it would not have mattered anyway because his men had lost faith in their newly crowned emperor.

Macrinus offered friendship to Artabanus and explained that Caracalla was dead and that he, Macrinus, was the new emperor. To secure peace, Macrinus offered the Parthian king gifts and 200 million sesterces (approximately fifty million denarii). Artabanus thought it over carefully and agreed to peace, since the Romans had “suffered a suitable punishment.” Besides, Artabanus’ own army was terribly wounded. Afterward, Artabanus returned to Parthia while Macrinus hurried to Antioch.

Even though Macrinus had lost the battle, the entire affair was presented as if he’d won. The Roman Senate offered Macrinus the title of “Parthicus,” but he refused it, and rightfully so. But regardless of his feelings, coins were still minted bearing the legend Victoria Parthica. Even though Rome held him as the victor, the fact of the matter is, he shamefully lost, costing Rome much money, but more importantly, prestige.

Roman coin featuring Macrinus

Roman coin featuring Macrinus (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The Rise of the House of Sasan and Mighty King Ardashir

Parthia never would recover from this Pyrrhic victory over Rome in 217 CE. Due to losses in 116, 164, and 198/99 CE, Parthia had lost much prestige. While it is true that Parthia kept Rome in check, and did not allow themselves to be destroyed by the Romans like the Celts and Carthaginians, the Romans were still able to dictate politically and penetrate Parthian territory militarily. Parthia’s inability to fend off the Romans allowed others, like its own family and those who held a considerable amount of power within their own regions, make a bid for the throne. When there is regime uncertainty, expect political upheaval. Even though Artabanus V had defeated Rome, the war with his brother Vologases VI resumed.

Iran would never find stability while the Arsacids were in charge. It would take a person of non-Arsacid birth to stabilize and unite Iran, and his name was Ardashir I of Persia. But who was Ardashir?

Coin of Ardashir I. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.

Coin of Ardashir I. (Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com/CC BY-SA 3.0)

Ardashir was born in Tirdeh, Persia, in 180 CE. He was the son of Badag (Papak or Papag) a Zoroastrian priest and Princess Rodak. However, Ardashir’s father may have been Sassan, a Zoroastrian priest who served in the temple of Anahita. Many historians regard this alternative, and suspect that Badag adopted Ardashir after the death of Sassan. According to the Book of the Deeds of Ardashir, Sassan is claimed to be a descendent of the Achaemenids, who were a former ruling house of Persia. Ardashir, from a purely political position, legitimized this claim in order to unite Persia. Before Ardashir became king of Persia, his father took him to a man named Tire, in the city of Darabgerd (modern Iran), to be educated when he was seven. Tire agreed and took him for a son of his own.

According to the Book of the Deeds of Ardashir son of Babag, Ardashir was proficient and accomplished in learning and riding at the age of fifteen. When Artabanus V received word of this accomplished man, he wrote a letter to Babag requesting him to send his son to Artabanus to his court “so that he will associate with our sons and princes, and we might order for him position and reward according to the learning which he possesses.”

Relief of the Coronation of Ardashir I at Naghsh-e-Rostam. Ardashir is receiving the Kingship's ring from Ahuramazda.

Relief of the Coronation of Ardashir I at Naghsh-e-Rostam. Ardashir is receiving the Kingship’s ring from Ahuramazda. (CC BY 2.5)

Babag could not refuse his Lord and immediately “sent Ardashir well-equipped with ten servants and a superb present of many marvelous, magnificent, and suitable things for the acceptance of Ardavan (Aratabanus V).” Every day Ardashir was immersed in the art of horsemanship and hunting alongside the sons and princes of Artabanus. After some time, Ardashir proved better than his competition. Not only did he surpass the Arsacid nobility in horsemanship and hunting, he was more “warlike than them all, on the polo and the riding (ground), at Chatrang (chess) and Vine-Ardashir, and in (several) other arts.” However, the nobility became jealous of Ardashir and decided to use their privilege to undermine him during a hunting trip.

One day Ardavan went a hunting with his chevaliers and Ardashir. An elk which happened to be running in the desert was (then) pursued by Ardashir and the eldest son of Ardavan. And Ardashir, on reaching close to the elk, struck him with an arrow in such a manner that the arrow pierced through the belly as far as its feathers, passed through the other side, and the animal died instantly.

When Ardavan and the chevaliers approached them, they expressed wonder at such a dart and asked: — “Who struck that arrow?” — Ardashir replied: “I did it.” The son of Ardavan said: — “No, because I did it.”

Ardashir became angry and spoke thus to the son of Ardavan: “It is not possible to appropriate the art and heroism (of another) through tyranny, unpleasantness, falsehood, and injustice.” This is an excellent forest, and the wild asses here are many. Let us try here a second time, and bring into display (our) goodness or evil nature and dexterity.”

When Artabanus heard this, he was offended and banned Ardashir from riding horses, and punished the young man by sending him to his stables, with the task to take care of those animals so “that you do not go in the day or night from before those horses and cattle a hunting, to the playground or the college of learning.” Ardashir, upset by this, wrote a letter to his father. Upon reading the letter, Babag responded to his son:

“You did not act wisely in disputing with great men on a matter from which no harm could have reached you, and in addressing them with coarse words in public. Now speak out excuses for your relief and feel humble repentance, for the sages have said: It is not possible for an enemy to do that for an enemy, which, is brought on himself by an ignorant man from his own actions. Do not be grieved narrow-mindedly from a person at the time when you cannot pass your life (happily) without him. And you yourself know that Ardavan is a king more powerful than I, you, or many people in this world with reference to (our) bodies, lives, riches, and estates. And now, too, such is my strictest advice to you that you should act in unison with and obediently (towards them), and not deliver up your own glory to annihilation.”

After Ardashir’s debacle with the Arsacid nobility, the man who raised him, Tire, died. When Tire passed, the king of Persis (the province of Persia or Fars), Guchehr, declared Ardashir king of Darabgerd. Soon after, Ardashir challenged Guchehr with the aid of his father, Babag, and overthrew the king by 200 CE. However, Ardashir was not granted the kingship of Persis, Babag gave this title and province to his eldest son, Shapur. Ardashir, unhappy playing second fiddle, declared war on his brother. Before the battle could take place, Shapur mysteriously perished. The cause of death was said to have been by a collapsing structure from an old Achaemenid fortress. Afterwards, Ardashir proclaimed himself king of Persis by 208 CE. His brothers protested this and Ardashir disposed of them. If his brother challenges were not enough, many local petty kings of Persis refused to acknowledge Ardashir rule. Ardashir responded by going to war in which he crushed them.

He thus solidified his position as the rightful king of Persis. However, Parthian leadership in Ctesiphon thought otherwise and sounded the alarm.

Top Image: Detail; Emperor Caracalla. (CC BY 2.5), and Cataphracts circa 101 AD. (Public Domain)