Dignas B., Winter E. Rome and Persia in late Antiquity. Neighbours and Rivals

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

2.4 The sixth century 43

asking the emperor not to ally himself with Xusr

o. Bahr

am promised that

if the emperor remained neutral he would hand over Nisibis and all of

Mesopotamia as far as the river Tigris.

150

Xusr

o II Parv

ez in turn offered

Maurice D

a, Martyropolis, part of Armenia and remission of the annual

tributary payments.

151

In Constantinople the opinions on what should be

done were divided. The Senate demanded that Maurice give priority to

the interests of his own empire, that is, to let Persia fall into a state of

anarchy.

152

However, Maurice decided to support the legitimate claims of

Xusr

o II Parv

ez and to restore him to the throne.

153

In this way Maurice

abandoned the basic principle of Western policy not to intervene in internal

matters of the Sasanian Empire.

154

For the ﬁrst time Roman and Persian

units fought side by side. In the spring of 591 Xusr

o II embarked on an

advance against Bahr

am VI

ın. With Roman help he managed to defeat

the rebel.

155

The latter escaped to the Western Turks but was assassinated

a year later.

156

Xusr

o II Parv

ez was restored to the throne in 591

157

and

the same year brought about a peace treaty,

158

which ended the third great

Roman–Persian War of the sixth century.

The following paragraphs summarise the relations during this century:

at the beginning of the sixth century we observe a turning-point in the

relations between the empires. By renewing royal power, dealing with the

Mazdakite movement and introducing social reforms Xusr

oIAn

sarv

enabled the Sasanians, who possessed immense ﬁnancial resources, to inﬂict

serious harm on their western neighbour. Although for a short period of

time the reign of Justinian I revived the former glory of the Roman Empire,

150

Theoph. Simoc. iv.14.8; Theoph. Chron.A.M.6080 (p. 265, 24–6, ed. de Boor).

151

Theoph. Simoc. iv.13.24.

152

There is silence on this conﬂict in the Greek sources but the oriental literature provides us with

stories embellished in the typical way; cf. e.g. the national epos

Sahn

ama by the Persian poet Firdausi

(died in 1020), a history of Persia from the beginning to Sasanian times (select Engl. tr. Levy 1996;

German tr. Mohl vol. 7: 101–23); according to Theoph Sim. iv.14.1 and Tabar

ı (tr. N

oldeke 283–4;

Bosworth 311–12 [999]) Xusr

o II received military support from Byzantium without any delay.

Xusr

o in fact had to wait several months for the requested aid; cf. Higgins 1941: 310 n. 88;onthe

discussion in Constantinople regarding Roman involvement in the Sasanian succession see also

Goubert 1951: 143. See also ch. 8 n. 22.

153

See also Frendo 1992a: 59–68 and Riedlberger 1998: 161–75.

154

On the emperor’s motives see Winter 1989a: 84–8.

155

On the cooperation between Roman and Sasanian units and the decisive victory over Bahr

am VI

ın at Gandzak see Theoph. Sim. v.11–2; on the date of the battle see Higgins 1939: 53–4 and

Schreiner 1985: 314–15 n. 744.

156

See Christensen 1944: 445.

157

Euagr. HE vi.19; Chr. pasch. a. 591; for an English translation with introduction see Whitby 2000.

158

On this peace treaty see Goubert 1951: 167–70; on the frontier line after 591 see Honigmann 1935:

28–37.

44 2 A chronological survey

the emperor expended Roman power and consumed resources during his

numerous military campaigns.

During the sixth century the confrontation between Romans and

Persians took place on a worldwide scale.

159

Not only the border areas

but also the Avars, Turks, Chazars and Arabs were included in the struggle.

Moreover, Roman activities in the Western empire as well as growing Sasa-

nian difﬁculties in the East had an impact on the ﬁghting between the two.

Only when Maurice and Xusr

o II joined forces towards the end of the cen-

tury did tensions cease, and an agreement was reached. Corresponding to

the good personal relationship between Maurice and Xusr

oIIParv

ez, who

saw himself as the son of the Byzantine emperor,

160

the relations between

the two sides remained friendly. However, this phase is not well docu-

mented. Xusr

o II probably used the time in order to consolidate his rule,

to revive the economy and to ﬁll the royal treasury. When confrontations

resumed at the beginning of the seventh century the Persians once more

proved to be strong and very serious opponents for the Romans.

2.5 the seventh century: might and

decline of sasanian power

After Maurice’s downfall and assassination by the rebel Phocas (602–10)in

602 the good relationship between Persians and Romans changed abruptly.

Theodosius, supposedly Maurice’s son, approached Xusr

o II for help. The

king was prepared to avenge Maurice’s murder; he received Theodosius

with open arms at his court and proclaimed him the legitimate ruler of the

Byzantine Empire.

161

When he also imprisoned the envoys sent by Phocas to

announce his take-over of the Byzantine throne, the two powers re-entered

the state of war. Initially, Xusr

o II must have perceived this situation not as

ﬁghting a war against the Romans but rather as dealing with a tyrant. The

parallels with the events of 590/1 are obvious. According to the Byzantine

historian Theophylact Simocatta, in the king’s eyes Phocas’ usurpation

of the throne was a justiﬁed reason for war.

162

This war represents the

last great Roman–Sasanian confrontation, which – after the pinnacle of

159

Higgins 1941: 279–315.

160

Theoph. Simoc. v.3.11; Theoph. Chron.A.M.6081 (p. 266, 13, ed. de Boor) and Tabar

ı, tr. N

oldeke,

275; Bosworth 305 (994).

161

Tabar

ı, tr. N

oldeke 290; Bosworth 317 (1002).

162

Theoph. Simoc. viii.15.7; however, the historian also remarks that the king used the events in

Byzantium as a pretext in order to open war against the West once more; cf. Garso

ıan 1983: 578.

2.5 The seventh century 45

Persian power – led to the fall of the Sasanian Empire and which brought

on dramatic changes that involved the entire Middle East.

163

At ﬁrst Xusr

o II was determined to exploit the desolate situation within

the Byzantine Empire and to expand the borders of his kingdom. Certainly

favoured by the rebellion of the powerful Roman general Nars

164

the

Persian army began an almost unstoppable advance to the West. Within

ﬁve years the entire Eastern part of the Byzantine Empire fell into Persian

hands (15).

165

The difﬁcult situation within the Byzantine Empire, which

continued after Phocas’ downfall in 610, forms the background to a letter

written by the Senate of Constantinople to Xusr

o II in the year 615. In this

letter the ‘King of kings’ is asked to recognise the new emperor Heraclius

(610–41)

166

as his ‘legitimate child’. In turn, the emperor would honour him

as a father deserved.

167

This is not the only example of a Byzantine emperor

willing to pay a childlike respect to a foreign ruler.

168

At this point, however,

Xusr

o II was no longer prepared to abandon his plans of an expansion in

the West. When Alexandria fell and Egypt was lost in the year 619

169

the

Romans were altogether in a hopeless situation. In contrast, Persia was at

the height of its power.

But the Romans recovered quickly. Internal developments helped the

emperor to consolidate his position as well as to strengthen the empire’s

military force.

170

Moreover, after the fall of Jerusalem in 614

171

the Church

supported Heraclius by offering its riches to help in his war against the

Persians. Heraclius agreed to make high payments to the Avars and thereby

managed to conclude a temporary peace (620) with them. His success

marked a turning-point that eventually led to the ﬁnal defeat and fall of

the Sasanian kingdom.

On the day after Easter 622 Heraclius and his army left Constantinople

in order to re-conquer the lost territories.

172

At the beginning of the year

623 the two armies clashed for the ﬁrst time. The Persian general

Sahrbar

suffered a crushing defeat. As a consequence, Asia Minor was liberated from

Sasanian rule. The victory boosted the morale of the Roman troops and had

the Avars not broken the peace agreement they would have advanced even

163

The most comprehensive account can be found in Stratos 1968: 103–17; cf. also Frendo 1995: 209–14.

164

See Stratos 1968: 59–60.

165

See Foss 1975: 721–47; Morony 1987: 87–95; Russell 2001: 41–71; Foss 2003: 149–70.

166

On this emperor see Reining and Stolte 2002; Kaegi 2003.

167

Chr. Pasch. a. 615.

168

See D

olger 1964: 61 n. 63.

169

See ch. 3 n. 219 below for references.

170

Ostrogorsky 1963: 77–91; Stratos 1968: 257–82; Garso

ıan 1983: 588–92.

171

Clermont-Ganneau 1898: 36–54 and Wheeler 1991: 69–85.

172

Oikonomid

es 1976: 1–9.

46 2 A chronological survey

further.

173

Be that as it may, it did not take Heraclius long to offer higher

payments and buy the neutrality of the Avars once more. In the spring of

323 he began a new offensive via Cappadocia into Armenia, where he took

ın and other cities and also moved further south against Gandzak. Here

he destroyed an important Zoroastrian sanctuary that had been founded

by the ﬁrst Sasanian ruler Arda

ır I (224–40), apparently in order to take

revenge for the preceding raid of Jerusalem. The years 624 and 625 saw

numerous confrontations between the two opponents in which the Romans

were victorious for the greater part. However, as Heraclius could not score

a decisive victory he withdrew to Cilicia in 625.

174

In the following year Xusr

o decided to attack Heraclius’ army in Cilicia

and to march against Constantinople in order to gain a sudden decisive

advantage.

Sahrbar

az crossed Asia Minor and advanced as far as Calchedon.

The situation became even more threatening when, shortly after, the ruler

of the Avars, the Khagan, also pressed against Constantinople with a large

force and besieged the city from two sides.

175

However, the Avars suffered

a major defeat by sea on 10 August 626 and immediately withdrew so that

the Sasanian plan of a united front against Byzantium failed and with it

the whole Persian offensive.

Sahrbar

az returned from Calchedon to Syria.

At this point the last great Roman offensive began.

While the capital was under threat, Heraclius stayed away from Con-

stantinople so that he would not be surrounded. In Lazika he built

up a new, powerful army and established contacts with the Chazars, a

Turkish people located between the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Sea. This

alliance between Romans and Chazars was to become both a threat to

Persia and a characteristic of a new Roman Eastern policy.

176

In the sum-

mer of 627 Romans and Chazars fought successfully against the Sasanians

in the southern Caucasus region and conquered Tiﬂis in Sasanian east-

ern Georgia. Then Heraclius decided to invade Sasanian territory.

177

the ruins of Niniveh the Roman troops clashed with a Persian army that

Xusr

o II had sent against them in order to stop Heraclius’ advance. When

in December of 627 a battle was fought the Persians suffered a crushing

defeat, which decided the war in favour of Byzantium. Heraclius moved

on to ﬁnd Xusr

o II in his favourite residence at Dastagird. The Sasanian

173

On the Avars see Samolin 1957–8: 62–5; Pohl 1988; Daim et al. 1996.

174

Zuckerman 2002: 122–55.

175

Bari

c 1954: 371–95; Stratos 1967: 370–6; Howard-Johnston 1995a: 131–42.

176

On Heraclius’ stay in the Caucasus region and his diplomatic contacts with the Chazars see Stratos

1968: 197–203.

177

For a detailed account see Kaegi 2002: 156–91.

2.5 The seventh century 47

king escaped to Kt

esiph

on whereas Heraclius took Dastagird and set up

his camp for the winter at the river Narbas. He did not attempt to attack

esiph

on because of its strong fortiﬁcations.

178

Internal developments in Persia rather than military confrontation ended

the struggle.

179

Xusr

o II summoned all his generals in order to search for

those who could be held responsible for the defeat at Niniveh. Provoked by

fear, the generals revolted against Xusr

o II Parv

ez (590–628) and appointed

his son Kav

adh II

e as the new ruler. They were supported by the

nobility, whom Xusr

o II had alienated more and more during his long

reign. Moreover, his subjects had lost respect for the king when he took

ﬂight from Heraclius. All these factors contributed to Xusr

o’s downfall. On

25 February 628 Kav

adh II

e was proclaimed king and soon after his

father was imprisoned and executed.

With regard to its external affairs, Persia was now in an entirely defensive

position. Kav

adh II and Heraclius concluded a peace (21) according to

which the Persians were to give up the Roman territories of Armenia and

the western part of Mesopotamia in the same year, Syria, Palestine and

Egypt in the following year. The return and restoration of the Holy Cross

in March of 628

180

symbolised the ﬁnal victory of the West over the East

and established a motif that would become notorious in the religious wars

of later ages.

When Kav

adh II

e died during the ﬁrst year of his reign (628)

the Sasanian Empire started to disintegrate internally.

181

Kav

adh’s son and

successor Arda

ır III (628–30) was still under age, and so

Sahrbar

az, who

had been a powerful general during the reign of Xusr

o II, sought power.

He killed Arda

ır and proclaimed himself king (630). Apparently Heraclius

supported his activities by putting soldiers at his disposal.

182

The emperor’s

behaviour thus forms a stark contrast with Maurice’s earlier reaction to

Bahr

ın’s claims against Xusr

o II Parv

ez. Heraclius was not interested

in a legitimate succession but in exploiting Persia’s internal difﬁculties, that

is to make sure that his opponent would be weakened for as long as possible.

Along with this attitude the direct relations between Romans and Persians

ended because in both empires internal matters shifted to the foreground.

As far as external matters are concerned, both were soon confronted with

the onslaught of the Muslim conquerors.

183

178

Minorsky 1943–6: 243–65.

179

For the events in the Sasanian Empire see Christensen 1944: 497–509 and Frye 1983a: 170–2.

180

Cf. Baynes 1912: 287–99.

181

On this process see Schippmann 1990: 72–7.

182

oldeke 1883: 31.

183

Cf. Fiey 1987: 96–103.

48 2 A chronological survey

After a rule of only forty days

Sahrbar

az was also killed. In the following

period military leaders and members of the Sasanian dynasty contended for

power. After

Sahrbar

az’ death the following held the Sasanian throne for

short periods of time: Xusr

o III, B

an,

184

Azarm

eduxt, Hormizd V, Xusr

IV, P

oz II, and Tarruxz

adh-Xusr

o(= Xusr

o V). The constant struggles

did not end until Yazdgard III (632–51) was crowned as the last legitimate

heir to the Sasanian throne. Yazdgard’s determination to restore former

glory is manifest in the fact that his coronation took place in Istakhr, the

home of the Sasanian dynasty.

185

From Istakhr the king went to Kt

esiph

and appointed Rustam supreme commander of his army. However, the

long wars against Byzantium had exhausted the empire so that it could no

longer develop great power.

In the meantime changes in the Arabian Peninsula affected the entire

political and strategic situation in the Near and Middle East.

186

In the year

622 the prophet Muhammad founded a state in Mad

ına that would unite

all Arabs under his own religious and secular rule. Muhammad intended

to end tribal and religious fragmentation as well as Arab dependence on

the great powers. Under the banner of Islam the prophet successfully put

these goals into practice before he died in the year 632. His successors

initiated a massive expansionist policy that combined religious fanaticism

with an aggressive desire for conquest. The ensuing Arab offensive and their

continuous triumphant progress were certainly facilitated by the weakness

of the Romans and Persians, who had dominated the events in the Middle

East for centuries.

After some ﬁghting along the borders in 636 a major battle took place

at Q

adis

ıya close to H

ıra, which was the old capital of the former Lahmid

state, where the Arabs inﬂicted a crushing defeat on the Sasanians.

187

Shortly

after the Arab conquerors captured Seleucia, crossed the Tigris, invaded

esiph

on and advanced further into the interior.

188

In 642 for a last time a

large Persian army answered their attack at Nih

avand but without success.

The defeat accelerated the downfall of the kingdom. Although the Arabs

had to continue ﬁghting for some time before they had subjugated all

areas within the Sasanian Empire, they faced merely local conﬂicts with

individual independent rulers. Yazdgard III’s reign continued void of glory.

184

With observations on late Sasanian imperial ideology see Daryaee 1999: 77–82.

185

Bivar and Boyce 1998: 643–6; Wieseh

ofer 1998c: 1145–6.

186

Endreß 1997; on the prophet Muhammad see Bobzin 2000.

187

On this battle and the subsequent events see the detailed account by Spuler 1952: 8–21; cf. also ‘Abd

al-Husain Zarr

ınk

ub 1975: 1–33 and Hinds 1984: 39–53.

188

Hinds 1984; 39–53; Daryaee 2002: 3–18.

2.5 The seventh century 49

Constantly in ﬂight and in search for allies who would assist him against

the Arab invaders he ﬁnally came to Merv where he was assassinated in 651.

The death of this last member of the Sasanian dynasty marks the ofﬁcial

end of the history of the Sasanian Empire, which in fact had already ceased

to exist after the battle at Nih

avand.

189

Although the Romans celebrated a triumphant success when the Holy

Cross was restored in Jerusalem in March 628,

190

the continuous struggle

with Persia had taken its toll. Soon after the Romans had re-conquered Syria,

Palestine and Egypt, these territories were lost once more, this time to the

Arabs. After a signiﬁcant battle at the river Yarm

uk in August 636 Syria fell

into Arab hands.

191

The conquerors had already taken Damascus in 635, and

in 637 Jerusalem fell. After the Persian defeat at Q

adis

ıya the Arabs occupied

the Roman possessions in Mesopotamia in order to attack Armenia from

there. In 639 they ﬁnally attacked Egypt, which was conquered by 646. The

most important Eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire had thus fallen

under Arab rule.

192

The Arab conquest reveals yet once more the historical

signiﬁcance of the struggle between the Romans and Persians for hegemony

in the Near and Middle East: no doubt the exhausting confrontations

between West and East had fostered the Islamic expansion.

193

189

See Tyler-Smith 2000: 135–70.

190

Grumel 1967: 139–49; Whitby 1998: 247–73; on the date of this restoration see Speck 2000: 167–79.

191

On the battle see Kaegi 1992: 112–46; on Syria during this period see Foss 1997: 189–269.

192

Stratos 1972: 40–62; Donner 1981 and 1995: 337–60; Kaegi 1992.

193

Zakynthinos 1979: 64–5; Kaegi 1992.

part ii

Sources and contexts