SASANIAN EMPIRE.] PERSIA 607 E. Q. Visconti, Icon. Gr., iii.; Bartholomsei, "Rech. sur la num. Arsac. ," Mem. Soc. Arch., ii.; A. de Longperier, Mem. sur la chron. et iiconogr. des rois Partlins Arsac. (Paris, 1853) and the catalogues of coins in Prokesch-Osten s Monnairs des rois Partkcs (Paris, 1874-75) and P. Gardner s Parthian Coinage (London, 1877). There are also recent histories of Parthia by Rawlinson, Schneiderwirth, and Spiegel, and a book on the coins by Lindsay. As regards Bactria Bayer s Historia (Petersb., 1738) is poor, and quite upset by recent finds of coins. The Chinese material is still best given by Deguignes in Mem. Ac. Inscr., xxv. 17 sq. Of recent books see H. H. Wilson, Ariana Antiqua (London, 1841); Lassen, Zur Gescli. der Griech. itnd Indoskyth. Konirje (Bonn, 1838) and Ind. Alterthumsk., ii. The best works on the coins are by Thomas, in his edition of Prinsep, Essay* on 2nd. Antiquities, ii. 173 sq. ; A. Cunningham, in Num. Chron., vols. viii.-xii.; and Sallet, Nachfolger Alexanders des Gr. in Baktrien und Indien (Berlin, 1878). (A. v. G.) SECTION III. SASANIAN EMPIRE. Of the minor kings who ruled in Persis, in the Arsacid period, in real or nominal allegiance to the Parthian "king of kings " we know some names from coins or ancient writers, but we cannot tell whether they were all of one dynasty. In the beginning of the 3d century the kings, who then belonged to a dynasty of which the name prob ably was BAzrangik, had lost much of their power ; lesser potentates ruled in various parts of the land, which, by being all mountainous, falls naturally into ill -connected sections. One of these local princes was Papak, or, in the more modern pronunciation, Pabak, 1 son or descend ant of Sasan, a native of the village of Khir on the southern margin of the great salt lake east of Shiraz. Pabak overthrew Gozihr, the last prince of the Bazrangik, and became master of the district of Istakhr (Persepolis), and the coins and inscriptions of his son give him the title of king. His legitimate heir was his son Shapur, for whom Pabak is said to have asked recognition from the A. asm r Arsacids; but on Pabak s death a second son, Ardashir, refused to acknowledge his brother, and Avas in arms against him when Shapur died suddenly, and hardly by mere accident. That Ardashir s claims were opposed by his brothers and that he put them to death are not to be doubted, as we have these facts from a tradition of strictly legitimist tendency. Tradition names various local princes conquered by Ardashir for himself or for his father, and perhaps Pabak before his death was already lord of all Persis. Ardashir, at least presumably, was so when he struck the coins still extant. 2 Ardashir, who is to the Sasanian what Cyrus was to the Achsemenian empire, probably came to the throne in 211/212 A.D. 3 From the first he plainly leaned on the clergy of the Zoroastrian faith, which all through the Macedonian and Parthian eras had undoubtedly continued to be the religion of the people in Iran proper, and especi ally in Persis. The Parthian monarchs were Zoroastrians, but probably often very lukewarm in the faith. Ardashir, on the contrary, ostentatiously placed symbols of fire-wor ship on his coins, and on his inscriptions boasts himself a " Mazdayasn," or orthodox Zoroastrian. From his days onward the often fanatical and persecuting clergy enjoyed great power in the Sasanian empire, and the hierarchical organization of the state church, so similar to that of the Christian clergy, probably dates from Ardashir; it is referred to, at least, on the inscriptions of his immediate successors. Popularity and a certain religious prestige were the natural fruits of this orthodox zeal on the part of Ardashir, but his success was essentially the fruit of his energy and 1 The Arabs, having no p, pronounce Babak ; but this is not Persian. In general the forms of proper names followed in this article give the more recent pronunciation, which may have prevailed about the end of the Sasanian period. 2 These show a full-face portrait with the legend " Artakhshathr king." The reverse has his father s portrait in profile with the legend "son of the divine Papak." The older form of Ardashir s name, Artakhshathr, is the ancient Aetuemenian name, which the Greeks write Artaxerxes, and which, singularly enough (together with the name Darius, Daryav, Darab, Dara), had survived in the home of the Achse- nienians, although genuine Persian tradition had lost all memory of the old empire. 3 See A. v. Gutschmid, in Z.D.M.G., xxxiv. 734. valour. Slowly and not without toil he rose from king 212-233. of Persis to be king of the kings of Iran. He began by subduing successively Kirman, Susiana, and the petty states at the mouth of the Tigris. But after this he came into conflict with the great king, whom, according to the con temporary account of Dio Cassius, he smote in three battles. The decisive engagement with Ardavan (Artabanus) in which the last Parthian monarch fell, and where Ardashir gained the title of "king of kings," seems to have been on 28th April 224 (or 227, according to A. v. Gutschmid), and was probably fought in Babylonia or Susiana, for the next enterprise of Ardashir was an unsuccessful attack on the strong walls of Hatra, which perhaps was not taken and destroyed till the reign of his successor. Ardashir con quered Media, where an Arsacid prince was his adversary, and gained the greater part of the Iranian highlands, but failed in Armenia, whither a son of Ardavan had fled. The Romans saw with concern the rise of a prince who already directed his aims against their Asiatic possessions, and seems to have had some success in this quarter, till in 233 he was smitten by Alexander Severus in a great battle. 4 Henceforth, though peace was often made between the two powers, they remained constant rivals, and rivals on equal terms, for, though under able rulers and when the inner condition of the empire was not greatly disturbed, the Europeans of Rome or Byzantium were still too strong for the Asiatics, the tables were not seldom turned, and Rome sustained many a shameful defeat. This struggle fills the chief place in the political history of the Sasanians ; and the inner development of the empire, its martial and political institutions, its art and industry, were also most powerfully influenced by the superior civilization of the West. The nominal capital was always at Istakhr, where, for Sasanian example, the holy " pyreum " of the royal house stood, and swav - where the heads of conquered foreign kings were hung up. But the real metropolis was the Arsacid capital of Ctesiphon, with Ardashir s new foundation of Veh- Ardashir, just across the Tigris on the site of the old Seleucia. The rich alluvial land that surrounded these twin cities was no part of Iran proper, and its inhabitants were mainly Sem ites ; but old example, and probably its vicinity to Roman soil, marked it out for the true seat of government. The extent of the empire at the time of Ardashir s death is uncertain, for the national tradition ascribes to him some conquests that were really made by his successors, and others which the Sasanians never made at all. Shapur, his son, calls himself on his inscriptions king of the kings of Iran and non-Iran, where his father says only "of Iran " ; so that it was the son who first extended the realm beyond the bounds of what was then known as Iran. Non-Iran may refer to districts in the far East, where, however, the Sasan ian power never reached so far as that of the Achaemenians, and it may also include Armenia. At any rate, Ardashir won a great empire and consolidated it, so that it held to gether for four centuries. He gave a powerful blow to the system of vassal states, which had become more and more prevalent under the Arsacids, and reduced most of these states to provinces. In this sense he is justly viewed by tradition as the restorer of the unity of Iran ; 5 but the 4 Lampridius, Al. Sev., 56. His statement rests on documentary evidence, and is accepted by Tillemont and by Clinton, who confirms it from coins. The attachment of the troops from Orrhoene for Alexander (Capitol., Maximinus, ii. ) was probably connected with his liberation of their country from the Persians. Rawlinson s and Spiegel s preference for the statement of the romancer Herodian, that the Per sians were the victors, is pseudo-criticism. 5 It must not be supposed that the Persians had a clear recollection of the might and breadth of the Achsemenian empire, though Western writers, who knew the old history from books, sometimes make Per sians speak as if they shared in that knowledge. No doubt a Sasaniau would sometimes hear from a Greek or Syrian how his predecessors
