Chapter Twenty- Four: The Rise of the Sasanian Zoroastrians and the End of the Mithraic Parthians: Their Role in Iranian History

 

Introduction

The emergence of the Sasanian Empire in 224 CE marked one of the most significant transformations in ancient Near Eastern history. This dynastic revolution fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape of the region, replacing the decentralized, religiously tolerant Parthian confederation with a centralized, Zoroastrian theocracy that would dominate Iran and challenge both Rome and the emerging Islamic powers for over four centuries. The Sasanian rise represents not merely a political coup but a comprehensive civilizational shift that redefined Iranian identity, religious practice, administrative structure, and foreign policy orientation.

The transition from Arsacid to Sasanian rule embodied profound tensions between competing visions of Iranian governance: the Parthian model of federal autonomy and religious pluralism versus the Sasanian ideal of centralized authority and orthodox Zoroastrianism. This transformation had far-reaching consequences for the entire region, affecting diplomatic relations with Rome and Armenia, altering trade networks, and establishing religious policies that would influence the development of Christianity, Manichaeism, and other faith traditions throughout the empire.

The Battle of Hormizdagan and the Fall of the Arsacids

In May 224 CE, the armies of Ardashir I of the Sasanians and Artabanus IV (Ardavan IV) of the Arsacid Parthians confronted each other at Hormizdagan in Media. Artabanus was defeated and killed in that decisive battle, marking the end of nearly five centuries of Parthian rule. Ardashir declared himself Shahanshah (King of Kings) of Iran, though the Arsacid dynasty continued to rule Armenia and Georgia for many years under Khosrow I (Chosroes).

The man who orchestrated this dramatic political upheaval was Ardashir, son of Papak, a descendant of Sasan who served as a priest in the fire temple of Anahita in Fars. The Sasanian family had deep roots in Zoroastrian orthodoxy and harbored ambitions to restore what they perceived as the pure Mazdean faith, which they believed had been corrupted by Mithraic influences during the Parthian period.

In 205 CE, Papak had petitioned Gochihr, the Parthian king of Istakhr in the federal system, to appoint his son Ardashir as deputy to Tirdad, commander of the fortress of Darabgird in Fars. Following Tirdad's death, Ardashir assumed command of the fortress and gradually expanded his influence by eliminating neighboring commanders, exploiting the internal conflicts that plagued Artabanus IV's reign.

Papak and Ardashir were militant Zoroastrians who sought to purge Iranian religion of Mithraic syncretism and establish Zoroastrian orthodoxy as the sole legitimate faith. When Papak overthrew Gochihr and requested that Artabanus IV appoint his son Shapur as king of Istakhr, the Parthian vassal-monarch refused. This rejection prompted Papak's rebellion, leading to Shapur's installation as ruler of Istakhr. However, Shapur's reign proved brief, and upon his death, Ardashir succeeded him, immediately launching campaigns against Kerman and Elam, overthrowing the Parthian vassal kingdoms.

By 223 CE, Ardashir had invaded and conquered the satrapies of Vologases V, brother of Artabanus and Parthian emperor in the east, before advancing into Media. This systematic campaign demonstrated Ardashir's strategic acumen and his ability to exploit Parthian weaknesses while building a coalition of supporters committed to his religious and political vision.

The Religious Revolution: Zoroastrian Orthodoxy and State Power

The rise of the Sasanians represented more than a dynastic change; it constituted a fundamental religious revolution that transformed Iranian society. The longstanding friendship between Parthians and Armenians, based on familial ties and shared Mithraic religious traditions with their emphasis on tolerance and Aryan customs, was replaced by lasting enmity rooted in Sasanian Zoroastrian orthodoxy with its Semitic influences.

The Sasanians were not uncultured nomads but sophisticated rulers who understood the necessity of religious legitimization for political authority. Ardashir forged an alliance with the Zoroastrian priesthood, establishing Zoroastrianism as the official state religion. According to Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi:

To ensure unity and uniformity in national religious teachings, he selected a renowned and pious priest who, after consuming haoma (a sacred plant) for seven days in ritual trance, recounted all the beliefs of Ahura Mazda upon awakening.

This account, while most likely legendary, reflects the systematic effort to codify Zoroastrian doctrine under state auspices. Throughout the Sasanian dynasty's four-century reign, religious orthodoxy remained paramount. The Zoroastrians venerated natural elements as manifestations of Ahura Mazda and accused Christians of defiling earth by burying their dead, polluting water through baptism, and neglecting the sacred fire.

The Armenians, offended not only by the Sasanian overthrow of their Arsacid kinsmen but also by forced religious conversion, provided refuge to the sons of the deposed Artabanus IV, maintaining their ancestral loyalties despite political pressure.

The famous Naqsh-e Rajab relief depicts Ardashir's investiture by Ahura Mazda, marking the Sasanian Empire's foundation. In this carving, Ahura Mazda appears in human form, equal in size to Ardashir, extending the royal diadem while the king reaches to receive it, symbolizing divine sanction for royal authority. The relief also features Kartir (Kerdir), architect of Sasanian religious policy, whose strategies under four successive kings created significant challenges for the empire's diverse populations.

Kartir's Religious Persecution and Administrative Reforms

Religious orthodoxy formed the foundation of Sasanian governance, contrasting sharply with Parthian tolerance that permitted diverse beliefs and freely established places of worship. This relaxed Parthian approach proved incompatible with the Sasanian ideal of centralized, uniform administration.

Ardashir, seeking to establish consistent Zoroastrian practice throughout his empire, discovered that Zoroastrians maintained varying customs and sectarian divisions across different regions. He systematically destroyed statues of other deities, elevated priestly status, provided clerical pensions and land grants, and authorized priests to collect taxes. Fire temples were rebuilt with appointed guardians, while Mithraic magi were forced underground, their religion surviving only in veiled, symbolic forms.

Ardashir then undertook compilation of a uniform Avesta purged of Mithraic elements. He convened representatives from all Zoroastrian sects across the empire in a great assembly. According to tradition, between 40,000 and 80,000 priests attended, selecting 4,000 representatives, then 400, then 40, and finally seven of their most venerable members. Among these seven, Arda Viraf was chosen as high priest.

The Vision of Arda Viraf and the Avesta's Revival

Legend tells that after undergoing ritual purification and consuming haoma, Arda Viraf was enveloped in white cloth and fell into a profound trance. For seven days and nights, the king and six priests vigilantly guarded his bedside. Upon awakening, he recited the purified Avestan texts, which scribes meticulously transcribed.

This narrative likely served as a powerful defense against criticism directed at the priests responsible for purging the ancient Avesta, particularly the removal of certain Mithraic elements. By the time of Alexander's conquests, the original Avestan language had become archaic and largely incomprehensible, with only a select few priests retaining knowledge of it. Recognizing this linguistic barrier, Ardashir I, the founder of the Sasanian Empire, commissioned the translation and commentary of these sacred texts into Middle Persian (Pahlavi), resulting in the creation of the Zand-Avesta.

Ardashir personally spearheaded the destruction of local cults and temples that had flourished during the preceding Parthian period, employing force when necessary to consolidate his religious reforms. While inscriptions from his son, Shapur I, indicate a continued prioritization of fire temple construction and priestly training, Shapur demonstrated a degree of tolerance for other religions. This more lenient approach was likely influenced by his Parthian cultural heritage; notably, Shapur's mother was reportedly the daughter of Artabanus V, whom Ardashir had married to legitimize his rule.

While Ardashir sought to solidify a more unified Zoroastrianism, the powerful leaders of Iran's seven Parthian dynasties, whose backing was essential for his nascent kingdom, prevented a wholesale removal of many Mithraic Gathas and Yashts. Consequently, significant Mithraic deities, including Anahita (a revered goddess of waters and fertility), Bahram (the embodiment of victory and war), Zurvan (the personification of limitless time), and Tir (the crucial bringer of life-giving rain), maintained their prominent positions, still appearing alongside Mithra in Zoroastrian religious texts despite Zoroaster's earlier demotions of such figures to daiva (demons).

However, Kartir gradually increased his power and influence, ultimately making Zoroastrian orthodoxy the central pillar of state policy. This rigid religious system, unable to accommodate new ideas, led to radical oppression that ultimately contributed to the Iranian empire's decline.

Tansar's Ideological Justification

Tansar the Mobad, chief Zoroastrian priest who articulated Sasanian religious ideology in the Letter of Tansar, responded to criticism that Ardashir's decrees violated precedent by arguing that "although the king seeks ancient truths, he might be accused of abandoning established practices. While this may benefit the world, it may not serve religion properly."

Tansar distinguished between ancient and modern traditions: ancient precedents emphasized "justice," but the path to justice had become so corrupted that calling people to justice would surprise and burden them with its unfamiliarity. Modern precedent represented "tyranny," to which people had become so accustomed that they could not transition from tyrannical harm to just governance.

Regarding transformation, Tansar argued that if moderns sought to recognize justice, critics would claim "this is unsuitable for our time"—and truly, traces of justice had vanished. Conversely, if the emperor eliminated ancient tyranny unsuitable for the current age, critics would protest "this is ancient custom and ancestral practice."

Tansar's rationalism appears propagandistic, attempting to justify Ardashir's religious violence by claiming to restore Zoroastrian equality. He portrayed the emperor as capable of eliminating Han tyranny with religion as accomplice, being more virtuous than predecessors with superior traditions.

The traditions targeted by Ardashir, Tansar, and later Kartir were primarily Parthian Mithraic practices, characterized by peaceful, tolerant, and conciliatory approaches. Their institutional ideology was "live and let live," as evidenced by numerous Parthian peace treaties that benefited all parties—what moderns would call "win-win" agreements. However, Ardashir, like Darius the Great, sought to impose Zoroastrian beliefs as official religion for all subjects.

To justify Ardashir's superiority over Parthian traditions, Tansar wrote: "If you are concerned about religious matters and reject cultic benefits, know that Alexander burned our religious books—writings on 1,200 cowhides. One-third was memorized, but even these memories consisted of legends and customs, with people ignorant of laws and ordinances. Due to contemporary corruption, monarchical decline, and desire for artificial novelties and unwarranted supremacy, even those legends and customs have faded from collective memory, leaving no trace of that book's truth. Therefore, belief must be restored by someone of upright character with sound judgment. Have you ever heard of any king besides this emperor who undertook this task?"

Kartir's Persecution Campaign

Kartir, perhaps history's most openly proud religious persecutor, documented his systematic oppression in detailed inscriptions. He proclaimed his rise through four successive reigns, from Shapur I to Bahram II, accumulating unprecedented power and authority.

Under Shapur I (241-272 CE), Kartir was appointed chief priest with authority over religious worship throughout the empire. He built numerous fire temples and established Zoroastrian priests across all provinces, claiming that "Ahura Mazda and the gods benefited greatly, while great affliction came upon Ahriman and the demons."

Under Hormizd I (272-273 CE), Kartir's rank was elevated to "Kartir, supreme priest of Ahura Mazda," with increased power throughout the empire. More fire temples were constructed, and priestly hierarchies expanded.

Under Bahram I (273-276 CE), Kartir maintained his elevated status, continuing temple construction and priestly appointments across all territories.

Under Bahram II (276-293 CE), Kartir reached the pinnacle of power, receiving the unprecedented title "Kartir, soul-savior of Bahram, supreme priest of Ahura Mazda" with authority over all priests and religious rituals throughout the empire, including the prestigious Anahid fire temples at Istakhr.

Kartir then described the systematic persecution of religious minorities: "Throughout the empire, Jews, Buddhists (Shramanas), Brahmins, Christians (Nazarenes), Gnostics, Baptists (Maktak), and Manichaeans (Zandiks) were suppressed. Their idols were destroyed, temples demolished, and divine seats ruined. Throughout the empire, magnificent shrines and fire temples arose, many priests prospered, and numerous fire temples with their clergy were royally constructed."

Kartir's campaigns extended beyond Iran's borders: "By imperial command, I established fire temples and priests outside Iran wherever the emperor's cavalry could penetrate—in Antioch in Syria beyond Cilicia, Caesarea in Cappadocia extending to Galatia, in Armenia, Georgia, Albania, and from Balasakan to the Alan Gates."

His inscription continues: "I gave precedence to the Mazdean religion and priests, which represented truth in the empire, while punishing unbelievers and unstable people who refused Mazdean submission through corporal punishment, reprimanding them and establishing good order."

The Manichaean Challenge

As Ardashir attempted to establish Zoroastrian orthodoxy between 228-240 CE, Mani founded Manichaeism, a syncretic religion combining Mithraic, Christian, and Buddhist elements with universal aspirations.

Mani, son of Patak the Magian from Ecbatana and Princess Maryam of the Arsacids, revealed his religion in Iran's eastern provinces during Ardashir's final years. At Shapur I's coronation on Nowruz 242 CE in Ctesiphon, Mani publicly proclaimed: "Just as Buddha came to India, Zoroaster to Persia, and Christ to western lands, now this message comes through me to Babylonia."

Initially ignored, Mani traveled to Turkestan and India, gaining followers before returning to Iran. Shapur I's brother Peroz converted to Manichaeism, and Mani dedicated his important work Shapurgan to him. Through Peroz's arrangement, Mani met Shapur I, who showed great respect and encouraged Manichaean teaching throughout the Iranian Empire.

However, Tansar and Kartir pressured Shapur to expel Mani. The Zoroastrian priests eventually forced Shapur to arrest him, but after Shapur's death in 272 CE, his successor Hormizd I released Mani and reportedly believed in his teachings, encouraging renewed religious instruction. Hormizd's reign lasted only one year, and after his death in 273 CE, Kartir convinced Bahram I to crucify Mani in 276 CE. His body was flayed, stuffed with straw, and hung at city gates while his followers endured terrible tortures.

As Kartir boasted in his inscriptions, his arrogance increased under each successive king, and he established the intolerant religious system that characterized later Sasanian rule under Bahram I and Bahram II.

Military Campaigns and Geopolitical Consequences

Following Artabanus IV's defeat at Hormizdagan, the Parthian forces were exhausted from Roman wars. The Iranian army, composed of citizen-soldiers who needed to return to civilian occupations, could not sustain prolonged campaigns, especially against fellow Iranians. Though Artabanus had requested assistance from his brother Khosrow, King of Armenia, despite Khosrow's urgent march, he arrived too late to prevent defeat.

According to Cassius Dio, the Roman historian: "Many revolts had erupted everywhere, causing great fear, but all were suppressed. However, the situation in Mesopotamia was more terrible than elsewhere, creating real terror not only in Rome but throughout the world. For Artaxerxes [Ardashir], a Persian, after defeating the Parthians in three battles and killing their king Artabanus, established a base for attacking Rome and went to war against Hatra."

Ardashir penetrated Hatra's walls but lost many troops in an ambush, then advanced to Media. From Media and adjacent territories, he gained considerable territory through force and intimidation before advancing into Armenia, where he was defeated by native Armenians. Some Medes, Artabanus's sons, and others either fled or, as some claim, withdrew to prepare for a larger battle.

Thus Artaxerxes became fearsome to Rome, commanding a large army that threatened not only Mesopotamia but also Syria. He boasted of reclaiming all former Persian territories extending to the Greek sea, claiming these as ancestral rights. The fear was not that he lacked virtue, but that Roman forces were in such condition that some troops might join him while others would abandon their defenses.

The Armenian Resistance

According to Agathangelos, the Armenian historian: "At the beginning of the following year [after Artabanus's defeat], Khosrow, King of Armenia, began gathering forces and preparing armies. He assembled Albanian and Georgian armies, opened the Alan Gates [Darial Pass in the Caucasus], and brought Hun armies through the Derbent Pass to invade Persia, penetrating Assyria [Mesopotamia] to Ctesiphon's gates. He devastated the entire country, massacring urban and rural populations, plundering and scattering all inhabited areas, attempting to destroy and ruin the Persian kingdom and eliminate their civilization."

Ardashir defeated this coalition, which included Roman support, through a series of battles and by purchasing tribal loyalties, forcing them to abandon their futile struggle. By 228 CE, Romans, Kushans, and Scythians abandoned the fight, leaving only the Arsacids of Armenia to challenge Ardashir. Though Ardashir invaded Armenia with substantial forces allied with rulers of Adiabene, Kirkuk, and Shahristan, he could not achieve decisive victory since Rome refused to allow strategic Armenia to fall under Persian control, enabling Khosrow to preserve Armenian independence.

The Roman-Persian Conflict

Seeking to pressure Rome regarding Armenia, Ardashir invaded Roman provinces in northern Mesopotamia, conquering them without resistance and positioning himself to threaten Syria. According to Herodian, the new Roman emperor Severus Alexander sent envoys to Ardashir with this message:

"Artaxerxes should remain in his territory and avoid causing unrest. He who is overcome with foolish optimistic enthusiasm must not provoke Rome to war. Everyone should be content with their possessions, or discover that fighting Romans differs from battling neighbors and barbarians who employ similar tactics."

Ardashir, while consolidating control over Mesopotamia, responded to Alexander by sending 400 splendidly appointed envoys demonstrating the new Persian empire's power and wealth, delivering this threat:

"The Great King commands Romans and their emperor that Roman forces must withdraw from Asia facing Europe, and they should prepare for Persian dominion to extend to Ionia, Caria, and all Pontic shores bordering the Aegean Sea, since these lands were originally Persian."

Alexander Severus understood that Ardashir intended to revive Darius's empire and was so enraged that he ordered all envoys arrested and assigned to agricultural labor in Phrygia, preventing their return to Iran. He then traveled to Antioch in 231 CE to prepare for battle with Ardashir, reinforcing Syrian garrisons with Egyptian troops before launching a three-pronged campaign in spring 232 CE.

One force was sent to allied Armenia to attack Media, a second advanced south of the Euphrates through central Mesopotamia eastward, while the third force under imperial command targeted northern Mesopotamia toward the enemy's heartland.

However, the imperial force advanced slowly, possibly due to Egyptian troop revolts and Taurinus's usurpation in Syria, giving Ardashir opportunity to concentrate forces against the first prong. Though the Armenian force may have achieved notable victories in Media with Khosrow's assistance, the central force engaging Ardashir directly suffered severe defeat. News of this defeat so terrified Alexander Severus that he ordered general retreat. Persian attacks, disease, and harsh weather caused heavy casualties. He ordered the Median force to return to Syria, but according to Herodian, this army suffered devastating losses in Armenian mountains: "This army was almost entirely destroyed in the mountains during its return. Many soldiers were injured by freezing weather, and only a handful of the large army that had marched through returned to Antioch."

Though news of defeat caused confusion in Rome, Ardashir did not pursue into Syria, perhaps recognizing that expelling Rome from Asia would prove extremely difficult. He may have concluded that resolving the Armenian problem took priority, since Roman losses in Media resulted from Armenian friendship. Nevertheless, attacking Armenia and fighting an experienced general like Khosrow proved futile, as Ardashir's army relied on cavalry strength, ineffective in Armenia's mountainous terrain.

Conclusion: The Sasanian Legacy

The Sasanian revolution of 224 CE fundamentally transformed the ancient Near East, establishing patterns that would endure for centuries. Geopolitically, the Sasanians created a centralized empire capable of sustained competition with Rome and Byzantium, fundamentally altering the balance of power from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. Their efficient administrative system, based on Zoroastrian theocracy and centralized bureaucracy, provided stability and resources for extensive military campaigns and architectural projects.

Socioeconomically, the Sasanian system promoted agricultural development through irrigation projects and urban growth through craft specialization and trade. However, the rigid social hierarchy enforced by Zoroastrian orthodoxy limited social mobility and created tensions between the ruling Persian elite and subject populations. The emphasis on religious conformity, while providing ideological unity, ultimately weakened the empire by alienating religious minorities and stifling intellectual diversity.

Diplomatically, the Sasanians established Iran as a major power capable of challenging both Rome and the emerging Arab Islamic forces. Their sophisticated court ceremonial and diplomatic protocols influenced neighboring kingdoms and established precedents for later Islamic dynasties. The constant warfare with Rome, while demonstrating Sasanian military capabilities, also exhausted imperial resources and contributed to eventual collapse when faced with the Arab conquest.

Culturally, the Sasanians achieved remarkable synthesis of Persian, Mesopotamian, and Hellenistic traditions while promoting Zoroastrian literature, art, and architecture. Their patronage of learning preserved and transmitted classical knowledge to the Islamic world, though their religious intolerance limited cultural exchange and innovation. The Sasanian model of divine kingship and state religion provided a template that influenced both Islamic caliphates and medieval European monarchies.

The rise of the Sasanians thus represents a pivotal moment in world history, marking the transition from the classical to the medieval period in the Near East. Their legacy—both positive in terms of administrative efficiency and cultural achievement, and negative in terms of religious persecution and social rigidity—profoundly shaped the development of Iran and the broader region for centuries to come. The tensions between centralization and local autonomy, religious orthodoxy and pluralism, and Persian identity and universal empire that characterized the Sasanian period would continue to influence Iranian political culture long after the dynasty's fall to the Arab conquest in 651 CE.