Chapter Twenty-Nine: The Reigns of Bahram II and Bahram III: Geopolitics, Trade, Religion, and Cultural Exchange Introduction: Reframing a Pivotal Era

 

The reigns of Sasanian emperors Bahram II (r. 274–291 CE) and Bahram III (r. 293 CE) represent a pivotal, yet often overlooked, period in the history of the Sasanian Empire. Situated at the intersection of a consolidating state and a rapidly changing Eurasian landscape, this era witnessed a complex interplay of geopolitical struggles, the expansion of international trade, the institutionalization of religious orthodoxy, and the flourishing of a distinctly Sasanian artistic identity.

This chapter challenges the conventional narrative that portrays this period as merely an interlude between more prominent rulers. Instead, it demonstrates how this era was crucial in shaping the empire's internal structure and its external relations, laying the groundwork for many of the political and cultural dynamics that would define late antiquity. Through examination of interconnected themes—institutional religious transformation, strategic frontier management, exploitation of Roman instability, and cultural synthesis—this study reveals how the Sasanians, under Bahram II and his short-lived successor, successfully navigated the challenges and opportunities of their time while Roman sources have systematically distorted our understanding of Sasanian achievements during this period.

I. The Kartir Revolution: Institutionalizing Religious Authority

The Unprecedented Elevation of Clerical Power

Bahram II (Varahrān), the son of Bahram I, became the fifth Sassanid king upon his father's death in 276 CE. His accession, like that of his father, was formally ratified by the Senate of Nobles—the Wuzurgān—which functioned as the guardian council of the empire's succession. At the center of this process stood Kartir, the formidable Mobedān-Mobed (chief priest of priests), whose influence had grown enormously under Bahram I.

Kartir's own account, preserved in his inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht, offers an unvarnished glimpse into the political-religious nexus of the early Sassanid state:

"Varahrān, son of the King of Kings, a believer, pious and loyal in his reign, ascended the throne. By the grace of Ahura Mazda and the gods, he elevated my station, granting me honor and rank in the realm, the dignity of a warrior, and precedence in court and throughout the empire. He invested me with greater authority than before, making me chief of the priests across the kingdom, master of customs, and guardian of the sacred fires of Anāhīd-Ardashir and Ādur-Anāhīd of Istakhr. He granted me the title Kartir, refuge of the soul, master of priests."

The inscription—and corroborating evidence—makes clear that Bahram II elevated Kartir to unprecedented heights. He formally enrolled him among the Wuzurgān (imperial nobles), adding the new honorific "Spiritual Refuge" to the earlier title of "Lord of the Priests" conferred by Bahram I. Kartir also became custodian of the prestigious Ādur-Anāhīd fire temple at Istakhr—a site of immense symbolic importance, for it had been managed by Ardashir I himself, as its Hirbad, before his rebellion against Ardawān IV of Parthia.

The Transformation of Imperial Governance

Already notorious for his role in the execution of Mani under Bahram I, Kartir now expanded his campaign against heterodox and foreign faiths. His targets included the followers of Mithraic traditions, Manichaeans, Christians, and Buddhists, all of whom faced intensified persecution. This consolidation of clerical authority marked a decisive shift in the Sassanid Iran political order: for the first time, the Zoroastrian priesthood achieved institutional dominance over the lay nobility.

Iranian chroniclers like  Mas'ūdī and Tha'ālibī preserve a revealing anecdote about the early days of Bahram II's reign. Initially, the young monarch is described as arrogant, rigid, and indifferent to merit, alienating both nobles and commoners. Dissatisfaction grew so acute that the courtiers sought Kartir's counsel. On his advice, they collectively absented themselves from court. Confronted with this silent protest, Bahram demanded an explanation. Kartir bluntly informed him that his conduct had alienated the realm and that a ruler must govern with justice, following the example of his ancestors. Chastened, Bahram reformed his manner and embraced a more equitable style of kingship.

The Establishment of State Orthodoxy

One of the most consequential developments of this reign was the formal establishment of Zoroastrianism as the state religion—something unseen since before Alexander's conquest of Iran. All subjects were now required to profess the Zoroastrian faith, a policy that Kartir, as supreme judge and prosecutor, enforced with unflinching rigor. The priesthood's position in the imperial hierarchy rose above that of secular aristocrats, and its intolerance provoked resentment among religious minorities. In a broader historical irony, this Persian precedent would later be mirrored in the Roman Empire, when Constantine I elevated Christianity to official status—though in a different theological and political context.

II. Exploiting Roman Chaos: Strategic Patience and Diplomatic Mastery

Debunking the Myth of Roman Conquest

Modern scholarship has often repeated dubious claims about Bahram II's reign, especially regarding Rome's supposed conquest of Ctesiphon under Emperor Carus. Such assertions crumble under scrutiny. In reality, during Bahram's reign Rome was convulsed by internal crisis. The strategic blows dealt by Shapur I—whose campaigns had deprived Rome of key agricultural and commercial assets in Asia Minor—were still being felt. The western frontiers were collapsing under waves of Frankish, Germanic, and Sarmatian incursions. Civil war raged as Roman legions repeatedly proclaimed and murdered rival emperors. Religious tensions between Christians and Mithraists, the latter being the faith of many Roman soldiers, further destabilized the empire.

Indeed, during the seventeen years of Bahram II's rule, Rome saw no fewer than seven emperors and nearly as many usurpers rise and fall. Far from suffering humiliation at Roman hands, the Sassanid Empire under Bahram navigated an era in which the West was distracted, divided, and vulnerable.

The Roman Succession Crisis and Sasanian Opportunity

The turbulence that engulfed Rome at the death of Emperor Tacitus—barely eight months after his accession—set the stage for the early years of Bahram II's reign. As chronicled by Zosimus, Aurelius Victor, and Flavius Vopiscus, the empire was once again paralyzed by competing imperial claims. Upon Tacitus's death, his brother Marcus Annius Florianus, praefectus praetorio of the imperial guard, was proclaimed emperor by the troops in the East. Yet elsewhere, rival generals—Probus, Proculus, and Bonosus—were elevated by other legions, each staking his claim to the purple.

The pattern was by now depressingly familiar. Throughout the third century, the Roman legions, not the Senate, determined the imperial succession, their loyalties shifting with personal advantage and factional intrigue. After the assassination of Aurelian, even the Senate and aristocracy recognized the corrosive effect of this chaos, which left the empire vulnerable to external threats—not least from the Sassanid East.

Probus's Reformist Vision and Its Limitations

Probus was an astute and seasoned commander, well aware that Rome's greatest vulnerability to Iran lay not in military inferiority but in chronic political instability. He traced this ailment back to the days of Caracalla—whose war with Ardawān IV of the Arsacids marked the beginning of the empire's persistent eastern setbacks—and saw its climax in the humiliations inflicted by Ardashir I and Shapur I.

Intriguingly, Probus sought inspiration from Sassanid political structures. He admired the consultative role of the Sassanid Wuzurgān (noble council), which provided a stabilizing institutional counterweight to factional intrigue. Ironically, while Probus was contemplating strengthening the Roman Senate, Kartir was simultaneously working to diminish the authority of the Wuzurgān in Iran, consolidating clerical dominance.

The Failure of Roman-Iranian Diplomacy

Amid this uncertainty, Bahram II, still contending with Hormozd's rebellion in Sakastan (Sistan), offered Probus a treaty of friendship and sent valuable gifts, as recorded by Vopiscus. Probus, flush with recent victories, rejected the gesture with arrogance:

"I am surprised you have sent so little of what will one day be mine. Keep these gifts until I come and take them by force."

Despite the bravado, Probus seems to have preferred securing the status quo over risking a full-scale eastern campaign. Both sides agreed to a peace of convenience, the details of which have not survived.

Probus's reign ended abruptly in 282 CE when he was murdered by his own soldiers, reportedly while forcing them into labor draining marshlands in his native Pannonia. His ambitious infrastructure projects and unrelenting discipline had alienated the very troops upon whom his power depended. His death ended any immediate Roman designs against Iran.

The Carus Campaign: Propaganda Versus Reality

Probus's successor, Marcus Aurelius Carus, appointed his sons Numerian and Carinus as co-emperors and led an expedition toward Mesopotamia. By this time, Bahram II remained locked in conflict with Hormozd and his allies, giving Carus a pretext to claim an easy eastern victory. Roman sources—often uncritically repeated by modern historians—assert that Carus captured Seleucia and even Ctesiphon. Yet contemporary evidence is fragmentary and contradictory. Niebuhr and other cautious historians note that the details are so uncertain that even Carus's birthplace is debated, let alone the scope of his victories.

A popular anecdote—possibly apocryphal—describes Bahram's envoys finding Carus seated on the ground, eating peas and salted meat, boasting that he would make Persia as bare as his bald head. Whether genuine or propaganda, the tale fits a familiar Roman pattern of exaggerating eastern campaigns for domestic prestige.

Carus's advance ended abruptly with his sudden death—variously attributed to lightning, illness, or assassination by his own men, wary of a deep incursion into Iran. The Roman army retreated, leaving the strategic balance unchanged.

III. Strategic Frontier Management: The Hormozd Rebellion

The Challenge from Within

While Probus was stabilizing Rome's northern frontiers, Iran faced a dangerous internal crisis. Hormozd, son of Shapur, governor of Meshan (Mesene) and ruler in Sistan—brother to Bahram I and cousin to Bahram II—rose in rebellion. His cause drew strength from Kartir's harsh suppression of religious minorities and from Bahram II's tolerance of clerical overreach. Disaffected Mithraic believers, Manichaeans, Christians, Scythians, Kushans, and Gilanis joined Hormozd's banner, creating a multi-ethnic insurgent coalition.

The timing was advantageous for Probus. With Iran distracted by internal strife, he could focus on fortifying Rome's eastern defenses without committing to a major offensive. He delegated Syrian command to his associate Sextus Julius Saturninus while personally campaigning in the Balkans and Gaul.

Sasanian Strategic Response

Yet Rome's instability reasserted itself. Saturninus, emboldened by his Syrian legions, declared himself emperor—only to be swiftly killed by his troops. Other opportunists, including Proculus and Bonosus, proclaimed themselves rulers in Gaul, Britain, and Spain. The recurrent mutinies confirmed what Probus must already have suspected: any war with Iran risked collapsing into chaos if the loyalty of the army was uncertain.

Bahram II's eventual success in quashing the revolt and defending against the Romans was a testament to the resilience of the Sasanian military and administrative apparatus. His strategic appointment of his son as governor of Sakastan following the rebellion highlights a key Sasanian strategy: integrating frontier regions and securing dynastic control through direct family governance.

IV. Economic Hegemony: The Silk Road as Imperial Foundation

The Sasanian Commercial Empire

Under Bahram II, the Iranian Empire solidified its role as a central hub of the Eurasian trade network, a period that saw the Silk Road serving as the economic and cultural artery of the ancient world. Iranian control over key urban centers and trade routes, such as Rey, Bukhara, and Samarkand, was instrumental in facilitating the exchange of not only luxury goods like silk and spices but also technological innovations, philosophical ideas, and religious doctrines.

This economic dominance was intrinsically linked to the empire's religious and political ambitions. The Sasanian state's policies and the activities of its merchants were crucial in disseminating Zoroastrian beliefs and cultural practices eastward, while simultaneously absorbing influences from Central Asia, India, and the Roman world. This dynamic mirrored a later pattern seen in Islamic mercantile practices, where commercial networks and religious missions were mutually reinforcing, creating a powerful synergy that drove both economic prosperity and cultural diffusion.

Religious Pluralism and Commercial Pragmatism

The era of Bahram II marked a decisive turn toward religious centralization and the institutionalization of Zoroastrianism as the state religion. This was largely driven by the influence of the powerful high priest, Kartir (Kardēr), who launched a campaign to consolidate religious authority under the crown. This period saw the persecution of what were deemed heretical or rival faiths, including Manichaeism, various Christian sects, and pre-Zoroastrian Mithraic traditions. Kartir's inscriptions, such as those at Naqsh-e Rostam, provide a primary source for understanding this policy of religious orthodoxy and its impact on the diverse religious landscape of the empire.

This state-sponsored religious centralization, however, stood in stark contrast to the religious pluralism that characterized the wider Silk Road. Along these trade routes, Zoroastrianism existed alongside Buddhism in Central Asia, a thriving Jewish diaspora and a growing Christian community in Mesopotamia. This tension between a state promoting a single, unified faith and the multi-religious reality of its commercial and territorial reach is a central theme of this chapter. The Sasanian approach to religious governance, with its emphasis on a state-sanctioned orthodoxy, would later serve as a model for subsequent Islamic caliphates in the region.

V. Cultural Synthesis: Art as Imperial Communication

Visual Propaganda and Royal Ideology

The reign of Bahram II is celebrated as a high point in Sasanian artistic expression, where art served as a powerful medium for political communication and the projection of imperial power. The rock reliefs at sites such as Naqsh-e Rostam and Bishapur are prime examples of this, depicting the emperor not only as a victorious warrior but also as a divine figure, a "divine hunter." These visual narratives were carefully crafted to reinforce the king's legitimacy and link his rule to divine sanction.

Furthermore, the coinage of this period, with its detailed portraits of the king, queen, and heir, served a dual purpose: it was a functional economic tool and a visual representation of dynastic continuity and imperial strength. This artistic output was not merely a matter of internal propaganda; it was a sophisticated synthesis of Sasanian royal iconography with influences from Roman and Central Asian art, demonstrating the empire's ability to absorb and adapt cultural motifs to its own imperial agenda.

The Tetrarchic Response and Continued Roman Instability

After Carus: Renewed Chaos and the Rise of Diocletian. 

Carus's sons fared no better. Numerian died under suspicious circumstances during the retreat, allegedly murdered by his father-in-law, Aper, who concealed the death until he could be proclaimed emperor. The troops instead acclaimed Diocletian, who personally executed Aper. Carinus, meanwhile, alienated his soldiers through cruelty and excess, and was ultimately assassinated in 285 CE after defeating a rival force.

The Pact of Bahram with Diocletian and the Troubles of Armenia

Gaius Aurelius Diocletianus

Gaius Aurelius Diocletianus—often called by his original name, Diocles—emerged as one of the most transformative rulers in Roman history, ending a half-century of chaos and military anarchy. In his nineteen-year reign, he restructured the empire with a political realism that recognized deep cultural and administrative differences between its eastern and western halves. Diocletian understood that efforts to maintain a unified, centrally managed Rome were increasingly futile. His solution was the Tetrarchy: the formal division of the empire into two administrative spheres, each ruled by an Augustus with a subordinate Caesar to ensure continuity.

Under this system, the two halves of the empire retained common institutions—such as the Roman Senate, supreme judicial bodies, and overarching military command structures—but operated with distinct capitals and regional responsibilities. The Augusti were to be succeeded not by military acclamation, which had bred decades of instability, but by their appointed Caesars. This arrangement created, for the first time in generations, a measure of predictable succession.

Diocletian himself ruled the East from Nicomedia, modelling his court on Sasanian royal ceremonial and adopting many trappings of Iranian kingship to elevate imperial majesty. In the West, Marcus Aurelius Maximianus governed from Milan. Though military revolts still flared, their frequency and scale diminished. Notable disturbances included the rebellion of the naval commander Marcus Aurelius Carausius, who declared himself emperor of Britain from Bononia (modern Boulogne). Both Diocletian and Maximian initially tolerated his rule, but Constantius Chlorus—then Caesar in the West—eventually forced Carausius’ retreat to Britain. After Carausius’ assassination by his treasurer, Allectus, the usurpation lingered only briefly before being suppressed by Julius Asclepiodotus. Another rebellion erupted in Egypt, which Diocletian personally crushed.

Meanwhile, tensions between the Christian communities and the Mithraic-dominated Roman military intensified. Influenced, perhaps, by the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, Diocletian entrusted his Caesar, Galerius, with reinforcing imperial unity through religious conformity. In 303 CE, an edict ordered churches destroyed, Christian scriptures burned, and prominent Christian officials stripped of rank. Slaves who refused to renounce Christianity were denied manumission. A subsequent edict mandated that imprisoned Christians be released only if they sacrificed according to Mithraic rites; those who refused faced severe torture. Persecution swept the empire with ferocity. The historian Eusebius records horrific punishments, such as the burning alive of the Christians Vancipher and Porphyrius at Ephesus, and the brutal execution of the nobleman Andronicus, who was scourged, broken, and killed after interrogation by the governor Numerian Maximus.

Diplomatic Interlude with Iran

Once domestic order was restored, Diocletian turned to fortifying Rome’s eastern frontier. In 287 CE, Bahram II sent envoys to negotiate peace. According to Dignas and Winter (Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity), these talks succeeded without any territorial concessions. Diocletian, satisfied that the Sasanian king would remain quiet in the East, departed in 288 CE to confront the Germanic threat along the Rhine.

Bahram, preoccupied with a rebellion led by Hormozd of Sakastan, also welcomed the respite. The peace held until 290 CE, when Diocletian, having stabilized the Danube frontier, returned east to reinforce border fortresses. Capitalizing on Iranian distractions, he restored Tiridates III—son of Khosrow and nephew of the late Arsacid king Ardawan IV—to the throne of Lesser Armenia. Although Greater Armenia remained under Narseh, son of Shapur I, Rome had regained a valuable ally in the Caucasus, aligning with long-term strategic aims of counterbalancing Sasanian influence.

By the ninth year of Bahram II's reign, he had seen seven emperors and numerous usurpers rise and fall in Rome. While still preoccupied with the Hormozd revolt in the east, Bahram could rest secure on his western front, the treaties with Probus and Carus ensuring that Iran faced no serious Roman threat during this volatile period.. In 291 CE, Bahram finally quelled Hormozd’s rebellion and appointed his son, Bahram III, as governor of Sakastan. Like his predecessors, he commemorated his victory with rock reliefs—but in a controversial act, he carved them over earlier Elamite petroglyphs, erasing ancient works yet leaving faint traces visible to this day.

Bahram II died in 293 CE after a seventeen-year reign. 

The Brief Reign of Bahram III

In 293 CE, the Sasanian court elected Bahram III as king. Contemporary and modern sources suggest a tense accession. Contrary to some claims in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Kartir was not in opposition to Bahram III—by this time, the powerful priest was already dead. Nor is there evidence that Kartir ever supported Narseh for the throne; on the contrary, Narseh’s earlier favor toward Bahram I after Hormozd-Ardashir’s death suggests the opposite. Lukonin and Duchesne-Guillemin likewise reject this theory.

Support for Bahram III came from figures such as Adur-Farnbag, governor of Khorasan (distinct from other officials of the same name), and Behnam, son of Dadras. Nevertheless, his reign lasted barely four months. Dissatisfaction with the policies of Bahram II and Kartir, coupled with outrage over Rome’s success in Armenia under Tiridates III, provoked the wuzurgān (great nobles) to act. Seeing in Narseh—a seasoned ruler of Greater Armenia—a unifying alternative, they invited him to take the throne, setting the stage for a decisive shift in Sasanian policy and fortunes.

VI. Historical Significance and Analytical Perspective

Institutional Innovation and Imperial Resilience

Bahram II's reign illustrates the deep entanglement of religion and politics in the Sassanid system at a time when imperial stability depended as much on spiritual authority as on military power. Kartir's ascendancy institutionalized the dominance of the Zoroastrian clergy, redefined the court's balance of power, and inaugurated a state-enforced religious orthodoxy. While this policy strengthened internal cohesion for the priestly elite, it also sowed seeds of dissent among non-Zoroastrian communities, both within Iran and along its frontiers.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Bahram II benefited from Rome's fragmentation, allowing him to consolidate power domestically without the distraction of a major western war. The Roman crisis—characterized by rapid imperial turnover, frontier collapse, and religious division—echoed the Sassanid experience in reverse: while the West fractured under competing loyalties, the East achieved an unprecedented integration of throne and altar.

The Paradox of Imperial Stability

This decade of Roman–Iranian relations underscores a paradox: while both empires faced internal dissent and military overextension, Rome's instability was structural, rooted in the army's dominance over succession and the empire's geographic overreach. Iran's crisis, by contrast, was concentrated in a political-religious conflict—the empowerment of the Zoroastrian clergy under Kartir—manifesting in the Hormozd revolt.

From a strategic standpoint, Bahram II's willingness to negotiate, even with hostile emperors, reveals a pragmatic recognition of the value of time—time to suppress domestic revolts before confronting an external enemy. Rome, despite occasional bluster about eastern conquests, was in no position to exploit Iran's distraction. The resulting "peace" was less a product of diplomatic triumph than of mutual exhaustion.

Conclusion: A Crucible of Transformation

The era of Bahram II and III stands as a crucial crucible where the forces of geopolitics, economic integration, religious transformation, and cultural innovation converged. By examining this period through these interconnected lenses, we can appreciate how the Sasanian Empire skillfully mediated between the need for internal unity and the reality of external diversity, between maintaining tradition and embracing cross-cultural exchange.

The strategies and policies of this period, from dynastic governance and trade-based religious diffusion to state-sponsored orthodoxy and the use of art as propaganda, laid much of the groundwork for the later development of the region. The legacy of the Sasanian Empire, as forged during this formative era, would be profoundly influential on the subsequent Islamic caliphates that inherited its administrative structures, trade networks, and cultural heritage.

This geopolitical landscape was not merely a series of military campaigns; it was an ideological battle for regional dominance, with the Sasanian Empire seeking to assert its position as the premier political and religious power in the  Western Asia. The successful navigation of this complex period, despite internal rebellions and external pressures, demonstrates the fundamental strength and adaptability of Sasanian institutions—a strength that has been obscured by the uncritical acceptance of Roman propaganda in modern historiography.