Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: [Historiae] ...about Sasanians and Dehkans

  1. #1
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default [Historiae] ...about Sasanians and Dehkans




    introduction
    The reforms of Chusro I. were diversified. One of the most interesting groups - and part of those reforms - were the dehkans.
    The next chapters will depict the result of my elaboration.





    definition and introduction of the dehkans
    An interesting issue is that royal credits were given (ashab al-imarat /Tabari ann. 1,897,17) to noble landlords - interest-free (islaf).
    When Procopius reports that Chusro was a bit avaricious concerning his money (pers. 2,9 and 2,11) then I come to the question what kind of advantage he had to give the money.

    During the late Sasanian era we find a "stratum" of minor landlords, the so called dehkans.
    They are owners of a village, with a manor house or a castle. Mukaddasi described the east of Iran as a country which was "covered" by castles.
    During the time epoch of Mukaddasi most of those castles were uninhabited or wrecked (274,6). But sometimes a dekhan is still living inside (275,16).
    The land and their property as well as their influence was much smaller compared to the old mighty nobility of Sasanian Persia. The result of the famous Mazdakite-uprising was that many nobles of the old families were fallen in poverty or even dead. Some of the land was given back to them - but it seems that a high percentage of land was partitioned and given to the dekhans.
    The earliest mentioned tale about a dekhan is given in a story about Kavad I (480s AD) as described by the historian Christensen (M. page 46 and on; furthermore page 51).
    But Christensen explains that this was based on a misinterpretaion or on a translation mistake by persian historians of the middle ages.
    All other tales about them are starting during the reign of Chusro I. Anosarvan (530s AD).

    We could ask if it's possible that the group (or stratum) of dehkans was indeed established or created by Chusro I.
    In this case it is very possible that the purpose of land- and money-gifts (given to the new stratum of landlords) was to get the maximum of rights about those provinces or better said districts. Officially the king of kings had always the right to overrule the decisions of the upper nobility - however, the reality was somewhat more difficult. Actually, before the Mazdakit-uprisings, the old class of higher nobles had an incredible power - partially supra-regional. This situation cutted more than one time the orders of the king of kings.
    We know due to many tales that the Mazdakit uprising left many orphans of former noble families. The reforms of Chusro had also impact on this situation.
    He, the king, gave the order that all noble orphans become childrens of those families they were living now. In the case that those children had no home - the king of kings became officially farther of those children. (Tabari ann. 1,897 - 4)
    Those children were now a welcome ressource to be educated on the royal court. They get the chance of serving as royal public servant.
    Even more, many of them received some land.

    al-Baladhuri, an historian of the 9th century who still had access to original sasanian literature, reports that he found an official sasanian royal seal, used for documents about temporarily loand/given land (kati 'a) - with other words it was a seal used for fiefs. (Futuh al-Buldan, evaluated by de Goeje page 464).
    It was of course the highest priority to take care that those small landlords, indeed a new class, never get the chance to become powerful like the former class of rich and mighty nobles.

    The word dehkan was translated by A.Christensen (L'Iran sous les Sasanides / page 112) with "chef de village" - head of a village.
    But "deh", in old-persian dahyav, means originally just an "area". The "village" was just the habitation, the home, the central point of a district (rustay).
    (A.Christensen ; L'Iran sous les Sasanides / page 140).
    Therefore Christensen marks the dehkans, and in my opinion it is the logical consequence, as "petit proprietaires de terre" - a small or minor owner of land or landlord.

    The early islamic period of Iran mentioned a man called Salman, he was dekhan of a persian village and the surrounding land as well. But buildings and manor (the land - called "dai a azima") were separated.

    Anyway, as a first result we can say that the new established group of minor nobles and landlords was very controlled and dependent by the central government. Furthermore we know that those landlords get the order to use the money to improve the irrigation and watering.

    The same happened with the "knights". Anosarvan examined the knights - called al-asawira (see Tabari ann 1,897).
    He checked if they were fallen in poverty. If they were not able to provide arms and horses they received money from the state as well, a horse and weapons also.





    Rostam Farrokhzād
    Sasanian general and aristocrat from Azerbaijan, 631 AD




    about registers and payments
    To keep the overview about recruitable men, given money etc. we see the creation of new registers (diwan; also dafatir).
    The Diwan al makatila was the register about soldiers. Another register was about the given money - called diwan al-ata (literally: list of gifts). Finally a list about the general military physical (diwan al-ard).

    Heretofore, the nobles were responsible for their own equipment and the equipment of their retinue.
    The degree and quality of the equipment was dependent on their financial possibilities. The result was a "colourful" army concerning the equipment - at least this is a documented fact.

    This is probably the reason why reliefs, carvings and written documents of the 4th and 5th centuries are partially varying regarding the equipment - and indirectly producing irritations about the usage of bows, lances, certain helmets and protection of horses.
    But that's just my opinion and no fact - but it would explain some matters.

    The nobles who were not able to get together a certain sum of money were - as mentioned - supported by the central government. Money was paid also - however, it was called "gift" - just to embellish the dependence.
    This was necessary because those knights and the iranian community in general was a proud one - following his own rules since thousands of years.

    Important: As long as the knight was able to pay the equipment and his retinue by himself he had the allowance to show his gaudiness and luxuriance - respectively he had the chance to wear eye-catching colours. But we know due to the high ammount of payments that this was just a small minority of the army.
    The majority was dressed in a very uniformly way - basically with little differences to its roman counterpart.

    Furthmore Procopius explained that it was forbidden (since the reign of Kavad) for all nobles to wear golden rings, golden cramps, demonstrative belts - unless it was strictly allowed by the king. (Procop. Pers. 1,17).
    On the other hand we know that an elite troop was named after its golden lances (Theophan. 485) - but it was obviously an exception.

    In the previous centuries a colourful and gorgeous dress was a matter of taste, and everybody who was able to buy such expensive paraphernalia had worn that on battle field. But now such things became a sign and degree of importance of officers and generals. It was an insignia or badge of rank by the time of Chusro.

    By the time of Chusro every detail of the needed equipment was dictated (Procop. Pers. 1,18 ; furthermore Tabari ann 1,963,14).
    All knights were cited to a physical examination - and even Chusro Anosarvan (!) complied himself concerning his own rules. All knights which had the complete equipment at the day of the military physical examination received 3999 Dirhem. The king received 1 Dirhem more - 4000 (Dinawari 75,3).


    It is also very important to mention that is was only a one-time payment. It was no guerdon! The first time in Sasanian history we hear that an order was given for an uniformly equipment. one report about a unit which was dressed by order in a green dress/uniform is given (Harit Hilliza, Mu'all 7,56)
    During the difficult and acting time era of Chusro II Abarvez it is reported that this orders were basically not practicable.
    Due to shortage of money the state had simply other problems to handle. We hear that during the reign of Chusro many foreigners, slaves and inhabitants of cities were deployed, partially by force.
    Obviously it was no common practice to recruit the normal iranian inhabitants of cities for military duties. (Theophan. 484,18 and 498,14)


    If a kind of guerdon was paid beside the single payment is not reported (at least not according my knowledge). I found an interesting note concerning Chosru II. Abarvez. He remunerated roman (!) auxillaries - 60.000 strong (?) and paid 20.000.000 Dihrem. In summary 666 Dihrem for one soldier. (Tabari ann. 1, 999, 16)





    Fig. 4. The figures of shahanshah Peroz (1), Sasanian grandee (2) and noble bridegroom (3) on Sasanian silver vessels
    (1,2 - on K.V. Trever, V.G. Lukonin, 1987; 3 - on P.O. Harper, 1978).




    the knights and the army
    The knights - the core of the sansanian army - dependent to the royal court respectively to the central government.
    This was reached due to the given "gifts".
    The restauration of the state, as started by Chosru, was actually nothing else than a fixing of the political power.
    Land was probably given as well to the knights. The land near the city Kazwin, the frontier-city for guarding the boarder to the Daylamites, was called al-aswariya. The Daylamites never belonged to the Sasanian society - independently if the empire deployed auxillaries of Daylamites.

    They were according de Goje (261,11) "dangerous enemies of the Sasanian empire". Also Agathias reports that they always kept the status as "autonomoi". Bahram Cobin and his retinue received land and a city as a "gift". (Dinawari 100,3)

    We may assume that the given land and its villages were interest-bearing to the dehkans and/or knights. In this case we have indeed a typically feudalistic
    system. We will find nearly the same system centuries later in the East Roman empire of the middle ages - the so called Pronoiai.

    It is always said that the Romans modeled their feudalistic system like that of medieval Europe. But in my opinion this is only half of the truth. According my studies the system of the dehkans was still used long time after the Sasanian empire was fallen. The persian muslims proceeded this system far beyond the 10th century.

    After the Lakhmid kingdom was fallen and annexed by Chosru II. - a steady "mounted" (!) garrison was installed there. (Tabari ann 1,2019, 2).
    It is reported that the city of Hira was composed by a number of castles and together with the so called ditch of Shapur (handak sabur) a downright "Limes" was established. Obviously the country (now Iraq) was also partitioned by dekhans.
    Andarzgar, the former commander of Chorasan, deployed in Hira an army of arabian auxillaries and dehkans for fighting against al-Walid.
    It is also interesting to compare the building activities of Justinian and Chosru I.
    The first one started comprehensive bulwark activities at the Danube area - the second one closed the border to the northern neighbours of the Sasanian kingdom.


    The wall of Derbend was 20 Parasangs long.
    1 parasang (middle persian Frasang) = 1 hour by horse = ~ 6km or 4 miles. Therefore 20 Frasang are 120 kilometers or 80 miles. It ended south of the Caspian sea.
    The single sections were organized by military commanders (ka`id) and his small crew. And land was given to those soldiers also.
    The goods were heritable to their children - and used for the subsistence - however, those children had the duty to guard the walls after their farthers retired.

    All this was of course a pure soldier-fief. Tabari reports (ann 1, 896, 8) that the complete garrison of this Limes was 5000 strong - including infantry as well as cavalry.


    We can guess that the soldiers at al-aswariya (for guarding the Daylamites; see above) received the same concessions.
    Another tale of Procopius gives more information about the internal structure of frontier castles (pers. 2,19). A fixed garrison or castle (phrougion), with 800 knights ( (h)ippeis) were led by the nobles (aristoi).
    This castle was not supplied by the central government during peacetime. When the enemy arrived, and the country side population fleed into the castle, then the garrison was supported.
    In my opinion the complete state was re-organized equaly in many ways.

    So, for me it is possible that the system was similar in all parts of the the sasanian kingdom. In our case, described by Procopius, we can also learn about other regions like the Caucasus, Sisauranon, Mesopotamia and our garrson at al-aswariya.





    Falak-ol-Aflak Castle
    known as Dežbār or Shāpūr-Khwāst
    This gigantic structure was built during the Sassanid era (226 – 651 AD).




    dehkan = knight?
    How is it possible to maintain an own castle, land, smiths, trade etc without money from state.
    It was the money and the goods of the common people.
    A feudalistic system. In return the lord had the duty to protect his people.

    That the holder of those soldier-fiefs was automatically called "dehkan" is not explicit reported. But we can make some interesting analogies.

    The dehkans played a very centralized and active role concerning the war under Yazgard III. by defending the country against the Muslims.
    This suggests that the given land and welfare of the state was also given in return for military duties. The dehkans lived in castles (sometimes) and defended the country against Bistam.
    This underlines their military-character.
    But an asnwer comes with a tale of Ibn as-Kalibi (see tabari ann 1, 1040, 10).
    The Sasanian governor of Yemen - a man called Marwazan (he served during the reign of Chusro II.) had 2 sons. "The first son loved the arabian language and poems, the other son was a knight, was speaking Pahlavi and lived like a dehkan."
    In this tale the word dehkan and knight is synonymical used.





    the outcome
    The successor of Chusro I. was Hormizd IV. (578-590AD). His complete span of life was characterised by the internal conflict between him and the "mighty and powerful" on the other hand. The word "hate" is fallen many times in this conflict (Tabari 1, 988, 16 ; Dinawari 87, 19).
    He (the king of kings) confined their arrogance and helped the "poor and weak" people. (Tabari 1, 988, 15).
    But one question may be allowed: what kind of stratum or group was it? Which group produced the "splitting headache" and the trouble of Hormizd IV?

    I have learned in the last years that it was the group of re-strengthen nobles - the old group of noble landlords before the dehkans were installed - seeking for revenge - trying to increase their old ancestral power. But is this true?


    It is reported that Hormizd IV. reduced the rank of the "Greats (asraf)", and he killed scholars (means priests) as well as "people of the houses" - 13600 altogether.
    To win the lower ranked population he imprisioned many of the "Greats" and reduced their rank. (Tabari ann 1, 988, 16 ; Dinawari 80, 8 ; Tabari 1, 988, 15)
    In this moment please remember that some years ago a kind of fixed military ranking was introduced to the Sasanian army.
    Is it possible that Hormizd IV. reduced the rank of the military nobility?
    Such an action was also performed by Kavad many years ago (Procop. pers. 1,17).
    In this case the old internal conflict against the military leaders against the central government was renewed and the dispute has flared up again.
    But in my opinion we can't find the opponents in the rows of the old noble landlords - the ancient class of nobles which ruled quasi autonomous during the last centuries of persian history.

    There was so many land given to the dehkans, land which was abandoned after the Mazdakid uprising. Was it possible that the remaining parts of the ancient nobility became so powerful again?

    I think we have to go away from this idea. Even if many ancient nobles were able to consolidate their former power - we can say that the sasanian community and society (after the Mazdakid uprising and the introduction of thousands of dehkans) was another one than before.


    If we speak now about the "Greats" we have to look into the new established "military nobility". The power was in the hand of the field armies, located at the borders of the huge kingdom - led by the 4 Spahbads - power based on the dehkans.
    It was the new installed military-nobility and even rich and influenced dekhans - a new group which rose to power - similar to the old class of ancient noble landlords.

    The reforms of Chosru Anosarvan were oringinally initialised to assemble the former condition of the kingdom, to build up a country, strong and powerful as it has been once... but what the reforms actually did was a complete shifting and regrouping of the whole Sasanian community whithin 50 years.





    links
    discuss with us

    A Teaser of the Sasanians of AoD2

    was the Sasanian empire unconquerable?

    The Sasanian Domain - kingdom or empire?






    sources and further reading
    Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden. Aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari.
    translated by Theodor Nöldeke. Leiden 1879 /(re-print Leiden 1973)

    De Bello Persico (CSHB Vol 1)
    Procopius Caesariensis

    Henning Börm: Prokop und die Perser. Untersuchungen zu den römisch-sasanidischen Kontakten in der ausgehenden Spätantike.
    Steiner, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-515-09052-0

    Historiarium
    Agathias Scholastikos
    translated by Joseph D. Frendo, Berlin 1975

    Historiae
    Theophylactus Simocatta
    Carl Gotthard de Boor; new edition by P. Wirth. Stuttgart 1972





    copyright
    The elaboration was made by using primary and secondary sources and is therefore a homegrown product of the Ages of Darkness team.

    Intellectual and literary property belongs to the author.
    If wished, parts of the text (or if needed all of it) can be used for other threads at TWCenter or other internet pages.
    However, a written request is essential and a matter of courtesy (considering the spent time for research).
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; June 01, 2011 at 07:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Sasanians and Dehkans

    Thanks! So what we get is a centralized, feudalic and militaristic society.

  3. #3
    juvenus's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    1,526

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Sasanians and Dehkans

    i'm sure this great thread deserves to go sticky


  4. #4
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Sasanians and Dehkans

    Thank you. Yes, I will stick it. But it's still not finished. Grafics are missing, a list of books is not included and some other things.

  5. #5
    Gäiten's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    4,721

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Sasanians and Dehkans

    Interesting, however, I will wait till you have finished before I write some facts I think shall be added.

    Invasio Barbarorum: Ruina Roma Development Leader - Art made by Joar -Visit my Deviantart: http://gaiiten.deviantart.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •