Did they stress their Persian heritage? Did they claim lineage from the Achemanids, and did they reflect back on the times of the glorious Persian Empire of the time? I've seen RTW mods using this sort of style, but I want to know this as I'm writing an AAR called Freedom, and its a mix of fiction/historical. I'd like to align them towards that style, but I need to some things first historically, wasn't Zorostarinism practiced in the Parthian Empire, like the Sassainds, did they too not have the Magi, the several Parthian houses, etc. What was Parthian culture like?
The Parthians had no state religion. Zoroastrianism and its predescessor form can't be proven as the religion of the Old Persian and Parthians kings. Forms of that faith were of course present, but we have only little knowledge about the believe of the Parthians. The Parthians houses are probably a reflex of the old persians since the number is equal as the persian houses, despite the fact that we only know 3 or so. Zoroastrianism as state religion and the point that the history was rewritten in a sense that the Parthians never existed happend in the aftermath of the death of the Sassanid King Peroz.
Did they stress their Persian heritage? Did they claim lineage from the Achemanids, and did they reflect back on the times of the glorious Persian Empire of the time? I've seen RTW mods using this sort of style, but I want to know this as I'm writing an AAR called Freedom, and its a mix of fiction/historical. I'd like to align them towards that style, but I need to some things first historically, wasn't Zorostarinism practiced in the Parthian Empire, like the Sassanids, did they too not have the Magi, the several Parthian houses, etc. What was Parthian culture like?
Yes, they did claim that they were descendants of the Achaemenids. Apart from the usual claims of tracing their dynasty to Cyrus or Darius, like many Eastern rulers did (e.g. Pontus or Commagene), there's also the case of Phriapatius, one of Artaxerxes' II children that might be the ancestor of the Arsacids. Of course, many of these claims are completely based, mere propaganda tools to strengthen their prestige and legitimacy as Shahanshahs. However, considering the polygamy of the Achaemenid Emperors, it's very probable that there was indeed several drops of Achaemenid blood running through their veins. Culturally, they obviously promoted the Iranian civilization, but they also adopted a friendly stance towards the Greek civilization, keeping their Greek subjects happy but also recognizing the fusion of Greek and Iranian civilizations (e.g. the theatrical play, where Crassus' head participated or the first Parthian coins, where the rulers were Macedonian symbols of royalty). After all, several Parthian Emperors took the epithet Philellene (friend of the Greeks).
Yes, they did claim that they were descendants of the Achaemenids. Apart from the usual claims of tracing their dynasty to Cyrus or Darius, like many Eastern rulers did (e.g. Pontus or Commagene), there's also the case of Phriapatius, one of Artaxerxes' II children that might be the ancestor of the Arsacids. Of course, many of these claims are completely based, mere propaganda tools to strengthen their prestige and legitimacy as Shahanshahs. However, considering the polygamy of the Achaemenid Emperors, it's very probable that there was indeed several drops of Achaemenid blood running through their veins. Culturally, they obviously promoted the Iranian civilization, but they also adopted a friendly stance towards the Greek civilization, keeping their Greek subjects happy but also recognizing the fusion of Greek and Iranian civilizations (e.g. the theatrical play, where Crassus' head participated or the first Parthian coins, where the rulers were Macedonian symbols of royalty). After all, several Parthian Emperors took the epithet Philellene (friend of the Greeks).
Great post!
Yeah, it seems like the Parthians were the most receptive to Greek culture during the first half of their dynasty's existence (natural given that they conquered much of the Seleucid Empire). After engaging in hostilities with Rome and maintaining a rivalry with them even during peacetime over issues such as Armenia as a client state, the Parthians were keen to stress more and more the historical roots with the old Achaemenid Empire of Persia. This can be seen not only in the assumption of titles and the Imperial Aramaic chancellery script used during the Achaemenid period, but also in the evolution of Parthian art and architecture as well.
You are absolutely right about religion, in either case, which seems to have been a total mish-mash of polytheistic worship of various local and universal deities, with nothing officially centralized or endorsed by the state (outside of small examples of Arsacid royal court patronism for Zoroastrian magi priests who compiled sacred texts). And there was a general attempt to link and compare Assyrian and Persian deities with Greek ones in a melding of these two pantheons, such as Zeus being equated with Ahura Mazda. At the same time, Manichaeism, Judaism, and early Christianity flourished in the Parthian realm, with perhaps a small presence of Buddhism as well. Ironically this is not linked to India at all, since the evidence for Buddhism in Parthia comes from Eastern Han Chinese texts of the 2nd century that speak about An Shigao, a Parthian Buddhist missionary monk who prosletyzed in Luoyang, the capital of the Han Chinese Empire.
Last edited by Roma_Victrix; November 22, 2015 at 07:12 AM.
Yeah, it seems like the Parthians were the most receptive to Greek culture during the first half of their dynasty's existence (natural given that they conquered much of the Seleucid Empire). After engaging in hostilities with Rome and maintaining a rivalry with them even during peacetime over issues such as Armenia as a client state, the Parthians were keen to stress more and more the historical roots with the old Achaemenid Empire of Persia. This can be seen not only in the assumption of titles and the Imperial Aramaic chancellery script used during the Achaemenid period, but also in the evolution of Parthian art and architecture as well.
Thanks, Roma! And yes, I agree with your view. To add a couple of points, the gradual abandonment of "philellenism" and the adoption of more Iranic cultural characteristics doesn't reveal a growing sentiment of nationalism, as the 19th century historians claimed about the 2nd Persian Empire, but it concerns the fact that the hellenised Easterners (mainly a part of the Iranian upper class) and the Greek colonists were gradually assimilated. They weren't degenerated, of course (as again the slightly biased 19th century historians claimed) and of course it was not a surprising turn of events, as the flow of immigrants from Greece stopped and the Macedonian royal dynasty was overthrown by an Iranian one. Take the coins for example:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Arsaces I, shaven with the typical Phrygian cap of the Iranian nomads:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The same with the third ruler, Phriapatius:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Then the fashion changes and we have Mithridates I and Mithridates II with a short Greek beard and a Macedonian headband, symbol of royalty:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Finally, the Parthian rulers become fully "Achaemenised". Long beards and large jeweled crowns. Take Gotarzes I and Sanatruces I as examples:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Still, Iranians and Greek citizens coexisted peacefully (generally speaking) long after the birth of Jesus, since the Shahanshaηs had no reason to disrupt the profitable urban trade economy and the Greeks could still continue to live their normal daily lives.
That's a letter of king Artabanus III (21 AD), sent to the hellenised city of Susa. It's a very interesting inscription, written in a typically Greek fashion and describing the relationship between an Iranian monarch and a hellenised city. All of it obviously written in Greek. There have been found quite a lot of greek inscriptions belonging to the Parthian era, despite the limited number of the archaeological excavations. One of the most impressive is this one:
A Greek inscription found in Naqs-i-Rostam, dating at 272 AD, when the Arsacids have already been replaced by the Sassanids. Concerning its content, Shapur I gloats over how awesome he is and how easily he humiliated the Roman Emperor Valentinian. Of course, it provides plenty of information about the military campaign from a Persian perspective and the internal bureaucratic structure of the empire, but to get back to the thread's subject, it also shows to us that there were still Greek-speaking people in the Sassanid Empire that needed to be addressed in the Greek language. 4 centuries after the last Seleucid ruler had been expelled from the Iranian plateau.
Last edited by Abdülmecid I; November 22, 2015 at 10:51 AM.
Thanks, Roma! And yes, I agree with your view. To add a couple of points, the gradual abandonment of "philellenism" and the adoption of more Iranic cultural characteristics doesn't reveal a growing sentiment of nationalism, as the 19th century historians claimed about the 2nd Persian Empire, but it concerns the fact that the hellenised Easterners (mainly a part of the Iranian upper class) and the Greek colonists were gradually assimilated. They weren't degenerated, of course (as again the slightly biased 19th century historians claimed) and of course it was not a surprising turn of events, as the flow of immigrants from Greece stopped and the Macedonian royal dynasty was overthrown by an Iranian one. Take the coins for example:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Arsaces I, shaven with the typical Phrygian cap of the Iranian nomads:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The same with the third ruler, Phriapatius:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Then the fashion changes and we have Mithridates I and Mithridates II with a short Greek beard and a Macedonian headband, symbol of royalty:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Finally, the Parthian rulers become fully "Achaemenised". Long beards and large jeweled crowns. Take Gotarzes I and Sanatruces I as examples:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Still, Iranians and Greek citizens coexisted peacefully (generally speaking) long after the birth of Jesus, since the Shahanshaηs had no reason to disrupt the profitable urban trade economy and the Greeks could still continue to live their normal daily lives.
That's a letter of king Artabanus III (21 AD), sent to the hellenised city of Susa. It's a very interesting inscription, written in a typically Greek fashion and describing the relationship between an Iranian monarch and a hellenised city. All of it obviously written in Greek. There have been found quite a lot of greek inscriptions belonging to the Parthian era, despite the limited number of the archaeological excavations. One of the most impressive is this one:
A Greek inscription found in Naqs-i-Rostam, dating at 272 AD, when the Arsacids have already been replaced by the Sassanids. Concerning its content, Shapur I gloats over how awesome he is and how easily he humiliated the Roman Emperor Valentinian. Of course, it provides plenty of information about the military campaign from a Persian perspective and the internal bureaucratic structure of the empire, but to get back to the thread's subject, it also shows to us that there were still Greek-speaking people in the Sassanid Empire that needed to be addressed in the Greek language. 4 centuries after the last Seleucid ruler had been expelled from the Iranian plateau.
I would rep you for this post, and your recent Thema Devia one in "You Laugh, You Lose", if I could.
Yep, I think it's pretty clear that after several centuries the Greeks simply assimilated within the local Semitic and Iranic speaking cultures, in a process that lasted the entire existence of the Parthian Empire and well into the Sassanid era. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Greeks were pretty much nonexistent in any large numbers in Mesopotamia and Persia by the time the Sassanids were conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate, weren't they? They obviously were still heavily concentrated in Syria and the rest of the Levant due to the Eastern Roman Empire. The same can't be said for areas way further east, like Susa in your example above.
I still find it fascinating how relatively quickly the "Roman" identity and culture, including native speakers of Latin, evaporated in Western Europe. For instance, even Romance language speakers of the Vulgar-Latin predecessor to Old French in Gaul considering themselves Franks and intrinsically part of the Frankish realm but a couple centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Truly there are few ancient cultures that have had such continuous and nearly uninterrupted ethno-political cohesion that has carried over into the present day, such as the Han Chinese (which you could argue coalesced from various regional cultures and dialects of China's old Warring States into one unified culture during the course of the Han Dynasty, 202 BC - 220 AD). You could tack on China's little brother, Korea, to that list, given their successive ruling dynasties interrupted by foreign invasion, i.e. the Mongols and Japanese (well, no more ruling dynasties after the occupation of the latter). I suppose you could add the Greeks to the list in a loose fashion barring the Ottoman interregnum, or the fact that the Byzantine Empire was a different entity entirely from the ancient Classic Greek states and Hellenistic kingdoms. And then there are cultures that were subsumed by greater empires yet still survived, such as the Assyrians who speak Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (we'll see how much longer they last in northern Iraq and Syria with ISIS around, though). Not even Hebrew makes this list, though. Ancient Hebrew ceased to be a common everyday spoken language of Jews by roughly the 5th century, not revived until the 19th century with Modern Hebrew.
Last edited by Roma_Victrix; November 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM.
Since Susa was named here. It is to say that this city and another one in modern day Iraq is forgot was a core of Judaism. In those cities within the Parthian/Sassanid Empire were some of the most important jewish scripts were written. For obvious reasons there was not much coming from Palestina/Israel. The first Phase of Sassanid Persia showed a great freedom of religion and thoughts. Under Peroz I. the Asyrian Christian Church seperated from Rom and became independent. That's not to surprising since it was just the following of the old Parthian policy. It was a multiethnic realm that was decentralized. That changed after Peroz I. with his entire army died and his sucessors, especially his son Kavadh used that chance to built up a strong centralized state with zoroastrism as state religion. Most of what we believe to be typical Sassanid and some of which was taken over under the modern Shah regime was first etablished at that time.
I write this about the Sassanid because this phase is essencial for our understanding of the Parthians. Opposite to the common believe, when the Sassanids had overthrown the Arsacid dynasty, the Parthians didn't ceded to exist. Quite the opposite. It was a regime change with then a family form the province Pars at the power. However they needed the support of the old Parthians families and that meant that they helped to etablish the Sassanid dynasty. There little evidence that there was a restrictive policy against Parthians, except once in a while the execution of a Parthian dynast who became to powerfull. Kavadh is important since with his centralization policy an atempt to rewrite history was made. The historical fundament of his dynasty was rewritten and set in the context of the zoroastrian faith. The foundation was a age of heroes from which the Sassanid could claim heritage. However with that as justification there is no place for the Arsacid dynasty which is why this phase of iranian history was not deleted but rewritten that much that later Arab authors write about the age of petty kings. The Sassanid writings of that time and some roman/greek authors who wrote about the parthian minor kingdome (actually provinces) changed the image of the parthians. Interestingly at the same point the parthian history was rewritten parthian dynasties started to integrate those zoroastrian myths in to their own heritage. That is why the house of Karen claimed desendent from one of the biggest heroes Kaveh the Blacksmith, who used the Derafsh Kaviani which became a holy battle banner of the later Sassanids. People who don't know the context transfer this banner to the Achaemenids which most likely never used it.
As for the 7 Houses theory again. I think this story is as old as Dareios the great who with 6 heroes took the throne. Within the group they voted him to be the Greatking although everyone was capable to do so. That indicates that there were families who were of great power since the beginning. We have those also in the Parthian time and maybe they have even the same names, however that doesn't say anything about their true members. It is not unlikely that those people where Persian families and changed in to Parthian idenity over the centuries. Under the Sassanids we have again 7 claimed families of which we know 3 maybe 4. I think the number 7 is for the real historical context rather unimportend and only in the mythical/religious aspect of relevance. However we know that some of those Parthian families played a huge role under the Sassanids and often decided to succeded as Great King. That is continuing so far that the last important King Chosroes II. was made king by his maternal family which was Parthian. His power and success was directly connected with the private power of his uncles and cousins. It is only fitting that one of the most sucessfull Kings in Persian history who had technically won the war against Rome, ended tragically because he was betrayed by his Parthian allies which with their own interests in power brought down the Sassanid Empire.
Indeed, the number of seven is a common motif of the literature and a holy number, something similar to the number of three (e.g. the Holy Triad). AFAIK, the first mention of the number, in what concerns the Persian history, was the seven clans of the Passargadae tribe, the noblest of the Persian tribes according to Herodotus (and of course, the official propaganda), one of whom were the Achaemenids. Traditionally, the seven clans of the Passargadae continued to play a major role in the politics of the empire and were supposed to be the recruitment pool, from where the Achaemenids filled their bodyguards and the highest bureaucratic positions.
Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix
Yep, I think it's pretty clear that after several centuries the Greeks simply assimilated within the local Semitic and Iranic speaking cultures, in a process that lasted the entire existence of the Parthian Empire and well into the Sassanid era. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Greeks were pretty much nonexistent in any large numbers in Mesopotamia and Persia by the time the Sassanids were conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate, weren't they? They obviously were still heavily concentrated in Syria and the rest of the Levant due to the Eastern Roman Empire. The same can't be said for areas way further east, like Susa in your example above.
In deed, they were. In fact, it's very surprising that Shapur I bothered to make a special version of the official statement specifically addressed to his Greek subjects. My guess is that the largest and probably last Greek settlement east of Euphrates was the city of Seleuceia near Babylon. It was huge and west of the Zagros mountains, therefore not very influenced by the Iranian cultural sphere. After all, her Greek inhabitants were sympathetic towards the Roman armies that temporarily managed to penetrate into Mesopotamia. As Marcus Aemilius Lepidus said, probably the reforms of Kavadh was what accelerated the gradual process of the Greeks' "orientalisation".
Question on the Parthian culture
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by The Triumph of Rome
