Greatest Sasanian King of Kings

Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
Who do you consider to be the greatest Sasanian King of Kings? Ardashir I, the founder? Shapur I, the smasher of Roman armies and captor of Valerian? Shapur II, of the fourth-century golden age? Bahram V, whose life and reign inspired Persian literature? Kavad I or Khosrow I, the kings of the Sasanian Renaissance and creators of a centralized empire with a professional military? Khosrow II, whose reign featured unprecedented triumph before descending into tragedy? Bahram Chobin or Shahrbaraz, who enjoyed brief reigns but had been brilliant generals prior to their usurpations?
 
Joined Jan 2017
7,817 Posts | 3,302+
Republika Srpska
I like Khosrow II because 602-28 war was the area of Sassanid history I am most familiar with but he cannot be considered a great ruler because he lost all his gains in the east and weakened the Empire making it a ripe picking.
Shapurs seemed to have been quite capable.
 
Joined Mar 2013
1,227 Posts | 238+
Breakdancing on the Moon.
I find it hard not to immediately vote for Khosrow II, but I recently purchased a book (M Bonner The Last Empire of Iran), which I will read and perhaps subsequently change my mind, so...
 

VHS

Joined Dec 2015
9,459 Posts | 1,223+
As far as the mind can reach
I like Khosrow II because 602-28 war was the area of Sassanid history I am most familiar with but he cannot be considered a great ruler because he lost all his gains in the east and weakened the Empire making it a ripe picking.
Shapurs seemed to have been quite capable.

"Peach picking" is the Chinese term for it.
The name "Prunus persica" doesn't mean the fruit originated from Persian plateau,
even though it reminds people of Persia or Iran.
If Khosrow II focused on consolidating his already sizable empire, it might have
become a ripened Prunus persica fructus (using the Latin word here).
Should Khosrow II make peace with Byzantine Empire rather than expanding
and weakened both empires?
 
Joined Jan 2017
7,817 Posts | 3,302+
Republika Srpska
"Peach picking" is the Chinese term for it.
The name "Prunus persica" doesn't mean the fruit originated from Persian plateau,
even though it reminds people of Persia or Iran.
If Khosrow II focused on consolidating his already sizable empire, it might have
become a ripened Prunus persica fructus (using the Latin word here).
Should Khosrow II make peace with Byzantine Empire rather than expanding
and weakened both empires?
Well that would have certainly been a better course of action that what actually transpired.
 
Joined Apr 2012
1,407 Posts | 424+
The Netherlands
Certainly not Khosrow II who started the events that led to the destruction of his own state and the crippling of the Eastern Roman Empire.
 
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
I included Khosrow II as an option because one could view him a bit like Hannibal or Napoleon, a spectacular conqueror whose efforts ultimately unraveled, but were quite the effort. But yes, I favour Shapur I and Khosrow I.

Shapur was clearly a great military leader: His victories at Misiche, Barbalissos and Edessa, his capture of Valerian, his army's likely role in the mortal wounding of Gordian III, twice sacking Antioch, raiding as far as Cilicia and Cappadocia, the capture of various cities and fortresses in Upper Mesopotamia (most notably Dura Europos), his conquest of Armenia and Hatra, his victories over Sakas, Kushans and the 'Medes of the Mountains', and his involvement in the Battle of Hormizdagan. That said, there were limits to how long his feudal armies could remain in the field and how much he could therefore actually conquer as opposed to raid beyond the lands of Upper Mesopotamia and Armenia. This limitation of the Sasanian Empire was fixed by Khosrow I.

Khosrow I was not as brilliant in the field, but he was a fantastic ruler. He professionalized the Sasanian army, created a class of lower nobility (the Deghan) to expand the ranks of the Savaran cavalry and provide a loyal base to undermine the upper nobility and Magi, he standardized taxation, he centralized power in his own hands, and he abolished the threatening office of supreme general in favour of a more efficient quadripartite military-administrative division of empire.

He founded the Academy of Ghondishapur, and encouraged the intermingling and adoption of ideas from Rome, Greece, Armenia, Persia and India, whether philosophy, mathematics, science, medicine or literature. He accepted and embraced the Neo-Platonist philosophers who fled Justinian's empire, he was tolerant of other religions, he founded the first bimaristan hospitals, he defended the empire's borders with massive walls (the Derbent Wall, the Great Wall of Gorgan, the Wall of the Arabs and the Wall of Tammisha), and he initiated major building projects in the empire's interior, including a huge new palace at Ctesiphon and the Nahrawan Canal.

His alliance with the Western Gokturks overthrow the Hepthalites, who dominated Central Asia and had long embarrassed the Sasanian rulers with their demands of tribute and previous major victories. He then overthrew the Gokturks. He exploited alliance opportunities that Justinian failed to act upon, thereby seizing Yemen from the Axumites in support of an exiled prince and thus controlling part of the Red Sea trade. He fought with success against the Romans, negotiated favourable treaties with them, and in this context used propaganda better than most. When he successfully invaded Roman Syria, he relocated the people of Antioch to a new city called 'Khosrow's Better Antioch'! He entered Apamea in order to make Justinian's favourite chariot team lose, and he bathed in the Mediterranean.
 
Joined May 2011
3,094 Posts | 66+
Rural Australia
My vote is for the founder Ardashir who's monotheistic state religion Constantine replicated a century later


(1) Ardashir and the Monotheistic State Zoroastrianism (c.224 CE)

In the third century the Persian "King of Kings"
Ardashir created a new State monotheistic religion
which he actively promoted, organized, supported and
protected, by legislation. He guaranteed its orthodoxy
by the sword. It was characterised by a strong
centralised power structure, centered on the King and
his appointed Magi (ie: academic temple priests, and
their chiefs)

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
in the tradition named Tansar was ordered to gather
the scattered "Avesta" of the Mazdeans from ancient
sources, and to edit these in order to reproduce an
authorised and canonical version of the "Avesta",
the holy writ of Zoroastrianism. Finally the Sassanid
state monotheistic church was characterised by widespread
architectural replication of square fire-temples for
the official religion throughout the major cities and
provinces of the Sassanid Persian empire. This was a
novel step.

Epigraphic and monumental evidence suggests the pre-
existence of the earlier religion of the Mazdeans in
the epoch of the Parthian civilisation.


(2) Constantine and the Monotheistic State Christianity (c.325 CE)

In the fourth century the Roman emperor Constantine
created a State monotheistic religion which he
actively promoted, organized, supported and protected,
by legislation and by the army. He guaranteed its
orthodoxy by the sword. It was characterised by a
strong centralised power structure, centered on the
emperor (, his army) and his appointed bishops.

A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea was ordered to gather
the scattered books of both the Hebrews and the
Christians from ancient sources, and to edit these in
order to reproduce an authorised and canonical
version. A history of the new state religion prior to
the age of Constantine is now known to have been
assembled by Eusebius during the years 312 to 324 CE.

Finally the state church was characterised by the
widespread architectural replication of basilicas
throughout the major cities and provinces of the
empire. All these were by no means novel steps
as should be clear from the above.
 
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
A gifted researcher and high cleric of this religion
Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea was ordered to gather
the scattered books of both the Hebrews and the
Christians from ancient sources, and to edit these in
order to reproduce an authorised and canonical
version. A history of the new state religion prior to
the age of Constantine is now known to have been
assembled by Eusebius during the years 312 to 324 CE.
I notice that some people, yourself included, seem to be quite influenced by this idea that Eusebius of Caesarea was Constantine's right-hand man on matters of religion. One should note that Eusebius was living under Licinius, not Constantine, during the years 313 to 324 (he was living under Maximinus in 312). Eusebius himself seems to be the main source for the idea that he had a close relationship with Constantine, something he claims in his Life of Constantine (written as a eulogy/panegyric of sorts for the late emperor). It is notable that the Council of Nicaea in 325 ruled against the likes of Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, with whom Eusebius of Caesarea appears to have been an ally (e.g. he pronounced Arius blameless, he produced a rival creed at Nicaea, he later helped depose the pro-Nicene bishops Athanasius of Alexandria and Eustathius of Antioch, and was earlier reproached by the latter for deviating from orthodoxy). He is fittingly evasive about what was actually decided at Nicaea in his Life of Constantine. In contrast, Lactantius' Divine Institutes, written in the 300s, influenced Constantine's Edict of Milan (313), and Lactantius himself was tutor to Crispus. Hosius of Corduba was regarded as the man who turned Constantine to Christianity, and he later presided at the Council of Nicaea. Eusebius of Nicomedia (a different Eusebius) is the one who baptized Constantine on his deathbed. I also have to ask, which source says that Constantine ordered Eusebius of Caesarea to produce a canonical version of the Bible? Is this a reference to comments in book 3 of his Church History, where he gives a run-down of which books he considers to be canon (there's no reference to Constantine in this book)?
 
Joined Jan 2017
7,817 Posts | 3,302+
Republika Srpska
I think the difference between Napoleon and Khosrow II is that Napoleon also created the empire that he eventually lost so he was great by the virtue of being able to create such a vast realm. Khosrow II was a ruler of an already well-established empire. There is also a personal component: both Hannibal and Napoleon were very capable commanders with a number of impressive victories that can be attributed to their personal abilities, OTOH when I think of Sassanid military successes I first think of Shahrbaraz, not Khosrow.
 
Joined May 2011
3,094 Posts | 66+
Rural Australia
In regard to Constantine's request to Eusebius for the manufacture of bible codices see Vita Constantini, IV,36,37)

In regard to the relationship between Constantine and Eusebius I think it is obvious that - only after military supremacy 324 CE - Constantine commenced to seriously support, protect and legislate on behalf of the Christian religion. Such an ambitious agenda would include a role for at least one scriptorium of professional Greek language scribes to prepare copies of the new holy writ in the same fashion that Ardashir circulated a newly edited Avesta as the holy writ of Sassanid Persia. Eusebius was also the editor-in-chief of the 4th century NT Bible codices. Considering the central role that a history of the Christian church would play in the education of the then pagan empire, I suspect that Constantine would have at least in part sponsored such an ambitious project.

This "idea that Eusebius of Caesarea was Constantine's right-hand man on matters of religion" is certainly not novel. The following is from Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First "Court Theologian" by Michael J Hollerich, Assistant professor of religious studies in Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California:

  • "Ever since Jacob Burckhardt dismissed him as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity," Eusebius has been an inviting target for students of the Constantinian era. At one time or another they have characterized him as:

    • a political propagandist [1],
    • a good courtier [2],
    • the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine [3],
    • the great publicist of the first Christian emperor,[4]
    • the first in a long succession of ecclesiastical politicians, [5]
    • the herald of Byzantinism, [6]
    • a political theologian, [7]
    • a political metaphysician [8], and
    • a caesaropapist. [9]
  • [1] Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich, 1951 ), p. 91;
    [2] Henri Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée ê Eusèbe de Césarée," Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 39 ( 1953 ): 462-479, quoted in T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981 ), p. 401;
    [3] Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963 ), p. 85;
    [4] Robert Markus, "The Roman Empire in Early Christian Historiography," The Downside Review 81 ( 1963 ): 343;
    [5] Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (1940; reprint, Oxford, 1966 ), p. 183;
    [6] Hendrik Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam, 1939 ), pp. 21-22;
    [7] Hans Eger, "Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea", Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38 ( 1939 ): 115;
    [8] Per Beskow, Rex Gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala, 1962 ), p. 318;
    [9] J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie 'césaropapiste,'" Byzantion 42 ( 1972 ): 593
    It is obvious that these are not, in the main, neutral descriptions. Much traditional scholarship, sometimes with barely sup- pressed disdain, has regarded Eusebius as one who risked his orthodoxy and perhaps his character because of his zeal for the Constantinian establishment. Scholars have often observed, for example, that his literary works in defense of the new order depict Constantine and his reign in eschatological terms that rival and even supplant the Incarnation and Parousia in salvation history.
    To be sure, this assessment relies on abundant documentation: in the Life of Constantine and in the Tricennial Oration, delivered on the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, as well as in other books, Eusebius gave an enthusiastic Christian endorsement"
 
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
Last edited:
In regard to Constantine's request to Eusebius for the manufacture of bible codices see Vita Constantini, IV,36,37)
Fair enough, in 331 he does order Eusebius to produce fifty copies of the bible, which was apparently Eusebius' revision of Origen's edition. I had forgotten about this. This would appear to relate to Eusebius' scholarly nature, having produced his church history, chronicle, commentaries and apologetics. Eusebius was indeed a man of letters. But does being the bookworm necessarily make him the top dog in church politics? What about in 325, when Eusebius and his allies lost out in the Trinitarian debate? I also do wonder if anyone else received orders of this kind. Athanasius reports that Alexandrian scribes were producing Bibles for Constans. Is this Eusebius' edition, or a different one? Athanasius was no friend of Eusebius.
This "idea that Eusebius of Caesarea was Constantine's right-hand man on matters of religion" is certainly not novel.
It's not novel, but my question is why do we actually think this? It appears that Constantine favoured various bishops and Christian intellectuals (Lactantius, Hosius, Eusebius of Nicomedia), and that the degree to which they were favoured changed over time. I guess I'm suggesting that there should be more nuance on this question, because Eusebius was a bit of a self-promoter, and yet there were clearly other big names during this period who had the emperor's ear. The problem is that Eusebius was a prolific writer, and thus the guy whose activities we hear much more about (from his own mouth).
In regard to the relationship between Constantine and Eusebius I think it is obvious that - only after military supremacy 324 CE - Constantine commenced to seriously support, protect and legislate on behalf of the Christian religion.
Legislation actually shows that Constantine was legislatively and financially supporting the church from as early as 313. During these earlier years he gave bishops their judicial power and their protection from taxation, and he called synods to sort out the Donatist dispute. If I recall correctly, there were various other early measures, but making bishops tax exempt was one of the most important changes that Constantine made. It incentivized becoming a bishop. I see that some think that the construction of St John the Lateran was also an early measure. The men who would have been speaking in his ear would have included Lactantius, Hosius, and perhaps Pope Sylvester. Documentation of Constantine's pro-Christian activities does seem especially weighted for the post-324 years, but while Constantine does indeed appear to have intensified his pro-Christian efforts, we should also bear in mind that the principal source for these activities, Eusebius' Life of Constantine, was written by an easterner who did not experience Constantine's rule until 324 and whose interests would have been weighted towards the east.
 
Joined Mar 2013
1,227 Posts | 238+
Breakdancing on the Moon.
Not to jump in to an unrelated debate here, but why was Constantine's request for bibles from Eusebius any different from the usual requests amongst men of letters for editions of texts? You see this in Libanius etc. "Send me a copy of X". Elite borrowing and recopying was a vital part of how ancient MSS traditions were maintained.
 
Joined Jan 2015
20,624 Posts | 13,435+
Azuchi Castle
It is hard to answer effectively, but I have to say that the contenders would be Ardashir I, Shapur I, Shapur II, and Khosrau I.
Although there are other honourable mentions such as Bahram II, Narseh, Yazdegerd I, Bahram V, Yazdegerd II, and Kavad I.
Can't really comment on Khosrau II. I am not as familiar with that situation, nor about his great conflict with the Romans.

Anyway, my vote would have to go to Ardashir I, Shapur I, or Shapur II.
I tend to lean towards Shapur I because I enjoy reading about Shapur's victories during the Crisis of the Third Century. But these others deserve credit as well.
 
Joined Jan 2015
20,624 Posts | 13,435+
Azuchi Castle
It sounds like it is not just a military criteria. I still think that as rulers Ardashir I, Shapur I, and Shapur II are way up there. Ardashir I for overthrowing the Arsacid Parthians and defending his newly established empire from the Romans.

Shapur I for expanding this territory and defeating the Romans and other Eastern threats. Shapur I consolidated his father's empire and allowed the Sassanids to remain as the ruling house throughout the third century.

Likewise Shapur II defended his realm from the Romans and Easterners alike. He was the major figure of the fourth century. Shapur II consolidated the Sassanian realm and allowed it to go into the fifth century. He had enjoyed an incredible 70 year reign.

Though his reign was lacking in massive victories over the Romans he did not suffer many defeats either. I think most of all Shapur II deserves credit for ruling the state since birth until death. When he finally took up the reins he seems to have done an exceptional job managing the state.

It is similar to Ibn Khaldun's proposed cycle of dynasts, in which the first couple rulers expand the state's borders and power, the later rulers have to consolidate the dynasty. This is basically what Shapur II did during his rule. After that there were some smaller figures, which were notable. But it was largely a decline during the fifth century.

Now all of that said I am still inclined to say that it is Shapur I. But there is a case to be made for these other two. It is astounding how Ardashir I managed to expand his fief so rapidly and take portions of Iran, before finally overthrowing the Parthians, and then challenging the Romans in Mesopotamia.

Still Shapur I not only increased his father's realm in power, he defeated the Romans in many battles, kept the state together, captured new territories in Armenia and Upper Mesopotamia, defeated the Eastern hordes, and plundered areas like Syria and Cappadocia. He humiliated three Roman emperors and achieved many clear victories, and the best part is he got away with it.
 
Joined Mar 2020
352 Posts | 363+
Cedan
My first instinct is to vote for Shapur I, due to reasons stated earlier in the thread.

However, I do think Khosrau II is being judged unfairly. It's fair to say that his choices led to the Arab Conquest and the subjugation of the Sassanid state, but could anyone have predicted that the Arabs could achieve so much in so little time? The closest hint to their military potential was their prior service in both Persian and Roman armies, but that is not nearly enough evidence to suggest they could threaten Roman Syria or Persian Mesopotamia, let alone conquer the entire Sassanian empire!

I'd also argue Khosrau II was the closest of the Great Kings to deal a killing blow to the Roman Empire, nearly pushing the Romans out of Asia and Egypt entirely, and laying siege to Constaninople itself (even if the decision to try and take Constaninople was a case of overextension).
 

Trending History Discussions

Top