Sassanid satrapies

If you understand German

Due to the feudal nature of Sassanid Iran, there were no set satrapies. Their borders depended on which lord held which ground at what time.

Zeno said:

Click to expand...

This map is dubious, as not only does it depict the Sassanid Empire at its peak conquest (for 20 of 400+ years), it is also inaccurate: The Sassanids border with India was more or less the Indus River for most of its existence: Sindh was a nominal vassal of the Sassanids from late 500s to early 600s CE. Gujarat and western India were never under Sassanid influence.

AndreasK said:

That is very interesting, didn't know that! Many thanks.

Could you please elaborate a little more? Is there anywhere on the internet (or, if not, in an easily accessible book) I can read more about this? did the satrapies have fixed names though, and which were in the general the major ones?

I always thought Sassanid Persia was a highly centralised state, but no?

Click to expand...

I'd say they're not interesting enough to waste one's time on. Just another loose confederacy of feudal lords, just with a hint of theocracy this time. The house itself hailed from a priestly family.

How the empire worked was basically the king's family and the religious elite ruling over the core of the empire with an iron fist, and the rest divided between the 6 Parthian great houses.

AndreasK said:

I always thought Sassanid Persia was a highly centralised state, but no?

Click to expand...

It was not, though the last rulers tried to change this. Iirc it was Khosroes I who imposed a high level of centralisation on his empire, much to the dismay of his nobility (which caused a split between the higher and lower nobility who had different gains at stake). The death of the latter king showed how forcibly his attempts had been and the subsequent weakness of his successor and the epic showdown with the Romans (for this only place in the late 6th century) simply ate away the strenght of the empire from within.

gaius valerius said:

It was not, though the last rulers tried to change this. Iirc it was Khosroes I who imposed a high level of centralisation on his empire, much to the dismay of his nobility (which caused a split between the higher and lower nobility who had different gains at stake). The death of the latter king showed how forcibly his attempts had been and the subsequent weakness of his successor and the epic showdown with the Romans (for this only place in the late 6th century) simply ate away the strenght of the empire from within.

Click to expand...

The early Sassanid rulers did make the empire far more centralized than their Parthian predecessor and I think the early Sassanid Empire was not far off contemporary China/Rome in being the most centralized macroscopic state on the planet.

True, the nobility retained a lot of power in their region, but the Sassanid Emperors did seed the entire empire with 'imperial lands', personal to the royal family. They had numerous estates and villas strewn throughout the empire that belonged to the Royal family only (as such, local laws/customs didn't apply to these estates, only the king's command did) and more often than not, it acted as 'eyes and ears' throughout the empire, feeding information and carrying out the edicts of the center.
The Sassanids also established administrative divisions in their empire- they appointed a treasurer, defence minister, agricultural minister, trade minister and something akin to the engineering corps, where a specific division of the government carried out irrigation and 'landscaping' projects.

As such, these point towards a fairly centralized nation-state by pre-modern standards and these were brought into picture by the Shapur I IIRC.

Some of the seven great families were nearly as powerful as house Sassan, though - the Suren, Karen and Mihran were more or less free to pursue their own goals, both internally and externally. It was not uncommon for great houses to fight each other, even house Sassan.

Darth Roach said:

Some of the seven great families were nearly as powerful as house Sassan, though - the Suren, Karen and Mihran were more or less free to pursue their own goals, both internally and externally. It was not uncommon for great houses to fight each other, even house Sassan.

Click to expand...

In practical terms, these houses were given a free reign to persue border expansionism in times where they bordered a minor kingdom/tribal regions. In times when they bordered comparable empire entities, they were kept on a tight leash.
Also, the inter-house feuding in Persia was no different than noble houses feuding in pre-modern European monarchies: operating in terms of intregue, schemes, etc. and rarely, if ever, comming into open conflict- with each other or especially with the royal family. Ofcourse, they picked rival sides during times of civil wars and tried to exert control over weak rulers, but that is common for all empires- centralized and decentralized, throughout human history.

AndreasK said:

Which were the major satrapies of Sassanid Persia, and where were they located?

Click to expand...

The sassanid empire ('Irānshahr') was divided into four parts each called a 'Kūst'. Besides Kūsts, control of territories which were constantly under invasion was delegated to Margraves ("Marzpān"), and all these rulers were directly installed by the Sassanid Shāhanshāh.

The four Kusts operated independently in their economic affairs through 'divān', a bureau with job titles such as 'dabir' (Scribe, or a general employee), and 'āmārgar' (accountant). The Military affairs of each Kust was made independent after the reign of Anushirvān: This was done mostly to control constant invasions from all borders of Iran:

1) The northwestern Kust was called "Aturpātagān" (Fire-keeper) and was one of the most active fronts, in both religious practice and military maneuvers. This was where most of the resources to hold back Roman and Byzantine invasions were centered and where assaults were planned. Media (Kurdistan and Central Iran), Assyria, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Hyrcania, and the Caspian shores were the major lands in this Kust.

2) The northeastern Kust was called "Xurāsān" (Sunrise), a vast land which reached the Himalayas in the east, included the central Iranian deserts in the west and at times occupied parts of Kazakhstan in the north. In its northern fronts, Sakas, Huns, Hephtalites, Turks and several other nomadic people launched constant raids and were repelled by local Marzpāns. Due to its far reaches and lose control of the central government, this land housed many minorities which were otherwise prosecuted by the Zoroastrian priests. Economic prosperity of this land was guaranteed through trade routes which connected Rome, Persia and China.

3) The southeastern Kūst was called "Nimruz" (Mid-day), a land which consisted of Sistan, Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. Little is known about the history of these parts of the empire, where Sassanids had a friendly relation with the empires of India.

4) The southwestern part was called "Xurvarān" (west), where the Sassanid royalty originated and the heart of the Empire was located. The lands of Persia, Yazd, Khuzistan, Arabia, Iraq and the shores of Persian Gulf were parts of this Kust. This was a generally prosperous and secure land, despite occasional raids by Arab nomads. The reason behind the swift fall of the Sassanid Empire lies in this sense of security and unpreparedness: unlike lands such as Xurasan and Aturpatagan there were no major forts or military camps to protect the heart of the empire from extended military operations, such as those carried out by Muslims.

In case of emergency, the armies of these four Kusts operated under Iran-spahbods, great generals of the Sassanid empire.

But that's after Khosrau's reforms. Before that it was a cluster**** of estates held by the seven houses. But the houses were really fond of internal strife. Given how often civil war broke out in Persia, they got plenty a chance to get at each other's throats.

Lord_of_Gauda said:

This map is dubious, as not only does it depict the Sassanid Empire at its peak conquest (for 20 of 400+ years), it is also inaccurate: The Sassanids border with India was more or less the Indus River for most of its existence: Sindh was a nominal vassal of the Sassanids from late 500s to early 600s CE. Gujarat and western India were never under Sassanid influence.

Click to expand...

Ah, thanks Gauda.

Darth Roach said:

But that's after Khosrau's reforms. Before that it was a cluster**** of estates held by the seven houses. But the houses were really fond of internal strife. Given how often civil war broke out in Persia, they got plenty a chance to get at each other's throats.

Click to expand...

Not it's not. Khusraws reforms were mostly concerned with creating the Dehghan class of minor rulers and creating a system of law where peasants could appeal for justice. In the military aspects, Khusraw sought to create a professional full-time army and tried to integrate the armies raised in the four Kusts into a single entity.

Margraves and the system of Kusts were present at least since the Hephtalite invasions of the Sassanid empire, which marks the middle period of the Sassanid rule.

Lord_of_Gauda said:

This map is dubious, as not only does it depict the Sassanid Empire at its peak conquest (for 20 of 400+ years), it is also inaccurate: The Sassanids border with India was more or less the Indus River for most of its existence: Sindh was a nominal vassal of the Sassanids from late 500s to early 600s CE. Gujarat and western India were never under Sassanid influence.

Click to expand...

The point is that which names were in use by the Sassanids for those lands. I have read several middle persian texts and the Sassanids had no doubt that those lands where rightfully theirs. Besides, you never see the popular maps of the Roman empire without Egypt, Syria and Armenia, although their control was intermittent in those areas.

The point is, when you look at the Roman Empire you think of "us" and when you talk about the Persian Empire it is always "them". So you would favor minimal territories for your enemy.

hazratemahmood said:

Not it's not. Khusraws reforms were mostly concerned with creating the Dehghan class of minor rulers and creating a system of law where peasants could appeal for justice. In the military aspects, Khusraw sought to create a professional full-time army and tried to integrate the armies raised in the four Kusts into a single entity.

Margraves and the system of Kusts were present at least since the Hephtalite invasions of the Sassanid empire, which marks the middle period of the Sassanid rule.

Click to expand...

No, it was Khusro who divided the empire into 4 districts, each with its own spahbod. Before that there were nominally some 20 satrapies. As for the dehgans, it was rather replacement of the retinue-based army with a knightly levy one.

Before Khusro the army was based around the azatan and their personal retainers (who were more or less full time soldiers, always serving their master). Khusro gave every single cavalryman a patch of land and made them serve the king rather a regional lord.

hazratemahmood said:

The point is that which names were in use by the Sassanids for those lands. I have read several middle persian texts and the Sassanids had no doubt that those lands where rightfully theirs. Besides, you never see the popular maps of the Roman empire without Egypt, Syria and Armenia, although their control was intermittent in those areas.

The point is, when you look at the Roman Empire you think of "us" and when you talk about the Persian Empire it is always "them". So you would favor minimal territories for your enemy.

Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is that the Sassanids never controlled most of the extreme eastern reaches of the empire.

It is known that th Romans controlled Egypt and Syria for the overwhelming majority of their existence (briefly losing control) and their direct control of Armenia, though intermittent, lasted centuries ( where for centuries, Armenia would swing between direct Persian and direct Roman/Byzantine control or be partitioned between the two).

The Sassanid Empire existed between 224-651 CE.

During that time:

a) All lands directly east of the Indus were controlled by:
i) Western Kshatraps ( till early 400s CE) for the region of Gujarat, southern Rajasthan and North-western Maharastra, followed by the Gupta Empire till late 480s CE, when these lands came under Hepthalite control. Following the ouster of the Hepthalites, these lands came under control of Harshavardhana ( his rule coincides with the last 30 years of the Sassanid Empire). These abovementioned entities were completely independent and at the very least, may've been friendly towards the Sassanids but most categorically not its vassals or subjugates.

ii) The land of Punjab came under the Gupta influence circa 280s CE and remained under Gupta control till the Hepthalite attacks, circa 480s CE. Following the Hepthalites, who maintained control between the Sutlej and Indus till 550s CE, the area came under Harshavardhana's influence. Again, the land east of Indus, at best, under any nominal Sassanid supervision between the defeat of the Kushans (circa 240s CE) and the rise of Chandragupta I of the Gupta Empire (circa 280 CE), following which, the land east of Indus (in the Punjab region) remains bereft of Sassanid influence.

iii) Sindh was under the control of the Kushans till 240s CE, following which, it comes under brief control of the Western Kshatrapas, following which, they are a part of the Gupta Empire till 480s CE. Directly after then, the Rai Dynasty rules from 490s CE onwards to 650s CE, with them being the vassals of Sassanids roughly from 570s CE to 630s CE.

My point is, the eastern frontier of that map, much like most of the frontiers of that map, depicts the Sassanid Empire at its maximum extent and is also anachronious: that map is a map of all lands ever controlled by Sassanids (and in the case of Gujarat, Rajasthan and eastern punjab, never), not all territorry within Sassanid Empire at any given time.

And lastly, i do not really consider any empiric map to be accurate if it potrays the maximal extent of an empire for a short period of its existence. Similarly, I do not consider Tibet to be a part of Tang Empire, even though they did rule Tibet briefly. I also do not consider Iraq to be a part of the Roman Empire, even though they conquered it a few times and ruled it briefly.

Although you do find a plenty of maps that show Rome ruling the Caucasus and Mesopotamia.