THE SEVEN GREAT MONARCHIES

OF THE

ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD;

OR, THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALDAEA, ASSYRIA

BABYLON, MEDIA, PERSIA, PARTHIA, AND SASSANIAN, OR NEW PERSIAN EMPIRE. 

BY

GEORGE RAWLINSON, M. A. , CAMDEN PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

IN THREE VOLUMES. 

VOLUME III. 

WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

THE SEVENTH MONARCHY

HISTORY OF THE SASSANIAN OR NEW PERSIAN EMPIRE. 

[Illustration: MAP]

CHAPTER I. 

_Condition of the Persians under the Successors of Alexander--underthe Arsacidce. Favor shown them by the latter--allowed to have Kingsof their own. Their Religion at first held in honor. Power of theirPriests. Gradual Change of Policy on the part of the Parthian Monarchs, and final Oppression of the Magi. Causes which produced the Insurrectionof Artaxerxes. _

"The Parthians had been barbarians; they had ruled over a nationfar more civilized than themselves, and had oppressed them and theirreligion. "

Niebuhr, Lectures on Roman History, vol. Iii. P. 270. 

When the great Empire of the Persians, founded by Cyrus, collapsed underthe attack of Alexander the Great, the dominant race of Western Asia didnot feel itself at the first reduced to an intolerable condition. Itwas the benevolent design of Alexander to fuse into one the two leadingpeoples of Europe and Asia, and to establish himself at the head of aPerso-Hellenic State, the capital of which was to have been Babylon. Hadthis idea been carried out, the Persians would, it is evident, have lostbut little by their subjugation. Placed on a par with the Greeks, unitedwith them in marriage bonds, and equally favored by their common ruler, they could scarcely have uttered a murmur, or have been seriouslydiscontented with their position. But when the successors of the greatMacedonian, unable to rise to the height of his grand conception, tooklower ground, and, giving up the idea of a fusion, fell back uponthe ordinary status, and proceeded to enact the ordinary role, ofconquerors, the feelings of the late lords of Asia, the countrymen ofCyrus and Darius, must have undergone a complete change. It had been theintention of Alexander to conciliate and elevate the leading Asiaticsby uniting them with the Macedonians and the Greeks, by promoting socialintercourse between the two classes of his subjects and encouraging themto intermarry, by opening his court to Asiatics, by educating then inGreek ideas and in Greek schools, by promoting them to high employments, and making them feel that they were as much valued and as well cared foras the people of the conquering race: it was the plan of the Seleucidaeto govern wholly by means of European officials, Greek or Macedonian, and to regard and treat the entire mass of their Asiatic subjects asmere slaves. Alexander had placed Persian satraps over most of theprovinces, attaching to them Greek or Macedonian commandants as checks. Seloucus divided his empire into seventy-two satrapies; but among hissatraps not one was an Asiatic--all were either Macedonians or Greeks. Asiatics, indeed, formed the bulk of his standing army, and so far wereadmitted to employment; they might also, no doubt, be tax-gatherers, couriers, scribes, constables, and officials of that mean stamp; butthey were as carefully excluded from all honorable and lucrative officesas the natives of Hindustan under the rule of the East India Company. The standing army of the Seleucidae was wholly officered, just as wasthat of our own Sepoys, by Europeans; Europeans thronged the court, and filled every important post under the government. There cannot bea doubt that such a high-spirited and indeed arrogant people as thePersians must have fretted and chafed under this treatment, and havedetested the nation and dynasty which had thrust them down from theirpre-eminence and converted them from masters into slaves. It wouldscarcely much tend to mitigate the painfulness of their feelings thatthey could not but confess their conquerors to be a civilizedpeople--as civilized, perhaps more civilized than themselves--since thecivilization was of a type and character which did not please themor command their approval. There is an essential antagonism betweenEuropean and Asiatic ideas and modes of thought, such as seeminglyto preclude the possibility of Asiatics appreciating a Europeancivilization. The Persians must have felt towards the Greco-Macedoniansmuch as the Mohammedans of India feel towards ourselves--they may havefeared and even respected them--but they must have very bitterly hatedthem. Nor was the rule of the Seleucidae such as to overcome by itsjustice or its wisdom the original antipathy of the dispossessed lordsof Asia towards those by whom they had been ousted. The satrapialsystem, which these monarchs lazily adopted from their predecessors, the Achaemenians, is one always open to great abuses, and needs thestrictest superintendence and supervision. There is no reason to believethat any sufficient watch was kept over their satraps by theSeleucid kings, or even any system of checks established, such asthe Achaemenidae had, at least in theory, set up and maintained. TheGreco-Macedonian governors of provinces seem to have been left tothemselves almost entirely, and to have been only controlled in theexercise of their authority by their own notions of what was right orexpedient. Under these circumstances, abuses were sure to creep in; andit is not improbable that gross outrages were sometimes perpetrated bythose in power--outrages calculated to make the blood of a nation boil, and to produce a keen longing for vengeance. We have no direct evidencethat the Persians of the time did actually suffer from such a misuse ofsatrapial authority; but it is unlikely that they entirely escaped themiseries which are incidental to the system in question. Public opinionascribed the grossest acts of tyranny and oppression to some of theSeleucid satraps; probably the Persians were not exempt from the commonlot of the subject races. 

Moreover, the Seleucid monarchs themselves were occasionally guilty ofacts of tyranny, which must have intensified the dislike wherewiththey were regarded by their Asiatic subjects. The reckless conductof Antiochus Epiphanes towards the Jews is well known; but it is notperhaps generally recognized that intolerance and impious cupidityformed a portion of the system on which he governed. There seems, however, to be good reason to believe that, having exhausted histreasury by his wars and his extravagances, Epiphanes formed a generaldesign of recruiting it by means of the plunder of his subjects. Thetemples of the Asiatics had hitherto been for the most part respected bytheir European conquerors, and large stores of the precious metalswere accumulated in them. Epiphanes saw in these hoards the means ofrelieving his own necessities, and determined to seize and confiscatethem. Besides plundering the Temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem, he made ajourney into the southeastern portion of his empire, about B. C. 165, forthe express purpose of conducting in person the collection of the sacredtreasures. It was while he was engaged in this unpopular work that aspirit of disaffection showed itself; the East took arms no less thanthe West; and in Persia, or upon its borders, the avaricious monarch wasforced to retire before the opposition which his ill-judged measures hadprovoked, and to allow one of the doomed temples to escape him. When hesoon afterwards sickened and died, the natives of this part of Asia sawin his death a judgment upon him for his attempted sacrilege. 

It was within twenty years of this unfortunate attempt that the dominionof the Seleucidae over Persia and the adjacent countries came to an end. The Parthian Empire had for nearly a century been gradually growing inpower and extending itself at the expense of the Syro-Macedonian; and, about B. C. 163, an energetic prince, Mithridates I. , commenced a seriesof conquests towards the West, which terminated (about B. C. 150) inthe transference from the Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of MediaMagna, Susiana, Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seemthat the Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the newconqueror. The Seleucidae had not tried to conciliate their attachment, and it was impossible that they should dislike the rupture of ties whichhad only galled hitherto. Perhaps their feeling, in prospect of thechange, was one of simple indifference. Perhaps it was not without somestir of satisfaction and complacency that they saw the pride of thehated Europeans abased, and a race, which, however much it might differfrom their own, was at least Asiatic, installed in power. The Parthiasystem, moreover, was one which allowed greater liberty to the subjectraces than the Macedonian, as it had been understood and carried out bythe Seleucidae; and so far some real gain was to be expected from thechange. Religious motives must also have conspired to make the Persianssympathize with the new power, rather than with that which for centurieshad despised their faith and had recently insulted it. 

The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian lords seems, on thewhole, to have been marked by moderation. Mithridates indeed, theoriginal conqueror, is accused of having alienated his new subjects bythe harshness of his rule; and in the struggle which occurred betweenhim and the Seleucid king, Demetrius II. , Persians, as well asElymseans and Bactrians, are said to have fought on the side of theSyro-Macedonian. But this is the only occasion in Parthian history, between the submission of Persia and the great revolt under Artaxerxes, where there is any appearance of the Persians regarding their masterswith hostile feelings. In general they show themselves submissive andcontented with their position, which was certainly, on the whole, a lessirksome one than they had occupied under the Seleucidae. 

It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to allow thesubject peoples, to a large extent, to govern themselves. These peoplesgenerally, and notably the Persians, were ruled by native kings, whosucceeded to the throne by hereditary right, had the full power of lifeand death, and ruled very much as they pleased, so long as they paidregularly the tribute imposed upon them by the "King of Kings, " and senthim a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a militaryexpedition. Such a system implies that the conquered peoples havethe enjoyment of their own laws and institutions, are exempt fromtroublesome interference, and possess a sort of semi-independence. Oriental nations, having once assumed this position, are usuallycontented with it, and rarely make any effort to better themselves. Itwould seem that, thus far at any rate, the Persians could not complainof the Parthian rule, but must have been fairly satisfied with theircondition. 

Again, the Greco-Macedonians had tolerated, but they had not viewed withmuch respect, the religion which they had found established in Persia. Alexander, indeed, with the enlightened curiosity which characterisedhim, had made inquiries concerning, the tenets of the Magi, andendeavored to collect in one the writings of Zoroaster. But thelater monarchs, and still more their subjects, had held the systemin contempt, and, as we have seen, Epiphanes had openly insulted thereligious feelings of his Asiatic subjects. The Parthians, on the otherhand, began at any rate with a treatment of the Persian religion whichwas respectful and gratifying. Though perhaps at no time very sincereZoroastrians, they had conformed to the State religion under theAchaemenian kings; and when the period came that they had themselves toestablish a system of government, they gave to the Magian hierarchya distinct and important place in their governmental machinery. Thecouncil, which advised the monarch, and which helped to elect and (ifneed were) depose him, was composed of two elements---the _Sophi_, or wise men, who were civilians; and the _Magi_, or priests of theZoroastrian religion. The Magi had thus an important political status inParthia, during the early period of the Empire; but they seem graduallyto have declined in favor, and ultimately to have fallen into disrepute. The Zoroastrian creed was, little by little, superseded among theParthians by a complex idolatry, which, beginning with an image-worshipof the Sun and Moon, proceeded to an association with those deities ofthe deceased kings of the nation, and finally added to both a worshipof ancestral idols, which formed the most cherished possession of eachfamily, and practically monopolized the religious sentiment. All the oldZoroastrian practices were by degrees laid aside. In Armenia the Arsacidmonarchs allowed the sacred fire of Ormazd to become extinguished; andin their own territories the Parthian Arsacidae introduced the practice, hateful to Zoroastrians, of burning the dead. The ultimate religion ofthese monarchs seems in fact to have been a syncretism wherein Sabaism, Confucianism, Greco-Macedonian notions, and an inveterate primitiveidolatry were mixed together. It is not impossible that the very namesof Ormazd and Ahriman had ceased to be known at the Parthian Court, orwere regarded as those of exploded deities, whose dominion over men'sminds had passed away. 

On the other hand, in Persia itself, and to some extent doubtless amongthe neighboring countries, Zoroastrianism (or what went by the name)had a firm hold on the religious sentiments of the multitude, who viewedwith disfavor the tolerant and eclectic spirit which animated the Courtof Ctesiphon. The perpetual fire, kindled, as it was, from heaven, wascarefully tended and preserved on the fire-altars of the Persian holyplaces; the Magian hierarchy was held in the highest repute, the kingsthemselves (as it would seem) not disdaining to be Magi; the ideas--evenperhaps the forms--of Ormazd and Ahriman were familiar to all;image-worship was abhorred the sacred writings in the Zend or mostancient Iranian language were diligently preserved and multiplied; apompous ritual was kept up; the old national religion, the religion ofthe Achaemenians, of the glorious period of Persian ascendency in Asia, was with the utmost strictness maintained, probably the more zealouslyas it fell more and more into disfavor with the Parthians. 

The consequence of this divergence of religious opinion between thePersians and their feudal lords must undoubtedly have been a certainamount of alienation and discontent. The Persian Magi must have beenespecially dissatisfied with the position of their brethren at Court;and they would doubtless use their influence to arouse the indignationof their countrymen generally. But it is scarcely probable that thiscause alone would have produced any striking result. Religious sympathyrarely leads men to engage in important wars, unless it has the supportof other concurrent motives. To account for the revolt of the Persiansagainst their Parthian lords under Artaxerxes, something more is neededthan the consideration of the religious differences which separated thetwo peoples. 

First, then, it should be borne in mind that the Parthian rule must havebeen from the beginning distasteful to the Persians, owing to the rudeand coarse character of the people. At the moment of Mithridates'ssuccesses, the Persians might experience a sentiment of satisfactionthat the European invader was at last thrust back, and that Asia hadre-asserted herself; but a very little experience of Parthian rule wassufficient to call forth different feelings. There can be no doubt thatthe Parthians, whether they were actually Turanians or no, were, incomparison with the Persians, unpolished and uncivilized. They showedtheir own sense of this inferiority by an affectation of Persianmanners. But this affectation was not very successful. It is evidentthat in art, in architecture, in manners, in habits of life, theParthian race reached only a low standard; they stood to their Hellenicand Iranian subjects in much the same relation that the Turks of thepresent day stand to the modern Greeks; they made themselves respectedby their strength and their talent for organization; but in all thatadorns and beautifies life they were deficient. The Persians must, during the whole time of their subjection to Parthia, have been sensibleof a feeling of shame at the want of refinement and of a high type ofcivilization in their masters. 

Again, the later sovereigns of the Arsacid dynasty were for the mostpart of weak and contemptible character. From the time of VolagasesI. To that of Artabanus IV. , the last king, the military reputationof Parthia had declined. Foreign enemies ravaged the territoriesof Parthian vassal kings, and retired when they chose, unpunished. Provinces revolted and established their independence. Rome wasentreated to lend assistance to her distressed and afflicted rival, andmet the entreaties with a refusal. In the wars which still from timeto time were waged between the two empires Parthia was almost uniformlyworsted. Three times her capital was occupied, and once her monarch'ssummer palace was burned. Province after province had to be ceded toRome. The golden throne which symbolized her glory and magnificence wascarried off. Meanwhile feuds raged between the different branches ofthe Arsacid family; civil wars were frequent; two or three monarchs at atime claimed the throne, or actually ruled in different portions of theEmpire. It is not surprising that under these circumstances the bondswere loosened between Parthia and her vassal kingdoms, or that thePersian tributary monarchs began to despise their suzerains, and tocontemplate without alarm the prospect of a rebellion which should placethem in an independent position. 

While the general weakness of the Arsacid monarchs was thus a causenaturally leading to a renunciation of their allegiance on the part ofthe Persians, a special influence upon the decision taken by Artaxerxesis probably to be assigned to one, in particular, of the results of thatweakness. When provinces long subject to Parthian rule revolted, andrevolted successfully, as seems to have been the case with Hyrcania, andpartially with Bactria, Persia could scarcely for very shame continuesubmissive. Of all the races subject to Parthia, the Persians were theone which had held the most brilliant position in the past, and whichretained the liveliest remembrance of its ancient glories. This isevidenced not only by the grand claims which Artaxorxes put forwardin his early negotiations with the Romans, but by the whole course ofPersian literature, which has fundamentally an historic character, andexhibits the people as attached, almost more than any other Orientalnation, to the memory of its great men and of their noble achievements. The countrymen of Cyrus, of Darius, of Xerxes, of Ochus, of theconquerors of Media, Bactria, Babylon, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, of theinvaders of Scythia and Greece, aware that they had once borne swayover the whole region between Tunis and the Indian Desert, between theCaucasus and the Cataracts, when they saw a petty mountain clan, likethe Hyrcanians, establish and maintain their independence despite theefforts of Parthia to coerce them, could not very well remain quiet. Ifso weak and small a race could defy the power of the Arsacid monarchs, much more might the far more numerous and at least equally courageousPersians expect to succeed, if they made a resolute attempt to recovertheir freedom. 

It is probable that Artaxerxes, in his capacity of vassal, servedpersonally in the army with which the Parthian monarch Artabanus carriedon the struggle against Rome, and thus acquired the power of estimatingcorrectly the military strength still possessed by the Arsacidae, and ofmeasuring it against that which he knew to belong to his nation. Itis not unlikely that he formed his plans during the earlier period ofArtabanus's reign, when that monarch allowed himself to be imposed uponby Caracallus, and suffered calamities and indignities in consequenceof his folly. When the Parthian monarch atoned for his indiscretionand wiped out the memory of his disgraces by the brilliant victory ofNisibis and the glorious peace which he made with Macrinus, Artaxerxesmay have found that he had gone too far to recede; or, undazzled by thesplendor of these successes, he may still have judged that he mightwith prudence persevere in his enterprise. Artabanus had suffered greatlosses in his two campaigns against Rome, and especially in the threedays' battle of Nisibis. He was at variance with several princes of hisfamily, one of whom certainly maintained himself during his whole reignwith the State and title of "King of Parthia. " Though he had foughtwell at Nisibis, he had not given any indications of remarkable militarytalent. Artaxerxes, having taken the measure of his antagonist duringthe course of the Roman war, having estimated his resources and formeda decided opinion on the relative strength of Persia and Parthia, deliberately resolved, a few years after the Roman war had come to anend, to revolt and accept the consequences. He was no doubt convincedthat his nation would throw itself enthusiastically into the struggle, and he believed that he could conduct it to a successful issue. He felthimself the champion of a depressed, if not an oppressed, nationality, and had faith in his power to raise it into a lofty position. Iran, at any rate, should no longer, he resolved, submit patiently to be theslave of Turan; the keen, intelligent, art-loving Aryan people should nolonger bear submissively the yoke of the rude, coarse, clumsy Scyths. Aneffort after freedom should be made. He had little doubt of the result. The Persians, by the strength of their own right arms and the blessingof Ahuramazda, the "All-bounteous, " would triumph over their impiousmasters, and become once more a great and independent people. At theworst, if he had miscalculated, there would be the alternative ofa glorious death upon the battle-field in one of the noblest of allcauses, the assertion of a nation's freedom. 

CHAPTER II. 

_Situation and Size of Persia. General Character of the Country andClimate. Chief Products. Characteristics of the Persian People, physicaland moral. Differences observable in the Race at different periods. _

Persia Proper was a tract of country lying on the Gulf to which it hasgiven name, and extending about 450 miles from north-west to south-east, with an average breadth of about 250 miles. Its entire area may beestimated at about a hundred thousand square miles. It was thus largerthan Great Britain, about the size of Italy, and rather less than halfthe size of France. The boundaries were, on the west, Elymais or Susiana(which, however, was sometimes reckoned a part of Persia); on the north, Media; on the east, Carmania; and on the south, the sea. It is nearlyrepresented in modern times by the two Persian provinces of Farsistanand Laristan, the former of which retains, but slightly changed, theancient appellation. The Hindyan or Tab (ancient Oroatis) seems towardsits mouth to have formed the western limit. Eastward, Persia extendedto about the site of the modern Bunder Kongo. Inland, the northernboundary ran probably a little south of the thirty-second parallel, fromlong. 50° to 55°. The line dividing Persia Proper from Carmania (nowKerman) was somewhat uncertain. 

The character of the tract is extremely diversified. Ancient writersdivided the country into three strongly contrasted regions. The first, or coast tract, was (they said) a sandy desert, producing nothing but afew dates, owing to the intensity of the heat. Above this was a fertileregion, grassy, with well-watered meadows and numerous vineyards, enjoying a delicious climate, producing almost every fruit but theolive, containing pleasant parks or "paradises, " watered by a numberof limpid streams and clear lakes, well wooded in places, affording anexcellent pasture for horses and for all sorts of cattle, aboundingin water-fowl and game of every kind, and altogether a most delightfulabode. Beyond this fertile region, towards the north, was a ruggedmountain tract, cold and mostly covered with snow, of which they did notprofess to know much. 

In this description there is no doubt a certain amount of truth; but itis mixed probably with a good deal of exaggeration. There is no reasonto believe that the climate or character of the country has undergoneany important alteration between the time of Nearchus or Strabo and thepresent day. At present it is certain that the tract in question answersbut very incompletely to the description which those writers give of it. Three regions may indeed be distinguished, though the natives seem nowto speak of only two; but none of them corresponds at all exactly to theaccounts of the Greeks. The coast tract is represented with the nearestapproach to correctness. This is, in fact, a region of arid plain, oftenimpregnated with salt, ill-watered, with a poor soil, consisting eitherof sand or clay, and productive of little besides dates and a fewother fruits. A modern historian says of it that "it bears a greaterresemblance in soil and climate to Arabia than to the rest of Persia. "It is very hot and unhealthy, and can at no time have supported morethan a sparse and scanty population. Above this, towards the north, isthe best and most fertile portion of the territory. A mountain tract, the continuation of Zagros, succeeds to the flat and sandy coast region, occupying the greater portion of Persia Proper. It is about two hundredmiles in width, and consists of an alternation of mountain, plain, and narrow valley, curiously intermixed, and hitherto mapped veryimperfectly. In places this district answers fully to the descriptionof Nearchus, being, "richly fertile, picturesque, and romantic almostbeyond imagination, with lovely wooded dells, green mountain sides, andbroad plains, suited for the production of almost any crops. " But it isonly to the smaller moiety of the region that such a character attaches;more than half the mountain tract is sterile and barren; the supply ofwater is almost everywhere scanty; the rivers are few, and have not muchvolume; many of them, after short courses, end in the sand, or in smallsalt lakes, from which the superfluous water is evaporated. Much of thecountry is absolutely without streams, and would be uninhabitable wereit not for the _kanats_ or _kareezes_--subterranean channels made by artfor the conveyance of spring water to be used in irrigation. Themost desolate portion of the mountain tract is towards the north andnorth-east, where it adjoins upon the third region, which is the worstof the three. This is a portion of the high tableland of Iran, the greatdesert which stretches from the eastern skirts of Zagros to the Hamoon, the Helmend, and the river of Subzawur. It is a dry and hard plain, intersected at intervals by ranges of rocky hills, with a climateextremely hot in summer and extremely cold in winter, incapable ofcultivation, excepting so far as water can be conveyed by _kanats_, which is, of course, only a short distance. The fox, the jackal, theantelope, and the wild ass possess this sterile and desolate tract, where "all is dry and cheerless, " and verdure is almost unknown. 

Perhaps the two most peculiar districts of. Persia are the lake basinsof Neyriz and Deriah-i-Nemek. The rivers given off from the northernside of the great mountain chain between the twenty-ninth andthirty-first parallels, being unable to penetrate the mountains, floweastward towards the desert; and their waters gradually collect into twostreams, which end in two lakes, the Deriah-i-Nemek and that of Neyriz, or Lake Bakhtigan. The basin of Lake Neyriz lies towards the north. Herethe famous Bendamir, and the Pulwar or Kur-ab, flowing respectively fromthe north-east and the north, unite in one near the ruins of the ancientPersepolis, and, after fertilizing the plain of Merdasht, run eastwarddown a rich vale for a distance of some forty miles into the salt lakewhich swallows them up. This lake, when full, has a length of fifty orsixty miles, with a breadth of from three to six. In summer, however, it is often quite dry, the water of the Bendamir being expended inirrigation before reaching its natural terminus. The valley and plain ofthe Bendamir, and its tributaries, are among the most fertile portionsof Persia, as well as among those of most historic interest. 

The basin of the Deriah-i-Nemek is smaller than that of the Neyriz, butit is even more productive. Numerous brooks and streams, rising not farfrom Shiraz, run on all sides into the Nemek lake, which has a lengthof about fifteen and a breadth of three or three and a half miles. Amongthe streams is the celebrated brook of Hafiz, the Rocknabad, which stillretains "its singular transparency and softness to the taste. " Otherrills and fountains of extreme clearness abound, and a verdure is theresult, very unusual in Persia. The vines grown in the basin producethe famous Shiraz wine, the only good wine which is manufactured in theEast. The orchards are magnificent. In the autumn "the earth is coveredwith the gathered harvest, flowers, and fruits; melons, peaches, pears, nectarines, cherries, grapes, pomegranates; all is a garden, abundant insweets and refreshment. "

But, notwithstanding the exceptional fertility of the Shiraz plainand of a few other places, Persia Proper seems to have been rightlycharacterized in ancient times as "a scant land and a rugged. " Its areawas less than a fifth of the area of modern Persia; and of this spacenearly one half was uninhabitable, consisting either of barren stonymountain or of scorching sandy plain, ill supplied with water and oftenimpregnated with salt. Its products, consequently, can have been at notime either very abundant or very varied. Anciently, the low coast tractseems to have been cultivated to a small extent in corn, and to haveproduced good dates and a few other fruits. The mountain region was, aswe have seen, celebrated for its excellent pastures, for its abundantfruits, and especially for its grapes. Within the mountains, on thehigh plateau, assafoetida (silphium) was found, and probably some othermedicinal herbs. Corn, no doubt, could be grown largely in the plainsand valleys of the mountain tract, as well as on the plateau, so far asthe _kanats_ carried the water. There must have been, on the whole, adeficiency of timber, though the palms of the low tract, and the oaks, planes, chenars or sycamores, poplars, and willows of the mountainregions sufficed for the wants of the natives. Not much fuel wasrequired, and stone was the general material used for building. Amongthe fruits for which Persia was famous are especially noted the peach, the walnut, and the citron. The walnut bore among the Romans theappellation of "royal. "

Persia, like Media, was a good nursery for horses. Fine grazing groundsexisted in many parts of the mountain region, and for horses of the Arabbreed even the Deshtistan was not unsuited. Camels were reared in someplaces, and sheep and goats were numerous. Horned cattle were probablynot so abundant, as the character of the country is not favorablefor them. Game existed in large quantities, the lakes abounding withwater-fowl, such as ducks, teal, heron, snipe, etc. ; and the woodedportions of the mountain tract giving shelter to the stag, the wildgoat, the wild boar, the hare, the pheasant, and the heathcock, fishwere also plentiful. Whales visited the Persian Gulf, and were sometimesstranded upon the shores, where their carcases furnished a mine ofwealth to the inhabitants. Dolphins abounded, as well as many smallerkinds; and shell-fish, particularly oysters, could always be obtainedwithout difficulty. The rivers, too, were capable of furnishingfresh-water fish in good quantity, though we cannot say if this sourceof supply was utilized in antiquity. 

The mineral treasures of Persia were fairly numerous. Good salt wasyielded by the lakes of the middle region, and was also obtainable uponthe plateau. Bitumen and naphtha were produced by sources in the lowcountry. The mountains contained most of the important metals and acertain number of valuable gems. The pearls of the Gulf acquired early agreat reputation, and a regular fishery was established for them beforethe time of Alexander. 

But the most celebrated of all the products of Persia were its men. The"scant and rugged country" gave birth, as Cyrus the Great is said tohave observed, to a race brave, hardy, and enduring, calculated notonly to hold its own against aggressors, but to extend its sway andexercise dominion over the Western Asiatics generally. The Aryanfamily is the one which, of all the races of mankind, is the mostself-asserting, and has the greatest strength, physical, moral, andintellectual. The Iranian branch of it, whereto the Persians belonged, is not perhaps so gifted as some others; but it has qualities whichplace it above most of those by which Western Asia was ancientlypeopled. In the primitive times, from Cyrus the Great to DariusHystaspis, the Persians seem to have been rude mountaineers, probablynot very unlike the modern Kurds and Lurs, who inhabit portions ofthe same chain which forms the heart of the Persian country. Theirphysiognomy was handsome. A high straight forehead, a long slightlyaquiline nose, a short and curved upper lip, a well-rounded chin, characterized the Persian. The expression of his face was grave andnoble. He had abundant hair, which he wore very artificially arranged. Above and round the brow it was made to stand away from the face inshort crisp curls; on the top of the head it was worn smooth; at theback of the head it was again trained into curls, which followed eachother in several rows from the level of the forehead to the nape of theneck. The moustache was always cultivated, and curved in a gentle sweep. A beard and whiskers were worn, the former sometimes long and pendent, like the Assyrian, but more often clustering around the chin in shortclose curls. The figure was well-formed, but somewhat stout; thecarriage was dignified and simple. [PLATE XI, Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 11. ]

Simplicity of manners prevailed during this period. At the court therewas some luxury; but the bulk of the nation, living in their mountainterritory, and attached to agriculture and hunting, maintained thehabits of their ancestors, and were a somewhat rude though not a coarsepeople. The dress commonly worn was a close-fitting shirt or tunic ofleather, descending to the knee, and with sleeves that reached down tothe wrist. Round the tunic was worn a belt or sash, which was tied infront. The head was protected by a loose felt cap and the feet by a sortof high shoe or low boot. The ordinary diet was bread and cress-seed, while the sole beverage was water. In the higher ranks, of course, adifferent style of living prevailed; the elegant and flowing "Medianrobe" was worn; flesh of various kinds was eaten; much wine wasconsumed; and meals were extended to a great length; The Persians, however, maintained during this period a general hardihood and braverywhich made them the most dreaded adversaries of the Greeks, and enabledthem to maintain an unquestioned dominion over the other native races ofWestern Asia. 

As time went on, and their monarchs became less warlike, and wealthaccumulated, and national spirit decayed, the Persian character bydegrees deteriorated, and sank, even under the Achaemenian kings, toa level not much superior to that of the ordinary Asiatic. The Persianantagonists of Alexander were pretty nearly upon a par with the raceswhich in Hindustan have yielded to the British power; they occasionallyfought with gallantry, but they were deficient in resolution, inendurance, in all the elements of solid strength; and they werequite unable to stand their ground against the vigor and dash of theMacedonians and the Greeks. Whether physically they were very differentfrom the soldiers of Cyrus may be doubted, but morally they had fallenfar below the ancient standard; their self-respect their love ofcountry, their attachment to their monarch had diminished; no one showedany great devotion to the cause for which he fought; after two defeatsthe empire wholly collapsed; and the Persians submitted, apparentlywithout much reluctance, to the Helleno-Macedonian yoke. 

Five centuries and a half of servitude could not much improve or elevatethe character of the people. Their fall from power, their loss of wealthand of dominion did indeed advantage them in one way: it but an end tothat continually advancing sloth and luxury which had sapped the virtueof the nation, depriving it of energy, endurance, and almost every manlyexcellence. It dashed the Persians back upon the ground whence they hadsprung, and whence, Antseus-like, they proceeded to derive fresh vigorand vital force. In their "scant and rugged" fatherland, the people ofCyrus once more recovered to a great extent their ancient prowess andhardihood--their habits became simplified, their old patriotism revived, their self-respect grew greater. But while adversity thus in somerespects proved its "sweet uses" upon them, there were other respectsin which submission to the yoke of the Greeks, and still more to that ofthe Parthians, seems to have altered them for the worse rather thanfor the better. There is a coarseness and rudeness about the SassanianPersians which we do not observe in Achaemenian times. The physique ofthe nation is not indeed much altered. Nearly the same countenance meetsus in the sculptures of Artaxerxes, the son of Babek, of Sapor, and oftheir successors, with which we are familiar from the bas-reliefs ofDarius Hystapis and Xerxes. There is the same straight forehead, thesame aquiline nose, the same well-shaped mouth, the same abundant hair. The form is, however, coarser and clumsier; the expression is lessrefined; and the general effect produced is that the people have, evenphysically, deteriorated. The mental and aesthetic standard seems stillmore to have sunk. There is no evidence that the Persians of Sassaniantimes possessed the governmental and administrative ability of DariusHystapis or Artaxerxes Ochus. Their art, though remarkable, consideringthe almost entire disappearance of art from Western Asia under theParthians, is, compared with that of Achaemenian times, rude andgrotesque. In architecture, indeed, they are not without merit thougheven here the extent to which they were indebted to the Parthians, whichcannot be exactly determined, must lessen our estimation of them; buttheir mimetic art, while not wanting in spirit, is remarkably coarse andunrefined. As a later chapter will be devoted to this subject, no moreneed be said upon it here. It is sufficient for our present purpose tonote that the impression which we obtain from the monumental remains ofthe Sassanian Persians accords with what is to be gathered of them fromthe accounts of the Romans and the Greeks. The great Asiatic revolutionof the year A. D. 226 marks a revival of the Iranic nationality from thedepressed state into which it had sunk for more than five hundred years;but the revival is not full or complete. The Persians of the Sassaniankingdom are not equal to those of the time between Cyrus the Greatand Darius Codomannus; they have ruder manners, a grosser taste, lesscapacity for government and organization; they have, in fact, beencoarsened by centuries of Tartar rule; they are vigorous, active, energetic, proud, brave; but in civilization and refinement they donot rank much above their Parthian predecessors. Western Asia gained, perhaps, something, but it did not gain much, from the substitution ofthe Persians for the Parthians as the dominant power. The change is theleast marked among the revolutions which the East underwent between theaccession of Cyrus and the conquests of Timour. But it is a change, onthe whole, for the better. It is accompanied by a revival of art, byimprovements in architecture; it inaugurates a religious revolutionwhich has advantages. Above all, it saves the East from stagnation. Itis one among many of those salutary shocks which, in the political as inthe natural world, are needed from time to time to stimulate action andprevent torpor and apathy. 

CHAPTER III. 

_Reign of Artaxerxes I. Stories told of him. Most probable account ofhis Descent, Rank, and Parentage. His Contest with Artabanus. First Warwith Chosroes of Armenia. Contest with Alexander Severus. Second Warwith Chosroes and conquest of Armenia. Religious Reforms. InternalAdministration and Government. Art. Coinage. Inscriptions. _

Around the cradle of an Oriental sovereign who founds a dynasty therecluster commonly a number of traditions, which have, more or less, amythical character. The tales told of the Great, which even Herodotusset aside as incredible, have their parallels in narratives that werecurrent within one or two centuries with respect to the founder of theSecond Persian Empire, which would not have disgraced the mythologersof Achaemenian times. Artaxerxes, according to some, was the son of acommon soldier who had an illicit connection with the wife of a Persiancobbler and astrologer, a certain Babek or Papak, an inhabitant of theCadusian country and a man of the lowest class. Papak, knowing by hisart that the soldier's son would attain a lofty position, voluntarilyceded his rights as husband to the favorite of fortune, and bred up ashis own the issue of this illegitimate commerce, who, when he attainedto manhood, justified Papak's foresight by successfully revolting fromArtabanus and establishing the new Persian monarchy. Others said thatthe founder of the new kingdom was a Parthian satrap, the son of anoble, and that, having long meditated revolt, he took the final plungein consequence of a prophecy uttered by Artabanus, who was well skilledin magical arts, and saw in the stars that the Parthian empire wasthreatened with destruction. Artabanus, on a certain occasion, when hecommunicated this prophetic knowledge to his wife, was overheard by oneof her attendants, a noble damsel named Artaducta, already affianced toArtaxerxes and a sharer in his secret counsels. At her instigationhe hastened his plans, raised the standard of revolt, and upon thesuccessful issue of his enterprise made her his queen. Miraculouscircumstances were freely interwoven with these narratives, and a resultwas produced which staggered the faith even of such a writer as Moses ofChorene, who, desiring to confine himself to what was strictly true andcertain, could find no more to say of Artaxerxes's birth and originthan that he was the son of a certain Sasan, and a native of Istakr, orPersepolis. 

Even, however, the two facts thus selected as beyond criticism by Mosesare far from being entitled to implicit credence. Artaxerxes, the sonof Sasan according to Agathangelus and Moses, is the same as Papak(or Babek) in his own and his son's inscriptions. The Persian writersgenerally take the same view, and declare that Sasan was a remoterancestor of Artaxerxes, the acknowledged founder of the family, and notArtaxerxes' father. In the extant records of the new Persian Kingdom, the coins and the inscriptions, neither Sasan nor the gentilitial termderived from it, Sasanidae, has any place; and though it would perhapsbe rash to question on this account the employment of the term Sasanidaeby the dynasty, yet we may regard it as really "certain" that the fatherof Artaxerxes was named, not Sasan, but Papak; and that, if the termSasanian was in reality a patronymic, it was derived, like the term"Achaemenian, " from some remote progenitor whom the royal family of thenew empire believed to have been their founder. 

The native country of Artaxerxes is also variously stated by theauthorities. Agathangelus calls him an Assyrian, and makes the Assyriansplay an important part in his rebellion. Agathias says that he was bornin the Cadusian country, or the low tract south-west of the Caspian, which belonged to Media rather than to Assyria or Persia. Dio Cassius, and Herodian, the contemporaries of Artaxerxes, call him a Persian;and there can be no reasonable doubt that they are correct in so doing. Agathangelus allows the predominantly Persian character of his revolt, and Agathias is apparently unaware that the Cadusian country was no partof Persia. The statement that he was a native of Persepolis (Istakr) isfirst found in Moses of Chorene. It may be true, but it is uncertain;for it may have grown out of the earlier statement of Agathangelus, thathe held the government of the province of Istakr. We can only affirmwith confidence that the founder of the new Persian monarchy was agenuine Persian, without attempting to determine positively what Persiancity or province had the honor of producing him. 

A more interesting question, and one which will be found perhaps toadmit of a more definite answer, is that of the rank and station inwhich Artaxerxes was born. We have seen that Agathias (writing ab. A. D. 580) called him the supposititious son of a cobbler. Others spoke ofhim as the child of a shepherd; while some said that his father was "aninferior officer in the service of the government. " But on the otherhand, in the inscriptions which Artaxerxes himself setup in theneighborhood of Persepolis, he gives his father, Papak, the title of"King. " Agathangelus calls him a "noble" and "satrap of Persepolitangovernment;" while Herodian seems to speak of him as "king of thePersians, " before his victories over Artabanus. On the whole, it isperhaps most probable that, like Cyrus, he was the hereditary monarchof the subject kingdom of Persia, which had always its own princes underthe Parthians, and that thus he naturally and without effort took theleadership of the revolt when circumstances induced his nation to rebeland seek to establish its independence. The stories told of his humbleorigin, which are contradictory and improbable, are to be paralleledwith those which made Cyrus the son of a Persian of moderate rank, andthe foster-child of a herdsman. There is always in the East a tendencytowards romance and exaggeration; and when a great monarch emerges froma comparatively humble position, the humility and obscurity of his firstcondition are intensified, to make the contrast more striking betweenhis original low estate and his ultimate splendor and dignity. 

The circumstances of the struggle between Artaxerxes and. Artabanus arebriefly sketched by Dio Cassius and Agathangelus, while they are relatedmore at large by the Persian writers. It is probable that the contestoccupied a space of four or five years. At first, we are told, Artabanusneglected to arouse himself, and took no steps towards crushing therebellion, which was limited to an assertion of the independence ofPersia Proper, or the province of Fars. After a time the revoltedvassal, finding himself unmolested, was induced to raise his thoughtshigher, and commenced a career of conquest. Turning his arms eastward, he attacked Kerman (Carmania), and easily succeeded in reducing thatscantily-peopled tract under his dominion. He then proceeded to menacethe north, and, making war in that quarter, overran and attached tohis kingdom some of the outlying provinces of Media. Roused by theseaggressions, the Parthian monarch at length took the field, collectedan army consisting in part of Parthians, in part of the Persians whocontinued faithful to him, against his vassal, and, invading Persia, soon brought his adversary to a battle. A long and bloody contestfollowed, both sides suffering great losses; but victory finallydeclared itself in favor of Artaxerxes, through the desertion to him, during the engagement, of a portion of his enemy's forces. A secondconflict ensued within a short period, in which the insurgents were evenmore completely successful; the carnage on the side of the Parthianswas great, the loss of the Persians small; and the great king fledprecipitately from the field. Still the resources of Parthia were equalto a third trial of arms. After a brief pause, Artabanus made a finaleffort to reduce his revolted vassal; and a last engagement took placein the plain of Hormuz, which was a portion of the Jerahi valley, in thebeautiful country between Bebahan and Shuster. Here, after a desperateconflict, the Parthian monarch suffered a third and signal defeat;his army was scattered; and he himself lost his life in the combat. According to some, his death was the result of a hand-to-hand conflictwith his great antagonist, who, pretending to fly, drew him on, and thenpierced his heart with an arrow. 

The victory of Hormuz gave to Artaxerxes the dominion of the East; butit did not secure him this result at once, or without further struggle. Artabanus had left sons; and both in Bactria and Armenia there werepowerful branches of the Arsacid family, which could not see unmoved thedownfall of their kindred in Parthia. Chosroes, the Armenian monarch, was a prince of considerable ability, and is said to have been setupon his throne by Artabanus, whose brother he was, according tosome writers. At any rate he was an Arsacid; and he felt keenly thediminution of his own influence involved in the transfer to an alienrace of the sovereignty wielded for five centuries by the descendantsof the first Arsaces. He had set his forces in motion, while the contestbetween Artabanus and Artaxerxes was still in progress, in the hope ofaffording substantial help to his relative. But the march of events wastoo rapid for him; and, ere he could strike a blow, he found that thetime for effectual action had gone by, that Artabanus was no more, and that the dominion of Artaxerxes was established over most of thecountries which had previously formed portions of the Parthian Empire. Still, he resolved to continue the struggle; he was on friendly termswith Rome, and might count on an imperial contingent; he had some hopethat the Bactrian Arsacidae would join him; at the worst, he regardedhis own power as firmly fixed and as sufficient to enable him tomaintain an equal contest with the new monarchy. Accordingly he took theParthian Arsacids under his protection, and gave them a refuge in theArmenian territory. At the same time he negotiated with both Balkh andRome, made arrangements with the barbarians upon his northern frontierto lend him aid, and, having collected a large army, invaded the newkingdom on the north-west, and gained certain not unimportant successes. According to the Armenian historians, Artaxerxes lost Assyria and theadjacent regions; Bactria wavered; and, after the struggle had continuedfor a year or two, the founder of the second Persian empire was obligedto fly ignominiously to India! But this entire narrative seems to bedeeply tinged with the vitiating stain of intense national vanity, afault which markedly characterizes the Armenian writers, and rendersthem, when unconfirmed by other authorities, almost worthless. Thegeneral course of events, and the position which Artaxerxes takes inhis dealings with Rome (A. D. 229-230), sufficiently indicate that anyreverses which he sustained at this time in his struggle with Chosroesand the unsubmitted Arsacidae must have been trivial, and that theycertainly had no greater result than to establish the independenceof Armenia, which, by dint of leaning upon Rome, was able to maintainitself against the Persian monarch and to check the advance of thePersians in North-Western Asia. 

Artaxerxes, however, resisted in this quarter, and unable to overcomethe resistance, which he may have regarded as deriving its effectiveness(in part at least) from the support lent it by Rome, determined (ab. A. D. 229) to challenge the empire to an encounter. Aware that Artabanus, his late rival, against whom he had measured himself, and whose power hehad completely overthrown, had been successful in his war with Macrinus, had gained the great battle of Nisibis, and forced the Imperial State topurchase an ignominious peace by a payment equal to nearly two millionsof our money, he may naturally have thought that a facile triumph wasopen to his arms in this direction. Alexander Severus, the occupant ofthe imperial throne, was a young man of a weak character, controlledin a great measure by his mother, Julia Mamaea, and as yet quiteundistinguished as a general. The Roman forces in the East were knownto be licentious and insubordinate; corrupted by the softness of theclimate and the seductions of Oriental manners, they disregarded therestraints of discipline, indulged in the vices which at once enervatethe frame and lower the moral character, had scant respect for theirleaders, and seemed a defence which it would be easy to overpowerand sweep away. Artaxerxes, like other founders of great empires, entertained lofty views of his abilities and his destinies; the monarchywhich he had built up in the space of some five or six years was farfrom contenting him; well read in the ancient history of his nation, hesighed after the glorious days of Cyrus the Great and Darius Hystaspis, when all Western Asia from the shores of the AEgean to the Indiandesert, and portions of Europe and Africa, had acknowledged the swayof the Persian king. The territories which these princes had ruled heregarded as his own by right of inheritance; and we are told that henot only entertained, but boldly published, these views. His emissarieseverywhere declared that their master claimed the dominion of Asia asfar as the AEgean Sea and the Propontis. It was his duty and hismission to recover to the Persians their pristine empire. What Cyrushad conquered, what the Persian kings had held from that time until thedefeat of Codomannus by Alexander, was his by indefeasible right, and hewas about to take possession of it. 

Nor were these brave words a mere _brutum fulmen_. Simultaneously withthe putting forth of such lofty pretensions the troops of the Persianmonarch crossed the Tigris and spread themselves over the entire Romanprovince of Mesopotamia, which was rapidly overrun and offered scarcelyany resistance. Severus learned at the same moment the demands of hisadversary and the loss of one of his best provinces. He heard that hisstrong posts upon the Euphrates, the old defences of the empire in thisquarter, were being attacked, and that Syria daily expected the passageof the invaders. The crisis was one requiring prompt action; but theweak and inexperienced youth was content to meet it with diplomacy, and, instead of sending an army to the East, despatched ambassadors to hisrival with a letter. "Artaxerxes, " he said, "ought to confine himself tohis own territories and not seek to revolutionize Asia; it was unsafe, on the strength of mere unsubstantial hopes, to commence a greatwar. Every one should be content with keeping what belonged to him. Artaxerxes would find war with Rome a very different thing from thecontests in which he had been hitherto engaged with barbarous races likehis own. He should call to mind the successes of Augustus and Trajan, and the trophies carried off from the East by Lucius Verus and bySeptimius Severus. "

The counsels of moderation have rarely much effect in restrainingprincely ambition. Artaxerxes replied by an embassy in which heostentatiously displayed the wealth and magnificence of Persia; but, so far from making any deduction from his original demands, he nowdistinctly formulated them, and required their immediate acceptance. "Artaxerxes, the Great King, " he said, "ordered the Romans and theirruler to take their departure forthwith from Syria and the rest ofWestern Asia, and to allow the Persians to exercise dominion over Ioniaand Caria and the other countries within the AEgean and the Euxine, since these countries belonged to Persia by right of inheritance. " ARoman emperor had seldom received such a message; and Alexander, mild and gentle as he was by nature, seems to have had his equanimitydisturbed by the insolence of the mandate. Disregarding the sacrednessof the ambassadorial character, he stripped the envoys of theirsplendid apparel, treated them as prisoners of war, and settled them asagricultural colonists in Phrygia. If we may believe Herodian, he eventook credit to himself for sparing their lives, which he regarded asjustly forfeit to the offended majesty of the empire. 

Meantime the angry prince, convinced at last against his will thatnegotiations with such an enemy were futile, collected an army and beganhis march towards the East. Taking troops from the various provincesthrough which he passed, he conducted to Antioch, in the autumn of A. D. 231, a considerable force, which was there augmented by the legions ofthe East and by troops drawn from Egypt and other quarters. Artaxerxes, on his part, was not idle. According to Soverus himself, the armybrought into the field by the Persian monarch consisted of one hundredand twenty thousand mailed horsemen, of eighteen hundred scythedchariots, and of seven hundred trained elephants, bearing on their backstowers filled with archers; and though this pretended host has beentruly characterized as one "the like of which is not to be found inEastern history, and has scarcely been imagined in Eastern romance, "yet, allowing much for exaggeration, we may still safely conclude thatgreat exertions had been made on the Persian side, that their forcesconsisted of the three arms mentioned, and that the numbers of eachwere large beyond ordinary precedent. The two adversaries were thus notill-matched; each brought the flower of his troops to the conflict; eachcommanded the army, on which his dependence was placed, in person;each looked to obtain from the contest not only an increase of militaryglory, but substantial fruits of victory in the shape of plunder orterritory. 

It might have been expected that the Persian monarch, after the hightone which he had taken, would have maintained an aggressive attitude, have crossed the Euphrates, and spread the hordes at his disposal overSyria, Cappadocia, and Asia Minor. But it seems to be certain that hedid not do so, and that the initiative was taken by the other side. Probably the Persian arms, as inefficient in sieges as the Parthian, were unable to overcome the resistance offered by the Roman forts uponthe great river; and Artaxerxes was too good a general to throw hisforces into the heart of an enemy's country without having first secureda safe retreat. The Euphrates was therefore crossed by his adversaryin the spring of A. D. 232; the Roman province of Mesopotamia was easilyrecovered; and arrangements were made by which it was hoped to deal thenew monarchy a heavy blow, if not actually to crush and conquer it. 

Alexander divided his troops into three bodies. One division was toact towards the north, to take advantage of the friendly dispositionof Chosroes, king of Armenia, and, traversing his strong mountainterritory, to direct its attack upon Media, into which Armenia gave aready entrance. Another was to take a southern line, and to threatenPersia Proper from the marshy tract about the junction of the Euphrateswith the Tigris, a portion of the Babylonian territory. The third andmain division, which was to be commanded by the emperor in person, wasto act on a line intermediate between the other two, which would conductit to the very heart of the enemy's territory, and at the same timeallow of its giving effective support to either of the two otherdivisions if they should need it. 

The plan of operations appears to have been judiciously constructed, and should perhaps be ascribed rather to the friends whom the youthfulemperor consulted than to his own unassisted wisdom. But the bestdesigned plans may be frustrated by unskilfulness or timidity in theexecution; and it was here, if we may trust the author who alonegives us any detailed account of the campaign, that the weakness ofAlexander's character showed itself. The northern army successfullytraversed Armenia, and, invading Media, proved itself in numerous smallactions superior to the Persian force opposed to it, and was able toplunder and ravage the entire country at its pleasure. The southerndivision crossed Mesopotamia in safety, and threatened to invade PersiaProper. Had Alexander with the third and main division kept faithwith the two secondary armies, had he marched briskly and combined hismovements with theirs, the triumph of the Roman arms would have beenassured. But, either from personal timidity or from an amiable regardfor the anxieties of his mother Mamsea, he hung back while his right andleft wings made their advance, and so allowed the enemy to concentratetheir efforts on these two isolated bodies. The army in Media, favoredby the rugged character of the country, was able to maintain its groundwithout much difficulty; but that which had advanced by the line of theEuphrates and Tigris, and which was still marching through the boundlessplains of the great alluvium, found itself suddenly beset by a countlesshost, commanded by Artaxerxes in person, and, though it struggledgallantly, was overwhelmed and utterly destroyed by the arrows of theterrible Persian bowmen. Herodian says, no doubt with some exaggeration, that this was the greatest calamity which had ever befallen the Romans. It certainly cannot compare with Cannae, with the disaster of Varus, oreven with the similar defeat of Crassus in a not very distant region. But it was (if rightly represented by Herodian) a terrible blow. Itabsolutely determined the campaign. A Caesar or a Trajan might haveretrieved such a loss. An Alexander Severus was not likely even to makean attempt to do so. Already weakened in body by the heat of the climateand the unwonted fatigues of war, he was utterly prostrated in spirit bythe intelligence when it reached him. The signal was at once given forretreat. Orders were sent to the _corps d' armee_ which occupied Mediato evacuate its conquests and to retire forthwith upon the Euphrates. These orders were executed, but with difficulty. Winter had already setin throughout the high regions; and in its retreat the army of Mediasuffered great losses through the inclemency of the climate, so thatthose who reached Syria were but a small proportion of the originalforce. Alexander himself, and the army which he led, experienced lessdifficulty; but disease dogged the steps of this division, and when itscolumns reached Antioch it was found to be greatly reduced in numbers bysickness, though it had never confronted an enemy. The three armiesof Severus suffered not indeed equally, but still in every caseconsiderably, from three distinct causes--sickness, severe weather, andmarked inferiority to the enemy. The last-named cause had annihilatedthe southern division; the northern had succumbed to climate; the mainarmy, led by Severus himself, was (comparatively speaking) intact, buteven this had been decimated by sickness, and was not in a condition tocarry on the war with vigor. The result of the campaign had thusbeen altogether favorable to the Persians, but yet it had convincedArtaxerxes that Rome was more powerful than he had thought. It had shownhim that in imagining the time had arrived when they might be easilydriven out of Asia--he had made a mistake. The imperial power had proveditself strong enough to penetrate deeply within his territory, to ravagesome of his best provinces, and to threaten his capital. The grandideas with which he had entered upon the contest had consequently to beabandoned; and it had to be recognized that the struggle with Rome wasone in which the two parties were very evenly matched, one in whichit was not to be supposed that either side would very soon obtain anydecided preponderance. Under these circumstances the grand ideas werequietly dropped; the army which had been gathered together to enforcethem was allowed to disperse, and was not required within any given timeto reassemble; it is not unlikely that (as Niebuhr conjectures) a peacewas made, though whether Rome ceded any of her territory by its terms isexceedingly doubtful. Probably the general principle of the arrangementwas a return to the _status quo ante bellum_, or, in other words, theacceptance by either side, as the true territorial limits between Romeand Persia, of those boundaries which had been previously held to dividethe imperial possessions from the dominions of the Arsacidse. 

The issue of the struggle was no doubt disappointing to Artaxerxes; butif, on the one hand, it dispelled some illusions and proved to himthat the Roman State, though verging to its decline, nevertheless stillpossessed a vigor and a life which he had been far from anticipating, on the other hand it left him free to concentrate his efforts on thereduction of Armenia, which was really of more importance to him, from Armenia being the great stronghold of the Arsacid power, than thenominal attachment to the empire of half-a-dozen Roman provinces. Solong as Arsacidae maintained themselves in a position of independenceand substantial power so near the Persian borders, and in a country ofsuch extent and such vast natural strength as Armenia, there could notbut be a danger of reaction, of the nations again reverting to the yokewhereto they had by long use become accustomed, and of the star ofthe Sasanidae paling before that of the former masters of Asia. It wasessential to the consolidation of the new Persian Empire that Armeniashould be subjugated, or at any rate that Arsacidae should cease togovern it; and the fact that the peace which appears to have been madebetween Rome and Persia, A. D. 232, set Artaxerxes at liberty to directall his endeavors to the establishment of such relations between his ownstate and Armenia as he deemed required by public policy and necessaryfor the security of his own power, must be regarded as one of paramountimportance, and as probably one of the causes mainly actuating him inthe negotiations and inclining him to consent to peace on any fairand equitable terms. Consequently, the immediate result of hostilitiesceasing between Persia and Rome was their renewal between Persia andArmenia. The war had indeed, in one sense, never ceased; for Chosroeshad been an ally of the Romans during the campaign of Severus, and hadno doubt played a part in the invasion and devastation of Media whichhave been described above. But, the Romans having withdrawn, he was leftwholly dependent on his own resources; and the entire strength of Persiawas now doubtless brought into the field against him. Still he defendedhimself with such success, and caused Artaxerxes so much alarm, thatafter a time that monarch began to despair of ever conquering hisadversary by fair means, and cast about for some other mode ofaccomplishing his purpose. Summoning an assembly of all the vassalkings, the governors, and the commandants throughout the empire, hebesought them to find some cure for the existing distress, at the sametime promising a rich reward to the man who should contrive an effectualremedy. The second place in the kingdom should be his; he should havedominion over one half of the Arians; nay, he should share the Persianthrone with Artaxerxes himself, and hold a rank and dignity onlyslightly inferior. We are told that these offers prevailed with a nobleof the empire, named Anak, a man who had Arsacid blood in his veins, andbelonged to that one of the three branches of the old royal stockwhich had long been settled at Bactria (Balkh), and that he was inducedthereby to come forward and undertake the assassination of Chosroes, whowas his near relative and would not be likely to suspect him of an illintent. Artaxerxes warmly encouraged him in his design, and in a littletime it was successfully carried out. Anak, with his wife, his children, his brother, and a train of attendants, pretended to take refuge inArmenia from the threatened vengeance of his sovereign, who caused histroops to pursue him, as a rebel and deserter, to the very borders ofArmenia. Unsuspicious of any evil design, Ohosroes received the exileswith favor, discussed with them his plans for the subjugation of Persia, and, having sheltered them during the whole of the autumn and winter, proposed to them in the spring that they should accompany him andtake part in the year's campaign. Anak, forced by this proposal toprecipitate his designs, contrived a meeting between himself, hisbrother, and Chosroes, without attendants, on the pretext of discussingplans of attack, and, having thus got the Armenian monarch at adisadvantage, drew sword upon him, together with his brother, andeasily put him to death. The crime which he had undertaken was thusaccomplished; but he did not live to receive the reward promised himfor it. Armenia rose in arms on learning the foul deed wrought upon itsking; the bridges and the few practicable outlets by which the capitalcould be quitted were occupied by armed men; and the murderers, drivento desperation, lost their lives in an attempt to make their escape byswimming the river Araxes. Thus Artaxerxes obtained his object withouthaving to pay the price that he had agreed upon; his dreaded rival wasremoved; Armenia lay at his mercy; and he had not to weaken his power athome by sharing it with an Arsacid partner. 

The Persian monarch allowed the Armenians no time to recover from theblow which he had treacherously dealt them. His armies at once enteredtheir territory and carried everything before them. Chosroes seems tohave had no son of sufficient age to succeed him, and the defence of thecountry fell upon the satraps, or governors of the several provinces. These chiefs implored the aid of the Roman emperor, and received acontingent; but neither were their own exertions nor was the valor oftheir allies of any avail. Artaxerxes easily defeated the confederatearmy, and forced the satraps to take refuge in Roman territory. Armeniasubmitted to his arms, and became an integral portion of his empire. It probably did not greatly trouble him that Artavasdes, one of thesatraps, succeeded in carrying off one of the sons of Chosroes, aboy named Tiridates, whom he conveyed to Rome, and placed under theprotection of the reigning emperor. 

Such were the chief military successes of Artaxerxes. The greatest ofour historians, Gibbon, ventures indeed to assign to him, in addition, "some easy victories over the wild Scythians and the effeminateIndians. " But there is no good authority for this statement; and on thewhole it is unlikely that he came into contact with either nation. Hiscoins are not found in Afghanistan; and it may be doubted whether heever made any eastern expedition. His reign was not long; and itwas sufficiently occupied by the Roman and Armenian wars, and by thegreatest of all his works, the reformation of religion. 

The religious aspect of the insurrection which transferred the headshipof Western Asia from the Parthians to the Persians, from Artabanus toArtaxerxes, has been already noticed; but we have now to trace, so faras we can, the steps by which the religious revolution was accomplished, and the faith of Zoroaster, or what was believed to be such, establishedas the religion of the State throughout the new empire. Artaxerxes, himself (if we may believe Agathias) a Magus, was resolved from thefirst that, if his efforts to shake off the Parthian yoke succeeded, he would use his best endeavors to overthrow the Parthian idolatryand install in its stead the ancestral religion of the Persians. This religion consisted of a combination of Dualism with a qualifiedcreature-worship, and a special reverence for the elements, earth, air, water, and fire. Zoroastrianism, in the earliest form which ishistorically known to us, postulated two independent and contendingprinciples--a principle of good, Ahura-Mazda, and a principle of evil, Angro-Mainyus. These beings, who were coeternal and coequal, wereengaged in a perpetual struggle for supremacy; and the world was thebattle-field wherein the strife was carried on. Each had called intoexistence numerous inferior beings, through whose agency they wagedtheir interminable conflict. Ahura-Mazda (Oromazdos, Ormazd) had createdthousands of angelic beings to perform his will and fight on his sideagainst the Evil One; and Alngro-Mainyus (Arimanius, Ahriman) hadequally on his part called into being thousands of malignant spirits tobe his emissaries in the world, to do his work, and fight his battles. The greater of the powers called into being by Ahura-Mazda were properobjects of the worship of man, though, of course, his main worship wasto be given to Ahura-Mazda. Angro-Mainyus was not to be worshipped, butto be hated and feared. With this dualistic belief had been combined, at a time not much later than that of Darius Hystaspis, an entirelyseparate system, the worship of the elements. Fire, air, earth, andwater were regarded as essentially holy, and to pollute any of themwas a crime. Fire was especially to be held in honor; and it became anessential part of the Persian religion to maintain perpetually upon thefire-altars the sacred flame, supposed to have been originally kindledfrom heaven, and to see that it never went out. Together with thiselemental worship was introduced into the religion a profound regard foran order of priests called Magians, who interposed themselves betweenthe deity and the worshipper, and claimed to possess prophetic powers. This Magian order was a priest-caste, and exercised vast influence, being internally organized into a hierarchy containing many ranks, andclaiming a sanctity far above that of the best laymen. 

Artaxerxes found the Magian order depressed by the systematic actionof the later Parthian princes, who had practically fallen away from theZoroastrian faith and become mere idolaters. He found the fire-altars inruins, the sacred flame extinguished, the most essential of the Magianceremonies and practices disregarded. Everywhere, except perhaps in hisown province of Persia Proper, he found idolatry established. Temples ofthe sun abounded, where images of Mithra were the object of worship, andthe Mithraic cult was carried out with a variety of imposing ceremonies. Similar temples to the moon existed in many places; and the images ofthe Arsacidae were associated with those of the sun and moon gods, in the sanctuaries dedicated to them. The precepts of Zoroaster wereforgotten. The sacred compositions which bore that sage's name, and hadbeen handed down from a remote antiquity, were still indeed preserved, if not in a written form, yet in the memory of the faithful few whoclung to the old creed; but they had ceased to be regarded as bindingupon their consciences by the great mass of the Western Asiatics. Western Asia was a seething-pot, in which were mixed up a score ofcontradictory creeds, old and new, rational and irrational, Sabaism, Magism, Zoroastrianism, Grecian polytheism, teraphim-worship, Judaism, Chaldae mysticism, Christianity. Artaxerxes conceived it to be hismission to evoke order out of this confusion, to establish in lieu ofthis extreme diversity an absolute uniformity of religion. 

The steps which he took to effect his purpose seem to have been thefollowing. He put down idolatry by a general destruction of the images, which he overthrew and broke to pieces. He raised the Magian hierarchyto a position of honor and dignity such as they had scarcely enjoyedeven under the later Achaemenian princes, securing them in a conditionof pecuniary independence by assignments of lands, and also byallowing their title to claim from the faithful the tithe of all theirpossessions. He caused the sacred fire to be rekindled on the altarswhere it was extinguished, and assigned to certain bodies of priests thecharge of maintaining the fire in each locality. He then proceeded tocollect the supposed precepts of Zoroaster into a volume, in orderto establish a standard of orthodoxy whereto he might require all toconform. He found the Zoroastrians themselves divided into a numberof sects. Among these he established uniformity by means of a "generalcouncil, " which was attended by Magi from all parts of the empire, andwhich settled what was to be regarded as the true Zoroastrian faith. According to the Oriental writers, this was effected in the followingway: Forty thousand, or, according to others, eighty thousand Magihaving assembled, they were successively reduced by their own act tofour thousand, to four hundred, to forty, and finally to seven, the mosthighly respected for their piety and learning. Of these seven there wasone, a young but holy priest, whom the universal consent of his brethrenrecognized as pre-eminent. His name was Arda-Viraf. "Having passedthrough the strictest ablutions, and drunk a powerful opiate, he wascovered with a white linen and laid to sleep. Watched by seven of thenobles, including the king, he slept for seven days and nights; and, onhis reawaking, the whole nation listened with believing wonder to hisexposition of the faith of Ormazd, which was carefully written down byan attendant scribe for the benefit of posterity. "

The result, however brought about, which must always remain doubtful, was the authoritative issue of a volume which the learned of Europe havenow possessed for some quarter of a century, and which has recently beenmade accessible to the general reader by the labors of Spiegel. Thiswork, the Zendavesta, while it may contain fragments of a very ancientliterature, took its present shape in the time of Artaxerxes, and wasprobably then first collected from the mouths of the Zoroastrian priestsand published by Arda-Viraf. Certain additions may since have been madeto it; but we are assured that "their number is small, " and that we"have no reason to doubt" that the text of the Avesta, in the daysof Arda-Viraf, was on the whole exactly the same as at present. Thereligious system of the new Persian monarchy is thus completely knownto us, and will be described minutely in a later chapter. At present wehave to consider, not what the exact tenets of the Zoroastrians were, but only the mode in which Artaxerxes imposed them upon his subjects. 

The next step, after settling the true text of the sacred volume, was toagree upon its interpretation. The language of the Avesta, though purePersian, was of so archaic a type that none but the most learned of theMagi understood it; to the common people, even to the ordinary priest, it was a dead letter. Artaxerxes seems to have recognized the necessityof accompanying the Zend text with a translation and a commentary in thelanguage of his own time, the Pehlevi or Huzvaresh. Such a translationand commentary exist; and though in part belonging to later Sassaniantimes, they reach back probably in their earlier portions to the eraof Artaxerxes, who may fairly be credited with the desire to make thesacred book "understanded of the people. "

Further, it was necessary, in order to secure permanent uniformity ofbelief, to give to the Magian priesthood, the keepers and interpretersof the sacred book, very extensive powers. The Magian hierarchywas therefore associated with the monarch in the government andadministration of the State. It was declared that the altar and thethrone were inseparable, and must always sustain each other. The Magiwere made to form the great council of the nation. While they lent theirsupport to the crown, the crown upheld them against all impugners, and enforced by pains and penalties their decisions. Persecution wasadopted and asserted as a principle of action without any disguise. Byan edict of Artaxerxes, all places of worship were closed except thetemples of the fire-worshippers. If no violent outbreak of fanaticismfollowed, it was because the various sectaries and schismatics succumbedto the decree without resistance. Christian, and Jew, and Greek, andParthian, and Arab allowed their sanctuaries to be closed withoutstriking a blow to prevent it; and the non-Zoroastrians of the empire, the votaries of foreign religions, were shortly reckoned at theinsignificant number of 80, 000. 

Of the internal administration and government of his extensive empireby Artaxerxes, but little is known. That little seems, however, toshow that while in general type and character it conformed to the usualOriental model, in its practical working it was such as to obtain theapproval of the bulk of his subjects. Artaxerxes governed his provinceseither through native kings, or else through Persian satraps. At thesame time, like the Achaemenian monarchs, he kept the armed forceunder his own control by the appointment of "generals" or "commandants"distinct from the satraps. Discarding the Parthian plan of intrustingthe military defence of the empire and the preservation of domesticorder to a mere militia, he maintained on a war footing a considerableforce, regularly paid and drilled. "There can be no power, " he remarked, "without an army, no army without money, no money without agriculture, and no agriculture without justice. " To administer strict justice wastherefore among his chief endeavors. Daily reports were made to him ofall that passed not only in his capital, but in every province of hisvast empire; and his knowledge extended even to the private actions ofhis subjects. It was his earnest desire that all well-deposed personsshould feel an absolute assurance of security with respect to theirlives, their property, and their honor. At the same time he punishedcrimes with severity, and even visited upon entire families thetransgression of one of their members. It is said to have been one ofhis maxims, that "kings should never use the sword where the cane wouldanswer;" but, if the Armenian historians are to be trusted, in practicehe certainly did not err on the side of clemency. 

Artaxerxes was, of course, an absolute monarch, having the entire powerof life or death, and entitled, if he chose, to decide all matters athis own mere will and pleasure. But, in practice, he, like most Orientaldespots, was wont to summon and take the advice of counsellors. It isperhaps doubtful whether any regular "Council of State" existed underhim. Such an institution had prevailed under the Parthians, where themonarchs were elected and might be deposed by the Megistanes; but thereis no evidence that Artaxerxes continued it, or did more than call oneach occasion for the advice of such persons among his subjects as hethought most capable. In matters affecting his relations towardsforeign powers he consulted with the subject kings, the satraps, and thegenerals; in religious affairs he no doubt took counsel with the chiefMagi. The general principles which guided his conduct both in religiousand other matters may perhaps be best gathered from the words of that"testament, " or "dying speech, " which he is said to have addressed tohis son Sapor. "Never forget, " he said, "that, as a king, you are atonce the protector of religion and of your country. Consider the altarand the throne as inseparable; they must always sustain each other. Asovereign without religion is a tyrant; and a people who have nonemay be deemed the most monstrous of all societies. Religion may existwithout a state; but a state cannot exist without religion; and it is byholy laws that a political association can alone be bound. You should beto your people an example of piety and of virtue, but without pride orostentation. .. . Remember, my son, that it is the prosperity or adversityof the ruler which forms the happiness or misery of his subjects, andthat the fate of the nation depends on the conduct of the individual whofills the throne. The world is exposed to constant vicissitudes; learn, therefore, to meet the frowns of fortune with courage and fortitude, and to receive her smiles with moderation and wisdom. To sum up all--mayyour administration be such as to bring, at a future day, the blessingsof those whom God has confided to our parental care upon both yourmemory and mine!"

There is reason to believe that Artaxerxes, some short time beforehis death, invested Sapor with the emblems of sovereignty, and eitherassociated him in the empire, or wholly ceded to him his own place. TheArabian writer, Macoudi, declares that, sated with glory and withpower, he withdrew altogether from the government, and, making overthe administration of affairs to his favorite son, devoted himself toreligious contemplation. Tabari knows nothing of the religious motive, but relates that towards the close of his life Artaxerxes "made Saporregent, appointed him formally to be his successor, and with his ownhands placed the . Crown on his head. " [PLATE XII. ] These notices would, by themselves, have been of small importance; but force is lent to themby the facts that Artaxerxes is found to have placed the effigy of Saporon his later coins, and that in one of his bas-reliefs he seems to berepresented as investing Sapor with the diadem. This tablet, which isat Takht-i-Bostan, has been variously explained, and, as it isunaccompanied by any inscription, no certain account can be given of it;but, on the whole the opinion of those most competent to judge seemsto be that the intention of the artist was to represent Artaxerxes(who wears the cap and inflated ball) as handing the diadem toSapor--distinguished by the mural crown of his own tablets andcoins--while Ormazd, marked by his customary _baton_, and furtherindicated by a halo of glory around his head, looks on, sanctioning andapproving the transaction. A prostrate figure under the feet of thetwo Sassanian kings represents either Artabanus or the extinct Parthianmonarchy, probably the former; while the sunflower upon which Ormazdstands, together with the rays that stream from his head, denote anintention to present him under a Mithraitic aspect, suggestive to thebeholder of a real latent identity between the two great objects ofPersian worship. 

[Illustration: PLATE 12. ]

The coins of Artaxerxes present five different types. [PLATE XI. , Fig. 1. ] In the earliest his effigy appears on the obverse, front-faced, withthe simple legend AETaHsnaTE (Artaxerxes), or sometimes with the longerone, BaGi ARTaiiSHaTR MaLKA, "Divine Artaxerxes, King;" while thereverse bears the profile of his father, Papak, looking to the left, with the legend BaGi PAPaKi MaLKA, "Divine Papak, King;" or BaBl BaGiPAPaKi MaLKA, "Son of Divine Papak, King. " Both heads wear the ordinaryParthian diadem and tiara; and the head of Artaxerxes much resemblesthat of Volagases V. , one of the later Parthian kings. The coins of thenext period have a head on one side only. This is in profile, lookingto the right, and bears a highly ornamental tiara, exactly like thatof Mithridates I. Of Parthia, the great conqueror. It is usuallyaccompanied by the legend MaZDiSN BaGi ARTaHSHaTR MaLKA (or MaLKANMaLKA) aiean, i. E. "The Ormazd-worshipping Divine Artaxerxes, King ofIran, " or "King of the Kings of Iran. " The reverse of these coins bearsa fire-altar, with the legend ARTaHSHaTR nuvazi, a phrase of doubtfulimport. In the third period, while the reverse remains unchanged, on theobverse the Parthian costume is entirely given up; and the king takes, instead of the Parthian tiara, a low cap surmounted by the inflatedball, which thenceforth becomes the almost universal badge of aSassanian monarch. The legend is now longer, being commonly MaZDiSNBaGi ARTaiisi-iaTR MaLKAN MaLKA airanMiNUCHiTRi iniN YazDAN, or "TheOrmazd-worshipping Divine Artaxerxes, King of the Kings of Iran, heaven-descended of (the race of) the Gods. " The fourth period ismarked by the assumption of the mural crown, which in the sculptures ofArtaxerxes is given only to Ormazd, but which was afterwards adopted bySapor I. And many later kings, in combination with the ball, as theirusual head-dress. The legend on these coins remains as in the thirdperiod, and the reverse is likewise unchanged. Finally, there are a fewcoins of Artaxerxes, belonging to the very close of his reign, where heis represented with the tiara of the third period, looking to the right;while in front of him, and looking towards him, is another profile, thatof a boy, in whom numismatists recognize his eldest son and successor, Sapor. [PLATE XV. , Fig. 1]. 

[Illustration: PLATE 15. ]

It is remarkable that with the accession of Artaxerxes there is atonce a revival of art. Art had sunk under the Parthians, despite theirGrecian leanings, to the lowest ebb which it had known in Western Asiasince the accession of Asshur-izir-pal to the throne of Assyria (B. C. 886). Parthian attempts at art were few and far between, and when madewere unhappy, not to say ridiculous. The coins of Artaxerxes, comparedwith those of the later Parthian monarchs, show at once a renaissance. The head is well cut; the features have individuality and expression;the epigraph is sufficiently legible. Still more is his sculpturecalculated to surprise us. Artaxerxes represents himself as receivingthe Persian diadem from the hands of Ormazd; both he and the god aremounted upon chargers of a stout breed, which are spiritedly portrayed;Artabanus lies prostrate under the feet of the king's steed, while underthose of the deity's we observe the form of Ahriman, also prostrate, and indeed seemingly dead. Though the tablet has not really any greatartistic merit, it is far better than anything that remains to us ofthe Parthians; it has energy and vigor; the physiognomies are carefullyrendered; and the only flagrant fault is a certain over-robustness inthe figures, which has an effect that is not altogether pleasing. Still, we cannot but see in the new Persian art--even at its very beginning--amovement towards life after a long period of stagnation; an evidenceof that general stir of mind which the downfall of Tartar oppressionrendered possible; a token that Aryan intelligence was beginning torecover and reassert itself in all the various fields in which it hadformerly won its triumphs. 

The coinage of Artaxerxes, and of the other Sassanian monarchs, isbased, in part upon Roman, in part upon Parthian, models. The Romanaureus furnishes the type which is reproduced in the Sassanian goldcoins, while the silver coins follow the standard long establishedin Western Asia, first under the Seleucid, and then under the Arsacidprinces. This standard is based upon the Attic drachm, which was adoptedby Alexander as the basis of his monetary system. The curious occurrenceof a completely different standard for gold and silver in Persia duringthis period is accounted for by the circumstances of the time at whichthe coinage took its rise. The Arsacidae had employed no gold coins, but had been content with a silver currency; any gold coin that mayhave been in use among their subjects for purposes of trade duringthe continuance of their empire must have been foreign money--Roman, Bactrian, or Indian; but the quantity had probably for the most partbeen very small. But, about ten years before the accession of Artaxerxesthere had been a sudden influx into Western Asia of Roman gold, inconsequence of the terms of the treaty concluded between Artabanusand Macrinus (A. D. 217), whereby Rome undertook to pay to Parthia anindemnity of above a million and a half of our money. It is probablethat the payment was mostly made in aurei. Artaxerxes thus found currentin the countries, which he overran and formed into an empire, twocoinages--a gold and a silver--coming from different sources andpossessing no common measure. It was simpler and easier to retain whatexisted, and what had sufficiently adjusted itself through the workingof commercial needs, than to invent something new; and hence theanomalous character of the New Persian monetary system. 

The remarkable bas-relief of Artaxerxes described above and figuredbelow in the chapter on the Art of the Sassanians, is accompanied bya bilingual inscription, or perhaps we should say by two bilingualinscriptions, which possess much antiquarian and some historic interest. The longer of the two runs as follows:--"Pathkar zani mazdisn bagiArtahshatr, malkan malka Airan, minuchitri min Ydztan, bari bagi Pap-akimalka;" while the Greek version of it is--

[Illustration: INSCRIPTION, PAGE 278]

The inscriptions are interesting, first, as proving the continued useof the Greek character and language by a dynasty that was intenselynational and that wished to drive the Greeks out of Asia. Secondly, theyare interesting as showing the character of the native language, andletters, employed by the Persians, when they came suddenly into noticeas the ruling people of Western Asia. Thirdly, they have an historicinterest in what they tell us of the relationship of Artaxerxes to Babek(Papak), of the rank of Babek, and of the religious sympathies of theSassanians. In this last respect they do indeed, in themselves, littlebut confirm the evidence of the coins and the general voice of antiquityon the subject. Coupled, however, with the reliefs to which they areappended, they do more. They prove to us that the Persians of theearliest Sassanian times were not averse to exhibiting the greatpersonages of their theology in sculptured forms; nay, they reveal to usthe actual forms then considered appropriate to Ahura-Mazda (Ormazd) andAngro-Mainyus (Ahriman); for we can scarcely be mistaken in regardingthe prostrate figure under the hoofs of Ahura-Mazda's steed as theantagonist Spirit of Evil. Finally, the inscriptions show that, fromthe commencement of their sovereignty, the Sassanian princes claimedfor themselves a qualified divinity, assuming the title of BAG andALHA, "god, " and taking, in the Greek version of their legends, thecorrespondent epithet of _OEOE_

CHAPTER IV. 

_Death of Artaxerxes I. And Accession of Sapor I. War of Sapor withManizen. His first War with Rome. Invasion of Mesopotamia, A. D. 241. Occupation of Antioch. Expedition of Gordian to the East. Recovery byRome of her lost Territory. Peace made between Rome and Persia. ObscureInterval. Second War with Rome. Mesopotamia again invaded, A. D. 258. Valerian takes the Command in the East. Struggle between him and Sapor. Defeat and Capture of Valerian, A. D. 260. Sapor invests Miriades withthe Purple. He takes Syria and Southern Cappadocia, but is shortlyafterwards attacked by Odenathus. Successes of Odenathus. Treatment ofValerian. Further successes of Odenathus. Period of Tranquillity. GreatWorks of Sapor. His Scriptures. His Dyke. His Inscriptions. His Coins. His Religion. Religious Condition of the East in his Time. Rise intoNotice of Mani. His Rejection by Sapor. Sapor's Death. His Character. _

[Illustration: CHAPTER-4]

Artaxerxes appears to have died in A. D. 240. He was succeeded by hisson, Shahpuhri, or Sapor, the first Sassanian prince of that name. According to the Persian historians, the mother of Sapor was a daughterof the last Parthian king, Artabanus, whom Artaxerxes had taken to wifeafter his conquest of her father. But the facts known of Sapor throwdoubt on this story, which has too many parallels in Oriental romanceto claim implicit credence. Nothing authentic has come down to usrespecting Sapor during his father's lifetime; but from the moment thathe mounted the throne, we find him engaged in a series of wars, whichshow him to have been of a most active and energetic character. Armenia, which Artaxerxes had subjected, attempted (it would seem) to regainits independence at the commencement of the new reign; but Sapor easilycrushed the nascent insurrection, and the Armenians made no furthereffort to free themselves till several years after his death. Contemporaneously with this revolt in the mountain region of the north, a danger showed itself in the plain country of the south, where Manizen, king of Hatra, or El Hadhr, not only declared himself independent, butassumed dominion over the entire tract between the Euphrates and theTigris, the Jezireh of the Arabian geographers. The strength of Hatrawas great, as had been proved by Trajan and Severus; its thick wallsand valiant inhabitants would probably have defied every attempt ofthe Persian prince to make himself master of it by force. He thereforecondescended to stratagem. Manizen had a daughter who cherishedambitious views. On obtaining a promise from Sapor that if she gaveHatra into his power he would make her his queen, this unnatural childturned against her father, betrayed him into Sapor's hands, and thusbrought the war to an end. Sapor recovered his lost territory; but hedid not fulfil his bargain. Instead of marrying the traitress, he handedher over to an executioner, to receive the death that she had deserved, though scarcely at his hands. Encouraged by his success in these twolesser contests, Sapor resolved (apparently in A. D. 241) to resume thebold projects of his father, and engage in a great war with Rome. Theconfusion and troubles which afflicted the Roman Empire at this timewere such as might well give him hopes of obtaining a decided advantage. Alexander, his father's adversary, had been murdered in A. D. 235 byMaximin, who from the condition of a Thracian peasant had risen into thehigher ranks of the army. The upstart had ruled like the savage that hewas; and, after three years of misery, the whole Roman world had risenagainst him. Two emperors had been proclaimed in Africa; on their fall, two others had been elected by the Senate; a third, a mere boy, had beenadded at the demand of the Roman populace. All the pretenders exceptthe last had met with violent deaths; and, after the shocks of a yearunparalleled since A. D. 69, the administration of the greatest kingdomin the world was in the hands of a youth of fifteen. Sapor, no doubt, thought he saw in this condition of things an opportunity that he oughtnot to miss, and rapidly matured his plans lest the favorable momentshould pass away. 

Crossing the middle Tigris into Mesopotamia, the bands of Sapor firstattacked the important city of Nisibis. Nisibis, at this time a Romancolony, was strongly situated on the outskirts of the mountainrange which traverses Northern Mesopotamia between the 37th and 38thparallels. The place was well fortified and well defended; it offered aprolonged resistance; but at last the Avails were breached, and it wasforced to yield itself. The advance was then made along the southernflank of the mountains, by Carrhae (Harran) and Edessa to the Euphrates, which was probably reached in the neighborhood of Birehjik, The hordesthen poured into Syria, and, spreading themselves over that fertileregion, surprised and took the metropolis of the Roman East, the richand luxurious city of Antioch. But meantime the Romans had shown aspirit which had not been expected from them. Gordian, young as hewas, had quitted Rome and marched through Mossia and Thrace into Asia, accompanied by a formidable army, and by at least one good general. Timesitheus, whose daughter Gordian had recently married, though hislife had hitherto been that of a civilian, exhibited, on his elevationto the dignity of Praetorian prefect, considerable military ability. The army, nominally commanded by Gordian, really acted under his orders. With it Timesitheus attacked and beat the bands of Sapor in a number ofengagements, recovered Antioch, crossed the Euphrates, retookCarrhae, defeated the Persian monarch in a pitched battle near Resaina(Ras-el-Ain), recovered Nisibis, and once more planted the Romanstandards on the banks of the Tigris. Sapor hastily evacuated most ofhis conquests, and retired first across the Euphrates and then acrossthe more eastern river; while the Romans advanced as he retreated, placed garrisons in the various Mesopotamian towns, and even threatenedthe great city of Ctesiphon. Gordian was confident that his generalwould gain further triumphs, and wrote to the Senate to that effect;but either disease or the arts of a rival cut short the career ofthe victor, and from the time of his death the Romans ceased to besuccessful. The legions had, it would seem, invaded Southern Mesopotamiawhen the Praetorian prefect who had succeeded Timesitheus broughtthem intentionally into difficulties by his mismanagement of thecommissariat; and at last retreat was determined on. The young emperorwas approaching the Khabour, and had almost reached his own frontier, when the discontent of the army, fomented by the prefect, Philip, cameto a head. Gordian was murdered at a place called Zaitha, about twentymiles south of Circesium, and was buried where he fell, the soldiersraising a tumulus in his honor. His successor, Philip, was glad to makepeace on any tolerable terms with the Persians; he felt himself insecureupon his throne, and was anxious to obtain the Senate's sanction of hisusurpation. He therefore quitted the East in A. D. 244, having concludeda treaty with Sapor, by which Armenia seems to have been left to thePersians, while Mesopotamia returned to its old condition of a Romanprovince. 

The peace made between Philip and Sapor was followed by an interval offourteen years, during which scarcely anything is known of the conditionof Persia. We may suspect that troubles in the north-east of his empireoccupied Sapor during this period, for at the end of it we find Bactria, which was certainly subject to Persia during the earlier years ofthe monarchy, occupying an independent position, and even assuming anattitude of hostility towards the Persian monarch. Bactria had, from aremote antiquity, claims to pre-eminence among the Aryan nations. Shewas more than once inclined to revolt from the Achaemenidae; and duringthe later Parthian period she had enjoyed a sort of semi-independence. It would seem that she now succeeded in detaching herself altogetherfrom her southern neighbor, and becoming a distinct and separate power. To strengthen her position she entered into relations with Rome, whichgladly welcomed any adhesions to her cause in this remote region. 

Sapor's second war with Rome was, like his first, provoked by himself. After concluding his peace with Philip, he had seen the Roman worldgoverned successively by six weak emperors, of whom four had diedviolent deaths, while at the same time there had been a continued seriesof attacks upon the northern frontiers of the empire by Alemanni, Goths, and Franks, who had ravaged at their will a number of the finestprovinces, and threatened the absolute destruction of the great monarchyof the West. It was natural that the chief kingdom of Western Asiashould note these events, and should seek to promote its own interestsby taking advantage of the circumstances of the time. Sapor, in A. D. 258, determined on a fresh invasion of the Roman provinces, and, oncemore entering Mesopotamia, carried all before him, became master ofNisibis, Carrhae, and Edessa, and, crossing the Euphrates, surprisedAntioch, which was wrapped in the enjoyment of theatrical and otherrepresentations, and only knew its fate on the exclamation of a coupleof actors "that the Persians were in possession of the town. " Theaged emperor, Valerian, hastened to the protection of his more easternterritories, and at first gained some successes, retaking Antioch, andmaking that city his headquarters during his stay in the East. But, after this, the tide turned. Valerian entrusted the whole conduct of thewar to Macrianus, his Praetorian prefect, whose talents he admired, andof whose fidelity he did not entertain a suspicion. Macrianus, however, aspired to the empire, and intentionally brought Valerian intodifficulties, in the hope of disgracing or removing him. His tacticswere successful. The Roman army in Mesopotamia was betrayed into asituation whence escape was impossible, and where its capitulation wasonly a question of time. A bold attempt' made to force a way through theenemy's lines failed utterly, after which famine and pestilence beganto do their work. In vain did the aged emperor send envoys to propose apeace, and offer to purchase escape by the payment of an immense sum ingold. Sapor, confident of victory, refused the overture, and, waitingpatiently till his adversary was at the last gasp, invited him toa conference, and then treacherously seized his person. The armysurrendered or dispersed. Macrianus, the Praetorian prefect, shortlyassumed the title of emperor, and marched against Gallienus, the son andcolleague of Valerian, who had been left to direct affairs in the West. But another rival started up in the East. Sapor conceived the idea ofcomplicating the Roman affairs by himself putting forward a pretender;and an obscure citizen of Antioch, a certain Miriades or Cyriades, arefugee in his camp, was invested with the purple, and assumed the titleof Caesar. [PLATE. XIII. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 13. ]

The blow struck at Edessa laid the whole of Roman Asia open to attack, and the Persian monarch was not slow to seize the occasion. His troopscrossed the Euphrates in force, and, marching on Antioch, once morecaptured that unfortunate town, from which the more prudent citizens hadwithdrawn, but where the bulk of the people, not displeased at the turnof affairs, remained and welcomed the conqueror. Miriades was installedin power, while Sapor himself, at the head of his irresistiblesquadrons, pressed forward, bursting "like a mountain torrent" intoCilicia and thence into Cappadocia. Tarsus, the birthplace of St. Paul, at once a famous seat of learning and a great emporium of commerce, fell; Cilicia Campestris was overrun; and the passes of Taurus, desertedor weakly defended by the Romans, came into Sapor's hands. Penetratingthrough them and entering the champaign country beyond, his bands soonformed the siege of Caesarea Mazaca, the greatest city of these parts, estimated, at this time to have contained a population of four hundredthousand souls. Demosthenes, the governor of Caesarea, defendedit bravely, and, had force only been used against him, might haveprevailed; but Sapor found friends within the walls, and by their helpmade himself master of the place, while its bold defender was obliged tocontent himself with escaping by cutting his way through the victorioushost. All Asia Minor now seemed open to the conqueror; and it isdifficult to understand why he did not at any rate attempt a permanentoccupation of the territory which he had so easily overrun. But itseems certain that he entertained no such idea. Devastation and plunder, revenge and gain, not permanent conquest, were his objects; and hencehis course was everywhere marked by ruin and carnage, by smoking towns, ravaged fields, and heaps of slain. His cruelties have no doubt beenexaggerated; but when we hear that he filled the ravines and valleys ofCappadocia with dead bodies, and so led his cavalry across them; thathe depopulated Antioch, killing or carrying off into slavery almost thewhole population; that he suffered his prisoners in many cases to perishof hunger, and that he drove them to water once a day like beasts, wemay be sure that the guise in which he showed himself to the Romans wasthat of a merciless scourge--an avenger bent on spreading the terrorof his name--not of one who really sought to enlarge the limits of hisempire. 

During the whole course of this plundering expedition, until the retreatbegan, we hear but of one check that the bands of Sapor received. It hadbeen determined to attack Emesa (now Hems), one of the most important ofthe Syrian towns, where the temple of Venus was known to contain a vasttreasure. The invaders approached, scarcely expecting to be resisted;but the high priest of the temple, having collected a large body ofpeasants, appeared, in his sacerdotal robes, at the head of afanatic multitude armed with slings, and succeeded in beating off theassailants. Emesa, its temple, and its treasure, escaped the rapacityof the Persians; and an example of resistance was set, which was notperhaps without important consequences. 

For it seems certain that the return of Sapor across the Euphrates wasnot effected without considerable loss and difficulty. On his advanceinto Syria he had received an embassy from a certain Odenathus, a Syrianor Arab chief, who occupied a position of semi-independence at Palmyra, which, through the advantages of its situation, had lately become aflourishing commercial town. Odenathus sent a long train of camels ladenwith gifts, consisting in part of rare and precious merchandise, to thePersian monarch, begging him to accept them, and claiming his favorableregard on the ground that he had hitherto refrained from all acts ofhostility against the Persians. It appears that Sapor took offence atthe tone of the communication, which was not sufficiently humble toplease him. Tearing the letter to fragments and trampling it beneath hisfeet, he exclaimed--"Who is this Odenathus, and of what country, that heventures thus to address his lord? Let him now, if he would lighten hispunishment, come here and fall prostrate before me with his hands tiedbehind his back. Should he refuse, let him be well assured that I willdestroy himself, his race, and his land. " At the same time he orderedhis servants to cast the costly presents of the Palmyrene prince intothe Euphrates. 

This arrogant and offensive behavior naturally turned the willingfriend into an enemy. Odenathus, finding himself forced into a hostileposition, took arms and watched his opportunity. So long as Saporcontinued to advance, he kept aloof. As soon, however, as the retreatcommenced, and the Persian army, encumbered with its spoil and captives, proceeded to make its way back slowly and painfully to the Euphrates, Odenathus, who had collected a large force, in part from the Syrianvillages, in part from the wild tribes of Arabia, made his appearance inthe field. His light and agile horsemen hovered about the Persian host, cut off their stragglers, made prize of much of their spoil, and evencaptured a portion of the seraglio of the Great King. The harassedtroops were glad when they had placed the Euphrates between themselvesand their pursuer, and congratulated each other on their escape. Somuch had they suffered, and so little did they feel equal to furtherconflicts, that on their march through Mesopotamia they consented topurchase the neutrality of the people of Edessa by making over to themall the coined money that they had carried off in their Syrian raid. After this it would seem that the retreat was unmolested, and Saporsucceeded in conveying the greater part of his army, together with hisillustrious prisoner, to his own country. 

With regard to the treatment that Valerian received at the hands ofhis conqueror, it is difficult to form a decided opinion. The writersnearest to the time speak vaguely and moderately, merely telling us thathe grew old in his captivity, and was kept in the condition of a slave. It is reserved for authors of the next generation to inform us that hewas exposed to the constant gaze of the multitude, fettered, but clad inthe imperial purple; and that Sapor, whenever he mounted on horseback, placed his foot upon his prisoner's neck. Some add that, when theunhappy captive died, about the year A. D. 265 or 266, his body wasflayed, and the skin inflated and hung up to view in one of the mostfrequented temples of Persia, where it was seen by Roman envoys on theirvisits to the Great King's court. 

It is impossible to deny that Oriental barbarism may conceivably havegone to these lengths; and it is in favor of the truth of the detailsthat Roman vanity would naturally have been opposed to their invention. But, on the other hand, we have to remember that in the East the personof a king is generally regarded as sacred, and that self-interestrestrains the conquering monarch from dishonoring one of his own class. We have also to give due weight to the fact that the earlier authoritiesare silent with respect to any such atrocities and that they arefirst related half a century after the time when they are said tohave occurred. Under these circumstances the scepticism of Gibbon withrespect to them is perhaps more worthy of commendation than the readyfaith of a recent French writer. 

It may be added that Oriental monarchs, when they are cruel, do not showthemselves ashamed of their cruelties, but usually relate them openly intheir inscriptions, or represent them in their bas-reliefs. The remainsascribed on good grounds to Sapor do not, however, contain anythingconfirmatory of the stories which we are considering. Valerian isrepresented on them in a humble attitude, but not fettered, and never inthe posture of extreme degradation commonly associated with his name. Hebends his knee, as no doubt he would be required to do, on being broughtinto the Great King's presence; but otherwise he does not appear tobe subjected to any indignity. It seems thus to be on the whole mostprobable that the Roman emperor was not more severely treated than thegeneralty of captive princes, and that Sapor has been unjustly taxedwith abusing the rights of conquest. 

The hostile feeling of Odenathus against Sapor did not cease with theretreat of the latter across the Euphrates. The Palmyrene prince wasbent on taking advantage of the general confusion of the times to carveout for himself a considerable kingdom, of which Palmyra should be thecapital. Syria and Palestine on the one hand, Mesopotamia on the other, were the provinces that lay most conveniently near to him, and that heespecially coveted. But Mesopotamia had remained in the possession ofthe Persians as the prize of their victory over Valerian, and couldonly be obtained by wresting it from the hands into which it had fallen. Odenathus did not shrink from this contest. It had been with somereason conjectured that Sapor must have been at this time occupied withtroubles which had broken out on the eastern side of his empire. At anyrate, it appears that Odenathus, after a short contest with Macriariusand his son, Quietus, turned his arms once more, about A. D. 263, againstthe Persians, crossed the Euphrates into Mesopotamia, took Oarrhee andNisibis, defeated Sapor and some of his sons in a battle, and drovethe entire Persian host in confusion to the gates of Ctesiphon. He evenventured to form the siege of that city; but it was not long beforeeffectual relief arrived; from all the provinces flocked in contingentsfor the defence of the Western capital; several engagements were fought, in some of which Odenathus was defeated; and at last he found himselfinvolved in difficulties through his ignorance of the localities, andso thought it best to retire. Apparently his retreat was undisturbed; hesucceeded in carrying off his booty and his prisoners, among whomwere several satraps, and he retained possession of Mesopotamia, whichcontinued to form a part of the Palmyrene kingdom until the capture ofZenobia by Aurelian (A. D. 273). 

The successes of Odenathus in A. D. 263 were followed by a period ofcomparative tranquillity. That ambitious prince seems to have beencontent with ruling from the Tigris to the Mediterranean, and withthe titles of "Augustus, " which he received from the Roman emperor, Gallienus, and "king of kings, " which he assumed upon his coins. He didnot press further upon Sapor; nor did the Roman emperor make any seriousattempt to recover his father's person or revenge his defeat upon thePersians. An expedition which he sent out to the East, professedlywith this object, in the year A. D. 267, failed utterly, its commander, Heraclianus, being completely defeated by Zenobia, the widow andsuccessor of Odenathus. Odenathus himself was murdered by a kinsmanthree or four years after his great successes; and, though Zenobiaruled his kingdom almost with a man's vigor, the removal of his powerfuladversary must have been felt as a relief by the Persian monarch. Itis evident, too, that from the time of the accession of Zenobia, therelations between Rome and Palmyra had become unfriendly; the old empiregrew jealous of the new kingdom which had sprung up upon its borders;and the effect of this jealousy, while it lasted, was to secure Persiafrom any attack on the part of either. 

It appears that Sapor, relieved from any further necessity of defendinghis empire in arms, employed the remaining years of his life inthe construction of great works, and especially in the erection andornamentation of a new capital. The ruins of Shahpur, which still existnear Kazerun, in the province of Fars, commemorate the name, and affordsome indication of the grandeur, of the second Persian monarch. Besidesremains of buildings, they comprise a number of bas-reliefs and rockinscriptions, some of which were beyond a doubt set up by Sapor I. In one of the most remarkable the Persian monarch is represented onhorseback, wearing the crown usual upon his coins, and holding by thehand a tunicked figure, probably Miriades, whom he is presenting to thecaptured Romans as their sovereign. Foremost to do him homage is thekneeling figure of a chieftain, probably Valerian, behind whom arearranged in a double line seventeen persons, representing apparently thedifferent corps of the Roman army. [PLATE XIV. ] All these persons are onfoot, while in contrast with them are arranged behind Sapor ten guardson horseback, who represent his irresistible cavalry. Another bas-reliefat the same place gives us a general view of the triumph of Sapor on hisreturn to Persia with his illustrious prisoner. Here fifty-seven guardsare ranged behind him, while in front are thirty-three tribute-bearers, having with them an elephant and a chariot. In the centre is a groupof seven figures, comprising Sapor, who is on horseback in his usualcostume; Valerian, who is under the horse's feet; Miriades, who standsby Sapor's side; three principal tribute-bearers in front of the mainfigure; and a Victory which floats in the sky. 

[Illustration: PLATE 14. ]

Another important work, assigned by tradition to Sapor I. , is the greatdyke at Shuster. This is a dam across the river Karun, formed of cutstones, cemented by lime, and fastened together by clamps of iron; it istwenty feet broad, and no less than twelve hundred feet in length. Thewhole is a solid mass excepting in the centre, where two small archeshave been constructed for the purpose of allowing a part of the streamto flow in its natural bed. The greater portion of the water is directedeastward into a canal cut for it; and the town of Shuster is thusdefended on both sides by a water barrier, whereby the position becomesone of great strength. Tradition says that Sapor used his power overValerian to obtain Roman engineers for this work; and the great dam isstill known as the Bund-i-Kaisar, or "dam of Caesar, " to the inhabitantsof the neighboring country. 

Besides his works at Shahpur and Shuster, Sapor set up memorialsof himself at Haji-abad, Nakhsh-i-Rajab, and Nakhsh-i-Rustam, nearPersepolis, at Darabgerd in South-eastern Persia, and elsewhere; mostof which still exist and have been described by various travellers. AtNakhsh-i-Rustam Valerian is seen making his submission in one tablet, while another exhibits the glories of Sapor's court. The sculptures arein some instances accompanied by inscriptions. One of these is, likethose of Artaxerxes, bilingual, Greek and Persian. The Greek inscriptionruns as follows:

[Illustration: PAGE 289]

In the main, Sapor, it will be seen, follows the phrases of his fatherArtaxerxes; but he claims a wider dominion. Artaxerxes is content torule over Ariana (or Iran) only; his son calls himself lord both of theArians and the non-Arians, or of Iran and Turan. We may conclude fromthis as probable that he held some Scythic tribes under his sway, probably in Segestan, or Seistan, the country south and east of theHamoon, or lake in which the Helmend is swallowed up. Scythians had beensettled in these parts, and in portions of Afghanistan and India, since the great invasion of the Yue-chi, about B. C. 200; and it is notunlikely that some of them may have passed under the Persian rule duringthe reign of Sapor, but we have no particulars of these conquests. 

Sapor's coins resemble those of Artaxerxes in general type, but may bedistinguished from them, first, by the head-dress, which is either a capterminating in the head of an eagle, or else a mural crown surmounted byan inflated ball; and, secondly, by the emblem on the reverse, which isalmost always a fire-altar between two supporters [PLATE XV. , Fig. 2. ]The ordinary legend on the coins is "Mazdisn bag Shahpuhri, malkanmalka Airan, minuchitri minyazdan, " on the obverse; and on the reverse"Shahpuhri nuvazi. "

It appears from these legends, and from the inscription above given, that Sapor was, like his father, a zealous Zoroastrian. His faithwas exposed to considerable trial. Never was there a time of greaterreligious ferment in the East, or a crisis which more shook men's beliefin ancestral creeds. The absurd idolatry which had generally prevailedthrough Western Asia for two thousand years--a nature-worship whichgave the sanction of religion to the gratification of men's lowestpropensities--was shaken to its foundation; and everywhere men werestriving after something higher, nobler, and truer than had satisfiedprevious generations for twenty centuries. The sudden revivificationof Zoroastrianism, after it had been depressed and almost forgotten forfive hundred years, was one result of this stir of men's minds. Anotherresult was the rapid progress of Christianity, which in the course ofthe third century overspread large portions of the East, rooting itselfwith great firmness in Armenia, and obtaining a hold to some extent onBabylonia, Bactria, and perhaps even on India. Judaism, also, which hadlong had a footing in Mesopotamia, and which after the time of Hadrianmay be regarded as having its headquarters at Babylon--Judaism itself, usually so immovable, at this time showed signs of life and change, taking something like a new form in the schools wherein was compiled thevast and strange work known as "the Babylonian Talmud. "

Amid the strife and jar of so many conflicting systems, each having aroot in the past, and each able to appeal with more or less of forceto noble examples of virtue and constancy among its professors in thepresent, we cannot be surprised that in some minds the idea grew upthat, while all the systems possessed some truth, no one of them wasperfect or indeed much superior to its fellows. Eclectic or syncreticviews are always congenial to some intellects; and in times whenreligious thought is deeply stirred, and antagonistic creeds are broughtinto direct collision, the amiable feeling of a desire for peace comesin to strengthen the inclination for reconciling opponents by means of afusion, and producing harmony by a happy combination of discords. It wasin Persia, and in the reign of Sapor, that one of the most remarkable ofthese well-meaning attempts at fusion and reconciliation that the wholeof history can show was made, and with results which ought to be alasting warning to the apostles of comprehension. A certain Mani (orManes, as the ecclesiastical writers call him), born in Persia aboutA. D. 240, grew to manhood under Sapor, exposed to the various religiousinfluences of which we have spoken. With a mind free from prejudice andopen to conviction, he studied the various systems of belief which hefound established in Western Asia--the Cabalism of the Babylonian Jews, the Dualism of the Magi, the mysterious doctrines of the Christians, andeven the Buddhism of India. At first he inclined to Christianity, and issaid to have been admitted to priest's orders and to have ministered toa congregation; but after a time he thought that he saw his way to theformation of a new creed, which should combine all that was best inthe religious systems which he was acquainted with, and omit whatwas superfluous or objectionable. He adopted the Dualism of theZoroastrians, the metempsychosis of India, the angelism and demonismof the Talmud, and the Trinitarianism of the Gospel of Christ. Christhimself he identified with Mithra, and gave Him his dwelling in the sun. He assumed to be the Paraclete promised by Christ, who should guide meninto all truth, and claimed that his "Ertang, " a sacred book illustratedby pictures of his own painting, should supersede the New Testament. Such pretensions were not likely to be tolerated by the Christiancommunity; and Manes had not put them forward very long when he wasexpelled from the church and forced to carry his teaching elsewhere. Under these circumstances he is said to have addressed himself to Sapor, who was at first inclined to show him some favor; but when he foundout what the doctrines of the new teacher actually were, his feelingsunderwent a change, and Manes, proscribed, or at any rate threatenedwith penalties, had to retire into a foreign country. 

The Zoroastrian faith was thus maintained in its purity by the Persianmonarch, who did not allow himself to be imposed upon by the speciouseloquence of the new teacher, but ultimately rejected the strangeamalgamation that was offered to his acceptance. It is scarcely to beregretted that he so determined. Though the morality of the Manicheeswas pure, and though their religion is regarded by some as a sort ofChristianity, there were but few points in which it was an improvementon Zoroastrianism. Its Dualism was pronounced and decided; itsTrinitarianism was questionable; its teaching with respect to Christdestroyed the doctrines of the incarnation and atonement; its "Ertang" was a poor substitute for Holy Scripture. Even its morality, beingdeeply penetrated with asceticism, was of a wrong type and inferior tothat preached by Zoroaster. Had the creed of Manes been accepted by thePersian monarch, the progress of real Christianity in the East would, it is probable, have been impeded rather than forwarded--the generalcurrency of the debased amalgam would have checked the introduction ofthe pure metal. 

It must have been shortly after his rejection of the teaching of Manesthat Sapor died, having reigned thirty-one years, from A. D. 240 toA. D. 271. He was undoubtedly one of the most remarkable princes of theSassanian series. In military talent, indeed, he may not have equalledhis father; for though he defeated Valerian, he had to confess himselfinferior to Odenathus. But in general governmental ability he is amongthe foremost of the Neo-Persian monarchs, and may compare favorably withalmost any prince of the series. He baffled Odenathus, when he was notable to defeat him, by placing himself behind walls, and by bringinginto play those advantages which naturally belonged to the position ofa monarch attacked in his own country. He maintained, if he did notpermanently advance, the power of Persia in the west; while in the eastit is probable that he considerably extended the bounds of his dominion. In the internal administration of his empire he united works ofusefulness with the construction of memorial which had only asentimental and aesthetic value. He was a liberal patron of art, andis thought not to have confined his patronage to the encouragement ofnative talent. On the subject of religion he did not suffer himselfto be permanently led away by the enthusiasm of a young and boldfreethinker. He decided to maintain the religious system thathad descended to him from his ancestors, and turned a deaf ear topersuasions that would have led him to revolutionize the religiousopinion of the East without placing it upon a satisfactory footing. TheOrientals add to these commendable features of character, that he was aman of remarkable beauty, of great personal courage, and of a noble andprincely liberality. According to them, "he only desired wealth that hemight use it for good and great purposes. "

CHAPTER V. 

Short Reign of Hormisdas I. His dealings with Manes. Accession ofVarahran I. He puts Manes to Death. Persecutes the Manichaeans and theChristians. His Relations with Zenobia. He is threatened by Aurelian. His Death. Reign of Varahran II. His Tyrannical Conduct. His Conquestof Seistan, and War with India. His war with the Roman Emperors Cams andDiocletian. His Loss of Armenia. His Death. Short Reign of Varahran III. 

[Illustration: CHAPTER-5]

The first and second kings of the Neo-Persian Empire were men of markand renown. Their successors for several generations were, comparativelyspeaking, feeble and insignificant. The first burst of vigor andfreshness which commonly attends the advent to power of a new race inthe East, or the recovery of its former position by an old one, hadpassed away, and was succeeded, as so often happens, by reaction andexhaustion, the monarchs becoming luxurious and inert, while the peoplewillingly acquiesced in a policy of which the principle was "Rest and bethankful. " It helped to keep matters in this quiescent state, that thekings who ruled during this period had, in almost every instance, shortreigns, four monarchs coming to the throne and dying within the spaceof a little more than twenty-one years. The first of these four wasHormisdates, Hormisdas, or Hormuz, the son of Sapor, who succeeded hisfather in A. D. 271. His reign lasted no more than a year and ten days, and was distinguished by only a single event of any importance. Mani, who had fled from Sapor, ventured to return to Persia on the accessionof his son, and was received with respect and favor. Whether Hormisdaswas inclined to accept his religious teaching or no, we are not told;but at any rate he treated him kindly, allowed him to propagate hisdoctrines, and even assigned him as his residence a castle namedArabion. From this place Mani proceeded to spread his views among theChristians of Mesopotamia, and in a short time succeeded in foundingthe sect which, under the name of Manichaeans or Manichaes, gave so muchtrouble to the Church for several centuries. Hormisdas, who, accordingto some founded the city of Ram-Hormuz in Eastern Persia, died inA. D. 272, and was succeeded by his son or brother, Vararanes or Varahran. He left no inscriptions, and it is doubted whether we possess any of hiscoins. 

Varahran I. , whose reign lasted three years only, from A. D. 272 to 275, is declared by the native historians to have been a mild and amiableprince; but the little that is positively known of him does not bear outthis testimony. It seems certain that he put Mani to death, and probablethat he enticed him to leave the shelter of his castle by artifice, thusshowing himself not only harsh but treacherous towards the unfortunateheresiarch. If it be true that he caused him to be flayed alive, we canscarcely exonerate him from the charge of actual cruelty, unless indeedwe regard the punishment as an ordinary mode of execution in Persia. Perhaps, however, in this case, as in other similar ones, there is nosufficient evidence that the process of flaying took place until theculprit was dead, the real object of the excoriation being, not theinfliction of pain, but the preservation of a memorial which could beused as a warning and a terror to others. The skin of Mani, stuffed withstraw, was no doubt suspended for some time after his execution over oneof the gates of the great city of Shahpur; and it is possible that thisfact may have been the sole ground of the belief (which, it is tobe remembered, was not universal) that he actually suffered death byflaying. 

The death of the leader was followed by the persecution of hisdisciples. Mani had organized a hierarchy, consisting of twelveapostles, seventy-two bishops, and a numerous priesthood; and his sectwas widely established at the time of his execution. Varahran handedover these unfortunates, or at any rate such of them as he was ableto seize, to the tender mercies of the Magians, who put to death greatnumbers of Manichseans. Many Christians at the same time perished, either because they were confounded with the followers of Mani, or because the spirit of persecution, once let loose, could not berestrained, but passed on from victims of one class to those of another, the Magian priesthood seizing the opportunity of devoting all hereticsto a common destruction. 

Thus unhappy in his domestic administration, Varahran was not much morefortunate in his wars. Zenobia, the queen of the East, held for sometime to the policy of her illustrious husband, maintaining a positioninimical alike to Rome and Persia from the death of Odenathus in A. D. 267 to Aurelian's expedition against her in A. D. 272. When, however, inthis year, Aurelian marched to attack her with the full forces of theempire, she recognized the necessity of calling to her aid other troopsbesides her own. It was at this time that she made overtures to thePersians, which were favorably received; and, in the year A. D. 273, Persian troops are mentioned among those with whom Aurelian contended inthe vicinity of Palmyra. But the succors sent were inconsiderable, andwere easily overpowered by the arts or arms of the emperor. The youngking had not the courage to throw himself boldly into the war. Heallowed Zenobia to be defeated and reduced to extremities without makinganything like an earnest or determined effort to save her. He continuedher ally, indeed, to the end, and probably offered her an asylum at hiscourt, if she were compelled to quit her capital; but even this poorboon he was prevented from conferring by the capture of the unfortunateprincess just as she reached the banks of the Euphrates. 

In the aid which he lent Zenobia, Varahran, while he had done too littleto affect in any degree the issue of the struggle, had done quite enoughto provoke Rome and draw down upon him the vengeance of the Empire, Itseems that he quite realized the position in which circumstances hadplaced him. Feeling that he had thrown out a challenge to Rome, andyet shrinking from the impending conflict, he sent an embassy to theconqueror, deprecating his anger and seeking to propitiate him by rareand costly gifts. Among these were a purple robe from Cashmere, or someother remote province of India, of so brilliant a hue that the ordinarypurple of the imperial robes could not compare with it, and a chariotlike to those in which the Persian monarch was himself wont to becarried. Aurelian accepted these gifts; and it would seem to follow thathe condoned Varahran's conduct, and granted him terms of peace. Hence, in the triumph which Aurelian celebrated at Rome in the year A. D. 274, no Persian captives appeared in the procession, but Persian envoyswere exhibited instead, who bore with them the presents wherewith theirmaster had appeased the anger of the emperor. 

A full year, however, had not elapsed from the time of the triumph whenthe master of the Roman world thought fit to change his policy, and, suddenly declaring war against the Persians, commenced his marchtowards the East. We are not told that he discovered, or even sought todiscover, any fresh ground of complaint. His talents were best suitedfor employment in the field, and he regarded it as expedient to"exercise the restless temper of the legions in some foreign war. " Thusit was desirable to find or make an enemy; and the Persians presentedthemselves as the foe which could be attacked most conveniently. There was no doubt a general desire to efface the memory of Valerian'sdisaster by some considerable success; and war with Persia was thereforelikely to be popular at once with the Senate, with the army, and withthe mixed multitude which was dignified with the title of "the Romanpeople. "

Aurelian, therefore, set out for Persia at the head of a numerous, butstill a manageable, force. He proceeded through Illyricum and Macedoniatowards Byzantium, and had almost reached the straits, when aconspiracy, fomented by one of his secretaries, cut short his career, and saved the Persian empire from invasion. Aurelian was murdered in thespring of A. D. 275, at Coenophrurium, a small station between Heraclea(Perinthus) and Byzantium. The adversary with whom he had hoped tocontend, Varahran, cannot have survived him long, since he died (ofdisease as it would seem) in the course of the year, leaving his crownto a young son who bore the same name with himself, and is known inhistory as Varahran the Second. 

Varahran II. Is said to have ruled at first tyrannically, and to havegreatly disgusted all his principal nobles, who went so far as to forma conspiracy against him, and intended to put him to death. The chiefof the Magians, however, interposed, and, having effectually alarmed theking, brought him to acknowledge himself wrong and to promise an entirechange of conduct. The nobles upon this returned to their allegiance;and Varahran, during the remainder of his reign, is said to have beendistinguished for wisdom and moderation, and to have rendered himselfpopular with every class of his subjects. 

[Illustration: PLATE 16. ]

It appears that this prince was not without military ambition. Heengaged in a war with the Segestani (or Sacastani), the inhabitantsof Segestan or Seistan, a people of Scythic origin, and after a timereduced them to subjection [PLATE XVII]. He then became involved in aquarrel with some of the natives of Afghanistan, who were at this timeregarded as "Indians. " A long and desultory contest followed withoutdefinite result, which was not concluded by the year A. D. 283, when hefound himself suddenly engaged in hostilities on the opposite side ofthe empire. 

[Illustration: PLATE 17]

Rome, in the latter part of the third century, had experienced one ofthose reactions which mark her later history, and which alone enabledher to complete her predestined term of twelve centuries. Between theyears A. D. 274 and 282, under Aurelian, Tacitus, Probus, and Carus, sheshowed herself once more very decidedly the first military power inthe world, drove back the barbarians on all sides, and even ventured toindulge in an aggressive policy. Aurelian, as we have seen, was on thepoint of invading Persia when a domestic conspiracy brought his reignand life to an end. Tacitus, his successor, scarcely obtained such afirm hold upon the throne as to feel that he could with any prudenceprovoke a war. But Probus, the next emperor, revived the project of aPersian expedition, and would probably have led the Roman armies intoMesopotamia, had not his career been cut short by the revolt of thelegions in Illyria (A. D. 282). Carus, who had been his praetorianprefect, and who became emperor at his death, adhered steadily to hispolicy. It was the first act of his reign to march the forces of theempire to the extreme east, and to commence in earnest the war which hadso long been threatened. Led by the Emperor in person, the legions oncemore crossed the Euphrates. 

Mesopotamia was rapidly overrun, since the Persians (we are told) wereat variance among themselves, and a civil war was raging. The bulk oftheir forces, moreover, were engaged on the opposite side of the empirein a struggle with the Indians, probably those of Afghanistan. Underthese circumstances, no effectual resistance was possible; and, ifwe may believe the Roman writers, not only was the Roman province ofMesopotamia recovered, but the entire tract between the rivers as farsouth as the latitude of Bagdad was ravaged, and even the two greatcities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon were taken without the slightestdifficulty. Persia Proper seemed to lie open to the invader, and Caruswas preparing to penetrate still further to the east, when again anopportune death checked the progress of the Roman arms, and perhapssaved the Persian monarchy from destruction. Carus had announced hisintention of continuing his march; some discontent had shown itself;and an oracle had been quoted which declared that a Roman emperor wouldnever proceed victoriously beyond Ctesiphon, Carus was not convinced, but he fell sick, and his projects were delayed; he was still in hiscamp near Ctesiphon, when a terrible thunderstorm broke over the groundoccupied by the Roman army. A weird darkness was spread around, amidwhich flash followed flash at brief intervals, and peal upon pealterrified the superstitious soldiery. Suddenly, after the most violentclap of all, the cry arose that the Emperor was dead. Some said that histent had been struck by lightning, and that his death was owing to thiscause; others believed that he had simply happened to succumb to hismalady at the exact moment of the last thunder-clap; a third theorywas that his attendants had taken advantage of the general confusion toassassinate him, and that he merely added another to the long list ofRoman emperors murdered by those who hoped to profit by their removal. It is not likely that the problem of what really caused the death ofCarus will ever be solved. That he died very late in A. D. 283, or withinthe first fortnight of A. D. 284, is certain; and it is no less certainthat his death was most fortunate for Persia, since it brought the warto an end when it had reached a point at which any further reverseswould have been disastrous, and gave the Persians a breathing-spaceduring which they might, at least partially, recover from theirprostration. 

Upon the death of Carus, the Romans at once determined on retreat. It was generally believed that the imperial tent had been struck bylightning; and it was concluded that the decision of the gods againstthe further advance of the invading army had been thereby unmistakablydeclared. The army considered that it had done enough, and was anxiousto return home; the feeble successor of Carus, his son Numerian, ifhe possessed the will, was at any rate without the power to resist thewishes of the troops; and the result was that the legions quitted theEast without further fighting, and without securing, by the conclusionof formal terms of peace, any permanent advantage from their victories. 

A pause of two years now occurred, during which Varahran had theopportunity of strengthening his position while Rome was occupied bycivil wars and distracted between the claims of pretenders. No great useseems, however, to have been made of this interval. When, in A. D. 286, the celebrated Diocletian determined to resume the war with Persia, and, embracing the cause of Tiridates, son of Chosroes, directed his effortsto the establishment of that prince, as a Roman feudatory, on hisfather's throne. Varahran found himself once more overmatched, and couldoffer no effectual resistance. Armenia had now been a province of Persiafor the space of twenty-six (or perhaps forty-six) years; but it had inno degree been conciliated or united with the rest of the empire. Thepeople had been distrusted and oppressed; the nobles had been deprivedof employment; a heavy tribute had been laid on the land; and areligious revolution had been violently effected. It is not surprisingthat when Tiridates, supported by a Roman _corps d'armee_, appearedupon the frontiers, the whole population received him with transportsof loyalty and joy. All the nobles flocked to his standard, and at onceacknowledged him for their king. The people everywhere welcomed himwith acclamations. A native prince of the Arsacid dynasty united thesuffrages of all; and the nation threw itself with enthusiastic zealinto a struggle which was viewed as a war of independence. It wasforgotten that Tiridates was in fact only a puppet in the hand of theRoman emperor, and that, whatever the result of the contest, Armeniawould remain at its close, as she had been at its commencement, adependant upon a foreign power. 

The success of Tiridates at the first was such as might have beenexpected from the forces arrayed in his favor. He defeated two Persianarmies in the open field, drove out the garrisons which held the moreimportant of the fortified towns, and became undisputed master ofArmenia. He even crossed the border which separated Armenia from Persia, and gained signal victories on admitted Persian ground. According to thenative writers, his personal exploits were extraordinary; he defeatedsingly a corps of giants, and routed on foot a large detachment mountedon elephants! The narrative is here, no doubt, tinged with exaggeration;but the general result is correctly stated. Tiridates, within a year ofhis invasion, was complete master of the entire Armenian highland, andwas in a position to carry his arms beyond his own frontiers. 

Such seems to have been the position of things, when Varahran II. Suddenly died, after a reign of seventeen years, 52 A. D. 292. He isgenerally said to have left behind him two sons, Varahran and Narsehi, or Narses, of whom the elder, Varahran, was proclaimed king. This princewas of an amiable temper, but apparently of a weakly constitution. Hewas with difficulty persuaded to accept the throne, and anticipatedfrom the first an early demise. No events are assigned to his shortreign, which (according to the best authorities) did not exceed thelength of four months. It is evident that he must have been powerless tooffer any effectual opposition to Tiridates, whose forces continuedto ravage, year after year, the north-western provinces of the Persianempire. Had Tiridates been a prince of real military talent, it couldscarcely have been difficult for him to obtain still greater advantages. But he was content with annual raids, which left the substantial powerof Persia untouched. He allowed the occasion of the throne's beingoccupied by a weak and invalid prince to slip by. The consequences ofthis negligence will appear in the next chapter. Persia, permitted toescape serious attack in her time of weakness, was able shortly to takethe offensive and to make the Armenian prince regret his indolence orwant of ambition. The son of Chosroes became a second time a fugitive;and once more the Romans were called in to settle the affairs of theEast. We have now to trace the circumstances of this struggle, and toshow how Rome under able leaders succeeded in revenging the defeatand captivity of Valerian, and in inflicting, in her turn, a grievoushumiliation upon her adversary. 

CHAPTER VI. 

_Civil War of Narses and his Brother Hormisdas. Narses victorious. Heattacks and expels Tiridates. War declared against him by Diocletian. First Campaign of Galerius, A. D. 297. Second Campaign, A. D. 298. Defeatsuffered by Narses. Negotiations. Conditions of Peace. Abdication andDeath of Narses. _

It appears that on the death of Varahran III. , probably without issue, there was a contention for the crown between two brothers, Narses andHormisdas. We are not informed which of them was the elder, nor on whatgrounds they respectively rested their claims; but it seems that Narseswas from the first preferred by the Persians, and that his rivalrelied mainly for success on the arms of foreign barbarians. Worsted inencounters wherein none but Persians fought on either side, Hormisdassummoned to his aid the hordes of the north--Gelli from the shores ofthe Caspian, Scyths from the Oxus or the regions beyond, and Russians, now first mentioned by a classical writer. But the perilous attempt tosettle a domestic struggle by the swords of foreigners was not destinedon this occasion to prosper. Hormisdas failed in his endeavor to obtainthe throne; and, as we hear no more of him, we may regard it as probablethat he was defeated and slain. At any rate Narses was, within a year ortwo of his accession, so firmly settled in his kingdom that he wasable to turn his thoughts to the external affairs of the empire, and toengage in a great war. All danger from internal disorder must have beenpretty certainly removed before Narses could venture to affront, as hedid, the strongest of existing military powers. [PLATE XVIII. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 18. ]

Narses ascended the throne in A. D. 292 or 293. It was at least as earlyas A. D. 296 that he challenged Rome to an encounter by attacking inforce the vassal monarch whom her arms had established in Armenia. Tiridates had, it is evident, done much to provoke the attack by hisconstant raids into Persian territory, which were sometimes carried evento the south of Ctesiphon. He was probably surprised by the sudden marchand vigorous assault of an enemy whom he had learned to despise; and, feeling himself unable to organize an effectual resistance, he hadrecourse to flight, gave up Armenia to the Persians, and for a secondtime placed himself under the protection of the Roman emperor. Themonarch who held this proud position was still Diocletian, the greatestemperor that had occupied the Roman throne since Trajan, and the princeto whom Tiridates was indebted for his restoration to his kingdom. Itwas impossible that Diocletian should submit to the affront put upon himwithout an earnest effort to avenge it. His own power rested, in a greatmeasure, on his military prestige; and the unpunished insolence ofa foreign king would have seriously endangered an authority not veryfirmly established. The position of Diocletian compelled him to declarewar against Narses in the year A. D. 296, and to address himself to astruggle of which he is not likely to have misconceived the importance. It might have been expected that he would have undertaken the conduct ofthe war in person; but the internal condition of the empire was farfrom satisfactory, and the chief of the State seems to have felt thathe could not conveniently quit his dominions to engage in war beyond hisborders. He therefore committed the task of reinstating Tiridates andpunishing Narses to his favorite and son-in-law, Galerius, while hehimself took up a position within the limits of the empire, which atonce enabled him to overawe his domestic adversaries and to support andcountenance his lieutenant. 

The first attempts of Galerius were unfortunate. Summoned suddenly fromthe Danube to the Euphrates, and placed at the head of an army composedchiefly of the levies of Asia, ill-disciplined, and unacquainted withtheir commander, he had to meet an adversary of whom he knew littleor nothing, in a region the character of which was adverse to his owntroops and favorable to those of the enemy. Narses had invaded theRoman province of Mesopotamia, had penetrated to the Khabour, and wasthreatening to cross the Euphrates into Syria. Galerius had no choicebut to encounter him on the ground which he had chosen. Now, thoughWestern Mesopotamia is ill-described as a smooth and barren surface ofsandy desert, without a hillock, without a tree, and without a springof fresh water, it is undoubtedly an open country, possessing numerousplains, where, in a battle, the advantage of numbers is likely to befelt, and where there is abundant room for the evolutions of cavalry. The Persians, like their predecessors the Parthians, were especiallystrong in horse; and the host which Narses had brought into the fieldgreatly outnumbered the troops which Diocletian had placed at thedisposal of Galerius. Yet Galerius took the offensive. Fighting underthe eye of a somewhat stern master, he was scarcely free to choose hisplan of campaign. Diocletian expected him to drive the Persiansfrom Mesopotamia, and he was therefore bound to make the attempt. Heaccordingly sought out his adversary in this region, and engaged himin three great battles. The first and second appear to have beenindecisive; but in the third the Roman general suffered a completedefeat. The catastrophe of Crassus was repeated almost upon the samebattle-field, and probably almost by the same means. But, personally, Galerius was more fortunate than his predecessor. He escaped from thecarnage, and, recrossing the Euphrates, rejoined his father-in-law inSyria. A conjecture, not altogether destitute of probability, makesTiridates share both the calamity and the good fortune of the RomanCaesar. Like Galerius, he escaped from the battle-field, and reached thebanks of the Euphrates. But his horse, which had received a wound, couldnot be trusted to pass the river. In this emergency the Armenian princedismounted, and, armed as he was, plunged into the stream. The riverwas both wide and deep; the current was rapid; but the hardy adventurer, inured to danger and accustomed to every athletic exercise, swam acrossand reached the opposite bank in safety. 

Thus, while the rank and file perished ignominiously, the two personagesof most importance on the Roman side were saved. Galerius hastenedtowards Antioch, to rejoin his colleague and sovereign. The lattercame out to meet him, but, instead of congratulating him on his escape, assumed the air of an offended master, and, declining to speak to him orto stop his chariot, forced the Caesar to follow him on foot for nearlya mile before he would condescend to receive his explanations andapologies for defeat. The disgrace was keenly felt, and was ultimatelyrevenged upon the prince who had contrived it. But, at the time, itsmain effect doubtless was to awake in the young Caesar the strongestdesire of retrieving his honor, and wiping out the memory of his greatreverse by a yet more signal victory. Galerius did not cease through thewinter of A. D. 297 to importune his father-in-law for an opportunity ofredeeming the past and recovering his lost laurels. 

The emperor, having sufficiently indulged his resentment, acceded tothe wishes of his favorite. Galerius was continued in his command. Anew army was collected during the winter, to replace that which had beenlost; and the greatest care was taken that its material should be ofgood quality, and that it should be employed where it had the bestchance of success. The veterans of Illyria and Moesia constituted theflower of the force now enrolled; and it was further strengthened by theaddition of a body of Gothic auxiliaries. It was determined, moreover, that the attack should this time be made on the side of Armenia, where it was felt that the Romans would have the double advantage ofa friendly country, and of one far more favorable for the movements ofinfantry than for those of an army whose strength lay in its horse. Thenumber of the troops employed was still small. Galerius entered Armeniaat the head of only 25, 000 men; but they were a picked force, and theymight be augmented, almost to any extent, by the national militia of theArmenians. He was now, moreover, as cautious as he had previously beenrash; he advanced slowly, feeling his way; he even personally madereconnaissances, accompanied by only one or two horsemen, and, underthe shelter of a flag of truce, explored the position of his adversary. Narses found himself overmatched alike in art and in force. He allowedhimself to be surprised in his camp by his active enemy, and suffered adefeat by which he more than lost all the fruits of his former victory. Most of his army was destroyed; he himself received a wound, and withdifficulty escaped by a hasty flight. Galerius pursued, and, though hedid not succeed in taking the monarch himself, made prize of hiswives, his sisters, and a number of his children, besides capturinghis military chest. He also took many of the most illustrious Persiansprisoners. How far he followed his flying adversary is uncertain; butit is scarcely probable that he proceeded much southward of the Armenianfrontier. He had to reinstate Tiridates in his dominions, to recoverEastern Mesopotamia, and to lay his laurels at the feet of his colleagueand master. It seems probable that having driven Narses from Armenia, and left Tiridates there to administer the government, he hastened torejoin Diocletian before attempting any further conquests. 

The Persian monarch, on his side, having recovered from his wound, whichcould have been but slight, set himself to collect another army, but atthe same time sent an ambassador to to the camp of Galerius, requestingto know the terms on which Rome would consent to make peace. A writerof good authority has left us an account of the interview which followedbetween the envoy of the Persian monarch and the victorious Roman. Apharban (so was the envoy named) opened the negotiations with thefollowing speech:

"The whole human race knows, " he said, "that the Roman and Persiankingdoms resemble two great luminaries, and that, like a man's two eyes, they ought mutually to adorn and illustrate each other, and not in theextremity of their wrath to seek rather each other's destruction. Soto act is not to act manfully, but is indicative rather of levity andweakness; for it is to suppose that our inferiors can never be of anyservice to us, and that therefore we had bettor get rid of them. Narses, moreover, ought not to be accounted a weaker prince than other Persiankings; thou hast indeed conquered him, but then thou surpassest allother monarchs; and thus Narses has of course been worsted by thee, though he is no whit inferior in merit to the best of his ancestors. The orders which my master has given me are to entrust all the rights ofPersia to the clemency of Rome; and I therefore do not even bring withme any conditions of peace, since it is for the emperor to determineeverything. I have only to pray, on my master's behalf, for therestoration of his wives and male children; if he receives them at yourhands, he will be forever beholden to you, and will be better pleasedthan if he recovered them by force of arms. Even now my master cannotsufficiently thank you for the kind treatment which he hears you havevouchsafed them, in that you have offered them no insult, but havebehaved towards them as though on the point of giving them back totheir kith and kin. He sees herein that you bear in mind the changes offortune and the instability of all human affairs. "

At this point Galerius, who had listened with impatience to the longharangue, burst in with a movement of anger that shook his wholeframe--"What? Do the Persians dare to remind us of the vicissitudes offortune, as though we could forget how they behave when victory inclinesto them? Is it not their wont to push their advantage to the uttermostand press as heavily as may be on the unfortunate? How charmingly theyshowed the moderation that becomes a victor in Valerian's time! Theyvanquished him by fraud; they kept him a prisoner to advanced old age;they let him die in dishonor; and then when he was dead they strippedoff his skin, and with diabolical ingenuity made of a perishable humanbody an imperishable monument of our shame. Verily, if we follow thisenvoy's advice, and look to the changes of human affairs, we shall notbe moved to clemency, but to anger, when we consider the past conductof the Persians. If pity be shown them, if their requests be granted, itwill not be for what they have urged, but because it is a principle ofaction with us--a principle handed down to us from our ancestors--tospare the humble and chastise the proud. " Apharban, therefore, wasdismissed with no definite answer to his question, what terms of peaceRome would require; but he was told to assure his master that Rome'sclemency equalled her valor, and that it would not be long before hewould receive a Roman envoy authorized to signify the Imperial pleasure, and to conclude a treaty with him. 

Having held this interview with Apharban, Galerius hastened to meet andconsult his colleague. Diocletian had remained in Syria, at the headof an army of observation, while Galerius penetrated into Armenia andengaged the forces of Persia. When he heard of his son-in-law'sgreat victory he crossed the Euphrates, and advancing through WesternMesopotamia, from which the Persians probably retired, took up hisresidence at Nisibis, now the chief town of these parts. It is perhapstrue that his object was "to moderate, by his presence and counsels, thepride of Galarius. " That prince was bold to rashness, and nourished anexcessive ambition. He is said to have at this time entertained a designof grasping at the conquest of the East, and to have even proposed tohimself to reduce the Persian Empire into the form of a Roman province. But the views of Diocletian were humbler and more prudent. He heldto the opinion of Augustus and Hadrian, that Rome did not need anyenlargement of her territory, and that the absorption of the East wasespecially undesirable. When he and his son-in-law met and interchangedideas at Nisibis, the views of the elder ruler naturally prevailed; andit was resolved to offer to the Persians tolerable terms of peace. Acivilian of importance, Sicorius Probus, was selected for the delicateoffice of envoy, and was sent, with a train of attendants, into Media, where Narses had fixed his headquarters. We are told that the Persianmonarch received him with all honor, but, under pretence of allowinghim to rest and refresh himself after his long journey, deferred hisaudience from day to day; while he employed the time thus gained incollecting from various quarters such a number of detachments andgarrisons as might constitute a respectable army. He had no intention ofrenewing the war, but he knew the weight which military preparation everlends to the representations of diplomacy. Accordingly it was not untilhe had brought under the notice of Sicorius a force of no inconsiderablesize that he at last admitted him to an interview. The Roman ambassadorwas introduced into an inner chamber of the royal palace in Media, wherehe found only the king and three others--Apharban, the envoy sent toGalerius, Archapetes, the captain of the guard, and Barsaborsus, thegovernor of a province on the Armenian frontier. He was asked to unfoldthe particulars of his message, and say what were the terms on whichRome would make peace. Sicorius complied. The emperors, he said, required five things:--(i. ) The cession to Rome of five provinces beyondthe river Tigris, which are given by one writer as Intilene, Sophene, Arzanene, Carduene, and Zabdicene; by another as Arzanene, Moxoene, Zabdicene, Rehimene, and Corduene; (ii. ) the recognition of the Tigris, as the general boundary between the two empires; (iii. ) the extension ofArmenia to the fortress of Zintha, in Media; (iv. ) the relinquishment byPersia to Rome of her protectorate over Iberia, including the right ofgiving investiture to the Iberian kings; and (v. ) the recognition ofNisibis as the place at which alone commercial dealings could take placebetween the two nations. 

It would seem that the Persians were surprised at the moderation ofthese demands. Their exact value and force will require some discussion;but at any rate it is clear that, under the circumstances, they werenot felt to be excessive. Narses did not dispute any of them except thelast: and it seems to have been rather because he did not wish it tobe said that he had yielded everything, than because the condition wasreally very onerous, that he made objection in this instance. Sicoriuswas fortunately at liberty to yield the point. He at once withdrewthe fifth article of the treaty, and, the other four being accepted, aformal peace was concluded between the two nations. 

To understand the real character of the peace now made, and toappreciate properly the relations thereby established between Romeand Persia, it will be necessary to examine at some length the severalconditions of the treaty, and to see exactly what was imported by eachof them. There is scarcely one out of the whole number that carries itsmeaning plainly upon its face; and on the more important very variousinterpretations have been put, so that a discussion and settlement ofsome rather intricate points is here necessary. 

(i. ) There is a considerable difference of opinion as to the fiveprovinces ceded to Rome by the first article of the treaty, as to theirposition and extent, and consequently as to their importance. By somethey are put on the right, by others on the left, bank of the Tigris;while of those who assign them this latter position some place them ina cluster about the sources of the river, while others extend them verymuch further to the southward. Of the five provinces three only canbe certainly named, since the authorities differ as to the two others. These three are Arzanene, Cordyene, and Zabdicene, which occur in thatorder in Patricius. If we can determine the position of these three, that of the others will follow, at least within certain limits. 

Now Arzanene was certainly on the left bank of the Tigris. It adjoinedArmenia, and is reasonably identified with the modern district ofKherzan, which lies between Lake Van and the Tigris, to the west of theBitlis river. All the notices of Arzanene suit this locality; and thename "Kherzan" may be regarded as representing the ancient appellation. 

Zabdicene was a little south and a little east of this position. Itwas the tract about a town known as Bezabda (perhaps a corruption ofBeit-Zabda), which had been anciently called Phoenica. This town isalmost certainly represented by the modern Fynyk, on the left bank ofthe Tigris, a little above Jezireh. The province whereof it was thecapital may perhaps have adjoined Arzanene, reaching as far north as theBitlis river. 

If these two tracts are rightly placed, Cordyene must also be soughton the left bank of the Tigris. The word is no doubt the ancientrepresentative of the modern Kurdistan, and means a country inwhich Kurds dwelt. Now Kurds seem to have been at one time the chiefinhabitants of the Mons Masius, the modern Jebel Kara j ah Dagh andJebel Tur, which was thence called Oordyene, Gordyene, or the Gordiseanmountain chain. But there was another and a more important Cordyeneon the opposite side of the river. The tract to this day known asKurdistan, the high mountain region south and south-east of Lake Vanbetween Persia and Mesopotamia, was in the possession of Kurds frombefore the time of Xenophon, and was known as the country of theCarduchi, as Cardyene, and as Cordyene. This tract, which was contiguousto Arzanene and Zabdicene, if we have rightly placed those regions, must almost certainly have been the Cordyene of the treaty, which, ifit corresponded at all nearly in extent with the modern Kurdistan, musthave been by far the largest and most important of the five provinces. 

The two remaining tracts, whatever their names, must undoubtedly havelain on the same side of the Tigris with these three. As they areotherwise unknown to us (for Sophene, which had long been Roman, cannothave been one of them), it is impossible that they should have been ofmuch importance. No doubt they helped to round off the Roman dominionin this quarter; but the great value of the entire cession lay in theacquisition of the large and fruitful province of Cordyene, inhabitedby a brave and hardy population, and afterwards the seat of fifteenfortresses which brought the Roman dominion to the very edge ofAdiabene, made them masters of the passes into Media, and laid the wholeof Southern Mesopotamia open to their incursions. It is probable thatthe hold of Persia on the territory had never been strong; and inrelinquishing it she may have imagined that she gave up no very greatadvantage; but in the hands of Rome Kurdistan became a standing menaceto the Persian power, and we shall find that on the first opportunitythe false step now taken was retrieved, Cordyene with its adjoiningdistricts was pertinaciously demanded of the Romans, was grudginglysurrendered, and was then firmly re-attached to the Sassanian dominions. 

(ii. ) The Tigris is said by Patricius and Festus to have been made theboundary of the two empires. Gibbon here boldly substitutes the WesternKhabour and maintains that "the Roman frontier traversed, but neverfollowed, the course of the Tigris. " He appears not to be able tounderstand how the Tigris could be the frontier, when five provincesacross the Tigris were Roman. But the intention of the article probablywas, first, to mark the complete cession to Rome of Eastern as well asWestern Mesopotamia, and, secondly, to establish the Tigris as the lineseparating the empires below the point down to which the Romans heldboth banks. Cordyene may not have touch the Tigris at all, or may havetouched it only about the 37th parallel. From this point southwards, as far as Mosul, or Nimrud, or possibly Kileh Sherghat, the Tigris wasprobably now recognized as the dividing line between the empires. By theletter of the treaty the whole Euphrates valley might indeed have beenclaimed by Rome; but practically she did not push her occupation ofMesopotamia below Circeshim. The real frontier from this point was theMesopotamian desert, which extends from Kerkesiyeh to Nimrud, adistance of 150 miles. Above this it was the Tigris, as far probablyas Feshapoor; after which it followed the line, whatever it was, whichdivided Oordyene from Assyria and Media. 

(iii. ) The extension of Armenia to the fortress of Zintha, in Media, seems to have imported much more than would at first sight appear fromthe words. Gibbon interprets it as implying the cession of all MediaAtropatene, which certainly appears a little later to be in thepossession of the Armenian monarch, Tiridates. A large addition to theArmenian territory out of the Median is doubtless intended; but it isquite impossible to determine definitely the extent or exact characterof the cession. 

(iv. ) The fourth article of the treaty is sufficiently intelligible. So long as Armenia had been a fief of the Persian empire, it naturallybelonged to Persia to exercise influence over the neighboring Iberia, which corresponded closely to the modern Georgia, intervening betweenArmenia and the Caucasus. Now, when Armenia had become a dependencyof Rome, the protectorate hitherto exercised by the Sassanian princespassed naturally to the Caesars; and with the protectorate was bound upthe right of granting investiture to the kingdom, whereby the protectingpower was secured against the establishment on the throne of anunfriendly person. Iberia was not herself a state of much strength; buther power of opening or shutting the passes of the Caucasus gave herconsiderable importance, since by the admission of the Tatar hordes, which were always ready to pour in from the plains of the North, shecould suddenly change the whole face of affairs in North-Western Asia, and inflict a terrible revenge on any enemy that had provoked her. Itis true that she might also bring suffering on her friends, or evenon herself, for the hordes, once admitted, were apt to make littledistinction between friend and foe; but prudential considerations didnot always prevail over the promptings of passion, and there had beenoccasions when, in spite of them, the gates had been thrown open andthe barbarians invited to enter. It was well for Rome to have it in herpower to check this peril. Her own strength and the tranquillity ofher eastern provinces were confirmed and secured by the right which she(practically) obtained of nominating the Iberian monarchs. 

(v. ) The fifth article of the treaty, having been rejected by Narsesand then withdrawn by Sicorius, need not detain us long. By limiting thecommercial intercourse of the two nations to a single city, and that acity within their own dominions, the Romans would have obtained enormouscommercial advantages. While their own merchants remained quietly athome, the foreign merchants would have had the trouble and expense ofbringing their commodities to market a distance of sixty miles from thePersian frontier and of above a hundred from any considerable town; theywould of course have been liable to market dues, which would have fallenwholly into Roman hands; and they would further have been chargeablewith any duty, protective or even prohibitive, which Rome chose toimpose. It is not surprising that Narses here made a stand, and insistedon commerce being left to flow in the broader channels which it hadformed for itself in the course of ages. 

Rome thus terminated her first period of struggle with the newly revivedmonarchy of Persia by a great victory and a great diplomatic success. IfNarses regarded the terms--and by his conduct he would seem to have doneso--as moderate under the circumstances, our conclusion must be thatthe disaster which he had suffered was extreme, and that he knew thestrength of Persia to be, for the time, exhausted. Forced to relinquishhis suzerainty over Armenia and Iberia, he saw those countries notmerely wrested from himself, but placed under the protectorate, and somade to minister to the strength, of his rival. Nor was this all. Romehad gradually been advancing across Mesopotamia and working her wayfrom the Euphrates to the Tigris. Narses had to acknowledge, in so manywords, that the Tigris, and not the Euphrates, was to be regarded asher true boundary, and that nothing consequently was to be considered asPersian beyond the more eastern of the two rivers. Even this concessionwas not the last or the worst. Narses had finally to submit to see hisempire dismembered, a portion of Media attached to Armenia, and fiveprovinces, never hitherto in dispute, torn from Persia and added to thedominion of Rome. He had to allow Rome to establish herself in force onthe left bank of the Tigris, and so to lay open to her assaults a greatportion of his northern besides all his western frontier. He had tosee her brought to the very edge of the Iranic plateau, and within afortnight's march of Persia Proper. The ambition to rival his ancestorSapor, if really entertained, was severely punished; and the defeatedprince must have felt that he had been most ill-advised in making theventure. 

Narses did not long continue on the throne after the conclusion of thisdisgraceful, though, it may be, necessary, treaty. It was made inA. D. 297. He abdicated in A. D. 301. It may have been disgust at hisill-success, it may have been mere weariness of absolute power, whichcaused him to descend from his high position and retire into privatelife. He was so fortunate as to have a son of full age in whose favor hecould resign, so that there was no difficulty about the succession. Hisministers seem to have thought it necessary to offer some opposition tohis project; but their resistance was feeble, perhaps because they hopedthat a young prince would be more entirely guided by their counsels. Narses was allowed to complete his act of self-renunciation, and, aftercrowning his son Hormisdas with his own hand, to spend the remainder ofhis days in retirement. According to the native writers, his main objectwas to contemplate death and prepare himself for it. In his youth he hadevinced some levity of character, and had been noted for his devotion togames and to the chase; in his middle age he laid aside these pursuits, and, applying himself actively to business, was a good administrator, aswell as a brave soldier. But at last it seemed to him that the only lifeworth living was the contemplative, and that the happiness of the hunterand the statesman must yield to that of the philosopher. It is doubtfulhow long he survived his resignation of the throne, but tolerablycertain that he did not outlive his son and successor, who reigned lessthan eight years. 

CHAPTER VII. 

_Reign of Hormisdas II. His Disposition. General Character of his Reign. His Taste for Building. His new Court of Justice. His Marriage with aPrincess of Cabul. Story of his Son Hormisdas. Death of Hormisdas II. , and Imprisonment of his Son Hormisdas. Interregnum. Crown assigned toSapor II. Before his Birth. Long Reign of Sapor. First Period of hisReign, from A. D. 309 to A. D. 337. Persia plundered by the Arabs and theTurks. Victories of Sapor over the Arabs. Persecution of the Christians. Escape of Hormisdas. Feelings and Conduct of Sapor. _

Hormisdas II. , who became king on the abdication of his father, Narses, had, like his father, a short reign. He ascended the throne A. D. 301;he died A. D. 309, not quite eight years later. To this period historiansassign scarcely any events. The personal appearance of Hormisdas, if wemay judge by a gem, was pleasing; [PLATE XVIII. , Fig. 4. ] he issaid, however, to have been of a harsh temper by nature, but to havecontrolled his evil inclinations after he became king, and in fact tohave then neglected nothing that could contribute to the welfare of hissubjects. He engaged in no wars; and his reign was thus one of thosequiet and uneventful intervals which, furnishing no materials forhistory, indicate thereby the happiness of a nation. We are told that hehad a strong taste for building, and could never see a crumbling edificewithout instantly setting to work to restore it. Ruined towns andvillages, so common throughout the East in all ages, ceased to be seenin Persia while he filled the throne. An army of masons always followedhim in his frequent journeys throughout his empire, and repaireddilapidated homesteads and cottages with as much care and diligence asedifices of a public character. According to some writers he foundedseveral entirely new towns in Khuzistan or Susiana, while, according toothers, he built the important city of Hormuz, or (as it is sometimescalled) Ram-Aormuz, in the province of Kerman, which is still aflourishing place. Other authorities ascribe this city, however, to thefirst Hormisdas, the son of Sapor I. And grandson of Artaxerxes. 

Among the means devised by Hormisdas II. For bettering the condition ofhis people the most remarkable was his establishment of a new Court ofJustice. In the East the oppression of the weak by the powerful isthe most inveterate and universal of all evils, and the one thatwell-intentioned monarchs have to be most careful in checking andrepressing. Hormisdas, in his anxiety to root out this evil, is said tohave set up a court expressly for the hearing of causes where complaintwas made by the poor of wrongs done to them by the rich. The duty ofthe judges was at once to punish the oppressors, and to see that amplereparation was made to those whom they had wronged. To increase theauthority of the court, and to secure the impartiality of its sentences, the monarch made a point of often presiding over it himself, of hearingthe causes, and pronouncing the judgments in person. The most powerfulnobles were thus made to feel that, if they offended, they would belikely to receive adequate punishment; and the weakest and poorest ofthe people were encouraged to come forward and make complaint if theyhad suffered injury. 

Among his other wives, Hormisdas, we are told, married a daughter ofthe king of Cabul. It was natural that, after the conquest of Seistanby Varahran II. , about A. D. 280, the Persian monarchs should establishrelations with the chieftains ruling in Afghanistan. That country seems, from the first to the fourth century of our era, to have been under thegovernment of princes of Scythian descent and of considerable wealth andpower. Kadphises, Kanerki, Kenorano. Ooerki, Baraoro, had the main seatof their empire in the region about Cabul and Jellalabad; but from thiscentre they exercised an extensive sway, which at times probably reachedCandahar on the one hand, and the Punjab region on the other. Theirlarge gold coinage proves them to have been monarchs of great wealth, while their use of the Greek letters and language indicates a certainamount of civilization. The marriage of Hormisdas with a princess ofCabul implies that the hostile relations existing under Varahran II. Hadbeen superseded by friendly ones. Persian aggression had ceased to befeared. The reigning Indo-Scythic monarch felt no reluctance to give hisdaughter in marriage to his Western neighbor, and sent her to his court(we are told) with a wardrobe and ornaments of the utmost magnificenceand costliness. 

Hormisdas II. Appears to have had a son, of the same name with himself, who attained to manhood while his father was still reigning. Thisprince, who was generally regarded, and who, of course, viewed himself, as the heir-apparent, was no favorite with the Persian nobles, whomhe had perhaps offended by an inclination towards the literature andcivilization of the Greeks. It must have been upon previous consultationand agreement that the entire body of the chief men resolved to venttheir spite by insulting the prince in the most open and public way atthe table of his father. The king was keeping his birthday, which wasalways, in Persia, the greatest festival of the year, and so the mostpublic occasion possible. All the nobles of the realm were invited tothe banquet; and all came and took their several places. The princewas absent at the first, but shortly arrived, bringing with him, as theexcuse for his late appearance, a quantity of game, the produce of themorning's chase. Such an entrance must have created some disturbanceand have drawn general attention; but the nobles, who were bound byetiquette to rise from their seats, remained firmly fixed in them, andtook not the slightest notice of the prince's arrival. This behavior wasan indignity which naturally aroused his resentment. In the heat of themoment he exclaimed aloud that "those who had insulted him should oneday suffer for it--their fate should be the fate of Marsyas. " At firstthe threat was not understood; but one chieftain, more learned thanhis fellows, explained to the rest that, according to the Greek myth, Marsyas was flayed alive. Now, flaying alive was a punishment notunknown to the Persian law; and the nobles, fearing that the princereally entertained the intention which he had expressed, becamethoroughly alienated from him, and made up their minds that they wouldnot allow him to reign. During his father's lifetime, they could, ofcourse, do nothing; but they laid up the dread threat in their memory, and patiently waited for the moment when the throne would become vacant, and their enemy would assert his right to it. 

Apparently, their patience was not very severely taxed. Hormisdas II. Died within a few years; and Prince Hormisdas, as the only son whom hehad left behind him, thought to succeed as a matter of course. But thenobles rose in insurrection, seized his person, and threw him into adungeon, intending that he should remain there for the rest of his life. They themselves took the direction of affairs, and finding that, thoughKing Hormisdas had left behind him no other son, yet one of his wiveswas pregnant, they proclaimed the unborn infant king, and even with theutmost ceremony proceeded to crown the embryo by suspending the royaldiadem over the womb of the mother. A real interregnum must havefollowed; but it did not extend beyond a few months. The pregnant widowof Hormisdas fortunately gave birth to a boy, and the difficulties ofthe succession were thereby ended. All classes acquiesced in the ruleof the infant monarch, who received the name of Sapor--whether simply tomark the fact that he was believed to be the late king's son, or in thehope that he would rival the glories of the first Sapor, is uncertain. 

The reign of Sapor II. Is estimated variously, at 69, 70, 71, and 72years; but the balance of authority is in favor of seventy. He was bornin the course of the year A. D. 309, and he seems to have died in theyear after the Roman emperor Valens, or A. D. 379. He thus reigned nearlythree-quarters of a century, being contemporary with the Roman emperors, Galerius, Constantine, Constantius and Constans, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I. , Valens, Gratian, and Valentinian II. 

This long reign is best divided into periods. The first period of itextended from A. D. 309 to A. D. 337, or a space of twenty-eight years. This was the time anterior to Sapor's wars with the Romans. It includedthe sixteen years of his minority and a space of twelve years duringwhich he waged successful wars with the Arabs. The minority of Sapor wasa period of severe trial to Persia. On every side the bordering nationsendeavored to take advantage of the weakness incident to the rule of aminor, and attacked and ravaged the empire at their pleasure. The Arabswere especially aggressive, and made continual raids into Babylonia, Khuzistan, and the adjoining regions, which desolated these provincesand carried the horrors of war into the very heart of the empire. Thetribes of Beni-Ayar and Abdul-Kais, which dwelt on the southern shoresof the Persian Gulf, took the lead in these incursions, and though notattempting any permanent conquests, inflicted terrible sufferings onthe inhabitants of the tracts which they invaded. At the same time aMesopotamian. Chieftain, called Tayer or Thair, made an attack uponOtesiphon, took the city by storm, and captured a sister or aunt of thePersian monarch. The nobles, who, during Sapor's minority, guided thehelm of the State, were quite incompetent to make head against thesenumerous enemies. For sixteen years the marauding bands had theadvantage, and Persia found herself continually weaker, moreimpoverished, and less able to recover herself. The young prince is saidto have shown extraordinary discretion and intelligence. He diligentlytrained himself in all manly exercises, and prepared both his mindand body for the important duties of his station. But his tender yearsforbade him as yet taking the field; and it is not unlikely that hisministers prolonged the period of his tutelage in order to retain, to the latest possible moment, the power whereto they had becomeaccustomed. At any rate, it was not till he was sixteen, a later agethan Oriental ideas require, that Sapor's minority ceased--that heasserted his manhood, and, placing himself at the head of his army, tookthe entire direction of affairs, civil and military, into his own hands. 

From this moment the fortunes of Persia began to rise. Content at firstto meet and chastise the marauding bands on his own territory, Sapor, after a time, grew bolder, and ventured to take the offensive. Havingcollected a fleet of considerable size, he placed his troops on board, and conveyed them to the city of El-Katif, an important place on thesouth coast of the Persian Gulf, where he disembarked and proceededto carry fire and sword through the adjacent region. Either on thisoccasion, or more probably in a long series of expeditions, he ravagedthe whole district of the Hejer, gaining numerous victories over thetribes of the Temanites, the Beni-Wa'iel, the Abdul-Kais, and others, which had taken a leading part in the invasion of Persia. His militarygenius and his valor were everywhere conspicuous; but unfortunatelythese excellent qualities were unaccompanied by the humanity which hasbeen the crowning virtue o£ many a conqueror. Sapor, exasperated by thesufferings of his countrymen during so many years, thought that he couldnot too severely punish those who had inflicted them. He put to thesword the greater part of every tribe that he conquered; and, when hissoldiers were weary of slaying, he made them pierce the shoulders oftheir prisoners, and insert in the wound a string or thong by which todrag them into captivity. The barbarity of the age and nation approvedthese atrocities; and the monarch who had commanded them was, inconsequence, saluted as Dhoulacta, or "Lord of the Shoulders, " byan admiring people. Cruelties almost as great, but of a differentcharacter, were at the same time sanctioned by Sapor in regard toone class of his own subjects--viz. , those who had made professionof Christianity. The Zoroastrian zeal of this king was great, and heregarded it as incumbent on him to check the advance which Christianitywas now making in his territories. He issued severe edicts against theChristians soon after attaining his majority; and when they soughtthe protection of the Roman emperor, he punished their disloyalty byimposing upon them a fresh tax, the weight of which was oppressive. WhenSymeon, Archbishop of Seleucia, complained of this additional burden inan offensive manner, Sapor retaliated by closing the Christian churches, confiscating the ecclesiastical property, and putting the complainantto death. Accounts of these severities reached Constantine, the Romanemperor, who had recently embraced the new religion (which, in spiteof constant persecution, had gradually overspread the empire), and hadassumed the character of a sort of general protector of the Christiansthroughout the world. He remonstrated with Sapor, but to no purpose. Sapor had formed the resolution to renew the contest terminatedso unfavorably forty years earlier by his grandfather. He made theemperor's interference with Persian affairs, and encouragement of hisChristian subjects in their perversity, a ground of complaint, and beganto threaten hostilities. Some negotiations, which are not very clearlynarrated, followed. Both sides, apparently, had determined on war, but both wished to gain time. It is uncertain what would have been theresult had Constantine lived. But the death of that monarch in the earlysummer of A. D. 337, on his way to the eastern frontier, dispelled thelast chance of peace by relieving Sapor from the wholesome fear whichhad hitherto restrained his ambition. The military fame of Constantinewas great, and naturally inspired respect; his power was firmly fixed, and he was without competitor or rival. By his removal the whole faceof affairs was changed; and Sapor, who had almost brought himself toventure on a rupture with Rome during Constantine's life, no longerhesitated on receiving news of his death, but at once commencedhostilities. 

It is probable that among the motives which determined the somewhatwavering conduct of Sapor at this juncture was a reasonable fear of theinternal troubles which it seemed to be in the power of the Romans toexcite among the Persians, if from friends they became enemies. Havingtested his own military capacity in his Arab wars, and formed an armyon whose courage, endurance, and attachment he could rely, he was notafraid of measuring his strength with that of Rome in the open field;but he may well have dreaded the arts which the Imperial State was inthe habit of employing, to supplement her military shortcomings, inwars with her neighbors. There was now at the court of Constantinople aPersian refugee of such rank and importance that Constantine had, as itwere, a pretender ready made to his hand, and could reckon on creatingdissension among the Persians whenever he pleased, by simply proclaiminghimself this person's ally and patron. Prince Hormisdas, the elderbrother of Sapor, and rightful king of Persia, had, after a longimprisonment, contrived, by the help of his wife, to escape from hisdungeon, and had fled to the court of Constantine as early as A. D. 323. He had been received by the emperor with every mark of honor anddistinction, had been given a maintenance suited to his rank, and hadenjoyed other favors. Sapor must have felt himself deeply aggrieved bythe undue attention paid to his rival; and though he pretended to makelight of the matter, and even generously sent Hormisdas the wife to whomhis escape was due, he cannot but have been uneasy at the possession, bythe Roman emperor, of his brother's person. In weighing the reasons forand against war he cannot but have assigned considerable importance tothis circumstance. It did not ultimately prevent him from challengingRome to the combat; but it may help to account for the hesitation, thedelay, and the fluctuations of purpose, which we remark in his conductduring the four or five years which immediately preceded the death ofConstantine. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

_Position of Affairs on the Death of Constantine. First War of Saporwith Rome, A. D. 337-350. First Siege of Nisibis. Obscure Interval. Troubles in Armenia, and Recovery of Armenia by the Persians. Sapor'sSecond Siege of Nisibis. Its Failure. Great Battle of Singara. Sapor'sSon made Prisoner and murdered in cold blood. Third Siege of Nisibis. Sapor called away by an Invasion of the Massagatae. _

[Illustration: CHAPTER-8]

"Constantius adversus Persas et Saporem, qui Mesopotamiam vastaverant, novem prasliis parum prospere decertavit. "--Orosius, Hist. Vii. 39. 

The death of Constantine was followed by the division of the Roman worldamong his sons. The vast empire with which Sapor had almost made up hismind to contend was partitioned out into three moderate-sized kingdoms. In place of the late brave and experienced emperor, a raw youth, whohad given no signs of superior ability, had the government of the Romanprovinces of the East, of Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, andEgypt. Master of one third of the empire only, and of the least warlikeportion, Constantius was a foe whom the Persian monarch might welldespise, and whom he might expect to defeat without much difficulty. Moreover, there was much in the circumstances of the time that seemed topromise success to the Persian arms in a struggle with Rome. The removalof Constantme had been followed by an outburst of licentiousness andviolence among the Roman soldiery in the capital; and throughout theEast the army had cast off the restraints of discipline, and givenindications of a turbulent and seditious spirit. The condition ofArmenia was also such as to encourage Sapor in his ambitious projects. Tiridates, though a persecutor of the Christians in the early part ofhis reign, had been converted by Gregory the Illuminator, and had thenenforced Christianity on his subjects by fire and sword. A sanguinaryconflict had followed. A large portion of the Armenians, firmly attachedto the old national idolatry, had resisted determinedly. Nobles, priests, and people had fought desperately in defence of their temples, images, and altars; and, though the persistent will of the king overboreall opposition, yet the result was the formation of a discontentedfaction, which rose up from time to time against its rulers, and wasconstantly tempted to ally itself with any foreign power from which itcould hope the re-establishment of the old religion. Armenia had also, after the death of Tiridates (in A. D. 314), fallen under the governmentof weak princes. Persia had recovered from it the portion of MediaAtropatene ceded by the treaty between Galerius and Narses. Sapor, therefore, had nothing to fear on this side; and he might reasonablyexpect to find friends among the Armenians themselves, should thegeneral position of his affairs allow him to make an effort to extendPersian influence once more over the Armenian highland. 

The bands of Sapor crossed the Roman frontier soon after, if not evenbefore, the death of Constantine; and after an interval of forty yearsthe two great powers of the world were once more engaged in a bloodyconflict. Constantius, having paid the last honors to his father'sremains, hastened to the eastern frontier, where he found the Roman armyweak in numbers, badly armed and badly provided, ill-disposed towardshimself, and almost ready to mutiny. It was necessary, before anythingcould be done to resist the advance of Sapor, that the insubordinationof the troops should be checked, their wants supplied, and theirgood-will conciliated. Constantius applied himself to effect thesechanges. Meanwhile Sapor set the Arabs and Armenians in motion, inducingthe Pagan party among the latter to rise in insurrection, delivertheir king, Tiranus, into his power, and make incursions into theRoman territory, while the latter infested with their armed bands theprovinces of Mesopotamia and Syria. He himself was content, during thefirst year of the war, A. D. 337, with moderate successes, and appearedto the Romans to avoid rather than seek a pitched battle. Constantiuswas able, under these circumstances, not only to maintain his ground, but to gain certain advantages. He restored the direction of affairs inArmenia to the Roman party, detached some of the Mesopotamian Arabs fromthe side of his adversary, and attached them to his own, and even builtforts in the Persian territory on the further side of the Tigris. Butthe gains made were slight; and in the ensuing year (A. D. 338) Saportook the field in greater force than before, and addressed himself toan important enterprise. He aimed, it is evident, from the first, atthe recovery of Mesopotamia, and at thrusting back the Romans from theTigris to the Euphrates. He found it easy to overrun the open country, to ravage the crops, drive off the cattle, and burn the villages andhomesteads. But the region could not be regarded as conquered, it couldnot be permanently held, unless the strongly fortified posts whichcommanded it, and which were in the hands of Rome, could be captured. Of all these the most important was Nisibis. This ancient town, known tothe Assyrians as Nazibina, was, at any rate from the time of Lucullus, the most important city of Mesopotamia. It was situated at the distanceof about sixty miles from the Tigris, at the edge of the Mons Masius, ina broad and fertile plain, watered by one of the affluents of the riverKhabour, or Aborrhas. The Romans, after their occupation of Mesopotamia, had raised it to the rank of a colony; and its defences, which were ofgreat strength, had always been maintained by the emperors in a stateof efficiency. Sapor regarded it as the key of the Roman position inthe tract between the rivers, and, as early as A. D. 338, sought to makehimself master of it. 

The first siege of Nisibis by Sapor lasted, we are told, sixty-threedays. Few particulars of it have come down to us. Sapor had attacked thecity, apparently, in the absence of Constantius, who had been called offto Pannonia to hold a conference with his brothers. It was defended, not only by its garrison and inhabitants, but by the prayers andexhortations of its bishop, St. James, who, if he did not work miraclesfor the deliverance of his countrymen, at any rate sustained andanimated their resistance. The result was that the bands of Sapor wererepelled with loss, and he was forced, after wasting two months beforethe walls, to raise the siege and own himself baffled. 

After this, for some years the Persian war with Rome languished. It isdifficult to extract from the brief statements of epitomizers, and theloose invectives or panegyrics of orators, the real circumstances of thestruggle; but apparently the general condition of things was this. ThePersians were constantly victorious in the open field; Constantius wasagain and again defeated; but no permanent gain was effected by thesesuccesses. A weakness inherited by the Persians from the Parthians--aninability to conduct sieges to a prosperous issue--showed itself; andtheir failures against the fortified posts which Rome had taken careto establish in the disputed regions were continual. Up to the close ofA. D. 340 Sapor had made no important gain, had struck no decisive blow, but stood nearly in the same position which he had occupied at thecommencement of the conflict. 

But the year A. D. 341 saw a change. Sapor, after obtaining possession ofthe person of Tiranus, had sought to make himself master of Armenia, andhad even attempted to set up one of his own relatives as king. But theindomitable spirit of the inhabitants, and their firm attachment totheir Arsacid princes, caused his attempts to fail of any good result, and tended on the whole to throw Armenia into the arms of Rome. Sapor, after a while, became convinced of the folly of his proceedings, andresolved on the adoption of a wholly new policy. He would relinquishthe idea of conquering, and would endeavor instead to conciliate theArmenians, in the hope of obtaining from their gratitude what he hadbeen unable to extort from their fears. Tiranus was still living; andSapor, we are told, offered to replace him upon the Armenian throne;but, as he had been blinded by his captors, and as Oriental notionsdid not allow a person thus mutilated to exercise royal power, Tiranusdeclined the offer made him, and suggested the substitution of his son, Arsaces, who was, like himself, a prisoner in Persia. Sapor readilyconsented; and the young prince, released from captivity, returnedto his country, and was installed as king by the Persians, with thegood-will of the natives, who were satisfied so long as they couldfeel that they had at their head a monarch of the ancient stock. Thearrangement, of course, placed Armenia on the Persian side, and gaveSapor for many years a powerful ally in his struggle with Rome. 

Thus Sapor had, by the, year A. D. 341, made a very considerable gain. Hehad placed a friendly sovereign on the Armenian throne, had bound him tohis cause by oaths, and had thereby established his influence, not onlyover Armenia itself, but over the whole tract which lay between Armeniaand the Caucasus. But he was far from content with these successes. Itwas still his great object to drive the Romans from Mesopotamia; andwith that object in view it continued to be his first wish to obtainpossession of Nisibis. Accordingly, having settled Armenian affairs tohis liking, he made, in A. D. 346, a second attack on the great city ofNorthern Mesopotamia, again investing it with a large body of troops, and this time pressing the siege during the space of nearly threemonths. Again, however, the strength of the walls and the endurance ofthe garrison baffled him. Sapor was once more obliged to withdraw from, before the place, having suffered greater loss than those whom he hadassailed, and forfeited much of the prestige which he had acquired byhis many victories. 

It was, perhaps, on account of the repulse from Nisibis, and in the hopeof recovering his lost laurels, that Sapor, in the next year but one, A. D. 348, made an unusual effort. Calling out the entire militaryforce of the empire, and augmenting it by large bodies of allies andmercenaries, the Persian king, towards the middle of summer, crossedthe Tigris by three bridges, and with a numerous and well-appointed armyinvaded Central Mesopotamia, probably from Adiabene, or the region nearand a little south of Nineveh. Constantius, with the Roman army, wasposted on and about the Sinjax range of hills, in the vicinity of thetown of Singara, which is represented by the modern village of Sinjar. The Roman emperor did not venture to dispute the passage of the river, or to meet his adversary in the broad plain which, intervenes betweenthe Tigris and the mountain range, but clung to the skirts of the hills, and commanded his troops to remain wholly on the defensive. Sapor wasthus enabled to choose his position, to establish a fortified camp ata convenient distance from the enemy, and to occupy the hills in itsvicinity--some portion of the Sinjar range--with his archers. It isuncertain whether, in making these dispositions, he was merely providingfor his own safety, or whether he was laying a trap into which he hopedto entice the Roman army. Perhaps his mind was wide enough to embraceboth contingencies. At any rate, having thus established a _pointd'appui_ in his rear, he advanced boldly and challenged the legionsto an encounter. The challenge was at once accepted, and the battlecommenced about midday; but now the Persians, having just crossed swordswith the enemy, almost immediately began to give ground, and retreatinghastily drew their adversaries along, across the thirsty plain, to thevicinity of their fortified camp, where a strong body of horse and theflower of the Persian archers were posted. The horse charged, but thelegionaries easily defeated them, and elated with their success burstinto the camp, despite the warnings of their leader, who strove vainlyto check their ardor and to induce them to put off the completion oftheir victory till the next day. A small detachment found within theramparts was put to the sword; and the soldiers scattered themselvesamong the tents, some in quest of booty, others only anxious for somemeans of quenching their raging thirst. Meantime the sun had gone down, and the shades of night fell rapidly. Regarding the battle as over, and the victory as assured, the Romans gave themselves up to sleep orfeasting. But now Sapor saw his opportunity--the opportunity for whichhe had perhaps planned and waited. His light troops on the adjacenthills commanded the camp, and, advancing on every side, surrounded it. They were fresh and eager for the fray; they fought in the securityafforded by the darkness; while the fires of the camp showed them theirenemies, worn out with fatigue, sleepy, or drunken. The result, as mighthave been expected, was a terrible carnage. The Persians overwhelmedthe legionaries with showers of darts and arrows; flight, under thecircumstances, was impossible; and the Roman soldiers mostly perishedwhere they stood. They took, however, ere they died, an atrociousrevenge. Sapor's son had been made prisoner in the course of the day;in their desperation the legionaries turned their fury against thisinnocent youth; they beat him with whips, wounded him with the points oftheir weapons, and finally rushed upon him and killed him with a hundredblows. 

The battle of Singara, though thus disastrous to the Romans, had not anygreat effect in determining the course or issue of the war. Sapor didnot take advantage of his victory to attack the rest of the Roman forcesin Mesopotamia, or even to attempt the siege of any large town. Perhapshe had really suffered large losses in the earlier part of the day;perhaps he was too much affected by the miserable death of his son tocare, till time had dulled the edge of his grief, for military glory. At any rate, we hear of his undertaking no further enterprise till thesecond year after the battle, A. D. 350, when he made his third and mostdesperate attempt to capture Nisibis. 

The rise of a civil war in the West, and the departure of Constantiusfor Europe with the flower of his troops early in the year no doubtencouraged the Persian monarch to make one more effort against the placewhich had twice repulsed him with ignominy. He collected a numerousnative army, and strengthened it by the addition of a body of Indianallies, who brought a large troop of elephants into the field. Withthis force he crossed the Tigris in the early summer, and, after takingseveral fortified posts, march northwards and invested Nisibis. TheRoman commander in the place was the Count Lucilianus, afterwards thefather-in-law of Jovian, a man of resource and determination. He is saidto have taken the best advantage of every favorable turn of fortune inthe course of the siege, and to have prolonged the resistance by varioussubtle stratagems. But the real animating spirit of the defence was oncemore the bishop, St. James, who raised the enthusiasm of the inhabitantsto the highest pitch by his exhortations, guided them by his counsels, and was thought to work miracles for them by his prayers. Sapor triedat first the ordinary methods of attack; he battered the walls with hisrams, and sapped them with mines. But finding that by these means hemade no satisfactory progress, he had recourse shortly to wholly novelproceedings. The river Mygdonius (now the Jerujer), swollen by themelting of the snows in the Mons Masius, had overflowed its banks andcovered with an inundation the plain in which Nisibis stands. Sapor sawthat the forces of nature might be employed to advance his ends, and soembanked the lower part of the plain that the water could not run off, but formed a deep lake round the town, gradually creeping up the wallstill it had almost reached the battlements. Having thus created anartificial sea, the energetic monarch rapidly collected, or constructed, a fleet of vessels, and, placing his military engines on board, launchedthe ships upon the waters, and so attacked the walls of the city atgreat advantage. But the defenders resisted stoutly, setting the engineson fire with torches, and either lifting the ships from the water bymeans of cranes, or else shattering them with the huge stones which theycould discharge from their balistics. Still, therefore, no impression wasmade; but at last an unforeseen circumstance brought the besieged intothe greatest peril, and almost gave Nisibis into the enemy's hands. Theinundation, confined by the mounds of the Persians, which prevented itfrom running off, pressed with continually increasing force against thedefences of the city, till at last the wall, in one part, proved tooweak to withstand the tremendous weight which bore upon it, and gave waysuddenly for the space of a hundred and fifty feet. What further damagewas done to the town we know not; but a breach was opened through whichthe Persians at once made ready to pour into the place, regarding it asimpossible that so huge a gap should be either repaired or effectuallydefended. Sapor took up his position on an artificial eminence, whilehis troops rushed to the assault. First of all marched the heavycavalry, accompanied by the horse-archers; next came the elephants, bearing iron towers upon their backs, and in each tower a numberof bowmen; intermixed with the elephants were a certain amount ofheavy-armed foot. It was a strange column with which to attack a breach;and its composition does not say much for Persian siege tactics, whichwere always poor and ineffective, and which now, as usually, resulted infailure. The horses became quickly entangled in the ooze and mud whichthe waters had left behind them as they subsided; the elephants wereeven less able to overcome these difficulties, and as soon as theyreceived a wound sank down--never to rise again--in the swamp. Saporhastily gave orders for the assailing column to retreat and seek thefriendly shelter of the Persian camp, while he essayed to maintain hisadvantage in a different way. His light archers were ordered to thefront, and, being formed into divisions which were to act as reliefs, received orders to prevent the restoration of the ruined wall bydirecting an incessant storm of arrows into the gap made by the waters. But the firmness and activity of the garrison and inhabitants defeatedthis well-imagined proceeding. While the heavy-armed troops stood inthe gap receiving the flights of arrows and defending themselves asthey best could, the unarmed multitude raised a new wall in their rear, which, by the morning of the next day, was six feet in height. Thislast proof of his enemies' resolution and resource seems to have finallyconvinced Sapor of the hopelessness of his enterprise. Though he stillcontinued the siege for a while, he made no other grand attack, and atlength drew off his forces, having lost twenty thousand men before thewalls, and wasted a hundred days, or more than three months. 

Perhaps he would not have departed so soon, but would have turnedthe siege into a blockade, and endeavored to starve the garrison intosubmission, had not alarming tidings reached him from his north-easternfrontier. Then, as now, the low flat sandy region east of the Caspianwas in the possession of nomadic hordes, whose whole life was spent inwar and plunder. The Oxus might be nominally the boundary of the empirein this quarter; but the nomads were really dominant over the entiredesert to the foot of the Hyrcanian and Parthian hills. Petty plunderingforays into the fertile region south and east of the desert were nodoubt constant, and were not greatly regarded; but from time to timesome tribe or chieftain bolder than the rest made a deeper inroad anda more sustained attack than usual, spreading consternation around, and terrifying the court for its safety. Such an attack seems to haveoccurred towards the autumn of A. D. 350. The invading horde is said tohave consisted of Massagatae; but we can hardly be mistaken in regardingthem as, in the main, of Tatar, or Turkoman blood, akin to the Usbegsand other Turanian tribes which still inhabit the sandy steppe. Saporconsidered the crisis such as to require his own presence; and thus, while civil war summoned one of the two rivals from Mesopotamia tothe far West, where he had to contend with the self-styled emperors, Magnentius and Vetranio, the other was called away to the extreme Eastto repel a Tatar invasion. A tacit truce was thus established betweenthe great belligerents--a truce which lasted for seven or eight years. The unfortunate Mesopotamians, harassed by constant war for above twentyyears, had now a breathing-space during which to recover from the ruinand desolation that had overwhelmed them. Rome and Persia for a timesuspended their conflict. Rivalry, indeed, did not cease; but it wastransferred from the battlefield to the cabinet, and the Romanemperor sought and found in diplomatic triumphs a compensation for theill-success which had attended his efforts in the field. 

CHAPTER IX. 

_Revolt of Armenia and Acceptance by Arsaces of the Position of a RomanFeudatory. Character and Issue of Sapor's Eastern Wars. His negotiationswith Constantius. His Extreme Demands. Circumstances under which hedetermines to renew the War. His Preparations. Desertion to him ofAntoninus. Great Invasion of Sapor. Siege of Amida. Sapor's Severities. Siege and Capture of Singara; of Bezabde. Attack on Virtu fails. Aggressive Movement of Constantius. He attacks Bezabde, but failsCampaign of A. D. 361. Death of Constantius. _

Evenerat . . . Quasi fatali constellatione . . . Ut Constantiumdimicantem cum Persis fortuna semper sequeretur afflictior. --Amm. Marc. Xx. 9, ad fin. 

It seems to have been soon after the close of Sapor's first war withConstantius that events took place in Armenia which once more replacedthat country under Roman influence. Arsaces, the son of Tiranus, hadbeen, as we have seen, established as monarch, by Sapor, in the yearA. D. 341, under the notion that, in return for the favor shown him, hewould administer Armenia in the Persian interest. But gratitude is anunsafe basis for the friendships of monarchs. Arsaces, after a time, began to chafe against the obligations under which Sapor had laid him, and to wish, by taking independent action, to show himself a real king, and not a mere feudatory. He was also, perhaps, tired of aiding Sapor inhis Roman war, and may have found that he suffered more than he gainedby having Rome for an enemy. At any rate, in the interval between A. D. 351 and 359, probably while Sapor was engaged in the far East, Arsacessent envoys to Constantinople with a request to Constantius that hewould give him in marriage a member of the Imperial house. Constantiuswas charmed with the application made to him, and at once accepted theproposal. He selected for the proffered honor a certain Olympias, thedaughter of Ablabius, a Praetorian prefect, and lately the betrothedbride of his own brother, Constans; and sent her to Armenia, whereArsaces welcomed her, and made her (as it would seem) his chief wife, provoking thereby the jealousy and aversion of his previous sultana, anative Armenian, named Pharandzem. The engagement thus entered into ledon, naturally, to the conclusion of a formal alliance between Rome andArmenia--an alliance which Sapor made fruitless efforts to disturb, andwhich continued unimpaired down to the time A. D. 359 when hostilitiesonce more broke out between Rome and Persia. 

Of Sapor's Eastern wars we have no detailed account. They seem to haveoccupied him from A. D. 350 to A. D. 357, and to have been, on the whole, successful. They were certainly terminated by a peace in the last-namedyear--a peace of which it must have been a condition that his lateenemies should lend him aid in the struggle which he was about to renewwith Rome. Who these enemies exactly were, and what exact region theyinhabited, is doubtful. They comprised certainly the Chionites andGelani, probably the Euseni and the Vertse. The Chionites are thought tohave been Hiongnu or Huns; and the Euseni are probably the Usiun, who, as early as B. C. 200, are found among the nomadic hordes pressingtowards the Oxus. The Vertse are wholly unknown. The Gelani should, bytheir name, be the inhabitants of Ghilan, or the coast tract south-westof the Caspian; but this locality seems too remote from the probableseats of the Chionites and Euseni to be the one intended. The generalscene of the wars was undoubtedly east of the Caspian, either in theOxus region, or still further eastward, on the confines of India andScythia. The result of the wars, though not a conquest, was an extensionof Persian influence and power. Troublesome enemies were converted intofriends and allies. The loss of a predominating influence over Armeniawas thus compensated, or more than compensated, within a few years, by again of a similar kind in another quarter. 

While Sapor was thus engaged in the far East, he received lettersfrom the officer whom he had left in charge of his western frontier, informing him that the Romans were anxious to exchange the precarioustruce which Mesopotamia had been allowed to enjoy during the lastfive or six years for a more settled and formal peace. Two great Romanofficials, Cassianus, duke of Mesopotamia, and Musonianus, Praetorianprefect, understanding that Sapor was entangled in a bloody anddifficult war at the eastern extremity of his empire, and knowing thatConstantius was fully occupied with the troubles caused by the inroadsof the barbarians into the more western of the Roman provinces, hadthought that the time was favorable for terminating the provisionalstate of affairs in the Mesopotamian region by an actual treaty. Theyhad accordingly opened negotiations with Tamsapor, satrap of Adiabene, and suggested to him that he should sound his master on the subjectof making peace with Rome. Tamsapor appears to have misunderstood thecharacter of these overtures, or to have misrepresented them to Sapor;in his despatch he made Constantius himself the mover in the matter, and spoke of him as humbly supplicating the great king to grant himconditions. It happened that the message reached Sapor just as he hadcome to terms with his eastern enemies, and had succeeded in inducingthem to become his allies. He was naturally elated at his success, andregarded the Roman overture as a simple acknowledgment of weakness. Accordingly he answered in the most haughty style. His letter, which wasconveyed to the Roman emperor at Sirmium by an ambassador named Narses, was conceived in the following terms:

"Sapor, king of kings, brother of the sun and moon, and companion of thestars, sends salutation to his brother, Constantius Caesar. It glads meto see that thou art at last returned to the right way, and art ready todo what is just and fair, having learned by experience that inordinategreed is oft-times punished by defeat and disaster. As then the voiceof truth ought to speak with all openness, and the more illustrious ofmankind should make their words mirror their thoughts, I will brieflydeclare to thee what I propose, not forgetting that I have often saidthe same things before. Your own authors are witness that the entiretract within the river Strymon and the borders of Macedon was once heldby my ancestors; if I required you to restore all this, it would not illbecome me (excuse the boast), inasmuch as I excel in virtue and in thesplendor of my achievements the whole line of our ancient monarchs. But as moderation delights me, and has always been the rule of myconduct--wherefore from my youth up I have had no occasion to repent ofany action--I will be content to receive Mesopotamia and Armenia, whichwas fraudulently extorted from my grandfather. We Persians have neveradmitted the principle, which you proclaim with such effrontery, thatsuccess in war is always glorious, whether it be the fruit of courage ortrickery. In conclusion, if you will take the advice of one who speaksfor your good, sacrifice a small tract of territory, one always indispute and causing continual bloodshed, in order that you may rule theremainder securely. Physicians, remember, often cut and burn, and evenamputate portions of the body, that the patient may have the healthy useof what is left to him; and there are animals which, understanding whythe hunters chase them, deprive themselves of the thing coveted, to livethenceforth without fear. I warn you, that, if my ambassador returns invain, I will take the field against you, so soon as the winter is past, with all my forces, confiding in my good fortune and in the fairness ofthe conditions which I have now offered. "

It must have been a severe blow to Imperial pride to receive such aletter: and the sense of insult can scarcely have been much mitigated bythe fact that the missive was enveloped in a silken covering, or by thecircumstance that the bearer, Narses, endeavored by his conciliatingmanners to atone for his master's rudeness. Constantius replied, however, in a dignified and calm tone. "The Roman emperor, " he said, "victorious by land and sea, saluted his brother, King Sapor. Hislieutenant in Mesopotamia had meant well in opening a negotiation witha Persian governor; but he had acted without orders, and could not bindhis master. Nevertheless, he (Constantius) would not disclaim what hadbeen done, since he did not object to a peace, provided it were fair andhonorable. But to ask the master of the whole Roman world to surrenderterritories which he had successfully defended when he ruled only overthe provinces of the East was plainly indecent and absurd. He must addthat the employment of threats was futile, and too common an artifice;more especially as the Persians themselves must know that Rome alwaysdefended herself when attacked, and that, if occasionally she wasvanquished in a battle, yet she never failed to have the advantage inthe event of every war. " Three envoys were entrusted with the deliveryof this reply--Prosper, a count of the empire; Spectatus, a tribuneand notary; and Eustathius, an orator and philosopher, a pupil ofthe celebrated Neo-Platonist, Jamblichus, and a friend of St. Basil. Constantius was most anxious for peace, as a dangerous war threatenedwith the Alemanni, one of the most powerful tribes of Germany. He seemsto have hoped that, if the unadorned language of the two statesmenfailed to move Sapor, he might be won over by the persuasive eloquenceof the professor of rhetoric. 

But Sapor was bent on war. He had concluded arrangements with thenatives so long his adversaries in the East, by which they had pledgedthemselves to join his standard with all their forces in the ensuingspring. He was well aware of the position of Constantius in the West, of the internal corruption of his court, and of the perils constantlythreatening him from external enemies. A Roman official of importance, bearing the once honored name of Antoninus, had recently taken refugewith him from the claims of pretended creditors, and had been receivedinto high favor on account of the information which he was able tocommunicate with respect to the disposition of the Roman forces and thecondition of their magazines. This individual, ennobled by the royalauthority, and given a place at the royal table, gained great influenceover his new master, whom he stimulated by alternately reproaching himwith his backwardness in the past, and putting before him the prospectof easy triumphs over Rome in the future. He pointed out that theemperor, with the bulk of his troops and treasures, was detained inthe regions adjoining the Danube, and that the East was left almostundefended; he magnified the services which he was himself competent torender; he exhorted Sapor to bestir himself, and to put confidencein his good fortune. He recommended that the old plan of sitting downbefore walled towns should be given up, and that the Persian monarch, leaving the strongholds of Mesopotamia in his rear, should press forwardto the Euphrates, pour his troops across it, and overrun the richprovince of Syria, which he would find unguarded, and which had not beeninvaded by an enemy for nearly a century. The views of Antoninus wereadopted; but, in practice, they were overruled by the exigencies of thesituation. A Roman army occupied Mesopotamia, and advanced to thebanks of the Tigris. When the Persians in full force crossed the river, accompanied by Chionite and Albanian allies, they found a considerablebody of troops prepared to resist them. Their opponents did not, indeedoffer battle, but they laid waste the country as the Persians tookpossession of it; they destroyed the forage, evacuated the indefensibletowns (which fell, of course, into the enemy's hands), and fortifiedthe line of the Euphrates with castles, military engines, and palisades. Still the programme of Antoninus would probably have been carried out, had not the swell of the Euphrates exceeded the average, and rendered itimpossible for the Persian troops to ford the river at the usual pointof passage into Syria. On discovering this obstacle, Antoninus suggestedthat, by a march to the north-east through a fertile country, the "UpperEuphrates" might be reached, and easily crossed, before its waters hadattained any considerable volume. Sapor agreed to adopt this suggestion. He marched from Zeugma across the Mons Masius towards the UpperEuphrates, defeated the Romans in an important battle near Arnida, took, by a sudden assault, two castles which defended the town, and thensomewhat hastily resolved that he would attack the place, which he didnot imagine capable of making much resistance. 

Amida, now Diarbekr, was situated on the right bank of the Upper Tigris, in a fertile plain, and was washed along the whole of its westernside by a semi-circular bend of the river. It had been a place ofconsiderable importance from a very ancient date, and had recentlybeen much strengthened by Constantius, who had made it an arsenalfor military engines, and had repaired its towers and walls. The towncontained within it a copious fountain of water, which was liable, however, to acquire a disagreeable odor in the summer time. Sevenlegions, of the moderate strength to which legions had been reducedby Constantine, defended it; and the garrison included also a body ofhorse-archers, composed chiefly or entirely of noble foreigners. Saporhoped in the first instance to terrify it into submission by his mereappearance, and boldly rode up to the gates with a small body of hisfollowers, expecting that they would be opened to him. But the defenderswere more courageous than he had imagined. They received him with ashower of darts and arrows that were directed specially against hisperson, which was conspicuous from its ornaments; and they aimed theirweapons so well that one of them passed through a portion of his dressand was nearly wounding him. Persuaded by his followers, Sapor uponthis withdrew, and committed the further prosecution of the attack toGrumbates, the king of the Chionites, who assaulted the walls on thenext day with a body of picked troops, but was repulsed with great loss, his only son, a youth of great promise, being killed at his side by adart from a balista. The death of this prince spread dismay through thecamp, and was followed by a general mourning; but it now became a pointof honor to take the town which had so injured one of the great king'sroyal allies; and Grumbates was promised that Amida should become thefuneral pile of his lost darling. 

The town was now regularly invested. Each nation was assigned its place. The Chionites, burning with the desire to avenge their late defeat, wereon the east; the Vertse on the south; the Albanians, warriors fromthe Caspian region, on the north; the Segestans, who were reckoned thebravest soldiers of all, and who brought into the field a large bodyof elephants, held the west. A continuous line of Persians, fiveranks deep, surrounded the entire city, and supported the auxiliarydetachments. The entire besieging army was estimated at a hundredthousand men; the besieged, including the unarmed multitude, were under30, 000. After the pause of an entire day, the first general attack wasmade. Grumbates gave the signal for the assault by hurling a bloodyspear into the space before the walls, after the fashion of a Romanfetialis. A cloud of darts and arrows from every side followed theflight of this weapon, and did severe damage to the besieged, who wereat the same time galled with discharges from Roman military engines, taken by the Persians in some capture of Singara, and now employedagainst their former owners. Still a vigorous resistance continued to bemade, and the besiegers, in their exposed positions, suffered even morethan the garrison; so that after two days the attempt to carry the cityby general assault was abandoned, and the slow process of a regularsiege was adopted. Trenches were opened at the usual distance fromthe walls, along which the troops advanced under the cover of hurdlestowards the ditch, which they proceeded to fill up in places. Moundswere then thrown up against the walls; and movable towers wereconstructed and brought into play, guarded externally with iron, andeach mounting a balista. It was impossible long to withstand thesevarious weapons of attack. The hopes of the besieged lay, primarily, intheir receiving relief from without by the advance of an army capableof engaging their assailants and harassing them or driving them off;secondarily, in successful sallies, by means of which they might destroythe enemy's works and induce him to retire from before the place. 

There existed, in the neighborhood of Amida, the elements of a relievingarmy, under the command of the new prefect of the East, Sabinianus. Had this officer possessed an energetic and enterprising character, he might, without much difficulty, have collected a force of light andactive soldiers, which might have hung upon the rear of the Persians, intercepted their convoys, cut off their stragglers, and have even madean occasional dash upon their lines. Such was the course of conductrecommended by Ursicinus, the second in command, whom Sabinianus hadrecently superseded; but the latter was jealous of his subordinate, and had orders from the Byzantine court to keep him unemployed. Hewas himself old and rich, alike disinclined to and unfit for militaryenterprise; he therefore absolutely rejected the advice of Ursicinus, and determined on making no effort. He had positive orders, he said, from the court to keep on the defensive and not endanger his troops byengaging them in hazardous adventures. Amida must protect itself, or atany rate not look to him for succor. Ursicinus chafed terribly, itis said, against this decision, but was forced to submit to it. Hismessengers conveyed the dispiriting intelligence to the devoted city, which learned thereby that it must rely wholly upon its own exertions. 

Nothing now remained but to organize sallies on a large scale and attackthe besieger's works. Such attempts were made from time to time withsome success; and on one occasion two Gaulish legions, banished to theEast for their adherence to the cause of Magnentius, penetrated, bynight, into the heart of the besieging camp, and brought the person ofthe monarch into danger. This peril was, however, escaped; the legionswere repulsed with the loss of a sixth of their number; and nothing wasgained by the audacious enterprise beyond a truce of three days, duringwhich each side mourned its dead, and sought to repair its losses. 

The fate of the doomed city drew on. Pestilence was added to thecalamities which the besieged had to endure. Desertion and treacherywere arrayed against them. One of the natives of Amida, going over tothe Persians, informed them that on the southern side of the citya neglected staircase led up from the margin of the Tigris throughunderground corridors to one of the principal bastions; and under hisguidance seventy archers of the Persian guard, picked men, ascendedthe dark passage at dead of night, occupied the tower, and when morningbroke displayed from it a scarlet flag, as a sign to their countrymenthat a portion of the wall was taken. The Persians were upon the alert, and an instant assault was made. But the garrison, by extraordinaryefforts, succeeded in recapturing the tower before any support reachedits occupants; and then, directing their artillery and missiles againstthe assailing columns, inflicted on them tremendous losses, and sooncompelled them to return hastily to the shelter of their camp. TheVerte, who maintained the siege on the south side of the city, were thechief sufferers in this abortive attempt. 

Sapor had now spent seventy days before the place, and had made noperceptible impression. Autumn was already far advanced, and theseason for military operations would, soon be over. It was necessary, therefore, either to take the city speedily or to give up the siege andretire. Under these circumstances Sapor resolved on a last effort. Hehad constructed towers of such a height that they overtopped the wall, and poured their discharges on the defenders from a superior elevation. He had brought his mounds in places to a level with the ramparts, andhad compelled the garrison to raise countermounds within the walls fortheir protection. He now determined on pressing the assault day afterday, until he either carried the town or found all his resourcesexhausted. His artillery, his foot, and his elephants were all employedin turn or together; he allowed the garrison no rest. Not content withdirecting the operations, he himself took part in the supreme struggle, exposing his own person freely to the enemy's weapons, and losing manyof his attendants. After the contest had lasted three continuous daysfrom morn to night, fortune at last favored him. One of the innermounds, raised by the besieged behind their wall, suddenly gave way, involving its defenders in its fall, and at the same time filling upthe entire space between the wall and the mound raised outside by thePersians. A way into the town was thus laid open, and the besiegersinstantly occupied it. It was in vain that the flower of the garrisonthrew itself across the path of the entering columns--nothing couldwithstand the ardor of the Persian troops. In a little time allresistance was at an end; those who could quitted the city and fled--theremainder, whatever their sex, age, or calling, whether armed orunarmed, were slaughtered like sheep by the conquerors. 

Thus fell Amida after a siege of seventy-three days. Sapor, who on otheroccasions showed himself not deficient in clemency, was exasperated bythe prolonged resistance and the losses which he had sustained in thecourse of it. Thirty thousand of his best soldiers had fallen; theson of his chief ally had perished; he himself had been brought intoimminent danger. Such audacity on the part of a petty town seemed nodoubt to him to deserve a severe retribution. The place was thereforegiven over to the infuriated soldiery, who were allowed to slay andplunder at their pleasure. Of the captives taken, all belonging to thefive provinces across the Tigris, claimed as his own by Sapor, thoughceded to Rome by his grandfather, were massacred in cold blood. TheCount Elian, and the commanders of the legions who had conducted thegallant defence, were barbarously crucified. Many other Romans of highrank were subjected to the indignity of being manacled, and were draggedinto Persia as slaves rather than as prisoners. 

The campaign of A. D. 359 terminated with this dearly bought victory. Theseason was too far advanced for any fresh enterprise of importance;and Sapor was probably glad to give his army a rest after the toilsand perils of the last three months. Accordingly he retired acrossthe Tigris, without leaving (so far as appears) any garrisons inMesopotamia, and began preparations for the campaign of A. D. 360. Storesof all kinds were accumulated during the winter; and, when the springcame, the indefatigable monarch once more invaded the enemy's country, pouring into Mesopotamia an army even more numerous and better appointedthan that which he had led against Amida in the preceding year. Hisfirst object now was to capture Singara, a town of some consequence, which was, however, defended by only two Roman legions and a certainnumber of native soldiers. After a vain attempt to persuade the garrisonto a surrender, the attack was made in the usual way, chiefly by scalingparties with ladders, and by battering parties which shook the wallswith the ram. The defenders kept the sealers at bay by a constantdischarge of stones and darts from their artillery, arrows from theirbows, and leaden bullets from their slings. They met the assaults of theram by attempts to fire the wooden covering which protected it and thosewho worked it. For some days these efforts sufficed; but after a whilethe besiegers found a weak point in the defences of the place--a towerso recently built that the mortar in which the stones were laid wasstill moist, and which consequently crumbled rapidly before the blowsof a strong and heavy battering-ram, and in a short time fell to theground. The Persians poured in through the gap, and were at once mastersof the entire town, which ceased to resist after the catastrophe. Thiseasy victory allowed Sapor to exhibit the better side of his character;he forbade the further shedding of blood, and ordered that as many aspossible of the garrisons and citizens should be taken alive. Revivinga favorite policy of Oriental rulers from very remote times, hetransported these captives to the extreme eastern parts of his empire, where they might be of the greatest service to him in defending hisfrontier against the Scythians and Indians. 

It is not really surprising, though the historian of the war regards itas needing explanation, that no attempt was made to relieve Singara bythe Romans. The siege was short; the place was considered strong; thenearest point held by a powerful Roman force was Nisibis, which was atleast sixty miles distant from Singara. The neighborhood of Singara was, moreover, ill supplied with water; and a relieving army would probablyhave soon found itself in difficulties. Singara, on the verge of thedesert, was always perilously situated. Rome valued it as an outpostfrom which her enemy might be watched, and which might advertise her ofa sudden danger, but could not venture to undertake its defence in caseof an attack in force, and was prepared to hear of its capture withequanimity. 

From Singara Sapor directed his march almost due northwards, and, leaving Nisibis unassailed upon his left, proceeded to attack the strongfort known indifferently as Phoenica or Bezabde. This was a position onthe east bank of the Tigris, near the point where that river quits themountains and debouches upon the plain; though not on the site, it maybe considered the representative of the modern Jezireh, which commandsthe passes from the low country into the Kurdish mountains. Bezabde wasthe chief city of the province, called after it Zabdicene, one of thefive ceded by Narses and greatly coveted by his grandson. It was muchvalued by Rome, was fortified in places with a double wall, and wasguarded by three legions and a large body of Kurdish archers. Sapor, having reconnoitred the place, and, with his usual hardihood, exposedhimself to danger in doing so, sent a flag of truce to demand asurrender, joining with the messengers some prisoners of high rank takenat Singara, lest the enemy should open fire upon his envoys. The devicewas successful; but the garrison proved stanch, and determined onresisting to the last. Once more all the known resources of attack anddefence were brought into play; and after a long siege, of which themost important incident was an attempt made by the bishop of the placeto induce Sapor to withdraw, the wall was at last breached, the citytaken, and its defenders indiscriminately massacred. Regarding theposition as one of first-rate importance, Sapor, who had destroyedSingara, carefully repaired the defences of Bezabde, provisioned itabundantly, and garrisoned it with some of his best troops. He was wellaware that the Romans would feel keenly the loss of so important a post, and expected that it would not be long before they made an effort torecover possession of it. 

The winter was now approaching, but the Persian monarch still kept thefield. The capture of Bezabde was followed by that of many other lessimportant strongholds, which offered little resistance. At last, towardsthe close of the year, an attack was made upon a place called Virta, said to have been a fortress of great strength, and by some modernsidentified with Tekrit, an important city upon the Tigris betweenMosul and Bagdad. Here the career of the conqueror was at last arrested. Persuasion and force proved alike unavailing to induce or compel asurrender; and, after wasting the small remainder of the year, andsuffering considerable loss, the Persian monarch reluctantly gave up thesiege, and returned to his own country. 

Meanwhile the movements of the Roman emperor had been slow anduncertain. Distracted between a jealous fear of his cousin Julian'sproceedings in the West, and a desire of checking the advance of hisrival Sapor in the East, he had left Constantinople in the early spring, but had journeyed leisurely through Cappadocia and Armenia Minor toSamosata, whence, after crossing the Euphrates, he had proceeded toEdessa, and there fixed himself. While in Cappadocia he had summoned tohis presence Arsaces, the tributary king of Armenia, had reminded himof his engagements, and had endeavored to quicken his gratitude bybestowing on him liberal presents. At Edessa he employed himself duringthe whole of the summer in collecting troops and stores; nor was it tillthe autumnal equinox was past that he took the field, and, after weepingover the smoking ruins of Amida, marched to Bezabde, and, when thedefenders rejected his overtures of peace, formed the siege of theplace. Sapor was, we must suppose, now engaged before Virta, and it isprobable that he thought Bezabde strong enough to defend itself. At anyrate, he made no effort to afford it any relief; and the Roman emperorwas allowed to employ all the resources at his disposal in reiteratedassaults upon the walls. The defence, however, proved stronger than theattack. Time after time the bold sallies of the besieged destroyed theRoman works. At last the rainy season set in, and the low groundoutside the town became a glutinous and adhesive marsh. It was no longerpossible to continue the siege; and the disappointed emperor reluctantlydrew off his troops, recrossed the Euphrates, and retired into winterquarters at Antioch. 

The successes of Sapor in the campaigns of A. D. 359 and 360, hiscaptures of Amida, Singara, and Bezabde, together with the unfortunateissue of the expedition made by Constantius against the last-namedplace, had a tendency to shake the fidelity of the Roman vassal-kings, Arsaces of Armenia, and Meribanes of Iberia. Constantius, therefore, during the winter of A. D. 360-1, which he passed at Antioch, sentemissaries to the courts of these monarchs, and endeavored to securetheir fidelity by loading them with costly presents. His policy seems tohave been so far successful that no revolt of these kingdoms took place;they did not as yet desert the Romans or make their submission to Sapor. Their monarchs seem to have simply watched events, prepared to declarethemselves distinctly on the winning side so soon as fortune shouldincline unmistakably to one or the other combatant. Meanwhile theymaintained the fiction of a nominal dependence upon Rome. 

It might have been expected that the year A. D. 361 would have been aturning-point in the war, and that, if Rome did not by a great effortassert herself and recover her prestige, the advance of Persia wouldhave been marked and rapid. But the actual course of events was fardifferent. Hesitation and diffidence characterize the movements ofboth parties to the contest, and the year is signalized by no importantenterprise on the part of either monarch. Constantius reoccupied Edessa, and had (we are told) some thoughts of renewing the siege of Bezabde;actually, however, he did not advance further, but contented himselfwith sending a part of his army to watch Sapor, giving them strictorders not to risk an engagement. Sapor, on his side, began the yearwith demonstrations which were taken to mean that he was about to passthe Euphrates; but in reality he never even brought his troops acrossthe Tigris, or once set foot in Mesopotamia. After wasting weeks ormonths in a futile display of his armed strength upon the eastern bankof the river, and violently alarming the officers sent by Constantius toobserve his movements, he suddenly, towards autumn, withdrew his troops, having attempted nothing, and quietly returned to his capital! It is byno means difficult to understand the motives which actuated Constantius. He was, month after month, receiving intelligence from the West of stepstaken by Julian which amounted to open rebellion, and challenged himto engage in civil war. So long as Sapor threatened invasion he did notlike to quit Mesopotamia, lest he might appear to have sacrificed theinterests of his country to his own private quarrels; but he must havebeen anxious to return to the seat of empire from the first moment thatintelligence reached him of Julian's assumption of the imperial name anddignity; and when Sapor's retreat was announced he naturally made allhaste to reach his capital. Meanwhile the desire of keeping his armyintact caused him to refrain from any movement which involved theslightest risk of bringing on a battle, and, in fact, reduced himto inaction. So much is readily intelligible. But what at this timewithheld Sapor, when he had so grand an opportunity of making animpression upon Rome--what paralyzed his arm when it might have struckwith such effect it is far from easy to understand, though perhapsnot impossible to conjecture. The historian of the war ascribes hisabstinence to a religious motive, telling us that the auguries were notfavorable for the Persians crossing the Tigris. But there is no otherevidence that the Persians of this period were the slaves of any suchsuperstition as that noted by Ammianus, nor any probability that amonarch of Sapor's force of character would have suffered his militarypolicy to be affected by omens. We must therefore ascribe the conductof the Persian king to some cause not recorded by the historian--samefailure of health, or some peril from internal or external enemies whichcalled him away from the scene of his recent exploits, just at the timewhen his continued presence there was most important. Once before inhis lifetime, an invasion of his eastern provinces had required hisimmediate presence, and allowed his adversary to quit Mesopotamia andmarch against Magnentius. It is not improbable that a fresh attack ofthe same or some other barbarians now again happened opportunely for theRomans, calling Sapor away, and thus enabling Constantius to turn hishack upon the East, and set out for Europe in order to meet Julian. 

The meeting, however, was not destined to take place. On his way fromAntioch to Constantinople the unfortunate Constantius, anxious andperhaps over-fatigued, fell sick at Mopsucrene, in Cilicia, and diedthere, after a short illness, towards the close of A. D. 361. Julianthe Apostate succeeded peacefully to the empire whereto he was about toassert his right by force of arms; and Sapor found that the war whichhe had provoked with Rome, in reliance upon his adversary's weakness andincapacity, had to be carried on with a prince of far greater naturalpowers and of much superior military training. 

CHAPTER X. 

_Julian becomes Emperor of Rome. His Resolution to invade Persia. HisViews and Motives. His Proceedings. Proposals of Sapor rejected. OtherEmbassies. Relations of Julian with Armenia. Strength of his Army. His invasion of Mesopotamia. His Line of March. Siege of Perisabor; ofMaogamalcha. Battle of the Tigris. Further Progress of Julian checkedby his Inability to invest Ctesiphon. His Retreat. His Death. Retreatcontinued by Jovian. Sapor offers Terms of Peace. Peace made by Jovian. Its Conditions. Reflections on the Peace and on the Termination of theSecond Period of Struggle between Rome and Persia. _

"Julianus, redacta ad unum se orbis Romani curatione, glorise nimiscupidus, in Persas proficiscitur. "--Aurel. Viet. Epit. §43. 

The prince on whom the government of the Roman empire, and consequentlythe direction of the Persian war, devolved by the death of Constantius, was in the flower of his age, proud, self-confident, and full of energy. He had been engaged for a period of four years in a struggle with therude and warlike tribes of Germany, had freed the whole country westof the Rhine from the presence of those terrible warriors, and had evencarried fire and sword far into the wild and savage districts on theright bank of the river, and compelled the Alemanni and other powerfulGerman tribes to make their submission to the majesty of Rome. Personally brave, by temperament restless, and inspired with an ardentdesire to rival or eclipse the glorious deeds of those heroes of formertimes who had made themselves a name in history, he viewed the disturbedcondition of the East at the time of his accession not as a trouble, notas a drawback upon the delights of empire, but as a happy circumstance, a fortunate opportunity for distinguishing himself by some greatachievement. Of all the Greeks, Alexander appeared to him the mostillustrious; of all his predecessors on the imperial throne, Trajan andMarcus Aurelius were those whom he most wished to emulate. But all theseprinces had either led or sent expeditions into the far East, and hadaimed at uniting in one the fairest provinces of Europe and Asia. Julian appears, from the first moment that he found himself peaceablyestablished upon the throne, to have resolved on undertaking in person agreat expedition against Sapor, with the object of avenging upon Persiathe ravages and defeats of the last sixty years, or at any rate ofobtaining such successes as might justify his assuming the titleof "Persicus. " Whether he really entertained any hope of rivallingAlexander, or supposed it possible that he should effect "the finalconquest of Persia, " may be doubted. Acquainted, as he must have been, with the entire course of Roman warfare in these parts from the attackof Crassus to the last defeat of his own immediate predecessor, he canscarcely have regarded the subjugation of Persia as an easy matter, orhave expected to do much more than strike terror into the "barbarians"of the East, or perhaps obtain from them the cession of anotherprovince. The sensible officer, who, after accompanying him in hisexpedition, wrote the history of the campaign, regarded his actuatingmotives as the delight that he took in war, and the desire of a newtitle. Confident in his own military talent, in his training, and inhis power to inspire enthusiasm in an army, he no doubt looked to reaplaurels sufficient to justify him in making his attack; but the wildschemes ascribed to him, the conquest of the Sassanian kingdom, andthe subjugation of Hyrcania and India, are figments (probably) of theimagination of his historians. 

Julian entered Constantinople on the 11th of December, A. D. 361; hequitted it towards the end of May, 12 A. D. 362, after residing thereless than six months. During this period, notwithstanding the variousimportant matters in which he was engaged, the purifying of the court, the depression of the Christians, the restoration and revivificationof Paganism, he found time to form plans and make preparations for hisintended eastern expedition, in which he was anxious to engage as soonas possible. Having designated for the war such troops as could bespared from the West, he committed them and their officers to the chargeof two generals, carefully chosen, Victor, a Roman of distinction, andthe Persian refugee, Prince Hormisdas, who conducted the legions withoutdifficulty to Antioch. There Julian himself arrived in June or July 14after having made a stately progress through Asia Minor; and it wouldseem that he would at once have marched against the enemy, had not hiscounsellors strongly urged the necessity of a short delay, during whichthe European troops might be rested, and adequate preparations made forthe intended invasion. It was especially necessary to provide stores andships, since the new emperor had resolved not to content himself with anordinary campaign upon the frontier, but rather to imitate the examplesof Trajan and Severus, who had carried the Roman eagles to the extremesouth of Mesopotamia. Ships, accordingly, were collected, and probablybuilt during the winter of A. D. 362-3; provisions were laid in; warlikestores, military engines, and the like accumulated; while the impatientmonarch, galled by the wit and raillery of the gay Antiochenes, chafedat his compelled inaction, and longed to exchange the war of words inwhich he was engaged with his subjects for the ruder contests of armswherewith use had made him more familiar. 

It must have been during the emperor's stay at Antioch that hereceived an embassy from the court of Persia, commissioned to sound hisinclinations with regard to the conclusion of a peace. Sapor hadseen, with some disquiet, the sceptre of the Roman world assumed by anenterprising and courageous youth, inured to warfare and ambitious ofmilitary glory. He was probably very well informed as to the generalcondition of the Roman State and the personal character of itsadministrator; and the tidings which he received concerning theintentions and preparations, of the new prince were such as caused himsome apprehension, if not actual alarm. Under these circumstance shesent an embassy with overtures, the exact nature of which is not known, but which, it is probable, took for their basis the existing territoriallimits of the two countries. At least, we hear of no offer of surrenderor submission on Sapor's part; and we can scarcely suppose that, hadsuch offers been made, the Roman writers would have passed them over insilence. It is not surprising that Julian lent no favorable ear to theenvoys, if these were their instructions; but it would have been betterfor his reputation had he replied to them with less of haughtiness andrudeness. According to one authority, he tore up before their facesthe autograph letter of their master; while, according to another, heresponded, with a contemptuous smile, that "there was no occasion foran exchange of thought between him and the Persian king by messengers, since he intended very shortly to treat with him in person. " Havingreceived this rebuff, the envoys of Sapor took their departure, andconveyed to their sovereign the intelligence that he must preparehimself to resist a serious invasion. 

About the same time various offers of assistance reached the Romanemperor from the independent or semi-independent princes and chieftainsof the regions adjacent to Mesopotamia. Such overtures were sure tobe made by the heads of the plundering desert tribes to any powerfulinvader, since it would be hoped that a share in the booty might beobtained without much participation in the danger. We are told thatJulian promptly rejected these offers, grandly saying that it was forRome rather to give aid to her allies than to receive assistance fromthem. It appears, however, that at least two exceptions were made to thegeneral principle thus magniloquently asserted. Julian had taken intohis service, ere he quitted Europe, a strong body of Gothic auxiliaries;and, while at Antioch, he sent to the Saracens, reminding them of theirpromise to lend him troops, and calling upon them to fulfil it. Ifthe advance on Persia was to be made by the line of the Euphrates, an alliance with these agile sons of the desert was of first-rateimportance, since the assistance which they could render as friends wasconsiderable, and the injury which they could inflict as enemies wasalmost beyond calculation. It is among the faults of Julian in thiscampaign that he did not set more store by the Saracen alliance, andmake greater efforts to maintain it; we shall find that after a whilehe allowed the brave nomads to become disaffected, and to exchange theirfriendship with him for hostility. Had he taken more care to attach themcordially to the side of Rome, it is quite possible that his expeditionmight have had a prosperous issue. 

There was another ally, whose services Julian regarded himself asentitled not to request, but to command. Arsaces, king of Armenia, though placed on his throne by Sapor, had (as we have seen) transferredhis allegiance to Constantius, and voluntarily taken up the position ofa Roman feudatory. Constantius had of late suspected his fidelity; butArsaces had not as yet, by any overt act, justified these suspicions, and Julian seems to have regarded him as an assured friend and ally. Early in A. D. 363 he addressed a letter to the Armenian monarch, requiring him to levy a considerable force, and hold himself inreadiness to execute such orders as he would receive within a shorttime. The style, address, and purport of this letter were equallydistasteful to Arsaces, whose pride was outraged, and whose indolencewas disturbed, by the call thus suddenly made upon him. His own desirewas probably to remain neutral; he felt no interest in the standingquarrel between his two powerful neighbors; he was under obligationsto both of them; and it was for his advantage that they should remainevenly balanced. We cannot ascribe to him any earnest religious feeling;but, as one who kept up the profession of Christianity, he could not butregard with aversion the Apostate, who had given no obscure intimationof his intention to use his power to the utmost in order to sweep theChristian religion from the face of the earth. The disinclination oftheir monarch to observe the designs of Julian was shared, or rathersurpassed, by his people, the more educated portion of whom werestrongly attached to the new faith and worship. If the great historianof Armenia is right in stating that Julian at this time offered anopen insult to the Armenian religion, we must pronounce him strangelyimprudent. The alliance of Armenia was always of the utmost importanceto Rome in any attack upon the East. Julian seems to have gone out ofhis way to create offence in this quarter, where his interests requiredthat he should exercise all his powers of conciliation. 

The forces which the emperor regarded as at his disposal, and withwhich he expected to take the field, were the following. His own troopsamounted to 83, 000 or (according to another account) to 95, 000 men. Theyconsisted chiefly of Roman legionaries, horse and foot, but includeda strong body of Gothic auxiliaries. Armenia was expected to furnisha considerable force, probably not less than 20, 000 men; and the lighthorse of the Saracens would, it was thought, be tolerably numerous. Altogether, an army of above a hundred thousand men was about to belaunched on the devoted Persia, which was believed unlikely to offer anyeffectual, if even any serious, resistance. 

The impatience of Julian scarcely allowed him to await the conclusion ofthe winter. With the first breath of spring he put his forces in motion, and, quitting Antioch, marched with all speed to the Euphrates. PassingLitarbi, and then Hiapolis, he crossed the river by a bridge of boats inthe vicinity that place, and proceeded by Batnee to the important cityof Carrhae, once the home of Abraham. Here he halted for a few days andfinally fixed his plans. It was by this time well known to the Romansthat there were two, and two only, convenient roads whereby SouthernMesopotamia was to be reached, one along the line of the Mons Masius tothe Tigris, and then along the banks of that stream, the other down thevalley of the Euphrates to the great alluvial plain on the lower courseof the rivers. Julian had, perhaps, hitherto doubted which line heshould follow in person. The first had been preferred by Alexander andby Trajan, the second by the younger Cyrus, by Avidius Cassius, and bySeverus. Both lines were fairly practicable; but that of the Tigriswas circuitous, and its free employment was only possible under thecondition of Armenia being certainly friendly. If Julian had cause tosuspect, as it is probable that he had, the fidelity o£ the Armenians, he may have felt that there was one line only which he could withprudence pursue. He might send a subsidiary force by the doubtful routewhich could advance to his aid if matters went favorably, or remain onthe defensive if they assumed a threatening aspect; but his owngrand attack must be by the other. Accordingly he divided his forces. Committing a body of troops, which is variously estimated at from 18, 000to 30, 000, into the hands of Procopius, a connection of his own, andSebastian, Duke of Egypt, with orders that they should proceed by way ofthe Mons Masius to Armenia, and, uniting themselves with the forcesof Arsaces, invade Northern Media, ravage it, and then join him beforeCtesiphon by the line of the Tigris, he reserved for himself and forhis main army the shorter and more open route down the valley of theEuphrates. Leaving Carrhae on the 26th of March, after about a week'sstay, he marched southward, at the head of 65, 000 men, by Davana andalong the course of the Belik, to Callinicus or Nicophorium, near thejunction of the Belik with the Euphrates. Here the Saracen chiefs cameand made their submission, and were graciously received by the emperor, to whom they presented a crown of gold. At the same time the fleet madeits appearance, numbering at least 1100 vessels, of which fifty wereships of war, fifty prepared to serve as pontoons, and the remainingthousand, transports laden with provisions, weapons, and militaryengines. 

From Callinicus the emperor marched along the course of the Euphratesto Circusium, or Circesium, at the junction of the Khabour with theEuphrates, arriving at this place early in April. Thus far he had beenmarching through his own dominions, and had had no hostility to dread. Being now about to enter the enemy's country, he made arrangements forthe march which seem to have been extremely judicious. The cavalry wasplaced under the command of Arinthseus and Prince Hormisdas, and wasstationed at the extreme left, with orders to advance on a line parallelwith the general course of the river. Some picked legions under thecommand of Nevitta formed the right wing, and, resting on the Euphrates, maintained communication with the fleet. Julian, with the main part ofhis troops, occupied the space intermediate between these two extremes, marching in a loose column which from front to rear covered a distanceof above nine miles. A flying corps of fifteen hundred men acted as anavant-guard under Count Lucilianus, and explored the country in advance, feeling on all sides for the enemy. The rear was covered by a detachmentunder Secundinus, Duke of Osrhoene, Dagalaiphus, and Victor. 

Having made his dispositions, and crossed the broad stream of theKhabour, on the 7th of April, by a bridge of boats, which he immediatelybroke up, Julian continued his advance along the course of theEuphrates, supported by his fleet, which was not allowed either tooutstrip or to lag behind the army. The first halt was at Zaitha, famousas the scene of the murder of Gordian, whose tomb was in its vicinity. Here Julian encouraged his soldiers by an eloquent speech, in which herecounted the past successes of the Roman arms, and promised them aneasy victory over their present adversary. He then, in a two days'march, reached Dura, a ruined city, destitute of inhabitants, on thebanks of the river; from which a march of four days more brought himto Anathan, the modern Anah, a strong fortress on an island in themid-stream, which was held by a Persian garrison. An attempt to surprisethe place by a night attack having failed, Julian had recourse topersuasion, and by the representations of Prince Hormisdas induced itsdefenders to surrender the fort and place themselves at his mercy. It was, perhaps, to gall the Antiochenes with an indication of hisvictorious progress that he sent his prisoners under escort into Syria, and settled them in the territory of Chalcis, at no great distancefrom the city of his aversion. Unwilling further to weaken his army bydetaching a garrison to hold his conquest, he committed Anathan to theflames before proceeding further down the river. 

About eight miles below Anathan, another island and another fortresswere held by the enemy. Thilutha is described as stronger than Anathan, and indeed as almost impregnable. Julian felt that he could not attackit with any hope of success, and therefore once more submitted to usepersuasion. But the garrison, feeling themselves secure, rejected hisovertures; they would wait, they said, and see which party was superiorin the approaching conflict, and would then attach themselves tothe victors. Meanwhile, if unmolested by the invader, they would notinterfere with his advance, but would maintain a neutral attitude. Julian had to determine whether he would act in the spirit of anAlexander, and, rejecting with disdain all compromise, compel by forceof arms an entire submission, or whether he would take lower ground, accept the offer made to him, and be content to leave in his rear acertain number of unconquered fortresses. He decided that prudencerequired him to take the latter course, and left Thilutha unassailed. It is not surprising that, having admitted the assumption of a neutralposition by one town, he was forced to extend the permission to others, and so to allow the Euphrates route to remain, practically, in the handsof the Persians. 

A. Five days' march from Thilutha brought the army to a point oppositeDiacira, or Hit, a town of ancient repute, and one which happened to bewell provided with stores and provisions. Though the place lay on theright bank of the river, it was still exposed to attack, as the fleetcould convey any number of troops from one shore to the other. Beingconsidered untenable, it was deserted by the male inhabitants, who, however, left some of their women behind them. We obtain an unpleasantidea of the state of discipline which the philosophic emperor allowedto prevail, when we find that his soldiers, "without remorse and withoutpunishment, massacred these defenceless persons. " The historian of thewar records this act without any appearance of shame, as if it werea usual occurrence, and no more important than the burning of theplundered city which followed. 

From Hit the army pursued its march, through Sitha and Megia, toZaragardia or Ozogardana, where the memory of Trajan's expedition stilllingered, a certain pedestal or pulpit of stone being known to thenatives as "Trajan's tribunal. " Up to this time nothing had been seen orheard of any Persian opposing army; one man only on the Roman side, sofar as we hear, had been killed. No systematic method of checking theadvance had been adopted; the corn was everywhere found standing;forage was plentiful; and there were magazines of grain in the towns. Nodifficulties had delayed the invaders but such as Nature had interposedto thwart them, as when a violent storm on one occasion shattered thetents, and on another a sudden swell of the Euphrates wrecked some ofthe corn transports, and interrupted the right wing's line of march. But this pleasant condition of things was not to continue. At Hit therolling Assyrian plain had come to an end, and the invading army hadentered upon the low alluvium of Babylonia, a region of great fertility, intersected by numerous canals, which in some places were carried theentire distance from the one river to the other. The change in thecharacter of the country encouraged the Persians to make a change intheir tactics. Hitherto they had been absolutely passive; now at lastthey showed themselves, and commenced the active system of perpetualharassing warfare in which they were adepts. A surena, or general ofthe first rank, appeared in the field, at the head of a strong body ofPersian horse, and accompanied by a sheikh of the Saracenic Arabs, known as Malik (or "King") Rodoseces. Retreating as Julian advanced, butcontinually delaying his progress, hanging on the skirts of hisarmy, cutting off his stragglers, and threatening every unsupporteddetachment, this active force changed all the conditions of the march, rendering it slow and painful, and sometimes stopping it altogether. Weare told that on one occasion Prince Hormisdas narrowly escaped fallinginto the surena's hands. On another, the Persian force, having allowedthe Roman vanguard to proceed unmolested, suddenly showed itself on thesouthern bank of one of the great canals connecting the Euphrateswith the Tigris, and forbade the passage of Julian's main army. It wasonly after a day and a night's delay that the emperor, by detachingtroops under Victor to make a long circuit, cross the canal far to theeast, recall Lucilianus with the vanguard, and then attack the surena'stroops in the rear, was able to overcome the resistance in his front, and carry his army across the cutting. 

Having in this way effected the passage, Julian continued his marchalong the Euphrates, and in a short time came to the city of Perisabor(Mruz Shapur), the most important that he had yet reached, and reckonednot much inferior to Otesiphon. As the inhabitants steadily refused allaccommodation, and insulted Hormisdas, who was sent to treat withthem, by the reproach that he was a deserter and a traitor, the emperordetermined to form the siege of the place and see if he could notcompel it to a surrender. Situated between the Euphrates and one of thenumerous canals derived from it, and further protected by a trench drawnacross from the canal to the river, Perisabor occupied a sort of island, while at the same time it was completely surrounded with a double wall. The citadel, which lay towards the north, and overhung the Euphrates, was especially strong; and the garrison was brave, numerous, and fullof confidence. The walls, however, composed in part of brick laid inbitumen, were not of much strength; and the Roman soldiers found littledifficulty in shattering with the ram one of the corner towers, and somaking an entrance into the place. But the real struggle now began. The brave defenders retreated into the citadel, which was of imposingheight, and from this vantage-ground galled the Romans in the town withan incessant shower of arrows, darts, and stones. The ordinary catapultsand balistae of the Romans were no match for such a storm descendingfrom such a height; and it was plainly necessary, if the place was to betaken, to have recourse to some other device. Julian, therefore, who wasnever sparing of his own person, took the resolution, on the second dayof the siege, of attempting to burst open one of the gates. Accompaniedby a small band, who formed a roof over his head with their shields, and by a few sappers with their tools, he approached the gate-tower, andmade his men commence their operations. The doors, however, were foundto be protected with iron, and the fastenings to be so strong thatno immediate impression could be made; while the alarmed garrison, concentrating its attention on the threatened spot, kept up a furiousdischarge of missiles on their daring assailants. Prudence counselledretreat from the dangerous position which had been taken up; and theemperor, though he felt acutely the shame of having failed, retired. But his mind, fertile in resource, soon formed a new plan. He rememberedthat Demetrius Poliorcetes had acquired his surname by the invention anduse of the "Helepolis, " a movable tower of vast height, which placed theassailants on a level with the defenders even of the loftiest ramparts. He at once ordered the construction of such a machine; and, the abilityof his engineers being equal to the task, it rapidly grew before hiseyes. The garrison saw its growth with feelings very opposite tothose of their assailant; they felt that they could not resist the newcreation, and anticipated its employment by a surrender, Julian agreedto spare their lives, and allowed them to withdraw and join theircountrymen, each man taking with him a spare garment and a certainsum of money. The other stores contained within the walls fell to theconquerors, who found them to comprise a vast quantity of corn, arms, and other valuables. Julian distributed among his troops whatever waslikely to be serviceable; the remainder, of which he could make no use, was either burned or thrown into the Euphrates. 

The latitude of Ctesiphon was now nearly reached, but Julian stillcontinued to descend the Euphrates, while the Persian cavalry madeoccasional dashes upon his extended line, and sometimes caused him asensible loss. At length he came to the point where the Nahr-Malcha, or"Royal river, " the chief of the canals connecting the Euphrates with theTigris, branched off from the more western stream, and ran nearly dueeast to the vicinity of the capital. The canal was navigable by hisships, and he therefore at this point quitted the Euphrates, anddirected his march eastward along the course of the cutting, followingin the footsteps of Severus, and no doubt expecting, like him, tocapture easily the great metropolitan city. But his advance across theneck of land which here separates the Tigris from the Euphrates waspainful and difficult, since the enemy laid the country under water, andat every favorable point disputed his progress. Julian, however, stillpressed forward, and advanced, though slowly. By felling the palms whichgrew abundantly in this region, and forming with them rafts supportedby inflated skins, he was able to pass the inundated district, and toapproach within about eleven miles of Ctesiphon. Here his further marchwas obstructed by a fortress, built (as it would seem) to defend thecapital, and fortified with especial care. Ammianus calls this placeMaoga-malcha, while Zosimus gives it the name of Besuchis; but bothagree that it was a large town, commanded by a strong citadel, and heldby a brave and numerous garrison. Julian might perhaps have left itunassailed, as he had left already several towns upon his line of march;but a daring attempt made against himself by a portion of the garrisoncaused him to feel his honor concerned in taking the place; and theresult was that he once more arrested his steps, and, sitting downbefore the walls, commenced a formal siege. All the usual arts of attackand defence were employed on either side for several days, the chiefnovel feature in the warfare being the use by the besieged of blazingballs of bitumen, which they shot from their lofty towers against thebesiegers' works and persons. Julian, however, met this novelty by adevice on his side which was uncommon; he continued openly to assaultthe walls and gates with his battering rams, but he secretly gave ordersthat the chief efforts of his men should be directed to the formation ofa mine, which should be carried under both the walls that defended theplace, and enable him to introduce suddenly a body of troops into thevery heart of the city. His orders were successfully executed; andwhile a general attack upon the defences occupied the attention ofthe besieged, three corps introduced through the mine suddenly showedthemselves in the town itself, and rendered further resistance hopeless. Maogamalcha, which a little before had boasted of being impregnable, and had laughed to scorn the vain efforts of the emperor, suddenlyfound itself taken by assault and undergoing the extremities of sack andpillage. Julian made no efforts to prevent a general massacre, and theentire population, without distinction of age or sex, seems to have beenput to the sword. The commandant of the fortress, though he was atfirst spared, suffered death shortly after on a frivolous charge. Even amiserable remnant, which had concealed itself in caves and cellars, washunted out, smoke and fire being used to force the fugitives from theirhiding-places, or else cause them to perish in the darksome dens bysuffocation. Thus there was no extremity of savage warfare which wasnot used, the fourth century anticipating some of the horrors which havemost disgraced the nineteenth. 

Nothing now but the river Tigris intervened between Julian and thegreat city of Ctesiphon, which was plainly the special object of theexpedition. Ctesiphon, indeed, was not to Persia what it had beento Parthia; but still it might fairly be looked upon as a prize ofconsiderable importance. Of Parthia it had been the main, in later timesperhaps the sole, capital; to Persia it was a secondary rather thana primary city, the ordinary residence of the court being Istakr, orPersepolis. Still the Persian kings seem occasionally to have resided atCtesiphon; and among the secondary cities of the empire it undoubtedlyheld a high rank. In the neighborhood were various royal hunting-seats, surrounded by shady gardens, and adorned with paintings or bas-reliefs;while near them were parks or "paradises, " containing the game keptfor the prince's sport, which included lions, wild boars, and bears ofremarkable fierceness. As Julian advanced, these pleasaunces fell, one after another, into his hands, and were delivered over to the rudesoldiery, who trampled the flowers and shrubs under foot, destroyed thewild beasts, and burned the residences. No serious resistance was asyet made by any Persian force to the progress of the Romans, whopressed steadily forward, occasionally losing a few men or a few baggageanimals, but drawing daily nearer to the great city, and on their wayspreading ruin and desolation over a most fertile district, from whichthey drew abundant supplies as they passed through it, while they leftit behind them blackened, wasted, and almost without inhabitant. ThePersians seem to have had orders not to make, as yet, any firm stand. One of the sons of Sapor was now at their head, but no change of tacticsoccurred. As Julian drew near, this prince indeed quitted the shelter ofCtesiphon, and made a reconnaissance in force; but when he fell in withthe Roman advanced guard under Victor, and saw its strength, he declinedan engagement, and retired without coming to blows. 

Julian had now reached the western suburb of Ctesiphon, which had lostits old name of Seleucia and was known as Coche. The capture of thisplace would, perhaps, not have been difficult; but, as the broad anddeep stream of the Tigris flowed between it and the main town, littlewould have been gained by the occupation. Julian felt that, to attackCtesiphon with success, he must, like Trajan and Severus, transport hisarmy to the left bank of the Tigris, and deliver his assault upon thedefences that lay beyond that river. For the safe transport of his armyhe trusted to his fleet, which he had therefore caused to enter theNahr-Malcha, and to accompany his troops thus far. But at Coche he foundthat the Nahr-Malcha, instead of joining the Tigris, as he had expected, above Ctesiphon, ran into it at some distance below. To have pursuedthis line with both fleet and army would have carried him too far intothe enemy's country, have endangered his communications, and especiallyhave cut him off from the Armenian army under Procopius and Sebastian, with which he was at this time looking to effect a junction. To havesent the fleet into the Tigris below Coche, while the army occupiedthe right bank of the river above it, would, in the first place, haveseparated the two, and would further have been useless, unless the fleetcould force its way against the strong current through the whole lengthof the hostile city. In this difficulty Julian's book-knowledgewas found of service. He had studied with care the campaigns of hispredecessors in these regions, and recollected that one of them at anyrate had made a cutting from the Nahr-Malcha, by which he had broughthis fleet into the Tigris above Ctesiphon. If this work could bediscovered, it might, he thought, in all probability be restored. Someof the country people were therefore seized, and, inquiry being madeof them, the line of the canal was pointed out, and the place shown atwhich it had been derived from the Nahr-Malcha. Here the Persians haderected a strong dam, with sluices, by means of which a portion of thewater could occasionally be turned into the Roman cutting. Julian hadthe cutting cleared out, and the dam torn down; whereupon the mainportion of the stream rushed at once into the old channel, which rapidlyfilled, and was found to be navigable by the Roman vessels. The fleetwas thus brought into the Tigris above Coche; and the army advancingwith it encamped upon the right bank of the river. 

The Persians now for the first time appeared in force. As Julian drewnear the great stream, he perceived that his passage of it would not beunopposed. Along the left bank, which was at this point naturally higherthan the right, and which was further crowned by a wall built originallyto fence in one of the royal parks, could be seen the dense massesof the enemy's-horse and foot, stretching away to right and left, theformer encased in glittering armor, the latter protected by hugewattled shields. Behind these troops were discernible the vast formsof elephants, looking (says the historian) like moving mountains, andregarded by the legionaries with extreme dread. Julian felt that hecould not ask his army to cross the stream openly in the face of a foethus advantageously posted. He therefore waited the approach of night. When darkness had closed in, he made his dispositions; divided hisfleet into portions; embarked a number of his troops; and, despitethe dissuasions of his officers, gave the signal for the passage tocommence. Five ships, each of them conveying eighty soldiers, led theway, and reached the opposite shore without accident. Here, however, the enemy received them with a sharp fire of burning darts, and the twoforemost were soon in flames. At the ominous sight the rest of the fleetwavered, and might have refused to proceed further, had not Julian, withadmirable presence of mind, exclaimed aloud--"Our men have crossed andare masters of the bank--that fire is the signal which I bade them makeif they were victorious. " Thus encouraged, the crews plied their oarswith vigor, and impelled the remaining vessels rapidly across thestream. At the same time, some of the soldiers who had not been put onboard, impatient to assist their comrades, plunged into the stream, andswam across supported by their shields. Though a stout resistancewas offered by the Persians, it was found impossible to withstand theimpetuosity of the Roman attack. Not only were the half-burned vesselssaved, the flames extinguished, and the men on board rescued from theirperilous position, but everywhere the Roman troops made good theirlanding, fought their way up the bank against a storm of missileweapons, and drew up in good order upon its summit. A pause probably nowoccurred, as the armies could not see each other in the darkness; but, at dawn of day, Julian, having made a fresh arrangement of his troops, led them against the dense array of the enemy, and engaged in ahand-to-hand combat, which lasted from morning to midday, when it wasterminated by the flight of the Persians. Their leaders, Tigranes, Narseus, and the Surena, are said to have been the first to quit thefield and take refuge within the defences of Ctesiphon. The example thusset was universally followed; and the entire Persian army, abandoningits camp and baggage, rushed in the wildest confusion across the plainto the nearest of the city gates, closely pursued by its active foe upto the very foot of the walls. The Roman writers assert that Ctesiphonmight have been entered and taken, had not the general, Victor, who waswounded by a dart from a catapult, recalled his men as they were aboutto rush in through the open gateway. It is perhaps doubtful whethersuccess would really have crowned such audacity. At any rate theopportunity passed--the runaways entered the town--the gate closed uponthem; and Ctesiphon was safe unless it were reduced by the operations ofa regular siege. 

But the fruits of the victory were still considerable. The entirePersian army collected hitherto for the defence of Ctesiphon had beendefeated by one-third of the Roman force under Julian. The vanquishedhad left 2, 500 men dead upon the field, while the victors had lost nomore than seventy-five. A rich spoil had fallen into the hands of theRomans, who found in the abandoned camp couches and tables of massivesilver, and on the bodies of the slain, both men and horses, a profusionof gold and silver ornaments, besides trappings and apparel of greatmagnificence. A welcome supply of provisions was also furnished by thelands and houses in the neighborhood of Ctesiphon; and the troops passedfrom a state of privation to one of extreme abundance, so that it wasfeared lest they might suffer from excess. 

Affairs had now reached a point when it was necessary to form a definiteresolution as to what should be the further aim and course of theexpedition. Hitherto all had indicated an intention on the part ofJulian to occupy Ctesiphon, and thence dictate a peace. His long march, his toilsome canal-cutting, his orders to his second army, his crossingof the Tigris, his engagement with the Persians in the plain beforeCtesiphon, were the natural steps conducting to such a result, and areexplicable on one hypothesis and one hypothesis only. He must up to thistime have designed to make himself master of the great city, whichhad been the goal of so many previous invasions, and had always fallenwhenever Rome attacked it. But, having overcome all the obstacles in hispath, and having it in his power at once to commence the siege, a suddendoubt appears to have assailed him as to the practicability of theundertaking. It can scarcely be supposed that the city was reallystronger now than it had been under the Parthians; much less can it beargued that Julian's army was insufficient for the investment of such aplace. It was probably the most powerful army with which the Romans hadas yet invaded Southern Mesopotamia; and it was amply provided withall the appurtenances of war. If Julian did not venture to attempt whatTrajan and Avidius Cassius and Septimius Severus had achieved withoutdifficulty, it must have been because the circumstances under which hewould have had to make the attack were different from those under whichthey had ventured and succeeded. And the difference--a most momentousone--was this. They besieged and captured the place after defeating thegreatest force that Parthia could bring into the field against them. Julian found himself in front of Ctesiphon before he had crossed swordswith the Persian king, or so much as set eyes on the grand army whichSapor was known to have collected. To have sat down before Ctesiphonunder such circumstances would have been to expose himself to greatperil; while he was intent upon the siege, he might at any time havebeen attacked by a relieving army under the Great King, have been placedbetween two fires, and compelled to engage at extreme disadvantage. Itwas a consideration of this danger that impelled the council of war, whereto he submitted the question, to pronounce the siege of Ctesiphontoo hazardous an operation, and to dissuade the emperor from attemptingit. 

But, if the city were not to be besieged, what course could with anyprudence be adopted? It would have been madness to leave Ctesiphonunassailed, and to press forward against Susa and Persepolis. It wouldhave been futile to remain encamped before the walls without commencinga siege. The heats of summer had arrived, and the malaria of autumn wasnot far off. The stores brought by the fleet were exhausted; and therewas a great risk in the army's depending wholly for its subsistence onthe supplies that it might be able to obtain from the enemy's country. Julian and his advisers must have seen at a glance that if the Romanswere not to attack Ctesiphon, they must retreat. And accordingly retreatseems to have been at once determined on. As a first step, the wholefleet, except some dozen vessels, was burned, since twelve was asufficient number to serve as pontoons, and it was not worth the army'swhile to encumber itself with the remainder. They could only have beentracked up the strong stream of the Tigris by devoting to the work some20, 000 men; thus greatly weakening the strength of the armed force, andat the same time hampering its movements. Julian, in sacrificing hisships, suffered simply a pecuniary loss--they could not possibly havebeen of any further service to him in the campaign. 

Retreat being resolved upon, it only remained to determine what routeshould be followed, and on what portion of the Roman territory themarch should be directed. The soldiers clamored for a return by theway whereby they had come; but many valid objections to this coursepresented themselves to their commanders. The country along the line ofthe Euphrates had been exhausted of its stores by the troops in theiradvance; the forage had been consumed, the towns and villages desolated. There would be neither food nor shelter for the men along this route;the season was also unsuitable for it, since the Euphrates was in fullflood, and the moist atmosphere would be sure to breed swarms of fliesand mosquitoes. Julian saw that by far the best line of retreat wasalong the Tigris, which had higher banks than the Euphrates, whichwas no longer in flood, and which ran through a tract that was highlyproductive and that had for many years not been visited by an enemy. Thearmy, therefore, was ordered to commence its retreat through the countrylying on the left bank of the Tigris, and to spread itself over thefertile region, in the hope of obtaining ample supplies. The march wasunderstood to be directed on Cordyene (Kurdistan), a province now inthe possession of Rome, a rich tract, and not more than about 250 milesdistant from Ctesiphon. 

Before, however, the retreat commenced, while Julian and his victoriousarmy were still encamped in sight of Ctesiphon, the Persian king, according to some writers, sent an embassy proposing terms ofpeace. Julian's successes are represented as having driven Sapor todespair--"the pride of his royalty was humbled in the dust; he tookhis repasts on the ground; and the grief and anxiety of his mind wereexpressed by the disorder of his hair. " He would, it is suggested, havebeen willing "to purchase, with one half of his kingdom, the safety ofthe remainder, and would have gladly subscribed himself, in a treaty ofpeace, the faithful and dependent ally of the Roman conqueror. " Such arethe pleasing fictions wherewith the rhetorician of Antioch, faithful tothe memory of his friend and master, consoled himself and his readersafter Julian's death. It is difficult to decide whether there underliesthem any substratum of truth. Neither Ammianus nor Zosimus makes theslightest allusion to any negotiations at all at this period; and it isthus open to doubt whether the entire story told by Libanius is not theproduct of his imagination. But at any rate it is quite impossible thatthe Persian king can have made any abject offers of submission, orhave been in a state of mind at all akin to despair. His great army, collected from all quarters, was intact; he had not yet condescendedto take the field in person; he had lost no important town, and hisadversary had tacitly confessed his inability to form the siege of acity which was far from being the greatest in the empire. If Sapor, therefore, really made at this time overtures of peace, it must havebeen either with the intention of amusing Julian, and increasinghis difficulties by delaying his retreat, or because he thought thatJulian's consciousness of his difficulties would induce him to offerterms which he might accept. 

The retreat commenced on June 16. Scarcely were the troops set inmotion, when an ominous cloud of dust appeared on the southern horizon, which grew larger as the day advanced; and, though some suggested thatthe appearance was produced by a herd of wild asses, and others venturedthe conjecture that it was caused by the approach of a body ofJulian's Saracenic allies, the emperor himself was not deceived, but, understanding that the Persians had set out in pursuit, he called inhis stragglers, massed his troops, and pitched his camp in a strongposition. Day-dawn showed that he had judged aright, for the earliestrays of the sun were reflected from the polished breastplates andcuirasses of the Persians, who had drawn up at no great distance duringthe night. A combat followed in which the Persian and Saracenic horseattacked the Romans vigorously, and especially threatened the baggage, but were repulsed by the firmness and valor of the Roman foot. Julianwas able to continue his retreat after a while, but found himselfsurrounded by enemies, some of whom, keeping in advance of his troops, or hanging upon his flanks, destroyed the corn and forage that hismen so much needed; while others, pressing upon his rear, retarded hismarch, and caused him from time to time no inconsiderable losses. Theretreat under these circumstances was slow; the army had to be restedand recruited when it fell in with any accumulation of provisions; andthe average progress made seems to have been not much more than tenmiles a day. This tardy advance allowed the more slow-moving portion ofthe Persian army to close in upon the retiring Romans; and Julian soonfound himself closely followed by dense masses of the enemy's troops, bythe heavy cavalry clad in steel panoplies, and armed with long spears, by large bodies of archers, and even by a powerful corps of elephants. This grand army was under the command of a general whom the Romanwriters call Meranes, and of two sons of Sapor. It pressed heavilyupon the Roman rearguard; and Julian, after a little while, found itnecessary to stop his march, confront his pursuers, and offer thembattle. The offer was accepted, and an engagement took place in a tractcalled Maranga. The enemy advanced in two lines--the first composedof the mailed horsemen and the archers intermixed, the second of theelephants. Julian prepared his army to receive the attack by disposingit in the form of a crescent, with the centre drawn back considerably;but as the Persians advanced into the hollow space, he suddenly led histroops forward at speed, allowing the archers scarcely time to dischargetheir arrows before he engaged them and the horse in close combat. Along and bloody struggle followed; but the Persians were unaccustomed tohand-to-hand fighting and disliked it; they gradually gave ground, andat last broke up and fled, covering their retreat, however, with theclouds of arrows which they knew well how to discharge as they retired. The weight of their arms, and the fiery heat of the summer sun, prevented the Romans from carrying the pursuit very far. Julian recalledthem quickly to the protection of the camp, and suspended his march forsome days while the wounded had their hurts attended to. 

The Persian troops, having suffered heavily in the battle, made noattempt to storm the Roman camp. They were content to spread themselveson all sides, to destroy or carry off all the forage and provisions, andto make the country, through which the Roman army must retire, a desert. Julian's forces were already suffering severely from scarcity of food, and the general want was but very slightly relieved by a distributionof the stores set apart for the officers and for the members of theimperial household. Under these circumstances it is not surprisingthat Julian's firmness deserted him, and that he began to give way tomelancholy forebodings, and to see visions and omens which portendeddisaster and death. In the silence of his tent, as he studied a favoritephilosopher during the dead of night, he thought he saw the Genius ofthe State, with veiled head and cornucopia, stealing away through thehangings slowly and sadly. Soon afterwards, when he had just gone forthinto the open air to perform averting sacrifices, the fall of a shootingstar seemed to him a direct threat from Mars, with whom he had recentlyquarrelled. The soothsayers were consulted, and counselled abstinencefrom all military movement; but the exigencies of the situation causedtheir advice to be for once contemned. It was only by change of placethat there was any chance of obtaining supplies of food; and ultimateextrication from the perils that surrounded the army depended on asteady persistence in retreat. 

At dawn of day, therefore, on the memorable 26th of June, A. D. 363, thetents were struck, and the Roman army continued its march across thewasted plain, having the Tigris at some little distance on its left, andsome low hills upon its right. The enemy did not anywhere appear; andthe troops advanced for a time without encountering opposition. But, asthey drew near the skirts of the hills, not far from Samarah, suddenlyan attack was made upon them. The rearguard found itself violentlyassailed; and when Julian hastened to its relief, news came that the vanwas also engaged with the enemy, and was already in difficulties. Theactive commander now hurried towards the front, and had accomplishedhalf the distance, when the main Persian attack was delivered upon hisright centre, and to his dismay he found himself entangled amid themasses of heavy horse and elephants, which had thrown his columns intoconfusion. The suddenness of the enemy's appearance had prevented himfrom donning his complete armor; and as he fought without a breastplate, and with the aid of his light-armed troops restored the day, falling onthe foe from behind and striking the backs and houghs of the horses andelephants, the javelin of a horseman, after grazing the flesh of hisarm, fixed itself in his right side, penetrating-through the ribs tothe liver. Julian, grasping the head of the weapon, attempted to drawit forth, but in vain--the sharp steel cut his fingers, and the pain andloss of blood caused him to fall fainting from his steed. His guards, who had closed around him, carefully raised him up, and conveyed him tothe camp, where the surgeons at once declared the wound mortal. The sadnews spread rapidly among the soldiery, and nerved them to desperateefforts--if they must lose their general, he should, they determined, be avenged. Striking their shields with their spears, they everywhererushed upon the enemy with incredible ardor, careless whether they livedor died, and only seeking to inflict the greatest possible loss on thoseopposed to them. But the Persians, who had regarded the day as theirs, resisted strenuously, and maintained the fight with obstinacy tillevening closed in and darkness put a stop to the engagement. The losseswere large on both sides; the Roman right wing had suffered greatly; itscommander, Anatolius, master of the offices, was among the slain, andthe prefect Sallust was with difficulty saved by an attendant. ThePersians, too, lost their generals Meranes and Nohodares; and with themno fewer than fifty satraps and great nobles are said to have perished. The rank and file no doubt suffered in proportion; and the Romans wereperhaps justified in claiming that the balance of advantage upon the dayrested with them. But such advantage as they could reasonably assert wasfar more than counterbalanced by the loss of their commander, who diedin his tent towards midnight on the day of the battle. Whatever wemay think of the general character of Julian, or of the degree of hisintellectual capacity, there can be no question as to his excellence asa soldier, or his ability as a commander in the field. If theexpedition which he had led into Persia was to some extent rash--if hispreparations for it had been insufficient, and his conduct of it notwholly faultless; if consequently he had brought the army of the Eastinto a situation of great peril and difficulty--yet candor requires usto acknowledge that of all the men collected in the Roman camp he wasthe fittest to have extricated the army from its embarrassments, andhave conducted it, without serious disaster or loss of honor, into aposition of safety. No one, like Julian, possessed the confidence ofthe troops; no one so combined experience in command with the personalactivity and vigor that was needed under the circumstances. When theleaders met to consult about the appointment of a successor to the deadprince, it was at once apparent how irreparable was their loss. Theprefect Sallust, whose superior rank and length of service pointed himout for promotion to the vacant post, excused himself on account ofhis age and infirmities. The generals of the second grade--Arinthseus, Victor, Nevitta, Dagalaiphus--had each their party among the soldiers, but were unacceptable to the army generally. None could claim anysuperior merit which might clearly place him above the rest; and adiscord that might have led to open strife seemed impending, when acasual voice pronounced the name of Jovian, and, some applause followingthe suggestion, the rival generals acquiesced in the choice; and thishitherto insignificant officer was suddenly invested with the purple andsaluted as "Augustus" and "Emperor. " Had there been any one really fitto take the command, such an appointment could not have been made; but, in the evident dearth of warlike genius, it was thought best that onewhose rank was civil rather than military should be preferred, for theavoidance of jealousies and contentions. A deserter carried the news toSapor, who was not now very far distant, and described the new emperorto him as effeminate and slothful. A fresh impulse was given to thepursuit by the intelligence thus conveyed; the army engaged in disputingthe Roman retreat was reinforced by a strong body of cavalry; and Saporhimself pressed forward with all haste, resolved to hurl his main forceon the rear of the retreating columns. 

It was with reluctance that Jovian, on the day of his elevation to thesupreme power (June 27, A. D. 363), quitted the protection of thecamp, and proceeded to conduct his army over the open plain, where thePersians were now collected in great force, prepared to dispute theground with him inch by inch. Their horse and elephants again fell uponthe right wing of the Romans, where the Jovians and Herculians were nowposted, and, throwing those renowned corps into disorder, pressedon, driving them across the plain in headlong flight and slaying vastnumbers of them. The corps would probably have been annihilated, hadthey not in their flight reached a hill occupied by the baggagetrain, which gallantly came to their aid, and, attacking the horse andelephants from higher ground, gained a signal success. The elephants, wounded by the javelins hurled down upon them from above, and maddenedwith the pain, turned upon their own side, and, roaring frightfully, carried confusion among the ranks of the horse, which broke up and fled. Many of the frantic animals were killed by their own riders or by thePersians on whom they were trampling, while others succumbed to theblows dealt them by the enemy. There was a frightful carnage, endingin the repulse of the Persians and the resumption of the Roman march. Shortly before night fell, Jovian and his army reached Samarah, then afort of no great size upon the Tigris, and, encamping in its vicinity, passed the hours of rest unmolested. The retreat now continued for fourdays along the left bank of the Tigris, the progress made each day beingsmall, since the enemy incessantly obstructed the march, pressing onthe columns as they retired, but when they stopped drawing off, anddeclining an engagement at close quarters. On one occasion they evenattacked the Roman camp, and, after insulting the legions with theircries, forced their way through the preatorian gate, and had nearlypenetrated to the royal tent, when they were met and defeated by thelegionaries. The Saracenic Arabs were especially troublesome. Offendedby the refusal of Julian to continue their subsidies, they hadtransferred their services wholly to the other side, and pursuedthe Romans with a hostility that was sharpened by indignation andresentment. It was with difficulty that the Roman army, at the closeof the fourth day, reached Dura, a small place upon the Tigris, abouteighteen miles north of Samarah. Here a new idea seized the soldiers. Asthe Persian forces were massed chiefly on the left bank of the Tigris, and might find it difficult to transfer themselves to the other side, itseemed to the legionaries that they would escape half their difficultiesif they could themselves cross the river, and place it between them andtheir foes. They had also a notion that on the west side of the streamthe Roman frontier was not far distent, but might be reached by forcedmarches in a few days. They therefore begged Jovian to allow them toswim the stream. It was in vain that he and his officers opposedthe project; mutinous cries arose; and, to avoid worse evils, he wascompelled to consent that five hundred Gauls and Sarmatians, known to beexpert swimmers, should make the attempt. It succeeded beyond his hopes. The corps crossed at night, surprised the Persians who held the oppositebank, and established themselves in a safe position before the dawn ofday. By this bold exploit the passage of the other troops, many of whomcould not swim, was rendered feasible, and Jovian proceeded to collecttimber, brushwood, and skins for the formation of large rafts on whichhe might transport the rest of his army. 

These movements were seen with no small disquietude by the Persian king. The army which he had regarded as almost a certain prey seemed aboutto escape him. He knew that his troops could not pass the Tigris byswimming; he had, it is probable, brought with him no boats, and thecountry about Dura could not supply many; to follow the Romans, if theycrossed the stream, he must construct a bridge, and the constructionof a bridge was, to such unskilful engineers as the Persians, a work oftime. Before it was finished the legions might be beyond his reach, andso the campaign would end, and he would have gained no advantage fromit. Under these circumstances he determined to open negotiations withthe Romans, and to see if he could not extract from their fears someimportant concessions. They were still in a position of great peril, since they could not expect to embark and cross the stream withoutsuffering tremendous loss from the enemy before whom they would beflying. And it was uncertain what perils they might not encounter beyondthe river in traversing the two hundred miles that still separated themfrom Roman territory. The Saracenic allies of Persia were in force onthe further side of the stream; and a portion of Sapor's army mightbe conveyed across in time to hang on the rear of the legions and addlargely to their difficulties. At any rate, it was worth while tomake overtures and see what answer would be returned. If the idea ofnegotiating were entertained at all, something would be gained; for eachadditional day of suffering and privation diminished the Roman strength, and brought nearer the moment of absolute and complete exhaustion. Moreover, a bridge might be at once commenced at some little distance, and might be pushed forward, so that, if the negotiations failed, thereshould be no great delay in following the Romans across the river. 

Such were probably the considerations which led Sapor to send as envoysto the Roman camp at Dura the Surena and another great noble, whoannounced that they came to offer terms of peace. The great king, theysaid, having respect to the mutability of human affairs, was desirousof dealing mercifully with the Romans, and would allow the escape ofthe remnant which was left of their army, if the Caesar and his advisersaccepted the conditions that he required. These conditions would beexplained to any envoys whom Jovian might empower to discuss them withthe Persian plenipotentiaries. The Roman emperor and his councilgladly caught at the offer; and two officers of high rank, the generalArinthseus and the prefect Sallust, were at once appointed to conferwith Sapor's envoys, and ascertain the terms on which peace wouldbe granted. They proved to be such as Roman pride felt to be almostintolerable; and great efforts were made to induce Sapor to be contentwith less. The negotiations lasted for four days; but the Persianmonarch was inexorable; each day diminished his adversary's strength andbettered his own position; there was no reason why he should make anyconcession at all; and he seems, in fact, to have yielded nothing of hisoriginal demands, except points of such exceedingly slight moment thatto insist on them would have been folly. 

The following were the terms of peace to which Jovian consented. First, the five provinces east of the Tigris, which had been ceded to Rome byNarses, the grandfather of Sapor, after his defeat by Galerius, were tobe given back to Persia, with their fortifications, their inhabitants, and all that they contained of value. The Romans in the territory were, however, to be allowed to withdraw and join their countrymen. Secondly, three places in Eastern Mesopotamia, Nisibis, Singara, and a fort called"the Camp of the Moors, " were to be surrendered, but with the conditionthat not only the Romans, but the inhabitants generally, might retireere the Persians took possession, and carry with them such of theireffects as were movable. The surrender of these places necessarilyinvolved that of the country which they commanded, and can scarcelyimply less than the withdrawal of Rome from any claim to dominion overthe region between the Tigris and the Khabour. Thirdly, all connectionbetween Armenia and Rome was to be broken off; Arsaces was to be leftto his own resources; and in any quarrel between him and Persia Romewas precluded from lending him aid. On these conditions a peacewas concluded for thirty years; oaths to observe it faithfully wereinterchanged; and hostages were given and received on either side, to beretained until the stipulations of the treaty were executed. 

The Roman historian who exclaims that it would have been better to havefought ten battles than to have conceded a single one of these shamefulterms, commands the sympathy of every reader, who cannot fail torecognize in his utterance the natural feeling of a patriot. And it ispossible that Julian, had he lived, would have rejected so inglorious apeace, and have preferred to run all risks rather than sign it. But inthat case there is every reason to believe that the army would have beenabsolutely destroyed, and a few stragglers only have returned to tellthe tale of disaster. The alternative which Ammianus suggests--thatJovian, instead of negotiating, should have pushed on to Cordyene, whichhe might have reached in four days--is absurd; for Cordyeno was at leasta hundred and fifty miles distant from Dura, and, at the rate of retreatwhich Jovian had found possible (four and a half miles a day), wouldhave been reached in three days over a month! The judgment of Eutropius, who, like Ammianus, shared in the expedition, is probably correct--thatthe peace, though disgraceful, was necessary. Unless Jovian was preparedto risk not only his own life, but the lives of all his soldiers, it wasessential that he should come to terms; and the best terms that he couldobtain were those which he has been blamed for accepting. 

It is creditable to both parties that the peace, once made, wasfaithfully observed, all its stipulations being honestly and speedilyexecuted. The Romans were allowed to pass the river without molestationfrom Sapor's army, and, though they suffered somewhat from the Saracenswhen landing on the other side, were unpursued in their retreat, andwere perhaps even, at first, supplied to some extent with provisions. Afterwards, no doubt, they endured for some days great privations; buta convoy with stores was allowed to advance from Roman Mesopotamia intoPersian territory, which met the famished soldiers at a Persian militarypost, called Ur or Adur, and relieved their most pressing necessities. On the Roman side, the ceded provinces and towns were quietlysurrendered; offers on the part of the inhabitants to hold their ownagainst the Persians without Roman aid were refused; the Roman troopswere withdrawn from the fortresses; and the Armenians were told thatthey must henceforth rely upon themselves, and not look to Rome forhelp or protection. Thus Jovian, though strongly urged to follow ancientprecedent, and refuse to fulfil the engagements contracted under thepressure of imminent peril, stood firm, and honorably performed all theconditions of the treaty. The second period of struggle between Romeand Persia had thus a termination exactly the reverse of the first. Rome ended the first period by a great victory and a great diplomaticsuccess. At the close of the second she had to relinquish all hergains, and to draw back even behind the line which she occupied whenhostilities first broke out. Nisibis, the great stronghold of EasternMesopotamia, had been in her possession ever since the time of Verus. Repeatedly attacked by Parthia and Persia, it had never fallen; butonce, after which it had been soon recovered; and now for many years ithad come to be regarded as the bulwark of the Roman power in the East, and as carrying with it the dominion of Western Asia. 102 A fatal blowwas dealt to Roman prestige when a city held for near two hundred years, and one honored with the name of "colony, " was wrested from the empireand occupied by the most powerful of its adversaries. Not only Amida andCarrhae, but Antioch itself, trembled at a loss which was felt to layopen the whole eastern frontier to attack, and which seemed ominous offurther retrogression. Although the fear generally felt proved to begroundless, and the Roman possessions in the East were not, for 200years, further curtailed by the Persians, yet Roman influence in WesternAsia from this time steadily declined, and Persia came to be regardedas the first power in these regions. Much credit is due to Sapor II. Forhis entire conduct of the war with Constantius, Julian, and Jovian. Heknew when to attack and when to remain upon the defensive, when topress on the enemy and when to hold himself in reserve and let theenemy follow his own devices. He rightly conceived from the first theimportance of Nisibis, and resolutely persisted in his determination toacquire possession of it, until at last he succeeded. When, in A. D. 337, he challenged Rome to a trial of strength, he might have seemed rashand presumptuous. But the event justified him. In a war which lastedtwenty-seven years, he fought numerous pitched battles with the Romans, and was never once defeated. He proved himself greatly superior asa general to Constantius and Jovian, and not unequal to Julian. By acombination of courage, perseverance, and promptness, he brought theentire contest to a favorable issue, and restored Persia, in A. D. 363, to a higher position than that from which she had descended twogenerations earlier. If he had done nothing more than has already comeunder our notice, he would still have amply deserved that epithet of"Great" which, by the general consent of historians, has been assignedto him. He was undoubtedly among the greatest of the Sassanian monarchs, and may properly be placed above all his predecessors, and above all butone of those who succeeded him. 

CHAPTER XI. 

_Attitude of Armenia during the War between Sapor and Julian. Sapor'sTreachery towards Arsaces. Sapor conquers Armenia. He attacks Iberia, deposes Sauromaces, and sets up a new King. Resistance and Capture ofArtogerassa. Difficulties of Sapor. Division of Iberia between the Romanand Persian Pretenders. Renewal of Hostilities between Rome and Persia. Peace made with Valens. Death of Sapor. His Coins. _

"Rex Persidis, longaevus ille Sapor, post imperatoris Juliani excessumet pudendse pacis icta foedera . . . Irqectabat Armeniae manum. "--Amm. Marc, xxvii. 18. 

The successful issue of Sapor's war with Julian and Jovian resultedin no small degree from the attitude which was assumed by Armenia soonafter Julian commenced his invasion. We have seen that the emperor, when he set out upon his expedition, regarded Armenia as an ally, and informing his plans placed considerable dependence on the contingent whichhe expected from Arsaces, the Armenian monarch. It was his intention toattack Ctesiphon with two separate armies, acting upon two converginglines. While he himself advanced with his main force by way of theEuphrates valley and the Nahr-Malcha, he had arranged that his twogenerals, Procopius and Sebastian, should unite their troops with thoseof the Armenian king, and, after ravaging a fertile district of Media, make their way towards the great city, through Assyria and Adiabene, along the left bank of the Tigris. It was a bitter disappointment to himwhen, on nearing Ctesiphon, he could see no signs and hear no tidingsof the northern army, from which he had looked for effectual aid at thiscrisis of the campaign. We have now to consider how this failure cameabout, what circumstances induced that hesitation and delay on thepart of Sebastian and Procopius which had at any rate a large sharein frustrating Julian's plans and causing the ill-success of hisexpedition. 

It appears that the Roman generals, in pursuance of the orders giventhem, marched across Northern Mesopotamia to the Armenian borders, andwere there joined by an Armenian contingent which Arsaces sent to theirassistance. The allies marched together into Media, and carried fireand sword through the fruitful district known as Chiliacomus, or "thedistrict of the Thousand Villages. " They might easily have advancedfurther; but the Armenians suddenly and without warning drew off andfell back towards their own country. According to Moses of Chorene, their general, Zurseus, was actuated by a religious motive; it seemedto him monstrous that Armenia, a Christian country, should embrace thecause of an apostate, and he was prepared to risk offending his ownsovereign rather than lend help to one whom he regarded as the enemy ofhis faith. The Roman generals, thus deserted by their allies, differedas to the proper course to pursue. While one was still desirous ofdescending the course of the Tigris, and making at least an attempt toeffect a junction with Julian, the other forbade his soldiers to join inthe march, and insisted on falling back and re-entering Mesopotamia. Asusual in such cases, the difference of opinion resulted in a policy ofinaction. The attempt to join Julian was given up; and the second army, from which he had hoped so much, played no further part in the campaignof A. D. 363. 

We are told that Julian heard of the defection of the Armenians whilehe was still on his way to Ctesiphon, and immediately sent a letter toArsacos, complaining of his general's conduct, and threatening to exacta heavy retribution on his return from the Persian war, if the offenceof Zurseus were not visited at once with condign punishment. Arsaces wasgreatly alarmed at the message; and, though he made no effort to supplythe shortcomings of his officer by leading or sending fresh troops toJulian's assistance, yet he hastened to acquit himself of complicityin the misconduct of Zurseus by executing him, together with his wholefamily. Having thus, as he supposed, secured himself against Julian'sanger, he took no further steps, but indulged his love of ease and hisdistaste for the Roman alliance by remaining wholly passive during therest of the year. 

But though the attitude taken by Armenia was thus, on the whole, favorable to the Persians, and undoubtedly contributed to Sapor'ssuccess, he was himself so far from satisfied with the conduct ofArsaces that he resolved at once to invade his country and endeavor tostrip him of his crown. As Rome had by the recent treaty relinquishedher protectorate over Armenia, and bound herself not to interfere inany quarrel between the Armenians and the Persians, an opportunity wasafforded for bringing Armenia into subjection which an ambitious monarchlike Sapor was not likely to let slip. He had only to consider whetherhe would employ art or violence, or whether he would rather prefer ajudicious admixture of the two. Adopting the last-named course as themost prudent, he proceeded to intrigue with a portion of the Armeniansatraps, while he made armed incursions on the territories of others, and so harassed the country that after a while the satraps generallywent over to his side, and represented to Arsaces that no course wasopen to him but to make his submission. Having brought matters to thispoint, Sapor had only further to persuade Arsaces to surrender himself, in order to obtain the province which he coveted, almost withoutstriking a blow. He therefore addressed Arsaces a letter which, according to the only writer who professes to give its terms, wasexpressed as follows:

"Sapor, the offspring of Ormazd, comrade of the sun, king of kings, sends greeting to his dear brother, Arsaces, king of Armenia, whom heholds in affectionate remembrance. It has come to our knowledge thatthou hast approved thyself our faithful friend, since not only didstthou decline to invade Persia with Caesar, but when he took a contingentfrom thee thou didst send messengers and withdraw it. Moreover, we havenot forgotten how thou actedst at the first, when thou didst preventhim from passing through thy territories, as he wished. Our soldiers, indeed, who quitted their post, sought to cast on thee the blame due totheir own cowardice. But we have not listened to them: their leader wepunished with death, and to thy realm, I swear by Mithra, we have doneno hurt. Arrange matters then so that thou mayest come to us with allspeed, and consult with us concerning our common advantage. Then thoucanst return home. "

Arsaces, on receiving this missive, whatever suspicions he may havefelt, saw no course open to him but to accept the invitation. Heaccordingly quitted Armenia and made his way to the court of Sapor, where he was immediately seized and blinded. He was then fettered withchains of silver, according to a common practice of the Persians withprisoners of distinction, and was placed in strict confinement in aplace called "the Castle of Oblivion. "

But the removal of their head did not at once produce the submissionof the people. A national party declared itself under, Pharandzem, thewife, and Bab (or Para), the son of Arsaces, who threw themselves intothe strong fortress of Artogerassa (Ardakers), and there offered toSapor a determined resistance. Sapor committed the siege of this placeto two renegade Armenians, Cylaces and Artabannes, while at the sametime he proceeded to extend his influence beyond the limits of Armeniainto the neighboring country of Iberia, which was closely connected withArmenia, and for the most part followed its fortunes. 

Iberia was at this time under the government of a king bearing thename of Sauromaces, who had received his investiture from Rome, and wasconsequently likely to uphold Roman interests. Sapor invaded Iberia, drove Sauromaces from his kingdom, and set up a new monarch in theperson of a certain Aspacures, on whose brow he placed the coveteddiadem. He then withdrew to his own country, leaving the completesubjection of Armenia to be accomplished by his officers, Cylaces andArtabannes, or, as the Armenian historians call them, Zig and Garen. 

Cylaces and Artabannes commenced the siege of Artogerassa, and for atime pressed it with vigor, while they strongly urged the garrisonto make their submission. But, having entered within the walls tonegotiate, they were won over by the opposite side, and joined inplanning a treacherous attack on the besieging force, which wassurprised at night and compelled to retire. Para took advantage of theirretreat to quit the town and throw himself on the protection of Valens, the Roman emperor, who permitted him to reside in regal state atNeocaesarea. Shortly afterwards, however, by the advice of Cylaces andArtabannes, he returned into Armenia, and was accepted by the patrioticparty as their king, Rome secretly countenancing his proceedings. Underthese circumstances the Persian monarch once more took the field, and, entering Armenia at the head of a large army, drove Para, with hiscounsellors Cylaces and Artabannes, to the mountains, renewed the siegeof Artogerassa, and forced it to submit, captured the queen Pharandzem, together with the treasure of Arsaces, and finally induced Para tocome to terms, and to send him the heads of the two arch-traitors. Theresistance of Armenia would probably now have ceased, had Romebeen content to see her old enemy so aggrandized, or felt her handsabsolutely tied by the terms of the treaty of Dura. 

But the success of Sapor thus far only brought him into greaterdifficulties. The Armenians and Iberians, who desired above all thingsliberty and independence, were always especially hostile to the powerfrom which they felt that they had for the time being most to fear. AsChristian nations, they had also at this period an additional ground ofsympathy with Rome, and of aversion from the Persians, who were at onceheathens and intolerant. The patriotic party in both countries was thusviolently opposed to the establishment of Sapor's authority over them, and cared little for the artifices by which he sought to make it appearthat they still enjoyed freedom and autonomy. Above all, Rome, beingruled by monarchs who had had no hand in making the disgraceful peace ofA. D. 363, and who had no strong feeling of honor or religious obligationin the matter of treaties with barbarians, was preparing herself to flyin the face of her engagements, and, regarding her own interest as herhighest law, to interfere effectually in order to check the progress ofPersia in North-Western Asia. 

Rome's first open interference was in Ibera. Iberia had perhaps not beenexpressly named in the treaty, and support might consequently begiven to the expelled Sauromaces without any clear infraction of itsconditions. The duke Terentius was ordered, therefore, towards the closeof A. D. 370, to enter Iberia with twelve legions and replace upon histhrone the old Roman feudatory. Accordingly he invaded the country fromLazica, which bordered it upon the north, and found no difficulty inconquering it as far as the river Cyrus. On the Cyrus, however, he wasmet by Aspacures, the king of Sapor's choice, who made proposals for anaccommodation. Representing himself as really well-inclined to Rome, andonly prevented from declaring himself by the fact that Sapor held hisson as a hostage, he asked Terentius' consent to a division of Iberiabetween himself and his rival, the tract north of the Cyrus beingassigned to the Roman claimant, and that south of the river remainingunder his own government. Terentius, to escape further trouble, consented to the arrangement; and the double kingdom was established. The northern and western portions of Iberia were made over toSauromaces; the southern and eastern continued to be ruled by Aspacures. 

When the Persian king received intelligence of these transactions he wasgreatly excited. To him it appeared clear that by the spirit, if not bythe letter, of the treaty of Dura, Rome had relinquished Iberia equallywith Armenia; and he complained bitterly of the division which had beenmade of the Iberian territory, not only without his consent, but withouthis knowledge. He was no doubt aware that Rome had not really confinedher interference to the region with which she had some excuse forintermeddling, but had already secretly intervened in Armenia, and wasintending further intervention. The count Arinthseus had been sent withan army to the Armenian frontier about the same time that Terentiushad invaded Iberia, and had received positive instructions to helpthe Armenians if Sapor molested them. It was in vain that the Persianmonarch appealed to the terms of the treaty of Dura--Rome dismissed hisambassadors with contempt, and made no change in her line of procedure. Upon this Sapor saw that war was unavoidable; and accordingly he wastedno more time in embassies, but employed himself during the winter, whichhad now begun, in collecting as large a force as he could, in part fromhis allies, in part from his own subjects, resolving to take the fieldin the spring, and to do his best to punish Rome for her faithlessness. 

Rome on her part made ready to resist the invasion which she knew tobe impending. A powerful army was sent to guard the East under countTrajan, and Vadomair, ex-king of the Alemanni; but so much regard forthe terms of the recent treaty was still felt, or pretended, that thegenerals received orders to be careful not to commence hostilities, but to wait till an attack was made on them. They were not kept longin expectation. As soon as winter was over, Sapor crossed the frontier(A. D. 371) with a large force of native cavalry and archers, supportedby numerous auxiliaries, and attacked the Romans near a place calledVagabanta. The Roman commander gave his troops the order to retire;and accordingly they fell back under a shower of Persian arrows, until, several having been wounded, they felt that they could with a good facedeclare that the rupture of the peace was the act of the Persians. Theretreat was then exchanged for an advance, and after a brief engagementthe Romans were victorious, and inflicted a severe loss upon theiradversaries. But the success was not followed by results of anyimportance. Neither side seems to have been anxious for another generalencounter; and the season for hostilities was occupied by a sort ofguerilla warfare, in which the advantage rested alternately with thePersians and the Romans. At length, when the summer was ended, thecommanders on either side entered into negotiations; and a truce wasmade which allowed Sapor to retire to Ctesiphon, and the Roman emperor, who was now personally directing the war, to go into winter quarters atAntioch. 

After this the war languished for two or three years. Valens was whollydeficient in military genius, and was quite content if he could maintaina certain amount of Roman influence in Armenia and Iberia, while atthe same time he protected the Roman frontier against Persian invasion. Sapor was advanced in years, and might naturally desire repose, havingbeen almost constantly engaged in military expeditions since hereached the age of sixteen. Negotiations seem to have alternated withhostilities during the interval between A. D. 371 and 376; but theyresulted in nothing, until, in this last-named year, a peace was made, which gave tranquillity to the East during the remainder of the reign ofSapor. 

The terms upon which this peace was concluded are obscure. It is perhapsmost probable that the two contracting powers agreed to abstain fromfurther interference with Iberia and Armenia, and to leave thosecountries to follow their own inclinations. Armenia seems by the nativeaccounts to have gravitated towards Rome under these circumstances, andIberia is likely to have followed her example. The tie of Christianityattached these countries to the great power of the West; and, exceptunder compulsion, they were not likely at this time to tolerate theyoke of Persia for a day. When Jovian withdrew the Roman protection fromthem, they were forced for a while to submit to the power which theydisliked; but no sooner did his successors reverse his policy, and showthemselves ready to uphold the Armenians and Iberians against Persia, than they naturally reverted to the Roman side, and formed an importantsupport to the empire against its Eastern rival. 

The death of Sapor followed the peace of A. D. 376 within a few years. Hedied A. D. 379 or 380, after having reigned seventy years. It is curiousthat, although possessing the crown for so long a term, and enjoying amore brilliant reign than any preceding monarch, he neither left behindhim any inscriptions, nor any sculptured memorials. The only materialevidences that we possess of his reign are his coins, which areexceedingly numerous. According to Mordtmann, they may be divided intothree classes, corresponding to three periods in his life. The earliesthave on the reverse the fire-altar, with two priests, or guards, lookingtowards the altar, and with the flame rising from the altar in the usualway. The head on the obverse is archaic in type, and very much resemblesthat of Sapor I. The crown has attached to it, in many cases, that"cheek-piece" which is otherwise confined to the first three monarchs ofthe line. These coins are the best from an artistic point of view; theygreatly resemble those of the first Sapor, but are distinguishable fromthem, first, by the guards looking towards the altar instead of awayfrom it; and, secondly, by a greater profusion of pearls about theking's person. The coins of the second period lack the "cheek-piece, "and have on the reverse the fire-altar without supporters; they areinferior as works of art to those of the first period, but much superiorto those of the third. These last, which exhibit a marked degeneracy, are especially distinguished by having a human head in the middle of theflames that rise from the altar. Otherwise they much resemble in theiremblems the early coins, only differing from them in being artisticallyinferior. The ordinary legends upon the coins are in no respectremarkable; but occasionally we find the monarch taking the new andexpressive epithet of Toham, "the Strong. " [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 19]

CHAPTER XII. 

_Short Reigns of Artaxerxes II. And Sapor III. Obscurity of theirHistory. Their Relations with Armenia. Monument of Sapor III. AtTdkht-i-Bostan. Coins of Artaxerxes II. And Sapor III. Reign of VarahranIV. His Signets. His Dealings with Armenia. His Death. _

The glorious reign of Sapor II. , which carried the New Persian Empireto the highest point whereto it had yet attained, is followed by a timewhich offers to that remarkable reign a most complete contrast. Saporhad occupied the Persian throne for a space approaching nearly tothree-quarters of a century; the reigns of his next three successorsamounted to no more than twenty years in the aggregate. Sapor had beenengaged in perpetual wars, had spread the terror of the Persian arms onall sides, and ruled more gloriously than any of his predecessors. Thekings who followed him were pacific and unenterprising; they were almostunknown to their neighbors, and are among the least distinguished of theSassanian monarchs. More especially does this character attach to thetwo immediate successors of Sapor II. , viz. Artaxerxes II. And SaporIII. They reigned respectively four and five years; and their annalsduring this period are almost a blank. Artaxerxes II. , who is called bysome the brother of Sapor II. , was more probably his son. He succeededhis father in A. D. 379, and died at Ctesiphon in A. D. 383. He left acharacter for kindness and amiability behind him, and is known tothe Persians as Nihoukar, or "the Beneficent, " and to the Arabs as AlDjemil, "the Virtuous. " According to the "Modjmel-al-Tewarikh, " hetook no taxes from his subjects during the four years of his reign, andthereby secured to himself their affection and gratitude. He seems tohave received overtures from the Armenians soon after his accession, andfor a time to have been acknowledged by the turbulent mountaineers astheir sovereign. After the murder of Bab, or Para, the Romans had setup, as king over Armenia, a certain Varaztad (Pharasdates), a memberof the Arsacid family, but no near relation of the recent monarchs, assigning at the same time the real direction of affairs to an Armeniannoble named Moushegh, who belonged to the illustrious family of theMamigonians. Moushegh ruled Armenia with vigor, but was suspected ofmaintaining over-friendly relations with the Roman emperor, Valens, andof designing to undermine and supplant his master. Varaztad, after awhile, having been worked on by his counsellors, grew suspicious of him, and caused him to be executed at a banquet. This treachery roused theindignation of Moushegh's brother Manuel, who raised a rebellion againstVaraztad, defeated him in open fight, and drove him from his kingdom. Manuel then brought forward the princess Zermandueht, widow of the lateking Para, together with her two young sons, Arsaces and Valarsaces, and, surrounding all three with royal pomp, gave to the two princes thename of king, while he took care to retain in his own hands the realgovernment of the country. Under these circumstances he naturallydreaded the hostility of the Roman emperor, who was not likely to seewith patience a monarch, whom he had set upon the throne, deprived ofhis kingdom by a subject. To maintain the position which he had assumed, it was necessary that he should contract some important alliance; andthe alliance always open to Armenia when she had quarrelled with Romewas with the Persians. It seems to have been soon after Artaxerxes II. Succeeded his father, that Manuel sent an embassy to him, with lettersand rich gifts, offering, in return for his protection, to acknowledgehim as lord-paramount of Armenia, and promising him unshakable fidelity. The offer was, of course, received with extreme satisfaction; and termswere speedily arranged. Armenia was to pay a fixed tribute, to receivea garrison of ten thousand Persians and to provide adequately for theirsupport, to allow a Persian satrap to divide with Manuel the actualgovernment of the country, and to furnish him with all that wasnecessary for his court and table. On the other hand, Arsacos andValarsaces, together (apparently) with their mother, Zermandueht, wereto be allowed the royal title and, honors; Armenia was to be protectedin case of invasion; and Manuel was to be maintained in his office ofSparapet or generalissimo of the Armenian forces. We cannot say withcertainty how long this arrangement remained undisturbed; most probably, however, it did not continue in force more than a few years. It was mostlikely while Artaxerxes still ruled Persia, that the rupture describedby Faustus occurred. A certain Meroujan, an Armenian, noble, jealousof the power and prosperity of Manuel, persuaded him that the Persiancommandant in Armenia was about to seize his person, and either to sendhim a prisoner to Artaxerxes, or else to put him to death. Manuel, whowas so credulous as to believe the information, thought it necessary forhis own safety to anticipate the designs of his enemies, and, fallingupon the ten thousand Persians with the whole of the Armenian army, succeeded in putting them all to the sword, except their commander, whom he allowed to escape. War followed between Persia and Armenia withvaried success, but on the whole Manuel had the advantage; he repulsedseveral Persian invasions, and maintained the independence and integrityof Armenia till his death, without calling in the aid of Rome. When, however, Manuel died, about A. D. 383, Armenian affairs fell intoconfusion; the Romans were summoned to give help to one party, thePersians to render assistance to the other; Armenia became once more thebattle-ground between the two great powers, and it seemed as if the oldcontest, fraught with so many calamities, was to be at once renewed. Butthe circumstances of the time were such that neither Rome nor Persianow desired to reopen the contest. Persia was in the hands of weak andunwarlike sovereigns, and was perhaps already threatened by Scythichordes upon the east. Rome was in the agonies of a struggle with theever-increasing power of the Goths; and though, in the course of theyears A. D. 379-382, the Great Theodosius had established peace in thetract under his rule, and delivered the central provinces of Macedoniaand Thrace from the intolerable ravages of the barbaric invaders, yetthe deliverance had been effected at the cost of introducing largebodies of Goths into the heart of the empire, while still along thenorthern frontier lay a threatening cloud, from which devastation andruin might at any time burst forth and overspread the provinces upon theLower Danube. Thus both the Roman emperor and the Persian king were welldisposed towards peace. An arrangement was consequently made, and inA. D. 384, five years after he had ascended the throne, Theodosius gaveaudience in Constantinople to envoys from the court of Persepolis, andconcluded with them a treaty whereby matters in Armenia were placed ona footing which fairly satisfied both sides, and the tranquillity of theEast was assured. The high contracting powers agreed that Armenia shouldbe partitioned between them. After detaching from the kingdom variousoutlying districts, which could be conveniently absorbed into theirown territories, they divided the rest of the country into two unequalportions. The smaller of these, which comprised the more westerndistricts, was placed under the protection of Rome, and was committed byTheodosius to the Arsaces who had been made king by Manuel, the sonof the unfortunate Bab, or Para, and the grandson of the Arsacescontemporary with Julian. The larger portion, which consisted of theregions lying towards the east, passed under the suzerainty of Persia, and was confided by Sapor III. , who had succeeded Artaxerxes II. , to anArsacid, named Chosroes, a Christian, who was given the title of king, and received in marriage at the same time one of Sapor's sisters. Such were the terms on which Rome and Persia brought their contentionrespecting Armenia to a conclusion. Friendly relations were in this wayestablished between the two crowns, which continued undisturbed for thelong space of thirty-six years (A. D. 384-420). 

Sapor III. Appears to have succeeded his brother Artaxerxes in A. D. 383, the year before the conclusion of the treaty. It is uncertain whetherArtaxerxes vacated the throne by death, or was deposed in consequence ofcruelties whereof he was guilty towards the priests and nobles. Tabariand Macoudi, who relate his deposition, are authors on whom muchreliance cannot be placed; and the cruelties reported accord but illwith the epithets of "the Beneficent" and "the Virtuous, " assigned tothis monarch by others. Perhaps it is most probable that he held thethrone till his death, according to the statements of Agathias andEutychius. Of Sapor III. , his brother and successor, two facts only arerecorded--his conclusion of the treaty with the Romans in A. D. 384, andhis war with the Arabs of the tribe of Yad, which must have followedshortly afterwards. It must have been in consequence of his contest withthe latter, whom he attacked in their own country, that he received fromhis countrymen the appellation of "the Warlike, " an appellation betterdeserved by either of the other monarchs who had borne the same name. 

Sapor III. Left behind him a sculptured memorial, which is still to beseen in the vicinity of Kermanshah. [PLATE XX. ] It consists of two verysimilar figures, looking towards each other, and standing in an archedframe. On either side of the figures are inscriptions in the OldPehlevi character, whereby we are enabled to identify the individualsrepresented with the second and the third Sapor. The inscriptions runthus:--_"Pathkell zani mazdisn shahia Shahpuhri, malkan malJca Allan veAnilan, minuchitli min yazdan, bari mazdisn shahia Auhr-mazdi, malkanmalka Allan ve Anilan, minuchitli min yazdan, napi shahia Narshehimalkan malka;"_ and _"Pathkeli mazdisn shahia Shahpuhri, malkan mallcaAllan ve Anilan, minuchitli min yazdan, bari mazdisn shahia Shahpuhri, malkan malka Allan ve Anilan, minuchitli min yazdan, napi shahiaAuhrmazdi, malkan malka. "_ They are, it will be seen, identical in form, with the exception that the names in the right-hand inscription are"Sapor, Hormisdas, Narses, " while those in the left-hand one are"Sapor, Sapor, Hormisdas. " It has been supposed that the right-handfigure was erected by Sapor II. , and the other afterwards added by SaporIII. ; but the unity of the whole sculpture, and its inclusion under asingle arch, seem to indicate that it was set up by a single sovereign, and was the fruit of a single conception. If this be so, we mustnecessarily ascribe it to the later of the two monarchs commemorated, i. E. To Sapor III. , who must be supposed to have possessed more thanusual filial piety, since the commemoration of their predecessors uponthe throne is very rare among the Sassanians. 

[Illustration: PLATE 20]

The taste of the monument is questionable. An elaborate finish of allthe details of the costume compensates but ill for a clumsiness ofcontour and a want of contrast and variety, which indicate a lowcondition of art, and compare unfavorably with the earlier performancesof the Neo-Persian sculptors. It may be doubted whether, among all thereliefs of the Sassanians, there is one which is so entirely devoid ofartistic merit as this coarse and dull production. 

The coins of Sapor III. And his predecessor, Artaxerxes II. , have littleabout them that is remarkable. Those of Artaxerxes bear a head whichis surmounted with the usual inflated ball, and has the diadem, but iswithout a crown--a deficiency in which some see an indication that theprince thus represented was regent rather than monarch of Persia. [PLATEXIX. Fig. 2. ] The legends upon the coins are, however, in the usualstyle of royal epigraphs, running commonly--_"Mazdisn bag Artah-shetrimalkan malka Air an ve Aniran, "_ or "the Ormazd-worshipping divineArtaxerxes, king of the kings of Iran and Turan. " They are easilydistinguishable from those of Artaxerxes I. , both by the profile, whichis far less marked, and by the fire-altar on the reverse, which hasalways two supporters, looking towards the altar. The coins of SaporIII. Present some unusual types. [PLATE XIX. Fig. 6. ] On some of themthe king has his hair bound with a simple diadem, without crown or capof any kind. On others he wears a cap of a very peculiar character, which has been compared to a biretta, but is really altogether _suigeneris_. The cap is surmounted by the ordinary inflated ball, isornamented with jewels, and is bound round at bottom with the usualdiadem. The legend upon the obverse of Sapor's coins is of the customarycharacter; but the reverse bears usually, besides the name of the king, the word _atur_, which has been supposed to stand for Aturia or Assyria;this explanation, however, is very doubtful. 

The coins of both kings exhibit marks of decline, especially on thereverse, where the drawing of the figures that support the altar is veryinferior to that which we observe on the coins of the kings from SaporI. To Sapor II. The characters on both obverse and reverse are alsocarelessly rendered, and can only with much difficulty be deciphered. 

Sapor III. Died A. D. 388, after reigning a little more than fiveyears. He was a man of simple tastes, and is said to have been fond ofexchanging the magnificence and dreary etiquette of the court for thefreedom and ease of a life under tents. On an occasion when he was thusenjoying himself, it happened that one of those violent hurricanes, towhich Persia is subject, arose, and, falling in full force on the royalencampment, blew down the tent wherein he was sitting. It happenedunfortunately that the main tent-pole struck him, as it fell, in a vitalpart, and Sapor died from the blow. Such at least was the accountgiven by those who had accompanied him, and generally believed by hissubjects. There were not, however, wanting persons to whisper thatthe story was untrue--that the real cause of the catastrophe which hadovertaken the unhappy monarch was a conspiracy of his nobles, or hisguards, who had overthrown his tent purposely, and murdered him ere hecould escape from them. 

The successor of Sapor III. Was Varahran IV. , whom some authorities callhis brother and others his son. This prince is known to the orientalwriters as "Varahran Kerm-an-sh-ah, " or "Varahran, king of Carmania. "Agathias tells us that during the lifetime of his father he wasestablished as governor over Kerman or Carmania, and thus obtained theappellation which pertinaciously adhered to him. A curious relic ofantiquity, fortunately preserved to modern times amid so much that hasbeen lost, confirms this statement. It is the seal of Varahran beforehe ascended the Persian throne, and contains, besides his portrait, beautifully cut, an inscription, which is read as follows:--_"VarahranKerman malka, bari mazdisn bag Shahpuh-rimalkan malka Axran ve Aniran, minuchitri min yazclan, "_ or "Varahran, king of Kerman, son of theOrmazd-worshipping divine Sapor, king of the kings of Iran and Turan, heaven-descended of the race of the gods. " [PLATE XIX. Fig. 5. ] Anotherseal, belonging to him probably after he had become monarch of Persia, contains his full-length portrait, and exhibits him as trampling underfoot a prostrate figure, supposed to represent a Roman, by which itwould appear that he claimed to have gained victories or advantagesover Rome. [PLATE XIX. Figs. 3 and 4. ] It is not altogether easy tounderstand how this could have been. Not only do the Roman writersmention no war between the Romans and Persians at this time, but theyexpressly declare that the East remained in profound repose duringthe entire reign of Varahran, and that Rome and Persia continued tobe friends. The difficulty may, however, be perhaps explained by aconsideration of the condition of affairs in Armenia at this time; forin Armenia Rome and Persia had still conflicting interests, and, withouthaving recourse to arms, triumphs might be obtained in this quarter bythe one over the other. 

On the division of Armenia between Arsaces and Chosroes, a really goodunderstanding had been established, which had lasted for about sixyears. Arsaces had died two years after he became a Roman feudatory;and, at his death, Rome had absorbed his territories into her empire, and placed the new province under the government of a count. Noobjection to the arrangement had been made by Persia, and the whole ofArmenia had remained for four years tranquil and without disturbance. But, about A. D. 390, Chosroes became dissatisfied with his position, andentered into relations with Rome which greatly displeased the Armenianmonarch. Chosroes obtained from Theodosius his own appointment to theArmenian countship, and thus succeeded in uniting both Roman and PersianArmenia under his government. Elated with this success, he proceededfurther to venture on administrative acts which trenched, accordingto Persian views, on the rights of the lord paramount. Finally, whenVarahran addressed to him a remonstrance, he replied in insulting terms, and, renouncing his authority, placed the whole Armenian kingdom underthe suzerainty and protection of Rome. War between the two great powersmust now have seemed imminent, and could indeed only have been avoidedby great moderation and self-restraint on the one side or the other. Under these circumstances it was Rome that drew back. Theodosiusdeclined to receive the submission which Chosroes tendered, and refusedto lift a finger in his defence. The unfortunate prince was forced togive himself up to Varahan, who consigned him to the Castle of Oblivion, and placed his brother, Varabran-Sapor, upon the Armenian throne. Theseevents seem to have fallen into the year A. D. 391, the third year ofVarahran, who may well have felt proud of them, and have thought thatthey formed a triumph over Rome which deserved to be commemorated. 

The character of Varahran IV. Is represented variously by the nativeauthorities. According to some of them, his temper was mild, and hisconduct irreproachable. Others say that he was a hard man, and soneglected the duties of his station that he would not even read thepetitions or complaints which were addressed to him. It would seem thatthere must have been some ground for these latter representations, sinceit is generally agreed that the cause of his death was a revolt ofhis troops, who surrounded him and shot at him with arrows. One shaft, better directed than the rest, struck him in a vital part, and he felland instantly expired. Thus perished, in A. D. 399, the third son of theGreat Sapor, after a reign of eleven years. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

_Accession of Isdigerd I. Peaceful Character of his Reign. His AllegedGuardianship of Theodosius II. His leaning towards Christianity, andconsequent Unpopularity with his Subjects. His Change of view andPersecution of the Christians. His relations with Armenia. II. Coins. His Personal Character. His Death. _

Varahran IV. Was succeeded (A. D. 399) by his son, Izdikerti or IsdigerdI. Whom the soldiers, though they had murdered his father, permitted toascend the throne without difficulty. He is said, at his accession, tohave borne a good character for prudence and moderation, a characterwhich he sought to confirm by the utterance on various occasions ofhigh-sounding moral sentiments. The general tenor of his reign waspeaceful; and we may conclude therefore that he was of an unwarliketemper, since the circumstances of the time were such as would naturallyhave induced a prince of any military capacity to resume hostilitiesagainst the Romans. After the arrangement made with Rome by Sapor III. In A. D. 384, a terrible series of calamities had befallen the empire. Invasions of Ostrogoths and Franks signalized the years A. D. 386 and388; in A. D. 387 the revolt of Maximus seriously endangered the westernmoiety of the Roman state; in the same year occurred an outburst ofsedition at Antioch, which was followed shortly by the more dangeroussedition, and the terrible massacre of Thessalonica; Argobastes andEugenius headed a rebellion in A. D. 393; Gildo the Moor detached Africafrom the empire in A. D. 386, and maintained a separate dominion on thesouthern shores of the Mediterranean for twelve years, from A. D. 386to 398; in A. D. 395 the Gothic warriors within and without the Romanfrontier took arms, and under the redoubtable Alaric threatened at oncethe East and the West, ravaged Greece, captured Corinth, Argos, andSparta, and from the coasts of the Adriatic already marked for theirprey the smiling fields of Italy. The rulers of the East and West, Arcadius and Honorius, were alike weak and unenterprising; and further, they were not even on good terms, nor was either likely to troublehimself very greatly about attacks upon the territories of the other. Isdigerd might have crossed the Euphrates, and overrun or conquered theAsiatic provinces of the Eastern Empire, without causing Honorious apang, or inducing him to stir from Milan. It is true that Western Romepossessed at this time the rare treasure of a capable general; butStilicho was looked upon with fear and aversion by the emperor ofthe East, and was moreover fully occupied with the defence of his ownmaster's territories. Had Isdigerd, on ascending the throne in A. D. 399, unsheathed the sword and resumed the bold designs of his grandfather, Sapor II. , he could scarcely have met with any serious or prolongedresistance. He would have found the East governed practically by theeunuch Eutropius, a plunderer and oppressor, universally hated andfeared; he would have had opposed to him nothing but distracted counselsand disorganized forces; Asia Minor was in possession of the Ostrogoths, who, under the leadership of Tribigild, were ravaging and destroying farand wide; the armies of the State were commanded by Gainas, the Goth, and Leo, the wool-comber, of whom the one was incompetent, and the otherunfaithful; there was nothing, apparently, that could have preventedhim from overrunning Roman Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, or even fromextending his ravages, or his dominion, to the shores of the AEgean. Butthe opportunity was either not seen, or was not regarded as having anyattractions. Isdigerd remained tranquil and at rest within the walls ofhis capital. Assuming as his special title the characteristic epithetof "Ramashtras, " "the most quiet, " or "the most firm, " he justified hisassumption of it by a complete abstinence from all military expeditions. 

When Isdigerd had reigned peaceably for the space of nine years, he issaid to have received a compliment of an unusual character. Arcadius, the emperor of the East, finding his end approaching, and anxious tosecure a protector for his son Theodosius, a boy of tender age, insteadof committing him to the charge of his uncle Honorius, or selecting aguardian for him from among his own subjects, by a formal testamentaryact, we are told, placed his child under the protection of the Persianmonarch. He accompanied the appointment by a solemn appeal to themagnanimity of Isdigerd, whom he exhorted at some length to defend withall his force, and guide with his best wisdom, the young king and hiskingdom. According to one writer, he further appended to this trust avaluable legacy--no less than a thousand pounds weight of pure gold, which he begged his Persian brother to accept as a token of hisgoodwill. When Arcadius died, and the testament was opened, informationof its contents was sent to Isdigerd, who at once accepted the chargeassigned to him, and addressed a letter to the Senate of Constantinople, in which he declared his determination to punish any attempt againsthis ward with the extremest severity. Unable to watch over his charge inperson, he selected for his guide and instructor a learned eunuch ofhis court, by name Antiochus, and sent him to Constantinople, where forseveral years he was the young prince's constant companion. Even afterhis death or expulsion, which took place in consequence of the intriguesof Pulcheria, Theodosius's elder sister, the Persian monarch continuedfaithful to his engagements. During the whole of his reign he not onlyremained at peace with the Romans, but avoided every act that they couldhave regarded as in the least degree unfriendly. 

Such is the narrative which has come down to us on the authority ofhistorians, the earliest of whom wrote a century and a half afterArcadius's death. Modern criticism has, in general, rejected the entirestory, on this account, regarding the silence of the earlier writersas outweighing the positive statements of the later ones. It should, however, be borne in mind, first that the earlier writers are few innumber, and that their histories are very meagre and scanty; secondly, that the fact, if fact it were, was one not very palatable toChristians; and thirdly, that, as the results, so far as Rome wasconcerned, were negative, the event might not have seemed to be one ofmuch importance, or that required notice. The character of Procopius, with whom the story originates, should also be taken into consideration, and the special credit allowed him by Agathias for careful anddiligent research. It may be added, that one of the main points of thenarrative--the position of Antiochus at Constantinople during the earlyyears of Theodosius--is corroborated by the testimony of a contemporary, the bishop Synesius, who speaks of a man of this name, recently in theservice of a Persian, as all-powerful with the Eastern emperor. It hasbeen supposed by one writer that the whole story grew out of this fact;but the basis scarcely seems to be sufficient; and it is perhaps mostprobable that Arcadius did really by his will commend his son to thekind consideration of the Persian monarch, and that that monarch inconsequence sent him an adviser, though the formal character of thetestamentary act, and the power and position of Antiochus at the courtof Constantinople, may have been overstated. Theodosius no doubt owedhis quiet possession of the throne rather to the good dispositiontowards him of his own subjects than to the protection of a foreigner;and Isdigerd refrained from all attack on the territories of the youngprince, rather by reason of his own pacific temper than in consequenceof the will of Arcadius. 

The friendly relations established, under whatever circumstances, between Isdigerd and the Roman empire of the East seemed to haveinclined the Persian monarch, during a portion of his reign, to take theChristians into his favor, and even to have induced him to contemplateseeking admission into the Church by the door of baptism. Antiochus, hisrepresentative at the Court of Arcadius, openly wrote in favor of thepersecuted sect; and the encouragement received from this high quarterrapidly increased the number of professing Christians in the Persianterritories. The sectaries, though oppressed, had long been allowed tohave their bishops; and Isdigerd is said to have listened with approvalto the teaching of two of them, Marutha, bishop of Mesopotamia, andAbdaas, bishop of Ctesiphon. Convinced of the truth of Christianity, butunhappily an alien from its spirit, he commenced a persecution of theMagians and their most powerful adherents, which caused him to be heldin detestation by his subjects, and has helped to attach to his name theepithets of "Al-Khasha, " "the Harsh, " and "Al-Athim, " "the Wicked. " Butthe' persecution did not continue long. The excessive zeal of Abdaasafter a while provoked a reaction; and Isdigerd, deserting the causewhich he had for a time espoused, threw himself (with all the zeal ofone who, after nearly embracing truth, relapses into error) into thearms of the opposite party. Abdaas had ventured to burn down the greatFire-Temple of Ctesiphon, and had then refused to rebuild it. Isdigerdauthorized the Magian hierarchy to retaliate by a general destructionof the Christian churches throughout the Persian dominions, and bythe arrest and punishment of all those who acknowledged themselves tobelieve the Gospel. A fearful slaughter of the Christians in Pergiafollowed during five years; some, eager for the earthly glory and theheavenly rewards of martyrdom, were forward to proclaim themselvesmembers of the obnoxious sect; others, less courageous or less inclinedto self-assertion, sought rather to conceal their creed; but theselatter were carefully sought out, both in the towns and in the countrydistricts, and when convicted were relentlessly put to death. Nor wasmere death regarded as enough. The victims were subjected, besides, to cruel sufferings of various kinds, and the greater number of themexpired under torture. Thus Isdigerd alternately oppressed the tworeligious professions, to one or other of which belonged the great massof his subjects; and, having in this way given both parties reason tohate him, earned and acquired a unanimity of execration which has butseldom been the lot of persecuting monarchs. 

At the same time that Isdigerd allowed this violent persecution of theChristians in his own kingdom of Persia, he also sanctioned anattempt to extirpate Christianity in the dependent country of Armenia. Varahran-Sapor, the successor of Chosroes, had ruled the territoryquietly and peaceably for twenty-one years. He died A. D. 413, leavingbehind him a single son, Artases, who was at his father's death aged nomore than ten years. Under these circumstances, Isaac, the Metropolitanof Armenia, proceeded to the court of Ctesiphon, and petitioned Isdigerdto replace on the Armenian throne the prince who had been deposedtwenty-one years earlier, and who was still a prisoner on parole in the"Castle of Oblivion"--viz. Chosroes. Isdigerd acceded to the request;and Chosroes was released from confinement and restored to the thronefrom which he had been expelled by Varahran IV. In A. D. 391. He, however, survived his elevation only a year. Upon his decease, A. D. 413, Isdigerd selected for the viceroyship, not an Arsacid, not evenan Armenian, but his own son, Sapor, whom he forced upon the reluctantprovincials, compelling them to acknowledge him as monarch (A. D. 413-414). Sapor was instructed to ingratiate himself with the Armeniannobles, by inviting them to visit him, by feasting them, making thempresents, holding friendly converse with them, hunting with them; andwas bidden to use such influence as he might obtain to convert thechiefs from Christianity to Zoroastrianism. The young prince appearsto have done his best; but the Armenians were obstinate, resisted hisblandishments, and remained Christians in spite of all his efforts. Hereigned from A. D. 414 to 418, at the end of which time, learning thathis father had fallen into ill health, he quitted Armenia and returnedto the Persian court, in order to press his claims to the succession. Isdigerd died soon afterwards (A. D. 419 or 420); and Sapor made anattempt to seize the throne; but there was another pretenderwhose partisans had more strength, and the viceroy of Armenia wastreacherously assassinated in the palace of his father. Armenia remainedfor three years in a state of anarchy; and it was not till Varahran V. Had been for some time established upon the Persian throne that Artaseswas made viceroy, under the name of Artasiris or Artaxerxes. 

The coins of Isdigerd I. Are not remarkable as works of art; but theypossess some features of interest. They are numerous, and appear to havebeen issued from various mints, but all bear a head of the same type. [PLATE XXI. , Fig. 1. ] It is that of a middle-aged man, with a shortbeard and hair gathered behind the head in a cluster of curls. Thedistinguishing mark is the headdress, which has the usual inflated ballabove a fragment of the old mural crown, and further bears a crescent infront. The reverse has the usual fire-altar with supporters, and isfor the most part very rudely executed. The ordinary legend is, on theobverse, _"Mazdisn bag ramashtras Izdikerti, malkan malka Airan, "_ or"the Ormazd-worshipping divine most peaceful Isdigerd, king of the kingsof Iran;" and on the reverse, _Ramashtras Izdikerti, _ "the most peacefulIsdigerd. " In some cases, there is a second name, associated with thatof the monarch, on the reverse, a name which reads either "Ardashatri"(Artaxerxes) or, "Varahran. " It has been conjectured that, where thename of "Artaxerxes" occurs, the reference is to the founder of theempire; while it is admitted that the "Varahran" intended is almostcertainly Isdigerd's son and successor, Varahran V. , the "Bahram-Grur"of the modern Persians. Perhaps a more reasonable account of the matterwould be that Isdigerd had originally a son Artaxerxes, whom he intendedto make his successor, but that this son died or offended him, and thatthen he gave his place to Varahran. 

[Illustration: PLATE 21. ]

The character of Isdigerd is variously represented. According to theOriental writers, he had by nature an excellent disposition, and at thetime of his accession was generally regarded as eminently sage, prudent, and virtuous; but his conduct after he became king disappointed allthe hopes that had been entertained of him. He was violent, cruel, andpleasure-seeking; he broke all laws human and divine; he plundered therich, ill-used the poor, despised learning, left those who did him aservice unrewarded, suspected everybody. He wandered continually abouthis vast empire, not to benefit his subjects, but to make them allsuffer equally. In curious contrast with these accounts is the picturedrawn of him by the Western authors, who celebrate his magnanimityand his virtue, his peaceful temper, his faithful guardianship ofTheodosius, and even his exemplary piety. A modern writer has suggestedthat he was in fact a wise and tolerant prince, whose very mildness andindulgence offended the bigots of his own country, and caused them torepresent his character in the most odious light, and do their utmostto blacken his memory. But this can scarcely be accepted as the trueexplanation of the discrepancy. It appears from the ecclesiasticalhistorians that, whatever other good qualities Isdigerd may havepossessed, tolerance at any rate was not among his virtues. Inducedat one time by Christian bishops almost to embrace Christianity, heviolently persecuted the professors of the old Persian religion. Alarmedat a later period by the excessive zeal of his Christian preceptors, andprobably fearful of provoking rebellion among his Zoroastrian subjects, he turned around upon his late friends, and treated them with a crueltyeven exceeding that previously exhibited towards their adversaries. Itwas probably this twofold persecution that, offending both professions, attached to Isdigerd in his own country the character of a harsh andbad monarch. Foreigners, who did not suffer from his caprices or hisviolence, might deem him magnanimous and a model of virtue. His ownsubjects with reason detested his rule, and branded his memory with thewell-deserved epithet of Al-Athim, "the Wicked. "

A curious tale is told as to the death of Isdigerd. He was still inthe full vigor of manhood when one day a horse of rare beauty, withoutbridle or caparison, came of its own accord and stopped before the gateof his palace. The news was told to the king, who gave orders that thestrange steed should be saddled and bridled, and prepared to mount it. But the animal reared and kicked, and would not allow any one to comenear, till the king himself approached, when the creature totallychanged its mood, appeared gentle and docile, stood perfectly still, and allowed both saddle and bridle to be put on. The crupper, however, needed some arrangement, and Isdigerd in full confidence proceeded tocomplete his task, when suddenly the horse lashed out with one of hishind legs, and dealt the unfortunate prince a blow which killed him onthe spot. The animal then set off at speed, disembarrassed itself of itsaccoutrements, and galloping away was never seen any more. The modernhistorian of Persia compresses the tale into a single phrase, and tellsus that "Isdigerd died from the kick of a horse:" but the Persians ofthe time regarded the occurrence as an answer to their prayers, and sawin the wild steed an angel sent by God. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

_Internal Troubles on the Death of Isdigerd I. Accession of Varahran V. His Persecution of the Christians. His War with Rome. His Relations withArmenia from A. D. 422 to A. D. 428. His Wars with the Scythic Tribes onhis Eastern Frontier. His Strange Death. His Coins. His Character. _

It would seem that at the death of Isdigerd there was some difficulty asto the succession. Varahran, whom he had designated as his heir, appearsto have been absent from the capital at the time; while another son, Sapor, who had held the Armenian throne from A. D. 414 to 418, waspresent at the seat of government, and bent on pushing his claims. Varahran, if we may believe the Oriental writers, who are hereunanimous, had been educated among the Arab tribes dependent on Persia, who now occupied the greater portion of Mesopotamia. His training hadmade him an Arab rather than a Persian; and he was believed to haveinherited the violence, the pride, and the cruelty of his father. Hiscountrymen were therefore resolved that they would not allow him to beking. Neither were they inclined to admit the claims of Sapor, whosegovernment of Armenia had not been particularly successful, and whoserecent desertion of his proper post for the advancement of his ownprivate interests was a crime against his country which deservedpunishment rather than reward. Armenia had actually revolted as soon ashe quitted it, had driven out the Persian garrison, and was a preyto rapine and disorder. We cannot be surprised that, under thesecircumstances, Sapor's machinations and hopes were abruptly terminated, soon after his father's demise, by his own murder. The nobles and chiefMagi took affairs into their own hands. Instead of sending for Varahran, or awaiting his arrival, they selected for king a descendant ofArtaxerxes I. Only remotely related to Isdigerd--a prince of the name ofChosroes--and formally placed him upon the throne. But Varahran was notwilling to cede his rights. Having persuaded the Arabs to embrace hiscause, he marched upon Ctesiphon at the head of a large force, and bysome means or other, most probably by the terror of his arms, prevailedupon Chosroes, the nobles, and the Magi, to submit to him. The peoplereadily acquiesced in the change of masters; Chosroes descended into aprivate station, and Varahran, son of Isdigerd, became king. 

Varahran seems to have ascended the throne in A. D. 420. He at oncethrew himself into the hands of the priestly party, and, resuming thepersecution of the Christians which his father had carried on during hislater years, showed himself, to one moiety of his subjects at anyrate, as bloody and cruel as the late monarch. Tortures of variousdescriptions were employed; and so grievous was the pressure put uponthe followers of Christ that in a short time large numbers of thepersecuted sect quitted the country, and placed themselves under theprotection of the Romans. Varahran had to consider whether he wouldquietly allow the escape of these criminals, or would seek to enforcehis will upon them at the risk of a rupture with Rome. He preferred thebolder line of conduct. His ambassadors were instructed to requirethe surrender of the refugees at the court of Constantinople; and whenTheodosius, to his honor, indignantly rejected the demand, they hadorders to protest against the emperor's decision, and to threaten himwith their master's vengeance. 

It happened that at the time there were some other outstanding disputes, which caused the relations of the two empires to be less amicable thanwas to be desired. The Persians had recently begun to work their goldmines, and had hired experienced persons from the Romans, whose servicesthey found so valuable that when the period of the hiring was expiredthey would not suffer the miners to quit Persia and return to theirhomes. They are also said to have ill-used the Roman merchants whotraded in the Persian territories, and to have actually robbed them oftheir merchandise. 

These causes of complaint were not, however, it would seem, broughtforward by the Romans, who contented themselves with simply refusingthe demand for the extradition of the Christian fugitives, andrefrained from making any counter-claims. But their moderation was notappreciated; and the Persian monarch, on learning that Rome wouldnot restore the refugees, declared the peace to be at an end, andimmediately made preparations for war. The Romans had, however, anticipated his decision, and took the field in force before thePersians were ready. The command was entrusted to a general bearing thestrange name of Ardaburius, who marched his troops through Armenia intothe fertile province of Arzanene, and there defeated Narses, the leaderwhom Varahran had sent against him. Proceeding to plunder Arzanene, Ardaburius suddenly heard that his adversary was about to enter theRoman province of Mesopotamia, which was denuded of troops, and seemedto invite attack. Hastily concluding his raid, he passed from Arzaneneinto the threatened district, and was in time to prevent the invasionintended by Narses, who, when he found his designs forestalled, threwhimself into the fortress of Nisibis, and there stood on the defensive. Ardaburius did not feel himself strong enough to invest the town; andfor some time the two adversaries remained inactive, each watching theother. It was during this interval that (if we may credit Socrates) thePersian general sent a challenge to the Roman, inviting him to fix timeand place for a trial of strength between the two armies. Ardaburiusprudently declined the overture, remarking that the Romans were notaccustomed to fight battles when their enemies wished, but when itsuited themselves. Soon afterwards he found himself able to illustratehis meaning by his actions. Having carefully abstained from attackingNisibis while his strength seemed to him insufficient, he suddenly, uponreceiving large reinforcements from Theodosius, changed his tactics, and, invading Persian Mesopotamia, marched upon the stronghold held byNarses, and formally commenced its siege. 

Hitherto Varahran, confident in his troops or his good fortune, had leftthe entire conduct of the military operations to his general; butthe danger of Nisibis--that dearly won and highly prizedpossession--seriously alarmed him, and made him resolve to take thefield in person with all his forces. Enlisting on his side the servicesof his friends the Arabs, under their great sheikh, Al-Amundarus(Moundsir), and collecting together a strong body of elephants, headvanced to the relief of the beleaguered town. Ardaburius drew off onhis approach, burned his siege artillery, and retired from before theplace. Nisibis was preserved; but soon afterwards a disaster is said tohave befallen the Arabs, who, believing themselves about to be attackedby the Roman force, were seized with a sudden panic, and, rushing inheadlong flight to the Euphrates (!) threw themselves into its waters, encumbered with their clothes and arms, and there perished to the numberof a hundred thousand. 

The remaining circumstances of the war are not related by ourauthorities in chronological sequence. But as it is certain that the warlasted only two years, and as the events above narrated certainly belongto the earlier portion of it, and seem sufficient for one campaign, wemay perhaps be justified in assigning to the second year, A. D. 421, theother details recorded--viz. , the siege of Theodosiopolis, the combatbetween Areobindus and Ardazanes, the second victory of Ardaburius, andthe destruction of the remnant of the Arabs by Vitianus. 

Theodosiopolis was a city built by the reigning emperor, Theodosius II. , in the Roman portion of Armenia, near the sources of the Euphrates. It was defended by strong walls, lofty towers, and a deep ditch. Hiddenchannels conducted an unfailing supply of water into the heart of theplace, and the public granaries were large and generally well stockedwith provisions. This town, recently built for the defence of the RomanArmenia, was (it would seem) attacked in A. D. 421 by Varahran in person. He besieged it for above thirty days, and employed against it all themeans of capture which were known to the military art of the period. But the defence was ably conducted by the bishop of the city, a certainEunomius, who was resolved that, if he could prevent it, an infideland persecuting monarch should never lord it over his see. Eunomius notmerely animated the defenders, but took part personally in the defence, and even on one occasion discharged a stone from a balista with his ownhand, and killed a prince who had not confined himself to his militaryduties, but had insulted the faith of the besieged. The death of thisofficer is said to have induced Varahran to retire, and not furthermolest Theodosiopolis. 

While the fortified towns on either side thus maintained themselvesagainst the attacks made on them, Theodosius, we are told, gave anindependent command to the patrician Procopius, and sent him at the headof a body of troops to oppose Varahran. The armies met, and were on thepoint of engaging when the Persian monarch made a proposition to decidethe war, not by a general battle, but by a single combat. Procopiusassented; and a warrior was selected on either side, the Persianschoosing for their champion a certain Ardazanes, and the Romans"Areobindus the Goth, " count of the "Foederati. " In the conflict whichfollowed the Persian charged his adversary with his spear, but thenimble Goth avoided the thrust by leaning to one side, after which heentangled Ardazanes in a net, and then despatched him with his sword. The result was accepted by Varahran as decisive of the war, and hedesisted, from any further hostilities. Areobindus received the thanksof the emperor for his victory, and twelve years later was rewarded withthe consulship. 

But meanwhile, in other portions of the wide field over which the warwas raging, Rome had obtained additional successes. Ardaburius, whoprobably still commanded in Mesopotamia, had drawn the Persian forceopposed to him into an ambuscade, and had destroyed it, together withits seven generals. Vitianus, an officer of whom nothing more is known, had exterminated the remnant of the Arabs not drowned in the Euphrates. The war had gone everywhere against the Persians; and it is notimprobable that Varahran, before the close of A. D. 421, proposed termsof peace. 

Peace, however, was not exactly made till the next year. Early in A. D. 422, a Roman envoy, by name Maximus, appeared in the camp of Varahran, and, when taken into the presence of the great king, stated that he wasempowered by the Roman generals to enter into negotiations, but had hadno communication with the Roman emperor, who dwelt so far off that hehad not heard of the war, and was so powerful that, if he knew of it, he would regard it as a matter of small account. It is not likely thatVarahran was much impressed by these falsehoods; but he was tired ofthe war; he had found that Rome could hold her own, and that he was notlikely to gain anything by prolonging it; and he was in difficulties asto provisions, whereof his supply had run short. He was therefore wellinclined to entertain Maximus's proposals favorably. The corps of the"Immortals, " however, which was in his camp, took a different view, andentreated to be allowed an opportunity of attacking the Romans unawares, while they believed negotiations to be going on, considering that undersuch circumstances they would be certain of victory. Varahran, accordingto the Roman writer who is here our sole authority, consented. TheImmortals made their attack, and the Romans were at first in somedanger; but the unexpected arrival of a reinforcement saved them, andthe Immortals were defeated and cut off to a man. After this, Varahranmade peace with Rome through the instrumentality of Maximus, consenting, it would seem, not merely that Rome should harbor the PersianChristians, if she pleased, but also that all persecution of Christiansshould henceforth cease throughout his own empire. 

The formal conclusion of peace was accompanied, and perhaps helpedforward, by the well-judging charity of an admirable prelate. Acacius, bishop of Amida, pitying the condition of the Persian prisoners whom theRomans had captured during their raid into Arzanene, and were draggingoff into slavery, interposed to save them; and, employing for thepurpose all the gold and silver plate that he could find in the churchesof his diocese, ransomed as many as seven thousand captives, suppliedtheir immediate wants with the utmost tenderness, and sent them toVarahran, who can scarcely have failed to be impressed by an act sounusual in ancient times. Our sceptical historian remarks, with moreapparent sincerity than usual, that this act was calculated "toinform, the Persian king of the true spirit of the religion which hepersecuted, " and that the name of the doer might well "have dignifiedthe saintly calendar. " These remarks are just; and it is certainly tobe regretted that, among the many unknown or doubtful names of canonizedChristians to which the Church has given her sanction, there is nomention made of Acacius of Amida. 

Varahran was perhaps the more disposed to conclude his war with Romefrom the troubled condition of his own portion of Armenia, whichimperatively required his attention. Since the withdrawal from thatregion of his brother Sapor in A. D. 418 or 419, the country had had noking. It had fallen into a state of complete anarchy and wretchedness;no taxes were collected; the roads were not safe; the strong robbed andoppressed the weak at their pleasure. Isaac, the Armenian patriarch, and the other bishops, had quitted their sees and taken refuge in RomanArmenia, where they were received favorably by the prefect of the East, Anatolius, who no doubt hoped by their aid to win over to his master thePersian division of the country. Varahran's attack on Theodosiopolishad been a counter movement, and had been designed to make the Romanstremble for their own possessions, and throw them back on the defensive. But the attack had failed; and on its failure the complete loss ofArmenia probably seemed imminent. Varahran therefore hastened to makepeace with Rome, and, having so done, proceeded to give his attentionto Armenia, with the view of placing matters there on a satisfactoryfooting. Convinced that he could not retain Armenia unless with thegood-will of the nobles, and believing them to be deeply attached to theroyal stock of the Arsacids, he brought forward a prince of that noblehouse, named Artases, a son of Varahran-Sapor, and, investing himwith the ensigns of royalty, made him take the illustrious name ofArtaxerxes, and delivered into his hands the entire government of thecountry. These proceedings are assigned to the year A. D. 422, the yearof the peace with Rome, and must have followed very shortly after thesignature of the treaty. 

It might have been expected that this arrangement would have satisfiedthe nobles of Armenia, and have given that unhappy country a prolongedperiod of repose. But the personal character of Artaxerxes was, unfortunately, bad; the Armenian nobles were, perhaps, capricious; andafter a trial of six years it was resolved that the rule of the Arsacidmonarch could not be endured, and that Varahran should be requestedto make Armenia a province of his empire, and to place it under thegovernment of a Persian satrap. The movement was resisted with all hisforce by Isaac, the patriarch, who admitted the profligacy of Artaxerxesand deplored it, but held that the role of a Christian, however lax hemight be, was to be preferred to that of a heathen, however virtuous. The nobles, however, were determined; and the opposition of Isaac hadno other result than to involve him in the fall of his sovereign. Appealwas made to the Persian king and Varahran, in solemn state, heard thecharges made against Artaxerxes by his subjects, and listened tohis reply to them. At the end he gave his decision. Artaxerxes waspronounced to have forfeited his crown, and was deposed; his propertywas confiscated, and his person committed to safe custody. The monarchywas declared to be at an end; and Persarmenia was delivered into thehands of a Persian governor. The patriarch Isaac was at the same timedegraded from his office and detained in Persia as a prisoner. It wasnot till some years later that he was released, allowed to returninto Armenia, and to resume, under certain restrictions, his episcopalfunctions. 

The remaining circumstances of the reign of Varahran V. Come to uswholly through the Oriental writers, amid whose exaggerations and fablesit is very difficult to discern the truth. There can, however, be littledoubt that it was during the reign of this prince that those terriblestruggles commenced between the Persians and their neighbors upon thenorth-east which continued, from the early part of the fifth till themiddle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of theempire. Various names are given to the people with whom Persia wagedher wars during this period. They are called Turks, Huns, sometimes evenChinese, but these terms seem, to be used in a vague way, as "Scythian"was by the ancients; and the special ethnic designation of the peopleappears to be quite a different name from any of them. It is a namethe Persian form of which is _Haithal_ or _Haiathleh_, the ArmenianHephthagh, and the Greek "Ephthalites, " or sometimes "Nephthalites. "Different conjectures have been formed as to its origin: but none ofthem can be regarded as more than an ingenious theory. All that we knowof the Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, duringthe fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east of theCaspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and that theywere generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic or Finno-Turkicpopulation, which, at any rate from B. C. 200, had become powerful inthat region. They were called "White Huns" by some of the Greeks; butit is admitted that they were quite distinct from the Huns who invadedEurope under Attila; and it may be doubted whether the term "Hun" ismore appropriate to them than that of Turk or even of Chinese. Thedescription of their physical character and habits left us by Procopius, who wrote when they were at the height of their power, is decidedlyadverse to the view that they were really Huns. They were alight-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were decidedly swart; theywere not ill-looking, whereas the Huns were hideous; they were anagricultural people, while the Huns were nomads; they had good laws, andwere tolerably well civilized, but the Huns were savages. It is probablethat they belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock, which has alwaysbeen in advance of the Finnic, and has shown a greater aptitude forpolitical organization and social progress. 

We are told that the war of Varahran V. With this people commenced withan invasion of his kingdom by their Khacan, or Kahn, who crossed theOxus with an army of 35, 000 (or, according to others, of 250, 000) men, and carried fire and sword into some of the most fertile provinces ofPersia. The rich oasis, known as Meru or Merv, the ancient Margiana, isespecially mentioned as overrun by his troops, which are said by someto have crossed the Elburz range into Khorassan and to have proceededwestward as far as Kei, or Rhages. When news of the invasion reachedthe Persian court, the alarm felt was great; Varahran was pressedto assemble his forces at once and encounter the unknown enemy; he, however, professed complete indifference, said that the Almighty wouldpreserve the empire, and that, for his own part, he was going to hunt inAzerbijan, or Media Atropatene. During his absence the government couldbe conducted by Narses, his brother. All Persia was now thrown intoconsternation; Varahran was believed to have lost his senses; and it wasthought that the only prudent course was to despatch an embassy tothe Khacan, and make an arrangement with him by which Persia shouldacknowledge his suzerainty and consent to pay him a tribute. Ambassadorsaccordingly were sent; and the invaders, satisfied with the offer ofsubmission, remained in the position which they had taken up, waitingfor the tribute, and keeping slack guard, since they considered thatthey had nothing to fear. Varahran, however, was all the while preparingto fall upon them unawares. He had started for Azerbijan with a smallbody of picked warriors; he had drawn some further strength fromArmenia; he proceeded along the mountain line through Taberistan, Hyrcania, and Nissa (Nishapur), marching only by night, and carefullymasking his movements. In this way he reached the neighborhood of Mervunobserved. He then planned and executed a night attack on the invadingarmy which was completely successful. Attacking his adversaries suddenlyand in the dark--alarming them, moreover, with strange noises, and atthe same time assaulting them with the utmost vigor--he put to flightthe entire Tatar army. The Khan himself was killed; and the flying hostwas pursued to the banks of the Oxus. The whole of the camp equipagefell into the hands of the victors; and Khatoun, the wife of the greatKhan, was taken. The plunder was of enormous value, and comprisedthe royal crown with its rich setting of pearls. After this success, Varahran, to complete his victory, sent one of his generals across theOxus at the head of a large force, and falling upon the Tatars in theirown country defeated them a second time with great slaughter. Theenemy then prayed for peace, which was granted them by the victoriousVarahran, who at the same time erected a column to mark the boundary ofhis empire in this quarter, and, appointing his brother Narses governorof Khorassan, ordered him to fix his residence at Balkh, and to preventthe Tatars from making incursions across the Oxus. It appears thatthese precautions were successful, for we hear nothing of any furtherhostilities in this quarter during the remainder of Varahran's reign. 

The adventures of Varahran in India, and the enlargement of hisdominions in that direction by the act of the Indian king, who is saidso have voluntarily ceded to him Mekran and Scinde in return for hisservices against the Emperor of China, cannot be regarded as historical. Scarcely more so is the story that Persia had no musicians in his day, for which reason he applied to the Indian monarch, and obtained from himtwelve thousand performers, who became the ancestors of the Lurs. Aftera reign which is variously estimated at nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, and twenty-three years, Varahran died by a death which would havebeen thought incredible, had not a repetition of the disaster, onthe traditional site, been witnessed by an English traveller incomparatively recent times. The Persian writers state that Varahran wasengaged in the hunt of the wild ass, when his horse came suddenly upona deep pool, or spring of water, and either plunged into it or threw hisrider into it, with the result that Varahran sank and never reappeared. The supposed scene of the incident is a valley between Ispahan andShiraz. Here, in 1810, an English soldier lost his life through bathingin the spring traditionally declared to be that which proved fatal toVarahran. The coincidence has caused the general acceptance of a talewhich would probably have been otherwise regarded as altogether romanticand mythical. 

The coins of Varahran V. Are chiefly remarkable for their rude andcoarse workmanship and for the number of the mints from which they wereissued. The mint-marks include Ctesiphon, Ecbatana, Isaphan, Arbela, Ledan, Nehavend, Assyria, Chuzistan, Media, and Kerman, or Carmania. Theordinary legend is, upon the obverse, _Mazdisn bag Varahran malha, _or _Mazdisn bag Varahran rasti malha, _ and on the reverse, "Yavahran, "together with a mint-mark. The head-dress has the mural crown in frontand behind, but interposes between these two detached fragments acrescent and a circle, emblems, no doubt, of the sun and moon gods. Thereverse shows the usual fire-altar, with guards, or attendants, watchingit. The king's head appears in the flame upon the altar. (PLATE XXI. Fig. 2). 

According to the Oriental writers, Varahran V. Was one of the bestof the Sassanian princes. He carefully administered justice among hisnumerous subjects, remitted arrears of taxation, gave pensions to men ofscience and letters, encouraged agriculture, and was extremely liberalin the relief of poverty and distress. His faults were, that he wasover-generous and over-fond of amusements, especially of the chase. Thenickname of "Bahram-Gur, " by which he is known to the Orientals, marksthis last-named predilection, transferring to him, as it does, the nameof the animal which was the especial object of his pursuit. But he wasalmost equally fond of dancing and of games. Still it does not appearthat his inclination for amusements rendered him neglectful of publicaffairs, or at all interfered with his administration of the State. Persia is said to have been in a most flourishing condition during hisreign. He may not have gained all the successes that are ascribed tohim; but he was undoubtedly an active prince, brave, energetic, andclear-sighted. He judiciously brought the Roman war to a close whena new and formidable enemy appeared on his north-eastern frontier; hewisely got rid of the Armenian difficulty, which had been a stumblingblock in the way of his predecessors for two hundred years; he inflicteda check on the aggressive Tatars, which indisposed them to renewhostilities with Persia for a quarter of a century. It would seem thathe did not much appreciate art but he encouraged learning, and did hisbest to advance science. 

CHAPTER XV. 

_Reign of Isdigerd II. His War with Rome. His Nine Years' War with theEphthalites. His Policy towards Armenia. His Second Ephthalite War. HisCharacter. His Coins. _

The successor of Varahan V. Was his son, Isdigerd the Second, whoascended the Persian throne without opposition in the year A. D. 440. His first act was to declare war against Rome. The Roman forces were, it would seem, concentrated in the vicinity of Nisibis; and Isdigerd mayhave feared that they would make an attack upon the place. He thereforeanticipated them, and invaded the empire with an army composed in partof his own subjects, but in part also of troops from the surroundingnations. Saracens, Tzani, Isaurians, and Huns (Ephthalites?) servedunder his standard; and a sudden incursion was made into the Romanterritory, for which the imperial officers were wholly unprepared. Aconsiderable impression would probably have been produced, had notthe weather proved exceedingly unpropitious. Storms of rain and hailhindered the advance of the Persian troops, and allowed the Romangenerals a breathing space, during which they collected an army. Butthe Emperor Theodosius was anxious that the flames of war should not berelighted in this quarter; and his instructions to the prefect of theEast, the Count Anatolius, were such as speedily led to the conclusion, first of a truce for a year, and then of a lasting treaty. Anatoliusrepaired as ambassador to the Persian camp, on foot and alone, so as toplace himself completely in Isdigerd's power--an act which so impressedthe latter that (we are told) he at once agreed to make peace on theterms which Anatolius suggested. The exact nature of these terms is notrecorded; but they contained at least one unusual condition. TheRomans and Persians agreed that neither party should construct any newfortified post in the vicinity of the other's territory--a loose phrasewhich was likely to be variously interpreted, and might easily lead toserious complications. 

It is difficult to understand this sudden conclusion of peace by a youngprince, evidently anxious to reap laurels, who in the first year ofhis reign had, at the head of a large army, invaded the dominions of aneighbor. The Roman account, that he invaded, that he was practicallyunopposed, and that then, out of politeness towards the prefect ofthe East, he voluntarily retired within his own frontier, "having donenothing disagreeable, " is as improbable a narrative as we often meetwith, even in the pages of the Byzantine historians. Something hasevidently been kept back. If Isdigerd returned, as Procopius declares, without effecting anything, he must have been recalled by the occurrenceof troubles in some other part of his empire. But it is, perhaps, aslikely that he retired, simply because he had effected the object withwhich he engaged in the war. It was a constant practice of the Romans toadvance their frontier by building strong towns on or near a debatableborder, which attracted to them the submission of the neighboringdistrict. The recent building of Theodosiopolis in the eastern partof Roman Armenia had been an instance of this practice. It was perhapsbeing pursued elsewhere along the Persian border, and the invasion ofIsdigerd may have been intended to check it. If so, the proviso of thetreaty recorded by Procopius would have afforded him the security whichhe required, and have rendered it unnecessary for him to continue thewar any longer. 

His arms shortly afterwards found employment in another quarter. TheTatars of the Transoxianian regions were once more troublesome; and inorder to check or prevent the incursions which they were always readyto make, if they were unmolested, Isdigerd undertook a long war onhis northeastern frontier, which he conducted with a resolutionand perseverance not very common in the East. Leaving his vizier, Mihr-Narses, to represent him at the seat of government, he transferredhis own residence to Nishapm, in the mountain region between the Persianand Kharesmian deserts, and from that convenient post of observationdirected the military operations against his active enemies, making acampaign against them regularly every year from A. D. 443 to 451. In theyear last mentioned he crossed the Oxus, and, attacking the Ephthalitesin their own territory, obtained a complete success, driving the monarchfrom the cultivated portion of the country, and forcing him to takerefuge in the desert. So complete was his victory that he seems to havebeen satisfied with the result, and, regarding the war as terminated, tohave thought the time was come for taking in hand an arduous task, longcontemplated, but not hitherto actually attempted. 

This was no less a matter than the forcible conversion of Armenia tothe faith of Zoroaster. It has been already noted that the religiousdifferences which--from the time when the Armenians, anticipatingConstantine, adopted as the religion of their state and nation theChristian faith (ab. A. D. 300)--separated the Armenians from thePersians, were a cause of weakness to the latter, more especially intheir contests with Rome. Armenia was always, naturally, upon theRoman side, since a religious sympathy united it with the the court ofConstantinople, and an exactly opposite feeling tended to detach it fromthe court of Ctesiphon. The alienation would have been, comparativelyspeaking, unimportant, after the division of Armenia between the twopowers, had that division been regarded by either party as final, or asprecluding the formation of designs upon the territory which each hadagreed should be held by the other. But there never yet had been a timewhen such designs had ceased to be entertained; and in the war whichIsdigerd had waged with Theodosius at the beginning of his reign, Roman intrigues in Persarmenia had forced him to send an army intothat country. The Persians felt, and felt with reason, that so long asArmenia remained Christian and Persia held to the faith of Zoroaster, the relations of the two countries could never be really friendly;Persia would always have a traitor in her own camp; and in any time ofdifficulty--especially in any difficulty with Rome--might look tosee this portion of her territory go over to the enemy. We cannotbe surprised if Persian statesmen were anxious to terminate sounsatisfactory a state of things, and cast about for a means wherebyArmenia might be won over, and made a real friend instead of a concealedenemy. 

The means which suggested itself to Isdigerd as the simplest and mostnatural was, as above observed, the conversion of the Armenians to theZoroastrian religion. In the early part of his reign he entertaineda hope of effecting his purpose by persuasion, and sent his vizier, Mihr-Narses, into the country, with orders to use all possible peacefulmeans--gifts, blandishments, promises, threats, removal of malignantchiefs--to induce Armenia to consent to a change of religion. Mihr-Narses did his best, but failed signally. He carried off the chiefsof the Christian party, not only from Armenia, but from Iberia andAlbania, telling them that Isdigerd required their services against theTatars, and forced them with their followers to take part in the Easternwar. He committed Armenia to the care of the Margrave, Vasag, anative prince who was well inclined to the Persian cause, and gavehim instructions to bring about the change of religion by a policy ofconciliation. But the Armenians were obstinate. Neither threats, nor promises, nor persuasions had any effect. It was in vain thata manifesto was issued, painting the religion of Zoroaster in thebrightest colors, and requiring all persons to conform to it. It wasto no purpose that arrests were made, and punishments threatened. TheArmenians declined to yield either to argument or to menace; and noprogress at all was made in the direction of the desired conversion. 

In the year A. D. 450, the patriarch Joseph, by the general desire of theArmenians, held a great assembly, at which it was carried by acclamationthat the Armenians were Christians, and would continue such, whatever itmight cost them. If it was hoped by this to induce Isdigerd to lay asidehis proselytizing schemes, the hope was a delusion. Isdigerd retaliatedby summoning to his presence the principal chiefs, viz. , Vasag, theMargrave; the Sparapet, or commander-in-chief, Vartan, the Mamigonian;Vazten, prince of Iberia; Vatche, king of Albania, etc. ; and having gotthem into his power, threatened them with immediate death, unless theyat once renounced Christianity and made profession of Zoroastrianism. The chiefs, not having the spirit of martyrs, unhappily yielded, anddeclared themselves converts; whereupon Isdigerd sent them back totheir respective countries, with orders to force everywhere on theirfellow-countrymen a similar change of religion. 

Upon this, the Armenians and Iberians broke out in open revolt. Vartan, the Mamigonian, repenting of his weakness, abjured his new creed, resumed the profession of Christianity, and made his peace with Joseph, the patriarch. He then called the people to arms, and in a short timecollected a force of a hundred thousand men. Three armies were formed, to act separately under different generals. One watched Azerbijan, orMedia Atropatene, whence it was expected that their main attack would bemade by the Persians; another, under Vartan, proceeded to the reliefof Albania, where proceedings were going on similar to those whichhad driven Armenia into rebellion; the third, under Vasag, occupied acentral position in Armenia, and was intended to move wherever dangershould threaten. An attempt was at the same time made to induce theRoman emperor, Marcian, to espouse the cause of the rebels, and sendtroops to their assistance; but this attempt was unsuccessful. Marcianhad but recently ascended the throne, and was, perhaps, scarcely fixedin his seat. He was advanced in years, and naturally unenterprising. Moreover, the position of affairs in Western Europe was such thatMarcian might expect at any moment to be attacked by an overwhelmingforce of northern barbarians, cruel, warlike, and unsparing. Attila wasin A. D. 451 at the height of his power; he had not yet been worstedat Chalons; and the terrible Huns, whom he led, might in a few monthsdestroy the Western, and be ready to fall upon the Eastern empire. Armenia, consequently, was left to her own resources, and had to combatthe Persians single-handed. Even so, she might probably have succeeded, have maintained her Christianity, or even recovered her independence, had her people been of one mind, and had no defection from the nationalcause manifested itself. But Vasag, the Marzpan, had always beenhalf-hearted in the quarrel; and, now that the crisis was come, hedetermined on going wholly over to the Persians. He was able to carrywith him the army which he commanded; and thus Armenia was dividedagainst itself; and the chance of victory was well-nigh lost before thestruggle had begun. When the Persians took the field they found halfArmenia ranged upon their side; and, though a long and bloody contestfollowed, the end was certain from the beginning. After much desultorywarfare, a great battle was fought in the sixteenth year of Isdigerd(A. D. 455 or 456) between the Christian Armenians on the one side, andthe Persians, with their Armenian abettors, on the other. The Persianswere victorious; Vartan, and his brother, Hemaiiag, were among theslain; and the patriotic party found that no further resistance waspossible. The patriarch, Joseph, and the other bishops, were seized, carried off to Persia, and martyred. Zoroastrianism was enforced uponthe Armenian nation. All accepted it, except a few, who either tookrefuge in the dominions of Rome, or fled to the mountain fastnesses ofKurdistan. 

The resistance of Armenia was scarcely overborne, when war once morebroke out in the East, and Isdigerd was forced to turn his attentionto the defence of his frontier against the aggressive Ephthalites, who, after remaining quiet for three or four years, had again flown to arms, had crossed the Oxus, and invaded Khorassan in force. On his firstadvance the Persian monarch was so far successful that the invadinghordes seems to have retired, and left Persia to itself; but whenIsdigerd, having resolved to retaliate, led his own forces into theEphthalite country, they took heart, resisted him, and, having temptedhim into an ambuscade, succeeded in inflicting upon him a severe defeat. Isdigerd was forced to retire hastily within his own borders, and toleave the honors of victory to his assailants, whose triumph must haveencouraged them to continue year after year their destructive inroadsinto the north-eastern provinces of the empire. 

It was not long after the defeat which he suffered in this quarter thatIsdigerd's reign came to an end. He died A. D. 457, after having held thethrone for seventeen or (according to some) for nineteen years. He wasa prince of considerable ability, determination, and courage. That hissubjects called him "the Clement" is at first sight surprising, sinceclemency is certainly not the virtue that any modern writer would thinkof associating with his name. But we may assume from the application ofthe term that, where religious considerations did not come into play, he was fair and equitable, mild-tempered, and disinclined to harshpunishments. Unfortunately, experience tells us that natural mildnessis no security against the acceptance of a bigot's creed; and, when apolicy of persecution has once been adopted, a Trajan or a Valerian willbe as unsparing as a Maximin or a Galerius. Isdigerd was a bitter andsuccessful persecutor of Christianity, which he--for a time at anyrate--stamped out, both from his own proper dominions, and from thenewly-acquired province of Armenia. He would have preferred less violentmeans; but, when they failed, he felt no scruples in employing theextremest and severest coercion. He was determined on uniformity; anduniformity he secured, but at the cost of crushing a people, and soalienating them as to make it certain that they would, on the firstconvenient occasion, throw off the Persian yoke altogether. 

The coins of Isdigerd II. Nearly resemble those of his father, VarahranV. , differing only in the legend, and in the fact that the mural crownof Isdigerd is complete. The legend is remarkably short, being either_Masdisn kadi Tezdikerti_, or merely _Kadi Yezdikerti_--i. E. "theOrmazd-worshipping great Isdigerd;" or "Isdigord the Great. " Thecoins are not very numerous, and have three mint-marks only, which areinterpreted to mean "Khuzistan, " "Ctesiphon, " and "Nehavend. " [PLATEXXI. , Fig. 3. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXI. ]

CHAPTER XVI. 

_Right of Succession disputed between the two Sons of Isdigerd II. , Perozes (or Firuz) and Hormisdas. Civil War for two years. Success ofPerozes, through aid given him by the Ephthalites. Great Famine. Perozesdeclares War against the Ephthalites, and makes an Expedition into theirCountry. His ill success. Conditions of Peace granted him. ArmenianRevolt and War. Perozes, after some years, resumes the Ephthalite War. His attack fails, and he is slain in battle. Summary of his Character. Coins of Hormisdas III. And Perozes. Vase of Perozes. _

On the death of Isdigerd II. (A. D. 457) the throne was seized by hisyounger son Hormisdas, who appears to have owed his elevation, in agreat measure, to the partiality of his father. That monarch, preferringhis younger son above his elder, had made the latter governor of thedistant Seistan, and had thus removed him far from the court, while heretained Hormisdas about his own person. The advantage thus secured toHormisdas enabled him when his father died to make himself king; andPerozes was forced, we are told, to fly the country, and place himselfunder the protection of the Ephthalite monarch, who ruled in the valleyof the Oxus, over Bactria, Tokaristan, Badakshan, and other neighboringdistricts. This king, who bore the name of Khush-newaz, received himfavorably, and though at first, out of fear for the power of Persia, hedeclined to lend him troops, was induced after a while to adopt a bolderpolicy. Hormisdas, despite his epithet of Ferzan, "the Wise, " was soonat variance with his subjects, many of whom gathered about Perozesat the court which he was allowed to maintain in Taleqan, one ofthe Ephthalite cities. Supported by this body of refugees, and by anEphthalite contingent, Perozes ventured to advance against his brother. His army, which was commanded by a certain Raham, or Ram, a noble of theMihran family, attacked the forces of Hormisdas, defeated them, andmade Hormisdas himself a prisoner. The troops of the defeated monarch, convinced by the logic of success, deserted their late leader's cause, and went over in a body to the conqueror. Perozes, after somewhat morethan two years of exile, was acknowledged as king by the whole Persianpeople, and, quitting Taleqan, established himself at Ctesiphon, orAl Modain, which had now become the main seat of government. It isuncertain what became of Hormisdas. According to the Armenian writers, Raham, after defeating him, caused him to be put to death; but thenative historian, Mirkhond, declares that, on the contrary, Perozesforgave him for having disputed the succession, and amiably spared hislife. 

The civil war between the two brothers, short as it was, had lasted longenough to cost Persia a province. Vatche, king of Aghouank (Albania)took advantage of the time of disturbance to throw off his allegiance, and succeeded in making himself independent. It was the first objectof Perozes, after establishing himself upon the throne, to recover thisvaluable territory. He therefore made war upon Vatche, thought thatprince was the son of his sister, and with the help of his Ephthaliteallies, and of a body of Alans whom he took into his service, defeatedthe rebellious Albanians and completely subjugated the revolted country. 

A time of prosperity now ensued. Perozes ruled with moderation andjustice. He dismissed his Ephthalite allies with presents that amplycontented them, and lived for five years in great peace and honor. Butin the seventh year, from the death of his father, the prosperity ofPersia was suddenly and grievously interrupted by a terrible drought, a calamity whereto Asia has in all ages been subject, and which oftenproduces the most frightful consequences. The crops fail; the earthbecomes parched and burnt up; smiling districts are change intowildernesses; fountains and brooks cease to flow; then the wells have nowater; finally even the great rivers are reduced to threads, and containonly the scantiest supply of the life-giving fluid in their channels. Famine under these circumstances of necessity sets in; the poor die byhundreds; even the rich have a difficulty in sustaining life by means offood imported from a distance. We are told that the drought in the reignof Perozes was such that at last there was not a drop of water either inthe Tigris or the Oxus; all the sources and fountains, all the streamsand brooks failed; vegetation altogether ceased; the beasts of the fieldand the fowls of the air perished; nowhere through the whole empirewas a bird to be seen; the wild animals, even the reptiles, disappearedaltogether. The dreadful calamity lasted for seven years, and underordinary circumstances the bulk of the population would have beenswept off; but such were the "wisdom and the beneficence of the Persianmonarch, " that during the entire duration of the scourge not a singleperson, or, according to another account, but one person, perished ofhunger. Perozes began by issuing general orders that the rich shouldcome to the relief of their poorer brethren; he required the governorsof towns, and the head-men of villages, to see that food was suppliedto those in need, and threatened that for each poor man in a town orvillage who died of want he would put a rich man to death. At the end oftwo years, finding that the drought continued, he declined to take anyrevenue from his subjects, remitting taxes of all kinds, whether theywere money imposts or contributions in kind. In the fourth year, notcontent with these measures, he went further: opened the treasury doorsand made distributions of money from his own stores to those in need. Atthe same time he imported corn from Greece, from India, from the valleyof the Oxus, and from Abyssinia, obtaining by these means such amplesupplies that he was able to furnish an adequate sustenance to all hissubjects. The result was that not only did the famine cause no mortalityamong the poorer classes, but no one was even driven to quit the countryin order to escape the pressure of the calamity. 

Such is the account which is given by the Oriental authors of theterrible famine which they ascribe to the early part of the reign ofPerozes. It is difficult, however, to suppose that the matter has notbeen very much exaggerated, since we find that, as early as A. D. 464-5, when the famine should have been at its height, Perozes had entered upona great war and was hotly engaged in it, his ambassadors at the sametime being sent to the Greek court, not to ask supplies of food, but torequest a subsidy on account of his military operations. The enemy whichhad provoked his hostility was the powerful nation of the Ephthalites, by whose aid he had so recently obtained the Persian crown. According toa contemporary Greek authority, more worthy of trust than most writersof his age and nation, the origin of the war was a refusal on the partof the Ephthalites to make certain customary payments which the Persiansviewed in the light of a tribute. Perozes determined to enforce his justrights, and marched his troops against the defaulters with this object. But in his first operations he was unsuccessful, and after a time hethought it best to conclude the war, and content himself with taking asecret revenge upon his enemy, by means of an occult insult. He proposedto Khush-newaz to conclude a treaty of peace, and to strengthen thecompact by adding to it a matrimonial alliance. Khush-newaz should taketo wife one of his daughters, and thus unite the interests of the tworeigning families. The proposal was accepted by the Ephthalite monarch;and he readily espoused the young lady who was sent to his courtapparelled as became a daughter of Persia. In a little time, however, hefound that he had been tricked: Perozes had not sent him his daughter, but one of his female slaves; and the royal race of the Ephthalitekings had been disgraced by a matrimonial union with a person ofservile condition. Khush-newaz was justly indignant; but dissembled hisfeelings, and resolved to repay guile with guile. He wrote to Perozesthat it was his intention to make war upon a neighboring tribe, and thathe wanted officers of experience to conduct the military operations. ThePersian monarch, suspecting nothing, complied with the request, andsent three hundred of his chief officers to Khush-newaz, who immediatelyseized them, put some to death, and, mutilating the remainder, commandedthem to return to their sovereign, and inform him that the king of theEphthalites now felt that he had sufficiently avenged the trick of whichhe had been the victim. On receiving this message Perozes renewedthe war, advanced towards the Ephthalite country, and fixed hishead-quarters in Hyrcania, at the city of Gurgan, He was accompanied bya Greek of the name of Eusebius, an ambassador from the Emperor Zeno, who took back to Constantinople the following account of the campaign. 

When Perozes, having invaded the Ephthalite territory, fell in with thearmy of the enemy, the latter pretended to be seized with a panic, andat once took to flight. The retreat was directed upon a portion of themountain region, where a broad and good road led into a spaciousplain, surrounded on all sides by wooded hills, steep and in placesprecipitous. Here the mass of the Ephthalite troops was cunninglyconcealed amid the foliage of the woods, while a small number, remaining visible, led the Persians into the cul-de-sac, the whole armyunsuspectingly entering, and only learning their danger when they sawthe road whereby they had entered blocked up by the troops from thehills. The officers then apprehended the true state of the case, andperceived that they had been cleverly entrapped; but none of them, itwould seem, dared to inform the monarch that he had been deceived bya stratagem. Application was made to Eusebius, whose ambassadorialcharacter would protect him from an outbreak, and he was requested tolet Perozes know how he was situated, and exhort him to endeavor toextricate himself by counsel rather than by a desperate act. Eusebiusupon this employed the Oriental method of apologue, relating to Perozeshow a lion in pursuit of a goat got himself into difficulties, fromwhich all his strength could not enable him to make his escape. Perozesapprehended his meaning, understood the situation, and, desisting fromthe pursuit, prepared to give battle where he stood. But the Ephthalitemonarch had no wish to push matters to extremities. Instead of fallingon the Persians from every side, he sent an embassy to Perozes andoffered to release him from his perilous situation, and allow him toreturn with all his troops to Persia, if he would swear a perpetualpeace with the Ephthalites and do homage to himself as his lord andmaster, by prostration. Perozes felt that he had no choice but to acceptthese terms, hard as he might think them. Instructed by the Magi, hemade the required prostration at the moment of sunrise, with his faceturned to the east, and thought thus to escape the humiliation ofabasing himself before a mortal by the mental reservation that theintention of his act was to adore the great Persian divinity. He thenswore to the peace, and was allowed to return with his army intact intoPersia. 

It seems to have been soon after the conclusion of his disgracefultreaty that serious troubles once more broke out in Armenia. Perozes, following out the policy of his father, Isdigerd, incessantly persecutedthe Christians of his northern provinces, especially those of Armenia, Georgia, and Albania. So severe were his measures that vast numbers ofthe Armenians quitted their country, and, placing themselves under theprotection of the Greek Emperor, became his subjects, and entered intohis service. Armenia was governed by Persian officials, and by apostatenatives who treated their Christian fellow-countrymen with extremerudeness, insolence, and injustice. Their efforts were especiallydirected against the few noble families who still clung to the faithof Christ, and had not chosen to expatriate themselves. Among these themost important was that of the Mamigonians, long celebrated in Armenianhistory, and at this time reckoned chief among the nobility. Therenegades sought to discredit this family with the Persians; and Vahan, son of Hemaiiag, its head, found himself compelled to visit, once andagain, the court of Persia, in order to meet the charges of his enemiesand counteract the effect of their calumnies. Successful in vindicatinghimself, and received into high favor by Perozes, he allowed thesunshine of prosperity to extort from him what he had guarded firmlyagainst all the blasts of persecution--to please his sovereign, heformally abjured the Christian faith, and professed himself a discipleof Zoroaster. The triumph of the anti-Christian party seemed nowsecured; but exactly at this point a reaction set in. Vahan became aprey to remorse, returned secretly to his old creed and longed for anopportunity of wiping out the shame of his apostasy by perilling hislife for the Christian cause. The opportunity was not long in presentingitself. In A. D. 481 Perozes suffered a defeat at the hand of thebarbarous Koushans, who held at this time the low Caspian tractextending from Asterabad to Derbend. Iberia at once revolted, slew itsZoroastrian king, Vazken, and placed a Christian, Vakhtang, upon thethrone. The Persian governor of Armenia, having received orders to quellthe Iberian rebellion, marched with all the troops that he could musterinto the northern province, and left the Armenians free to follow theirown devices. A rising immediately took place. Vahan at first endeavoredto check the movement, being doubtful of the power of Armenia to copewith Persia, and feeling sure that the aid of the Greek emperor couldnot be counted on. But the the popular enthusiasm overleaped allresistance; everywhere the Christian party rushed to arms, and sworeto free itself; the Persians with their adherents fled the country;Artaxata, the capital, was besieged and taken; the Christians werecompletely victorious, and, having made themselves masters of allPersarmenia, proceeded to establish a national government, placing attheir head as king, Sahag, the Bagratide, and appointing Vahan, theMamigonian, to be Sparapet, or "Commander-in-Chief. "

Intelligence of these events recalled the Persian governor, Ader-Veshnasp, from Iberia. Returning into his province at the headof an army of no great size, composed of Atropatenians, Medes, andCadusians, he was encountered by Vasag, a brother of Vahan, on the riverAraxes, with a small force, and was completely defeated and slain. 

Thus ended the campaign of A. D. 481. In A. D. 482 the Persians made avigorous attempt to recover their lost ground by sending two armies, one under Ader-Nerseh against Armenia, and the other under Mihran intoIberia. Vahan met the army of Ader-Nerseh in the plain of Ardaz, engagedit, and defeated it after a sharp struggle, in which the king, Sahag, particularly distinguished himself. Mihran was opposed by Vakhtang, the Iberian king, who, however, soon found himself overmatched, and wasforced to apply to Armenia for assistance. The Armenians came to his aidin full force; but their generosity was ill rewarded. Vakhtang plottedto make his peace with Persia by treacherously betraying his allies intotheir enemies' hands; and the Armenians, forced to fight at tremendousdisadvantage, suffered a severe defeat. Sahag, the king, and Vasag, oneof the brothers of Vahan, were slain; Vahan himself escaped, but at thehead of only a few followers, with whom he fled to the highland districtof Daik, on the borders of Home and Iberia. Here he was "hunted uponthe mountains" by Mihran, and would probably have been forced to succumbbefore the year was out, had not the Persian general suddenly receiveda summons from his sovereign, who needed his aid against the Roushansof the low Caspian region. Mihran, compelled to obey this call, had toevacuate Armenia, and Vahan in a few weeks recovered possession of thewhole country. 

The year A. D. 483 now arrived, and another desperate attempt was madeto crush the Armenian revolt. Early in the spring a Persian army invadedArmenia, under a general called Hazaravougd. Vahan allowed himself to besurprised, to be shut up in the city of Dovin, and to be there besieged. After a while he made his escape, and renewed the guerilla warfare inwhich he was an adept; but the Persians recovered most of the country, and he was himself, on more than one occasion, driven across the borderand obliged to seek refuge in Roman Armenia, whither his adversaryhad no right to follow him. Even here, however, he was not safe. Hazaravougd, at the risk of a rupture with Rome, pursued his flying foeacross the frontier; and Vahan was for some time in the greatest danger. But the Persian system of constantly changing the commands of theirchief officers saved him. Hazaravougd received orders from the court todeliver up Armenia to a newly appointed governor, named Sapor, and todirect his own efforts to the recovery of Iberia, which was stillin insurrection. In this latter enterprise he was successful; Iberiasubmitted to him; and Vakhtang fled to Colchis. But in Armenia thesubstitution of Sapor for Hazaravougd led to disaster. After a vainattempt to procure the assassination of Vahan by two of his officers, whose wives were Roman prisoners, Sapor moved against him with a strongbody of troops; but the brave Mamigonian, falling upon his assailantunawares, defeated him with great loss, and dispersed his army. A secondbattle was fought with a similar result; and the Persian force, beingdemoralized, had to retreat; while Vajian, taking the offensive, established himself in Dovin, and once more rallied to his side thegreat mass of the nation. Affairs were in this state, when suddenlythere arrived from the east intelligence of the most supreme importance, which produced a pause in the Armenian conflict and led to the placingof Armenian affairs on a new footing. 

Perozes had, from the conclusion of his treaty with the Ephthalitemonarch (ab. A. D. 470), been tormented with the feeling that he hadsuffered degradation and disgrace. He had, perhaps, plunged into theArmenian and other wars in the hope of drowning the recollection of hisshame, in his own mind as well as in the minds of others. But fortunehad not greatly smiled on him in these struggles; and any credit thathe obtained from them was quite insufficient to produce forgetfulnessof his great disaster. Hence, as time went on, he became more and moreanxious to wipe out the memory of the past by a great and signal victoryover his conquerors. He therefore after some years determined to renewthe war. It was in vain that the chief Mobed opposed himself to thisintention; it was in vain that his other counsellors sought to dissuadehim, that his general, Bahram, declared against the infraction of thetreaty, and that the soldiers showed themselves reluctant to fight. Perozes had resolved, and was not to be turned from his resolution. Hecollected from all parts of the empire a veteran force, amounting, itis said, 50 to 100, 000 men, and 500 elephants, placed the direction ofaffairs at the court in the hands of Balas (Palash), his son or brother, and then marched upon the north-eastern frontier, with the determinationto attack and defeat the Ephthalites or perish in the attempt. Accordingto some Oriental writers he endeavored to escape the charge of havingfalsified his engagements by a curious subterfuge. The exact terms ofhis oath to Khush-newaz, the Ephthalite king, had been that he wouldnever march his forces past a certain pillar which that monarch haderected to mark the boundary line between the Persian and Ephthalitedominions. Perozes persuaded himself that he would sufficiently observehis engagement if he kept its letter; and accordingly he loweredthe pillar, and placed it upon a number of cars, which were attachedtogether and drawn by a train of fifty elephants, in front of his army. Thus, however deeply he invaded the Ephthalite country, he never "passedbeyond" the pillar which he had sworn not to pass. In his own judgmenthe kept his vow, but not in that of his natural advisers. It issatisfactory to find that the Zoroastrian priesthood, speaking by themouth of the chief Mobed, disclaimed and exposed the fallacy of thiswretched casuistry. 

The Ephthalite monarch, on learning the intention of Perozes, preparedto meet his attack by stratagem. He had taken up his position in theplain near Balkh, and had there established his camp, resolved to awaitthe coming of the enemy. During the interval he proceeded to dig a deepand broad trench in front of his whole position, leaving only a spaceof some twenty or thirty yards, midway in the work, untouched. Havingexcavated the trench, he caused it to be filled with water, andcovered carefully with boughs of trees, reeds, and earth, so as to beundistinguishable from the general surface of the plain on which he wasencamped. On the arrival of the Persians in his front, he first of allheld a parley with Perozes, in which, after reproaching him with hisingratitude and breach of faith, he concluded by offering to renew thepeace. Perozes scornfully refused; whereupon the Ephthalite prince hungon the point of a lance the broken treaty, and, parading it in front ofthe Persian troops, exhorted them to avoid the vengeance which was sureto fall on the perjured by deserting their doomed monarch. Upon this, half the army, we are told, retired; and Khush-newaz proceeded to effectthe destruction of the remainder by means of the plan which he had socarefully prepared beforehand. He sent a portion of his troops acrossthe ditch, with orders to challenge the Persians to an engagement, and, when the fight began, to fly hastily, and, returning within the ditchby the sound passage, unite themselves with the main army. The entirePersian host, as he expected, pursued the fugitives, and coming unawaresupon the concealed trench plunged into it, was inextricably entangled, and easily destroyed. Perozes himself, several of his sons, and most ofhis army perished. Mruz-docht, his daughter, the chief Mobed, and greatnumbers of the rank and file were made prisoners. A vast booty wastaken. Khush-newaz did not tarnish the glory of his victory by anycruelties; he treated the captives tenderly, and caused search to bemade for the body of Perozes, which was found and honorably interred. 

Thus perished Perozes, after a reign of (probably) twenty-six years. He was undoubtedly a brave prince, and entitled to the epithet of AlMerdaneh, "the Courageous, " which he received from his subjects. Buthis bravery, unfortunately, verged upon rashness, and was unaccompanied(so far as appears) by any other military quality. Perozes had neitherthe sagacity to form a good plan of campaign, nor the ability to conducta battle. In all the wars wherein he was personally engaged he wasunsuccessful, and the only triumphs which gilded his arms wore gained byhis generals. In his civil administration, on the contrary, he obtaineda character for humanity and justice; and, if the Oriental accountsof his proceedings during the great famine are to be regarded astrustworthy, we must admit that his wisdom and benevolence were such asare not commonly found in those who bear rule in the East. His conducttowards Khush-newaz has generally been regarded as the great blot uponhis good fame; and it is certainly impossible to justify the paltrycasuistry by which he endeavored to reconcile his actions with his wordsat the time of his second invasion. But his persistent hostility towardsthe Ephthalites is far from inexcusable, and its motive may have beenpatriotic rather than personal. He probably felt that the Ephthalitepower was among those from which Persia had most to fear, and that itwould have been weak in him to allow gratitude for a favor conferredupon himself to tie his hands in a matter where the interests of hiscountry were vitally concerned. The Ephthalites continued for nearly acentury more to be among the most dangerous of her neighbors to Persia;and it was only by frequent attacks upon them in their own homesthat Persia could reasonably hope to ward off their ravages from herterritory. 

It is doubtful whether we possess any coins of Hormisdas III. , thebrother and predecessor of Perozes. Those which are assigned to him byMordtmann bear a name which has no resemblance to his; and those bearingthe name of Ram, which Mr. Taylor considers to be coins of Hormisdas, cannot have been issued under his authority, since Ram was theguardian and general, not of Hormisdas, but of his brother. Perhaps theremarkable specimen figured by M. Longperier in his valuable work, whichshows a bull's head in place of the usual inflated ball, may reallybelong to this prince. The legend upon it is read without any doubtas Auhrimazd, or "Hormisdas;" and in general character it is certainlySassanian, and of about this period. [PLATE XXI. , Fig. 5. ]

The coins of Perozes are undoubted, and are very numerous. They aredistinguished generally by the addition to the ordinary crown of twowings, one in front of the crown, and the other behind it, and bear thelegend, _Kadi Piruzi_, or _Mazdisn Kadi Piruzi_, i. E. , "King Perozes, "or "the Ormazd-worshipping king Perozes. " The earring of the monarchis a triple pendant. On the reverse, besides the usual fire-altarand supporters, we see on either side of the altar-flame a star anda crescent. The legend here is M--probably for malka, "king"--orelse Kadi, together with a mint-mark. The mints named are numerous, comprising (according to Mordtmann) Persepolis, Ispahan, Rhages, Nehavend, Darabgherd, Zadracarta, Nissa, Behistun, Chuzistan, Media, Kerman, and Azerbijan; or (according to Mr. Thomas) Persepolis, Rasht, Nehavend, Darabgherd, Baiza, Modai'n, Merv, Shiz, Iran, Kerman, Yezd, and fifteen others. The general character of the coinage is rude andcoarse, the reverse of the coins showing especial signs of degradation. [PLATE XXI. , Fig. 6. ]

Besides his coins, one other memorial of the reign of Perozes hasescaped the ravages of time. This is a cup or vase, of antique andelegant form, engraved with a hunting-scene, which has been thusdescribed by a recent writer: "This cup, which comes from Russia, hasa diameter of thirty-one centimetres, and is shaped like a ewer withouthandles. At the bottom there stands out in relief the figure of amonarch on horseback, pursuing at full speed various wild animals;before him fly a wild boar and wild sow, together with their young, anibex, an antelope, and a buffalo. Two other boars, an ibex, a buffalo, and an antelope are strewn on the ground, pierced with arrows. The kinghas an aquiline nose, an eye which is very wide open, a short beard, horizontal moustaches of considerable length, the hair gathered behindthe head in quite a small knot, and the ear ornamented with a doublependant, pear-shaped; the head of the monarch supports a crown, whichis mural at the side and back, while it bears a crescent in front; twowings surmounting a globe within a crescent form the upper part of thehead-dress. On his right the king carries a short dagger and a quiverfull of arrows, on his left a sword. Firuz, who has the finger-guardof an archer on his right hand, is represented in the act of bending alarge bow made of horn. " There would seem to be no doubt that the workthus described is rightly assigned to Perozes. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

_Accession of Balas or Palash. His Relationship to Perozes. Peace madewith the Ephthalites. Pacification of Armenia and General Edict ofToleration. Revolt of Zareh, Son of Perozes, and Suppression ofthe Revolt with the help of the Armenians. Flight of Kobad to theEphthalites. Further Changes in Armenia. Vahan made Governor. Death ofBalas; his Character. Coins ascribed to him. _

Perozes was succeeded by a prince whom the Greeks call Balas, the Arabsand later Persians Palash, but whose real name appears to have beenValakhesh or Volagases. Different accounts are given of his relationshipto his predecessor, the native writers unanimously representing himas the son of Perozes and brother of Kobad, while the Greeks and thecontemporary Armenians declare with one voice that he was Kobad's uncleand Perozes's brother. It seems on the whole most probable that theGreeks and Armenians are right and we may suppose that Perozes, havingno son whom he could trust to take his place when he quitted his capitalin order to take the management of the Ephthalite war, put the regencyand the guardianship of his children into the hands of his brother, Valakhesh, who thus, not unnaturally, became king when it was found thatPerozes had fallen. 

The first efforts of the new monarch were of necessity directed towardsan arrangement with the Ephthalites, whose signal victory over Perozeshad laid the north-eastern frontier of Persia open to their attack. Balas, we are told, employed on this service the arms and arts ofan officer named Sukhra or Sufraii, who was at the time governor ofSeistan. Sukhra collected an imposing force, and conducted it to theEphthalite border, where he alarmed Khush-newaz by a display of his ownskill with the bow. He then entered into negotiations and obtained therelease of Firuz-docht, of the Grand Mobed, and of the other importantprisoners, together with the restoration of a large portion of thecaptured booty, but was probably compelled to accept on the part of hissovereign some humiliating conditions. Procopius informs us that, inconsequence of the defeat of Perozes, Persia became subject to theEphthalites and paid them tribute for two years; and this is so probablea result, and one so likely to have been concealed by the nativewriters, that his authority must be regarded as outweighing the silenceof Mirkhond and Tabari. Balas, we must suppose, consented to become anEphthalite tributary, rather than renew the war which had proved fatalto his brother. If he accepted this position, we can well understandthat Khush-newaz would grant him the small concessions of which thePersian writers boast; while otherwise the restoration of the booty andthe prisoners without a battle is quite inconceivable. 

Secure, so long as he fulfilled his engagements, from any molestation inthis quarter, Balas was able to turn his attention to the north-westernportion of his dominions, and address himself to the difficult task ofpacifying Armenia, and bringing to an end the troubles which had nowfor several years afflicted that unhappy province. His first step wasto nominate as Marzpan, or governor, of Armenia, a Persian who borethe name of Nikhor, a man eminent for justice and moderation. Nikhor, instead of attacking Vahan, who held almost the whole of the country, since the Persian troops had been withdrawn on the news of the deathof Perozes, proposed to the Armenian prince that they should discussamicably the terms upon which his nation would be content to end the warand resume its old position of dependence upon Persia. Vahan expressedhis willingness to terminate the struggle by an arrangement, andsuggested the following as the terms on which he and his adherents wouldbe willing to lay down their arms:

(1) The existing fire-altars should be destroyed, and no others shouldbe erected in Armenia. 

(2) The Armenians should be allowed the full and free exercise of theChristian religion, and no Armenians should be in future tempted orbribed to declare themselves disciples of Zoroaster. 

(3) If converts were nevertheless made from Christianity toZoroastrianism, places should not be given to them. 

(4) The Persian king should in person, and not by deputy, administer theaffairs of Armenia. Nikhor expressed himself favorable to the acceptanceof these terms; and, after an exchange of hostages, Vahan visited hiscamp and made arrangements with him for the solemn ratification of peaceon the aforesaid conditions. An edict of toleration was issued, and itwas formally declared that "every one should be at liberty to adhere tohis own religion, and that no one should be driven to apostatize. " Uponthese terms peace was concluded between Vahan and Nikhor, and it wasonly necessary that the Persian monarch should ratify the terms for themto become formally binding. 

While matters were in this state, and the consent of Balas to theterms agreed upon had not yet been positively signified, an importantrevolution took place at the court of Persia. Zareh, a son of Perozes, preferred a claim to the crown, and was supported in his attempt by aconsiderable section of the people. A civil war followed; and among theofficers employed to suppress it was Nikhor, the governor of Armenia. Onhis appointment he suggested to Vahan that it would lend great force tothe Armenian claims if under the existing circumstances the Armenianswould furnish effective aid to Balas, and so enable him to suppress therebellion. Vahan saw the importance of the conjuncture, and immediatelysent to Nikhor's aid a powerful body of cavalry under the command of hisown nephew, Gregory. Zareh was defeated, mainly in consequence of thegreat valor and excellent conduct of the Armenian contingent. He fledto the mountains, but was pursued, and was very shortly afterwards madeprisoner and slain. 

Soon after this, Kobad, son of Perozes, regarding the crown asrightfully his, put forward a claim to it, but, meeting with no success, was compelled to quit Persia and throw himself upon the kind protectionof the Ephthalites, who were always glad to count among their refugees aPersian pretender. The Ephthalites, however, made no immediate stir--itwould seem, that so long as Balas paid his tribute they were content, and felt no inclination to disturb what seemed to them a satisfactoryarrangement. 

The death of Zareh and the flight of Kobad left Balas at liberty toresume the work which their rebellions had interrupted--the completepacification of Armenia. Knowing how much depended upon Vahan, hesummoned him to his court, received him with the highest honors, listened attentively to his representations, and finally agreed to theterms which Vahan had formulated. At the same time he replaced Nikhorby a governor named Antegan, a worthy successor, "mild, prudent, andequitable;" and, to show his confidence in the Mamigonian prince, appointed him to the high office of Commander-in-Chief, or "Sparapet. "This arrangement did not, however, last long. Antegan, after rulingArmenia for a few months, represented to his royal master that it wouldbe the wisest course to entrust Vahan with the government, that the samehead which had conceived the terms of the pacification might watch overand ensure their execution. Antegan's recommendation approved itselfto the Persian monarch, who proceeded to recall his self-denyingcouncillor, and to install Vahan in the vacant office. The post ofSparapet was assigned to Vart, Vahan's brother. Christianity was thenformally reestablished as the State religion of Armenia; the fire-altarswere destroyed; the churches reclaimed and purified; the hierarchyrestored to its former position and powers. A reconversion of almostthe whole nation to the Christian faith was the immediate result; theapostate Armenians recanted their errors, and abjured Zoroastrianism;Armenia, and with it Iberia, were pacified; and the two provinces whichhad been so long a cause of weakness to Persia grew rapidly into mainsources of her strength and prosperity. 

The new arrangement had not been long completed when Balas died (A. D. 487). It is agreed on all hands that he held the throne for no more thanfour years, and generally allowed that he died peaceably by a naturaldeath. He was a wise and just prince, mild in his temper, averse tomilitary enterprises, and inclined to expect better results from pacificarrangements than from wars and expeditions. His internal administrationof the empire gave general satisfaction to his subjects; he protectedand relieved the poor, extended cultivation, and punished governors whoallowed any men in their province to fall into indigence. His prudenceand moderation are especially conspicuous in his arrangement of theArmenian difficulty, whereby he healed a chronic sore that had longdrained, the resources of his country. His submission to pay tributeto the Ephthalites may be thought to indicate a want of courage orof patriotism; but there are times when the purchase of a peace isa necessity; and it is not clear that Balas was minded to bear theobligation imposed on him a moment longer than was necessary. Thewriters who record the fact that Persia submitted for a time to pay atribute limit the interval during which the obligation held to a coupleof years. It would seem, therefore, that Balas, who reigned four years, must, a year at least before his demise, have shaken off the Ephthaliteyoke and ceased to make any acknowledgment of dependence. Probably itwas owing to the new attitude assumed by him that the Ephthalites, after refusing to give Kobad any material support for the space of threeyears, adopted a new policy in the year of Balas's death (A. D. 487), andlent the pretender a force with which he was about to attack his unclewhen news reached him that attack was needless, since Balas was dead andhis own claim to the succession undisputed. Balas nominated no successorupon his death-bed, thus giving in his last moments an additional proofof that moderation and love of peace which had characterized his reign. 

Coins, which possess several points of interest, are assigned to Balasby the best authorities. They bear on the obverse the head of the kingwith the usual mural crown surmounted by a crescent and inflated ball. The beard is short and curled. The hair falls behind the head, alsoin curls. The earring, wherewith the ear is ornamented, has a doublependent. Flames issue from the left shoulder, an exceptional peculiarityin the Sassanian series, but one which is found also among theIndo-Scythian kings with whom Balas was so closely connected. The fulllegend upon the coins appears to be _Hur Kadi Valdk-dshi, _ "Volagases, the Fire King. " The reverse exhibits the usual fire-altar, but withthe king's head in the flames, and with the star and crescent oneither side, as introduced by Pe-rozes. It bears commonly the legend, _ValaJcdshi_, with a mint-mark. The mints employed are those of Iran, Kerman, Ispahan, Nisa, Ledan, Shiz, Zadracarta, and one or two others. [PLATE XXI. , Fig. 4]. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

_First reign of Kobad. His Favorites, Sufral and Sapor. His Khazar War. Rise, Teaching, and influence of Mazdak. His Claim to MiraculousPowers. Kobad adopts the new Religion, and attempts to impose it onthe Armenians. Revolt of Armenia under Vahan, successful. Kobad yields. General Rebellion in Persia, and Deposition of Kobad. Escape of Mazdak. Short Reign of Zamasp. His Coins. _

When Kobad fled to the Ephthalites on the failure of his attempt toseize the crown, he was received, we are told, with open arms; but nomaterial aid was given to him for the space of three years. However, inthe fourth year of his exile, a change came over the Ephthalite policy, and he returned to his capital at the head of an army, with whichKhush-newaz had furnished him. The change is reasonably connected withthe withholding of his tribute by Balas; and it is difficult to supposethat Kobad, when he accepted Ephthalite aid, did not pledge himself toresume the subordinate position which his uncle had been content to holdfor two years. It seems certain that he was accompanied to his capitalby an Ephthalite contingent, which he richly rewarded before dismissingit. Owing his throne to the aid thus afforded him, he can scarcely haverefused to make the expected acknowledgment. Distinct evidence on thepoint is wanting; but there can be little doubt that for some yearsKobad held the Persian throne on the condition of paying tribute toKhush-newaz, and recognizing him as his lord paramount. 

During the early portion of his first reign, which extended from A. D. 487 to 498, we are told that he entrusted the entire administration ofaffairs to Suklira, or Sufrai, who had been the chief minister of hisuncle. Sufrai's son, Zer-Mihr, had faithfully adhered to him throughoutthe whole period of his exile, and Kobad did not regard it as a crimethat the father had opposed his ambition, and thrown the weight ofhis authority into the scale against him. He recognized fidelity asa quality that deserved reward, and was sufficiently magnanimous toforgive an opposition that had sprung from a virtuous motive, and, moreover, had not succeeded. Sufrai accordingly governed Persia for someyears; the army obeyed him, and the civil administration was completelyin his hands. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that Kobadafter a while grew jealous of his subordinate, and was anxious to striphim of the quasi-regal authority which he exercised and assert his ownright to direct affairs. But, alone, he felt unequal to such a task. Hetherefore called in the assistance of an officer who bore the name ofSapor, and had a command in the district of Rhages. Sapor undertook torid his sovereign of the incubus whereof he complained, and, with thetacit sanction of the monarch, he contrived to fasten a quarrel onSufrai which he pushed to such an extremity that, at the end of it, he dragged the minister from the royal apartment to a prison, had himheavily ironed, and in a few days caused him to be put to death. Sapor, upon this, took the place previously occupied by Sufrai; hewas recognized at once as Prime Minister, and Sipehbed, orcommander-in-chief of the troops. Kobad, content to have vindicated hisroyal power by the removal of Sufrai, conceded to the second favoriteas much as he had allowed to the first, and once more suffered themanagement of affairs to pass wholly into the hands of a subject. 

The only war in which Persia seems to have been engaged during the firstreign of Kobad was one with the Khazars. This important people, now heard of for the first time in Persian history, appears to haveoccupied, in the reign of Kobad, the steppe country between the Wolgaand the Don, whence they made raids through the passes of the Caucasusinto the fertile provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whetherthey were Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has beeningeniously argued by a living writer, is doubtful; but we cannot bemistaken in regarding them as at this time a race of fierce and terriblebarbarians, nomadic in their habits, ruthless in their wars, cruel anduncivilized in their customs, a fearful curse to the regions which theyoverrun and desolated. We shall meet with them again, more than once, in the later history, and shall have to trace to their hostility some ofthe worst disasters that befel the Persian arms. On this occasion itis remarkable that they were repulsed with apparent ease. Kobad marchedagainst their Khan in person, at the head of a hundred thousand men, defeated him in a battle, destroyed the greater portion of his army, and returned to his capital with an enormous booty. To check theirincursions, he is said to have built on the Armenian frontier a towncalled Amid, by which we are probably to understand, not the ancientAmida (or Diarbekr), but a second city of the name, further to theeast and also further to the north, on the border line which separatedArmenia from Iberia. 

The triumphant return of Kobad from his Khazar war might have seemedlikely to secure him a long and prosperous reign; but at the moment whenfortune appeared most to smile upon him, an insidious evil, which hadbeen gradually but secretly sapping the vitals of his empire, madeitself apparent, and, drawing the monarch within the sphere of itsinfluence, involved him speedily in difficulties which led to the lossof his crown. Mazdak, a native of Persepolis, or, according to others, of Nishapur, in Khorassan, and an Archimagus, or High Priest of theZoroastrian religion, announced himself, early in the reign of Kobad, as a reformer of Zoroastrianism, and began to make proselytes to the newdoctrines which he declared himself commissioned to unfold. All men, hesaid, were, by God's providence, born equal--none brought into theworld any property, or any natural right to possess more than another. Property and marriage were mere human inventions, contrary to the willof God, which required an equal division of the good things of thisworld among all, and forbade the appropriation of particular women byindividual men. In communities based upon property and marriage, menmight lawfully vindicate their natural rights by taking their fair shareof the good things wrongfully appropriated by their fellows Adultery, incest, theft, were not really crimes, but necessary steps towardsre-establishing the laws of nature in such societies. To thesecommunistic views, which seem to have been the original speculationsof his own mind, the Magian reformer added tenets borrowed from theBrahmins or from some other Oriental ascetics, such as the sacrednessof animal life, the necessity of abstaining from animal food, other thanmilk, cheese, or eggs, the propriety of simplicity in apparel, and theneed of abstemiousness and devotion. He thus presented the spectacle ofan enthusiast who preached a doctrine of laxity and self-indulgence, not from any base or selfish motive, but simply from a conviction of itstruth. We learn without surprise that the doctrines of the new teacherwere embraced with ardor by large classes among the Persians, by theyoung of all ranks, by the lovers of pleasure, by the great bulk ofthe lower orders. But it naturally moves our wonder that among theproselytes to the new religion was the king. Kobad, who had nothing togain from embracing a creed which levelled him with his subjects, andwas scarcely compatible with the continuance of monarchical rule, musthave been sincere in his profession; and we inquire with interest, whatwere the circumstances which enabled Mazdak to attach to his cause soimportant and so unlikely a convert. 

The explanation wherewith we are furnished by our authorities is, that Mazdak claimed to authenticate his mission by the possession andexhibition of miraculous powers. In order to impose on the weak mindof Kobad he arranged and carried into act an elaborate and cleverimposture. He excavated a cave below the fire-altar, on which he was inthe habit of offering, and contrived to pass a tube from the cavern tothe upper surface of the altar, where the sacred flame was maintainedperpetually. Having then placed a confederate in the cavern, he invitedthe attendance of Kobad, and in his presence appeared to hold conversewith the fire itself, which the Persians viewed as the symbol andembodiment of divinity. The king accepted the miracle as an absoluteproof of the divine authority of the new teacher, and became thenceforthhis zealous adherent and follower. 

It may be readily imagined that the conversion of the monarch to such acreed was, under a despotic government, the prelude to disorders, whichsoon became intolerable. Not content with establishing community ofproperty and of women among themselves, the sectaries claimed theright to plunder the rich at their pleasure, and to carry off for thegratification of their own passions the inmates of the most illustriousharems. In vain did the Mobeds declare that the new religion was false, was monstrous, ought not to be tolerated for an hour. The followers ofMazdak had the support of the monarch, and this protection secured themcomplete impunity. Each day they grew bolder and more numerous. Persiabecame too narrow a field for their ambition, and they insisted onspreading their doctrines into the neighboring countries. We find tracesof the acceptance of their views in the distant West; and the historiansof Armenia relate that in that unhappy country they so pressed theirreligion upon the people that an insurrection broke out, and Persiawas in danger of losing, by intolerance, one of her most valueddependencies. 

Vatian, the Mamigonian, who had been superseded in his office by a freshMarzpan, bent on forcing the Armenians to adopt the new creed, once moreput himself forward as his country's champion, took arms in defenceof the Christian faith, and endeavored to induce the Greek emperor, Anastasius, to accept the sovereignty of Persarmenia, together withthe duty of protecting it against its late masters. Fear of theconsequences, if he provoked the hostility of Persia, caused Anastasiusto hesitate; and things might have gone hardly with the unfortunateArmenians, had not affairs in Persia itself come about this time to acrisis. 

The Mobeds and the principal nobles had in vain protested against thespread of the new religion and the patronage lent it by the Court. At length appeal was made to the chief Mobed, and he was requested todevise a remedy for the existing evils, which were generally felt tohave passed the limits of endurance. The chief Mobed decided that, underthe circumstances of the time, no remedy could be effectual but thedeposition of the head of the State, through whose culpable connivancethe disorders had attained their height. His decision was received withgeneral acquiescence. The Persian nobles agreed with absolute unanimityto depose Kobad, and to place upon the throne another member of theroyal house. Their choice fell upon Zamasp, a brother of Kobad, who wasnoted for his love of justice and for the mildness of his disposition. The necessary arrangements having been made, they broke out intouniversal insurrection, arrested Kobad, and committed him to safecustody in the "Castle of Oblivion, " proclaimed Zamasp, and crowned himking with all the usual formalities. An attempt was then made to dealthe new religion a fatal blow by the seizure and execution of theheresiarch, Mazdak. But here the counter-revolution failed. Mazdak wasseized indeed and imprisoned; but his followers rose at once, broke openhis prison doors, and set him at liberty. The government felt itself tooweak to insist on its intended policy of coercion. Mazdak was allowedto live in retirement unmolested, and to increase the number of hisdisciples. 

The reign of Zamasp appears to have lasted from A. D. 498 to A. D. 501, or between two and three years. He was urged by the army to put Kobadto death, but hesitated to adopt so extreme a course, and preferredretaining his rival as a prisoner. The "Castle of Oblivion" was regardedas a place of safe custody; but the ex-king contrived in a short time toput a cheat on his guards and effect his escape from confinement. Likeother claimants of the Persian throne, he at once took refuge with theEphthalites, and sought to persuade the Great Khan to embrace his causeand place an army at his disposal. The Khan showed himself more thanordinarily complaisant. He can scarcely have sympathized with thereligious leanings of his suppliant; but he remembered that he hadplaced him upon the throne, and had found him a faithful feudatory anda quiet neighbor. He therefore received him with every mark of honor, betrothed him to one of his own daughters, and lent him an army of30, 000 men. With this force Kobad returned to Persia, and offered battleto Zamasp. Zamasp declined the conflict. He had not succeeded in makinghimself popular with his subjects, and knew that a large party desiredthe return of his brother. It is probable that he did not greatly desirea throne. At any rate, when his brother reached the neighborhood of thecapital, at the head of the 30, 000 Ephthalites and of a strong body ofPersian adherents, Zamasp determined upon submission. He vacated thethrone in favor of Kobad, without risking the chance of a battle, anddescended voluntarily into a private station. Different stories are toldof his treatment by the restored monarch. According to Procopius, hewas blinded after a cruel method long established among the Persians;but Mirkhond declares that he was pardoned, and even received from hisbrother marked signs of affection and favor. 

The coins of Zamasp have the usual inflated ball and mural crown, butwith a crescent in place of the front limb of the crown. The ends of thediadem appear over the two shoulders. On either side of the head thereis a star, and over either shoulder a crescent. Outside the encirclingring, or "pearl border, " we see, almost for the first time, three starswith crescents. The reverse bears the usual fire-altar, with a star andcrescent on either side of the flame. The legend is extremely brief, being either _Zamasp_ or _Bag Zamasp_, i. E. "Zamaspes, " or "the divineZamaspes. " [PLATE XXII. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXII. ]

CHAPTER XIX. 

_Second Reign of Kobad. His Change of Attitude towards the Followers ofMazdak. His Cause of Quarrel with Rome. First Roman War of Kobad. Peacemade A. D. 505. Rome fortifies Daras and Theodosiopolis. Complaint madeby Persia. Negotiations of Kobad with Justin: Proposed Adoption ofChosroes by the Latter. Internal Troubles in Persia. Second Roman War ofKobad, A. D. 524-531. Death of Kobad. His Character. His coins. _

The second reign of Kobad covered a period of thirty years, extendingfrom A. D. 501 to A. D. 531. He was contemporary, during this space, withthe Roman emperors Anastasius, Justin, and Justinian, with Theodoric, king of Italy, with Cassiodorus, Symmachus, Boethius, Procopius, andBelisarius. The Oriental writers tell us but little of this portion ofhis history. Their silence, however, is fortunately compensated by theunusual copiousness of the Byzantines, who deliver, at considerablelength, the entire series of transactions in which Kobad was engagedwith the Constantinopolitan emperors, and furnish some interestingnotices of other matters which occupied him. Procopius especially, theeminent rhetorician and secretary of Belisarius, who was born about thetime of Kobad's restoration to the Persian thrones and became secretaryto the great general four years before Kobad's death, is ample in hisdetails of the chief occurrences, and deserves a confidence which theByzantines can rarely claim, from being at once a contemporary and a manof remarkable intelligence. "His facts, " as Gibbon well observes, "arecollected from the personal experience and free conversation of asoldier, a statesman, and a traveller; his style continually aspires, and often attains, to the merit of strength and elegance; his, reflections, more especially in the speeches, which he too frequentlyinserts, contain a rich fund of political knowledge; and the historian, excited by the generous ambition of pleasing and instructing posterity, appears to disdain the prejudices of the people and the flattery ofcourts. "

The first question which Kobad had to decide, when, by the voluntarycession of his brother, Zamasp, he remounted his throne, was theattitude which he should assume towards Mazdak and his followers. Byopenly favoring the new religion and encouraging the disorders of itsvotaries, he had so disgusted the more powerful classes of his subjectsthat he had lost his crown and been forced to become a fugitive in aforeign country. He was not prepared to affront this danger a secondtime. Still, his attachment to the new doctrine was not shaken; he heldthe views propounded to be true, and was not ashamed to confess himselfan unwavering adherent of the communistic prophet. He contrived, however, to reconcile his belief with his interests by separating theindividual from the king. As a man, he held the views of Mazdak; but, asa king, he let it be known that he did not intend to maintain or supportthe sectaries in any extreme or violent measures. The result was thatthe new doctrine languished; Mazdak escaped persecution and continued topropagate his views; but, practically, the progress of the new opinionswas checked; they had ceased to command royal advocacy, and hadconsequently ceased to endanger the State; they still fermented amongthe masses, and might cause trouble in the future; but for the presentthey were the harmless speculations of a certain number of enthusiastswho did not venture any more to carry their theories into practice. 

Kobad had not enjoyed the throne for more than a year before hisrelations with the great empire on his western frontier became troubled, and, after some futile negotiations, hostilities once more broke out. Itappears that among the terms of the peace concluded in A. D. 442 betweenIsdigerd II. And the younger Theodosius, the Romans had undertakento pay annually a certain sum of money as a contribution towards theexpenses of a fortified post which the two powers undertook to maintainin the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of the Caucasus and theCaspian. This fortress, known as Juroi-pach or Biraparach, commanded theusual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed to issuefrom their vast arid steppes upon the rich and populous regions of thesouth for the purpose of plundering raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt that the two nations were alike interested in preventingthem. The original agreement was that both parties should contributeequally, alike to the building and to the maintaining of the fortress;but the Romans were so occupied in other wars that the entire burdenactually fell upon the Persians. These latter, as was natural, made fromtime to time demands upon the Romans for the payment of their share ofthe expenses; but it seems that these efforts were ineffectual, and thedebt accumulated. It was under these circumstances that Kobad. Findinghimself in want of money to reward adequately his Ephthalite allies, sent an embassy to Anastasius, the Roman emperor, with a peremptorydemand for a remittance. The reply of Anastasius was a refusal. According to one authority he declined absolutely to make any payment;according to another, he expressed his willingness to lend his Persianbrother a sum of money on receiving the customary acknowledgment, butrefused an advance on any other terms. Such a response was a simplerepudiation of obligations voluntarily contracted, and could scarcelyfail to rouse the indignation of the Persian monarch. If he learnedfurther that the real cause of the refusal was a desire to embroilPersia with the Ephthalites, and to advance the interests of Rome byleading her enemies to waste each other's strength in an internecineconflict, he may have admired the cunning of his rival, but can scarcelyhave felt the more amicably disposed towards him. 

The natural result followed. Kobad at once declared war. The two empireshad now been uninterruptedly at peace for sixty, and, with the exceptionof a single campaign (that of A. D. 441), for eighty years. They hadceased to feel that respect for each other's arms and valor whichexperience gives, and which is the best preservative against wantonhostilities. Kobad was confident in his strength, since he was ableto bring into the field, besides the entire force of Persia, a largoEphthalite contingent, and also a number of Arabs. Anastasius, perhaps, scarcely thought that Persia would go to war on account of a pecuniaryclaim which she had allowed to be disregarded for above half a century. The resolve of Kobad evidently took him by surprise; but he had gone toofar to recede. The Roman pride would not allow him to yield to a displayof force what he had refused when demanded peacefully; and he was thuscompelled to maintain by arms the position which he had assumed withoutanticipating its consequences. 

The war began by a sudden inroad of the host of Persia into RomanArmenia, where Theodosiopolis was still the chief stronghold and themain support of the Roman power. Unprepared for resistance, this citywas surrendered after a short siege by its commandant, Constantine, after which the greater part of Armenia was overrun and ravaged. FromArmenia Kobad conducted his army into Northern Mesopotamia, and formedthe siege of Amida about the commencement of the winter. The greatstrength of Amida has been already noticed in this volume. Kobad foundit ungarrisoned, and only protected by a small force, cantoned in itsneighborhood, under the philosopher, Alypius. But the resolution of thetownsmen, and particularly of the monks, was great; and a most strenuousresistance met all his efforts to take the place. At first his hope wasto effect a breach in the defences by means of the ram; but the besiegedemployed the customary means of destroying his engines, and, where thesefailed, the strength and thickness of the walls was found to besuch that no serious impression could be made on them by the Persianbattering train. It was necessary to have recourse to some other device;and Kobad proceeded to erect a mound in the immediate neighborhood ofthe wall, with a view of dominating the town, driving the defenders fromthe battlements, and then taking the place by escalade. He raised animmense work; but it was undermined by the enemy, and at last fell inwith a terrible crash, involving hundreds in its ruin. It is said thatafter this failure Kobad despaired of success, and determined to drawoff his army; but the taunts and insults of the besieged, or confidencein the prophecies of the Magi, who saw an omen of victory in thegrossest of all the insults, caused him to change his intention andstill continue the siege. His perseverance was soon afterwards rewarded. A soldier discovered in the wall the outlet of a drain or sewerimperfectly blocked up with rubble, and, removing this during thenight, found himself able to pass through the wall into the town. Hecommunicated his discovery to Kobad, who took his measures accordingly. Sending, the next night, a few picked men through the drain, to seizethe nearest tower, which happened to be slackly guarded by some sleepymonks, who the day before had been keeping festival, he brought the bulkof his troops with scaling ladders to the adjoining portion of the wall, and by his presence, exhortations, and threats, compelled them to forcetheir way into the place. The inhabitants resisted strenuously, but wereoverpowered by numbers, and the carnage in the streets was great. Atlast an aged priest, shocked at the indiscriminate massacre, made boldto address the monarch himself and tell him that it was no kingly act toslaughter captives. "Why, then, did you elect to fight?" said the angryprince. "It was God's doing, " replied the priest, astutely; "He willedthat thou shouldest owe thy conquest of Amida, not to our weakness, butto thy own valor. " The flattery pleased Kobad, and induced him to stopthe effusion of blood; but the sack was allowed to continue; the wholetown was pillaged; and the bulk of the inhabitants were carried off asslaves. 

The siege of Amida lasted eighty days, and the year A. D. 503 hadcommenced before it was over. Anastasius, on learning the danger of hisfrontier town, immediately despatched to its aid a considerable force, which he placed under four commanders--Areobindus, the grandson of theGothic officer of the same name who distinguished himself in the Persianwar of Theodosius; Celer, captain of the imperial guard; Patricius, thePhrygian; and Hypatius, one of his own nephews. The army, collectively, is said to have been more numerous than any that Rome had ever broughtinto the field against the Persians but it was weakened by the dividedcommand, and it was moreover broken up into detachments which actedindependently of each other. Its advent also was tardy. Not only didit arrive too late to save Amida, but it in no way interfered with theafter-movements of Kobad, who, leaving a small garrison to maintain hisnew conquest, carried off the whole of his rich booty to his city ofNisibis, and placed the bulk of his troops in a good position uponhis own frontier. When Areobindus, at the head of the first division, reached Amida and heard that the Persians had fallen back, he declinedthe comparatively inglorious work of a siege, and pressed forward, anxious to carry the war into Persian territory. He seems actually tohave crossed the border and invaded the district of Arzanene, whennews reached him that Kobad was marching upon him with all his troops, whereupon he instantly fled, and threw himself into Constantia, leavinghis camp and stores to be taken by the enemy. Meanwhile another divisionof the Roman army, under Patrilcius and Hypatius, had followed in thesteps of Areobindus, and meeting with the advance-guard of Kobad, whichconsisted of eight hundred Ephthalites, had destroyed it almost to aman. 

Ignorant, however, of the near presence of the main Persian army, thisbody of troops allowed itself soon afterwards to be surprised on thebanks of a stream, while some of the men were bathing and others weretaking their breakfast, and was completely cut to pieces by Kobad, scarcely any but the generals escaping. 

Thus far success had been wholly on the side of the Persians; and ifcircumstances had permitted Kobad to remain at the seat of war andcontinue to direct the operations of his troops in person, there isevery to reason to believe that he would have gained still greateradvantages. The Roman generals were incompetent; they were at varianceamong themselves; and they were unable to control the troops under theircommand. The soldiers were insubordinate, without confidence in theirofficers, and inclined to grumble at such an unwonted hardship as acampaign prolonged into the winter. Thus all the conditions of the warwere in favor of Persia. But unfortunately for Kobad, it happened that, at the moment when his prospects were the fairest, a danger in anotherquarter demanded his presence, and required him to leave the conductof the Roman war to others. An Ephthalite invasion called him to thedefence of his north-eastern frontier before the year A. D. 503 was over, and from this time the operations in Mesopotamia were directed, not bythe king in person, but by his generals. A change is at once apparent. In A. D. 504 Celer invaded Arzanene, destroyed a number of forts, and ravaged the whole province with fire and sword. Thence marchingsouthward, he threated Nisibis, which is said, to have been within alittle of yielding itself. Towards winter Patricius and Hypatius tookheart, and, collecting an army, commenced the siege of Amida, which theyattempted to storm on several occasions, but without success. After awhile they turned the siege into a blockade, entrapped the commander ofthe, Persian garrison, Glones, by a stratagem, and reduced the defendersof the place to such distress that it would have been impossible to holdput much longer. It seems to have been when matters were at thispoint that an ambassador of high rank arrived from Kobad, empowered toconclude a peace, and instructed to declare his master's willingnessto surrender all his conquests, including Amida, on the payment ofa considerable sum of money. The Roman generals, regarding Amida asimpregnable, and not aware of the exhaustion of its stores, gladlyconsented. They handed over to the Persians a thousand pounds' weight ofgold, and received in exchange the captured city and territory. A treatywas signed by which the contracting powers undertook to remain at peaceand respect each other's dominions for the space of seven years. Nodefinite arrangement seems to have been made with respect to the yearlypayment on account of the fortress, Birapa-rach, the demand for whichhad occasioned the war. This claim remained in abeyance, to be pressedor neglected, as Persia might consider her interests to require. 

The Ephthalite war, which compelled Kobad to make peace with Anastasius, appears to have occupied him uninterruptedly for ten years. During itscontinuance Rome took advantage of her rival's difficulties to continuethe system (introduced under the younger Theodosius) of augmentingher own power, and crippling that of Persia, by establishing stronglyfortified posts upon her border in the immediate vicinity of Persianterritory. Not content with restoring Theodosiopolis and greatlystrengthening it defences, Anastasius erected an entirely new fortressat Daras, on the southern skirts of the Mons Masius, within twelve milesof Nisibis, at the edge of the great Mesopotamian plain. This place wasnot a mere fort, but a city; it contained churches, baths, porticoes, large granaries, and extensive cisterns. It constituted a standingmenace to Persia; and its erection was in direct violation of the treatymade by Theodosius with Isdigerd II. , which was regarded as still inforce by both nations. 

We cannot be surprised that Kobad, when his Ephthalite war was over, made formal complaint at Constantinople (ab. A. D. 517); of the infractionof the treaty. Anastasius was unable to deny the charge. He endeavoredat first to meet it by a mixture of bluster with professions offriendship; but when this method did not appear effectual he hadrecourse to an argument whereof the Persians on most occasionsacknowledged the force. By the expenditure of a large sum of money heeither corrupted the ambassadors of Kobad, or made them honestly doubtwhether the sum paid would not satisfy their master. 

In A. D. 518 Anastasius died, and the imperial authority was assumed bythe Captain of the Guard, the "Dacian peasant, " Justin. With him Kobadvery shortly entered jinto negotiations. He had not, it is clear, accepted the pecuniary sacrifice of Anastasius as a completesatisfaction. He felt that he had many grounds of quarrel with theRomans, There was the old matter of the annual payment due on accountof the fortress of Biraparach; there was the recent strengtheningof Theodosiopolis, and building of Daras; there was moreover aninterference of Rome at this time in the region about the Caucasus whichwas very galling to Persia and was naturally resented by her monarch. One of the first proceedings of Justin after he ascended the thronewas to send an embassy with rich gifts to the court of a certain Hunnicchief of these parts, called Ziligdes or Zilgibis, and to conclude atreaty with him by which the Hun bound himself to assist the Romansagainst the Persians. Soon afterwards a Lazic prince, named Tzath, whosecountry was a Persian dependency, instead of seeking inaugurationfrom Kobad, proceeded on the death of his father to the court ofConstantinople, and expressed his wish to become a Christian, and tohold his crown as one of Rome's vassal monarchs. Justin gave this persona warm welcome, had him baptized, married him to a Roman lady ofrank, and sent him back to Lazica adorned with a diadem and robes thatsufficiently indicated his dependent position. The friendly relationsestablished between Rome and Persia by the treaty of A. D. 505 were, under these circumstances, greatly disturbed, and on both sides it wouldseem that war was expected to break out. But neither Justin nor Kobadwas desirous of a rupture. Both were advanced in years, and both haddomestic troubles to occupy them. Kobad was at this time especiallyanxious about the succession. He had four sons, Kaoses, Zames, Phthasuarsas, and Chosroes, of whom Kaoses was the eldest. This prince, however, did not please him. His affections were fixed on his fourthson, Chosroes, and he had no object more at heart than to secure thecrown for this favorite child. The Roman writers tell us that insteadof resenting the proceedings of Justin in the years A. D. 520-522, Kobadmade the strange proposal to him about this time that he should adoptChosroes, in order that that prince might have the aid of the Romansagainst his countrymen, if his right of succession should be disputed. It is, no doubt, difficult to believe that such a proposition shouldhave been made; but the circumstantial manner in which Procopius, writing not forty years after, relates the matter, renders it almostimpossible for us to reject the story as a pure fabrication. There musthave been some foundation for it. In the negotiations between Justin andKobad during the early years of the former, the idea of Rome pledgingherself to acknowledge Chosroes as his father's successor must have beenbrought forward. The proposal, whatever its exact terms, led however tono result. Rome declined to do as Kobad desired; and thus another groundof estrangement was added to those which had previously made the renewalof the Roman war a mere question of time. 

It is probable that the rupture would have occurred earlier than it didhad not Persia about the year A. D. 523 become once more the scene ofreligious discord and conspiracy. The followers of Mazdak had beenhitherto protected by Kobad, and had lived in peace and multipliedthroughout all the provinces of the empire. Content with the tolerationwhich they enjoyed, they had for above twenty years created nodisturbance, and their name had almost disappeared from the records ofhistory. But as time went on they began to feel that their position wasinsecure. Their happiness, their very safety, depended upon a singlelife; and as Kobad advanced in years they grew to dread more and morethe prospect which his death would open. Among his sons there was butone who had embraced their doctrine; and this prince, Phthasuarsas, hadbut little chance of being chosen to be his father's successor. Kaosesenjoyed the claim of natural right; Chosroes was his father's favorite;Zames had the respect and good wishes of the great mass of the people;Phthasuarsas was disliked by the Magi, and, if the choice lay with them, was certain to be passed over. The sectaries therefore determined notto wait the natural course of events, but to shape them to their ownpurposes. They promised Phthasuarsas to obtain by their prayers hisfather's abdication and his own appointment to succeed him, and askedhim to pledge himself to establish their religion as that of the Statewhen he became king. The prince consented; and the Mazdakites proceededto arrange their plans, when, unfortunately for them, Kobad discovered, or suspected, that a scheme was on foot to deprive him of his crown. Whether the designs of the sectaries were really treasonable or not isuncertain; but whatever they were, an Oriental monarch was not likely toview them with favor. In the East it is an offence even to speculate onthe death of the king; and Kobad saw in the intrigue which had been seton foot a criminal and dangerous conspiracy. He determined at once tocrush the movement. Inviting the Mazdakites to a solemn assembly, atwhich he was to confer the royal dignity on Phthasuarsas, he caused hisarmy to surround the unarmed multitude and massacre the entire number. 

Relieved from this peril, Kobad would at once have declared war againstJustin, and have marched an army into Roman territory, had not troublesbroken out in Iberia, which made it necessary for him to stand on thedefensive. Adopting the intolerant policy so frequently pursued, and generally with such ill results, by the Persian kings, Kobad hadcommanded Gurgenes, the Iberian monarch, to renounce Christianity andprofess the Zoroastrian religion. Especially he had required that theIberian custom of burying the dead should be relinquished, and that thePersian practice of exposing corpses to be devoured by dogs and birds ofprey should supersede the Christian rite of sepulture. Gurgenes wastoo deeply attached to his faith to entertain these propositions for amoment. He at once shook off the Persian yoke, and, declaring himselfa vassal of Rome, obtained a promise from Justin that he would neverdesert the Iberian cause. Rome, however, was not prepared to send herown armies into this distant and inhospitable region; her hope wasto obtain aid from the Tatars of the Crimea, and to play off thesebarbarians against the forces wherewith Kobad might be expected shortlyto vindicate his authority. An attempt to engage the Crimeans generallyin this service was made, but it was not successful. A small force wasenrolled and sent to the assistance of Gurgenes. But now the Persianstook the field in strength. A large army was sent into Iberia by Kobad, under a general named Boes. Gurgenes saw resistance to be impossible. He therefore fled the country, and threw himself into Lazica, wherethe difficult nature of the ground, the favor of the natives, andthe assistance of the Romans enabled him to maintain himself. Iberia, however, was lost, and passed once more under the Persians, who evenpenetrated into Lazic territory and occupied some forts which commandedthe passes between Lazica and Iberia. 

Rome, on her part, endeavored to retaliate (A. D. 526) by invadingPersarmenia and Mesopotamia. The campaign is remarkable as that inwhich the greatest general of the age, the renowned and unfortunateBelisarius, first held a command and thus commenced the work oflearning by experience the duties of a military leader. Hitherto a mereguardsman, and still quite a youth, trammelled moreover by associationwith a colleague, he did not on this occasion reap any laurels. A Persian force under two generals, Narses and Aratius, defendedPersarmenia, and, engaging the Romans under Sittas and Belisarius, succeeded in defeating them. At the same time, Licelarius, a Thracian inthe Roman service, made an incursion into the tract about Nisibis, grew alarmed without cause and beat a speedy retreat. Hereupon Justinrecalled him as incompetent, and the further conduct of the war inMesopotamia was entrusted to Belisarius, who took up his headquarters atDaras. 

The year A. D. 527 seems to have been one in which nothing of importancewas attempted on either side. At Constantinople the Emperor Justin hadfallen into ill health, and, after associating his nephew Justinian onthe 1st of April, had departed this life on the 1st of August. About thesame time Kobad found his strength insufficient for active warfare, andput the command of his armies into the hands of his sons. The strugglecontinued in Lazica, but with no decisive result. At Daras, Belisarius, apparently, stood on the defensive. It was not till A. D. 528 had set inthat he resumed operations in the open field, and prepared once more tomeasure his strength against that of Persia. 

Belisarius was stirred from his repose by an order from court. Desirousof carrying further the policy of gaining ground by means of fortifiedposts, Justinian, who had recently restored and strengthened thefrontier city of Martyropolis, on the Nymphius, sent instructions toBelisarius, early in A. D. 528, to the effect that he was to build a newfort at a place called Mindon, on the Persian border a little to theleft of Nisibis. The work was commenced, but the Persians would notallow it to proceed. An army which numbered 30, 000 men, commandedby Xerxes, son of Kobad, and Perozes, the Mihran, attacked the Romanworkmen; and when Belisarius, reinforced by fresh troops from Syria andPhoenicia, ventured an engagement, he was completely defeated and forcedto seek safety in flight. The attempted fortification was, upon this, razed to the ground; and the Mihran returned, with numerous prisoners ofimportance, into Persia. 

It is creditable to Justinian that he did not allow the ill-success ofhis lieutenant to lead to his recall or disgrace. On the contrary, hechose exactly the time of his greatest depression to give him the titleof "General of the East. " Belisarius upon this assembled at Daras animposing force, composed of Romans and allies, the latter being chieflyMassagetse. The entire number amounted to 25, 000 men; and with thisarmy he would probably have assumed the offensive, had not the Persiangeneral of the last campaign, Perozes the Mihran, again appeared inthe field, at the head of 40, 000 Persians and declared his intention ofbesieging and taking Daras. With the insolence of an Oriental he sent amessage to Belisarius, requiring him to have his bath prepared for themorrow, as after taking the town he would need that kind of refreshment. Belisarius contented himself, in reply, with drawing out his troops infront of Daras in a position carefully prepared beforehand, where bothhis centre and his flanks would be protected by a deep ditch, outsideof which there would be room to act for his cavalry. Perozes, havingreconnoitred the position, hesitated to attack it without a greateradvantage of numbers, and sent hastily to Nisibis for 10, 000 moresoldiers, while he allowed the day to pass without anything more seriousthan a demonstration of his calvary against the Roman left, and someinsignificant single combats. 

The next morning his reinforcement arrived; and after some exchange ofmessages with Belisarius, which led to no result, he commenced activeoperations. Placing his infantry in the centre, and his horse uponeither wing, as the Romans had likewise done, and arranging hisinfantry so that one half should from time to time relieve the other, he assaulted the Roman line with a storm of darts and arrows. The Romansreplied with their missile weapons; but the Persians had the advantageof numbers; they were protected by huge wattled shields; and they weremore accustomed to this style of warfare than their adversaries. Stillthe Romans held out; but it was a relief to them when the missileweapons were exhausted on both sides, and a closer fight began along thewhole line with swords and spears. After a while the Roman left was indifficulties. Here the Cadiseni (Cadusians?) under Pituazes routed theiropponents, and were pursuing them hastily when the Massagetic horse, commanded by Sunicas and Aigan, and three hundred Heruli under a chiefcalled Pharas, charged them on their right flank, and at once threw theminto disorder. Three thousand fell, and the rest were driven back upontheir main body, which, still continued to fight bravely. The Romans didnot push their advantage, but were satisfied to reoccupy the ground fromwhich they had been driven. 

Scarcely was the battle re-established in this quarter when the Romansfound themselves in still greater difficulties upon their right. Here Perozes had determined to deliver his main attack. The corps ofImmortals, which he had kept in reserve, and such troops as he couldspare from his centre, were secretly massed upon his own left, andcharged the Roman right with such fury that it was broken and began ahasty retreat. The Persians pursued in a long column, and were carryingall before them, when once more an impetuous flank charge of thebarbarian cavalry, which now formed an important element in the Romanarmies, changed the face of affairs, and indeed decided the fortune ofthe day. The Persian column was actually cut in two by the Massagetichorse; those who had advanced the furthest were completely separatedfrom their friends, and were at once surrounded and slain. Among themwas the standard-bearer of Baresmanes, who commanded the Persian left. The fall of this man increased the general confusion. In vain did thePersian column, checked in its advance, attempt an orderly retreat. TheRomans assaulted it in front and on both flanks, and a terrible carnageensued. The crowning disaster was the death of Baresmanes, who was slainby Sunicas, the Massa-Goth; whereupon the whole Persian army broke andfled without offering any further resistance. Here fell 5000, includingnumbers of the "Immortals. " The slaughter would have been still greater, had not Belisarius and his lieutenant, Termogenes, with wise cautionrestrained the Roman troops and recalled them quickly from the pursuitof the enemy, content with the success which they had achieved. It wasso long since a Roman army had defeated a Persian one in the open fieldthat the victory had an extraordinary value, and it would havebeen foolish to risk a reverse in the attempt to give it greatercompleteness. 

While these events took place in Mesopotamia, the Persian arms were alsounsuccessful in the Armenian highlands, whither Kobad had sent a secondarmy to act offensively against Rome, under the conduct of a certainMermeroes. The Roman commanders in this region were Sittas, the formercolleague of Belisarius, and Dorotheas, a general of experience. Theirtroops did not amount to more than half the number of the enemy, yetthey contrived to inflict on the Persians two defeats, one in their ownterritory, the other in Roman Armenia. The superiority thus exhibitedby the Romans encouraged desertions to their side; and in some instancesthe deserters were able to carry over with them to their new friendssmall portions of Persian territory. 

In the year A. D. 531, after a vain attempt at negotiating terms ofpeace with Rome, the Persians made an effort to recover their laurelsby carrying the war into a new quarter and effecting a new combination. Alamandarus, sheikh of the Saracenic Arabs, had long been a bitterenemy of the Romans, and from his safe retreat in the desert had beenaccustomed for fifty years to ravage, almost at his will, the easternprovinces of the empire. Two years previously he had carried fire andsword through the regions of upper Syria, had burned the suburbs ofChalcis, and threatened the Roman capital of the East, the rich andluxurious Antioch. He owed, it would seem, some sort of allegianceto Persia, although practically he was independent, and made hisexpeditions when and where he pleased. However, in A. D. 531, he puthimself at the disposal of Persia, proposed a joint expedition, andsuggested a new plan of campaign. "Mesopotamia and Osrhoene, " he said, "on which the Persians were accustomed to make their attacks, couldbetter resist them than almost any other part of the Roman territory, In these provinces were the strongest of the Roman cities, fortifiedaccording to the latest rules of art, and plentifully supplied withevery appliance of defensive warfare. There, too, were the best andbravest of the Roman troops, and an army more numerous than Rome hadever employed against Persia before. It would be most perilous to riskan encounter on this ground. Let Persia, however, invade the countrybeyond the Euphrates, and she would find but few obstacles. In thatregion there were no strong fortresses, nor was there any army worthmention. Antioch itself, the richest and most populous city of the RomanEast, was without a garrison, and, if it were suddenly assaulted, couldprobably be taken. The incursion might be made, Antioch sacked, andthe booty carried off into Persian territory before the Romans inMesopotamia received intelligence of what was happening. " Kobad listenedwith approval, and determined to adopt the bold course suggested to him. He levied a force of 15, 000 cavalry, and, placing it under the commandof a general named Azarethes, desired him to take Alamandarus for hisguide and make a joint expedition with him across the Euphrates. It wasunderstood that the great object of the expedition was the capture ofAntioch. 

The allied army crossed the Euphrates below Circesium, and ascended theright bank of the river till they neared the latitude of Antioch, whenthey struck westward and reached Gabbula (the modern Jabul), on thenorth shore of the salt lake now known as the Sabakhah. Here theylearned to their surprise that the movement, which they had intended tobe wholly unknown to the Romans, had come to the ears of Belisarius, who had at once quitted Daras, and proceeded by forced marches to thedefence of Syria, into which he had thrown himself with an army of20, 000 men, Romans, Isaurians, Lycaonians, and Arabs. His troops werealready interposed between the Persians and their longed-for prey, Belisarius having fixed his headquarters at Chalcis, half a degreeto the west of Gabbula, and twenty-five miles nearer to Antioch. Thusbalked of their purpose, and despairing of any greater success than theyhad already achieved, the allies became anxious to return to Persia withthe plunder of the Syrian towns and villages which they had sacked ontheir advance. Belisarius was quite content that they should carry offtheir spoil, and would have considered it a sufficient victory to havefrustrated the expedition without striking a blow. But his army wasotherwise minded; they were eager for battle, and hoped doubtless tostrip the flying foe of his rich booty. Belisarius was at last forced, against his better judgment, to indulge their desires and allow anengagement, which was fought on the banks of the Euphrates, nearlyopposite Callinicus. Here the conduct of the Roman troops in actioncorresponded but ill to the anxiety for a conflict. The infantry indeedstood firm, notwithstanding that they fought fasting; but the SaracenicArabs, of whom a portion were on the Roman side, and the Isaurian andLycaonian horse, who had been among the most eager for the fray, offeredscarcely any resistance; and, the right wing of the Romans being leftexposed by their flight, Belisarius was compelled to make his troopsturn their faces to the enemy and their backs to the Euphrates, and inthis position, where defeat would have been ruin, to meet and resistall the assaults of the foe until the shades of evening fell, and he wasable to transport his troops in boats across the river. The honors ofvictory rested with the Persians, but they had gained no substantialadvantage; and when Azarethes returned to his master he was not unjustlyreproached with having sacrificed many lives for no appreciable result. The raid into Syria had failed of its chief object; and Belisarius, though defeated, had returned, with the main strength of his armyintact, into Mesopotamia. The battle of Callinicus was fought on EasterEve, April 19. 

Azarethes probably reached Ctesiphon and made his report to Kobadtowards the end of the month. Dissatisfied with what Azarethes hadachieved, and feeling that the season was not too far advanced fora second campaign, Kobad despatched an army under three chiefs, intoMesopotamia, where Sittas was now the principal commander on the Romanside, as Belisarius had been hastily summoned to Byzantium in order tobe employed against the "Vandals" in Africa. This force found no one toresist in the open field, and was therefore able to invade Sophene andlay siege to the Roman fortress of Martyropolis. Martyropolis was illprovisioned, and its walls were out of repair. The Persians must soonhave taken it, had not Sittas contrived to spread reports of a diversionwhich the Huns were about to make as Roman allies. Fear of being caughtbetween two fires paralyzed the Persian commanders; and before eventsundeceived them, news arrived in the camp that Kobad was dead, andthat a new prince sat upon the throne. Under these circumstances, Chanaranges, the chief of the Persian commanders, yielded torepresentations made by Sittas, that peace would now probably be madebetween the contending powers, and withdrew his army into Persianterritory. 

Kobad had, in fact, been seized with paralysis on the 8th of September, and after an illness which lasted only five days, had expired. Beforedying, he had communicated to his chief minister, Mebodes, his earnestdesire that Chosroes should succeed him upon the throne, and, actingunder the advice of Mebodes, had formally left the crown to him by awill duly executed. He is said by a contemporary to have been eighty-twoyears old at his death, an age very seldom attained by an Orientalmonarch. His long life was more than usually eventful, and he cannot bedenied the praise of activity, perseverance, fertility of resource, andgeneral military capacity. But he was cruel and fickle; he disgraced hisministers and his generals on insufficient grounds; he allowed himself, from considerations of policy, to smother his religious convictions; andhe risked subjecting Persia to the horrors of a civil war, in order togratify a favoritism which, however justified by the event, seems tohave rested on no worthy motive. Chosroes was preferred on accountof his beauty, and because he was the son of Kobad's best-loved wife, rather than for any good qualities; and inherited the kingdom, not somuch because he had shown any capacity to govern as because he was hisfather's darling. 

The coins of Kobad are, as might be expected from the length of hisreign, very numerous. In their general appearance they resemble those ofZamasp, but do not exhibit quite so many stars and crescents. The legendon the obverse is either "Kavdt" or "Kavdt" afzui, i. E. "Kobad, " or"May Kobad be increased. " The reverse shows the regnal year, whichranges from eleven to forty-three, together with a mint-mark. Themint-marks, which are nearly forty in number, comprise almost all thoseof Perozes, together with about thirteen others. [PLATE XXII. Fig. 2. ]

CHAPTER XX. 

_Accession of Chosroes I. (Anushirwari). Conspiracy to dethrone himcrushed. General Severity of his Government. He concludes Peace withRome, A. D. 533. Terms of the Peace. Causes Which led to its Rupture. First Roman War of Chosroes, A. D. 540-544. Second Roman War, A. D. 549-557. Eastern Wars. Conquest of Arabia Felix. Supposed Campaign inIndia. War with the Turks. Revolt of Persarmenia. Third Roman War, A. D. 572-579. Death of Chosroes. _

The accession of Chosroes was not altogether undisputed, Kaoses, theeldest of the sons of Kobad, regarding himself as entitled to the crownby right of birth, assumed the insignia of royalty on the death of hisfather, and claimed to be acknowledged as monarch. But Mebodes, theGrand Vizier, interposed with the assertion of a constitutional axiom, that no one had the right of taking the Persian crown until it wasassigned to him by the assembly of the nobles. Kaoses, who thought hemight count on the goodwill of the nobles, acquiesced; and the assemblybeing convened, his claims were submitted to it. Hereupon Mebodesbrought forward the formal testament of Kobad, which he had hithertoconcealed, and, submitting it to the nobles, exhorted them to accept asking the brave prince designated by a brave and successful father. Hiseloquence and authority prevailed; the claims of Kaoses and of at leastone other son of Kobad were set aside; and, in accordance with hisfather's will, Chosroes was proclaimed lawful monarch of Persia. 

But a party among the nobles were dissatisfied with the decision towhich the majority had come. They dreaded the restlessness, and probablyfeared the cruelty, of Chosroes. It might have been expected that theywould have espoused the cause of the disappointed Kaoses, which hada solid basis of legality to rest upon; but, apparently, the personalcharacter of Kaoses was unsatisfactory, or at any rate, there wasanother prince whose qualities conciliated more regard and aroused moreenthusiasm. Zanies, the second son of Kobad, had distinguished himselfrepeatedly in the field, and was the idol of a considerable sectionof the nation, who had long desired that he should govern them. Unfortunately, however, he possessed a disqualification fatal in theeyes of Orientals; he had, by disease or mischance, lost one of hiseyes, and this physical blemish made it impossible that he should occupythe Persian throne. Under these circumstances an ingenious plan was hitupon. In order to combine respect for law and usage with the practicaladvantage of being governed by the man of their choice, the discontentednobles conceived the idea of conferring the crown on a son of Zames, a boy named after his grandfather Kobad, on whose behalf Zames wouldnaturally be regent. Zames readily came into the plot; several of hisbrothers, and, what is most strange, Chosroes' maternal uncle, theAspebed, supported him; the conspiracy seemed nearly sure of success, when by some accident it was discovered, and the occupant of the thronetook prompt and effectual measures to crush it. Zames, Kaoses, and allthe other sons of Kobad were seized by order of Chosroes, and, togetherwith their entire male offspring, were condemned to death. The Aspebed, and the other nobles found to have been accessory to the conspiracy, were, at the same time, executed. One prince alone, the intendedpuppet-king, Kobad, escaped, through the compassion of the Persian whohad charge of him, and, after passing many years in concealment, becamea refugee at the Court of Constantinople, where he was kindly treated byJustinian. 

When Chosroes had by these means secured himself against the claimsof pretenders, he proceeded to employ equal severity in repressing thedisorders, punishing the crimes, and compelling the abject submissionof his subjects. The heresiarch Mazdak, who had escaped the persecutioninstituted in his later years by Kobad, and the sect of the Mazdakites, which, despite that persecution, was still strong and vigorous, werethe first to experience the oppressive weight of his resentment; and thecorpses of a hundred thousand martyrs blackening upon gibbets provedthe determination of the new monarch to make his will law, whateverthe consequences. In a similar spirit the hesitation of Mebodes to obeyinstantaneously an order sent him by the king was punished capitally, and with circumstances of peculiar harshness, by the stern prince, whodid not allow gratitude for old benefits to affect the judgments whichhe passed on recent offences. Nor did signal services in the field availto save Chanaranges, the nobleman who preserved the young Kobad, fromhis master's vengeance. The conqueror of twelve nations, betrayed by anunworthy son, was treacherously entrapped and put to death on account ofa single humane act which had in no way harmed or endangered the jealousmonarch. 

The fame of Chosroes rests especially on his military exploits andsuccesses. On first ascending the throne he seems, however, to havedistrusted his capacity for war; and it was with much readiness that heaccepted the overtures for peace made by Justinian, who was anxiousto bring the Eastern war to a close, in order that he might employ thetalents of Belisarius in the reduction of Africa and Italy. A trucewas made between Persia and Rome early in A. D. 532; and the truce wasfollowed after a short interval by a treaty--known as "the endlesspeace"--whereby Rome and Persia made up their differences and arrangedto be friends on the following conditions: (1) Rome was to pay overto Persia the sum of eleven thousand pounds of gold, or about half amillion of our money, as her contribution towards the maintenance of theCaucasian defences, the actual defence being undertaken by Persia; (2)Daras was to remain a fortified post, but was not to be made the Romanhead-quarters in Mesopotamia, which were to be fixed at Constantia;(3) the district of Pharangium and the castle of Bolon, which Rome hadrecently taken from Persia, were to be restored, and Persia on her partwas to surrender the forts which she had captured in Lazica; (4) Romeand Persia were to be eternal friends and allies, and were to aideach other whenever required with supplies of men and money. Thus wasterminated the thirty years' war, which, commencing in A. D. 502 by theattack of Kobad on Annastasius, was brought to a close in A. D. 532, andratified by Justinian in the year following. 

When Chosroes consented to substitute close relations of amity with Romefor the hereditary enmity which had been the normal policy of his house, he probably expected that no very striking or remarkable results wouldfollow. He supposed that the barbarian neighbors of the empire on thenorth and on the west would give her arms sufficient employment, andthat the balance of power in Eastern Europe and Western Asia wouldremain much as before. But in these expectations he was disappointed. Justinian no sooner found his eastern frontier secure than he directedthe whole force of the empire upon his enemies in the regions of thewest, and in the course of half a dozen years (A. D. 533-539), by theaid of his great general, Belisarius, he destroyed the kingdom of theVandals in the region about Carthage and Tunis, subdued the Moors, and brought to its last gasp the power of the Ostrogoths in Italy. Theterritorial extent of his kingdom was nearly doubled by these victories;his resources were vastly increased; the prestige of his arms wasenormously raised; veteran armies had been formed which despised danger, and only desired to be led against fresh enemies; and officers had beentrained capable of conducting operations of every kind, and confident, under all circumstances, of success. It must have been with feelingsof dissatisfaction and alarm not easily to be dissembled that the GreatKing heard of his brother's long series of victories and conquests, eachstep in which constituted a fresh danger to Persia by aggrandizing thepower whom she had chiefly to fear. At first his annoyance found a ventin insolent demands for a share of the Roman spoils, which Justinianthought it prudent to humor but, as time went on, and the tide ofvictory flowed more and more strongly in one direction, he becameless and less able to contain himself, and more and more determined torenounce his treaty with Rome and renew the old struggle for supremacy. His own inclination, a sufficiently strong motive in itself, wasseconded and intensified by applications made to him from without on thepart of those who had especial reasons for dreading the advance of Rome, and for expecting to be among her next victims. Witiges, the Ostrogothking of Italy, and Bassaces, an Armenian chief, were the most importantof these applicants. Embassies from these opposite quarters reachedChosroes in the same year, A. D. 539, and urged him for his own securityto declare war against Justinian before it was too late. "Justinian, "the ambassadors said, "aimed at universal empire. His aspirations hadfor a while been kept in check by Persia, and by Persia alone, the solepower in the world that he feared. Since the 'endless peace' was made, he had felt himself free to give full vent to his ambitious greed, had commenced a course of aggression upon all the other conterminousnations, and had spread war and confusion on all sides. He had destroyedthe kingdom of the Vandals in Africa, conquered the Moors, deceived theGoths of Italy by professions of friendship, and then fallen upon themwith all his forces, violated the rights of Armenia and driven it torebellion, enslaved the Tzani and the Lazi, seized the Greek cityof Bosporus, and the 'Isle of Palms' on the shores of the Red Sea, solicited the alliance of barbarous Huns and Ethiopians, striven to sowdiscord between the Persian monarch and his vassals, and in every partof the world shown himself equally grasping and restless. What would bethe consequence if Persia continued to hold aloof? Simply that all theother nations would in turn be destroyed, and she would find herselfface to face with their destroyer, and would enjoy the poor satisfactionof being devoured last. But did she fear to be reproached with breakingthe treaty and forfeiting her pledged word? Rome had already broken itby her intrigues with the Huns, the Ethiopians, and the Saracens; andPersia would therefore be free from reproach if she treated the peaceas no longer existing. The treaty-breaker is not he who first draws thesword, but he who sets the example of seeking the other's hurt. Or didPersia fear the result of declaring war? Such fear was unreasonable, for Rome had neither troops, nor generals to oppose to a sudden Persianattack. Sittas was dead; Belisarius and the best of the Roman forceswere in Italy. If Justinian recalled Belisarius, it was not certain thathe would obey; and, in the worst case, it would be in favor of Persiathat the Goths of Italy, and the Armenians who for centuries had beensubjects of Rome, were now ready to make common cause with her. " Thusurged, the Persian king determined on openly declaring war and making anattack in force on the eastern provinces of the empire. 

The scene of contest in the wars between Rome and Persia had beenusually either Mesopotamia or Armenia. On rare occasions only had thetraditional policy been departed from, and attempts made to penetrateinto the richer parts of the Roman East, and to inflict serious injuryon the empire by carrying fire and sword into peaceful and settledprovinces. Kobad, however, had in his later years ventured to introducea new system, and had sent troops across the Euphrates into Syria inthe hope of ravaging that fertile region and capturing its wealthymetropolis, Antioch. This example Chosroes now determined to follow. Crossing the great stream in the lower portion of its course, he led histroops up its right bank, past Circesium, Zenobia, and Callinicus, toSuron, a Roman town on the west side of the river. As this small placeventured to resist him, Chosroes, bent upon terrifying the other townsinto submission, resolved to take a signal revenge. Though the garrison, after losing their commandant, made overtures for a surrender, heinsisted on entering forcibly at one of the gates, and then, upon thestrength of this violent entrance, proceeded to treat the city as onetaken by storm, pillaged the houses, massacred a large portion of theinhabitants, enslaved the others, and in conclusion set the place onfire and burned it to the ground. It was perhaps in a fit of remorse, though possibly only under the influence of greed, that shortlyafterwards he allowed the neighboring bishop of Sergiopolis to ransomthese unfortunate captives, twelve thousand, in number, for the modestsum of two hundred pounds of gold. 

From Suron the invading army advanced to Hierapolis, withoutencountering the enemy, who did not dare to make any resistance in theopen field, but sought the protection of walls and strongholds. Thedefences of Hierapolis were in tolerable order; its garrison was fairlystrong; and the Great King therefore prudently resolved to allow thecitizens to ransom themselves and their city at a moderate price. Twothousand pounds of silver was the amount fixed upon; and this sum waspaid without any complaint by the Hierapolites. Plunder, not conquest, was already distinctly set before the invader's mind as his aim; andit is said that he even offered at this period to evacuate the Romanterritory altogether upon receiving a thousand pounds of gold. Butthe Romans were not yet brought so low as to purchase a peace; it wasthought that Antioch and the other important towns might successfullydefy the Persian arms, and hoped that Justinian would soon send intothe field an army strong enough to cope with that of his adversary. Theterms, therefore, which Chosroes offered by the mouth of Megas, bishopof Berhcea, were rejected; the Antiochenes were exhorted to remain firm;Ephraim, the bishop, was denounced to the authorities for counsellingsubmission; and it was determined to make no pacific arrangement, but toallow Chosroes to do his worst. The Persian, on his side, was not slackor remiss. No sooner had he received the ransom of Hierapolis thanhe advanced upon Berhoea (now Aleppo), which he reached in four days. Observing that the defences were weak, he here demanded twice the ransomthat he had accepted from the Hierapolites, and was only induced toforego the claim by the tears and entreaties of the good bishop, whoconvinced him at length that the Berhoeans could not pay so large a sum, and induced him to accept the half of it. A few more days' march broughthim from Aleppo to the outskirts of Antioch; and after an interval ofnearly three centuries the "Queen of the East, " the richest and mostmagnificent of Oriental cities, was once more invested by Persian troopsand threatened by a Sassanian monarch. 

A great calamity had fallen upon Antioch only fourteen years previously. The entire town had been ruined by a succession of terrible earthquakes, which commenced in October, A. D. 525, and terminated in August of theensuing year. All for a time was havoc and disorder. A landslip hadcovered a portion of the city, and in the remainder almost every housewas overthrown. But the liberality of Justinian, the spirit of theinhabitants, and the efforts of the governor, had effaced thesedisasters; and the city, when the Persians appeared before it, was inmost respects grander and more magnificent than ever. The defences were, however, it would seem, imperfect. The citadel especially, which wason the high ground south of the city, had been constructed with smallattention to the rules of engineering art, and was dominated by a heightat a little distance, which ought to have been included within thewalls. Nor was this deficiency compensated by any strength in thegarrison, or any weight of authority or talent among those with whomrested the command. Justinian had originally sent his nephew, Germanus, to conduct the defence of the Syrian capital, while Buzes, an officerwho had gained some repute in the Armenian war, was entrusted withthe general protection of the East until Belisarius should arrive fromItaly; but Germanus, after a brief stay, withdrew from Antioch intoCilicia, and Buzes disappeared without any one knowing whither he hadbetaken himself. Antioch was left almost without a garrison; and hadnot Theoctistus and Molatzes, two officers who commanded in theLebanon, come to the rescue and brought with them a body of six thousanddisciplined troops, it is scarcely possible that any resistance shouldhave been made. As it was, the resistance was brief and ineffectual. Chosroes at once discerned the weak point in the defences, and, havinggiven a general order to the less trusty of his troops to make attacksupon the lower town in various places, himself with the flower ofthe army undertook the assault upon the citadel. Here the commandingposition so unaccountably left outside the walls enabled the Persians toengage the defenders almost on a level, and their superior skill in theuse of missile weapons soon brought the garrison into difficulties. Theassailants, however, might perhaps still have been repulsed, had notan unlucky accident supervened, which, creating a panic, put it in thepower of the Persians by a bold movement to enter the place. The Romans, cramped for room upon the walls, had extemporized some wooden stagesbetween the towers, which they hung outside by means of ropes. Ithappened that, in the crush and tumult, one of these stages gave way;the ropes broke, and the beams fell with a crash to the earth, carryingwith them a number of the defenders. The noise made by the fall wasgreat, and produced a general impression that the wall itself had beenbroken down; the towers and battlements were at once deserted; theRoman soldiers rushed to the gates and began to quit the town; while thePersians took advantage of the panic to advance their scaling ladders, to mount the walls, and to make themselves masters of the citadel. ThusAntioch was taken. The prudence of Chosroes was shown in his quietlyallowing the armed force to withdraw; his resolve to trample down allresistance appeared in his slaughter of the Antiochone youth, who witha noble recklessness continued the conflict after the soldiers had fled;his wish to inspire terror far and wide made him deliver the entirecity, with few exceptions, to the flames; while his avarice caused himto plunder the churches, and to claim as his own the works of art, themarbles, bronzes, tablets, and pictures, with which the Queen ofthe Roman East was at this time abundantly provided. But, while thusgratifying his most powerful passions, he did not lose sight of theopportunity to conclude an advantageous peace. Justinian's ambassadorshad long been pressing him to come to terms with their master. He nowconsented to declare the conditions on which he was ready to make peaceand withdraw his army. Rome must pay him, as an indemnity for the costof the war, the sum of five thousand pounds of gold, and must alsocontract to make a further payment of five hundred pounds of goldannually, not as a tribute, but as a fair contribution towards theexpense of maintaining the Caspian Gates and keeping out the Huns. Ifhostages were given him, he would consent to abstain from further actsof hostility while Justinian was consulted on these proposals, and wouldeven begin at once to withdraw his army. The ambassadors readily agreedto these terms, and it was understood that a truce would be observeduntil Justinian's answer should be delivered to Chosroes. 

But the Great King, in thus formulating the terms on which he would becontent to make peace, did not intend to tie his own hands, or to allowthe Syrian cities before which he had not yet appeared to be quit ofhim without the payment of ransom. After visiting Seleucia, the port ofAntioch at the mouth of the Orontes, bathing in the blue waters of theMediterranean, and offering sacrifice to the (setting?) sun upon theshore, he announced his intention of proceeding to Apameia, a cityon the middle Orontes, which was celebrated for its wealth, andparticularly for its possession of a fragment of the "true cross, "enshrined in a case which the pious zeal of the faithful had enrichedwith gold and jewels of extraordinary value. Received peacefully intothe city by the submissive inhabitants, instead of fixing their ransomat a definite sum, he demanded and obtained all the valuables of thesacred treasury, including the precious relic which the Apamaeansregarded as the most important of their possessions. As, however, it wasthe case, and not its contents, that he coveted, while he carried offthe former, he readily restored the latter to the prayers of the bishopand inhabitants. 

From Apameia Chosroes returned to Antioch, and after witnessing thegames of the amphitheatre and securing victory to the green championbecause Justinian preferred the blue, he set out at last on his returnto Persia, taking care to visit, upon his way to the Euphrates, the cityof Chalcis, the only important place in Northern Syria that had hithertoescaped him. The Chalcidians were required not only to ransom themselvesby a sum of money, but to give up to Chosroes the Roman soldiers whogarrisoned their town. By a perjury that may well be forgiven them, they avoided the more important concession, but they had to satisfy theavarice of the conqueror by the payment of two hundred pounds of gold. The Persian host then continued its march, and reaching the Euphrates atObbane, in the neighborhood of Barbalissus, crossed by a bridge of boatsin three days. The object of Chosroes in thus changing his return lineof march was to continue in Roman Mesopotamia the course which he hadadopted in Syria since the conclusion of the truce--i. E. To increase hisspoil by making each important city ransom itself. Edessa, Constantina, and Daras were successively visited, and purchased their safety by acontribution. According to Procopius, the proceedings before Daras wereexceptional. Although Chosroes, before he quitted Edossa, had received acommunication from Justinian accepting the terms arranged with the Romanenvoys at Antioch, yet, when he reached Daras, he at once resolved uponits siege. The city was defended by two walls, an outer one of moderatestrength, and an inner one sixty feet high, with towers at intervals, whose height was a hundred feet. Chosroes, having invested the place, endeavored to penetrate within the defences by means of a mine; but, hisdesign having been betrayed, the Romans met him with a countermine, andcompletely foiled his enterprise. Unwilling to spend any more time onthe siege, the Persian monarch upon this desisted from his attempt, andaccepted the contribution of a thousand pounds of silver as a sufficientredemption for the great fortress. 

Such is the account of the matter given to us by Procopius, who is ouronly extant authority for the details of this war. But the account isviolently improbable. It represents Chosroes as openly flying in theface of a treaty the moment that he had concluded it, and as departingin a single instance from the general tenor of his proceedings in allother cases. In view of the great improbability of such a course ofaction, it is perhaps allowable to suppose that Procopius has been foronce carried away by partisanship, and that the real difference betweenthe case of Daras and the other towns consisted in this, that Darasalone refused to pay its ransom, and Chosroes had, in consequence, toresort to hostilities in order to enforce it. 

Still, no doubt, the whole conduct of Chosroes in enforcing ransomsfrom the towns after the conclusion of the truce was open to seriousquestion, and Justinian was quite justified in treating his proceedingsas a violation of his recent engagements. It is not unlikely that, evenwithout any such excuse, he would shortly have renewed the struggle, since the return of Belisarius in triumph from the Italian war hadplaced at his service for employment in the East a general from whoseabilities much was naturally expected. As it was, Justinian was able, onreceiving intelligence of the fines levied on Apameia, Chalcis, Edessa, Constantina, and Daras, and of the hostile acts committed against thelast-named place, with great show of reason and justice, to renounce therecently concluded peace, and to throw on the ill faith of Chosroes theblame of the rupture. 

The Persian prince seems to have paid but little heed to thedenunciation. He passed the winter in building and beautifying a PersianAntioch in the neighborhood of Ctesiphon, assigning it as a residenceto his Syrian captives, for whose use he constructed public baths anda spacious hippodrome, where the entertainments familiar to them fromtheir youth were reproduced by Syrian artists. The new city wasexempt from the jurisdiction of Persian satraps, and was made directlydependent upon the king, who supplied it with corn gratuitously, andallowed it to become an inviolable asylum for all such Greek slaves asshould take shelter in it, and be acknowledged as their kinsmen by anyof the inhabitants. A model of Greek civilization was thus brought intoclose contact with the Persian court, which could amuse itself with thecontrasts, if it did not learn much from the comparison, of European andAsiatic manners and modes of thought. 

The campaign of A. D. 540 was followed by one of a very differentcharacter in A. D. 541. An unexpected offer suddenly made to the Persianking drew him from his capital, together with the bulk of his troops, toone of the remotest portions of the Persian territory, and allowed theRomans, instead of standing on their defence, to assume an aggressivein Mesopotamia, and even to retaliate the invasion which the year beforeChosroes had conducted into the heart of their empire. The hostileoperations of A. D. 541 had thus two distinct and far-distant scenes; inthe one set the Persians, in the other the Romans, took the offensive;the two wars, for such they in reality were, scarcely affected oneanother; and it will therefore be convenient to keep the accounts ofthem distinct and separate. To commence with. 

I. The LAZIO WAR. --Lazica had been a dependency of Rome from the timewhen Tzath, upon his conversion to Christianity, professed himself thevassal of Justin, and received the insignia of royalty from his newpatron (A. D. 522). The terms of the connection had been at the firsthonorable to the weaker nation, which paid no tribute, admitted noRoman garrison, and was troubled by no Roman governor. As time wenton, however, the Romans gradually encroached upon the rights of theirdependants; they seized and fortified a strong post, called Petra, uponthe coast, appointed a commandant who claimed an authority as greatas that of the Lazic king, and established a commercial monopoly whichpressed with great severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi. Underthese circumstances the nation determined on revolt; and in the winterof A. D. 540-1 Lazic ambassadors visited the court of Persia, exposed thegrievances of their countrymen, and besought Chosroes to accept theirsubmission, and extend to them the protection of his government. Theprovince was distant, and possessed few attractions; whatever thetales told of its ancient wealth, or glories, or trade, in the time ofChosroes it was poor and unproductive, dependent on its neighbors forsome of the necessaries and all the conveniences of life, and capableof exporting nothing but timber, slaves, and skins. It might have beenexpected, under such circumstances, that the burden of the protectoratewould have been refused; but there was an advantage, apparent or real, in the position of the country, discovered by the sagacity of Chosroesor suggested to him by the interested zeal of the envoys, which made itspossession seem to the Persian king a matter of the highest importance, and induced him to accept the offer made him without a moment's delay. Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea, which the Persian dominions did not as yettouch. Once in possesion of this tract, Chosroes conceived that he mightlaunch a fleet upon the Euxine, command its commerce, threaten or ravageits shores, and even sail against Constantinople and besiege the Romanemperor in his capital. The Persian king therefore acceded to therequest of the envoys, and, pretending to be called into Iberia by athreatened invasion of the Huns, led a large army to the Lazic border, was conducted into the heart of the country by the envoys, received thesubmission of Gubazes, the king, and then, pressing on to the coast, formed the siege of Petra, where the Roman forces were collected. Petraoffered a stout resistance, and repulsed more than one Persian assault;but it was impossible for the small garrison to cope with the numbers, the engineering skill, and the ardor of the assailants. After the lossof their commandant, Johannes, and the fall of one of the principaltowers, the soldiers capitulated; Petra was made over to the Persians, who restored and strengthened its defences, and Lazica became for thetime a Persian province. 

II. The War in Mesopotamia. --Belisarius, on reaching the easternfrontier, fixed his head-quarters at Daras, and, finding that thePersians had no intention of invading Syria or Roman Mesopotamia, resolved to lead his troops into the enemy's territory. As his forceswere weak in numbers, ill-armed, and ill-supplied, he could scarcelyhope to accomplish any great enterprise; but it was important to recoverthe Roman prestige after the occurrences of the preceding year, and toshow that Rome was willing to encounter in the open field any force thatthe Persians could bring against her. He therefore crossed the frontierand advanced in the direction of Nisibis, less with the intention ofattacking the town than of distinctly offering battle to the troopscollected within it. His scheme succeeded; a small force, which he threwout in advance, drew the enemy from the walls; and their pursuit ofthis detachment brought them into contact with the main army ofBelisarius, which repulsed them and sent them flying into the town. Having thus established his superiority in the field, the Roman general, though he could not attack Nisibis with any prospect of success, wasable to adopt other offensive measures. He advanced in person a day'smarch beyond Nisibis, and captured the fort of Sisauranon. Eight hundredPersian cavalry of the first class were made prisoners, and sent byBelisarius to Byzantium, where they were despatched by Justinian toItaly, where they served against the Goths. Arethas, the chief of theSaracens who fought on the side of Rome, was sent still further inadvance. The orders given him were to cross the Tigris into Assyria, andbegin to ravage it, but to return within a short time to the camp, andbring a report of the strength of the Persians beyond the river. If thereport was favorable, Belisarius intended to quit Mesopotamia, and takethe whole Roman force with him into Assyria. His plans, however, were frustrated by the selfish Arab, who, wishing to obtain the wholeAssyrian spoil for himself, dismissed his Roman troops, proceeded toplunder the rich province on his own account, and sent Belisarius nointelligence of what he was so doing. After waiting at Sisauranontill the heats of summer had decimated his army, the Roman generalwas compelled to retreat by the discontent of the soldiery and therepresentations of his principal officers. He withdrew his forces withinthe Roman frontier without molestation from the enemy, and was shortlyafterwards summoned to Constantinople to confer on the state of affairswith, the emperor. 

The military operations of the next year (A. D. 542) were comparativelyunimportant. Chosroes collected a large army, and, repeating themovement of A. D. 540, made his appearance in Commagene early in theyear, intending to press forward through Syria into Palestine, andhoping to make himself master of the sacred treasures which he knew tobe accumulated in the Holy City of Jerusalem. He found the provincialcommanders, Buzes and Justus, despondent and unenterprising, declinedto meet him in the field, and content to remain shut up within the wallsof Hierapolis. Had these been his only opponents the campaign wouldprobably have proved a success; but, at the first news of his invasion, Justinian despatched Belisarius to the East, for the second time, and this able general, by his arts or by his reputation, succeededin arresting the steps of Chosroes and frustrating his expedition. Belisarius took up his head-quarters at Europus, on the Euphrates, alittle to the south of Zeugma, and, spreading his troops on bothbanks of the river, appeared both to protect the Roman province and tothreaten the return of the enemy. Chosroes having sent an emissary tothe Roman camp under the pretence of negotiating, but really to act thepart of a spy, was so impressed (if we may believe Procopius) by theaccounts which he received of the ability of the general and thewarlike qualities of his soldiers, that he gave up the idea of advancingfurther, and was content to retire through Roman Mesopotamia into hisown territories. He is said even to have made a convention that he wouldcommit no hostile act as he passed through the Roman province; but ifso, he did not keep the engagement. The city of Callinicus lay in hisway; its defences were undergoing repairs, and there was actually a gapin one place where the old wall had been pulled down and the new one hadnot yet been built. The Persian king could not resist the temptationof seizing this easy prey; he entered the undefended town, enslaved allwhom he found in it, and then razed the place to the ground. Such isthe account which the Byzantine historian gives of the third campaignof Chosroes against the Romans, and of the motive and manner of hisretreat. Without taxing him with falsehood, we may suspect that, for theglorification of his favorite hero, he has kept back a portion of thetruth. The retreat of Chosroes may be ascribed with much probability tothe advance of another danger, more formidable than Belisarius, whichexactly at this time made its appearance in the country whereto he washastening. It was in the summer of A. D. 542 that the plague broke out atPelusium, and spread from that centre rapidly into the rest of Egypt andalso into Palestine. Chosroes may well have hesitated to confront thisterrible foe. He did not ultimately escape it; but he might hope todo so, and it would clearly have been the height of imprudence to havecarried out his intention of invading Palestine when the plague wasknown to be raging there. 

The fourth year of the Roman war (A. D. 543) opened with a movement ofthe Persian troops toward the Armenian frontier, consequent upon thedesertion of the Persian cause by the Roman Armenians in the course ofthe winter. Chosroes in person once more led the attack, and proceededas far as Azerbijan; but, the pestilence breaking out in his army, hehastily retreated, after some futile attempts at negotiation with theRoman officers opposed to him. Belisarius had this year been sent toItaly, and the Roman army of the East, amounting to thirty thousandmen, was commanded by as many as fifteen generals, almost of equal rank, among whom there was little concert or agreement. Induced to takethe offensive by the retirement of the Persian king, these incapableofficers invaded Persarmenia with all their troops, and proceeded toplunder its rich plains and fertile valleys. Encountering suddenly andunexpectedly the Persian general Nabedes, who, with a small force, was strongly posted at a village called Anglon, they were compelled toengage at disadvantage; their troops, entangled in difficult ground, found themselves attacked in their rear by an ambush; Narses, thebravest of them, fell; and, a general panic seizing the entiremultitude, they fled in the extremest disorder, casting away theirarms, and pressing their horses till they sank and expired. The Persianspursued, but with caution, and the carnage was not so great as mighthave been expected; but vast numbers of the disarmed fugitives wereovertaken and made prisoners by the enemy; and the arms, animals, and camp equipment which fell into the hands of the Persians amplycompensated all previous losses, and left Persarmenia the richer for theinroad. 

The ravages of the pestilence having ceased, Chosroes, in the followingyear (A. D. 544), again marched westward in person, and laid siege to thecity of Edessa. It would seem that he had now resolved not to be contentwith plundering raids, but to attempt at any rate the permanent conquestof some portion of the Roman territory. Edessa and Daras were the twotowns on which the Roman possession of Western Mesopotamia at this timemainly depended. As the passing of Nisibis, in A. D. 363, from Roman intoPersian hands, had given to Persia a secure hold on the eastern portionof the country between the rivers, so the occupation of Edessa and Darascould it have been effected, would have carried with it dominion overthe more western regions. The Roman frontier would in this way have beenthrown back to the Euphrates. Chosroes must be understood as aiming atthis grand result in the siege which he so pertinaciously pressed, andwhich Edessa so gallantly resisted, during the summer of A. D. 544. Theelaborate account which Procopius gives of the siege may be due to asense of its importance. Chosroes tried, not force only, but every artknown to the engineering science of the period; he repeated his assaultsday after day; he allowed the defenders no repose; yet he was compelledat last to own himself baffled by the valor of the small Roman garrisonand the spirit of the native inhabitants, to burn his works, and toreturn home. The five hundred pounds of gold which he extorted at lastfrom Martinus, the commandant of the place, may have been a salve tohis wounded pride; but it was a poor set-off against the loss of men, ofstores, and of prestige, which he had incurred by his enterprise. 

It was, perhaps, his repulse from the walls of Edessa that inducedChosroes, in A. D. 545, seriously to entertain the proposals for anarrangement which were made to him by the ambassadors of Justinian. Throughout the war their had been continual negotiations; but hithertothe Persian king had trifled with his antagonist, and had amused himselfwith discussing terms of accommodation without any serious purpose. Now at last, after five years of incessant hostilities, in which hehad gained much glory but little profit, he seems to have desired abreathing-space. Justinian's envoys visited him at Ctesiphon, andset forth their master's desire to conclude a regular peace. Chosroesprofessed to think that the way for a final arrangement would be bestprepared by the conclusion, in the first instance, of a truce. Heproposed, in lieu of a peace, a cessation of hostilities for five years, during the course of which the causes of quarrel between the two nationsmight be considered, and a good understanding established. It shows theweakness of the Empire, that Justinian not only accepted this proposal, but was content to pay for the boon granted him. Chosroes received asthe price of the five years truce the services of a Greek physician andtwo thousand pounds of gold. 

The five years' truce seems to have been observed with better faithby the Persian than by the Roman monarch. Alamundarus indeed, thougha Persian vassal, regarded himself as entitled, despite the truce, topursue his quarrel with his natural enemy, Arethas, who acknowledged thesuzerainty of Rome; but Chosroes is not even accused of instigatinghis proceedings; and the war between the vassals was carried on withoutdragging either of the two lords-paramount into its vortex. Thus far, then, neither side had any cause of complaint against the other. If wewere bound to accept the Roman story of a project formed by Chosroesfor the surprise and seizure of Daras, we should have to admit thatcircumstances rather than his own will saved the Persian monarch fromthe guilt of being the first to break the agreement. But the tale toldby Procopius is improbable; and the Roman belief of it can have restedat best only upon suspicion. Chosroes, it is allowed, committed nohostile act; and it may well be doubted whether he really entertainedthe design ascribed to him. At any rate, the design was not executed, nor even attempted; and the peace was thus not broken on his part. It was reserved for Rome in the fourth year of the truce (A. D. 549)expressly, to break its provisions by accepting the Lazi into allianceand sending them a body of eight thousand men to help them against thePersians. 

Very soon after their submission to Persia the Lazi had repented oftheir rash and hasty action. They found that they had gained nothing, while in some respects they had lost, by their change of masters. The general system of the Persian administration was as arbitrary andoppressive as the Roman. If the commercial monopoly, whereof they sobitterly complained, had been swept away, commerce itself had gone withit, and they could neither find a market for their own products, norobtain the commodities which they required. The Persian manners andcustoms introduced into their country, if not imposed upon themselves, were detestable to the Lazi, who were zealous and devout Christians, and possessed by the spirit of intolerance. Chosroes, after holding theterritory for a few years, became convinced that Persia could notretain it unless the disaffected population were removed and replacedby faithful subjects. He designed therefore, we are told, to deportthe entire Lazic nation, and to plant the territory with colonies ofPersians and others, on whose fidelity he could place full reliance. As a preliminary step, he suggested to his lieutenant in Lazica that heshould contrive the assassination of Gubazes, the Lazic king, in whomhe saw an obstacle to his project. Phabrizus, however, failed in hisattempt to execute this commission; and his failure naturally producedthe immediate revolt of the province, which threw itself once more intothe arms of Rome, and, despite the existing treaty with the Persians, was taken by Justinian under his protection. 

The Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act ofJustinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine years--fromA. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great length by Procopiusand Agathias, who view the struggle as one which vitally concerned theinterests of their country. According to them, Chosroes was bent uponholding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the Phasis a greatnaval station and arsenal, from which his fleets might issue to commandthe commerce or ravage the shores of the Black Sea. There is no doubtthat the country was eminently fitted for such a purpose. The soil isfor the most part richly fertile; the hills are everywhere covered withforests of noble trees; the Rion (Phasis) is deep and broad towards itsmouth; and there are other streams also which are navigable. If Chosroesentertained the intentions ascribed to him, and had even begun thecollection of timber for ship-building at Petra on the Euxine as earlyas A. D. 549, we cannot be surprised at the attitude assumed by Rome, orat her persistent efforts to recover possession of the Lazic territory. 

The war was opened by an attack upon the great centre of the Persianpower, Petra. This place, which was strongly situated on a craggy rockprojecting into the sea, had been carefully fortified by Justinianbefore Lazica passed into the possession of Chosroes, and had sincereceived important additions to its defences at the hands of thePersians. It was sufficiently provisioned, and was defended by a body offifteen hundred men. Dagisthseus, the Roman commander, besieged it withhis entire force of eight thousand men, and succeeded by his constantattacks in reducing the garrison to little more than a fourth of itsoriginal number. Baffled in one attempt to effect a breach by means ofa mine, he had contrived to construct another, and might have withdrawnhis props, destroyed the wall, and entered the place, had he notconceived the idea of bargaining with the emperor for a specific rewardin case he effected the capture. Whilst he waited for his messenger tobring a reply, the Persian general, Memeroes, forced the passes fromIberia into Lazica, and descended the valley of the Phasis with an armyof 30, 000 men. Dagisthalus in alarm withdrew, and Petra was relievedand revictualled. The walls were repaired hastily with sandbags, andthe further defence was entrusted to a fresh garrison of 3000 pickedsoldiers. Mermeroes then, finding it difficult to obtain supplies forhis large army, retired into Persarmenia, leaving only five thousandPersians in the country besides the garrison of Petra. This small forcewas soon afterwards surprised by the combined Romans and Lazi, whocompletely defeated it, destroying or making prisoners almost the entirenumber. 

In the ensuing year, A. D. 550, the Persians took the field under a freshgeneral, Chorianes, who brought with him a considerable army, composedof Persians and Alans. The allied Romans and Lazi, under Dagisthseusand Gubazes, gave battle to this new foe on the banks of the Hippis (theTschenikal?); and though the Lazi, who had insisted on taking the leadand fighting separately, were at the first encounter routed by thePersian horse, yet in the end Roman discipline and stubbornnesstriumphed. Their solid line of footmen, bristling with spears, offeredan impervious barrier to the cavalry of the enemy, which did not dareto charge, but had recourse to volleys of missiles. The Romans respondedwith the same; and the battle raged for a while on something like eventerms, the superior rapidity of the Asiatics being counterbalanced bythe better protection which their shields gave to the Europeans, untilat last, by a stroke of fortune, Rome obtained the victory. A chancearrow killed Chorianes, and his army instantly fled. There was a shortstruggle at the Persian camp; but the Romans and Lazi captured it. Mostof the Persians were here put to the sword; the few who escaped quittedLazica and returned to their own country. 

Soon afterwards Dagisthseus was superseded by Bessas, and the siege ofPetra was recommenced. The strength of the place had been considerablyincreased since the former attack upon it. A new wall of great heightand solidity had been built upon a framework of wood in the place whichDagisthaeus had so nearly breached; the Roman mines had been filledup with gravel; arms, offensive and defensive, had been collected inextraordinary abundance; a stock of flour and of salted meat had beenlaid in sufficient to support the garrison of 3000 men for five years;and a store of vinegar, and of the pulse from which it was made, hadlikewise been accumulated. The Roman general began by attempting torepeat the device of his predecessor, attacking the defences in the sameplace and by the same means; but, just as his mine was completed, thenew wall with its framework of wood sank quietly into the excavation, without suffering any disturbance of its parts, while enough of it stillremained above the surface to offer an effectual bar to the assailants. It seemed hopeless to recommence the mine in this place, and elsewherethe nature of the ground made mining impossible; some other modeof attack had therefore to be adopted, or the siege must have beenabandoned. Rome generally took towns by the battering-ram; but theengines in use were of such heavy construction that they could not bedragged up an ascent like that upon which Petra stood. Bessas was inextreme perplexity, when some Hunnic allies, who happened to be inhis camp, suggested a mode of constructing a ram, as effective as theordinary one, which should nevertheless be so light that it could becarried on the shoulders of forty men. Three such machines were quicklymade; and under their blows the wall would soon have given way, hadnot the defenders employed against them the terrible agency of fire, showering upon them from the walls lighted casks of sulphur, bitumen, and naphtha, which last was known to the Greeks of Colchis as "Medea'soil. " Uncertain of succeeding in this attack, the Roman generalgallantly led a scaling party to another portion of the walls, and, mounting at the head of his men, attempted to make good his footing onthe battlements. Thrown headlong to the ground, but undeterred by hisfall, he was about to repeat his attempt, when he found it needless. Almost simultaneously his troops had in two other places penetrated intothe town. One band had obtained an entrance by scaling the rocks ina place supposed to be inaccessible; a second owed its success to acombination of accidents. First, it had happened that a gap had shownitself in the piece of the wall which sank into the Roman mine, and aviolent struggle had ensued between the assailants and defenders at thisplace. 

Then, while this fight was going on, the fire which the Persians wereusing against the Roman battering-rams had been by a shift of wind blownback upon themselves, and the wooden structure from which they foughthad been ignited, and in a short time entirely consumed, together withits inmates. At sight of the conflagration, the Persians who stood inthe gap had lost heart, and had allowed the Roman troops to force theirway through it into Petra. Thus fell the great Lazic fortress, after aresistance which is among the most memorable in history. Of the threethousand defenders, seven hundred had been killed in the siege; onethousand and seventy were destroyed in the last assault. Only sevenhundred and thirty were made prisoners; and of these no fewer than sevenhundred and twelve were found to be wounded. The remaining five hundredthrew themselves into the citadel, and there resisted to the lastextremity, refusing all terms of capitulation, and maintainingthemselves against an overwhelming force, until at last by sword andfire they perished to a man. 

The siege of Petra was prolonged far into the winter, and the year A. D. 551 had begun ere the resistance ceased. Could the gallant defendershave maintained themselves for a few more weeks, they might notimprobably have triumphed. Mermeroes, the Persian commander of two yearspreviously, took the field with the commencement of spring, and, at thehead of a large body of cavalry, supported by eight elephants, beganhis march to the coast, hoping to relieve the beleaguered garrison. Unfortunately he was too late. On his march he heard of the capture ofPetra, and of its complete destruction by Bessas, who feared lestthe Persians should again occupy the dangerous post. Mermeroes had nodifficulty in establishing Persian rule through almost the whole ofLazica. The Romans did not dare to meet him in the field. Archssopolis, indeed, repulsed his attack; but no other important place in the entirecountry remained subject to the Empire. Qubazes and his followers had tohide themselves in the recesses of the mountains. Quartering histroops chiefly on the upper Phasis, about Kutais and its neighborhood, Mermeroes strengthened his hold on the country by building forts orreceiving their submission, and even extended the Persian dominionbeyond Lazica into Scymnia and Suania. Still Rome, with her usualtenacity, maintained a hold upon certain tracts; and Gubazes, faithfulto his allies even in the extremity of their depression, maintained aguerilla war, and hoped that some day fortune would cease to frown onhim. 

Meanwhile, at Byzantium, fresh negotiations were in progress, and hopeswere entertained of an arrangement by which all the differences betweenthe two great powers would be satisfactorily adjusted. Isdigunasagain represented his master at the Byzantine court, and conducted thediplomatic contest with skill and ability. Taxing Justinian with morethan one infraction of the truce concluded in A. D. 545, he demanded thepayment of a lump sum of two thousand six hundred pounds of gold, andexpressed the willingness of Chosroes to conclude on these terms a freshtruce for five years, to take effect from the delivery of the money. With regard to the extent of country whereto the truce should apply, heagreed to an express limitation of its range--the settled provinces ofboth empires should be protected by it, but Lazica and the country ofthe Saracens should be excluded from its operation. Justinian consentedto these terms, despite the opposition of many of his subjects, whothought that Rome degraded herself by her repeated payments of moneyto Persia, and accepted a position little better than that of a Persiantributary. 

Thus the peace of A. D. 551 did nothing towards ending the Lazic war, which, after languishing through the whole of A. D. Burst out again withrenewed vigor in the spring of A. D. 553. Mermeroes in that year advancedfrom Kutais against Telephis, a strong fort in the possession of Rome, expelled the commandant, Martinus, by a stratagem, pressed forwardagainst the combined Roman forces, which fled before him from Ollaria, and finally drove them to the coast and cooped them up in "the Island, "a small tract near the mouth of the Phasis between that stream and theDoconus. On his return he was able to reinforce a garrison which he hadestablished at Onoguris in the immediate neighborhood of Archseopolis, as a means of annoying and weakening that important station. He maynaturally have hoped in one or two more campaigns to have driven thelast Roman out of the country and to have attached Lazica permanentlyto the empire of the great king. 

Unluckily, however, for Persia, the fatigues which the gallant veteranhad undergone in the campaign of A. D. 553 proved more than his agedframe could endure, and he had scarcely reached Kutais when he wasseized with a fatal malady, to which he succumbed in the course of thewinter. Chosroes appointed as his successor a certain Nachoragan, whois said to have been a general of repute, but who proved himself quiteunequal to the position which he was called upon to fill, and in thecourse of two years ruined the Persian cause in Lazica. The failurewas the more signal from the fact that exactly at the time of hisappointment circumstances occurred which seriously shook the Romaninfluence over the Lazi, and opened a prospect to Persia transcendingaught that she could reasonably have hoped. This was nothing less thana most serious quarrel between Gubazes, the Lazic king, and some of theprincipal Roman commanders--a quarrel which involved consequences fatalto both parties. Gubazes, disgusted with the negligence or incapacityof the Roman chiefs, had made complaint of them to Justinian; they hadretaliated by accusing him of meditating desertion, and had obtainedthe emperor's consent to his arrest, and to the use of violence if heoffered resistance. Armed with this mandate, they contrived in a littletime to fasten a quarrel upon him; and, when he declined to do as theyrequired, they drew their swords upon him and slew him. The Lazic nationwas, naturally enough, alienated by this outrage, and manifested aninclination to throw itself absolutely into the arms of Persia. TheRomans, dispirited at the attitude of their allies, and at varianceamong themselves, could for some months after Gubazes' death haveoffered but little resistance to an enterprising enemy. So demoralizedwere they that an army of 50, 000 is said to have fled in dismay whenattacked by a force of Persians less than a twelfth of their number, and to have allowed their camp to be captured and plundered. Duringthis critical time Nachoragan remained inactive in Iberia, and contentedhimself with sending messengers into Lazica to announce his nearapproach and to animate and encourage his party. The result was such asmight have been expected. The Lazi, finding that Persia made no effortto take advantage of their abstention, and that Rome despite of itmaintained possession of the greater portion of their country, came tothe conclusion that it would be unwise to desert their natural allieson account of a single outrage, however monstrous, and agreed to renewtheir close alliance with Rome on condition that the murderers ofGubazes should be punished, and his brother, Tzathes, appointed king inhis place. Justinian readily gave his consent; and the year A. D. 555 sawthe quarrel ended, and the Lazi once more heartily in accord with, theirRoman protectors. 

It was when affairs were in this state, and he had exactly missed hisopportunity, that Nachoragan took the field, and, advancing from Iberiainto the region about Kutai's with an army amounting to 60, 000 men, 1made preparations for carrying on the war with vigor. He was opposed byMartinus, Justin, and Babas, the two former of whom with the bulk ofthe Roman forces occupied the region on the lower Phasis, known as "theIsland, " while Babas held the more central position of Archseopolis. Nachoragan, after losing about 2, 000 of his best troops in the vicinityof this last-named place, resolved to challenge the Romans to a decisiveencounter by attacking the important post of Phasis at the mouth of theriver. With some skill he succeeded in passing the Roman camp on theisland, and in establishing himself in the plain directly south ofPhasis before the Roman generals guessed his purpose. They, however, were able by a quick movement to throw themselves into the town, and thestruggle became one between fairly balanced forces, and was conductedwith great obstinacy. The town was defended on the south by an outerpalisade, a broad ditch protected by sharp stakes and full of water, andan inner bulwark of considerable height but constructed wholly of wood. The Phasis guarded it on the north; and here a Roman fleet was stationedwhich lent its aid to the defenders at the two extremities of theirline. The yards of the ships were manned with soldiers, and boatswere hung from them containing slingers, archers, and even workers ofcatapults, who delivered their weapons from an elevation exceeding thatof the towers. But Nachoragan had the advantage of numbers; his men soonsucceeded in filling up part of the ditch; and the wooden bulwark couldscarcely have long resisted his attacks, if the contest had continuedto be wholly one of brute strength. But the Roman commander, Martinus, finding himself inferior in force, brought finesse and stratagem to hisaid. Pretending to receive intelligence of the sudden arrival of a freshRoman army from Byzantium, he contrived that the report should reachNachoragan and thereby cause him to divide his troops, and send half ofthem to meet the supposed reinforcements. Then, when the Persian generalnevertheless renewed his assault, Martinus sent secretly 5, 000 men underJustin to a short distance from Phasis; and this detachment, appearingsuddenly when the contest was going on at the wall, was naturally takenfor the newly arrived army, and caused a general panic. The Persians, one and all, took to flight; a general sally was made by the Romans inPhasis; a rout and a carnage followed, which completely disheartenedthe Persian leader, and led him to give up his enterprise. Having lostnearly one-fourth of his army, Nachoragan drew off to Kutai's, andshortly afterwards, leaving the command of the Persians in Lazica toVaphrizes, retired to winter quarters in Iberia. 

The failure of Nachoragan, following closely upon the decision of theLazi to maintain their alliance with Rome in spite of the murderof Gubazes, seems to have convinced the Persian monarch that, inendeavoring to annex Lazica, he had engaged in a hopeless enterprise, and that it would be the most prudent and judicious course to yieldto the inevitable, and gradually withdraw from a position which wasuntenable. Having meted out to Nachoragan the punishment usuallyassigned to unsuccessful commanders in Persia, he sent an ambassador toByzantium in the spring of A. D. 556, and commenced negotiations whichhe intended to be serious. Diplomacy seems to have been as averse in thedays of Chosroes as in our own to an undignified rapidity of proceeding. Hence, though there could be little to debate where both parties weresubstantially at one, the negotiations begun in May A. D. 556 were notconcluded till after the commencement of the following year. A completesuspension of hostilities was then agreed upon, to extend to Lazica noless than to the other dominions of the two monarchs. In Lazica eachparty was to keep what it possessed, territory, cities, and castles. Asthis joint occupation was scarcely suitable for a permanent arrangement, it was provided that the two belligerents should, during the continuanceof the truce, proceed to settle the terms on which a lasting peace mightbe established. 

An interval of five years elapsed before the happy result, for whichboth parties had expressed themselves anxious, was accomplished. It isuncertain how Chosroes was occupied during this period; but there aresome grounds for believing that he was engaged in the series of Orientalwars whereof we shall have to speak presently. Success appears to havecrowned his arms wherever he directed them; but he remained undazzled byhis victories, and still retained the spirit of moderation which hadled him in A. D. 557 to conclude the general truce. He was even prepared, after five years of consideration, to go further in the line of pacificpolicy on which he had then entered, and, in order to secure thecontinuance of his good relations with Rome, was willing to relinquishall claim to the sovereignty of Lazica. Under these circumstances, ambassadors of the highest rank, representing the two powers, met on thefrontier between Daras and Nisibis, proclaimed the power and explainedthe motives of their respective sovereigns, and after a lengthyconference formulated a treaty of peace. The terms, which are givenat length by a writer of the succeeding generation, may be brieflyexpressed as follows: (1) the Persians were to withdraw from Lazica, togive up all claim to it, and to hand over its possession to the Romans;(2) they were in return to receive from Rome an annual sum of 30, 000pieces of gold, the amount due for the first seven years being paid inadvance; (3) the Christians in Persia were guaranteed the full and freeexercise of their religion, but were forbidden to make converts fromthe disciples of Zoroaster; (4) commercial intercourse was to be allowedbetween the two empires, but the merchants were restricted to the use ofcertain roads and certain emporia; (5) diplomatic intercourse was to bewholly free, and the goods of ambassadors were to be exempt from duty;(6) Daras was to continue a fortified town, but no new fortresses wereto be built upon the frontier by either nation, and Daras itself was notto be made the headquarters of the Prefect of the East, or to be heldby an unnecessarily large garrison; (7) all disputes arising betweenthe two nations were to be determined by courts of arbitration; (8)the allies of the two nations were to be included in the treaty, and toparticipate in its benefits and obligations; (9) Persia was to undertakethe sole charge of maintaining the Caspian Gates against the Huns andAlans; (10) the peace was made for a period of fifty years. It has beenheld that by this treaty Justinian consented to become a tributary ofthe Persian Empire; and undoubtedly it was possible for Oriental vanityto represent the arrangement made in this light. But the million and ahalf, which Rome undertook to pay in the course of the next fifty years, might well be viewed by the Romans as an outlay for which they receivedan ample return in the cession to them of the Persian part of Lazica, and in the termination of their obligation to contribute towards themaintenance of the Caspian Gates. If there was any real danger of thoseresults following from the Persian occupation of Lazica which bothnations anticipated, the sum must be considered to have been one of thebest investments ever made by a State. Even if we believe the dangersapprehended to have been visionary, yet it cannot be viewed as anexorbitant price to have paid for a considerable tract of fertilecountry, a number of strong fortresses, and the redemption of anobligation which could not with honor be disowned. 

To Chosroes the advantage secured by the treaty was similar to thatwhich Rome had obtained by the peace of A. D. 532. Being no longerunder any necessity of employing his forces against the Romans in thenorth-west, he found himself free to act with greatly increased effectagainst his enemies in the east and in the south. Already, in theinterval between the conclusion of the general truce and of the fiftyyears' peace, he had, as it seems, invaded the territories of theEphthalites, and, with the help of the Great Khan of the Turks, inflicted upon this people, so long one of Persia's most formidableenemies, a severe defeat. According to Tabari, he actually slew theEphthalite monarch, ravaged his territory, and pillaged his treasures. About the same time he had also had a war with the Khazars, had overruntheir country, wasted it with fire and sword, and massacred thousands ofthe inhabitants. He now entertained designs against Arabia and perhapsIndia, countries on which he could not hope to make an impressionwithout earnest and concentrated effort. It was doubtless with the viewof extending his influence into these quarters that the Persian monarchevacuated Lazica, and bound his country to maintain peace with Rome forthe next half-century. 

The position of affairs in Arabia was at the time abnormal andinteresting. For the most part that vast but sterile region has been thehome of almost countless tribes, living independently of one another, each under its own sheikh or chief, in wild and unrestrained freedom. Native princes have seldom obtained any widely extended dominion overthe scattered population; and foreign powers have still more rarelyexercised authority for any considerable period over the freedom-lovingdescendants of Ishmael. But towards the beginning of the sixth centuryof our era the Abyssinians of Axum, a Christian people, "raised" far"above the ordinary level of African barbarism" by their religion andby their constant intercourse with Rome, succeeded in attaching to theirempire a large portion of the Happy Arabia, and ruled it at first fromtheir African capital, but afterwards by means of a viceroy, whosedependence on the Negus of Abyssinia was little more than nominal. Abraha, an Abyssinian of high rank, being deputed by the Negus tore-establish the authority of Abyssinia over the Yemen when it wasshaken by a great revolt, made himself master of the country, assumedthe crown, established Abyssinians in all the chief cities, builtnumerous churches, especially one of great beauty at Sana, and athis death left the kingdom to his eldest son, Yaksoum. An importantChristian state was thus established in the Great Peninsula; and it wasnatural that Justinian should see with satisfaction, and Chosroes withsome alarm, the growth of a power in this quarter which was sure to sidewith Rome and against Persia, if their rivalry should extend intothese parts. Justinian had hailed with pleasure the original Abyssinianconquest, and had entered into amicable relations with both the Axumitesand their colonists in the Yemen. Chosroes now resolved upon a countermovement. He would employ the quiet secured to him by the peace of A. D. 562 in a great attack upon the Abyssinian power in Arabia. He woulddrive the audacious Africans from the soil of Asia, and would earn theeternal gratitude of the numerous tribes of the desert. He would extendPersian influence to the shores of the Arabian Gulf, and so confront theRomans along the whole line of their eastern boundary. He would destroythe _point d'appui_ which Rome had acquired in South-western Asia, andso at once diminish her power and augment the strength and glory ofPersia. 

The interference of Chosroes in the affairs of a country so distant asWestern Arabia involved considerable difficulties; but his expeditionwas facilitated by an application which he received from a native of thedistrict in question. Saif, the son of Dsu-Yezm, descended from the raceof the old Homerite kings whom the Abyssinians had conquered, grew up atthe court of Abraha in the belief that that prince, who had married hismother, was not his step-father, but his father. Undeceived by an insultwhich Masrouq, the true son of Abraha and successor of Yaksoum, offeredhim, Saif became a refugee at the court of Chosroes, and importuned theGreat King to embrace his quarrel and reinstate him on the throne ofhis fathers. He represented the Homerite population of Yemen as groaningunder the yoke of their oppressors and only waiting for an opportunityto rise in revolt and shake it off. A few thousand Persian troops, enough to form the nucleus of an army, would suffice; they might be sentby sea to the port of Aden, near the mouth of the Arabian Gulf, wherethe Homerites would join them in large numbers; the combined forcesmight then engage in combat with the Abyssinians, and destroy them ordrive them from the land. Chosroes took the advice tendered him, so farat any rate as to make his expedition by sea. His ships were assembledin the Persian Gulf; a certain number of Persian troops were embarked onboard them; and the flotilla proceeded, under the conduct of Saif, firstto the mouth of the Gulf, and then along the southern coast of Arabiato Aden. Encouraged by their presence, the Plomerites rose against theirforeign oppressors; a war followed, of which the particulars have beendisfigured by romance; but the result is undoubted--the Abyssinianstrangers were driven from the soil of Arabia; the native race recoveredits supremacy; and Saif, the descendant of the old Homerite kings, wasestablished, as the vassal or viceroy of Chosroes, on the throne of hisancestors. This arrangement, however, was not lasting. Saif, after ashort reign, was murdered by his body-guard; and Chosroes then conferredthe government of Yemen upon a Persian officer, who seems to have bornethe usual title of Marzpan, and to have been in no way distinguishedabove other rulers of provinces. Thus the Homerites in the end gainednothing by their revolt but a change of masters. They may, however, haveregarded the change as one worth making, since it gave them the mildsway of a tolerant heathen in lieu of the persecuting rule of Christianbigots. 

According to some writers, Chosroes also, in his later years, sent anexpedition by sea against some portion of Hindustan, and received acession of territory from an Indian monarch. But the country of themonarch is too remote for belief, and the ceded provinces seem to havebelonged to Persia previously. It is therefore, perhaps, most probablethat friendly intercourse has been exaggerated into conquest, and thereception of presents from an Indian potentate metamorphosed into thegain of territory. Some authorities do not assign to Chosroes any Indiandominion; and it is at least doubtful whether he made any expedition inthis direction. 

A war, however, appears certainly to have occupied Chosroes aboutthis period on his north-eastern frontier. The Turks had recently beenadvancing in strength and drawing nearer to the confines of Persia. Theyhad extended their dominion over the great Ephthalite kingdom, partly byforce of arms, partly through the treachery of Katulphus, an Ephthalitechieftain; they had received the submission of the Sogdians, andprobably of other tribes of the Transoxianian region, previously held insubjection by the Ephthalites; and they aspired to be acknowledged as agreat power, the second, if not the first, in this part of Asia. It wasperhaps rather with the view of picking a quarrel than in the hopeof any valuable pacific result, that, about the close of A. D. 567, Diza-bul, the Turkish Khan, sent ambassadors to Chosroes with proposalsfor the establishment of free commercial intercourse between the Turksand Persians, and even for the conclusion of a treaty of friendship andalliance between the two nations. Chosroes suspected the motive for theoverture, but was afraid openly to reject it. He desired to discourageintercourse between his own nation and the Turks, but could deviseno better mode of effecting his purpose than by burning the Turkishmerchandise offered to him after he had bought it, and by poisoning theambassadors and giving out that they had fallen victims to the climate. His conduct exasperated the Turkish Khan, and created a deep and bitterhostility between the Turks and Persians. It was at once resolved tosend an embassy to Constantinople and offer to the Greek emperor thefriendship which Chosroes had scorned. The embassy reached the Byzantinecourt early in A. D. 568, and was graciously received by Justin, thenephew of Justinian, who had succeeded his uncle on the imperial thronebetween three and four years previously. A treaty of alliance was madebetween the two nations; and a Roman embassy, empowered to ratify it, visited the Turkish court in the Altai mountains during the courseof the next year (A. D. 569), and drew closer the bonds of friendshipbetween the high contracting powers. But meanwhile Dizabul, confident inhis own strength, had determined on an expedition into Persia. The Romanambassador, Zemarchus, accompanied him on a portion of his march, andwitnessed his insulting treatment of a Persian envoy, sent byChosroes to meet him and deprecate his attack. Beyond this point exactinformation fails us; but we may suspect that this is the expeditioncommemorated by Mirk-hond, wherein the Great Khan, having invaded thePersian territory in force, made himself master of Shash, Ferghana, Samarkand, Bokhara, Kesh, and Nesf, but, hearing that Hornisdas, sonof Chosroes, was advancing against him at the head of a numerous army, suddenly fled, evacuating all the country that he had occupied, andretiring to the most distant portion of Turkestan. At any rate theexpedition cannot have had any great success; for shortly afterwards(A. D. 571) we find Turkish ambassadors once more visiting the Byzantinecourt, and entreating Justin to renounce the fifty years' peace andunite with them in a grand attack upon the common enemy, which, ifassaulted simultaneously on either side, might (they argued) be almostcertainly crushed. Justin gave the ambassadors no definite reply, butrenewed the alliance with Dizabul, and took seriously into considerationthe question whether he should not yield to the representations madeto him, and renew the war which Justinian had terminated nine yearspreviously. 

There were many circumstances which urged him towards a rupture. Thepayments to be made under the fifty years' peace had in his eyes theappearance of a tribute rendered by Rome to Persia, which was, hethought, an intolerable disgrace. A subsidy, not very dissimilar, whichJustinian had allowed the Saracenic Arabs under Persian rule, he hadalready discontinued; and hostilities had, in consequence, alreadycommenced between the Persian and the Roman Saracens. The successesof Chosroes in Western Arabia had at once provoked his jealousy, and secured to Rome, in that quarter, an important ally in the greatChristian kingdom of Abyssinia. The Turks of Central Asia had sought hisfriendship and offered to combine their attacks with his, if he wouldconsent to go to war. Moreover, there was once more discontent andeven rebellion in Armenia, where the proselytizing zeal of the Persiangovernors had again driven the natives to take up arms and raise thestandard of independence. Above all, the Great King, who had warred withsuch success for twenty years against his uncle, was now in advancedage, and seemed to have given signs of feebleness, inasmuch as in hisrecent expeditions he had individually taken no part, but had entrustedthe command of his troops to others. Under these circumstances, Justin, in the year A. D. 572, determined to renounce the peace made tenyears earlier with the Persians, and to recommence the old struggle. Accordingly he at once dismissed the Persian envoy, Sebocthes, withcontempt, refused wholly to make the stipulated payment, proclaimed hisintention of receiving the Armenian insurgents under his protection, and bade Chosroes lay a finger on them at his peril. He then appointedMarcian to the prefecture of the East, and gave him the conduct of thewar which was now inevitable. 

No sooner did the Persian monarch find his kingdom seriously menacedthan, despite his advanced age, he immediately took the field in person. Giving the command of a flying column of 6000 men to Adarman, a skilfulgeneral, he marched himself against the Romans, who under Marcian haddefeated a Persian force, and were besieging Nisibis, forced them toraise the siege, and, pressing forward as they retired, compelled themto seek shelter within the walls of Daras, which he proceeded toinvest with his main army. Meanwhile Adarman, at the head of the troopsentrusted to him, crossed the Euphrates near Circesium, and, havingentered Syria, carried fire and sword far and wide over that fertileprovince. Repulsed from Antioch, where, however, he burnt the suburbsof the town, he invaded Coelesyria, took and destroyed Apamea, and then, recrossing the great river, rejoined Chosroes before Daras. The renownedfortress made a brave defence. For about five months it resisted, without obtaining any relief, the entire force of Chosroes, who is saidto have besieged it with 40, 000 horse and 100, 000 foot. At last, on theapproach of winter, it could no longer hold out; enclosed within linesof circumvallation, and deprived of water by the diversion of itsstreams into new channels, it found itself reduced to extremity, andforced to submit towards the close of A. D. 573. Thus the great Romanfortress in these parts was lost in the first year of the renewed war;and Justin, alarmed at his own temerity, and recognizing his weakness, felt it necessary to retire from the conduct of affairs, and deliverthe reins of empire to stronger hands. He chose as his coadjutor andsuccessor the Count Tiberius, a Thracian by birth, who had long stoodhigh in his confidence; and this prince, in conjunction with the EmpressSophia, now took the direction of the war. 

The first need was to obtain a breathing-space. The Persian king havinggiven an opening for negotiations, advantage was taken of it by thejoint rulers to send an envoy, furnished with an autograph letter fromthe empress, and well provided with the best persuasives of peace, whowas to suggest an armistice for a year, during which a satisfactoryarrangement of the whole quarrel might be agreed upon. Tiberius thoughtthat within this space he might collect an army sufficiently powerfulto re-establish the superiority of the Roman arms in the east; Chosroesbelieved himself strong enough to defeat any force that Rome could nowbring into the field. A truce for a year was therefore concluded, at thecost to Rome of 45, 000 aurei; and immense efforts were at once made byTiberius to levy troops from his more distant, provinces, or hire themfrom the lands beyond his borders. An army of 150, 000 men was, itis said, collected from the banks of the Danube and the Rhine, fromScythia, Pannonia, Moesia, Illyricum, and Isauria; a general of repute, Justinian, the son of Germanus, was selected to command them; and thewhole force was concentrated upon the eastern frontier but, after allthese preparations, the Caesar's heart failed him, and, instead ofoffering battle to the enemy, Tiberius sent a second embassy to thePersian head-quarters, early in A. D. 575, and besought an extension ofthe truce. The Romans desired a short term of peace only, but wished fora general suspension of hostilities between the nations; the Persiansadvocated a longer interval, but insisted that the truce should notextend to Armenia. The dispute continued till the armistice for a yearhad run out; and the Persians had resumed hostilities and threatenedConstantina before the Romans would give way. At length it was agreedthat there should be peace for three years, but that Armenia shouldbe exempt from its operation. Rome was to pay to Persia, during thecontinuance of the truce, the sum of 30, 000 aurei annually. 

No sooner was the peace concluded than Chosroes put himself at thehead of his army, and, entering Armenia Proper, proceeded to crush therevolt, and to re-establish the Persian authority throughout the entireregion. No resistance was offered to him; and he was able, before theclose of the year, to carry his arms into the Roman territory of ArmeniaMinor, and even to threaten Cappadocia. Here Justinian opposed hisprogress; and in a partial engagement, Kurs (or Cursus), a leader ofScythians in the Roman service, obtained an advantage over the Persianrear-guard, captured the camp and the baggage, but did not succeed indoing any serious damage. Chosroes soon afterwards revenged himself bysurprising and destroying a Roman camp during the night; he then tookand burnt the city of Melitene (Malatiyeh); after which, as winter wasapproaching, he retired across the Euphrates, and returned into his owncountry. Hereupon Justinian seems to have invaded Persian Armenia, andto have enriched his troops with its plunder; according to some writers, he even penetrated as far as the Caspian Sea, and embarked upon itswaters; he continued on Persian soil during the whole of the winter, andit was not till the spring came that he re-entered Roman territory (A. D. 576). 

The campaign of A. D. 576 is somewhat obscure. The Romans seem to havegained certain advantages in Northern Armenia and Iberia, while Chosroeson his part carried the war once more into Armenia Minor, and laid siegeto Theodosiopolis, which, however, he was unable to take. Negotiationswere upon this resumed, and had progressed favorably to a certain, point, when news arrived of a great disaster to the Roman arms inArmenia, which changed the face of affairs and caused the Persiannegotiators to break up the conference. Tam-chosro, a Persian general, had completely defeated the Roman army under Justinian. Armenia hadreturned to its allegiance. There seemed every reason to believe thatmore was to be gained by arms than by diplomacy, and that, when thethree years peace had run out, the Great King might renew the generalwar with a prospect of obtaining important successes. 

There are no military events which can be referred to the year A. D. 577. The Romans and Persians amused each other with alternate embassiesduring its course, and with negotiations that were not intended to haveany result. The two monarchs made vast preparations; and with the springof A. D. 578 hostilities recommenced. Chosroes is accused of havinganticipated the expiration of the truce by a period of forty days; butit is more probable that he and the Romans estimated the date ofits expiration differently. However this was, it is certain that hisgenerals, Mebodes and Sapoes, took the field in early spring with 20, 000horse, and entering the Roman Armenia laid waste the country, at thesame time threatening Constantina and Theodosiopolis. SimultaneouslyTamchosro, quitting Persarmenia, marched westward and plundered thecountry about Amida (Diarbekr). The Roman commander Maurice, who hadsucceeded Justinian, possessed considerable military ability. On thisoccasion, instead of following the ordinary plan of simply standingon the defensive and endeavoring to repulse the invaders, he took thebolder course of making a counter movement. Entering Persarmenia, whichhe found denuded of troops, he carried all before him, destroying theforts, and plundering the country. Though the summer heats broughton him an attack of fever, he continued without pause his destructivemarch; invaded and occupied Arzanene, with its stronghold, Aphumon, carried off the population to the number of 10, 090, and, pressingforwards from Arzanene into Eastern Mesopotamia, took Singara, andcarried fire and sword over the entire region as far as the Tigris. He even ventured to throw a body of skirmishers across the river intoCordyene (Kurdistan); and these ravagers, who were commanded by Kurs, the Scythian, spread devastation over a district where no Roman soldierhad set foot since its cession by Jovian. Agathias tells us thatChosroes was at the time enjoying his summer villeggiatura in theKurdish hills, and saw from his residence the smoke of the hamlets whichthe Roman troops had fired. He hastily fled from the danger, and shuthimself up within the walls of Ctesiphon, where he was soon afterwardsseized with the illness which brought his life to a close. 

Meanwhile Kurs, unconscious probably of the prize that had been so nearhis grasp, recrossed the Tigris with his booty and rejoined Maurice, whoon the approach of winter withdrew into Roman territory, evacuating allhis conquests excepting Arzanene. The dull time of winter was, as usual, spent in negotiations; and it was thought that a peace might have beenconcluded had Chosroes lived. Tiberius was anxious to recover Daras, and was willing to withdraw the Roman forces wholly from Persarmenia andIberia, and to surrender Arzanene and Aphumon, if Daras were restored tohim. He would probably have been content even to pay in addition a sumof money. Chosroes might perhaps have accepted these terms; but whilethe envoys empowered to propose them were on their way to his court, early in the year A. D. 579, the aged monarch died in his palace atCtesiphon after a reign of forty-eight years. 

CHAPTER XXI. 

_Administration of Persia under Chosroes I. Fourfold Division of theEmpire. Careful Surveillance of those entrusted with Poiver. SeverePunishment of Abuse of Trust. New System of Taxation introduced. Correction of Abuse connected with the Military Service. Encouragementof Agriculture and Marriage. Belief of Poverty. Care for Travellers. Encouragement of Learning. Practice of Toleration within certain Limits. Domestic Life of Chosroes. His Wives. Revolt and Death of his Son, Nushizad. Coins of Chosroes. Estimate of his Character. _

A general consensus of the Oriental writers marks the reign of the firstChosroes as a period not only of great military activity, but alsoof improved domestic administration. Chosroes found the empire in adisordered and ill-regulated condition, taxation arranged on a badsystem, the people oppressed by unjust and tyrannical governors, the military service a prey to the most scandalous abuses, religiousfanaticism rampant, class at variance with class, extortion and wrongwinked at, crime unpunished, agriculture languishing, and the massesthroughout almost the whole of the country sullen and discontented. It was his resolve from the first to carry out a series of reforms--tosecure the administration of even-handed justice, to put the finances ona better footing, to encourage agriculture, to relieve the poor and thedistressed, to root out the abuses that destroyed the efficiency of thearmy, and to excise the gangrene of fanaticism which was eating intothe heart of the nation. How he effected the last named object byhis wholesale destruction of the followers of Mazdak has been alreadyrelated; but it appeared unadvisable to interrupt, the military historyof the reign by combining with it any account of the numerous otherreforms which he accomplished. It remains therefore to consider them inthis place, since they are certainly not the least remarkable among themany achievements of this great monarch. 

Persia, until the time of Anushirwan, had been divided into a multitudeof provinces, the satraps or governors of which held their officedirectly under the crown. It was difficult for the monarch to exercisea sufficient superintendence over so large a number of rulers, manyof them remote from the court, and all united by a common interest. Chosroes conceived the plan of forming four great governments, andentrusting them to four persons in whom he had confidence, whose dutyit should be to watch the conduct of the provincial satraps to controlthem, direct them, or report their misconduct to the crown. The fourgreat governments were those of the east, the north, the south, andthe west. The east comprised Khorassan, Seistan, and Kirman; the north, Armenia, Azer-bijan, Ghilan, Koum, and Isfahan; the south, Fars andAhwaz; the west, Irak, or Babylonia, Assyria, and Mesopotamia. 

It was not the intention of the monarch, however, to put a blind trustin his instruments. He made personal progresses through his empire from, time to time, visiting each province in turn and inquiring into thecondition of the inhabitants. He employed continually an army ofinspectors and spies, who reported to him from all quarters thesufferings or complaints of the oppressed, and the neglects or misdoingsof those in authority. On the occurrence of any specially suspiciouscircumstance, he appointed extraordinary commissions of inquiry, which, armed with all the power of the crown, proceeded to the suspectedquarter, took evidence, and made a careful report of whatever wrongs ormalpractices they discovered. 

When guilt was brought home to incriminated persons or parties, thepunishment with which they were visited was swift and signal. We haveseen how harsh were the sentences passed by Chosroes upon those whoseoffences attacked his own person or dignity. An equal severity appearsin his judgments, where there was no question of his own wrongs, butonly of the interests of his subjects. On one occasion he is said tohave executed no fewer than eighty collectors of taxes on the report ofa commission charging them with extortion. Among the principal reformswhich Chosroes is said to have introduced was his fresh arrangementof the taxation. Hitherto all lands had paid to the State a certainproportion of their produce, a proportion which varied, according to theestimated richness of the soil, from a tenth to one-half. The effect wasto discourage all improved cultivation, since it was quite possible thatthe whole profit of any increased outlay might be absorbed by the State, and also to cramp and check the liberty of the cultivators in variousways, since the produce could not be touched until the revenue officialmade his appearance and carried off the share of the crop which he hada right to take. Chosroes resolved to substitute a land-tax for theproportionate payments in kind, and thus at once to set the cultivatorat liberty with respect to harvesting his crops and to allow him theentire advantage of any augumented production which might be secured bybetter methods of farming his land. His tax consisted in part of a moneypayment, in part of a payment in kind; but both payments were fixed andinvariable, each measure of ground being rated in the king's books atone dirhem and one measure of the produce. Uncultivated land, and landlying fallow at the time, were exempt; and thus the scheme involved, not one survey alone, but a recurring (annual) survey, and an annualregistration of all cultivators, with the quantity of land undercultivation held by each, and the nature of the crop or crops to begrown by them. The system was one of much complication, and may havepressed somewhat hardly upon the poorer and less productive soils; butit was an immense improvement upon the previously existing practice, which had all the disadvantages of the modern tithe system, aggravatedby the high rates exacted and by the certainty that, in any disputedcase, the subject would have had a poor chance of establishing his rightagainst the crown. It is not surprising that the caliphs, when theyconquered Persia, maintained unaltered the land system of Chosroes whichthey found established, regarding it as, if not perfect, at any rate notreadily admitting of much improvement. 

Besides the tax upon arable lands, of which we have hitherto spoken, Chosroes introduced into into Persia various other imposts. The fruittrees were everywhere counted, and a small payment required for each. The personality of the citizens was valued, and a graduated property-taxestablished, which, however, in the case of the most opulent, did notexceed the moderate sum of forty-eight dirhems (about twenty-sevenshillings). A poll-tax was required of Jews and Christians, whereof wedo not know the amount. From all these burdens liberal exemptions weremade on account of age and sex; no female paid anything; and males abovefifty years of age or under twenty were also free of charge. Due noticewas given to each individual of the sum for which he was liable, bythe publication in each province, town, and village, of a tax table, inwhich each citizen or alien could see against his name the amount aboutto be claimed of him, with the ground upon which it was regarded as due. Payment had to made by instalments, three times each year, at the end ofevery four months. 

In order to prevent the unfair extortion, which in the ancient worldwas always, with reason or without, charged upon collectors of revenue, Chosroes, by the advice of the Grand Mobed, authorized the Magianpriests everywhere to exercise a supervision over the receivers oftaxes, and to hinder them from exacting more than their due. The priestswere only too happy to discharge this popular function; and extortionmust have become rare under a system which comprised so efficient asafeguard. 

Another change ascribed to Chosroes is a reform of the administration ofthe army. Under the system previously existing, Chosroes found thatthe resources of the state were lavishly wasted, and the result was amilitary force inefficient and badly accoutred. No security was takenthat the soldiers possessed their proper equipments or could dischargethe duties appropriate to their several grades. Persons came before thepaymaster, claiming the wages of a cavalry soldier, who possessedno horse, and had never learned to ride. Some, who called themselvessoldiers, had no knowledge of the use of any weapon at all; othersclaimed for higher grades of the service than those whereto they reallybelonged; those who drew the pay of cuirassiers were destitute of a coatof mail; those who professed themselves archers were utterly incompetentto draw the bow. The established rates of pay varied between a hundreddirhems a year and four thousand, and persons entitled to the lowestrate often received an amount not much short of the highest. The evilwas not only that the treasury was robbed by unfair claims and unfoundedpretences, but that artifice and false seeming were encouraged, whileat the same time the army was brought into such a condition that nodependence could be placed upon it. If the number who actually servedcorresponded to that upon the rolls, which is uncertain, at any rate allthe superior arms of the service fell below their nominal strength, andthe lower grades were crowded with men who were only soldiers in name. 

As a remedy against these evils, Chosroes appointed a singlepaymaster-general, and insisted on his carefully inspecting andreviewing each body of troops before he allowed it to draw its pay. Eachman was to appear before him fully equipped and to show his proficiencywith his weapon or weapons; horse soldiers were to bring their horses, and to exhibit their mastery over the animals by putting them throughtheir paces, mounting and dismounting, and performing the other usualexercises. If any clumsiness were noted, or any deficiency in theequipment, the pay was to be withheld until the defect observed had beenmade good. Special care was to be taken that no one drew the pay of aclass superior to that whereto he really belonged--of an archer, forinstance, when he was in truth a common soldier, or of a trooper when heserved not in the horse, but in the foot. 

A curious anecdote is related in connection with these military reforms. When Babek, the new paymaster, was about to hold his first review, heissued an order that all persons belonging to the army then present inthe capital should appear before him on a certain day. The troops came;but Babek dismissed them on the ground that a certain person whosepresence was indispensable had not made his appearance. Another daywas appointed, with the same result, except that Babek on this occasionplainly intimated that it was the king whom he expected to attend. Uponthis Chosroes, when a third summons was issued, took care to be present, and came fully equipped, as he thought, for battle. But the criticaleye of the reviewing officer detected an omission, which he refusedto overlook--the king had neglected to bring with him two extrabow-strings. Chosroes was required to go back to his palace and remedythe defect, after which he was allowed to pass muster, and then summonedto receive his pay. Babek affected to consider seriously what the pay ofthe commander-in-chief ought to be, and decided that it ought to exceedthat of any other person in the army. He then, in the sight of all, presented the king with four thousand and one dirhems, which Chosroesreceived and carried home. Thus two important principles were thoughtto be established--that no defect of equipment whatsoever should beoverlooked in any officer, however high his rank, and that none shoulddraw from the treasury a larger amount of pay than 4, 000 dirhems (L112. Of our money). 

The encouragement of agriculture was an essential element in the systemof Zoroaster; and Chosroes, in devoting his attention to it, was at onceperforming a religious duty and increasing the resources of the state. It was his earnest desire to bring into cultivation all the soil whichwas capable of it; and with this object he not only issued edictscommanding the reclamation of waste lands, but advanced from thetreasury the price of the necessary seed-corn, implements, and beaststo all poor persons willing to carry out his orders. Other poor persons, especially the infirm and those disabled by bodily defect, were relievedfrom his privy purse; mendicancy was forbidden, and idleness made anoffence. The lands forfeited by the followers of Mazdak were distributedto necessitous cultivators. The water system was carefully attended to;river and torrent courses were cleared of obstructions and straightened;the superfluous water of the rainy season was stored, and meted out witha wise economy to those who tilled the soil, in the spring and summer. 

The prosperity of a country depends in part upon the laborious industryof the inhabitants, in part upon their numbers. Chosroes regarded Persiaas insufficiently peopled, and made efforts to increase the populationby encouraging and indeed compelling marriage. All marriageable femaleswere required to provide themselves with husbands; if they neglectedthis duty, the government interfered, and united them to unmarried menof their own class. The pill was gilt to these latter by the advance ofa sufficient dowry from the public treasury, and by the prospect that, if children resulted from the union, their education and establishmentin life would be undertaken by the state. Another method of increasingthe population, adopted by Chosroes to a certain extent, was thesettlement within his own territories of the captives whom he carriedoff from foreign countries in the course of his military expeditions. The most notorious instance of this policy was the Greek settlement, known as Rumia (Rome), established by Chosroes after his capture ofAntioch (A. D. 540), in the near vicinity of Ctesiphon. 

Oriental monarchs, in many respects civilized and enlightened, haveoften shown a narrow and unworthy jealousy of foreigners. Chosroes hada mind which soared above this petty prejudice. He encouraged the visitsof all foreigners, excepting only the barbarous Turks, readily receivedthem at his court, and carefully provided for their safety. Not onlywere the roads and bridges kept in the most perfect order throughout histerritories, so as to facilitate locomotion, but on the frontiers andalong the chief lines of route guard-houses were built and garrisonsmaintained for the express purpose of securing the safety of travellers. The result was that the court of Chosroes was visited by numbers ofEuropeans, who were hospitably treated, and invited, or even pressed, toprolong their visits. 

To the proofs of wisdom and enlightenment here enumerated Chosroesadded another, which is more surprising than any of them. He studiedphilosophy, and was a patron of science and learning. Very early in hisreign he gave a refuge at his court to a body of seven Greek sages whoma persecuting edict, issued by Justinian, had induced to quit theircountry and take up their abode on Persian soil. Among the refugees wasthe erudite Damascius, whose work De Principiis is well known, and hasrecently been found to exhibit an intimate acquaintance with some of themost obscure of the Oriental religions. Another of the exiles was theeclectic philosopher Simplicius, "the most acute and judicious of theinterpreters of Aristotle. " Chosroes gave the band of philosophers ahospitable reception, entertained them at his table, and was unwillingthat they should leave his court. They found him acquainted withthe writings of Aristotle and Plato, whose works he had caused to betranslated into the Persian tongue. If he was not able to entervery deeply into the dialectical and metaphysical subtleties whichcharacterize alike the Platonic Dialogues and the Aristoteliantreatises, at any rate he was ready to discuss with them such questionsas the origin of the world, its destructibility or indestructibility, and the derivation of all things from one First Cause or from more. Later in his reign, another Greek, a sophist named Uranius, acquired hisespecial favor, became his instructor in the learning of his country, and was presented by him with a large sum of money. Further, Chosroesmaintained at his court, for the space of a year, the Greek physician, Tribunus, and offered him any reward that he pleased at his departure. He also instituted at Gondi-Sapor, in the vicinity of Susa, a sortof medical school, which became by degrees a university, whereinphilosophy, rhetoric, and poetry were also studied. Nor was it Greeklearning alone which attracted his notice and his patronage. Under hisfostering care the history and jurisprudence of his native Persiawere made special objects of study; the laws and maxims of the firstArtaxerxes, the founder of the monarchy, were called forth from theobscurity which had rested on them for ages, were republished anddeclared to be authoritative; while at the same time the annals of themonarchy were collected and arranged, and a "Shah-nameh, " or "Book ofthe Kings, " composed, which it is probable formed the basis of the greatwork of Firdausi. Even the distant land of Hindustan was explored inthe search after varied knowledge, and contributed to the learning andcivilization of the time the fables of Bidpai and the game of chess. 

Though a fierce persecutor of the deluded followers of Mazdak, Chosroesadmitted and practised, to some extent, the principles of toleration. On becoming king, he laid it down as a rule of his government thatthe actions of men alone, and not their thoughts, were subject to hisauthority. He was therefore bound not to persecute opinion; and we maysuppose that in his proceedings against the Mazdakites he intended topunish their crimes rather than their tenets. Towards the Christians, who abounded in his empire, he certainly showed himself, upon the whole, mild and moderate. He married a Christian wife, and allowed her toretain her religion. When one of his sons became a Christian, the onlypunishment which he inflicted on him was to confine him to the palace. He augumented the number of the Christians in his dominions by thecolonies which he brought in from abroad. He allowed to his Christiansubjects the free exercise of their religion, permitted them to buildchurches, elect bishops, and conduct services at their pleasure, andeven suffered them to bury their dead, though such pollution of theearth was accounted sacrilegious by the Zoroastrians. No unworthycompliances with the established cult were required of them. Proselytism, however, was not allowed; and all Christian sects wereperhaps not viewed with equal favor. Chosroes, at any rate, is accusedof persecuting the Catholics and the Monophysites, and compellingthem to join the Nestorians, who formed the predominant sect in hisdominions. Conformity, however, in things outward, is compatible with awide diversity of opinion; and Chosroes, while he disliked differencesof practice, seems certainly to have encouraged, at least in his earlieryears, a freedom of discussion in religious matters which must havetended to shake the hereditary faith of his subjects. He also gave onone occasion a very remarkable indication of liberal and tolerant views. When he made his first peace with Rome, the article on which he insistedthe most was one whereby the free profession of their known opinions andtenets in their own country was secured to the seven Grecian sageswho had found at his court, in their hour of need, a refuge frompersecution. 

In his domestic relations Chosroes was unfortunate. With his chief wife, indeed, the daughter of the great Khan of the Turks, he seems to havelived always on excellent terms; and it was his love for her whichinduced him to select the son whom she had borne him for his successoron the throne. But the wife who stood next in his favor displeased himby her persistent refusal to renounce the religion of Christ and adoptthat of her husband in its stead; and the quarrel between them must havebeen aggravated by the conduct of their child, Nushizad, who, when hecame to years of discretion, deliberately preferred the faith ofhis mother to that of his father and of the nation. With this choiceChosroes was naturally offended; but he restrained his anger withinmoderate limits, and was content to punish the young prince byforbidding him to quit the precincts of the palace. Unhappy resultsfollowed. Nushizad in his confinement heard a rumor that his father, whohad started for the Syrian war, was struck with sickness, was not likelyto recover, was dead. It seemed to him a golden opportunity, of whichhe would be foolish not to make the most. He accordingly quitted hisprison, spread the report of his father's death, seized the statetreasure, and scattered it with a liberal hand among the troops left inthe capital, summoned the Christians throughout the empire to his aid, assumed the title and state of king, was acknowledged by the whole ofthe southern province, and thought himself strong enough to take theoffensive and attempt the subjugation of Irak. Here, however, he wasmet by Phabrizus (Firuz?), one of his father's generals, who completelydefeated his army in a pitched battle. According to one account, Nushizad fell in the thick of the fight, mortally wounded by a chancearrow. According to another, he was made prisoner, and carried toChosroes, who, instead of punishing him with death, destroyed his hopesof reigning by inflicting on him a cruel disfigurement. 

The coins of Chosroes are very numerous, and offer one or two novel andcurious types. The most remarkable have on the obverse the head of theking, presenting the full face, and surmounted by a mural crown with alow cap. The beard is close, and the hair arranged in masses on eitherside. There are two stars above the crown, and two crescents, one overeither shoulder, with a star and crescent on the dress in front of eachshoulder. The kings wears a necklace, from which hang three pendants. Onthe reverse these coins have a full-length figure of the king, standingto the front, with his two hands resting on the hilt of his straightsword, and its point placed between his feet. The crown worn resemblesthat on the obverse; and there is a star and crescent on either side ofthe head. The legend on the obverse is _Khusludi afzum_, "May Chosroesincrease;" the reverse has, on the left _Khusludi_, with theregnal year; on the right, a longer legend which has not yet beensatisfactorily interpreted. [PLATE XXII. , Fig. 3. ]

The more ordinary type on the coins of Chosroes I. Is one differing butlittle from those of his father, Kobad, and his son, Hormazd IV. Theobverse has the king's head in profile, and the reverse the usualfire-altar and supporters. The distinguishing mark of these coins is, in addition to the legend, that they have three simple crescents in themargin of the obverse, instead of three crescents with stars. [PLATEXXII. , Fig. 4. ]

A relic of Chosroes has come down to us, which is of great beauty. Thisis a cup composed of a number of small disks of colored glass, unitedby a gold setting, and having at the bottom a crystal, engraved with afigure of the monarch. As late as 1638 it was believed that the disks ofglass were jacynths, garnets, and emeralds, while the stone which formsthe base was thought to be a white sapphire. The original owner of sorare a drinking-vessel could (it was supposed) only be Solomon; and thefigure at the bottom was accordingly supposed to represent the Jewishking. Archaeologists are now agreed that the engraving on the gem, whichexactly resembles the figure upon the peculiar coins above described, represents Chosroes Anushirwan, and is of his age. There is nosufficient reason to doubt but that the cup itself is one out of whichhe was accustomed to drink. 

It is the great glory of Anushirwan that the title which his subjectsgave him was "the Just. " According to European, and especially to modernideas, this praise would seem to have undeserved; and thus the greathistorian of the Byzantine period has not scrupled to declare that inhis external policy Chosroes was actuated by mere ambition, and that "inhis domestic administration he deserved the appellation of a tyrant. "Undoubtedly the punishments which he inflicted were for the most partsevere; but they were not capricious, nor uniform, nor without referenceto the character of the offence. Plotting against his crown orhis person, when the conspirators were of full age, treasonablecorrespondence with the enemy, violation of the sanctity of the harem, and the proselytism which was strictly forbidden by the laws, hepunished with death. But, when the rebel was a mere youth, he wascontent to inflict a disfigurement; whence the offence was less, hecould imprison, or confine to a particular spot, or simply banishthe culprit from his presence. Instances on record of his clemency tooffenders, and others which show that, when his own interests were atstake, he steadily refused to make use of his unlimited power forthe oppression of individuals. It is unlikely that Anushirwan wasdistinguished as "the Just" without a reason; and we may safely concludefrom his acknowledged title that his subjects found his rule more fairand equitable than that of any previous monarch. 

That the administration of Chosroes was wise, and that Persia prosperedunder his government, is generally admitted. His vigilance, hisactivity, his care for the poor, his efforts to prevent or checkoppression, are notorious, and cannot be gainsaid. Nor can it be doubtedthat he was brave, hardy, temperate, prudent, and liberal. Whetherhe possessed the softer virtues, compassion, kindliness, a tender andloving heart, is perhaps open to question. He seems, however, to havebeen a good husband and a good father, not easily offended, and notover-severe whence offence was given him. His early severities againsthis brothers and their followers may be regarded as caused by the adviceof others, and perhaps as justified by state policy. In his later life, when he was his own master, he was content to chastise rebellion moremildly. 

Intellectually, there is no reason to believe that Chosroes rose veryhigh above the ordinary Oriental level. The Persians, and even manyGreeks, in his own day, exalted him above measure, as capable ofapprehending the most subtle arguments and the deepest problems ofphilosophy; but the estimate of Agathias is probably more just, and thisreduces him to a standard about which there is nothing surprising. Itis to his credit that although engaged in almost perpetual wars, andburdened moreover with the administration of a mighty empire, he had amind large enough to entertain the consideration also of intellectualproblems, and to enjoy and take part in their discussion; but it couldscarcely be expected that, with his numerous other employments, heshould really sound to their utmost depths the profundities of Greekthought, or understand the speculative difficulties which separatedthe various schools one from another. No doubt his knowledge wassuperficial, and there may have been ostentation in the parade whichhe made of it; but we must not deny him the praise of a quick, activeintellect, and a width of view rarely found in an Oriental. 

It was not, however, in the field of speculative thought, but in that ofpractical effort, that Chosroes chiefly distinguished himself and gainedhis choicest laurels. The excellence of his domestic administration hasbeen already noticed. But, great as he was in peace, he was greater inwar. Engaged for nearly fifty years in almost uninterrupted contests, he triumphed in every quarter, and scarcely experienced a reverse. Victorious over the Romans, the Abyssinians, the Ephthalites, and theTurks, he extended the limits of his empire on all sides, pacifiedthe discontented Armenia, crushed internal revolt, frustrated the mostthreatening combinations, and established Persia in a position whichshe had scarcely occupied since the days of Darius Hystaspis. Personallyengaged in above a score of fights, by the admission of his enemies hewas never defeated but once; and there are circumstances which make itprobable that this single check was of slight importance. The one realfailure that can be laid to his charge was in another quarter, andinvolved no military, but only a political blunder. In recoiling fromthe difficulties of the Lazic war, Chosroes had not to deploreany disgrace to his arms, but simply to acknowledge that he hadmisunderstood the temper of the Lazic people. In depreciation of hismilitary talents it may be said that he was never opposed to any greatgeneral. With Belisarius it would certainly seem that he never actuallycrossed swords; but Justinian and Maurice (afterwards emperor), to whomhe was opposed in his later years, were no contemptible antagonists. Itmay further be remarked that the collapse of Persia in her strugglewith Rome as soon as Chosroes was in his grave is a tolerably decisiveindication that she owed her long career of victory under his guidanceto his possession of uncommon military ability. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

_Accession of Hormisdas IV. His good Government in the Earlier Portionof his Reign. Invasion of Persia by the Romans under Maurice. Defeatsof Adarman and Tamchosro. Campaign of Johannes. Campaigns of Philippicusand Heraclius. Tyranny of Hormisdas. He is attacked by the Arabs, Khazars, and Turks. Bahram defeats the Turks. His Attack on Lazica. Hesuffers a Defeat. Disgrace of Bahram. Dethronement of Hormisdas IV. AndElevation of Chosroes II. Character of Hormisdas. Coins of Hormisdas. _

At the death of Chosroes the crown was assumed without dispute ordifficulty by his son, Hormazd, who is known to the Greek and Latinwriters as Hormisdas IV. Hormazd was the eldest, or perhaps the only, son borne to Chosroes by the Turkish princess, Fakim, who, from the timeof her marriage, had held the place of sultana, or principal wife. Hisillustrious descent on both sides, added to the express appointment ofhis father, caused him to be universally accepted as king; and we donot hear that even his half-brothers, several of whom were older thanhimself, put forward any claims in opposition to his, or caused him anyanxiety or trouble. He commenced his reign amid the universal plauditsand acclamations of his subjects, whom he delighted by declaring that hewould follow in all things the steps of his father, whose wisdom somuch exceeded his own, would pursue his policy, maintain his officers inpower, and endeavor in all respects to govern as he had governed. When the mobeds attempted to persuade him to confine his favor toZoroastrians and persecute such of his subjects as were Jews orChristians he rejected their advice with the remark that, as in anextensive territory there were sure to be varieties of soil, so it wasfitting that a great empire should embrace men of various opinions andmanners. In his progresses from one part of his empire to another heallowed of no injury being done to the lands or gardens along the route, and punished severely all who infringed his orders. According to some, his good dispositions lasted only during the time that he enjoyed thecounsel and support of Abu-zurd-mihir, one of the best advisers of hisfather; but when this venerated sage was compelled by the infirmitiesof age to quit his court he fell under other influences, and soondegenerated into the cruel tyrant which, according to all theauthorities, he showed himself in his later years. 

Meanwhile, however, he was engaged in important wars, particularlywith the Roman emperors Tiberius and Maurice, who, now that the greatChosroes was dead, pressed upon Persia with augmented force, inthe confident hope of recovering their lost laurels. On the firstintelligence of the great king's death, Tiberius had endeavored tonegotiate a peace with his successor, and had offered to relinquish allclaim on Armenia, and to exchange Arzanene with its strong fortress, Aphumon, for Daras; but Hormisdas had absolutely rejected his proposals, declared that he would surrender nothing, and declined to make peace onany other terms than the resumption by Rome of her old system of payingan annual subsidy. The war consequently continued; and Maurice, whostill held the command, proceeded, in the summer of A. D. 579, to takethe offensive and invade the Persian territory. He sent a forceacross the Tigris under Romanus, Theodoric, and Martin, which ravagedKurdistan, and perhaps penetrated into Media, nowhere encountering anylarge body of the enemy, but carrying all before them and destroying theharvest at their pleasure. In the next year, A. D. 580, he formed a moreambitious project. Having gained over, as he thought, Alamundarus, theleader of the Saracens dependent on Persia, and collected a fleet tocarry his stores, he marched from Gircesium down the course of theEuphrates, intending to carry the war into Southern Mesopotamia, andperhaps hoping to capture Ctesiphon. He expected to take the Persiansunawares, and may not unnaturally have looked to gain an importantsuccess; but, unhappily for his plans, Alamundarus proved treacherous. The Persian king was informed of his enemy's march, and steps were atonce taken to render it abortive. Adarman was sent, at the head of alarge army, into Roman Mesopotamia, where he threatened the importantcity of Callinicus in Maurice's rear. That general dared advance nofurther. On the contrary, he felt constrained to fall back, to giveup his scheme, burn his fleet, and return hastily within the Romanfrontier. On his arrival, he engaged Adarman near the city which he wasattacking, defeated him, and drove him back into Persia. 

In the ensuing spring, after another vain attempt at negotiation, theoffensive was taken by the Persians, who, early in A. D. 581, crossed thefrontier under Tam-chosro, and attacked the Roman city of Constantia, or Constantina. Maurice hastened to its relief; and a great battle wasfought in the immediate vicinity of the city, wherein the Persianswere completely defeated, and their commander lost his life. Furtheradvantages might have been gained; but the prospect of the successiondrew Maurice to Constantinople, where Tiberius, stricken with a mortaldisease, received him with open arms, gave his daughter and the stateinto his care, and, dying soon after, left him the legacy of the empire, which he administered with success for above twenty years. 

On quitting the East, Maurice devolved his command upon an officer whobore the very common name of Johannes, but was distinguished furtherby the epithet of Mustacon, on account of his abundant moustache. This seems to have been a bad appointment. Mustacon was unequal to theposition. He gave the Persians battle at the conjunction of the Nymphiuswith the Tigris, but was defeated with considerable loss, partly throughthe misconduct of one of his captains. He then laid siege to Arbas, astrong fort on the Persian side of the Nymphius, while the main bodyof the Persians were attacking Aphumon in the neighboring district ofArzanene. The garrison of Arbas made signals of distress, which speedilybrought the Persian army to their aid; a second battle was fought atArbas, and Mustacon was again defeated, and forced to retire acrossthe Nymphius into Roman territory. His incapacity was now rendered soclearly evident that Maurice recalled him, and gave the command of thearmy of the East to a new general, Philippicus, his brother-in-law. 

The first and second campaigns of Philippicus, in the years A. D. 584and 585, were of the most commonplace character. He avoided any generalengagement, and contended himself with plundering inroads into thePersian territory on either side of the Upper Tigris, occasionallysuffering considerably from want of water and provisions. The Persianson their part undertook no operations of importance until late in A. D. 585, when Philippicus had fallen sick. They then made attempts uponMonocartum and Martyropolis, which were unsuccessful, resulting only inthe burning of a church and a monastery near the latter town. Neitherside seemed capable of making any serious impression upon the other; andearly the next year negotiations were resumed, which, however, resultedin nothing. 

In his third campaign Philippicus adopted a bolder line of proceeding. Commencing by an invasion of Eastern Mesopotamia, he met and defeatedthe Persians in a great battle near Solachon, having first roused theenthusiasm of his troops by carrying along their ranks a miraculouspicture of our Lord, which no human hand had painted. Hanging on therear of the fugitives, he pursued them to Daras, which declined toreceive within its walls an army that had so disgraced itself. ThePersian commander withdrew his troops further inland; and Philippicus, believing that he had now no enemy to fear, proceeded to invadeArzanene, to besiege the stronghold of Chlomaron, and at the same timeto throw forward troops into the more eastern parts of the country. Heexpected them to be unopposed; but the Persian general, having ralliedhis force and augmented it by fresh recruits, had returned towardsthe frontier, and, hearing of the danger of Arzanene, had flown to itsdefence. Philippicus was taken by surprise, compelled to raise the siegeof Chlomaron, and to fall back in disorder. The Persians pressed on hisretreat, crossed the Nymphius after him, and did not desist from thepursuit until the imperial general threw himself with his shatteredarmy into the strong fortress of Amida. Disgusted and discredited by hisill-success, Philippicus gave over the active prosecution of the warto Heraclius, and, remaining at head-quarters, contented himself with ageneral supervision. 

Heraclius, on receiving his appointment, is said to have at once assumedthe offensive, and to have led an army, consisting chiefly or entirelyof infantry, into Persian territory, which devastated the country onboth sides of the Tigris, and rejoined Philippicus, without havingsuffered any disaster, before the winter. Philippicus was encouragedby the success of his lieutenant to continue him in command for anotheryear; but, through prudence or jealousy, he was induced to intrust aportion only of the troops to his care, while he assigned to others thesupreme authority over no less than one third of the Roman army. Theresult was, as might have been expected, inglorious for Rome. DuringA. D. 587 the two divisions acted separately in different quarters; and, at the end of the year, neither could boast of any greater success thanthe reduction, in each case, of a single fortress. Philippicus, however, seems to have been satisfied; and at the approach of winter he withdrewfrom the East altogether, leaving Heraclius as his representative, andreturned to Constantinople. 

During the earlier portion of the year A. D. 588 the mutinous temperof the Roman army rendered it impossible that any military operationsshould be undertaken. Encouraged by the disorganization of theirenemies, the Persians crossed the frontier, and threatened Constantina, which was however saved by Germanus. Later in the year, the mutinousspirit having been quelled, a counter-expedition was made by the Romansinto Arzanene. Here the Persian general, Maruzas, met them, and drovethem from the province; but, following up his success too ardently, hereceived a complete defeat near Martyropolis, and lost his life in thebattle. His head was cut off by the civilized conquerors, and sent as atrophy to Maurice. 

The campaign of A. D. 589 was opened by a brilliant stroke on the partof the Persians, who, through the treachery of a certain Sittas, a pettyofficer in the Roman army, made themselves masters of Martyropolis. Itwas in vain that Philippicus twice besieged the place; he was unable tomake any impression upon it, and after a time desisted from the attempt. On the second occasion the garrison was strongly reinforced by thePersians under Mebodos and Aphraates, who, after defeating Philippicusin a pitched battle, threw a large body of troops into the town. Philippicus was upon this deprived of his office, and replaced byComentiolus, with Heraclius as second in command. The new leaders, instead of engaging in the tedious work of a siege, determined onre-establishing the Roman prestige by a bold counter-attack. Theyinvaded the Persian territory in force, ravaged the country aboutNisibis, and brought Aphraates to a pitched battle at Sisarbanon, near that city. Victory seemed at first to incline to the Persians;Comentiolus was defeated and fled; but Horaclius restored the battle, and ended by defeating the whole Persian army, and driving it from thefield, with the loss of its commander, who was slain in the thick of thefight. The next day the Persian camp was taken, and a rich booty fellinto the hands of the conquerors, besides a number of standards. Theremnant of the defeated army found a refuge within the walls of Nisibis. Later in the year Comentiolus recovered to some extent his tarnishedlaurels by the siege and capture of Arbas, whose strong situation in theimmediate vicinity of Martyropolis rendered the position of the Persiangarrison in that city insecure, if not absolutely untenable. 

Such was the condition of affairs in the western provinces of thePersian Empire, when a sudden danger arose in the east, which hadstrange and most important consequences. According to the Orientalwriters, Hormisdas had from a just monarch gradually become a tyrant;under the plea of protecting the poor had grievously oppressed therich; through jealousy or fear had put to death no fewer than thirteenthousand of the upper classes, and had thus completely alienated allthe more powerful part of the nation. Aware of his unpopularity, thesurrounding tribes and peoples commenced a series of aggressions, plundered the frontier provinces, defeated the detachments sent againstthem under commanders who were disaffected, and everywhere brought theempire into the greatest danger. The Arabs crossed the Euphrates andspread themselves over Mesopotamia; the Khazars invaded Armenia andAzerbijan; rumor said that the Greek emperor had taken the field and wasadvancing on the side of Syria, at the head of 80, 000 men; above all, itwas quite certain that the Great Khan of the Turks had put his hordesin motion, had passed the Oxus with a countless host, occupied Balkh andHerat, and was threatening to penetrate into the very heart of Persia. The perilous character of the crisis is perhaps exaggerated; but therecan be little doubt that the advance of the Turks constituted a realdanger. Hormisdas, however, did not even now quit the capital, oradventure his own person. He selected from among his generals a certainVarahran or Bahram, a leader of great courage and experience, who haddistinguished himself in the wars of Anushirwan, and, placing all theresources of the empire at his disposal, assigned to him the entireconduct of the Turkish struggle. Bahram is said to have contentedhimself with a small force of picked men, veterans between forty andfifty years of age, to have marched with them upon Balkh, contendedwith the Great Khan in several partial engagements, and at last entirelydefeated him in a great battle, wherein the Khan lost his life. Thisvictory was soon followed by another over the Khan's son, who was madeprisoner and sent to Hormisdas. An enormous booty was at the same timedespatched to the court; and Bahram himself was about to return, when hereceived his master's orders to carry his arms into another quarter. 

It is supposed, by some that, while the Turkish hordes were menacingPersia upon the north-east, a Roman army, intended to act in concertwith them, was sent by Maurice into Albania, which proceeded to threatenthe common enemy in the north-west. But the Byzantine writers know of noalliance at this time between the Romans and Turks; nor do they tellof any offensive movement undertaken by Rome in aid of the Turkishinvasion, or even simultaneously with it. According to them, the warin this quarter, which certainly broke out in A. D. 589, was provoked byHormisdas himself, who, immediately after his Turkish victories, sentBahram with an army to invade Colchis and Suania, or in other words toresume the Lazic war, from which Anushirwan had desisted twenty-sevenyears previously. Bahram found the province unguarded, and was able toravage it at his will; but a Roman force soon gathered to its defence, and after some manoeuvres a pitched battle was fought on the Araxes, inwhich the Persian general suffered a defeat. The military results ofthe check were insignificant; but it led to an internal revolution. Hormisdas had grown jealous of his too successful lieutenant, and wasglad of an opportunity to insult him. No sooner did he hear of Bahram'sdefeat than he sent off a messenger to the camp upon the Araxes, whodeprived the general of his command, and presented to him, on the partof his master, a distaff, some cotton, and a complete set of women'sgarments. Stung to madness by the undeserved insult, Bahram retortedwith a letter, wherein he addressed Hormisdas, not as the son, but asthe daughter of Chosroes. Shortly afterwards, upon the arrival of asecond messenger from the court, with orders to bring the recalcitrantcommander home in chains, Bahram openly revolted, caused the envoy tobe trampled upon by an elephant, and either by simply putting before thesoldiers his services and his wrongs, or by misrepresenting to them theintentions of Hormisdas towards themselves, induced his whole army withone accord to embrace his cause. 

The news of the great general's revolt was received with acclamationsby the provinces. The army of Mesopotamia, collected at Nisibis, madecommon cause with that of Albania; and the united force, advancing onthe capital by way of Assyria, took up a position upon the Upper Zabriver. Hormisdas sent a general, Pherochanes, to meet and engage therebels; but the emissaries of Bahram seduced his troops from theirallegiance; Pherochanes was murdered; and the insurgent army, augmentedby the force sent to oppose it, drew daily nearer to Ctesiphon. Meanwhile Hormisdas, distracted between hate and fear, suspecting everyone, trusting no one, confined himself within the walls of the capital, where he continued to exercise the severities which had lost him theaffections of his subjects. According to some, he suspected his son, Chosroes, of collusion with the enemy, and drove him into banishment, imprisoning at the same time his own brothers in-law, Bindoes andBostam, who would be likely, he thought, to give their support to theirnephew. These violent measures precipitated the evils which he feared;a general revolt broke out in the palace; Bostam and Bindoes, releasedfrom prison, put themselves at the head of the malcontents, and, rushinginto the presence-chamber, dragged the tyrant from his throne, strippedhim of the diadem, and committed him to the dungeon from which they hadthemselves escaped. The Byzantine historians believed that, after this, Hormisdas was permitted to plead his cause before an assembly of Persiannobles, to glorify his own reign, vituperate his eldest son, Chosroes, and express his willingness to abdicate in favor of another son, whohad never offended him. They supposed that this ill-judged oration hadsealed the fate of the youth recommended and of his mother, who were cutto pieces before the fallen monarch's eyes, while at the same time therage of the assembly was vented in part upon Hormisdas himself, who wasblinded, to make his restoration impossible. But a judicious critic willdoubt the likelihood of rebels, committed as were Bindoes and Bostam, consenting to allow such an appeal as is described by Theophylact; anda perusal of the speeches assigned to the occasion will certainly notdiminish his scepticism. The probability would seem to be that Hormisdaswas blinded as soon as committed to prison, and that shortly afterwardshe suffered the general fate of deposed sovereigns, being assassinatedin his place of confinement. 

The deposition of Hormisdas was followed almost immediately by theproclamation of his eldest son, Chosroes, the prince known in historyas "Eberwiz" or "Parviz, " the last great Persian monarch. The rebels atCtesiphon had perhaps acted from first to last with his cognizance: atany rate, they calculated on his pardoning proceedings which had givenhim actual possession of a throne whereto, without their aid, he mightnever have succeeded. They accordingly declared him king of Persiawithout binding him by conditions, and without negotiating with Bahram, who was still in arms and at no great distance. 

Before passing to the consideration of the eventful reign with which weshall now have to occupy ourselves, a glance at the personal characterof the deceased monarch will perhaps be expected by the reader. Hormuzdis pronounced by the concurrent voice of the Greeks and the Orientalsone of the worst princes that ever ruled over Persia. The fair promiseof his early years was quickly clouded over; and during the greaterportion of his reign he was a jealous and capricious tyrant, influencedby unworthy favorites, and stimulated to ever-increasing severities byhis fears. Eminence of whatsoever kind roused his suspicions; and amonghis victims were included, besides the noble and the great, a largenumber of philosophers and men of science. His treatment of Bahram wasat once a folly and a crime--an act of black ingratitude, and a rashstep, whereof he had not counted the consequences. To his other viceshe added those of indolence and effeminacy. From the time that he becameking nothing could drag him from the soft life of the palace; in nosingle instance did he take the field, either against his country'senemies or his own. Miserable as was his end, we can scarcely deem himworthy of our pity, since there never lived a man whose misfortunes weremore truly brought on him by his own conduct. 

The coins of Hormisdas IV. Are in no respect remarkable. The head seemsmodelled on that of Chosroes, his father, but is younger. The field ofthe coin within the border is somewhat unduly crowded with stars andcrescents. Stars and crescents also occur outside the border, replacingthe simple crescents of Chosroes, and reproducing the combined stars andcrescents of Zamasp. The legend on the obverse is _Auhramazdi afzud_, or sometimes _Auhramazi afzun_; on the reverse are commonly found, besides the usual fire-altar and supporters, a regnal year and amint-mark. The regnal years range from one to thirteen; the number ofthe mint-marks is about thirty. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXIII. ]

CHAPTER XXIII. 

_Accession of Chosroes II. (Eberwiz). Bahram rejects his Terms. Contestbetween Chosroes and Bahram. Flight of Chosroes. Short Reign of Bahram(Varahran VI). Campaign of A. D. 591. Recovery of the Throne by Chosroes. Coins of Bahram. _

The position of Chosroes II. On his accession was one of greatdifficulty. Whether actually guilty of parricide or not, he was at anyrate suspected by the greater part of his subjects of complicity in hisfather's murder. A rebel, who was the greatest Persian general ofthe time, at the head of a veteran army, stood arrayed against hisauthority. He had no established character to fall back upon, no meritsto plead, nothing in fact to urge on his behalf but that he was theeldest son of his father, the legitimate representative of the ancientline of the Sassanidae. A revolution had placed him on the throne in ahasty and irregular manner; nor is it clear that he had ventured on theusual formality of asking the consent of the general assembly of thenobles to his coronation. Thus perils surrounded him on every side; butthe most pressing danger of all, that which required to be immediatelymet and confronted, was the threatening attitude of Bahram, who hadadvanced from Adiabene to Holwan, and occupied a strong position nota hundred and fifty miles from the capital. Unless Bahram could beconciliated or defeated, the young king could not hope to maintainhimself in power, or feel that he had any firm grasp of the sceptre. 

Under these circumstances he took the resolution to try first the methodof conciliation. There seemed to be a fair opening for such a course. Itwas not he, but his father, who had given the offence which droveBahram into rebellion, and almost forced him to vindicate his manhood bychallenging his detractor to a trial of strength. Bahram could haveno personal ground of quarrel with him. Indeed that general had at thefirst, if we may believe the Oriental writers, proclaimed Chosroes asking, and given out that he took up arms in order to place him uponthe throne. It was thought, moreover, that the rebel might feel himselfsufficiently avenged by the death of his enemy, and might be favorablydisposed towards those who had first blinded Hormisdas and thendespatched him by the bowstring. Chosroes therefore composed a letter inwhich he invited Bahram to his court, and offered him the second placein the kingdom, if he would come in and make his submission. The messagewas accompanied by rich presents, and by an offer that if the termsproposed wera accepted they should be confirmed by oath. 

The reply of Bahram was as follows: "Bahram, friend of the gods, conqueror, illustrious, enemy of tyrants, satrap of satraps, general ofthe Persian host, wise, apt for command, god-fearing, without reproach, noble, fortunate, successful, venerable, thrifty, provident, gentle, humane, to Chosroes the son of Hormisdas (sends greeting). I havereceived the letter which you wrote with such little wisdom, but haverejected the presents which you sent with such excessive boldness. Ithad been better that you should have abstained from sending either, moreespecially considering the irregularity of your appointment, and thefact that the noble and respectable took no part in the vote, whichwas carried by the disorderly and low-born. If then it is your wish toescape your father's fate, strip off the diadem which you have assumedand deposit it in some holy place, quit the palace, and restore to theirprisons the criminals whom you have set at liberty, and whom you had noright to release until they had undergone trial for their crimes. Whenyou have done all this, come hither, and I will give you the governmentof a province. Be well advised, and so farewell. Else, be sure you willperish like your father. " So insolent a missive might well have provokedthe young prince to some hasty act or some unworthy show of temper. Itis to the credit of Chosroes that he restrained himself, and even madeanother attempt to terminate the quarrel by a reconciliation. Whilestriving to outdo Bahram in the grandeur of his titles, he stilladdressed him as his friend. He complimented him on his courage, and felicitated him on his excellent health. "There were certainexpressions, " he said, "in the letter that he had received, which hewas sure did not speak his friend's real feelings. The amanuensis hadevidently drunk more wine than he ought, and, being half asleep when hewrote, had put down things that were foolish and indeed monstrous. Buthe was not disturbed by them. He must decline, however, to send backto their prisons those whom he had released, since favors granted byroyalty could not with propriety be withdrawn; and he must protest thatin the ceremony of his coronation all due formalities had been observed. As for stripping himself of his diadem, he was so far from contemplatingit that he looked forward rather to extending his dominion over newworlds. As Bahram had invited him, he would certainly pay him a visit;but he would be obliged to come as a king, and if his persuasions didnot produce submission he would have to compel it by force of arms. Hehoped that Bahram would be wise in time, and would consent to be hisfriend and helper. "

This second overture produced no reply; and it became tolerably evidentthat the quarrel could only be decided by the arbitrament of battle. Chosroes accordingly put himself at the head of such troops as he couldcollect, and marched against his antagonist, whom he found encampedon the Holwan River. The place was favorable for an engagement; butChosroes had no confidence in his soldiers. He sought a personalinterview with Bahram, and renewed his offers of pardon and favor; butthe conference only led to mutual recriminations, and at its closeboth sides appealed to arms. During six days the two armies merelyskirmished, since Chosroes bent all his efforts towards avoiding ageneral engagement; but on the seventh day Bahram surprised him by anattack after night had fallen, a threw his troops into confusion, andthen, by a skilful appeal to their feelings, induced them to deserttheir leader and come over to his side. Chosroes was forced to fly. Hefell back on Ctesiphon; but despairing of making a successful defence, with the few troops that remained faithful to him, against theoverwhelming force which Bahram had at his disposal, he resolved toevacuate the capital, to quit Persia, and to throw himself on thegenerosity of some one of his neighbors. It is said that his choicewas long undetermined between the Turks, the Arabs, the Khazars ofthe Caucasian region, and the Romans. According to some writers, afterleaving Ctesiphon, with his wives and children, his two uncles, and anescort of thirty men, he laid his reins on his horse's neck, and left itto the instinct of the animal to determine in what direction he shouldflee. The sagacious beast took the way to the Euphrates; and Chosroes, finding himself on its banks, crossed the river, and, following up itscourse, reached with much difficulty the well-known Roman station ofCircesium. He was not unmolested in his retreat. Bahram no sooner heardof his flight than he sent off a body of 4000 horse, with orders topursue and capture the fugitive. They would have succeeded, had notBindoes devoted himself on behalf of his nephew, and, by tricking theofficer in command, enabled Chosroes to place such a distance betweenhimself and his pursuers that the chase had to be given up, and thedetachment to return, with no more valuable capture than Bindoes, toCtesiphon. 

Chosroes was received with all honor by Probus, the governor ofCircesium, who the next day communicated intelligence of what hadhappened to Comentiolus, Prefect of the East, then resident atHierapolis. At the same time he sent to Comentiolus a letter whichChosroes had addressed to Maurice, imploring his aid against hisenemies. Comentiolus approved what had been done, despatched a courierto bear the royal missive to Constantinople, and shortly afterwards, bythe direction of the court, invited the illustrious refugee to removeto Hierapolis, and there take up his abode, till his cause should bedetermined by the emperor. Meanwhile, at Constantinople, after theletter of Chosroes had been read, a serious debate arose as to what wasfittest to be done. While some urged with much show of reason thatit was for the interest of the empire that the civil war should beprolonged, that Persia should be allowed to waste her strength andexhaust her resources in the contest, at the end of which it would beeasy to conquer her, there were others whose views were less selfishor more far-sighted. The prospect of uniting the East and West into asingle monarchy, which had been brought to the test of experiment byAlexander and had failed, did not present itself in a very temptinglight to these minds. They doubted the ability of the declining empireto sway at once the sceptre of Europe and of Asia. They feared that ifthe appeal of Chosroes were rejected, the East would simply fall intoanarchy, and the way would perhaps be prepared for some new powerto rise up, more formidable than the kingdom of the Sassanidae. The inclination of Maurice, who liked to think himself magnanimous, coincided with the views of these persons: their counsels were accepted;and the reply was made to Chosroes that the Roman emperor accepted himas his guest and son, undertook his quarrel, and would aid him with allthe forces of the empire to recover his throne. At the same time Mauricesent him some magnificent presents, and releasing the Persian prisonersin confinement at Constantinople, bade them accompany the envoys ofChosroes and resume the service of their master. Soon afterwards moresubstantial tokens of the Imperial friendship made their appearance. Anarmy of 70, 000 men arrived under Narses; and a subsidy was advanced bythe Imperial treasury, amounting (according to one writer) to about twomillions sterling. 

But this valuable support to his cause was no free gift of a generousfriend; on the contrary, it had to be purchased by great sacrifices. Chosroes had perhaps at first hoped that aid would be given himgratuitously, and had even regarded the cession of a single city as onethat he might avoid making. But he learnt by degrees that nothing wasto be got from Rome without paying for it; and it was only byceding Persarmenia and Eastern Mesopotamia, with its strong towns ofMartyropolis and Daras, that he obtained the men and money that wererequisite. 

Meanwhile Bahram, having occupied Ctesiphon, had proclaimed himselfking, and sent out messengers on all sides to acquaint the provinceswith the change of rulers. The news was received without enthusiasm, butwith a general acquiescence; and, had Maurice rejected the applicationof Chosroes, it is probable that the usurper might have enjoyed a longand quiet reign. As soon, however, as it came to be known that the Greekemperor had espoused, the cause of his rival, Bahram found himselfin difficulties: conspiracy arose in his own court, and had to besuppressed by executions; murmurs were heard in some of the more distantprovinces; Armenia openly revolted and declared for Chosroes; and itsoon appeared that in places the fidelity of the Persian troops wasdoubtful. This was especially the case in Mesopotamia, which wouldhave to bear the brunt of the attack when the Romans advanced. Bahramtherefore thought it necessary, though it was now the depth of winter, to strengthen his hold on the wavering province, and sent out twodetachments, under commanders upon whom he could rely, to occupyrespectively Anatho and Nisibis, the two strongholds of greatestimportance in the suspected region. Miraduris succeeded in entering andoccupying Anatho. Zadesprates was less fortunate; before he reached theneighborhood of Nisibis, the garrison which held that place had desertedthe cause of the usurper and given in its adhesion to Chosroes; and, when he approached to reconnoitre, he was made the victim of a stratagemand killed by an officer named Rosas. Miraduris did not long survivehim; the troops which he had introduced into Anatho caught the contagionof revolt, rose up against him, slew him, and sent his head to Chosroes. 

The spring was now approaching, and the time for military operationson a grand scale drew near. Chosroes, besides his supporters inMesopotamia, Roman and Persian, had a second army in Azerbijan, raisedby his uncles Bindoes and Bostam, which was strengthened by an Armeniancontingent. The plan of campaign involved the co-operation of these twoforces. With this object Chosroes proceeded early in the spring, fromHierapolis to Constantina, from Constantina to Daras, and thence by wayof Ammodion to the Tigris, across which he sent a detachment, probablyin the neighborhood of Mosul. This force fell in with Bryzacius, whocommanded in these parts for Bahram, and surprising him in the firstwatch of the night, defeated his army and took Bryzacius himselfprisoner. The sequel, which Theophylact appears to relate from theinformation of an eye-witness, furnishes a remarkable evidence of thebarbarity of the times. Those who captured Bryzacius cut off his noseand his ears, and in this condition sent him to Chosroes. The Persianprince was overjoyed at the success, which no doubt he accepted as agood omen; he at once led his whole army across the river, and havingencamped for the night at a place called Dinabadon, entertained thechief Persian and Roman nobles at a banquet. When the festivity was atits height, the unfortunate prisoner was brought in loaded with fetters, and was made sport of by the guests for a time, after which, at asignal from the king, the guards plunged their swords into his body, anddespatched him in the sight of the feasters. Having amused his guestswith this delectable interlude, the amiable monarch concluded the wholeby anointing them with perfumed ointment, crowning them with flowers, and bidding them drink to the success of the war. "The guests, " saysTheophylact, "returned, to their tents, delighted with the completenessof their entertainment, and told their friends how handsomely theyhad been treated, but the crown of all (they said) was the episode ofBryzacius. "

Chosroes next day advanced across the Greater Zab, and, after marchingfour days, reached Alexandrian a position probably not far from Arbela, after which, in two days more, he arrived at Chnaethas, which was adistrict upon the Zab Asfal, or Lesser Zab River. Here he found himselfin the immediate vicinity of Bahram, who had taken up his position onthe Lesser Zab, with the intention probably of blocking the route up itsvalley, by which he expected that the Armenian army would endeavor toeffect a junction with the army of Chosroes. Here the two forces watchedeach other for some days, and various manoeuvres were executed, which itis impossible to follow, since Theophylact, our only authority, is nota good military historian. The result, however, is certain. Bahram wasout-manoeuvred by Chosroes and his Roman allies; the fords of the Zabwere seized; and after five days of marching and counter-marching, the longed-for junction took place. Chosroes had the satisfactionof embracing his uncles Bindoes and Bostam, and of securing such areinforcement as gave him a great superiority in numbers over hisantagonist. 

About the same time he received intelligence of another most importantsuccess. Before quitting Daras, he had despatched Mebodes, at the headof a small body of Romans, to create a diversion on the Mesopotomianside of the Tigris by a demonstration from Singara against Seleuciaand Ctesiphon. He can hardly have expected to do more than distracthis enemy and perhaps make him divide his forces. Bahram, however, waseither indifferent as to the fate of the capital, or determined not toweaken the small army, which was all that he could muster, and on whichhis whole dependence was placed. He left Seleucia and Ctesiphon to theirfate. Mebodes and his small force marched southward without meetingan enemy, obtained possession of Seleucia without a blow after thewithdrawal of the garrison, received the unconditional surrender ofCtesiphon, made themselves masters of the royal palace and treasures, proclaimed Chosroes king, and sent to him in his camp the most preciousemblems of the Persian sovereignty. Thus, before engaging with hisantagonist, Chosroes recovered his capital and found his authority oncemore recognized in the seat of government. 

The great contest had, however, to be decided, not by the loss and gainof cities, nor by the fickle mood of a populace, but by trial of arms inthe open field. Bahram was not of a temper to surrender his sovereigntyunless compelled by defeat. He was one of the greatest generals of theage, and, though compelled to fight under every disadvantage, greatlyoutnumbered by the enemy, and with troops that were to a large extentdisaffected, he was bent on resisting to the utmost, and doing his bestto maintain his own rights. He seems to have fought two pitched battleswith the combined Romans and Persians, and not to have succumbed untiltreachery and desertion disheartened him and ruined his cause. The firstbattle was in the plain country of Adiabene, at the foot of the Zagrosrange. Here the opposing armies were drawn out in the open field, eachdivided into a centre and two wings. In the army of Chosroes the Romanswere in the middle, on the right the Persians, and the Armenians on theleft. Narses, together with Chosroes, held the central position: Bahramwas directly opposed to them. When the conflict began the Romans chargedwith such fierceness that Bahram's centre at once gave way; he wasobliged to retreat to the foot of the hills, and take up a position ontheir slope. Here the Romans refused to attack him; and Chosroes veryimprudently ordered the Persians who fought on his side to advance upthe ascent. They were repulsed, and thrown into complete confusion; andthe battle would infallibly have been lost, had not Narses come to theiraid, and with his steady and solid battalions protected their retreatand restored the fight. Yet the day terminated with a feeling on bothsides that Bahram had on the whole had the advantage in the engagement;the king _de facto_ congratulated himself; the king _de jure_ had tobear the insulting pity of his allies, and the reproaches of his owncountrymen for occasioning them such a disaster. 

But though Bahram might feel that the glory of the day was his, he wasnot elated by his success, nor rendered blind to the difficulties of hisposition. Fighting with his back to the mountains, he was liable, if hesuffered defeat, to be entangled in their defiles and lose his entireforce. Moreover, now that Ctesiphon was no longer his, he had neitherresources nor _point d'appui_ in the low country, and by falling backhe would at once be approaching nearer to the main source of his ownsupplies, which was the country about Rei, south of the Caspian, anddrawing his enemies to a greater distance from the sources of theirs. He may even have thought there was a chance of his being unpursued ifhe retired, since the Romans might not like to venture into the mountainregion, and Chosroes might be impatient to make a triumphal entry intohis capital. Accordingly, the use which Bahram made of his victory wasquietly to evacuate his camp, to leave the low plain region, rapidlypass the mountains, and take up his quarters in the fertile uplandbeyond them, the district where the Lesser Zab rises, south of LakeUrumiyeh. 

If he had hoped that his enemies would not pursue him, Bahram wasdisappointed. Chosroes himself, and the whole of the mixed army whichsupported his cause, soon followed on his footsteps, and pressingforward to Canzaca, or Shiz, near which he had pitched his camp, offeredhim battle for the second time. Bahram declined the offer, and retreatedto a position on the Balarathus, where, however, after a short time, hewas forced to come to an engagement. He had received, it would seem, areinforcement of elephants from the provinces bordering on India, andhoped for some advantage from the employment of this new arm. He hadperhaps augmented his forces, though it must be doubted whether hereally on this occasion outnumbered his antagonist. At any rate, thetime seemed to have come when he must abide the issue of his appeal toarms, and secure or lose his crown by a supreme effort. Once more thearmies were drawn up in three distinct bodies; and once more the leadersheld the established central position. The engagement began along thewhole line, and continued for a while without marked result. Bahram thenstrengthened his left, and, transferring himself to this part of thefield, made an impression on the Roman right. But Narses brought upsupports to their aid, and checked the retreat, which had already begun, and which might soon have become general. Hereupon Bahram suddenly fellupon the Roman centre and endeavored to break it and drive it from thefield; but Narses was again a match for him, and met his assault withoutflinching, after which, charging in his turn, he threw the Persiancentre into confusion. Seeing this, the wings also broke, and a generalflight began, whereupon 6000 of Bahram's troops deserted, and, drawingaside, allowed themselves to be captured. The retreat then became arout. Bahram himself fled with 4, 000 men. His camp, with all its richfurniture, and his wives and children, were taken. The elephant corpsstill held out and fought valiantly; but it was surrounded and forcedto surrender. The battle was utterly lost; and the unfortunate chief, feeling that all hope was gone, gave the reins to his horse and fled forhis life. Chosroes sent ten thousand men in pursuit, under Bostam, hisuncle; and this detachment overtook the fugitives, but was repulsedand returned. Bahram continued his flight, and passing through Rei andDamaghan, reached the Oxus and placed himself under the protectionof the Turks. Chosroes, having dismissed his Roman allies, re-enteredCtesiphon after a year's absence, and for the second time took his placeupon the throne of his ancestors. 

The coins of Bahram possess a peculiar interest. While there is nonumismatic evidence which confirms the statement that he struck moneyin the name of the younger Chosroes, there are extant three types ofhis coins, two of which appear to belong to the time before he seatedhimself upon the throne, while one--the last--belongs to the period ofhis actual sovereignty. In his preregnal coins, he copied the devices ofthe last sovereign of his name who had ruled over Persia. He adoptedthe mural crown in a decided form, omitted the stars and crescents, andplaced his own head amid the flames of the fire-altar. His legends wereeither _Varahran Chub_, "Bahram of the mace, " or _Varahran, maljcan malka, mazdisn, bagi, ramashtri_, "Bahram, king of kings, Ormazd-worshipping, divine, peaceful. " [PLATE XXIII, Fig. 2. ]

The later coins follow closely the type of his predecessor, HormisdasIV. , differing only in the legend, which is, on the obverse, _Varahranafzun_, or "Varahran (may he be) greater;" and on the reverse theregnal year, with a mint-mark. The regnal year is uniformly "one;" themint-marks are Zadracarta, Iran, and Nihach, an unknown locality. [PLATEXXIII. , Fig 3. ]

CHAPTER XXIV. 

_Second Reign of Chosroes II. (Eberwiz). His Rule at first Unpopular, His Treatment of his Uncles, Bindoes and Bostam. His vindictiveProceedings against Bahram. His supposed Leaning towards Christianity. His Wives, Shirin and Kurdiyeh. His early Wars. His Relations with theEmperor Maurice. His Attitude towards Phocas. Great War of Chosroes withPhocas, A. D. 603-610. War continued with Heraclius. Immense Successesof Chosroes, A. D. 611-620. Aggressive taken by Heraclius A. D. 622. HisCampaigns in Persian Territory A. D. 622-628. Murder of Chosroes. HisCharacter. His Coins_. 

The second reign of Chosroes II. , who is commonly known as ChosroesEberwiz or Parwiz, lasted little short of thirty-seven years--from thesummer of A. D. 591 to the February of A. D. 628. Externally considered, it is the most remarkable reign in the entire Sassanian series, embracing as it does the extremes of elevation and depression. Never atany other time did the Neo-Persian kingdom extend itself so far, orso distinguish itself by military achievements, as in the twenty yearsintervening between A. D. 602 and A. D. 622. Seldom was it brought so lowas in the years immediately anterior and immediately subsequent tothis space, in the earlier and in the later portions of the reign whosecentral period was so glorious. 

Victorious by the help of Rome, Chosroes began his second reign amid thescarcely disguised hostility of his subjects. So greatly did he mistrusttheir sentiments towards him that he begged and obtained of Maurice thesupport of a Roman bodyguard, to whom he committed the custody of hisperson. To the odium always attaching in the minds of a spirited peopleto the ruler whose yoke is imposed upon them by a foreign power, headded further the stain of a crime which is happily rare at all times, and of which (according to the general belief of his subjects) noPersian monarch had ever previously been guilty. It was in vain that heprotested his innocence: the popular belief held him an accomplice inhis father's murder, and branded the young prince with the horrible nameof "parricide. "

It was no doubt mainly in the hope of purging himself from thisimputation that, after putting to death the subordinate instruments bywhom his father's life had been actually taken, he went on to instituteproceedings against the chief contrivers of the outrage--the two uncleswho had ordered, and probably witnessed, the execution. So long as thesuccess of his arms was doubtful, he had been happy to avail himself oftheir support, and to employ their talents in the struggle againsthis enemies. At one moment in his flight he had owed his life to theself-devotion of Bindoes; and both the brothers had merited well of himby the efforts which they had made to bring Armenia over to his cause, and to levy a powerful army for him in that region. But to clear his owncharacter it was necessary that he should forget the ties both of bloodand gratitude, that he should sink the kinsman in the sovereign, and thedebtor in the stern avenger of blood. Accordingly, he seized Bindoes, who resided at the court, and had him drowned in the Tigris. To Bostam, whom he had appointed governor of Rei and Khorassan, he sent an orderof recall, and would undoubtedly have executed him, had he obeyed;but Bostam, suspecting his intentions, deemed it the wisest course torevolt, and proclaim himself independent monarch of the north country. Here he established himself in authority for some time, and is evensaid to have enlarged his territory at the expense of some of the borderchieftains; but the vengeance of his nephew pursued him unrelentingly, and ere long accomplished his destruction. According to the bestauthority, the instrument employed was Bostam's wife, the sister ofBahram, whom Chosroes induced to murder her husband by a promise to makeher the partner of his bed. 

Intrigues not very dissimilar in their character had been previouslyemployed to remove Bahram, whom the Persian monarch had not ceased tofear, notwithstanding that he was a fugitive and an exile. The Khan ofthe Turks had received him with honor on the occasion of his flight, and, according to some authors, had given him his daughter in marriage. Chosroes lived in dread of the day when the great general might reappearin Persia, at the head of the Turkish hordes, and challenge him to renewthe lately-terminated contest. 

He therefore sent an envoy into Turkestan, well supplied with richgifts, whose instructions were to procure by some means or other thedeath of Bahram. Having sounded the Khan upon the business and met witha rebuff, the envoy addressed himself to the Khatun, the Khan's wife, and by liberal presents induced her to come into his views. A slavewas easily found who undertook to carry out his mistress's wishes, andBahram was despatched the same day by means of a poisoned dagger. It ispainful to find that one thus ungrateful to his friends and relentlessto his enemies made, to a certain extent, profession of Christianity. Little as his heart can have been penetrated by its spirit, Chosroesseems certainly, in the earlier part of his reign, to have givenoccasion for the suspicion, which his subjects are said to haveentertained, that he designed to change his religion, and confesshimself a convert to the creed of the Greeks. During the period of hisexile, he was, it would seem, impressed by what he saw and heard, ofthe Christian worship and faith; he learnt to feel or profess a highveneration for the Virgin; and he adopted the practice, common at thetime, of addressing his prayers and vows to the saints and martyrs, who were practically the principal objects of the Oriental Christians'devotions. Sergius, a martyr, hold in high repute by the Christians ofOsrhoene and Mesopotamia, was adopted by the superstitious prince asa sort of patron saint; and it became his habit, in circumstances ofdifficulty, to vow some gift or other to the shrine of St. Sergiusat Sergiopolis, in case of the event corresponding to his wishes. Twooccasions are recorded where, on sending his gift, he accompaniedit with a letter explaining the circumstances of his vow and itsfulfilment; and even the letters themselves have come down to us, but ina Greek version. In one, Chosroes ascribes the success of his arms on aparticular occasion to the influence of his self-chosen patron; in theother, he credits him with having procured by his prayers the pregnancyof Sira (Shirin), the most beautiful and best beloved of his wives. Itappears that Sira was a Christian, and that in marrying her Chosroes hadcontravened the laws of his country, which forbade the king to have aChristian wife. Her influence over him was considerable, and she is saidto have been allowed to build numerous churches and monasteries in andabout Ctesiphon. When she died, Chosroes called in the aid of sculptureto perpetuate her image, and sent her statue to the Roman Emperor, tothe Turkish Khan, and to various other potentates. 

Chosroes is said to have maintained an enormous seraglio; but of thesesecondary wives, none is known to us even by name, except Kurdiyeh, thesister of Bahram and widow of Bostam, whom she murdered at Chosroes'ssuggestion. 

During the earlier portion of his reign Chosroes seems to have beenengaged in but few wars, and those of no great importance. According tothe Armenian writers, he formed a design of depopulating that part ofArmenia which he had not ceded to the Romans, by making a general levyof all the males, and marching them off to the East, to fight againstthe Ephthalites; but the design did not prosper, since the Armenianscarried all before them, and under their native leader, Smbat, theBagratunian, conquered Hyrcania and Tabaristan, defeated repeatedly theKoushans and the Ephthalites, and even engaged with success the GreatKhan of the Turks, who came to the support of his vassals at the headof an army consisting of 300. 000 men. By the valor and conduct of Smbat, the Persian dominion was re-established in the north-eastern mountainregion, from Mount Demavend to the Hindu Kush; the Koushans, Turks, andEphthalitos were held in check; and the tide of barbarism, which hadthreatened to submerge the empire on this side, was effectually resistedand rolled back. 

With Rome Chosroes maintained for eleven years the most friendlyand cordial relations. Whatever humiliation he may have felt when heaccepted the terms on which alone Maurice was willing to render him aid, having once agreed to them, he stifled all regrets, made no attempt toevade his obligations, abstained from every endeavor to undo by intriguewhat he had done, unwillingly indeed, but yet with his eyes open. Onceonly during the eleven years did a momentary cloud arise between himand his benefactor. In the year A. D. 600 some of the Saracenic tribesdependent on Rome made an incursion across the Euphrates into Persianterritory, ravaged it far and wide, and returned with their bootyinto the desert. Chosroes was justly offended, and might fairly haveconsidered that a _casus belli_ had arisen; but he allowed himself tobe pacified by the representations of Maurice's envoy, George, andconsented not to break the peace on account of so small a matter. Georgeclaimed the concession as a tribute to his own amiable qualities; butit is probable that the Persian monarch acted rather on the grounds ofgeneral policy than from any personal predilection. 

Two years later the virtuous but perhaps over-rigid Maurice was deposedand murdered by the centurion, Phocas, who, on the strength of hispopularity with the army, boldly usurped the throne. Chosroes heardwith indignation of the execution of his ally and friend, of the insultsoffered to his remains, and of the assassination of his numerous sons, and of his brother. One son, he heard, had been sent off by Maurice toimplore aid from the Persians; he had been overtaken and put to deathby the emissaries of the usurper; but rumor, always busy where royalpersonages are concerned, asserted that he lived, that he had escapedhis pursuers, and had reached Ctesiphon. Chosroes was too muchinterested in the acceptance of the rumor to deny it; he gave out thatTheodosius was at his court, and notified that it was his intentionto assert his right to the succession. When, five months after hiscoronation, Phocas sent an envoy to announce his occupation of thethrone, and selected the actual murderer of Maurice to fill the post, Chosroes determined on an open rupture. He seized Lilius, the envoy, threw him into prison, announced his intention of avenging his deceasedbenefactor, and openly declared war against Rome. 

The war burst out the next year (A. D. 603). On the Roman side there wasdisagreement, and even civil war; for Narses, who had held high commandin the East ever since he restored Chosroes to the throne of hisancestors, on hearing of the death of Maurice, took up arms againstPhocas, and, throwing himself into Edessa, defied the forces of theusurper. Germanus, who commanded at Daras, was a general of smallcapacity, and found himself quite unable to make head, either againstNarses in Edessa, or against Chosroes, who led his troops in person intoMesopotamia. Defeated by Chosroes in a battle near Daras, in which hereceived a mortal wound, Germanus withdrew to Constantia, where he diedeleven days afterwards. A certain Leontius, a eunuch, took his place, but was equally unsuccessful. Chosroes defeated him at Arxamus, andtook a great portion of his army prisoners; whereupon he was recalled byPhocas, and a third leader, Domentziolus, a nephew of the emperor, wasappointed to the command. Against him the Persian monarch thought itenough to employ generals. The war now languished for a short space; butin A. D. 605 Chosroes came up in person against Daras, the great Romanstronghold in these parts, and besieged it for the space of nine months, at the end of which time it surrendered. The loss was a severe blow tothe Roman prestige, and was followed in the next year by a longseries of calamities. Chosroes took Tur-abdin, Hesen-Cephas, Mardin, Capher-tuta, and Amida. Two years afterwards, A. D. 607, he capturedHarran (Carrhse), Ras-el-ain (Resaina), and Edessa, the capital ofOsrhoene, after which he pressed forward to the Euphrates, crossed withhis army into Syria, and fell with fury on the Roman cities west of theriver. Mabog or Hierapolis, Kenneserin, and Berhoea (now Aleppo), wereinvested and taken in the course of one or at most two campaigns; whileat the same time (A. D. 609) a second Persian army, under a generalwhose name is unknown, after operating in Armenia, and taking Satalaand Theodosiopolis, invaded Cappadocia and threatened the great city ofCaesarea Mazaca, which was the chief Roman stronghold in these parts. Bands of marauders wasted the open country, carrying terror through thefertile districts of Phyrgia and Galatia, which had known nothing ofthe horrors of war for centuries, and were rich with the accumulatedproducts of industry. According to Theophanes, some of the ravages evenpenetrated as far as Chalcedon, on the opposite side of the straitsfrom Constantinople; but this is probably the anticipation of an eventbelonging to a later time. No movements of importance are assigned toA. D. 610; but in the May of the next year the Persians once more crossedthe Euphrates, completely defeated and destroyed the Roman army whichprotected Syria, and sacked the two great cities of Apameia and Antioch. 

Meantime a change had occurred at Constantinople. The double revolt ofHeraclius, prefect of Egypt, and Gregory, his lieutenant, had broughtthe reign of the brutal and incapable Phocas to an end, and placedupon the imperial throne a youth of promise, innocent of the bloodof Maurice, and well inclined to avenge it. Chosroes had to considerwhether he should adhere to his original statement, that he took up armsto punish the murderer of his friend, and benefactor, and consequentlydesist from further hostilities now that Phocas was dead, or whether, throwing consistency to the winds, he should continue to prosecute thewar, notwithstanding the change of rulers, and endeavor to push to theutmost the advantage which he had already obtained. He resolved on thislatter alternative. It was while the young Heraclius was still insecurein his seat that he sent his armies into Syria, defeated the Romantroops, and took Antioch and Apameia. Following up blow with blow, hethe next year (A. D. 612) invaded Cappadocia a second time and capturedCsesarea Mazaca. Two years later (A. D. 614) he sent his generalShahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus, and took theancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and, summoning the Jews to hisaid, proclaimed a Holy War against the Christian misbelievers, whomhe threatened to enslave or exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of thesefanatics flocked to his standard; and having occupied the Jordan regionand Galileee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after asiege of eighteen days forced his way into the town, and gave it over toplunder and rapine. The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of theResurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the greater part ofthe city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries were plundered; the relicsscattered or carried off; and a massacre of the inhabitants, in whichthe Jews took the chief part, raged throughout the whole city for somedays. As many as seventeen thousand or, according to another account, ninety thousand, were slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them was the aged Patriarch, Zacharius, who was carried captiveinto Persia, where he remained till his death. 

The Cross found by Helena, and believed to be "the True Cross, " was atthe same time transported to Ctesiphon, where it was preserved with careand duly venerated by the Christian wife of Chosroes. 

A still more important success followed. In A. D. 616 Shahr-Barzproceeded from Palestine into Egypt, which had enjoyed a respite fromforeign war since the time of Julius Caesar, surprised Pelusium, thekey of the country, and, pressing forward across the Delta, easily madehimself master of the rich and prosperous Alexandria. John the Merciful, who was the Patriarch, and Nicetas the Patrician, who was the governor, had quitted the city before his arrival, and had fled to Cyprus. Hencescarcely any resistance was made. The fall of Alexandria was followed atonce by the complete submission of the rest of Egypt. Bands of Persiansadvanced up the Nile valley to the very confines of Ethiopia, andestablished the authority of Chosroes over the whole country--a countryin which no Persian had set foot since it was wrested by Alexander ofMacedon from Darius Codomannus. 

While this remarkable conquest was made in the southwest, in thenorth-west another Persian army under another general, Saina or Shahen, starting from Cappadocia, marched through Asia Minor to the shores ofthe Thracian Bosphorus, and laid siege to the strong city of Chalcedon, which lay upon the strait, just opposite Constantinople. Chalcedonmade a vigorous resistance; and Heraclius, anxious to save it, had aninterview with Shahen, and at his suggestion sent three of his highestnobles as ambassadors to Chosroes, with a humble request for peace. The overture was ineffectual. Chosroes imprisoned the ambassadors andentreated them cruelly; threatened Shahen with death for not bringingHeraclius in chains to the foot of his throne; and declared in replythat he would grant no terms of peace--the empire was his, and Heracliusmust descend from his throne. Soon afterwards (A. D. 617) Chalcedon, which was besieged through the winter, fell; and the Persiansestablished themselves in this important stronghold, within a mileof Constantinople. Three years afterwards, Ancyra (Angora), whichhad hitherto resisted the Persian arms, was taken; and Rhodes, thoughinaccessible to an enemy who was without a naval force, submitted. 

Thus the whole of the Roman possessions in Asia and Eastern Africa werelost in the space of fifteen years. The empire of Persia was extendedfrom the Tigris and Euphrates to the Egean and the Nile, attaining oncemore almost the same dimensions that it had reached under the first andhad kept until the third Darius. It is difficult to say how far theirnewly acquired provinces wore really subdued, organized, and governedfrom Ctesiphon, how far they were merely overrun, plundered, andthen left to themselves. On the one hand, we have indications of theexistence of terrible disorders and of something approaching to anarchyin parts of the conquered territory during the time that it was held bythe Persians; on the other, we seem to see an intention to retain, to govern, and even to beautify it. Eutychius relates that, on thewithdrawal of the Romans from Syria, the Jews resident in Tyre, whonumbered four thousand, plotted with their co-religionists of Jerusalem, Cyprus, Damascus, and Galilee, a general massacre of the TyrianChristians on a certain day. The plot was discovered; and the Jews ofTyre were arrested and imprisoned by their fellow-citizens, who put thecity in a state of defence; and when the foreign Jews, to the number of26, 000, came at the appointed time, repulsed them from the walls, anddefeated them with great slaughter. This story suggests the idea of acomplete and general disorganization. But on the other hand we hear ofan augmentation of the revenue under Chosroes II. , which seems to implythe establishment in the regions conquered of a settled government; andthe palace at Mashita, discovered by a recent traveller, is a strikingproof that no temporary occupation was contemplated, but that Chosroesregarded his conquests as permanent acquisitions, and meant to hold themand even visit them occasionally. 

Heraclius was now well-nigh driven to despair. The loss of Egypt reducedConstantinople to want, and its noisy populace clamored for food. TheAvars overran Thrace, and continually approached nearer to the capital. The glitter of the Persian arms was to be seen at any moment, if helooked from his palace windows across the Bosphorus. No prospect ofassistance or relief appeared from any quarter. The empire was reducedto the walls of Constantinople, with the remnant of Greece, Italy, andAfrica, and some maritime cities, from Tyre to Trebizond, of the AsiaticCoast. It is not surprising that under the circumstances the despondentmonarch determined on flight, and secretly made arrangements fortransporting himself and his treasures to the distant Carthage, wherehe might hope at least to find himself in safety. His ships, laden withtheir precious freight, had put to sea, and he was about to follow them, when his intention became known or was suspected; the people rose; andthe Patriarch, espousing their side, forced the reluctant prince toaccompany him to the church of St. Sophia, and there make oath that, come what might, he would not separate his fortunes from those of theimperial city. 

Baffled in his design to escape from his difficulties by flight, Heraclius took a desperate resolution. He would leave Constantinople toits fate, trust its safety to the protection afforded by its walls andby the strait which separated it from Asia, embark with such troops ashe could collect, and carry the war into the enemy's country. The oneadvantage which he had over his adversary was his possession of an amplenavy, and consequent command of the sea and power to strike his blowsunexpectedly in different quarters. On making known his intention, it was not opposed, either by the people or by the Patriarch. He wasallowed to coin the treasures of the various churches into money, tocollect stores, enroll troops, and, on the Easter Monday of A. D. 622, toset forth on his expedition. 

His fleet was steered southward, and, though forced to contendwith adverse gales, made a speedy and successful voyage through thePropontis, the Hellespont, the Egean, and the Cilician Strait, to theGulf of Issus, in the angle between Asia Minor and Syria. The positionwas well chosen, as one where attack was difficult, where numbers wouldgive little advantage, and where consequently a small but resolute forcemight easily maintain itself against a greatly superior enemy. At thesame time it was a post from which an advance might conveniently bemade in several directions, and which menaced almost equally Asia Minor, Syria, and Armenia. Moreover, the level tract between the mountains andthe sea was broad enough for the manoeuvres of such an army as Heracliuscommanded, and allowed him to train his soldiers by exercises and shamfights to a familiarity with the sights and sounds and movements of abattle. He conjectured, rightly enough, that he would not long be leftunmolested by the enemy. Shahr-Barz, the conqueror of Jerusalem andEgypt, was very soon sent against him; and, after various movements, which it is impossible to follow, a battle was fought between the twoarmies in the mountain country towards the Armenian frontier, in whichthe hero of a hundred fights was defeated and the Romans, for the firsttime since the death of Maurice, obtained a victory. After this, on theapproach of winter, Heraclius, accompanied probably by a portion of hisarmy, returned by sea to Constantinople. 

The next year the attack was made in a different quarter. Havingconcluded alliances with the Khan of the Khazars and some other chiefsof inferior power, Heraclius in the month of March embarked with 5000men, and proceeded from Constantinople by way of the Black Sea firstto Trebizond, and then to Mingrelia or Lazica. There he obtainedcontingents from his allies, which, added to the forces collected from. Trebizond and the other maritime towns, may perhaps have raised histroops to the number of 120, 000, at which we find them estimated. Withthis army, he crossed the Araxes, and invaded Armenia. Chosroes, onreceiving the intelligence, proceeded into Azorbijan with 40, 000 men, and occupied the strong city of Canzaca, the site of which is probablymarked by the ruins known as Takht-i-Suleiman. At the same time heordered two other armies, which he had sent on in advance, one of themcommanded by Shahr-Barz, the other by Shahen, to effect a junctionand oppose themselves to the further progress of the emperor. The twogenerals were, however, tardy in their movements, or at any rate wereoutstripped by the activity of Heraclius, who, pressing forward fromArmenia into Azerbijan, directed his march upon Canzaca, hoping to bringthe Great King to a battle. His advance-guard of Saracens did actuallysurprise the picquets of Chosroes; but the king himself hastilyevacuated the Median stronghold, and retreated southwards throughArdelan towards the Zagros mountains, thus avoiding the engagement whichwas desired by his antagonist. The army, on witnessing the flight oftheir monarch, broke up and dispersed. Heraclius pressed upon the flyinghost and slew all whom he caught, but did not suffer himself to bediverted from his main object, which was to overtake Chosroes. Hispursuit, however, was unsuccessful. Chosroes availed himself of therough and difficult country which lies between Azerbijan and theMesopotamian lowland, and by moving from, place to place contrive tobaffle his enemy. Winter arrived, and Heraclius had to determine whetherhe would continue his quest at the risk of having to pass the coldseason in the enemy's country, far from all his resources, or relinquishit and retreat to a safe position. Finding his soldiers divided in theirwishes, he trusted the decision to chance, and opening the Gospel atrandom settled the doubt by applying the first passage that met his eyeto its solution. The passage suggested retreat; and Heraclius, retracinghis steps, recrossed the Araxes, and wintered in Albania. 

The return of Heraclius was not unmolested. He had excited thefanaticism of the Persians by destroying, wherever he went, the templesof the Magians, and extinguishing the sacred fire, which it was a partof their religion to keep continually burning. He had also everywheredelivered the cities and villages to the flames, and carried off manythousands of the population. The exasperated enemy consequently hungupon his rear, impeded his march, and no doubt caused him considerableloss, though, when it came to fighting, Heraclius always gained thevictory. He reached Albania without sustaining any serious disaster, and even brought with him 50, 000 captives; but motives of pity, or ofself-interest, caused him soon afterwards to set these prisoners free. It would have been difficult to feed and house them through the long andsevere winter, and disgraceful to sell or massacre them. 

In the year A. D. 624 Chosroes took the offensive, and, before Heracliushad quitted his winter quarters, sent a general, at the head of a forceof picked troops, into Albania, with the view of detaining him in thatremote province during the season of military operations. But Sarablagasfeared his adversary too much to be able very effectually to check hismovements; he was content to guard the passes, and hold the high ground, without hazarding an engagement. Heraclius contrived after a timeto avoid him, and penetrated into Persia through a series of plains, probably those along the course and about the mouth of the Araxes. Itwas now his wish to push rapidly southward; but the auxiliaries on whomhe greatly depended were unwilling; and, while he doubted what courseto take, three Persian armies, under commanders of note, closed in uponhim, and threatened his small force with destruction. Heraclius feigneda disordered flight, and drew on him an attack from two out of the threechiefs, which he easily repelled. Then he fell upon the third, Shahen, and completely defeated him. A way seemed to be thus opened for him intothe heart of Persia, and he once more set off to seek Chosroes; but nowhis allies began to desert his standard, and return to their homes;the defeated Persians rallied and impeded his march; he was obliged tocontent himself with a third, victory, at a place which Theophanescalls Salban, where he surprised Shahr-Barz in the dead of the night, massacred his troops, his wives, his officers, and the mass of thepopulation, which fought from the flat roofs of the houses, took thegeneral's arms and equipage, and was within a little of capturingShahr-barz himself. The remnant of the Persian army fled in disorder, and was hunted down by Heraclius, who pursued the fugitives unceasinglytill the cold season approached, and he had to retire into cantonments. The half-burnt Salban afforded a welcome shelter to his troops duringthe snows and storms of an Armenian winter. 

Early in the ensuing spring the indefatigable emperor again set histroops in motion, and, passing the lofty range which separates the basinof Lake Van from the streams that flow into the upper Tigris, struckthat river, or rather its large affluent, the Bitlis Chai, in seven daysfrom Salban, crossed into Arzanene, and proceeding westward recoveredMartyropolis and Amida, which had now been in the possession of thePersians for twenty years. At Amida he made a halt, and wrote toinform the Senate of Constantinople of his position and his victories, intelligence which they must have received gladly after having lostsight of him for above a twelvemonth. But he was not allowed to remainlong undisturbed. Before the end of March Shahr-Barz had again takenthe field in force, had occupied the usual passage of the Euphrates, andthreatened the line of retreat which Heraclius had looked upon as opento him. Unable to cross the Euphrates by the bridge, which Shahr-barzhad broken, the emperor descended the stream till he found a ford, when he transported his army to the other bank, and hastened by way ofSamosata and Germanicaea into Cilicia. Here he was once more in his ownterritory, with the sea close at hand, ready to bring him supplies orafford him a safe retreat, in a position with whose advantages he wasfamiliar, where broad plains gave an opportunity for skilful maneuvers, and deep rapid rivers rendered defence easy. Heraclius took up aposition on the right bank of the Sarus (Syhuri), in the immediatevicinity of the fortified bridge by which alone the stream could becrossed. Shahr-Barz followed, and ranged his troops along the left bank, placing the archers in the front line, while he made preparations todraw the enemy from the defence of the bridge into the plain on theother side. He was so far successful that the Roman occupation of thebridge was endangered; but Heraclius, by his personal valor and byalmost superhuman exertions, restored the day; with his own hand hestruck down a Persian of gigantic stature and flung him from the bridgeinto the river; then pushing on with a few companions, he charged thePersian host in the plain, receiving undaunted a shower of blows, whilehe dealt destruction on all sides. The fight was prolonged until theevening and even then was undecided; but Shahr-Barz had convincedhimself that he could not renew the combat with any prospect of victory. He therefore retreated during the night, and withdrew from Cilicia. Heraclius, finding himself free to march where he pleased, crossedthe Taurus, and proceeded to Sebaste (Sivas), upon the Halys, wherehe wintered in the heart of Cappadocia, about half-way between the twoseas. According to Theophanes the Persian monarch was so much enraged atthis bold and adventurous march, and at the success which had attendedit, that, by way of revenging himself on Heraclius, he seized thetreasures of all the Christian churches in his dominions, andcompelled the orthodox believers to embrace the Nestorian heresy. Thetwenty-fourth year of the war had now arrived, and it was difficultto say on which side lay the balance of advantage. If Chosroes stillmaintained his hold on Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor as far asChalcedon, if his troops still flaunted their banners within sightof Constantinople, yet on the other hand he had seen his hereditarydominions deeply penetrated by the armies of his adversary; he had hadhis best generals defeated, his cities and palaces burnt, his favoriteprovinces wasted; Heraclius had proved himself a most formidableopponent; and unless some vital blow could be dealt him at home, therewas no forecasting the damage that he might not inflict on Persia by afresh invasion. Chosroes therefore made a desperate attempt to bring thewar to a close by an effort, the success of which would have changed thehistory of the world. Having enrolled as soldiers, besides Persians, a vast number of foreigners and slaves, and having concluded a closealliance with the Khan of the Avars, he formed two great armies, oneof which was intended to watch Heraclius in Asia Minor, while the otherco-operated with the Avars and forced Constantinople to surrender. Thearmy destined to contend with the emperor was placed under the commandof Shahen; that which was to bear a part in the siege of Constantinoplewas committed to Shahr-Barz. It is remarkable that Heraclius, thoughquite aware of his adversary's plans, instead of seeking to bafflethem, made such arrangements as facilitated the attempt to put theminto execution. He divided his own troops into three bodies, one only ofwhich he sent to aid in the defence of his capital. The second body heleft with his brother Theodore, whom he regarded as a sufficient matchfor Shahen. With the third division he proceeded eastward to the remoteprovince of Lazica, and there engaged in operations which could but veryslightly affect the general course of the war. The Khazars were oncemore called in as allies; and their Khan, Ziebel, who coveted theplunder of Tiflis, held an interview with the emperor in the sight ofthe Persians who guarded that town, adored his majesty, and receivedfrom his hands the diadem that adorned his own brow. Richly entertained, and presented with all the plate used in the banquet, with a royal robe, and a pair of pearl earrings, promised moreover the daughter of theemperor (whose portrait he was shown) in marriage, the barbarian chief, dazzled and flattered, readily concluded an alliance, and associated hisarms with those of the Romans. A joint attack was made upon Tiflis, andthe town was reduced to extremities; when Sarablagas, with a thousandmen, contrived to throw himself into it, and the allies, disheartenedthereby, raised the siege and retired. 

Meanwhile, in Asia Minor, Theodore engaged the army of Shahen; and, aviolent hailstorm raging at the time, which drove into the enemy's face, while the Romans were, comparatively speaking, sheltered from its force, he succeeded in defeating his antagonist with great slaughter. Chosroeswas infuriated; and the displeasure of his sovereign weighed so heavilyupon the mind of Shahen that he shortly afterwards sickened and died. The barbarous monarch gave orders that his corpse should be embalmed andsent to the court, in order that he might gratify his spleen by treatingit with the grossest indignity. 

At Constantinople the Persian cause was equally unsuccessful. Shahr-Barz, from Chalcedon, entered into negotiations with the Khan ofthe Avars, and found but little difficulty in persuading him to makean attempt upon the imperial city. From their seats beyond the Danubea host of barbarians--Avars, Slaves, Gepidas, Bulgarians, andothers--advanced through the passes of Heemus into the plains of Thrace, destroying and ravaging. The population fled before them and sought theprotection of the city walls, which had been carefully strengthened inexpectation of the attack, and were in good order. The hordes forced theouter works; but all their efforts, though made both by land and sea, were unavailing against the main defences; their attempt to sap the wallfailed; their artillery was met and crushed by engines of greater power;a fleet of Slavonian canoes, which endeavored to force an entrance bythe Golden Horn, was destroyed or driven ashore; the towers with whichthey sought to overtop the walls were burnt; and, after ten days ofconstantly repeated assaults, the barbarian leader became convincedthat he had undertaken an impossible enterprise, and, having burnt hisengines and his siege works, he retired. The result might have beendifferent had the Persians, who were experienced in the attack of walledplaces, been able to co-operate with him; but the narrow channel whichflowed between Chalcedon and the Golden Horn proved an insurmountablebarrier; the Persians had no ships, and the canoes of the Slavonianswere quite unable to contend with the powerful galleys of theByzantines, so that the transport of a body of Persian troops fromAsia to Europe by their aid proved impracticable. Shahr-Barz had theannoyance of witnessing the efforts and defeat of his allies, withouthaving it in his power to take any active steps towards assisting theone or hindering the other. 

The war now approached its termination; for the last hope of thePersians had failed; and Heraclius, with his mind set at rest asregarded his capital, was free to strike at any part of Persia that hepleased, and, having the prestige of victory and the assistance of theKhazars, was likely to carry all before him. It is not clear how heemployed himself during the spring and summer of A. D. 627; but in theSeptember of that year he started from Lazica with a large Roman armyand a contingent of 40, 000 Khazar horse, resolved to surprisehis adversary by a winter campaign, and hoping to take him at adisadvantage. Passing rapidly through Armenia and Azerbijan withoutmeeting an enemy that dared to dispute his advance, suffering noloss except from the guerilla warfare of some bold spirits amongthe mountaineers of those regions, he resolved, notwithstanding thedefection of the Khazars, who declined to accompany him further souththan Azerbijan, that he would cross the Zagros mountains into Assyria, and make a dash at the royal cities of the Mesopotamian region, thusretaliating upon Chosroes for the Avar attack upon Constantinople of thepreceding year, undertaken at his instigation. Chosroes himself had forthe last twenty-four years fixed his court at Dastagherd in the plaincountry, about seventy miles to the north of Ctesiphon. It seemed toHeraclius that this position might perhaps be reached, and an effectiveblow struck against the Persian power. He hastened, therefore, to crossthe mountains; and the 9th of October saw him at Chnaethas, in the lowcountry, not far from Arbela, where he refreshed his army by a week'srest. He might now easily have advanced along the great post-road whichconnected Arbela with Dastagherd and Ctesiphon; but he had probably bythis time received information of the movements of the Persians, and wasaware that by so doing he would place himself between two fires, andrun the chance of being intercepted in his retreat. For Chosroes, havingcollected a large force, had sent it, under Ehazates, a new general, into Azerbijan; and this force, having reached Canzaca, found itself inthe rear of Heraclius, between him and Lazica. Heraclius appears not tohave thought it safe to leave this enemy behind him, and therefore heidled away above a month in the Zab region, waiting for Ehazates to makehis appearance. That general had strict orders from the Great Kingto fight the Romans wherever he found them, whatever might be theconsequence; and he therefore followed, as quickly as he could, uponHeraclius's footsteps, and early in December came up with him in theneighborhood of Nineveh. Both parties were anxious for an immediateengagement, Rhazates to carry out his master's orders, Heraclius becausehe had heard that his adversary would soon receive a reinforcement. The battle took place on the 12th of December, in the open plain to thenorth of Nineveh. It was contested from early dawn to the eleventh hourof the day, and was finally decided, more by the accident that Rhazatesand the other Persian commanders were slain, than by any defeat of thesoldiers. Heraclius is said to have distinguished himself personallyduring the fight by many valiant exploits; but he does not appear tohave exhibited any remarkable strategy on the occasion. The Persianslost their generals, their chariots, and as many as twenty-eightstandards; but they were not routed, nor driven from the field. Theymerely drew off to the distance of two bowshots, and there stood firmtill after nightfall. During the night they fell back further upontheir fortified camp, collected their baggage, and retired to a strongposition at the foot of the mountains. Here they were joined bythe reinforcement which Chosroes had sent to their aid; and thusstrengthened they ventured to approach Heraclius once more, to hang onhis rear, and impede his movements. He, after his victory, had resumedhis march southward, had occupied Nineveh, recrossed the Groat Zab, advanced rapidly through Adiabene to the Lesser Zab, seized its bridgesby a forced march of forty-eight (Roman) miles, and conveyed his armysafely to its left bank, where he pitched his camp at a place calledYesdem, and once more allowed his soldiers a brief repose for thepurpose of keeping Christmas. Chosroes had by this time heard of thedefeat and death of Rhazates, and was in a state of extreme alarm. Hastily recalling Shahr-Barz from Chalcedon, and ordering the troopslately commanded by Rhazates to outstrip the Romans, if possible, andinterpose themselves between Heraclius and Dastaghord, he took upa strong position near that place with his own army and a number ofelephants, and expressed an intention of there awaiting his antagonist. A broad and deep river, or rather canal, known as the Baras-roth orBarazrud, protected his front; while at some distance further in advancewas the Torna, probably another canal, where he expected that the armyof Rhazates would make a stand. But that force, demoralized by itsrecent defeat, fell back from the line of the Torna, without evendestroying the bridge over it; and Chosroes, finding the foe advancingon him, lost heart, and secretly fled from Dastagherd to Ctesiphon, whence he crossed the Tigris to Guedeseer or Seleucia, with his treasureand the best-loved of his wives and children. The army lately underRhazates rallied upon the line of the Nahr-wan canal, three milesfrom Ctesiphon; and here it was largely reinforced, though with a mereworthless mob of slaves and domestics. It made however a formidableshow, supported by its elephants, which numbered two hundred; it had adeep and wide cutting in its front; and, this time, it had taken careto destroy all the bridges by which the cutting might have been crossed. Heraclius, having plundered the rich palace of Dastagherd, togetherwith several less splendid royal residences, and having on the 10th ofJanuary encamped within twelve miles of the Nahrwan, and learnt fromthe commander of the Armenian contingent, whom he sent forward toreconnoitre, that the canal was impassable, came to the conclusion thathis expedition had reached its extreme limit, and that prudence requiredhim to commence his retreat. The season had been, it would seem, exceptionally mild, and the passes of the mountains were still open; butit was to be expected that in a few weeks they would be closed by thesnow, which always falls heavily during some portion of the winter. Heraclius, therefore, like Julian, having come within sight ofCtesiphon, shrank from the idea of besieging it, and, content withthe punishment that he had inflicted on his enemy by wasting anddevastation, desisted from his expedition, and retraced his steps. Inhis retreat he was more fortunate than his great predecessor. The defeatwhich he had inflicted on the main army of the Persians paralyzed theirenergies, and it would seem that his return march was unmolested. Hereached Siazurus (_Shehrizur_) early in February, Barzan (_Berozeh_)probably on the 1st of March, 176 and on the 11th of March Canzaca, wherehe remained during the rest of the winter. 

Chosroes had escaped a great danger, but he had incurred a terribledisgrace. He had fled before his adversary without venturing to givehim battle. He had seen palace after palace destroyed, and had lostthe magnificent residence where he had held his court for the lastfour-and-twenty years. The Romans had recovered 300 standards, trophiesgained in the numerous victories of his early years. They had shownthemselves able to penetrate into the heart of his empire, and to retirewithout suffering any loss. Still, had he possessed a moderate amountof prudence, Chosroes might even now have surmounted the perils ofhis position, and have terminated his reign in tranquillity, if notin glory. Heraclius was anxious for peace, and willing to grant it onreasonable conditions. He did not aim at conquests, and would have beencontented at any time with the restoration of Egypt, Syria, and AsiaMinor. The Persians generally were weary of the war, and would havehailed with joy almost any terms of accommodation. But Chosroes wasobstinate; he did not know how to bear the frowns of fortune; thedisasters of the late campaign, instead of bending his spirit, hadsimply exasperated him, and he vented upon his own subjects theill-humor which the successes of his enemies had provoked. Lending atoo ready ear to a whispered slander, he ordered the execution ofShahr-Barz, and thus mortally offended that general, to whom thedespatch was communicated by the Romans. He imprisoned the officerswho had been defeated by, or had fled before Heraclius. Several othertyrannical acts are alleged against him; and it is said that he wascontemplating the setting aside of his legitimate successor, Siroes, infavor of a younger son, Merdasas, his offspring by his favorite wife, the Christian Shirin, when a rebellion broke out against his authority. Gurdanaspa, who was in command of the Persian troops at Ctesiphon, and twenty-two nobles of importance, including two sons of Shahr-Barz, embraced the cause of Siroes, and seizing Chosroes, who meditatedflight, committed him to "the House of Darkness, " a strong place wherehe kept his money. Here he was confined for four days, his jailersallowing him daily a morsel of bread and a small quantity of water; whenhe complained of hunger, they told him, by his son's orders, that hewas welcome to satisfy his appetite by feasting upon his treasures. Theofficers whom he had confined were allowed free access to his prison, where they insulted him and spat upon him. Merdasas, the son whom hepreferred, and several of his other children, were brought into hispresence and put to death before his eyes. After suffering in this wayfor four days he was at last, on the fifth day from his arrest (February28), put to death in some cruel fashion, perhaps, like St. Sebastian, by being transfixed with arrows. Thus perished miserably the secondChosroes, after having reigned thirty-seven years (A. D. 591-628), a justbut tardy Nemesis overtaking the parricide. 

The Oriental writers represent the second Chosroes as a monarch whosecharacter was originally admirable, but whose good disposition wasgradually corrupted by the possession of sovereign power. "Parviz, " saysMirkhond, "holds a distinguished rank among the kings of Persia throughthe majesty and firmness of his government, the wisdom of his views, andhis intrepidity in carrying them out, the size of his army, the amountof his treasure, the flourishing condition of the provinces during hisreign, the security of the highways, the prompt and exact obediencewhich he enforced, and his unalterable adherence to the plans whichhe once formed. " It is impossible that these praises can have beenaltogether undeserved; and we are bound to assign to this monarch, onthe authority of the Orientals, a vigor of administration, a strengthof will, and a capacity for governing, not very commonly possessedby princes born in the purple. To these merits we may add a certaingrandeur of soul, and power of appreciating the beautiful andthe magnificent, which, though not uncommon in the East, did notcharacterize many of the Sassanian sovereigns. The architectural remainsof Chosroes, which will be noticed in a future chapter, the descriptionswhich have come down to us of his palaces at Dastagherd and Canzaca, theaccounts which we have of his treasures, his court, his seraglio, evenhis seals, transcend all that is known of any other monarch of his line. The employment of Byzantine sculptors and architects, which his worksare thought to indicate, implies an appreciation of artistic excellencevery rare among Orientals. But against these merits must be set a numberof most serious moral defects, which may have been aggravated as timewent on, but of which we see something more than the germ, even whilehe was still a youth. The murder of his father was perhaps a statenecessity, and he may not have commanded it, or have been accessoryto it before the fact; but his ingratitude towards his uncles, whom hedeliberately put to death, is wholly unpardonable, and shows him to havebeen cruel, selfish, and utterly without natural affection, even in theearlier portion of his reign. In war he exhibited neither courage norconduct; all his main military successes were due to his generals; andin his later years he seems never voluntarily to have exposed himself todanger. In suspecting his generals, and ill-using them while living, heonly followed the traditions of his house; but the insults offered tothe dead body of Shahen, whose only fault was that he had suffered adefeat, were unusual and outrageous. The accounts given of his seraglioimply either gross sensualism or extreme ostentation; perhaps we maybe justified in inclining to the more lenient view, if we take intoconsideration the faithful attachment which he exhibited towards Shirin. The cruelties which disgraced his later years are wholly without excuse;but in the act which deprived him of his throne, and brought him to amiserable end--his preference of Merdasas as his successor--he exhibitedno worse fault than an amiable weakness, a partiality towards the son ofa wife who possessed, and seems to have deserved, his affection. 

The coins of the second Chosroes are numerous in the extreme, andpresent several peculiarities. The ordinary type has, on the obverse, the king's head in profile, covered by a tiara, of which the chiefornament is a crescent and star between two outstretched wings. Thehead is surrounded by a double pearl bordering, outside of which, in themargin, are three crescents and stars. The legend is _Khusrui afzud_, with a monogram of doubtful meaning. The reverse shows the usualfire altar and supporters, in a rude form, enclosed by a triple pearlbordering. In the margin, outside the bordering, are four crescents andstars. The legend is merely the regnal year and a mint-mark. Thirty-fourmint-marks have been ascribed to Chosroes II. [PLATE XXIII. , Fig. 4. ]

A rarer and more curious type of coin, belonging to this monarch, presents on the obverse the front face of the king, surmounted by amural crown, having the star and crescent between outstretched wings attop. The legend is _Khusrui mallean malka--afzud_. "Chosroes, king ofkings--increase (be his). " The reverse has a head like that of a woman, also fronting the spectator, and wearing a band enriched with pearlsacross the forehead, above which the hair gradually converges to apoint. [PLATE XXIV. , Fig. 1. ] A head very similar to this is found onIndo-Sassanian coins. Otherwise we might have supposed that the uxoriousmonarch had wished to circulate among his subjects the portrait of hisbeloved Shirin. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXIV. ]

CHAPTER XXV. 

_Accession of Siroe's, or Kobad II. His Letter to Heraclius. Peace madewith Rome. Terms of the Peace. General Popularity of the new Reign. Dissatisfaction of Shahr-Barz. Kobad, by the advice of the PersianLords, murders his Brothers. His Sisters reproach him with their Death. He falls into low spirits and dies. Pestilence in his Reign. His coins. Accession of Artaxerxes III. Revolt of Shahr-Barz. Reign of Shahr-Barz. His Murder. Reign of Purandocht. Rapid Succession of Pretenders. Accession of Isdigerd III. _

"Kobades, regno prefectus, justitiam prae se tulit, et injuriam quaoppressa fuerat amovit. "--Eutychius, _Annales_, vol, ii. P. 253. 

Siroes, or Kobad the Second, as he is more properly termed, wasproclaimed king on the 25th of February, 2 A. D. 628, four days beforethe murder of his father. According to the Oriental writers, he was veryunwilling to put his father to death, and only gave a reluctant consentto his execution on the representations of his nobles that it was astate of necessity. His first care, after this urgent matter had beensettled, was to make overtures of peace to Heraclius, who, having safelycrossed the Zagros mountains, was wintering at Canzaca. The letter whichhe addressed to the Roman Emperor on the occasion is partially extant;but the formal and official tone which it breathes renders it a somewhatdisappointing document. Kobad begins by addressing Heraclius as hisbrother, and giving him the epithet of "most clement, " thus assuming hispacific disposition. He then declares, that, having been elevated to thethrone by the especial favor of God, he has resolved to do his utmost tobenefit and serve the entire human race. He has therefore commenced hisreign by throwing open the prison doors, and restoring liberty toall who were detained in custody. With the same object in view, he isdesirous of living in peace and friendship with the Roman emperor andstate as well as with all other neighboring nations and kings. Assumingthat his accession will be pleasing to the emperor, he has sent Phaeak, one of his privy councillors, to express the love and friendship that hefeels towards his brother, and learn the terms upon which peace will begranted him. The reply of Heraclius is lost; but we are able to gatherfrom a short summary which has been preserved, as well as from thesubsequent course of events, that it was complimentary and favorable;that it expressed the willingness of the emperor to bring the war toa close, and suggested terms of accommodation that were moderate andequitable. The exact formulation of the treaty seems to have been leftto Eustathius, who, after Heraclius had entertained Phaeak royally fornearly a week, accompanied the ambassador on his return to the Persiancourt. 

The general principle upon which peace was concluded was evidently the_status quo ante bellum_. Persia was to surrender Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Western Mesopotamia, and any other conquests that shemight have made from Rome, to recall her troops from them, and to givethem back into the possession of the Romans. She was also to surrenderall the captives whom she had carried off from the conquered countries;and, above all, she was to give back to the Romans the precious relicwhich had been taken from Jerusalem, and which was believed on all handsto be the veritable cross whereon Jesus Christ suffered death. As Romehad merely made inroads, but not conquests, she did not possess anyterritory to surrender; but she doubtless set her Persian prisonersfree, and she made arrangements for the safe conduct and honorabletreatment of the Persians, who evacuated Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor, on their way to the frontier. The evacuation was at once commenced; andthe wood of the cross, which had been carefully preserved by the Persianqueen, Shirin, was restored. In the next year, Heraclius made a grandpilgrimage to Jerusalem, and replaced the holy relic in the shrine fromwhich it had been taken. 

It is said that princes are always popular on their coronation day. Kobad was certainly no exception to the general rule. His subjectsrejoiced at the termination of a war which had always been a seriousdrain on the population, and which latterly had brought ruin anddesolation upon the hearths and homes of thousands. The general emptyingof the prisons was an act that cannot be called statesman-like; but ithad a specious appearance of liberality, and was probably viewed withfavor by the mass of the people. A still more popular measure must havebeen the complete remission of taxes with which Kobad inaugurated hisreign--a remission which, according to one authority, was to havecontinued for three years, had the generous prince lived so long. Inaddition to these somewhat questionable proceedings, Kobad adoptedalso a more legitimate mode of securing the regard of his subjects by acareful administration of justice, and a mild treatment of those who hadbeen the victims of his father's severities. He restored to theirformer rank the persons whom Chosroes had degraded or imprisoned, andcompensated them for their injuries by a liberal donation of money. 

Thus far all seemed to promise well for the new reign, which, though ithad commenced under unfavorable auspices, bid fair to be tranquil andprosperous. In one quarter only was there any indication of comingtroubles. Shahr-Barz, the great general, whose life Chosroeshad attempted shortly before his own death, appears to have beendissatisfied with the terms on which Kobad had concluded peace withRome; and there is even reason to believe that he contrived to impedeand delay the full execution of the treaty. He held under Kobad thegovernment of the western provinces and was at the head of an armywhich numbered sixty thousand men. Kobad treated him with marked favor;but still he occupied a position almost beyond that of a subject, andone which could not fail to render him an object of fear and suspicion. For the present, however, though he may have nurtured ambitiousthoughts, he made no movement, but bided his time, remaining quietly inhis province, and cultivating friendly relations with the Roman emperor. 

Kobad had not been seated on the throne many months when he consentedto a deed by which his character for justice and clemency was seriouslycompromised, if not wholly lost. This was the general massacre of allthe other sons of Chosroes II. , his own brothers or half-brothers--anumerous body, amounting to forty according to the highest estimate, andto fifteen according to the lowest. We are not told of any circumstancesof peril to justify the deed, or even account for it. There have beenOriental dynasties, where such a wholesale murder upon the accession ofa sovereign has been a portion of the established system of government, and others where the milder but little less revolting expedient hasobtained of blinding all the brothers of the reigning prince; butneither practice was in vogue among the Sassanians; and we look vainlyfor the reason which caused an act of the kind to be resorted to atthis conjuncture. Mirkhond says that Piruz, the chief minister of Kobad, advised the deed; but even he assigns no motive for the massacre, unlessa motive is implied in the statement that the brothers of Kobadwere "all of them distinguished by their talents and their merit. "Politically speaking, the measure might have been harmless, had Kobadenjoyed a long reign, and left behind him a number of sons. But as itwas, the rash act, by almost extinguishing the race of Sassan, producedtroubles which greatly helped to bring the empire into a condition ofhopeless exhaustion and weakness. 

While thus destroying all his brothers, Kobad allowed his sisters tolive. Of these there were two, still unmarried, who resided in thepalace, and had free access to the monarch. Their names were Purandochtand Azermidocht, Purandocht being the elder. Bitterly grieved at theloss of their kindred, these two princesses rushed into the royalpresence, and reproached the king with words that cut him to the soul. "Thy ambition of ruling, " they said, "has induced thee to kill thyfather and thy brothers. Thou hast accomplished thy purpose within thespace of three or four months. Thou hast hoped thereby to preserve thypower forever. Even, however, if thou shouldst live long, thou must dieat last. May God deprive thee of the enjoyment of this royalty!" Hissisters' words sank deep into the king's mind. He acknowledged theirjustice, burst into tears, and flung his crown on the ground. After thishe fell into a profound melancholy, ceased to care for the exercise ofpower, and in a short time died. His death is ascribed by the Orientalsto his mental sufferings; but the statement of a Christian bishop throwssome doubt on this romantic story. Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, tells us that, before Kobad had reigned many months, the plague brokeout in his country. Vast numbers of his subjects died of it; and amongthe victims was the king himself, who perished after a reign which isvariously estimated at six, seven, eight, and eighteen months. 

There seems to be no doubt that a terrible pestilence did afflict Persiaat this period. The Arabian writers are here in agreement with Eutychiusof Alexandria, and declare that the malady was of the most aggravatedcharacter, carrying off one half, or at any rate one third, of theinhabitants of the provinces which were affected, and diminishing thepopulation of Persia by several hundreds of thousands. Scourges of thiskind are of no rare occurrence in the East; and the return of a mixedmultitude to Persia, under circumstances involving privation, fromthe cities of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, was well calculated toengender such a calamity. 

The reign of Kobad II. Appears from his coins to have lasted above ayear. He ascended the throne in February, A. D. 628; he probably diedabout July, A. D. 629. The coins which are attributed to him resemble intheir principal features those of Ohosroes II. And Artaxerxes III. , butare without wings, and have the legend _Kavat-Firuz_. The borderingof pearls is single on both obverse and reverse, but the king wears adouble pearl necklace. The eye is large, and the hair more carefullymarked than had been usual since the time of Sapor II. [PLATE XXIV. , Figs. 2 and 3]. 

At the death of Kobad the crown fell to his son, Artaxerxes III. , achild of seven, or (according to others) of one year only. The nobleswho proclaimed him took care to place him under the direction of agovernor or regent, and appointed to the office a certain Mihr-Hasis, who had been the chief purveyor of Kobad. Mihr-Hasis is said to haveruled with justice and discretion; but he was not able to prevent theoccurrence of those troubles and disorders which in the East almostinvariably accompany the sovereignty of a minor, and render the taskof a regent a hard one. Shahr-Barz, who had scarcely condescended tocomport himself as a subject under Kobad, saw in the accession of aboy, and in the near extinction of the race of Sassan, an opportunityof gratifying his ambition, and at the same time of avenging the wrongwhich had been done him by Chosroes. Before committing himself, however, to the perils of rebellion, he negotiated with Heraclius, and securedhis alliance and support by the promise of certain advantages. Thefriends met at Heraclea on the Propontis. Shahr-Barz undertook tocomplete the evacuation of Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, which he haddelayed hitherto, and promised, if he were successful in his enterprise, to pay Heraclius a large sum of money as compensation for the injuriesinflicted on Rome during the recent war. Heraclius conferred on Nicetas, the son of Shahr-Barz, the title of "Patrican, " consented to a marriagebetween Shahr-Barz's daughter, Nike, and his own son, Theodosius, and accepted Gregoria, the daughter of Nicetas, and grand-daughter ofShahr-Barz, as a wife for Constantine, the heir to the empire. He also, it is probable, supplied Shahr-Barz with a body of troops, to assist himin his struggle with Artaxerxes and Mihr-Hasis. 

Of the details of Sharhr-Barz's expedition we know nothing. He is saidto have marched on Ctesiphon with an army of sixty thousand men; to havetaken the city, put to death Artaxerxes, Mihr-Hasis, and a number of thenobles, and then seized the throne. We are not told what resistancewas made by the monarch in possession, or how it was overcome, or evenwhether there was a battle. It would seem certain, however, that thecontest was brief. The young king was of course powerless; Mihr-Hasis, though well-meaning, must have been weak; Shahr-Barz had all the rudestrength of the animal whose name he bore, and had no scruples aboutusing his strength to the utmost. The murder of a child of two, or atthe most of eight, who could have done no ill, and was legitimately inpossession of the throne, must be pronounced a brutal act, and one whichsadly tarnishes the fair fame, previously unsullied, of one of Persia'sgreatest generals. 

It was easy to obtain the crown, under the circumstances of thetime; but it was not so easy to keep what had been wrongfully gained. Shahr-Barz enjoyed the royal authority less than two months. During thisperiod he completed the evacuation of the Roman provinces occupied byChosroes II. , restored perhaps some portions of the true cross whichhad been kept back by Kobad, and sent an expeditionary force against theKhazars who had invaded Armenia, which was completely destroyed bythe fierce barbarians. He is said by the Armenians to have marriedPurandocht, the eldest daughter of Chosroes, for the purpose ofstrengthening his hold on the crown; but this attempt to conciliate hissubjects, if it was really made, proved unsuccessful. Ere he had beenking for two months, his troops mutinied, drew their swords upon him, and killed him in the open court before the palace. Having so done, theytied a cord to his feet and dragged his corpse through the streets ofCtesiphon, making proclamation everywhere as follows: "Whoever, notbeing of the blood-royal, seats himself upon the Persian throne, shallshare the fate of Shahr-Barz. " They then elevated to the royal dignitythe princess Purandocht, the first female who had ever sat in the seatof Cyrus. 

The rule of a woman was ill calculated to restrain the turbulent Persiannobles. Two instances had now proved that a mere noble might ascend thethrone of the son of Babek; and a fatal fascination was exercised onthe grandees of the kingdom by the examples of Bahram-Chobin andShahr-Barz. 

Pretenders sprang up in all quarters, generally asserting someconnection, nearer or more remote, with the royal house, but relyingon the arms of their partisans, and still more on the weakness of thegovernment. It is uncertain whether Purandocht died a natural death; hersister, Azermidocht, who reigned soon after her, was certainly murdered. The crown passed rapidly from one noble to another, and in the course ofthe four or five years which immediately succeeded the death of ChosroesII. It was worn by nine or ten different persons. Of these the greaternumber reigned but a few days or a few months; no actions are ascribedto them; and it seems unnecessary to weary the reader with their obscurenames, or with the still more obscure question concerning the order oftheir succession. It may be suspected that, in some cases two or morewere contemporary, exercising royal functions in different portionsof the empire at the same time. Of none does the history or the fatepossess any interest; and the modern historical student may well becontent with the general knowledge that for four years and a half afterthe death of Chosroes II. The government was in the highest degreeunsettled; anarchy everywhere prevailed; the distracted kingdom wastorn in pieces by the struggles of pretenders; and "every province, andalmost each city of Persia, was the scene of independence, of discord, and of bloodshed. "

At length, in June, A. D. 632, an end was put to the internal commotionsby the election of a young prince, believed to be of the true bloodof Sassan, in whose rule the whole nation acquiesced without muchdifficulty. Yezdigerd (or Isdigerd) the Third was the son of Shahriarand the grandson of Chosroes II. He had been early banished from theCourt, and had been brought up in obscurity, his royal birth beingperhaps concealed, since if known it might have caused his destruction. The place of his residence was Istakr, the ancient capital of Persia, but at this time a city of no great importance. Here he had livedunnoticed to the age of fifteen, when his royal rank having somehow beendiscovered, and no other scion of the stock of Chosroes being knownto exist, he was drawn forth from his retirement and invested with thesovereignty. 

But the appointment of a sovereign in whose rule all could acquiescecame too late. While Rome and Persia, engaged in deadly struggle, had nothought for anything but how most to injure each other, a power beganto grow up in an adjacent country, which had for long ages been despisedand thought incapable of doing any harm to its neighbors. Mohammed, halfimpostor, half enthusiast, enunciated a doctrine, and by degrees workedout a religion, which proved capable of uniting in one the scatteredtribes of the Arabian desert, while at the same time it inspired themwith a confidence, a contempt for death, and a fanatic valor, thatrendered them irresistible by the surrounding nations. Mohammed's careeras prophet began while Heraclius and Chosroes II. Were flying at eachother's throats; by the year of the death of Chosroes (A. D. 628) he hadacquired a strength greater than that of any other Arab chief; two yearslater he challenged Rome to the combat by sending a hostile expeditioninto Syria; and before his death (A. D. 632) he was able to take thefield at the head of 30, 000 men. During the time of internal trouble inPersia he procured the submission of the Persian governor of the Yemen;as well as that of Al Mondar, or Alamundarus, King of Bahrein, on thewest coast of the Persian Gulf. Isdigerd, upon his accession, foundhimself menaced by a power which had already stretched out one armtowards the lower Euphrates, while with the other it was seeking tograsp Syria and Palestine. The danger was imminent; the means of meetingit insufficient, for Persia was exhausted by foreign war and internalcontention; the monarch himself was but ill able to cope with the Arabchiefs, being youthful and inexperienced; we shall find, however, that he made a strenuous resistance. Though continually defeated, heprolonged the fight for nearly a score of years, and only succumbedfinally when, to the hostility of open foes, was added the treachery ofpretended friends and allies. 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

_Death of Mohammed and Collapse of Mohammedanism. Recovery underAbu-bekr. Conquest of the Kingdom of Hira. Conquest of Obolla. Invasionof Mesopotamia. Battle of the Bridge--the Arabs suffer a Reverse. Battleof El Bow-eib--Mihran defeated by El Mothanna. Fresh Effort made byPersia--Battle of Cadesia--Defeat of the Persians. Pause in the War. March of Sa'ad on Ctesiphon. Flight of Isdigerd. Capture of Ctesiphon. Battle of Jalula. Conquest of Susiana and invasion of Persia Proper. Recall of Sa'ad. Isdigerd assembles an Army at Nehawend. Battle ofNehawend. Flight of Isdigerd. Conquest of the various Persian Provinces. Isdigerd murdered. Character of Isdigerd. Coins of Isdigerd. _

"Yazdejird, Persarum rex. .. . Rostamum misit oppugnatum Saadum. .. Nequeunquam belloram et dissentionum expers fuit, donee oecideretur. Regnavitautem annos viginti. "--Eutychius, _Annales_, vol. Ii. Pp. 295-6. 

The power which Mohammed had so rapidly built up fell to pieces at hisdecease. Isdigerd can scarcely have been well settled upon this thronewhen the welcome tidings must have reached him that the Prophet wasdead, that the Arabs generally were in revolt, that Al Mondar hadrenounced Islamism and resumed a position of independence. For thetime Mohammedanism was struck down. It remained to be seen whether themovement had derived its strength solely from the genius of the Prophet, or whether minds of inferior calibre would suffice to renew and sustainthe impulse which had proceeded from him, and which under him had provedof such wonderful force and efficacy. 

The companions of Mohammed lost no time in appointing his successor. Their choice fell upon Abu-bekr, his friend and father-in-law, who was aperson of an energetic character, brave, chaste, and temperate. Abu-bekrproved himself quite equal to the difficulties of the situation. Beingunfit for war himself, as he was above sixty years of age, he employedable generals, and within a few months of his accession struck such aseries of blows that rebellion collapsed everywhere, and in a shorttime the whole Arab nation, except the tribe of Gassan, acknowledgedthemselves his subjects. Among the rivals against whom he measuredhimself, the most important was Moseilama. Moseilama, who affected theprophetic character, had a numerous following, and was able to fight apitched battle with the forces of Abu-bekr, which numbered 40, 000 men. At the first encounter he even succeeded in repulsing this considerablearmy, which lost 1200 warriors; but in a second engagement theMohammedans were victorious--Moseilama was slain--and Kaled, "the Swordof God, " carried back to Medina the news of his own triumph, and thespoils of the defeated enemy. Soon after the fall of Moseilama, thetribes still in rebellion submitted themselves, and the first of theCaliphs found himself at liberty to enter upon schemes of foreignconquest. 

Distracted between the temptations offered to his arms by the East andby the West, Abu-bekr in his first year (A. D. 633) sent expeditionsin both directions, against Syria, and against Hira, where Iyas, thePersian feudatory, who had succeeded Noman, son of Al Mondar, heldhis court, on the western branch of the Euphrates. For this latterexpedition the commander selected was the irresistible Kaled, whomarched a body of 2000 men across the desert to the branch stream, swhich he reached in about latitude 30°. Assisted by Al Mothanna, chiefof the Beni Sheiban, who had been a subject of Iyas, but had revoltedand placed himself under the protection of Abu-bekr, Kaled rapidlyreduced the kingdom of Hira, took successively Banikiya, Barasuilia, and El Lis, descended the river to the capital, and there fought animportant battle with the combined Persian and Arab forces, the firsttrial of arms between the followers of Mohammed and those of Zoroaster. The Persian force consisted entirely of horse, and was commanded bya general whom the Arab writers call Asadsubeh. Their number is notmentioned, but was probably small. Charged furiously by Al Mothanna, they immediately broke and fled; Hira was left with no other protectionthan its walls; and Iyas, yielding to necessity, made his submission tothe conqueror, and consented to pay a tribute of 290, 000 dirhems. 

The splendid success of his pioneer induced Abu-bekr to support the warin this quarter with vigor. Reinforcements joined Kaled from every side, and in a short time he found himself at the head of an army of 18, 000men. With this force he proceeded southwards bent on reducing the entiretract between the desert and the Eastern or real Euphrates. The mostimportant city of the southern region was at the time Obolla which wassituated on a canal or backwater derived from the Euphrates, not farfrom the modern Busrah. It was the great emporium for the Indian trade, and was known as the _limes Indorum_ or "frontier city towards India. "The Persian governor was a certain Hormuz or Hormisdas who held thepost with 20, 000 men. Kaled fought his second great battle with thisantagonist, and was once more completely victorious, killing Hormuz, according to the Arabian accounts, with his own hands. Obollasurrendered; a vast booty was taken; and, after liberally rewardinghis soldiers Kaled sent the fifth part of the spoils, together with acaptured elephant, to Abu-bekr at Medina. The strange animal astonishedthe simple natives, who asked one another wonderingly "Is this indeedone of God's works, or did human art make it. "

The victories of Kaled Over Asadsubeh and Hormuz were followed by anumber of other successes, the entire result being that the whole ofthe fertile region on the right bank of the Euphrates from Hit to thePersian Gulf, was for the time reduced, made a portion of Ahu-bekr'sdominions, and parcelled out among Mohammedan governors. Persia wasdeprived of the protection which a dependent Arab kingdom to the west ofthe river had hitherto afforded her, and was brought into direct contactwith the great Mohammedan monarchy along almost the whole of her westernfrontier. Henceforth she was open to attack on this side for a distanceof above four hundred miles, with no better barrier than a couple ofrivers interposed between her enemy and her capital. 

Soon after his conquest of the kingdom of Hira, Kaled was recalledfrom the Euphrates to the Syrian war, and was employed in the siege ofDamascus, while Persia enjoyed a breathing-space. Advantage was taken ofthis interval to stir up disaffection in the newly-conquered province. Rustam appointed to the command against the Arabs by Isdigerd sentemissaries to the various towns of the Sawad, urging them to rise inrevolt and promising to support such a movement with a Persian army. Thesituation was critical; and if the Mohammedans had been less tenacious, or the Persians more skilfully handled, the whole of the Sawad mighthave been recovered. But Rustam allowed his troops to be defeated indetail. Al Mothanna and Abu Obediah, in three separate engagements, atNamarik, Sakatiya, and Barusma, overcame the Persian leaders, Jaban, Narses, and Jalenus, and drove their shattered armies back on theTigris. The Mohammedan authority was completely re-established in thetract between the desert and the Euphrates; it was even extended acrossthe Euphrates into the tract watered by the Shat-el-Hie; and it soonbecame a question whether Persia would be able to hold the Mesopotamianregion, or whether the irrepressible Arabs would not very shortlywrest it from her grasp. But at this point in the history the Arabsexperienced a severe reverse. On learning the defeat of his lieutenants, Rustam sent an army to watch the enemy, under the command ofBahman-Dsul-hadjib, or "Bahman the beetle-browed, " which encamped uponthe Western Euphrates at Kossen-natek, not far from the site of Kufa. At the same time, to raise the courage of the soldiers, he entrusted tothis leader the sacred standard of Persia, the famous _durufsh-kawani_, or leathern apron of the blacksmith Kawah, which was richly adornedwith silk and gems, and is said to have measured, eighteen feet longby twelve feet broad. Bahman had with him, according to the Persiantradition, 30, 000 men and thirty elephants; the Arabs under Abu Obediahnumbered no more than 9000, or at the most 10, 000. Bahman is reportedto have given his adversary the alternative of passing the Euphratesor allowing the Persians to cross it. Abu Obediah preferred the boldercourse, and, in spite of the dissuasions of his chief officers, threwa bridge of boats across the stream, and so conveyed his troops to theleft bank. Here he found the Persian horse-archers covered with theirscale armor, and drawn up in a solid line behind their elephants. Galledseverely by the successive flights of arrows, the Arab cavalry soughtto come to close quarters; but their horses, terrified by the unwontedsight of the huge animals, and further alarmed by the tinkling of thebells hung round their necks, refused to advance. It was found necessaryto dismount, and assail the Persian line on foot. A considerableimpression had been made, and it was thought that the Persians wouldtake to flight, when Abu Obediah, in attacking the most conspicuous ofthe elephants, was seized by the infuriated animal and trampled underhis feet. Inspirited by this success, the Persians rushed upon theirenemies, who, disheartened by the loss of their commander, began aretrograde movement, falling back upon their newly-made bridge. This, however, was found to have been broken, either by the enemy, or by arash Arab who thought, by making retreat impossible, to give his ownside the courage of despair. Before the damage done could be repaired, the retreating host suffered severely. The Persians pressed closelyupon them, slew many, and drove others into the stream, where they weredrowned. Out of the 9000 or 10, 000 who originally passed the river, only 5000 returned, and of these 2000 at once dispersed to their homes. Besides Abu Obediah, the veteran Salit was slain; and Al Mothanna, whosucceeded to the command on Abu Obediah's death, was severely wounded. The last remnant of the defeated army might easily have been destroyed, had not a dissension arisen among the Persians, which induced Bahman toreturn to Otesiphon. 

The Arabs, upon this repulse, retired to El Lis; and Al Mothanna sentto Omar for reinforcements, which speedily arrived under the commandof Jarir, son of Abdallah. Al Mothanna was preparing to resume theoffensive when the Persians anticipated him. A body of picked troops, led by Mihran a general of reputation, crossed the Euphrates, and made adash at Hira. Hastily collecting his men, who were widely dispersed, AlMothanna gave the assailants battle on the canal El Boweib, in the nearvicinity of the threatened town, and though the Persians fought withdesperation from noon to sunset, succeeded in defeating them and inkilling their commander. The beaten army recrossed the Euphrates, andreturned to Otesiphon without suffering further losses, since the Arabswere content to have baffled their attack, and did not pursue them manymiles from the field of battle. All Mesopotamia, however, was by thisdefeat laid open to the invaders, whose ravages soon extended to theTigris and the near vicinity of the capital. 

The year A. D. 636 now arrived, and the Persians resolved upon anextraordinary effort. An army of 120, 000 men was enrolled, and Rustam, reckoned the best general of the day, was placed at its head. TheEuphrates was once more crossed, the Sawad entered, its inhabitantsinvited to revolt, and the Arab force, which had been concentrated atCadesia (Kadisiyeh), where it rested upon a fortified town, was soughtout and challenged to the combat. The Caliph Omar had by great effortscontrived to raise his troops in the Sawad to the number of 30, 000, andhad entrusted the command of them to Sa'ad, the son of Wakas, since AlMothanna had died of his wound. Sa'ad stood wholly on the defensive. Hiscamp was pitched outside the walls of Cadesia, in a position protectedon either side by a canal, or branch stream, derived from the Euphrates, and flowing to the south-east out of the Sea of Nedjef. He himself, prevented by boils from sitting on his horse, looked down on his troops, and sent them directions from the Oadesian citadel. Rustam, in orderto come to blows, was obliged to fill up the more eastern of the branchstreams (El Atik), with reeds and earth, and in this way to cross thechannel. The Arabs made no attempt to hinder the operation; and thePersian general, having brought his vast army directly opposite tothe enemy, proceeded to array his troops as he thought most expedient. Dividing his army into a centre and two wings, he took himself theposition of honor in, the mid-line with nineteen elephants and threefifths of his forces, while he gave the command of the right wing toJalenus, and of the left to Bendsuwan; each of whom we may suppose tohave had 24, 000 troops and seven elephants. The Arabs, on their side, made no such division. Kaled, son of Orfuta, was the sole leader in thefight, though Sa'ad from his watch-tower observed the battle and gavehis orders. The engagement began at mid-day and continued till sunset. At the signal of _Allah akbar_, "God is great, " shouted by Sa'ad fromhis tower, the Arabs rushed to the attack. Their cavalry charged; butthe Persians advanced against them their line of elephants, repeatingwith excellent effect the tactics of the famous "Battle of the Bridge. "The Arab horse fled; the foot alone remained firm; victory seemedinclining to the Persians, who were especially successful on eitherwing; Toleicha, with his "lions" failed to re-establish the balance; andall would have been lost, had not Assem, at the command of Sa'ad, sent abody of archers and other footmen to close with the elephants, gall themwith missiles, cut their girths, and so precipitate their riders to theground. Relieved from this danger, the Arab horse succeeded in repulsingthe Persians, who as evening approached retired in good order to theircamp. The chief loss on this, the "day of concussion, " was sufferedby the Arabs, who admit that they had 500 killed, and must have had aproportional number of wounded. 

On the morning of the second day the site of the battle was somewhatchanged, the Persians having retired a little during the night. Reinforcements from Syria kept reaching the Arab camp through mostof the day; and hence it is known to the Arab writers as the "day ofsuccors. " The engagement seems for some time not to have been general, the Arabs waiting for more troops to reach them, while the Persiansabstained because they had not yet repaired the furniture of theirelephants. Thus the morning passed in light skirmishes and singlecombats between the champions of either host, who went out singly beforethe lines and challenged each other to the encounter. The result of theduels was adverse to the Persians, who lost in the course of them two oftheir best generals, Bendsuwan and Bahman-Dsulhadjib. After a time theArabs, regarding themselves as sufficiently reinforced, attacked thePersians along their whole line, partly with horse, and partly withcamels, dressed up to resemble elephants. The effect on the Persiancavalry was the same as had on the preceding day been produced by thereal elephants on the horse of the Arabs; it was driven off the fieldand dispersed, suffering considerable losses. But the infantry stoodfirm, and after a while the cavalry rallied; Rustam, who had been indanger of suffering capture, was saved; and night closing in, defeat wasavoided, though the advantage of the day rested clearly with the Arabs. The Persians had lost 10, 000 in killed and wounded, the Arabs no morethan 2000. 

In the night which followed "the day of succors" great efforts were madeby the Persians to re-equip their elephants, and when morning dawnedthey were enabled once more to bring the unwieldy beasts into line. Butthe Arabs and their horses had now grown more familiar with the strangeanimals; they no longer shrank from meeting them; and some Persiandeserters gave the useful information that, in order to disable thebrutes it was only necessary to wound them on the proboscis or in theeye. Thus instructed, the Arabs made the elephants the main object oftheir attack, and, having wounded the two which were accustomed to leadthe rest, caused the whole body on a sudden to take to flight, cross thecanal El Atik, and proceed at full speed to Ctesiphon. The armies thencame to close quarters; and the foot and horse contended through theday with swords and spears, neither side being able to make any seriousimpression upon the other. As night closed in, however, the Persiansonce more fell back, crossing the canal El Atik, and so placing thatbarrier between themselves and their adversaries. 

Their object in this manoeuvre was probably to obtain the rest whichthey must have greatly needed. The Persians were altogether of a frameless robust, and of a constitution less hardy, than the Arabs. Theirarmy at Kadisiyeh was, moreover, composed to a large extent of rawrecruits; and three consecutive days of severe fighting must have sorelytried its endurance. The Persian generals hoped, it would seem, bycrossing the Atik to refresh their troops with a quiet night beforerenewing the combat on the morrow. But the indefatigable Arabs, perhapsguessing their intention, determined to frustrate it, and preventedthe tired host from enjoying a moment's respite. The "day of embitteredwar, " as it was called, was followed by the "night of snarling"--a timeof horrid noise and tumult, during which the discordant cries of thetroops on either side were thought to resemble the yells and barks ofdogs and jackals. Two of the bravest of the Arabs, Toleicha and Amr, crossed the Atik with small bodies of troops, and under cover of thedarkness entered the Persian camp, slew numbers, and caused the greatestconfusion. By degrees a general engagement was brought on, whichcontinued into the succeeding day, so that the "night of snarling" canscarcely be separated from the "day of cormorants"--the last of the fourdays' Kadisiyeh fight. 

It would seem that the Persians must on the fourth day have had for atime the advantage, since we find them once more fighting upon the oldground, in the tract between the two canals, with the Atik in theirrear. About noon, however, a wind arose from the west, bringing withit clouds of sand, which were blown into the faces and eyes of thePersians, while the Arabs, having their backs to the storm, suffered butlittle from its fury. Under these circumstances the Moslems made freshefforts, and after a while a part of the Persian army was forced togive ground. Hormuzan, satrap of Susiana, and Firuzan, the general whoafterwards commanded at Nehavend, fell back. The line of battle wasdislocated; the person of the commander became exposed to danger; andabout the same time a sudden violent gust tore away the awning thatshaded his seat, and blew it into the Atik, which was not far off. Rustam sought a refuge from the violence of the storm among his baggagemules, and was probably meditating flight, when the Arabs were upon him. Hillal, son of Alkama, intent upon plunder, began to cut the cords ofthe baggage and strew it upon the ground. A bag falling severely injuredRustam, who threw himself into the Atik and attempted to swim across. Hillal, however, rushed after him, drew him to shore, and slew him;after which he mounted the vacant throne, and shouted as loudly ashe could, "By the lord of the Kaaba, I have killed Rustam. " The wordscreated a general panic. Everywhere the Persian courage fell; the mostpart despaired wholly, and at once took to flight; a few cohorts alonestood firm and were cut to pieces; the greater number of the men rushedhastily to the Atik; some swam the stream others crossed where ithad been filled up; but as many as 30, 000 perished in the waves. Ten thousand had fallen on the field of battle in the course of thepreceding night and day, while of the Mohammedans as many as 6000had been slain. Thus the last day of the Kadisiyeh fight was stoutlycontested; and the Persian defeat was occasioned by no deficiencyof courage, but by the occurrence of a sand-storm and by the almostaccidental death of the commander. Among the Persian losses in thebattle that of the national standard, the _durufsh-kawani_ was reckonedthe most serious. 

The retreat of the defeated army was conducted by Jalenus. Sa'ad, anxious to complete his victory, sent three bodies of troops across theAtik, to press upon the flying foe. One of these, commanded by Sohra, came up with the Persian rear-guard under Jalenus at Harrar, andslaughtered it, together with its leader. The other two seem to havereturned without effecting much. The bulk of the fugitives traversedMesopotamia in safety, and found a shelter behind the walls ofCtesiphon. 

By the defeat of Kadisiyeh all hope of recovering the territory on theright bank of the Euphrates was lost; but Persia did not as yet despairof maintaining her independence. It was evident, indeed, that thepermanent maintenance of the capital was henceforth precarious; and awise forethought would have suggested the removal of the Court from soexposed a situation and its transference to some other position, eitherto Istakr, the ancient metropolis of Persia Proper, or to Hamadan, thecapital city of Media. But probably it was considered that to retirevoluntarily from the Tigris would be a confession of weakness, as fatalto the stability of the empire as to be driven back by the Arabs; andperhaps it may have been hoped that the restless nomads would be contentwith their existing conquests, or that they might receive a check at thehands of Rome which would put a stop to their aggressions elsewhere. It is remarkable that, during the pause of a year and a half whichintervened between the battle of Kadisiyeh and the resumption ofhostilities by the Arabs, nothing seems to have been done by Persia inthe way of preparation against her terrible assailants. 

In the year A. D. 637 the Arabs again took the offensive. They hademployed the intervening year and a half in the foundation of Busrah andKufam and in the general consolidation of their sway on the right bankof the Euphrates. They were now prepared for a further movement. Theconduct of the war was once more entrusted to Sa'ad. Having collectedan army of 20, 000 men, this general proceeded from Kufa to Anbar(or Perisabor), where he crossed the Euphrates, and entered on theMesopotamian region. Isdigerd. Learning that he had put his forces inmotion, and was bent upon attacking Ctesiphon, called a council ofwar, and asked its advice as to the best course to be pursued underthe circumstances. It was generally agreed that the capital must beevacuated, and a stronger situation in the more mountainous part of thecountry occupied; but Isdigerd was so unwilling to remove that he waitedtill the Arabian general, with a force now raised to 60, 000, had reachedSabat, which was only a day's march from the capital, before he couldbe induced to commence his retreat. He then abandoned the town hastily, without carrying off more than a small portion of the treasures whichhis ancestors had during four centuries accumulated at the main seatof their power, and retired to Holwan, a strong place in the Zagrosmountain-range. Sa'ad, on learning his movement, sent a body of troopsin pursuit, which came up with the rear-guard of the Persians, and cutit in pieces, but effected nothing really important. Isdigerd made goodhis retreat, and in a short time concentrated at Holwan an army of above100, 000 men. Sa'ad, instead of pushing forward and engaging this force, was irresistibly attracted by the reputed wealth of the Great Ctesiphon, and, marching thither, entered the unresisting city, with his troops, inthe sixteenth year of the Hegira, the four hundred and eleventh from thefoundation of the Sassanian kingdom by Artaxerxes, son of Babek. 

Ctesiphon was, undoubtedly, a rich prize. Its palaces and its gardens, its opulent houses and its pleasant fields, its fountains and itsflowers, are celebrated by the Arabian writers, who are never weary ofrehearsing the beauty of its site, the elegance of the buildings, the magnificence and luxury of their furniture, or the amount of thetreasures which were contained in them. The royal palace, now known asthe Takht-i-Khosru, especially provoked their admiration. It was builtof polished stone, and had in front of it a portico of twelve marblepillars, each 150 feet high. The length of the edifice was 450 feet, itsbreadth 180, its height 150. In the centre was the hall of audience, anoble apartment, 115 feet long and 85 high, with a magnificent vaultedroof, bedecked with golden stars, so arranged as to represent themotions of the planets among the twelve signs of the Zodiac, where themonarch was accustomed to sit on a golden throne, hearing causesand dispensing justice to his subjects. The treasury and the variousapartments were full of gold and silver, of costly robes and preciousstones, of jewelled arms and dainty carpets. The glass vases of thespice magazine contained an abundance of musk, camphor, amber, gums, drugs, and delicious perfumes. In one apartment was found a carpetof white brocade, 450 feet long and 90 broad, with a border worked inprecious stones of various hues, to represent a garden of all kinds ofbeautiful flowers. The leaves were formed of emeralds, the blossomsand buds of pearls, rubies, sapphires, and other gems of immense value. Among the objects found in the treasury were a horse made entirely ofgold, bearing a silver saddle set with a countless multitude of jewels, and a camel made of silver, accompanied by a foal of which the materialwas gold. A coffer belonging to Isdigerd was captured at the bridge overthe Nahrwan canal as its guardians were endeavoring to carry it off. Among its contents were a robe of state embroidered with rubies andpearls, several garments made of tissue of gold, the crown and seal ofChosroes (Anushirwan?), and ten pieces of silk brocade. The armory ofChosroes also fell into the conqueror's hands. It contained his helmet, breastplate, greaves, and arm-pieces, all of solid gold adorned withpearls, six "cuirasses of Solomon, " and ten costly scimitars. The worksof art, and a fifth part of the entire booty, were set apart for theCaliph Omar, and sent by trusty messengers to Medina; the value of theremainder was so enormous that when Sa'ad divided it among his 60, 000soldiers the share of each amounted to 12, 000 dirhems (L312. ). 

It is said that Sa'ad, after capturing Ctesiphon, was anxious to set outin pursuit of Isdigerd, but was restrained by dispatches received fromOmar, which commanded him to remain at the Persian capital, and toemploy his brother Hashem, and the experienced general, El Kakaa, in thefurther prosecution of the war. Hashem was, therefore, sent with 12, 000men, against the fugitive monarch, whose forces, said to have exceeded100, 000 men, and commanded by a Mihran, were drawn up at Jalula, notfar from Holwan. The disparity of numbers forced Hashem to condescendto maneuvering; and it was six months before he ventured on a generalengagement with his antagonist. Again the Mohammedans proved victorious;and this time the carnage was excessive; 100, 000 Persians are said tohave lain dead on the battle-field; the commander was himself among theslain. Jalula at once surrendered; and fresh treasures were obtained. Among other precious articles, a figure of a camel, with its rider, in solid gold, was found in one of the tents. Altogether the booty isreckoned at about four millions of our money--the share of each soldierengaged being 10, 000 dirhems, or about L260. Sterling. 

Isdigerd, on learning the result of the battle of Jalula, quittedHolwan, and retired to Rei, a large town near the Caspian sea, at ashort distance from the modern Teheran, thus placing the entire Zagrosrange between himself and his irresistible foes. A general namedKhosru-sum was left behind with a large body of troops, and was biddento defend Holwan to the last extremity. Instead of remaining, however, within the walls of the stronghold, Khosru-sum rashly led his force tomeet that of El Kakaa, who defeated him at Kasr-i-Shirin and entirelydispersed his army. Holwan, being left without protection, surrendered;the conquest of Shirwan, Mahsabadan, and Tekrit followed; and by theclose of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved over thewhole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to Susa, or from theKurnib to the Kuran river. 

Another short pause in the Arabian aggressions upon Persia now occurred;but in the year A. D. 639 their attacks were resumed, and the Persianshad to submit to further losses. Otba, governor of Busrah, sent anexpedition across the Shat-el-Arab into. Susiana, and, supported bythe Arab population of the province, which deserted the Persian side, engaged Horrmuzan, the satrap, in two battles, defeated him, and forcedhim to cede a portion of his territory, including the important city ofAhwaz. Soon afterwards, Ala, governor of Bahrein, conducted in person anexpedition into Persia Proper, crossing the Gulf in the rude vessels ofthe time, and attacking Shehrek, the Persian satrap, who acknowledgedthe authority of Isdigerd. Here, the Arabs were for once unsuccessful. Shehrek collected a force which Ala was afraid to encounter; the Arabchief retreated to the coast, but found his fleet engulfed by the waves;and it was only with great difficulty that he made his escape by landfrom the country which he had ventured to invade. He owed his escapeto Otba, who sent troops from Busrah to his aid, defeated Shehrek, andrescued his fellow governor from the peril which threatened, him. 

In the next year (A. D. 640) Hormuzan, incited by Isdigerd, made adesperate attempt to recover the territory which he had been compelledto cede. Assisted by Shehrek, governor of Persia Proper, he attacked theArabs unawares, but was speedily met, driven from Ram-Hormuz to Shuster, and there besieged for the space of six months. As many as eightyengagements are said to have taken place before the walls, with nodecided advantage to either side. At length Al-Bera, son of Malik, oneof the companions of the Prophet, and believed by many to possess theprophetic spirit, announced that victory was about to incline to theMoslems, but that he himself would be slain. A chance arrow havingfulfilled one-half of the prediction, the Arabs felt an assurance thatthe other half would follow, and fought with such fanatic ardor thattheir expectations were soon fulfilled. The town was won; but Hormuzanretired into the citadel, and there successfully maintained himself, till Abu-Sabra, the Mohammedan general, consented to spare his life, andsend him to Medina, where his fate should be determined by the Caliph. Hormuzan, on obtaining an audience, pretended thirst and asked for a cupof water, which was given him: he then looked suspiciously around, asif he expected to be stabbed while drinking. "Fear nothing, " said Omar;"your life is safe till you have drunk the water. " The crafty Persianflung the cup to the ground, and Omar felt that he had been outwitted, but that he must keep his word. Hormuzan became an Arab pensionary, andshortly afterwards embraced Islamism. His territories were occupied bythe Moslems, whose dominions were thereby extended from the Kuran to theTab river. 

The Arab conquests on the side of Persia had hitherto been effectedand maintained by the presiding genius of one of the ablest of theMohammedan commanders, the victor of Kadi-siyeh, Sa'ad Ibn Abi Wakas. From Kufa, where he built himself a magnificent palace, which Omarhowever caused to be destroyed, this great general and skilfuladministrator directed the movements of armies, arranged the divisionsof provinces, apportioned the sums to be paid to the revenue, dealtout justice, and generally superintended affairs throughout the entireregion conquered by the Arabs to the east of the desert. A man in sucha position necessarily made himself enemies; and complaints werefrequently carried to Omar of his lieutenant's pride, luxury, andinjustice. What foundation there may have been for these charges isuncertain; but it seems that Omar was persuaded, towards the close ofA. D. 640, or very early in A. D. 641, that they were of sufficient weightto make it necessary that they should be investigated. He accordinglyrecalled Sa'ad from his government to Medina, and replaced him at Kufaby Ammar Ibn Yaser. 

The news of this change was carried to Isdigerd at Rei, and caused himto conceive hopes of recovering his lost territory. The event shows thathe attributed too much to the personal ability of his great antagonist;but the mistake was not unnatural; and it was a noble impulse whichled him to seize the first promising occasion, in order to renew thestruggle and make a last desperate effort to save his empire and repulsethe barbarous nomads. The facts are not as the Arabian historiansrepresent them. There was no intention on the part of the Mohammedans tobe content with the conquests which they made, or to remain within theboundary line of the mountains that separate the Mesopotaraian regionfrom the high plateau of Iran. Mohammedanism had an insatiable ambition, and was certain to spread itself in all directions until its forceswere expended, or a bound was set to it by resistance which it could notovercome. Isdigerd, by remaining quiet, might perhaps have prolonged theprecarious existence of Persia for half a dozen years, though even thisis uncertain, and it is perhaps as probable that the tide of conquestwould have flowed eastward in A. D. 641 or 642, even had he attemptednothing. What alone we can be sure of his, that no acquiescence on hispart, no abstention from warlike enterprise, no submission short of theacceptance of Islamism, would have availed to save his country for morethan a very brief space from the tramp of the hordes that were bent onenriching themselves with the plunder of the whole civilized world, and imposing on all the nations of the earth their dominion and theirreligion. 

From the citadel of Rei, Isdigerd, in A. D. 641, sounded the call tobattle with no uncertain note. His envoys spread themselves throughMedia, Azerbijan, Khorassan, Gurgan, Tabaristan, Merv, Bactria, Seistan, Kerman, and Farsistan (or Persia Proper), demanding contingents oftroops, and appointing, as the place of rendezvous, the small town ofNehavend, which is in the mountain region, about fifty miles south ofHamadan. The call was responded to with zeal; and in a short timethere was gathered together at the place named an army of 150, 000 men. Firuzan, one of the nobles who had commanded at Kadisiyeh, was madegeneral-in-chief. The design was entertained of descending on Holwan, and thence upon the lowland region, of re-taking Ctesiphon, crossing thegreat rivers, and destroying the rising cities of Kufa and Busrah. Butthe Arabs were upon the alert, and anticipated the intended invasion. Noman, son of Mokarrin, who commanded at Ahwaz, was hastily commissionedby Omar to collect the Arab troops stationed in Irak, Khuzistan, andthe Sawad, to put himself at their head, and to prevent the outbreak bymarching at once on Nehavend. He succeeded in uniting under his standardabout 30, 000 soldiers, and with this moderate force entered the mountaintract, passed Holwan and Merj, and encamped at Tur, where he expectedthe attack of the enemy. But Firuzan had now resolved to maintain thedefensive. He had entrenched himself strongly in front of Nehavendand was bent on wearing out the patience of the Arabs by a prolongedresistance. Noman, finding himself unmolested, advanced from Tur tothe immediate neighborhood of Nehavend, and endeavored to provoke hisadversary to give battle, but without effect. For two months the twohosts faced each other without fighting. At last, the stores of theArabs, as well as their patience, began to fail; and it was necessary toemploy some device, or to give up the war altogether. Hereupon, Noman, by the advice of two of his captains, had recourse to a stratagem. Hespread a report that Omar was dead, and breaking up from from hiscamp began a hasty retreat. The plan succeeded. Firuzan quitted hisentrenchments, and led his army on the traces of the flying foe. It wastwo days before he reached them, and on the third day the battle began. Noman, having addressed his soldiers and made arrangements concerningthe command in case of his own death, mounted a milk-white steed, andgave the signal for the fight by thrice shouting the famous tehbir, or battle-cry, "_Allah akbar_. " The Arabs charged with fury, and for awhile, amid the clouds of dust which rose beneath their feet, nothingwas heard but the clash of steel. At length the Persians gave way; but, as Noman advanced his standard and led the pursuit, a volley ofarrows from the flying foe checked his movement, and at the same timeterminated his career. A shaft had struck him in a vital part, and hefell at the moment of victory. For his men, maddened by the loss oftheir commander, pressed on more furiously than before; the Persianswere unable to rally; and a promiscuous flight began. Then followed adreadful slaughter. The numbers of the Persians must have impededtheir retreat; and in the defiles of the mountains a rapid flight wasimpossible. Firuzan himself, who, instead of falling back on Nehavend, took the road leading north to Hamadan, was overtaken by El Kakaa in anarrow pass, and put to the sword. More than 100, 000 Persians aresaid to have perished. 128 The victors, pressing onwards, easily tookNehavend. Hamadan surrendered to them shortly afterwards. 120

The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying continually from place to place, prolongedan inglorious existence for the space of ten more years--from A. D. 641to A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to pieces onthe occasion of "the victory of victories, " and made no other unitedeffort against the Arabs. Province after province was occupied by thefierce invaders; and, at length, in A. D. 651, their arms penetratedto Merv, where the last scion of the house of Babek had for some yearsfound a refuge. It is said that during this interval he had made effortsto engage the Khan of the Turks and the Emperor of the Chinese toembrace his cause; but, if this were so, it was without success. Thoughthey may have lent him some encouragement, no real effort was made byeither potentate on his behalf. Isdigerd, at Merv, during his lateryears, experienced the usual fate of sovereigns who have lost theirkingdoms. He was alternately flattered and coerced by pretended friendsamong his own people--induced to cherish vain hopes, and driven todespair, by the fluctuating counsels of the monarchs of neighboringnations. At last he was murdered by a subject for the sake of hisclothes, when he was flying from a combined attack of treacheroussubjects and offended foreigners. 

It is difficult to form a decided opinion as to the character ofIsdigerd III. He was but fifteen years of age at his accession, twenty-four at the time of the battle of Nehavend, and thirty-four athis decease, A. D. 651. It is in his favor that "history lays no crimesto his charge;" for this can be said of very few Sassanian sovereigns. It is also to his credit that he persevered so long in strugglingagainst his fate, and in endeavoring to maintain, or restore, theindependence of his nation. But, on the other hand, it must be confessedthat there is little to be admired in the measures which he took to meetthe perils of the time, and that personally he appears to have been weakand of luxurious habits. During the whole of his long struggle withthe Arabs he seems never once to have placed himself at the head of histroops, much less to have crossed swords with the enemy. He intrustedthe defence of Persia to generals, and did not even seek to inspirehis soldiers with enthusiasm by his own presence in their camp. Alwaysoccupying some secure fortress far in the rear of his army, he fled fromeach as the enemy made a step in advance, quitting Ctesiphon for Holwan, Holwan for Rei, and Rei for Merv, never venturing upon a stand, nevermaking an appeal to the loyalty which was amongst the best qualities ofthe Persians, and which would have caused them to fight with desperationin defence of a present king. Carrying with him in all his wanderingsthe miserable pageant of an Oriental court, he suffered his movementsto be hampered and his resources crippled by a throng of 4000 uselessretainers, whom he could not bring himself to dismiss. Instead ofdonning the armor which befitted one who was struggling for his crown, he wore to the last the silken robes, the jewelled belt, the rings andbracelets that were only suited for the quiet inmate of a palace, and bythis incongruous and misplaced splendor he provoked, and, perhaps we maysay, deserved his fate. A monarch who loses his crown for the mostpart awakens interest and sympathy; but no historian has a word ofcommiseration for the last of the Sassanidae, who is reproached withfeebleness, cowardice, and effeminacy. It must certainly be allowed thathe was no hero; but considering his extreme youth when his perils began, the efforts which he made to meet them, and the impossibility of aneffective resistance in the effete and exhausted condition of thePersian nation, history is scarcely justified in passing upon theunfortunate prince a severe judgment. 

The coins assigned to Isdigerd III. Are neither numerous nor veryremarkable. The head is in general very similar to that of ArtaxerxesIII. The pearl bordering around it is single, and in the margin arethe usual stars and crescents of the later Sassanian kings. The margin, however, shows also in some instances a peculiar device behind thecrown, and also a legend, which has been read, but very doubtfully, as "Ormazd. " The king's name is given as Iskart or Iskarti. Amongthe regnal years marked on the reverse have been found the numbers"nineteen" and "twenty. " Among the mint-marks are Azer-bijan, Abiverd, and Merv. [PLATE XXIV. , Fig. 4]

CHAPTER XXVII. 

_Architecture of the Sassanians. Its Origin. Its Peculiarities. OblongSquare Plan. Arched Entrance Halls. Domes resting on Pendentives. Suites of Apartments. Ornamentation: Exterior, by Pilasters, Cornices, String-courses, and shallow arched Recesses, with Pilasters betweenthem; Interior, by Pillars supporting Transverse Bibs, or by Door-waysand False Windows, like the Persopolitan. Specimen Palaces at Serbistan, at Firuzbad, at Ctesiphon, at Mashita. Elaborate Decoration at thelast-named Palace. Decoration Elsewhere. Arch of Takht-i-Bostan. Sassanian Statuary. Sassanian Bas-reliefs. Estimate of their ArtisticValue. Question of the Employment by the Sassanians of ByzantineArtists. General Summary. _

"With the accession of the Sassanians, Persia regained much of thatpower and stability to which she had been so long a stranger. .. . The improvement in the fine arts at home indicates returningprosperity, and a degree of security unknown since the fall of theAchaemenidae. "--Fergusson, _History of Architecture_, vol. I. Pp. 381-3, 3d edition. 

When Persia under the Sassanian princes shook off the barbarous yoketo which she had submitted for the space of almost five centuries, shefound architecture and the other fine arts at almost the lowest possibleebb throughout the greater part of Western Asia. The ruins of theAchaemenian edifices, which were still to be seen at Pasargadae, Persopolis, and elsewhere, bore witness to the grandeur of idea, andmagnificence of construction, which had once formed part of the heritageof the Persian nation; but the intervening period was one during whichthe arts had well-nigh wholly disappeared from the Western Asiaticworld; and when the early sovereigns of the house of Sassan felt thedesire, common with powerful monarchs, to exhibit their greatness intheir buildings, they found themselves at the first without artiststo design, without artisans to construct, and almost without models tocopy. The Parthians, who had ruled over Persia for nearly four hundredyears, ' had preferred country to city life, tents to buildings, and hadnot themselves erected a single edifice of any pretension during theentire period of their dominion. Nor had the nations subjected to theirsway, for the most part, exhibited any constructive genius, or beensuccessful in supplying the artistic deficiencies of their rulers. Inone place alone was there an exception to this general paralysis of theartistic powers. At Hatra, in the middle Mesopotamian region, an Arabdynasty, which held under the Parthian kings, had thought its dignityto require that it should be lodged in a palace, and had resuscitated anative architecture in Mesopotamia, after centuries of complete neglect. When the Sassanians looked about for a foundation on which they mightwork, and out of which they might form a style suitable to their needsand worthy of their power and opulence, they found what they sought inthe Hatra edifice, which was within the limits of their kingdom, and atno great distance from one of the cities where they held their Court. 

The early palaces of the Sassanians have ceased to exist. Artaxerxes, the son of Babek, Sapor the first, and their immediate successors, undoubtedly erected residences for themselves exceeding in size andrichness the buildings which had contented the Parthians, as well asthose in which their own ancestors, the tributary kings of Persia underParthia, had passed their lives. But these residences have almost whollydisappeared. The most ancient of the Sassanian buildings which admit ofbeing measured and described are assigned to the century between A. D. 350 and 450; and we are thus unable to trace the exact steps by whichthe Sassanian style was gradually elaborated. We come upon it when it isbeyond the stage of infancy, when it has acquired a marked and decidedcharacter, when it no longer hesitates or falters, but knows what itwants, and goes straight to its ends. Its main features are simple, and are uniform from first to last, the later buildings being merelyenlargements of the earlier, by an addition to the number or to the sizeof the apartments. The principal peculiarities of the style are, first, that the plan of the entire building is an oblong square, withoutadjuncts or projections; secondly, that the main entrance is into alofty vaulted porch or hall by an archway of the entire width ofthe apartment; thirdly, that beside these oblong halls, the buildingcontains square apartments, vaulted with domes, which are circularat their base, and elliptical in their section, and which rest onpendentives of an unusual character; fourthly, that the apartmentsare numerous and en suite, opening one into another, without theintervention of passages; and fifthly, that the palace comprises, as amatter of course, a court, placed towards the rear of the building, withapartments opening into it. 

The oblong square is variously proportioned. The depth may be a littlemore than the breadth, or it may be nearly twice as much. In eithercase, the front occupies one of the shorter sides, or ends of theedifice. The outer wall is sometimes pierced by one entrance only;but, more commonly, entrances are multiplied beyond the limit commonlyobserved in modern buildings. The great entrance is in the exact centreof the front. This entrance, as already noticed, is commonly by a loftyarch which (if we set aside the domes) is of almost the full height ofthe building, and constitutes one of its most striking, and to Europeansmost extraordinary, features. From the outer air, we look; as it were, straight into the heart of the edifice, in one instance to the depthof 115 feet, a distance equal to the length of Henry VII. 's Chapelat Westminster. The effect is very strange when first seen by theinexperienced traveller; but similar entrances are common in the mosquesof Armenia and Persia, and in the palaces of the latter country. In themosques "lofty and deeply-recessed portals, " "unrivalled for grandeurand appropriateness, " are rather the rule than the exception; and, inthe palaces, "Throne-rooms" are commonly mere deep recesses of thischaracter, vaulted or supported by pillars, and open at one end to thefull width and height of the apartment. The height of the arch variesin Sassanian buildings from about fifty to eighty-five feet; it isgenerally plain, and without ornament; but in one case we meet with afoiling of small arches round the great one, which has an effect that isnot unpleasing. 

The domed apartments are squares of from twenty-five to forty feet, or alittle more. The domes are circular at their base; but a section of themwould exhibit a half ellipse, with its longest and shortest diametersproportioned as three to two. The height to which they rise from theground is not much above seventy feet. A single building will have twoor three domes, either of the same size, or occasionally of differentdimensions. It is a peculiarity of their construction that they rest, not on drums, but on pendentives of a curious character. A series ofsemi-circular arches is thrown across the angles of the apartment, each projecting further into it than the preceding, and in this waythe corners are got rid of, and the square converted into the circularshape. A cornice ran round the apartment, either above or below thependentives, or sometimes both above and below. The domes were piercedby a number of small holes, which admitted some light, and the upperpart of the walls between the pendentives was also pierced by windows. 

There are no passages or corridors in the Sassanian palaces. The roomsfor the most part open one into the other. Where this is not the case, they give upon a common meeting-ground, which is either an open court, or a large vaulted apartment. The openings are in general doorways ofmoderate size, but sometimes they are arches of the full width of thesubordinate room or apartment. As many as seventeen or eighteen roomshave been found in a palace. 

There is no appearance in any Sassanian edifice of a real second story. The famous Takht-i-Khosru presents externally the semblance of such anarrangement; but this seems to have been a mere feature of the externalornamentation, and to have had nothing to do with the interior. 

The exterior ornamentation of the Sassanian buildings was by pilasters, by arched recesses, by cornices, and sometimes by string-courses. Anornamentation at once simple and elegant is that of the lateral faces ofthe palace at Firuzabad, where long reed-like pilasters are carriedfrom the ground to the cornice, while between them are a series of tallnarrow doubly recessed arches. Far less satisfactory is the much moreelaborate design adopted at Ctesiphon, where six series of blindarches of different kinds are superimposed the one on the other, withstring-courses between them, and with pilasters, placed singly orin pairs, separating the arches into groups, and not regularlysuperimposed, as pillars, whether real or seeming, ought to be. 

The interior ornamentation was probably, in a great measure, by stucco, painting, and perhaps gilding. All this, however, if it existed, hasdisappeared; and the interiors now present a bare and naked appearance, which is only slightly relieved by the occasional occurrence of windows, of ornamental doorways, and of niches, which recall well-known featuresat Persepolis. In some instances, however, the arrangement of the largerrooms was improved by means of short pillars, placed at some distancefrom the walls, and supporting a sort of transverse rib, which broke theuniformity of the roof. The pillars were connected with the side wallsby low arches. 

Such are the main peculiarities of Sassanian palace architecture. Thegeneral effect of the great halls is grand, though scarcely beautiful;and, in the best specimens, the entire palace has an air of simpleseverity which is striking and dignified. The internal arrangements donot appear to be very convenient. Too much is sacrificed to regularity;and the opening of each room into its neighbor must, one wouldthink, have been unsatisfactory. Still, the edifices are regarded as"indicating considerable originality and power, " though they "point to astate of society when attention to security hardly allowed the architectthe free exercise of the more delicate ornaments of his art. "

From this general account of the main features of the architecture itis proposed now to proceed to a more particular description of theprincipal extant Sassanian buildings--the palaces at Serbistan, Firuzabad, Ctesiphon, and Mashita. 

The palace at Serbistan is the smallest, and probably the earliest ofthe four. It has been assigned conjecturally to the middle of the fourthcentury, or the reign of Sapor II. The ground plan is an oblong butlittle removed from a square, the length being 42 French metres, and thebreadth nearly 37 metres. [PLATE XXV. , Fig. 1. ] The building faces west, and is entered by three archways, between which are groups of threesemi-circular pilasters, while beyond the two outer arches towards theangles of the building is a single similar pilaster. Within the archwaysare halls or porches of different depths, the central one of the threebeing the shallowest. [PLATE XXV. , Fig. 2. ] This opens by an archeddoorway into a square chamber, the largest in the edifice. It is domed, and has a diameter of about 42 feet or, including recesses, of above 57feet. The interior height of the dome from the floor is 65 feet. Beyondthe domed chamber is a court, which measures 45 feet by 40, and hasrooms of various sizes opening into it. One of these is domed; andothers are for the most part vaulted. The great domed chamber openstowards the north, on a deep porch or hall, which was entered fromwithout by the usual arched portal. On the south it communicates with apillared hall, above 60 feet long by 30 broad. There is another somewhatsimilar hall on the north side of the building, in width about equal, but in length not quite 50 feet. In both halls the pillars are short, not exceeding six feet. They support piers, which run up perpendicularlyfor a considerable height, and then become ribs of the vaulting. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXV. ]

The Firuzabad palace has a length of above 390 and a width of above180 feet. Its supposed date is A. D. 450, or the reign of Isdigerd I. As usual the ground plan is an oblong square. [PLATE XXVI. ] It isremarkable that the entire building had but a single entrance. This wasby a noble arch, above 50 feet in height, which faced north, and gaveadmission into a vaulted hall, nearly 90 feet long by 43 wide, having ateither side two lesser halls of a similar character, opening into itby somewhat low semi-circular arches, of nearly the full width of theapartments. Beyond these rooms, and communicating with them by narrow, but elegant doorways, were three domed chambers precisely similar, occupying together the full width of the building, each about 43 feetsquare, and crowned by elliptical domes rising to the height of nearly70 feet. [PLATE XXVII. , Fig. 1. ] The ornamentation of these chambers wasby their doorways, and by false windows, on the Persepolitan model. Thedomed chambers opened into some small apartments, beyond which wasa large court, about 90 feet square, surrounded by vaulted rooms ofvarious sizes, which for the most part communicated directly with it. False windows, or recesses, relieved the interior of these apartments, but were of a less elaborate character than those of the domed chambers. Externally the whole building was chastely and tastefully ornamented bythe tall narrow arches and reed-like pilasters already mentioned. [PLATEXXVII. , Fig. 2. ] Its character, however, was upon the whole "simple andsevere;" nor can we quarrel with the judgment which pronounces it "morelike a gigantic bastile than the palace of a gay, pavilion-loving peoplelike the Persians. "

[Illustration: PLATE XXVI. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXVII. ]

It is difficult to form any very decided opinion upon the architecturalmerits of the third and grandest of the Sassanian palaces, the wellknown "Takht-i-Ehosru, " or palace of Chosroe's Anushirwan, at Ctesiphon. What remains of this massive erection is a mere fragment, which, tojudge from the other extant Sassanian ruins, cannot have formed so muchas one fourth part of the original edifice. [PLATE XXVIII. , Fig. 1. ]Nothing has come down to our day but a single vaulted hall on thegrandest scale, 72 feet wide, 85 high, and 115 deep, together with themere outer wall of what no doubt constituted the main facade of thebuilding. The apartments, which, according to all analogy, must haveexisted at the two sides, and in the rear, of the great hall, some ofwhich should have been vaulted, have wholly perished. Imagination maysupply them from the Firuzabad, or the Mashita palace; but not a trace, even of their foundations, is extant; and the details, consequently, areuncertain, though the general plan can scarcely be doubted. At each sideof the great hall were probably two lateral ones, communicating witheach other, and capable of being entered either from the hall or fromthe outer air. Beyond the great hall was probably a domed chamber, equalling it in width, and opening upon a court, round which were anumber of moderate-sized apartments. The entire building was no doubtan oblong square, of which the shorter sides seem to have measured 370feet. It had at least three, and may not improbably have had a largernumber of entrances, since it belongs to tranquil times and a securelocality. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXVIII. ]

The ornamentation of the existing facade of the palace is by doorways, doubly-arched recesses, pilasters, and string-courses. These last dividethe building, externally, into an appearance of three or four distinctstories. The first and second stories are broken into portions bypilasters, which in the first or basement stories are in pairs, butin the second stand singly. It is remarkable that the pilasters of thesecond story are not arranged with any regard to those of the first, and are consequently in many cases not superimposed upon the lowerpilasters. In the third and fourth stories there are no pilasters, thearched recesses being here continued without any interruption. Overthe great arch of the central hall, a foiling of seventeen smallsemicircular arches constitutes a pleasing and unusual feature. 

The Mashita palace, which was almost certainly built between A. D. 614and A. D. 627, while on a smaller scale than that of Ctesiphon, was farmore richly ornamented. [PLATE XXVIII. , Fig. 2. ] This construction ofChosroes II. (Parwiz) consisted of two distinct, buildings (separated bya court-yard, in which was a fountain), extending each of them about 180feet along the front, with a depth respectively of 140 and 150 feet. Themain building, which lay to the north, was entered from the courtyard bythree archways, semicircular and standing side by side, separated onlyby columns of hard, white stone, of a quality approaching to marble. These columns were surmounted by debased Corinthian capitals, of a typeintroduced by Justinian, and supported arches which were very richlyfluted, and which are said to have been "not unlike our own late Normanwork. " [PLATE XXIX. , Fig. 2. ] The archways gave entrance into an oblongcourt or hall, about 80 feet long, by sixty feet wide, on which openedby a wide doorway the main room of the building. This was a triapsalhall, built of brick, and surmounted by a massive domed roof of the samematerial, which rested on pendentives like those employed at Serbistanand at Firuzabad. The diameter of the hall was a little short of 60feet. On either side of the triapsal hall, and in its rear, and againon either side of the court or hall on which it opened, were rooms ofa smaller size, generally opening into each other, and arrangedsymmetrically, each side being the exact counterpart of the other. Thenumber of these smaller apartments was twenty-five. [PLATE XXIX. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXIX. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXX. ]

The other building, which lies towards the south, and is separated fromthe one just described by the whole length of the court-yard, a distanceof nearly 200 feet, appears to have been for the most part of aninferior character. It comprised one large hall, or inner court, butotherwise contained only small apartments, which, it is thought, mayhave been "intended as guard-rooms for the soldiers. " Although, however, in most respects so unpretending, this edifice was adorned externallywith a richness and magnificence unparalleled in the other remains ofSassanian times, and scarcely exceeded in the architecture of any age ornation. Forming, as it did, the only entrance by which the palace couldbe approached, and possessing the only front which was presented tothe gaze of the outer world, its ornamentation was clearly an object ofChosroes' special care, who seems to have lavished upon it all the knownresources of art. The outer wall was built of finely-dressed hardstone; and on this excellent material the sculptors of the time--whetherPersian or Byzantine, it is impossible to determine--proceeded to carvein the most elaborate way, first a bold pattern of zigzags and rosettes, and then, over the entire surface, a most delicate tracery of foliage, animals, and fruits. The effect of the zigzags is to divide the wallinto a number of triangular compartments, each of which is treatedseparately, covered with a decoration peculiar to itself, a fretwork ofthe richest kind, in which animal and vegetable forms are most happilyintermingled. In one a vase of an elegant shape stands midway in thetriangle at its base; two doves are seated on it, back to back; frombetween them rises a vine, which spreads its luxuriant branches over theentire compartment, covering it with its graceful curves and abundantfruitage; on either side of the vase a lion and a wild boar confront thedoves with a friendly air; while everywhere amid the leaves and grapeswe see the forms of birds, half revealed, half hidden by the foliage. Among the birds, peacocks, parrots, and partridges have been recognized;among the beasts, besides lions and wild boars, buffaloes, panthers, lynxes, and gazelles. In another panel a winged lion, the "linealdescendant of those found at Nineveh and Persepolis, " reflects themythological symbolism of Assyria, and shows how tenacious was its holdon the West-Asian mind. Nor is the human form wholly wanting. In oneplace we perceive a man's head, in close juxtaposition with man'sinseparable companion, the dog; in another, the entire figure of a man, who carries a basket of fruit. 

Besides the compartments within the zigzags, the zigzags themselves andthe rosettes are ornamented with a patterning of large leaves, while themoulding below the zigzags and the cornice, or string-course, abovethem are covered with conventional designs, the interstices betweenthem being filled in with very beautiful adaptations of lesser vegetableforms. 

Altogether, the ornamentation of this magnificent facade may bepronounced almost unrivalled for beauty and appropriateness; andthe entire palace may well be called "a marvellous example of thesumptuousness and selfishness of ancient princes, " who expended on thegratification of their own taste and love of display the riches whichwould have been better employed in the defence of their kingdoms, or inthe relief of their poorer subjects. 

The exquisite ornamentation of the Mashita palace exceeds anything whichis found elsewhere in the Sassanian buildings, but it is not whollydifferent in kind from that of other remains of their architecturein Media and Persia Proper. The archivolte which adorns the arch ofTakht-i-Bostan [PLATE XXXI. , Fig. 1. ] possesses almost equal delicacywith the patterned cornice or string-course of the Mashita building; andits flowered panels may compare for beauty with the Mashita triangularcompartments. [PLATE XXXI. , Fig. 2. ] Sassanian capitals are also inmany instances of lovely design, sometimes delicately diapered (A, B), sometimes worked with a pattern of conventional leaves and flowers[PLATE XXXII. ], occasionally exhibiting the human form (D, E), or aflowery patterning, like that of the Takht-i-Bostan (F, Q). [PLATEXXXIII. ] In the more elaborate specimens, the four faces--for thecapitals are square--present designs completely different; in otherinstances, two of the four faces are alike, but on the other two thedesign is varied. The shafts of Sassanian columns, so far as we canjudge, appear to have been fluted. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXXI. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXXII. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXXIII. ]

A work not exactly architectural, yet possessing architecturalfeatures--the well-known arch of Chosroes II. Above alluded to--seemsto deserve description before we pass to another branch of our subject. [PLATE XXXIV. , Fig. 1. ] This is an archway or grotto cut in the rockat Takht-i-Bostan, near Kerman-shah, which is extremely curious andinteresting. On the brink of a pool of clear water, the sloping faceof the rock has been cut into, and a recess formed, presenting at itsfurther end a perpendicular face. This face, which is about 34 feetbroad, by 31 feet high, and which is ornamented at the top by somerather rude gradines, has been penetrated by an arch, cut into the solidstone to the depth of above 20 feet, and elaborately ornamented, both within and without. Externally, the arch is in the first placesurmounted by the archivolte already spoken of, and then, in thespandrels on either side are introduced flying figures of angels orVictories, holding chaplets in one hand and cups or vases in the other, which are little inferior to the best Roman art. [PLATE XXXIV. , Fig. 2. ]Between the figures is a crescent, perhaps originally enclosing a ball, and thus presenting to the spectator, at the culminating point of thewhole sculpture, the familiar emblems of two of the national divinities. Below the spandrels and archivolte, on either side of the archedentrance, are the flowered panels above-mentioned, alike in mostrespects, but varying in some of their details. Within the recess, itstwo sides, and its further end, are decorated with bas-reliefs, thoseon the sides representing Chosroes engaged in the chase of the wild boarand the stag, while those at the end, which are in two lines, one overthe other, show the monarch, above, in his robes of state, receivingwreaths from ideal beings; below, in his war costume, mounted upon hisfavorite charger, Sheb-Diz, with his spear poised in his hand, awaitingthe approach of the enemy. The modern critic regards this figure as"original and interesting. " We shall have occasion to recur to it whenwe treat of the "Manners and Customs" of the Neo-Persian people. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXXIV. ]

The glyptic art of the Sassanian is seen chiefly in their bas-reliefs;but one figure "in the round" has come down to us from their times, which seems to deserve particular description. This is a colossal statueof Sapor I. , hewn (it would seem) out of the natural rock, which stillexists, though overthrown and mutilated, in a natural grotto near theruined city of Shapur. [PLATE XXXV. ] The original height of the figure, according to M. Texier, was 6 metres 7 centimetres, or between 19 and. 20 feet. It was well proportioned, and carefully wrought, representingthe monarch in peaceful attire, but with a long sword at his left side, wearing the mural crown which characterizes him on the bas-reliefs, and dressed in a tunic and trousers of a light and flexible material, apparently either silk or muslin. The hair, beard, and mustachios, were neatly arranged and well rendered. The attitude of the figure wasnatural and good. One hand, the right, rested upon the hip; the othertouched, but without grasping it, the hilt of the long straight sword. If we may trust the representation of M. Texier's artist, the folds ofthe drapery were represented with much skill and delicacy; but the handsand feet of the figure, especially the latter, were somewhat roughlyrendered. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXXV. ]

The bas-reliefs of the Sassanians are extremely numerous, and thoughgenerally rude, and sometimes even grotesque, are not without a certainamount of merit. Some of the earlier and coarser specimens have beenalready given in this volume; and one more of the same class is hereappended [PLATE XXXVI. , Fig. 1. ] but we have now to notice some otherand better examples, which seem to indicate that the Persians of thisperiod attained a considerable proficiency in this branch of the glypticart. The reliefs belonging to the time of Sapor I. Are generally poorin conception and ill-executed; but in one instance, unless the modernartist has greatly flattered his original, a work of this time is notdevoid of some artistic excellence. This is a representation of thetriumph of Sapor over Valerian, comprising only four figures--Sapor, an attendant, and two Romans--of which the three principal are boldlydrawn, in attitudes natural, yet effective, and in good proportion. [PLATE XXXVII. ] The horse on which Sapor rides is of the usual clumsydescription, reminding us of those which draw our brewers' wains; andthe exaggerated hair, floating ribbons and uncouth head-dress of themonarch give an _outre_ and ridiculous air to the chief figure; but, ifwe deduct these defects, which are common to almost all the Sassanianartists, the representation becomes pleasing and dignified. Sapor sitshis horse well, and thinks not of himself, but of what he is doing. Cyriades, who is somewhat too short, receives the diadem from hisbenefactor with a calm satisfaction. But the best figure is that of thecaptive emperor, who kneels on one knee, and, with outstretched arms, implores the mercy of the conqueror. The whole representation iscolossal, the figures being at least three times the size of life; theexecution seems to have been good; but the work has been considerablyinjured by the effects of time. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXXVI. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XXXVII. ]

Another bas-relief of the age of Sapor I. Is on too large a scale, andtoo complicated, to be represented here; but a description may be givenof it, and a specimen subjoined, from which the reader may judge ofits character. On a surface of rock at Shapur, carefully smoothed andprepared for sculpture, the second Sassanian monarch appears in thecentre of the tablet, mounted on horseback, and in his usual costume, with a dead Roman under his horse's feet, and holding another(Cyriades?), by the hand. In front of him, a third Roman, therepresentative of the defeated nation, makes submission; and then followthirteen tribute-bearers, bringing rings of gold, shawls, bowls, and thelike, and conducting also a horse and an elephant. Behind the monarch, on the same line, are thirteen mounted guardsmen. Directly above, anddirectly below the central group, the tablet is blank; but on eitherside the subject is continued, above in two lines, and below in one, the guardsmen towards the left amounting in all to fifty-six, and thetribute-bearers on the right to thirty-five. The whole tablet comprisesninety-five human and sixty-three animal figures, besides aVictory floating in the sky. The illustration [PLATE XXXVIII. ] is arepresentation of the extreme right-hand portion of the second line. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXXVIII. ]

After the time of Sapor I. There is a manifest decline in Sassanian art. The reliefs of Varahran II. And Varahran III. , of Narses and Sapor III. , fall considerably below those of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes. It is nottill we arrive at the time of Varahran IV. (A. D. 388-399) that we oncemore have works which possess real artistic merit. Indications havealready appeared in an earlier chapter of this monarch's encouragementof artists, and of a kind of art really meriting the name. We sawthat his gems were exquisitely cut, and embodied designs of first-rateexcellence. It has now to be observed further, that among thebas-reliefs of the greatest merit which belong to Sassanian times, oneat least must be ascribed to him; and that, this being so, there isconsiderable probability that two others of the same class belong alsoto his reign. The one which must undoubtedly be his, and which tendsto fix the date of the other two, exists at Nakhsh-i-Kustam, nearPersepolis, and has frequently been copied by travellers. It representsa mounted warrior, with the peculiar head-dress of Varahran IV. , charging another at full speed, striking him with his spear, and bearingboth horse and rider to the ground. [PLATE XXXIX. ] A standard-bearermarches a little behind; and a dead warrior lies underneath Varahran'shorse, which is clearing the obstacle in his bound. The spirit of theentire composition is admirable; and though the stone is in a state ofadvanced decay, travellers never fail to admire the vigor of the designand the life and movement which characterize it. 

[Illustration: PLATE XXXIX. ]

The other similar reliefs to which reference has been made exist, respectively, at Nakhsh-i-Eustam and at Firuzabad. The Nakhsh-i-Rustamtablet is almost a duplicate of the one above described and represented, differing from it mainly in the omission of the prostrate figure, in theforms of the head-dresses borne by the two cavaliers, and in the shapeof the standard. It is also in better preservation than the other, and presents some additional details. The head-dress of the Sassanianwarrior is very remarkable, being quite unlike any other known example. It consists of a cap, which spreads as it rises, and breaks into threepoints, terminating in large striped balls. [PLATE XXVI. , Fig. 2. ]His adversary wears a helmet crowned with a similar ball. The standard, which is in the form of a capital T, displays also five balls of thesame sort, three rising from the cross-bar, and the other two hangingfrom it. Were it not for the head-dress of the principal figure, thissculpture might be confidently assigned to the monarch who set up theneighboring one. As it is, the point must be regarded as undecided, andthe exact date of the relief as doubtful. It is, however, unlikely to beeither much earlier, or much later, than the time of Varahran IV. 

The third specimen of a Sassanian battle-scene exists at Firuzabad, inPersia Proper, and has been carefully rendered by M. Flandin. It is inexceedingly bad condition, but appears to have comprised the figuresof either five or six horsemen, of whom the two principal are a warriorwhose helmet terminates in the head of a bird, and one who wears acrown, above which rises a cap, surmounted by a ball. [PLATE XL. ] Theformer of these, who is undoubtedly a Sassanian prince, pierces withhis spear the right side of the latter, who is represented in the act offalling to the ground. His horse tumbles at the same time, though why hedoes so is not quite clear, since he has not been touched by the othercharger. His attitude is extravagantly absurd, his hind feet being on alevel with the head of his rider. Still more absurd seems to have beenthe attitude of a horse at the extreme right, which turns in falling, and exposes to the spectator the inside of the near thigh and the belly. But, notwithstanding these drawbacks, the representation has greatmerit. The figures live and breathe--that of the dying king expresseshorror and helplessness, that of his pursuer determined purposeand manly strength. Even the very horses are alive, and manifestlyrejoice in the strife. The entire work is full of movement, of variety, and of artistic spirit. 

[Illustration: PLATE XL. ]

If we have regard to the highest qualities of glyptic art, Sassaniansculpture must be said here to culminate. There is a miserable fallingoff, when about a hundred and fifty years later the Great Chosroes(Anushirwan) represents himself at Shapur, seated on his throne, andfronting to the spectator, with guards and attendants on one side, andsoldiers bringing in prisoners, human heads, and booty, on the other. [PLATE XLI. ] The style here recalls that of the tamer reliefs set up bythe first Sapor, but is less pleasing. Some of the prisoners appearto be well drawn; but the central figure, that of the monarch, isgrotesque; the human heads are ghastly; and the soldiers and attendantshave little merit. The animal forms are better--that of the elephantespecially, though as compared with the men it is strangely out ofproportion. 

[Illustration: PLATE XLI. ]

With Chosroes II. (Eberwiz or Parviz), the grandson of Anushirwan, who ascended the throne only twelve years after the death of hisgrandfather, and reigned from A. D. 591 to A. D. 628, a reaction set in. We have seen the splendor and good taste of his Mashita palace, the beauty of some of his coins, and the general excellence of hisornamentation. It remains to notice the character of his reliefs, foundat present in one locality only, viz. , at Takht-i-Bostan, where theyconstitute the main decorations of the great triumphal arch of thismonarch. [PLATE XLII. ]

[Illustration: PLATE XLII. ]

These reliefs consist of two classes of works, colossal figures andhunting-pieces. The colossal figures, of which some account has beenalready given, and which are represented in PLATE XLI. , have but littlemerit. They are curious on account of their careful elaboration, andfurnish important information with respect to Sassanian dress andarmature, but they are poor in design, being heavy, awkward, andungainly. Nothing can well be less beautiful than the three overstoutpersonages, who stand with their heads nearly or quite touching thecrown of the arch, at its further extremity, carefully drawn in detail, but in outline little short of hideous. The least bad is that to theleft, whose drapery is tolerably well arranged, and whose face, judgingby what remains of it, was not unpleasing. Of the other two it isimpossible to say a word in commendation. 

The mounted cavalier below them--Chosroes himself on his black warhorse, Sheb-Diz--is somewhat better. The pose of horse and horseman hasdignity; the general proportions are fairly correct, though (as usual)the horse is of a breed that recalls the modern dray-horse ratherthan the charger. The figure, being near the ground, has suffered muchmutilation, probably at the hands of Moslem fanatics; the off hindleg of the horse is gone; his nose and mouth have disappeared; and thehorseman has lost his right foot and a portion of his lower clothing. But nevertheless, the general effect is not altogether destroyed. Modern travellers admire the repose and dignity of the composition, itscombination of simplicity with detail, and the delicacy and finish ofsome portions. It may be added that the relief of the figure is high;the off legs of the horse were wholly detached; and the remainder ofboth horse and rider was nearly, though not quite, disengaged from therock behind them. 

The hunting-pieces, which ornament the interior of the arched recesson either side, are far superior to the colossal figures, and meritan exact description. On the right, the perpendicular space below thespring of the arch contains the representation of a stag hunt, in whichthe monarch and about a dozen other mounted horsemen take part, assistedby some ten or twelve footmen, and by a detachment mounted on elephants. [PLATE XLIII. ] The elephants, which are nine in number, occupy theextreme right of the tablet, and seem to be employed in driving the deerinto certain prepared enclosures. Each of the beasts is guided by threeriders, sitting along their backs, of whom the central one alone has thesupport of a saddle or howdah. The enclosures into which the elephantsdrive the game are three in number; they are surrounded by nets; andfrom the central one alone is there an exit. Through this exit, which isguarded by two footmen, the game passes into the central field, or mainspace of the sculpture, where the king awaits them. He is mounted on hissteed, with his bow passed over his head, his sword at his side, andan attendant holding the royal parasol over him. It is not quite clearwhether he himself does more than witness the chase. The game is inthe main pursued and brought to the ground by horsemen without royalinsignia, and is then passed over into a further compartment--theextreme one towards the left, where it is properly arranged and placedupon camels for conveyance to the royal palace. During the wholeproceeding a band of twenty-six musicians, some of whom occupy anelevated platform, delights with a "concord of sweet sounds" theassembled sportsmen. 

[Illustration: PLATE XLIII. ]

On the opposite, or left-hand, side of the recess, is represented aboar-hunt. [PLATE XLIV. ] Here again, elephants, twelve in number, drivethe game into an enclosure without exit. Within this space nearly ahundred boars and pigs may be counted. The ground being marshy, themonarch occupies a boat in the centre, and from this transfixes the gamewith his arrows. No one else takes part in the sport, unless it be theriders on a troop of five elephants, represented in the lower middleportion of the tablet. When the pigs fall, they are carried intoa second enclosure, that on the right, where they are upturned, disembowelled, and placed across the backs of elephants, which conveythem to the abode of the monarch. Once more, the scene is enlivened bymusic. Two bands of harpers occupy boats on either side of that whichcarries the king, while another harper sits with him in the boat fromwhich he delivers his arrows. In the water about the boats are seenreeds, ducks, and numerous fishes. The oars by which the boats arepropelled have a singular resemblance to those which are represented insome of the earliest Assyrian sculptures. Two other features must alsobe noticed. Near the top of the tablet, towards the left, five figuresstanding in a boat seem to be clapping their hands in order to drive thepigs towards the monarch; while in the right centre of the picture thereis another boat, more highly ornamented than the rest, in which we seemto have a second representation of the king, differing from the firstonly in the fact that his arrow has flown, and that he is in the act oftaking another arrow from an attendant In this second representation theking's head is surrounded by a nimbus or "glory. " Altogether there arein this tablet more than seventy-five human and nearly 150 animal forms. In the other, the human forms are about seventy, and the animal onesabout a hundred. 

[Illustration: PLATE XLIV. ]

The merit of the two reliefs above described, which would require to beengraved on a large scale, in order that justice should be done to them, consists in the spirit and truth of the animal forms, elephants, camels, stags, boars, horses, and in the life and movement of the whole picture. The rush of the pigs, the bounds of the stags and hinds, the heavymarch of the elephants, the ungainly movements of the camels, are wellportrayed; and in one instance, the foreshortening of a horse, advancingdiagonally, is respectably rendered. In general, Sassanian sculpture, like most delineative art in its infancy, affects merely the profile;but here, and in the overturned horse already described, and again inthe Victories which ornament the spandrels of the arch of Chosroes, themere profile is departed from with good effect, and a power is shownof drawing human and animal figures in front or at an angle. What iswanting in the entire Sassanian series is idealism, or the notionof elevating the representation in any respects above the objectrepresented; the highest aim of the artist is to be true to nature; inthis truthfulness is his triumph; but as he often falls short of hismodels, his whole result, even at the best, is unsatisfactory anddisappointing. 

Such must almost necessarily be the sentence of art critics, who judgethe productions of this age and nation according to the abstract rules, or the accepted standards, of artistic effort. But if circumstances oftime and country are taken into account, if comparison is limited toearlier and later attempts in the same region, or even in neighboringones, a very much more favorable judgment will be passed. The Saseanianreliefs need not on the whole shrink from a comparison with those ofthe Achaemenian Persians. If they are ruder and more grotesque, they arealso more spirited and more varied; and thus, though they fall short insome respects, still they must be pronounced superior to the Achaemenianin some of the most important artistic qualities. Nor do they fallgreatly behind the earlier, and in many respects admirable, art of theAssyrians. They are less numerous and cover a lees variety of subjects;they have less delicacy; but they have equal or greater fire. In thejudgment of a traveller not given to extravagant praise, they are, insome cases at any rate, "executed in the most masterly style. " "I neversaw, " observes Sir R. Kerr Porter, "the elephant, the stag, or the boarportrayed with greater truth and spirit. The attempts at detailed humanform are, " he adds, "far inferior. "

Before, however, we assign to the Sassanian monarchs, and to the peoplewhom they governed, the merit of having produced results so worthy ofadmiration, it becomes necessary to inquire whether there is reasonto believe that other than native artists wore employed in theirproduction. It has been very confidently stated that Chosroes the Second"brought Roman artists" to Takht-i-Bostan, and by their aid eclipsed theglories of his great predecessors, Artaxerxes, son of Babek, and thetwo Sapors. Byzantine forms are declared to have been reproduced in themoldings of the Great Arch, and in the Victories. The lovely traceryof the Mashita Palace is regarded as in the main the work of Greeks andSyrians. 06 No doubt it is quite possible that there may be some truth inthese allegations; but we must not forget, or let it be forgotten, thatthey rest on conjecture and are without historical foundation. The worksof the first Chosroes at Ctesiphon, according to a respectable Greekwriter, were produced for him by foreign artists, sent to his court byJustinian. But no such statement is made with respect to his grandson. On the contrary, it is declared by the native writers that a certainFerhad, a Persian, was the chief designer of them; and modern criticsadmit that his hand may perhaps be traced, not only at Takht-i-Bostan, but at the Mashita Palace also. If then the merit of the design isconceded to a native artist, we need not too curiously inquire thenationality of the workmen employed by him. 

At the worst, should it be thought that Byzantine influence appears soplainly in the later Sassanian works, that Rome rather than Persia mustbe credited with the buildings and sculptures of both the first andthe second Chosroes, still it will have to be allowed that theearlier palaces--those at Ser-bistan and Firuzabad--and the spiritedbattle-scenes above described, are wholly native; since they presentno trace of any foreign element. But, it is in these battle-scenes, asalready noticed, that the delineative art of the Sassanians culminates;and it may further be questioned whether the Firuzabad palace is notthe finest specimen of their architecture, severe though it be in thecharacter of its ornamentation; so that, even should we surrender thewhole of the later works enough will still remain to show that theSassanians, and the Persians of their day, had merit as artists andbuilders, a merit the more creditable to them inasmuch as for fivecenturies they had had no opportunity of cultivating their powers, having been crushed by the domination of a race singularly devoid ofartistic aspirations. Even with regard to the works for which they mayhave been indebted to foreigners, it is to be remembered that, unlessthe monarchs had appreciated high art, and admired it, they would nothave hired, at great expense, the services of these aliens. For myown part, I see no reason to doubt that the Sassanian remains of everyperiod are predominantly, if not exclusively, native, not exceptingthose of the first Chosroes, for I mistrust the statement ofTheophylact. 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

ON THE RELIGION, MANNERS, CUSTOMS, ETC. , OF THE LATER PERSIANS. 

_Religion of the later Persians, Dualism of the extremest kind. Ideasentertained with respect to Ormazd and Ahriman. Representations of them. Ormazd the special Guardian of the Kings. Lesser Deities subjectto Ormazd: Mithra, Serosh, Vayu, Airyanam, Vitraha, etc. The sixAmshash-pands: Bahman, Ardibehesht, Shahravar, Isfand-armat, Khordad, and Amerdat. Religion, how far idolatrous. Worship of Anaitis. ChiefEvil Spirits subject to Ahriman: Alcomano, Indra, Caurva, Naonhaitya, Taric, and Zaric. Position of Man between the two Worlds of Good andEvil. His Duties: Worship, Agriculture, Purity. Nature of the Worship. Hymns, Invocations, the Homa Ceremony, Sacrifice. Agriculture a partof Religion. Purity required: 1, Moral; 2, Legal. Nature of each. Man'sfuture Prospects. Position of the Magi under the Sassanians; theirOrganization, Dress, etc. The Fire-temples and Altars. The Barsom. TheKhrafcthraghna. Magnificence of the Sassanian Court; the Throne-room, the Seraglio, the Attendants, the Ministers. Midttude of Palaces. Dressof the Monarch: 1, in Peace; 2, in War, Favorite Pastimes of the Kings. Hunting. Maintenance of Paradises. Stag and Boar-hunts. Music. Hawking. Games. Character of the Persian Warfare under the Sassanians. SassanianChariots. The Elephant Corps. The Cavalry. The Archers. The ordinaryInfantry. Officers. Standards. Tactics. Private Life of the laterPersians. Agricultural Employment of the Men. Non-seclusion of theWomen. General Freedom from Oppression of all Classes except thehighest. _

The general character of the Persian religion, as revived by the founderof the Sassanian dynasty, has been described in a former chapter; butit is felt that the present work would be incomplete if it failed tofurnish the reader with a tolerably full account of so interesting amatter; more especially, since the religious question lay at the rootof the original rebellion and revolution which raised the Sassanidaeto power, and was to a considerable extent the basis and foundation oftheir authority. An access of religious fervor gave the Persians of thethird century after Christ the strength which enabled them to throwoff the yoke of their Parthian lords and recover the sceptre of WesternAsia. A strong--almost fanatical--religious spirit animated the greaternumber of the Sassanian monarchs. When the end of the kingdom came, theold faith was still flourishing; and, though its star paled before thatof Mohammedanism, the faith itself survived, and still survives at thepresent day. 

It has been observed that Dualism constituted the most noticeablefeature of the religion. It may now be added that the Dualism professedwas of the most extreme and pronounced kind. Ormazd and Ahriman, theprinciples of Good and Evil, were expressly declared to be "twins. " Theyhad "in the beginning come together to create Life and Death, and tosettle how the world was to be. " There was no priority of existenceof the one over the other, and no decided superiority. The two, beingcoeval, had contended from all eternity, and would, it was almostcertain, continue to contend to all eternity, neither being able tovanquish the other. Thus an eternal struggle was postulated between goodand evil; and the issue was doubtful, neither side possessing any clearand manifest advantage. 

The two principles were Persons. Ormazd was "the creator of life, theearthly and the spiritual, " he who "made the celestial bodies, earth, water, and trees. " He was "good, " "holy, " "pure, " "true, " "the HolyGod, " "the Holiest, " "the Essence of Truth, " "the father of all truth, ""the being best of all, " "the master of purity. " He was supremely"happy, " being possessed of every blessing, "health, wealth, virtue, wisdom, immortality. " From him came every good gift enjoyed by man; onthe pious and the righteous he bestowed, not only earthly advantages, but precious spiritual gifts, truth, devotion, "the good mind, " andeverlasting happiness; and, as he rewarded the good, so he alsopunished the bad, though this was an aspect in which he was but seldomrepresented. 

While Ormazd, thus far, would seem to be a presentation of the SupremeBeing in a form not greatly different from that wherein it has pleasedhim to reveal Himself to mankind through the Jewish and Christianscriptures, there are certain points of deficiency in therepresentation, which are rightly viewed as placing the Persian veryconsiderably below the Jewish and Christian idea. Besides the limitationon the power and freedom of Ormazd implied in the eternal co-existencewith him of another and a hostile principle, he is also limited by theindependent existence of space, time, and light, which appear inthe Zenda vesta as "self-created, " or "without beginning, " and musttherefore be regarded as "conditioning" the Supreme Being, who has towork, as best he may, under circumstances not caused by himself. Again, Ormazd is not a purely spiritual being. He is conceived of as possessinga sort of physical nature. The "light, " which is one of his properties, seems to be a material radiance. He can be spoken of as possessinghealth. The whole conception of him, though not grossly material, is farfrom being wholly immaterial. His nature is complex, not simple. He maynot have a body, in the ordinary sense of the word; but he is entangledwith material accidents, and is far from answering to the pure spirit, "without body, parts, or passions, " which forms the Christian conceptionof the Deity. 

Ahriman, the Evil Principle, is of course far more powerful and terriblethan the Christian and Jewish Satan. He is uncaused, co-eternal withOrmazd, engaged in a perpetual warfare with him. Whatever good thingOrmazd creates, Ahriman corrupts and ruins it. Moral and physical evilsare alike at his disposal. He blasts the earth with barrenness, ormakes it produce thorns, thistles, and poisonous plants; his are theearthquake, the storm, the plague of hail, the thunderbolt; he causesdisease and death, sweeps off a nation's flocks and herds by murrain, ordepopulates a continent by pestilence; ferocious wild beasts, serpents, toads, mice, hornets, mosquitoes, are his creation; he invented andintroduced into the world the sins of witchcraft, murder, unbelief, cannibalism, sodomy; he excites wars and tumults, stirs up the badagainst the good, and labors by every possible expedient to make vicetriumph over virtue. Ormazd can exercise no control over him; the utmostthat he can do is to keep a perpetual watch on his rival, and seek tobaffle and defeat him. This he is not always able to do. Despite hisbest endeavors, Ahriman is not unfrequently victorious. 

In the purer times of the Zoroastrian religion it would seem thatneither Ormazd nor Ahriman was represented by sculptured forms. Asymbolism alone was permitted, which none could mistake for a realattempt to portray these august beings. But by the date of the Sassanianrevival, the original spirit of the religion had suffered considerablemodification; and it was no longer thought impious, or perilous, toexhibit the heads of the Pantheon, in the forms regarded as appropriateto them, upon public monuments. The great Artaxerxes, probably soonafter his accession, set up a memorial of his exploits, in which herepresented himself as receiving the insignia of royalty from Ormazdhimself, while Ahriman, prostrate and seemingly, though of course notreally, dead, lay at the feet of the steed on which Ormazd was mounted. In the form of Ormazd there is nothing very remarkable; he is attiredlike the king, has a long beard and flowing locks, and carries in hisleft hand a huge staff or baton, which he holds erect in a slantingposition. The figure of Ahriman possesses more interest. The face wearsan expression of pain and suffering; but the features are calm, and inno way disturbed. They are regular, and at least as handsome as those ofArtaxerxes and his divine patron. He wears a band or diadem across thebrow, above which we see a low cap or crown. From this escape the headsand necks of a number of vipers or snakes, fit emblems of the poisonousand "death-dealing" Evil One. 

Some further representations of Ormazd occur in the Sassaniansculptures; but Ahriman seems not to be portrayed elsewhere. Ormazdappears on foot in a relief of the Great Arta-xerxes, which contains twofigures only, those of himself and his divine patron. He is also to beseen in a sculpture which belongs probably to Sapor I. , and representsthat monarch in the act of receiving the diadem from Artaxerxes, hisfather. In the former of these two tablets the type exhibited in thebas-relief just described is followed without any variation; in thelatter, the type is considerably modified. Ormazd still carries his hugebaton, and is attired in royal fashion; but otherwise his appearance isaltogether new and singular. His head bears no crown, but is surroundedby a halo of streaming rays; he has not much beard, but his hair, bushyand abundant, flows down on his two shoulders; he faces the spectator, and holds his baton in both his hands; finally, he stands upon ablossom, which is thought to be that of a sim-flower. Perhaps theconjecture is allowable that here we have Ormazd exhibited to us in asolar character, with the attributes of Mithra, from whom, in the oldentime, he was carefully distinguished. 

Ormazd seems to have been regarded by the kings as their specialguardian and protector. No other deity (unless in one instance) isbrought into close proximity with them; no other obtains mention intheir inscriptions; from no other do they allow that they receive theblessing of offspring. Whatever the religion of the common people, thatof the kings would seem to have been, in the main, the worship of thisgod, whom they perhaps sometimes confused with Mithra, or associatedwith Anaitis, but whom they never neglected, or failed openly toacknowledge. 

Under the great Ormazd were a number of subordinate deities, theprincipal of whom were Mithra and Serosh, Mithra, the Sun-God, had beenfrom a very early date an object of adoration in Persia, only secondto Ormazd. The Achaemenian kings joined him occasionally with Ormazdin their invocations. In processions his chariot, drawn by milk-whitehorses, followed closely on that of Ormazd. He was often associatedwith Ormazd, as if an equal, though a real equality was probably notintended. He was "great, " "pure, " "imperishable, " "the beneficentprotector of all creatures, " and "the beneficent preserver of allcreatures. " He had a thousand ears and ten thousand eyes. His worshipwas probably more widely extended than that of Ormazd himself, and wasconnected in general with a material representation. 

In the early times this was a simple disk, or circle; but from the reignof Artaxerxes Mnemon, a human image seems to have been substituted. Prayer was offered to Mithra three times a day, at dawn, at noon, andat sunset; and it was usual to worship him with sacrifice. The horseappears to have been the victim which he was supposed to prefer. 

Sraosha, or Serosh, was an angel of great power and dignity. He was thespecial messenger of Ormazd, and the head of his celestial army. He was"tall, well-formed, beautiful, swift, victorious, happy, sincere, true, the master of truth. " It was his office to deliver revelations, to showmen the paths of happiness, and to bring them the blessings which Ormazdhad assigned to each. He invented the music for the five most ancientGathas, discovered the barsom or divining-rod, and first taught its useto mankind. From his palace on the highest summit of the Elburz range, he watched the proceedings of the evil genii, and guarded the worldfrom their attempts. The Iranians were his special care; but he lostno opportunity of injuring the Powers of Darkness, and lessening theirdominion by teaching everywhere the true religion. In the other worldit was his business to conduct the souls of the faithful through thedangers of the middle passage, and to bring them before the goldenthrone of Ormazd. 

Among minor angelic powers were Vayu, "the wind, " who is found also inthe Vedic system; Airyanam, a god presiding over marriages; Vitraha, agood genius; Tistrya, the Dog Star, etc. The number of the minordeities was not, however, great; nor do they seem, as in so many otherpolytheistic religions, to have advanced in course of time from asubordinate to a leading position. From first to last they are of smallaccount; and it seems, therefore, unnecessary to detain the reader by anelaborate description of them. 

From the mass, however, of the lower deities or genii must bedistinguished (besides Mithra and Serosh) the six Amesha Spentas, orAmshashpands, who formed the council of Ormazd, and in a certain sensereflected his glory. These were Vohu-mano or Bahman, Ashavahistaor Ardibehesht, Khsha-thra-vairya or Shahravar, Spenta-Armaiti orIsfandarmat, Haurvatat or Khordad, and Ameretat or Amerdat. Vohu-mano, "the Good Mind, " originally a mere attribute of Ormazd, came to beconsidered a distinct being, created by him to be his attendant and hiscouncillor. He was, as it were, the Grand Vizier of the Almighty King, the chief of the heavenly conclave. Ormazd entrusted to him especiallythe care of animal life; and thus, as presiding over cattle, he is thepatron deity of the agriculturist. Asha-vahista, "the best truth, " or"the best purity, " is the Light of the universe, subtle, pervading, omnipresent. He maintains the splendor of the various luminaries, andpresides over the element of fire. Khsha-thra-vairya, "wealth, " has thegoods of this world at his disposal, and specially presides over metals, the conventional signs of wealth; he is sometimes identified with themetal which he dispenses. Spenta-Armaiti, "Holy Armaiti, " is at oncethe genius of the Earth, and the goddess of piety. She has the charge of"the good creation, " watches over it, and labors to convert the desolateand unproductive portions of it into fruitful fields and gardens. Together with Vohu-mano, she protects the agriculturist, blessing hisland with increase, as Vohu-mano does his cattle. She is called "thedaughter of Ormazd, " and is regarded as the agent through whom Ormazdcreated the earth. Moreover, "she tells men the everlasting laws, whichno one may abolish, " or, in other words, imparts to them the eternalprinciples of morality. She is sometimes represented as standing nextto Ormazd in the mythology, as in the profession of faith required ofconverts to Zoroastrianism. The two remaining Amshashpands, Haurvatatand Ameretat, "Health" and "Immortality, " have the charge of thevegetable creation; Haurvatat causes the flow of water, so necessaryto the support of vegetable life in countries where little rain falls;Ameretat protects orchards and gardens, and enables trees to bring theirfruits to perfection. 

Another deity, practically perhaps as much worshipped as Ormazd andMithra, was Anaitis or Anahit. Anaiitis was originally an Assyrian andBabylonian, not a Zoroastrian goddess; but her worship spread to thePersians at a date anterior to Herodotus, and became in a short timeexceedingly popular. It was in connection with this worship thatidolatry seems first to have crept in, Artaxerxes Mnemon (ab. B. C. 400)having introduced images of Anaitis into Persia, and set them up atSusa, the capital, at Persepolis, Ecbatana, Bactra, Babylon, Damascus, and Sardis. Anaitis was the Babylonian Venus; and her rites at Babylonwere undoubtedly of a revolting character. It is to be feared that theywere introduced in all their grossness into Persia, and that this wasthe cause of Anahitis great popularity. Her cult "was provided withpriests and hieroduli, and connected with mysteries, feasts, andunchaste ways. "

The Persian system was further tainted with idolatry in respect of theworship of Mithra, and possibly of Vohu-mano (Batman), and of Amerdat;but on the whole, and especially as compared with other Oriental cults, the religion, even of the later Zoroastrians, must be regarded asretaining a non-materialistic and anti-idolatrous character, whichelevated it above other neighboring religions, above Brahminism on theone hand and Syro-Chaldaean nature-worship on the other. 

In the kingdom of Darkness, the principal powers, besides Ahriman, were Ako-mano, Indra, Qaurva, Naonhaitya, Taric, and Zaric. These sixtogether formed the Council of the Evil One, as the six Amshashpandsformed the council of Ormazd. Ako-mano, "the bad mind, " or (literally)"the naught mind, " was set over against Vohu-mano, "the good mind, "and was Ahriman's Grand Vizier. His special sphere was the mind of man, where he suggested evil thoughts, and prompted to bad words and wickeddeeds. Indra, identical with the Vedic deity, but made a demon by theZoroastrians, presided over storm and tempest, and governed the issuesof war and battle. Qaurva and Naonhaitya were also Vedic deities turnedinto devils. It is difficult to assign them any distinct sphere. Taric and Zaric, "Darkness" and "Poison, " had no doubt occupationscorresponding with their names. Besides these chief demons, a countlesshost of evil genii (_divs_) and fairies (_pairicas_) awaited the ordersand executed the behests of Ahriman. 

Placed between the two contending worlds of good and evil, man'sposition was one of extreme danger and difficulty. Originally set uponthe earth by Ormazd in order to maintain the good creation, he wasliable to the continual temptations and seductions of the divs or devas, who were "wicked, bad, false, untrue, the originators of mischief, mostbaneful, destructive, the basest of all things. " A single act of singave them a hold upon him, and each subsequent act increased theirpower, until ultimately he became their mere tool and slave. It washowever possible to resist temptation, to cling to the side of right, todefy and overcome the deltas. Man might maintain his uprightness, walkin the path of duty, and by the help of the asuras, or "good spirits, "attain to a blissful paradise. 

To arrive at this result, man had carefully to observe three principalduties. These were worship, agriculture, and purity. Worship consistedin the acknowledgment of the One True God, Ormazd, and of his HolyAngels, the Amesha Spentas or Amshashpands, in the frequent offering ofprayers, praises, and thanksgivings, in the recitation of set hymns, the performance of a certain ceremony called the Homa, and in theoccasional sacrifice of animals. The set hymns form a large portionof the Zendavesta, where they occur in the shape of Gathas, or Yashts, sometimes possessing considerable beauty. They are sometimes general, addressed to Ormazd and the Amesha Spentas in common, sometimesspecial, containing the praises of a particular deity. The Homa ceremonyconsisted in the extraction of the juice of the Homa plant by thepriests during the recitation of prayers, the formal presentation ofthe liquor extracted to the sacrificial fire, the consumption of a smallportion of it by one of the officiating priests, and the division ofthe remainder among the worshippers. As the juice was drunk immediatelyafter extraction and before fermentation had set in, it was notintoxicating. The ceremony seems to have been regarded, in part, as having a mystic force, securing the favor of heaven; in part, asexerting a beneficial effect upon the body of the worshipper through thecurative power inherent in the Homa plant. The animals which might besacrificed were the horse, the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the horsebeing the favorite victim. A priest always performed the sacrifice, slaying the animal, and showing the flesh to the sacred fire by way ofconsecration, after which it was eaten at a solemn feast by the priestand people. 

It is one of the chief peculiarities of Zoroastrianism that it regardedagriculture as a religious duty. Man had been placed upon the earthespecially "to maintain the good creation, " and resist the endeavors ofAhriman to injure, and if possible, ruin it. This could only be doneby careful tilling of the soil, eradication of thorns and weeds, andreclamation of the tracts over which Ahriman had spread the curse ofbarrenness. To cultivate the soil was thus incumbent upon all men;the whole community was required to be agricultural; and either asproprietor, as farmer, or as laboring man, each Zoroastrian was bound to"further the works of life" by advancing tillage. 

The purity which was required of the Zoroastrian was of two kinds, moraland legal, Moral purity comprised all that Christianity includesunder it--truth, justice, chastity, and general sinlessness. It wascoextensive with the whole sphere of human activity, embracing not onlywords and acts, but even the secret thoughts of the heart. Legal puritywas to be obtained only by the observance of a multitude of triflingceremonies and the abstinence from ten thousand acts in their naturewholly indifferent. Especially, everything was to be avoided whichcould be thought to pollute the four elements--all of them sacred to theZoroastrian of Sassanian times--fire, water, earth, and air. 

Man's struggle after holiness and purity was sustained in theZoroastrian system by the confident hope of a futurity of happiness. It was taught that the soul of man was immortal, and would continue topossess for ever a separate conscious existence. Immediately after deaththe spirits of both good and bad had to proceed along an appointed pathto "the bridge of the gatherer" (_chinvat peretu_). This was a narrowroad conducting to heaven or paradise, over which the souls of the piousalone could pass, while the wicked fell from it into the gulf below, where they found themselves in the place of punishment. The steps ofthe good were guided and supported by the angel Serosh--the "happy, well-formed, swift, tall Serosh"--who conducted them across thedifficult passage into the heavenly region. There Bahman, rising fromhis throne, greeted them on their entrance with the salutation, "Happythou who art come here to us from the mortality to the immortality!"Then they proceeded joyfully onward to the presence of Ormazd, to theimmortal saints, to the golden throne, to paradise. As for the wicked, when they fell into the gulf, they found themselves in outer darkness, in the kingdom of Ahriman, where they were forced to remain and to feedon poisoned banquets. 

The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long subsequent toDarius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or caste, originallyperhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come to be recognized as a truepriestly order; and was intrusted by the Sassanian princes with thewhole control and direction of the religion of the state. Its chief wasa personage holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He borethe title of Tenpet, "Head of the Religion, " or _Movpetan Movpet_, "Headof the Chief Magi. " In times of difficulty and danger he was sometimescalled upon to conduct a revolution; and in the ordinary course ofthings he was always reckoned among the monarch's chief counsellors. Next in rank to him were a number of _Movpets_, or "Chief Magi, " calledalso _destoors_ or "rulers, " who scarcely perhaps constituted an order, but still held an exalted position. Under these were, finally, a largebody of ordinary Magi, dispersed throughout the empire, but especiallycongregated in the chief towns. 

The Magi officiated in a peculiar dress. This consisted of a tall peakedcap of felt or some similar material, having deep lappets at the side, which concealed the jaw and even the lips, and a long white robe, orcloak, descending to the ankles. They assembled often in large numbers, and marched in stately processions, impressing the multitude by a grandand striking ceremonial. Besides the offerings which were lavished uponthem by the faithful, they possessed considerable endowments in land, which furnished them with an assured subsistence. They were allowed byChosroes the First a certain administrative power in civil matters; thecollection of the revenue was to take place under their supervision;they were empowered to interfere in cases of oppression, and protect thesubject against the tax-gatherer. 

The Zoroastrian worship was intimately connected with fire-templesand fire-altars. A fire-temple was maintained in every important citythroughout the empire; and in these a sacred flame, believed to havebeen lighted from heaven, was kept up perpetually, by the care of thepriests, and was spoken of as "unextinguishable. " Fire-altars probablyalso existed, independently of temples; and an erection of this kindmaintained from first to last an honorable position on the Sassaniancoins, being the main impress upon the reverse. It was represented withthe flame rising from it, and sometimes with a head in the flame; itsstem was ornamented with garlands or fillets; and on either side, asprotectors or as worshippers, were represented two figures, sometimeswatching the flame, sometimes turned from it, guarding it apparentlyfrom external enemies. 

Besides the sacerdotal, the Magi claimed to exercise the propheticaloffice. From a very early date they had made themselves conspicuous asomen-readers and dream-expounders; but, not content with such occasionalexhibitions of prophetic power, they ultimately reduced divination toa system, and, by the help of the barsom or bundle of divining rods, undertook to return a true answer on all points connected with thefuture, upon which they might be consulted. Credulity is never wantingamong Orientals; and the power of the priesthood was no doubt greatlyincreased by a pretension which was easily made, readily believed, andnot generally discredited by failures, however numerous. 

The Magian priest was commonly seen with the barsom in his hand; butoccasionally he exchanged that instrument for another, known as the_khrafgihraghna_. It was among the duties of the pious Zoroastrian, andmore especially of those who were entrusted with the priestly office, to wage perpetual war with Ahriman, and to destroy his works wheneveropportunity offered. Now among these, constituting a portion of "the badcreation, " were all such animals as frogs, toads, snakes, newts, mice, lizards, flies, and the like. The Magi took every opportunity of killingsuch creatures; and the _Jchrafgthraghna_ was an implement which theyinvented for the sake of carrying out this pious purpose. 

The court of the Sassanian kings, especially in the later period ofthe empire, was arranged upon a scale of almost unexampled grandeurand magnificence. The robes worn by the Great King were beautifullyembroidered, and covered with gems and pearls, which in somerepresentations may be counted by hundreds. [PLATE XLV. ] The royalcrown, which could not be worn, but was hung from the ceiling by a goldchain exactly over the head of the king when he took his seat in histhrone-room, is said to have been adorned with a thousand pearls, eachas large as an egg. The throne itself was of gold, and was supported onfour feet, each formed of a single enormous ruby. The great throne-roomwas ornamented with enormous columns of silver, between which werehangings of rich silk or brocade. The vaulted roof presented to theeye representations of the heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon, and thestars;no while globes, probably of crystal, or of burnished metal, hungsuspended from it at various heights, lighting up the dark space as witha thousand lustres. 

[Illustration: PLATE XLV. ]

The state observed at the court resembled that of the most formal andstately of the Oriental monarchies. The courtiers were organized inseven ranks. Foremost came the Ministers of the crown; next the Mobeds, or chief Magi; after them, the hirbeds, or judges; then the sipehbeds, or commanders-in chief, of whom there were commonly four; last of allthe singers, musicians, and men of science, arranged in three orders. The king sat apart even from the highest nobles, who, unless summoned, might not approach nearer than thirty feet from him. 

A low curtain separated him from them, which was under the charge of anofficer, who drew it for those only with whom the king had expressed adesire to converse. 

An important part of the palace was the seraglio. The polygamy practisedby the Sassanian princes was on the largest scale that has ever beenheard of, Chosroes II. Having maintained, we are told, three thousandconcubines. The modest requirements of so many secondary wivesnecessitated the lodging and sustenance of twelve thousand additionalfemales, chiefly slaves, whose office was to attend on these royalfavorites, attire them, and obey their behests. Eunuchs are notmentioned as employed to any large extent; but in the sculptures ofthe early princes they seem to be represented as holding offices ofimportance, and the analogy of Oriental courts does not allow us todoubt that the seraglio was, to some extent at any rate, under theirsuperintendence. Each Sassanian monarch had one sultana or principalwife, who was generally a princess by birth, but might legally be ofany origin. In one or two instances the monarch sets the effigy of hisprincipal wife upon his coins; but this is unusual, and when, towardsthe close of the empire, females were allowed to ascend the throne, itis thought that they refrained from parading themselves in this way, andstamped their coins with the head of a male. 

In attendance upon the monarch were usually his parasol-bearer, hisfan-bearer, who appears to have been a eunuch, the _Senelcapan, _ or"Lord Chamberlain, " the _Maypet_, or "Chief Butler, " the Andertzapet, or "Master of the Wardrobe, " the _Alchorapet_, or "Master of theHorse, " the _Taharhapet_ or "Chief Cupbearer, " the _Shahpan_, or "ChiefFalconer, " and the __Krhogpet, or "Master of the Workmen. " Exceptthe parasol-bearer and fan-bearer, these officials all presided overdepartments, and had under them a numerous body of subordinates. If theroyal stables contained even 8000 horses, which one monarch is said tohave kept for his own riding, the grooms and stable-boys must have beencounted by hundreds; and an equal or greater number of attendants musthave been required for the camels and elephants, which are estimatedm respectively at 1200 and 12, 000. The "workmen" were also probablya corps of considerable size, continually engaged in repairs or intemporary or permanent erections. 

Other great officials, corresponding more nearly to the "Ministers" ofa modern sovereign, were the _Vzourkhramanatar_, or "Grand Keeper of theRoyal Orders, " who held the post now known as that of _Grand Vizier_;the _Dprapet Ariats_, or "Chief of the Scribes of Iran, " a sort ofChancellor; the _Hazarapet dran Ariats_, or "Chiliarch of the Gateof Iran, " a principal Minister; the _Hamarakar_, a "Chief Cashier" or"Paymaster;" and the _Khohrdean dpir_, or "Secretary of Council, " a sortof Privy Council clerk or registrar. The native names of these officersare known to us chiefly through the Armenian writers of the fifth andseventh centuries. 

The Sassanian court, though generally held at Ctesiphon, migrated toother cities, if the king so pleased, and is found established, atone time in the old Persian capital, Persepolis, at another in thecomparatively modern city of Dastaghord. The monarchs maintained fromfirst to last numerous palaces, which they visited at their pleasure andmade their residence for a longer or a shorter period. Four such palaceshave been already described; and there is reason to believe that manyothers existed in various parts of the empire. There was certainly oneof great magnificence at Canzaca; and several are mentioned as occupiedby Heraclius in the country between the Lower Zab and Ctesiphon. Chosroes II. Undoubtedly built one near Takht-i-Bostan; and Sapor theFirst must have had one at Shapur, where he set up the greater portionof his monuments. The discovery of the Mashita palace, in a positionso little inviting as the land of Moab, seems to imply a very generalestablishment of royal residences in the remote provinces of the empire. 

The costume of the later Persians is known to us chiefly from therepresentations of the kings, on whose figures alone have the nativeartists bestowed much attention. In peace, the monarch seems to haveworn a sort of pelisse or long coat, partially open in front, and withclose-fitting sleeves reaching to the wrist, under which he had a pairof loose trousers descending to the feet and sometimes even coveringthem. A belt or girdle encircled his waist. His feet were encased inpatterned shoes, tied with long flowing ribbons. Over his pelisse hewore occasionally a long cape or short cloak, which was fastened witha brooch or strings across the breast and flowed over the back andshoulders. The material composing the cloak was in general exceedinglylight and flimsy. The head-dress commonly worn seems to have beena round cap, which was perhaps ornamented with jewels. The vest andtrousers were also in some cases richly jewelled. Every king woreear-rings, with one, two, or three pendants. A collar or necklace wasalso commonly worn round the neck; and this had sometimes two or morependants in front. Occasionally the beard was brought to a point and hada jewel hanging from it. The hair seems always to have been worn long;it was elaborately curled, and hung down on either shoulder in numerousringlets. When the monarch rode out in state, an attendant held theroyal parasol over him. 

In war the monarch encased the upper part of his person in a coat ofmail, composed of scales or links. Over this he wore three belts; thefirst, which crossed the breast diagonally, was probably attached to hisshield, which might be hung from it; the second supported his sword;and the third his quiver, and perhaps his bow-case. A stiff, embroideredtrouser of great fulness protected the leg, while the head was guardedby a helmet, and a vizor of chain mail hid all the face but the eyes. The head and fore-quarters of the royal charger were also covered witharmor, which descended below the animal's knees in front, but was notcarried back behind the rider. The monarch's shield was round, andcarried on the left arm; his main offensive weapon was a heavy spear, which he brandished in his right hand. 

One of the favorite pastimes of the kings was hunting. The Sassanianremains show us the royal sportsmen engaged in the pursuit of thestag, the wild boar, the ibex, the antelope, and the buffalo. To thiscatalogue of their beasts of chase the classical writers add the lion, the tiger, the wild ass, and the bear. Lions, tigers, bears, and wildasses were, it appears, collected for the purpose of sport, and kept inroyal parks or paradises until a hunt was determined on. The monarchsthen engaged in the sport in person, either singly or in conjunctionwith a royal ambassador, or perhaps of a favorite minister, or a fewfriends. The lion was engaged hand to hand with sword or spear; the moredangerous tiger was attacked from a distance with arrows. Stags andwild boars were sufficiently abundant to make the keeping of them inparadises unnecessary. When the king desired to hunt them, it was onlyrequisite to beat a certain extent of country in order to make sure offinding the game. This appears to have been done generally by elephants, which entered the marshes or the woodlands, and, spreading themselveswide, drove the animals before them towards an enclosed space, surrounded by a net or a fence, where the king was stationed with hisfriends and attendants. If the tract was a marsh, the monarch occupieda boat, from which he quietly took aim at the beasts that came withinshot. Otherwise he pursued the game on horseback, and transfixed itwhile riding at full speed. In either case he seems to have joined tothe pleasures of the chase the delights of music. Bands of harpers andother musicians were placed near him within the enclosure, and he couldlisten to their strains while he took his pastime. 

The musical instruments which appear distinctly on the Sassaniansculptures are the harp, the horn, the drum, and the flute or pipe. Theharp is triangular, and has seven strings; it is held in the lap, andplayed apparently by both hands. The drum is of small size. The hornsand pipes are too rudely represented for their exact character to beapparent. Concerted pieces seem to have been sometimes played by harpersonly, of whom as many as ten or twelve joined in the execution. Mixedbands were more numerous. In one instance the number of performersamounts to twenty-six, of whom seven play the harp, an equal numberthe flute or pipe, three the horn, one the drum, while eight are tooslightly rendered for their instruments to be recognized. A portion ofthe musicians occupy an elevated orchestra, to which there is access by aflight of steps. 

There is reason to believe that the Sassanian monarchs took a pleasurealso in the pastime of hawking. It has been already noticed that amongthe officers of the court was a "Head Falconer, " who must have presidedover this species of sport. Hawking was of great antiquity in the East, and appears to have been handed down uninterruptedly from remote timesto the present day. We may reasonably conjecture that the ostriches andpheasants, if not the peacocks also, kept in the royal preserves, wereintended to be used in this pastime, the hawks being flown at them ifother game proved to be scarce. 

The monarchs also occasionally amused themselves in their leisure hoursby games. The introduction of chess from India by the great Chosroes(Anushirwan) has already been noticed; and some authorities statethat the same monarch brought into use also a species of tric-trac ordraughts. Unfortunately we have no materials for determining the exactform of the game in either case, the Sassanian remains containing norepresentation of such trivial matters. 

In the character of their warfare, the Persians of the Sassanian perioddid not greatly differ from the same people under the Achaemenian kings. The principal changes which time had brought about were an almost entiredisuse of the war chariot, [PLATE XLVI. Fig. 3. ] and the advance of theelephant corps into a very prominent and important position. Four mainarms of the service were recognized, each standing on a different level:viz. The elephants, the horse, the archers, and the ordinary footmen. The elephant corps held the first position. It was recruited from India, but was at no time very numerous. Great store was set by it; and in someof the earlier battles against the Arabs the victory was regarded asgained mainly by this arm of the service. It acted with best effect inan open and level district; but the value put upon it was such that, however rough, mountainous, and woody the country into which the Persianarms penetrated, the elephant always accompanied the march of thePersian troops, and care was taken to make roads by which it couldtravel. The elephant corps was under a special chief, known as the_Zend-hapet_, or "Commander of the Indians, " either because the beastscame from that country, or because they were managed by natives ofHindustan. 

[Illustration: PLATE XLVI. ]

The Persian cavalry in the Sassanian period seems to have been almostentirely of the heavy kind. [PLATE XLVI. , Fig. 4. ] We hear nothingduring these centuries of those clouds of light horse which, under theearlier Persian and under the Parthian monarchy, hung about invading orretreating armies, countless in their numbers, agile in their movements, a terrible annoyance at the best of times, and a fearful peril undercertain circumstances. The Persian troops which pursued Julian werecomposed of heavily armed cavalry, foot archers, and elephants; andthe only light horse of which we have any mention during the disastrousretreat of his army are the Saracenic allies of Sapor. In theseauxiliaries, and in the Cadusians from the Caspian region, the Persianshad always, when they wished it, a cavalry excellently suited for lightservice; but their own horse during the Sassanian period seems to havebeen entirely of the heavy kind, armed and equipped, that is, very muchas Chosroes II. Is seen to bo at Takht-i-Bostan. The horses themselveswore heavily armored about their head, neck, and chest; the rider wore acoat of mail which completely covered his body as far as the hips, and astrong helmet, with a vizor, which left no part of the face exposed butthe eyes. He carried a small round shield on his left arm, and had forweapons a heavy spear, a sword, and a bow and arrows. He did not fear acollision with the best Roman troops. The Sassanian horse often chargedthe infantry of the legions with success, and drove it headlong fromthe field of battle. In time of peace, the royal guards were more simplyaccoutred. [See PLATE XLVI. ]

The archers formed the elite of the Persian infantry. They were trainedto deliver their arrows with extreme rapidity, and with an aim that wasalmost unerring. The huge wattled shields, adopted by the AchaemenianPersians from the Assyrians, still remained in use; and from behind arow of these, rested upon the ground and forming a sort of loop-holedwall, the Sassanian bowmen shot their weapons with great effect; norwas it until their store of arrows was exhausted that the Romans, ordinarily, felt themselves upon even terms with their enemy. Sometimesthe archers, instead of thus fighting in line, were intermixed with theheavy horse, with which it was not difficult for them to keep pace. Theygalled the foe with their constant discharges from between the ranksof the horsemen, remaining themselves in comparative security, as thelegions rarely ventured to charge the Persian mailed cavalry. If theywere forced to retreat, they still shot backwards as they fled; and itwas a proverbial saying with the Romans that they were then especiallyformidable. 

The ordinary footmen seem to have been armed with swords and spears, perhaps also with darts. They were generally stationed behind thearchers, who, however, retired through their ranks when close fightingbegan. They had little defensive armor; but still seem to have foughtwith spirit and tenacity, being a fair match for the legionaries underordinary circumstances, and superior to most other adversaries. 

It is uncertain how the various arms of the service were organizedinternally. We do not hear of any divisions corresponding to the Romanlegions or to modern regiments; yet it is difficult to suppose thatthere were not some such bodies. Perhaps each satrap of a provincecommanded the troops raised within his government, taking the actuallead of the cavalry or the infantry at his discretion. The Crowndoubtless appointed the commanders-in-chief--the _Sparapets, Spaha-pets, or Sipehbeds_, as well as the other generals (_arzbeds_), the head ofthe commissariat (_hambarapet_ or _hambarahapet_), and the commander ofthe elephants (_zendkapet_). The satraps may have acted as colonels ofregiments under the arzbeds, and may probably have had the nomination ofthe subordinate (regimental) officers. 

The great national standard was the famous "leathern apron of theblacksmith, " originally unadorned, but ultimately covered with jewels, which has been described in a former chapter. This precious palladiumwas, however, but rarely used, its place being supplied for the mostpart by standards of a more ordinary character. These appear by themonuments to have been of two kinds. Both consisted primarily of a poleand a cross-bar; but in the one kind the crossbar sustained a singlering with a bar athwart it, while below depended two woolly tassels; inthe other, three striated balls rose from the cross-bar, while below theplace of the tassels was taken by two similar balls. It is difficult tosay what these emblems symbolized, or why they were varied. In both therepresentations where they appear the standards accompany cavalry, so that they cannot reasonably be assigned to different arms ofthe service. That the number of standards carried into battle wasconsiderable may be gathered from the fact that on one occasion, whenthe defeat sustained was not very complete, a Persian army left in theenemy's hands as many as twenty-eight of them. 

During the Sassanian period there was nothing very remarkable in thePersian tactics. The size of armies generally varied from 30, 000 to60, 000 men, though sometimes 100, 000, and on one occasion as many as140, 000, are said to have been assembled. The bulk of the troops werefootmen, the proportion of the horse probably never equalling one thirdof a mixed army. Plundering expeditions were sometimes undertakenby bodies of horse alone; but serious invasions were seldom or neverattempted unless by a force complete in all arms; comprising, thatis, horse, foot, elephants, and artillery. To attack the Romans to anypurpose, it was always necessary to engage in the siege of towns; andalthough, in the earlier period of the Sassanian monarchy, a certainweakness and inefficiency in respect of sieges manifested itself, yetultimately the difficulty was overcome, and the Persian expeditionaryarmies, well provided with siege trains, compelled the Roman fortressesto surrender within a reasonable time. It is remarkable that in thelater period so many fortresses were taken with apparently so littledifficulty--Daras, Mardin, Amida, Carrhse, Edessa, Hierapolis, Berhasa, Theodosiopolis, Antioch, Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria, CaesaraeaMazaca, Chalcedon; the siege of none lasting more than a few months, orcosting the assailants very dear. The method used in sieges was to opentrenches at a certain distance from the walls, and to advance alongthem under cover of hurdles to the ditch, and fill it up with earth andfascines. Escalade might then be attempted; or movable towers, armedwith rams or balistae, might be brought up close to the walls, and thedefences battered till a breach was effected. Sometimes mounds wereraised against the walls to a certain height, so that their upperportion, which was their weakest part, might be attacked, and eitherdemolished or escaladed. If towns resisted prolonged attacks of thiskind, the siege was turned into a blockade, lines of circumvallationbeing drawn round the place, water cut off, and provisions preventedfrom entering. Unless a strong relieving army appeared in the field, anddrove off the assailants, this plan was tolerably sure to be successful. 

Not much is known of the private life of the later Persians. Besides thegreat nobles and court officials, the strength of the nation consistedin its _dilchans_ or landed proprietors, who for the most part lived ontheir estates, seeing after the cultivation of the soil, and employingthereon the free labor of the peasants. It was from these classeschiefly that the standing army was recruited, and that great leviesmight always be made in time of need. Simple habits appear to haveprevailed among them; polygamy, though lawful, was not greatly in use;the maxims of Zoroaster, which commanded industry, purity, and piety, were fairly observed. Women seem not to have been kept in seclusion, or at any rate not in such seclusion as had been the custom underthe Parthians, and as again became usual under the Arabs. The generalcondition of the population was satisfactory. Most of the Sassanianmonarchs seem to have been desirous of governing well; and the systeminaugurated by Anushirwan, and maintained by his successors, securedthe subjects of the Great King from oppression, so far as was possiblewithout representative government. Provincial rulers were well watchedand well checked; tax-gatherers were prevented from exacting more thantheir due by a wholesale dread that their conduct would be reportedand punished; great pains were taken that justice should be honestlyadministered; and in all cases where an individual felt aggrieved ata sentence an appeal lay to the king. On such occasions the cause wasre-tried in open court, at the gate, or in the great square; the king, the Magi, and the great lords hearing it, while the people were alsopresent. The entire result seems to have been that, so far as waspossible under a despotism, oppression was prevented, and the ordinarycitizen had rarely any ground for serious complaint. 

But it was otherwise with the highest class of all. The near relationsof the monarch, the great officers of the court, the generals whocommanded armies, were exposed without defence to the monarch's caprice, and held their lives and liberties at his pleasure. At a mere wordor sign from him they were arrested, committed to prison, tortured, blinded, or put to death, no trial being thought necessary where theking chose to pronounce sentence. The intrinsic evils of despotism thusshowed themselves even under the comparatively mild government of theSassanians; but the class exposed to them was a small one, and enjoyedpermanent advantages, which may have been felt as some compensation toit for its occasional sufferings. 

[Illustration: FAMILY-TREE]