Their history, a result of their diverse interactions with other powers throughout their period and the records preserved by the Roman Byzantines and the aforementioned nations of interaction. However, the Sassanid Empire, although less known, should not be overlooked. The Sassanid Empire existed alongside the Romans with many comparable achievements in influence and scale. While the fall of the Romans is documented fairly well, certainly a result of being split into two separate entities with separate records. However; the collapse, or rather, disappearance of the Sassanid Empire is quite a bit more difficult to determine.
How did such a prominent power as the Sassanid Empire disappear in such an abrupt manner? Many scholars have attempted to address this question, with a good deal of success considering the lack of detailed records one would normally hope to recover from an entity with the size and scope the possessed by the Sassanians. As previously mentioned, the study of the fall of the Sassanid Empire is far from new. Many scholars have contributed to the study over the years, often citing well known materials and authors on the subject.
David Morgan examines the work of TouraJ Daryaee, Parvaneh Pourshariati, nd Greg Fisher in his paper “Sasanian Iran and the Early Arab Conquests. ” 1 Morgan explores the different theories presented by the previously mentioned scholars, citing their work as the basis of his paper. Morgan posits that a major obstacle in unraveling the history surrounding the fall of the Sassanian Empire presents itself in the lack of primary sources, as well as the fact that the sources currently relied upon exist in more languages than any individual could hope to master2.
This issue presents itself as a rather difficult task to overcome, however calling on the work of everal other scholars we are able to piece together a framework of information on the topic. It is commonly assumed that the Sassanid Empire fell as a result of the Arab Islamic invasion eventually overwhelming their forces. While the Arabs certainly play a major role in the disappearance of the empire, it should be noted that their conquest was most likely only successful due to internal factors within the Sassanian polity. Morgan cites the work of Pourshariati to emphasise the political states of the Sassanian Empire.
Previously believed to be solely a centralized monarchy, the polity f the empire would be better described as a “Sasanian-Parthian confederacy. “3 Suggesting that political structures were unstable, Pourshariati is cited claiming that the Pahlav, better known as Parthians, agreed to kingship under the Sassanid on the conditions that they would retain a “substantial degree of independence in their respective Pahlav territories. These were concentrated in the quarters of the east and north. “4 The article suggests that this political divide played a role in destabilizing the empire.
When Khusraw I instituted reforms moving the Parthians away from heir power centers, Morgan states that these actions served as the ground work of the withdraw of support the Sassanian monarch received from the Pahlav. While the “confederacy’ remained intact for the remainder of Khusraw I’s reign, the eventual Parthian rebellions during the reign of Khusraw II as a result of these reforms contributed significantly to the state’s collapse5 The conception ot the Parthian peoples contributing to the decline of the Sassanid Empire is explored in great detail in the work of Nadereh Nafisi6.
Nafisi presents in great detail the influence of the Parthian people had throughout the era of the Sassanid Empire. Presented in Nafisi’s paper “The Parthian Mehran Family, Key to the Collapse of Sassanid Empire,” is a complex analysis of the genealogy of notable Parthian noble’s and their contribution to the Sassanid court throughout the era. Particular attention is paid to the nobles of the Mehran blood line, highlighting their history within the court, the role of their descendants, and even periods where Mehran nobles held the throne.
While Nafisi does not present a definitive link of the Parthians to the final days of the Sassanians, e does present evidence of the Parthian families weakening the empire from within. Citing the work of Ferdowsi, Nafisi draws attention to the treachery present within the nobility of the empire. Chief among the treachery of the Mehran Parthians would be aligning themselves with the romans. Nafisi attests: Crowning by two individuals from Mehran Family and union with the Romans dealt a blow to the glory of the Sassanids.
Murder of the Khosrau Parviz [Khusraw 11]7 by the military nobles relying on whom Khosrau had come to power, put an end to the power of the last ancient ingdom which was followed by chaos and downfall. 8 The passage illustrates the effect of the empire weakening not only as a result of constant engagement and interaction with the Roman Byzantine Empire, but also the fragmentation of their forces and resources, which made it increasingly more difficult to deal with the Islamic forces hammering their borders.
The events leading up to Khusraw II’s coronation can be viewed as largely detrimental to the morale of the commoners within the Sassanian Empire. Before addressing the issues associated with the reigning individuals both prior to nd subsequent to the Khusraw II, it may be helpful to provide some background information on the coronation system used within the Sassanian period.
Homa Katouzian details in his article “Legitimacy and Succession in Iranian History’9 the manner in which rulers were given power: In Iran, both before and after Islam, the ruler was thought to be God’s vicegerent on earth and, unlike Europe, his legitimacy was not dependent on the laws of primogeniture. Thus he was not bound by any written or unwritten law or tradition and could take decisions up to the utmost of his hysical power, the only restraint being the fear of rebellion.
He would lost God’s Grace and somehow fall from power if he ruled unjustly, but there was no test either for possessing the grace or for losing it except by virtue of holding power or being overthrown. There were thus no rules for succession and rebels could and did claim legitimacy once they were successful. The position both Justified and was Justified by arbitrary rule, where long-term functional social classes did not exist and history became a series of connected short terms. 10 Kotouzian provides important nformation on legitimacy of rule within the Iran, and of course, The Sassanid Empire.
Up to this point the focus of our research has been on degradation from within the empire, this system of ruling legitimacy similar to the mandate of heaven in historical china contributes to the frequent changes of monarch, encouraging rebellions and treachery from the patriots one would normally expect to be the greatest of allies within domestic borders. While these facts certainly highlight the potential instability ot the court, more ot interest to the topic at nand is that ot the demoralization ot the ommon people.
How can a people stand united against a common foe, in this case the Arabs, if they can’t even rely on the stability of their own government? Certainly there had been stable rulers of the Sassanid people, Khusraw I for example was viewed as a very successful leader, reigning for decades over a powerful empire. However this monument of stability and power collapses when the throne was passed to his successor, Hormozl 1 . According to Katouzian, Hormoz’s first actions as ruler were to execute the officials associated with his father’s administrationl 2.
While these actions were not seen as unjust, they did serve to alienate the people of the empire. While this did not lead to a revolt, Hormoz did happen to offend his general, Bahram Chubineh, who does lead a rebellion with the motive of dethroning Hormoz. Katouzian states that Hormoz’s son, Khusraw II, eventually took the throne, although he had to take it back from Chubineh who had claimed the monarchy for himself. The less than adequate reign of Khushrow Parvez (Khusraw II) plays a central role in Rashid Shahmardan’s paper “Causes of the Downfall of the Sasanian Empire. “13
According to Shahmardan, Khusraw II was able to recover the throne with aid from the Byzantine emperor Maurice, who gave Khusraw II his daughter’s hand in marriage and seventy thousand men to reclaim the monarchy. Shahmardan attests that when Khusraw II’s forces confronted Chubineh, but before the battle began claimed he would pardon anyone who abandoned Chubineh to Join him. The number of people who defected to from Chubineh to Join Khusraw II is said to be the vast majority of Chubineh’s force. Subsequently, Chubineh was beheaded and Khusraw claimed himself as the legitimate king14.
Khusraw II was the last ruler to hold the throne for any significant time before the Sassanian Empire disappeared. Khusraw II is largely viewed as a weak ruler, separating himself form the populace and his military. Shahmardan cites Khusraw II spent the majority of his time away from the capital Ctesiphon, instead opting to reside in Dastkert in the company of musicians and mistresses. At this point in the Byzantine Empire, the general Phocus had risen against Maurice, who requested aid from Khusraw. This aid, which was most likely only sent due to the debt Khusraw II owed for Maurice’s role in recovering is throne, arrived too late.
Maurice was killed and emperor Heraklius was put into power. Heraklius offered peace to Khusraw II, but it was declined and the forces originally sent to aid Maurice were ordered to attack the Byzantines. This hostility dealt a major blow to the Byzantine Empire, peace was once again offered along with more gifts by Heraklius, but once again Khusraw declined. Khusraw was eventually put on trial by his people and executed, this was in the aftermath of a counterattack by the Romans who pushed their advantage while the Iranian forces were engaged lsewhere.
Khusraw II’s throne was succeeded by his son, Shiroyahl 5. Shiroyah’s reign was also looked upon with dissatisfaction from the people. Like his grandfather before him (Hormoz) he had many officials and members of his own royal family executed. One of the few who managed to escape, Yazdgard, eventually became the last king of the empire. The history of the remaining rulers is bloody, with no individual holding the throne for any significant amount of time. Shahmardan is quoted miears of dissensions, strives and the complete annihilation of the Royal tamily and nobility… d all in all weakened the country to a point ot no return. ” Yazdgard lived in constant fear for his life, was not able to consolidate his power. When the romans were eventually defeated, the Sassanians became their sole target. The Islamic forces continued to hammer at the borders of the empire, gaining foothold after foothold at a surprisingly swift pace. The Empire and military did not give the attention they should have to the invaders, ultimately resulting in the Islamic forces seizing the empire as their own. Shahmardan presents several other contributing factors to the collapse of the
Sassanid Empire, ranging from the massacres of Hormoz and Shiroyah and the resulting revolts, and disillusionment of the armed forces, to tensions and rebellions from the Mazdakites. These factors in combination with the natural disasters of the era, including floods and plagues served to eat the empire from the inside out16. This in combination with the lack of support from the fading Roman Empire which practically all sources claim left the Sassanians alone to deal with the threat of the Islamic forces. There is no definitive event that lead to the disappearance of the Sassanian
Empire, but rather an eclectic mix of events and circumstances. Clearly the major factors at play were for the most part internal. It is widely regarded that the Islamic forces would not have been able to topple the giants they did without a great deal of pre-existing internal erosion. The sources used to glean this information are varied, coming mostly from outside the Sassanian Empire, and in a great many languages. It should be noted however, that even though the Sassanian Empire faced a somewhat depressing end, it is still one of the most prominent forces in Eurasian history.
Treaty Negotiations in United States Mexico Canada agreement (USMCA).
Treaty Negotiations in United States Mexico Canada agreement (USMCA)..
The purpose of this paper Introduction-Brief background Parties-Who was involved Interests-who wanted what Added values -who had what to offer? What were they ways parties could create value and achieve a win-win outcome? Analysis- Did parties negotiate skillfully or were mistake made.
Essay Help “>Essay Help
Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay
Review This Service