Like the Late Roman Empire, the Sasanid Empire was a hierarchically organized and relatively centralized state. The heartland of the empire was Mesopotamia with its rich agricultural lands and many wealthy cities. Administratively, Sasanian society was divided into kingdoms and provinces, which in their turn were divided into smaller units, each of which was administrated by a variety of office-holders on behalf of the king. Politically and socially, Sasanian society was highly stratified (Christensen 1944: 97 ff.; Wiesehofer 2001: 171 ff.), its social order similar to that of the contemporary Roman Empire. The ‘‘king of kings,’’ the empire’s ruler (whose status was divine), stood at the top of the hierarchical pyramid; his court was the center of royal power and administration (Wiesehcifer 2007). Just below came the prominent aristocratic clans and the local gentry, who assisted the king in administrating the empire and leading the armies. In the early Sasanian period, the power of these elites rested on lineage, the owning of land, and the holding of office. That, and their closeness to the king, sealed their partnership with him and determined the status of individual aristocrats and their families. This very partnership, however, shows the vulnerability of the monarch’s power. He could not rule without the consent and support of the nobles in his realm. He needed their cooperation for governing the empire, collecting taxes, and recruiting armies. Enforcing his authority in his vast empire occupied the king permanently, and one may wonder how strong and effective that vaunted authority was in regions like the Iranian highlands and in the kingdoms and provinces on the outskirts of his empire. The administrative reforms of Khusro I (ad 531-79) addressed that problem by creating a new nobility. Its members were more dependent on the king for their position and influence, which made it easier to harness their support - something that Roman emperors continued to find difficult in relation to their own provincial elites.
The great mass of inhabitants of the Sasanid Empire consisted of farmers - freeholders or tenants. There must have been some sort of middle class - small office-holders, urban merchants - but information about them is scarce. Like every ancient civilization, Sasanian society had its slaves, mostly prisoners of war. Social differences were great, and upward social mobility was difficult to initiate or sustain. The generally good cooperation between the kings and the nobility made the Sasanid Empire an efficiently run state. Although the Sasanian institutions and administrative system are ill-documented, the large-scale foreign wars, the extensive line of defense works in the border region with the Roman Empire, the elaborate irrigation system in Mesopotamia, the development of new urban settlements, and the general infrastructure suggest a developed and efficient administrative apparatus on state and regional level. This apparatus was apparently able to deploy the necessary resources - for example, an advanced system of tax levy both in kind and money - and to plan and control large infrastructural projects (Christensen 1944: 97-140; Howard-Johnston 1995: 211 ff.; Rubin 2000: 654-6).
Warfare was one of the main activities of the Sasanid state. The Persian king was able to recruit a massive military manpower, which was vital for the survival of the empire and for his own success (Christensen 1944: 130-2, 206 ff.; Widengren 1976: 280ff.; Schippmann 1990: 103-6; Wiesehofer 2001: 197-9). Much of the state resources were spent on keeping up the military power and defense works. Because the Sasanian monarch did not have a standing army, he was dependent on the soldiers the nobles could furnish him. Only in the sixth century, under Khusro I, was a standing army introduced, consisting of elite cavalry units manned by young nobles. The cataphracti, the heavily armed cavalry in which the Sasanian nobility and men of rank served (Mielczarek 1993), was the backbone of the Sasanian army. The infantry was subordinate. The latter consisted of ordinary people (peasant soldiers) who were recruited when necessary. In addition to these forces, the Persian army also contained (mounted) archers. The supreme commander of the army was the king himself (Whitby 1994). It was natural for the king to make all strategic and tactical decisions, but - probably because of his divine status (Widengren 1965: 315) - he was not supposed to take part in the actual fighting. When the king did not command the army himself, his task was taken over by the Suren, the most important Persian nobleman after the king in the Persian hierarchy (Amm. Marc. 24. 2. 4). Various Persian grandees were in charge of contingents of the army. Whereas military success contributed considerably to the king’s authority, failure on the battlefield was considered a sign of his weakness and could cause the nobility to withdraw their support. As is known, for instance, from Ammianus Marcellinus, the Sasanian military force impressed the Romans (Drijvers 2006: 54-7). They feared in particular the strength of the units of cataphracti; their approach alone, announced by the gleam and glittering of their iron armor, terrified the Roman soldiers (Amm. Marc. 25. 1. 1).
The Sasanid state was religiously diversified, and a variety of religions could be found within the boundaries of the empire: Judaism, Christianity, Manichaeism, Mazdakism, and others (Asmussen 1983; Neusner 1983: 913 ff.; Wiesehofer 2001: 199-216). But the dualistic Zoroastrianism was the most widespread and had the greatest number of adherents (Duchesne-Guillemin 1983: 866ff.). The class of Zoroastrian priests held high prominence at the court and in the empire. It has long been supposed that Zoroastrian religion was one of the fundamentals of Sasa-nian kingship and that Zoroastrianism was the empire’s state cult, just as Christianity was the official state religion of the Late Roman Empire (Widengren 1965: 274 ff.; Winter and Dignas 2001: 230ff.). Although all kings recognized and honored Ahura-Mazda, and Iran was ‘‘zoroastrianized’’ under the Sasanians as never before, as can be concluded from the great number of fire-temples that have been found and from the fact that the hierarchized Zoroastrian priesthood was a privileged social class in Sasanian society (Widengren 1965: 259-65), modern scholarship no longer accepts the idea of a Zoroastrian state church (Schippmann 1990: 92-8; Rubin 2000: 647-51; Wiesehofer 2001: 199ff.). That is not to say that, at times, there was not a close relationship between Sasanian kings and Zoroastrianism and its religious leaders, or that Sasanian kings did not support Zoroastrianism at the cost ofthe other religions and cults in their empire; but this relationship and support were not permanent over the whole period of the empire’s existence, and Zoroastrianism never became the state-sponsored religious orthodoxy. The kings seem only to have sought support of the Zoroastrian priesthood and given Zoroastrianism a certain degree of domination over other religions in times of internal and political problems. At the end of the third century ad the Zoroastrian priest Kerdir managed to gain an unusually prominent position for himself and his religion, but apparently only because of the weakness of the kings of his time and their internal problems, resulting from military defeats against the Romans (Winter and Dignas 2001: 232-7). At times rulers and the Zoroastrian priesthood cooperated, in an alliance of convenience, in their persecution of religious minorities. These persecutions, such as those under
Shapur II (ad 309-79) against the Christians, were undertaken for political rather than religious reasons. There were, however, also long periods of religious openmindedness in which Zoroastrians had to accept the existence of other religious groups and competitors within the Sasanid Empire.
Religion was a source of friction between the Romans and the Sasanians. Mani-chaeism - a religious movement of Persian origin - was seen as a pro-Persian fifth column in the Roman Empire (Brown 1969; Lieu 1992: 121-5). But Christianity in particular was a source of enmity, and religious-political issues had their influence on the relationship between the two states (Winter and Dignas 2001: 229ff.). From Constantine the Great onward, the Roman emperors considered themselves the selfappointed patrons of Christians both inside and outside the boundaries of their realm, and therefore also of those living in Persia (Euseb. Vit. Const. 4. 9-13; Barnes 1985); and the Sasanians took this as interference in their internal affairs. The Sasanid Empire saw a gradual growth of the number of Christians in the cities in Mesopotamia (Labourt 1904; Asmussen 1983; Chaumont 1988; Jullien and Jullien 2002). The Sasanian authorities considered the Christians as a Roman vanguard that spied and transmitted (military) information to the Romans. Christians were particularly persecuted in times of Roman-Persian wars and had to pay higher taxes to fund the Sasanian war costs. Guarantees of tolerance toward Christians by the Sasanian authorities were usually included in peace agreements. The treaty of ad 562 between Khusro I and Justinian (ad 527-65) laid down that Christian inhabitants of the Sasanid Empire were allowed to build churches and to hold church services (Winter and Dignas 2001: 249). Nevertheless, there was no continuous suppression of Christianity in the Sasanid Empire, and there were kings who more than simply tolerated the Christian religion. Under Yazdgerd I (ad 399-421), Marutha of Maipherqat, bishop and envoy on behalf of the Roman Empire at the Sasanian court at the beginning of the fifth century ad, was not only able to obtain relief of persecution for the Persian Christians, but also allowed to lay down a new ecclesiastical, hierarchical organization for the Persian Christians under a recognized religious leader, the katholikos (patriarch) of Ctesiphon (Labourt 1904: 86-99; Asmussen 1983: 939-40; Blockley 1992: 54-5). When the Councils of Ephesus (ad 431) and Chalcedon (ad 451) condemned the teachings of Nestorius, the Sasanid Empire became a haven of refuge for many of its adherents in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and they were able to establish their own church organization with the support of the Persian king (Winter and Dignas 2001: 55-6).
World History
