The best evidence about Sasanian royal ideology comes from the first century
or so of the dynasty, and although it is possible to detect developments
thereafter, the basic principles apply throughout the regime’s history. Shapur
I was the first to claim the title ‘king of kings of Iran and non-Iran’,
whereas his father, Ardashir, had contented himself with the title ‘king
of kings of Iran’ only. The legitimation of the new royal dynasty in its
own realm was the immediate task the early Sasanians had to face. The
great official state inscriptions from the early Sasanian period do not conceal
the newness of the dynasty. The Res gestae divi Saporis is a list of the
exploits of Shah Shapur I on the so-called Ka‘ba of Zardusht,18 and traces
the royal genealogy back three generations, through his father Ardashir to
his grandfather Papak. On the Paikuli inscription, set up by Shah Narseh
to commemorate his successful bid for supreme power and his victory over
his nephew Bahram III (293), there is only one significant addition. The
dynasty is called ‘the seed of the Sasanids’, elucidating to some extent the
role of ‘the lord Sasan’, mentioned in the Res gestae divi Saporis as recipient
of an honorary cult, but not explicitly as a forebear of the dynasty. None
of the other remaining six inscriptions that allude to the genealogy of the
Sasanian shahs adds anything of significance.19
The great pictures that accompany many of these inscriptions present
the key elements of legitimate royal authority. In some, the shah and his
entourage unseat their rivals in a dramatic joust; or foreign enemies demonstrate
their submission – including in some scenes theRoman emperor, who
arrives at speed to acknowledge Sasanian mastery, kneels before his conqueror
or lies prostrate at his feet. The proper transfer of power at each
accession is symbolised by grand ceremonies involving shah and court; and
in some pictures, divine investiture is symbolised by the figure of Ahura
Mazda or of Anahita handing over a diadem to the shah.20 The monuments
present a self-fulfilling legitimation. Supernatural sanction for the Sasanian
house is demonstrated by the sequence of royal victories through which
the Sasanians have achieved power; royal gratitude for this divine support
is displayed by the establishment of a series of ritual fires. No attempt is
made to conceal the shah’s bellicosity, and this self-glorification in divinely
sponsored aggression is repeated three times in the Res gestae divi Saporis.
According to the ideology enunciated in this document, wars of conquest
are the duty of a good shah and military success proves legitimacy.21
Externally, or at least with regard to the Roman empire, the only area for
which we have evidence, Sasanian strategies for legitimation were slightly
more complex. Victory was still crucial, but warfare ought to have some
justification. In his Res gestae, two of Shapur’s three expeditions against
the Romans are presented as responses to Roman aggression; one of the
three versions of the inscription is in Greek, and its contents were probably
proclaimed to the inhabitants of the Roman empire, or to its former inhabitants
resettled in Iran.22 More significantly, three historians writing in the
Roman empire – Cassius Dio (LXXX.3.3) and Herodian (VI.2.1–5) from
the third century, Ammianus Marcellinus (XVII.5.3–8) from the fourth –
record how Sasanian envoys presented territorial demands on the Romans
in terms of the revival of the oldAchaemenid empire.23 The repeatedRoman
refusal to return what rightfully belonged to the new dynasty was sufficient
justification for war.
If the Achaemenid heritage was important in their western diplomatic
dealings, there is no evidence that it was significant for internal legitimation.
Although Ardashir and Shapur I chose to glorify themselves atNaqsh-i
Rustam, near Persepolis, a site rich in Achaemenid associations,24 the possible
connection is not voiced in their public inscriptions. The site was chosen
for its monumental and awe-inspiring nature; there is no evidence that those
who beheld these monumentswere aware of their specific Achaemenid associations,
or indeed of the pristine greatness of the Achaemenids themselves.
The modern name of the site, Naqsh-i Rustam, with its reference to the
hero of Iranian epic tradition, indicates the extent to which folk memory
can misrepresent the true nature of such sites. When Shapur I refers to his
ancestors’ domain in his Res gestae, this is merely to state that exiles from
the Roman empire were settled in Iran on crown lands – in Fars, Khuzistan
and Ashurestan. Again, this is neither evocation of the Achaemenid empire
nor a claim to legitimation as their heirs.25
It has been alternatively suggested that the Sasanians’ claims to legitimation
harked back not to the Achaemenids but to the Kayanids, the heroic
mythical rulers of Iran long before the historical Achaemenids.26 However,
this hypothesis is not supported in the inscriptions: Shapur I only traced
his genealogy back to his grandfather Papak, and did not claim universal
kingship before his own reign (he is the first ‘king of kings of Iranians and
non-Iranians’).More striking is the absence of any allusion to the dynasty’s
Kayanid origin in Narseh’s Paikuli inscription, precisely the context where
self-designation as ‘the seed of the Sasanians’ invited a link with a more
glorious house. Kayanid names such as Kavad and Khusro only enter royal
nomenclature in the late fifth century and probably reflect a change at that
time in strategies for dynastic legitimation. Furthermore, it is the mythological
Kayanid link which eventually introduces into royal genealogies an
Achaemenid element that had not been present before. This Achaemenid
link was clearly derived from the Alexander romance, which became popular
at the Sasanian court in the first half of the sixth century. The Sasanian
genealogies relayed through Arabic and New Persian sources deriving
from lost Pahlavi historiography reflect, as often, the conditions and traditions
of the last century of Sasanian rule; little genuine knowledge was
preserved.