_Accession of Siroe’s, or Kobad II. His Letter to Heraclius. Peace made
with Rome. Terms of the Peace. General Popularity of the new Reign.
Dissatisfaction of Shahr-Barz. Kobad, by the advice of the Persian
Lords, 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 qua
oppressa fuerat amovit.”--Eutychius, _Annales_, vol, ii. p. 253.
Siroes, or Kobad the Second, as he is more properly termed, was
proclaimed king on the 25th of February, 2 A.D. 628, four days before
the murder of his father. According to the Oriental writers, he was very
unwilling to put his father to death, and only gave a reluctant consent
to his execution on the representations of his nobles that it was a
state of necessity. His first care, after this urgent matter had been
settled, was to make overtures of peace to Heraclius, who, having safely
crossed the Zagros mountains, was wintering at Canzaca. The letter which
he addressed to the Roman Emperor on the occasion is partially extant;
but the formal and official tone which it breathes renders it a somewhat
disappointing document. Kobad begins by addressing Heraclius as his
brother, and giving him the epithet of “most clement,” thus assuming his
pacific disposition. He then declares, that, having been elevated to the
throne by the especial favor of God, he has resolved to do his utmost to
benefit and serve the entire human race. He has therefore commenced his
reign by throwing open the prison doors, and restoring liberty to
all who were detained in custody. With the same object in view, he is
desirous of living in peace and friendship with the Roman emperor and
state as well as with all other neighboring nations and kings. Assuming
that his accession will be pleasing to the emperor, he has sent Phaeak,
one of his privy councillors, to express the love and friendship that he
feels towards his brother, and learn the terms upon which peace will be
granted him. The reply of Heraclius is lost; but we are able to gather
from a short summary which has been preserved, as well as from the
subsequent course of events, that it was complimentary and favorable;
that it expressed the willingness of the emperor to bring the war to
a close, and suggested terms of accommodation that were moderate and
equitable. The exact formulation of the treaty seems to have been left
to Eustathius, who, after Heraclius had entertained Phaeak royally for
nearly a week, accompanied the ambassador on his return to the Persian
court.
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 she
might have made from Rome, to recall her troops from them, and to give
them back into the possession of the Romans. She was also to surrender
all the captives whom she had carried off from the conquered countries;
and, above all, she was to give back to the Romans the precious relic
which had been taken from Jerusalem, and which was believed on all hands
to be the veritable cross whereon Jesus Christ suffered death. As Rome
had merely made inroads, but not conquests, she did not possess any
territory to surrender; but she doubtless set her Persian prisoners
free, and she made arrangements for the safe conduct and honorable
treatment of the Persians, who evacuated Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor,
on their way to the frontier. The evacuation was at once commenced; and
the wood of the cross, which had been carefully preserved by the Persian
queen, Shirin, was restored. In the next year, Heraclius made a grand
pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and replaced the holy relic in the shrine from
which 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 subjects
rejoiced at the termination of a war which had always been a serious
drain on the population, and which latterly had brought ruin and
desolation upon the hearths and homes of thousands. The general emptying
of the prisons was an act that cannot be called statesman-like; but it
had a specious appearance of liberality, and was probably viewed with
favor by the mass of the people. A still more popular measure must have
been the complete remission of taxes with which Kobad inaugurated his
reign--a remission which, according to one authority, was to have
continued for three years, had the generous prince lived so long. In
addition to these somewhat questionable proceedings, Kobad adopted
also a more legitimate mode of securing the regard of his subjects by a
careful administration of justice, and a mild treatment of those who had
been the victims of his father’s severities. He restored to their
former rank the persons whom Chosroes had degraded or imprisoned, and
compensated them for their injuries by a liberal donation of money.
Thus far all seemed to promise well for the new reign, which, though it
had commenced under unfavorable auspices, bid fair to be tranquil and
prosperous. In one quarter only was there any indication of coming
troubles. Shahr-Barz, the great general, whose life Chosroes
had attempted shortly before his own death, appears to have been
dissatisfied with the terms on which Kobad had concluded peace with
Rome; and there is even reason to believe that he contrived to impede
and delay the full execution of the treaty. He held under Kobad the
government of the western provinces and was at the head of an army
which numbered sixty thousand men. Kobad treated him with marked favor;
but still he occupied a position almost beyond that of a subject, and
one which could not fail to render him an object of fear and suspicion.
For the present, however, though he may have nurtured ambitious
thoughts, he made no movement, but bided his time, remaining quietly in
his province, and cultivating friendly relations with the Roman emperor.
Kobad had not been seated on the throne many months when he consented
to a deed by which his character for justice and clemency was seriously
compromised, if not wholly lost. This was the general massacre of all
the other sons of Chosroes II., his own brothers or half-brothers--a
numerous body, amounting to forty according to the highest estimate, and
to fifteen according to the lowest. We are not told of any circumstances
of peril to justify the deed, or even account for it. There have been
Oriental dynasties, where such a wholesale murder upon the accession of
a sovereign has been a portion of the established system of government,
and others where the milder but little less revolting expedient has
obtained of blinding all the brothers of the reigning prince; but
neither practice was in vogue among the Sassanians; and we look vainly
for the reason which caused an act of the kind to be resorted to at
this conjuncture. Mirkhond says that Piruz, the chief minister of Kobad,
advised the deed; but even he assigns no motive for the massacre, unless
a motive is implied in the statement that the brothers of Kobad
were “all of them distinguished by their talents and their merit.”
Politically speaking, the measure might have been harmless, had Kobad
enjoyed a long reign, and left behind him a number of sons. But as it
was, the rash act, by almost extinguishing the race of Sassan, produced
troubles which greatly helped to bring the empire into a condition of
hopeless exhaustion and weakness.
While thus destroying all his brothers, Kobad allowed his sisters to
live. Of these there were two, still unmarried, who resided in the
palace, and had free access to the monarch. Their names were Purandocht
and Azermidocht, Purandocht being the elder. Bitterly grieved at the
loss of their kindred, these two princesses rushed into the royal
presence, and reproached the king with words that cut him to the soul.
“Thy ambition of ruling,” they said, “has induced thee to kill thy
father and thy brothers. Thou hast accomplished thy purpose within the
space of three or four months. Thou hast hoped thereby to preserve thy
power forever. Even, however, if thou shouldst live long, thou must die
at last. May God deprive thee of the enjoyment of this royalty!” His
sisters’ words sank deep into the king’s mind. He acknowledged their
justice, burst into tears, and flung his crown on the ground. After this
he fell into a profound melancholy, ceased to care for the exercise of
power, and in a short time died. His death is ascribed by the Orientals
to his mental sufferings; but the statement of a Christian bishop throws
some doubt on this romantic story. Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria,
tells us that, before Kobad had reigned many months, the plague broke
out in his country. Vast numbers of his subjects died of it; and among
the victims was the king himself, who perished after a reign which is
variously estimated at six, seven, eight, and eighteen months.
There seems to be no doubt that a terrible pestilence did afflict Persia
at this period. The Arabian writers are here in agreement with Eutychius
of Alexandria, and declare that the malady was of the most aggravated
character, carrying off one half, or at any rate one third, of the
inhabitants of the provinces which were affected, and diminishing the
population of Persia by several hundreds of thousands. Scourges of this
kind are of no rare occurrence in the East; and the return of a mixed
multitude to Persia, under circumstances involving privation, from
the cities of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, was well calculated to
engender such a calamity.
The reign of Kobad II. appears from his coins to have lasted above a
year. He ascended the throne in February, A.D. 628; he probably died
about July, A.D. 629. The coins which are attributed to him resemble in
their principal features those of Ohosroes II. and Artaxerxes III., but
are without wings, and have the legend _Kavat-Firuz_. The bordering
of pearls is single on both obverse and reverse, but the king wears a
double pearl necklace. The eye is large, and the hair more carefully
marked 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., a
child of seven, or (according to others) of one year only. The nobles
who proclaimed him took care to place him under the direction of a
governor or regent, and appointed to the office a certain Mihr-Hasis,
who had been the chief purveyor of Kobad. Mihr-Hasis is said to have
ruled with justice and discretion; but he was not able to prevent the
occurrence of those troubles and disorders which in the East almost
invariably accompany the sovereignty of a minor, and render the task
of a regent a hard one. Shahr-Barz, who had scarcely condescended to
comport himself as a subject under Kobad, saw in the accession of a
boy, and in the near extinction of the race of Sassan, an opportunity
of gratifying his ambition, and at the same time of avenging the wrong
which had been done him by Chosroes. Before committing himself, however,
to the perils of rebellion, he negotiated with Heraclius, and secured
his alliance and support by the promise of certain advantages. The
friends met at Heraclea on the Propontis. Shahr-Barz undertook to
complete the evacuation of Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, which he had
delayed hitherto, and promised, if he were successful in his enterprise,
to pay Heraclius a large sum of money as compensation for the injuries
inflicted on Rome during the recent war. Heraclius conferred on Nicetas,
the son of Shahr-Barz, the title of “Patrican,” consented to a marriage
between Shahr-Barz’s daughter, Nike, and his own son, Theodosius,
and accepted Gregoria, the daughter of Nicetas, and grand-daughter of
Shahr-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 him
in his struggle with Artaxerxes and Mihr-Hasis.
Of the details of Sharhr-Barz’s expedition we know nothing. He is said
to have marched on Ctesiphon with an army of sixty thousand men; to have
taken the city, put to death Artaxerxes, Mihr-Hasis, and a number of the
nobles, and then seized the throne. We are not told what resistance
was made by the monarch in possession, or how it was overcome, or even
whether there was a battle. It would seem certain, however, that the
contest was brief. The young king was of course powerless; Mihr-Hasis,
though well-meaning, must have been weak; Shahr-Barz had all the rude
strength of the animal whose name he bore, and had no scruples about
using his strength to the utmost. The murder of a child of two, or at
the most of eight, who could have done no ill, and was legitimately in
possession of the throne, must be pronounced a brutal act, and one which
sadly tarnishes the fair fame, previously unsullied, of one of Persia’s
greatest generals.
It was easy to obtain the crown, under the circumstances of the
time; but it was not so easy to keep what had been wrongfully gained.
Shahr-Barz enjoyed the royal authority less than two months. During this
period he completed the evacuation of the Roman provinces occupied by
Chosroes II., restored perhaps some portions of the true cross which
had been kept back by Kobad, and sent an expeditionary force against the
Khazars who had invaded Armenia, which was completely destroyed by
the fierce barbarians. He is said by the Armenians to have married
Purandocht, the eldest daughter of Chosroes, for the purpose of
strengthening his hold on the crown; but this attempt to conciliate his
subjects, if it was really made, proved unsuccessful. Ere he had been
king for two months, his troops mutinied, drew their swords upon him,
and killed him in the open court before the palace. Having so done, they
tied a cord to his feet and dragged his corpse through the streets of
Ctesiphon, making proclamation everywhere as follows: “Whoever, not
being of the blood-royal, seats himself upon the Persian throne, shall
share the fate of Shahr-Barz.” They then elevated to the royal dignity
the princess Purandocht, the first female who had ever sat in the seat
of Cyrus.
The rule of a woman was ill calculated to restrain the turbulent Persian
nobles. Two instances had now proved that a mere noble might ascend the
throne of the son of Babek; and a fatal fascination was exercised on
the grandees of the kingdom by the examples of Bahram-Chobin and
Shahr-Barz.
Pretenders sprang up in all quarters, generally asserting some
connection, nearer or more remote, with the royal house, but relying
on the arms of their partisans, and still more on the weakness of the
government. It is uncertain whether Purandocht died a natural death; her
sister, Azermidocht, who reigned soon after her, was certainly murdered.
The crown passed rapidly from one noble to another, and in the course of
the four or five years which immediately succeeded the death of Chosroes
II. it was worn by nine or ten different persons. Of these the greater
number reigned but a few days or a few months; no actions are ascribed
to them; and it seems unnecessary to weary the reader with their obscure
names, or with the still more obscure question concerning the order of
their succession. It may be suspected that, in some cases two or more
were contemporary, exercising royal functions in different portions
of the empire at the same time. Of none does the history or the fate
possess any interest; and the modern historical student may well be
content with the general knowledge that for four years and a half after
the death of Chosroes II. the government was in the highest degree
unsettled; anarchy everywhere prevailed; the distracted kingdom was
torn in pieces by the struggles of pretenders; and “every province, and
almost 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 commotions
by the election of a young prince, believed to be of the true blood
of Sassan, in whose rule the whole nation acquiesced without much
difficulty. Yezdigerd (or Isdigerd) the Third was the son of Shahriar
and the grandson of Chosroes II. He had been early banished from the
Court, and had been brought up in obscurity, his royal birth being
perhaps 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 lived
unnoticed to the age of fifteen, when his royal rank having somehow been
discovered, and no other scion of the stock of Chosroes being known
to exist, he was drawn forth from his retirement and invested with the
sovereignty.
But the appointment of a sovereign in whose rule all could acquiesce
came too late. While Rome and Persia, engaged in deadly struggle, had no
thought for anything but how most to injure each other, a power began
to grow up in an adjacent country, which had for long ages been despised
and thought incapable of doing any harm to its neighbors. Mohammed, half
impostor, half enthusiast, enunciated a doctrine, and by degrees worked
out a religion, which proved capable of uniting in one the scattered
tribes of the Arabian desert, while at the same time it inspired them
with a confidence, a contempt for death, and a fanatic valor, that
rendered them irresistible by the surrounding nations. Mohammed’s career
as prophet began while Heraclius and Chosroes II. were flying at each
other’s throats; by the year of the death of Chosroes (A.D. 628) he had
acquired a strength greater than that of any other Arab chief; two years
later he challenged Rome to the combat by sending a hostile expedition
into Syria; and before his death (A.D. 632) he was able to take the
field at the head of 30,000 men. During the time of internal trouble in
Persia he procured the submission of the Persian governor of the Yemen;
as well as that of Al Mondar, or Alamundarus, King of Bahrein, on the
west coast of the Persian Gulf. Isdigerd, upon his accession, found
himself menaced by a power which had already stretched out one arm
towards the lower Euphrates, while with the other it was seeking to
grasp Syria and Palestine. The danger was imminent; the means of meeting
it insufficient, for Persia was exhausted by foreign war and internal
contention; the monarch himself was but ill able to cope with the Arab
chiefs, being youthful and inexperienced; we shall find, however,
that he made a strenuous resistance. Though continually defeated, he
prolonged the fight for nearly a score of years, and only succumbed
finally when, to the hostility of open foes, was added the treachery of
pretended friends and allies.