Libmonster ID: KG-1171

This work is an attempt to reconstruct the first years of political activity of the founder of the Sasanian dynasty, Ardashir I Papakan (before the fall of the Parthian state). A comprehensive study of sources allows us to correct the chronology of events, to understand the meaning of the actions of Ardashir and his contemporaries.

Keywords: Middle East, Early Middle Ages, Sassanids.

The study of the history of Ardashir I Papakan should begin with the restoration of its chronology. This is not easy, since the chronology of the Sassanids is extremely unclear. Numerous discrepancies in the dates were noted already in the Middle Ages [Hamzae Ispahanensis, 1844, p. 8, 9; Chronologic.., 1878, p. 118]. We see the same thing in modern literature, as shown by the comparative table of dates of S. H. Taqizadeh and W. B. Henning, included in the fundamental "Cambridge History of Iran" as an illustration of the insolubility of contradictions between different chronologies [Taqizadeh and Henning, 1957, p. 116; The Cambridge History of Iran..., 2006, p. 119] 1.

The Sasanian annals have not come down to us, but even if they did, the problems with chronology would only be partially solved. The official chronology did not imply a reference to a single reference point; on the contrary, from one of Biruni's remarks, it can be concluded that the new tsar, when he ascended the throne, began the chronology from this moment, discarding the previous dates [Chronologie..., 1878, p.30]. Indeed, in the transmissions of Sasanian chronologies in later sources, we find only references to the terms of the kings ' reigns, but not to specific dates. At the same time, even in determining these terms, the sources differ greatly.

Under these circumstances, references to the Sassanids in sources belonging to other political and cultural traditions become very important. Several valuable references go back to Mani, a contemporary of the first Sassanids. They have come down to us through the medium of Biruni, who, it should be noted, was confident of their authenticity, and are summarized as follows: 1. Mani was born in the year 527 of Alexander the Great (i.e., the Seleucid era) according to the chronology of the Babylonian astrologers; by that time four years of the reign of the last Parthian king Ardavan had passed, with the victory over which the reign of Ardashir. 2. In 539 of the same chronology, when Mani was thirteen years old, he first had an epiphany; by that time Ardashir had ruled for two years [Chronologie..., 1878, p.118, 208].

Let's start with the first fragment. According to the most common and reasonable interpretation, Mani was born on April 14, 216 [Kefalaia..., 1998, p. 18; Wiedengren, 2001, p. 44]. This date is close to the beginning of the Babylonian new year; it occurred eight days earlier. If you now try to set the date of arrival to the VLA-

1 According to S. H. Takizade, Ardashir came to power in 227, and according to W. B. Henning - in 224. Henning's point of view was disputed by A. Marik, according to whom the year of establishment of the Sassanid power was 226-227 [Maricq, 1958, p. 346-348]. Meanwhile, the date 223-224 is also found in modern literature (Richter-Bernburg, 1993, p. 73).

page 33
According to Ardavan, one can either count back the years of his reign to the Seleucid era, or look for a time when Mani could say that less than a year has passed since his accession to the throne. In the first case, Ardavan was supposed to come to power between the beginning of April 211 and the twentieth of April 212, in the second-between the beginning of the second decade of April 211 and the end of April 212. At the same time, however, it is clear that the date of the beginning of Ardavan's reign is all the more likely the closer it is to April 212 - otherwise it is necessary to explain why Mani speaks specifically of four years, discarding months.

Another reference to Ardavan is preserved in Muslim sources, according to which he reigned for 13 years [Chronologie..., 1878, p. 116; Kitab at-Tanbih..., 1894, p. 96; The Book of Creation..., 1962, p. 152; Tabaqat-i-nasiri..., 1963/1964, p. 153; Annates..., 1964, p. 707, 710] 2. If we assume that Ardavan came to power shortly before the end of April 212, his reign should have come to an end in April 225. This assumption is interesting to compare with the data of the Arbel Chronicle, according to which the Parthian state ceased to exist on Wednesday, 27 Nisan3 535 of the Seleucid era [Sources syriaques..., 1907, p. 29]. This year does not correspond to 225 AD, but the first publisher of the chronicle, A. Mingana, rightly noted that April 27 falls on a Wednesday only in 225 AD [Sources syriaques..., 1907, p. 106]. Thus, we can assume that the Parthian state fell in April 225, when the thirteen-year rule of Ardavan ended.

Many scholars, however, believe that the author of the chronicle is mistaken not in the year, but in the date, and the battle between Ardashir and Ardavan, which ended with the death of the latter and the fall of his state, took place on April 28, 224 [Christensen, 1944, p. 88; Gage, 1964, p. 157]. A number of arguments can be put forward to support this theory. First of all, the year 224 corresponds better to the rules for calculating the dates of the Seleucid era, according to which in this case 311 should be subtracted from 535. Further, as will be shown below, Ardashir and Ardavan agreed to fight on the last day of the month of Mihr according to the Zoroastrian calendar, which in both 224 and 225 fell on April 28 however, in the first case it was Wednesday (as in the Arbel Chronicle), and in the second case it was Thursday. In addition, according to Michael of Syria, Ardashir came to power in the third year of Alexander Severus ' reign, i.e. in 224 [Chronique..., 1963, p. 188].

Let us consider this hypothesis in the light of the above information provided by Mani and Muslim authors. In order for Ardavan to rule for 13 years, his reign had to begin no later than April 211. But, as shown above, the earliest date of the beginning of Ardavan's reign, which agrees with Mani's words , is the first or second decade of April 211. This results in an extremely narrow time interval, but it can only be accepted if there are two assumptions. If Ardavan came to power in April 211, then by the time of Mani's birth, not four years had passed, but at least four years and 11 months, i.e., almost five years, of his reign. Mani, however, does not mention months. This discrepancy can be countered by the fact that Mani meant only full years, discarding months. Such a way of determining the duration of the reign of monarchs is indeed found in ancient and medieval authors.4 Meanwhile, if there was not much left until the end of the year, rounding was done up 5. At the same time, in the case of 13 years of Ardavan's rule, we are forced to assume the opposite: there can be no" full years".

2 Alternative estimates that Ardavan ruled for 20, 31, or 55 years [Hamzae Ispahanensis..., 1844, p. 14, 27; Chronologie..., 1878, p.114, 115, 117] are obviously exaggerated and are not used in the scientific literature.

3 In this case, Nisan means April.

4 In particular, in the stories of Ardashir's reign.

5 For example, at-Tabari defines the term of Ardashir's reign as 14 years and 10 months [Annates..., 1964, p. 821], and Agathiae of Mirinae, based on extracts from the Sasanian annals, as 15 years without two months [Agathiae Myrinaei..., 1828, p. 259]. A reference to 15 years is also found in James of Edessa (Syriac Chronicles, 1983, p. 78).

page 34
maybe, because if you add at least a month, it turns out that at the time of Mani's birth, the Parthian king had been sitting on the throne for five years, not four years.

Other arguments in favor of 224 are also not indisputable. The convergence of the date of Nisan 27 with the last day of Mihr is legitimate and important for historical research.6 However, it should not be forgotten that the last day of Mihr is the time when the decisive battle was scheduled, and 27 Nisan is the date when it actually took place. It is far from necessary that these dates coincide on 7. As for the words of Michael of Syria, here we have an earlier and more authoritative source as far as Roman history is concerned - the report of Agathias of Myrinaeus, according to which Ardashir came to power in the fourth year of the reign of Alexander Severus [Agathiae Myrinaei..., 1828, p. 259]. This year corresponds to the year 225.

The most important source for the chronology of the early Sasanians is the Bishapur inscription of Shapur I, son and successor of Ardashir, in Bishapur. This inscription, discovered by R. Hirschman in 1935/1936, is dated "in the month of Frawardine in the fifty-eighth year, in the fortieth year of the Ardashir fire and in the twenty-fourth year of the Shapur fire" (Nyberg, 1964, pp. 124-125). In the literature, these references to lights 8 are interpreted as an indication of the years of the reign of the tsars [The Cambridge History of Iran..., 2006, p. 118]. This assumption seems to be correct, at least in relation to Ardashir, who was a deeply religious man. In the sources we read more than once that Ardashir installed sacred fires in his possessions. Therefore, although there are no written references in the sources, it is likely that Ardashir, after defeating the Parthians, marked this achievement by establishing a new sacred fire.

According to at-Tabari and a number of other authors, Ardashir, after defeating Ardavan in a decisive battle, assumed the title of shahanshah (king of kings) [Histoire des Sassanides..., 1843, p. 176; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/1963, p. 883, Annates..., 1964, p. 819; Mudjmal..., 2000, S. 50]. If we take the date of Ardashir's accession as April 27, 225, the fortieth year of his reign (according to the Zoroastrian calendar) began on April 17, 264. In this time frame, the first day of Fravardin was on September 21, 264. This day could have been either the first or the last in the twenty-fourth year of Shapur's reign, which, therefore, must fall within the period from September 23, 263, to September 20, 265. If, using the Zoroastrian calendar, we set back 24 years, we fall into the period from September 29, 239, to September 26, 241. Then Ardashir's reign was about to end.

The final date of Ardashir's reign can be set more precisely. Mani is known to have said that he reached the age of twenty-four in the year when Ardashir's troops took the city of Hatra and Shapur placed the crown on his head [The Cologne Mani Codex..., 1979, p. 18-19]. Since Mani used the calendar of the Seleucid era in its" Babylonian " version, we are talking about a year that lasted from the beginning of the second decade of April 240 to the beginning of April 241, i.e. in April 240 Ardashir was still in power. This conclusion solves another problem in the chronology. Ibn an-Nadim, referring to the Manichaeans, reports that Mani made his creed on the day of the coronation of Shapur, the first Nisan 9, when the sun was in the constellation of Aries [Al-Fihrist..., 1930, p. 457]. It is noted in the literature that this date corresponds to either April 12, 240, or April 9, 243 [Richter-Bernburg, 1993, p. 78]. At the same time, we know from the "Chapters" (Kefalaya) of Mani himself that at the coronation of Shapur as king, he was not present, so

6 It is from this that we conclude that Nisan in the Arbelekah Chronicle refers to April, not Nisannu , the first month of the Babylonian year.

7 Note that, according to ad-Dinawari, on 1 Mihr, the Parthians only arrived at the place of battle (Ardashir and his army arrived earlier) [Al-Akhbar..., 1960, p. 42]. Thus, in order for the battle to take place on Mihr 1, the Parthians would have to attack directly from the march, without rest, which seems unlikely.

8 This refers to the lights sacred to the Zoroastrians.

9 In this case, we are talking about the Babylonian month of Nisannu.

page 35
as early as at the end of Ardashir's reign, he left to preach in the east, from where he returned only after the accession of a new monarch to the throne [Kefalaya..., 1998, p.65]. Ibn an-Nadim's account can only be explained if we assume that Mani is referring to the coronation of Shapur as co-ruler of Ardashir, which took place during the latter's lifetime [Annales..., 1964, p. 820]. It can be concluded that on April 12, 240, Ardashir, as Shahanshah, crowned Shapur as co-ruler to ensure the continuity of power. At this time, Mani was probably not far from the courtyard and considered the day of the ceremony the best time to start spreading his faith.

Here, however, we run into problems. If Ardashir, when he crowned Shapur on April 12, 240, reigned with him for some time, his reign lasted at least 15 years. The same can be inferred from the text of the Bishapur inscription: the difference between the first years of Ardashir and Shapur is 15-16 years. Meanwhile, in narrative sources, the time of Ardashir's reign varies from 14 years to 14 years and 10 months. You should also take into account the second of the above chronological instructions of the Mani. According to the "chronology of the Babylonian astrologers", the year 539 of the Seleucid era should have begun on March 26-27, 228. If we consider the date of birth of Mani on April 14, 216, this year he was 12, not 13 years old. Apparently, the assumption of S. H. Taqizadeh is correct, who, referring to Ibn an-Nadim (where the illumination descends on Mani when he was 12 years old), interpreted Biruni's instruction in the sense that 539 of the Seleucid era is the 13th year of the teacher's life [Taqizadeh and Henning, 1957, p. 108].

In the case of Ardashir's reign, this indication means that the first two years of his reign expired between the beginning and end of 539 AD Seleucid, i.e., between the end of March 228 and the middle of April 229. Going back two years (according to the Babylonian calendar), we conclude that the reign of Ardashir should have begun between the third decade of April 226 and the beginning of April 227, i.e., much later than the victory over Ardavan.

Although the indication of Mani does not correspond to other sources, it should hardly be considered erroneous. It is unlikely that a teacher of the faith who was a champion of righteousness could have allowed himself to indicate incorrect information about Ardashir in a treatise intended for his son. To explain this contradiction, we can only assume, together with S. H. Taqizadeh and W. B. Henning, that the terms of Ardashir's reign are counted from different events - from the victory over Ardavan and the announcement of his accession to the throne on the first day of the Zoroastrian year [Taqizadeh and Henning, 1957, p. 109]. For the period from April 226 to April 227, the Zoroastrian year began on October 1, 226.

The difference in reference points is interesting to compare with the above-mentioned difference in estimates of the duration of Ardashir's reign. In the sources, it is estimated differently: 14 years, 14 years and 6 months, 14 years and 10 months. The first of these estimates explicitly considers only full years and therefore cannot serve as a basis for calculations. The choice between the remaining ones is not easy, as both are backed up by reputable sources.10 Meanwhile, if we take October 1, 226, as the starting point, the Board of Directors

10 14 years and 6 months are mentioned by Ibn Qutaybah (his rendering of the Sassanid chronology is the earliest in Islamic literature) [Kitab al-m'arif..., 1960, p. 654], Eutychius of Alexandria [Eutychii..., 1906, p. 108] , and Hamzae Ispahanensis [Hamzae Ispahanensis..., 1844, p. 14]. According to Biruni, who relied on a more detailed list of al-Isfahani's works than the one that has come down to us, this chronology was compared according to the Avesta (apparently, according to the records of Zoroastrian scholars) and was the most reliable [Chronologie..., 1878, p.129]. In favor of 14 years and 10 months are the indications of Agathias of Mirinae (his transmission of the Sassanid chronology, the oldest extant, was based on the Persian palace annals and was considered very reliable; later it was reproduced by Sinkell [Agathiae Myrinaei..., 1828, p. 259; Georgii Syncelli..., 1984, p. 441], at-Tabari [Annates..., 1964, p. 821] and one medieval Zoroastrian scholar, mobed Bahram, son of Mardanshah, who, according to his own statement, used more than twenty lists of the Sasanian annals Khwadai-namak (Book of Lords) [Hamzae Ispahanensis..., 1844, p. 27; Chronologie..., 1878, P. 125].

page 36
Ardashir was supposed to end at the end of March 241 (if he reigned for 14 years and 6 months) or at the end of July 241 (if the reign lasted 14 years and 10 months). At-Tabari gives two estimates of the duration of Shapur's reign : 31 years, 6 months, and 19 days, and 30 years and 15 days [Annates..., 1964, p. 831] 11. If here, too, one period is counted from the actual arrival of the king to power, and the second-from the announcement of this on the first day of the Zoroastrian new year, then between these events - approximately one and a half years. Consequently, the accession of Shapur should have been announced in 242. According to the Zoroastrian calendar, the new year in 242 began on September 27, and the reign of Shapur (30 years and 15 days to one month) came to an end in October 272. If we deviate from this date by 31 years, 6 months and 19 days, we get to March 241. This is consistent with the conclusion that Ardashir's reign ended between April 240 and September 241. Moreover, if Shapur ascended the throne in March 241, the proposed date of the inscription - September-October (frawardin) 264 - would fall in the 24th year of his reign and in the 40th year from the beginning of his reign. the reign of Ardashir.

Based on the above, the chronology of Ardashir's reign can be reconstructed as follows: shortly before April 212 - the coming to power of the Parthian king Ardavan, April 27, 225-the victory of Ardashir over Ardavan, October 1, 226-the announcement of Ardashir's accession to the throne, April 12, 240-the coronation of Shapur as co-ruler of Ardashir, March 241 - end of Ardashir's reign.

This data can be updated. According to at-Tabari, who refers to Christians and scribes, Ardashir began the struggle for power in 523 AD of the Seleucid era [Annates..., 1964, p. 813]. If the Babylonian calendar is also used here, this year lasted from the beginning of the third decade of April 212 to the beginning of the second decade of April 213. At the same time, some authors point out that 12 years passed from the speech of Ardashir to the death of Ardavan [Histoire des Sassanides..., 1843, p. 176; Tarikh-i-Gardizi..., 1984/1985, p. 44]. It is not known what calendar is used here, but Ardashir's speech should be attributed closer to April 213. Thus, Ardashir spoke out against Ardavan about a year after the latter came to power. This conclusion is worth comparing with what we know about the state of affairs in Parthia. In an account of the reign of Antoninus Caracalla, Dion Cassius reports that after the death of King Vologases (Valakhsh V), a power struggle began between his sons Valakhshem VI and Ardavan, and the emperor believed that it was he who inspired the civil strife. The following is a retelling of the Emperor's message to the Senate about the events in Parthia. According to Antoninus, the civil strife must have caused considerable damage to the Parthian state [Dio Cassius, 1955, p. 306-307], which indicates the scope of the conflict. Note that this is another argument in favor of the chronology proposed above. Since Antoninus Caracalla came to power after the death of his father, Septimius Severus, on February 4, 211, Ardavan could hardly have ascended the throne as early as April 211, since then there is practically no time for a large-scale internecine war.

The civil strife ended with the division of the state. Under the rule of Valakhsh VI, the capital Seleucia fell, where coins with his name were minted for a long time [The Cambridge History of Iran..., 2006, p. 96]. But almost all other regions recognized the authority of Ardavan. According to al-Saalibi, he ruled Iraq, Fars, and all the lands from Media to Ray [Histoire des rois des Perses..., 1900, p. 473]. In the Book of Acts of Ardashir Papakan, we read that Ardavan's possessions included Isfahan and Fars [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 1 (pehl. text)]. This is confirmed by Ferdowsi, according to which Ardavan also ruled Shiraz [Ferdowsi's Shahname..., 1935,

11 The reference to 30 years and 15 days, however, is not indisputable. There are also estimates of 30 years and one month [Kitab al-m'arif..., 1960, p. 654], 30 years and one month without two days [Hamzae Ispahanensis..., 1844, p. 15]. Thus, when working with this data, you should allow an error of approximately one month.

page 37
p. 1923]. The power of Ardavan was recognized by the kings of Adiabene 12, Khuzestan 13, and the Caspian regions 14. Interestingly, no source claims that Ardavan also owned the capital city of Seleucia. The only clear reference to the capital of Ardavan is found in Mirkhond, who gives two different versions. According to one theory, Ardavan spent the summer in Isfahan, and the winter in Khuzestan, and according to another, its capital was Rey [Histoire des Sassanides..., 1843, p. 174]. Apparently, in the end, the brothers came to a compromise and divided their father's possessions. Valakhsh VI was given the capital cities, Ardavan-everything else. In fact, Ardavan received the lion's share of Parthian possessions, and it is not surprising that he remained in historical memory as the last representative of the Arsacid dynasty.

For the present study, the question of Ardavan's rule in Fars, the original Persian lands from which Ardashir originated, is of particular importance. Interesting information about this is found in at-Tabari, according to which " ... it is said that of all the Ashkanids, 15 he (Ardavan. - D. M.) had the greatest power, power, glory and dominion over the appanage rulers. He subdued the region of Istakhr, as it adjoined Isfahan, and then went to Gur 16 and other lands of Fars and finally took possession of them. Their kings obeyed him because the appanage rulers feared him" [Annales..., 1964, p. 709-710]; (compare [Histoire des rois des Perses..., 1900, p. 473; al-Kamil..., 1987, p. 227]). It is unlikely that al-Tabari's words refer to the time of Ardavan's reign: then the campaign should have taken place on the eve of Ardashir's speech and be included in the story about him. The Arbel Chronicle's report on the Persian revolt against the Parthian king Valakhsh IV suggests interesting reflections. The Persians, in alliance with the Medes, almost defeated the Parthians, who barely managed to fight back [Sources syriaques, 1907, p. 21 - 22]. It is noteworthy that the Chronicle does not mention the restoration of Parthian power in the Persian lands (the battle in question is transferred to Khorasan). It can be assumed that Ardavan's campaign was a counterattack by the Arsacids, who thus ended their opponents in Farce. In this case, Ardavan most likely acted on the orders of Valakhsh V.

Ardavan's campaign had more serious consequences than the restoration of formal Arsacid suzerainty in Fars. According to sources, it is clear that the Parthians tried to gain a foothold in the Persian lands. The Book of Acts reports that Ardavan made Istakhr his residence [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 1 (pehl. text)]. In the treatise " Cities of Iranshahr "(Shahrastakha-ye-Iranshahr) It is claimed that the founder of Istakhr was Ardavan, king of the Persians (Parsigan Shah) [Nyberg, 1964, p. 116]. If this is true, Ardavan, having subdued the Persian lands, was considered their king, occupying the position of "viceroy" in relation to Wallachsh V. Subsequently, such a system of governance was also used by Ardashir, who appointed members of a kind as kings of subordinate regions and peoples. Information about Istakhr cannot, of course, be taken literally. In all likelihood, we are talking about the fact that the city was rebuilt to serve as the residence of Ardavan. It is not difficult to imagine that Ardavan did not come to Istakhr alone; he had to be accompanied by the court, the army, officials, etc. The presence of the Parthians was noticeable. However, it was most likely not about the rigid Sasanian policy, which assumed the complete destruction of the resisting elites. Judging by that,

12 This is clearly indicated by the fact that Antoninus Caracalla, starting a campaign against Ardavan, captured the capital of Adiabene - Arbela (see below). Adiabena, therefore, was regarded as a possession of Ardavan.

13 This is indicated by the bas-relief of the Khuzestan ruler Nargehufar, dated 221, where he receives a ring (investiture for the kingdom) from Ardavan (Pigulevskaya, 1956, p.153).

14 As will be shown later, Ardavan brought in troops from Dalem and Padahshwargar to fight Ardashir.

15 This refers to the Arsacids.

16 Now-Firuzabad. Since the city was rebuilt by Ardashir (see below), this reference is an obvious anachronism.

page 38
that by the beginning of Ardashir's speech in Istakhra, a representative of the local gens ruled 17, the Parthians left the appanage rulers of Fars in their places. The latter, however, were subordinate to Ardavan and were dependent on him. As we will see later, the local king could only appoint a successor with Ardavan's approval.

A return to submission to the Parthians and fear of their power were hardly acceptable to the Persian nobility. But it is not entirely legitimate to assume that Ardashir's speech was an expression of her desire to free herself from the power of the Parthians. The best moment for the uprising was during the civil strife, when the Parthian forces were dispersed. However, the stories of Ardashir and his father Papak's performance start from the time when Ardavan was already in power. Papak's actions, we note, deserve separate consideration. Judging by at-Tabari's account, Papak was ready for a power struggle. After receiving a letter from Ardashir admonishing him to oppose the Istahr ruler Gucihr, he did so. Gucihr was killed, and his crown became Papak's trophy. But then Papak wrote to Ardavan, asking permission to appoint his son Shapur as co - ruler (and consequently successor) [Annates..., 1964, p. 815 - 816]. Papakus ' aspirations thus went no further than to defeat his opponents among the Persian nobility and establish a new dynasty under the rule of the Arsacids. But Ardavan condemned Papak's actions, after which the confrontation began. Papak died soon after, but Shapur continued his father's line. On his coins, he was depicted on one side, on the other - Papak; legend has it: "God Shapur, king, son of god Papak, king "[Herzfeld, 1924, p. 36]. Ardavan's refusal to approve the appointment of Shapur as Papak's successor was thus ignored, and the new dynasty began to establish itself independently of the Parthians. Ardashir took a direct part in these events. While still in his youth in the service of the governor of Darabgerd, he advanced and after the latter's death took possession of the city. After subjugating some of the neighboring districts, Ardashir wrote to his father, urging him to move against Gucihr. Ardashir considered only himself the legitimate successor of Papak; after the accession of Shapur, a conflict broke out between the brothers, which resulted in an armed confrontation. In the end, Shapur's brothers, dissatisfied with his elevation (he was not the eldest son of Papak), overthrew him and transferred power to Ardashir. He was crowned king and began to mint coins that resembled Shapur's coins. The image of Papak remained on one side, but Ardashir was already on the other (Mordtmann, 1853, pp. 29-30; Valentine, 1921, p. 34).

Thus, in Fars, an independent state began to form, which by the very fact of its existence challenged the Parthians. Moreover, under the rule of Ardashir came Istakhr - until recently the center of Parthian influence in the Persian lands. Ardavan could not help but react, but sources differ in the description of his actions. According to al-Saalibi, Ardavan, after Papak's death, appointed his own son as the ruler of Istakhr-contrary to the hopes of Ardashir, who sought to succeed his father. 18 Ardavan's son entered Istakhr, but Ardashir, with the help of loyal people, managed to expel him, and he returned to his father [Histoire des rois des Perses..., 1900, p. 476 - 478]. The motif of Ardashir's clash with Ardavan's son is also found in the Book of Acts and the Shahnameh. According to them, after Ardashir fled from the court of Ardavan, the latter sent a son against him, who is called Bahman by Ferdowsi. Ardashir gathered loyal men and defeated Bahman's detachment, which, having received several wounds, fled [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 16-18 (pehl. text); Ferdowsi's Shahname..., 1935, p. 1937- 1941]. Although all these sources belong to the legendary tradition, there is reason to believe that they contain a rational grain. It is likely that Ardavan, when he ascended the throne, appointed his son "king of the Persians". The previous system was reproduced.-

17 Ardashira's grandmother, Rambehesht, belonged to this genus (Annates..., 1964, p. 814).

18 It should be borne in mind that al-Saalibi adheres to the Persian legendary tradition that Papak was the viceroy of the Parthian kings in Fars.

page 39
In which Ardavan was "king of the Persians" under his father Valakhsh V. Judging by the fact that sources do not report on the restoration of Parthian power in Istakhra, the campaign of Ardavan's son ended in failure.

To understand the further course of events, it is worth comparing the information of the Persian legendary tradition recorded in the Book of Acts, the Shahnameh, the treatise of al-Saalibi and the narration of at-Tabari. In the Book of Acts, the sequence of events is as follows: the victory of Ardashir over the son of Ardavan and the strengthening in Istakhr-the submission of Kerman, Mekran and Fars - the final triumph in the confrontation with Ardavan - the struggle with the appanage rulers (Haftanbut, Mihrak, etc.). [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 18 (pehl text)]. At-Tabari's account is very similar: after being established in Istakhr, Ardashir subdues Kerman, and then the coastal regions, where he is opposed, in particular, by the same Haftanbut 19 and Mihrak, and then the struggle with Ardavan begins [Annales..., 1964, p. 817]. The obvious similarity shows that it is wrong to consider the legendary tradition unreliable. The account in the Book of Acts is a compilation of two storylines: the general story of Ardashir, which ends with the victory over Ardavan, and the story of the king's adventures in Kerman and Fars, which is mechanically attached to its end, and this latter is much more detailed. Apparently, the Book of Acts is based on the stories of scholars from Fars, who knew only the main milestones of the struggle against Ardavan, but kept traditions about local events.

With the help of concessions, Ardavan ended the war, but later the conflict resumed. The reason was Ardavan's refusal to marry Antonin's daughter. According to Herodian, Ardavan eventually agreed, but when the wedding was arranged, the Romans suddenly attacked the unsuspecting Parthians and began to beat them; the king miraculously managed to escape [Herodiani..., 1855, p. 116-117]. Dion Cassius does not have this episode, but all sources agree that war broke out after that. In 216 AD, Roman troops invaded Adiabene, where a Parthian king ruled, and captured its capital, Arbela.20
The Parthians retreated east into the mountains. Apparently, their generals did not aim to protect Seleucia, which was under the rule of Valakhsh VI, but Rei, which, as we have seen from some sources, was the capital of Ardavan. The king himself soon gathered an army and moved against the enemy, but Antoninus, having learned about this, retreated. The following year, Antoninus intended to undertake a new campaign, but was killed in an assassination attempt (April 6, 217). After that, Ardavan went on the offensive and, together with the king of Adiabene, Shahrat, invaded the Roman possessions. Near Nisibin, a battle took place between the troops of Ardavan and Antoninus ' successor, the Emperor Macrinus. Under the pressure of the Parthians, the Romans retreated, although they did not allow the enemy to enter the camp. In the sources, this battle is considered a victory for the Parthians, but Ardavan's army was so battered that he could not continue the war [Herodiani..., 1855, p. 125] and, satisfied with the contribution, retreated.

The temporary absence of a Parthian threat gave Ardashir an opportunity to consolidate his power. He defeated the alleged conspiracy of the brothers and suppressed the uprising in Darabgerd. In both cases, Ardashir acted very cruelly, destroying all those in whom he saw opponents. Obviously, the situation was such that Ardashir's autocracy could still be called into question. After gaining a foothold in Istakhr, Ardashir began to expand the borders of his possessions, acting both by force and through diplomacy. Before the beginning of active operations, he wrote to the appanage kings, offering patronage and alliance 21. But not all rulers are good-

19 At-Tabari has this name in the form Abtanbud.

20 Erbil.

21 Fragments that were considered excerpts from such letters in the Muslim era are given by Ibn Qutaybah and some later compilers [Kitab al-m'arif..., 1960, p. 653; Al-Muntazam..., 1992, p. 80; Nihayat al-Arab..., 2004, p.131]. The widespread use of the vocabulary of Islamic times in them shows that they have been reworked. As sources, they represent a separate object of research.

page 40
They were heading for Ardashir. Persian legendary tradition shows that some appanage rulers waged a stubborn struggle against him. The epithets they receive in the sources - "worm" (karm) or "shifter" (vartak-ruvan) - indicate the hatred of Ardashir's supporters for them and, accordingly, the danger that they represented as opponents. The Book of Acts tells how Ardashir suffered defeats and was forced to save himself [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 19, 21, 25 (pehl. text)]. At one of these difficult moments, Mihrak, the ruler of the city of Jahrom, who had initially been an ally of Ardashir, turned against him, captured the capital and seized the treasury. But in the end, Ardashir prevailed. Medieval authors are so fond of adventurous details of the struggle that it is difficult to identify the reasons for Ardashir's victory based on their stories. Apparently, we should pay tribute to Ardashir's military and political abilities, his ability to attract allies and find a way out of difficult situations. In any case, this is exactly the image of Ardashir formed by the Persian legendary tradition. After defeating Mihrak, Ardashir, according to at-Tabari, moved to the area of Gur and founded a city there [Annales..., 1964, p. 817], called Ardashir-horre. In eastern geography, one can find the statement that the new city was built in the image and likeness of Darabgerd , the first residence of Ardashir [Compendium..., 1967, p. 198]. Judging by the descriptions of Gur in medieval geographical works, Ardashir built the city in order to feel safe from both external and internal enemies. The city was surrounded by a fortress wall. In the center was a fortified palace, built so that from its top you could see everything that was happening in the city and its suburbs. A special aqueduct provided water supply so that it reached the top of the palace [Viae regnorum..., 1927, p. 124; Yaqut..., 1956, p. 181]. After completing the construction, Ardashir moved his capital to Gur [Viae regnorum..., 1927, p. 123]. There were taken the trophies taken in the fight against the appanage rulers [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 36 (pehl. text)]. The foundation of the new capital marked the establishment of Ardashir's authority over at least part of the territory of Fars. It was possible to carry out construction only without fear of an attack and with money and troops to keep the people who were driven to work. All this could only appear after defeating the opponents. Some of the details of the capital gave away Ardashir's far-reaching aspirations. Of the four gates of the city, three bore the names of Zoroastrian deities - Mithra, Varahran (Bahram) and Hormuzd, but the fourth was named after Ardashir [Viae regnorum..., 1927, p. 124]. The latter was thus placed on a par with the most revered deities. Based on the names chosen from the vast Zoroastrian pantheon, one can infer Ardashir's priorities: worship of higher powers (Hormuzd), loyalty to the alliance with friends (Mitra), and unbreakable power in the fight against enemies (Varahran).

Other data also indicate the growth of Ardashir's ambitions. According to a legend quoted by Hamza al-Isfahani, after Ardashir was confirmed in Fars, Zoroastrian clerics told him that a powerful centralized state was needed to strengthen the religion. From this conversation, Ardashir concluded that he must unite the country [Hamzae Ispahanensis..., 1844, p. 44-45]. At least two things seem realistic here. Ardashir, who strengthened the Zoroastrian foundations and increased the role of the clergy in society, undoubtedly enjoyed the support of the Mobeds; they, in turn, wanted to extend this state of affairs to the whole of Iran. At the same time, Ardashir, having achieved success in the Farce, could well consider himself able to annex other areas.

Ardashir's actions were undoubtedly observed by Ardavan, who reappears in the sources at this stage. This is easy to explain: while Ardashir was not always successful in fighting in Farce, the Parthians hardly saw him as a threat. But when Ardashir established himself in Fars and approached Khuzestan and Isfahan (where, according to Mirkhond, Ardavan visited), the Parthian king realized that he had to act. According to

page 41
at-Tabari, Ardavan sent a letter to Ardashir, in which he condemned him for subjugating Fars and Kerman and building a new city, and said that he had sent the ruler of Khuzestan against him. 22 Ardashir accepted the challenge. His reply letter, according to the same source, was no less harsh [Annates..., 1964, p. 818; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/1963, p.881]. This report is indirectly confirmed by another source - the Greek text of the history of Agathangelus 23. According to it, Ardashir sent envoys to Ardavan, who condemned the latter's abuses [Agathangelos, 1762, p. 322].

What made Ardashir so confident? As a rule, the answer to this question is given by assessing the potential of political and social forces that supported a particular figure. It is not easy to do this in relation to Ardashir. It would seem logical to see his support in the Persian nobility. This motif can be seen in the Greek Agathangelos, where Ardashir's speech begins with his appeal to the Persian nobility, whom he calls to fight the Parthians (Agathangelos, 1762, p. 321). But medieval Armenian authors tend to see these events as a struggle of" their own "- Armenians and Parthians-against "strangers" - Persians, who, naturally, appear as Ardashir's allies. But, as we have seen, even among Ardashir's relatives, the Parthian attitude to power was ambiguous. Some Persian nobles remained with Ardavan even at the beginning of his confrontation with Ardashir, as described in the same "Greek Agathangelos" [Agathangelos, 1762, p. 322]. Rather, Ardashir relied on a wide variety of people who joined him of their own free will - not least because of dissatisfaction with the power of the Parthians. According to the Book of Acts, Ardashir was followed by those who had been wronged by the Parthians [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 16 (pehl. text)]. In the same source, we find the story of a certain Bunak who fled from Ardavan, and then with his sons and army joined Ardashir and swore allegiance to him [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 16 - 17 (пехл. text)]24.

The ruler of Khuzestan intended to take Ardashir-khorre - this goal, most likely, was set by Ardavan, outraged by the construction of the city. Forces were needed to repel an attack, but Ardashir did not have them. According to Herodian, even when Ardashir had already united Iran under his rule, the Persians did not have a permanent army: the army was assembled at the special call of the tsar [Herodiani..., 1855, p. 152]. In this situation, Ardashir retreated to a quiet place to gather his army. Leaving his closest associate Abursam 25 in Gur, he headed for Istahr. Preparations for war were interrupted by a report from Gur: Nargehufar was defeated under the walls of the capital and retreated. Meanwhile, the army was assembled, and Ardashir's followers were eager for victory and plunder. Ardashir could not disband the army: he had to be a victorious leader, whose servants were enriched with trophies. We needed a hike, and this is exactly what we see in the sources. Ardashir attacked Isfahan and won, the local ruler Shad-Shapur was captured and executed. Building on his success, Ardashir launched a war against Nargehufar. And in this case, the reconstruction of events is problematic, since even in sources belonging to the same tradition, there are some exceptions.-

22 At-Tabari and his Persian translator Balami quote excerpts from this letter, and their texts differ greatly [Annates..., 1964, p. 817; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/1963, pp. 880-881]. Textual analysis of these passages is not part of the subject of this work, but they seem to accurately convey the general direction of the letter. In any case, Ardashir, as will be shown below, really had to fight with Nargehufar.

23 Next, " the Greek Agathangelos."

24 A very similar story is found in Shah nam, although the name of the person in question is spelled T. bak [Ferdowsi's Shahname..., 1935, p. 1939 et al.]. But the details reported (T. bak is initially in the camp of Ardavan's son, but then flees to Ardashir; he accepts its wary, fearing treason, but then suspicions are dispelled) definitely in favor of the identity of these characters. At the same time, in the Arabic-Persian graphics, the spellings of B. nak and T. bak differ only by a few points. Apparently, there is an error in the New Persian text that should be corrected with the help of a conjecture.

25 We are talking about Abursam Ardashir-farr, mentioned in the inscription of Shapur I in Naqsh-i-Rustam [Maricq, 1958, p. 322-324].

page 42
there are discrepancies. At-Tabari tells about two campaigns, Balami - about one, and their descriptions differ. Comparing this information, we can conclude that Ardashir's army, after passing through Arrajan 26, reached Ramhurmuz and reached the middle course of the Karun River. Al-Tabari does not mention any fighting, but his silence is made up by Balami's statement that Nargehufar had fled [Annates..., 1964, p. 818; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/1963, p. 881-82]. On the Karun River, Ardashir ordered the construction of a new city 27, which in Arabic-language sources is called Suk al-Ahvaz (market of Ahvaz, i.e. Khuzestan)28. The construction of a new city on the borders of Khuzestan clearly indicated Ardashir's desire to gain a foothold there. According to Balami, Ardashir left a large garrison in the city and ordered the governor to complete the construction (Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/1963, p. 882). He himself returned to Fars, but soon began a new campaign to the east. The goal of the campaign was the land of Mesena (Meysan), located to the west of Khuzestan. Events developed in the same way as in other areas. Ardashir defeated the local ruler Bindoy, and then founded a new city - Astarabad-Ardashir, better known as Karh Maysan.

In the description of the war between Ardashir and Ardavan, sources differ. Dion Cassius and the Greek Agathangelus report that there were only three battles [Agathangelos, 1762, p. 322-323; Dio Cassius, 1955, p. 482-483]. Muslim sources, regardless of whether they are based on the story of at-Tabari or on a legendary tradition, speak of only one battle. According to at-Tabari, after Mesena's submission, Ardashir sent envoys to Ardavan, challenging him to battle. Ardavan accepted the challenge, and the opponents set the time of battle - the last day of the Zoroastrian month of Mihr [Annates..., 1964, p. 818; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/1963, p. 882] 30. At-Tabari immediately speaks of the end of the confrontation, omitting its initial stages. They can be reconstructed according to the "Greek Agathangelos", according to which the war went on intermittently and lasted about a year (Agathangelos, 1762, p. 323). Thus, the chronology of events is as follows: between April 221 and April 224 - the victory of Ardashir over Nargehufar, the subjugation of Khuzestan and Mesena, April 224 - April 225 - the war with Ardavan.

The break in the war apparently occurred in the winter, when active combat operations were usually not conducted. Judging by the fact that in the historical memory, imprinted and at-Taba-

26 North of present-day Behbehan (Fars).

27 This is obviously how at-Tabari says that Ardashir built Suk al-Ahvaz (Annates..., 1964, p. 818). In the inscription of Shapur I in Naqsh-i-Rustam, we read that it was he who gave the city the name Khormuzd-Ardashir [Maricq, 1958, p. 306-307]. If Ardashir did not give the city a name, it is safe to assume that he did not build it; we are talking about the accomplishment of Shapur. The name of a city can be explained in different ways. It can be assumed that the city was built in honor of Shapur's son and heir, Hormuzd-Ardashir, who appears in this inscription [Maricq, 1958, p. 316-319]. However, usually the name of a city did not completely coincide with the name of the person after whom it was named. According to the geographer al-Muqaddasi, Shapur built the city from two parts (apparently those mentioned by al-Isfahani-see trace. note) and gave it a name consisting of the name of the god Hormuzd and his own name [Descriptio..., 1877, p. 406]. But the name of the city contains the name of Ardashir, not Shapur. Thus, the words of al-Muqaddasi should be interpreted in the sense that the name of the city combined the names of the Zoroastrian god and the reigning monarch. This means that Shapur supervised the construction of the city during the reign of Ardashir and may have been the governor Balami tells us about. Strictly speaking, it is illegal to directly link this with the time described: Shapur could have completed the construction of the city later. However, the idea that the construction of the city was entrusted to Shapur cannot be dismissed. Judging by Kerman and some other regions, Ardashir placed his relatives as" viceroys " of subordinate lands. Shapur, who later played an important role in the struggle against Ardavan and could carry out responsible assignments, was an ideal candidate for the administration of Khuzestan.

28 An adjustment is needed here: according to Hamza al-Isfahani, under the Sassanids, the city consisted of two parts. One, intended for the nobility, was called Khormuzd-Ardashir, and the other, where merchants settled , was Khuzestan-vachar, i.e. the market of Khuzestan [Hamzae Ispahanensis..., 1844, p. 47].

29 In modern literature, this city is identified with Jabal Khayabir in the lower Tigris River (Hansman, 1967, p. 21-58).

30 For the date of the battle, see above.

page 43
the last battle of Ri, and in the Persian legendary tradition only the last battle remains, we can assume that it was separated in time from the rest. Thus, it is most logical to assume that the first two battles took place in 224, and the third, decisive, in the following year. Some details of this war can be reconstructed from sources. The most original version of ad-Dinawari, according to which in the decisive battle Ardashir was opposed not by Ardavan, but by his son Farrokhan [Al-Akhbar..., 1960, p. 42]. That Ardavan should put his son at the head of the army seems quite possible. The Greek Agathangelos, the main source of these events, indicates Ardavan's participation in only two battles - the second and third. If both sources are true, Ardavan responded to Ardashir's letter by sending an army under Farrokhan's command against him. The battle took place with heavy losses for both sides (judging by the text of ad-Dinawari, Farrokhan himself was killed), but it did not bring an advantage to anyone. After that, Ardavan himself marched against Ardashir. Despite the presence of the king, the battle did not develop in favor of the Parthians. At some point, Ardavan took to flight, although he later returned to the battlefield (Agathangelos, 1762, p. 323).

With the arrival of winter, the war took a break. But an important process was going on behind the scenes, related to the change in the mood of the Iranian nobility. We have seen that originally some of the Persian nobles were with Ardavan. But the more confidently Ardashir fought against the Parthians, the more attractive his patronage of the Persian nobles seemed. They began to go over to the side of Ardashir [Agathangelos, 1762, p. 322-323]. The latter, according to the Armenian text of Agathangelus, entered "into collusion with the Persian army, which abandoned, abandoned, rejected and neglected the power of the Parthians and gladly gave preference to the rule of Artashir, son of Sasan" (Agathangelos, 2004, p. 29; cf.Deux historiens..., 1870, p. 249). This information is consistent with the Book of Acts ' report that Ardavan called in troops from Rey, Demavend, Dalem, and Padahshwargar for the decisive battle [The Karnamak..., 1950, p. 18 (pehl. text)]. Apparently, by the spring of 225, Ardavan had already lost the support of the Persian nobility and could only rely on troops from the northern regions of his kingdom.

Mesopotamia and Media are not included in the list of areas that supported Ardavan. Apparently, by that time, the rulers of these lands had also gone over to the side of Ardashir. According to the Arbel Chronicle, the Persians and Medes formed an alliance with the kings of Adiabene and Karkhi-z-Bet-Slokh 31 - Shahrat and Domitian; in the spring they marched against the Parthians [Sources syriaques..., 1907, p. 28-29] 32. It is noteworthy that the Parthians were not able to prevent this rapprochement. Even the king of Adiabene, who had previously participated in Ardavan's campaigns against the Romans, took the side of Ardashir. But not so long ago, after the success of Ardavan in Mesopotamia, the Parthian position in the region was very strong33. This change is best explained by the fact that in the course of the campaigns of 224, Ardashir's forces moved north and reached the borders of Media and Mesopotamia, which made diplomatic contacts possible. The sources do not indicate territorial changes, but it is clear that the Parthians lost both Media and Mesopotamia.

In the spring of 225, the opponents, having gathered their troops, moved towards each other. By agreement, the battle was to take place in the deserted place of Hormuzdagan. Information that allows at least approximately localizing it is found only in the treatise of an unknown author "Collection of Stories and Stories" (Mujmal at-tawarih wa-l-kisas), where it is reported that the battle took place near Nehavend, since Ardavan was located there [Mudjmal..., 2000, p.51]. This corresponds to lime-

31 Now-Kirkuk.

32 Similar information is provided by al-Tabari, according to which one of the kings of Iraq named Bab i.e. Pap, who initially sided with Ardavan, agreed with Ardashir and withdrew from the war [Annales..., 1964, p. 821].

33 According to the same Arbelian Chronicle, during this period the Parthians "were strong, behaved proudly and boasted" [Sources syriaques..., 1907, p. 28].

page 44
yam about Ardashir's actions after the victory. According to ad-Dinawari, Ardashir moved to Nekhavend [Al-Akhbar..., 1960, p. 42], and according to at-Tabari, to Hamadan, i.e. further north [Annales..., 1964, p.819; Tarikh - i-Balami, 1962/1963, p. 883]34. Thus, the location of the battle should be found in the Nehavend area. Ardashir's army was the first to arrive on the battlefield. Stopping at a spring of water, Ardashir ordered to set up a camp and surround it with a moat. The camp became a fortress where you could wait for the enemy. In addition, the Parthians, having no water source, had to attack, which gave the Persians the advantage of the defending side.

In the decisive battle, Ardashir won. Sources emphasize the role of Shapur. He personally hacked down Dar-Vindad, who appears in at-Tabari as a scribe, and in Balami as the vizier of 35 Ardavan [Annates..., 1964, p. 819; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/1963, p. 882]. The Parthian king fled, but was captured and brought to Ardashir. In the description of this episode, the official Sasanian history diverges from the traditions. In the Firuzabad relief, Ardashir, wearing a Persian crown, knocks the Parthian king out of the saddle with a spear. Nearby, Shapur, who can be recognized by his distinctive curls, captures another Parthian horseman, grabbing him by the neck with his hand. But the legend that has come down to us in Shah-nam gives a different picture: Ardavan was captured by a warrior named Khurrad, who led him to Ardashir, and the latter saw them from afar. Then Ardavan was executed in front of Ardashir and the nobility [Ferdowsi's Shahname..., 1935, p. 1942-1943]. But in any case, the decisive victory was won. Having thus dealt with the main enemy, he assumed the title of King of kings (shahanshah). The time for the establishment of the Sasanian state began.

list of literature

Agathengelos. History of Armenia. Yerevan: Nairi Publ., 2004.

Videngren, G. Mani and Manichaeism, St. Petersburg: Evraziya Publ., 2001.
Kefalaia ("Chapters"), Moscow, 1998.
Pigulevskaya N. Goroda Irana v rannem srednevekovie [Cities of Iran in the Early Middle Ages], Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956.

Agathangelos. Acta SS. Gregorii ep., Ripsimes V. et soc. MM. // Acta Sanctorum Septembris. Antverpen, 1762.

Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque. Bonn, 1828.

Annates quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir at-Tabari. Prima series, II. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964.

Christensen A. L'Iran sous les Sassanides. Copenhague: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1944.

Chronique de Michel le Syrien. T. 1. Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation, 1963.

Chronologie orientalischer Völker von Albêrûnî. Leipzig, 1878.

Compendium libri Kitâb al-Boldân auctore Ibn al-Fakîh al-Hamadhânî. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967.

Descriptio imperii moslemici auctore al-Mokaddasi. Lugduni Batavorum, 1877.

Deux historiens armeniens. Kirakos de Gantzac, XIIIeme s., Histoire d'Arménie; Oukhtanès d'Ourha, Xe s., Histoire en trois parties. St. -Pétersbourg, 1870.

Dio Cassius. Roman History. Vol. IX. L.: William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales. Pars prior. Beirut-P., 1906.

Ferdowsi's Shahname. 7th vol. Teheran: Beroukhim, 1935.

Gagé J. La montée des Sassanides et I'heure de Palmyre. P.: Albin Michel, 1964.

Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chronographica. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1984.

Hamzae Ispahanensis Annalium libri X. T. I. St. Petersburg-Leipzig, 1844.

Hansman J. Charax and the Karkheh // Iranica Antiqua. VII, 1967.

Herodiani ab excessu divi Marci libri octo. Leipzig, 1855.

Herzfeld E. Paikuli. Monument and Inscription of the Early History of the Sasanian Empire. B.: Dietrich Reimer / Ernst Vohsen, 1924.

Kitâb al-mâ' arif d'Ibn Qutayba. Le Caire: Ministere de la culture et de l'éducation nationale, 1960.

Kitáb at-Tanbih wa 'l-Ishráf auctore al-Masúdi. Lugduni Batavorum, 1894.

Maricq A. Classica et orientalia. 5. Res gestae divi Saporis // Syria. 1958. Vol. 35, No. 3.

34 This correspondence of these sources forces us to reject the only alternative localization of the battle - the Ray area [The Ta'rikh-i-Guzida, 1910, p. 104 (Persian, text)]. Apparently, Ardashir moved to Rhea, the stronghold of the Arsacids, from Hamadan.

35 This form is, of course, Arabized. The original Parthian form is not reported.

page 45
Histoire des rois des Perses par Aboû Mansoûr 'Abd al-Malik Ibn Mohammad lbn Ismâ'il al-Tha'âlibi. P., 1900.

Histoire des Sassanidespar Mirkhond. P., 1843.

Mordtmann A.D. Erklärung der Münzen mit Pehlvi-Legenden. Leipzig, 1853.

Mudjmal at-tawārikh wa-l-qisas. Einepersische Geschichte ays dem 12 Jahrhundert. Edingen-Neckarhausen: Deux Mondes, 2000.

Nyberg H.S. A Manual of Pahlavi. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964. P. I.

Richter-Bernburg L. Mani's Dodecads and Sasanian Chronology: Kephalaia, Shāpuragān and Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis // Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. No. 95. 1993.

Sources syriaques. Vol. I. Leipzig, 1907.

Syriac Chronicles. Chronica minora III. Baghdad: Iraqi Academy, 1983.

Taqizadeh S.H., Henning W.B. The Dates of Mani's Life II Asia Major. 1957. No. 6.

The Book of Creation and History by Motahhar b. Tahir al-Maqdisi. Vol. 3. Teheran: M.H. Asadi, 1962.

The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3(1). The Seleucid, Partian and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge: University Press, 2006.

The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon. Inv. Nr. 4780) "Concerning the Origins of the Body". S. 1.: Scholars Press, 1979.

The Karnamak i Artakhshir i Papakan. Tehran: Danesh, 1950.

The Ta'rikh-i - Guztda or "Select History" of Hamidu' Uah Mustawfi-i - Qazwini. Vol. I. London-Leyden, 1910.

Valentine A. Sassanian Coins. L.: Spink & Son. Ltd., 1921.

Viae regnorum. Descriptio ditionis moslemicae auctore Abu Ishák al-Fárisi al-Istakhri. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1927.

Yāqut al-Ruml. Mu'djam al-Buldān. Tome II. Beyrouth: Dar Sader, Dar Beyrouth, 1956.

Al-Akhbar at-Tival. Taalif ... ad-Dinawari (Long messages. Essay... ad-Dinawari). Cairo: Vizarat al-saqafa wa-l-irshad al-qaumi, al-Idara al-amma li-s-saqafa, 1960.

Al-Kamil fi-t-Tarikh li ... Ibn al-Asir (A perfect history ... Ibn al-Asira). Vol. 1. Beirut: Dar al-Qutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1987.

Al-Muntazam fi Tarikh al-Muluk wa-l-Umam li ... Ibn al-Jawzi (An ordered History of Kings and Peoples... Ibn al-Jawzi). Part 2. Beirut: Dar al-qutub al-ilmiyyah, 1992.

Нихайат ал-Араб фи Фунун ал-Адаб Таалиф... an-Nuwayri (The limit of desires in the Arts of Literature. Essay... 15. Beirut: Dar al-qutub al-ilmiyyah, 2004.
Табакат-и-насири Таалиф... Qadi Minhaj Siraj (Nasir ranks. Essay... judges of Minhaj Siraj). Vol. 1. Kabul: Anjoman-i-tarikh-i-Afghanistan, 1342 AH (1963/1964).

Tarikh-i-Balami (History of Balami). Tehran: Chapkhane-i-daneshkida, 1341 AD (1962/1963).

Tarikh-i-Gardizi (History of Gardizi). Tehran: Donya-i-kitab, 1363 AH (1984/1985).

Al-Fihrist li Ibn an-Nadim (Catalog of Ibn an-Nadim). Cairo: Al-Matbaa ar-rahmaniyyah, 1930.

page 46


© library.kg

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.kg/m/articles/view/EARLY-YEARS-OF-ARDASHIR-PAPAKAN-S-REIGN

Similar publications: LKyrgyzstan LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Elmira IsmailovaContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.kg/Ismailova

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

D. E. MISHIN, EARLY YEARS OF ARDASHIR PAPAKAN'S REIGN // Bishkek: Library of Kyrgyzstan (LIBRARY.KG). Updated: 06.12.2024. URL: https://library.kg/m/articles/view/EARLY-YEARS-OF-ARDASHIR-PAPAKAN-S-REIGN (date of access: 09.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - D. E. MISHIN:

D. E. MISHIN → other publications, search: Libmonster KyrgyzstanLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Elmira Ismailova
Бишкек, Kyrgyzstan
70 views rating
06.12.2024 (65 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
METHODOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS OF HISTORY
8 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
CREATING A VSHV
10 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
TANKOGRAD
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
V. M. KURITSYN. DEVELOPMENT OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN THE SOVIET STATE
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
MOSKOVSKIE PISHCHEVIKI - TO THE FRONT
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
THE RUSSIAN BOURGEOISIE OF THE IMPERIALIST PERIOD IN MODERN AMERICAN AND ENGLISH HISTORIOGRAPHY
11 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
DISCUSSION OF BOOKS IN THE "HISTORY OF THE SOVIET WORKING CLASS"SERIES
Catalog: История 
15 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
Towards the XXVII Congress of the CPSU CHANGES IN THE SOCIAL AND CLASS STRUCTURE OF THE UKRAINIAN SSR AND DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES AT THE STAGE OF DEVELOPED SOCIALISM
Catalog: История 
15 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
SIBERIAN PEASANTRY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM (1917-1937)
16 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov
ORGANIZED CRIME AND YOUTH
17 days ago · From Zamir Sulaymanov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.KG - Digital Library of Kyrgyzstan

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

EARLY YEARS OF ARDASHIR PAPAKAN'S REIGN
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: KG LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Kyrgyzstan ® All rights reserved.
2023-2025, LIBRARY.KG is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Kyrgyzstan


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android