The Last Sasanian Strive

Posted on by Priya Chaturvedi

The downfall of the mighty ancient Persia under the Islamic onslaught was one of the most catastrophic events of history. There seems to be a popular perception about the ancient Persian civilization that after the victory of the Arabic forces over the House of Sasan and death of the Sasanian Emperor Yazdegerd III (r. 632-651 CE), the way was smooth for the invaders and there were no attempts by the Persians for retrieving their lost empire. However, this is a fallacy. There were many bids both from within the empire and outside it to capture the lost dominions and this post is an attempt to clarify the myth and reiterate what various historians and scholars have to say in this regard. This post traces the activities of scions of the House of Sasan outside Persia i.e. in Central Asia and China and the last strive to recapture their lands and prove their authority.

Table of Contents & Links

A scenic view of the region of Balkh, part of the ancient Tukhāristān, now in Afghānistān.

Background

§ Yazdegerd III: The Last King

After the successful Syrian expeditions, the even more tempting expeditions against the Iranian Empire were becoming the focus for the Arabs. The battle of Dhū-Qār (Dhi Qar) — tentatively dated to have been fought sometime between c. 604-611 — demonstrated that regular troops like those of Persians could be defeated under impetuous charges of the Arabs.1 The onslaught continued and the two decisive battles – the battle of Qadisiyyah (637 CE) and the battle of Nihāwand (641 CE) marked the end of the Sasanian dynasty.2 The end still might not have been so imminent had it not been for the death of the emperor Yazdegerd in 651 CE in Merv. After the defeat in the the battle of Nihāwand (641 CE), the king of kings was on a mission, from one district to another to seek help and alliance with many rulers. He was in Persis trying to do the same when Arabs captured it and he had to flee to the eastern parts.

Marking his way from Kerman and Sīstān to the Xwarāsān (Khurāsan) in c. 650, he had planned to seek the alliance of nobles and the marzbāns (margraves or military governors i.e. warden of the marches – in charge of the border provinces of the Sasanian Empire) as his last line of defence3 but that proved to be an uphill task. The hostility of the heads due to the fear of a challenge to their authority along with the stubborn and thickheaded attitude of Yazdegerd contributed to this failure. This might have been due to his age also as he was a young man of around twenty six years and the inexperience might have contributed to his attitude.4 For example – when he went to Sīstān, as per Balādhurī, he asked for the overdue tribute which miffed its governor.5

After such unsuccessful attempts and rather sad state of affairs, he reached Xwarāsān where he was apparently accompanied by Farruxzād (Farrukhzād), the brother of Rustam the commander of Qadisiyya army. Farruxzād after the death of Rustam had himself became the commander of the Persian army. Ṯaʿālibī tells us that the ruling Kunārang of Tūs refused to help them saying that the royal entourage was too much for him to accommodate and sent him away after giving some gifts (Pashazanous & Afkande, 2014). The end result was that the visit was unsuccessful. He now fled to Sogdia’s Farγāna (Farghāna) but returned to Xwarāsān when the news of the uprising of its people against the Arabs provided a flicker of hope. Meanwhile, Farruxzād asked the Merv marzbān, Māhōy Sūrī, a member of the House of Sūrēn to support the emperor but Yazdegerd and Māhōy had severe disagreements and soon fell out.6 Yazdegerd had also attempted to depose Māhōy and the bitterness only increased from hereon.

§ Death of Yazdegerd

Māhōy allied with the Turkic leader – Nēzak (also called Tarxān/Tarkhān), the Hephthalite ruler of Bāγdīs (Bādghīs, currently one of the north-western provinces of Afghānistān bordering Turkmenistān), against Yazdegerd and provoked him into a battle with the ruler. Apparently, Yazdegerd had also earned the displeasure of the Turkic leader due to his behaviour – Nēzak was displeased by the manner in which the king had received him.7 The outcome unsurprisingly favoured Nēzak and the emperor lost the battle and his Royal Guard was annihilated. Yazdegerd took refuge in a mill and was murdered in his sleep in c. 651 by the miller who had provided him refuge.8

This was done apparently at the instigation of Māhōy, whose soldiers as per Ṯaʿālibī, “found him in the mill and strangled him with a bowstring and imputed the killing of the Sasanian emperor to the miller” (Pashazanous & Afkande, 2014). His corpse was then thrown into the Merv river where it was found by a Christian priest who then buried him. Betrayal of Māhōy undoubtedly had resulted in such a miserable end and unfortunately, in the need of the hour, disunity defined the political climate of the Sasanian empire.

“Those subjects still loyal to Yazdegerd, blamed his death on Māhōy, bestowing upon him and his descendants the epithet xwadāy kušān, literally ‘king killer’ (Iṣfāhānī 63).” 9

Sources

The sources for the information regarding the relations of the the last king Yazdegerd and his descendants with the Central Asians and the Chinese i.e. the T’ang Dynasty are varied. The early Islamic authors like Ṭabarī, Masoudi, Balāḏori and the later Middle Persian sources like Zand-e-Bahman Yasn, the Bundahishn, and Kitâb Futûh al-Buldânand are informative in this regard but the Chinese sources provide us with the much needed details (Pashazanous & Afkande, 2014). The Chinese sources are one of the earliest in mentioning about Yazdegerd and his scions. There are mostly three main literary sources – first is the Jiu Tangshu (舊唐書), or The Old Book of the T’ang Dynasty (c. 618-907). A first official history of the T’ang dynasty, this was compiled during the later Jin Period (c. 936-946) under the direction of Liu Xu and Zhang Zhaoyuan. Second is the Xin Tangshu (新唐書), or The New Book of the Tang Dynasty, the second official history of the T’ang dynasty, compiled during the Northern Song period (c. 960–1126). Scholars agree that the latter is the more reliable account of the last Sasanians’ activities and therefore, is used much more than the former to form a cohesive account.10

Another important source is a text called Cefu yuangui (冊府元龜), or Prime Tortoise of the Record Bureau. This was the largest encyclopedia compiled during the Song Dynasty (c. 960–1279).11 There is also one text called ‘the Nārseh’s Diary.’ Nārseh was also one of the last Sasanians in China but the text is considered unreliable by scholars as it is more romantic than historical in nature.12 The archaeological sources are not many but they still provide some much needed information, especially helping in filling the gaps where textual sources are unable to do so.

Embassies to T’ang China

It has to be pointed out that Yazdegerd had realised the dangers that were looming over his empire and had sent embassies towards the east – to China, Sogdia, even to the Khan of the western Turks as early as c. 639. As per Xin Tangshu and Cefu yuangui, in around c. 639-40 a mission was sent under Mo-se-pan (没似半 i.e. marzbān). The embassy was sent to gain some help against the Arabs but evidently it was in vain.13

§ The Second Embassy and Pērōz

Despite the severe losses after the battle of Nihāwand c. 641, Yazdegerd continued his calls for assistance and sent embassies to China. His desperation can be seen in the fact that this embassy was sent despite the refusal of help from the T’ang court in the first attempt. It is important to note here that as per Masoudi, Yazdegerd had five children – two sons named Wahrām and Pērōz, and three daughters, Adrag, Šahrbānu, and Mardāwand. Pērōz and Wahrām and their descendants were to play a very important role in the Sasanian attempts to regain their power.

“The king sent envoys two years in a row, in 647 and 648, to desperately ‘seek assistance from the Chinese court with the hope to form a new army.'”14

Ambassador from Persia (波斯國), visiting the court of T’ang Dynasty. The Gathering of Kings (王会图) c. 650 CE. Credit: Wiki Media Commons

It was during this second embassy that Yazdegerd sent his sons and daughters (it seems not all of them but some were definitely sent) to the T’ang controlled Central Asia. This was done not only to get Chinese help but also to keep imperial family safe and out of the reach of the Arabs. But stars were not in favour of the Sasanians for the call for help was again refused by the Chinese Emperor – Taizong (唐太宗) (r. 626–649). The sheer distance played significant role in this decision as the Chinese were hesitant to undertake such long distance military campaigns (Pashazanous & Afkande, 2014).

Pērōz III

Born in c. 636, Pērōz couldn’t have been more than thirteen years of age at the time of the second attempt of Yazdegerd to seek Chinese assistance. Few years after the death of his father in c. 654, Pērōz (called Pei-Iu-ssu 卑路斯 by the Chinese) again sought to enlist the Chinese support in the fifth year of the Yonghui reign 永徽 (c. 654)15 i.e. during the time of emperor Gaozong (唐高宗) (r. 649–683), and again met with disappointment for the same reason that the father of Gaozong, preceding emperor Taizong had refused – the risk of a military campaign at such a distance.

Meanwhile Pērōz who now claimed himself as the King of Kings – the ruler of Persia after the death of Yazdegerd, found refuge in Tukhāristān — Bactria of the ancient Greeks and the territory that today comprises parts of Uzbekistān, Tājikistān and northern Afghānistān — and tried to find some support from the Sogdian and Hephthalite princes in the region and it seems like he did get help of the Tocharians in the form of some sort of troop support. As to the question that why these regions were chosen to sought the assistance by the scions of the Sasanians, the quote below may shed some light –

When the Arabs reached the Sasanian frontier in Central Asia, they found the people no more united among themselves than the Persians, but the Sogdians and the Khwārazmians had had long experience in fighting the Sasanians and the Turks, and playing off one against the other. They were more proud of their local independence than the people of the Sasanian empire. It was only natural that the descendants of Yazdegard, and those who hoped for the restoration of the Sasanian empire, would turn to the east for the possible assistance.

– Richard N. Frye, The Political History of Iran under Sasanians.

§ A Short Respite

Arabs: It is significant to note that two important events coincided with the period in which Pērōz was trying to restore the lost glory of the House of Sasan. First related to Arabs and the second to the Chinese. Arabs though have tried to get to this region in c. 653-54 during the Usmān Caliphate, and had crossed the Oxus but nothing much of importance was achieved there and the vital crossings of the territory were not secured until c. 674 during the reign of the first Umayyad Caliph Muawiyah I when the Sogdian ruler of Bukhārā — Bukhār Khudāt — was defeated by the Arabian forces.16 And, it was not until c. 709-10 that Arabs captured Tukhāristān.17 Therefore the region — particularly the southern districts of Oxus and Tukhāristān were relatively free of the troubles from the Arabs till c. 674. This helped Pērōz to chart out his plans and attempt to recapture the lost dominions. Tocharians used the moment of respite provided by the Arabs between the period of c. 654-674 and restored Pērōz, at least theoretically, in his possessions.

Chinese: During the Eastern Han Dynasty (東漢) (c. 25-220 CE) also sometimes called the Later Han Dynasty (後漢), China had made advances and held some territories in Central Asia. But during the entire time Sasanians were ruling in Persia, China was going through a phase of disunity and was busy with the internal discontent due to the “Warring Dynasties.” Hence, there were no claims made from the Chinese side on its erstwhile Central Asian possessions. China achieved unity during the Sui Dynasty (隋朝) (c. 589-618 CE), and by the time of the T’ang Dynasty (唐朝) (c. 618-907 CE), China was again asserting its power in the region.18 China emerged victorious over the Western Turks in c. 658 and was now in a position to be much more concerned with the Persian affairs. In c. 661, T’ang-s decided to organize the administration of the territory conquered from the Western Turks.19 With this coincided the attempts of Pērōz and it seemed that finally there was some hope for the Sasanian scion.

Map of the six major protectorates during Tang dynasty, especially notice the Tocharian Commandery. Credit: Wiki Media Commons

§ Renewed Efforts of Pērōz

Not getting disheartened with the constant refusals, Pērōz renewed his efforts and again sent an embassy to the Chinese in c. 661-62 and his voice was heard this time. As mentioned above, China was organizing the administration of the conquered areas from the Western Turks and decided to pay heed to the request of the Sasanian to help and assist in defending his kingdom from the Arabic onslaught. Pērōz was now recognized as the King of Persia by the Chinese. It seems that this time around, Pērōz himself went to China and asked for assistance. In Tukhāristān, the T’ang-s established the city of Tsi-ling or Jilingcheng 疾陵城 as the Bosi dudufu 波斯都督府 i.e. Persian Military Commander Prefecture and Pērōz was appointed as its Dudu 都督 i.e. Military Commander.20 Around c. 663-64, as per Cefu yuangui, emperor Gaozong sent Pērōz to Tocharistan as its ruler. It is however important to note here that the Chinese might have accepted the role of Pērōz and had given him lofty titles but was Pērōz accepted as their King by the Persian nobility in exile? Even more telling is the fact that “the Zoroastrian communities of Persia and India still employ a calendar starting with the date of Yazdigird III’s death, ignoring on the contrary anything concerning Pērōz” (Compareti, 2003).

And how helpful was this recognition? Some scholars are of the opinion that it didn’t result in any tangible outcomes. Chinese though helped Pērōz cement his rule and help him forge a sort of Iranian kingdom in the region with the city if Ji-ling under him (Pashazanous & Afkande, 2014) but this in reality did nothing more than consecrate already accomplished facts and an actual aid did not materialize (Clement, 1927; Frye, 1983). Apart from giving an investiture to Pērōz and a title, nothing much more was provided. He after all, with the help of the Tocharians was already in possession of the region. The readers at this point might be wondering where exactly was this city of Ji-ling?

§ Locating Ji-ling

There are two possible answers suggested by the historians for this. It certainly was not in Persia proper as it was now under the rule of the Arabs. Earlier scholars like Yule and Chavannes and later scholars like Daryayee and Harmatta were of the opinion that as proper Persia was not a possibility, it could have been in the easternmost provinces of the Sasanian Empire – Sīstān or Sījistān. Hence, Ji-ling was identified with the town of Zaranj, the capital of Sīstān.21 The fact that Zaranj was independent at this time from the Arabs is sighted in support of this theory. Some suggest that the location of Sīstān as the possible area of ‘rule’ of Pērōz would mean that he was taking advantage of the weakened Western Turk control south of the Hindu Kush to claim the kingship of a greatly reduced ‘Persian Empire’ [Chinese Po-su] (Rezakhani, 2017). But we would also have to consider another fact that according to the Chinese sources like Xin Tangshu and the Cefu yuangui, Pērōz came to the city Ji-ling in around c. 663-64. By this time, Zaranj (Sīstān) had lost its independence and was now under the Arabs. It then becomes highly unlikely that Ji-ling could be situated in Sīstān.22

Even though there were some minor turbulence in Sīstān at that time, there is no mention of Pērōz or any foreign power (Chinese or Turkic) involved in the Sīstān uprisings in any Islamic or local sources. Moreover, the Tang’s involvement in any military operation in Sīstān is quite improbable because of logistical problems concerning the distances necessary to traverse from the western frontiers of the Tang to Sīstān, not to mention crossing mountainous roads and enemy territories.

– Pashazanous & Afkande, 2014.

And as it has already been established that after the victory of the T’ang China over the western Turks in c. 658, the region was under the Chinese and it was therefore given to Pērōz to rule over. It then becomes a strong possibility that the city of Ji-ling was actually situated in Tukhāristān and not in Sīstān. The fact that according to Balāḏori, Pērōz married a noble Turkic woman also helps us to identify the city of Ji-ling in Tukhāristān.23

§ Return to China

During this period, Pērōz had kept relations with the Chinese and had even sent envoys to  Chang’an, the T’ang capital in c. 667 and c. 671.24 As has been briefly mentioned above, Tukhāristān succumbed to the Arabic pressure and the Chinese sources inform us that Pērōz returned to China in c. 673-74, possibly after his defeat by the Arabs. He seems to have gone once again to the west but again returned to China in June c. 675. This was to be his last journey. On both the occasions he was warmly received by the T’ang emperor Gaozong and was bestowed with the honourary title of “Awe-inspiring General of the Left (Flank) Guards” (zuŏ wēi wèi jiāng jūn 左威 卫将军).  This title was among sixteen such titles he had received.25 The title was comparable to the Roman Praetorians whose duty was to protect the emperor and were allowed to stay in the imperial palace.26

§ The Persian ‘Temple’

The Chinese sources inform us that Pērōz managed to get permission from Gaozong to build a “Persian Temple” called Bosi-si (波斯寺 ) in Chang’an, the T’ang capital.27 There is a good deal of controversy around the nature of this ‘temple.’ Some believed that the ‘temple’ was predictably a Mazdean establishment and therefore was a proper Persian temple but many scholars now believe that actually it was a Christian i.e. a Nestorian temple.28 This admittedly sounds strange that why would a Sasanian attempt to build a Nestorian temple? But the answer may seem far more convincing than one would imagine and gives us the hint for the last Sasanian rulers’ interest in Christianity.29 It is also interesting to note that scholars are now of the opinion that Pērōz’s wife was most likely a Christian.30 The rather strong connections between the late Sasanian rulers like Khusrow II Parvēz (r. 590-628 CE) and Christians are also noteworthy. By the time of its late rulers, the Sasanian support to the Nestorians increased especially as a counteract to the Byzantians.31 China on the other hand, also seems to have gotten introduced to Christianity very early.

“… it was discovered that another Persian, a certain Aluoben (阿罗本), introduced Christianity into China and built the first church in Chang’an in 635.” 32

§ Statue of Pērōz

Pērōz died around c. 677-78 and was succeeded by his son Narseh. It is assumed by scholars that he was buried possibly in Chang’an.33 Near Xi’an in the mausoleum of Gaozong and his wife, Qiangling, there stands a beheaded statue in the front and the inscription on the back pedestal tells us that the statue belongs to Pērōz. The statue is part of the original sixty-four other statues of foreigners at the entrance of the mausoleum, sixty one of those statues now survive. The inscription says:

右驍衛大將軍兼波斯都督波斯王卑路斯

Yòu xiāowèi dà jiàngjūn jiān bōsī dūdū bōsī wáng bēilùsī

“Pērōz, king of Persia, Grand general of the right courageous guard and commander in chief of Persia.”34

Interestingly, this is not the only statue with an inscription of a Persian in the mausoleum.  There is one other statue, also headless which has the following inscription:

波斯大首領南昧

Bosi da Shouling Nanmei – “Nanmei, the Grand Head of Persia.”35

It is necessary to point out that both the inscriptions can no longer be read on the statues. The inscriptions had eroded before 1958 but the 1980 article of Chen Guocan in which he studied the statues of the foreigners at the mausoleum, he used varied Chinese sources and historical texts and confirmed the details of the inscriptions that has been mentioned in those texts.36 As to why these statues are headless and when exactly they lost the heads, it is uncertain as of now. There were found some parts of two statue’s heads. A head was also found curiously with curly hair and a Parthian moustache.37

A statue of Peroz is known to stand among the statues of “61 foreign officials” in Qianling Mausoleum. WikiMedia Commons

This unique depiction is not completely similar to the faces of Sasanian kings represented on rock-cut reliefs and coins. It is also possible to imagine that this head may belong to a Sasanian prince who was deeply influenced by Parthian fashion and was a ruler in the eastern parts of Sasanian territory.

Pashazanous and Sangari (2018), The Last Sasanians in Chinese Literary Sources

The clothing of a certain statue was also found different from other statues which had typical long garment of the Chinese official type, suggesting that particular one to be of Pērōz, but it is nothing more than a suggestion at this point.

§ Identity of Nanmei

It has been suggested by some scholars like Daryayee that this Nanmei could have been Narseh, son of Pērōz who as aforementioned, succeeded him and stayed in Tukhāristān and China for a long time.38 Another possibility is that this Nanmei might be some other Persian noble that might have come along with Pērōz and the statue might be of him. But, there is another curious claim for the statue of Nanmei; a funerary stele recovered near Luo-yang (the eastern capital of the T’ang dynasty) provides us the details of the career of one Aluohan. Scholars consider that Alouhan might be the Chinese version of the Persian name Wahrām who was, as readers might remember from being mentioned above the other son of Yazdegerd and brother of Pērōz.

Wahrām or Alouhan

The inscription on the stele describes Alouhan as a Persian who was ‘highly esteemed’ by the Chinese emperor Gaozong. This also makes him a contemporary of Pērōz. Alouhan as per the Chinese sources was apparently sent to Byzantium as a Chinese envoy, the reason for which scholars suggest could probably be to conclude an alliance between the T’ang and Byzantine empires39 and he is said to have constructed (or got constructed) an important building in China.40 The inscription stored in the Imperial Museum of Uyeno in Japan gives us more insight into this interesting Persian Alouhan who is called the most illustrious person of the whole tribe.41

He is called the “Great Persian Chieftain, the General and Commander of the Right Wings of the Imperial Army of Tang [i.e. China] with the title of Grand Duke of Chin-chʻêng-chün [in Kan-su] and the Rank of Shang-chu-kuo [上柱國, i.e. lit. the first-class cornerstone of the Empire]”.

The inscription continues to tell us that Gaozong had heard of his ‘illustrious deeds’ and got so impressed by him that he personally sent for him to come to his palace and when he did, he was made the Generalissimo. He was made responsible for defending the Northern Gate i.e. the northern region of China and they sent him as the imperial envoy to the tribes of Tibet, Ephraim, and other countries.42 Ephraim is suggested by scholars to have been a place near the Eastern Roman Empire on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.43 It also appears from the inscriptions that he had made an attempt to reinstate the Sasanians and retake Ērānšahr.

But it seems certain that Alouhan’s role was more on the diplomatic side than military. The Middle Persian text called Zand ī Wahman Yasn gives information which gives confirmation for the identification of the Alouhan of the Chinese sources with Wahrām. The book has a story called “Wahrām-ī-Warȷā̌wand” that says  – “and when that king was thirty years old … having gathered innumerable soldiers and banners, of China and India holding banners … the kingdom is entrusted to him.”44 Interesting to note is that Bīrūnī, in his book Ketāb taḥqīq mā le’l-Hend, says that the Zoroastrians of Sogdiana recognized the Punjab along with Hindu Kush as India. India in this context might refer to the Hindu Kush region and probably some areas of Punjab and as per some scholars even to Tukhāristān.45

Wahram (Aluohan in Chinese), the second son of Yazdgerd III, appears to have had further success in Sistan, where he also attempted to restore himself to the position of king, but was ultimately defeated too.

  – Khodadad Rezakhani, ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity 

It is however certain that the plans and the attempts didn’t prove to be successful but it also conclusively proves that constant attempts were being made by the last of the Sasanians.

Narseh

Narseh or Narsieh, as mentioned above was the son of  Pērōz and succeeded him after the death of his father in around c. 678. He is called Nie-nie-che -涅涅师 (one of the many versions of the name) by the Chinese and was a hostage in the Chang’an court of the T’angs at the time of Pērōz’s death. A year later in c. 679, the Chinese general “Péi Xíng Jiăn (裴行 俭), responsible for subduing the western Turkic khan āshĭnà dōuzhī (阿史那都支) who was allied with the Tibetans and Kashgarians,”46 took Narseh to Tukhāristān and crowned him there. Apparently, Narseh was taken there on the pretext of eventually helping him reconquer his empire and install him on the throne of Persia.47

The Turkic Khan despite maintaining seemingly good relations with the T’ang court was actually trying to regain his lost possessions in Central Asia by allying with the Tibetans48 and the Chinese decided to subdue him at this point. After the defeat of the Khan by the Chinese in Tukhāristān, the promised march to take over Ērānšahr and reinstate Narseh was abandoned who was now left in Tukhāristān49 by the Chinese. It seems like there was never any intention of the Chinese to reinstate Narseh in his throne. They only seem to have used him as an excuse in order to finally gain an upper hand over the Turkic Khan.

Narseh ultimately stayed there for twenty years and kept on fighting and resisting the Arabs in the region, exhausting his men and resources. But not much seemed to have been achieved and finally he ended his stay in Tukhāristān, quite reluctantly one must say, and came back  to China in c. 709. It is very clear that Narseh returned only when there was no other measure left to attempt in Central Asia as the Arabs were ascending in the region.

In 709-710 the Governor of Khorasan, Qutayba b. Muslim, defeated the key power of Tarhan Nīzak [Tarkhān Nēzak] and opened up the way to Transoxiana granting Arab control over Sīstān and Tuharistan [Tukhāristān].

  – M. Compareti, The Last Sasanians in China

Some confusion emerges from these Chinese sources. the  Jiu Tangshu (舊唐書), or the Old Book of the T’ang Dynasty makes Pērōz to have taken the the c. 678-79 journey but the confusion is cleared in the Xin Tangshu (新唐書), or the New Book of the Tang Dynasty that categorically mentions the Persian as Narseh to have been active in Tukhāristān after c. 679. After he reached China in c. 709, he was awarded with the title of Zuoweiwu jiangjun 左威衛將軍 (General of the Left Awesome Guard)50 or zuŏ wēi wèi jiāng jūn i.e. General of the Left Majestic Guard.51 He died of an illness soon after that.

Jū Luó or Khusrow

Narseh was not the last Sasanian scion in China. As mentioned above, Alouhan or Wahrām had also been very active, albeit diplomatically. But Wahrām also passed away in c. 710. After that the Chinese sources mention one Jū Luó (俱羅) which is considered by scholars to be the Chinese version of the name Khusrow.52 He seemed to have continued his father’s mission.53 Arabic sources corroborate this information. Ṭabarī mentions one son of Yazdegerd named Khusrow who as per him fought against the Arabs in the army of the Turkic Khan in Transoxiana around c. 728-29. Now we know that the year gap is too much for him to be a son of Yazdegerd. Therefore, it looks like Khusrow was the grandson of last actual Sasanian emperor. Khosrow is also told to have visited China in c. 730-31.

Other Embassies

It would be wrong to say that the efforts by the Sasanian descendants ceased by this time. The Chinese sources mention that many embassies were sent by the Persians to the T’ang court, some as late as c. 772! These embassies are suggested by scholars to have been sent mostly from the Māzandarān or Tukhāristan.54

Cefu yuangui (冊府元龜) gives us information about Kings of Persia who sent embassies to the Tang court at Chang’an from 723 to 772 CE.55

Two names mentioned as the Persian Kings in the Cefu yuangui then become important in this regard. One is  Bó Qiāng Huó (勃善活)56 who is identified as Pušang, the grandson of Narseh. This would mean that a direct descendant of the last Persian king of kings was even now trying to reclaim his throne. He stayed in Tukhāristan and continued to fight with the Arabs. Other name mentioned is Mù Shānuò (穆沙诺) who apparently came to the T’ang court either in c. 726 or c. 731. He was even awarded with rank of a General and a Guardian of the Emperor.57

As mentioned above, the embassies came till as late as c. 772 but not much is known of the Persian activities to regain the throne after this period. The sources are silent on this topic from hereon. The role of China in the aftermath of the Arabic victory over the Sasanian Empire became very important. The T’ang dynasty extended the Chinese boundary which the country never realized again – the Pamirs had been crossed and modern territory of the northern Afghanistan had been reached58 and brought under their dominion.

China had established the Protectorate to Pacify the West or the Anxi Protectorate and had made commanders for the region. A specific Chinese Persia expeditionary force was also established by the T’ang court to reestablish their hegemony in the Central Asian territories59 and when they couldn’t directly capture the region, they followed the policy of supporting the Central Asian rebellions against the Muslims60 but the fate was sealed in around c. 751 when Battle of Talas confirmed the Islamic rule of East Iran/Khurasan.61 This explains why it became difficult for the scions of the House of Sasan to continue their resistance from Central Asia and why the Chinese help didn’t result in actual victories.

§ In Japan

The Persian nobility seems to have gone in various directions to protect themselves from the Arab attacks and even to continue their endevours to capture the lost empire. Some evidence even emerges from Japan. The Japanese historical source, Nihon Shoki (Chronicles of Japan), one of the earliest of its kind, completed in c. 720 mentions that in c. 654, many people arrived there from Tokhārā62 undoubtedly a name for Tukhāristan. It also gives the name of one Dārā, a very Persian name indeed and says that in c. 660 he went back to his country but left his wife there in Japan and made a promise that he would return and work for the emperor again.63

Policy Change in China

The various Persian princes and Kings who stayed in China were not alone. Many of them had an entourage with them and some even had their families. It was not just the royal family but the population of the Persians and Arabs in general in China was a lot and they had come with various goals. Some wanted political asylum and assistance and some like Nestorians came for the propagation of their religion and many were there to trade64 and they were indeed welcomed in the country but this seems to have changed after a powerful general named An Lushan 安禄山 in c. 756 who was Iranian on the side of his father and of Sogdian-Turkic ancestry, seized Lou-yang, the eastern capital of the T’ang empire and established his own dynasty named the Great Yan (Dà Yān 大燕).65

He is probably the greatest and most terrible rebel in the Chinese history. It was only six years later in c. 762 that the T’ang could abolish the detested rule from Lou-yang. The T’ang rule was restored and as a result of the edicts issued by the minister Li Mi (c. 722-789), financial support to the Iranian nobles living in Chang’an got very much restricted66 and this coupled with the Arabic victory in Tukhāristān certainly affected the chances of the Sasanian princes which by each passing year were becoming slim anyway. Though, this doesn’t mean that the Iranians didn’t stay in China anymore – there were plenty. A Middle Persian-Chinese bilingual inscription, on a gravestone near town of Sian in Shensi province of western China records the death of a princess of Suren family in c. 872/874.67  This is a good example for how late the Persian nobility in exile was in China even after the hopes of getting any actual political gain for the erstwhile Sasanian Empire were not great.

Conclusion

This article and the views of various scholars and historians mentioned in it points to one very important conclusion – that the Sasanian descendants didn’t accept the results after the fateful battle of Nihāwand (c. 641). They didn’t sit idle and in fact, right from the last king of kings Yazdegerd to the last of the known scions of the dynasty, they tried to reclaim their dominions and their throne. China evidently played an extremely fateful role in their strives.

It becomes also very important to note that during this entire period, due to its peculiar geographical position and political climate of the time, the Central Asia, particularly the region of Tukhāristān was the prime seat of struggle for the Persian princes and kings. Notwithstanding the unsuccessful nature of these endevours, in the entire century of struggle (c. 641-731), it becomes amply clear from the study that numerous attempts were made to achieve the ultimate goal of reinvigorating the glory of the House of Sasan and negates the perception that the dynasty just vanished after the death of Yazdegerd in Merv.

References

  • 1 Huart Clement, Ancient Persia and Iranian Civilization (1927). p. 136.
  • 2 H. Pashazanous and E. Afkande (2014). “The Last Sasanians in Eastern Iran and China”. Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia.: 139–155. p. 139.
  • 3 ibid. p. 140.
  • 4 Parvaneh Pourshariati, Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire (2008). p. 257.
  • 5 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). Footnotes. p. 140.
  • 6 ibid. p. 141.
  • 7 Clement (1927), pp. 136-137.
  • 8 ibid.
  • 9 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 141.
  • 10 ibid. p. 142.
  • 11 ibid.
  • 12 M. Compareti, “The Last Sasanians in China,” Eurasian Studies 2/2, 2003, pp. 197-213.
  • 13 Richard N. Frye, Chapter 4, The Political History of Iran under the Sasanians. The Cambridge History of Iran Volume 3 (I), The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, 1983. p. 176.
  • 14 Xiuqin Zhou, “Zhaoling: The Mausoleum of Emperor Tang Taizong,” Sino-Platonic Papers, 187 (April, 2009) p. 155.
  • 15 ibid.
  • 16 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 145.
  • 17 ibid. p. 146.
  • 18 Frye, Chapter 4, The Political History of Iran under the Sasanians. p. 175.
  • 19 Clement (1927), p. 137.
  • 20 Zhou (2009), p. 156.
  • 21 Clement (1927), p. 138; Pashazanous & Afkande (2014), p. 144.
  • 22 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014), p. 145.
  • 23 ibid. p. 146.
  • 24 Zhou (2009), p. 156.
  • 25 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). pp. 146-147.
  • 26 Compareti (2003), p. 207.
  • 27 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 147; Compareti (2003), p. 207.
  • 28 Leslie, Donald Daniel. “PERSIAN TEMPLES IN T’ANG CHINA.” Monumenta Serica 35 (1981): 275–303. pp. 283-284 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40726510.
  • 29 Pashazanous and Sangari (2018), The Last Sasanians in Chinese Literary Sources. p. 500.
  • 30 ibid.
  • 31 Compareti (2003), p. 208.
  • 32 Pashazanous and Sangari (2018), p. 500.
  • 33 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 147.
  • 34 Pashaza and Sangari (2018), p. 502.
  • 35 ibid.
  • 36 ibid. p. 503.
  • 37 ibid. p. 504.
  • 38 ibid. p. 507.
  • 39 ibid. p. 508.
  • 40 ibid.
  • 41 ibid.
  • 42 ibid. pp. 508-510.
  • 43 ibid. p. 514.
  • 44 ibid. pp. 510-511.
  • 45 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 146.
  • 46 ibid. p. 148.
  • 47 Compareti (2003), p. 210.
  • 48 ibid.
  • 49 Zhou (2009), p. 156.
  • 50 ibid.
  • 51 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 148.
  • 52 ibid. p. 149.
  • 53 ibid.
  • 54 Compareti (2003), p. 211.
  • 55 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 149.
  • 56 ibid. p. 150.
  • 57 ibid.
  • 58 Ling-Yeong, Chiu. “Persians, Arabs and other Nationals in T’ang China: Their Status, Activities and Contributions.” (1973), p. 58.
  • 59 Khodadad Rezakhani, ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity (2017), p. 184.
  • 60 ibid.
  • 61 ibid.
  • 62 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 150.
  • 63 ibid.
  • 64 Chiu Ling-Yeong (1973).
  • 65 Forte, Antonino. “IRANIANS IN CHINA: — Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Bureaus of Commerce —.” (1999) pp. 278-279.
  • 66 Pashazanous & Afkande (2014). p. 150.
  • 67 Frye, (1983). p. 176.

Bibliography

Published by Priya Chaturvedi

I am Priya Chaturvedi, a History and Politics enthusiast, trying to learn something new everyday.

One thought on “The Last Sasanian Strive”

Leave a comment