Данная работа является первым в российской историографии оригинальным исследованием, содержащим ц... more Данная работа является первым в российской историографии оригинальным исследованием, содержащим целостную картину политической истории сасанидского Ирана в период его становления как мировой державы (III–IV вв.). В этом смысле монография соответствует общемировым тенденциям в области иранистики. Автором учтены все новейшие исследования в рамках изучаемого проблемного поля. Автор разбивает раннесасанидскую эпоху на четыре периода, посвящая каждому из них отдельную главу: - становление Сасанидского государства (происхождение династии Сасанидов, их борьба с парфянскими царями, правление Ардашира I); - правление Шапура I (242–272) (войны с Римом, кушанами, развитие государственного аппарата); - кризис рубежа III–IV вв. (правление царей от Ормизда I до Ормизда II); - новое возвышение Ирана при Шапуре II Великом (309–379). Повествование внутри глав подчинено единой логике – в каждой из них автор рассматривает вопросы внешней и внутренней политики, развитие государственных институтов, трансформацию государственной идеологии, эволюцию зороастрийской религиозной системы, включая вопросы государственно-церковных и межконфессиональных отношений.
Долгое время как в отечественной, так и зарубежной исторической науке было принято считать, что в... more Долгое время как в отечественной, так и зарубежной исторической науке было принято считать, что вооруженные силы персидской державы Сасанидов (III-VII вв.) состояли исключительно из сухопутных родов войск - конницы, пехоты и отрядов боевых слонов (элефантерии). Предлагаемая вниманию читателей новая книга кандидата исторических наук В. А. Дмитриева вносит серьезные коррективы в устоявшиеся представления о военном деле Сасанидов. На широком историческом материале автор убедительно показывает, что наряду с сухопутными частями вполне определенную (а порой - и решающую) роль в войнах, которые велись сасанидским Ираном на протяжении всей его истории, играл военно-морской флот.
The first part of the book has to do with diverse aspects of the Sasanian art of warfare, viz. th... more The first part of the book has to do with diverse aspects of the Sasanian art of warfare, viz. the composition and organization of the Persian army, its armament and another military outfit, as well as battle tactics and strategy. On the basis of the available evidence, one can come to a conclusion that the organization of the Persian host was quite different from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine professional armies, being de facto no more than irregular troops. The Persian basic force was cavalry divided into heavy-armed cataphracts and light-armed archers. In addition, some infantry, elephant corps, and navy were in the composition of the Sasanian army. The Persians’ tactics were grounded on cavalry operations with the use of various stratagems. Their strategy, unlike that of the Romans, was almost always offensive: it is significant that even in its crisis periods Sasanian Iran attacked the Roman Near Eastern possessions. The latter part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman wars for the Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods: - 232–298: primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226–242) and Shapur I (242–272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under emperor Diocletian (284–305) — the Romans could win the war of 296–298 and restored status quo. - Early 4th century through 387: prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309–379). - 387–540: a period of relatively peaceful coexistence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only. - 540–579: drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion. - 579–591: a period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East. - 591–628: the conclusive stage of their struggle. During the war of 602–628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo. A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of world history.
*** This book is a revised and updated version of my previous work, published in 2008 in 'Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie' Publishing House under the title “Horsemen in Sparkling Armour”: The Warfare of Sasanian Iran and the History of the Roman-Persian Wars ("Militaria Antiqua" Series. Vol. XII).
The book consists of two parts. The first one is devoted to diverse aspects of the Sasanian art o... more The book consists of two parts. The first one is devoted to diverse aspects of the Sasanian art of warfare, viz. the composition and organization of the Persian army, its armament and other military outfit, as well as battle tactics and strategy. On the basis of the available evidence one can come to a conclusion that the organization of the Persian host was quite different from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine professional armies, being de facto no more than irregular troops. The Persian basic force was cavalry divided into heavy-armed cataphracts and light-armed archers. In addition, some infantry and elephant corps were in the composition of the Sasanian army. The Persians' tactics were grounded on cavalry operations with the use of various stratagems. Their strategy, unlike that of the Romans, was almost always offensive: it is significant that even in its crisis periods Sasanian Iran attacked the Roman Near Eastern provinces. The second part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman Wars for the control over Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods: 1) 235—298: Primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226—242) and Shapur I (242—272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under the emperor Diocletian (284—305) — the Romans could win the war of 296—298 and restored status quo. 2) Early 4th century through 387: Prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309—379). 3) 387—540: Period of relatively peaceful co-existence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only. 4) 540—579: Drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion. 5) 579—591: Period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East. 6) 591—628: Final stage of their struggle. During the war of 602—628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo. A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of the world history.
""The book is devoted to the source study of the geofraphical information about the Persia contai... more ""The book is devoted to the source study of the geofraphical information about the Persia contained in Ammianus Marcellinus' "Res Gestae" (Amm. Marc. XXIII. 6. 10-74).
The main outlines:
1. For Ammianus Marcellinus the notion "Persia" meant whole Asia to the east from the Roman mesopotamian frontier (even including Sera≈China).
2. The main geographical source for Ammianus was “Geography” of Ptolemy. But Ammianus didn't use the proper work of Ptolemy but its short and inexact Latin remake. Obviously, Ammianus also used the schematic geographical maps (like Tabula Peutengeriana) made on the basis of Ptolemy’s data.
3. Ammianus does not describe geography of real Persia, but compiles his "Persian" digression on the basis of classical literary tradition and, probably, cartographical sources.""
Metamorphoses of History / Метаморфозы истории, 2023
The writings of John Chrysostom contain information about the religious life of Persian society. ... more The writings of John Chrysostom contain information about the religious life of Persian society. Along with information about the official religion of Sasanian Iran (Zoroastrianism) the John Chrysostom’s writings provide information indicating the gradual spread of Christianity in Persian Empire. The information about Zoroastrianism reported by John Chrysostom concerns mainly two aspects: (1) the cult of Fire and (2) the priestly estate. The most notable feature of this part of data is the anachronistic identification of the inhabitants of Ancient Babylon as Persians and the resulting definition of the Babylonians as fire worshipers. This can be explained by the fact that in the Late Antiquity non-Roman Asia was associated just with Persia, and all the inhabitants of the territories located east of the Euphrates were perceived as the Persians, no matter what historical era was discussed. John Chrysostom also notes the tendency of Zoroastrian priests (magoi) to perform their rituals in a state of religious ecstasy. John Chrysostom’s references to the spread of Christianity in Sasanian Iran are more numerous. He reports (1) on the widespread preaching of the Christian faith in Persia, (2) on anti-Christian persecution by the Persians, (3) on the appearance of numerous martyrs in Iran and (4) on the erection of Christian churches there. All this information is confirmed both in Western (i.e. Classical) and in Eastern (i.e. Persian and Syrian) literary sources as well as archaeological excavations.
An analysis of the information reported by John Chrysostom shows that he adhered to the usual for Late Antiquity paradigm of perception of the Oriental world. In addition, it should be noted the reliability of the John Chrysostom’s information about the religious life of Sasanian Iran, which testifies to the reliability of the writings of John Chrysostom as a historical sources.
Сочинения святителя Иоанна Златоуста включают в себя многочисленные сведения о Персии и персах. Ч... more Сочинения святителя Иоанна Златоуста включают в себя многочисленные сведения о Персии и персах. Часть из них относится к военной истории и отражает военные и военно-политические реалии римско-персидских отношений в современную Иоанну Златоусту эпоху. Основная часть информации, сообщаемой Иоанном Златоустом о римско-персидских войнах, связана с Персидской экспедицией императора Юлиана Отступника 363 г. Неудачный исход кампании 363 г. для римлян святитель связывает с тем, что Юлиан организовал антихристианские гонения, и его гибель во время похода трактуется Иоанном Златоустом как кара Божия. Святитель демонстрирует двойственное отношение к персам, считая их, с одной стороны, варварами и противниками Рима, а с другой – народом, демонстрирующим высокие моральные качества (в частности, гуманность по отношению к римлянам). Описание Иоанном Златоустом вторжения римской армии в Персию во многих деталях совпадает со сведениями Аммиана Марцеллина, являвшегося участником событий 363 г. Это свидетельствует о высокой степени достоверности сообщаемой Иоанном Златоустом информации.
Практически все великие державы Древности, как восточные, так и западные, стремились обезопасить ... more Практически все великие державы Древности, как восточные, так и западные, стремились обезопасить свои границы путем возведения пограничных оборонительных линий. В этом отношении не стал исключением и сасанидский Иран. На границах Сасанидской империи в разное время, но в основном — в период наивысшего могущества царства Сасанидов (IV—VI вв.) были возведены мощные фортификационные системы, по своим масштабам превосходившие многие из более известных аналогичных сооружений, созданных в античном мире. К ним относятся Стена арабов, Гурганская стена, Стена Таммиша, Джар-и Кулбад, Дербентская фортификационная система и укрепления в Дарьяльском ущелье.
***
Almost all the great ancient both Eastern and Western powers sought to secure their borders by erecting border defensive lines. In this respect, Sassanian Iran was no exception. On the borders of the Sassanid Empire at different times, but mainly during the period of the highest power of the Sasanid kingdom (4th—6th centuries CE), strong fortification systems were erected. In scale, they surpassed many of the more famous similar structures created in the Classical world. These included the Wall of the Arabs, the Wall of Gorgan, the Wall of Tammishe, Jar-i Kulbad, the Darband fortification system, and the Darial Gorge.
The Sasanids were interested in Arabia from the very beginning of their reign in Iran, and it was... more The Sasanids were interested in Arabia from the very beginning of their reign in Iran, and it was already the founder of the new dynasty Ardashir I Pabagan who attempted to establish Persian military and political influence in the Arabian Peninsula. In this regard, the purpose of the article is a historical reconstruction of the events connected with the conquest of the eastern and southern parts of the Arabian Peninsula by Ardashir I. The main sources are the “Book of Long Narratives” by Dinawari, “The History of the Prophets and Kings” by Tabarī, the anonymous “Desire to Know the History of Persians and Arabs” and “The Dictionary of Countries” by Yakut. Additional but important information is contained in the inscription of the shahanshah Shapur I on the Ka’bah-i Zardusht, the Sabean inscription Sh 31, and the rock relief of the Shahanshah Warahran II. We know almost nothing about their chronology, but judging by the context in which these events are described in the relevant sources, they presumably can be dated back to the first half of the reign of Ardashir Pabagan. At the same time, a more thorough analysis of the sources and taking into account the events that occurred later, during the reign of Shapur II and Khosrow I, allow us to consider the Arabian campaigns of Ardashir Pabagan as the first stage of the long struggle of the Sasanids for hegemony over the entire eastern and southern part of the Arabian Peninsula from southern Iraq to Yemen inclusive.
Вестник древней истории [Journal of Ancient History], 2020
The figure of the Sasanian shahanshah Narseh (293-302) is one of the most colourful and at the sa... more The figure of the Sasanian shahanshah Narseh (293-302) is one of the most colourful and at the same time the most dramatic in the history of the Sasanid dynasty. Despite the fact that Narseh was the most likely candidate for the crown after the death of his brother Hormizd-Ardashir (Hormizd I; 272-273), it was his brother Warahran I who took the throne (273-276). In 276, Narseh failed to become king again, and the throne passed to the Warahran I's son Warahran II (276-293). Throughout these years Narseh was the viceroy (šāh) of important border provinces: up to 273 - Sakastan, from 273 to 293 - Armenia. Narseh managed to become shahanshah through a coup d'état with the support of the highest Iranian nobility only after the death of Warahran II. The reign of Narseh was marred by the defeat in the Roman-Persian war of 296-298 and the annexation of several important Persian regions in Northern Mesopotamia by the Romans. Taking advantage of the weakening of Sasanian Iran, in 301 the Armenian Kingdom adopted Christianity and thereby finally became an enemy of Persia. The internal political situation during the reign of Narseh was marked by a relaxation of religious persecutions directed against the non-Zoroastrians, the revival of the cult of the goddess Anahid (who was considered as the patroness of the first Sasanian kings), and further strengthening of the nobility, who became virtually independent from central government. Narseh probably abdicated the throne in 302 under the pressure of an aristocratic faction dissatisfied with his rule. However, it would not be right to think that Narseh was the main culprit of the misfortunes that fell upon the Sasanid state during his reign. Everything that happened at that time was an objective result of the twenty-year destructive government of Narseh's predecessors, and it was impossible for one king to turn the tide within such a short period.
Вестник древней истории [Journal of Ancient History], 2018
The warships used by the Sasanids exclusively belonged to the type of transport-landing ships and... more The warships used by the Sasanids exclusively belonged to the type of transport-landing ships and were used only for transportation of troops to the place of ground engagement. It is possible that the Persians carried by ships not only foot units but also cavalry detachments, but all evidence of this are controversial. The sources do not report anything about the transportation of battle elephants by sea and, most likely, such a practice in Sasanian Iran did not exist at all. Because of historical, geographical, and military-technical factors, in the basin of the Indian Ocean, the Persians used the sailing vessels of the local, i.e. Asian design (dhow), in the Mediterranean – the ships (galleys) of Byzantine design (dromons and chelandions). The capacity of these types of ships in both cases was approximately identical. The total number of the Sasanian fleet is unknown, but it can be assumed that the Persian naval squadrons could number from a few to a few dozen ships. The paucity and functional limitations of the Sasanid naval forces were due, first of all, to the inability of the Sasanids, unlike their ancient Achaemenid predecessors, to gain a foothold on the shores of the Mediter-ranean Sea. So when the Sasanian fleet still appeared in the Mediterranean in the early seventh century CE, it was not able to compete successfully with the Byzantine navy because of its small number and absence of sufficient combat experience. This circumstance became the one of the important reasons for Sasanian Iran’s defeat in the Persian-Byzantine war of 602–628 CE.
Since ancient times, the territory of the Armenian Highlands was attracting attention of the neig... more Since ancient times, the territory of the Armenian Highlands was attracting attention of the neighboring powers due to its extremely advantageous geopolitical position. In the Late Antiquity period the struggle for control over Armenia was gradually waged between two world powers – first Rome and Parthia, and later (and most actively) – between the Roman Empire and Sassanian Iran. Armenia’s position worsened sharply after 227, when the Parthian kingdom, weakened by the wars with Rome, was replaced by the powerful Sasanian Persia. Meanwhile, in the existing historiography attention is mostly directed towards the military-political events of the 4th century, which resulted in the division of the Armenian kingdom between Rome and Iran in 387. In this regard, the purpose of this work is to determine the place and role of Armenia in the context of the struggle between Rome and Iran for hegemony in the Near East during the first century of the existence of the Sasanian power, namely, from the moment of her emergence (227) until the expiration of the First Treaty of Nisibis in 298 (338). Our study shows that during this period Roman-Persian-Armenian relations were a very dynamically changing system. Evolution of the said system can be divided into three stages: 1) 227–252 AD; 2) 252–298 AD; 3) 298–338 AD. The first stage is characterized by a gradual strengthening of Iran’s positions in the Middle East in general and in the South Caucasus in particular, which led to the conquest of Armenia by the Persians and her integration into Sasanian Iran (252). In the second stage the Armenian statehood was gradually restoring, which was largely facilitated, on the one hand, by the support from the Roman Empire overcoming the crisis by the end of the 3rd century AD and striving for the revival of the former power, and on the other – internal instability in the kingdom of the Sasanids after the death of Shahanshah Hormizd I (272 –273). The third stage (298–338) can be defined by the rapprochement between Rome and Great Armenia, the strengthening of Roman influence in Armenia and the gradual growth of Roman-Persian contradictions over the control of the Great Armenian kingdom, which resulted in an open confrontation in 337–338 AD.
Древние и средневековые культуры Центральной Азии (становление, развитие и взаимодействие урбанизированных и скотоводческих обществ): Материалы Международной конференции (10-12 ноября 2020 г., Санкт-Петербург). — СПб.: ИИМК РАН, 2020., 2020
Древности Восточной Европы, Центральной Азии и Южной Сибири в контексте связей и взаимодействий в евразийском культурном пространстве (новые данные и концепции)
After the fall the Achaemenid power in the 330 BC province of Pars lost its former significance. ... more After the fall the Achaemenid power in the 330 BC province of Pars lost its former significance. From the administrative-territorial point of view, Pars at that time was a federation consisted of relatively small principalities, and Istakhr was one of such possessions. During the reign of the Seleucid dynasty, the rulers of Istakhr bore the title frataraka (literally “ruler”, “governor”). However, from the II century BC, after Iran came under the rule of the Arshakid dynasty, the political status of the Istakhr rulers changed: instead of the previous title of frataraka they began to call themselves shahs, i. e. “kings”
It seems that these changes had very important consequences for Istakhr as well as the whole Iran from a historical perspective. The acquisition of the new title by local dynasts enabling them to regard themselves as heirs of the great Iranian rulers of ancient times. Subsequently, this surge of national and political identity will become one of the key factors in the coming to power in Iran in 220s Ad the Sasanian dynasty that came just from Istakhr.
В статье анализируются античные сюжеты, содержащиеся в произведениях современного российского рэп... more В статье анализируются античные сюжеты, содержащиеся в произведениях современного российского рэпера Oxxxymiron’а (Мирона Фёдорова). Сделан вывод о том, что активное использование Oxxxymiron’ом античных сюжетов и образов может свидетельствовать о новой форме рецепции русской культурой античного культурно-исторического наследия и, таким образом, представлять собой современный вариант феномена «русской античности». *** The article analyzes Classical plots and images contained in the compositions of the famous modern Russian rapper Oxxxymiron (real name is Miron Fedorov; born in 1985). The Classical images most often used by Oxxxymiron are metaphors. In some cases, they are in close connection with the biblical (namely, the Old Testament) plots. Their main role is that they are one of the stylistic means by which the author sets his heroes, as well as himself, against the outside world, and Oxxxymiron does not hide the feelings of estrangement and even some hostility towards the surrounding reality. However, the rapper makes it clear that he is not going to take the current situation for granted and to put up with it. He aims to change if not the whole world, then at least the subculture to which he belongs, viz. Russian rap. Somewhat apart from other Oxxxymiron’s works is the composition called “Imperium” (2017). In it, the rapper is trying to answer the question: “What is an Empire?” This is the only case where Oxxxymiron uses some information related to Greco-Roman history in its direct, not metaphorical sense. At the same time, Oxxxymiron’s songs demonstrate not only socio-psychological protest, philosophical, historical and other moods, but also some lyrical motifs, which in some cases are expressed by the singer through the Classical images. The Classical reminiscences are highly concentrated in the 2012 single “Ultima Thule”. Here the Classical geographers’ mysterious island Ultima Thule serves as an image of the distant and beckoning country. It can be concluded that the active use of the Classical images by Oxxxymiron is likely to demonstrate a new form of reception of the Greco-Roman cultural and historical heritage by the Russian culture and could be interpreted as a modern version of the “Russian antiquity” phenomenon.
The warships used by the Sasanids were troop ships used exclusively to carry soldiers to the thea... more The warships used by the Sasanids were troop ships used exclusively to carry soldiers to the theatre of operations, although it is possible they deployed merchant ships to carry cavalry. In the basin of the Indian Ocean, the Persians used the vessels of the local Asian type (so-called dhow), whereas in the Mediterranean they utilized ships of Byzantine design (sailing-rowing dromons and chelandions). The total size of the Sasanian fleet is unknown, but it can be assumed that naval squadrons numbered from a few to several dozen ships. The Byzantines enjoyed naval supremacy, which was one of the most important reasons for the Sasanid defeat in the Persian-Byzantine war of 602–628 and, therefore, for the future conquest of Iran and all the Near East by the Arabs.
Восток. Афро-Азиатские общества: история и современность [Vostok. Afro-Aziatskie obshchestva: istoriia i sovremennost'], 2019
From the early IV century AD, the eastern regions of Sasanian Iran, commonly referred to as Bactr... more From the early IV century AD, the eastern regions of Sasanian Iran, commonly referred to as Bactria-Tokharistan, were invaded by various hostile peoples. For that reason, the struggle against eastern foes became one of the most important vectors of Shapur II’s (309–379) foreign policy. An analysis of the primary sources shows that Shapur’s eastern campaigns were the result not so much of his pursuit of military expansion as that of the ethnopolitical processes in Bactria-Tokharistan and adjacent regions in the IV century AD. In this regard, the wars waged by Shapur II on the Iranian eastern frontiers were defensive rather than offensive in nature and could be divided into three steps. At the first stage (late 320’s – mid-330’s AD), they were caused by the necessity to put an end to the strengthening of Kushanshahr, which has evolved from a vassal principality to an independent state, pursuing a hostile policy towards Sasanian Iran. The second eastern campaign of Shapur II (350’s AD) was triggered by the invasion of Bactria-Tokharistan by nomadic tribes known as the Chionites, who not only occupied the territory of Kushanshahr but also claimed the eastern regions of Sasanian kingdom. The final phase of Shapur II’s wars in Eastern Iran (370’s AD) represented a military conflict with the Kidarites’ who, obviously, were the dynasty of Chionite origin too, but managed to establish their own realm on the territory of former Kushanshahr and some neighbor areas. The immediate result of all these events consisted in the loss of control over Bactria-Tokharistan by the Persians. In the longer-term, the Sasanids were forced for several decades (until the reign of Yazdegerd II) to give up the attempts to return this region into the sphere of their political influence.
Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История. Политология. 2019. Т. 46. № 1. C. 20-28.
В существующей историографии Шапур II Великий (309-379) воспринимается почти исключительно как ца... more В существующей историографии Шапур II Великий (309-379) воспринимается почти исключительно как царь-завоеватель, всё правление которого прошло в войнах с соседними странами и народами. В значительной степени это так, но совершенно очевидно и то, что столь высокий уровень внешней активности Ирана в годы правления Шапура II был бы невозможен без создания стабильно функционирующей административно-политической системы внутри страны. В связи с этим в статье рассматриваются основные направления и результаты внутриполитической деятельности Шапура II. С формальной точки зрения Шапур действовал в том же русле, что и его предшественники, сохраняя сложившуюся за столетие, истекшее с момента возникновения сасанидского Ирана, систему органов власти. Однако государственная идеология и религия подверглись в данный период весьма глубоким изменениям. В результате сасанидский Иран превратился в централизованное государство с сильной царской властью, что стало ключевым условием возобновления при Шапуре Великом широкой внешней экспансии, в ходе которой сасанидский Иран окончательно закрепил за собой статус одной из ведущих мировых держав эпохи Поздней античности. **************************** In the existing historiography, Sasanian shahanshah Shapur II the Great (309-379) is considered almost exclusively as a conqueror, whose entire reign passed in wars with neighboring countries and peoples. To a large extent, it is true, but it is also quite obvious that such a high level of Sasanians' external activity during the reign of Shapur II would not have been possible without the establishment of a stable and effective administrative and political system within the Iran itself. In this regard, the article examines the main directions and results of the internal policy of Shapur II. From a formal point of view, Shapur acted in the same way as his predecessors, preserving the system of government that has developed over the century, which has elapsed since the emergence of Sasanian Iran. However, the state ideology and religion have undergone very profound changes during Shapur's reign. As a result, Sasanid's realm became a highly centralized empire with a strong shahanshah's power, and this circumstance was an essential condition for the renewal of wide expansion under Shapur the Great, during which Sasanian Iran finally secured the status of one of the leading powers in the world of Late Antiquity.
В статье анализируется материал о Древнем Иране, содержащийся в учебнике по истории Древнего мира... more В статье анализируется материал о Древнем Иране, содержащийся в учебнике по истории Древнего мира для V кл. (Вигасин А.А., Годер Г.И., Свенцицкая И.С. Всеобщая история. История Древнего мира. 5 класс: учебник для общеобразовательных организаций. Изд. 3-е. М., 2014). Сделан вывод о том, что в целом учебник позволяет сформировать у учащихся общее, хотя и фрагментарное представление о Древнеиранской цивилизации, однако ряд содержащихся в учебнике моментов требует дальнейшей корректировки. *** The paper deals with the material on Ancient Iran which is contained in the textbook on Ancient History for 5th grade of secondary school, written by A.A. Vigasin, G.I. Goder and I.S. Sventsitskaya. It is concluded that the textbook allows pupils to gain the general though fragmental idea about the civilization of Ancient Iran, but some positions (namely, to some extent 'orientalist', in the terminology by E. Said, approach) require further correction.
International Journal of Maritime History, Oct 30, 2017
In modern historiography, Sasanian Iran is commonly perceived as a land power. However, various p... more In modern historiography, Sasanian Iran is commonly perceived as a land power. However, various primary sources indicate that the Sasanian navy played an important role in the military efforts of the Persians in late antiquity. The Sasanian navy was established to ensure the external security of the Persian state by exerting control over the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf region, and based on the aspiration of the Sasanid authorities to enhance their military and political, as well as commercial, influence in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. The most dynamic phase of the Persian navy’s activities occurred during the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan (531–579 CE), when fleet operations enabled the Persians to conquer Yemen and there was an attempt to establish the navy in the Black Sea basin. The last phase of Sasanian naval activity took place during the Byzantine–Persian war of 602–628 CE. In this conflict, the Persian fleet initially achieved some success in the Mediterranean Sea, but eventually it was completely defeated by the more skillful Byzantine navy. The main areas of the Persian navy’s activities were the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The Sasanids’ attempts to establish fleets in the Black Sea in the 540s and Mediterranean in the 620s were ended by Byzantium. After the fall of the Sasanian Empire, Persian ships became part of the Arabian armed forces and for some time continued to participate in wars on the side of the Arabs, whose victories over the Byzantines were, to some extent, due to the naval experience of the Persians.
Данная работа является первым в российской историографии оригинальным исследованием, содержащим ц... more Данная работа является первым в российской историографии оригинальным исследованием, содержащим целостную картину политической истории сасанидского Ирана в период его становления как мировой державы (III–IV вв.). В этом смысле монография соответствует общемировым тенденциям в области иранистики. Автором учтены все новейшие исследования в рамках изучаемого проблемного поля. Автор разбивает раннесасанидскую эпоху на четыре периода, посвящая каждому из них отдельную главу: - становление Сасанидского государства (происхождение династии Сасанидов, их борьба с парфянскими царями, правление Ардашира I); - правление Шапура I (242–272) (войны с Римом, кушанами, развитие государственного аппарата); - кризис рубежа III–IV вв. (правление царей от Ормизда I до Ормизда II); - новое возвышение Ирана при Шапуре II Великом (309–379). Повествование внутри глав подчинено единой логике – в каждой из них автор рассматривает вопросы внешней и внутренней политики, развитие государственных институтов, трансформацию государственной идеологии, эволюцию зороастрийской религиозной системы, включая вопросы государственно-церковных и межконфессиональных отношений.
Долгое время как в отечественной, так и зарубежной исторической науке было принято считать, что в... more Долгое время как в отечественной, так и зарубежной исторической науке было принято считать, что вооруженные силы персидской державы Сасанидов (III-VII вв.) состояли исключительно из сухопутных родов войск - конницы, пехоты и отрядов боевых слонов (элефантерии). Предлагаемая вниманию читателей новая книга кандидата исторических наук В. А. Дмитриева вносит серьезные коррективы в устоявшиеся представления о военном деле Сасанидов. На широком историческом материале автор убедительно показывает, что наряду с сухопутными частями вполне определенную (а порой - и решающую) роль в войнах, которые велись сасанидским Ираном на протяжении всей его истории, играл военно-морской флот.
The first part of the book has to do with diverse aspects of the Sasanian art of warfare, viz. th... more The first part of the book has to do with diverse aspects of the Sasanian art of warfare, viz. the composition and organization of the Persian army, its armament and another military outfit, as well as battle tactics and strategy. On the basis of the available evidence, one can come to a conclusion that the organization of the Persian host was quite different from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine professional armies, being de facto no more than irregular troops. The Persian basic force was cavalry divided into heavy-armed cataphracts and light-armed archers. In addition, some infantry, elephant corps, and navy were in the composition of the Sasanian army. The Persians’ tactics were grounded on cavalry operations with the use of various stratagems. Their strategy, unlike that of the Romans, was almost always offensive: it is significant that even in its crisis periods Sasanian Iran attacked the Roman Near Eastern possessions. The latter part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman wars for the Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods: - 232–298: primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226–242) and Shapur I (242–272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under emperor Diocletian (284–305) — the Romans could win the war of 296–298 and restored status quo. - Early 4th century through 387: prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309–379). - 387–540: a period of relatively peaceful coexistence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only. - 540–579: drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion. - 579–591: a period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East. - 591–628: the conclusive stage of their struggle. During the war of 602–628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo. A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of world history.
*** This book is a revised and updated version of my previous work, published in 2008 in 'Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie' Publishing House under the title “Horsemen in Sparkling Armour”: The Warfare of Sasanian Iran and the History of the Roman-Persian Wars ("Militaria Antiqua" Series. Vol. XII).
The book consists of two parts. The first one is devoted to diverse aspects of the Sasanian art o... more The book consists of two parts. The first one is devoted to diverse aspects of the Sasanian art of warfare, viz. the composition and organization of the Persian army, its armament and other military outfit, as well as battle tactics and strategy. On the basis of the available evidence one can come to a conclusion that the organization of the Persian host was quite different from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine professional armies, being de facto no more than irregular troops. The Persian basic force was cavalry divided into heavy-armed cataphracts and light-armed archers. In addition, some infantry and elephant corps were in the composition of the Sasanian army. The Persians' tactics were grounded on cavalry operations with the use of various stratagems. Their strategy, unlike that of the Romans, was almost always offensive: it is significant that even in its crisis periods Sasanian Iran attacked the Roman Near Eastern provinces. The second part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman Wars for the control over Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods: 1) 235—298: Primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226—242) and Shapur I (242—272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under the emperor Diocletian (284—305) — the Romans could win the war of 296—298 and restored status quo. 2) Early 4th century through 387: Prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309—379). 3) 387—540: Period of relatively peaceful co-existence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only. 4) 540—579: Drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion. 5) 579—591: Period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East. 6) 591—628: Final stage of their struggle. During the war of 602—628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo. A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of the world history.
""The book is devoted to the source study of the geofraphical information about the Persia contai... more ""The book is devoted to the source study of the geofraphical information about the Persia contained in Ammianus Marcellinus' "Res Gestae" (Amm. Marc. XXIII. 6. 10-74).
The main outlines:
1. For Ammianus Marcellinus the notion "Persia" meant whole Asia to the east from the Roman mesopotamian frontier (even including Sera≈China).
2. The main geographical source for Ammianus was “Geography” of Ptolemy. But Ammianus didn't use the proper work of Ptolemy but its short and inexact Latin remake. Obviously, Ammianus also used the schematic geographical maps (like Tabula Peutengeriana) made on the basis of Ptolemy’s data.
3. Ammianus does not describe geography of real Persia, but compiles his "Persian" digression on the basis of classical literary tradition and, probably, cartographical sources.""
Metamorphoses of History / Метаморфозы истории, 2023
The writings of John Chrysostom contain information about the religious life of Persian society. ... more The writings of John Chrysostom contain information about the religious life of Persian society. Along with information about the official religion of Sasanian Iran (Zoroastrianism) the John Chrysostom’s writings provide information indicating the gradual spread of Christianity in Persian Empire. The information about Zoroastrianism reported by John Chrysostom concerns mainly two aspects: (1) the cult of Fire and (2) the priestly estate. The most notable feature of this part of data is the anachronistic identification of the inhabitants of Ancient Babylon as Persians and the resulting definition of the Babylonians as fire worshipers. This can be explained by the fact that in the Late Antiquity non-Roman Asia was associated just with Persia, and all the inhabitants of the territories located east of the Euphrates were perceived as the Persians, no matter what historical era was discussed. John Chrysostom also notes the tendency of Zoroastrian priests (magoi) to perform their rituals in a state of religious ecstasy. John Chrysostom’s references to the spread of Christianity in Sasanian Iran are more numerous. He reports (1) on the widespread preaching of the Christian faith in Persia, (2) on anti-Christian persecution by the Persians, (3) on the appearance of numerous martyrs in Iran and (4) on the erection of Christian churches there. All this information is confirmed both in Western (i.e. Classical) and in Eastern (i.e. Persian and Syrian) literary sources as well as archaeological excavations.
An analysis of the information reported by John Chrysostom shows that he adhered to the usual for Late Antiquity paradigm of perception of the Oriental world. In addition, it should be noted the reliability of the John Chrysostom’s information about the religious life of Sasanian Iran, which testifies to the reliability of the writings of John Chrysostom as a historical sources.
Сочинения святителя Иоанна Златоуста включают в себя многочисленные сведения о Персии и персах. Ч... more Сочинения святителя Иоанна Златоуста включают в себя многочисленные сведения о Персии и персах. Часть из них относится к военной истории и отражает военные и военно-политические реалии римско-персидских отношений в современную Иоанну Златоусту эпоху. Основная часть информации, сообщаемой Иоанном Златоустом о римско-персидских войнах, связана с Персидской экспедицией императора Юлиана Отступника 363 г. Неудачный исход кампании 363 г. для римлян святитель связывает с тем, что Юлиан организовал антихристианские гонения, и его гибель во время похода трактуется Иоанном Златоустом как кара Божия. Святитель демонстрирует двойственное отношение к персам, считая их, с одной стороны, варварами и противниками Рима, а с другой – народом, демонстрирующим высокие моральные качества (в частности, гуманность по отношению к римлянам). Описание Иоанном Златоустом вторжения римской армии в Персию во многих деталях совпадает со сведениями Аммиана Марцеллина, являвшегося участником событий 363 г. Это свидетельствует о высокой степени достоверности сообщаемой Иоанном Златоустом информации.
Практически все великие державы Древности, как восточные, так и западные, стремились обезопасить ... more Практически все великие державы Древности, как восточные, так и западные, стремились обезопасить свои границы путем возведения пограничных оборонительных линий. В этом отношении не стал исключением и сасанидский Иран. На границах Сасанидской империи в разное время, но в основном — в период наивысшего могущества царства Сасанидов (IV—VI вв.) были возведены мощные фортификационные системы, по своим масштабам превосходившие многие из более известных аналогичных сооружений, созданных в античном мире. К ним относятся Стена арабов, Гурганская стена, Стена Таммиша, Джар-и Кулбад, Дербентская фортификационная система и укрепления в Дарьяльском ущелье.
***
Almost all the great ancient both Eastern and Western powers sought to secure their borders by erecting border defensive lines. In this respect, Sassanian Iran was no exception. On the borders of the Sassanid Empire at different times, but mainly during the period of the highest power of the Sasanid kingdom (4th—6th centuries CE), strong fortification systems were erected. In scale, they surpassed many of the more famous similar structures created in the Classical world. These included the Wall of the Arabs, the Wall of Gorgan, the Wall of Tammishe, Jar-i Kulbad, the Darband fortification system, and the Darial Gorge.
The Sasanids were interested in Arabia from the very beginning of their reign in Iran, and it was... more The Sasanids were interested in Arabia from the very beginning of their reign in Iran, and it was already the founder of the new dynasty Ardashir I Pabagan who attempted to establish Persian military and political influence in the Arabian Peninsula. In this regard, the purpose of the article is a historical reconstruction of the events connected with the conquest of the eastern and southern parts of the Arabian Peninsula by Ardashir I. The main sources are the “Book of Long Narratives” by Dinawari, “The History of the Prophets and Kings” by Tabarī, the anonymous “Desire to Know the History of Persians and Arabs” and “The Dictionary of Countries” by Yakut. Additional but important information is contained in the inscription of the shahanshah Shapur I on the Ka’bah-i Zardusht, the Sabean inscription Sh 31, and the rock relief of the Shahanshah Warahran II. We know almost nothing about their chronology, but judging by the context in which these events are described in the relevant sources, they presumably can be dated back to the first half of the reign of Ardashir Pabagan. At the same time, a more thorough analysis of the sources and taking into account the events that occurred later, during the reign of Shapur II and Khosrow I, allow us to consider the Arabian campaigns of Ardashir Pabagan as the first stage of the long struggle of the Sasanids for hegemony over the entire eastern and southern part of the Arabian Peninsula from southern Iraq to Yemen inclusive.
Вестник древней истории [Journal of Ancient History], 2020
The figure of the Sasanian shahanshah Narseh (293-302) is one of the most colourful and at the sa... more The figure of the Sasanian shahanshah Narseh (293-302) is one of the most colourful and at the same time the most dramatic in the history of the Sasanid dynasty. Despite the fact that Narseh was the most likely candidate for the crown after the death of his brother Hormizd-Ardashir (Hormizd I; 272-273), it was his brother Warahran I who took the throne (273-276). In 276, Narseh failed to become king again, and the throne passed to the Warahran I's son Warahran II (276-293). Throughout these years Narseh was the viceroy (šāh) of important border provinces: up to 273 - Sakastan, from 273 to 293 - Armenia. Narseh managed to become shahanshah through a coup d'état with the support of the highest Iranian nobility only after the death of Warahran II. The reign of Narseh was marred by the defeat in the Roman-Persian war of 296-298 and the annexation of several important Persian regions in Northern Mesopotamia by the Romans. Taking advantage of the weakening of Sasanian Iran, in 301 the Armenian Kingdom adopted Christianity and thereby finally became an enemy of Persia. The internal political situation during the reign of Narseh was marked by a relaxation of religious persecutions directed against the non-Zoroastrians, the revival of the cult of the goddess Anahid (who was considered as the patroness of the first Sasanian kings), and further strengthening of the nobility, who became virtually independent from central government. Narseh probably abdicated the throne in 302 under the pressure of an aristocratic faction dissatisfied with his rule. However, it would not be right to think that Narseh was the main culprit of the misfortunes that fell upon the Sasanid state during his reign. Everything that happened at that time was an objective result of the twenty-year destructive government of Narseh's predecessors, and it was impossible for one king to turn the tide within such a short period.
Вестник древней истории [Journal of Ancient History], 2018
The warships used by the Sasanids exclusively belonged to the type of transport-landing ships and... more The warships used by the Sasanids exclusively belonged to the type of transport-landing ships and were used only for transportation of troops to the place of ground engagement. It is possible that the Persians carried by ships not only foot units but also cavalry detachments, but all evidence of this are controversial. The sources do not report anything about the transportation of battle elephants by sea and, most likely, such a practice in Sasanian Iran did not exist at all. Because of historical, geographical, and military-technical factors, in the basin of the Indian Ocean, the Persians used the sailing vessels of the local, i.e. Asian design (dhow), in the Mediterranean – the ships (galleys) of Byzantine design (dromons and chelandions). The capacity of these types of ships in both cases was approximately identical. The total number of the Sasanian fleet is unknown, but it can be assumed that the Persian naval squadrons could number from a few to a few dozen ships. The paucity and functional limitations of the Sasanid naval forces were due, first of all, to the inability of the Sasanids, unlike their ancient Achaemenid predecessors, to gain a foothold on the shores of the Mediter-ranean Sea. So when the Sasanian fleet still appeared in the Mediterranean in the early seventh century CE, it was not able to compete successfully with the Byzantine navy because of its small number and absence of sufficient combat experience. This circumstance became the one of the important reasons for Sasanian Iran’s defeat in the Persian-Byzantine war of 602–628 CE.
Since ancient times, the territory of the Armenian Highlands was attracting attention of the neig... more Since ancient times, the territory of the Armenian Highlands was attracting attention of the neighboring powers due to its extremely advantageous geopolitical position. In the Late Antiquity period the struggle for control over Armenia was gradually waged between two world powers – first Rome and Parthia, and later (and most actively) – between the Roman Empire and Sassanian Iran. Armenia’s position worsened sharply after 227, when the Parthian kingdom, weakened by the wars with Rome, was replaced by the powerful Sasanian Persia. Meanwhile, in the existing historiography attention is mostly directed towards the military-political events of the 4th century, which resulted in the division of the Armenian kingdom between Rome and Iran in 387. In this regard, the purpose of this work is to determine the place and role of Armenia in the context of the struggle between Rome and Iran for hegemony in the Near East during the first century of the existence of the Sasanian power, namely, from the moment of her emergence (227) until the expiration of the First Treaty of Nisibis in 298 (338). Our study shows that during this period Roman-Persian-Armenian relations were a very dynamically changing system. Evolution of the said system can be divided into three stages: 1) 227–252 AD; 2) 252–298 AD; 3) 298–338 AD. The first stage is characterized by a gradual strengthening of Iran’s positions in the Middle East in general and in the South Caucasus in particular, which led to the conquest of Armenia by the Persians and her integration into Sasanian Iran (252). In the second stage the Armenian statehood was gradually restoring, which was largely facilitated, on the one hand, by the support from the Roman Empire overcoming the crisis by the end of the 3rd century AD and striving for the revival of the former power, and on the other – internal instability in the kingdom of the Sasanids after the death of Shahanshah Hormizd I (272 –273). The third stage (298–338) can be defined by the rapprochement between Rome and Great Armenia, the strengthening of Roman influence in Armenia and the gradual growth of Roman-Persian contradictions over the control of the Great Armenian kingdom, which resulted in an open confrontation in 337–338 AD.
Древние и средневековые культуры Центральной Азии (становление, развитие и взаимодействие урбанизированных и скотоводческих обществ): Материалы Международной конференции (10-12 ноября 2020 г., Санкт-Петербург). — СПб.: ИИМК РАН, 2020., 2020
Древности Восточной Европы, Центральной Азии и Южной Сибири в контексте связей и взаимодействий в евразийском культурном пространстве (новые данные и концепции)
After the fall the Achaemenid power in the 330 BC province of Pars lost its former significance. ... more After the fall the Achaemenid power in the 330 BC province of Pars lost its former significance. From the administrative-territorial point of view, Pars at that time was a federation consisted of relatively small principalities, and Istakhr was one of such possessions. During the reign of the Seleucid dynasty, the rulers of Istakhr bore the title frataraka (literally “ruler”, “governor”). However, from the II century BC, after Iran came under the rule of the Arshakid dynasty, the political status of the Istakhr rulers changed: instead of the previous title of frataraka they began to call themselves shahs, i. e. “kings”
It seems that these changes had very important consequences for Istakhr as well as the whole Iran from a historical perspective. The acquisition of the new title by local dynasts enabling them to regard themselves as heirs of the great Iranian rulers of ancient times. Subsequently, this surge of national and political identity will become one of the key factors in the coming to power in Iran in 220s Ad the Sasanian dynasty that came just from Istakhr.
В статье анализируются античные сюжеты, содержащиеся в произведениях современного российского рэп... more В статье анализируются античные сюжеты, содержащиеся в произведениях современного российского рэпера Oxxxymiron’а (Мирона Фёдорова). Сделан вывод о том, что активное использование Oxxxymiron’ом античных сюжетов и образов может свидетельствовать о новой форме рецепции русской культурой античного культурно-исторического наследия и, таким образом, представлять собой современный вариант феномена «русской античности». *** The article analyzes Classical plots and images contained in the compositions of the famous modern Russian rapper Oxxxymiron (real name is Miron Fedorov; born in 1985). The Classical images most often used by Oxxxymiron are metaphors. In some cases, they are in close connection with the biblical (namely, the Old Testament) plots. Their main role is that they are one of the stylistic means by which the author sets his heroes, as well as himself, against the outside world, and Oxxxymiron does not hide the feelings of estrangement and even some hostility towards the surrounding reality. However, the rapper makes it clear that he is not going to take the current situation for granted and to put up with it. He aims to change if not the whole world, then at least the subculture to which he belongs, viz. Russian rap. Somewhat apart from other Oxxxymiron’s works is the composition called “Imperium” (2017). In it, the rapper is trying to answer the question: “What is an Empire?” This is the only case where Oxxxymiron uses some information related to Greco-Roman history in its direct, not metaphorical sense. At the same time, Oxxxymiron’s songs demonstrate not only socio-psychological protest, philosophical, historical and other moods, but also some lyrical motifs, which in some cases are expressed by the singer through the Classical images. The Classical reminiscences are highly concentrated in the 2012 single “Ultima Thule”. Here the Classical geographers’ mysterious island Ultima Thule serves as an image of the distant and beckoning country. It can be concluded that the active use of the Classical images by Oxxxymiron is likely to demonstrate a new form of reception of the Greco-Roman cultural and historical heritage by the Russian culture and could be interpreted as a modern version of the “Russian antiquity” phenomenon.
The warships used by the Sasanids were troop ships used exclusively to carry soldiers to the thea... more The warships used by the Sasanids were troop ships used exclusively to carry soldiers to the theatre of operations, although it is possible they deployed merchant ships to carry cavalry. In the basin of the Indian Ocean, the Persians used the vessels of the local Asian type (so-called dhow), whereas in the Mediterranean they utilized ships of Byzantine design (sailing-rowing dromons and chelandions). The total size of the Sasanian fleet is unknown, but it can be assumed that naval squadrons numbered from a few to several dozen ships. The Byzantines enjoyed naval supremacy, which was one of the most important reasons for the Sasanid defeat in the Persian-Byzantine war of 602–628 and, therefore, for the future conquest of Iran and all the Near East by the Arabs.
Восток. Афро-Азиатские общества: история и современность [Vostok. Afro-Aziatskie obshchestva: istoriia i sovremennost'], 2019
From the early IV century AD, the eastern regions of Sasanian Iran, commonly referred to as Bactr... more From the early IV century AD, the eastern regions of Sasanian Iran, commonly referred to as Bactria-Tokharistan, were invaded by various hostile peoples. For that reason, the struggle against eastern foes became one of the most important vectors of Shapur II’s (309–379) foreign policy. An analysis of the primary sources shows that Shapur’s eastern campaigns were the result not so much of his pursuit of military expansion as that of the ethnopolitical processes in Bactria-Tokharistan and adjacent regions in the IV century AD. In this regard, the wars waged by Shapur II on the Iranian eastern frontiers were defensive rather than offensive in nature and could be divided into three steps. At the first stage (late 320’s – mid-330’s AD), they were caused by the necessity to put an end to the strengthening of Kushanshahr, which has evolved from a vassal principality to an independent state, pursuing a hostile policy towards Sasanian Iran. The second eastern campaign of Shapur II (350’s AD) was triggered by the invasion of Bactria-Tokharistan by nomadic tribes known as the Chionites, who not only occupied the territory of Kushanshahr but also claimed the eastern regions of Sasanian kingdom. The final phase of Shapur II’s wars in Eastern Iran (370’s AD) represented a military conflict with the Kidarites’ who, obviously, were the dynasty of Chionite origin too, but managed to establish their own realm on the territory of former Kushanshahr and some neighbor areas. The immediate result of all these events consisted in the loss of control over Bactria-Tokharistan by the Persians. In the longer-term, the Sasanids were forced for several decades (until the reign of Yazdegerd II) to give up the attempts to return this region into the sphere of their political influence.
Научные ведомости БелГУ. Серия: История. Политология. 2019. Т. 46. № 1. C. 20-28.
В существующей историографии Шапур II Великий (309-379) воспринимается почти исключительно как ца... more В существующей историографии Шапур II Великий (309-379) воспринимается почти исключительно как царь-завоеватель, всё правление которого прошло в войнах с соседними странами и народами. В значительной степени это так, но совершенно очевидно и то, что столь высокий уровень внешней активности Ирана в годы правления Шапура II был бы невозможен без создания стабильно функционирующей административно-политической системы внутри страны. В связи с этим в статье рассматриваются основные направления и результаты внутриполитической деятельности Шапура II. С формальной точки зрения Шапур действовал в том же русле, что и его предшественники, сохраняя сложившуюся за столетие, истекшее с момента возникновения сасанидского Ирана, систему органов власти. Однако государственная идеология и религия подверглись в данный период весьма глубоким изменениям. В результате сасанидский Иран превратился в централизованное государство с сильной царской властью, что стало ключевым условием возобновления при Шапуре Великом широкой внешней экспансии, в ходе которой сасанидский Иран окончательно закрепил за собой статус одной из ведущих мировых держав эпохи Поздней античности. **************************** In the existing historiography, Sasanian shahanshah Shapur II the Great (309-379) is considered almost exclusively as a conqueror, whose entire reign passed in wars with neighboring countries and peoples. To a large extent, it is true, but it is also quite obvious that such a high level of Sasanians' external activity during the reign of Shapur II would not have been possible without the establishment of a stable and effective administrative and political system within the Iran itself. In this regard, the article examines the main directions and results of the internal policy of Shapur II. From a formal point of view, Shapur acted in the same way as his predecessors, preserving the system of government that has developed over the century, which has elapsed since the emergence of Sasanian Iran. However, the state ideology and religion have undergone very profound changes during Shapur's reign. As a result, Sasanid's realm became a highly centralized empire with a strong shahanshah's power, and this circumstance was an essential condition for the renewal of wide expansion under Shapur the Great, during which Sasanian Iran finally secured the status of one of the leading powers in the world of Late Antiquity.
В статье анализируется материал о Древнем Иране, содержащийся в учебнике по истории Древнего мира... more В статье анализируется материал о Древнем Иране, содержащийся в учебнике по истории Древнего мира для V кл. (Вигасин А.А., Годер Г.И., Свенцицкая И.С. Всеобщая история. История Древнего мира. 5 класс: учебник для общеобразовательных организаций. Изд. 3-е. М., 2014). Сделан вывод о том, что в целом учебник позволяет сформировать у учащихся общее, хотя и фрагментарное представление о Древнеиранской цивилизации, однако ряд содержащихся в учебнике моментов требует дальнейшей корректировки. *** The paper deals with the material on Ancient Iran which is contained in the textbook on Ancient History for 5th grade of secondary school, written by A.A. Vigasin, G.I. Goder and I.S. Sventsitskaya. It is concluded that the textbook allows pupils to gain the general though fragmental idea about the civilization of Ancient Iran, but some positions (namely, to some extent 'orientalist', in the terminology by E. Said, approach) require further correction.
International Journal of Maritime History, Oct 30, 2017
In modern historiography, Sasanian Iran is commonly perceived as a land power. However, various p... more In modern historiography, Sasanian Iran is commonly perceived as a land power. However, various primary sources indicate that the Sasanian navy played an important role in the military efforts of the Persians in late antiquity. The Sasanian navy was established to ensure the external security of the Persian state by exerting control over the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf region, and based on the aspiration of the Sasanid authorities to enhance their military and political, as well as commercial, influence in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. The most dynamic phase of the Persian navy’s activities occurred during the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan (531–579 CE), when fleet operations enabled the Persians to conquer Yemen and there was an attempt to establish the navy in the Black Sea basin. The last phase of Sasanian naval activity took place during the Byzantine–Persian war of 602–628 CE. In this conflict, the Persian fleet initially achieved some success in the Mediterranean Sea, but eventually it was completely defeated by the more skillful Byzantine navy. The main areas of the Persian navy’s activities were the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The Sasanids’ attempts to establish fleets in the Black Sea in the 540s and Mediterranean in the 620s were ended by Byzantium. After the fall of the Sasanian Empire, Persian ships became part of the Arabian armed forces and for some time continued to participate in wars on the side of the Arabs, whose victories over the Byzantines were, to some extent, due to the naval experience of the Persians.
Crowns, Hats, Turbans, and Helmets. The Headgear in Iranian History. Vol. I: Pre-Islamic Period / Ed. by K. Maksymiuk & G. Karamian. Siedlce; Tehran, 2017
According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the battle headgear of Šāpūr II was decorated with ram’s horns... more According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the battle headgear of Šāpūr II was decorated with ram’s horns. This information corresponds to original Persian iconographic sources. Ram’s horns as sacral royal regalia first appeared in Iran after the campaign of Alexander the Great who brought syncretic Greek-Egyptian cult of the ram-headed Zeus-Ammon to the Orient. The Alexander’s practice to use ram horns as an attribute of royal power was reborn in Sasanian times, but with a new religious and ideological (viz. Zoroastrian) sense. Obviously, Sasanians ingenuously believed that by this way they restored ancient Iranian tradition, while in reality they just filled with new content the phenomenon of the Hellenistic epoch.
The so-called “Night Battle” of Singara (344 AD) still remains poorly studied historical event be... more The so-called “Night Battle” of Singara (344 AD) still remains poorly studied historical event because of discrepancies between the sources. The outcome of the battle is described in them with considerable discrepancies too. The analysis of the sources from the point of view of the “classical theory of war” elaborated by C. Clausewitz, unambiguously demonstrates that the winning side in this battle were the Persians.
Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н. И. Лобачевского. 2017. № 4. С. 34–44., Oct 2017
В историографии сложилось устойчивое восприятие Сасанидской державы как государства, чьи вооружён... more В историографии сложилось устойчивое восприятие Сасанидской державы как государства, чьи вооружённые силы были представлены исключительно сухопутными родами войск. Однако материал источников позволяет констатировать наличие в сасанидском Иране на протяжении всей его истории военно-морского флота, выполнявшего функцию боевого (военно-транспортного) обеспечения действий сухопутной армии. Главными причинами создания Сасанидами собственных военно-морских сил являлись необходимость обеспечения внешней безопасности Персидского государства путём установления контроля над морскими коммуникациями в зоне Персидского залива и стремление персидских властей к усилению военно-политического и торгово-экономического влияния сасанидского Ирана в северной части бассейна Индийского океана. Наиболее активная фаза действий персидского флота приходится на годы правления Хосрова Ануширвана (531–579). Последние упоминания об участии сасанидских военных кораблей в боевых действиях относятся к периоду персидско-византийской войны 602–628 гг. Основной зоной действий сасанидского флота являлись Персидский залив, Красное и Аравийское моря; попытки персов создать флот на Чёрном (540-е гг.) и Средиземном (620-е гг.) морях были пресечены Византией. После гибели Сасанидской державы персидские корабли вошли в состав вооружённых сил Арабского халифата и некоторое время продолжали участвовать в боевых действиях на стороне арабов. Своими морскими победами арабы в определённой мере были обязаны опыту, позаимствованному ими у персидских мореплавателей.
***
It has been a widely-held ingrained perception in modern historiography that Sasanian Iran was a power whose armed forces were represented exclusively by land forces. However, the material of primary sources allows us to confirm the existence in Sassanid Iran throughout its history of the navy, which performed the function of combat (logistic) support for the land army. The main reasons for creating the navy were the need to ensure the external security of the Persian state by establishing control over the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf region and the desire of the Persian authorities to strengthen their military and political as well as trade and economic influence of Sassanid Iran in the northern part of the Indian Ocean basin. The most dynamic phase of the Persian navy’s activities occurred during the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan (531–579) when the Persians conquered Yemen by means of their fleet and even tried to establish a naval force in the Black Sea. The last event in which the Sasanian navy took part was the Byzantine-Persian war of 602–628. In this conflict, the Persians initially were able to achieve some progress in the Mediterranean Sea but eventually they were completely defeated by the more skillful Byzantine navy. The main areas of the Persian navy’s activities were the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea. The Sasanids’ attempts to establish their fleet in the Black Sea (540’s) and in the Mediterranean Sea (620’s) were foiled by Byzantium. After the fall of the Sasanian Empire, Persian ships became part of the armed forces of the Arab Caliphate and for some time continued to participate in military operations on the side of the Arabs. Victories of the Arabian fleet over the Byzantines were, to some extent, due to the naval experience which the Arab seafarers got from their Persian teachers.
Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н. И. Лобачевского. 2016. № 1. С. 9–22.
Разведывательная деятельность являлась важным элементом военного дела сасанидского Ирана. Источни... more Разведывательная деятельность являлась важным элементом военного дела сасанидского Ирана. Источники разведывательной информации, использовавшиеся сасанидским военным командованием, были весьма разнообразны. С точки зрения структуры и механизма организации военно-разведывательной деятельности, отлаженности системы управления разведслужбами и эффективности самой военной разведки сасанидский Иран не уступал Римской империи, а на отдельных этапах своей истории и превосходил её. Явные параллели в организации деятельности персидской и римской военных разведок ещё раз подтверждают тезис о сходстве позднеримской и сасанидской военных систем. Традиции и методы осуществления разведывательной деятельности, сложившиеся и выработанные в сасанидском Иране, сохраняли свою актуальность и в последующие эпохи, оказав, таким образом, существенное влияние на дальнейшую эволюцию военно-разведывательной деятельности в странах Ближнего и Среднего Востока. *** Military intelligence was an important part of Sasanian art of war. Sasanian military command used various sources of intelligence. The structure and organization of the Persian military intelligence as well as coordination and effectiveness of its activities were not inferior to the Roman one. Furthermore, at some stages of history the efficiency of Sasanian military intelligence was superior to Roman intelligence service. Obvious parallels between the organization of the Persian and Roman military intelligence confirm the idea of similarity between the Late Roman and Sasanian military systems. Traditions of intelligence activities elaborated in Sasanian Iran remained relevant during subsequent periods, and thus made a significant impact on the further evolution of the military intelligence in the Middle East.
Scientific almanac “Metamorphoses of History” - Call for Paper
The almanac is registered in... more Scientific almanac “Metamorphoses of History” - Call for Paper
The almanac is registered in the “ISSN Register” (ISSN 2308-6181— the printed version, ISSN 2414-3677 — the online version) and is included in the following databases: ERIH PLUS; ICI JML; ROAD; NSD; RISC; IBI.
Full-text versions of all published issues of the almanac are available on the website of the Pskov State University Publishing House, in the RISC and on the site of the almanac: https://sites.google.com/site/metamorphoseshistoryen/home).
Almanac is published with a frequency of two issues a year.
Manuscripts should be submitted via e-mail: metamist@mail.ru.
The almanac covers the following fields: world (i.e. non-Russian) history; history of international relations; history of international security; historiography of world history; source studies; intellectual history; area studies; teaching of world history in higher school.
Materials are accepted for publication both in Russian and in English. When preparing materials, you must strictly follow the guidelines for authors.
The manuscripts submitted for publication are reviewed.
All materials recommended by reviewers for publication are published in the almanac for free.
ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ / CONTENTS
ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
SHAVAREBI E. (Иран). A Note on “The Saint Peters... more ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ / CONTENTS
ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ SHAVAREBI E. (Иран). A Note on “The Saint Petersburg School” and Its Contribution to Sasanian Numismatics: Past and Present. ДУШИН О. Э. (Россия). Схоласты об usura: дискурс совести и этос средневековых городов. HIRVONEN V. M. (Финляндия). The Mystic Jean Gerson on the Dangers on the Way to the Holiness: Can Too Strong Asceticism Lead to Mental Disorder? ВУКОВ Н. (Болгария). Память и монументальная репрезентация Великой войны: балканские проекции.
ПРОБЛЕМЫ МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ ШАРНИНА А. Б. (Россия). Дипломатические инструменты в практике предотвращения военных конфликтов в эллинистическую эпоху (асилия) ХРИШКЕВИЧ Т. Г. (Россия). Организационно-правовые механизмы обеспечения антитеррористической безопасности в ФРГ в начале XXI в.
ИСТОРИЯ ДРЕВНЕГО МИРА MAKSYMIUK K. I. (Польша). Destruction of the Ādur Gušnasp Temple in Ādurbādagān as a Revenge for Abduction of the Holy Cross from Jerusalem in the Context of the Letters of Heraclius ДМИТРИЕВ В. А. (Россия). "Око государево": к истории военной контрразведки в сасанидском Иране.
ИСТОРИЯ СРЕДНИХ ВЕКОВ и РАННЕГО НОВОГО ВРЕМЕНИ МИТИН В. В. (Россия). Особенности политической борьбы в Монгольской империи в XIII в. МИХЕЕВ Д. В. (Россия). Развитие испанской оборонительной системы в Новом Свете накануне Англо-испанской войны.
НОВАЯ и НОВЕЙШАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЧОЙ ДОККЮ (Республика Корея). Император Коджон и план по созданию корейского правительства в изгнании в Приморье. ХРИШКЕВИЧ Т. Г. (Россия). «Альтернатива для Германии» между федеральными выборами — феномен популярности малой партии.
РОССИЯ в МИРОВОЙ ИСТОРИИ ЖУЧКОВ К. Б. (Россия). Французская военная мысль в России накануне Отечественной войны 1812 г. ФРОЛОВ В. В. (Россия). Образ Германии на страницах российского дореволюционного издания «Летопись войны 1914–1917 гг.» ФИЛИМОНОВ А. В. (Россия). Репатрианты в Псковской области в первые послевоенные годы (1944–1949).
ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ/CONTENTS
ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
* Никоненко С. В. (Россия) Поч... more ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ/CONTENTS
ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
* Никоненко С. В. (Россия) Почему Александр отошёл от Аристотеля? (критический анализ историографии)
* Брагова А. М. (Россия) Этический аспект старости в оценке Цицерона
* Яворский Д. Р. (Россия) К вопросу о социокультурных функциях паломничества в средневековой Западной Европе
* Потехина И. П. (Россия) Уильям Эдвард Лант — историк папских финансов
* Рябов О. В. (Россия) «Широкие объятия Родины»: право, «правда» и материнская любовь в легитимации присоединения Крыма к России
ИСТОРИЯ ДРЕВНЕГО МИРА
* Акобян Р. Х. (Армения) Локализация Тигранакерта и Тигранакертское сражение 6 октября 69 г. до н. э. (часть 2)
ИСТОРИЯ СРЕДНИХ ВЕКОВ И РАННЕГО НОВОГО ВРЕМЕНИ
* Митин В. В. (Россия) Мухали — верный кулюк Чингис-хана
* Колпаков М. Ю. (Россия) Особенности восприятия права и справедливости в трактате Пьера Дюбуа “De recuperatione Terrae sanctae”
НОВАЯ И НОВЕЙШАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
* Богатырёв А. В. (Россия) К реконструкции пребывания первого персидского посольства при дворе Яна III Собеского
* Айвазян А. М. (Армения) Ручное огнестрельное оружие армянской армии в 1720-х гг. (количество, виды, производство и добыча)
* Махмудова Н. Б. (Узбекистан) Состояние пенитенциарной системы Туркестанского края в начале XX в. (по материалам отчёта сенаторской ревизии графа К. К. Палена)
* Космач В. А. (Белоруссия) Причины и начало Второй мировой войны: некоторые уточнения и переоценки
ОБЗОРЫ И РЕЦЕНЗИИ
* Дмитриев В. А. (Россия) Рецензия на: Айвазян А. М. Армяно-персидская война 449–451 гг. Кампании и сражения. Ер.: Воскан Ереванци, 2016. 516 с.; илл. ISBN 978-99930-0-243-7
* Михеев Д. В. (Россия) Рецензия на: Губарев В. К. Фрэнсис Дрейк. М.: «Молодая гвардия», 2013. 374 с. ISBN 978-5-235-03612-3
Dear colleagues, "History and the World" is a scientific yearbook at the Institute of History and... more Dear colleagues, "History and the World" is a scientific yearbook at the Institute of History and International Relations at the University of Natural and Humanities in Siedlce. The first volume appeared in 2012. In the interests of the magazine's history. "History and the World" published materials science staff of the Institute, but does not close his column in front of authors from outside. It addresses the issues related to the scope of the research carried out by researchers of the Institute. Writing system is typically composed of three divisions: articles, source, and reviews and discussions. "History and the World" has the ambition to keep present the results of their study and become the leading journal of the historical region of Siedlce.
В статье анализируется монография армянского исследователя А. М. Айвазяна «Армяно-персидская войн... more В статье анализируется монография армянского исследователя А. М. Айвазяна «Армяно-персидская война 449-451 гг. Кампании и сражения» (Ереван, 2016). Рассмотрены структура и логика построения работы, обоснованность выводов, определены достоинства книги и её спорные моменты. Сделан вывод о том, что труд А. М. Айвазяна является заметным событием в военно-исторической науке и арменоведении. *** The article presents an analysis of the monograph by an Armenian historian A. M. Ayvazyan "Military History of the Armenian-Persian War of 449-451". The structure, the validity of conclusions, the strengths and weaknesses of the book are examined. The analysis of the Ayvazyan's work leads to the conclusion that it has become a prominent event in the military history as well as in Armenian studies.
В рецензии анализируется монография армянского исследователя А. М. Айвазяна “The Armenian Militar... more В рецензии анализируется монография армянского исследователя А. М. Айвазяна “The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire. Conflict and Alliance under Justinian and Maurice”) (Alfortville, 2014). Рассмотрены структура и логика построения работы, обоснованность выводов, определены достоинства книги и её спорные моменты. Сделан вывод о том, что труд А. М. Айвазяна является заметным событием в военно-исторической науке и арменоведении.
"Эпоха боевых слонов" в России? (рецензия на книгу: Банников А. В. Эпоха боевых слонов (от Александра Великого до падения персидского царства Сасанидов). СПб.: Евразия, 2012. 480 с., 48 с. цв. илл. ISBN 978-5-91852-054-3 // Метаморфозы истории. 2013. Вып. 4. С. 438–449. ISSN 2308-6181
The article presents an analysis of the book by a Saint-Petersburg historian A. V. Bannikov “Epok... more The article presents an analysis of the book by a Saint-Petersburg historian A. V. Bannikov “Epokha boevikh slonov (ot Aleksandra Velikogo do padeniya tsarstva Sasanidov)” (“The Age of War Elephants (from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Persian Kingdom of Sasanids)”). The structure, the source base, the validity of conclusions, the strengths and weaknesses of the book are examined. It is noted that the most successful part of the book is devoted to the Hellenistic elephantry, while the elephantry of Sasanian Iran is studied insufficiently. The structure of A. V. Bannikov’s work is not entirely harmonious. However, the book under review is a noticeable event in the Russian historiography of the Ancient elephantry.
Conclusions (in brief):
1. We have no reason to deny the both-handed grasp of the contos by anc... more Conclusions (in brief):
1. We have no reason to deny the both-handed grasp of the contos by ancient (Sarmatian, Parthian, Roman, Persian etc.) heavily armoured cavalrymen (contophoroi).
2. The vast majority of ancient contophoroi’s images demonstrate the absence of so called “Sarmatian seat”.
3. The images of riders who use two-handed grasp of spear, in most cases the peak is directed at an angle to the body-axis of the horse (the front part of the weapon was located to the left of the horse’s head), which makes it impossible to consider their seat as “Sarmatian”. However, such a seat is widely represented on Sasanian iconographic material; so, it can more reasonably be called “Sasanian”.
Учебно-методический комплекс предназначен для студентов исторического факультета Псковского госуд... more Учебно-методический комплекс предназначен для студентов исторического факультета Псковского государственного университета, изучающих дисциплину "История древнего мира". Старый, но по-прежнему актуальный :)
Abstract:
В историографии сложилось устойчивое восприятие Сасанидской державы как государства,... more Abstract:
В историографии сложилось устойчивое восприятие Сасанидской державы как государства, чьи вооружённые силы были представлены исключительно сухопутными родами войск. Однако материал источников позволяет констатировать наличие в сасанидском Иране на протяжении всей его истории военно-морского флота, выполнявшего функцию боевого (военно-транспортного) обеспечения действий сухопутной армии. Главными причинами создания Сасанидами собственных военно-морских сил являлись необходимость обеспечения внешней безопасности Персидского государства путём установления контроля над морскими коммуникациями в зоне Персидского залива и стремление персидских властей к усилению военно-политического и торгово-экономического влияния сасанидского Ирана в северной части бассейна Индийского океана. Наиболее активная фаза действий персидского флота приходится на годы правления Хосрова Ануширвана (531–579). Последние упоминания об участии сасанидских военных кораблей в боевых действиях относятся к периоду персидско-византийской войны 602–628 гг. Основной зоной действий сасанидского флота являлись Персидский залив, Красное и Аравийское моря; попытки персов создать флот на Чёрном (540 е гг.) и Средиземном (620 е гг.) морях были пресечены Византией. После гибели Сасанидской державы персидские корабли вошли в состав вооружённых сил Арабского халифата и некоторое время продолжали участвовать в боевых действиях на стороне арабов. Своими морскими победами арабы в определённой мере были обязаны опыту, позаимствованному ими у персидских мореплавателей.
***
In the modern historiography, it has developed a stable perception of Sasanian Iran as a power whose armed forces were presented solely by land forces. However, the material of primary sources allows us to ascertain the existence of Sasanian navy which realized the function of logistic support of the land army. The main reasons for the foundation of the Sasanian navy consisted in necessity to ensure the external security of the Persian state by establishing control of the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf region, and in aspiration of the Sasanid authorities to increase the military and political as well as trade and economic influence of Sasanian Iran in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. The most dynamic phase of the Persian Navy's activities falls on the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan (531–579). During his rule, the Persians conquered Yemen by mean of the fleet and even tried to establish navy in the Black Sea. The last militay event in which the Sasanian navy took part was the Byzantine-Persian war of 602–628. In this conflict, the Persians initially were able to achieve some progress in the Mediterranean Sea but as a result, they were completely defeated by the more skillful Byzantine navy. The main areas of the Persian Navy's activities were the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea. The Sasanids’ attempts to establish fleet in the Black Sea (540’s) and Mediterranean Sea (620’s) were put an end by Byzantium. After the fall of Sasanian Empire, Persian ships became the part of the Arabian Navy and for some time continued to participate in wars on the side of the Arabs. Victories of the Arabian fleet over the Byzantines were, to some extent, due to the naval experience which the Arab seafarers got from their Persian teachers.
According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the battle headgear of Šāpūr II was decorated with ram's h... more According to Ammianus Marcellinus, the battle headgear of Šāpūr II was decorated with ram's horns. This information corresponds to original Persian iconographic sources. Ram's horns as sacral royal regalia first appeared in Iran after the campaign of Alexander the Great who brought syncretic Greek-Egyptian cult of the ram-headed Zeus-Ammon to the Orient. The Alexander's practice to use ram horns as an attribute of royal power was reborn in Sasanian times, but with a new religious and ideological (viz. Zoroastrian) sense. Obviously, Sasanians ingenuously believed that by this way they restored ancient Iranian tradition, while in reality they just filled with new content the phenomenon of the Hellenistic epoch.
In the reign of the Sasanids the practice of elephantry usage in Iran was revived after four cent... more In the reign of the Sasanids the practice of elephantry usage in Iran was revived after four centuries of complete absence. One reason for this phenomenon was the Sasanids' ideological policy, focussed, inter alia, on restoration of the traditions of pre-Arsacid epoch, when according to the historical representations of the Persians Iran was ruled by legendary kings of the Kayanid dynasty. But in fact the predecessors of the Arsacids were the Seleucids who, in their turn, used battle elephants extensively. Thus, the revival of the elephantry during the rule of the Sasanids was to a considerable degree dictated by ideological factors, and from this point of view this meant a partial return to the military practice of the Hellenistic era. At the same time the only source of supply of battle elephants in Sasanian Iran and practical skills of their usage could be found only in India. In this regard the Sasanian elephantry objectively continued not Hellenistic but Indian military tra...
Статья посвящена выявлению культурно-исторических и политико-идеологических истоков традиции испо... more Статья посвящена выявлению культурно-исторических и политико-идеологических истоков традиции использования в сасанидском Иране рогов барана в качестве сакрального атрибута царской власти. Впервые рога барана в этом качестве появляются в Иране после походов Александра Македонского, принесшего с собой на Восток синкретический греко-египетский культ “овноголового” Зевса-Амона. Затем рога (но не барана, а быка) как элемент головного убора царей встречаются в Иране в период правления Селевкидов и Аршакидов. В сасанидском Иране традиция использования рогов барана как атрибута царской власти, восходящая к Александру Македонскому, возрождается, но наполняется новым религиозно-идеологическим содержанием. The paper reveals cultural, historical, political, and ideological background of traditional use of ram horns in Sassanid Iran as a sacral attribute of royal power. Ram horns as sacral royal regalia first appeared in Iran after the campaign of Alexander the Great who brought to the Orient sy...
The article presents an analysis of monograph by an Armenian historian A. M. Ayvazyan “The Armeni... more The article presents an analysis of monograph by an Armenian historian A. M. Ayvazyan “The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire. Conflict and Alliance under Justinian and Maurice)” The structure, the validity of conclusions, the strengths and weaknesses of the book are examined. The analysis of the Ayvazyan’s work leads to the conclusion that it has become a prominent event in the military history as well as in Armenian studies.
Russian Abstract: Статья посвящена анализу концепта BELLUM на материале «Деяний» Аммиана Марцелли... more Russian Abstract: Статья посвящена анализу концепта BELLUM на материале «Деяний» Аммиана Марцеллина. Рассмотрена лексико-семантическая структура, посредством которой концепт BELLUM представлен в сочинении Аммиана Марцеллина. Выявлены основное (денотативное) и дополнительное (коннотативное) смысловые поля, отражающие культурно-историческое и эмоционально-ценностное содержание исследуемого концепта в представлении Аммиана Марцеллина.English Abstract: The article is devoted to analysis of the concept of BELLUM according to Ammianus Marcellinus’ “Res gestae”. The author examines the lexical-semantic structure, through which the concept of BELLUM presented in the work of Ammianus Marcellinus, and explores both kernel (denotative) and subordinate (connotative) semantic fields that reflect the cultural-historical as well as emotional and value content of the concept of BELLUM in Ammianus Marcellinus’ representation.
Russian Abstract: Материал источников позволяет утверждать, что «ночное» сражение под Сингарой, д... more Russian Abstract: Материал источников позволяет утверждать, что «ночное» сражение под Сингарой, достаточно подробно описанное в панегириках Либания и Юлиана, а также (более сжато или фрагментарно, зачастую — на уровне краткого упоминания) в сочинениях Феста, Евтропия, Аммиана Марцеллина, Иеронима, Павла Орозия, Сократа Схоластика, Якова Эдесского, Иоанна Зонары и в «Константинопольской консулярии», произошло летом (в июле или августе) 344 г. на равнине, расположенной непосредственно к западу от Тигра в направлении Сингары. Дата «ночной» битвы, содержащаяся в хрониках Иеронима и Якова Эдесского, а также в «Константинопольской консулярии» (348 г.), должна быть отнесена к другому сражению, также произошедшему под Сингарой, но четырьмя годами позднее. На всех этапах битвы инициатива находилась в руках персов, император же Констанций действовал в русле персидской стратегии, что позволило Шапуру II достичь поставленной цели, заключавшейся, вероятнее всего, не в захвате Сингары или разорен...
В статье анализируется монография армянского исследователя А. М. Айвазяна «Армяно-персидская войн... more В статье анализируется монография армянского исследователя А. М. Айвазяна «Армяно-персидская война 449-451 гг. Кампании и сражения» (Ереван, 2016). Рассмотрены структура и логика построения работы, обоснованность выводов, определены достоинства книги и её спорные моменты. Сделан вывод о том, что труд А. М. Айвазяна является заметным событием в военно-исторической науке и арменоведении. *** The article presents an analysis of the monograph by an Armenian historian A. M. Ayvazyan "Military History of the Armenian-Persian War of 449-451". The structure, the validity of conclusions, the strengths and weaknesses of the book are examined. The analysis of the Ayvazyan's work leads to the conclusion that it has become a prominent event in the military history as well as in Armenian studies.
The article presents an analysis of the book by a Saint-Petersburg historian A. V. Bannikov «Epok... more The article presents an analysis of the book by a Saint-Petersburg historian A. V. Bannikov «Epokha boevikh slonov (ot Aleksandra Velikogo do padeniya tsarstva Sasanidov)» («The Age of War Elephants (from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Persian Kingdom of Sasanids)»). The structure, the source base, the validity of conclusions, the strengths and weaknesses of the book are examined. It is noted that the most successful part of the book is devoted to the Hellenistic elephantry, while the elephantry of Sasanian Iran is studied insufficiently. The structure of A. V. Bannikov's work is not entirely harmonious. However, the book under review is a noticeable event in the Russian historiography of the Ancient elephantry.
Russian Abstract: "Деяния" Аммиана Марцеллина содержат важную информацию об использован... more Russian Abstract: "Деяния" Аммиана Марцеллина содержат важную информацию об использовании боевых слонов в сасанидском Иране. Анализ сведений, сообщаемых Аммианом Марцеллином, показывает, что в середине и второй половине IV в. н.э. слоны использовались персами при осаде вражеских (т.е. римских) крепостей и в сражениях на открытой местности. Во время осадных операций слоны в основном использовались вместо гелепол: для этого небольшие деревянные башни (хауды) закреплялись на спинах животных. В таких башенках размещались персидские лучники и дротикометатели, обстреливавшие воинов противника, расположенных на стенах и в башнях осаждаемых крепостей.Конкретные детали использования слонов в полевых сражениях недостаточно ясны. Вероятно, Ф. Рейнс и М. Чарльз частично правы, когда говорят о том, что слоны на поле боя находились с целью оказания на противника психологического воздействия. В то же время нельзя отрицать, что слоны широко использовались в битвах для размещения на их спинах персидских воинов, поражавших противника копьями, стрелами и другими метательными снарядами. Более того, некоторые из современников Аммиана (напр., Амвросий в своём "Гекзамероне") упоминают именно такую тактику действий персидской элефантерии.Информация, сообщаемая Аммианом Марцеллином, не позволяет автоматически заключить (как делают М. Чарльз и, в особенности, Ф. Рейнс), что слоны, которые не принимали непосредственного участия в битве, были обозными животными. Напротив, Аммиан никогда не говорит о них как о тяглой силе, но всегда говорит как о боевых животных, представлявших для римских воинов "прямую и явную угрозу".English Abstract: Ammianus Marcellinus’ «Res gestae» contains important information about the use of elephants by the Sasanian Persians in the military purposes. The analysis of Ammianus Marcellinus’ data demonstrates that in the middle and second half of fourth century elephants were used by the Persians when besieging enemy (i. e. Roman) fortresses and in open-field battles. During the siege operations elephants were essentially used in place of helepolis: wooden towers (howdahs) were fixed on the backs of animals. These turrets housed Persian archers and javelin men who shot at the enemy soldiers who were located on the walls and towers of besieged fortresses.The specific details of the use of elephants by the Persians in open-field battles are not entirely clear. Probably, P. Rance and M. Charles are partially right claiming that elephants on the battlefield were expected to provide a psychological impact on the enemy. At the same time we cannot deny that the Sasanians widely used elephants in open-field battles (as well as in sieges) not only to horrify the hostile warriors but also in order to place soldiers on animals’ backs who hit enemies with arrows, spears and other missiles. Moreover, some of Ammianus’ contemporaries (e.g. Saint Ambrose in his «Hexameron») mention exactly the same tactics of the Persian elephantry.In open-field battles elephants were actively used in the situations when the Persians were the attacking side (as it was in the battles of Phrygia and Sumera). But if the initiative was on the side of the enemy and the Persians were the defending party, elephants were placed at reserve and their involvement into the fight, in all probability, was put off till the coming of the turning point in the battle and the enemy’s retreat. If such a moment did not come, elephantry detachments did not take part in a combat (e. g. the battles of Ctesiphon and Maranga).The information reported by Ammianus Marcellinus does not allow us to assume automatically (as M. Charles and (in particular) P. Rance do) that the elephants which were not directly involved into the battle were in fact baggage or draft animals. Quite the contrary, Ammianus never speaks about the use of elephants in transport or any another logistic purposes, but he always refers to them specifically as battle animals which posed a «clear and present danger» to the Roman soldiers.
In article both the history of Alan's military service and the role of Alanian armed continge... more In article both the history of Alan's military service and the role of Alanian armed contingents in the Sasanian army are characterized. Based on written, archaeological and iconographical sources the author comes to conclusion, that Alan divisions were present at the Persian army in the 6th century AD during the reign of king Khusro I (531–579). In Sasanian army the Alans served as light cavalrymen and as cataphracts.
1. Throughout 530s - 570s AD foreign policy orientation of the North-Caucasian Alans changed repe... more 1. Throughout 530s - 570s AD foreign policy orientation of the North-Caucasian Alans changed repeatedly. 2. One of the main geopolitical factors which determined the foreign policy of the Alans in the period under review was expansion of the Turk Kaganat. 3. Chronology of changes of the foreign policy preferences of the Alan is as follows: initially (probably from 530's) they were allies of Sasanian Iran; then (c. 558 - c. 573) the Alans were in alliance with Byzantium; about 573 - 576 the Alan-Persian coalition was renewed, but in 576 the Alans rejoin alliance with the Byzantine Empire. 4. Historical sources don’t give us opportunity to assert the presence of two co-existing - western (pro-Byzantine) and eastern (pro-Iranian) - groupes of the Alans in the middle of the VI AD, as it often does in historiography.
Main conclusions (in brief): 1. We have no reason to deny the both-handed grasp of the contos by ... more Main conclusions (in brief): 1. We have no reason to deny the both-handed grasp of the contos by ancient (Sarmatian, Parthian, Roman, Persian etc.) heavily armoured cavalrymen (contophoroi). 2. The vast majority of ancient contophoroi’s images demonstrate the absence of so called “Sarmatian seat”. 3. The images of riders who use two-handed grasp of spear, in most cases the peak is directed at an angle to the body-axis of the horse (the front part of the weapon was located to the left of the horse’s head), which makes it impossible to consider their seat as “Sarmatian”. However, such a seat is widely represented on Sasanian iconographic material; so, it can more reasonably be called “Sasanian”.
Вестник Псковского государственного педагогического университета. Серия: Социально-гуманитарные и психолого-педагогические науки, 2007
Аммиан Марцеллин (ок. 330-ок. 400) является последним крупным представителем римской историографи... more Аммиан Марцеллин (ок. 330-ок. 400) является последним крупным представителем римской историографии. Его единственное дошедшее до нас сочинение-" Деяния"(Res gestae)-первоначально состояло из 31 книги, из которых сохранились лишь последние 18 (с XIV по XXXI), охватывающие период римской истории с 353 по 378 гг. По глубине анализа, степени детализации и уровню достоверности излагаемого материала с произведением Аммиана не может сравниться ни одно историческое сочинение ...
Вестник Псковского государственного педагогического университета. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные и психолого-педагогические науки, 2008
Прокопий Кесарийский (ок. 500-562) является одним из известнейших ранневизантийских писателей-ист... more Прокопий Кесарийский (ок. 500-562) является одним из известнейших ранневизантийских писателей-историков [о жизни и творчестве Прокопия подробнее см.: 6; 7; 12]. Его перу принадлежит ряд трудов [2], являющихся важнейшими источниками по истории Восточной Римской империи первой половины–середины VI в., т. е. эпохи правления императора Юстиниана (527-565):" Войны Юстиниана"," Тайная история"," О постройках". Наиболее крупным и известным сочинением ...
О том, что современники придавали Сингарской (или «ночной», как ее называют источники из-за време... more О том, что современники придавали Сингарской (или «ночной», как ее называют источники из-за времени суток, когда она закончилась) битве важное значение, говорит тот факт, что, по крайней мере, 11 позднеантичных и византийских авторов (Либаний [7, p. 1222; 20; 23, p. 505–507], император Юлиан Отступник [11; 21, p. 1079; 23, p. 477–478], Руф Фест [2, c. 525; 5; 23, p. 334–335], Евтропий [2, c. 524–525; 4; 23, p. 317], Аммиан Марцеллин [13; 23, p. 547–548; 29] 2, Иероним [6, p. 1033], Орозий ...
Uploads
Автор разбивает раннесасанидскую эпоху на четыре периода, посвящая каждому из них отдельную главу:
- становление Сасанидского государства (происхождение династии Сасанидов, их борьба с парфянскими царями, правление Ардашира I);
- правление Шапура I (242–272) (войны с Римом, кушанами, развитие государственного аппарата);
- кризис рубежа III–IV вв. (правление царей от Ормизда I до Ормизда II);
- новое возвышение Ирана при Шапуре II Великом (309–379).
Повествование внутри глав подчинено единой логике – в каждой из них автор рассматривает вопросы внешней и внутренней политики, развитие государственных институтов, трансформацию государственной идеологии, эволюцию зороастрийской религиозной системы, включая вопросы государственно-церковных и межконфессиональных отношений.
Предлагаемая вниманию читателей новая книга кандидата исторических наук В. А. Дмитриева вносит серьезные коррективы в устоявшиеся представления о военном деле Сасанидов. На широком историческом материале автор убедительно показывает, что наряду с сухопутными частями вполне определенную (а порой - и решающую) роль в войнах, которые велись сасанидским Ираном на протяжении всей его истории, играл военно-морской флот.
The Persians’ tactics were grounded on cavalry operations with the use of various stratagems. Their strategy, unlike that of the Romans, was almost always offensive: it is significant that even in its crisis periods Sasanian Iran attacked the Roman Near Eastern possessions.
The latter part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman wars for the Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods:
- 232–298: primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226–242) and Shapur I (242–272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under emperor Diocletian (284–305) — the Romans could win the war of 296–298 and restored status quo.
- Early 4th century through 387: prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309–379).
- 387–540: a period of relatively peaceful coexistence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only.
- 540–579: drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion.
- 579–591: a period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East.
- 591–628: the conclusive stage of their struggle. During the war of 602–628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo.
A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end
to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of world history.
***
This book is a revised and updated version of my previous work, published in 2008 in 'Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie' Publishing House under the title “Horsemen in Sparkling Armour”: The Warfare of Sasanian Iran and the History of the Roman-Persian Wars ("Militaria Antiqua" Series. Vol. XII).
The second part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman Wars for the control over Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods:
1) 235—298: Primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226—242) and Shapur I (242—272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under the emperor Diocletian (284—305) — the Romans could win the war of 296—298 and restored status quo.
2) Early 4th century through 387: Prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309—379).
3) 387—540: Period of relatively peaceful co-existence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only.
4) 540—579: Drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion.
5) 579—591: Period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East.
6) 591—628: Final stage of their struggle. During the war of 602—628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo.
A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of the world history.
The main outlines:
1. For Ammianus Marcellinus the notion "Persia" meant whole Asia to the east from the Roman mesopotamian frontier (even including Sera≈China).
2. The main geographical source for Ammianus was “Geography” of Ptolemy. But Ammianus didn't use the proper work of Ptolemy but its short and inexact Latin remake. Obviously, Ammianus also used the schematic geographical maps (like Tabula Peutengeriana) made on the basis of Ptolemy’s data.
3. Ammianus does not describe geography of real Persia, but compiles his "Persian" digression on the basis of classical literary tradition and, probably, cartographical sources.""
An analysis of the information reported by John Chrysostom shows that he adhered to the usual for Late Antiquity paradigm of perception of the Oriental world. In addition, it should be noted the reliability of the John Chrysostom’s information about the religious life of Sasanian Iran, which testifies to the reliability of the writings of John Chrysostom as a historical sources.
***
Almost all the great ancient both Eastern and Western powers sought to secure their borders by erecting border defensive lines. In this respect, Sassanian Iran was no exception. On the borders of the Sassanid Empire at different times, but mainly during the period of the highest power of the Sasanid kingdom (4th—6th centuries CE), strong fortification systems were erected. In scale, they surpassed many of the more famous similar structures created in the Classical world. These included the Wall of the Arabs, the Wall of Gorgan, the Wall of Tammishe, Jar-i Kulbad, the Darband fortification system, and the Darial Gorge.
It seems that these changes had very important consequences for Istakhr as well as the whole Iran from a historical perspective. The acquisition of the new title by local dynasts enabling them to regard themselves as heirs of the great Iranian rulers of ancient times. Subsequently, this surge of national and political identity will become one of the key factors in the coming to power in Iran in 220s Ad the Sasanian dynasty that came just from Istakhr.
***
The article analyzes Classical plots and images contained in the compositions of the famous modern Russian rapper Oxxxymiron (real name is Miron Fedorov; born in 1985).
The Classical images most often used by Oxxxymiron are metaphors. In some cases, they are in close connection with the biblical (namely, the Old Testament) plots. Their main role is that they are one of the stylistic means by which the author sets his heroes, as well as himself, against the outside world, and Oxxxymiron does not hide the feelings of estrangement and even some hostility towards the surrounding reality. However, the rapper makes it clear that he is not going to take the current situation for granted and to put up with it. He aims to change if not the whole world, then at least the subculture to which he belongs, viz. Russian rap. Somewhat apart from other Oxxxymiron’s works is the composition called “Imperium” (2017). In it, the rapper is trying to answer the question: “What is an Empire?” This is the only case where Oxxxymiron uses some information related to Greco-Roman history in its direct, not metaphorical sense. At the same time, Oxxxymiron’s songs demonstrate not only socio-psychological protest, philosophical, historical and other moods, but also some lyrical motifs, which in some cases are expressed by the singer through the Classical images. The Classical reminiscences are highly concentrated in the 2012 single “Ultima Thule”. Here the Classical geographers’ mysterious island Ultima Thule serves as an image of the distant and beckoning country.
It can be concluded that the active use of the Classical images by Oxxxymiron is likely to demonstrate a new form of reception of the Greco-Roman cultural and historical heritage by the Russian culture and could be interpreted as a modern version of the “Russian antiquity” phenomenon.
****************************
In the existing historiography, Sasanian shahanshah Shapur II the Great (309-379) is considered almost exclusively as a conqueror, whose entire reign passed in wars with neighboring countries and peoples. To a large extent, it is true, but it is also quite obvious that such a high level of Sasanians' external activity during the reign of Shapur II would not have been possible without the establishment of a stable and effective administrative and political system within the Iran itself. In this regard, the article examines the main directions and results of the internal policy of Shapur II. From a formal point of view, Shapur acted in the same way as his predecessors, preserving the system of government that has developed over the century, which has elapsed since the emergence of Sasanian Iran. However, the state ideology and religion have undergone very profound changes during Shapur's reign. As a result, Sasanid's realm became a highly centralized empire with a strong shahanshah's power, and this circumstance was an essential condition for the renewal of wide expansion under Shapur the Great, during which Sasanian Iran finally secured the status of one of the leading powers in the world of Late Antiquity.
***
The paper deals with the material on Ancient Iran which is contained in the textbook on Ancient History for 5th grade of secondary school, written by A.A. Vigasin, G.I. Goder and I.S. Sventsitskaya. It is concluded that the textbook allows pupils to gain the general though fragmental idea about the civilization of Ancient Iran, but some positions (namely, to some extent 'orientalist', in the terminology by E. Said, approach) require further correction.
Автор разбивает раннесасанидскую эпоху на четыре периода, посвящая каждому из них отдельную главу:
- становление Сасанидского государства (происхождение династии Сасанидов, их борьба с парфянскими царями, правление Ардашира I);
- правление Шапура I (242–272) (войны с Римом, кушанами, развитие государственного аппарата);
- кризис рубежа III–IV вв. (правление царей от Ормизда I до Ормизда II);
- новое возвышение Ирана при Шапуре II Великом (309–379).
Повествование внутри глав подчинено единой логике – в каждой из них автор рассматривает вопросы внешней и внутренней политики, развитие государственных институтов, трансформацию государственной идеологии, эволюцию зороастрийской религиозной системы, включая вопросы государственно-церковных и межконфессиональных отношений.
Предлагаемая вниманию читателей новая книга кандидата исторических наук В. А. Дмитриева вносит серьезные коррективы в устоявшиеся представления о военном деле Сасанидов. На широком историческом материале автор убедительно показывает, что наряду с сухопутными частями вполне определенную (а порой - и решающую) роль в войнах, которые велись сасанидским Ираном на протяжении всей его истории, играл военно-морской флот.
The Persians’ tactics were grounded on cavalry operations with the use of various stratagems. Their strategy, unlike that of the Romans, was almost always offensive: it is significant that even in its crisis periods Sasanian Iran attacked the Roman Near Eastern possessions.
The latter part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman wars for the Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods:
- 232–298: primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226–242) and Shapur I (242–272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under emperor Diocletian (284–305) — the Romans could win the war of 296–298 and restored status quo.
- Early 4th century through 387: prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309–379).
- 387–540: a period of relatively peaceful coexistence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only.
- 540–579: drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion.
- 579–591: a period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East.
- 591–628: the conclusive stage of their struggle. During the war of 602–628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo.
A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end
to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of world history.
***
This book is a revised and updated version of my previous work, published in 2008 in 'Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie' Publishing House under the title “Horsemen in Sparkling Armour”: The Warfare of Sasanian Iran and the History of the Roman-Persian Wars ("Militaria Antiqua" Series. Vol. XII).
The second part of the book deals with the Sasanian-Roman Wars for the control over Near and Middle East. Its history may be divided into several chronological periods:
1) 235—298: Primarily, the first two Sasanian monarchs — Ardashir I (226—242) and Shapur I (242—272) — were able to achieve significant successes. However, later on — under the emperor Diocletian (284—305) — the Romans could win the war of 296—298 and restored status quo.
2) Early 4th century through 387: Prevalence of Iran due mostly to great military achievements of the outstanding Sasanian king Shapur II (309—379).
3) 387—540: Period of relatively peaceful co-existence of both the empires, which was interrupted with short-time conflicts of local nature only.
4) 540—579: Drastic escalation of their relations due to the Persian monarch Khusrau I aggressive politics. Just thanks to great efforts the Romans were able to withstand his expansion.
5) 579—591: Period of changeable successes in the struggle between Rome and Iran for the Near East.
6) 591—628: Final stage of their struggle. During the war of 602—628 the Persians initially conquered most of the eastern territories of the Romans, however, the latters could resist this Sasanian onslaught and finally restore a pre-war frontier status quo.
A result of the four-hundred-year struggle between Sasanian Iran and the Roman/Byzantine empire was their mutual serious weakness and incompetence to withstand a new formidable menace — the Muslim Arabic invasions that put an end to the ancient Iranian civilization and gave birth to a new stage of the world history.
The main outlines:
1. For Ammianus Marcellinus the notion "Persia" meant whole Asia to the east from the Roman mesopotamian frontier (even including Sera≈China).
2. The main geographical source for Ammianus was “Geography” of Ptolemy. But Ammianus didn't use the proper work of Ptolemy but its short and inexact Latin remake. Obviously, Ammianus also used the schematic geographical maps (like Tabula Peutengeriana) made on the basis of Ptolemy’s data.
3. Ammianus does not describe geography of real Persia, but compiles his "Persian" digression on the basis of classical literary tradition and, probably, cartographical sources.""
An analysis of the information reported by John Chrysostom shows that he adhered to the usual for Late Antiquity paradigm of perception of the Oriental world. In addition, it should be noted the reliability of the John Chrysostom’s information about the religious life of Sasanian Iran, which testifies to the reliability of the writings of John Chrysostom as a historical sources.
***
Almost all the great ancient both Eastern and Western powers sought to secure their borders by erecting border defensive lines. In this respect, Sassanian Iran was no exception. On the borders of the Sassanid Empire at different times, but mainly during the period of the highest power of the Sasanid kingdom (4th—6th centuries CE), strong fortification systems were erected. In scale, they surpassed many of the more famous similar structures created in the Classical world. These included the Wall of the Arabs, the Wall of Gorgan, the Wall of Tammishe, Jar-i Kulbad, the Darband fortification system, and the Darial Gorge.
It seems that these changes had very important consequences for Istakhr as well as the whole Iran from a historical perspective. The acquisition of the new title by local dynasts enabling them to regard themselves as heirs of the great Iranian rulers of ancient times. Subsequently, this surge of national and political identity will become one of the key factors in the coming to power in Iran in 220s Ad the Sasanian dynasty that came just from Istakhr.
***
The article analyzes Classical plots and images contained in the compositions of the famous modern Russian rapper Oxxxymiron (real name is Miron Fedorov; born in 1985).
The Classical images most often used by Oxxxymiron are metaphors. In some cases, they are in close connection with the biblical (namely, the Old Testament) plots. Their main role is that they are one of the stylistic means by which the author sets his heroes, as well as himself, against the outside world, and Oxxxymiron does not hide the feelings of estrangement and even some hostility towards the surrounding reality. However, the rapper makes it clear that he is not going to take the current situation for granted and to put up with it. He aims to change if not the whole world, then at least the subculture to which he belongs, viz. Russian rap. Somewhat apart from other Oxxxymiron’s works is the composition called “Imperium” (2017). In it, the rapper is trying to answer the question: “What is an Empire?” This is the only case where Oxxxymiron uses some information related to Greco-Roman history in its direct, not metaphorical sense. At the same time, Oxxxymiron’s songs demonstrate not only socio-psychological protest, philosophical, historical and other moods, but also some lyrical motifs, which in some cases are expressed by the singer through the Classical images. The Classical reminiscences are highly concentrated in the 2012 single “Ultima Thule”. Here the Classical geographers’ mysterious island Ultima Thule serves as an image of the distant and beckoning country.
It can be concluded that the active use of the Classical images by Oxxxymiron is likely to demonstrate a new form of reception of the Greco-Roman cultural and historical heritage by the Russian culture and could be interpreted as a modern version of the “Russian antiquity” phenomenon.
****************************
In the existing historiography, Sasanian shahanshah Shapur II the Great (309-379) is considered almost exclusively as a conqueror, whose entire reign passed in wars with neighboring countries and peoples. To a large extent, it is true, but it is also quite obvious that such a high level of Sasanians' external activity during the reign of Shapur II would not have been possible without the establishment of a stable and effective administrative and political system within the Iran itself. In this regard, the article examines the main directions and results of the internal policy of Shapur II. From a formal point of view, Shapur acted in the same way as his predecessors, preserving the system of government that has developed over the century, which has elapsed since the emergence of Sasanian Iran. However, the state ideology and religion have undergone very profound changes during Shapur's reign. As a result, Sasanid's realm became a highly centralized empire with a strong shahanshah's power, and this circumstance was an essential condition for the renewal of wide expansion under Shapur the Great, during which Sasanian Iran finally secured the status of one of the leading powers in the world of Late Antiquity.
***
The paper deals with the material on Ancient Iran which is contained in the textbook on Ancient History for 5th grade of secondary school, written by A.A. Vigasin, G.I. Goder and I.S. Sventsitskaya. It is concluded that the textbook allows pupils to gain the general though fragmental idea about the civilization of Ancient Iran, but some positions (namely, to some extent 'orientalist', in the terminology by E. Said, approach) require further correction.
***
It has been a widely-held ingrained perception in modern historiography that Sasanian Iran was a power whose armed forces were represented exclusively by land forces. However, the material of primary sources allows us to confirm the existence in Sassanid Iran throughout its history of the navy, which performed the function of combat (logistic) support for the land army. The main reasons for creating the navy were the need to ensure the external security of the Persian state by establishing control over the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf region and the desire of the Persian authorities to strengthen their military and political as well as trade and economic influence of Sassanid Iran in the northern part of the Indian Ocean basin. The most dynamic phase of the Persian navy’s activities occurred during the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan (531–579) when the Persians conquered Yemen by means of their fleet and even tried to establish a naval force in the Black Sea. The last event in which the Sasanian navy took part was the Byzantine-Persian war of 602–628. In this conflict, the Persians initially were able to achieve some progress in the Mediterranean Sea but eventually they were completely defeated by the more skillful Byzantine navy. The main areas of the Persian navy’s activities were the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea. The Sasanids’ attempts to establish their fleet in the Black Sea (540’s) and in the Mediterranean Sea (620’s) were foiled by Byzantium. After the fall of the Sasanian Empire, Persian ships became part of the armed forces of the Arab Caliphate and for some time continued to participate in military operations on the side of the Arabs. Victories of the Arabian fleet over the Byzantines were, to some extent, due to the naval experience which the Arab seafarers got from their Persian teachers.
***
Military intelligence was an important part of Sasanian art of war. Sasanian military command used various sources of intelligence. The structure and organization of the Persian military intelligence as well as coordination and effectiveness of its activities were not inferior to the Roman one. Furthermore, at some stages of history the efficiency of Sasanian military intelligence was superior to Roman intelligence service. Obvious parallels between the organization of the Persian and Roman military intelligence confirm the idea of similarity between the Late Roman and Sasanian military systems. Traditions of intelligence activities elaborated in Sasanian Iran remained relevant during subsequent periods, and thus made a significant impact on the further evolution of the military intelligence in the Middle East.
The almanac is registered in the “ISSN Register” (ISSN 2308-6181— the printed version, ISSN 2414-3677 — the online version) and is included in the following databases: ERIH PLUS; ICI JML; ROAD; NSD; RISC; IBI.
Full-text versions of all published issues of the almanac are available on the website of the Pskov State University Publishing House, in the RISC and on the site of the almanac: https://sites.google.com/site/metamorphoseshistoryen/home).
Almanac is published with a frequency of two issues a year.
Manuscripts should be submitted via e-mail: metamist@mail.ru.
The almanac covers the following fields: world (i.e. non-Russian) history; history of international relations; history of international security; historiography of world history; source studies; intellectual history; area studies; teaching of world history in higher school.
Materials are accepted for publication both in Russian and in English. When preparing materials, you must strictly follow the guidelines for authors.
The manuscripts submitted for publication are reviewed.
All materials recommended by reviewers for publication are published in the almanac for free.
ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
SHAVAREBI E. (Иран). A Note on “The Saint Petersburg School” and Its Contribution to Sasanian Numismatics: Past and Present.
ДУШИН О. Э. (Россия). Схоласты об usura: дискурс совести и этос средневековых городов.
HIRVONEN V. M. (Финляндия). The Mystic Jean Gerson on the Dangers on the Way to the Holiness: Can Too Strong Asceticism Lead to Mental Disorder?
ВУКОВ Н. (Болгария). Память и монументальная репрезентация Великой войны: балканские проекции.
ПРОБЛЕМЫ МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЙ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ
ШАРНИНА А. Б. (Россия). Дипломатические инструменты в практике предотвращения военных конфликтов в эллинистическую эпоху (асилия)
ХРИШКЕВИЧ Т. Г. (Россия). Организационно-правовые механизмы обеспечения антитеррористической безопасности в ФРГ в начале XXI в.
ИСТОРИЯ ДРЕВНЕГО МИРА
MAKSYMIUK K. I. (Польша). Destruction of the Ādur Gušnasp Temple in Ādurbādagān as a Revenge for Abduction of the Holy Cross from Jerusalem in the Context of the Letters of Heraclius
ДМИТРИЕВ В. А. (Россия). "Око государево": к истории военной контрразведки в сасанидском Иране.
ИСТОРИЯ СРЕДНИХ ВЕКОВ и РАННЕГО НОВОГО ВРЕМЕНИ
МИТИН В. В. (Россия). Особенности политической борьбы в Монгольской империи в XIII в.
МИХЕЕВ Д. В. (Россия). Развитие испанской оборонительной системы в Новом Свете накануне Англо-испанской войны.
НОВАЯ и НОВЕЙШАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
ЧОЙ ДОККЮ (Республика Корея). Император Коджон и план по созданию корейского правительства в изгнании в Приморье.
ХРИШКЕВИЧ Т. Г. (Россия). «Альтернатива для Германии» между федеральными выборами — феномен популярности малой партии.
РОССИЯ в МИРОВОЙ ИСТОРИИ
ЖУЧКОВ К. Б. (Россия). Французская военная мысль в России накануне Отечественной войны 1812 г.
ФРОЛОВ В. В. (Россия). Образ Германии на страницах российского дореволюционного издания «Летопись войны 1914–1917 гг.»
ФИЛИМОНОВ А. В. (Россия). Репатрианты в Псковской области в первые послевоенные годы (1944–1949).
ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
* Никоненко С. В. (Россия) Почему Александр отошёл от Аристотеля? (критический анализ историографии)
* Брагова А. М. (Россия) Этический аспект старости в оценке Цицерона
* Яворский Д. Р. (Россия) К вопросу о социокультурных функциях паломничества в средневековой Западной Европе
* Потехина И. П. (Россия) Уильям Эдвард Лант — историк папских финансов
* Рябов О. В. (Россия) «Широкие объятия Родины»: право, «правда» и материнская любовь в легитимации присоединения Крыма к России
ИСТОРИЯ ДРЕВНЕГО МИРА
* Акобян Р. Х. (Армения) Локализация Тигранакерта и Тигранакертское сражение 6 октября 69 г. до н. э. (часть 2)
ИСТОРИЯ СРЕДНИХ ВЕКОВ И РАННЕГО НОВОГО ВРЕМЕНИ
* Митин В. В. (Россия) Мухали — верный кулюк Чингис-хана
* Колпаков М. Ю. (Россия) Особенности восприятия права и справедливости в трактате Пьера Дюбуа “De recuperatione Terrae sanctae”
НОВАЯ И НОВЕЙШАЯ ИСТОРИЯ
* Богатырёв А. В. (Россия) К реконструкции пребывания первого персидского посольства при дворе Яна III Собеского
* Айвазян А. М. (Армения) Ручное огнестрельное оружие армянской армии в 1720-х гг. (количество, виды, производство и добыча)
* Махмудова Н. Б. (Узбекистан) Состояние пенитенциарной системы Туркестанского края в начале XX в. (по материалам отчёта сенаторской ревизии графа К. К. Палена)
* Космач В. А. (Белоруссия) Причины и начало Второй мировой войны: некоторые уточнения и переоценки
ОБЗОРЫ И РЕЦЕНЗИИ
* Дмитриев В. А. (Россия) Рецензия на: Айвазян А. М. Армяно-персидская война 449–451 гг. Кампании и сражения. Ер.: Воскан Ереванци, 2016. 516 с.; илл. ISBN 978-99930-0-243-7
* Михеев Д. В. (Россия) Рецензия на: Губарев В. К. Фрэнсис Дрейк. М.: «Молодая гвардия», 2013. 374 с. ISBN 978-5-235-03612-3
***
The article presents an analysis of the monograph by an Armenian historian A. M. Ayvazyan "Military History of the Armenian-Persian War of 449-451". The structure, the validity of conclusions, the strengths and weaknesses of the book are examined. The analysis of the Ayvazyan's work leads to the conclusion that it has become a prominent event in the military history as well as in Armenian studies.
1. We have no reason to deny the both-handed grasp of the contos by ancient (Sarmatian, Parthian, Roman, Persian etc.) heavily armoured cavalrymen (contophoroi).
2. The vast majority of ancient contophoroi’s images demonstrate the absence of so called “Sarmatian seat”.
3. The images of riders who use two-handed grasp of spear, in most cases the peak is directed at an angle to the body-axis of the horse (the front part of the weapon was located to the left of the horse’s head), which makes it impossible to consider their seat as “Sarmatian”. However, such a seat is widely represented on Sasanian iconographic material; so, it can more reasonably be called “Sasanian”.
В историографии сложилось устойчивое восприятие Сасанидской державы как государства, чьи вооружённые силы были представлены исключительно сухопутными родами войск. Однако материал источников позволяет констатировать наличие в сасанидском Иране на протяжении всей его истории военно-морского флота, выполнявшего функцию боевого (военно-транспортного) обеспечения действий сухопутной армии. Главными причинами создания Сасанидами собственных военно-морских сил являлись необходимость обеспечения внешней безопасности Персидского государства путём установления контроля над морскими коммуникациями в зоне Персидского залива и стремление персидских властей к усилению военно-политического и торгово-экономического влияния сасанидского Ирана в северной части бассейна Индийского океана. Наиболее активная фаза действий персидского флота приходится на годы правления Хосрова Ануширвана (531–579). Последние упоминания об участии сасанидских военных кораблей в боевых действиях относятся к периоду персидско-византийской войны 602–628 гг. Основной зоной действий сасанидского флота являлись Персидский залив, Красное и Аравийское моря; попытки персов создать флот на Чёрном (540 е гг.) и Средиземном (620 е гг.) морях были пресечены Византией. После гибели Сасанидской державы персидские корабли вошли в состав вооружённых сил Арабского халифата и некоторое время продолжали участвовать в боевых действиях на стороне арабов. Своими морскими победами арабы в определённой мере были обязаны опыту, позаимствованному ими у персидских мореплавателей.
***
In the modern historiography, it has developed a stable perception of Sasanian Iran as a power whose armed forces were presented solely by land forces. However, the material of primary sources allows us to ascertain the existence of Sasanian navy which realized the function of logistic support of the land army. The main reasons for the foundation of the Sasanian navy consisted in necessity to ensure the external security of the Persian state by establishing control of the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf region, and in aspiration of the Sasanid authorities to increase the military and political as well as trade and economic influence of Sasanian Iran in the northern part of the Indian Ocean. The most dynamic phase of the Persian Navy's activities falls on the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan (531–579). During his rule, the Persians conquered Yemen by mean of the fleet and even tried to establish navy in the Black Sea. The last militay event in which the Sasanian navy took part was the Byzantine-Persian war of 602–628. In this conflict, the Persians initially were able to achieve some progress in the Mediterranean Sea but as a result, they were completely defeated by the more skillful Byzantine navy. The main areas of the Persian Navy's activities were the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea. The Sasanids’ attempts to establish fleet in the Black Sea (540’s) and Mediterranean Sea (620’s) were put an end by Byzantium. After the fall of Sasanian Empire, Persian ships became the part of the Arabian Navy and for some time continued to participate in wars on the side of the Arabs. Victories of the Arabian fleet over the Byzantines were, to some extent, due to the naval experience which the Arab seafarers got from their Persian teachers.