Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

12 The first Sasanian–Byzantine War 105
(29) . . . But when they [the Romans] claimed that Xusrō’s adoption had to
take place as was proper for a barbarian, 147 the Persians thought that this was
not tolerable. (30) Both sides separated and went home, and Xusrō, who had not
accomplished anything, went to his father, very bitter about what had happened
and vowing that he would punish the Romans for having insulted him.
Procopius bases his account of the diplomatic negotiations at the Sasanian–
Byzantine frontier on reliable sources and probably had direct access to
the correspondence between the envoys. 148 Just as at the beginning of the
fifth century the Roman emperor Arcadius had asked the Sasanian king
Yazdgard I to assume guardianship for his son Theodosius (9), in a similar
way, Kavādh I now turned to the Byzantine emperor, urging him to adopt
his son Xusrō so that his rule would be guaranteed. By his will, Kavādh had
designated his favourite son Xusrō to become his successor and thereby had
violated the birth-right of his older son Kavus. 149 In order to protect Xusrō
against other claimants to the throne Kavādh sought Justin’s cooperation. 150
Kavādh’s plans regarding his succession also had an impact on his attitude
towards the Mazdakite movement, which he had favoured for a long time
and which had become an important element of his social reforms, not least
with an eye to strengthening his own position (11). In contrast to Kavus,
who was a follower of Mazdak, Xusrō was a declared opponent of Mazdak.
It is likely that Xusrō’s influence was responsible for the noticeable tensions
between the Sasanian ruler and Mazdak from the beginning of the 520s
onwards.
Although at first the Roman emperor was very pleased with Kavādh’s
plan, the negotiations failed in the end. 151 The rejection of the king’s proposal
by Byzantium did not remain without consequences. Around 528/9,
Siyavush, one of the Persian envoys and also one of the most important proponents
of Mazdakism in the Sasanian Empire, was executed. Shortly after,
147 Pieler 1972: 399–433 comments on the legal implications that apparently caused Roman doubts with
regard to such an adoption. At the time Byzantium moreover envisaged re-conquering the West
and propagated Roman world domination, which would have made it impossible to acknowledge
the Sasanian king as a ruler of equal rank; cf. Veh 1970: 467.
148 On Procopius as a significant source for the sixth century see Greatrex 1984; Cameron 1985: 152–70.
149 Proc. BP i.11.1–6.
150 Luther 1997: 218 points to the difficulties in assessing the authenticity of the failed request for an
adoption but argues that the request as such was not implausible, in particular as historical examples
(9) existed and the Roman emperor and the king of kings indeed imagined themselves as relatives,
an example being Amm. xvii.5.10; on this last aspect see Winter 1989a: 72–92.
151 Apart from the reasons for this failure given on p. 38 above Veh 1970: 467 points to the fact that the
Romans had just started to Christianise the important border area Lazika by the Black Sea and thus
to remove it from Persian sovereignty; on this ‘Lazic question’ see Angeli Bertinelli 1989: 117–46
and Braund 1991: 221–5.