Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

34 Legitimate rule and the ‘family of kings’ 237
origin from rebellion, is the start of dissolution 20 ...(13) If, therefore, you do not
scatter the rebels you will lead the monarchy into servitude, and you will be a
plaything for the nations ...
Above all, Hormizd criticises the fact that the Sasanian monarchy has not
been treated with the deserved respect. The aspects emphasised in the
speech, namely ‘the order of the monarchy’, ‘the royal laws’ and especially
the concern ‘for the existence of the dynasty’, illustrate how crucial the
legitimacy of the future king and the continuity of monarchical rule were
in the eyes of contemporary historians. However, his words did not save
Hormizd – he was assassinated. 21
Attempts by the legitimate successor of Hormizd IV, Xusrō II Pārvēz, to
come to an agreement with Bahrām Čōbīn failed, and on 9 March 590 the
latter became the new Sasanian king Bahrām VI Čōbīn. Never before in the
history of the Sasanian Empire had anyone but members of the Sasanian
dynasty held the throne. Given his lack of power at the time, Xusrō II had
to take flight and to seek help from the Byzantine emperor Maurice. Both
Xusrō and Bahrām Čōbīn were willing to cede large territories to Byzantium
in turn for support. The Byzantine reaction to these offers and the
emperor’s final response illuminate the relations between the empires, in
particular between the two rulers. The decision was by no means unanimous
but rather accompanied by vivid confrontations. 22 In the eyes of the
Senate it was Maurice’s duty to prioritise the interests of his own empire.
Accordingly, it would have been best to leave the Sasanian Empire to its
own devices rather than to restore ordered rule. This seemed to be the long
awaited opportunity to defeat the main enemy along the Eastern frontier
of the empire. Although the public shared this view, Maurice decided to
support Xusrō II in his attempts to regain the Sasanian throne. His decision
is even more remarkable if we consider that it entailed new military confrontations
rather than peace along the eastern frontier of the empire and
that Roman soldiers fought alongside the Sasanian ‘arch enemy’. Once more
a letter recorded by Theophylact Simocatta helps us to better understand
the situation. In a rather humble fashion, Xusrō II turns to the Byzantine
emperor:
20 On this ‘dissolution of the state’ see the remarkable parallel in Plato Leg. 945c; for a detailed
interpretation of this passage see Kaegi 1981b: 132–3.
21 Cf. Whitby 1988: 294–5.
22 This conflict within Byzantine leadership is not mentioned in the Greek sources but – along with
the typical poetic elaboration – it is indeed reflected in the Eastern sources; cf. Firdausi tr. Mohl,
vol. 7, 109–39; according to Theoph. Simoc. iv.14.1 Xusrō II immediately received military support
from Byzantium; in fact, however, the king had to wait for the requested aid for several months; cf.
Higgins 1941: 310 n. 88.