'IRAQ AND THE PERSIAN GULF' [‎170r] (344/862)

THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 235
whom he defeated and killed in 224 at the battle of Hormizdeghan.
In a few years Ardashir was master of the whole Parthian Empire
from the Euphrates to the Hindu Kush, which his dynasty, the
Sassanids, ruled for four centuries until the rise of Islam. The
Sassanids were far more eifective rulers than the Parthians because
they gave the empire the centralized organization and bureaucracy
which it had lacked. Hence the Sassanids could make proper use of
their resources and were a far more aggressive power than the
Parthians had been. Mesopotamia in the Sassanid period remained
the richest province of the empire, the seat of its capital Ctesiphon,
and its main battlefield. In economic life the Sassanids were great
patrons of agriculture, and Mesopotamia, somewhat derelict after
Parthian feudalism, benefited from a more effective central govern
ment which cared for the canals. The tempo of its life was quickened
by Sassanid imperialism and by violent religious movements. These
two tendencies were linked together. The Sassanids, posing as the
true successors of the Achaemenids, claimed from Rome the western
provinces of Syria and Anatolia Peninsula that forms most of modern-day Turkey. once held by Darius, and established
the ascendancy of the Zoroastrian religion. This became the State
Church, with a priestly organization of its own, just as within this
period the organized Christian Church was becoming the official
religion of the Roman or Byzantine Empire. But the Sassanids were
generally tolerant of other religions (p. 238), which were free to
practise, proselytize, and organize themselves throughout the empire.
Persecution was generally political in origin, and often prompted
by the intolerance of the Christian emperors of Constantinople
(Byzantium). In the intensely religious atmosphere of the age it was
difficult to distinguish between men’s religious and political beliefs.
The Persians based their rule on a solid political and religious
organization which provided a model for the future empires of Asia
down to the Ottoman Turks. The State had its Chief Minister, its
Minister of Finance who was also Chief of the Farmers, its Com-
mander-in-Chief, its Secretariat under a Chief of Secretaries, its
Minister of Education, and its Treasurers. The Parthian ‘sub-kings’
were replaced by provincial governors proper, with subordinate
officials. The whole system was based on a complicated gradation
and stratification of society into clergy, warriors, bureaucrats, and
the commoners, who consisted of the peasants and artisans. The
organization of the clergy (p. 237) showed a similar tendency towards
gradation.