Archive

When a thieving miller murdered Yazdegird III [r. 632-651 Common Era (CE)], the 26-year-old stubborn and reportedly thickheaded Emperor of Persia on the run, the millennium old Persian Empire went out with a whimper. What started with the much hyped Achemenids [550-330 Before Common Era (BCE)], and revived with the longest ruling Arsacids (Parthian) (247 BCE to 224 CE), ended with the squabbling Sasanians (224 CE to 651 CE). How Zoroastrian were these three empires? Was Persia ever a Zoroastrian theocracy? And how many of its kings were practicing Zoroastrians? Was there really a pristine, pure Persian Zoroastrian heritage?
These are uncomfortable questions swept under the carpet by many. However, the conclusions reached by modern historians are almost uniformly shocking. Contrary to popular belief, the Achemenids only flirted with Zoroastrianism; the Parthians were almost anti-Zoroastrian; and barring some notable exceptions, the ostensibly Zoroastrian Sasanians merrily indulged in interfaith marriages and extra religious worship on an unprecedented scale. At best, it was a feeble, limping, mixed-up state religion only during the last 300 years. More as a matter of political convenience than any religious commitment.
Ancient Iranian legends that hark back to remote antiquity as sanitized in the politically correct Shahnameh speak about the Pishdadis, "the early kings, who ruled over the world and contributed to the progress of civilization by their teachings and institution.” Gayomard, their founder, was believed to be the first man. These are the Peshedadians of the Ilm-e-Khshnoomists like the healer king Shah Faridoon, a great exponent of white magic, who defeated the evil Zohak. The Pishdadis and the Kayanids (Kayanians) were clearly mythical prehistoric magical figures, as not the slightest historical evidence exists about them. In any event, assuming that they did exist in some form, they most certainly predated Zoroaster and could never have been Zoroastrians. Even their legends bristle with pagan practices and rites.
Coming back to the three historically recorded and well documented dynasties, the question arises whether Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Achemenids was a Zoroastrian. While some leave no stone unturned to so claim, most scholars conclude that he was not. In the Cyrus Cylinder, not only does Cyrus make no mention of Ahura Mazda but he invokes the Babylonian god Marduk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even after Cyrus, the successor kings were not remotely Zoroastrian. Cambyses, his immediate successor, worshipped Neith, an Egyptian goddess and built temples to venerate her. It was only Darius I who categorically attributed his kingship to Ahura Mazda, the one lord, as is evident from his various inscriptions. It appears this was more for strategic reasons than true belief. Notwithstanding this, he did not follow Zoroastrianism as is presently understood. Xerxes, his son, was the first king who was less tolerant of other faiths and seemed to have tried to give Zoroastrianism at least quasi-official status; once again for political legitimacy and not devotional fervor.
The Parthians, who followed the Achemenids were only namesake Zoroastrians. They believed in the ubiquitous cult of Mithra (Mitra in Vedic India, the Roman Mihr), in preference to, or at least on par with Ahura Mazda. Hellenistic and Greek influences were pronounced, with lip service to Iranian traditions. The Parthians were certainly not monotheistic. Ahura Mazda was equated with Zeus; Hades with Angre Mainyu (Ahriman) of the Avesta, and Aphrodite with Anahita (see "The cult of a Zoroastrian goddess,” Parsiana, June 21-July 6, 2023). Blood sacrifices and demon worship, wholly repugnant to Zoroastrianism, were widespread.
The Parthians went on to detest the Sasanians who overthrew them and simmered in discontent under their new rulers as reluctant partners in the Sasanian Parthian Confederacy. The Parthians increasingly turned hostile to Zoroastrianism, the state religion of their Sasanian oppressors. This religious dichotomy played a great role in the decline and fall of the Sasanian Empire. "This political rivalry was exacerbated by this religious disparity,” observes historian Dr Parvaneh Pourshariati. Much after the Islamic conquest of Persia, the Parthian tribes had no qualms about retaining local power for several centuries by acquiescing to Islam.
While it cannot be denied that the third empire, that of the Sasanians, officially were Zoroastrians, it was certainly not a theocratic state in the true sense of the term. The Sasanians had to contend with a multifarious religious landscape which they had inherited from the Parthians. The "iconoclastic, single God, moral” religion of Zarathushtra was diluted by cult worship of powerful goddesses like the pre Armenian Anahita whose golden statues were worshipped in temples. The priestly orthodoxy watched such heresies with clenched teeth and did not always receive support from the king who had to frequently compromise with different faiths due to the exigencies of realpolitik. As scholar Gherardo Gnoli concluded, "Zoroastrianism never succeeded in imposing a spiritual supremacy that was not almost always challenged, and in some periods turned out to be downright feeble.” 
Of course, there were high priests like Kirdir and Tansar who tried to assert Zoroastrian supremacy by terrorizing the Christian, Jew and other minorities; however, they did not receive unreserved support from the state. They had to helplessly watch widespread Mihr worship throughout the Sasanian period, which was certainly not a part of Zoroastrian orthodoxy where all other deities like Mihr (Meher) had to be subservient to Ahura Mazda. Some monarchs patronized heretics like Mani and Mazdak, much to the chagrin of these high priests (of course the priests finally did succeed in imprisoning Mani and burying Mazdak’s supporters alive).
The Sasanians were great propagandists and skillfully whitewashed history even under Yazdegird. In the reign of Shapur II, the powerful spiritual leader Aturpat Mahraspand (popularly known as Adarbad Marespand) composed the Avesta prayers in 21 nasks (each word of Yatha Ahu Vairyo), quite different from the Prophet composed Gathas which were in perfect poetic meter. The high priest did consolidate the Mazdean creed. Ironically, his patron, Shapur II continued to be personally interested in Christianity, even though at the same time the state was violently persecuting Christians. In a nutshell, says Pourshariati, neither the monarchy nor the Zoroastrian clergy was able, even if so inclined, to impose a uniform orthodoxy and a volatile and heterogeneous religious climate continued to prevail.
The Sasanian Shahenshahs did not think twice before marrying non Zoroastrian women who were permitted to freely practice their religion even after marriage. Yazdegird I married a Jew. Hormozd IV married a Christian, prayed to St Sergius and was suspected to have secretly converted. The last powerful emperor, Khushro Pervez II married an Armenian, Shirin, whom he loved passionately till his head was chopped off by his son, Seroe, from another wife, the Byzantine Maryam.
The great, pure, Persian Zoroastrian heritage which permits no extra religious worship or interfaith marriages is therefore a myth which flounders badly in the face of unimpeachable historical evidence.