Did the Persians "forget" about the Achaemenids?

[Abulabbas]

I am curious as to whether Post-Seleucid Persian civilisation forgot about their Achaemenid forebears. I wonder this due to the lack of clear references pertaining to Cyrus' dynasty dated after the fall of his empire. The Sassanids did not trace their empire back to that of the Achaemenids but rather the mythical Kayanids and, despite the attempts of later scholars, the attribution of the Kayanids as a "mythologised" version of the House of Achaemenes is a rather hard pill to swallow. The names, the dates, and the feats of the Kayanid heroes do not square at all well with what we know of the Achaemenids, and I feel it is safe to say that there is no connection between the two houses.

So why was Sassanian historiography so poor as to ensure the Achaemenids were all but erased in the cultural memory of the Persian people? The Sassanids managed to piece back together other aspects of their past—such as the destruction wrought by Alexander the Great (or "the Accursed" as the Persians would know him), and the religion of Zoroastrianism. It's thought that the Sassanids relied upon Babylonian records for much of this historical reconstruction (the Magus class having been defanged and rendered ignorant under Macedonian rule). If the memory of Alexander survived so strongly as to affect the Persian national consciousness for centuries to come (I believe the Sassanids believed the Macedonian king was a Roman, casting the rivalry between the two powers as an existential struggle that had been waged since the beginning of time), then why can the same not be said of Cyrus or of Darius? How could the Sasanians remember only half of their history?

Indeed, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh uses the conquest of Alexander as the liminal threshold between the mythical period of the Kayanians and the historical rule of the Sasanians. Where are the Achaemenids? Where are the Seleucids? Why are the Parthians barely mentioned?

 

[Dfront21]

I believe the Sassanids engaged in a lot of historical revisionism when it comes to the Selucids and Parthians. I'm not to sure about the Achamenids, but the Sassanids and Shahname, do discuss the conquest of Alexander and his battles against Dara (Darius). Also, Sassanid kings did try to justify their wars against the Romans by stating they were reconquering lands that belonged to their ancestors.

 

[GameBawesome]

I thought the whole purpose of the Sassanid Empire, was to restore the legacy of the Achaemenid Empire, and relive the glory and prestige of the past Persian Empire, by expanding Iran’s border. That’s why they went to Rome/Byzantines a lot in history, to expand their domain to the size of the old Achaemenid Empire

 

[Abulabbas]

I thought the whole purpose of the Sassanid Empire, was to restore the legacy of the Achaemenid Empire, and relive the glory and prestige of the past Persian Empire, by expanding Iran’s border. That’s why they went to Rome/Byzantines a lot in history, to expand their domain to the size of the old Achaemenid Empire

But they made no reference to the Achaemenids in their inscriptions or their literature. Instead it is the mythical Kayanid dynasty that they exalted.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

The Sassanids tracing their lineage back to a mythological dynasty is not really that strange. In the same vein that Romans created a supposed connection to the Trojans of the Illiad and later Chinese Dynasties claimed to descend from the semi-mythical Xia Dynasty, it really isn't "forgetting" history as much as it's highlighting some parts above others. Being connected to the heroes of myth and faith was often a much stronger tool of legitimacy and propaganda than being connected to some previous ruling house, in the Persian case one that saw the downfall of an Empire.

There is also the case that accounts on what Ardashir I. claimed to be his ancestry conflict, with one stating that his family descended from a descendant of Darius III. via an unnamed daughter of some ruler in Persis. Furthermore the name "Sasan" has multiple potential connections to mythical figures, such as that of Ssn (an old semetic deity worshiped in Ugarit), which makes it likely that Ardashir merely tried to create some form of divine connection for his dynasty.

 

[Gloss]

it really isn't "forgetting" history as much as it's highlighting some parts above others. Being connected to the heroes of myth and faith was often a much stronger tool of legitimacy and propaganda than being connected to some previous ruling house, in the Persian case one that saw the downfall of an Empire.

How can they be highlighting events hat literally didn't happen?

 

[Admiral_Zann]

By officially claiming they did? Myth being fused with actual events isn't uncommon. Roman History starts with Romulus and Remus, people that probably didn't exist. Same for China and the Xia Dynasty. What constituted history to a 3rd century Persian vastly differed from what a 21st century Persian would state. The stark separation of myth and fact we see in modern historiography has not always been present, especially when it comes to rulers trying to shore up their legitimacy.

 

[Abulabbas]

The Sassanids tracing their lineage back to a mythological dynasty is not really that strange. In the same vein that Romans created a supposed connection to the Trojans of the Illiad and later Chinese Dynasties claimed to descend from the semi-mythical Xia Dynasty, it really isn't "forgetting" history as much as it's highlighting some parts above others. Being connected to the heroes of myth and faith was often a much stronger tool of legitimacy and propaganda than being connected to some previous ruling house, in the Persian case one that saw the downfall of an Empire.

There is also the case that accounts on what Ardashir I. claimed to be his ancestry conflict, with one stating that his family descended from descendant of Darius III. via an unnamed daughter of some ruler in the Persis. Furthermore the name "Sasan" has multiple potential connections to mythical figures, such as that of Ssn (an old semetic deity worshiped in Ugarit), which makes it likely that Ardashir merely tried to create some form of divine connection for his dynasty.

Sure, but do we have evidence to suggest that they knew about the Achaemenids at all? Ferdowsi's epic is supposed to be a history of Pre-Islamic Persia yet the Achaemenids make no appearance. I could understand the Sassanids tracing their lineage back to the mythical heroes of the Avestan, but why do their records make out that the Achaemenids never existed at all?

 

[Admiral_Zann]

Why would an epic written over three centuries after the end of the Sassanids, whose main focus was the Mythical and Heroic Past of Persia, be a good example of what the Sassanids knew of the Achaemenids? Most of the sources it used where from the late Sassanid period and concerned themselves with that dynasty. Both Arsacids and Alexander are only short mentions and especially the former have a much stronger connection to the Sassanids than the Achaemenids. Additionally, it's a poem largely concerned with the mythical, religious and moral aspects of pre-Islamic Persia.

Also is there really evidence that the Sassanids didn't know about the Achaemenids? It is one thing of them not appearing in Sassanian propaganda, but it is another to suggest that they were basically not known at all. It is certainly possible that they didn't have an accurate grasp of pre-Alexander history, thereby going the way of combining Kayanids and Achaemenids as has been argued.

 

[Dfront21]

Sure, but do we have evidence to suggest that they knew about the Achaemenids at all? Ferdowsi's epic is supposed to be a history of Pre-Islamic Persia yet the Achaemenids make no appearance. I could understand the Sassanids tracing their lineage back to the mythical heroes of the Avestan, but why do their records make out that the Achaemenids never existed at all

Sure, but do we have evidence to suggest that they knew about the Achaemenids at all? Ferdowsi's epic is supposed to be a history of Pre-Islamic Persia yet the Achaemenids make no appearance. I could understand the Sassanids tracing their lineage back to the mythical heroes of the Avestan, but why do their records make out that the Achaemenids never existed at all?

I think the proper question is how could they not know about them? They were a literate and advanced society that was well aware of the culture produced in the Eastern Mediterranean. Surely, they would've read the histories written by Greeks, Armenians and Mesopotamians.

 

[Gloss]

I think the proper question is how could they not know about them? They were a literate and advanced society that was well aware of the culture produced in the Eastern Mediterranean. Surely, they would've read the histories written by Greeks, Armenians and Mesopotamians.

This is a completely backward argument, if they knew about it surely they must have mentioned them once in any of their texts, otherwise why would they have purposefully ignored it so consistently?

 

[Falecius]

I thought the whole purpose of the Sassanid Empire, was to restore the legacy of the Achaemenid Empire, and relive the glory and prestige of the past Persian Empire, by expanding Iran’s border. That’s why they went to Rome/Byzantines a lot in history, to expand their domain to the size of the old Achaemenid Empire

This is a common Western misconception, so common indeed that myself, a professional scholar in closely related topics, with some training in Persian literature, had fallen for it before actually approaching the point in depth. However, it looks like it was really a religious-political thing of the LATE Sasanid record.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

This is a completely backward argument, if they knew about it surely they must have mentioned them once in any of their texts, otherwise why would they have purposefully ignored it so consistently?

You also have to consider that Persian culture was predominately oral until the late Sassanid era, when Khosrow I. founded the Academy of Gondishapur. And of the written sources, few secular ones remain. Of those there is only really the biography of Ardashir I. which would reasonably mention the Achaemenids.

 

[Falecius]

This is a completely backward argument, if they knew about it surely they must have mentioned them once in any of their texts, otherwise why would they have purposefully ignored it so consistently?

Because of religious legitimacy, mostly. The Kayanids are the KINGS mentioned in Mazdean Scripture. The Achaemenids are not.

 

[Armot]

It very much sounds like the post-476 Italian kingdoms not claiming to be the Roman Empire.

 

[Falecius]

You also have to consider that Persian culture was predominately oral until the late Sassanid era, when Khosrow I. founded the Academy of Gondishapur. And of the written sources, few secular ones remain. Of those there is only really the biography of Ardashir I. which would reasonably mention the Achaemenids.

Well, Erānshahr certainly had people within it with historical records about the Achaemenids. Like, for example, Jews, or Nestorian Christians with access to either Herodotus or the Bible. It was a precise political choice to ignore that in the Khwaday-namag official records.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

Well, Erānshahr certainly had people within it with historical records about the Achaemenids. Like, for example, Jews, or Nestorian Christians with access to either Herodotus or the Bible. It was a precise political choice to ignore that in the Khwaday-namag official records.

Well yes. But it is also not unlikely that some sources mentioning them were translated only to the be lost during the 7th century, especially as the Empire was disintegrating after the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628.

 

[SunKing105]

I am curious as to whether Post-Seleucid Persian civilisation forgot about their Achaemenid forebears. I wonder this due to the lack of clear references pertaining to Cyrus' dynasty dated after the fall of his empire. The Sassanids did not trace their empire back to that of the Achaemenids but rather the mythical Kayanids and, despite the attempts of later scholars, the attribution of the Kayanids as a "mythologised" version of the House of Achaemenes is a rather hard pill to swallow. The names, the dates, and the feats of the Kayanid heroes do not square at all well with what we know of the Achaemenids, and I feel it is safe to say that there is no connection between the two houses.

Persian historiography all the way down to the Medieval period was predominantly oral, a methodical, rationalistic analysis of history in the manner of Thucydides, or an inquiry into the causes of historical events, in the manner of Herodotus, was largely alien in the Iranic cultural sphere. East of the Zagros, except for administrative purposes, writing and a literary culture simply wasn't present in Achaemenid and later Parthian times. This ensured the distortion and corruption of the Achaemenid version of history when the empire was conquered by the Macedonians in Iran itself, though ample memory of the Achaemenids survived outside through Greek and Biblical texts. Still, there is reason to believe that historical memory was retained for centuries afterward and was still current in the Parthian period, Arrian(the same person who authored the Anabasis of Alexander) reports that the Parthians considered themselves descendants of Artaxerxes II .

.So why was Sassanian historiography so poor as to ensure the Achaemenids were all but erased in the cultural memory of the Persian people? The Sassanids managed to piece back together other aspects of their past—such as the destruction wrought by Alexander the Great (or "the Accursed" as the Persians would know him), and the religion of Zoroastrianism. It's thought that the Sassanids relied upon Babylonian records for much of this historical reconstruction (the Magus class having been defanged and rendered ignorant under Macedonian rule).

Keep in mind the "Accursed" epithet is almost entirely derived from a late 10th century Zoroastrian dream text and a handful of other late Pahlavi sources that absolutely should not be counted a reliable source for the contemporary Persian view of Alexander given the enormous problems with accepting it, such as the fact that Alexander is called a "Roman", describe his dwelling-place as Egypt, and ascribe the murder of the unnamed ruler of Iran to Alexander. And also, the cultural institution of Magianism survived long after Alexander, they are mentioned serving in his court performing their rituals. In the Achaemenid era, Magians were a general class of religious specialists and even seem to have performed rites and worship for non-Iranian deities, as evidenced by the Persepolis Fortification tablets, and lacked the orthodoxy of Sassanid times, and they are mentioned by a fragment of Posidonius as playing an important role in the Parthian government(though what lies behind this statement is not exactly clear), and the Greek geographer Strabo describing fire-temples still functional in his own day in Cappadocia,

If the memory of Alexander survived so strongly as to affect the Persian national consciousness for centuries to come (I believe the Sassanids believed the Macedonian king was a Roman, casting the rivalry between the two powers as an existential struggle that had been waged since the beginning of time), then why can the same not be said of Cyrus or of Darius? How could the Sasanians remember only half of their history?

This is actually debateable. Some scholars believe that the early Sassanids actually remembered the Achaemenids, based on recurring similarities and formulae between Achaemenid inscriptions and early Sassanid ones, and mention in late Greco-Roman sources of Sassanian claims to the Achaemenid legacy, and on the other end that the "Alexander" that shows up in Pahlavi texts reflecting the views of the Sassanid court and priesthood isn't a garbled memory of the actual Alexander the Great, but that they came to know him through the Alexander Romance, and reworked him into a national villain for Iranic civilization. It's notable than in these texts the honour of recollecting the Avesta scattered by "Alexander the Roman" is attributed to an Ashkanian(Arsacid), and that as preservers of ancient oral traditions, the texts are lamenting the loss of a mythical written Avesta. Also there are similarities between traditions and legends about Cyrus reported in Ctesias and Xenophon, and what is reported in later traditions, such as the Shahnameh even if Cyrus and Darius are not explicitly mentioned, suggesting that memories of the Achaemenids had become intermixed with the legends of the Kayanids.

Indeed, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh uses the conquest of Alexander as the liminal threshold between the mythical period of the Kayanians and the historical rule of the Sasanians. Where are the Achaemenids? Where are the Seleucids? Why are the Parthians barely mentioned?

The Shahnameh also has minimal knowledge of Kartir's activites, the name of Ardashir's grandfather, Narseh's conflict with Bahram Sakanshah, and Shapur I's wars with the Romans, all things they could actually read in the Pahlavi inscriptions and see on the Naqsh-e-Rustam monuments. When they neglected such sources how can we expect them to remember things more remote and unavailable to them, such as the Achaemenids?

I think the proper question is how could they not know about them? They were a literate and advanced society that was well aware of the culture produced in the Eastern Mediterranean. Surely, they would've read the histories written by Greeks, Armenians and Mesopotamians.

Sure, but there is no evidence the Sassanids were interested in using foreign sources to construct their national history.

 

[Gloss]

Because of religious legitimacy, mostly. The Kayanids are the KINGS mentioned in Mazdean Scripture. The Achaemenids are not.

Ok but what does ignoring them achieve? Were they really such an inconvenient element?

 

[Falecius]

Well yes. But it is also not unlikely that some sources mentioning them were translated only to the be lost during the 7th century, especially as the Empire was disintegrating after the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628.

My understanding is that, for the most part, the official history 'forgetting' the Achaemenids had been already established in the sixth century if not before; the Khwaday-namag is usually credited to Khosrow I, though perhaps a basis for that narrative esisted earlier too.