The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 7: The Sassanian or New Persian Empire: The History, Geography, And Antiquities Of Chaldaea, Assyria, Babylon, Media, Persia, Parthia, And Sassanian or New Persian Empire; With Maps and Illustrations.Rawlinson, George
History
The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 7: The Sassanian or New Persian Empire: The History, Geography, And Antiquities Of Chaldaea, Assyria, Babylon, Media, Persia, Parthia, And Sassanian or New Persian Empire; With Maps and Illustrations.
The five years’ truce seems to have been observed with better faith
by the Persian than by the Roman monarch. Alamundarus indeed, though
a Persian vassal, regarded himself as entitled, despite the truce, to
pursue his quarrel with his natural enemy, Arethas, who acknowledged the
suzerainty of Rome; but Chosroes is not even accused of instigating
his proceedings; and the war between the vassals was carried on without
dragging either of the two lords-paramount into its vortex. Thus far,
then, neither side had any cause of complaint against the other. If we
were bound to accept the Roman story of a project formed by Chosroes
for the surprise and seizure of Daras, we should have to admit that
circumstances rather than his own will saved the Persian monarch from
the guilt of being the first to break the agreement. But the tale told
by Procopius is improbable; and the Roman belief of it can have rested
at best only upon suspicion. Chosroes, it is allowed, committed no
hostile act; and it may well be doubted whether he really entertained
the design ascribed to him. At any rate, the design was not executed,
nor even attempted; and the peace was thus not broken on his part.
It was reserved for Rome in the fourth year of the truce (A.D. 549)
expressly, to break its provisions by accepting the Lazi into alliance
and sending them a body of eight thousand men to help them against the
Persians.
Very soon after their submission to Persia the Lazi had repented of
their rash and hasty action. They found that they had gained nothing,
while in some respects they had lost, by their change of masters.
The general system of the Persian administration was as arbitrary and
oppressive as the Roman. If the commercial monopoly, whereof they so
bitterly complained, had been swept away, commerce itself had gone with
it, and they could neither find a market for their own products, nor
obtain the commodities which they required. The Persian manners and
customs introduced into their country, if not imposed upon themselves,
were detestable to the Lazi, who were zealous and devout Christians,
and possessed by the spirit of intolerance. Chosroes, after holding the
territory for a few years, became convinced that Persia could not
retain it unless the disaffected population were removed and replaced
by faithful subjects. He designed therefore, we are told, to deport
the entire Lazic nation, and to plant the territory with colonies of
Persians and others, on whose fidelity he could place full reliance.
As a preliminary step, he suggested to his lieutenant in Lazica that he
should contrive the assassination of Gubazes, the Lazic king, in whom
he saw an obstacle to his project. Phabrizus, however, failed in his
attempt to execute this commission; and his failure naturally produced
the immediate revolt of the province, which threw itself once more into
the arms of Rome, and, despite the existing treaty with the Persians,
was taken by Justinian under his protection.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account