Fundamentals of the Parthian Statehood

The fact that a king of kings (Šahanšah) held office among the Parthians often leads to an equation of Parthian-Eranic rule with other Eranic states. However, this is not correct.

An Essay by Varan

Main Features

Although the Šahanšah was the supreme leader, the Parthian state was fundamentally different from the ruling traditions of the Mesopotamians or the Persians. Three main features give the Arsacid Parthian empire its distinctiveness:

Federalism
First parliament in an Eranian state, namely the Parthian parliament called Megistan.
Decentral Administration

Compared to the Mesopotamian peoples and the Persians, this creates a sharp contrast. The Persian tradition, for example, placed immense value on centralized leadership. Such systems of rule are particularly well known among Mesopotamian Semitic states, which can be observed among the Assyrians, Babylonians, and other states in Mesopotamia. These states, based on strong agriculture, were able to centralize power and direct state affairs from a central power center. This tradition and culture was reflected both in the state tradition, where a powerful kingship was established, and in the principles of belief, where monotheistic, omnipotent god figures were favored, thus producing a sacred legitimacy of leadership. In these states, a strong officialdom, a fusion of the clergy with the state and the head of state, as well as a strong urbanization with fixed state structures under the control of a central power were prominent.

On the one hand, there are the Mesopotamian-Semitic state traditions, from which the Persian state tradition is also significantly influenced. On the other hand, there is the decentralized, federal, Erano-Parthian structure. These characteristics are due to the fact that the Parthians were of nomadic origin. A characteristic that is partly due to the influence of the Parni and Alans, and that has been incorporated as a characteristic into the state and administrative traditions.

The Medes and Persians came into contact with the cultures of Mesopotamia and Elam at a very early date, which also meant that the influence of the latter on the early Eranian peoples was much stronger, and thus the “warlike” and “nomadic” character was displaced in favor of the Mesopotamian way of ruling. The adoption of these foreign elements had far-reaching effects on these empires. Partly because of the foreign forms of rule and state structures, the Achaemenids rapidly declined in the face of Alexander’s advance.

When the Parthians are analyzed in contrast, a striking difference is evident. Although the Parthians also had to forfeit territories in warlike events, it was very difficult to shake the state structure, let alone eradicate it from the ground up. The decentralization and nomadic mobility and organizational capacity made it difficult for opponents of the Parthians to destroy them or their rule. Losses of lands were compensated through other administrative units, losses of leaders or military leaders were dealt by efficient succession, and in the worst cases, the organization was carried on by the stubborn and obstinate population itself. The sense of responsibility and power was distributed in such a way that even citizens of the Parthian Empire continued to fight themselves in the event of enemy takeovers. This was and is more difficult to achieve in centralized structures, where power is supposed to be concentrated primarily in one place – namely the official authorities, the army and the king.

The Megistan

Contrary to what Western literature, science and regimes would have us believe, the ancient Parthians had a thoroughly functioning and profoundly thought-out parliament before many other peoples. After all, there is talk of the first parliament of Eran – the Megistan (Lari 2013). The ancient Parthians are still stigmatizingly put into the category of “nomads” with leather caps. The early Parni (Aparni) of the 2nd century BC, in particular, are used in an exaggeratedly representative manner for the entire Parthian existence, which in fact spans over two millennia – and this is often in spite of the reality that the Parthians were already indigenous to the areas of Vergana, Herat, Xorasan, and that the Aparni nomads had eventually mixed with and merged with the resident Parthians. Although the Parni made up the backbone of the Arsacids, the Parthian existence is much farther reaching and multi-layered in its overall consideration and must be seen as a whole in order to be able to make statements about what is typically “Parthian” and what is not.

However, the state system of the Parthian-Arsacid Empire from Mihrdāt I onwards was nevertheless one of the most noteworthy in ancient history. The first session of the Parthian Megistan was held in Newroz (Eranian new year) of 137 BC. Mihrdāt I attended the assembly in person and had his first decision to establish kingship (Šahanšah) determined by election.

One of the characteristics of the Arsacid Parthian parliament was that it consisted of two parts: on the one hand, it included the sages and the magi, who came from the most diverse regions of the empire; on the other hand, it included the relatives of the royal family and the seven great Parthian houses. The king represented the entire empire in his function and as a symbol (Ilna 2014). In the part of the sages and magis (pirs), the sages formed the majority (Pirnia 2009: 2234). The Arsacid Parthian king was appointed by these two chambers (Strabo: 11.9.3). The fact that the king could not form and appoint the Megistan himself obviously shows that the power of the Arsacid king was limited thereby (Pirnia 2009: 2233).

The two parts of the Parthian parliament together or separately formed a total of three different councils. Apparently, the third council was formed in case of emergency from the other two, which made up the proper Megistan.

The Megistan is well known to Greco-Roman historians of antiquity, including Strabon, Tacitus and Justin. Justin, for example, emphasizes that the downfall of the Parthian Arsacid Empire was due to the unlimited power and extremely large decision-making authority of the parliamentarians (Sayadi 2014). The abuse of power by some nobles from Parthian families is definitely attested in the transition to the Sasano-Parthian confederation, as evident in the end of the Arsacid Empire. But other abuses of power apart from that are not known, so that in the whole period of the Arsacid state the two chambers decided for the welfare of the state. This is attested by the fact that the Arsacid Empire is the longest lasting and surviving state in the Eranian world, which means that great value can be attached to Mihrdāt I’s political decision to determine the kingship through an election and to grant this power to the Megistan.