The End of Hormizd IV

So Hormizd IV was dealing with a civil war when a successful military leader decided he was destined to lead the Iranian Empire. Hormizd asked his general Farrukhan to go put down the rebellion. Before setting out, Farrukhan requested that Hormizd release a political prisoner, Zadspram, a military leader whom Farrukhan considered important to success. Zadspram was released.

The armies of Hormizd under Farrukhan faced the army of Bahram Chobin across the River Zab. Neither wanted to be the first to try crossing the river and putting themselves into a vulnerable position. Farrukhan might also have delayed in hopes that the rebellion would dissolve over time.

Unfortunately, Zadspram deserted Farrukhan. This desertion demoralized the army. Two of Farrukhan's officers killed Farrukhan, and the loyalist army fell apart.

Meanwhile, Hormizd was in Ctesiphon, the Iranian royal capital for over 800 years. Enter Vistahm and Vinduyih. They were Hormizd's brothers-in-law, and they hated him. They decided to get Hormizd off the throne, so they blinded him with a red-hot needle in 590. The brothers elevated his son, their nephew Khosrow II (born c.570), to the position of emperor. Not long after, the two dealt with Hormizd permanently by strangling him with his own turban.

Accounts written later disagree on whether Khosrow II was involved in the murder of his father. A few years after the event, Khosrow executed both uncles for the murder of his father, along with others he considered co-conspirators. (More own this in the next few days.)

With the news of the death of Hormizd, Bahram Chobin continued his march to the capital under the public pretext of avenging the assassination of the emperor. Now, however, he was Khosrow II's problem. Whether this would make Khosrow II's reign a short one will be seen tomorrow.

Hormizd IV

Iranian Emperor Khosrow I maintained a level of religious tolerance (except for Mazdakism), during his reign (531 - 579). His son was also tolerant.

Hormizd IV (reigned 579 - 590) turned down requests by the Zoroastrian clergy to persecute Christians. His explanation was:

Just as our royal throne cannot stand on its two front legs without the two back ones, our kingdom cannot stand or endure firmly if we cause the Christians and adherents of other faiths, who differ in belief from ourselves, to become hostile to us. So refrain from harming the Christians and become assiduous in good works, so that the Christians and the adherents of other faiths may see this, praise you for it, and feel themselves drawn toward your religion.

He wanted all living within the empire to be treated as citizens of the empire. One of Hormizd's wives was a Christian, and he is said to have prayed to St. Sergius, a 4th-century Christian soldier.

The Zoroastrian clergy were not okay with this, and treated him with hostility. Hormizd felt it prudent to deal with their threat by executing Zoroastrian clergy who opposed him. There was another Zoroastrian threat, however, that did not come from the clergy.

Bahram Chobin was a military leader from one of the Seven Great Houses of the Sassanian Iranian Empire. He started a civil war against Hormizd. The religious element came from a Zoroastrian holy book that predicted:

...a man shall come from the frontiers of Kavulistan, with whom there will be glory, also of the royal family, whom they will name Kay Bahram; and all men will return with him, and he will rule even over India, Rome, and Turkistan, over all the frontiers.

Bahram's activities were near the end of the millennium of Zoroaster (which had to have started with the Seleucids in 312 BCE to make this work). Bahram began to be hailed by some as the fulfillment of a prophecy. Bahram himself claimed to be the personification of the fire of Mithra.

Hormizd, of course, had his own army, and the two forces faced each other across a river, neither wanting to make the first move and become vulnerable while trying to cross. Tomorrow I'll tell you what ended the civil war about to take place.