Tag Archives: Seleucid

Cyprus: a Confederal, Bi-zonal State without English military bases is the Only Solution

Following the publication of an article of mine about Kazakhstan’s chances to bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians and to resolve the Palestinian problem once for all, a Muslim friend wrote to me, asking me to expand on the reasons for some of my proposals. He also made a comparison between Israel/Palestine and Cyprus, and he suggested that for both cases he would support a two-state solution. The present article is my reply to his questions and points about Cyprus. My previous articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (including subtitles and units) and links to them you will find at the end of the present article.

I. Cyprus & Palestine: an Island with one Nation & a Land with two Nations

I find the two cases distinct, and under any circumstances whatsoever I would never compare a land (Palestine) to an island (Cyprus), but my friend started his brief letter with the following sentences: “the solution is two states in Palestine and two states in Cyprus. In Cyprus, there are two peoples, not one. Ethnically, there are no ‘Cypriots’; there is no ‘Cypriot’ nation. The term ‘Cypriot’ is local/geographical, not ethnic / national. In Cyprus, there are two great nations, Greeks and Turks, and some tiny minorities”. Saying this, he drew a parallel between Palestine and Cyprus; but this is wrong.

In Ottoman Palestine, before 1882 (the very beginning of the Zionist ‘Aliyah’ project), Palestinians constituted the quasi-totality of the local population, whereas several tiny minorities lived in peace among them: Turkish Ottoman administrators, Druzes and Jews. With the arrival of the European (mostly Ashkenazi) Jews, the composition of the local population started gradually changing.

It is noteworthy that the arrival of those populations was approved by the Sultan and the Ottoman authorities (until 1917), accepted by the Palestinians in the beginning, fully supported by the English colonial gangsters, strongly opposed by the Palestinians with the passing of time, but originally rejected by the only who knew and understood: the Sephardic Jews of Palestine, who represented an authentic line of continuity between Late Antiquity and Modern Jews.

II. 2nd millennium BCE Alashiya (Cyprus)

Quite contrarily, Cypriots were always there. The original name of the island was Alashiya; this is attested in 2nd millennium BCE Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Egyptian hieroglyphic, Ugaritic Canaanite, and Linear B Mycenaean texts. The king of Alashiya is mentioned even in the Amarna Letters; the island was part of the territory of the Hittite Empire for several hundreds of years. Mentioned in the text of Wenamun, early 11th c. BCE Alashiya was ruled by Queen Hatiba – which is the earliest known name of local ruler. As personal name, it is determinately Semitic.

The word ‘Cyprus’ is Semitic too, as it denotes the ‘coast’ or the ‘shore’ in Canaanite and Phoenician. Ethnically, all the Cypriots are Canaanites-Phoenicians entirely identical to today’s Lebanese. The sparse Achaean settlements could not and did not change the irrevocable Semitic Phoenician ethnic and cultural identity of Alashiya-Cyprus.

Papyrus with the text of Wenamun in Egyptian Hieratic

III. Vicious, colonial falsification of the History of Cyprus

The History of Cyprus has been extensively tampered with by prepaid pseudo-scholars, bogus-academics, and clownish professors who were on the payroll of London-based Greek ship owners, who were ordered by the Apostate Freemasonic lodge of England to monstrously disfigure the historical realities and to shamelessly portray Alashiya’s History as “Greek”. This fallacy would exacerbate the vicious political myths that were diffused by idiotic politicians and treacherous statesmen in Greece, who -thinking that they would ‘unite Cyprus with Greece-‘ brought disaster, bloodshed and interminable conflict. These were the stupid victims of the English colonial liars and crooks who did not give a damn for the lives of the Cypriots, the Turks, and the Greeks.

Statue of Baal (12th c. BCE) unearthed in Enkomi, Famagusta; to deny the Semitic-Canaanite identity of the island, the biased archaeologists did not name the statue correctly, but gave it rather an exotic appellation, namely ‘horned god’!

The fallaciously called ‘Late Bronze Age collapse’ is a fake term invented to distort the History of the Oriental Empires; it consists in the invention of a factoid, which is then extrapolated from a marginal and unimportant region (the Anatolian Sea, which is also known as the Aegean Sea) and extended to describe the major centers of advanced civilization, namely Mesopotamia and Egypt, where it does not apply at all! The fabricated term is biased and absurd. It is impermissible to use terms that apply to an unimportant periphery in order to narrate the History of the lands of the great empires and the peoples who developed the major civilizations. In simple words, since there is no ‘Late Bronze Age collapse’ in Mesopotamia, there is no ‘Late Bronze Age collapse’ as a major historical circumstance; it is a marginal phenomenon that concerns peripheral lands to Mesopotamia.

Tjekker (Teucri) and Peleset (Philistines-Palestinians) fighting against the Egyptians and Pharaoh Ramesses III at the Battle of Djahy (ca. 1178 BCE); from the reliefs of the walls of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, Luxor West

The so-called ‘major wave of Greek settlement’ (1100-1050 BCE) was not Greek and was not major; it was in fact ‘Western Anatolian’, and it did not affect Cyprus in particular. In fact, it was the side effect of the invasions of the Sea Peoples, who had nothing to do with ‘Greeks’, but actually destroyed the Achaean (‘Greek’) fortresses and brought an end to the Hittite Empire and its ally, the Mycenaean kingdom.

IV. 1st millennium BCE Cyprus

Cyprus was integral part of the Sargonid Assyrian, Nabonid Babylonian, and Achaemenid Iranian empires; as such, it was entirely disconnected from all the developments that took place in South Balkans during the 5th and the 4th centuries BCE. Cyprus was closer to the Seleucid Empire of Syria, but was always part of the Ptolemaic Empire of Egypt; this fact that reflects the survival of cultural rivalries of the past (Hittite Anatolia, Assyrian-Babylonian Mesopotamia, Egypt).

The gradual diffusion of Alexandrine Koine in Cyprus does not justify any claim of Hellenization; the various settlements of Arcadians did not change the Semitic-Canaanite ethnic identity of the Cypriots. The Romanization and the Christianization of the island constituted two processes, which -in spite of the crucial changes that took place there during the Late Antiquity- consolidated the ethnic unity of the Cypriots, who became part of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Ivory game board (detail) found at Enkomi, Famagusta; evident imitation of the Assyrian royal art by the artists of the local king who is depicted in hunting.

V. Cyprus as part of the Eastern Roman Empire

Cyprus was religiously and administratively important, and this is highlighted by the position of the bishop of Cyprus whose Church was proclaimed autocephalous in the First Council of Ephesus (431 CE) and by the outstanding privileges that Emperor Zeno (reign: 474-475 and 476-491) accorded to Archbishop Anthemius (488 CE). It is interesting that the Patriarchate of Antioch repeatedly failed to incorporate Cyprus into its dominion.

Furthermore, Cyprus was never part of an Eastern Roman ‘theme’ (administrative division), as it consisted in an entirely independent one. The partly Islamization of the island was a slow and rather unusual process which involved an Eastern Roman and Umayyad condominium (688), The Eastern Roman Reconquista (965 CE) took an end with the Crusades (1191), the much loathed (by the Cypriots) Knights Templar, the Lusignan rule (1192-1489), and the Venetian rule that lasted until the Ottoman conquest (1571). The few Ottoman settlers were military officers who entered into mixed marriages, thus having no major impact on the ethnic composition of the local population.

Agia Napa monastery, Cyprus (12th-18th c.)

Hala Sultan Tekke (or Mosque of Umm Haram), Larnaca (16th–18th c.)

VI. Conflicts in 20th c. Cyprus: due to the colonial manipulation of the anti-Turkish Greek racists

In fact, the Turkish Cypriots are Cypriots who accepted Islam; because of this, they did not need to further speak Cypriot Rumi, which was the local dialect of the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire. Today, this language, which erroneously called ‘Modern Greek-Cypriot’, is quasi-unintelligible to all the inhabitants of Greece, who lost their Eastern Roman (Romeiki/Rumi) identity and language, as they were forced -within the secessionist Greek state- to learn the fabricated Modern Greek ‘Standard’ language. On the other hand, Turkish-Cypriot has several differences from Ottoman and Modern Turkish.

Cyprus could have reached independence, unity and neutrality, had the nationalist, extremist and suicidal idea of ‘Enosis’ (unilateral union of Cyprus with Greece) not prevailed among the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots.

With the 15th July 1974 coup the Greek state breached the order in Cyprus, thus offering the chance to Turkey to intervene as a warranty power; the Turkish military intervention followed secret English directives. In Nicosia, the division line (‘Green Line’) cut the city into two parts in a way that offered to the Embassy of England the exclusive privilege to have access to both sectors of the divided island. Actually, it had been designed back in the 1960s by an English military officer as a provisory ceasefire line to separate armed groups of the Greek-Cypriots and the Turkish-Cypriots.

All the accusations of Turkey for the so-called ‘military occupation of the northern part of the island’ by the ridiculous Greek politicians, statesmen, corrupt journalists, chauvinist pseudo-academics, and racist bogus-intellectuals are nothing more than the most convincing proof of their high treason and the best confirmation of their subordination to foreign countries’ interests. By deliberately taking adamant and unrealistic positions, they make it sure that the problem is never resolved and people in Greece are thus fooled, fanaticized and sentimentally manipulated.

In an article published in Greek in Exormisi (‘Sortie’; then daily newspaper organ of PASOK in Greece) on 18th April 1990, I was the first to publicly demand the official Greek recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The ignorant, idiotic, pathetic, corrupt and ludicrous political microcosm of Greece, by rejecting to pay heed to my unmistakable advice, only worsened the position of the country, as they demonstrated worldwide that they are miserable autistics or mentally defective morons. Whether you like it or not, the international community is not a primary school, and the states are not naïve pupils; there are no excuses for mistakes made and for acts breaching the international law, which is the consecration of the Law of the Jungle. For the silly Greek politicians and diplomats it is therefore ludicrous to endlessly complain for something that Greece caused in the first place, by launching the 15th July 1974 coup against President Makarios.

I don’t reject the idea of two states on the island of Cyprus; on the contrary, I fully supported it in the past, back in the 1990s, when Turkey was not an ailing state with paranoid crooks and pseudo-Islamist gangsters in the government. However, this is a matter of local governance. A confederal state could also be viable and successful. Turkish Cypriots have always been staunch Kemalists, as they accept only a secular form of state, while also rejecting the presence of idiotic Islamist Anatolian settlers. Today, a confederal, bi-communal, secular state in Cyprus would make sense. The solution of two states on the island would surely push the small states to unwanted conditions of dependence on Greece and Turkey respectively, and this is something that neither Greek Cypriots nor Turkish Cypriots would like.

VII. Greek & Turkish Cypriots’ enemies are Greece, Turkey and England

As it often happens in all the postcolonial states, the opposition to the absurd and disastrous Greek governmental position as regards the Cyprus problem is carried out also by the colonial powers’ stooges who are employed in order to diffuse other wrong ideas, thus placing the average Greeks in front of a fake dilemma. The steady, incessant generation of fake dilemmas is the method by which colonial powers rule their former colonies.

Consequently, ignorant journalists, being on the payroll of the London-based Greek ship owners and the US-based Greek Diaspora, propagate absurd ideas and vicious concepts, publishing scores of nonsensical articles to fool the average readers. In doing so, they support the current position of Greece’s ailing government on the matter. To be exact, the leftist approach taken by the most reviled government of Greece with respect to the Greek-Turkish relations and the respective position of Turkey’s Islamist gangsters are calamitous for both countries’ vital interests. The same is valid for the ‘new’ Greek approach to the Cyprus problem. It is not strange to qualify the Greek government’s positions as ‘leftist’; although masqueraded as conservative, the New Democracy party has always implemented a Trotskyist agenda.

In his letter, my Muslim friend quoted an article from Anihneuseis portal (see links below) in which the author expressed the following absurd question:

– Why should Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots be forced to live together? The Turkish-Cypriots will never ‘return’ (sic!) as minority to a state that is basically in the hands of Greek-Cypriots.

This paranoid statement reflects the stupid ideas of corrupt Greek journalists and analysts who write in order to reproduce the Islamist propaganda of Turkey, being on the payroll of the criminal Islamist regime of Ankara. Turks have to overthrow the Islamist regime at once, close down all pseudo-Islamist schools and bogus-tariqas, and get their country back from the colonial cholera of AKP. And Greeks have to remove the present government as soon as possible, before it makes of the country Europe’s best example of population replacement.

Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots loved living together until the moment the criminal stooges of England started diffusing among Greeks and Greek Cypriots the evil concept of ‘Enosis’ (Union) between an entirely non-Greek nation (Cyprus) and another equally non-Greek nation, which has been tyrannically ruled for 200 years within the dictatorial pseudo-state of ‘Greece’, undergone a spiritual genocide, and turned from real Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans into deluded and besotted bogus-Greeks, i.e. expendable stuff for the anti-Christian and anti-Islamic policies of the Western colonials of France, England and America.

The easiest response to the aforementioned, totally absurd, question is that Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots will love living together again as soon as they have the courage to speak sincerely to one another, agree on basic confidence-building measures, block reciprocally every type of Turkish and Greek interference, replace the Turkish soldiers with a UN peace keeping force, and ban every discussion about Hellenism, Greek impact on the History of Cyprus, and ‘Union’ with Greece. It goes without saying that Standard Modern Greek must be banned from the primary, secondary and tertiary education in the so-called ‘Greek-Cypriot’ sector (which must be renamed ‘Eastern Roman sector’), whereas Turkish Cypriot linguistic and cultural particularities must be strengthened in the completely secular education of the Turkish Cypriot sector.

Actually, there is no minority in a bi-zonal state; and this perspective of pacification, unification and rehabilitation of Cyprus is the red cloth for the bull. The criminal colonials of England intend to perpetuate the problem, causing many successive transformations to the same issue, in order to remain the only power to locally pull the strings. A united, confederal, bi-zonal state of Cyprus void of interference will have every right to close down the English military bases, terminating the colonial presence on the island once forever.

VIII. Cyprus, Egypt, and the true parallel: two communities in one nation

In fact, with respect to the two communities of Modern Cyprus, there is only one parallel that can be drawn; this is with Egypt. Reminiscent of the ancient impact and involvement, the socio-cultural conditions in the Valley of the Nile and on the island of Cyprus do enable us to establish an analogy.

Egyptians are one nation with two ethnic-religious communities: Christians and Muslims. The former speak Coptic and the latter use a Modern Arabic dialect as a means of everyday communication. However, both communities are indigenous Egyptians or if you prefer Copts (Christian Copts and Muslim Copts). Egyptian Muslims are not Arabs or other foreigners who came to settle in the Valley of the Nile; they are historical Egyptians (Copts) who gradually after 642 CE started accepting Islam; because of this, they did not use Coptic language anymore and they forgot it.

Similarly, Cypriots are one nation with two ethnic-religious communities: Christians and Muslims. The former speak Cypriot Eastern Roman (Rumi) language (which is falsely called Greek Cypriot) and the latter use a Turkish dialect slightly different from Standard Modern Turkish as a means of everyday communication. However, both communities are indigenous Cypriots. Cypriot Muslims are not Turks or Turkmen who came to settle in the island. The Ottoman soldiers who settled in Cyprus were very few. The bulk of the Turkish Cypriots are Cypriots who either entered into mixed marriages or accepted Islam during the Ottoman period.

To start further research:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

https://www.academia.edu/26287366/Η_Ευρύτερη_Περιοχή_της_Ανατολικής_Μεσογείου_κατά_τον_13ο_και_τον_12ο_Αιώνα_και_οι_Λαοί_της_Θάλασσας_κείμενο_και_σημειώσεις_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alashiya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Wenamun

https://www.academia.edu/49730654/Οι_Περιπέτειες_του_Ουεναμούν_The_Adventures_of_Wenamun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypro-Minoan_syllabary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_syllabary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history_of_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_in_the_Middle_Ages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_(theme)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_Greek

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_Turkish

https://www.anixneuseis.gr/για-μια-εναλλακτική-στρατηγική-στο-κυ/

https://www.anixneuseis.gr/ρίτσαρντ-φαλκ-στο-βημα-οι-ηπα-θα-είναι/

——————————–  

Earlier articles about the Palestinian-Israeli problem (titles, subtitles, units and links):

Palestinians vs. Israelis: 11 Hidden Historical Truths about a Futile War

I. No Religion subsists without Moral, and no Nation exists due to Fake History
II. 11 Points of Historical Clarification about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
Point 1: the Israelis are not ethnically Hebrew
Point 2: the Israelis are not religiously Hebrew
Point 3: ‘Judaism’ is not identical to the Ancient Hebrew religion
Point 4: Jews represented an apostate minority of the Hebrews
Recapitulation
Point 5: the last historical state of the Jews was named Judah / Judaea, not ‘Israel’
Point 6: there is no right to the Promised Land for the Jews
Point 7: the entire Old Testament is a posterior fabrication full of distortions
Point 8: among today’s so-called ‘Jews’ only 10-15% are truly Jews: the Sephardi
Point 9: today’s so-called ‘Jews’ are not ethnically Jewish: the Ashkenazim
Point 10: Reform Judaism is not Judaism
Point 11: Modern Hebrew (Ivrit) is a fake, constructed, non-Semitic language

https://osf.io/a7guh

https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_10099%2Fall

https://www.academia.edu/107952726/Palestinians_vs_Israelis_11_Hidden_Historical_Truths_about_a_Futile_War

——————- 

Israelis vs. Palestinians: 6 Concealed Historical Truths about the Lost Wars

I. The Spiritual and Moral Conditions of National Resistance
II. 6 Points of Historical Clarification about the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict
Point 1: Palestinians are not Arabs, but victims of Arabization and Pan-Arabism.
Point 2: The Aramaean and Philistine Past of the Palestinians
Point 3: The Sea Peoples and the Peleset-Pelasgian-Cretan Ancestry of the Palestinians
Point 4: Palestinian Islamists and Israeli Zionists: Criminal Accomplices in the Formation of a Deracinated Nation that functions as Expendable Material
Point 5: Lack of Self-criticism brings Disaster, Death and Damnation
Point 6: the Interminable Failures of the Palestinians

https://osf.io/qh2b3

https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_10114%2Fall

https://www.academia.edu/108059819/Israelis_vs_Palestinians_6_Concealed_Historical_Truths_about_the_Lost_Wars

———————-

Antiquity & Eschatology of Freemasonic, Jesuit & Zionist Orders as Vector of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Introduction

I. Why Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists cannot have or believe in a religion

II. Jesuits, Freemasons and Zionists vs. Islam, Christianity and Judaism

III. The Oriental Antiquity of the Freemasons

IV. The Oriental Antiquity of the Jesuit Order

V. The Zionists before Judaism

VI. The Mesopotamian Kassite Origin of the Zionists

VII. The Kassites and the Abomination of Marduk-Yahweh

VIII. The Guti, the Kassites, the Flood, and Zionism 

IX. Guti, Kassites, Gog & Magog, Unclean Nations, and Alexander the Great

X. Jews, Fake Jews, Alexander the Great, the Seleucid Dynasty, and Flavius Josephus

XI. Jews, Fake Jews, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Romans 

XII. Gog, Khazars, and Ashkenazi Zionism 

https://osf.io/38azf

https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_10184%2Fall

https://www.academia.edu/108549891/Antiquity_and_Eschatology_of_Freemasonic_Jesuit_and_Zionist_Orders_as_Vector_of_the_Israeli_Palestinian_Conflict

——————

Can Kazakhstan’s Pres. Kassym-Jomart Tokayev bring Peace to Palestine & Israel?

The successive stages of the preparation of a Palestinian-Israeli peaceful co-habitation plan

Introduction

I. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of common evaluation of past and present facts

II. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of shared perception of the lurking dangers

III. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of a basic agreement on Gaza Strip

IV. Palestine-Israel: 10 points of a basic agreement on West Bank

V. Ten strengths that empower Kazakhstan to bring about the only effective peaceful resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict

VI. Ten pillars of Kazakhstan’s approach to the resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict

VII. Ten stages of Kazakhstan’s plan to terminate the Palestine-Israel conflict – recapitulation and diagram

Basic links/points of reference to eventually consult:

https://osf.io/z8e7u

https://figshare.com/articles/presentation/_b_Can_Kazakhstan_s_Pres_Kassym-Jomart_Tokayev_bring_Peace_to_Palestine_Israel_b_/24514246

https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_10279%2Fall

https://www.academia.edu/108934046/Can_Kazakhstan_s_Pres_Kassym_Jomart_Tokayev_bring_Peace_to_Palestine_and_Israel

————-

Israel’s Problem is the West, not Hamas!

Response to Ayelet Gilboa’s Letter about Hamas in Israel

Introduction

I. The enormous educational divide between the Israelis and the Palestinians

II. There is no nation without proper nation-building and National History

III. The colonial trap was prepared for the Jews before the return (Aliyah)

IV. Helping Palestinians become a proper nation with a National History is the best line of defense for the Jewish state

V. Either Jewish Orientalists kill the colonial ‘Arab’ myth, liberating all the surrounding nations, or you will all be annihilated

VI. The Western colonial fabrication of ‘Arabs’, a nonexistent nation

VII. Intending to return as Jews, you arrived as Westerners

Further online search

https://osf.io/gzq8y

https://figshare.com/articles/presentation/Israel_s_Problem_is_the_West_not_Hamas/24570496

https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_10314%2Fall

https://www.academia.edu/109216738/Israels_Problem_is_the_West_not_Hamas_

———————————————-

Download the article (text only) in PDF:

Download the article (with pictures and legends) in PDF:

Parthian Turan and the Philhellenism of the Arsacids

Pre-publication of chapter XIII of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XI, XII, and XIII constitute the Part Four (Fallacies about the so-called Hellenistic Period, Alexander the Great, and the Seleucid & the Parthian Arsacid Times) of the book, which is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XI ‘Alexander the Great as Iranian King of Kings, the fallacy of Hellenism, and the nonexistent Hellenistic Period’ and Chapter XII ‘Parthian Turan: an Anti-Persian dynasty’ have already been uploaded as partly pre-publication of the book; they are currently available online here: https://www.academia.edu/105386978/Alexander_the_Great_as_Iranian_King_of_Kings_the_fallacy_of_Hellenism_and_the_nonexistent_Hellenistic_Period

and

https://www.academia.edu/52541355/Parthian_Turan_an_Anti_Persian_dynasty

The book is written for the general readership with the intention to briefly highlight numerous distortions made by the racist, colonial academics of Western Europe and North America only with the help of absurd conceptualization and preposterous contextualization.

—————————-  

The very long shadow of the Turanian Parthian Arsacids who ruled Iran (250 BCE – 224 CE) longer than the Achaemenids (550-330 BCE) and the Sassanids (224-651 CE); this silver gilt dish was found in Padishkhwargar, an Arsacid province that corresponds to Tabaristan (of Islamic times) or to Mazandaran and Gilan (of Modern times), i.e. the long and narrow region between the Alborz Mountains and the southern coast of the Caspian Sea. The dish dates back to the last decades of Sassanid rule or the very early Islamic period; it apparently follows the Sassanid artistic traditions, but the main person next to whom there is a brief Pahlavi inscription makes with his left hand a particular sign of mystical recognition among initiates. This sign reminds the typical hand gesture of Gray Wolves (a fist with the little finger and index finger raised).

Colonial historiographers and Orientalists expand much about the philhellenism of the Parthian monarchs at least for the first 250 years of the dynasty, down to the very beginning of the 1st c. CE; this is a fact. However, few questioned how functional this Parthian philhellenism was and what important purposes it actually served. It is true that after Alexander the Great’s death (323 BCE) a chaotic situation prevailed across Iran and many battles were fought by his Epigones; the Seleucid Empire, which incorporated the central Iranian satrapies, was constituted only 11 years after Alexander’s death (312 BCE).

At that moment and for a longer period afterwards, the worst hit province of the Achaemenid Empire was still Fars (Persia); Alexander the Great’s invasions did not involve any other destruction of Achaemenid city or site comparable to that of Parsa (Persepolis). Reflecting pre-existing rivalries, several populations of other Iranian – Turanian provinces may have enjoyed both, Alexander’s attitude against Fars and the destruction of Persepolis. Furthermore, the inevitable transfer of the imperial capital to Babylon must have pleased them too; it offered them space to gradually control as long as the Persian Iranians were in disarray.

Parthia was already a province of the short-lived Median Empire

Parthia as an Achaemenid Iranian satrapy

The early period of Arsacid Parthia: 250-200 BCE

The Arsacid Parthian Empire in 94 BCE at its greatest extent, during the reign of Mithridates II (124–91 BCE)

The Arsacid Parthian Empire at the beginning of the first c. CE

Parthia (P-rw-t-i-wꜣ) written in Egyptian hieroglyphic characters: it was one of the 24 subject nations of the Achaemenid Empire (from the Egyptian Statue of Darius I the Great)

Parthian soldier depicted on the façade of Xerxes’ I tomb in Naqsh-e Rustam, ca. 470 BCE

The subsequent transfer of the Seleucid capital to Seleucia in Mesopotamia was a grave mistake of the newly established dynasty, which failed to comprehend the very smart effort of Alexander to favor, befriend and utilize the Babylonians as the principal means to hold his vast empire united. Finally, the Parthians seceded from the Seleucid Empire 60-65 years after its inception. The rise of the Arsacid dynasty meant that, for the first time in History, the central Iranian–Turanian provinces were ruled under a scepter and a throne that were not located in Fars.

It is therefore normal that the Parthians -in their opposition to the Persians (of Fars)- promoted a systematic court philhellenism and contributed to Alexander the Great’s Iranian legitimation and unquestionable incorporation into the imperial identity and history, and to his posterior fame among Iranian–Turanian nations. This stance fully corresponded to their best interests, namely to secure stability across Iran’s central provinces, while facing threats from rivals among the neighboring empires and kingdoms. It is clear that the Turanian attempt was rejected by the Persian Iranians, and of this polarization we attest late echoes that date back to the Islamic times. Accepting Alexander as an Iranian was benediction to the Turanian Parthians and malediction to the Iranian Persians. But the empire (Xšāça) established by Cyrus the Great was indiscriminately Iranian-Turanian. 

Despite the Arsacid–Seleucid wars, one must rather conclude that, with their marked philhellenism, the Turanian rulers of Parthia had good relations with the various Greek and Macedonian colonies, which had been established throughout their territory and in several adjacent lands, notably Bactria.

This fact helps also explain why, despite Alexander the Great’s rather negative portrait in Sassanid and Middle Persian sources of the Islamic times’ Parsis, the conqueror of the Achaemenid Empire enjoyed splendid narratives and majestic descriptions by Ferdowsi, Nizami, and many other Islamic Iranian–Turanian poets, mystics, philosophers and historians.

Although followers of Parsism (the form of Zoroastrianism that survived down to our days) in Iran and India have a very negative perception of Alexander the Great, Iranian and Turanian Muslims very much venerate him. About:    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire#Hellenism_and_the_Iranian_revival

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_formula_of_Parthian_coinage

https://www.academia.edu/40214555/Khusrow_Parwez_and_Alexander_the_Great_An_Episode_of_imitatio_Alexandri_by_a_Sasanian_King

One must have no doubt that the term ‘Hellene’ (Greek) is ‘Ionian’ for the Oriental languages. Throughout all the ancient Oriental sources, i.e. Assyrian-Babylonian, Old Achaemenid Iranian, Aramaic, Phoenician and Hebrew, there is not one mention of ‘Greeks’ or ‘Hellenes’; the only term used is ‘Ionian’. This means that in any ancient Oriental language, for the word ‘Philhellene” the corresponding term is “friendly to Ionians”.

It is essential at this point to define the ethnic and cultural links that the Arsacid Parthians felt that they connected them with the ‘Ionians’ with whom they entered in contact. The Parthians accepted the imperial concept because they were integral part of Achaemenid Iran; around 200 years later, the Macedonians, the Ionians and the Aeolians became acquainted with this spiritual notion thanks to Alexander the Great and the practices of Orientalization that he introduced for his soldiers.

However, prior to the acceptance of the imperial ideal, both the Parthians and the ‘Ionians’ had their apparently common concept of governorship that was above the fundamental level of Kurultai, which corresponds to the ‘Ionian’ Amphictyony for settled tribes. This was a military type of rule with man exercising absolute power upon condition of general approval. The traditional Turanian ruler was named in Ancient Ionian (‘Greek’) ‘tyrannos’, and it was pronounced as ‘tu-ran-nos’ with the accent on the first syllable. The term designated the typically Turanian ruler and it serves as an indication of the Turanian origin of the Ionians and the Aeolians. It was actually first used among the Lydians of the Mermnadae dynasty, whose members had apparently names of Turanian origin, notably the founder of the dynasty Gyges whose name was written in Assyrian Annals as Gu(g)gu. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurultai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphictyonic_league

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/τύραννος#Etymology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyges_of_Lydia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_Lydia#Mermnadae

In fact, the Parthian Arsacid philhellenism sheds more light on the inculcation of Turanian populations across Western Anatolia and South Balkans during the first millennium BCE, which is a topic that colonial historians tried systematically to conceal. However, Parthian philhellenism is certainly a form of anti-Persianism, which shows that the Achaemenid times were not a period of peace and concord, as many attempted to depict.

Silver drachma of Arsaces I (247 – 211 BCE) with inscription

Arsaces II (211–191 BCE); coin from the Ray mint

Friyapat/Priapatius (191-176 BCE); coin from the Qumis (Hekatompylos; today’s Saddarvazeh) mint

Coin of Frahat I / Phraates I (176-171 BCE)

Coin of Mehrdat I / Mithridates I (171–138 or 132 BCE), who was the first Arsacid Parthian ruler to be attributed the title ‘King of Kings’, according to Babylonian cuneiform records; the reverse shows Verethragna / Heracles, and the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ “Great King Arsaces, friend of Greeks”.

Parthian relief of Mithridates I of Parthia from Xong-e Ashdar (also known as Hung-i Nauruzi), near the city of Izeh, in Khuzestan, Iran; compared to the Achaemenid reliefs, which were the results of an official imperial art, the Parthian reliefs are relevant of provincial artists and craftsmanship; most of the Parthian reliefs are found in the southern range of Zagros Mountains. Parthian reliefs are rather secular and not religious; and not religious; they depict scenes of resting, drinking, and hunting, also including several animal figures.

Mithradat-kert (literally the city of Mithridates I of Parthia) in today’s Nisa (or Nissa or Nusay) in Eastern Turkmenistan; the entrance to the city and the walls, which had to be covered up to prevent further damage from erosion

Mithradat-kert (Ancient Greek: Νῖσος, Νίσα, Νίσαιον; Turkmen: Nusaý or Parthaunisa)

Mithradat-kert

Mithradat-kert

Frahat II / Phraates II (132–127 BCE); coin from the Seleucia mint (in Mesopotamia)

Ardawan I / Artabanus I (127–124 BCE); coin from the Seleucia mint

Coin of Ardawan II / Artabanus II (126–122 BCE)

Coin (drachma) of Mihrdāt II / Mithridates II of Parthia (124–91 BCE); the clothing is Parthian, while the style is Seleucid (sitting on an omphalos). The Greek inscription reads “King Arsaces, the Philhellene”.

Godarz I / Gotarzes I (95-90 BCE); coin from the Ecbatana mint

Coin of Mihrdat III / Mithridates III (87-80 BCE) from the Ray mint

Tetradrachm of the Parthian monarch Urud I / Orodes I (90-80 BCE) from the Seleucia mint

Coin of Sanatruq I / Sinatruces I (77-70 BCE) from the Ray mint

Frahat III / Phraates III (70–57 BCE); coin from the Ecbatana mint

Coin of Mihrdat IV / Mithridates IV (57-54 BCE)

Coin of Urud II / Orodes II (57-38 BCE) from the Mithradat-kert (Nisa) mint

Frahat IV / Phraates IV (38-2 BCE); coin from the Mithradat-kert mint

During the reign of Frahat IV / Phraates IV, there seems to have been a pacification agreement between Parthia and Rome (after the proclamation of Octavian as Emperor in early 27 BCE). According to Roman sources, the Parthians returned to Romans the standards lost in the Battle of Carrhae (53 BCE); this fact was commemorated and presented by Octavian as a victory: this coin (denarius) was struck in 19 BCE. It depicts the Roman goddess Feronia on the obverse, and on the reverse a Parthian soldier who kneels in submission while returning the Roman military standards. It is apparently a matter of utmost symbolism and not the representation of a historical event.

The decentralized administrative and royal power of the Arsacid Parthians allowed for many small, peripheral and vassals kingdoms to surface (Characene, Adiabene, Osrhoene, etc.); there are many possible interpretations of the phenomenon, which was erroneously viewed as result of military weakness in the past. Elymais (in today’s Khuzestan, SW Iran) was one of those vassal states. Coin of Kamnaskires III, king of Elymais, and his wife Queen Anzaze, 1st century BCE

Coin of Tiridat II / Tiridates II (29-27 BCE)

Coin of Frahat V / Phraates V (2 BCE-4 CE)

Vonun I / Vonones I (8-12 CE); coin from the Seleucia mint

Coin of Ardawan II / Artabanus II (10-38 CE) from the Seleucia mint

Vardan I / Vardanes I (40-47 CE); coin from the Seleucia mint

Tetradrachm of Godarz II / Gotarzes II (40-51 CE) minted in 49 CE

Tetradrachm of the Parthian king Vologases I (50-79 CE), struck at Seleucia; on the obverse, there is a portrait of the king who appears to wear a trouser-suit, bear a diadem, and have beard. The reverse depicts an investiture scene, where the king receives the scepter and the divine authority by Ahura Mazda.

The so-called Indo-Parthian Kingdom (19-226 CE) was another small, vassal and peripheral kingdom that was located east of the Parthian Arsacid Empire; it was founded by king Gondophares (Γονδοφαρης/Υνδοφερρης; 19-46 CE) whose name (Windafarm in Parthian and Gundapar in Middle Persian) means ‘May he find glory’ (Vindafarna in Old Achaemenid Iranian). Gondophares originated from the illustrious House of Suren, one of the most prestigious families in Arsacid Iran. He built his own royal city Gundopharron and this name was gradually altered to Kandahar (which is located in today’s Afghanistan). Gondophares’ coin was found in India and bears witness to a clearly Parthian style.

Roman sestertius issued by the Roman Senate in 116 CE to commemorate Trajan’s Parthian campaign

Drawing representing a Parthian archer as depicted on Trajan’s Column in Rome (113 CE)

Relief of the Roman-Parthian wars at the Arch of Septimius Severus in Rome (203 CE)

Parthian (right) wearing a Phrygian cap, depicted as a prisoner of war, in chains, held by a Roman (left); Arch of Septimius Severus, Rome, 203 CE

Parthian king making an offering to god Verethragna; from Masjed Soleyman, SW Iran. 2nd–3rd century CE (today in the Louvre Museum)

Silver drachma of the Parthian king Walagash VI / Vologases VI (208-228 CE), penultimate ruler of the Arsacid dynasty. Obverse: King wearing a tiara decorated with deers and ribboned diadem. Reverse: Arsakes I, founder or the Arsacid Parthian dynasty, seating on a throne and holding a bow. From the Ecbatana mint (today’s Hamadan).

Parthian horseman, currently at the Palazzo Madama, Turin

Parthian cataphract fighting a lion, currently at the British Museum

Stucco relief of an infantry soldier, dating back to the Arsacid times (250 BCE – 224 CE); from the Zahhak castle, in Hashtrud, Eastern Azerbaijan, Iran; currently in the Azerbaijan Museum, Tabriz (Iran)

Another fact that Western Orientalists tried always to obscure is that the religion of the Arsacids was somewhat divergent from that of the Achaemenids. I don’t mean that the Parthians had a diametrically different or a counterfeit religion; not at all! Simply, in terms of Zoroastrian cosmogony, cosmology, universalism, imperial doctrine, and apocalyptic eschatology, the Arsacids sensibly differed from the Achaemenid Zoroastrian orthodoxy. We have to also bear in mind at this point that the scarcity of the historical sources still prevents us from properly assessing the true dimensions of the religious differentiation.

However, the marked differentiation of the Arsacid monarch from his Achaemenid predecessors suggests another type of royalty, sacrality, spirituality, and morality. As an example for the average readership, I point out here that there has not been even one Old Achaemenid or Imperial Aramaic text -saved down to our days-, which explicitly mentions Zoroaster by name. All the earliest mentions of the name of the founder of the Achaemenid imperial religion are in Middle Persian and in Avestan writings – except for external but largely untrustworthy sources (Ancient Greek and Latin).

All the same, the religious differentiation between the Achaemenid and the Arsacid times did not bring about a drastic religious change, but rather another perception of the divine world; the Parthians continued worshipping Ahura Mazda and keeping themselves far from Ahriman’s attraction. But it appears that, during the Arsacid times, Zoroaster’s preaching was rather perceived as a sacred moral world order; subsequently, the metaphysical terms of the then orally preserved Avesta took a moral dimension and connotation. The spiritual interest seems to have shifted from an imperial order of worldwide salvation to a personal order of moral integrity.

Consequently, examining the nature of this historical-religious change, we may be able to discern that the Achaemenid Zoroastrian orthodoxy, once deprived of its overwhelmingly imperial character, looks rather associated to the moral concepts and the spiritual tenets of Tengrism. For this reason, it is proper not to use the term ‘Zoroastrianism’ for all the historical periods after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, because religiosity differed substantially; it would then be preferable to use the term ‘Zendism’ for the Iranian religion of the Arsacid times, which is in reality a later form of Zoroastrianism in which theological exegesis (Zend Avesta meaning interpretation of Avesta) prevailed over the original faith, and the Avestan text took mainly a moral connotation and value within the socio-religious environment of those days.

The Zend commentaries of the Avestan texts, which definitely originate from the spiritual-religious background of the Arsacid Parthian (and not Sassanid) times, do reflect theological concepts and world views closer associated with Tengrism. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_alphabet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Persian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Persian_literature

Zendism was definitely opposite to Mithraism, although perhaps not in the very strict form for which the Achaemenid emperors became famous. But it was mainly in Arsacid times that Mithraism expanded enormously both, southeastwards (India) and westwards (Caucasus, Anatolia, Syria, Greece, Europe, Rome and the Roman Empire). This does not mean that there were no Mithraic Magi left in Iran; their existence proved to be the main reason for palatial turmoil, sacerdotal plots, social unrest, and internal strives. Undoubtedly, the Magi were the absolute embodiment of Ahriman (: the evil) for the Arsacid rulers, pretty much like they had been an abomination for the Achaemenid monarchs.

In this regard, it is essential to point out that ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) in Zoroastrianism and ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) in Mithraism are two absolutely different divinities – pretty much like Jesus in Manichaeism, Mandaean religion, Gnostic Christianity, Roman & Eastern Roman Christianity, Nestorian Christianity, and Islam is not one being but many divergent entities or forms of divinity, each with dissimilar attributes. It goes without saying that for any concept or aspect of Tengrism, which is also a markedly monotheistic system, Mithra is a religious disgrace.

More specifically, I have to point out that within the context of Zoroastrianism, ‘Mithra’ (or ‘Mehr’) is a subordinate form of divinity that constitutes merely an expression of the unfathomable benevolence and omnipotence of Ahura Mazda, and as such it bears solar attributes. Contrarily, within the context of Mithraism, this divinity gets emancipated, becomes independent, and turns out to be the central recipient of cult, while a series of abominable and sacrilegious acts are attributed to him, notably the blasphemy of tauroctony which is part of the Mithraic eschatology. Due to the polytheistic nature of Mithraism, Mithra is intrinsically and extensively mythologized; this is so because there cannot be true polytheism without numerous narratives which attract the adoration of the faithful, and in the process, they prevent believers from focusing on the spiritual exercises, the moral principles, and the basic narratives of Cosmogony, Cosmology and Eschatology. In Mithraism, Ahura Mazda still exists as an inactive divinity of the old time, like the Roman dei otiosi.

At this point, it is essential to make one clarification; the well-known, theophoric name ‘Mithridates’, which was used by several Arsacid Parthian rulers, does not directly imply Mithraic affiliation. Certainly, the name means literally ‘given by Mithra’; it was also attested in Pontus, Commagene, Armenia and elsewhere. But every case of use is different. In some cases, it may involve the Zendist / Zoroastrian concept of Mithra; on other occasions, it may reflect a compromise among the Parthian Arsacid Empire’s imperial and the sacerdotal cliques, which were plunged in an endless conflict against one another.

Last, the use of the aforementioned theophoric name can eventually denote the pro-Mithraic tendency and affiliation of a Parthian monarch; there were indeed few Mithraists among the Arsacid rulers. This was an abomination for the monotheistic Parthian Zendist priests, and it appears that some of the pro-Mithraic Arsacid rulers were overthrown. The analysis of the reason(s) that stood behind the selection of a theophoric name in the Antiquity may be very long and complicated a topic, because usually these names heralded the nature of the imperial rule that was to be expected in terms easy to understand for the contemporaneous people and difficult to decode for modern scholarship. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophoric_name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_I_of_Parthia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_II_of_Parthia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_III_of_Parthia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_IV_of_Parthia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_V_of_Parthia

Hatra, NW Iraq: a major caravan city on the Silk Roads that prospered during the Arsacid Parthian times, being mainly inhabited by the local Aramaeans

A barrel vaulted iwan at the entrance at the ancient site of Hatra, modern-day Iraq, built c. 50 CE

Statue unearthed in Hatra, currently at the Tokyo National Museum: Aramaean amalgamation of Verethragna and an Aramaean deity into a Mithraic divinity similar to Artagnes, who is known to have been worshipped in Nemrut Dagh and Commagene in general

Temple of the Aramaean divinity Gareus, near Uruk, Southern Mesopotamia – near the borders of the vassal kingdom of Characene

Parthian ceramic oil lamp, from the province of Khuzestan, currently in the National Museum of Iran (Tehran)

Baal temple in Palmyra: a frieze relief

Grave towers in Tadmor / Palmyra / Phoinicopolis; known among Syrians as the ‘Valley of the Tombs’ (Wadi al-Qubur). Majestic funerary monuments bear witness to the extraordinary wealth of the great Aramaean caravan city (1st-3rd c. CE).

Statue of a young Palmyrene Aramaean in fine Parthian trousers; from a funerary stele at Palmyra / Tadmor, early 3rd century CE

Mordechai and Esther. From the Aramaean Synagogue of Dura Europos (near Abu Kemal) on the Western bank of Euphrates River in Syria (right before the Syrian-Iraqi border): wall mural with representation of a story from the Book of Esther (early 3rd c. CE); artistic style known as ‘Parthian frontality’

Download the chapter (text only) in PDF:

Download the chapter (pictures & legends) in PDF:

Arsacid & Sassanid Iran, and the wars against the Mithraic-Christian Roman Empire

Pre-publication of chapter XIV of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”. Along with Chapter XV and Chapter XVI, Chapter XIV belongs to Part Five {Fallacies about Sassanid History, History of Religions, and the History of Migrations}. The book is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters. Chapter XVI has already been made known in pre-publication here: https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2023/02/02/iran-turan-manichaeism-islam-during-the-migration-period-and-the-early-caliphates/

————————— 

Nisa, Turkmenistan: the original Parthian Arsacid capital

Nisa, the Parthian Fortress

To the Anti-Mithraic nature of the Arsacid rule and to the philhellenism of the Parthians are due the main reasons for all the Iranian-Roman wars (54 BCE – 628 CE) that took place under either the Arsacid or the Sassanid dynasty, before and after the Christianization of the Roman Empire. For those who accepted Alexander the Great as an Iranian king of kings (after the example of Cyrus the Great) on the basis of his purely Oriental claims and his genuinely Iranian deeds, the fact that a remarkable Mithraic penetration took place across the territories of various states of Epigones was unacceptable. This fact has always been deliberately obscured by the colonial Orientalist forgers.

It is however easy to observe that no war took place between the Parthians and the Romans prior to the Mithraic prevalence in Pontus, Commagene, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Western Anatolia, and the Balkans at a time the Romans were gradually expanding in the East. The Parthians viewed the Romans as a successor to the Epigones and had rather good relations with the Anti-Mithraic Romans.

The main reason for the Parthian interference in the regions of Caucasus, Armenia, Anatolia, North Mesopotamia and Syria was the rise of Mithraism in those lands. In Armenia, more specifically, the problems started when a Parthian Arsacid offspring, Vonones I, took power there (12-18 CE), after being overthrown as pro-Mithraic in Parthia where he had ruled for four years only. Of course, it is not a coincidence that the Parthian noble, who overthrew Vonones I, i.e. Artaban II, was his predecessor’s nephew and originated from the Dahae Turanian tribe. More significantly, he had previously ruled Atropatene, i.e. the most sacrosanct land of the Empire. All the elements of the conflict appear to be religious of nature and character; they seem to testify to a formidable clash between Zendism, i.e. the monotheistic orthodoxy, and the Mithraic polytheistic heresy. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vonones_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artabanus_II_of_Parthia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars

————————————– Parthian Arsacid Art ——————————-

Parthian golden necklace, 2nd c CE, Reza Abbasi Museum

Parthian long-necked lute

Parthian funerary objects from Nineveh

Statue of Parthian nobleman from Shami, Khuzestan

————————————————————————————————————-

The rise of the Sassanid dynasty (224-651 CE) was not the result of an ethnic clash (Persian vs. Turanian) or a tribal dispute; it was a resolute effort of some Persian Iranians to bring about, at the local level first, the irrevocable termination of the Mithraic subversion. The uniquely totalitarian rule of the Sassanid was successful in eliminating every trace of Mithraic Magi from the empire which, as I already said, was named for the first time Iran (or rather Iranshahr/ Ērānshahr: ’empire of Iranians’).

However, the rise of the Sassanids in Iran (224 CE) was contemporaneous with the rise of Mithra Sol Invictus in Rome; this ominous fact deteriorated the relationship, further discrediting Rome in the eyes of the Iranian Zoroastrian monotheists. Few scholars have observed that Ardashir I overthrew the last Parthian monarch (after the famous battle of Hormozdgan, somewhere in today’s Iranian Khuzestan, on 28 April 224 CE) only two years after the assassination (11 March 222 CE) of the Roman Emperor Elagabalus (or Heliogabalus; official imperial name: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus), who was the son of an Aramaean noble lady and a Roman aristocrat.

Quite revelatory for Rome’s overwhelming Orientalization and emphatic Mithraization is the fact that Elagabalus, before ruling Rome for four years, had been the high priest of the Aramaean sun god in Heliogabalus’ temple in Emessa, i.e. today’s Homs in Syria. This crucial fact was apparently known to the monotheists and their venerable mystics in Iran.

————————— Parthian Arsacid coins and bas-reliefs ———————————–

Coin of Mithridates II of Parthia, Ray mint

Phraates IV (reign c. 38–2 BCE) ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ

Mithridates I’s victory depicted on a relief at Hung-e Azhdar (also written as Xong-e Ashdar), Izeh (SW Iran); Mithridates I (195-132 BCE) reigned after 165 BCE.

Behistun relief of Vologases III (reign: 110–147 CE)

——————————————————————————————————–

Another critical development that had taken place in Rome few years before Elagabalus became a typically Oriental emperor was the issuance (212 CE) of the Edict of Caracalla, which is rather known as Constitutio Antoniniana; according to this groundbreaking dictate, all free men in the Roman Empire were given full Roman citizenship. This development eliminated every ‘political ideological’ or ‘ethnic identitarian’ theory, belief or pretension.

For important historical nations like the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Aramaeans, the Jews, the Berbers, the Carthaginians, the Macedonians, and the Ionians, the Edict of Caracalla was clearly tantamount to irrevocable ‘act of death’: it definitely meant complete voluntary renunciation of one nation’s own imperial or political concept (and practice) of governance and explicit abnegation of own rule, royal or political tradition, and cultural-ethnic identity. By accepting (as they all did without the slightest opposition) the Edict of Caracalla, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Jews, the Macedonians and all the rest accepted that they were merely Egyptian-speaking, Phoenician-speaking, and Berber-speaking Romans (and so on for the rest).

The concept of the Oriental Universal Empire was thus imposed one century before the Christianization of the Roman Empire. One must however add that this occurred due to devious machinations and administrative acts and not in proper terms of spiritual evocation and genuine, solemn, imperial inauguration; it was very lowly and evidently unholy.

However, Rome’s Mithraization was indeed a counterfeit Iranization. This fact has been systematically concealed by modern historians and historians of religion. But in this manner, to the eyes of the Iranian monotheists, Rome became -and for very good reasons- the abode of Ahriman (: Satan) as per the viewpoint and the criteria of the Iranian Zoroastrian monotheists. Why this is so we can understand, if we truly pay attention to what happened in Rome during the 3rd c. CE.

The blasphemous apotheosis of the Roman emperors started being related to an evident identification with Sol Invictus, and in 220 CE Elagabalus replaced Jupiter with god Elagabalus who was conceived as Sol Invictus – Mithra. The equation of a human with a god had always been an evil monstrosity for Iranian Zoroastrian monotheists. Not one emperor could ever be accepted as ‘god’ in Iran, and actually this never happened. The Achaemenids and later Alexander ruled the Iranian province of Egypt as Horus (: the Living Concept of the Messiah) to be there considered as pharaohs, but this was a phenomenon apart that did not concern the main provinces of the Empire.

This was not the beginning of Mithraic prevalence in Rome, but it was the first time a Roman emperor was officially believed to be Mithras Incarnate. This practice was repeatedly attested in almost all the other Roman emperors, who were venerated as Sol Invictus (Undefeatable Sun) and accordingly were portrayed with radiant crowns.

In fact, the Mithraization of the Roman religion, empire, cultural and imperial life was a compact development that did not involve only the erection of hundreds of Mithraea across the vast country but also the systematic and overwhelming spiritual, religious, mythological, theological transformation of several (Aramaean, Anatolian, Phoenician, Caucasian, Berber, Roman, Macedonian, Ionian, Celtic and many other European) divinities into mere aspects of Mithra.

This abominable situation was tantamount to unprecedented and foremost Ahrimanization (: Satanization) of the Western confines of the Earth; consequently, it had to be dealt with and rectified or annulled. This was the universal raison d’être of the Sassanid emperors of Iran; they had to eliminate the evilness of those who had already proved to be untrustworthy successors of Alexander the Great and impotent custodians of his legacy, i.e. an illustrious effort of readjustment of Achaemenid Iran.

The Sassanid armies repeatedly defeated many Roman armies; they even captured Roman emperors. Unfortunately, this was not enough, as it could not change much the evil religious practices in Rome. Despite Valerian’s disastrous defeat at Urhoy (Edessa of Osrhoene; today’s Urfa in Southeastern Turkey), the subsequent (260 CE) invasion of Cappadocia by Shapur I (Ardashir I’s son; 240-270 CE), and the stunning deportation of 400000 Cappadocians in Iran, Aurelian (270-275) was proclaimed Sol Invictus as official Roman god on 25th December 274 CE, thus further advancing the process of Orientalization, Mithraization and counterfeit Iranization of the Roman Empire. Little mattered to the Iranians the fact that few faithful and benevolent praetorian guardians murdered the infamous emperor.

Rome had progressively become ‘Aniran’, i.e. the Non-Iran – an evil and chaotic periphery under the full control of Ahriman. To the Sassanid monotheistic emperors and priests, this development meant that, in 275 CE, Rome was indeed a counterfeit Iran the existence of which the Sassanid kings of kings could not accept anymore.

The Mithraization of the Roman Empire was highly accentuated in the reign of the most Mithraic Roman Emperor Constantine I (306-337 CE). Noticeably, in the Arch of Constantine, several statues of Sol Invictus are depicted; Constantine I was portrayed as Sol Invictus Mithra on coins dating in the period 315-325, and as late as March 7th 321 CE, he proclaimed the Day of Mithra, Dies Solis, as the official Roman day of rest. The only development left to take place beyond that point was the association of the forged narratives about the historical Jewish rabbi Jesus with the themes of the mythical-mystical evangelization of the Anti-Iranian, Roman Mithra as End Times’ Savior. This progressive amalgamation, after being unconditionally wrapped in voluminous theological indoctrination, became known as the Official Roman Christianity, as the parallel, but fundamentally different, Hebrew concept of Messiah was entirely absorbed, irrevocably disassembled, and egregiously distorted within the Mithraic Roman specter named ‘Jesus – Christ’.

General reading and bibliography can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_(word)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus_(deity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_(emperor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardashir_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hormozdgan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_(emperor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_crown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome

https://www.academia.edu/2577051/How_Did_Roman_Emperors_Become_Gods_Various_Concepts_of_Imperial_Apotheosis

—— ARAMAEAN CARAVAN SITES UNDER PARTHIAN ARSACID INFLUENCE ———

Dura Europos

Temple of Bel

Dura Europos, Temple of Bel relief: Bel (far right), Baalshamin (far left) and the Aramaean gods Iarhibol & Aglibol in-between

Dura Europos, Temple of Bel wall painting: Julius Terentius performing a sacrifice

Dura Europos, Temple of Bel wall painting: Conon offers a sacrifice

Detail from the previous wall painting

Hatra

Hatra military commander with a votive statuette (offering)

Hatra: the Mithraic version of Nergal, an Ancient Assyrian mythological-cosmological concept that the Aramaean polytheists personified as the god of the Nether World.

Tadmor (Palmyra)

Palmyra grave relief

Palmyra grave relief

————————————————————————————————————————-

Download the entire chapter (text only) in PDF:

Download the entire chapter (with pictures and legends) in PDF: