Hamidreza Peighambari

According to historical sources and numismatic studies, epigraphic, and archaeological data, the Parthian kings followed the traditions and customary epithets of dynasties before them, especially the Achaemenids. Hence, one of the important topics in the study of the Parthian Empire history is that of their “Persianism.” Previous research on the question of what factors played a role in the Parthians’ turning to “Persianism” have considered two factors to be effective: the opposition with Hellenism and the conflict with Rome. The present paper examines "Persianism" in the context of the political developments of this period and, accordingly, in addition to examining the aforementioned viewes, it also identifies other factors that have led the kings to the "Persianism" throughout the long history of this dynasty. It indicate that the Parthian claim of Achaemenid succession became apparent from the time of their confrontation with the Roman empire, but this territorial claim also required dynastic and lineage support, which emerged in the 1st century AD with Artabanus II and his successors as a legitimizing factor in intra-dynastic conflicts. Accordingly, the Parthian “Persianism” was neither formed by emulating the local states of Asia Minor nor was it the Roman historians’ perception of eastern enemies and the result of comparison of Parthians and Persians. Rather, it is considered as a conscious policy that began from the time of the early Parthian kings. Therefore, the Arsacid claim of Achaemenid succession is considered an effective measure to gain legitimacy when facing secessions and dynastic struggles and foreign invasions.