“The Hephthalites thus secured large parts of the Silk Road and taxed the kingdoms, cities and tribes along its route.”

By Byron Waldron

IN THE mid-fifth century, the Roman Empire faced off against the Hunnic Empire of Attila. Meanwhile, Rome’s eastern neighbour, the Persian Sasanian Empire, contended with its own Hunnic enemy on its own northern and eastern frontiers from the Derbent Pass in the west near the Caspian Sea to Bactria in the east in what is now Afghanistan.

The Hephthalites, also known as the White Huns, were initially based in Badakhshan, in modern day northeastern Afghanistan. They burst onto the scene in 459, when they assisted the Persian king Peroz I in overthrowing his brother Hormizd III. In return, Peroz granted them the city of Talaqan. In the 460s, both the Persians under Peroz and the Hephthalites expanded into Bactria at the expense of the Kidarites.

However, the two partners eventually fell out over boundaries, according to the Roman historian Procopius (Procopius 1.3.1), with both likely holding competing claims to the tax-rich territories of Bactria. As a result, in 474 Peroz marched an army against his former ally, by now under the rule of a king known variously as Khushnawar, Khushnawaz or Akhshunwar.

According to the Persian historian al-Tabari, Peroz used a Hephthalite deserter to guide his advance. The turncoat had reportedly been mutilated by Khushnawar for cowardice. But the deserter was in fact a double agent who led the Sasanian army through a stretch of arid terrain. Many Sasanians died, and Peroz, with his forces weakened, eventually opened negotiations with Khushnawar (al-Tabari 874-876).

The Roman chronicler Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite recorded that Khushnawar made Peroz his captive (The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite 10). The new Roman emperor Zeno, who was wary of Huns and wished to maintain stability in the east, helped to pay Peroz’s ransom, but the treaty was humiliating for the Sasanians. Peroz vowed not to attack the Hephthalites again, and Khushnawar was given control of Bactria, including the mint at Balkh. Moreover, Peroz agreed to pay a hefty tribute to the Hephthalites, a move that suggested Khushnawar was the Persians’ overlord.

The Hephthalites also expanded in other directions, although the exact dates are largely unknown. They pursued the Kidarites further, expanding into Uddiyana, Kashmir and Gandhara in modern-day Pakistan, and they expanded north-west into Chorasmia,in what is now Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. They also advanced into the Tarim Basin in western China. At the time, the oasis kingdoms of the Tarim Basin were vassals of the massive Rouran Khaganate. However, the Hephthalites conquered kingdoms in present-day China — Kashgar, Karghalik, Khotan, Aksu, Kucha, Karashar and Turfan — defeating any forces that the Rouran sent their way. The Hephthalites thus secured large parts of the Silk Road and taxed the kingdoms, cities and tribes along its route.

They also conquered the kingdom of Sogdiana in what is now Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Sogdiana became the wealthiest region within the empire, perhaps because the Hephthalites reinvested the proceeds from taxes, trade contacts and tribute into Sogdian cities, including Bukhara, Samarkand and Panjakent.

Merchants from Rome, Persia, India and China found it necessary to travel through their lands, and the Hephthalite ruling class became increasingly wealthy. The Roman historian Procopius relates that they became far more sedentary than the Huns of Europe. (Procopius 1.3.2-7)

Meanwhile, Peroz was paying Khushnawar so much coinage in tribute that enormous numbers of Sasanian coins were making their way to China. Peroz couldn’t abide by this humiliating turn of events, and in the early 480s he launched a second war against the Hephthalites.

According to Procopius (1.3), during the ensuing struggle Khushnawar baited the Sasanians, who pursued the Hephthalite army into a valley bordered by mountains. Before marching too deep into the valley, Khushnawar turned his army aside to make camp in secret. He concealed his forces in the rough terrain and detached a small decoy force to continue the retreat. Peroz’s scouts caught sight of the decoy force, and so they continued the pursuit into an enclosed wooded valley. Soon, Khushnawar’s army appeared from behind, and Peroz and his generals realized that they could neither advance nor retreat.

A trapped enemy is a desperate enemy, and so Khushnawar offered Peroz the opportunity to surrender, on the condition that the Persian ruler prostrate himself before his Hephthalite overlord, and agree again never to take up arms against the Hephthalite Empire (Procopius 1.3.17-22). Peroz accepted, and he was freed on the condition that he send 30 mules laden with silver coin. After sending only 20, he allowed Khushnawar to hold his son Kavad as a hostage until the remainder was paid (Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite 10). Khushnawar was now depicted on coins wearing a winged, triple-crescent crown, a crown that Peroz also wore on coins. In this way, Khushnawar presented himself as the rightful ruler of Iran.

Kavad’s captivity lasted two years, but in 484, following his son’s release, Peroz once more ventured to invade Khushnawar’s empire. The Sasanians still considered themselves a world power, not a dynasty that should be paying tribute. Procopius claims that he was accompanied by all his sons except the child Kavad. Khushnawar could not show mercy a third time.

Peroz mustered his forces at Gurgan in what’s now Iran and marched east. According to the Arabic historian al-Masudi, the coming battle was fought near Merv al-Rudh (Muruj 2.195). The Hephthalites appear to have occupied a defensible position that blocked the Sasanian advance and could not be outflanked, perhaps where the mountains of Gharjistan and the Marghab River meet the steppe of the Karakum Desert in what is now Turkmenistan.

Khushnawar prepared a trap for the Sasanians (Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite 11; Procopius 1.4; Agathias 4.27.3-4; al-Tabari 873, 876-877, 879; Ferdowsi, Shahnameh 38.4) According to some sources, he ordered a very long trench dug across the battleground; others record that it was a series of trenches and pits. He had light wooden branches laid over the excavated ground, and he covered this layer of branches with earth. Additionally, he left part of the ground in-tact in the centre.

In the account of the Armenian historian Ghazar P’arpets’i (History of the Armenians 85), Khushnawar reminded Peroz of his mercy and demanded he turn back, warning him: “If you do not heed my words, know that I will destroy you and the entire useless multitude in which you are placing your hopes.”

According to Procopius, Khushnawar hung from his royal banner a bag of salt, the salt over which Peroz has made the oath that he was now breaking (Procopius 1.4.9). Al-Tabari relates that Khushnawar brought out the document of the agreement made between him and Peroz and attached it to the tip of a lance, calling forth the gods to “act according to what is in this document!” (al-Tabari 876-877). Such public shows of pious outrage served to inspire the Hephthalites and demoralise the Sasanians.

Peroz drew up his army in the plain and attempted to entice Khushnawar into leaving his defensive position, so that he could fight him in the open. The Hephthalite warriors were eager to answer the challenge, but Khushnawar kept them in check. He ordered the army to begin a withdrawal (al-Tabari 879), but he sent part of his cavalry across the in-tact ground in the centre (Procopius 1.4.7-8), as if to cover the Hephthalite retreat. They harassed the Sasanian forces and then proceeded to withdraw, much like Hannibal’s Numidians at the Trebia.

Peroz arrayed his army and marched against the Hephthalite position. The Hephthalite vanguard adopted a narrow formation in order to withdraw across the neck of land in the centre. While the details are unknown, part of the formation must have fought a delaying action against their pursuers, probably fanning out to ensure manoeuvrability and avoid being outflanked. Meanwhile, the rest of the formation formed into a broad column. This action relied on skilled skirmishing as well as speed and control on the battlefield, an action well suited to horse archers. The Hephthalite formation then retreated through the gap, knowing exactly where they needed to ride to avoid the trench.

It was a stunning mid-battle manoeuvre. Indeed, the warriors of Khushnawar now had decades of experience. Peroz and his army followed in pursuit, but they did not notice the trap. The front line of cataphracts cascaded into the trench, with man and horse mangled in the ditch. The next line followed, falling upon those beneath them. The Hephthalites counterattacked. Having lost all cohesion, the front ranks of the Sasanians were butchered in a heap. With numerous knights and commanders dead, those in the rear soon realized the magnitude of the disaster. They surrendered en masse.

Khushnawar took control of the Sasanian camp, including the treasury, administrative documents, the high priest Ardashir, and female members of the Sasanian dynasty, including Peroz’s daughter Perozdukht. When the dust had settled, it was discovered that Peroz had been slain along with four of his sons and four of his brothers, including his brother Hormizd, the commander of his vanguard.

“The Persian army suffered a defeat the likes of which they had never before experienced,” recorded al-Tabari (877).

In the aftermath, Khushnawar invaded Khorasan and Arachosia and spent two years raiding the Sasanian Empire. He conquered Herat, Merv, Nishapur and Kandahar. He met some resistance from Sukhra, the satrap of Sakastan, but the satrap’s achievements were exaggerated in later Persian sources (al-Tabari 873, 877, 880; Ferdowsi, Shahnameh 39.2-3). Khushnawar had secured his overlordship, and he married Perozdukht, further strengthening his legitimacy.

The new Sasanian king, Peroz’s brother Balash, secured a fresh treaty with Khushnawar and resumed paying tribute, and through Sukhra’s mediation the Hephthalites returned the high priest Ardashir and certain other captives. However, Sasanian finances were in dire straits, and in 488 the Iranian nobility overthrew Balash and elevated Peroz’s son Kavad.

Kavad I, who had spent time as Khushnawar’s hostage, appears to have advocated a policy of peaceful coexistence with the Hephthalites. In 496 he was overthrown and replaced by his younger brother Jamasp. But tellingly, Kavad fled to the Hephthalite court and secured an alliance with Khushnawar, marrying the half-Sasanian daughter of Khushnawar and Perozdukht (Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite 24; al-Tabari 887). In 498 he returned to Persia with a Hephthalite army and reclaimed his throne.

The Hephthalites had become major powerbrokers. Kavad temporarily accepted the status quo, instead focusing his military energies against the Romans after more than 120 years of relative peace. Later in his reign, likely following the death of Khushnawar, Kavad succeeded in reconquering Khorasan and Arachosia, and his son Khosrow I, in alliance with the newly arrived Gokturks, was eventually able to crush the Hephthalites and reconquer Bactria, Kabulistan and Kashmir. But the humiliations of the late fifth century were etched in Persian memory.

Byron Waldron is a lecturer in Classics and Ancient History at the University of Sydney. He is the author of Dynastic Politics in the Age of Diocletian, AD 284-311 (Edinburgh University Press, 2022), and has written articles on Roman history, Persian history and Latin literature for edited volumes and journals, including the Journal of Late Antiquity and Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. He has also written documentaries for HistoryMarche, including popular series on Aurelian and the Third Samnite War.

 

 

 

Bibliography

de la Vaissière, E. 2003: Is There a “Nationality of the Hephtalites”? Bulletin of the Asia Institute 17, 119-132.

Millward, J. A. 2007: Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang.

Potts, D. T. 2014: Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era.

Rezakhani, K. 2017: ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity.

Whitfield, S. 2018: Silks, Slaves, and Stupas: Material Culture of the Silk Road.