The Roman Bride of Persia: Maria, Xusro II, and the Crossroads of Empire
In the shadowed margins of Late Antiquity’s greatest geopolitical duel—between imperial Rome and majestic Ērānšahr—emerges the enigmatic figure of Maria, the so-called Roman wife of Xusro II Parwēz and alleged mother of his usurping son, Kawād II (Šērōē). Her name surfaces not in the pages of official Roman chronicles, but in the Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian traditions—from al-Ṭabarī to the Chronicle of Seert—each echoing the report that the Eastern Roman emperor Maurice offered Maria, a noblewoman of his house, to the exiled Sasanian prince as part of their landmark alliance in 590. And yet, the Roman record is conspicuously mute. No mention of Maria appears in the writings of Theophylact Simocatta, the most trusted court historian of Maurice’s era, despite his close access to the imperial household and firsthand knowledge of the events surrounding Chosroes’s restoration.
But silence is not absence. As Wilhelm Baum incisively argues, the later confusion of Maria with the historically verified Shīrīn—a Christian queen of humble origin—reflects more the myth-making of later centuries than the truth of Maria’s nonexistence. It is implausible, as Baum notes, that a young daughter of Maurice, born around 584, could have been married off by 590. Nor would Roman norms have allowed an imperial princess to join the harem of a Zoroastrian shah. However, this does not discredit Maria’s existence entirely. Rather, it reframes her identity: not as a princess, but as a high-ranking Roman noblewoman, offered as part of a symbolic and strategic gesture—a living treaty, crafted to stabilize a frontier and entrench Roman goodwill in the Sasanian court.
Herein lies the key parallel: Maria's case closely mirrors that of Musa, the noblewoman Augustus sent to Phraates IV of Parthia in the late 1st century BCE. Though never an Augustus’s daughter, Musa became queen, bore a royal heir, and later wielded power in Ctesiphon itself. Just as Musa served Roman strategy through intimate diplomacy, so too might Maria have functioned as a cultural emissary, a foster-gift cloaked in matrimony, embedded in a rival empire’s inner sanctum.
In this post, we will defend Maria’s plausibility as a real historical figure by:
-
Deconstructing the silence of Roman sources as a function of political decorum, not disproof,
-
Analyzing diplomatic norms of the Roman and Persian courts, especially in comparison to the Augustus–Phraates IV–Musa precedent,
-
Showing that non-Roman traditions preserve echoes of an original historical memory,
-
And distinguishing the Maria–Shīrīn conflation as a literary development born from confusion and polemic, not fact.
Maria may not have been a princess—but she was a pawn, a player, and perhaps a mother to a king. In her we glimpse not just a lost woman of history, but a symbol of imperial ambition wrapped in veils of gender, faith, and diplomacy—a figure who, like Musa, turned from instrument to intrigue, and whose legacy climaxed in the brutal parricide of 628 CE, when the son she bore destroyed the father she was sent to bind.
I. The Geopolitical Crisis of 590 CE: Rome and Ērānšahr in Chaos
A. The Fall of Hormizd IV and the Usurpation of Bahrām Chōbīn
By the close of the 6th century CE, the once-mighty Sasanian Empire was teetering on the brink of collapse. The long and brutal Roman–Persian War, which had begun in 572 CE under Justin II and continued through the reigns of Tiberius and Maurice, left large swaths of the Caucasus and Mesopotamian frontier devastated. Cities were besieged, villages emptied, and populations displaced—cracks had begun to show in the Sasanian imperial image.
Then, in 589 CE, a shift came not from the Roman front, but from within the Persian heartland itself. As Touraj Daryaee summarizes, “In the east in 589 CE, the Turks were met by the Sasanian general Bahrām Chōbīn, whose victory over them made the general famous within the empire.” Bahrām was no mere commander—he hailed from the noble Arsacid family of Mehrān, with roots reaching further back than the Sasanians themselves. His growing popularity, however, provoked the jealousy of Shah Hormizd IV, who had him dismissed and slandered after a minor defeat in Armenia.
Humiliated and enraged, Bahrām revolted. With the backing of several disgruntled noble houses, he marched on Ctesiphon, forcing the court into a crisis. The aristocrats Bindōyē and Wistāhm, members of the influential Ispahbudhan clan and relatives of the royal house, deposed Hormizd IV and installed his son Xusro II as shah. But this did not bring stability—Bahrām, claiming ancient royal legitimacy, declared himself king and minted coins, asserting rule from Iraq to Media and then into eastern Iran. He became, as Daryaee puts it, “the first person outside the House of Sāsān to attempt to take over the empire.”
B. Xusro II’s Flight to Roman Territory
Facing overwhelming odds and betrayed by many of his own troops, Xusro II fled, seeking asylum not among his own people, but among his longtime enemy: Rome.
e crossed into Roman Syria and arrived at Hierapolis, where he sent envoys and rich gifts to Emperor Maurice. The History of Sebeos, a 7th-century Armenian chronicle, captures the desperation and diplomacy of the moment in vivid language:
“Then king Khosrov sent to king Maurice prominent men with gifts, and wrote as follows: ‘Give me the throne and royal station of my fathers and ancestors; send me an army in support with which I may be able to defeat my enemy and restore my kingdom; [then] I shall be your son... Let us observe a pact of peace between us until the death of us both; and let this oath be secure between us and between our sons who will reign after us.’”
This language is revealing. Xusro does not merely request help—he pledges loyalty. He offers Armenia, Syria, and Aruastan (Northern Mesopotamia), and declares himself a “son” of the Roman emperor. In doing so, he sets the stage for the deeply symbolic, quasi-dynastic alliance that would soon follow.
Maurice’s senate, as Sebeos notes, was skeptical:
“It is not proper to agree, because they are an impious nation and altogether deceitful. In their distress they make promises, but when they emerge into calmer times, they renege.”
But Maurice overruled them. He had long been entangled in the Persian front, and the opportunity to install a grateful client-shah in Ctesiphon was too great to pass up.
C. Maurice’s Calculated Gamble
Maurice's intervention was not altruistic—it was realpolitik.
For decades, Rome and Persia had fought over Armenia, Iberia (Georgia), and northern Mesopotamia. A victory here would:
-
Restore the fortress of Dara, taken by Xusro I,
-
Reassert Roman control in western Armenia, including Martyropolis, and
-
Place a friendly shah on the Persian throne who owed his very life to Rome.
Maurice committed to the campaign, sending the general Narses to lead a joint force of Romans, Armenians, and loyal Persian elements, including the powerful brothers Bindōyē and Wistāhm. Evagrius Scholasticus, Theophylact Simocatta, and the Chronicon Paschale all attest to the scale of the alliance and the planning behind it.
Touraj Daryaee adds important detail:
“By the beginning of 591 CE, with the aid of the Roman emperor Maurice… [Xusro] was able to meet Bahrām near the fire-temple of Ādur Gušnasp and decisively defeat him… The usurper’s family and tent fell into the hands of the victorious prince.”
Despite Bahrām invoking his Arsacid lineage, none of the traditional noble houses supported him. In a final act of desperation, he fled east—only to be assassinated by the Turks, allegedly at Xusro’s instigation.
D. Peace and Restoration
By the end of 591 CE, Xusro II was restored to the throne of Ērānšahr by Roman arms.
As promised, he honored the alliance:
-
Dara and Martyropolis were handed back to Rome,
-
Roman influence extended deep into Armenia as far as Dvin and even Tbilisi,
-
Xusro’s regime was stabilized through continued support from Maurice’s treasury and generals.
As Daryaee notes, “The institutions reformed under Kawad I and Xusro I were so entrenched that they continued to function despite this political chaos.” Roman and Persian governors managed their regions with increasing autonomy—especially the dehgāns in Persia—suggesting that even in times of dynastic disruption, imperial infrastructure survived.
This dramatic restoration campaign was unprecedented. Never before had a Roman emperor intervened so directly in Persian succession, and never before had a Persian king proclaimed himself a son of the Roman emperor. The symbolic implications of this "adoption" were staggering.
It is in this context—a treaty of restored borders, exchanged favors, and dynastic language—that we must consider the plausibility of a noble Roman bride being offered to Xusro. Whether as part of the diplomatic package or a gift to solidify Xusro’s dependency, Maria’s appearance in the sources begins to make sense, even if no official Roman record survives.
If Augustus sent Musa to Phraates IV in the 1st century BCE, what would stop Maurice from doing the same to Xusro in 590 CE?
II. Diplomatic Customs Between Rome and Persia: Marriages, Fostering, and Hostages
A. Roman Approaches to the Sasanian Court
In the long arc of Roman–Persian diplomacy, marriage was not the preferred currency of alliance. Roman emperors, especially after Constantine, avoided dynastic unions with non-Christian, “barbarian” states, and especially with the Sasanian monarchy, which represented not only a foreign power but a theological rival rooted in Zoroastrian kingship. The offering of imperial daughters to foreign kings was rare, even scandalous, because of the Roman emphasis on image, religious legitimacy, and imperial hierarchy.
This reluctance was as much ideological as practical. An emperor’s daughter—often raised as a Christian virgin devoted to the imperial image as Christ's Vicar on Earth—was considered symbolically inviolable. As such, she could not be placed into a foreign, non-Christian court without undermining the perceived sanctity of Rome’s divine mandate. Roman historians were keen to emphasize this taboo. No imperial daughter is known to have married a Sasanian king.
Instead, Rome engaged in "soft power" diplomacy via more flexible forms: hostages, elite women of noble but non-imperial background, and ceremonial adoption or symbolic “kinship.” In this regard, the Roman toolkit included:
-
Exchange of hostages (e.g., Arsacid princes held in Rome)
-
Fosterage arrangements (real or symbolic)
-
Adoption “in arms” (as a legal fiction used for foreign heirs)
-
“Son” language in diplomatic letters (as in Xusro II and Maurice)
Even so, Roman silence in cases of cross-cultural marriage should not be taken as proof of absence. The imperial record tended to erase diplomatically ambiguous arrangements that undermined Rome’s sense of cultural superiority. A noblewoman of high birth—like Maria, if not a daughter of Maurice—could easily have served as a gifted bride without attracting formal record-keeping, especially if her identity was later eclipsed by court legends like those of Shīrīn.
B. Persian Approaches to the Roman Court
The Sasanian approach was more flexible. Rooted in centuries of Arsacid and Achaemenid precedent, Persian kings routinely used kinship and symbolic parentage in diplomacy, often leveraging fosterage as a form of cliental loyalty and honor. Here, Jake Nabel’s analysis in The Arsacids of Rome becomes indispensable.
As Nabel notes, while interdynastic fosterage declined under the Sasanians, it was replaced by a suite of pro-parental customs that mirrored the earlier Roman–Parthian patterns. These include:
-
In 408 CE, Emperor Arcadius supposedly made the Persian king Yazdgird I the guardian (epitropos) of his young son Theodosius II. Yazdgird reportedly accepted, even if the child never left Roman territory. This may reflect a Middle Persian conception of guardianship (parwartār), distinct from true fosterage (dāyag).
-
In c. 520 CE, Kawad I attempted to have his son, the future Xusro I, adopted by Emperor Justin I. Justin’s court rejected this outright inheritance possibility and instead offered adoptio in arma—a Roman practice usually reserved for tribal chiefs or foederati. This was deeply offensive to the Persians and negotiations collapsed.
Nabel observes that although these cases are muddied by questionable sources (Procopius, Theophanes), the recurring theme is clear: Persian rulers were willing to create symbolic familial bonds with Roman emperors, so long as they preserved honor and prestige.
The language of kinship—father and son, brother to brother—became common in correspondence by the late 6th century. This tradition reached its apex in 590 CE, when Xusro II, fleeing to Hierapolis, addressed Maurice as his “father”, and Maurice reciprocated by calling him “my son.” The precedent of pro-parentage gave the diplomatic exchange a veneer of familial obligation—one that might have been strengthened by the presentation of a noblewoman like Maria as a Roman “foster-gift.”
As Nabel writes:
“While questions of historicity attend all these cases, the collective impression is that pro-parentage continued to connect Iranian and Roman rulers in late antiquity, building on the precedent of the Arsacids of Rome and forging an interdynastic ruling family... A new ‘family of kings’ emerged, offering rulers a mode of interface with their distant counterparts.”
Thus, the symbolic family between Maurice and Xusro—father and son—parallels the structures of elite fosterage from the Parthian era. A noblewoman, even if not a literal daughter, could serve as material confirmation of that “sonship.” Maria fits within this evolving diplomatic grammar.
C. The Role of Women in East–West Diplomacy
Women, though often left nameless in the sources, played critical roles in the ceremonial and dynastic politics of Late Antiquity. They were:
-
Markers of prestige when sent or married,
-
Protectors of treaties in the form of bride-pacts,
-
Cultural signifiers embodying the values and status of their sending court.
This was not limited to Persia. In the eastern Mediterranean:
-
Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, styled herself as a descendant of Cleopatra and Darius, asserting power in the vacuum of imperial weakness.
-
Sophia, the empress of Justin II, negotiated with Sasanian envoys during periods of war.
-
Even in Persia, Shīrīn, the historical Christian wife of Xusro II, exercised political agency and became a literary icon.
Yet Maria is unique because of her cross-cultural ambiguity. As a Roman noblewoman married into the Sasanian court, she echoes the ancient precedent of Musa, the Roman concubine sent to Phraates IV by Augustus, who rose to become queen of Parthia and mother of the next king. This was Rome’s way of inserting itself into Parthian succession, and it may have been replicated, consciously or not, by Maurice in 590 CE.
In such acts, Rome did not give its daughters—it gave its name, its cultural prestige, and its symbols of loyalty. Maria, then, might not have been an anomaly but a continuation of a deeper tradition—a living treaty, whose womb could produce a future king.
In summary, Roman–Sasanian diplomacy evolved through complex rituals of symbolic family-making—be it through letters, gifts, adoptions, or brides. Jake Nabel’s conclusion captures the system perfectly:
“Roman-Sasanian relations went further than their Roman–Parthian precursors in forging an interdynastic family that transcended state boundaries... A family of kings in which an assemblage of kinship practices offered rulers a mode of interface with their distant counterparts.”
Maria, though largely invisible in Roman sources, may well have been Rome’s physical contribution to that “family”—not as an official daughter, but as a noblewoman embedded at the heart of Ērānšahr’s imperial succession.
III. “I Shall Be Your Son”: Xusro II and Maurice’s Pseudo-Adoption
A. Maurice’s Language of Affection and Control
In 590 CE, at the nadir of his fortunes, the young Persian prince Xusro II Parwēz, barely twenty years old, found himself exiled and humiliated. After a string of military failures, his father Hormizd IV had been deposed and blinded, and the victorious rebel Wahram Čōbin claimed the Sasanian throne. With his world collapsing, Xusro turned westward—toward Rome, toward Emperor Maurice, then about fifty, seasoned and secure, whose armies had already dealt severe defeats to Persia.
Desperate, Xusro adopted a posture of ritual humility. According to Theophylact Simocatta, he styled himself “your son and suppliant” (ὁ σὸς υἱὸς καὶ ἱκέτης) in his letters to the Roman emperor. In a speech bursting with courtly hyperbole and theological-political symbolism, Xusro wrote:
“God effected that the whole world should be illumined from the very beginning by two eyes, namely by the most powerful kingdom of the Romans and by the most prudent sceptre of the Persian state… These words which I write, do I, Khusro, address to you as if I were in your presence—I, Khusro your son and suppliant.”—Theophylact, Histories 11.1
The Armenian historian Sebeos preserves a similar sentiment:
“Give me the throne and royal station of my fathers and ancestors… and I shall be your son.”
This was more than theatrical submission. It was a bid for survival through kinship metaphors, couched in terms that would resonate with a Roman court trained in biblical tropes of filial obedience, Christian kingship, and imperial hierarchy. By calling himself a son, Xusro was binding himself to Maurice as a dependent, but one who retained the dignity of a prince in exile.
Maurice reciprocated this language—at least in his correspondence and proclamations—declaring Xusro to be like a "son" to him. And when Xusro returned Roman fortresses such as Dara, Maurice responded not with dismissal, but with paternal approval. This symbolic “adoption” shaped the diplomacy of the 590s, setting the tone for a rare twelve-year peace between Rome and Ērānšahr.
B. Titles and Gesture: Father–Son Allegory
The "father–son" framework was not an idle flourish. It emerged from a long tradition of political kinship that spanned the ancient Near East, Achaemenid Persia, Hellenistic monarchies, and Roman imperial diplomacy.
In Roman usage, such language often cloaked hierarchy in familial metaphor. A son could be a client, a subject, or a ward—always subordinate. The "adoption" of foreign rulers was never legal in Roman eyes, but metaphorical, performative, and conditional. As Michael Maas notes:
“Roman imperial forces intervened to assist Khusro... When Khusro returned the fortress of Dara to Maurice, the emperor called him ‘son.’”
This language evoked the client-kingship model that Rome had long employed on its periphery—from Judea to Armenia—where rulers were bound to the emperor not by legal charter but by paternalist allegiance. The historian of Armenian Affairs in the early 600s was more blunt:
“Khosro gave all of Armenia, as far as Dvin, to the Emperor Maurice, in return for which he was established as king beneath him.”
Thus, while later scholars such as Engelbert Winter have proposed that this adoption signaled Roman–Persian equality, others—Michael and Mary Whitby among them—emphasize that the treaty was only technically equal (with no tribute), while symbolically asserting Roman superiority through the “father–son” motif.
The power imbalance was further underscored by the real age gap: Maurice was fifty, experienced and crowned with imperial legitimacy; Xusro was barely twenty, unproven, and a refugee without a throne. The metaphor of father and son resonated politically because it matched reality.
C. Implications for Diplomacy
Did this symbolic filiation extend beyond metaphor—into dynastic alliance? It is in this context that the figure of Maria, Xusro’s Christian wife, becomes pivotal.
The repeated use of pro-parental language in Near Eastern diplomacy—especially among Assyrians, Achaemenids, and Hellenistic monarchs—suggests a cultural grammar in which fosterage, gift-exchange, and marriage were all part of a kinship economy. As Jake Nabel has argued:
“While questions of historicity attend all these cases, the collective impression is that pro-parentage continued to connect Iranian and Roman rulers… forging an interdynastic ruling family.”
The Persian tradition of fosterage was old. As early as the 7th century BCE, Assyrian records mention the Persian ruler Kuraš (Cyrus I) sending his son Arukku to Ashurbanipal—perhaps as a hostage, perhaps as a sign of submission or alliance. Later, Hellenistic monarchies institutionalized fosterage through the system of royal children (paides basilikoi), raised at court by foster-fathers (tropheus) and creating lifelong loyalty networks. The titles tropheus and syntrophos even became honors for high-ranking officials.
The clearest Persian analog is Anagranes, mentioned in two Greek inscriptions from Armaztsikhe (Bagineti, Georgia), who was both foster-father (tropheus) and guardian (epitropos) to Arsacid royal women—one of whom, Dracontis, was likely married into the Iberian dynasty. The inscriptions read:
“Anagranes, the foster-father and guardian, dedicated the bathhouse from his own resources to his own foster-child, queen Dracontis.”
This fosterage-marriage nexus would have made sense to both Persian and Roman elites. Thus, if Maria—whether Roman noble or noble-born Christian—was sent to Xusro as part of the treaty, she would have functioned as the embodied sign of Maurice’s “fatherhood.” Her marriage to Xusro would make him Maurice’s son-in-law, concretizing a metaphor into a political fact. A “gifted” bride of high status could seal the pseudo-adoption, while preserving Roman image by avoiding a direct imperial-daughter marriage.
This would not have been unprecedented. As noted earlier, the Roman concubine Musa, sent by Augustus to the Parthian king Phraates IV, became queen of Parthia and mother of a king. Rome, even when denying biological daughters, knew how to shape foreign courts through women.
Xusro’s willingness to marry a Christian—and to receive Roman backing—may have been politically expedient, but it also granted him a foreign legitimacy that no other Sasanian king had claimed. By binding himself to the Roman emperor as “son,” and taking a Roman-Christian consort, he transformed his political survival into a dynastic re-foundation. Maurice’s protégé had become the king of kings.
In sum, the pseudo-adoption of Xusro II by Emperor Maurice was more than rhetorical ornament. It was:
-
A paternalist structure of control, cloaked in the language of affection;
-
A diplomatic fiction with real military and territorial consequences;
-
A bridge between metaphors and marriages, possibly confirmed through Maria.
As Xusro ascended the throne, he did so not merely as a Sasanian heir—but as the “son” of Rome. In the web of Late Antique diplomacy, fosterage, marriage, and metaphor all converged in one audacious act: Maurice remade the enemy king in his own image.
IV. Enter Maria: The Shadow Bride in the Sources
A. The Accounts
Amidst the imperial theater of war, diplomacy, and dynastic ambition, there lingers a figure of spectral significance: Maria, the elusive Roman wife of Xusro II Parvēz. Her name emerges not in the halls of historians like Theophylact Simocatta, but in a confluence of Syriac, Arabic, and Persian sources—each shaping her memory in different hues.
1. The Syriac Chronicle of 661 – The Oldest Witness
The earliest and perhaps most crucial reference to Maria appears in a Syriac chronicle dated to 661 CE—just over three decades after Xusro’s death. This anonymous source, overlooked by many modern scholars, mentions Xusro's two principal wives with rare clarity:
(ܗܢܘ ܕܝܢ ̣ܡܢ ܫܝܪܝܢ ܐܪܡܝܬܐ ܘ ̣ܡܢ ܡܪܝܡ ܪܗܘܡܝܬܐ.)
Here, Maria (Maryam) the Roman is placed alongside the well-known and fully historic Shīrīn, described as "the Aramean." The pairing is critical: not only is Maria treated as a distinct consort, but also as the mother of children (Christians!) by the king, implying her full integration into royal life. This Syriac source, composed by Christians within the Persian orbit, is less burdened by the biases of Roman silence and therefore serves as a vital anchor for Maria’s historicity.
2. al-Ṭabarī – The Arab Chronicler of Empire
Centuries later, the great Abbasid-era historian al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) reinforces Maria’s existence. His account of Xusro’s flight to Roman territory includes the following declaration:
“He reached Antioch and wrote to Mawriq (Maurice). The latter received him and gave him in marriage his daughter, called Maryam, who was very precious to him.”
Ṭabarī treats the marriage as historical and presents Maryam as Maurice’s daughter, a claim unlikely to be literal, given what we know of Maurice’s children’s ages (none of his daughters were likely of marital age in 591 CE). Yet the importance lies not in the genealogical precision, but in the political symbolism: Maria was close enough to the emperor’s household to be seen as his daughter—a royal offering embedded in diplomacy.
Moreover, Ṭabarī was drawing from older Middle Persian and Syriac traditions, not purely Islamic lore. His access to now-lost Sasanian royal archives or Persian intermediaries gives his narrative added weight. The persistence of Maria’s name across linguistic and sectarian lines suggests more than fabrication—it suggests cultural memory.
3. The Shāhnāmeh – Ferdowsi’s Epic Embellishment
The Persian national epic, the Shāhnāmeh of Ferdowsi (c. 1010 CE), preserves the most sumptuous account of Maria—though now refracted through the lens of courtly imagination. Here, Maria is again called Mariam, and her marriage to Xusro becomes a grand imperial ceremony:
“The emperor had a daughter named Mariam, who was a wise, dignified, and intelligent young woman. He affianced her to Khosrow, with the rites of his religion, calling down God’s blessing on her...”
The description continues with exquisite detail:
- Hundreds of warhorses, gold vessels, rubies, and imperial silks;
- Three jewel-studded crowns, and forty Byzantine eunuchs;
- Philosophers and court advisors to guide Mariam;
- Even intimate fatherly advice from Maurice on Mariam’s duties as queen.
“He also spoke with Mariam in secret, advising her on obedience and her duties... Her dowry’s weight exhausted the horses carrying it... Its value exceeded 300 million dinars.”
Of course, this account reflects epic inflation—a literary device meant to glorify both Xusro and Rome. But beneath the embroidery lies a narrative consistent with both Ṭabarī and the Syriac chronicle: that a Roman woman of noble or royal standing became Xusro’s Christian wife, that she was known as Mariam/Maria, and that she bore him children.
Even in stylized form, this story—centuries after the fact—remained integral to the memory of Xusro’s legitimacy, prestige, and foreign ties.
Conclusion: A Web of Corroborations
Despite their contradictions in detail, these three streams—Syriac historiography, Islamic chronicle, and Persian epic—are in agreement about several critical points:
| Point of Agreement | Syriac Chronicle (661) | al-Ṭabarī (10th c.) | Shāhnāmeh (11th c.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maria was a wife of Xusro II | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
| She was Christian | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
| She was of Roman/Byzantine origin | ✅ “Roman” | ✅ “Daughter of Maurice” | ✅ “Emperor’s daughter” |
| She had children with Xusro | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
| Linked to Maurice’s diplomacy | ⚠️ Implied | ✅ Explicit | ✅ Explicit |
B. Wilhelm Baum’s Critique – A Skeptical Roman Lens
In Shirin: Christian–Queen–Myth of Love, Wilhelm Baum provides the most thorough critique of the idea that Maria, a Roman wife of Xusro II, was in fact a daughter of the Emperor Maurice. Baum’s analysis draws deeply from court protocol, age calculations, and historiographical silence in early Roman accounts. His skepticism, however, must be understood not as neutral but as anchored in a Rome-centric historical framework—one that may itself have had motives for minimizing the symbolic bond between Maurice and the Persian shah.
1. The Argument Against Maria’s Roman Royal Lineage
Baum’s primary objections are fourfold:
(i) Age Discrepancy“The Chronicle of Seert offered a solution to the puzzle... another remark in the Arabic text indicates that ‘the others’ call the bride Shirin!” (Baum)
This, to Baum, indicates a progressive mythologization—one that grew more elaborate with time, especially in Islamic and Persian epic traditions.
2. A Rebuttal: The Limits of Roman Silence and the Politics of Memory
Baum’s critique is rigorous and rightly cautious, but it rests on the overprioritization of Roman imperial narratives—many of which were composed or edited during the Heraclian era, a period profoundly shaped by anti-Persian polemic and political trauma.
(i) Maurice and the Lingering Resentment of War(ii) The Heraclian Erasure
-
Roman silence does not equal historical absence; it often reflects post-conflict redaction.
3. Toward a Nuanced Conclusion
Baum's challenge is useful—but incomplete. His analysis shows that Maria was not Maurice’s biological daughter. But it fails to account for the diplomatic and symbolic flexibility of familial language in Late Antiquity. As the sources in Section III have shown, Xusro explicitly called Maurice his "father," and Maurice reciprocated by calling him his "son."
Thus, Maria may not have been a princess by blood, but she could still have been:
In all these cases, her existence remains historically plausible, even if her genealogy remains opaque.
C. A Plausible Reconstruction – Maria as Noblewoman, Symbolic Bride, and Mother of Kawād II
The solution to the Maria mystery lies not in choosing between contradictory traditions, but in reconstructing a scenario that accounts for them all. The weight of Roman, Syriac, and Islamic sources suggests that Maria did exist—but not as Maurice’s biological daughter. Instead, she was almost certainly a Roman noblewoman of high rank, offered to Xusro II as a symbolic bride, and likely remembered as his “Roman wife” and the mother of his son Kawād II (Shiruyah/Sheroe).
This solution resolves the contradictions between the Roman silence, the eastern confirmations, and the later romantic conflations with Shīrīn.
1. A Roman Noblewoman Passed Off as Royal
By 590 CE, Emperor Maurice was fifty years old, a seasoned general who had fought multiple campaigns against the Sasanians between 572 and 591 CE. His enemy-turned-protégé, Xusro II, was barely twenty. To seal their political pact, the exiled Persian prince came to Roman territory pleading to be restored. He addressed Maurice as “my father” and styled himself “your son and suppliant” (ὁ σὸς υἱὸς καὶ ἱκέτης), a phrase preserved in Theophylact’s near-contemporary narrative.
As part of this symbolic “adoption,” Xusro’s plea may have included a request for marriage into Maurice’s house, mirroring Iranian diplomatic expectations of familial cementing. Maurice, ever the pragmatist, had a solution: if not a daughter, then a noblewoman named Maria, possibly a relative, ward, or member of the court, could serve the role.
Maurice would have known that Roman dynastic law forbade marrying off his imperial daughters to a polytheistic or polygamous ruler. But he also knew that Xusro II, unfamiliar with Roman court protocol, would not have known the difference. For the Shah, receiving a “Roman princess” would have confirmed the sincerity of Maurice’s patronage and embedded their alliance in shared kinship.
And it worked.
2. Sources Affirming Maria’s Existence
Al-Ṭabarī, working with earlier Persian and Syriac traditions, records:
“The Persians rose up against Kisrā and killed him, aided by his son Shiruyah, son of Maryam, the Roman woman (al-Rūmiyyah).”
This is not a vague allusion. Maryam is named, her Roman origin emphasized, and she is made the mother of Xusro’s successor.
Bosworth, in his commentary, reinforces this with important clarifications:
-
Syriac sources like the Chronicle of 661, attributed to Elias of Merv, mention Maria as one of two Christian wives of Xusro.
-
Dionysius of Tellmahre preserves the detail that Maria arrived with bishops and clergy, and that Xusro built two Christian shrines for her: one to St. Sergius and one to Mary the Theotokos.
-
Even in later Arabic and Persian traditions, Maria retains her Christian-Roman identity, standing apart from the mythologized Shīrīn.
Nöldeke, Labourt, and even skeptical historians such as von Gutschmid all concede that the sources agree on Maria’s identity as Roman and Christian. The only point of dispute is her status—imperial princess or noblewoman.
3. Maria and the Shīrīn Conflation
Later Persian epic tradition, particularly the Shāhnāmeh, merges or confuses Maria with Shīrīn, the beloved of Xusro II. This confusion is understandable:
-
Both women were remembered as Christian, foreign, and deeply influential.
-
Both were said to have churches or chapels built in their honor.
-
Both were associated with the birth or care of Sasanian royal sons: Maria with Kawād II (Sheroyah), and Shīrīn with Mardānshāh and Shahriyār.
Bosworth wisely notes that the Syriac Chronicle of 661 says Maria and Shīrīn were separate individuals—with Shīrīn being Aramaean, from the district near al-Baṣrah. The Chronicle of Seert, however, suggests later authors began to conflate the two. That’s why Firdawsī’s account gives Maria the romanticized traits of Shīrīn, complete with poetic detail, lavish dowry, and sage advice.
But the earlier and more sober sources, Syriac and Arabic alike, consistently treat Maria as a separate Roman Christian consort.
4. Maria as the Mother of Sheroe (Kawād II)
This piece is often overlooked but immensely significant. The same al-Ṭabarī source that names Maria also makes her the mother of Kawād II, the very son who would overthrow and execute Xusro II in 628 CE. This fact adds considerable weight to Maria’s historicity:
-
Kawād II’s Roman-Christian lineage would have made him especially attractive to pro-Roman Persian factions, especially those tired of endless war.
-
His political proximity to Heraclius—who sued for peace with him—might have rested partially on his mother’s Roman identity.
This also helps explain why Shīrīn, as mother or protector of rival sons, was hostile to Sheroe after his seizure of power.
5. Diplomacy, Symbolism, and the Fiction of Kinship
Maria’s role, then, was never simply matrimonial. She was:
-
a living symbol of alliance between two ancient rivals;
-
a hostage-ambassador hybrid, similar to Hellenistic and Parthian precedents of fosterage;
-
a bridge between two faiths—Roman Christianity and Persian Zoroastrianism.
Whether or not she was a true imperial princess, her function was the same: to make Maurice and Xusro truly “father and son,” not just in rhetoric but in kinship performance. Xusro, twenty years old and unfamiliar with Roman nuance, accepted the offer as genuine. And Maurice, a fifty-year-old strategist, got the peace he wanted—for a time.
Conclusion: The Maria Hypothesis Vindicated
Maria’s historicity emerges not from a single watertight source but from the convergence of independent Eastern traditions, many of them early, Syriac, and ecclesiastical. Her absence from Roman sources is understandable given the Heraclian purge of pro-Sasanian memory. Far from a romantic invention, Maria was almost certainly a Roman noblewoman elevated to princess-like status—not born of Maurice, but given in his name.
Her marriage to Xusro II played a pivotal role in constructing a fiction of familial alliance that shaped diplomacy, legitimized rule, and bore real dynastic fruit: a son who became king and brought the longest war of Late Antiquity to an end.
V. The Musa Parallel: Rome’s First Bride to the East
The story of Maria, the Roman noblewoman married to Xusro II, should not be seen in isolation. A powerful and fitting parallel from the earlier Roman-Parthian age can help us ground her plausibility: the case of Musa, the Roman woman sent to the Parthian king Phraates IV by Augustus. Much like Maria, she would become both queen and mother to a future king, and, like Maria, she would live at the volatile intersection of diplomacy, gender, and succession.
A. Augustus, Musa, and Phraates IV
According to Josephus (AJ 18.39–44), Musa was originally sent by Augustus to Phraates IV of Parthia, ostensibly as a diplomatic concubine. She began her career at court in a secondary role but quickly rose in favor, so much so that Phraates elevated her to queenly status (γυναῖκα). The two had a son, Phraataces (Frahātak), whom Musa wished to see inherit the throne.
To secure her son’s claim, Musa allegedly convinced Phraates IV to send his other, legitimate sons to Rome as hostages—a move that removed rival claimants and reinforced her son's path to power. This version, though dismissed by some as folklore, gains remarkable credibility from contemporary Arsacid coinage, which portrays Musa as queen alongside her son—the only such case in the numismatic tradition of Parthian Iran.
While Josephus’s version of events bears the hallmarks of Greco-Roman tropes—presenting Musa as a scheming, manipulative queen akin to Atossa or Parysatis—modern scholars like Emma Strugnell, Wiesehöfer, and Sebastian Brock defend the historic core of the narrative: Musa existed, became queen, and co-ruled Parthia with her son. She was no invention, and her precedent laid the groundwork for Roman women to function as living instruments of soft power in Iranian dynastic politics.
B. The Logic of Diplomatic Women: Living Treaties
Maria’s case is strikingly similar. Though not a biological daughter of Maurice, she could have easily been presented as such, in line with the fiction of Xusro being Maurice’s “son” and “suppliant.” This would have embedded Maria as the human seal of the alliance—a living treaty, just as Musa was under Augustus.
Just as Musa bore a son who co-ruled and succeeded his father, Maria is named in al-Ṭabarī and Syriac sources as the mother of Kawād II, the man who would lead the coup against his father and end the longest Roman–Iranian war. Bosworth notes this alignment clearly in his commentary:
“The Persian historical tradition and later romantic literature makes this Byzantine princess the mother of Khusraw Abarwez's son and successor Kawād II Sheroy… The Syriac chroniclers like Dionysius of Tellmahre recorded the marriage with much circumstantial detail…”
This convergence across Arabic, Syriac, and even Persian sources reflects the same cultural logic that underpinned Musa’s elevation in Parthia: a Roman woman could play a dynastic role in the East, carrying both the aura of Roman prestige and the reproductive legitimacy needed to secure succession.
Both women represent a broader pattern of Roman soft diplomacy: Roman women as imperial “brands,” cultural capital in female form, inserted into the dynastic logic of Iranic kingship to build or preserve allegiance. In both cases, Roman women are not passive gifts, but active mediators of political legitimacy.
“The Persian historical tradition and later romantic literature makes this Byzantine princess the mother of Khusraw Abarwez's son and successor Kawād II Sheroy… The Syriac chroniclers like Dionysius of Tellmahre recorded the marriage with much circumstantial detail…”
C. Why This Model Makes Sense for Maria
The historical moment of 590 CE offers the perfect storm for such a diplomatic gesture:
-
Maurice, then fifty years old and deeply experienced in Iranian warfare, sought a durable peace that could withstand internal divisions and instability.
-
Xusro II, a desperate twenty-year-old prince, needed not just military aid, but symbolic legitimacy—a Roman wife, a Roman alliance, and a father-figure in the emperor.
-
Maria, passed off as a “daughter” of Maurice, allowed both sides to ritually enact the illusion of shared kinship: the shah became a “son,” and Rome his senior imperial partner.
The gifting of Maria thus fits into a longer Roman–Iranian diplomatic tradition, where treaties were never sealed by ink alone, but by the exchange of people, especially women. Just as Musa was once sent across the Euphrates to project Augustus’ influence into the Parthian court, Maria was sent to anchor Maurice’s interests in Ctesiphon.
That she later vanishes from Greek sources is not surprising. As noted earlier, the Heraclian dynasty had every reason to suppress all traces of cordiality between Maurice and Xusro II—especially after the shah went on to occupy Antioch, Damascus, and Jerusalem. That same imperial erasure may also explain why Maria’s name persists only in eastern and Arabic sources, which did not inherit Heraclius’ political agenda.
In the words of Walter Scheidel, even when orientalist tropes appear in Greek or Roman writing about Persia, they often reflect real structural facts about those courts. The idea that Roman women like Musa or Maria wielded influence through marriage, motherhood, and alliance is not mere fantasy—it’s historically and cross-culturally attested, from the Ottomans and Mughals to Imperial China.
Maurice, then fifty years old and deeply experienced in Iranian warfare, sought a durable peace that could withstand internal divisions and instability.
Xusro II, a desperate twenty-year-old prince, needed not just military aid, but symbolic legitimacy—a Roman wife, a Roman alliance, and a father-figure in the emperor.
Maria, passed off as a “daughter” of Maurice, allowed both sides to ritually enact the illusion of shared kinship: the shah became a “son,” and Rome his senior imperial partner.
Conclusion: Musa and Maria as Political Archetypes
Josephus’s account of Musa—despite its flaws—invites us to think seriously about the agency of Roman women at the edges of empire. While he portrays her as manipulative and sexually transgressive, Parthian coinage and comparative dynastic studies show something different: a politically adept queen who reshaped succession and co-ruled a mighty empire.
Maria may not have risen to quite the same heights. But her marriage to Xusro II, her role as mother to Sheroe (Kawād II), and her memory in Syriac and Persian tradition place her squarely within that tradition. Like Musa, she was Rome’s human offering to Iran, a bridge between enemies and a conduit of imperial hope.
She was not a fantasy, nor a footnote. She was a Roman bride of empire, caught between loyalty and collapse, between diplomacy and dynastic death.
VI. Kawād II (Šērōē): The Son of Rome?
The tragic figure of Kawād II, better known in Persian sources as Šērōē, stands as a liminal presence between Rome and Ērānšahr, father and patricide, foreignness and legitimacy. He is remembered less for ruling than for ending a reign—for orchestrating the coup against his father Xusro II Parvēz in 628 CE, bringing the longest and bloodiest of Roman–Iranian wars to a close, and inaugurating the swift unraveling of Sasanian power. But beneath this bloody transition lies a much deeper question: was Šērōē the son of Maria, the Roman woman?
A. His Rise and Parricide
In February 628 CE, as the Sasanian Empire reeled from nearly three decades of war, famine, and political fracture, the once-untouchable Xusro II was deposed and imprisoned by his own son, Šērōē (Kawād II). Within days, the aging shah was executed along with nearly all his sons, brothers, and male relatives—an unprecedented purge in the annals of the House of Sāsān.
The details of this parricidal coup vary by source, but the most precise testimony comes from the 9th-century historian al-Ṭabarī, who states unequivocally:
“The Persians rose up against Kisrā and killed him, aided by his son Šīrūyah, the son of Maryam the Byzantine woman (al-Rūmiyyah).”(al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk)
This is no offhand remark—al-Ṭabarī preserves an Iranian narrative that identifies Šērōē’s mother not as the famed queen Shīrīn, but as a Byzantine woman named Maryam (Maria). This tradition, echoed by other Arab, Syriac, and Persian accounts, separates Šērōē from Shīrīn’s lineage entirely—a fact confirmed by the Shāhnāmeh.
B. His Pro-Roman Leanings
One of Kawād II’s first acts after assuming power was to end the war with the Romans. He immediately sent envoys to Heraclius, offered peace, and returned all prisoners, including the relic of the True Cross, looted from Jerusalem during the earlier campaigns of Xusro II. These acts were far from incidental—they were restorative, rehabilitative, and deeply symbolic.
Unlike his father, who had sought to replace the Byzantine emperor and reshape the Near East under a new Persian-Christian axis, Šērōē reverted to traditional diplomacy. His letters to Heraclius and swift recognition of pre-war frontiers suggest not only a break with his father’s messianic policy, but also an affinity—or at least familiarity—with Roman perspectives.
Such a tilt would be intelligible if Šērōē had been raised with, or by, a Roman mother—a woman sent as a diplomatic spouse by Maurice, embedded at court as a living conduit of Roman influence, just as Musa once had been.
C. Was Kawād Maria’s Son?
The identity of Šērōē’s mother is a vital thread in this historical puzzle. Most sources—especially the later romantic epics—glorify the Christian queen Shīrīn, elevating her to legendary status as the beloved of Xusro and the heroine of courtly romances. But the Shāhnāmeh preserves a devastating contradiction.
In a long and elegiac passage, the Shāhnāmeh recounts Shīrīn’s final days, her rejection of Šērōē’s proposal, and her dramatic suicide upon realizing she could not protect her dignity under his rule. But crucially, the *text repeatedly affirms that Shīrīn bore Khosrow four sons—Nastūd, Shahriyār, Forūd, and Mardānshāh—none of whom is Šērōē. When confronted by Šērōē, Shīrīn scorns him as a usurper and parricide, exclaiming:
“May no man flourish who spills his own father’s blood! … I bore [Khosrow] four sons—Nastūd, Shahriyār, Forūd, and Mardānshāh… And you are none of them.”
The narrative is unambiguous: Šērōē is not her child. His lack of maternal lineage within Shīrīn’s line makes the identity provided by al-Ṭabarī all the more powerful and exclusive—Maryam the Rūmiyyah was his mother.
Her presence is absent in Greek and Latin sources not because she did not exist, but because she was effaced by Byzantine historiography, which had every reason to disassociate itself from the son who killed the "friend" of Rome, and perhaps worse, a Roman woman complicit in Persian kingship. Yet eastern sources preserved her memory. In the absence of Greek narratives, Arab and Persian ones became the custodians of her legacy.
If Maria was real—and we have seen her modeled in the historical precedent of Musa—then her role in shaping Kawād’s values, politics, and diplomacy is more than plausible. It is the most coherent explanation for:
-
His immediate pro-Roman stance.
-
His execution of Xusro, which only he among the shah’s sons would have had personal and political motivation to do.
-
His disassociation from Shīrīn and her faction.
-
His brief but conciliatory rule, ending the Roman–Sasanian war that had defined his father’s reign.
D. Political Legitimacy and Maternal Inheritance
That Šērōē’s rise was possible at all—despite having no visible factional base—is itself a clue. As noted in the case of Musa and Phraataces, maternal status could determine or undermine a prince’s right to rule. Maria, like Musa, may have quietly navigated court alliances on behalf of her son, who then struck when the moment allowed.
This logic is embedded in the very structure of Iranian court politics, where polygyny, factionalism, and succession disputes were often shaped by maternal affiliation. Kawād’s victory may have depended on the erasure or sidelining of rival matrilines—including Shīrīn’s. His contemptuous rejection of her as a “witch” in the Shāhnāmeh is not mere rhetoric—it is a political repudiation, an effort to erase a competing maternal claim.
Conclusion: A Roman Matron, a Sasanian Throne
Kawād II Šērōē remains one of Late Antiquity’s most tragic and enigmatic figures—a man raised Roman, ruling Persian, briefly restoring the old world even as it collapsed beneath his feet. His maternal heritage, if Maria was indeed his mother, was both his inheritance and his curse.
And at his origin lies a woman—Maria, the Roman bride of Ērānšahr—whose name survives only in the margins of chronicles, yet whose impact haunts the imperial twilight of Sasanian power.
🏛️ Conclusion: Maria—A Real Ghost of Empire
She is not recorded in any surviving Roman source. Her name does not appear in the Chronicon Paschale, nor in Theophylact, nor even in Heraclius' correspondence. Yet from the murmurings of al-Ṭabarī, the laments of the Shāhnāmeh, and the historical shadows cast by her son Šērōē, the figure of Maria—Maryam al-Rūmiyyah—emerges, ghostlike, and unforgettable.
Let us gather what the evidence grants:
In the year 590, as the Sasanian Empire tottered under civil war and the Roman emperor Maurice intervened to restore Xusro II, a window briefly opened for extraordinary diplomacy. Amid the chaos, Maurice had the means, motive, and precedent to send a woman of high standing—perhaps not his daughter, but a noble Roman matron—as a living treaty, a personified pledge of alliance. In return, Rome gained an ideological son, and Persia a queen of foreign elegance.
This was not without precedent. Nearly six centuries earlier, Musa, a Roman woman sent to Phraates IV, had risen from concubinage to queenship and birthed Frahātak, who co-ruled Parthia and ousted his rivals with imperial backing. Roman women could serve as diplomatic emissaries, carriers of peace and influence, and—most critically—as mothers of kings. Just as Musa’s story was half-lost in Josephus' contested tale, Maria’s survives only through distorted fragments, misremembered names, and rewritten roles.
That Kawād II Šērōē is not the son of Shīrīn is clear—from the Shāhnāmeh to al-Ṭabarī to Syriac and Persian chronicles, Shīrīn bore other sons, not him. Yet he inherited the throne. Why? His alignment with Rome, his pro-Heraclian policies, and his swift peace after decades of bloodshed all hint at a Roman connection stronger than diplomatic convenience. Maria is the only woman whose maternity explains his power and politics.
Maria may not have been Maurice’s daughter. She may have been another noble, a senator’s kin, a court-adjacent hostage, or a woman selected for beauty, lineage, and symbolic power. But she was Rome’s emissary, a woman placed in the heart of Ctesiphon, carrying with her diplomatic stakes and dynastic consequences.
Through her, the lines between empire and household, love and treaty, foreignness and motherhood were blurred. And through her son, the great Xusro Parvēz was betrayed and buried—not by an outsider, but by a prince of mixed blood, caught between two worlds, born of empire and intrigue.
Maria’s name has faded—but her consequences remain.
THE END.
📚 Works Cited
Primary Sources
Al-Kaʿbi, Nasir. A Short Chronicle on the End of the Sasanian Empire and Early Islam, 590–660 A.D. Edition, translation, and commentary by Nasir al-Kaʿbi, Gorgias Press LLC, 2016.
al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. The History of al-Ṭabarī, Volume V: The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. Translated by C. E. Bosworth, State University of New York Press, 1999.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. The ‘History of the Kings of the Persians’ in Three Arabic Chronicles: The Transmission of the Iranian Past from Late Antiquity to Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2018. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 69.
Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 57.
Ferdowsī, Abū al-Qāsim. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. Translated by Dick Davis, Viking Penguin, 2006.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.
Theophylact Simocatta. The History of Theophylact Simocatta: An English Translation with Introduction and Notes. Translated by Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby, Clarendon Press, 1986.
Thomson, R. W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated with notes by R. W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.
Secondary Sources
Baum, Wilhelm. Shirin: Christian–Queen–Myth of Love: A Woman of Late Antiquity between Persia and Byzantium. Gorgias Press, 2004.
Baca-Winters, Keenan. He Did Not Fear: Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire. Gorgias Press, 2018.
Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.
Maas, Michael. The Conqueror’s Gift: Roman Ethnography and the End of Antiquity. Princeton University Press, 2025.
Nabel, Jake. The Arsacids of Rome: Misunderstanding in Roman-Parthian Relations. University of California Press, 2025.
Payne, Richard E. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity. University of California Press, 2015.
Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.
Comments
Post a Comment