The Roman Bride of Persia: Maria, Xusro II, and the Crossroads of Empire

The Roman Bride of Persia: Maria, Xusro II, and the Crossroads of Empire

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

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, 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.

But silence is not absence. As Wilhelm Baum incisively argues, the later confusion of Maria with the historically verified Shīrīn reflects more the myth-making of later centuries than the truth of Maria’s nonexistence. It is implausible that a young daughter of Maurice could have been married off in 590, nor would Roman norms have allowed an imperial princess to join the court of a Zoroastrian shah. This does not discredit Maria’s existence, but rather reframes her identity: not as a princess, but as a high-ranking Roman noblewoman—a living treaty, crafted to stabilize a frontier and entrench Roman goodwill in the Sasanian court.

Herein lies the key parallel: Maria's case mirrors that of Musa, the noblewoman Augustus sent to Phraates IV of Parthia. Though never an emperor’s daughter, Musa became queen, bore a royal heir, and wielded power in Ctesiphon. Just as Musa served Roman strategy through intimate diplomacy, so too might Maria have been a cultural emissary, embedded in a rival empire’s inner sanctum.

Her legacy, however, did not end with her. It culminated in one of the most dramatic sequences in Sasanian history: her son, Kawād II, overthrowing and executing his own father in 628 CE, and her daughter, Bōrān, ascending the throne two years later as the first sole queen of Iran, striving to restore the Roman alliance her mother embodied.

In this post, we will trace the lives of Maria and her daughter to defend their pivotal roles in history 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 the Augustus–Phraates IV–Musa precedent.

• Showing that non-Roman traditions preserve echoes of an original historical memory linking Maria to Kawād II and Bōrān.

• Distinguishing the Maria–Shīrīn conflation as a literary development born from confusion, not fact.

Maria may not have been a princess—but she was a pawn, a player, and the mother of kings. In her and her daughter Bōrān, we glimpse not just lost women of history, but the very instruments of imperial ambition—figures who, through marriage and maternity, shaped the final, tragic act of the Sasanian Empire.

I. The Geopolitical Crisis of 590 CE: Rome and Ērānšahr in Chaos

A. The Fall of Ohrmazd IV and the Usurpation of Wahrām 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 Wahrām Chōbīn, whose victory over them made the general famous within the empire.” Wahrām 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, Wahrām 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—Wahrām, 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.

He 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 Wahrām 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 Wahrām 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 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 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” 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:

“Xusro 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 Parwēz. 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:

“...from two Christian women... from Shīrīn the Aramean and from Maryam the Roman.”

(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 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's 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 Xusro, with the rites of his religion, calling down God’s blessing on her...”

The description continues with exquisite detail:

1. Hundreds of warhorses, gold vessels, rubies, and imperial silks;
2. Three jewel-studded crowns, and forty  eunuchs;
3. Philosophers and court advisors to guide her;
4. Even intimate fatherly advice from Maurice on her 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 origin	✅ “Roman”	✅ “Daughter of Maurice”	✅ “Emperor’s daughter”
She had children with Xusro	✅ Yes	✅ Yes	✅ Yes
Linked to Maurice’s diplomacy	⚠️ Implied	✅ Explicit	✅ Explicit

This convergence, across cultures, languages, and centuries, makes Maria far more than legend. She was, at minimum, perceived as part of the diplomatic and domestic life of Xusro II, and at maximum, a central figure in a cross-imperial experiment in soft power—Rome’s bride in the Sasanian court.

Far from being a shadow cast by the better-known Shīrīn, Maria stands on her own: a Roman Christian, given to a Persian king, remembered across empires, and mother to the prince who would kill him.

B. Wilhelm Baum’s Critique & A Plausible Rebuttal

In Shirin: Christian–Queen–Myth of Love, Wilhelm Baum provides the most systematic critique of the tradition that a Roman princess named Maria married Xusro II. His analysis, rooted in Roman protocol and source criticism, offers a necessary scholarly counterpoint. However, a closer examination reveals that his Rome-centric framework may overlook the complex realities of frontier diplomacy and cross-cultural memory.

1. Baum’s Core Objections: A Roman-Centric View

Baum’s skepticism rests on four pillars, each compelling from a Constantinopolitan perspective:

(i) The Chronological Impossibility 🗓️

Maurice’s children with Empress Constantina were simply too young. His eldest daughter would have been no more than seven years old in 591 CE—far below the age for a diplomatic marriage, even by the standards of the day.

(ii) The Silence of Roman Sources 🤫

Crucial Roman historians like Theophylact Simocatta, who documented Xusro’s restoration in detail, make no mention of a marital alliance. For Baum, this silence from a well-informed contemporary is deafening and disqualifying.

(iii) The Breach of Imperial Protocol 👑

The idea that a reigning Roman Augusta would be given as one wife among many to a Zoroastrian "barbarian" king was a profound violation of imperial dignity and Christian norms. Such unions were reserved for Christianized Germanic rulers, not the eternal rival from Ctesiphon.

(iv) The Trajectory of a Legend 📜

Baum notes that Maria only appears in later, non-Roman sources. The confusion in texts like the Chronicle of Seert, where Maria is sometimes conflated with Shīrīn, suggests to him a classic case of myth-making, where a later romantic tradition fabricates a royal bride for a famous king.

2. A Rebuttal: The Limits of Silence and the Politics of Memory

While Baum’s methodological caution is valuable, his conclusions rely too heavily on the absence of evidence in sources that had compelling reasons to remain silent.

(i) The "Daughter" as a Diplomatic Fiction 🎭

Baum correctly proves Maria was not Maurice’s biological daughter. But this misses the point. In the context of Xusro’s symbolic adoption as Maurice’s "son," the gift of a "daughter" completed the familial metaphor. Maria was likely a high-ranking noblewoman presented with the status of a foster-daughter, a diplomatic fiction that satisfied Persian expectations without breaching Roman literalness.

(ii) The Heraclian Erasure 🔥

The silence of Roman sources is not neutral. After Xusro II launched a war that nearly destroyed the Roman empire, the subsequent Heraclian dynasty had every motive to expunge all memory of a familial bond with the Persian monster. The Roman historical record was systematically sanitized of this embarrassing and painful alliance.

(iii) The Precedent of Soft Power 👑

The case of Musa, sent by Augustus to King Phraates IV of Parthia, proves that Rome had a long history of using high-status women—not imperial daughters—as instruments of influence in Eastern courts. Maria fits this pattern perfectly: a noblewoman deployed as a "living treaty."

(iv) The Corroboration of Cross-Cultural Memory 🌍

The consistency of Maria’s story across independent Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic traditions is powerful. These sources were not in collusion. They preserve a coherent memory of a Christian Roman woman who was a mother to Sasanian royalty. This is not the vague stuff of legend, but specific, cross-culturally attested information.

3. The Ultimate Proof: The Legacy in Her Children

The most compelling evidence for Maria’s existence and influence is not just her mention in sources, but the political identities of her children.

• Her son, Kawād II (Šērōē): His first act as king was to sue for peace with Heraclius and return the True Cross. This dramatic reversal of his father’s policy is the action of a man raised within a faction oriented toward Rome, likely shaped by the legacy of his Roman mother.

• Her daughter, Queen Bōrān: Her reign was defined by the same pro-Roman policy. As al-Ṭabarī and Hamza al-Iṣfahānī record, she actively spread justice, repaired the realm, and, crucially, finalized the return of the True Cross. She was the living embodiment of her mother's mission, using her own half-Roman lineage to legitimize a policy of peace and reconstruction.

The careers of both siblings form a coherent political pattern: a distinct, pro-Roman faction within the Sasanian court, championed by the children of the Roman bride. This is not a coincidence; it is the legacy of Maria’s marriage.

Wilhelm Baum successfully dismantles the legend of "Maria, Imperial Princess." But in doing so, he inadvertently helps us uncover the more plausible historical reality of "Maria, Diplomatic Noblewoman."

She was almost certainly a well-born Roman Christian, gifted to Xusro II as the human seal of his alliance with Maurice. Her presence at court created a lineage that wielded significant influence, culminating in the reigns of her children, Kawād II and Bōrān, both of whom pursued policies of peace with Rome that aligned with their maternal heritage.

Maria’s historicity is thus confirmed by the convergence of evidence: the persistence of her name in Eastern sources, the diplomatic precedent of women like Musa, and, most powerfully, the political actions of her own children, who sought to heal the breach between empires that their mother was sent to bridge.

V. The Musa Parallel: Rome’s Blueprint for Imperial Brides

The story of Maria, the Roman noblewoman married to Xusro II, is not an anomaly. It is the echo of a centuries-old Roman diplomatic playbook, perfectly illustrated by the case of Musa, the Roman woman sent to the Parthian king Phraates IV by Emperor Augustus. This precedent not only grounds Maria’s plausibility but reveals a recurring pattern where Rome used high-status women as instruments of soft power within Iranian courts, with consequences that spanned generations.

A. Augustus, Musa, and the Parthian Throne

The blueprint was set in the late 1st century BCE. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Emperor Augustus sent a Roman woman named Musa to King Phraates IV of Parthia as a diplomatic gift. What began as the presentation of a concubine culminated in a stunning political ascent.

• From Consort to Queen: Musa’s intelligence and favor with the king led Phraates IV to elevate her to the status of a full queen (γυναῖκα).

• Mother of the Heir: She bore him a son, Phraataces, and ambitiously maneuvered to secure his succession. She allegedly convinced Phraates to send his other sons to Rome as hostages, effectively eliminating their claims to the throne.

• Numismatic Proof: While Josephus’s account carries literary tropes, its core is verified by a remarkable piece of evidence: Arsacid coinage that portrays Musa as queen alongside her son, Phraataces. This is the only known instance of a Parthian queen appearing on coinage, proving her unprecedented political status.

Musa was not a passive gift. She became an active, powerful player who shaped the succession of the Parthian Empire, demonstrating that a Roman woman could wield immense influence from within the Iranian court.

B. The Logic of "Living Treaties"

The parallels with Maria are striking and deliberate. Both cases follow the same diplomatic logic:

Element	The Musa Precedent (c. 20 BCE)	The Maria Case (c. 590 CE)
Roman Emperor	Augustus	Maurice
Iranian Ruler	Phraates IV of Parthia	Xusro II of Persia
The Woman	Musa, a Roman concubine/noblewoman	Maria, a Roman noblewoman
Her Role	A "living treaty" to secure influence	A "living treaty" to seal an alliance
The Outcome	Mother of the heir, Phraataces	Mother of the heir, Kawād II
Legacy	Co-ruled and shaped Parthian succession	Her children pursued pro-Roman policies

This was a recognized Roman strategy. These women were imperial "brands," embodiments of Roman prestige inserted into the heart of a rival empire. Their role was to create a faction friendly to Rome and, through motherhood, to shape the policies of future rulers.

C. A Multi-Generational Strategy: From Maria to Bōrān

The true power of this strategy is revealed not in a single generation, but in two. Maria’s influence, like Musa’s, extended through her children, creating a lasting political legacy.

• Her Son, the Peacemaker: Just as Musa’s son Phraataces succeeded his father, Maria’s son, Kawād II, seized the throne. His first act was to end the war with Rome and return the True Cross—a dramatic policy reversal that aligns perfectly with the influence of a Roman mother and the faction she would have cultivated.

• Her Daughter, the Healer: The legacy did not end with Kawād II. Maria’s daughter, Queen Bōrān, continued this pro-Roman policy. As al-Ṭabarī and Hamza al-Iṣfahānī record, her reign was dedicated to justice, reconstruction, and, crucially, finalizing the peace with Rome and the restoration of the True Cross. Bōrān was the ultimate fulfillment of her mother’s diplomatic mission, a queen whose own half-Roman lineage legitimized her efforts to heal the empire.

The careers of both siblings demonstrate that Maria’s marriage was not a fleeting event. It established a distinct, pro-Roman faction at the Sasanian court, championed by her children. This multi-generational impact mirrors the long-term influence Rome hoped to achieve through such unions.

Conclusion: From Parthia to Persia, a Enduring Archetype

The story of Musa provides the archetype: a Roman woman, sent to an Iranian king, who becomes a queen and mother of a future ruler, shaping the destiny of an empire from within.

Maria’s story fits this pattern perfectly. She was the human embodiment of the alliance between Maurice and Xusro II. While she may not have wielded power as overtly as Musa, her legacy was arguably more profound. Through her children, Kawād II and Bōrān, she directly influenced the end of the last great Roman-Persian war and the final, fragile moment of peace between the two empires.

She was neither a fantasy nor a footnote. She was a calculated instrument of policy, a "living treaty" whose bloodline became a channel for Roman diplomacy, echoing a strategy first perfected by Augustus and leaving an indelible mark on the final chapter of the Sasanian Empire.

---

👑 VI. Kawād II (Šērōē): The Son of Rome and the Architect of Ruin

The reign of Kawād II (Šērōē) stands as one of the most tragic and pivotal moments in Sasanian history. He was a paradox: a king who ended a generation of war with Rome but began the final, bloody chapter of his own dynasty's collapse. His story is inextricably linked to two powerful legacies: that of his alleged mother, Maria the Roman, and that of the seventeen brothers he ordered killed, whose names reveal the glorious lineage he extinguished.

🗡️ The Parricide and the Peacemaker

In February 628 CE, as the Sasanian Empire buckled under the weight of a decades-long war, famine, and internal dissent, a coup unfolded within the palace at Ctesiphon. The once-mighty Xusro II Parwēz was overthrown, imprisoned, and executed by his own son, Šērōē, who ascended the throne as Kawād II.

This was not merely a change of ruler; it was a seismic rupture. al-Ṭabarī pinpoints the profound irony at the heart of this regicide, stating unequivocally:

“The Persians rose up against Kisrā and killed him, aided by his son Šīrūyah, the son of Maryam the Roman woman (al-Rūmiyyah).”

This single line is explosive. It identifies Kawād II’s mother not as the famed Queen Shīrīn, but as Maryam the Roman—the very diplomatic bride sent by Emperor Maurice to seal an alliance. The son of this Roman mother then murdered the Persian father Rome had once restored.

His first acts as king were strikingly pro-Roman. He immediately sued for peace with Emperor Heraclius, returned all captured territories and prisoners, and initiated the restoration of the True Cross to Jerusalem. This was a clean, decisive break from his father's expansionist policies, a reversal that makes profound sense if Kawād II was indeed shaped by the influence and political alignment of a Roman mother embedded at the heart of the Sasanian court.

💀 The Fratricide: A List Written in Blood

To secure his fragile throne, Kawād II did not stop with his father. He moved to eliminate all potential rivals in a act of unprecedented dynatic carnage. The 10th-century historian Hamza al-Iṣfahānī preserves what purports to be the death warrant: a list of the seventeen brothers executed on Kawād's orders.

For centuries, this list could have been dismissed as a later fabrication. However, when subjected to rigorous linguistic analysis, it reveals itself as stunningly authentic. These are not generic names; they are a roll-call of the empire's ideological pillars, deeply rooted in the Zoroastrian and royal lexicon.

The Executed Princes: A Dynasty's Ideals, Murdered

Name (Arabic)	Middle Persian Reconstruction	Meaning	Verdict
1. Shahriyar	Šahriyār	"Friend of the Kingdom" (Father of Yazdgird III)	✅ AUTHENTIC
2. Mardanshah	Mardān-šāh	"King of Men"	✅ AUTHENTIC
3. Firuzshah	Pērōz-šāh	"Victorious King"	✅ AUTHENTIC
4. Khurra	Xwarrah	"Divine Royal Glory"	✅ AUTHENTIC
5. Mardkhurra	Mard-Xwarrah	"Glory of Man"	✅ AUTHENTIC
6. Jahan Bakht	Gēhān-baxt	"Fortune of the World"	✅ AUTHENTIC
7. Jawanshir	Juwān-šēr	"Young Lion"	✅ AUTHENTIC
8. Zadan Khurra	Zādagān-Xwarrah	"Glory of the Children"	✅ AUTHENTIC
9. Shirzad	Šēr-zādag	"Lion-Born"	✅ AUTHENTIC
10. Qas Dil →	Farr-dil 🠆 (Corrected)	"Heart of Divine Glory"	✅ PLAUSIBLE
11. Qas Bih →	Farr-bih 🠆 (Corrected)	"Glory of the Good"	✅ PLAUSIBLE

A Note on the Correction: The problematic names "Qas Dil" and "Qas Bih" are almost certainly scribal errors. The Arabic letter Qaf (ق) was likely misread for Fa' (ف), transforming the original, majestic "Farr-" (Divine Glory). Thus, the princes Farr-dil and Farr-bih were restored, their names perfectly aligning with the list's thematic grandeur.

This list is no fiction. It is a catalog of a dynasty's aspirations—Victory, Glory, Kingship, and Fortune—systematically put to the sword. The murder of these princes was the Sasanian empire, in the person of Kawād II, devouring its own soul and its future.

Kawād II's reign lasted a mere six months. He died of the plague that was then ravaging the land, a death perceived by contemporaries as divine punishment for his sins.

His story is the ultimate tragedy of divided allegiance. He was, in essence, a man caught between two empires:

• ➡️ Through his mother, Maria, he was the "Son of Rome," the embodiment of a diplomatic bridge, which explains his immediate peace policy.

• ➡️ Through his father, Xusro, he was the heir to the House of Sāsān, a legacy he secured through an act of ultimate betrayal.

In the end, he failed both legacies. His peace with Rome was immediately overshadowed by the chaos his coup unleashed. His securing of the Persian throne led directly to a four-year civil war that left the empire prostrate before the armies of Islam.

Kawād II Šērōē remains the enigmatic, tragic figure at the fulcrum of history. He was the son of a Roman bride who killed his Persian father, the king who made peace but unleashed civil war, and the man who, in a final, bloody act, ensured that the glorious names of his brothers would be the last of their line.

👑 VII. Bōrān: The Daughter of Rome and the Queen of Reconstruction

In the chaotic aftermath of Kawād II's fratricide and the subsequent assassinations of short-lived kings, the Sasanian empire found itself with a unprecedented ruler: a queen. Bōrānduxt, known simply as Bōrān, ascended the throne in 630 CE. Her reign, though brief, was a deliberate and poignant attempt to salvage the empire by resurrecting the very alliance her family had shattered. Her identity, as recorded by Hamza al-Iṣfahānī, is the key to understanding her policies: she was the daughter of Xusro II and Maria, the Roman woman.

Hamza describes her regalia and her mission:

"Her vest is embroidered green, her trousers are sky-blue and her crown is also sky-blue... It is she who returned the wood (of the Cross) to the Catholicos. Her mother was Maria, daughter of Heraclius, the king of the Romans. She came to the throne only because Shirawayh had wiped out all the male children of his father and so they were compelled to enthrone women."

While Hamza mistakenly names Heraclius as her grandfather (a common conflation in later Islamic sources due to his fame), the core fact remains: her mother was a high-status Roman. This lineage was not a minor detail; it was the foundation of her political program.

🕊️ The Heir to a Broken Alliance

Bōrān’s reign was a conscious repudiation of the violence that had brought her to power. Her brother, Kawād II, had used bloodshed to seize the throne; she would use reconciliation to secure it. al-Ṭabarī provides a detailed account of her benevolent and pragmatic rule:

• ➡️ A Righteous Proclamation: Upon her accession, she proclaimed, "I will pursue righteousness and ordain justice." This was a direct appeal for stability and moral governance after years of tyranny and chaos.

• ➡️ Economic and Infrastructure Repair: She minted new silver coins to stabilize the currency, repaired critical bridges, and remitted outstanding land taxes to relieve her burdened subjects.

• ➡️ A Theological Justification for Rule: In her public letters, she articulated a philosophy of divine sovereignty, stating that victory and stability come not from human strength but from God. This was a shrewd move to legitimize her unprecedented rule as a woman and to unify a fractured nobility under a higher purpose.

The most symbolic act of her reign was the formal restoration of the True Cross to the Roman Empire. The Chronicle of Khuzistan confirms that she "wisely sent Mār Ishōʿyahb the Catholicos to Heraclius so that he may establish peace with her through him."

This was not merely a political treaty; it was the completion of her mother's unfinished work. Where Maria had been sent as a living symbol of the Roman-Persian alliance, Bōrān acted to restore its most sacred symbol. She was, in effect, using her Roman bloodline to mend the bridge her father had burned and her brother had only hastily patched. She was not just making peace; she was healing a familial and cosmological rift.

💍 A Tangled Web: Who Was Bōrān's Husband?

The relationship of Queen Bōrān is a subject of direct contradiction between our two key 7th-century sources. Resolving this isn't just about genealogy; it's about understanding the political alliances that shaped the empire's final years.

⚔️ The Contradictory Testimonies

1. The Chronicle of Khuzistan (c. 661 CE):

   "The Persians established over themselves Barwan, wife of Shīroweh."

   This states unequivocally that Bōrān was the wife of Shīroweh (Kawād II), her own brother.

2. Sebeos' History (c. 661 CE):

   "They installed as queen Boran, Khosrov’s daughter, who was his [Shahrwaraz's] wife."

   Here, Sebeos is just as clear: after the assassination of the usurper Shahrwaraz, the nobles installed Bōrān, who was Shahrwaraz's widow.

Both sources are nearly contemporary. Both cannot be correct. One must be based on a error.

🧐 Assessing the Plausibility

The Case for Bōrān as Wife of Shahrwaraz (Sebeos)

This scenario is far more politically coherent and likely.

• ➡️ Political Logic: After murdering the usurper Shahrwaraz, the Persian nobility needed to stabilize the realm. Installing his widow, who was also a daughter of the legitimate king Xusro II, was a masterstroke. It reconciled the two factions: the legitimists who supported the Sasanian bloodline, and the military faction that had backed Shahrwaraz. She was the perfect bridge.

• ➡️ A Precedent for Widow Succession: This follows a known pattern of queens (like the earlier Āzarmīgdukht) ascending after their husband's death to ensure a smooth transition or represent a political faction.

• ➡️ Lack of Motive for Incest: While incestuous marriage (Xwedodah) was practiced for theological reasons, its political utility here is weak. If Bōrān was already Kawād II's wife, why did she not assume power immediately after his death months earlier? Why was there an interregnum with other kings before her reign? There is no clear political advantage.

The Case for Bōrān as Wife of Kawād II (Khuzistan)

This scenario is less convincing and likely stems from error.

• ❌ Political Nonsense: If she was Kawād II's wife and sister, her claim would have been strongest immediately after his death. Instead, the throne went to Ardashir III (his son), then the usurper Shahrwaraz, and only then to Bōrān. This delay makes no sense if she held such a direct claim.

• ❌ The "Incest" Red Herring: Scholars like Bosworth correctly note that incest was "not unknown." However, its use as an explanation here seems like a way to force a reconciliation of the sources rather than a reflection of the political reality. It solves a textual problem but creates a historical one.

Verdict: The account of Sebeos is overwhelmingly more plausible. Bōrān as the widow of Shahrwaraz fits the political context perfectly. The Khuzistan chronicle's version is almost certainly incorrect.

🔍 The Source of the Error: A Scribal Confusion

How could such a fundamental error occur in a near-contemporary source? The answer lies in the visual similarity of names in the Syriac script.

Let's break down the names in the Syriac alphabet:

• Shīrōē (Kawād II): ܫܝܪܘܝ

  • Shin (ܫ) = "Sh"

  • Yodh (ܝ) = "ī"

  • Resh (ܪ) = "r"

  • Waw (ܘ) = "ō"

  • Yodh (ܝ) = "ē"

• Shahrwarāz: ܫܗܪܘܪܐܙ

  • Shin (ܫ) = "Sh"

  • He (ܗ) = "ah"

  • Resh (ܪ) = "r"

  • Waw (ܘ) = "w"

  • Resh (ܪ) = "r"

  • Alap (ܐ) = "ā"

  • Zayn (ܙ) = "z"

The Critical Confusion:

A scribe, perhaps working from a hastily written or damaged manuscript, could have easily made a simple error:

1. The sequence ܫܝܪ (Shīr-) at the start of "Shīrōē" looks very similar to the sequence ܫܗܪ (Shahr-) at the start of "Shahrwarāz," especially if the tiny diacritical dot for 'He' (ܗ) was faded or missed.

2. If the scribe's eye skipped, they might have read the familiar, more common royal name Shīrōē instead of the more unusual general's name Shahrwarāz.

This single, understandable paleographical error would transform "the wife of Shahrwaraz" into "the wife of Shīrōē," creating the contradiction that has puzzled historians for centuries.

💎 Conclusion: The Resolved Identity of a Queen

The evidence strongly points to this sequence of events:

1. Bōrān, daughter of Xusro II and Maria, was married to the powerful general Shahrwaraz as part of a political alliance.

2. After her brother Kawād II's death and the subsequent assassination of Shahrwaraz, the Persian nobility chose her as queen.

3. Her dual lineage—Sasanian blood from her father and Roman prestige from her mother—combined with her status as Shahrwaraz's widow, made her the ideal figure to unite the fractured empire, if only for a brief time.

4. A later scribe, copying the Khuzistan Chronicle or its source, misread Shahrwaraz as Shīrōē, creating the false tradition of an incestuous marriage.

Thus, Bōrān was not the wife of her brother, Kawād II. She was the widow of the general Shahrwaraz, a queen chosen for her unique ability to bridge the fatal divides that were tearing the Sasanian Empire apart. Her story is not one of dynastic incest, but of desperate political calculation in the face of impending collapse.

Despite her promising start, Bōrān’s reign lasted only a year and four months. The Chronicle of Khuzistan laconically states she "ended up dying by choking," suggesting she was strangled in a subsequent coup.

Her death marked the failure of her mother's vision. The policy of peace and reconciliation with Rome died with her. The empire plunged back into a civil war of competing warlords and puppet kings—Azarmigduxt, Ohrmazd V, Xusro IV—until the boy-king Yazdgird III was crowned, too late to stop the inevitable.

Bōrān’s reign was the final, fleeting moment when the Sasanian Empire might have found a different path. She was the literal embodiment of the Roman-Persian alliance her mother Maria represented.

• ➡️ Through her policies, she sought to govern with the justice and piety that her brother’s reign had utterly lacked.

• ➡️ Through her diplomacy, she fulfilled the promise of her mother’s marriage by making a lasting peace with Constantinople.

• ➡️ Through her very identity, she was a living reminder of the era when Maurice and Xusro II called each other father and son.

Her murder was the ultimate triumph of the old, militaristic faction over the policy of diplomatic unity. The House of Sāsān, having consumed its own children, now extinguished the last direct heir who could have saved it through peace. The path was now clear for the armies of Islam. Bōrān was not just a queen; she was the last echo of a Roman voice in the halls of Ctesiphon, silenced by the very chaos she was chosen to end.

---

🏛️ Conclusion: Maria—The Ghost in the Machine of Empire

She is a specter in the Roman historical record—absent from the pages of Theophylact, unmentioned in the Chronicon Paschale, a ghost in the archives of her own people. Yet from the chronicles of al-Ṭabarī, the verses of the Shāhnāmeh, and the political earthquakes triggered by her children, the figure of Maria—Maryam al-Rūmiyyah—emerges from the shadows, undeniable and unforgettable.

Let us assemble the fragments the evidence allows:

In the year 590, as the Sasanian Empire fractured and a desperate Prince Xusro II fled to his Roman enemies, Emperor Maurice seized a diplomatic opportunity of breathtaking scope. He offered more than armies; he offered a fiction of family, making the Persian king his symbolic "son." And to cement this bond, he sent a woman. Maria was not his daughter, but a high-born noblewoman—a living treaty, a personified pledge of alliance, embedded in the very heart of Ctesiphon.

This was a strategy with a ancient pedigree. Centuries before, Augustus had sent Musa to the Parthian King Phraates IV. She, too, rose from consort to queen, mother to a king, and a shaper of dynastic destiny. Maria was the inheritor of this tradition: a Roman woman deployed as an instrument of soft power, a vessel of imperial influence whose true power lay in the womb.

And what a legacy she bore.

• Through her son, Kawād II (Šērōē), the logic of her diplomatic marriage reached its brutal, logical conclusion. The son born of a Roman peace murdered the Persian father who had accepted it. He then made peace with Rome, ending a generation of war, his actions a testament to the divided blood and loyalties his mother embodied.

• Through her daughter, Queen Bōrān, Maria’s mission found its purest expression. Ascending the throne in the ruin her brother left behind, Bōrān governed with a focus on justice and reconciliation, finalizing the return of the True Cross her brother had promised. She was her mother’s daughter, a Roman-Sasanian hybrid striving to heal the empire through the very alliance Maria was sent to secure.

In the end, Maria’s story is one of profound irony. The bridge she was meant to build became a fault line. The son she bore to secure the alliance used that same bloodline to legitimize patricide and fratricide. The peace she symbolized was only achieved after the dynasty had consumed itself.

Maria’s name has faded from history, but her consequences echo through it.

She was never crowned.

She was never canonized.

She left no letters, no decrees.

Yet, as a noblewoman, a mother, and a living treaty, she changed the course of empires—a ghost in the machine of history, whose silence speaks volumes.

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.

Ferdowsī, Abū al-Qāsim. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. Translated by Dick Davis, Viking Penguin, 2006.

Gottwaldt, I. M. E., editor. Hamzae Ispahanensis Annalium Libri. Vol. 1, Leopoldus Voss, 1844.

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.

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.