A Source-Critical Analysis of Leonti Mroveli’s The Lives of Georgian Kings: King Mirian’s Campaign in Iran

Abstract

This paper presents a source-critical analysis of a passage in the Life of the Kings of the Georgians by Leonti Mroveli, an eleventh-century Georgian historian. The focus is on the episode describing King Mirian’s campaign in Iran and his dispute over succession to the Sasanian throne. According to Leonti, Mirian was a son of the Sasanian shahanshah “Kasre Ardashir” (identified by the author with Hormizd-Ardashir, i.e., Hormizd I, r. 270–271). When Mirian was forty years old, upon his father’s death, he sought to claim the throne but was opposed by his younger brother. The disagreement was resolved by the Iranian council of elders, who awarded the throne to the brother but granted Mirian extensive territories and authority in the Caucasus. Scholarly tradition has often dismissed Leonti’s account as fictional, either rejecting outright the notion of Mirian’s Sasanian descent or attributing the details of the story to invention. This paper challenges such skepticism. It argues that Mirian’s Sasanian identity is historically plausible, given that from the third century onward it was common practice for members of the royal family to govern non-Iranian provinces. The Armenian precedent, where Shapur I’s sons ruled for decades, strongly supports this interpretation. The analysis also addresses chronological and textual difficulties in Leonti’s narrative, particularly the claim that Mirian was forty at the time of his father’s death. This inconsistency, the paper suggests, may result from confusion between Mirian’s father Hormizd-Ardashir and his uncle Narseh, both of whom were shahanshahs and associated with Armenia. Another explanation may lie in the complexities of Middle Persian writing: terms such as “father” and “uncle” could easily have been misread in cursive script, leading to later confusion. Furthermore, personal names like “Bartam,” mentioned by Leonti as Mirian’s rival, may derive from misunderstood Persian terms or titles rather than genuine proper names. The historical background is carefully reconstructed. The reigns of Shapur I, Hormizd I, and Narseh reveal a broader context in which Sasanian princes in the Caucasus could aspire to the shahanshah’s throne. Narseh’s own career, which led him from Armenia to the Iranian throne, provided a clear precedent for Mirian’s attempt. However, by the early fourth century the situation had shifted: Rome’s victory at Satala (298) and the Treaty of Nisibis limited Sasanian influence in Iberia. In this new political setting, Mirian’s expedition to Nisibis should be interpreted less as a genuine bid for the throne and more as a political demonstration, intended to secure recognition of Iberian independence from Iran while aligning with the Roman-Byzantine sphere. In conclusion, the paper argues that Leonti Mroveli’s account, far from being a fabrication, corresponds closely with historical realities of the third and early fourth centuries. While details cannot be verified from other sources, the narrative reflects plausible political dynamics of the time. Consequently, Leonti’s testimony deserves to be reconsidered as a valuable source for the study of early Christian Georgia and its integration into the wider Sasanian and Roman world.