Introduction

Throughout history, societies have interpreted warfare through the ethical and cosmological frameworks of their dominant religious traditions.

In ancient Iran, [namely the Persian Empire] the worldview associated with Zoroastrianism provided a powerful moral lens through which political authority, justice, and military action were understood.

This tradition articulated a universe structured around a moral dualism between truth and falsehood, order and chaos. Such concepts profoundly influenced the political ideology of ancient Persian empires, particularly the Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550–330 BCE) and later the Sasanian Empire (224–651 CE).

Although the religious landscape of Iran changed dramatically after the Islamic conquest of the seventh century, elements of pre-Islamic Iranian thought continued to shape cultural memory, epic literature, and political rhetoric. The ethical worldview rooted in Zoroastrian cosmology provided a conceptual framework in which warfare could be understood as morally legitimate when undertaken to defend cosmic order, legitimate authority, and social justice.

This article explores how Zoroastrian ethical concepts influenced Iranian attitudes toward warfare, examines the ideological expressions of these ideas in Persian imperial inscriptions and literature, compares them with Greek and Roman traditions of warfare, and considers their enduring influence in Iranian historical consciousness.

Zoroastrian Cosmology and Moral Dualism

At the center of Zoroastrian theology lies a cosmic struggle between opposing forces of order and chaos. The supreme deity Ahura Mazda represents wisdom, truth, and cosmic order, while the destructive spirit Angra Mainyu embodies deception, corruption, and disorder.¹

This cosmological conflict is articulated throughout the sacred texts collectively known as the Avesta. The ethical framework emerging from these texts centers on the opposition between asha (truth, order, righteousness) and druj (falsehood, deceit).² Human beings are called upon to contribute to the triumph of ashaof asha through the famous Zoroastrian ethical principle of “good thoughts, good words, and good deeds.”

In this framework, ethical responsibility extends beyond personal conduct to encompass social and political life. Maintaining order within society becomes part of the broader cosmic struggle. Consequently, political authority and warfare could be interpreted as instruments through which the forces of order resisted the destructive influence of chaos.

Scholars have emphasized that Zoroastrianism did not glorify violence in itself. Instead, conflict was understood as a regrettable but sometimes necessary means of defending truth and justice within a morally structured universe.³

Kingship and the Defense of Cosmic Order

The political ideology of ancient Persia incorporated this moral cosmology into its conception of kingship. Persian rulers were portrayed as guardians of order whose authority derived from divine sanction.

This ideology is most clearly expressed in the inscriptions of Darius I, particularly the famous Behistun inscription. In this text, Darius recounts the rebellions that erupted after he seized power and repeatedly declares that his enemies acted under the influence of “the Lie.”⁴ By defeating these rebels, he claims to have restored truth and order throughout the empire.

.

Punishment of captured impostors and conspirators: Gaumāta lies under the boot of Darius the Great. The last person in line, wearing a traditional Scythian hat and costume, is identified as Skunkha. His image was added after the inscription was completed, requiring some of the text be removed. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

.

The language used in these inscriptions reflects the Zoroastrian ethical vocabulary. Rebellion becomes not merely a political challenge but a manifestation of cosmic disorder. The king’s military campaigns are therefore framed as moral acts undertaken to restore justice.

Earlier rulers such as Cyrus the Great also presented themselves as legitimate rulers chosen by divine authority. The famous Cyrus Cylinder portrays Cyrus as a liberator who restores proper religious practices and social stability in conquered regions.⁵

Such ideological narratives helped legitimize imperial authority and portray warfare as a moral responsibility rather than an act of simple conquest.

Military Organization and Imperial Strategy

Despite the moral rhetoric surrounding warfare, the Persian Empire developed highly sophisticated military and administrative systems that allowed it to control vast territories.

The Achaemenid military combined forces drawn from numerous ethnic groups across the empire. Elite units such as the Immortals formed the core of the imperial army, while regional contingents contributed specialized skills and equipment.⁶

Logistical networks were equally important. The Persian Royal Road connected major administrative centers and allowed rapid communication across thousands of kilometers. Couriers traveling along this network enabled imperial authorities to coordinate military and political responses to emerging threats.⁷

These administrative innovations reveal the pragmatic dimension of Persian statecraft. While imperial ideology emphasized cosmic order and moral legitimacy, the practical success of the empire depended on efficient governance and strategic planning.

Greek Historiography and Cultural Rivalry

Much of the historical narrative concerning the Greco-Persian conflicts derives from Greek sources. The most influential account appears in the writings of Herodotus, whose work Histories describes the wars between Persia and the Greek city-states.⁸

Greek writers frequently depicted Persians as decadent, submissive, and ruled by despotic monarchs. Such portrayals reinforced Greek political ideology, which celebrated the autonomy of the polis and the civic virtue of citizen soldiers.

Victories in battles such as the Battle of Marathon and the Battle of Salamis were therefore interpreted as triumphs of freedom over tyranny.⁹

Modern historians have emphasized that these portrayals were shaped by cultural rivalry and political propaganda. The Persian Empire was in fact characterized by administrative complexity and a remarkable degree of cultural tolerance. Local customs and religions were generally respected so long as loyalty to the king was maintained.¹⁰

.

Armoured cavalry: Achaemenid Dynast of Hellespontine Phrygia attacking a Greek psiloi, Altıkulaç Sarcophagus, early 4th century BC. (CC BY-SA 2.0)

.

The contrast between Greek and Persian perspectives illustrates how differing political systems shaped interpretations of warfare and imperial authority.

Roman Legalism and the Concept of Just War

Roman political thought developed yet another framework for understanding warfare. Roman writers emphasized legal and ritual procedures that governed the declaration and conduct of war.

The Roman statesman Cicero argued that wars should be undertaken only for legitimate reasons and after proper diplomatic procedures had been followed.¹¹ Later scholars described this concept as bellum iustum, or “just war.”

Roman ideology therefore framed warfare in legalistic terms. A war could be considered morally justified if it responded to aggression or punished injustice. Unlike the Persian emphasis on cosmic order, Roman thought focused on the authority of the state and adherence to established procedures.

This contrast highlights the diversity of ethical frameworks through which ancient civilizations understood warfare.

Heroic Warfare in Persian Literature

The ethical ideals associated with Zoroastrianism also shaped Persian literary traditions. The most influential expression of this tradition appears in the epic Shahnameh, composed around the year 1000 by the poet Ferdowsi.¹²

The Shahnameh recounts legendary battles and heroic exploits from Iran’s mythic past. Its central hero, Rostam, exemplifies the virtues of courage, loyalty, and moral responsibility. Unlike many heroes of Greek epic literature, Rostam does not primarily seek personal glory but fights to protect the kingdom and maintain justice.

This portrayal contrasts with figures such as Achilles in The Iliad, whose motivations revolve largely around personal honor and fame.¹³

Through such narratives, Persian literature preserved and transmitted a vision of warfare grounded in duty and the defense of moral order.

Continuity and Transformation in Modern Iranian Thought

Although Islam replaced Zoroastrianism as the dominant religion of Iran after the seventh century, many cultural themes associated with pre-Islamic Iranian identity persisted. Persian historical memory continued to celebrate legendary kings and heroes who defended the realm against chaos and injustice.

In modern Iranian political discourse, these themes often intersect with Islamic traditions. During the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988), official rhetoric frequently portrayed the conflict as a moral struggle against aggression. Narratives of martyrdom drew heavily on the story of Husayn ibn Ali and the tragedy of Karbala.

This fusion of Islamic symbolism with older Persian heroic traditions created a powerful narrative framework in which warfare could be interpreted as a defense of justice, faith, and national identity.

Conclusion

The ethical worldview of Zoroastrianism profoundly influenced the development of Iranian political ideology and cultural conceptions of warfare. By framing human history as part of a cosmic struggle between truth and falsehood, Zoroastrian thought provided a moral framework in which warfare could be justified as a defense of order and justice.

This perspective differed significantly from Greek traditions that emphasized heroic glory and civic identity, as well as from Roman legalistic concepts of just war. Persian imperial ideology instead presented warfare as a moral duty undertaken to maintain the cosmic order established by divine authority.

Although historical realities often diverged from ideological ideals, the ethical language of truth, order, and justice left a lasting imprint on Iranian political culture. Through imperial inscriptions, epic literature, and modern national narratives, echoes of the Zoroastrian moral framework continue to shape interpretations of warfare and political legitimacy in Iranian historical consciousness.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 1979.

Cartledge, Paul. Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World. London: Pan Books, 2006.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On Duties. Translated by Walter Miller. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913.

Davis, Dick, trans. Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings. New York: Penguin Classics, 2006.

Herodotus. The Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.

Homer. The Iliad. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Classics, 1998.

Kuhrt, Amélie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2007.

Rose, Jenny. Zoroastrianism: An Introduction. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011.

Notes

1. Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 1979), 26–31.
2. Jenny Rose, Zoroastrianism: An Introduction (London: I.B. Tauris, 2011), 44–47.
3. Boyce, Zoroastrians, 41–43.
4. Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 121–123.
5. Amélie Kuhrt, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2007), 70–72.
6. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 227–230.
7. Ibid., 357–360.
8. Herodotus, The Histories, trans. Aubrey de Sélincourt (London: Penguin Classics, 2003).
9. Paul Cartledge, Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World (London: Pan Books, 2006), 134–140.
10. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 515–520.
11. Marcus Tullius Cicero, On Duties, trans. Walter Miller (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 1.11–1.12.
12. Dick Davis, trans., Shahnameh: The Persian Book of Kings (New York: Penguin Classics, 2006).
13. Homer, The Iliad, trans. Robert Fagles (New York: Penguin Classics, 1998).

Featured image: Faravahar, one of the most prominent symbols of Zoroastrianism, on the Fire Temple of Yazd, Iran (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.