Early Islamic ta’rikh and adab chronicles record the seminal battle in which the Sasanian ruler Piruz I (d. 484 CE) met his end in Afghanistan at the hands of a numerically inferior Central Asian confederation. Two variants of this tradition exist. According to the most common narrative, it was the Hayatila (Hephthalites or “White Huns”) who dealt the Sasanians this crushing blow, whereas according to other sources, it was the Atrak (Turks). This paper asks what is the significance of this catastrophic defeat from the perspective of Islamic collective memory. I ague that in a similar way as the Sasanians’ loss to the Arabs at the Battle of Dhu Qar in the early 7th century, Piruz’s defeat at the hands of the Hayatila/Atrak serves in the Islamic narrative tradition to foreshadow the Arab conquest of the Persian empire occurring under the banners of Islam. My argument is evidenced by the conspicuous thematic similarities in reports of Piruz’s defeat and the epic futuh accounts relating the Muslim Arabs’ victories over the Persians and the Romans. For example, a prominent theme in both narratives is that of the moral superiority of the Persians’ opponents serving as the primary determinant of their triumph. In Piruz’s case, the sources underline that his defeat was a product of his violation of the covenant he made the Central Asian king, Akhshunvar, who had graciously assisted him in regaining his throne. Indeed, Akhshunvar is depicted as the voice of reason in this historical episode, displaying a belief in monotheism and even using Qur’anic phraseology in his warning to Piruz of the dire consequences for one who violates an oath. At the same time, accounts of this battle emphasize the trope of stereotypical Persian hubris, with the Sasanian ruler showing overconfidence in the numerical superiority of his imperial force, assuming that he would easily dispatch a less well-equipped army composed of nomadic warriors. As the first major defeat suffered by the Sasanians, this battle thus serves as a critical watershed from the perspective of Islamic historical memory, showing the vulnerability of the Sasanians for the first time, and demonstrating the potential of what could be accomplished by a pastoral-nomadic enterprise possessing the moral high ground.

The events comprising the early Arab-Muslim expansion into Byzantine Syria and Sasanian Iraq became with time the foundational myths of Islamic collective memory. The texts that comprise the Futuh literature record in detail the battles that led to the early and sudden spread of Islam throughout the Near East. However, by reading between the lines, I contend in my paper that we can reveal important clues regarding the historicity of the battles themselves, as well as the nature of the society that produced these texts. More than simple history or even didactic lessons, I argue that we should read these chronicles not as historical recordings but as literary narratives that conveyed a story about how early Muslims saw themselves, remembered their past, and understood the larger rôle of Islam in human history. The conquests of Syria and Iraq both included one minor defeat—the Battles of Mu'tah and the Bridge, respectively—and one major victory—the Battles of al-Yarmuk and al-Qadisiyyah, respectively. I explore further the literary construction of Islamic historiography by looking specifically at the dynamic between these four battles, which calls for critical and careful scrutiny. Both of the victories, at al-Yarmuk and at al-Qadisiyyah, respectively, would quickly become celebrated events in the annals of Islamic history. However, a number of suspicious topoi, exaggerated numbers (of army sizes and casualties), and a remarkable overlap in the cast of protagonists and antagonists raise questions about the veracity of the details of these battles. Furthermore, by juxtaposing the reports of the two victories against those of the two defeats, a number of peculiar parallels emerge, suggesting that the accounts of the two victories sought intentionally to ‘respond’ to the previous defeats. In addition, a comparison of the victory on the Syrian front with that on the Iraqi front reveals traces of a geographic or tribal rivalry, in which the victors at al-Qadisiyyah and al-Yarmuk—or their descendants—competed with each other for the claim to a greater legacy of achievement. By removing layers of literary embellishment, not only do I highlight the quixotic nature of a search for an historical ‘kernel of truth’, but moreover, in doing so, I shed light on the construction of Islamic history, the generation of the paradigm of an Islamic conquest, and the general formation of the cultural memory of early Islamic society.