Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf

Home > Fantasy > Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf > Page 12
Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Page 12

by Amanda


  Persian monarch indeed reflected the way Persian monarchs wished to be

  referred to in writing. For instance Darius I’s inscription at Behistun states:

  ‘I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of

  countries.’ The ‘king of kings’ title, adopted from Urartu no doubt via the

  Medes, demonstrated the Persian ruler’s superiority over local princes and

  kings as well as the universal character of his monarchy. The Great King

  28 Tod, GHI 179. Bosworth 1988, pp. 191-192; Billows 1990, pp. 190-194; Jehne

  1994, pp. 7-28; Blackwell 1999, pp. 39-48; Adams 1999; Corvisier 2002, pp. 257-

  262; Zahrnt 2009, pp. 23-25; Poddighe 2009, pp. 103-106.

  29 Billows 1990, p. 193; Faraguna 2003, p. 102; Poddighe 2009, pp. 105-106.

  The Heir to the Throne

  57

  was surrounded by an abundance of luxury that would have greatly

  impressed Greek observers and his court’s opulence and magnificence was

  quite unmatched elsewhere. One of the aspects of this lifestyle was huge

  feasts in which even as many as 15,000 banqueters could participate.

  However, by all accounts contemporary Greek observers did not know that

  this was a form of redistributing royal wealth among the banqueting court

  aristocracy and palace guards. Among the court attendants Greek sources

  mention the ubiquity of eunuchs. Their prominent role in ancient Persia

  was for a long time interpreted by modern historians as a clear symptom of

  chronic decadence in the Achaemenid state, one whose history had

  descended into a continual series of harem intrigues. Today we know that

  only some of these so-called eunuchs were castrated slaves employed in

  harems; whereas others described as such in Greek sources were in reality

  high-ranking dignitaries and no doubt members of the Iranian aristocracy.

  The Great King wore special attire. In the case of Artaxerxes II it was

  allegedly worth 12,000 talents, which was 15 times more than the cost of

  building the Parthenon in Athens. He travelled in a richly ornamented

  chariot which he ascended using a gold stool. In the palace courtyard

  Lydian carpets were laid out for him so that his foot never touched the

  ground. He would meet his subjects on formal occasions which precluded

  normal conversation. Anyone who approached him had to wear a white

  cloak out of respect for the sacredness of the Persian monarchy. Although

  he was served by hundreds of courtiers, the king always ate his meals

  alone, separated by a screen from his own family and the court aristocracy.

  The Great King only drank water from the river Choaspes in Elam and

  Chalybian wine from Syria, supplies of which were taken with him

  wherever he travelled. Delicacies were served at the monarch’s table from

  all parts of his domain to symbolically reflect his material and political

  strength. Such complex court ceremonies, which the Greeks found quite

  astounding, were meant to create an image of an authority of superhuman

  proportions – of a hero guarding a universal monarchy.30

  Modern scholarship used to advance a theory that a symptom and also

  a cause of the decline of the Achaemenid state was an alleged economic

  crisis in the 4th century. In his classic book A. Olmstead compares the

  Achaemenid rulers to a vampire sucking blood in the form of tributes out

  of its victim, the economy. Instead of reinvesting these tributes, the Persian

  rulers were supposed to feel satisfied with a primitive thesaurization. The

  30 Eddy 1961, pp. 44-47; Frye 1964, pp. 36-37; Cook 1985, pp. 225-231; Briant

  1996, pp. 202-216, 236-237, 274-326; Wiesehöfer 1996, pp. 29-30, 39-41;

  Aperghis 2001, p. 77; Llewellyn-Jones 2002 (astoundingly conservative approach

  to eunuchs issue); Nawotka 2004; Brosius 2007, pp. 26-27.

  58

  Chapter II

  economy thus deprived of ores and state care was supposed to have

  experienced crisis that terminally weakened the empire, which was then

  easily defeated by Alexander. Today we know that such theories based on

  Greek sources overly sticking to certain stereotypes are untenable.

  Actually only a small proportion of collected taxes were thesaurized,

  whereas most of the revenue was spent on the army, the administration,

  the royal and satraps’ courts. 4th century documents attest uninterrupted

  continuation of the royal economy with taxes, storage, redistribution

  throughout the Persian empire from Bactria to Idumea. Moreover, the state

  was investing in major irrigation projects to stimulate agriculture and

  economic growth. Not only is there no proof of a shortage of ores but

  numismatic evidence shows a steady rise in the use of coins in trade,

  especially in Egypt and Asia Minor. The long period of peace could not

  but have benefited traditional trading nations such as the Phoenicians and

  Greeks of Asia Minor. Evidence of this is not only an increased circulation

  of money in 4th-century Ionia but also the number of monumental building

  projects in that part of the Greek world, which was noticeably larger than

  in the preceding century.31

  Among the major achievements of the Achaemenid Empire to be

  particularly noticed and admired by the Greeks were the excellent roads

  linking its major centres. Their total length has been estimated to be

  13,000 km. Archaeologically uncovered sections of ancient Persian

  highways reveal a very carefully levelled, 5-7 metre wide gravel road.

  Where necessary such roads cut through rock. Thanks to these highways

  more or less kept safe by the state authorities and with postal stations

  approximately every 30 km a royal messenger could cover 2,400 km from

  the Aegean coast to Susa within one or two weeks, while a normal journey

  on this road would not exceed three months. The royal court was nearly

  always on the move. Every year it travelled hundreds of kilometres along

  these highways, known as the Royal Road, between the four capitals of

  Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana, spending a few months in each.

  As custom dictated, on his journeys the monarch would always be greeted

  by the local people with gifts.32

  Although he was never deified by his Persian subjects, the Great King

  ruled by the grace of the Iranian Lord of Wisdom – Ahura Mazda.

  According to the doctrine formulated by the prophet Zarathustra – and

  least the later Achaemenids if not all of them were its adherents – Ahura

  31 Olmstead 1948; contra: Kuhrt 1990; Stolper 1994, p. 259; Carlier 1995, p. 145;

  Dandamayev 1999, pp. 296-298; Debord 1999, pp. 22-23; Briant 2009.

  32 Hdt., 5.50.3. Mellink 1988, p. 216; Cuyler Young 1988, pp. 79-81; Graf 1994;

  Debord 1999, pp. 34-36.

  The Heir to the Throne

  59

  Mazda fought a cosmic battle against the essence of evil Angra Mainyu

  (Ahriman). It was the king’s mission to lead the state along the road of

  justice, enlightenment and truth. This did not imply suppressing the

  religious practices of his pagan and non-Iranian subjects but naturally

  those who opposed the Great King as the guardian of the Truth were

  amoral followers of lies and indeed are described as such in royal

  Achaemenid inscriptions. Awaren
ess of the Zoroastrian doctrine in Greek

  literature is famously expressed in The Histories of Herodotus, where he

  states that young Persians were taught three things: horse riding, archery

  and telling the truth. The empire was bound by numerous cultural and

  religious taboos. According to Ahura Mazda’s law the king of Iran could

  only be a Persian Aryan from the Achaemenid dynasty who happened to

  be endowed with a special charisma of kingship, in ancient Persian called

  khvarenah. Connected with fire and light, it was an internal force ( mana)

  which predestined someone to hold power. However, it could not be

  acquired by force but only inherited down the male line of the ruling

  dynasty. A monarch possessing khvarenah stood at the head of a

  hierarchical society personifying perfect unity in a multi-ethnic monarchy.

  Numerous works of Persian art, particularly friezes at Persepolis, present

  the image of a just, sovereign and unlimited royal rule over many nations

  and symbolically over the entire world.33

  The Greeks were shocked by the behaviour of Persian women, which

  was far more open than that of women in their own country. This was

  especially true of the Persian court, where aristocratic women were

  granted a higher status and were therefore more visible. Persian women

  did not hide within the walls of palaces or houses but played an active role

  in social and economic life; they owned property and managed it

  themselves. Worse still, Persepolis tablets show that even women who

  were commoners could have active professional lives. Generally

  misogynistic Greek authors saw in all this yet another symptom of Persian

  decadence. Notice was taken of the fact that apart from official wives, the

  Great King also had 360 concubines and a similar number of female

  musicians who played and sang for his pleasure. From among the King’s

  numerous children only the sons of official wives had the right to

  succession, whereas the children of his concubines, a vast array of royal

  relatives well documented in the sources, accompanied the monarch at

  banquets, during hunting and in military expeditions. According to Curtius

  Rufus, Darius III would be accompanied by 200 propinqui and 15,000

  cognati. But the number of those children entitled to the throne was also

  33 Frye 1964, pp. 45-46; Schwartz 1985, p. 677; Cuyler Young 1988, pp. 99-105;

  Wiesehöfer 1996, pp. 30-33; Briant 1996, pp. 183-195, 222-229.

  60

  Chapter II

  very large, which, as naturally happens, made succession a very emotive

  political issue in Persia. In the last 70 years of the Achaemenid rule

  violence became a practically inseparable part of the process of succession.

  Shortly after ascending the throne in 405/405 Artaxerxes II had to fight a

  war against his brother Cyrus the Younger. Artaxerxes II’s son Artaxerxes

  III protected himself against potential pretenders by conducting a great

  purge among the male members of the dynasty. He himself perished in

  338, apparently in the Greek tradition of being poisoned by a highly

  placed courtier called Bagoas, though an almost contemporary Babylonian

  tablet seems to indicate that the king died of natural causes. In 336 Bagoas

  also murdered Artaxerxes III’s son and successor Artaxerxes IV, who was

  also known by his earlier name of Arses. After eliminating the main

  Achaemenid line the ambitious Bagoas helped install on the throne a

  member of a lesser branch of the dynasty stemming from Darius II called

  Artashata, by Justin probably erroneously called Codomannus, who on the

  throne adopted the name Darius III. And it was Darius III who finally

  outsmarted Bagoas by forcing him to drink a poison that the latter had

  actually prepared in order to kill the king. Naturally the problems with

  succession weakened the Persian state, which could not have escaped

  Philip II’s notice, all the more so because Pella became the natural refuge

  for those who rebelled against the Great King, such as the satrap

  Artabazus and the mercenary general Memnon.34

  4th-century Greeks were generally very ignorant not only about the

  Persian Empire’s geography but also about the actual state. Although

  many years had passed and contacts with Persia had been intensive,

  knowledge of the Persian Empire and her peoples did not go far beyond

  what had been written by Herodotus. Unfortunately the writings of Ctesias

  of Cnidus, a physician at the court of Artaxerxes II in the early 4th century

  and therefore someone who knew Persia well, are more noted for their

  lightness of style and penchant for tales of romance and intrigue than for

  insight into Persian realities. The Greeks were very familiar with the

  western provinces of the Achaemenid Empire, but their knowledge of its

  core territories to the east of the Zagros Mountains, i.e. Iran, was more in

  the realms of legend than reality. Tablets found in Persepolis testify that

  the Persian state closely monitored the travels of foreigners east of the

  Zagros Mountains and that there is no evidence of Greek travellers or

  34 Curt., 3.3.9-25; Just., 10.3.3; Diod., 16.52.3. 17.5.3-6; SEG 27.942; Babylonian

  tablet BM 71537. Badian 1985, p. 422; Cook 1985, pp. 226-228; Guyot 1990, pp.

  189-190 (no. 17); Wiesehöfer 1996, pp. 82-85; Brosius 1996, pp. 83-97, 123-180;

  Brosius 2003a, p. 235; Briant 1996, pp. 292-296, 789-790, 799; Briant 2003, pp.

  64-65; Hammond 1994, p. 129-130; Heckel 1997, p. 197; Walker 1997, p. 22.

  The Heir to the Throne

  61

  diplomats ever visiting that particular Persian capital.35 Greeks, most

  probably forced labourers, employed in Fars were deliberately disfigured

  because the Persians knew that in such a state taboos concerning beauty

  and the flawlessness of the human body would effectively prohibit their

  return to Greece. As far as we can tell, Persepolis, which played such a

  crucial role in the Persian state, was basically unknown to the Greek

  public before Alexander’s expedition. The Persian capital where the Great

  King usually accepted Greek envoys was Susa in Elam to the west of the

  Zagros Mountains.36 Indeed, in Greek literature written before Alexander’s

  expedition Susa is mentioned at least 36 times, whereas Persepolis no

  more than twice.37

  Furthermore the Greeks did not understand that the Achaemenid

  Empire was basically a feudal state, not a tyranny ruled by an almighty

  despot. They knew that the state was divided into satrapies, but they were

  not aware of the way in which satraps were subordinate to the Great King.

  The 26 satrapies that had functioned under Darius III were taken over

  virtually unchanged by Alexander during his conquest of the Achaemenid

  Empire. The fact that there was a network of trusted informants poetically

  called the ‘king’s eyes and ears’ by Herodotus is also confirmed in Eastern

  sources, but the Persian state was not controlled by a secret police force.

  Nor was it controlled by the state’s efficient and well developed

  bureaucracy operating in the Achaemenids’ home province of Fars – about

  which we know from thousands of the clay tablets found at Persepolis. As

  is u
sual in a system not based on a written constitution but on custom and

  the charisma of kingship, the significance of the central government and

  its ability to mobilise forces rested to a large extent on the ruler’s

  personality. With someone of the strong and outstanding personality of

  Artaxerxes III no one could resist the state, whereas when the ruler was

  weak, the state became sluggish. Many of the satraps were members of the

  ruling family, but all of them were bound by the feudal principle of loyalty

  and fealty. According to Xenophon, in a conversation between King

  Agesilaus and the satrap Pharnabazus the satrap turned down the Spartan’s

  proposal to defect and free himself from the Great King by replying: ‘If

  the king sends another as general and makes me his subordinate, I shall

  choose to be your friend and ally; but if he assigns the command to me –

  35 Cook 1985, p. 241.

  36 Curt., 5.5; Diod., 17.69.3-4; Just., 11.14. Briant 1996, pp. 755-756; Tuplin 1996,

  pp. 137-140.

  37 Under the name Parsa/Persai: Arist., Mir., 838a; Ctes., FGrH, 688 F36. Ctesias, however, could have in mind Fars (Persis) or even Pasargadae and not Persepolis,

  Głombiowski 1981, pp. 19-21.

  62

  Chapter II

  so strong, it seems, is the power of honour – you may well be assured that

  I shall wage war upon you to the best of my ability.’ This expression of

  feudal mentality is a good illustration of how the Persian Empire was

  administered. There once someone was made a satrap he held that position

  for life and any attempts to remove him from his post frequently led to

  rebellion. A satrap, like every high-ranking Persian official, was a vassal.

  The Persian word for vassal was bandaka, which the Greeks, not

  understanding Persian social structures, translated as doulos, i.e. slave. To

  modern historians studying Persian history mainly from Greek sources the

  Achaemenid Empire for a long time gave the impression of being a

  despotic state where the monarch’s subjects were basically his slaves.

 

‹ Prev