The Persian Empire

by Kia, Mehrdad;

  Detail of two life-sized royal archers from the palace of the Persian Achaemenid monarch, Darius I the Great, at Susa in southwestern Iran. The Persian archers formed one of the most important units within the Achaemenid army. (Victor Duruy. The History of Greece and of the Greek People, 1890)

  The Achaemenid state was originally a land power. As the boundaries of the empire expanded and reached the shores of the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, the Achaemenids turned their attention to establishing Persian supremacy on the eastern Mediterranean and launched a navy. The Achaemenian navy was “the domain of Phoenicians and to some extent the Inonian” and Cyprian Greeks, but Iranian marines constituted an important component of the Achaemenian naval forces and “fought on the ships” (Frye: 107). The Phoenicians had joined the Persian navy of their own free will and enjoyed enormous power in the military decision-making process. For example, when the Achaemenid king Cambyses II ordered his fleet to attack Carthage, the Phoenicians “refused to go, because of the close bond which connected Phoenicia and Carthage” (Herodotus: 3.19). With the Phoenicians “out of it and the remainder of the naval force too weak to undertake the campaign alone, the Carthaginians escaped Persian domination” (Herodotus: 3.19). Darius, who wished to know where Indus joined the Indian Ocean, sent an expedition down the river under the command of the Inonian naval admiral Scylax of Caryanda (Herodotus: 4.44). The naval expedition followed the course of the river eastward until it reached the ocean; then, “returning westward, the ships followed the coast, and after a voyage of some thirty months,” reached Egypt (Herodotus: 4.44). This allowed Darius to make regular use of the Indian Ocean and complete his conquest of the Indus Valley (Herodotus: 4.44).

  While the Achaemenid army was the principal instrument of territorial expansion and preservation of security and order, military might was used not only to wage war but also to conduct co-option and peace. To the astonishment of their enemies, the Achaemenid kings generally treated the rulers they defeated with kindness and magnanimity. According to Herodotus, Cyrus treated Astyages, the defeated king of Media, “with great consideration and kept him at his court until he died” (Herodotus: 1.130). Cyrus displayed the same benevolent generosity and forgiveness toward Croesus, the king of Lydia (Herodotus: 1.88–91). If a king sought peace he was pardoned, and at times he or one of his sons was restored on the throne. There are “many instances from which one may infer that this sort of generosity” and compassion was a common practice among ancient Iranians (Herodotus: 3.15). As Herodotus remarked, the Persians were in “the habit of treating the sons of the kings with honor, and even of restoring to their sons the thrones of those who have rebelled against them” (Herodotus: 3.15). If, however, after being defeated and pardoned a king tried to organize a revolt among his people, he was condemned to death.

  See also: K&Q, Achaemenid: Artaxerxes I; Artaxerxes II; Artaxerxes III; Cambyses II; Cyrus II the Great; Darius I; Darius II; Darius III; Xerxes I; Peoples: Alexander of Macedon (the Great); Primary Documents: Document 11; Document 15; Document 18; Document 19

  Further Reading

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

  Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. New York: Schocken, 1983.

  Curtis, John, and St. John Simpson. The World of Achaemenid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 2010.

  Frye, Richard N. The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland and New York: World Publishing, 1963.

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

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

  Quintus Curtius Rufus. The History of Alexander. Translated by John Yardley. London: Penguin, 2004.

  Wiesehöfer, Josef. Ancient Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 2011.

  Achaemenid Empire

  Cyrus II the Great founded what came to be known as the Persian Achaemenid Empire in 550 BCE. Alexander the Macedon overthrew the Achaemenid Empire 200 years later in 330 BCE. Cyrus created his empire by defeating the three major powers of the ancient Near East, namely Media, Lydia, and Babylonia; these conquests allowed him to incorporate vast territories into his kingdom. His oldest son and successor, Cambyses II (r. 530–522 BCE), conquered Egypt. The empire reached its zenith during the long reign of Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE). Under Darius I, Persian rule extended to Libya in North Africa, Thrace and Macedonia in Southeast Europe, and the Indus River basin in South Asia. The Achaemenid Empire continued to prosper during the reigns of Darius’s son Xerxes I (r. 486–465 BCE) and Xerxes’s successor, Artaxerxes I (r. 465–424 BCE).

  Following the death of Artaxerxes I, a long period of decline set in. Court intrigues, palace coups, and rebellions in various provinces of the empire undermined the power and legitimacy of the central government. Alexander of Macedon invaded the Achaemenid Empire in 334 BCE and defeated the armies of Darius III, the last Achaemenid king, in three battles. The first occurred in 334 BCE after the Macedonians crossed to Asia at Granikos, where Alexander was almost killed; the second was at Issus in southern Anatolia near the present-day Turkish city of Iskandarun in 333 BCE; and the last was the Battle of Gaugamela or Arbela, which was fought in present-day northern Iraq in October 331 BCE. Darius III was murdered by his own generals while fleeing east in 330 BCE. The Macedonian army occupied the Achaemenid capitals of Susa, Persepolis, and Ecbatana. In a drunken eruption of rage and revenge, Alexander and his commanders set afire and destroyed the Achaemenid palace complex of Persepolis, which had been built by Darius I and his successors.

  The vast Achaemenid Empire contained numerous geographical regions as well as a mosaic of religious, ethnic, and linguistic communities. Thus, heterogeneity constituted the most important characteristic of the empire. The population of the empire included Iranian-speaking groups such as Scythians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, Bactrians, Parthians, Medes, and Persians as well as non-Iranian groups, including Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Berbers, Colchians (western Georgians), Egyptians, Elamites, Greeks, Indians, Jews, and many others. Each group was distinguished by its own unique language, culture, and social organization. The sheer size of the empire and the heterogeneity of its population required a highly organized and efficient administrative structure as well as a system of roads, highways, and canals that linked the four corners of the king’s domain. It also necessitated a policy of religious and cultural tolerance that allowed the Achaemenid kings to present themselves as benevolent and just rulers and protectors of their subjects. To maintain the unity and territorial integrity of their empire, the Achaemenid kings had to recognize and respect the validity and legitimacy of local customs, traditions, and practices. Imposing a highly centralized political system, which ignored the power and importance of local elites and pre-Achaemenid administrative practices, could have ignited antigovernment sentiments and revolts. It is not surprising therefore that the hallmark of Achaemenid rule was its religious tolerance as well as its political and administrative flexibility and elasticity. Achaemenid rulers frequently displayed a readiness to delegate authority to local and provincial power centers as long as these accepted the sovereignty of the Achaemenid state and agreed to collect tribute and taxes for the central government.

  Fragment of a relief depicts a man holding a covered cup, from the Achaemenid period, late sixth to fifth century BCE. (Yale Gallery of Art)

  The Achaemenid kings ruled their empire from their winter capital of Susa (modern-day Shush) in southwestern Iran and their summer capital of Hagmatana/Ecbatana (modern-day Hamedan) in western Iran. During the remainder of the year, they resided either in Babylon in southern Iraq or in Persepolis in southern Iran. Each of these urban and administrative centers contained royal palace complexes, which housed the members of the royal family as well as those who served their daily needs.

  An Achaemenid king was surrounded by a retinue of servants, eunuchs, cooks, musicians, dancers, bodyguard
s, etc., who attended to his every need. The Persian and Median army units constituted the backbone of the Achaemenid state. Every effort was made to use the Achaemenid army only as a last resort. The Achaemenid kings preferred to resolve local disputes through the intervention of governors and local elites who had agreed to collaborate with the king. The king and his army only intervened when there was a clear indication that a rebellion posed a direct threat to the security of the state and that the local officials and army units lacked the capability to suppress it effectively.

  Although in theory the power of the Persian monarch was absolute, he ruled at the center of a complex network of personal and political relationships. The Achaemenid kings divided their empire into provinces ruled by a governor, or satrap. Each satrap was responsible for collecting taxes and providing security and order in his province. He had to ensure that trade, commerce, and cultivation of land would not be interrupted and that annual taxes and tributes from his province would be sent to the king’s court at a prearranged time. As the representative of the king, satraps enjoyed sufficient power and autonomy to suppress any rebellion that undermined the authority of the central government and disrupted the social and economic life of the communities under their rule. This administrative system was replicated by future dynasties, including the Arsacids/Parthians, the Kushans, and the Sasanians.

  The emergence of the Persian Achaemenid Empire as a world power in the sixth century BCE was an event of foremost significance in the history of the ancient Near East, North Africa, Southeast Europe, Central Asia, and indeed the world. The Achaemenids not only created the first world empire but also introduced a world civilization that provided peace, prosperity, and economic development to a vast region extending from the Syr Darya (Jaxartes River) in Central Asia to the Nile River in Egypt and from the Indus River Valley in western India to the Danube River in Southeastern Europe. The two and a half centuries of Achaemenid rule profoundly transformed the societies and economies of numerous peoples in the ancient Near East, Central Asia, and North Africa. The impact of the Achaemenid state on the countries and societies it ruled lasted for many centuries after its downfall in 330 BCE.

  See also: K&Q, Achaemenid: Artaxerxes I; Artaxerxes II; Artaxerxes III; Cambyses II; Cyrus II the Great; Darius I; Darius II; Darius III; Xerxes I; Peoples: Alexander of Macedon (the Great); Primary Documents: Document 11; Document 15; Document 18; Document 19

  Further Reading

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

  Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. New York: Schocken, 1983.

  Curtis, John, and St. John Simpson. The World of Achaemenid Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 2010.

  Frye, Richard Nelson. The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland and New York: World Publishing, 1963.

  Frye, Richard Nelson. The History of Ancient Iran. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1984.

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

  Wiesehöfer, Josef. Ancient Persia. London: I. B. Tauris, 2011.

  Administration

  The empires of ancient Iran were vast and complex polities and contained diverse geographical regions as well as numerous ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities. Each community possessed its own unique social organization as well as its own unique identity. In the traditional Iranian political system, the king stood on the top of the power pyramid. As the leader and protector of his people, the king was obligated to preserve the peace, security, and stability of the kingdom he ruled. The government was usually an extension of the king’s private household, and government officials were the personal servants of their royal master, who were appointed and dismissed in accordance with the king’s decision. The political structure was divided into a central administration and a provincial administration. The administration of justice constituted the most important duty of a sovereign. The king’s palace was the brain center of the empire while at the same time serving as the residence of the king. The king lived in the inner section of the palace, which was attached to the royal harem where the female members of the royal family, including the king’s mother, his queen, concubines, and children resided. Since proximity to the king determined the power and status of an individual, the king’s personal attendants and servants, particularly the royal eunuchs who were also responsible for the protection of the royal harem, enjoyed a great deal of power and influence. Aside from the eunuchs, women of the royal harem also played a prominent role in the daily life of the palace.

  Median Empire. Our knowledge of the administrative structure of the Median Empire is scanty. Physical evidence on the history of the Medes and the political and administrative institutions of their empire is meager. Archaeological excavations at Median sites in western Iran have so far produced valuable but scanty results. The Assyrian royal inscriptions as well as Babylonian chronicles do shed some light on isolated events and encounters between the Medes and their neighbors but do not provide any clear outline of Median history and politics. In one Assyrian inscription, we read that the Assyrian army attacked and defeated the Medes, devastating and destroying the royal city of a Median chief as well as 1,200 of his cities. The references to the Medes in Assyrian inscriptions portray a society divided into numerous communities and fortified towns, each led by its own powerful chieftain who ruled from his own walled fortress. There was, however, no single ruler or central government that controlled the whole of Median territory. This disunity allowed Assyrian kings to attack and punish those Median chiefs who had become too powerful and refused to pay tribute: their towns were raided by Assyrian armies, which carried off booty in the form of people, horses, mules, camels, cattle, and sheep. To establish tighter control over these Median chiefs, several Assyrian monarchs appointed provincial governors responsible for collecting taxes. The power struggle and squabbling among Median chiefs reached such a point that on one occasion several Median leaders brought gifts to the Assyrian court at Nineveh and sought the protection of the Assyrian king against their own vassals, who had challenged their authority. The Assyrian king used the infighting among the Medes to impose his authority over them, exacting tribute and taxes from their chieftains. Despite the fragmentation and infighting that engrossed the Medes, they had become sufficiently powerful to force the later Assyrian monarchs to conclude vassal treaties. By the time Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 BCE) ascended the Assyrian throne, the Medes had formed independent and powerful states. The Assyrian king mentions his military campaign against a Median chieftain as well as against Median cities, carrying their spoils back with him to the Assyrian capital, Nineveh. There is, however, no reference to Median chiefs paying tribute to the Assyrian king or appealing to him to intervene in their internal conflicts.

  The Greek historian Herodotus identifies a certain Deioces (Old Iranian: Dahyuka) as the first independent Median leader, a man “of great ability and ambitions” who revolted against the authority of the Assyrian state in an attempt to free his people (Herodotus: 1.96). Herodotus claims that Deioces was the son of a Median by the name of Phraortes. Herodotus portrays Deioces as a highly intelligent leader who was troubled by the weakness of his people. Early in his career, Deioces built a solid reputation for himself as an honorable mediator. As his reputation as an enforcer of strict justice spread beyond his district, “everyone was glad to submit cases to his judgment, until he became the only person they would turn to” (Herodotus: 1.96–97). Because he had distinguished himself as a just ruler, the Medes chose Deioces as their first king. Deioces used his newly acquired power to compel his people to first build a palace and then a capital city for their new ruler. Thus, Herodotus attributed the founding and construction of the Median capital, Hagmatana or Ecbatana (modern-day Hamedan) in present-day western Iran, to Deioces. The Greek author described Ecbatana as a city “of great size and strength fortified by concentric walls,” designed in such a way
that “each successive circle was higher than the one below it by the height of the battlements” (Herodotus: 1.98). Once the construction of the new capital was completed, Deioces introduced his people, the Medes, to the ceremonies attendant to royalty: “admission to the king’s presence was forbidden, and all communication had to be through messengers. Nobody was allowed to see the king, and it was an offence for anyone to laugh or spit in the royal presence” (Herodotus: 1.99). The Median king also consolidated his power by the “strict administration of justice” and the creation of a network of spies who “were busy watching and listening in every corner of his dominions” (Herodotus: 1.100). Having unified the various Median rural communities and townships under his authority, Deioces died after a long reign of 53 years (Herodotus: 1.101). He was succeeded by his son Phraortes, who had been named after his grandfather.