The Persian Empire

by Kia, Mehrdad;

  According to Herodotus, Phraortes (Old Persian: Fravartish) was the second monarch of the Median dynasty and the son of Deioces, who had united the Medes under his rule before his death. Unlike his father, however, Phraortes “was not content to be king only of Media” (Herodotus: 1.102). Having inherited a strong Median state from his father, he expanded the boundaries of his kingdom at the expense of the neighboring regions and kingdoms. One of the first countries he conquered was Persia. The combined power of Media and Persia allowed Phraortes to embark on the conquest of the ancient Near East. His territorial ambitions eventually brought him face-to-face with the might of Assyria. In a battle against the kingdom of Assyria, Phraortes was defeated and killed together with many of his troops. The conquest and destruction of Assyria would be left to Phraortes’s son and successor, Cyaxares. There is no agreement on the dates for Phraortes’s reign. Some have argued that he ruled for 22 years, from 675 to 653 BCE, while others have maintained that his rule was considerably longer, extending from 678 to 625 BCE. Scholars have also questioned the accuracy of Herodotus’s narrative on the first two rulers of the Median kingdom, particularly his account of Deioces, whom he identified as the first truly independent ruler of the Medes.

  The death of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in 627 BCE signaled the beginning of the end for the Assyrian kingdom and the rise of a powerful Media. In 615 BCE, after defeating the Scythians who had occupied and ruled Media for nearly three decades, the Medes under the leadership of their king, Huvakhshtra, joined the campaign against Assyria, and in the autumn of that year they crossed the Zagros Mountains and captured Arrapha (present-day Kirkuk in northern Iraq). Then in the summer of 614 Huvakhshtra, who appears as Cyaxares in Herodotus’s Histories, captured the city of Ashur. The king of Babylonia, who had reached Ashur with his army after it had been seized and destroyed by the Medes, met with the king of Medes outside the city, where the two monarchs agreed to a treaty of peace and friendship. In the summer of 612 BCE, the Babylonians and Medes joined forces and marched against the Assyrian capital, Nineveh, one of the largest cities in the world for nearly half a century and located on the eastern bank of the Tigris River in northern Iraq. After a long siege and several fierce battles, the Medes and Babylonians succeeded in conquering the city. The victorious armies plundered and destroyed Nineveh, massacred its population, and carried off into slavery those whose lives they spared. The fall of Nineveh dealt a deathblow to the Assyrian state. Its king, Sin-sharr-ishkun (r. 627–612 BCE), was most probably killed during the final assault.

  With the fall of the Assyrian Empire, Media rose as a major power in the Near East. The Medes followed their victory against the Assyrians by annexing the kingdom of Urartu, which was centered on Lake Van in eastern Asia Minor (present-day eastern Turkey). The annexation of Urartu allowed the Medes to emerge as the dominant political and military power in eastern Asia Minor and to become a neighbor of the powerful kingdom of Lydia. From 590 to 585 BCE, the two new neighbors fought several inconclusive battles. In 585 BCE the king of Medes, Cyaxares, and the ruler of Lydia, Alyattes, finally agreed to cease all hostilities and established the Halys River (Kizil Irmak or Red River in modern-day east-central Turkey) as the boundary between their two states. To strengthen this new peace treaty, the son of Cyaxares married a daughter of Alyattes. Shortly afterward the Median king died and was succeeded by his son, who appears in Herodotus’s account as Astyages. The core territory of the Median Empire was present-day western Iran. The Medes did not establish a highly centralized political system. Local vassals accepted the suzerainty of the Median king by paying an annual tribute. In return, they were allowed to maintain full control over their domains. It was one of these vassals, Cyrus II of Anshan, who eventually overthrew the Median state.

  Achaemenid Empire. The Median Empire was overthrown by the king of Anshan, Cyrus II, either in 554/553 or 550/549 BCE. The new dynasty founded by Cyrus adopted the administrative practices of the Medes. Once Cyrus expanded his empire to incorporate Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and parts of Central and South Asia, the newly founded empire required a new and more elaborate administrative structure. The principal challenge for a vast empire, which ruled diverse geographical regions and contained numerous ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities with their own social organizations, was how to collect taxes and generate sufficient revenue to pay the salaries of the king’s officials and troops. Beginning with Cyrus the Great but particularly during the long reign of Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE), the Achaemenids divided their empire into provinces, or satrapies. The Persian king appointed a governor, or satrap, to each province. The satraps were not hereditary rulers. They were appointed by the Persian king and served at the pleasure of their royal master. Every new country or region that had been conquered was assessed for taxes. At times for purely administrative purposes, neighboring regions were joined to a newly conquered area in a single unit (Herodotus: 3.89). The satrap was responsible for maintaining security in the area under his control, making sure that the cultivation of land would not be disrupted. Each satrap had his own army, and he could use it to defend the territory under his jurisdiction. The satraps also provided troops to the king’s army during military campaigns, thereby contributing to the central government’s cavalry and infantry forces. In a long paragraph in his Oeconomicus, the Greek author Xenophon described the relationship between the Persian king and the provincial power centers in the following words:

  We agree that he [the Persian king] is seriously concerned about military matters, because he gives orders to each man [governor] who is in charge of the countries from which he receives tribute to supply provisions for a specified number of horsemen, archers, slingers, and light-armed troops who will be capable of controlling his subjects and of protecting the country if an enemy should attack. And besides these he maintains guards in the citadels. And the officials to whom this duty has been assigned supplies provisions for the guards. The king holds an annual review of the mercenaries and the other troops who have been ordered to under arms, assembling all of them, except those in the citadels, at the “place of muster.” He personally inspects the troops near his own residence and he sends men whom he trusts to review those who live farther away. And those garrison commanders and chiliarchs [commander of a thousand] and satraps who show up with the full complement of soldiers assigned to them and present them equipped with horses that are well groomed and weapons that are well maintained he promotes with honours and rewards with valuable gifts. But those commanders whom he finds either showing a lack of concern for their garrisons or making a private profit from them, he punishes severely, removing them from office and appointing other men to take charge. Furthermore, he himself examines all of the land that he seized as he rides through it, and by sending men whom he trusts he surveys the land he does not examine personally. And those governors whom he observes presenting densely populated land and fields under cultivation stocked with the trees and crops that grow in that region, to these he gives additional territory and he lavishes gifts on them and rewards them with seats of honour; but those whose lands he seized uncultivated and sparsely populated, because of the governor’s harshness or arrogance or lack of concern, he punishes, removing them from office and appointing other governors. Since he does these things, does he seem to be less concerned that the earth be well cultivated by the inhabitants than that it be well protected by the garrisons? Separate officials are appointed by him for each of these activities, not the same men: some are in charge of the inhabitants and the workers, and collect tribute from them; others command the armed troops and the garrisons. If the garrison commander does not adequately defend the country the official concerned with the inhabitants and agricultural production brings an accusation against the commander on the grounds that the people are not able to do their work because they are not properly protected. But if the garrison commander provides peace for farming, whereas the civil governor presents under populated, unproductive land, the garriso
n commander, in turn, brings an accusation against him. For, on the whole, those who cultivate the land poorly are unable to support garrisons or pay tribute. But wherever a satrap is appointed, he is concerned with both areas of activity. (Xenophon: IV.5–12)

  After the collapse of the Persian Empire in 330 BCE, Alexander and his Macedonian generals continued with the administrative practices of the Achaemenid kings. The short-lived empire of Alexander and the Seleucid state, which succeeded it in Iran, Mesopotamia, and parts of Asia Minor, relied on a system of vassals who paid tribute and taxes to their Seleucid overlords. The Seleucids, who ruled from Antioch in Syria (present-day southern Turkey), also relied on Greek colonies, which had been founded by Alexander during his conquests.

  Parthian/Arsacid Empire. Our knowledge of the administrative structure of the Parthian Empire under the Arsacid dynasty (r. 247/238 BCE–224 CE) is insufficient and sparse. The Arsacids inherited the administrative practices of the Achaemenids and the Seleucids as well as their own traditions, which they had brought with them from Central Asia. The Arsacids ruled a vast though highly decentralized empire. In return for accepting the suzerainty of the Arsacid king, local dynasts ruled virtually as autonomous kings. These vassals, however, could not mint their own coins, wear their tiaras upright, and “sleep upon a golden throne[,] … privileges and marks of honor peculiar to the kings of Parthia” (Josephus: 20.3.4). Such a decentralized system was ripe for rebellion, which erupted frequently in the provinces. It also allowed local rulers, particularly on the western frontiers of the empire, to switch sides every time a war erupted with Rome. The instability inherent in a decentralized state structure was reinforced by the Arsacid succession process, which ignited frequent inner-dynastic rivalries and wars. In theory, any male member of the Arsacid royal family could assume the reins of power. According to Justin, the Arsacid monarch was usually succeeded by his oldest son, but there were instances when a brother succeeded a deceased monarch. For example, when Phraates II died he was succeeded by his brother, Mithridates I. The process was further complicated by the existence of two councils, both of which played an important role in the selection of the new king. The Greek author Strabo wrote that the Arsacid monarchs were appointed by two councils, “one that of kinsmen [the Parthian nobility], and the other that of wise men and Magi,” but he did not elaborate on how the process worked (Strabo: 11.9.3–10). The Parthian nobility, which consisted of the great feudal families, enjoyed enormous power. They ruled certain regions of the empire as their own kingdoms. Thus, the Suren ruled Sistan in eastern Iran, and the Karen ruled Nahavand in western Iran. These families also owned lands in other parts of the Parthian Empire and therefore were not confined to only one region. The power of the Suren was reflected in the fact that the head of the family enjoyed the hereditary right to place the crown on the head of a new Arsacid king during the coronation ceremony (Plutarch: 1.812). Each of these families had its own army. When the Parthian state was attacked by foreign powers, the great feudal families rallied around the Arsacid monarch and committed their armies to the defense of the empire. Thus, in 53 BCE Suren (Surena) mobilized an army of 10,000, which fought and defeated a much larger Roman army under the command of Crassus at Carrhae. Under extraordinary circumstances, the Parthian system allowed for a queen to rule as regent and assume the reins of power in the name of her underage son. The emergence of the female slave Musa, who was sent to the Arsacid court as a gift by the Roman emperor Augustus, first as the queen of the Parthian monarch Phraates IV (r. 38–3/2 BCE) and then as the joint ruler of the Arsacid Empire with her son, Phraates V (r. 2 BCE–2 CE), clearly demonstrates how much power and influence a strong-minded and resolute woman could exercise.

  As for the provinces, there seems to have been several categories of rulers and governors. The Arsacids preserved the system of satrapies, which existed under the Achaemenids, and may have also added another layer to the provincial power structure by appointing a chief satrap who was responsible for all other satraps. A rock relief at Bisotun in western Iran depicts the Arsacid king Mithridates II and four of his high officials. A Greek inscription identifies one of these dignitaries as Gotarzes (Godarz), satrap of satraps. Another high official is identified as Kophasates (Kohzad), who is described as a “privy councilor” (Bivar: 41).

  Sasanian Empire. Ardashir I, who overthrew the Arsacid dynasty in 224 CE and founded the Sasanian state, abolished the decentralized structure he had inherited from the Parthian kings and, in distinct contrast, established a highly centralized political and administrative structure. Additionally, Ardashir’s successors reversed the tolerant attitude of the Arsacids toward the religious communities of the empire and introduced Zoroastrianism as the state religion. Local kings who refused to obey the authority of the Sasanian king of kings were replaced by members of the Sasanian royal family, usually the sons of the ruling monarch. This does not mean, however, that the Sasanians destroyed the powerful landowning families, such as the Suren and the Karen. These families retained their vast landholdings and the special privileges they had enjoyed during the Parthian period. Indeed, in the second half of the fifth century CE as the Sasanian state declined and the empire was invaded by nomadic tribes from Central Asia, the power of the landed nobility resurfaced, and the very families who had played a central role in the decentralized Parthian state began to play an important role in the political life of the empire.

  The Sasanian theory of state provided the theoretical foundations of the empire. According to this circular theory, to rule his kingdom, the king of kings needed an army. Maintaining an army required the collection of taxes, which could only be generated by the labor of people. For people to produce revenue and pay their taxes, there had to be peace and security. Peace and security were, however, impossible without justice and law, but justice and law could not be administered and implemented without a ruler and a strong army.

  During the reign of Khosrow I Anushiravan (r. 531–579 CE) the Sasanian state introduced a series of important reforms. These reforms aimed at curtailing the power of the Persian nobility and the Zoroastrian religious establishment. They also intended to broaden the authority of the Sasanian king of kings vis-à-vis the provincial power centers by expanding the size of the central government. The first and perhaps most important of these reforms was restructuring the archaic tax system of the empire. In the traditional system, taxes were levied on the yield of land. Therefore, from year to year the amount of the tax varied. Khosrow abolished the system based on yearly variation and replaced it with a fixed sum.

  The Sasanian king also reorganized the administrative structure of his empire. He established a governmental system based on a council of ministers, or divan, headed by a prime minister. For much of his reign, the wise and capable chief minister, Bozorg Mihr, played a central role in running a well-oiled and highly efficient bureaucracy for his royal master. Khosrow I also empowered the lower gentry, or dihgans (dihqans), and reduced the power of the great feudal families who enjoyed enormous influence in the royal court. This did not mean, however, that he attacked the privileges of the dominant economic classes by transforming the prevailing power structure. In fact, both Sasanian and Islamic sources emphasize Khosrow’s defense and protection of the traditional division of Iranian society into several distinct social and occupational strata, namely priests, warriors, government officials, and members of the fourth estate, which included peasant farmers, artisans, and merchants (Nameh-ye Tansar: 57).

  An important institution reorganized by Khosrow was the Sasanian military. To centralize the decision-making process under his direct control, the post of supreme commander in chief (erān espahbad or arteshtārān sālār) was abolished and replaced by four commanders, or spahbads, responsible for the security of the eastern, western, northern, and southern regions of the empire (Tabari: 2.646). Each commander reported directly to the Sasanian king. He also appointed margraves, or commanders of the frontiers (marzbāns), who also received their orders
directly from the Sasanian monarch. To boost the confidence of his forces, Khosrow improved the quality of their mounts and weapons. He also built defensive walls. One wall erected on the southeastern coast of the Caspian Sea was designed to defend his northeastern borders from incursions of nomadic tribes from Central Asia. Another wall at the town of Darband (Derbent) on the western shores of the Caspian was intended to block the attacks by Khazars and Turkic tribes using the Caucasus as a corridor to penetrate the northwestern frontiers of the Iranian state.