Persia

[Rameses the Great]

I just wanted to talk about the enormous Persian Empire and its influence in the Middle East and Europe. Their governing systmes was unique, and it seemed they influenced Greek language somewhat. If anything their successful invastions were a result of shear numbers rather then troops. I also want to get in a little bit into why they hit a brick wall in Greece. It seems like the Greeks really knew how to stop their advance into Europe. Also some of questions of how opressive the Persians were could help with discussions in other threads.

 

Facts and opinions apreciated.

[Pantagathus]

Perhaps you could start us out with some facts? :smartass:

 

For now I will offer one of my favorite Herodotus passages about the Persians:

 

"They are very partial to wine. No one may vomit or urinate in another's presence: this is prohibited among them.

 

Moreover, it is their custom to deliberate about the gravest matters when they are drunk; and what they approve in their deliberations is proposed to them the next day, when they are sober, by the master of the house where they deliberate; and if, being sober, they still approve it, they act on it, but if not, they drop it. And if they have deliberated about a matter when sober, they decide upon it when they are drunk..." 1.133

[Rameses the Great]

Sure, conquered territories were called satraps. :smartass:

[Pantagathus]

The territories or the governers of the territory...

 

There is a difference between a Satrap and a Satrapy or Satrapie

 

Can you explain the significance of the word and perhaps cite a source?

[Rameses the Great]

Can you explain the significance of the word and perhaps cite a source?

 

You're not making this easy on me.

 

Ok, here we go:

 

The word satrap or satrapy, derives from an Old Persian word meaning 'eye of the king' They were appointed by the king to oversee various lands abroad. Through time the word has been Hellenized and Romanized.

 

If I'm not mistaken even after the Persians were not longer in power, foreign conquerors still called Egypt a satrap or satrapie.

 

Satraps and Satrapies.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Rameses the Great

[Julius Ratus]

:mummy: --

also want to get in a little bit into why they hit a brick wall in Greece. It seems like the Greeks really knew how to stop their advance into Europe.

 

 

They didn't do very well against the Scythians either.

 

The Greeks did so well against them because they had superior infantrymen, hands down. The Persians' main strength lay in their cavalry. Due to the nature of the terrain in Greece, the Persians were never able to utilize either their Cavalry nor their Chariotry. With no cavalry it became an infantry battle, and voila. No more barbars in Greece.

[Ursus]

I assume by "Persian Empire" you mean the Achaemenid dynasty, and not the later Parthian and Sassanid regimes? If so ...

 

Not my area of expertise, but what I know impresses me. The greatest superstate this side of China is how it has been described. Held together by excellent communication network as well as a sensible policy of relative regional autonomy.

 

I am not sure how "oppressive" it was. Cyrus the Great issued what is usually considered the world's first declaration of human rights. Local cultures and religions were not molested - the central government demanded little more than tribute and soldiers. I believe they also outlawed slavery? When Islam took over they actually praised the wisdom and humanity of Persian administration - not something you hear often from Muslims in relation to People Not of the Precious Book.

 

As far as influence, it seems a lot of its practices were simply continued once Alexander took over. The imperial court of the later Roman Empire also seems to have been influenced by Persia.

 

The Persian army, as far as I have read, were composed mostly of lightly armored archers who tried to drown their enemies in arrows from a distance. The Greeks had heavier arms and armor, and in close combat made mince meat of the Persian archers. The Greeks also employed better tactics, making the most of their rugged terrain.

 

As far as Empires go, the Achaemenids seem to have been sensible, humane rulers with a vision for administration.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Perhaps you could start us out with some facts? :smartass:

 

For now I will offer one of my favorite Herodotus passages about the Persians:

 

"They are very partial to wine. No one may vomit or urinate in another's presence: this is prohibited among them.

 

Moreover, it is their custom to deliberate about the gravest matters when they are drunk; and what they approve in their deliberations is proposed to them the next day, when they are sober, by the master of the house where they deliberate; and if, being sober, they still approve it, they act on it, but if not, they drop it. And if they have deliberated about a matter when sober, they decide upon it when they are drunk..." 1.133

 

Sigh,I really don't know whether to trust Herodotus any more.

 

I believe the Persians were the first to build actual roads and first to create a pony express.

[Rameses the Great]

I assume by "Persian Empire" you mean the Achaemenid dynasty, and not the later Parthian and Sassanid regimes? If so ...

 

Yes, the Achaemenid dynasty.

 

I believe the Persians were the first to build actual roads and first to create a pony express.

 

I thought those were the Assyrians?

 

Anyways, many people who were under Persian control saw the Mulims conquerors as 'Liberators' and Persians as 'Opressors.'

 

Did the Persians make use of the columns? If so, from whom?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Oops, you're right Ramses. But the Persians nevertheless adopted and improved the system greatly.

[caldrail]

Humane? Possibly, but the impression I get was that the persians cared less for their poor than the romans did, and were every bit as ruthless.

[Ursus]

In the Western world, I don't think charity for the poor became a widespread concern until the arrival of Christianity, which was a major factor in why so many people were attracted to the religion.

 

Nonetheless the Achaemenids seem to have been rather lax with local cultures, not unlike the Romans. The Sassanids seemed less hands-off, but far more efficient in at channeling economic power into military might.

[Pantagathus]

Not my area of expertise, but what I know impresses me.

Me too

I am not sure how "oppressive" it was. Local cultures and religions were not molested - the central government demanded little more than tribute and soldiers....

Indeed most evidence points to the Achaemenid Persians embracing what they conquered. They perhaps could be seen as having been commercially oppressive (especially in their wanning days) but definitely not culturally:

 

"The Persians more than all men welcome foreign customs. They wear the Median dress, thinking it more beautiful than their own, and the Egyptian cuirass in war. Their luxurious practices are of all kinds, and all borrowed" - Herodotus 1.135

 

As far as Empires go, the Achaemenids seem to have been sensible, humane rulers with a vision for administration.

With the exception of perhaps Lydia and the neighboring Greek states, most every area Persia conquered, it could be argued that the locals were better off afterwards. In some cases (i.e. conquering the areas controlled by the Neo-Babylonians) one could go as far as to say that they were beneficent liberators of the severely oppressed.

 

I personally feel the Phoenicians of the homeland fared much better under the Persians then they did under the Assyrians or Neo-B's

[Pantagathus]

Humane? Possibly, but the impression I get was that the persians cared less for their poor than the romans did, and were every bit as ruthless

I think we need to clear up a misconception here. The sources are mute on how the Persians treated the 'poor' in the direct

[The Augusta]

Like Ursus and Pan I find that I am fascinated by the Persians - in fact, I am drawn to them like a magnet, and I have no idea why. However, all we know of them is unfortunately written by Greeks, who would hardly present the most balanced view. The early Persians (i.e. under Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius the Great) have left no written records (at least I think that's right - perhaps Ram or someone may know differently and can enlighten me).

 

As this is a thread about the Persian Empire, would anyone be kind enough to point me in the direction of a serious study. I have read Holland's Persian Fire, of course, as well as Herodotus and Xenophon, but a good scholarly monograph would be welcome, if anyone knows of one they could recommend.

 

 

 

It