Chapter IV: Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman (5)

_A. H. Sayee,
The Ancient Empires of the East:
Herodotus 1-3. Appendix 5._

"The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire,
and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a
restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by
the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account
given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the
Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the
captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is
contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian
and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from
Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is
a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign
of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the
history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The
other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his
son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of
Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The
tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated,
especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be
made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos,
except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the
sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The
inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of
the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects
very different from that handed down to us by classical
writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one
who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have
ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could
not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a
long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus.
Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the
reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself
and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used
is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet
explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians
and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early
inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the
neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam,
who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until
they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king
Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province.
In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of
Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first
became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C.
549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has
become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he
must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in
some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did
not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have
been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to
Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great
inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own
forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original
capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of
the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is
that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and
not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was
an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation
which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We
learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped
Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities
of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his
son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us
that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by
Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet
accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he
was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of
Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god.
The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief
that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of
the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to
warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His
chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel.
… The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the
conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety
towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept
in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities
back to their homes.
{2511}
Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted
the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had
taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to
live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed
the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which
consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered
population to another country, and sought instead to win their
gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their
native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored
from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of
his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his
intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who
took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied
Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable,
however, that this means only the heads of families; if so,
the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and
children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of
Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was
already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow
of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from
the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of
the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older
empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its
doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed
been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or
Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his
neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over
the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median
Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in
Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from
Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture,
Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of
Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to
have been under the government of a collateral branch of the
family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also
the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over
the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus
about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were
spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild
tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all
was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was
carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been
made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death,
Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the
world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon
necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the
third centre of the great empire, and in later days the
Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official
residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so
fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it.
The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so
thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the
only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his
death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands
with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by
Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his
empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said.
… A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes
in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince,
and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into
rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of
this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of
Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to
oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before
he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of
the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of
Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had
known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not
Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes
paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years
from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven
months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son
of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in
the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th
day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to
the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

_A. H. Sayce,
Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther,
chapters 1 and 3._

ALSO IN:
_A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 7._

_Z. A. Ragozin,
The Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
chapter 10-12._

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
The reign of Darius I.
His Indian and Scythian expeditions.
The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

"Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the
second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from
the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it
lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the
Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the
hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and
all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he
does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian
worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the
matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at
Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal
evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The
empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the
following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria,
Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands),
Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia,
Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae,
Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three
provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the
original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of
the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian
table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the
empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests
in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was
added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such
motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen
Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician,
Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was
minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe,
and so to carry war into Scythia.
{2512}
It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right,
and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the
Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares.
So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies
to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the
reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears
to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward
from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus—
over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added
to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde,
yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The
Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the
Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the
expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped
destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe
by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. …
It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a
fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of
700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire,
crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to
the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and
the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a
bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the
apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus
makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the
direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries
beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat.
The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched
battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in
the country till they should perish from famine." Darius
retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind,
with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the
enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated
in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march,
and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the
Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the
same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched
back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous
destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and
Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The
Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the
strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably,
Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a
rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe
with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace."
Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the
kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his
master, in B. C. 506.

_P. Smith,
Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 27._

"Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in
profound peace under the government of his brother
Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of
rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have
seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an
island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the
oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant
of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition
against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the
interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned
the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and
ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to
him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens,
Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet
that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power;
popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and
islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501).
Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king,
Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire;
but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the
sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the
Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by
Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and
the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians.
Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at
Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which
was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were
utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not
effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The
Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians
dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which
should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained
for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as
Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was
recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians
protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was
early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of
Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at
last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the
Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was
no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline
on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians
an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the
worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands
were treated with scarcely less severity. This third
subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the
prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his
narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of
the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships
they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the
Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of
Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot
an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help
to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his
servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the
words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression
of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to
succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent
Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

_P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
chapter 13 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 33-35 (volume 4)._

_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 14 (volume 2)._

PERSIA: B. C. 509.
Alliance solicited, but subjection refused by the Athenians.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

{2513}

PERSIA: B. C. 492-491.
First expedition against Greece and its failure.
Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

PERSIA: B. C. 490-479.
Wars with the Greeks.

See GREECE: B. C. 490, to B. C. 479.

PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II.
The disastrous invasion of Greece.
Loss of Egypt.
Recovery of Asia Minor.
Decay of the empire.

"Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his
reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted
to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a
rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the
plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention
to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous
defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

See GREECE: B. C. 480, to B. C. 479.

… It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their
prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under
that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the
Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and
even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at
their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to
dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at
last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect
Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at
the Eurymedon.

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak
prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his
military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased
to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody
and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later
Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural
penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning
twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard,
Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed
on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C.
465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his
father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes,
who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting
to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About
the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he
was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly
forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good
qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid
declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt
[B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through
the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and
the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the
complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost
all their men.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449,
despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to
Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the
fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and
completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis,
besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still
held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and
Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed
'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

… Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of
Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a
rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that
he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent
to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of
successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not
but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court
continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who
allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was
married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and
licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C.
425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II.
Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with
great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days,
was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or
Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the
throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six
months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on
ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in
history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his
aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B.
C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole
disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of
the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what
remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was
used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The
revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which,
though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful.
In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in
Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake
off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection.
Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under
Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence.
The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince
seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some
compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the
north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the
authority of the Great King was once more established over the
Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the
Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between
the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens
and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been
expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the
quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet
she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until
the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an
effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the
treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she
gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities
of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and
was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession
took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the
Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had
from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

_G. Rawlinson,
Manual of Ancient History,
book 2, sections 24-39._

{2514}

ALSO IN:
_G. Rawlinson,
The Five Great Monarchies,
volume 3: Persia, chapter 7._

PERSIA: B. C. 413.
Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
Hostility to Athens.
Subsidies to her enemies.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
The expedition of Cyrus the Younger,
and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great
founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius
Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on
the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis.
During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia,
Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all
Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found
himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid
plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes,
who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an
extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do
with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the
Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind
a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had
shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which
he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no
Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of
gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening
his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from
Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding
himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before
him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their
confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it
happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront
them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in
Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the
pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who
numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and
who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken,
and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital,
if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But
the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted
by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of
the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own
commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority
over them. But they possessed what no other people of their
time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose
from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed
him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces
homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the
Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece.
"Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no
immediate significance for political history, yet it is of
high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but
also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate
description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the
most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical
chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on
a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and
faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of
weakness, a wandering political community which, according to
home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions,
and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of
free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this
mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his
qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real
preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only
accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been
introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his
sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he
admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of
culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control
to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and
for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of
situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to
him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable
trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000
Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end
reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the
beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But
their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where
they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then
supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing
any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate
expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut
against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a
Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another
year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the
surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then
summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy
they hated most.

_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 5, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
chapters 69-71._

_Xenophon,
Anabasis._

PERSIA: B. C. 399-387.
War with Sparta.
Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos.
The Peace of Antalcidas.
Recovery of Ionian cities.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PERSIA: B. C. 366.
Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes.
The Great King's rescript.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

PERSIA: B. C. 337-336.
Preparations for invasion by Philip of Macedonia.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PERSIA: B. C. 334-330.
Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA &c.: B. C. 334-330.

PERSIA: B. C. 323-150.
Under the Successors of Alexander.
In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316;
and SELEUCIDÆ.

PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
Embraced in the Parthian empire.
Recovery of national independence.
Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

"About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates
I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which
terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the
Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana,
Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the
Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new
conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian
lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation.
… It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to
allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern
themselves.
{2515}
These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled
by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary
right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very
much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the
tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him
a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a
military expedition."

_G. Rawlinson,
The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 1._

"The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn
subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new
dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN
DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This
great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced
by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander
Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great
reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the
Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and
rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for
superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity
equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the
flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the
former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a
tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him
as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. …
As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to
the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the
Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above
five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were
defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their
king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for
ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly
acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 8 (volume 1)._

PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
Wars with the Romans.

The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and
brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of
the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new
throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he
sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then
Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be
yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should
be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the
Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars,
extending through four centuries and ending only with the
Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power,
alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the
Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the
reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with
unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms.
Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner,
after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D.
260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his
insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid
capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked,
while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery.
Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner.
Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an
obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The
victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was
cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen
years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching
to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies
and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of
Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus
ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and
passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death
and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before
the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305).

That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into
the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the
war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated,
on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A.
D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the
Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced
Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the
Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and
gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then,
for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had
mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and
his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring
power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A.
D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the
calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia
encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which
Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day
was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle
of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at
first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while
plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great
slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark
of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents
of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed
the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the
city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by
Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the
inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the
Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an
opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after
rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363,
he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the
sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of
Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of
Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too
strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed
the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the
hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray
by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and
scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced
to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might
possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued
them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in
repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry.
{2516}
An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor,
and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the
Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius,
together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in
Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted
to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own.
The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than
half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D.
422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are
little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the
division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as
a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a
Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued
was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while
Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of
Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however,
in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of
Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three
months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the
Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius
now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the
powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of
the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities
again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was
in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and
finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great
battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next
year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers
arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The
Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid
11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so
quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king
Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria
ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just
restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had
nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged,
half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of
war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis,
or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in
history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted
until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged
the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the
Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to
Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till
591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian
throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled
to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his
unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the
most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in
the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria
and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia
Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of
Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp
and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and
held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial
capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who
became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved
himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve
years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could
gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such
resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the
Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627,
he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle,
fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient
Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled,
and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was
a fugitive.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and
his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans
and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in
their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

_G. Rawlinson,
The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46._

PERSIA: A. D. 632-651.
Mahometan Conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

PERSIA: A. D. 901-998.
The Samanide and Bouide dynasties.

See SAMANIDES;
and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

PERSIA: A. D. 999-1038.
Under the Gaznevides.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

PERSIA: A. D. 1050-1193.
Under the Seljuk Turks.

See TURKS (SELJUK): 1004-1063, and after.

PERSIA: A. D. 1150-1250.
The period of the Atabegs.

See ATABEGS.

PERSIA: A. D. 1193.
Conquest by the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

PERSIA: A. D. 1220-1226.
Conquest by Jingiz Khan.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
and KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.
The Mongol empire of the Ilkhans.

Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who
extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and
completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see
BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his
conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an
empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of
the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time
acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in
the East."

_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 211._

Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a
beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small
but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of
Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself
in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot
Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years
in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and
astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions,
who laboured in works of science under the direction of his
favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to
Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or
chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by
the conquests of Timour.

_Sir J. Malcolm,
History of Persia,
chapter 10 (volume 1)._

{2517}

"It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303,
that Mahometanism again became the established religion of
Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly
declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After
Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia
rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. …
The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the
descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At
last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion,
utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the
greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless
Timour."

_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquest of the Saracens,
lecture 6._

PERSIA: A. D. 1386-1393.
Conquest by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
The founding of the Sefavean dynasty.
Triumph of the Sheahs.
Subjugation by the Afghans.
Deliverance by Nadir Shah.
The Khajar dynasty.

"At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of
Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to
the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of
Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay
with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as
firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the
sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan
and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict
on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants
of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D.
680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to
Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced
belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh,
called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this
uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a
people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical
speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent
reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in
the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. …
Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution
from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th
century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the
burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in
bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of
her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a
priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest
repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa,
the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed
a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as
to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid,
the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the
youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When
only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the
province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the
sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he
captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard,
and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of
Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on
Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder
of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since
that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of
Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at
times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the
Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah
government, and gave great strength to that sect of the
Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always
great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried
his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism
and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle
with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see
TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were
outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event
he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the
record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors,
Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to
sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new
empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at
home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not
succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the
verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in
the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after
a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This
monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the
throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the
Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah
Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean
dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722
with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the
empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan,
although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every
male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak
sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the
artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain.
That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow.
Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf.
But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir
Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a
brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had
escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia.
Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several
battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But
Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast
ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia;
and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with
some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself
king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a
man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the
Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition
that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi
fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of
great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring
dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each
other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which
succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who
reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder
of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last
pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once
more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. …
{2518}
Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by
his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and
some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars
with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces,
notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian
armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed
Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual
interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which
was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in
1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the
present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

_S. G. W. Benjamin,
The Story of Persia,
chapter 20._

ALSO IN:
_C. R. Markham,
General Sketch of the History of Persia,
chapters 10-20._

_Sir J. Malcolm,
History of Persia,
chapters 12-20 (volume 1-2)._

_R. G. Watson,
History of Persia, 1800-1858._

PERSIA: A. D. 1894.
The reigning Shah.

Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is
blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

----------PERSIA: End--------

PERSIAN SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

PERSIANS, Education of the ancient.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

----------PERTH: Start--------

PERTH: A. D. 1559.
The Reformation Riot.