358 Death of Artaxerxes II. His son Ochus murders all

possible claimants, and takes the throne with the name of

=Artaxerxes III=. Defeat of the Persians in Egypt.

352 Revolt of Tennes of Sidon against Persia. Cyprus joins

him.

347 Isocrates exhorts Philip of Macedon to attack Persia.

345 Tennes betrays Sidon to Artaxerxes III. The city is

cruelly punished. Cyprus subdued.

340 Conquest of Egypt by Artaxerxes.

338 Murder of Artaxerxes by the prime minister, the eunuch

Bagoas. =Arses=, the king’s youngest son, placed on the

throne.

336 The Macedonian army crosses into Asia. Death of Philip.

335 Bagoas puts Arses and his children to death. Codomannus,

great-grandson of Darius II, placed on the throne as =Darius

III=. He has Bagoas put to death.

334 Alexander crosses the Hellespont. Battle of the

Granicus. Mysia, Lydia, Caria, and Lycia submit to the

Greeks.

333 Battles of Issus and Amanus. Phrygia, Cappadocia, and

Cilicia submit to the Greeks; also the whole of northern

Syria.

332 Alexander captures Tyre,--Phœnicia, Judea, and Samaria

submit. Egypt goes over to the Greeks. Darius’ attempt to

recover Asia Minor is frustrated.

331 Alexander invades Assyria. Battle of Arbela which

overthrows the Achæmenian Dynasty. Darius flees into Media.

Fall of Babylon and Susa. Pasagarda and Persepolis captured.

330 Bessus, satrap of Bactria, seizes Darius and murders

him. He calls himself =Artaxerxes IV=, but finally falls

into Alexander’s hands and is put to death.

[Illustration: FROM THE CAPITAL AT SUSA

(Now in the Louvre)]

CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE

The Persians were the first Aryans to achieve a great world empire

within historic times. With them the Aryan race became dominant in

the Western world, and it has so continued to the present time. The

Persians themselves maintained first place among the nations only

for about two centuries, or from the time of Cyrus until the Asiatic

conquests of Alexander the Great. And the sceptre which they laid down

was taken up by Western nations akin to them in speech, and passed

on from one to another people of the same great Indo-Germanic race

throughout the two and a half millenniums which separate the time of

Cyrus from our own. But it is not only because of their kinship with

European nations that the Persians are of interest. Their history

has intrinsic importance. Theirs was unquestionably the mightiest

empire the world had seen since secure history began. It extended from

India on the east, to the extreme confines of Asia on the west and

the northwest, and beyond them to include Egypt. It even threatened

at one time, through the subjugation of Greece, to invade Europe as

well, and numberless writers have moralised on the great change of

destiny that would have fallen to the lot of Western civilisation,

had this threat been made effective. All such moralising of course is

but guess-work, and it may be questioned whether most of it has any

validity whatever. For the truth seems to be that the Persians were

much more nearly akin to the European intellect than a study of their

descendants of recent generations would lead one to suppose. It is

everywhere conceded that they sprang from the same stock, and their

most fundamental traits show many points of close resemblance. Thus

it is matter of record that the Persians differed widely from the

Hamitic or Semitic conquerors, both in their methods of warfare and in

their treatment of conquered enemies. The Semites, in particular, were

notoriously cruel and unimaginative in their treatment of fallen foes.

The word “unimaginative” is here used advisedly, for it would seem as

if nothing but curiously defective imagination could permit one human

being to treat another in the atrocious manner which characterised

the conquerors of the Semitic race--not merely the Babylonians and

Assyrians, but the Hebrews as well, as the history of David only too

amply illustrates.

The paragraph in which David’s treatment of the people of the conquered

city of Rabbah, as recorded, is a fair sample of the usual fortunes of

war that fell to the lot of the victims of a Semitic nation.

“And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under

saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them

pass through the brick-kilns, and thus he did unto all the children of

Ammon.”

But the Persians, on the other hand, be it recorded to their credit,

did not as a rule resort to such atrocities. Such rules as this must

indeed always be taken with certain qualifications, for there were,

unfortunately, cases in which the Persian conqueror inflicted upon an

enemy a vengeance almost comparable to the Semitic type. But this was

rare, except in the case of rebels; and not usual even with these, and

it must be remembered on the other hand, that the records of Western

nations are not altogether free from similar charges of cruelty. On the

whole, the conduct of such great Persian leaders as Cyrus the Great and

Darius I, will perhaps compare favourably with that of any European

conqueror.

Another very essential point in which the Persians of the early day

bore a close resemblance to Europeans of the later generation, is in

regard to their religion. It is admitted on all hands that in its

original or uncorrupted form the religion of the Persians was of a very

high type. It was embodied in a creed at a very early day, possibly

not later than 1000 B.C., by the great prophet Zoroaster. Like the

other great religions, it grew by accretion, and came to have linked

with it a set of myths and fables that are difficult to ascribe to

their particular periods of origin. We are not even sure within perhaps

five hundred years of the exact time when Zoroaster lived, but this

is of comparatively little consequence when one reflects that a great

religion is always a slow growth, and that any particular religious

teacher to whom it may be ascribed, after all, has done nothing more

than focalise the national tendency, or form a centre about which the

ideas and tendencies of an epoch may crystallise.

In the case of the Zoroastrian religion, it was finally given tangible

and permanent expression in the pages of the Zendavesta or sacred book

of the Persians. The national spirit given expression is, as has been

said, in many ways of a high order. It has sometimes been doubted

whether any religion in its last analysis is ever otherwise than

monotheistic. Be that as it may, it seems quite clear that the early

religion of the Persians was almost a pure monotheism, nor did it in

its later stages depart more widely from the monotheistic type than has

been the case, at some stage of its development, with every other great

religion of which we have any knowledge. Thus the Zoroastrian system

admits a sun-god, Mithra, who is the creator of the god of Light,

Ormuzd, and of the god of Darkness, Ahriman. Here, at first glance,

there seems to be clearly a trinity of gods of practically equal power.

But when we try to get close to the thought of this creed, we find that

Ormuzd is regarded as equal to Mithra, even though created by him, and

that, on the other hand, Ahriman is supposed ultimately to be conquered

by the God of Light, notwithstanding the ages of time throughout which

he wields malevolent power.

If we consider dispassionately the fundamental character of the creeds

of Christendom, there must be apparent a strange similarity to this

Zoroastrian creed. To a Persian who should attempt to gain an insight

into this creed of the Western world, the conception of an omnipotent

father creating a son, who, after all, is said to be co-eternal

with the father, must seem in closest possible analogy with his own

Mithra and Ormuzd, while nothing could be clearer than that a Satan

of such godlike power as to be able to combat successfully against

the powers of good, age after age, must be no other than Ahriman or

his counterpart. To this Zoroastrian investigator, then, it must seem

clear,--even though he were to take no note of the third member of

the orthodox trinity and of the saints, who must seem minor gods to

a foreign intelligence,--that this Western religion is a polytheism

closely similar to the creed of Zoroaster, and, like that, despite

its galaxy of deities, showing evidence of a basal conception of

monotheism. Indeed, in whatever candid view the subject is considered,

it must be clear that this early Aryan faith of which we have any

present record is closely similar in its fundamentals to the faith

which the main body of Aryans of the Western world profess to this day;

and this fact, as has been said, furnishes a close link between Persian

and European, and gives an added interest to the history of this great

people.

RACIAL AND DYNASTIC ORIGINS

As to the origin of the Medo-Persians, nothing need be added beyond

what has already been said of the origin of the Indians. There must

have been a time, probably at a relatively late period, when the

ancestors of the Indians and the ancestors of the Persians formed

a single colony or group of colonies, which had its seat, it may

reasonably be inferred, somewhere in the region which was afterwards

known as Bactria. Thence the tide of migration swept to the southeast,

as we have seen, into India, and to the southwest across the tableland

of Iran, or, as we more generally term it, Persia. The vast territory

of Iran came early to be divided between two peoples of this same

stock, of which the one inhabiting the northeastern part of the

territory was called by Greek writers the Medes, although recent

investigation has tended to establish the fact that the so-called

Median nation was really that of the Scythians and not that of

the Medes, who lived farther to the west. Nevertheless, it seems

advisable to retain the phrase Medo-Persian empire. The other, or the

southeastern nation, had the name of Persian. The Scythians first

gained world-historic importance and entered the field of secure

history by their share in the overthrow of the Assyrian empire, in

which enterprise, as we have seen, they were associated with the

Babylonians. For a short period after this, the Scythians divided with

the Babylonians the honours of world imperialism; then their power was

snatched from them by their kindred on the south and west, and the

great Medo-Persian empire came into existence.

The builder of this empire was the mighty Cyrus, one of the most

powerful, and, if tradition is to be credited, one of the best of the

great conquerors of history. He was an Elamite prince, but is more

familiar to history as the king of Persia, which land he added to his

domains early in his career of conquest. When Cyrus was born, Persia

was an insignificant territory, the name of which had not yet impressed

itself upon history; and before Cyrus died he had made himself absolute

master of all southern Asia west of the Ganges, and the name of the

minor border country, Persia, had been given to the greatest empire

in the world. Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, extended the sway of this

empire over Egypt, and his successor and kinsman, Darius, crossed the

Hellespont and precipitated that conflict between the East and the West

which for two centuries continued to be perhaps the most important

factor in world history. But before we turn to the specific incidents

of this great drama, we must see something more in detail of this

parent land of Aryan civilisation and its gifted people.[a]

THE LAND

The centre of the Iranian tableland consists of a great salt steppe,

destitute alike of vegetation and fresh water, torrid and almost

impassable by the foot of man in summer. The only spots fit for

permanent habitation and agriculture are where the rainfall from

lofty mountain ranges collects to form short watercourses, as in the

provinces of Kerman and Jezd, and where, in the northeast, the rivers

that flow down from the Hindu Kush, the Etymander (Helmund) and many

like it, carry life farther into the interior, until they end in the

shallow and swampy lake (Zireh or Hamun) in the land of the Drangians.

With these exceptions, no more than the borders of Iran are habitable.

It is hemmed in by lofty mountain ranges to the north and south, and

from the Hindu Kush to the snow-clad heights of Mount Elburz to the

south of the Caspian Sea, extends the hill country of Chorasan, in

ancient times the abode of the Hyrcanian, Parthian, Aryan, and Drangian

tribes. It forms the watershed of numerous rivers, which flow down

on either side, making oases in the central desert and the Turanian

lowlands, until they succumb in the struggle with the waste of sand.

Chorasan constitutes the bridge between the mountain country of Bactria

and Sogdiana, in the east, the region about the Oxus and Jaxartes, and

Media in the west, where the ranges that run up from the south approach

more and more closely to the mountains of the northern frontier,

enclosing fertile highlands, rich in lakes and watercourses, where the

summer is temperate and the winter severe. Here, in conflict with the

Assyrians the Iranians first evolved their political system. From Media

the Zagros Mountains run southeast to the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian shores of this arm of the sea present an aspect no less

dreary than the Arabian. Navigation is impeded by reefs and shoals, the

coast is low, and ill-provided with harbours. Torrid sunshine beats

down upon it, making it almost uninhabitable for man and beast; nothing

but the palm tree flourishes. In the rainy season the torrent brooks

that descend from the highlands merely hurry their more copious supply

of water to the sea, and serve no purpose of irrigation or navigation.

In the east, on the coast of Mekran, a poverty-stricken fishing

population (the Ichthyophagi) ekes out a scanty livelihood, while even

the higher land of the interior, Gedrosia, which extends to the regions

about the Etymander (Baluchistan) is absolutely desert except for a few

well-watered and fertile valleys, and lies so remote from all civilised

nations that hardly a single European has trodden it from the time of

Alexander to the present century. It is the haunt of nomadic tribes

like the Mykians and Parikanians, some of whom are not even of Iranian

descent, but are more nearly akin to the earliest inhabitants of India,

the progenitors of the Brahuis of to-day, to whom the Greeks sometimes

applied the name of Ethiopians.

The west, the land of the Persians, is of a different type. At the

distance of a few miles from the coast the spurs of the Zagros

Mountains rise one above the other, and the valleys and plains between

them, having an elevation of fifteen hundred to two thousand metres

above sea-level, enjoy a more temperate climate and a more copious

rainfall. “Here a mild climate prevails,” says Nearchus, “the land

is rich in herbs and well-watered pastures, it produces abundance of

wine and of all other fruits except the olive. Therein are flourishing

pleasure grounds; rivers of clear water and lakes, well stocked with

water-fowl, irrigate the country. The breeding of horses and beasts

of burden prospers; forests full of wild animals are plentiful.” The

forests are gone from the mountains; the brooks and rose gardens of

Shiraz look wretched enough to the traveller from a more bounteous

clime, but the Persian poets are never weary of praising the loveliness

of their native land, and King Darius boasts that it is “a fair land of

excellent horses and excellent men, which by Ahuramazda’s protection

and mine, trembles before no foe.” Persia is bounded on the south

by the sea, on the east and north by the desert; the northwest is

its only door of communication with other nations. The road leads by

mountain passes down to Elam (Susiana) and Babylon; and along the

Zagros Mountains lies the way, almost impracticable in the snow-storms

of winter, through the rugged highlands of Paretacena (near Ispahan),

which already count as a part of Media (Herod. I. 101), to Ecbatana.

THE PEOPLE

The leading tribes of Persia were the Pasargadæ, the Maraphians, and

the Maspians, who clustered about the κοιλὴ Πέρσις, that is, the

wide and fertile valleys of the Araxes (the Kur or Bendamir) and its

principal tributary the Medos or Cyros (Palwar)--a fine and vigorous

type of humanity, living by agriculture and cattle rearing and skilled

in the use of the spear and bow. Horse breeding, on which the tribes

of Iran prided themselves, was assiduously pursued, and hunts in the

mountains offered rich gains and hardened the sinews of men for war.

Other agricultural tribes were the Panthialæans and the Derusiæans,

who probably dwelt farther to the east, the Germanians or Karmanians

in the highlands of Kerman. The wilder parts of the mountains and the

steppes and deserts of the coast were occupied by predatory nomads,

some of them very barbaric, the majority of whom must be ranked

under the head of Persians. Such were the Mardans, the neighbours

of the Elymæans [Elamites], Uxians (Persian Uvadza, now Chuzistan)

and the Kossæans in the Zagros; the Sagartians (Persian Asagarta)

in the central desert, the Utians (Persian Jutija) in the Karmanian

coast districts, and the Dropicians; the name Dahæ, or “robbers,”

is also found here, as in the Turanian steppe. These tribes no more

constituted a political unity than did those of Media; divided amongst

various districts, the peasants lived in patriarchal conditions under

hereditary princes, and were continually at war with the robbers and

nomads, while they were protected by the “household gods” who sheltered

them from sterility and foes. The influence of Babylonian culture had

certainly already penetrated through Susa [Shushan] into the mountain

lands of Persia; but that of the kindred race of the Medes was far

more powerful. The tribes may have reached their abodes in remote

antiquity by the Parætakenian mountain road. By this same route came

to them the religion of Zarathustra [Zoroaster], which is the property

of all stationary tribes of Iran. In Media the Mazda teaching had

already won the mastery as early as the eighth century and perhaps

long before; presumably roving priests of the Median priestly caste of

the Magi brought it thence to the Persians. Consequently we find the

Magian names amongst the Persians in opposition to the “fire kindlers,”

(athravan) of the East. In Persia the Magi observed many usages

prescribed by the religion which had been borrowed from the Persian

people, as the extermination of all unclean beasts and the barbarous

custom of allowing corpses to be consumed by dogs and birds of prey.

The Persian kings, on the other hand, had their bodies buried.

CHARACTER OF THE EMPIRE OF THE ACHÆMENIDES

Our estimate of the significance of the empire of the Achæmenides

in the history of the world has been greatly impaired by its being

contrasted mainly with Greece and measured by Greek civilisation, not

by the earlier and later kingdoms of the East. To this is added the

circumstance that our information is often scanty and uncertain, and

derived in great part from the period of decadence. An impartial eye

cannot fail to perceive that the Persian empire was a great civilised

state. This agrees with the profound impression which it made on its

contemporaries and enemies like Æschylus, Herodotus, and Xenophon. A

sickly despot like Cambyses might allow himself to be carried away by

savage whims,--Persian tradition condemns his actions sharply enough,

although never forgetting that he was the hereditary sovereign,--but

still the Persians always remained faithful to the example of the

great founder of the empire. They conducted their wars in an energetic

but not blood-thirsty fashion, and although they occasionally dragged

conquered foes away from their own countries, yet, down to the time

of Artaxerxes III their name was never stained by the annihilation of

a great centre of civilisation, though towns like Sardis, Memphis,

Babylon, and Shushan repeatedly revolted; the burning of the deserted

city of Athens was a political and military necessity, not to be

avoided in time of war. The empire of the Achæmenides is distinguished

by a breadth of view, a great and humane spirit. Under its rule

Anterior Asia was able to enjoy, for more than a century, a peace

which was almost undisturbed (save by a few frontier wars like the

struggles with the Greeks and the risings in Egypt), a benevolent and

just government, and a secure prosperity; and the disintegration of

the empire which then began was not brought about by the revolts of

subjects but by the quarrels amongst the rulers themselves and the

effect of the superior civilisation and military power of the Greeks.

The empire of the Achæmenides is the first of all the states with which

history is acquainted, to advance a claim to a universal character. “To

be ruler far over this great earth, him the one, to be the lord over

many,” “to be king over many lands and tongues,” “over the mountains

and plains this side and beyond the sea, this side and beyond the

desert,” to this had Ahuramazda, the creator of heaven and earth,

appointed the Persian king. He may call himself “the lord of all men

from the sunrise to the sunset.” All the nations whose representatives

are pictured on the seat of his throne obey him, bring him tribute, and

yield him military service.

At the same time it is said that the empire is sensible of being a

civilised state. The king has to perform the task which Ahuramazda

has laid on him, to exercise justice, to punish injustice and

falsehood, to reward friends, to chastise enemies, and “under the

shelter of Ahuramazda to impose his laws on the countries.” “King of

the countries” (Khshajathija dahjunam, Bab sar matati) is his most

characteristic title. Still more usual is “king of kings,” although

with the exception of the king of Cilicia, he has no vassals properly

so-called; for the town princes and tribal chiefs, of whom there is no

lack amongst the subjects of the Persian empire, stand so far below

him that they give no true meaning to the title. It may therefore be

that the designation which, as is well known, has remained the regular

appellation of the Persian king, is not of Median origin at all (the

Assyrians and Babylonians were also unacquainted with it); but it

would rather seem to express the summit of royalty, like the Greek

appellation _Basileus_ without the article, which gives expression

to the idea that this conception has only one representative in

the world. For this very reason the partition of the empire amongst

the sons of a king, so frequent in other ages, could not take place

here; and the attempt of Cyrus to give his younger son a position of

his own by investing him with several provinces under the suzerainty

of the elder, was not again repeated in the same fashion, after its

unfortunate results. The universal empire was a united state and knew

only one master.

Regarded from the standpoint of the East, universality attained a

similar range through the conquests of Cyrus and Cambyses as in the

imperial dominion of Rome. If on the borders of the earth there dwelt

turbulent peoples at a lower level of civilisation or one which was

incomprehensible to that of the East, that was of no more importance

to the Persian empire than the independence of the Germans and Getæ

or of the Parthian kingdom was to the Roman _Orbis terrarum_. All the

civilised peoples of the East were joined together to form one state.

From the time of the restoration of the unity of the empire by Darius

the dominion of the Achæmenides ceases to be a conquering state:

all that was left to subsequent ages was the task of organising and

completing and maintaining what had been acquired.

In the civilised states that they had subdued, the Persian kings had as

far as possible preserved the ancient forms which had been consecrated

by a tradition preserved for thousands of years. Cyrus in Babylon and

Cambyses in Egypt appeared as the divinely appointed successors of

the native rulers, and nominally the two kingdoms still continued to

exist under their successors. It is true that this was no more than

a form; the kingdoms annexed had neither privileges nor a special

administration; and Persian governors resided at Babylon and Memphis

as in every other province of the empire. In Western Asia there is

no trace of a similar spirit of concession nor is there in Lydia.

On the other hand much greater consideration was shown to the Medes

[Scythians] and the rest of the Iranian peoples. It was through the

treachery of Median magnates and by the desertion of the Median army of

Astyages that Cyrus’ victory was rendered possible. So in the empire

the Medians take rank next to the Persians. “Persia, Media, and the

other countries,” so Darius calls his empire; and in Babylon Xerxes is

referred to as “King of Persia and Media.”[23]

The kernel of the army consisted of Persians and Medes, the imperial

officials were drawn from them, and under Cyrus and Darius the Medes

appear in the highest places of trust at the head of the army. The

royal apparel and the order of the court was taken by Cyrus from the

Medes, and Ecbatana was one of the residences of the Great King. Thus

the Median kingdom continues to exist, not like Babylonia and Egypt,

as the shadow of a once independent state, but transformed into the

Persian empire. Those at a distance were scarcely aware of the internal

changes in face of the continued subsistence of a powerful Iranian

empire: consequently the Greeks, like other nations, transferred the

Median names to the Persian empire.

The other Iranian peoples, who had been in part already subject to the

Medes, in part only subdued by Cyrus, were in a similar position to the

rest of the Iranian tribes. They were now all united in one kingdom;

the rising of the Medes, Sagartians, Parthians, Hyrcanians, Margians,

Sattagydes, and of a part of the Persians after the assassination of

the Magian, was the last attempt to maintain the ancient independence

of the race. All stationary and many nomadic Iranian, or as they call

themselves, Aryan tribes, speak the same Aryan language, varying

little in dialect, serve the same pure and true god Ahuramazda,

“the god of the Aryans,” as the Susan translation of the Behistun

inscription calls him.

The list of the subject districts which Darius enumerates, shows how

much more his interests were directed to these nations than to his

subjects in the west. In the inscription on his tomb he calls himself

with pride, not only a Persian but also “an Aryan of Aryan race.” It is

remarkable that the Babylonian translation omits this addition while

the Susan retains the Persian words: he boasts that he was the first

to draw up Aryan inscriptions and to send them into all countries

[only retained in the Susan]. Thus the tribal distinctions were not

yet abolished, but were repressed; the empire of the Achæmenides was

not, like that of the Sassanides, the “empire of Iran and Extra-Iran”;

but it had paved the way for the event that the Aryans of Iran, unlike

their brothers in India, were to become a united nation.[b]

FOOTNOTES

[23] [See Chap. II.]

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEF FROM THE PALACE AT PERSEPOLIS]

CHAPTER II. THE MEDIAN OR SCYTHIAN EMPIRE

Before taking up the history of Persia proper the story of the Medes

must be told. Our account of the Median empire will give the reader an

excellent idea of what modern historians have done in co-ordinating

and straightening out the accounts of the classical authors. Two of

these only wrote about the Medes--Herodotus and Ctesias; and although

the latter claims to have founded his _Persica_,--written to refute

Herodotus,--on the royal archives of Persia, modern criticism and the

testimony of the monuments have proved his account to be far the less

trustworthy of the two.

We begin, therefore, with the ancient account of Herodotus, after which

the reader will find a masterly critique of the Father of History by

Dr. Theodor Nöldeke, the greatest modern authority on Persian history.

That, however, the last word is not yet spoken on the Medes will be

seen from the concluding portion of the chapter in which results

obtained from recent decipherments of Assyrian and Persian monuments

are set forth. So startling and revolutionising is the knowledge thence

obtained, so wholly different is the historical aspect thus revealed,

that the term “Median empire” is probably destined to disappear from

the historian’s phraseology. Indeed, Professor Sayce in his latest

writings has already discarded it.[a]

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE MEDIAN EMPIRE ACCORDING TO HERODOTUS

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 700-607 B.C.]]

The Assyrians had been in possession of the Upper Asia for a period of

five hundred and twenty years. The Medes first of all revolted from

their authority, and contended with such obstinate bravery against

their masters, that they were ultimately successful, and exchanged

servitude for freedom.[24] Other nations soon followed their example,

who, after living for a time under the protection of their own laws,

were again deprived of their freedom, upon the following occasion.

There was a man among the Medes, of the name of Deioces, son of

Phraortes, of great reputation for his wisdom, whose ambitious views

were thus disguised and exercised: The Medes were divided into

different districts, and Deioces was distinguished in his own, by his

vigilant and impartial distribution of justice. This he practised in

opposition to the general depravity and weakness of the government of

his country, and conscious that the profligate and the just must ever

be at war with each other. The Medes who lived nearest him, to signify

their approbation of his integrity, made him their judge. In this

situation, having one more elevated in view, he conducted himself with

the most rigid equity. His behaviour obtained the highest applauses of

his countrymen; and his fame extending to the neighbouring districts,

the people contrasted his just and equitable decisions with the

irregularity of their own corrupt rulers, and unanimously resorted to

his tribunal, not suffering any one else to determine their litigations.

The increasing fame of his integrity and wisdom constantly augmented

the number of those who came to consult him. But when Deioces saw the

pre-eminence which he was so universally allowed, he appeared no more

on his accustomed tribunal, and declared that he should sit as a judge

no longer; intimating that it was inconsistent for him to regulate the

affairs of others, to the entire neglect and injury of his own. After

this, as violence and rapine prevailed more than ever in the different

districts of the Medes, they called a public assembly to deliberate on

national affairs. As far as I have been able to collect, they who were

attached to Deioces delivered sentiments to this effect: “Our present

situation is really intolerable, let us therefore elect a king, that we

may have the advantage of a regular government, and continue our usual

occupations, without any fear or danger of molestation.” In conformity

to these sentiments, the Medes determined to have a king.

After some consultation about what person they should choose, Deioces

was proposed and elected with universal praise. Upon his elevation he

required a palace to be erected for him suitable to his dignity, and

to have guards appointed for the security of his person. The Medes, in

compliance with his request, built him a strong and magnificent edifice

in a situation which he himself chose, and suffered him to appoint his

guards from among the whole nation. Deioces, as soon as he possessed

the supreme authority, obliged the Medes to build a city, which was

to occupy their attention beyond all other places. They obeyed him in

this also, and constructed what we now call Ecbatana.[25] Its walls

were strong and ample, built in circles one within another, rising each

above each by the height of their respective battlements. This mode

of building was favoured by the situation of the place, which was a

gently rising ground. They did yet more: the city being thus formed of

seven circles, the king’s palace and the royal treasury stood within

the last. The largest of these walls is nearly equal in extent to the

circumference of Athens; this is of a white colour, the next to it is

black, the next purple, the fourth blue, the fifth orange: thus the

battlements of each were distinguished by a different colour. The two

innermost walls are differently ornamented, one having its battlements

plated with silver, the other with gold.

Such were the fortifications and the palace which were erected under

the direction of Deioces, who commanded the body of the people to fix

their habitations beyond the walls which protected his residence. After

which, he was the first who instituted that kind of pomp, which forbids

access to the royal person, and only admits communication with him by

intermediate agents, the king himself being never publicly seen. His

edict also signified, that to smile or to spit in the king’s presence,

or in the presence of each other, was an act of indecency. His motive

for this conduct was the security of his power; thinking, that if he

were seen familiarly by those who were educated with him, born with

equal pretensions, and not his inferiors in virtue, it might excite

their envy, and provoke them to sedition. On the contrary, by his

withdrawing himself from observation, he thought their respect for him

would be increased.

When Deioces had taken these measures to increase the splendour of his

situation and the security of his power, he became extremely rigorous

in his administration of justice. They who had causes to determine,

sent them to him in writing, by his official servants, which, with the

decisions upon each, he regularly returned. This was the form which

he observed in judiciary matters. His proceeding with regard to penal

offences was thus: Whenever he heard of any injury being perpetrated,

and for this purpose he appointed spies and informers in different

parts of his dominions, the offender was first brought to his presence,

and then punished according to his offence.

Deioces thus collected the Medes into one nation, over which he ruled:

they consisted of the Busæ, the Paretaceni, the Struchates, the

Arizanti, the Budii, and the Magi.

Deioces reigned fifty-three years, and at his decease, his son

Phraortes succeeded to the throne. Not satisfied with the government

of the Medes alone, he singled out the Persians as the objects of his

ambition, and reduced them first of all under the dominion of the

Medes. Supreme of these two great and powerful nations, he overran

Asia, alternately subduing the people of whom it was composed. He came

at length to the Assyrians, and proceeded to attack that part of them

which inhabited Nineveh.[26] These were formerly the most powerful

nation in Asia: their allies, at this period, had separated from

them; but they were still, with regard to their internal strength,

respectable. In the twenty-second year of his reign, Phraortes, in an

excursion against this people, perished, with the greater part of his

army.

He was succeeded by his son Cyaxares, grandson of Deioces. He is

reported to have been superior to his ancestors in valour, and was the

first who regularly trained the Asiatics to military service, dividing

them, who had before been promiscuously embodied, into companies of

spearmen, cavalry, and archers. He it was who was carrying on war

with the Lydians, when the engagement which happened in the day, was

suddenly interrupted by nocturnal darkness. Having formed an amicable

connection with the different nations of Asia beyond the Halys, he

proceeded with all his forces to the attack of Nineveh, being equally

desirous of avenging his father, and becoming master of the city. He

vanquished the Assyrians in battle; but when he was engaged in the

siege of Nineveh, he was surprised by an army of Scythians, commanded

by Madzas, son of Protothyas.[27] Having expelled the Cimmerians from

Europe, the Scythians had found their way into Asia, and, continuing to

pursue the fugitives, had arrived at the territories of the Medes.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 607-585 B.C.]]

After possessing the dominion of Asia for a space of twenty-eight

years, the Scythians lost all they had obtained, by their

licentiousness and neglect. The extravagance of their public extortions

could only be equalled by the rapacity with which they plundered

individuals. At a feast, to which they were invited by Cyaxares and

the Medes, the greater part of them were cut off when in a state of

intoxication. The Medes thus recovered their possessions, and all their

ancient importance; after which they took Nineveh; the particulars of

which incident we shall hereafter relate. They, moreover, subdued the

Assyrians, those only excepted which inhabited the Babylonian district.

Cyaxares reigned forty years, and then died; but in this period is to

be included the time in which the Scythians possessed the empire.

His son Astyages succeeded to the throne: he had a daughter whom

he called Mandane; she, in a dream, appeared to make so great a

quantity of water, that not only his principal city, but all Asia,

was overflowed. The purport of this vision, when explained in each

particular by the magi, the usual interpreters, terrified him

exceedingly. Under this impression, he refused to marry his daughter,

when she arrived at a suitable age, to any Mede whose rank justified

pretensions to her. He chose rather to give her to Cambyses, a Persian,

of a respectable family, but of a pacific disposition, though inferior

in his estimation to the lowest of the Medes.

The first year after the marriage of his daughter, Astyages saw

another vision. A vine appeared to spring from the womb of Mandane,

which overspread all Asia. Upon this occasion also he consulted his

interpreters: the result was, that he sent for his daughter from

Persia, when the time of her delivery approached. On her arrival, he

kept a strict watch over her, intending to destroy her child. The magi

had declared the vision to intimate that the child of his daughter

should supplant him on his throne. Astyages, to guard against this,

as soon as Cyrus was born, sent for Harpagus, a person whose intimacy

he used, upon whose confidence he depended, and who indeed had the

management of all his affairs. He addressed him as follows: “Harpagus,

I am about to use you in a business, in which if you either abuse my

confidence, or employ others to do what I am anxious you should do

yourself, you will infallibly lament the consequence. You must take the

boy of whom Mandane has been delivered, remove him to your own house,

and put him to death: you will afterwards bury him as you shall think

proper.” “Sir,” he replied, “you have hitherto never had occasion to

censure my conduct; neither shall my future behaviour give you cause

of offence: if the accomplishment of this matter be essential to your

peace, it becomes me to be faithful and obedient.”[b]

According to Herodotus, Harpagus realising that as Astyages had no son,

Cyrus was his sole male descendant, was fearful of Mandane’s vengeance

when the king should be dead. So, resolved not to have the child’s

blood on his hands he gave him to a herdsman, Mithridates by name,

with the injunction that young Cyrus be exposed to the wild beasts

in an unfrequented part of the mountains among which the herdsman

lived. Now it so happened that the wife of Mithridates had the day

before been delivered of a still-born child, and when the woman saw

the beautiful infant and knew its origin, she proposed that her own

dead child be exposed on the mountain, and that she keep the one put

into her husband’s hands for destruction. Mithridates approved. His

own child, “dressed in the other’s costly clothing, was exposed on a

desert mountain.” Proof of this was brought to Harpagus, and then “the

herdsman’s child was interred: the other, who was afterwards called

Cyrus, was brought up carefully by the wife of the herdsman and called

by some other name.”

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 585 B.C.]]

When the boy was ten years old Astyages suspected the deceit that had

been practised upon him. Chance threw the child and his foster-father

in the king’s way, and a confession was wrung from the terrified

Mithridates. Harpagus was sent for, who told what he believed to be the

truth. The sequel had best be told in the language of Herodotus.[a]

[Illustration: COSTUME OF A PERSIAN KING.]

Harpagus related the fact without prevarication; but Astyages,

dissembling the anger which he really felt, informed him of the

confession of the herdsman; and finished his narration in these words,

“The child is alive, and all is well: I was much afflicted concerning

the fate of the boy, and but ill could bear the reproaches of my

daughter. But as the matter has turned out well, you must send your

son to our young stranger, and attend me yourself at supper. I have

determined, in gratitude for the child’s preservation, to celebrate a

festival in honour of those deities who interposed to save him.”

Harpagus, on hearing this, made his obeisance to the king, and returned

cheerfully to his house, happy in the reflection that he was not only

not punished for his disobedience, but honoured by an invitation to the

royal festival. As soon as he arrived at his house, he hastily called

for his only son, a boy of about thirteen, ordering him to hasten to

the palace of Astyages, and to comply with whatever was commanded

him. He then related to his wife, with much exultation, all that had

happened. As soon as the boy arrived, Astyages commanded him to be

cut in pieces, and some part of his flesh to be roasted, another part

boiled, and the whole made ready to be served at table. At the hour of

supper, among other guests, Harpagus also attended. Before the rest, as

well as before Astyages himself, dishes of mutton were placed, but to

Harpagus all the body of his son was served, except the head and the

extremities, which were kept apart in a covered basket. After he seemed

well satisfied with what he had eaten, Astyages asked him how he liked

his fare: Harpagus expressing himself greatly delighted, the attendants

brought him the basket which contained the head and extremities of

his child, and desired him to help himself to what he thought proper.

Harpagus complied, uncovered the vessel, and beheld the remains of

his son. He continued, however, master of himself, and discovered no

unusual emotion. When Astyages inquired if he knew of what flesh and

of what wild beast he had eaten, he acknowledged that he did, and that

the king’s will was always pleasing to him. Saying this he took the

remnants of the body, and returned to his house, meaning, as I should

suppose, to bury them together.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 555 B.C.]]

As Cyrus grew up, he excelled all the young men in strength and

gracefulness of person. Harpagus, who was anxious to be revenged on

Astyages, was constantly endeavouring to gain an interest with him,

by making him presents. In his own private situation he could have

but little hope of obtaining the vengeance he desired; but seeing

in Cyrus when a man, one whose fortunes bore some resemblance to

his own, he much attached himself to him. He had, some time before,

taken the following measure: Astyages having treated the Medes with

great asperity, Harpagus took care to communicate with the men of the

greatest consequence among them, endeavouring, by his insinuations,

to promote the elevation of Cyrus, and the deposition of his master.

Having thus prepared the way, he contrived the following method of

acquainting Cyrus in Persia with his own private sentiments, and the

state of affairs. The communication betwixt the two countries being

strictly guarded, he took a hare, opened its paunch, in which he

inserted a letter, containing the information he wished to give, and

then dexterously sewed it up again. The hare, with some hunting nets,

he entrusted to one of his servants of the chase, upon whom he could

depend. The man was sent into Persia, and ordered to deliver the hare

to Cyrus himself, who was entreated to open it with his own hands, and

without witnesses.

The man executed his commission; Cyrus received the hare, which having

opened as directed, he found a letter to the following purport: “Son

of Cambyses, Heaven evidently favours you, or you never could have

risen thus superior to fortune. Astyages meditated your death, and

is a just object of your vengeance; he certainly determined that

you should perish; the gods and my humanity preserved you. With the

incidents of your life I believe you are acquainted, as well as with

the injuries which I have received from Astyages, for delivering you

to the herdsman, instead of putting you to death. Listen but to me and

the authority and dominions of Astyages shall be yours: first prevail

upon the Persians to revolt, and then undertake an expedition against

the Medes. If I shall be appointed by Astyages the leader of the forces

which oppose you, our object will be instantly accomplished, which I

may also venture to affirm of each of our first nobility; they are

already favourable to your cause, and wait but the opportunity of

revolting from Astyages. All things being thus prepared, execute what I

advise without delay.”

Cyrus, on receiving this intelligence, revolved in his mind what

would be the most effectual means of inducing the Persians to revolt.

After much deliberation he determined on the following stratagem: He

dictated the terms of a public letter, and called an assembly of his

countrymen. Here it was produced and read, and it appeared to contain

his appointment by Astyages to be general of the Persians: “And now,

O Persians,” he exclaimed, “I must expect each of you to attend me

with an hatchet.” There are many tribes of the Persians: certain

of these Cyrus assembled, and persuaded to revolt from the Medes.

These are they upon which all the other Persians depend, namely, the

Pasargadæ, the Maraphii, and the Maspii: Of these, the Pasargadæ are

the most considerable; the Achæmenidæ are those from whom the Persian

monarchs are descended. The Panthialæi, Derusiæi, and Germanians follow

laborious employments; the Dai, Mardi, Dropici, and Sagartians are

feeders of cattle.

They all assembled in the manner they were commanded, and Cyrus

directed them to clear, in the space of a day, a certain woody

enclosure, which was eighteen or twenty furlongs in extent. When they

had executed their task, they were desired to attend the following day

to feast and make merry. For this purpose Cyrus collected and slew all

the goats, sheep, and oxen, which were the property of his father; and

further to promote the entertainment of the Persians, he added rich

wines and abundance of delicacies. The next day, when they were met, he

desired them to recline on the grass and enjoy themselves. When they

were satisfied, he inquired of them which day’s fare delighted them the

most: They replied, the contrast betwixt the two was strong indeed,

as on the first day they had nothing but what was bad, on the second

everything that was good. On receiving this answer, Cyrus no longer

hesitated to explain the purpose which he had in view: “Men of Persia,”

he exclaimed, “your affairs are thus circumstanced; if you obey me,

you will enjoy these and greater advantages, without any servile

toils: if you refuse what I propose, you must prepare to encounter

worse hardships than those of yesterday. By following my advice you

will obtain liberty; Providence appears to have reserved me to be the

instrument of your prosperity; you are, doubtless, equal to the Medes

in everything, and most assuredly are as brave: this being the case,

immediately revolt from Astyages.”

The Persians, who had long spurned at the yoke imposed on them by

the Medes, were glad of such a leader, and ardently obeyed the call

of liberty. Astyages was soon informed of the proceedings of Cyrus,

and commanded his attendance. He returned for answer, that he should

probably anticipate the wish of Astyages to see him. Astyages upon

this collected the Medes, and, urged by some fatal impulse, appointed

Harpagus to command his forces, not remembering the injury he formerly

had done him. His army was embodied, the Medes met and engaged the

Persians; they who were not privy to the plot fought with valour,

the rest went over to the Persians; the greater part discovered no

inclination to continue the combat, and hastily retreated.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 553 B.C.]]

Astyages, hearing of the ignominious defeat of his army, continued to

menace Cyrus; and exclaimed that he should still have no reason to

exult. The first thing he did was to crucify the magi, the interpreters

of dreams, who had prevailed upon him to send Cyrus away. He then

armed all his citizens, young and old, without distinction. He led

them against the Persians, and was vanquished: he himself was taken

prisoner, and the greater part of his army destroyed.

In his captivity, Harpagus was present to insult and reproach him.

Among other things, he asked him what was his opinion of that supper,

in which he had compelled a father to feed on the flesh of his child,

a supper which had reduced him from a monarch to a slave. In reply

Astyages requested to know if he imputed to himself the success of

Cyrus? He confessed that he did, explained the means, and justified his

conduct. Astyages told him that he was then the most foolish and wicked

of mankind;--most foolish, in acquiring for another the authority he

might have enjoyed himself; most wicked, for reducing his countrymen to

servitude, to gratify his private revenge. If he thought a change in

the government really necessary, and was still determined not to assume

the supreme authority himself, justice should have induced him to have

raised a Mede to that honour, rather than a Persian. The Medes, who

were certainly not accessory to the provocation given, had exchanged

situations with their servants; the Persians, who were formerly the

servants, were now the masters.

After a reign of thirty-five years Astyages was thus deposed. To

his cruelty of temper the Medes owed the loss of their power, after

possessing, for the space of one hundred and twenty-eight years, all

that part of Asia which lies beyond the Halys, deducting from this

period the short interval of the Scythian dominion. In succeeding

times, being dissatisfied with their condition, they took up arms

against Darius; their attempt proved unsuccessful, and they were a

second time reduced to servitude. From this period the Persians, who,

under the conduct of Cyrus, had shaken off the power of the Medes,

remained in undisturbed possession of Asia. Cyrus detained Astyages

in captivity for the remainder of his life, but in no other instance

treated him with severity. Such is the history of the birth, education,

and success of Cyrus. He afterwards, as I have before related, subdued

Crœsus, who had attacked him unjustly; from which time he remained

without a rival, sovereign of Asia.[b]

Such is the picturesque narrative of Herodotus--the narrative on which

all subsequent studies of the subject have been largely based. We take

up now a critical analysis of this famous story.

THE MEDIAN EMPIRE: A MODERN INTERPRETATION

The series of the great Iranian monarchies begins for us with the

Median empire of Ecbatana. According to Herodotus the Medes freed

themselves from the Assyrians, and lived for a time without a master

till Deioces obtained the kingly power by stratagem. There reigned then

Deioces 53 years } }

} 75 years }

Phraortes 22 years } }

} 150 years.

Cyaxares 40 years } }

} 75 years }

Astyages 35 years } }

The totals show how the figures are arranged on an artificial system.

The duration of the kingdom is exactly a century and a half, divided

into two exactly equal portions, each of which is occupied by the

reigns of two kings. But further, according to Herodotus, the rule of

the Medes over Upper Asia, _i.e._, the land east of the Halys, lasted

one hundred and twenty-eight years, save only (πάρεξ) the twenty-eight

years during which the Scythians ruled. It is easy to see that “save

only” means “minus,” and that thus the foreign supremacy of the Medes

is reckoned at exactly one hundred years, or two-thirds of the total

duration of the kingdom. Obviously such figures can at most be only

approximately correct. But the names of the kings in Herodotus are

now all authenticated, directly or indirectly, by the inscriptions

lately discovered. Probably, too, the reckoning of the total duration

of the empire at a century and a half is about right. Indeed, such

chronological systems sometimes correspond better, on the whole, with

the facts than their artificiality would lead us to expect.

We have listened to Herodotus’ naïve story of the foundation of the

Median kingdom by Deioces, son of Phraortes, a story in which Greek

and oriental colours are charmingly blended. We may assume as certain

that Deioces possessed a principality, the central point of which

was Ecbatana (or Agbatana; old Persian Hagmatana, now Hamadan), a

place which for thousands of years has held the rank of a capital.

This principality probably never embraced the whole of Media (_i.e._,

nearly the present provinces of Irak Adjemi and Azerbijan with a

portion of Turkish Kurdistan), but by his successors it was enlarged

into the great Median empire. Of course there was no smooth and

formal constitution, no fixed frontier, no exact determination of the

prerogatives of different chiefs in the particular districts. From of

old the Assyrians had made frequent attempts to subjugate the country

of the Medes, but perhaps never quite possessed the whole land with its

numerous inaccessible mountains and warlike robber tribes. Nevertheless

they made successful expeditions into the interior of Media even

down to the time at which Herodotus regards Media as independent.

Neither the liberation of Media nor the foundation of the monarchy is

an event which can be limited to a particular year, the thing took

place gradually. In the period not long before Deioces, according

to Herodotus’ reckoning, very many tributary Median chieftains are

mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions; this confirms, in some measure

at least, the statement that “anarchy” then prevailed. In 715 B.C.

there was carried off as prisoner one Daiaukku; this is certainly

the same name, perhaps the same person (for his captivity may have

been brief), as Daiokes, which appears in Herodotus in the Ionic form

Deiokes. We can certainly identify Herodotus’ first king with the

prince whose land, called Bit Daiaukku (_i.e._, land of Daiaukku), King

Sargon of Assyria conquered in 713 B.C. The man who thus gave his name

to the land must have occupied a high station. The date is not very

remote from that assigned by Herodotus to Deioces; for we get from

Herodotus as the date of Deioces 709-656, or, if we correct his error

in dating the end of the empire, 700-647. Deioces was not a king of

kings; he was forced to bow to the Assyrians repeatedly, but he was the

founder of the empire. Three kings followed him. It is possible that

there were really more, and that in the summary list the shorter reigns

are passed over. Nor can we place much reliance on Herodotus’ assertion

that each successive ruler was the son of his predecessor.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 700-625 B.C.]]

In perfect harmony with the conditions of development of a small state

into a great power is the statement of Herodotus that the second king

of the Medes, Phraortes (Frawarti; according to Herodotus’ reckoning

656-634 [647-625]), extended his sway beyond the limits of Media,

and first of all subjugated Persis, or Persia proper, the secluded

mountain-land southeast of Media. During all this time indeed, as we

learn from Darius’ great inscription, Persis had kings of its own; but

these were simply vassals of the sultan who had his seat in Ecbatana.

After conquering the Persians, Phraortes, says Herodotus, subjugated

piece after piece of Asia, until he was discomfited and slain in the

attempt to conquer the Assyrians in Nineveh, whose empire was by that

time completely lost. Allowing for some exaggerations with respect to

the extent of the empire, there is nothing in these statements that

need excite suspicion. Independent evidence seems to show that towards

the middle of the seventh century the Assyrian empire had fallen very

low; and that the inhabitants of the cluster of vast cities to which

Nineveh belonged were able to repel the first attack of an enemy who

could hardly have been their match in the art of siege-warfare is

perfectly natural. Besides, the stability of the Median military,

political, and court institutions, which were afterwards taken

over unaltered by the Persians, must surely have required for its

development a longer time than some modern inquirers, following

exclusively the cuneiform inscriptions, have assumed for the actual

duration of the Median empire.

Phraortes’ successor, Cyaxares (Huwakhshatara; according to Herodotus’

reckoning 634-594 [625-585]), brought the empire to the highest pitch

of power. He is said to have introduced fixed tactical arrangements

into the army. It was to him that the pretenders whom Darius had to

overcome traced their descent, as he tells us himself. Cyaxares,

according to Herodotus, took the field successfully against Nineveh,

but as he was besieging the city the inroad of the “Scythians”

compelled him to forego for a time all the fruits of victory. Who these

Scythians were is unknown. Herodotus took them for the people tolerably

familiar to the Greeks, whose true name was Scolotæ; but his evidence

does not go for much, since he often falls into the popular misuse of

the term “Scythian” as a name for all the peoples of the steppes, and

brings the inroads of these Scythians into a most unlikely connection

with the desolating raids of Thracian tribes (the Trares or Treres,

commonly called Cimmerians) in Asia Minor. We must content ourselves

with assuming that we have here one of those irruptions of northern

barbarians into Iran of which we hear so often in later times. Probably

these nomads came, as Herodotus indicates, through the natural gate

between the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, the pass of Derbend, though

it is quite possible that they came from the east of the Caspian, from

the steppes of Turkestan. Whether these Scythians are really the same

people who made their way as far as Palestine and Egypt is, indeed,

far from being as certain as is commonly supposed, nor can the date

of the irruption into these countries be determined. At any rate, the

barbarians overthrew the Medes and flooded the whole empire. From what

we know of the doings of Huns, Khazars, Turks, and Mongols in later

times we can infer how these Scythians behaved in Iran. Cyaxares must

have come to some sort of terms with them: and at last he rid himself

of them in a truly Eastern fashion, by inviting most of them (_i.e._,

of their chiefs) to a feast, where he made them drunk and slew them at

their wine. It is not in the least surprising that Cyaxares afterwards

had Scythians in his service; savages like these have no steady

national feeling, and serve any potentate for pay.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 625-600 B.C.]]

With the Scythian disorders we might combine the contests which,

according to Ctesias, the Parthians and Sacæ (_i.e._, the inhabitants

of the Turkoman desert, who are also called “Scythians” by the Greeks)

waged with Cyaxares, or Astibaras, as Ctesias calls him. But it is

not safe to do so, as the whole narrative is only the framework for a

pretty romance.

Cyaxares marched a second time against Nineveh and destroyed it about

607. Not only Ctesias but also Berosus asserts that the king of the

Medes achieved this great success in league with the king of Babylon.

In order to protect himself against his ally, who by the fall of the

Assyrian empire had grown too powerful, the Chaldean had recourse

to a double precaution: he married his son, afterwards the potent

Nebuchadrezzar, to Amyite or Amyitis, daughter of the Median king; but

he also erected extensive fortifications. After the fall of Nineveh,

Nebuchadrezzar made himself master of Syria and Palestine, and Cyaxares

acquired most of the rest of the Assyrian territory. Probably Assyria

proper belonged to him also, and we can thus explain Xenophon’s error

that the Assyrian cities before their destruction belonged to the Medes

(_Anab._, III, 4, 7-10). When Cyaxares afterwards began the war with

the Lydians he was already master of Armenia and Cappadocia, though

he probably did not acquire them until after he had got rid of the

Scythians and destroyed Nineveh.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 600-550 B.C.]]

The pretext for the war was afforded by the flight of some Scythians

in Cyaxares’ service to Alyattes, king of Lydia; but the real cause

was doubtless thirst of conquest. The war lasted for five years with

varying fortune, and was ended by the battle during which the eclipse

of the sun, said to have been predicted by Thales, took place. The

terrified combatants saw in this a divine warning and hastily concluded

peace. An impression so profound could be produced by nothing short

of a total eclipse. Now, according to Airy’s calculation, of all the

eclipses of that period the only one which was total in the east of

Asia Minor (where we must necessarily look for the seat of war) was

that of May 28th, 585. The 28th of May 585 B.C. is perhaps the oldest

date of a great event which can be fixed with perfect certainty down to

the day of the month. The conclusion of peace which followed affords us

a remarkable instance of diplomatic mediation in very ancient times.

The peace was brought about by Syennesis, prince of Cilicia, and

Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon. Astyages, son of Cyaxares, married

Aryenis, daughter of Alyattes. But according to Herodotus’ calculation

the above date does not fall within the time of Cyaxares; and even with

the necessary correction Astyages ascended the throne in this same

year. We might suppose that the battle fell in the father’s, the peace

in the son’s time. But, as we saw above, the dates of these reigns are

not of a sort in which we can place much confidence, and it is more

likely that the reign of Astyages did not last so long as tradition

asserts. Thus Cyaxares probably died after 585.

Of the reign of his son Astyages (in Ctesias, Astyigas; in a Babylonian

inscription Ishtuvegu) we have no particulars. It is not even certain

that he was cruel, for Herodotus’ account of him and of the revolt

of Cyrus is not impartial, based as it is on the narratives of

the descendants of Harpagus, who had an interest in portraying in

unfavourable colours the prince whom their ancestor had betrayed.

On the other hand, Ctesias’ Median authority (Nicolaus Dam., 64 _et

seq._), which sets Astyages in a very favourable light, has no better

claim to credence on this point.[c]

NEW LIGHT ON THE MEDES

In our account of the capture of Nineveh, mention was made of a

philological error of the Greeks which endured until the very end of

the nineteenth century. Now that the matter has been cleared up, we

are in possession of the somewhat startling fact that Cyaxares was

not a Median prince and that the Medes had nothing whatever to do

with the tragic end of the Assyrian capital. The Medes were indeed

the people whose cities Shalmaneser II laid waste and from whom he

exacted tribute; against whom Tiglathpileser III led an expedition in

737; whose princes asked the help of Esarhaddon to repel the nomadic

invasion which was threatening their land and the neighbouring kingdom

of Urartu; but they were not the nation that came only too willingly to

the assistance of Nabopolassar. They were, in fact, closely akin to the

very people whom Esarhaddon was implored to drive back, and are known

as the Manda.

Thus a readjustment of a very important period of ancient history

has been made possible within the last few years; and it is proposed

here to orient the reader and to outline what is now regarded as the

true state of affairs. It seems inadvisable entirely to discard that

universally used phrase “the Median empire,” and to a certain degree

its retention is justifiable, but it is equally important that the

remarkable results of recent research should be carefully explained and

that the ancient misconceptions as to the Medes shall be entirely swept

away.

First of all it must be understood that the political situation of

Western Asia, even as late as the reign of Esarhaddon, differed very

materially from that of the time of Nabonidus, only a little more than

a century after. Babylonia was held fast under the Assyrians’ heel. The

power of Elam was still a thing of the future. But to the north and

east of Assyria there were several countries which, however much they

were tributary to the government at Nineveh, were still kingdoms of

some power and importance.

Urartu, concerning whose history much has already been told, in the

region around Lake Van was one of these, and beyond it, north and east,

lay the land known in ancient geography as Media. Its people first

appear upon the Assyrian monuments as the Amada, but later and more

frequently they are called Mada. “The Mada,” says Professor Sayce,

“were the Kurdish tribes who lived eastward of Assyria and whose

territory extended as far as the Caspian Sea. They were for the most

part Indo-European in language and Aryan in descent, and lived like the

Greeks, in small states, each of which obeyed a ‘city lord’ of its own.”

Such was the status of the “true Medes.” There is nothing in

their condition or history to distinguish them from many other

insignificant peoples whose destiny it was to come in contact with

the world-empires of antiquity. Their influence on history has been

nothing, and their political condition--that of a number of petty

independent principalities--naturally worked against the attainment

of any great degree of importance. Such information as we have of the

rulers and cities of this land that had no central government and was

never completely a portion of the Assyrian empire, comes from the

inscriptions of the Ninevite kings. Esarhaddon tells of three, Uppis of

Partakka, Sanasana of Partukka, and Ramateya of Urakazabarna, who asked

his help against the invading nomads.

Sargon II seems to have had the country under heavy tribute, and

we may read how, after a rebellion in the north had been put down,

there arrived at the conqueror’s new city of Kar-Sharrukin no less

than twenty-eight princes from different parts of Media bringing rich

presents. But beyond these and a few other citations there is nothing

in the story of Media to attract the attention of even a close student

of world-history.

Southeast of Urartu was the little kingdom of Man or Minni, whose

people were the Manna of the Assyrian texts. We hear of it at the

close of the eighth century B.C. when Iranzu was king, and Rusas, the

sovereign of Urartu, attacked it, taking two cities. Sargon II came

to the rescue of his small neighbour, and Rusas gave up his spoil.

After Iranzu’s death, his son Aza was promptly slain by Rusas, but

another son, Ullusunu, who gave oath of fidelity to Assyria, was put

on the throne by Sargon. Ullusunu, however, soon broke his vows, and

there ensued the bloody conflict whose story has been related in the

history of Assyria. The Manna, with the Cimmerians and the people of

Urartu, formed a great coalition against Esarhaddon of which the nomad

chief Kashtariti was head; but this fell to pieces through internal

dissension.

Only one other matter of interest concerning these countries need

detain us, and that is the fact that they are the nations which

Jeremiah believed would work the vengeance of the Lord upon Babylon.

The prophet undoubtedly thought that a period of greatness was in store

for these peoples, and he looked to them, and not to Elam and Persia,

to fulfil his prophecies.

“Make bright the arrows; gather the shields; the Lord hath raised up

the spirit of the kings of the Medes.… Set ye up a standard in the

land, blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against

her [Babylon], call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat

[Urartu], Minni, and Ashchenaz.[28] … Prepare against her the nations

with the kings of the Medes, the captains thereof and all the rulers

thereof.…” (_Jeremiah_ li. 11, 27, 28.)

It is clear that Jeremiah had the “true Medes” in mind when he uttered

these words, since he speaks of the “kings of the Medes,” whereas the

Manda, as we shall presently see, had a strongly organised government

under one king.

Modern investigation is tending to establish the fact that this

prophecy of Jeremiah is one originally uttered against Nineveh and

subsequently changed to apply to the capital of Nebuchadrezzar, since

the mention of Urartu and Minni with at least a possible future

describes conditions that could scarcely have existed at a date much

later than the fall of Nineveh. There are other examples of this sort

of adaptation in the Bible; for example, Isaiah’s prophecy of Moab’s

doom.

We come now to that recently discovered people, of great importance

as the first of the Indo-European family to affect the current of

world-history in Western Asia, but of whose story the modern world has

remained in complete ignorance until the present day.

By the time of Esarhaddon the wave of Indo-European migration had

begun to assume threatening proportions to the Semitic nations of

Mesopotamia, although from southern Russia the tide had been pouring in

for many centuries. Media was populated, and then the nomadic stream

parted, one great mass moving westward into Asia Minor, and another to

the east, and then south as far as Elam, neither making any disturbance

in the Assyrian empire. Nevertheless the Semites soon found themselves

surrounded, peacefully but positively, by an alien race.

Northeast of Assyria, and extending to the southern shores of the

Caspian, was the ancient kingdom of Ellipi, with its capital at

Ecbatana--the Achmetha of the Bible. Of its fortunes we got a glimpse

now and then in the course of Assyrian history: Sargon laid it under

tribute, and it entered into alliance with Elam in the desperate

struggle with Sennacherib--and then the curtain of oblivion falls.

We know its fate--the nomads descended upon it. In this region the

new-comers seem quickly to have effected the organisation of a new

state. To the Assyrians they are known as the Manda, and there is

little doubt that they are identical with the Scythians of classical

history.

As far back as Esarhaddon’s day there are allusions to this people

on the monuments. That monarch perceived the danger threatening his

country, and made at least one successful effort to prevent the

Scythian or Cimmerian stream from pouring into Mesopotamia. At a battle

fought in Cilicia he boasts that he conquered the Cimmerian leader,

Teuspa or Teispes, whom he calls a “Manda.” Asshurbanapal, too, in a

recently discovered inscription, expresses gratitude to the gods for

a victory over “that limb of Satan,” Tuktammu of the Manda. “It is

possible,” says Professor Sayce, “that Tuktammu is the Lygdamis of

Strabo, who led the Cimmerians into Cilicia, from whence they afterward

marched westward and burned Sardis.”

In the course of a single century, therefore, new political conditions

had rapidly developed. In the border regions of Assyria “was enacted

the same drama which centuries later took place in Italy, as the

northern barbarians came southward over the mountains and seized the

plains of Lombardy. Rome could only make a feeble resistance, and a

little later even the capital went down before them. The parallel

goes even that far also, for Nineveh likewise was done to destruction

through the help of these same barbarians who now settled in her

outlying provinces.”

The first Scythian invasion of Assyria took place in the reign of

Asshurbanapal’s successor, Asshur-etil-ili. The Manda burned Calah,

and swept on as far as the border of Egypt, when they were turned

back only by Psamthek’s gold. The next visit was at the invitation

of Nabopolassar, and it is not necessary to repeat here how the

Scythian king of Ecbatana, the Cyaxares of the Greeks, came to the

help of the king of Babylon, nor indeed how, in the division of the

Assyrian empire, the Manda found themselves lords of the land north

from the Babylonian frontier. Suffice it to say that the thirst for

empire-making was now strong upon them, and we will quote Professor

Rogers’ brief account of the short-lived Scythian empire: “To them [the

Manda] had fallen in the partition of the Assyrian empire the whole of

the old land of Assyria with northern Babylonia. The very ownership of

such territory as this was itself a call to the making of an empire.

To this the Manda set themselves with extraordinary and rapid success.

… As early as 560 B.C. their border had been extended as far west

as the river Halys, which served as a boundary between them and the

kingdom of Lydia, over which Crœsus, of proverbial memory, was now king

(560-546 B.C.). If no violent end came to a victorious people, such as

the Manda now were, it could not be long before the rich plains, the

wealthy cities, and the great waterways of Babylonia would tempt them

southward and the great clash would come. If to such brute force of

conquest as they had already abundantly shown they should add gifts

for organisation and administration, there was no reason why all their

possessions should not be welded again into a great empire.… Their

king was now Astyages, or, as the Babylonian inscriptions name him,

Ishtuvegu. Our knowledge of him is too scant to admit of a judgment as

to his character. A man of war of extraordinary capacity he certainly

was, but perhaps little else. However that may be, he was not to

accomplish the ruin of Nabonidus.”

Thus we get an idea of the ambitions and achievements of the Manda

after the fall of Nineveh. The petty kingdoms in the north--Media, Man,

Urartu, and others--were all theirs. The next logical step was “the

ruin of Nabonidus.”

To accomplish this, as we know, was the destiny of Cyrus, since in the

year 550 B.C., as is told elsewhere, the Scythian empire, called the

Median by the Greeks, after less than a century of existence came to an

end.

It is, perhaps, worthy of note how this extraordinary confusion of

names came about. Professor Sayce thus explains it: “When in the

generations which succeeded Darius Hystaspes, Cyrus became the founder

of the Persian empire, the Medes and the Manda were confounded one

with the other. Astyages, the suzerain of Cyrus, was transformed into

a Mede, and the city of Ecbatana into the capital of a Median empire.

The illusion has lasted down to our own age. There was no reason for

doubting the traditional story; neither in the pages of the writers of

Greece and Rome, nor in those of the Old Testament, nor even in the

great inscription of Darius at Behistun, did there seem to be anything

to cast suspicion upon it. It was not until the discovery of the

monuments of Nabonidus and Cyrus that the truth at last came to light,

and it was found that the history we had so long believed was founded

upon a philological mistake.”[a]

FOOTNOTES

[24] [It is interesting to note that this description tallies very well

with what the Assyrian monuments have taught us concerning the Mada or

true Medes, whom the Greeks confused so hopelessly with the Manda or

Scythians of whom Cyaxares and Astyages were kings.]

[25] [The philological confusion is now complete. Deioces may have been

a Median prince, since the political conditions described by Herodotus

are precisely those that existed in Media; whereas, so far as we can

ascertain from the Babylonian monuments, the Manda had a strong central

government ruling at Ecbatana.]

[26] [Professor Sayce in the article “Babylonia and Assyria,” in

the New Volumes of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, says: “Under

his [Asshurbanapal’s] successor, Asshur-etil-ilani, the Scythians

penetrated into Assyria and made their way as far as the borders of

Egypt. Calah was burned, though the strong walls of Nineveh protected

the relics of the Assyrian army which had taken refuge behind them.”

This occurred about 626 B.C.]

[27] [Of course since the Scythians themselves were besieging Nineveh,

this could not be. But it is easy to see how the application of one

name to another people could have been responsible for Herodotus’

words.]

[28] Probably the Agusi of the Assyrian texts.

CHAPTER III. THE EARLY ACHÆMENIANS AND THE ELAMITES, CYRUS AND CAMBYSES

When we speak of the political history of Persia, our thoughts turn

naturally enough to Greece also. Yet there was a period of Persian

history, which was brilliant, even though brief, in which Greece

had no share even as a participant or objective point. And indeed

the interest which Greece had for the Persian monarchs during the

something more than two hundred years of Persian supremacy has no

doubt been exaggerated in the minds of subsequent generations, because

the whole picture has been seen through the eyes of Greek and not of

Persian historians. The first great profane history that was ever

written--the history, namely, of Herodotus--had for its main subject

the Græco-Persian war.

The earliest pages of this history gave expression to the then current

notion that almost from time immemorial there had existed a deadly feud

between Greece and Persia, and the realm even of mythology is invaded

in the effort to explain the origin of this feud, and to fix the

responsibility for it upon an Asiatic nation. Yet, in point of fact, it

is probable that no such widely prevalent feeling of antagonism between

the representative nations of Asia and Europe had existed for any very

great length of time, before the period at which Herodotus wrote.

Indeed it is clear that a feud between the Persians, as such, and the

Greeks could not have dated earlier than from about the year 550 B.C.,

since it was only then that the Persian empire came into existence.

Nor is there anything to show that the first two rulers of the empire,

namely, Cyrus and Cambyses, had turned their attention particularly

to the region beyond the Hellespont. Cyrus indeed invaded Asia Minor,

and in so doing necessarily came closely into contact with a Greek

civilisation; but the express object of this invasion was the conquest

of Lydia, which was accomplished through the overthrow of Crœsus, and

Cyrus himself then turned back to conquer Babylonia, and whatever plans

he may have had looking to the extension of his power in Asia Minor or

beyond the Ægean Sea, he did not live to execute them. The short reign

of Cambyses was occupied almost exclusively with the Egyptian conquest.

Still it was inevitable that a conquering Asiatic power that had

extended its bounds to the very walls of the Greek cities of Asia Minor

must go farther in the same direction. It was equally certain that

Greece must resent the infringement of its territories and thus the

feud between the East and West was at once as inevitable and as bitter

as if it had been much more ancient in origin than it really was.

The fullest details of the wars which grew out of this feud we shall

have occasion to examine when we turn to Grecian history; nor can we

quite disregard them here. Our chief concern for the moment, however,

is with the history of the Medo-Persian empire in its Asiatic and

African aspects. It is interesting to reflect that this empire was the

greatest in mere geographical extent that the world had ever seen, far

greater than Egypt, greater than the Assyrian empire at its widest

reach, and greater than any empire that was to succeed it until modern

times, except for the brief decade when Alexander the Great held the

destinies of the East and the West subject to his master will.

It should be remembered, too, that this empire of the Medes and

Persians held sway for a much longer period than is sometimes assumed.

Cyrus, the founder of the Medo-Persian empire, came into power in

the year 550 B.C., and the battle of Platæa, in which the army of

Xerxes was completely overthrown and the last Persian force that ever

attempted to invade Europe completely shattered, took place less than

three-quarters of a century later. One is prone at first thought to

date the fall of the Persian empire from this latter event; but to do

so is to take a very narrow or European view of history. The Persians

did not again invade Greece, it is true, but Persian money became a

disturbing influence in Greek political life and continued such for

a century and a half, or as long as Greece maintained independent

national existence.

So powerful has been the influence of Greece in an intellectual way

that one is prone to forget how insignificant a people the Hellenes

were in regard to those matters which are usually made the test of

national supremacy. Once, and once only, a united Greece became a

mighty factor in international warfare; that exceptional time was

the all-essential one, when Greece drove back the Persian invaders.

But the territory of Greece remained unchanged after this momentous

factor, and neither then nor at any subsequent period had the Greeks

any thought of making wide conquests until the day of Agesilaus; and

the aspirations of that Spartan chief, who at one time seemed likely

to anticipate Alexander in a Persian conquest, were cut short by those

suicidal internal dissensions which were the bane of the political

life of Greece at all periods of her history. Meantime, while Rome was

waxing strong in the West, she had not yet reached the horizon of a

world-influence, Persia remained, notwithstanding her defeat on Grecian

territory, the undisputed mistress of Asia and therefore the most

powerful nation in the world, for more than two centuries after the

death of Cyrus. And then it was no Greek, but the conqueror of Greece,

the Macedonian Alexander, who wrested the sceptre from the Persian hand.

Two centuries and a half of supremacy! That does not seem a long

period when one has the thousands of years of Egyptian history in

mind or the other thousands when the plain of Mesopotamia was the

centre of the Asiatic world. Yet after all in the narrow view it will

be apparent that very few times in the world’s history has a single

nation maintained supremacy for a much longer period than two or three

centuries. Egyptian history is very far from being a record of unbroken

power, and the centre of Mesopotamia shifted from south to north and

back again at intervals of a few centuries at longest. When, therefore,

one considers the two and a half centuries of unbroken Persian power,

and reflects how enormously wide was the extent of that dominant

influence, it is clear that he has to do with one of the greatest

nations of which history has any record.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 836-546 B.C.]]

Of the very early history of Persia there is almost nothing known.

From the obelisk of Shalmaneser II we learn how after successfully

invading the land of Namri, the Assyrian king marched into the

territory of Parsua (Persia) and received tribute. This was in the

year 836 B.C. Again tribute was collected in 830, and in the following

year the country was plundered and ravaged by the Assyrian army. About

813 Shamshi-Adad IV paid an unwelcome visit to his province. From

these and other references we may conclude that from the time the

Indo-Europeans were fairly settled in the land, Parsua was a dependency

of the Assyrian empire, regaining its liberties whenever the fortunes

of Assyria were at low ebb, and losing them in a corresponding degree

when a strong brain and hand held the reins in the capitals on the

Upper Tigris. Then, as we have seen, Persia fell into the hands of the

Scythian or Median emperor that ruled at Ecbatana, from whom it was

delivered by Cyrus the Great.

[Sidenote: [_ca._ 730-550 B.C.]]

But before taking up the history of Persia, it is necessary to say

something about the kingdom of Elam, for as we shall presently see,

that was the land from which Cyrus came. Elam lay to the east and

across a mountain range from Babylonia. Of the early fortunes of

the country--the time of Chedorlaomer and other Elamite invaders of

Babylonia we have now nothing to do; what concerns us is that in the

eighth century B.C., Teispes, the king of Persia obtained possession

of the Elamite province of Anshan. In all probability the Persian

conqueror gave the new territory to his son Cyrus I; for according

to Professor Sayce, “While Cyrus I, the great-grandfather of Cyrus

the Great, reigned in Anshan, it is probable that Ariaramnes, the

great-grandfather of Darius, succeeded his father, Teispes, in

Persia. Both Ariaramnes and Cyrus I were sons of Teispes, and since

Darius in his inscription at Behistun declares that ‘eight’ of his

predecessors had been kings before him ‘in two lines,’ it is clear that

both Ariaramnes and his son Arsames must have enjoyed royal power.

We must assume, therefore, with Sir Henry Rawlinson, that Teispes

was the conqueror of Anshan and that upon his death his kingdom was

divided, the newly acquired conquest being assigned to Cyrus I, and

his ancestral dominion to Ariaramnes.” (_Higher Criticism and the

Monuments_, p. 519.)

Thus we see that a piece of the oldest history has become the newest.

It must be clearly understood that Cyrus was not originally a king of

Persia, but of the Elamite province of Anshan--a district that by his

time included Shushan, the old Elamite capital, as well. Three years

after the conquest of Astyages, that is in 546 B.C., he first calls

himself king of the Parsu (Persians), but not before. How he came

to be lord of Persia, we do not know, since this land was a totally

different country from Elam, but it is extremely probable that his new

title had some connection with the overthrow of the Scythian emperor.

It is on the statement of Darius I that Cyrus has gone down in history

as a Persian prince. Why this is so seems clear enough. Darius had

to reconquer the disintegrated empire of Cyrus and Cambyses, and in

doing so he wished to make himself appear the legitimate successor of

his two great predecessors; therefore he makes Cyrus, like himself, a

Persian prince, and we have seen how far this is true. But from Cyrus

to Darius, ought we not to speak of the Elamite empire?

With the reader in possession of these facts, we now turn to an account

of the origins of the Achæmenian dynasty and the reign of Cyrus the

Great.[a]

Cyrus’ father was, just as Herodotus tells us, Cambyses (Kambujiya),

his grandfather Cyrus, his great-grandfather Sispis (_i.e._, the

Persian Chaispi, Greek Teispes). We can combine the contents of a

cylinder of his, on the one hand with the list of Darius’ ancestors in

Herodotus (VII, 11), and on the other hand with Darius’ own statement

in the great Behistun inscription. The last list is shorter by three

than that of Herodotus; but, as Darius says that eight of his family

were kings, and that they reigned in two lines, while neither he

nor his successors in their inscriptions give the title of King to

his immediate predecessor, we must assume that the Behistun list of

ancestors is somewhat curtailed; and we can with some probability

draw out the complete list in exact harmony with Herodotus. We shall

indicate the kings by figure and give the names in the ordinary Greek

form.

Achæmenes.

|

1. Teispes.

|

2. Cambyses.

|

3. Cyrus.

|

4. Teispes.

|

+--------------+--------------+

| |

{ 5. Cyrus. Ariaramnes. }

{ | | }

First { 6. Cambyses. Arsames. } Second

line. { | | } line.

{ 7. Cyrus (Great King). Hystaspes. }

{ | | }

{ 8. Cambyses (Great King). 9. Darius (Great King). }

Achæmenes (Persian _Hakhamani_), ancestor of the whole family, is

perhaps not an historical personage, but a heros eponymus. According to

our calculation Teispes, the first king, flourished about the year 730,

therefore somewhat earlier than the foundation of the Median empire,

but somewhere about the time which Herodotus assigns for the beginning

of the independence of Media. Perhaps the rise of the provincial

dynasty is connected with the weakening of the Assyrian power in

Iran. Now on the cylinder Cyrus calls himself and his forefathers up

to Teispes not kings of Persia but kings “of the city of Anshan.”

Similarly on a lately discovered monument of still greater importance,

a Babylonian tablet, he is called “king of Anshan,” but also “king

of Persia.” It may be that the Achæmenians ruled in a part only of

Persis; but we have just as good a right to assume that, as Herodotus

and Ctesias assert, Cyrus’ father at least was governor of the whole

province. His mother, according to Herodotus, was the daughter of

Astyages. This may very well be historical, though the confirmation by

the oracle which describes him as a “mule” (Herod., I, 55) does not

go for much, since these oracles are tolerably recent forgeries, and

it is conceivable that we have here nothing more than an example of

the well-known tendency of lords of new empires in the East to claim

descent, at least in the female line, from the legitimate dynasty.

Ctesias, indeed, tells us that Cyrus afterwards married a daughter of

the dethroned Astyages, Amytis (which was also the name of Astyages’

sister, wife of Nebuchadrezzar). Of course this does not absolutely

exclude the possibility of Cyrus being the son of another daughter of

the king.

[Sidenote: [550-546 B.C.]]

Stripped of its romantic features, Herodotus’ narrative of the rise of

Cyrus is in fundamental harmony with the new document which we possess

on the subject, in the shape of annals inscribed on a Babylonian

tablet. According to Herodotus, Cyrus and the Persians revolted;

Harpagus the Mede, who was in league with him, was despatched against

him. A part of the Median army fought, but another part went over to

Cyrus or fled. In a second battle Astyages was defeated and taken

prisoner. Now the tablet tells us among other things: “and against

Cyrus king of Anshan, … went and … Ishtuvegu, his army revolted against

him and in hands took, to Cyrus they gave him.” Thereupon, it proceeds,

Cyrus took Ecbatana and carried off rich booty to Anshan. This summary

account of the Babylonian annalist by no means excludes the supposition

that Cyrus had fought a previous battle against Astyages. Both accounts

say that the treachery and faithlessness of the army procured Cyrus the

victory. We might even harmonise the Babylonian document with Ctesias’

narrative that Cyrus was at first hard pressed and driven back as far

as Pasargadæ, if there were not other grounds, quite apart from its

fabulous embellishments, which render this account improbable.

The date of the overthrow of Astyages and the taking of Ecbatana is,

according to the Babylonian tablet, the sixth year; and, as it is in

the highest degree probable that the years in this memorial are those

of the Babylonian king Nabunaid [Nabonidus] we must place these events

in the year 550. Hitherto it has been supposed, following Herodotus,

that the reign of Cyrus (559-529) was to be reckoned from the fall of

the Median empire, and that accordingly the latter event was to be

placed in 559. But now we see that Cyrus numbered his years from the

time when he ascended the throne in Persia.[29] Whether the revolt

against Astyages began when he ascended the throne, we do not know. We

may very well believe Herodotus (I, 330), that Cyrus treated Astyages

well, down to his death. On this point Ctesias agrees with Herodotus.

[Sidenote: [550-538 B.C.]]

After the taking of Ecbatana, which made Cyrus the Great King, he

must have had enough to do to subdue the lands which had belonged to

the Median empire. Little reliance can be placed on Ctesias’ account

of these struggles. Herodotus (I, 153) states that the Bactrians,

who according to Ctesias were soon subdued, were, like the Sacæ, not

subjugated until after the conquest of Babylon.

The next war was against the powerful and wealthy king Crœsus of Lydia,

who ruled over nearly the whole western half of Asia Minor. It was a

continuation of the war between the Medes and Lydians which had been

broken off in 585. Here again the story in Herodotus is embellished

with many marvellous incidents, and is employed to exemplify moral

doctrines.

If Crœsus really began the war, he assuredly did so not frivolously but

deliberately, in order to anticipate the inevitable attack. A fierce

struggle seems to have taken place in Cappadocia (Herod., I, 76, and

especially Polyænus, VII, 8, 1 _et seq._), which already belonged to

Cyrus. Crœsus retreated to prepare for another campaign, but Cyrus

followed hard after him, routed him when he offered battle, and

captured his capital Sardis after a short siege. Not only Herodotus,

but also apparently his contemporary Xanthus the Lydian, quite

independently of Herodotus, told how Cyrus would have burned Crœsus

alive. However, Crœsus was pardoned, after all, perhaps because some

external circumstance interposed (because a sudden shower prevented

the fire from burning?), or because the conqueror changed his mind

before it was too late. The pious and believing saw in the event a

direct intervention of Apollo on behalf of the man who had honoured the

Delphic shrine so highly.

The date of Crœsus’ fall is not quite certain. It may have been 547

or 546. When Cyrus had marched away, the Lydian Pactyas, whom Cyrus

had appointed guardian of the treasures, raised a revolt, but it was

speedily put down by the king’s generals. From that time forwards the

Lydians never made the slightest attempt to shake off the Persian rule.

But now began that struggle of the Persians with the Greeks which has

had so much importance for the history of the world. The Lydian kings

had subdued a number of Greek cities in Asia Minor; but even these

latter shrank from submitting to the still barbarous Persians, whose

rule was far more oppressive, inasmuch as they ruthlessly required

military service. But Harpagus, and other Persian leaders, quickly

took one Greek town after the other; some, like Priene, were razed

to the ground. Some of the Ionians, such as the Teians, and most of

the Phocæans, avoided slavery by emigrating. Miletus alone, the most

flourishing of all these cities, had early come to an understanding

with Cyrus, and the latter pledged himself to lay no heavier burden

on it than Crœsus had before him. In most of the cities the Persians

seem to have set up tyrants, who gave them a better guarantee of

obedience than democratic or aristocratic governments. In other

respects they left the Greeks alone, just as they left their other

subjects alone, not meddling with their internal affairs so long as

they paid the necessary contributions, and supplied men and ships

for their wars. Most of the other peoples in the west of Asia Minor

submitted without much resistance, except the freedom-loving Lycians.

Driven into Xanthus, the capital, they perished in a body rather than

surrender. Some Carian cities also defended themselves stoutly. This

may have given a Persian here and there an inkling, even then, that the

little peoples on the western sea were, after all, harder to manage

than the nations of slaves in the interior of Asia. Sardis became and

remained the mainstay of the Persian rule in western Asia Minor. The

governorship was one of the most influential posts in the empire, and

the governor seems to have exercised a certain supremacy over some

neighbouring governorships.

Though Cyrus had made, and continued to make, conquests in the interior

of Asia, he was still without the true capital of Asia, Babylon, the

seat of primeval civilisation, together with the rich country in

which it lay, and the wide districts of Mesopotamia, Syria, and the

border-lands over which it ruled. Before the capture of the city, in

the summer of 539, a great battle took place, in consequence of which

Cyrus occupied the capital without any further serious fighting, since

the Babylonian troops had mutinied against their king. Late in the

autumn of 539 Cyrus marched into Babylon, Nabonidus, the king, having

previously surrendered himself. The entrance of Cyrus took place on

the 3rd Marsheshwan, which month corresponds nearly to our month of

November. If, as the strict rule requires, we make the small remainder

of the year after the taking of the city to be the first year of Cyrus’

reign, then the events in the text fall in 538. According to Berosus,

Cyrus appointed Nabonidus governor of Karmania, east of Persis; but

in the annals inscribed on the tablet it is said to be recorded that

Nabunaid died when the city was taken. Cyrus certainly did not put down

the Babylonian worship, as the Hebrew prophets expected; he must even

have been impressed by the magnificence of the service in the richest

city of the world, and by the vast antiquity of the rites. But he was

no more an adherent of the Babylonian religion, because the priests

said he was, than Cambyses and the Roman emperors were worshippers of

the Egyptian gods, because Egyptian monuments represent them as doing

reverence to the gods exactly in the style of Egyptian kings. Sayce

doubts whether Cyrus could read their documents; we doubt whether Cyrus

understood their language at all, and regard it as inconceivable that

he learned their complicated writing; indeed, on the strength of all

analogies, we may regard it as scarcely probable that he could read and

write at all.

[Sidenote: [538-529 B.C.]]

The countries subject to Babylon seem to have submitted without

resistance to the Persians. The fortress of Gaza alone, in the land of

the Philistines, perhaps defended itself for a time. On the other hand,

some of the Phœnician cities, which offered a sturdy resistance to

other conquerors, submitted immediately, and remained steadily obedient

to the Persians down almost to the end of the empire. It seems,

however, that, as the real prop of the naval power of Persia, they were

almost always treated with special consideration by the latter. In the

very first year of his reign in Babylon (538) Cyrus gave the Jewish

exiles in Babylon leave to return home. Comparatively few availed

themselves of this permission, but these few formed the starting-point

of a development which has been of infinite importance for the history

of the world.

How far to the east Cyrus extended his dominion we do not know, but it

is probable that all the countries to the east which are mentioned in

the older inscriptions of Darius as in subjection or rebellion were

already subject in the time of Cyrus. In this case Chorasmia (Kharezm,

the modern Khiva) and Sogdiana (Samarcand and Bokhara) belonged to him.

Agreeably with this, Alexander found a city of Cyrus (Cyropolis) on

the Jaxartes, in the neighbourhood of the modern Khokand. He doubtless

ruled also over large portions of the modern Afghanistan, though it is

hardly likely that he ever made his way into the land of the Indus. The

story of his unsuccessful march on India seems to have been invented by

way of contrast to Alexander’s fortunate expedition.

THE DEATH OF CYRUS

[Sidenote: [529 B.C.]]

Different accounts of Cyrus’ death were early current. Herodotus gives

the well-known didactic story of the battle with Tomyris, queen of

the Massagetæ, as the most probable of many which were told.[b] His

account is much too picturesque to be omitted here, notwithstanding its

somewhat doubtful authenticity.

“When Cyrus considered the peculiar circumstances of his birth, he

believed himself more than human. He reflected also on the prosperity

of his arms, and that wherever he had extended his incursions, he had

been followed by success and victory.

“The Massagetæ were then governed by a queen, who was a widow,

and named Tomyris. Cyrus sent ambassadors to her with overtures

of marriage; the queen, concluding that his real object was the

possession, not of her person, but her kingdom, forbade his approach.

Cyrus, on finding these measures ineffectual, advanced to the Araxes,

openly discovering his hostile designs upon the Massagetæ. He then

threw a bridge of boats over the river, for the passage of his forces,

which he also fortified with turrets.

“Whilst he was engaged in this difficult undertaking, Tomyris sent by

her ambassadors this message: ‘Sovereign of the Medes, uncertain as

you must be of the event, we advise you to desist from your present

purpose. Be satisfied with the dominion of your own kingdom, and let

us alone, seeing how we govern our subjects. You will not, however,

listen to this salutary counsel, loving anything rather than peace: If,

then, you are really impatient to encounter the Massagetæ, give up your

present labour of constructing a bridge; we will retire three days’

march into our country, and you shall pass over at your leisure; or, if

you had rather receive us in your own territories, do you as much for

us.’ On hearing this, Cyrus called a council of his principal officers,

and, laying the matter before them, desired their advice how to act.

They were unanimously of opinion, that he should retire, and wait for

Tomyris in his own dominions.

“Crœsus the Lydian, who assisted at the meeting, was of a different

sentiment, which he defended in this manner: ‘I have before remarked,

O king! that since Providence has rendered me your captive, it becomes

me to exert all my abilities in obviating whatever menaces you with

misfortune. I have been instructed in the severe but useful school of

adversity. If you were immortal yourself, and commanded an army of

immortals, my advice might be justly thought impertinent; but if you

confess yourself a human leader, of forces that are human, it becomes

you to remember that sublunary events have a circular motion, and that

their revolution does not permit the same man always to be fortunate.

Upon this present subject of debate I dissent from the majority. If

you await the enemy in your own dominions, a defeat may chance to lose

you all your empire; the victorious Massagetæ, instead of retreating

to their own, will make farther inroad into your territories. If you

conquer, you will still be a loser by that interval of time and place

which must be necessarily employed in the pursuit. I will suppose

that, after victory, you will instantly advance into the dominions

of Tomyris; yet can Cyrus the son of Cambyses, without disgrace and

infamy, retire one foot of ground from a female adversary? I would

therefore recommend, that having passed over with our army, we proceed

on our march till we meet the enemy; then let us contend for victory

and honour. I have been informed that the Massagetæ lead a life of the

meanest poverty, ignorant of Persian fare, and of Persian delicacies.

Let these therefore be left behind in our camp: let there be abundance

of food prepared, costly viands, and flowing goblets of wine. With

these let us leave the less effective of the troops, and with the rest

again retire towards the river. If I err not, the foe will be allured

by the sight of our luxurious preparations, and afford us a noble

occasion of victory and glory.’

“The result of the debate was, that Cyrus preferred the sentiments

of Crœsus: he therefore returned for answer to Tomyris, that he

would advance the space into her dominions which she had proposed.

She was faithful to her engagement, and retired accordingly: Cyrus

then formally delegated his authority to his son Cambyses; and above

all recommended Crœsus to his care, as one whom, if the projected

expedition should fail, it would be his interest to distinguish by

every possible mark of reverence and honour. He then dismissed them

into Persia, and passed the river with his forces.

“As soon as he had advanced beyond the Araxes into the land of the

Massagetæ, he saw in the night this vision: He beheld the eldest son of

Hystaspes having wings upon his shoulders; one of which overshadowed

Asia, the other Europe. Hystaspes was the son of Arsamis, of the family

of the Achæmenides; the name of his eldest son was Darius, a youth of

about twenty, who had been left behind in Persia as not yet of age for

military service. Cyrus awoke, and revolved the matter in his mind:

as it appeared to him of serious importance, he sent for Hystaspes to

his presence, and, dismissing his attendants, ‘Hystaspes,’ said the

king, ‘I will explain to you my reasons, why I am satisfied beyond

all dispute that your son is now engaged in seditious designs against

me and my authority. The gods, whose favour I enjoy, disclose to me

all those events which menace my security. In the night just passed,

I beheld your eldest son having wings upon his shoulders, one of

which overshadowed Asia, the other Europe; from which I draw certain

conclusions that he is engaged in acts of treachery against me. Do

you therefore return instantly to Persia; and take care, that when I

return victorious from my present expedition, your son may give me a

satisfactory explanation of his conduct.’

“The strong apprehension of the treachery of Darius induced Cyrus

thus to address the father; but the vision in reality imported that

the death of Cyrus was at hand, and that Darius should succeed to his

power. ‘Far be it, O king!’ said Hystaspes in reply, ‘from any man of

Persian origin to form conspiracies against his sovereign: if such

there be, let immediate death be his portion. You have raised the

Persians from slavery to freedom; from subjects, you have made them

masters: if a vision has informed you that my son designs anything

against you, to you and to your disposal I shall deliver him.’

Hystaspes, after this interview, passed the Araxes on his return to

Persia, fully intending to watch over his son, and deliver him to Cyrus.

“Cyrus, advancing a day’s march from the Araxes, followed, in all

respects, the counsel of Crœsus; and leaving behind him the troops

upon which he had less dependence, he returned with his choicest men

towards the Araxes. A detachment of about the third part of the army of

the Massagetæ attacked the Persians whom Cyrus had left, and, after a

feeble conflict, put them to the sword. When the slaughter ceased, they

observed the luxuries which had artfully been prepared; and yielding

to the allurement, they indulged themselves in feasting and wine, till

drunkenness and sleep overcame them. In this situation the Persians

attacked them: several were slain, but the greater part were made

prisoners, among whom was Spargapises, their leader, the son of Tomyris.

“As soon as the queen heard of the defeat of her forces, and the

capture of her son, she despatched a messenger to Cyrus with these

words: ‘Cyrus, insatiable as you are of blood, be not too elate with

your recent success. When you yourself are overcome with wine, what

follies do you not commit? By entering your bodies, it renders your

language more insulting. By this poison you have conquered my son, and

neither by your prudence nor your valour. I venture a second time to

advise what it will be certainly your interest to follow. Restore my

son to liberty, and, satisfied with the disgrace you have put upon a

third part of the Massagetæ, depart from these realms unhurt. If you

will not do this, I swear by the Sun, the great god of the Massagetæ,

that, insatiable as you are of blood, I will give you your fill of it.’

“These words made but little impression upon Cyrus. The son of Tomyris,

when, recovering from his inebriated state, he knew the misfortune

which had befallen him, entreated Cyrus to release him from his bonds:

he obtained his liberty, and immediately destroyed himself.

“On the refusal of Cyrus to listen to her counsel, Tomyris collected

all her forces: a battle ensued, and of all the conflicts which ever

took place amongst barbarians, this was I believe by far the most

obstinately disputed. According to such particulars as I have been able

to collect, the engagement began by a shower of arrows poured on both

sides, from an interval of some distance; when these were all spent,

they fought with their swords and spears, and for a long time neither

party gained the smallest advantage: the Massagetæ were at length

victorious, the greater part of the Persians were slain, Cyrus himself

also fell; and thus terminated a reign of twenty-nine years. When

after diligent search his body was found, Tomyris directed his head to

be thrown into a vessel filled with human blood, and having insulted

and mutilated the dead body, exclaimed, ‘Survivor and conqueror as

I am, thou hast ruined my peace by the successful stratagem against

my son: but I will give thee now, as I have threatened, thy fill of

blood.’--This account of the end of Cyrus seems to me most consistent

with probability, although there are many other and different

relations.”[c]

If we accept Herodotus’ statements, we must look for the Massagetæ

beyond the Jaxartes. In Ctesias Cyrus is mortally wounded in battle

with the Derbices, who probably dwelt near the Middle or Upper Oxus.

A fragment of Berosus says that Cyrus fell in the land of the Dai

(Dahæ), _i.e._, in the modern Turkoman desert, perhaps in the southern

or southwestern portion of it; this account may very well be derived

from contemporary Babylonian records. Be that as it may, Cyrus met his

death in battle with a savage tribe of the northeast. The battle was

probably lost, but the Persians rescued his body, which was buried at

Pasargada, in the ancient land of his race. To this day there is to

be seen at Murghab, north of Persepolis (on the telegraph line from

Abushehr to Teheran), the empty tomb and other remains of the great

mausoleum, which Aristobulus, a companion of Alexander, described from

his own observation; and on some pillars there the inscription is to

be read: “I am Cyrus, the king, the Achæmenian.” Till lately the same

inscription was also to be found high on the pillar which bears in

bas-relief a winged figure of a king. This figure is furnished with a

“pshent,” _i.e._, such an ornamented crown as is worn by kings and gods

on Egyptian monuments. This was no doubt meant by Cambyses as a special

mark of honour to his father, whose monument must have required years

to finish. It is quite natural that the ancient art of Egypt should

have made a deep impression even upon those of its conquerors who in

other respects had little liking for Egyptian ways.[b]

CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE OF CYRUS

Cyrus played too great a part in the world and did too much for the

progress of humanity that we should leave him without some account

of the character and influence on history of a man of whom even so

cynical a historian as Eduard Meyer has said, tersely but in words that

demand special emphasis, “_To honour and spare an adversary of equal

birth, once he had been conquered, remained a privilege of all his

successors._” After this we must indeed expect eulogy, but the short

extracts given here, the first ancient and the last modern, are both

founded on careful and loving study of the man’s character.[a]

_Xenophon’s Estimate of Cyrus_

The reflection once occurred to me, how many democracies have been

dissolved by men who chose to live under some other government rather

than a democracy; how many monarchies, and how many oligarchies, have

been overthrown by the people; and how many individuals, who have tried

to establish tyrannies, have, some of them, been at once entirely

destroyed, while others, if they have continued to reign for any length

of time, have been admired as wise and fortunate men. I had observed,

too, I thought, many masters, in their own private houses, some indeed

having many servants, but some only very few, and yet utterly unable

to keep those few entirely obedient to their commands. While I was

reflecting upon these things, I came to this judgment upon them; that

to man, such is his nature, it was easier to rule every other sort of

creature than to rule man. But when I considered that there was Cyrus

the Persian, who had rendered many men, many cities, and many nations,

obedient to him, I was then necessitated to change my opinion, and to

think that to rule men is not among the things that are impossible, or

even difficult, if a person undertakes it with understanding and skill.

I knew that there were some who willingly obeyed Cyrus, that were many

days’ journey, and others that were even some months’ journey, distant

from him; some, too, who had never seen him, and some who knew very

well that they never should see him; and yet they readily submitted

to his government; for he so far excelled all other kings, as well

those that had received their dominion from their forefathers, as

those that had acquired it by their own efforts, that the Scythian,

for example, though his people be very numerous, is unable to obtain

the dominion over any other nation, but rests satisfied if he can but

continue to rule his own; so it is with the Thracian king in regard to

the Thracians, and with the Illyrian king in regard to the Illyrians;

and so it is with other nations, as many as I have heard of; for the

nations of Europe, at least, are said to be independent and detached

from each other. But Cyrus, finding, in like manner, the nations of

Asia independent, and setting out with a little army of Persians,

obtained the dominion over the Medes by their own choice, and over the

Hyrcanians in a similar manner; he subdued the Syrians, Assyrians,

Arabians, Cappadocians, both the Phrygians, the Lydians, Carians,

Phœnicians, and Babylonians; he had under his rule the Bactrians,

Indians, and Cilicians, as well as the Sacians, Paphlagonians, and

Magadidians, and many other nations of whom we cannot enumerate even

the names. He had dominion over the Greeks that were settled in Asia;

and, going down to the sea, over the Cyprians and Egyptians. These

nations he ruled, though they spoke neither the same language with

himself nor with one another; yet he was able to extend the fear of

himself over so great a part of the world that he astonished all, and

no one attempted anything against him. He was able to inspire all

with so great a desire of pleasing him, that they ever desired to be

governed by his opinion; and he attached to himself so many nations as

it would be a labour to enumerate, which way soever we should commence

our course from his palace, whether towards the east, west, north, or

south.[d]

_A Modern Estimate of the Character and Importance of Cyrus_

The giant figure of Cyrus the Great appears all the more splendid in

the sunlight [by contrast with the surrounding gloom]. He is fitly

called the Great, as belonging to the small number of the immortals to

whom humanity cannot deny this highest title. If he be great, it is

because he attained unheard-of success with insignificant means. With

the assistance of his son and his comrades he founded an empire such as

the Assyrians never possessed even in the day of their highest power:

an empire which stretched from the Pontus Euxinus to Meroë, from Cyrene

to the Oxus and the Indus; the first _world-empire_, the realm of

Alexander before Alexander’s time.

But he was not, like the latter, opposed to a huge and crumbling

monarchy, already in the death agony, an easy prey to any leader of

mercenaries, and proved to be so by Agesilaus in Asia Minor, and by

Amyntas in Egypt; he was not, like Alexander, victorious over a small,

dominant nation, which, in recompense for its narrow-minded policy,

stood alone in the last decisive struggle, while he himself had an

army of better _morale_ and greater skill, with better weapons and

superior numbers--a really overwhelming force. On the contrary, he

led a handful of Persians against four nations, the largest and most

powerful of their time; against the two powers which had overcome the

greatest of all military states, the powers which had destroyed Asshur.

The two rising kingdoms of Media and Lydia were in the full vigour of

their youth, and had hurried from victory to victory, from conquest to

conquest; the power and prosperity of the two ancient civilised peoples

of the Nile and Euphrates dated from the very beginning of history and

had risen anew and more formidable from every defeat; but he flung them

all in the dust forever.

He was great, too, if it be great to fight and even to fall for the

sake of justice. He is no proconsul, to turn, like a matricide, against

the republic the sword with which she had entrusted him; no Albanian

chief, Frankish king, or Mongolian khan to fall on foreign countries

for the purpose of satisfying the greed for prey and lust of war

proper to his race; but a king who, attacked by Media, attacked by the

coalition of Lydia with Babylon and Egypt, only draws the sword in

defence of the double crown of his ancestors--the most legitimate of

all conquerors.

More than this, he was the most humane. His shield is stained by no

horrible deeds of blood, of frightful revenge and cruelty, such as

disgrace the son of Olympias. He spared, and made gifts to conquered

enemies. Even after the second subjugation of the treacherous Lydians,

he would not permit them to be destroyed by thousands, as Alexander did

in the case of the heroes of Tyre, of the Pasargadæ who were faithful

even unto death, of the nobility of Persia, or of the Sogdianians

in revenge for their victory, as even the great Roman slaughtered

his enemies at Thapsus and the betrayed Usipetii, and as the Franks

slew the Saxons at the massacre on the Aller. He did not, like the

Macedonian at Persepolis, burn and destroy hostile capitals; he did

not mutilate captive kings and leaders, nor drag them round the walls

as the latter did Bessus and the lion of Gaza; nor send them to the

scaffold as the Roman sent the chivalrous king of the Arvernians; he

did not basely murder his own countrymen as the “crazy god,” Alexander,

murdered the Branchidæ, Clitus, and the grey-haired Parmenio. Oriental

as he was, and belonging to a savage people and a far earlier period,

he is still always far more humane.

Thus he was the greatest, far beyond the spirit of his nation and

his age, anticipating the remotest future both as man and statesman.

Because no wide stream of blood separated him from the vanquished, he

found the only possible basis for his giant structure in the raising

of conquerors and conquered to equal privileges. With the certainty of

victory, the daring trust which belongs to the greatest, he could see

and spare the subject in the enemy, raise the conquered at once to the

rank of citizen, entrust his army to Mazares the Mede, and to Harpagus

the Median grandee, prince, and general; in the newly conquered Lydia

he could venture to invest the Lydian dynasts, with the civil power,

and to set up as rulers in Ionia the native aristocracy, in Judea the

descendant of the ancient kings and high priests.

It was in accordance with his teachings that his son marched in the

festive procession of the people in newly conquered Babylon, and

after the conquest of Egypt entrusted the civil administration, with

the capital Saïs, to an Egyptian, Psamthek’s admiral, Uzahorsem, the

son of the high priest of Saïs, who held it as “the king’s cousin,”

_i.e._, viceroy, and on whose withdrawal the Egyptian prince Aahmes was

associated with the Persian Aryandes.

Thus Cyrus divided the civil and military administration, a new

departure amongst orientals, and long uncomprehended and unimitated.

The military power he reserved to his faithful Medes and Persians;

the civil he bestowed on native princes, and so arranged an automatic

system which created the best bulwark against the loss of the border

provinces, a bulwark which all the mistakes and crimes and all the

cowardice of his successors destroyed only after the expiration of two

hundred years--a result different indeed from the ephemeral creation

which Alexander cemented with the blood of whole nations.

But gentleness and mercy constituted also the best policy. For

defeating opponents without a battle they were the sharpest of weapons,

carried by a commanding personality who not only compelled the

admiration of his own people, but also brought his enemies to their

knees, and showed his victory in the light of an inevitable decree

of fate, thus infusing dejection and treachery into the ranks of the

enemy. Who is there that approaches him? He is not only beloved by his

own people as a father incomparable in every way, not only does all the

splendour of story play round him as round Alexander and Charlemagne,

but legends also have clustered about him, and the poetry of Xenophon

and Antisthenes glorifies and idealises him. The Median prince and

the Egyptian admiral, the nobility and priesthood of Babylon, as well

as the Greek captains of the kings of the Lydians and Egyptians, with

Eurybates of Ephesus and Phanes of Halicarnassus, throw themselves

at his feet voluntarily, and to the betrayal of their own rulers;

without a struggle the greatest empires, the two conquerors of Nineveh,

surrender to him both themselves and their own kings in chains, as

had been done to none other; even Tyre, that proud and mighty city,

unconquered and unconquerable, with whose lion courage his predecessor

and his successor, Nebuchadrezzar and Alexander alike, wrestled so

fiercely and so long, did homage to him of her own free will, as did

the sea-king of Samos, which was as far beyond reach as Tyre herself.

Above all, the little people of the Jews hailed him at the waters of

Babylon as they have done no mortal before or since, as the victor and

rescuer, the liberator and saviour, the favoured of God and lord of the

earth.