“I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the
river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one
was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.”--Dan. viii. 3.
The ethnic identity of the Persian people with the Medes, and the
inclusion of both nations in that remarkable division of the human
race which is known to ethnologers as the Ipanic or Arian, have been
maintained in a former volume. To the arguments there adduced it seems
unnecessary to add anything in this place, since at the present day
neither of the two positions appears to be controverted. It is admitted
generally, not only that the Persians were of the same stock with the
Medes, but that they formed, together with the Medes and a few
other tribes and peoples of less celebrity, a special branch of the
Indo-European family--a branch to which the name of Arian may be
assigned, not merely for convenience sake, but on grounds of actual
tradition and history. Undistinguished in the earlier annals of their
race, the Medes and Persians became towards the eighth or seventh
century before our era, its leading and most important tribes. Closely
united together, with the superiority now inclining to one, now to the
other, they claimed and exercised a lordship over all the other members
of the stock, and not only over them, but over various alien races
also. They had qualities which raised them above their fellows, and a
civilization, which was not, perhaps, very advanced, but was still not
wholly contemptible. Such details as could be collected, either from
ancient authors, or from the extant remains, of the character, mode of
life, customs, etc., of the Medes, have already found a place in this
work.
The greater part of what was there said will apply also to the Persians.
The information, however, which we possess, with respect to this latter
people, is so much more copious than that which has come down to us with
regard to the Medes, that, without repeating anything from the former
place, our materials will probably enable us to give to the present
chapter considerable dimensions.
The woodcuts of the preceding volume will have made the reader
sufficiently familiar with the physiognomy of the Persians, or, at any
rate, with the representation of it which has come down to us upon the
Persian monuments. It may be remarked that the type of face and head is
uniform upon all of them, and offers a remarkable contrast to the type
assigned to themselves by the Assyrians, from whom the Arians evidently
adopted the general idea of bas-reliefs, as well as their general mode
of treating subjects upon them. The novelty of the physiognomy is
a strong argument in favor of its truthfulness; and this is further
confirmed by the evidence which we have, that the Persian artists aimed
at representing the varieties of the human race, and succeeded fairly
in rendering them. Varieties of, physiognomy are represented upon the
bas-reliefs with much care, and sometimes with remarkable success, as
the annexed head of a negro, taken from one of the royal tombs, will
sufficiently indicate. [PLATE XXIX., Fig.1.]
[Illustration: PLATE XXIX.]
According to Herodotus, the skulls of the Persians were extraordinarily
thin and weak--a phenomenon for which he accounted by the national habit
of always covering the head. There does not seem to be in reality any
ground for supposing that such a practice would at all tend to produce
such a result. If, therefore, we regard the fact of thinness as
established, we can only view it as an original feature in the physical
type of the race. Such a feature would imply, on the supposition that
the heads were of the ordinary size, a large brain-cavity, and so
an unusual volume of brain, which is generally a concomitant of high
intellectual power.
The Persians seem, certainly, to have been quick and lively,
keen-witted, capable of repartee, ingenious, and, for Orientals,
far-sighted. They had fancy and imagination, a relish for poetry and
art, and they were not without a certain power of political combination.
But we cannot justly ascribe to them any high degree of intellectual
excellence. The religious ideas which they held in common with the Medes
were, indeed, of a more elevated character than is usual with races not
enlightened by special revelation; but these ideas were the common stock
of the Iranic peoples, and were inherited by the Persians from a remote
ancestry, not excogitated by themselves. Their taste for art, though
marked, was neither pure nor high. We shall have to consider, in a
future chapter, the architecture and mimetic art of the people to weigh
their merits in these respects, and, at the same time, to note their
deficiencies.
Without anticipating the exact verdict then to be pronounced, we may say
at once that there is nothing in the remains of the Persian architecture
and sculpture that have come down to us indicative of any remarkable
artistic genius; nothing that even places them on a par with the best
works of the kind produced by Orientals. Again, if the great work of
Firdausi represents to us, as it probably does, the true spirit of the
ancient poetry of the Persians, we must conclude that, in the highest
department of art, their efforts were but of moderate merit. A tone of
exaggeration, an imagination exuberant and unrestrained, a preference
for glitter over solid excellence, a love of far-fetched conceits,
characterize the Shahnameh; and, though we may fairly ascribe something
of this to the idiosyncrasy of the poet, still, after we have made all
due allowance upon this score, the conviction presses upon us that there
was a childish and grotesque character in the great mass of the old
Persian poetry, which marks it as the creation of moderate rather than
of high intellectual power, and prevents us from regarding it with the
respect with which we view the labors of the Greeks and Romans, or,
again, of the Hebrews, in this department. A want of seriousness, a
want of reality, and, again, a want of depth, characterize the poetry
of Iran, whose bards do not touch the chords which rouse what is noblest
and highest in our nature. They give us sparkle, prettiness, quaint and
ingenious fancies, grotesque marvels, an inflated kind of human heroism;
but they have none of the higher excellencies of the poetic art, none of
the divine fire which renders the true poet, and the true prophet, one.
Among moral qualities, we must assign to the Persians as their most
marked characteristics, at any rate in the earlier times, courage,
energy, and a regard for truth. The valor of their troops in the great
combats of Platsea and Thermopylae extorted the admiration of their
enemies, who have left on record their belief that, “in boldness and
warlike spirit, the Persians were not a whit behind the Greeks,”
and that their defeat was “wholly owing to the inferiority of their
equipment and training.” Without proper shields, with little defensive
armor, wielding only short swords and lances that were scarcely more
than javelins, they dashed themselves upon the serried ranks of the
Spartans, seizing the huge spear-shafts of these latter with their
hands, striving to break them, and to force a way in. No conduct could
have been braver than this, which the modern historian well compares
with brilliant actions of the Romans and the Swiss. The Persians
thoroughly deserved to be termed (as they are termed by AEschylus), a
“valiant-minded people;” they had boldness, elan, dash, and considerable
tenacity and stubbornness; no nation of Asia or Africa was able to stand
against them; if they found their masters in the Greeks, it was owing,
as the Greeks themselves tell us, to the superiority of Hellenic arms,
equipment, and, above all, of Hellenic discipline, which together
rendered the most desperate valor unavailing, when it lacked the support
of scientific organization and united simultaneous movement.
The energy of the Persians during the earlier years of their ascendancy
is no less remarkable than their courage. AEschylus speaks of a
mysterious fate which forced them to engage continually in a long series
of wars, to take delight in combats of horse, and in the siege and
overthrow of cities. Herodotus, in a tone that is not very different,
makes Xerxes, soon after his accession, represent himself as bound by
the examples of his forefathers to engage his country in some great
enterprise, and not suffer the military spirit of his people to decay
through want of employment. We shall find, when we come to consider the
history of the Empire, that, for eighty years, under four sovereigns,
the course indicated by these two writers was in fact pursued--that
war followed on war, expedition on expedition--the active energy of
sovereign and people carrying them on, without rest or pause, in a
career of conquest that has few parallels in the history of Oriental
nations. In the subsequent period, this spirit is less marked; but,
at all times, a certain vigor and activity has characterized the race,
distinguishing it in a very marked way from the dreamy and listless
Hindus upon the one hand, and the apathetic Turks upon the other.
The Persian love of truth was a favorite theme with the Greeks, who
were, perhaps, the warmer in their praises from a latent consciousness
of their own deficiency in the virtue. According to Herodotus, the
attention of educators was specially directed to the point, and each
young Persian was taught by his preceptors three main things:--“To
ride, to draw the bow, and to speak the truth.” We find that, in the
Zendavesta, and more especially in its earliest and purest portions,
truth is strenuously inculcated. Ahura-Mazda himself is “true,”
“the father of all truth,” and his worshippers are bound to conform
themselves to his image. Darius, in his inscriptions, protests
frequently against “lies,” which he seems to regard as the embodiment
of all evil. A love of finesse and intrigue is congenital to Orientals;
and, in the later period of their sway, the Persians appear to have
yielded to this natural inclination, and to have used freely in their
struggle with the Greeks the weapons of cunning and deception; but,
in the earlier period, a different spirit prevailed; lying was then
regarded as the most disgraceful act of which a man could possibly be
guilty truth was both admired and practised; Persian kings, entrapped
into a promise, stood to it firmly, however much they might wish it
recalled; foreign powers had never to complain that the terms of a
treaty were departed from; the Persians thus form an honorable exception
to the ordinary Asiatic character, and for general truthfulness and a
faithful performance of their engagements compare favorably with the
Greeks and Romans.
The Persian, if we may trust Herodotus, was careful to avoid debt.
He had a keen sense of the difficulty with which a debtor escapes
subterfuge and equivocation--forms, slightly disguised, of lying. To buy
and sell wares in a market place, to chaffer and haggle over prices,
was distasteful to him, as apt to involve falsity and unfairness. He
was free and open in speech, bold in act, generous, warm-hearted,
hospitable. His chief faults were an addiction to self-indulgence and
luxury, a passionate abandon to the feeling of the hour, whatever that
might happen to be; and a tameness and subservience in all his relations
towards his prince, which seem to moderns almost incompatible with real
self-respect and manliness.
The luxury of the Persians will be considered when we treat of
their manners. In illustration of the two other weak points of their
character, it may be observed that, in joy and in sorrow, they were
alike immoderate; in the one transported beyond all reasonable bounds,
and exhibiting their transports with entire unreserve and openness;
in the other proportionately depressed, and quite unrestrained in
the expression of their anxiety or misery. AEschylus’ tragedy of the
“Persae” is, in this respect, true to nature, and represents with
accuracy the real habits of the nation. The Persian was a stranger
to the dignified reserve which has commonly been affected by the more
civilized among Western nations. He laughed and wept, shouted and
shrieked, with the unrestraint of a child, who is not ashamed to lay
bare his inmost feelings to the eyes of those about him. Lively and
excitable, he loved to give vent to every passion that stirred his
heart, and cared not how many witnessed his lamentations or his
rejoicings.
The feeling of the Persian towards his king is one of which moderns can
with difficulty form a conception. In Persia the monarch was so much the
State, that patriotism itself was, as it were, swallowed up in loyalty;
and an absolute unquestioning submission, not only to the deliberate
will, but to the merest caprice of the sovereign, was, by habit and
education, so engrained into the nature of the people that a contrary
spirit scarcely ever manifested itself. In war the safety of the
sovereign was the first thought, and the principal care of all.
The tales told of the self-devotion of individuals to secure the
preservation of the monarch may not be true, but they indicate
faithfully the actual tone of men’s sentiments about the value of the
royal person. If the king suffered, all was lost; if the king escaped,
the greatest calamities seemed light, and could be endured with
patience. Uncomplaining acquiescence in all the decisions of the
monarch--cheerful submission to his will, whatever it might chance to
be--characterized the conduct of the Persians in time of peace. It
was here that their loyalty degenerated into parasitical tameness,
and became a defect instead of a virtue. The voice of remonstrance, of
rebuke, of warning, was unheard at the Court; and tyranny was allowed to
indulge unchecked in the wildest caprices and extravagances. The
father, whose innocent son was shot before his eyes by the king in pure
wantonness, instead of raising an indignant protest against the
crime, felicitated him on the excellence of his archery. Unfortunates,
bastinadoed by the royal orders, declared themselves delighted, because
his majesty had condescended to recollect them. A tone of sycophancy
and servility was thus engendered, which, sapping self-respect, tended
fatally to lower and corrupt the entire character of the people.
In considering the manners and customs of the Persians, it will be
convenient to follow the order already observed in treating of Assyria
and Media--that is to say, to treat, in the first instance, of their
warlike, and subsequently of their peaceful usages. On the latter the
monuments throw considerable light; on the former, the information which
they supply is comparatively scanty.
The Persians, like the Medes, regarded chariots with disfavor, and
composed their armies almost entirely of foot and horse. The ordinary
dress of the foot-man was, in the earlier times, a tunic with long
sleeves, made of leather, and fitting rather tightly to the frame, which
it covered from the neck to the knee. Under this was worn a pair of
trousers, also of leather, and tolerably tight-fitting, especially at
the ankles, where they met a sort of high shoe, or low boot. The head
was protected by a loose round cap, apparently of felt, which projected
a little in front, and rose considerably above the top of the head.
Round the waist was worn a double girdle or belt, from which depended a
short sword. [PLATE XXVIII Fig. 4.]
The offensive arms of the foot-man were, a sword, a spear, and a bow.
The sword, which was called by the Persians _akinaces_, appears to
have been a short, straight weapon, suited for stabbing rather than for
cutting, and, in fact, not very much better than a dagger. [PLATE XXIX.,
Fig. 2.] It was carried in a sheath, and was worn suspended from the
girdle on the right side. From the Persepolitan sculptures it would
seem not to have hung freely, but to have been attached to the right
thigh by a thong which passed round the knee. The handle was short,
and generally unprotected by a guard; but, in some specimens, we see a
simple cross-bar between the hilt and the blade.
The spear carried by the Persian foot-man was also short, or, at any
rate, much shorter than the Greek. To judge by the representations of
guardsmen on the Persepolitan sculptures, it was from six to six and a
half or seven feet in length. The Grecian spear was sometimes as much as
twenty-one feet. The Persian weapon had a short head, which appears to
have been flattish, and which was strengthened by a bar or ridge down
the middle. The shaft, which was of cornel wood, tapered gradually from
bottom to top, and was ornamented at its lower extremity with a ball,
sometimes carved in the shape of an apple or a pomegranate. [PLATE
XXIX., Fig. 3.]
The Persian bow, according to Herodotus and Xenophon, was of unusual
size. According to the sculptures, it was rather short, certainly not
exceeding four feet. It seems to have been carried strung, either on the
left shoulder, with the arm passed through it, or in a bow-case slung at
the left side. It was considerably bent in the middle, and had the ends
slightly turned back. [PLATE XXX., Fig. 1.] The arrows, which were of
reed, tipped with metal, and feathered, were carried in a quiver, which
hung at the back near the left shoulder. To judge from the sculptures,
their length must have been about two feet and a half. The arrow-heads,
which were either of bronze or iron, seem to have been of various
shapes, the most common closely resembling the arrow-heads of the
Assyrians. [PLATE XXX., Fig. 3.]
[Illustration: PLATE XXX.]
Other offensive weapons carried occasionally by the Persian foot-men
were, a battle-axe, a sling, and a knife. The battle-axe, which appears
in the sculptures only in one or two instances, is declared to have been
a common Persian weapon by Xenophon, who, upon such a point, would seem
to be trustworthy. The use of the sling by the Persian light-armed is
quite certain. It is mentioned by Curtius and Strabo, no less than by
Xenophon; and the last-named writer speaks with full knowledge on the
subject, for he witnessed the effect of the weapon in the hands of
Persian slingers during his return with the Ten Thousand. The only
missiles which the Persian slingers threw were stones; they did not,
like the Rhodians, make use of small lumps of lead.
The knife seems also to have been a Persian weapon. Its blade appears to
have been slightly curved, like that of a pruning-hook. It was worn in a
sheath, and was probably thrust into the belt or girdle like the similar
weapon, half knife, half dagger, of a modern Persian.
The ordinary defence of the Persian against the weapons of his enemy was
a shield of wicker-work, which covered him almost from head to foot,
and which probably differed little from the wattled shield of the
Assyrians. [PLATE XXX., Fig. 2.] This he commonly planted on the ground,
supporting it, perhaps, with a crutch, while he shot his arrows from
behind it. Occasionally, he added to this defence the protection of a
coat of mail, composed either of scale armor, or of quilted linen, like
the corselets of the Egyptians. Armor of the former kind was almost
impenetrable, since the scales were of metal--iron, bronze, or sometimes
gold--and overlapped one another like those of a fish.
The Persian cavalry was armed, in the early times of the monarchy,
almost exactly in the same manner as their infantry. Afterwards, however
a considerable change seems to have been made. In the time of the
younger Cyrus cavalry soldiers were very fully protected. They wore
helmets on their heads, coats of mail about their bodies, and greaves
on their legs. Their chief offensive arms seem, then, to have been the
short sword, the javelin, and the knife. It is probable that they were
without shields, being sufficiently defended by their armor, which (as
we have seen) was almost complete.
The javelin of the horseman, which was his special weapon, was a short
strong spear or pike, with a shaft of cornel-wood, and an iron point. It
was common for him to carry two such weapons, one of which he used as
a missile, while he retained the other in order to employ it in
hand-to-hand combat with the enemy. It was a stout manageable weapon,
and though no match for the longer and equally strong spear of
the Macedonian cavalry, was preferred by Xenophon to the long weak
reed-lance commonly carried by horse-soldiers in his day.
It was the practice of the later Persians to protect with armor, not
only the horseman, but the horse. They selected for the service large
and powerful animals, chiefly of the Nisaean breed, and cased them
almost wholly in mail. The head was guarded by a frontlet, and the neck
and chest by a breast-piece; the sides and flanks had their own special
covering and cuisses defended the thighs. These defences were not
merely, like those of the later Assyrian heavy cavalry, of felt or
leather, but consisted, like the cuirasses worn by the riders, of some
such material covered with metal scales. The weight which the horse had
to sustain was thus very great, and the movements of the cavalry force
were, in consequence, slow and hesitating. Flight was difficult; and, in
a retreat, the weaker animals were apt to sink under their burdens, and
to be trampled to death by the stronger ones.
There can be no doubt that, besides these heavy horsemen, the Persians
employed, even in the latest times, and much more in the earlier,
a light and agile cavalry force. Such were the troops which, under
Tissaphernes, harassed the Ten Thousand during their retreat; and such,
it may be conjectured, was really at all times the great body of their
cavalry. The education of the Persian, as we shall see hereafter, was
directed to the formation of those habits of quickness and agility in
the mounting and managing of horses, which have a military value only
as furnishing a good training for the light-cavalry service; and the
tendency of the race has at all times been, not to those forms of
military organization which are efficient by means of solidity and
strength, but to those lighter, more varied, and more elastic branches
which compensate for a want of solidity by increased activity,
readiness, and ease of movement.
Though the Persians did not set any great store by chariots, as an arm
of the military service, they nevertheless made occasional use of them.
Not only were their kings and princes, when they commanded their troops
in person, accustomed to direct their movements, both on the march and
even inaction, from the elevation of a war-chariot, but now and then, in
great battles, a considerable force of them was brought into the field,
and important consequences were expected from their employment. The
wheels of the war-chariots were armed with scythes; and these, when the
chariot was set in motion, were regarded as calculated to inflict great
damage on the ranks of opponents. Such hopes seem, however, to have
been generally disappointed. As every chariot was drawn by at least
two horses, and contained at least two persons--the charioteer and the
warrior--a large mark was offered by each to the missiles of the light
troops who were commonly stationed to receive them; and, as practically
it was found that a single wound to either horse or man threw the whole
equipage into confusion, the charge of a scythed chariot was commonly
checked before it reached the line of battle of the enemy. Where this
was not the case, the danger was escaped by opening the ranks and
letting the chariots pass through them to the rear, a good account being
speedily given of any adventurer who thus isolated himself from the
support of his own party.
The Persian war-chariot was, probably, somewhat loftier than the
Assyrian. The wheels appear to have been from, three to four feet in
diameter; and the body rose above them to a height from the ground of
nearly five feet. The person of the warrior was thus protected up to his
middle by the curved board which enclosed the chariot on three sides.
The axle-tree is said to have been broad, since breadth afforded a
security against being overturned, and the whole construction to have
been strong and solid. The wheels had twelve spokes, which radiated from
a nave of unusual size. The felloes were narrower than the Assyrian, but
were still composed, like them, of two or three distinct layers of wood.
The tires were probably of metal, and were indented like the edge of a
saw. [PLATE XXXI., Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXI.]
No great ornamentation of the chariot appears to have been attempted.
The body was occasionally patterned with a chequer-work, which maybe
compared with a style common in Assyria, and the spokes of the wheels
were sometimes of great elegance, but the general character of the
workmanship was massive and plain. The pole was short, and terminated
with a simple curve. From the evidence of the monuments it would seem
that chariots were drawn by two horses only; but the classical writers
assure us that the ordinary practice was to have teams of four. The
harness used was exceedingly simple, consisting of a yoke, a belly-band,
a narrow collar, a head-stall, a bit, and reins. When the charioteer
left his seat, the reins could be attached to a loop or bar which
projected from the front of the chariot-board.
Chariots were constructed to contain two, or perhaps, in some instances,
three persons. These consisted of the warrior, his charioteer, who stood
beside him, and an attendant, whose place was behind, and whose business
it was to open and shut the chariot doors. The charioteer wore a visor
and a coat of mail, exposing nothing to the enemy but his eyes.
The later Persians made use also of elephants in battle, but to a very
small extent, and without any results worth mentioning.
The chief points of Persian tactics were the following. The army was
organized into three distinct services--those of the chariots, the
horse, and the foot. In drawing up the line of battle, it was usual,
where chariots were employed, to place them in the front rank, in front
of the rest of the army. Behind the chariots were stationed the horse
and the foot; the former generally massed upon the wings; the latter
placed in the middle, drawn up according to nations, in a number of
oblong squares, which touched, or nearly touched, one another. The
bravest and best armed troops were placed in front; the ranks towards
the rear being occupied by those of inferior quality. The depth of the
ranks was usually very great, since Oriental troops cannot be trusted to
maintain a firm front unless they are strongly supported from behind.
No attempt, however, seems to have been made at forming a second line of
battle in the rear of the first, nor does there even seem to have been
any organized system of reserves. When the battle began, the chariots
were first launched against the enemy, whose ranks it was hoped they
would confuse, or, at any rate, disturb. After this the main line
advanced to the attack, but without any inclination to come at once to
close quarters. Planting their shields firmly on the ground in front of
them, the Persian heavy-armed shot flight after flight of arrows against
their foe, while the slingers and other light-armed in the rear sent
clouds of missiles over the heads of their friends into the adverse
ranks beyond them. It was usually the enemy which brought this phase of
the battle to an end, by pressing onward and closing with the Persian
main line in a hand:to-hand combat. Here the struggle was commonly
brief--a very few minutes often decided the engagement. If the Persian
line of battle was forced or broken, all was immediately regarded as
lost--flight and rout followed. The cavalry, from its position on
the wings, might attempt, by desperate charges on the flanks of the
advancing foe, to stay his progress, and restore the fortune of the
day, but such efforts were usually unavailing. Its line of battle
once broken, a Persian army lost heart; its commander commonly set the
example of flight, and there was a general rush of all arms from the
battle-field.
For success the Persians trusted mainly to their numbers, which enabled
them, in some cases, to renew an attack time after time with fresh
troops, in others to outflank and surround their adversary. Their best
troops were undoubtedly their cavalry, both heavy and light. The heavy,
armed in the old times with bows, and in the later with the javelins,
highly distinguished itself on many important occasions. The weight of
its charge must have been great; its offensive weapons were good; and
its armor made it almost invulnerable to ordinary weapons. The
light cavalry was celebrated for the quickness and dexterity of its
manoeuvres. It had the loose organization of modern Bashi-Bazouks or
Cossacks; it hung in clouds on the enemy--assailed, retreated, rallied,
re-advanced--fled, and even in flight was formidable, since each rider
was trained to discharge his arrows backwards with a sure aim.
against the pursuing foe. The famous skill of the Parthians in their
horse-combats was inherited from their Persian predecessors, who seem to
have invented the practice which the later people carried to perfection.
Though mainly depending for success on their numbers, the Persians did
not wholly despise the use of contrivance and stratagem. At Arbela,
Darius Codomannus had spiked balls strewn over the ground where he
expected the Greek cavalry to make its attacks. [PLATE XXX., Fig. 5];
and, at Sardis, Cyrus obtained his victory over the Lydian horse
by frightening them with the grotesque and unfamiliar camel. Other
instances will readily occur to the reader, whereby it appears that the
art of war was studied, and ingenuity allowed its due place in military
matters, by this people, who showed a fair share of Oriental subtlety in
the devices which they employed against their enemies.
It is doubtful whether we are to include among these devices the use of
military engines. On the one hand, we have several distinct statements
by the author of the “Cyrpoasdia,” to the effect that engines were well
known to the Persians; on the other, we remark an entire absence from
the works of other ancient writers of any notice that they actually
employed them, either in their battles or their sieges. The silence of
Scripture, of Herodotus, of the inscriptions, of Quintus Curtius, of
Arrian, may fairly be regarded as outweighing the unsupported authority
of the romance-writer, Xenophon; and though it would be rash to decide
that such things as siege-towers, battering rams, and balistce--all
of which are found to have been in constant use under the Assyrian and
Babylonian monarchies--were wholly discarded by, or unknown to,
their successors in the government of Asia, yet a wise criticism will
conclude, that they were, at any rate, unfamiliar to the Persians,
rarely and sparingly (if at all) employed by them, other methods
of accomplishing the ends whereto they served having more approved
themselves to this ingenious people. In ordinary sieges it would seem
that they trusted to the bank or mound, while sometimes they drove mines
under the walls, and sought in this way to effect a breach. Where the
place attacked was of great strength, they had recourse in general
either to stratagem or to blockade. Occasionally they employed the
destructive force of fire, and no doubt they often succeeded by the
common method of escalade. On the whole, it must certainly be said that
they were successful in their sieges, exhibiting in their conduct of
them courage, activity, and considerable fertility of resource.
A Persian army was usually, though not always, placed under a single
commander. This commander was the monarch, if he was present; if not, it
was a Persian, or a Mede, nominated by him. Under the commander-in-chief
were a number of general officers, heads of corps or divisions, of whom
we find, in one instance, as many as nine. Next in rank to these were
the chiefs of the various ethnic contingents composing the army, who
were, probably, in general the satraps of the different provinces. Thus
far appointments were held directly from the crown; but beyond this the
system was changed. The ethnic or satrapial commanders appointed the
officers next below themselves, the captains over a thousand, and (if
their contingent was large enough to admit it) the captains over ten
thousand; who, again, nominated their subordinates, commanders of a
hundred, and commanders of ten. Thus, in the main, a decimal scale
prevailed. The lowest rank of officers commanded each ten men, the next
lowest a hundred, the next to that a thousand, the next ten thousand.
The officer over ten thousand was sometimes a divisional chief;
sometimes he was subject to the commander of an ethnic contingent, who
was himself under the orders of the head of a division. Altogether there
were six ranks of officers, exclusive of the commander-in-chief.
The proper position of the commander-in-chief was considered to be the
centre of the line of battle. He was regarded as safer there than
he would have been on either wing; and it was seen that, from such a
position, his orders would be most rapidly conveyed to all parts of the
battlefield. It was not, however, thought to be honorable that he should
keep aloof from the fight, or avoid risking his own person. On the
contrary, he was expected to take an active part in the combat; and
therefore, though his place was not exactly in the very foremost ranks,
it was towards the front, and the result followed that he was often
exposed to imminent danger. The consequences of this arrangement
were frequently disastrous in the extreme, the death or flight of the
commander producing universal panic, stopping the further issue of any
general order, and thus paralyzing the whole army.
The numbers of a Persian army, though no doubt exaggerated by the
Greeks, must have been very great, amounting, probably, on occasions,
to more than a million of combatants. Troops were drawn from the entire
empire, and were marshalled in the field according to nations,
each tribe accoutred in its own fashion. Here were seen the gilded
breastplates and scarlet kilts of the Persians and Medes; there the
woollen shirt of the Arab, the leathern jerkin of the Berber, or the
cotton dress of the native of Hindustan. Swart savage Ethiops from the
Upper Nile, adorned with a war-paint of white and red, and scantily
clad with the skins of leopards or lions, fought in one place with huge
clubs, arrows tipped with stone, and spears terminating in the horn of
an antelope. In another, Scyths, with their loose spangled trousers and
their tall pointed caps, dealt death around from their unerring blows;
while near them Assyrians, helmeted, and wearing corselets of quilted
linen, wielded the tough spear, or the still more formidable iron mace.
Rude weapons, like cane bows, unfeathered arrows, and stakes hardened at
one end in the fire, were seen side by side with keen swords and
daggers of the best steel, the finished productions of the workshops
of Phoenicia and Greece. Here the bronze helmet was surmounted with
the ears and horns of an ox; there it was superseded by a fox-skin, a
leathern or wooden skull-cap, or a head-dress fashioned out of a horse’s
scalp. Besides horses and mules, elephants, camels, and wild asses,
diversified the scene, and rendered it still more strange and wonderful
to the eye of a European. One large body of cavalry was accustomed
to enter the field apparently unarmed; besides the dagger, which the
Oriental never lays aside, they had nothing but a long leathern thong.
They used this, however, just as the lasso is used by the natives of
Brazil, and the wretch at whom they aimed their deadly noose had small
chance of escape. The Persians, like the Assyrians, usually avoided
fighting during the winter, and marched out their armies against the
enemy in early spring. With the great hosts which they moved a fixed
order of march was most necessary; and we find evidence of so much
attention being paid to this point that confusion and disorder seem
scarcely ever to have arisen. When the march lay within their own
country, it was usual to send on the baggage and the sumpter-beasts in
advance, after which came about half the troops, moving slowly in a long
and continuous column along the appointed line of route. At this point
a considerable break occurred, in order that all might be clear for
the most important part of the army, which was now to follow. A guard,
consisting of a thousand horse and a thousand foot, picked men of the
Persian people, prepared the way for what was most holy in the eyes of
the nation--the emblems of their religion, and their king. The former
consisted of sacred horses and cars; perhaps, in the later times, of
silver altars also, bearing the perpetual and heaven-kindled fire,
which was a special object of Persian religious regard, and which the
superstition of the people viewed as a sort of palladium, sure to bring
the blessings of heaven upon their arms. Behind the sacred emblems
followed the Great King himself, mounted on a car drawn by Nissean
steeds, and perhaps protected on either side by a select band of his
relatives. Behind the royal chariot came a second guard, consisting,
like the first, of a thousand foot and a thousand horse. Then followed
ten thousand picked foot, probably the famous “Immortals;” then came
a body of ten thousand picked Persian horsemen. After these a space of
four hundred yards (nearly a quarter of a mile) was left vacant; then
marched, in a second continuous column, the remainder of the host.
On entering an enemy’s country, or drawing near a hostile force in their
own, certain alterations in these dispositions became necessary, and
were speedily effected. The baggage-train was withdrawn, and instead of
moving before the army, followed at some little distance in the rear.
Horsemen were thrown out in front, to feel for the enemy and notify his
arrival. Sometimes, if the host was large, a division of the troops
was made, and several _corps d’armee_ advanced against the foe
simultaneously by distinct routes. When this took place, the
commander-in-chief was careful to accompany the central force, so as to
find himself in his proper position if he was suddenly compelled to give
battle.
Night movements were seldom attempted by the Persians. They marched from
sunrise to sunset, halting, probably, during the midday heat. In their
most rapid marches they seldom accomplished more than from twenty to
twenty-five miles in the day; and when this rate was attempted for any
continuance, it was necessary to rest the men at intervals for as much
as three days at a time. The great drag upon rapidity of movement was
the baggage-train, which consisted ordinarily of a vast multitude of
camels, horses, asses, mules, oxen, etc., in part carrying burthens upon
their backs, in part harnessed to carts laden with provisions, tents,
and other necessaries. The train also frequently comprised a number of
litters, in which the wives or female companions of the chief men were
luxuriously conveyed, amid a crowd of eunuchs and attendants, and with
all the cumbrous paraphernalia of female wardrobes. Roads, it must be
remembered, did not exist; rivers were not bridged, except occasionally
by boats; the army marched on the natural ground along an established
line of route which no art had prepared for the passage of man or beast.
Portions of the route would often be soft and muddy; the carts and
litters would become immovable, their wheels sinking into the mire up
to the axles; all the efforts of the teams would be unavailing; it must
have been imperative to halt the main line, and employ the soldiers in
the release of the vehicles, which had to be lifted and carried forward
till the ground was sufficiently firm to bear them. When a river crossed
the line of route, a ford had to be sought, boats procured, or rafts
extemporized. The Persians were skilful in the passage of streams, to
which they became accustomed in their first campaigns under Cyrus; but
the march was necessarily retarded by these and similar obstacles, and
we cannot be surprised that the average rate of movement was slow.
As evening approached the Persians sought a suitable place for their
camp. An open plain was preferred for the purpose, and the vicinity of
water was a necessity. If an enemy was thought to be at hand, a ditch
was rapidly dug, and the earth thrown up inside; or if the soil was
sandy, sacks were filled with it, and the camp was protected with
sand-bags. Immediately within the rampart were placed the _gerrhophori_,
or Persians armed with large wicker shields. The rest of the soldiers
had severally their appointed places, the position assigned to the
commander-in-chief being the centre. All the army had tents, which were
pitched so as to face the east. The horses of the cavalry were tethered
and hobbled in front of the tents of their owners.
The Persians disliked encamping near to their enemy. They preferred an
interval of seven or eight miles, which they regarded as a considerable
security against a surprise. As their most important arm was the
cavalry, and as it was impossible for the cavalry to unfasten and
unhobble their steeds, to equip them properly, to arm themselves, and
then to mount in a short space of time, when darkness and confusion
reigned around, a night attack on the part of an enterprising enemy
would have been most perilous to a Persian army. Hence the precaution
which they observed against its occurrence--a precaution which was
seldom or never omitted where they felt any respect for their foe,
and which seems to have been effective, since we do not hear of their
suffering any disaster of the kind which they so greatly feared.
The Persians do not seem to have possessed any special corps of
pioneers. When the nature of the country was such as to require the
felling of timber or the removal of brushwood, the army was halted, and
the work was assigned to a certain number of the regular soldiers. For
the construction of bridges, however, in important places, and for
other works on a grand scale intended to facilitate an expedition,
preparations were made beforehand, the tasks being entrusted either to
skilled workmen, or to the crews of ships, if they were tolerably easy
of performance.
Commissariat arrangements were generally made by the Persians on a
large scale, and with the best possible results. An ample baggage-train
conveyed corn sufficient to supply the host during some months and in
cases where scarcity was apprehended, further precautions were taken.
Ships laden with corn accompanied the expedition as closely as possible,
and supplemented any deficiency that might arise from a failure on the
part of the land transport department. Sometimes, too, magazines were
established at convenient points along the intended line of march
previously to the setting forth of the army, and stores were thus
accumulated at places where it was probable they would be found of most
service.
Requisitions for supplies were also made upon the inhabitants of the
towns and villages through which lay the route of the army. Whenever the
host rested for a night at a place of any consequence, the inhabitants
seem to have been required to furnish sufficient bread for a meal
to each man, and, in addition, to provide a banquet for the king
(or general) and his suite, which was always very numerous. Such
requisitions, often intolerably burthensome to those upon whom they
were laid, must have tended greatly to relieve the strain upon their own
resources, which the sustentation of such enormous hosts as the Persian
kings were in the habit of moving, cannot have failed to produce in many
cases.
The effectiveness of these various arrangements for the provisioning of
troops upon a march was such that Persian armies were rarely, if ever,
in any difficulty with respect to their subsistence. Once only in
the entire course of their history do we hear of the Persian forces
suffering to any considerable extent from a want of supplies. According
to Herodotus, Cambyses, when he invaded Ethiopia, neglected the ordinary
precautions and brought his army into such straits that his men began to
eat each other. This caused the total failure of his expedition, and
the loss of a great proportion of the troops employed in it. There
is, however, reason to suspect that, even in this case, the loss and
difficulty which occurred have been much exaggerated.
The Persians readily gave quarter to the enemy who asked it, and
generally treated their prisoners of war with much kindness. Personages
of importance, as monarchs or princes, either preserved their titles
and their liberty, with even a certain nominal authority, or received
appanages in other parts of the Persian territory, or, finally, were
retained about the Court as friends and table-companions of the Great
King. Those of less rank were commonly given lands and houses in some
province remote from their own country, and thenceforth held the same
position as the great mass of the subject races. Exchanges of prisoners
do not seem to have been thought of. In a few cases, persons, whom we
should regard as prisoners of war, experienced some severities, but
probably only when they were viewed by the Persians, not as fair
enemies, but as rebels. Rebels were, of course, liable to any punishment
which the king might think it right to inflict upon them, and there were
occasions after a revolt when sentences of extreme rigor were passed
upon the persons considered to have been most in fault. According to
Herodotus, three thousand Babylonians were crucified by order of
Darius, to punish their revolt from him; and, though this is probably an
exaggeration, it is certain that sometimes, where an example was thought
to be required, the Persians put to death, not only the leader of a
rebellion, but a number of his chief adherents. Crucifixion, or, at
any rate, impalement of some sort, was in such cases the ordinary
punishment. Sometimes, before a rebel was executed, he was kept for a
while chained at the king’s door, in order that there might be no doubt
of his capture.
Among the minor punishments of rebellion were branding, and removal of
the rebels _en masse_ from their own country, to some remote locality.
In this latter case, they were merely treated in the same way as
ordinary prisoners of war. In the former, they probably became royal
slaves attached to the household of the monarch.
Though the Persians were not themselves a nautical people, they were
quite aware of the great importance of a navy, and spared no pains to
provide themselves with an efficient one. The conquests of Phoenicia,
Cyprus, Egypt, and the Greek islands were undertaken, it is probable,
mainly with this object; and these parts of the Empire were always
valued chiefly as possessing skilled seamen, vessels, and dockyards,
from which the Great King could draw an almost inexhaustible supply of
war-ships and transports. Persia at times had the complete command of
the Mediterranean Sea, and bore undisputed sway in the Levant during
almost the whole period of her existence as an empire.
The war-ship preferred by the best naval powers during the whole period
of the Persian rule was the trireme, or decked galley impelled by rowers
sitting in three tiers, or banks, one above another. This vessel, the
invention of the Corinthians, had been generally adopted by the nations
bordering on the Mediterranean in the interval between B.C. 700 and B.C.
525, when by the reduction of Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Egypt, the Persians
obtained the command of the sea. Notwithstanding the invention of
quadriremes by the Carthaginians before B.C. 400, and of quinqueremes by
Dionysius the Elder soon after, the trireme stood its ground, and from
first to last the Persian fleets were mainly composed of this class of
vessels.
The trireme was a vessel of a considerable size, and was capable of
accommodating two hundred and thirty persons. Of these, two hundred
constituted the crew, while the remaining thirty were men-at-arms,
corresponding to our own “marines.” By far the greater number of the
crew consisted of the rowers, who probably formed at least nine-tenths
of the whole, or one hundred and eighty out of the two hundred. The
rowers sat, not on benches running right across the vessel, but on small
seats attached to its side. They were arranged, as before stated, in
three tiers, not, however, directly one over the head of another, but
obliquely, each at once above and behind his fellow. Each rower had the
sole management of a single oar, which he worked through a hole pierced
in the side of the vessel. To prevent his oar from slipping he had a
leathern strap, which he twisted round it, and fastened to the thole,
probably by means of a button. The remainder of the crew comprised the
captain, the steersman, the petty officers, and the sailors proper, or
those whose office it was to trim the sails and look to the rigging.
The trireme of Persian times had, in all cases, a mast, and at least one
sail, which was of a square shape, hung across the mast by means of a
yard or spar, like the “square-sail” of a modern vessel. The rudder
was composed of two broad-bladed oars, one on either side of the stern,
united, however, by a cross-bar, and managed by a single steersman. The
central part of a trireme was always decked, and on this deck, which
was generally level with the bulwarks, stood and fought the men-at-arms,
whose business it was to engage the similar force of the enemy.
The weapon of the trireme, with which she was intended chiefly to
attack her foe, was the beak. [PLATE XXXI., Fig. 3.] This consisted of
a projection from the prow of the ship, either above or below the
water-line, strongly shod with a casting of iron, and terminating either
in the head of an animal, or in one or more sharp points. A trireme was
expected, like a modern “ram,” to use this implement against the sides
of her adversary’s vessels, so as to crush them in and cause the vessels
to sink. Driven by the full force of her oars, which impelled her almost
at the rate of a modern steamer, she was nearly certain, if she struck
her adversary full, to send ship and men to the bottom. She might
also, it is true, greatly damage herself; but, to preclude this, it was
customary to make the whole prow of a trirene exceedingly strong, and,
more particularly, to support it with beams at the side which tended to
prevent the timbers from starting.
Besides triremes, which constituted the bulk of the Persian navy, there
were contained in their fleet various other classes of vessels, as
triaconters, penteconters, cercuri, and others. Triaconters were long,
sharp-keeled ships, shaped very much like a trireme, rowed by thirty
rowers, who sat all upon a level, like the rowers in modern boats,
fifteen on either side of the vessel. [PLATE XXXI., Fig. 2.]
Penteconters were very similar, the only difference being in the number
of the oars and oarsmen. [PLATE XXXI., Fig. 4.] Both these classes of
vessels seem to have been frequently without sails. Cercuri were light
boats, very long and swift. They are said to have been invented by the
Cyprians, and were always peculiar to Asia.
The transports of the Persians were either for the conveyance of horses
or of food. Horse-transports were large clumsy vessels, constructed
expressly for the service whereon they were used, possessing probably a
special apparatus for the embarkation and disembarkation of the animals
which they were built to carry. Corn-transports seem to have been of a
somewhat lighter character. Probably, they varied very considerably in
their size and burthen, including huge and heavy merchantmen on the one
hand, and a much lighter and smaller craft on the other.
The Persians used their ships of war, not only for naval engagements,
but also for the conveyance of troops and the construction of bridges.
Accustomed to pass the great streams which intersect Western Asia
by bridges of boats, which were permanently established wherever an
unfordable river crossed any of the regular routes connecting the
provinces with the capital, the Persians, when they proceeded to carry
their arms from Asia into Europe, conceived the idea of bridging the
interval between the continents, which did not much exceed the width of
one of the Mesopotamian streams, by constructions similar in principle
and general character to those wherewith long use had made them familiar
in their own country. Ranging a number of vessels side by side, at no
great distance one from another, parallel with the course of the stream,
which ran down the straits, anchoring each vessel stem and stern to keep
it in place, and then laying upon these supports a long wooden platform,
they made a floating bridge of considerable strength, reaching from
the Asiatic to the European coast, on which not only men, but horses,
camels, chariots, and laden carts passed over safely from the one
continent to the other. Only, as the water which they had to cross was
not a river, but an arm of the real salt sea, and might, therefore, in
case of a storm, show a might and fury far beyond a river’s power, they
thought it necessary to employ, in lieu of boats, the strongest ships
which they possessed, namely, triremes and pentecon-ters, as best
capable of withstanding the force of an angry sea. Bridges of this
kind were intended sometimes for temporary, sometimes for permanent
constructions. In the latter case, great care and much engineering skill
was lavished on their erection. The shore cables, which united the ships
together, and sustained the actual bridge or platform, were made of most
carefully selected materials, and must have been of enormous strength;
the ships were placed in close proximity one to another; and by the
substitution of a double for a single line--of two bridges, in fact, for
one--the solidity of the work was very largely augmented. Yet, rare as
was the skill shown, solid and compact as were the causeways thus
thrown by human art over the sea, they were found inadequate to the end
desired. The great work of Xerxes, far the most elaborate of its class,
failed to withstand the fury of the elements for a single year; the
bridge, constructed in one autumn, was utterly swept away in the next;
and the army which had crossed into Europe by its aid had to embark as
it best could, and return on board ship to Asia.
As the furnishing of the Persian fleet was left wholly to the subject
nations of the Empire, so was its manning intrusted to them almost
entirely. Phoenicians, Syrians, Egyptians, Cypriots, Cilicians, Lycians,
Pamphylians, Carians, Greeks, equipped in the several costumes of their
countries, served side by side in their respective contingents of ships,
thereby giving the fleet nearly the same motley appearance which
was presented by the army. In one respect alone did the navy exhibit
superior uniformity to their sister service--the _epibatae_, or
“marines,” who formed the whole fighting force of the fleet while it
kept the sea, was a nearly homogeneous body, consisting of three races
only (two of which were closely allied), namely, Persians, Medes, and
Sacse. Every ship had thirty such men on board; all, it is probable,
uniformly armed, and all animated by one and the same spirit. To this
force the Persians must have owed it mainly that their great fleets
were not mere congeries of mutually repellant atoms, but were capable of
acting against an enemy with a fair amount of combination and singleness
of purpose.
When a fleet accompanied a land army upon an expedition, it was usually
placed under the same commander. This commander, however, was not
expected to adventure himself on board much less to take the direction
of a sea-fight. He intrusted the fleet to an officer, or officers, whom
he nominated, and was content himself with the conduct of operations
ashore. Occasionally the land and sea forces were assigned to distinct
commanders of co-ordinate authority--an arrangement which led naturally,
to misunderstanding and quarrel.
The tactics of a Persian fleet seem to have been of the simplest
kind Confident in their numbers, until experience had taught them the
fallaciousness of such a ground of hope, they were chiefly anxious
that their enemy should not escape. To prevent this they endeavored to
surround the ships opposed to them, advancing their line in a crescent
form, so as to enclose their adversary’s wings, or even detaching
squadrons to cut off his retreat. They formed their line several ships
deep and when the hour of battle came, advanced directly at their best
speed against the enemy, endeavoring to run down his vessels by sheer
force, and never showing any acquaintance with or predilection for
manoeuvres of a skilful antagonist, who avoided or successfully
withstood this first onset, they were apt through their very numbers to
be thrown into disorder: the first line would become entangled with the
second, the second with the third, and inextricable confusion would be
the result. Confusion placed them at the mercy of their antagonist,
who, retaining complete command over his own vessels, was able to strike
theirs in vulnerable parts, and, in a short time, to cover the sea with
shattered and sinking wrecks. The loss to the Persians in men as well
as in material, was then sure to be very great; for their sailors seldom
knew how to swim, and were consequently drowned, even when the shore was
but a few yards distant.
When, from deficiency in their numbers, or distrust of their own
nautical skill in comparison with that of their enemy, the commanders of
a Persian fleet wished to avoid an engagement, a plan sometimes adopted
was to run the ships ashore upon a smooth soft beach, and, after drawing
them together, to surround them with such a rampart as could be hastily
made, and defend this rampart with the sailors. The crews of the Persian
vessels were always more or less completely armed, in order that, if
occasion arose, they might act as soldiers ashore, and were thus quite
capable of fighting effectively behind a rampart. They might count, too,
under such circumstances, upon assistance from such of their own land
forces as might happen to be in the neighborhood, who would be sure to
come with all speed to their aid, and might be expected to prove a sure
protection.
The subject nations who furnished the Persians with their fleet were,
in the earlier times, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Cypriots, the
Cilicians, the Syrians of Palestine, the Pamphylians, the Lycians, the
Carians, and the Greeks of Asia Minor and the islands. The Greeks seem
to have furnished the largest number of ships; the Phoenicians, the
next largest; then the Egyptians; after them the Cypriots; then the
Cilicians; then the Carians; next the Lycians; while the Pamphylians
furnished the least. The best ships and the best sailors were the
Phoenicians, especially those of Sidon. In later times, ships were drawn
either from Phoenicia alone, or from Phoenicia, Cilicia, and Cyprus.
The limits assigned to the present work forbid the further prosecution
of this branch of our inquiry, and require us now to pass on from the
consideration of the Persian usages in war, to that of their manners
and customs, their habits and proceedings, in time of peace. And here
it will once more be convenient to follow a division of the subject with
which the reader is familiar, and to treat first of the public life of
the King and Court, and next of the private life of the people.
The Persian king held the same rank and position in the eyes of his
subjects which the great monarch of Western Asia, whoever he might be,
had always occupied from time immemorial. He was their lord and master,
absolute disposer of their lives, liberties, and property; the
sole fountain of law and right, incapable himself of doing wrong,
irresponsible irresistable--a sort of God upon earth; one whose favor
was happiness, at whose frown men trembled, before whom all bowed
themselves down with the lowest and humblest obeisance.
To a personage so exhalted, a state and pomp of the utmost magnificence
was befitting. The king’s ordinary dress in time of peace was the long
flowing “Median garment,” or _candys_--made in his case (it is probable)
of richest silk, which, with its ample folds, its wide hanging sleeves,
and its close fit about the neck and chest, gave dignity to almost any
figure, and excellently set off the noble presence of an Achaemenian
prince. The royal robe was either of purple throughout, or sometimes of
purple embroidered with gold. It descended below the ankles; resting on
the foot even when the monarch was seated. A broad girdle confined it at
the waist. Under it was worn a tunic, or shirt, which reached from the
neck to the knee, and had tight-fitting sleeves that covered the arm to
the wrist. The tunic was purple in color, like the _candys_, or robe,
but striped or mixed with white. The lower limbs were encased in
trousers of a crimson hue. On his feet the the king wore shoes like
those of the Medes, long and taper at the toe buttoned in front,
and reaching very high up the instep: their color was deep yellow or
saffron. [PLATE XXXII., Fig.1.]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXII.]