Produced by David Widger





THE SEVEN GREAT MONARCHIES

OF THE

ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD;


OR,


THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALDAEA, ASSYRIA

BABYLON, MEDIA, PERSIA, PARTHIA, AND SASSANIAN,

OR NEW PERSIAN EMPIRE.


BY

GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A.,

CAMDEN PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD



IN THREE VOLUMES.



VOLUME II.



WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS




PERSIA PROPER.


[Illustration: MAP]




THE FIFTH MONARCHY.




PERSIA.




CHAPTER I. EXTENT OF THE EMPIRE.


The geographical extent of the Fifth Monarchy was far greater than that
of any one of the four which had preceded it. While Persia Proper is a
comparatively narrow and poor tract, extending in its greatest length
only some seven or eight degrees (less than 500 miles), the dominions of
the Persian kings covered a space fifty-six degrees long, and in places
more than twenty degrees wide. The boundaries of their empire were the
desert of Thibet, the Sutlej, and the Indus, on the east; the Indian
Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian and Nubian deserts, on the south;
on the west, the Greater Syrtis, the Mediterranean, the Egean, and the
Strymon river; on the north, the Danube, the Black Sea, the Caucasus,
the Caspian, and the Jaxartes. Within these limits lay a territory, the
extent of which from east to west was little less than 3000 miles,
while its width varied between 500 and 1500 miles. Its entire area was
probably not less than, two millions of square miles--or more than half
that of modern Europe. It was thus at least eight times as large as the
Babylonian Empire at its greatest extent, and was probably more than
four times as large as the Assyrian.

The provinces included within the Empire may be conveniently divided
into the Central, the Western, and the Eastern. The Central are Persia
Proper, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, the coast tract of the
Caspian, and Sagartia, or the Great Desert. The Western are Paeonia,
Thrace, Asia Minor, Armenia, Iberia, Syria and Phoenicia, Palestine,
Egypt, and the Cyrenaica. The Eastern are Hyrcania, Parthia, Aria,
Chorasmia, Sogdiana, Bactria, Scythia, Gandaria, Sattagydia, India,
Paricania, the Eastern AEthiopia, and Mycia.

Of these countries a considerable number have been already described in
these volumes. Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, the Caspian coast,
Armenia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, belong to this class; and it
may be assumed that the reader is sufficiently acquainted with their
general features. It would therefore seem to be enough in the present
place to give an account of the regions which have not yet occupied our
attention, more especially of Persia Proper--the home of the dominant
race.

Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that province of the
modern Iran, which still bears the ancient name slightly modified, being
called Farsistan or Fars. The chief important difference between the two
is, that whereas in modern times the tract called Herman is regarded as
a distinct and separate region, Carmania anciently was included within
the limits of Persia. Persia Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has
given name, extending from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point
where the gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by
Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia, and on
the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been about 450, and its
average width about 250 miles. It thus contained an area of rather more
than 100,000 square miles.

In modern times it is customary to divide the province of Fars into
the _ghermsir_, or, “warm district,” and the _serdsir_, or “cold
region”--and the physical character of the country must have made such a
division thoroughly appropriate at every period. The “warm district”
 is a tract of sandy plain, often impregnated with salt, which extends
between the mountains and the sea the whole length of the province,
being a continuation of the flat region of Susiana, but falling very
much short of that region in all the qualities which constitute physical
excellence. The soil is poor, consisting of alternate sand and clay--it
is ill-watered, the entire tract possessing scarcely a single stream
worthy of the name of river--and, lying only just without the northern
Tropic, the district is by its very situation among the hottest of
western Asia. It forms, however, no very large portion of the ancient
Persia, being in general a mere strip of land, from ten to fifty
miles wide, and thus not constituting more than an eighth part of the
territory in question.

The remaining seven eighths belong to the serdsir, or “cold region.”
 The mountain-range which under various names skirts on the east the
Mesopotamian lowland, separating off that depressed and generally
fertile region from the bare high plateau of Iran, and running
continuously in a direction parallel to the course of the Mesopotamian
streams--i.e. from the north-west to the south-east--changes its course
as it approaches the sea, sweeping gradually round between long. 50° and
55°, and becoming parallel to the coast-line, while at the same time it
broadens out, till it covers a space of nearly three degrees, or above
two hundred miles. Along the high tract thus created lay the bulk of
the ancient Persia, consisting of alternate mountain, plain, and narrow
valley, curiously intermixed, and as yet very incompletely mapped. This
region is of varied character. In places richly, fertile, picturesque,
and romantic almost beyond imagination, with lovely wooded dells, green
mountain-sides, and broad plains suited for the production of almost any
crops, it has yet on the whole a predominant character of sterility and
barrenness, especially towards its more northern and eastern portions.
The supply of water is everywhere scanty. Scarcely any of the streams
are strong enough to reach the sea. After short courses they are
either absorbed by the sand or end in small salt lakes, from which
the superfluous water is evaporated. Much of the country is absolutely
without streams, and would be uninhabitable were it not for the
_kanats_, or _karizes_, subterranean channels of spring-water, described
at length in a former volume.

The only rivers of the district which deserve any attention are the Tab
(or Oroatis), whereof a description has been already given, the Kur or
Bendamir (called anciently Araxes), with its tributary, the Pulwar (or
Cyrus), and the Khoonazaberni or river of Khisht.

The Bendamir rises in the mountains of the Bakhtiyari chain, in lat.
30° 35’, long. 51° 50’ nearly, and runs with a course which is generally
south-east, past the ruins of Persepolis, to the salt lake of Neyriz
or Kheir, which it enters in long. 53° 30’. It receives, where it
approaches nearest to Persepolis, the Pulwar or Kur-ab, a small stream
coming from the north-east and flowing by the ruins of both Pasargadae
and Persepolis. A little below its junction with this stream the
Bendamir is crossed by a bridge of five arches, and further down, on the
route between Shiraz and Herman, by another of twelve. Here its waters
are to a great extent drawn off by means of canals, and are made to
fertilize a large tract of rich flat country on either bank, after which
the stream pursues its course with greatly diminished volume to the salt
lake in which it ends. The entire course, including only main windings,
may be estimated at 140 or 150 miles.

The Khoonazaberni or river of Khisht rises near the ruins of Shapur, at
a short distance from Kazerun, on the route between Bushire and
Shiraz, and flows in a broad valley between lofty mountains towards
the south-west, entering the Persian Gulf by three mouths, the chief of
which is at Rohilla, twenty miles north of Bushire, where the stream has
a breadth of sixty yards, and a depth of about four feet. Above Khisht
the river is already thirty yards wide. Its chief tributary is the
Dalaki stream, which enters it from the east, nearly in long. 51°. The
entire course of the Khisht river may be about 95 or 100 miles. Its
water is brackish except near the source.

The principal lakes are the Lake of Neyriz and the Deriah-i-Nemek. The
Deriah-i-Nemek is a small basin distant about ten miles from Shiraz,
which receives the waters of the streams that supply that town. It has a
length of about fifteen and a breadth of about three or three and a half
miles. The lake of Neyriz or Kheir is of far larger size, being from
fifty to sixty miles long and from three to six broad, though in the
summer season it is almost entirely dried up. Salt is then obtained
from the lake in large quantities, and forms an important feature in the
commerce of the district. Smaller lakes, also salt or brackish, exist in
other parts of the country, as Lake Famur, near Kazerun, which is about
six miles in length, and from half a mile to a mile across.

The most remarkable feature of the country consists in the extraordinary
gorges which pierce the great mountain-chain, and render possible the
establishment of routes across that tremendous barrier. Scarped rocks
rise almost perpendicularly on either side of the mountain-streams,
which descend rapidly with frequent cascades and falls. Along the slight
irregularities of these rocks the roads are carried in zigzags, often
crossing the streams from side to side by bridges of a single arch,
which are thrown over profound chasms where the waters chafe and roar
many hundred feet below.46 [PLATE XXVI.] The roads have for the most
part been artificially cut in the sides of the precipices, which rise
from the streams sometimes to the height of 2000 feet. In order to cross
from the Persian Gulf to the high plateau of Iran, no fewer than three
or four of these kotuls, or strange gorge-passes, have to be traversed
successively. Thus the country towards the edge of the plateau is
peculiarly safe from attack, being defended on the north and east by
vast deserts, and on the south by a mountain-barrier of unusual strength
and difficulty.


[Illustration: PLATE XXVI.]


It is in these regions, which combine facility of defence with
pleasantness of climate, that the principal cities of the district have
at all times been placed. The earliest known capital of the region was
Pasargadae, or Persagadae, as the name is sometimes written, of which
the ruins still exist near Murgab, in lat. 30° 15’ long. 53° 17’.
Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus, whereof a description will be given
hereafter; and here are also other interesting remains of the old
Persian architecture. Neither the shape nor the extent of the town can
be traced. The situation was a plain amid mountains, watered by small
streams which found their way to a river of some size (the Pulwar)
flowing at a little distance to the west. [PLATE XXVII Fig. 1.]


[Illustration: PLATE XXVII.]


At the distance of thirty miles from Pasargadae, or of more than forty
by the ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis, occupying
a more southern position than the primitive seat of power, but still
situated towards the edge of the plateau, having the mountain-barrier
to the south-west and the desert at no great distance to the north-east.
Like its predecessor, Persepolis was situated in a plain, but in a plain
of much larger dimensions and of far greater fertility. The plain of
Merdasht is one of the most productive in Persia, being watered by the
two streams of the Bendamir and the Pulwar, which unite a few miles
below the site of the ancient city. From these two copious and unfailing
rivers a plentiful supply of the precious fluid can at all times be
obtained; and in Persia such a supply will always create the loveliest
verdure, the most abundant crops, and the richest and thickest foliage.
The site of Persopolis is naturally far superior to that in which
the modern provincial capital, Shiraz, has grown up, at about the
same distance from Persepolis as that is from Pasargadae. and in the
same--i.e. in a south-west--direction.

Besides Persepolis and Pasargadse, Persia Proper contained but few
cities of any note or name. If we include Carmania in Persia, Carmana,
the capital of that country, may indeed be mentioned as a third Persian
town of some consequence; but otherwise the names which occur in ancient
authors are insignificant, and designate villages rather than towns of
any size. Carmana, however, which is mentioned by Ptolemy and
Ammianus as the capital of those parts, seems to have been a place of
considerable importance. It may be identified with the modern Kerman,
which lies in lat. 39° 55’, long. 56° 13’, and is still one of the
chief cities of Persia. Situated, like Pasargadae and Persepolis, in a
capacious plain surrounded by mountains, which furnish sufficient water
for cultivation to be carried on by means of kanats in most parts of the
tract enclosed by them, and occupying a site through which the trade of
the country almost of necessity passes, Kerman must always be a town of
no little consequence. Its inland and remote position, however,
caused it to be little known to the Greeks; and, apparently, the great
Alexandrian geographer was the first who made them acquainted with its
existence and locality.

The Persian towns or villages upon the coast of the Gulf were chiefly
Armuza (which gave name to the district of Ar-muzia), opposite the
modern island of Ormuz; Sisidona, which must have been near Cape Jerd;
Apostana, probably about Shewar; Gogana, no doubt the modern Kongoon;
and Taoce on the Granis, famous as having in its neighborhood a royal
palace, which we may perhaps place near Dalaki, Taoce itself occupying
the position of Rohilla, at the mouth of the Khisht river. Of the inland
towns the most remarkable, after Persepolis, Pasargadse, and Carmana,
were Gabae, near Pasar-gadae, also the site of a palace; Uxia, or the
Uxian city, which may have occupied the position of Mai-Amir, Obroatis,
Tragonice, Ardea, Portospana, Hyrba, etc., which it is impossible to
locate unless by the merest conjecture.

The chief districts into which the territory was divided were
Paraetacene, a portion of the Bakhtiyari mountain-chain, which some,
however, reckoned to Media; Mardyene, or the country of the Mardi, also
one of the hill tracts; Taocene, the district about Taoce, part of the
low sandy coast region; Ciribo, the more northern portion of the same
region; and Carmania, the entire eastern territory. These districts were
not divided from one another by any marked natural features, the only
division of the country to which such a character attached being the
triple one into the high sandy plains north of the mountains, the
mountain region, and the Deshtistan, or low hot tract along the coast.

From this account it will be easy to understand how Persia Proper
acquired and maintained the character of “a scant land and a rugged,”
 which we find attaching to it in ancient authors. The entire area, as
has been already observed was about 100,000 square miles--little more
than half that of Spain, and about one fifth of the area of modern
Persia. Even of this space nearly one half was uninhabitable, consisting
either of barren stony mountain or of scorching sandy plain, ill
supplied with water, and often impregnated with salt, the habitable
portion consisted of the valleys and plains among the mountains and
along their skirts, together with certain favored spots upon the banks
of streams in the flat regions. These flat regions themselves were
traversed in many places by rocky ridges of a singularly forbidding
aspect. The whole appearance of the country was dry, stony, sterile. As
a modern writer observes, “the livery of the land is constantly brown
or gray; water is scanty; plains and mountains are equally destitute of
wood. When the traveller, after toiling over the rocky mountains that
separate the plains looks down from the pass he has won with toil
and difficulty upon the country below, his eye wanders unchecked and
unrested over an uniform brown expanse losing itself in distance.”

Still this character, though predominant, is not universal. Wherever
there is water, vegetation springs up. The whole of the mountain region
is intersected by valleys and plains which are more or less fertile.
The line of country between Bebahan and Shiraz is for above sixty miles
“covered with wood and verdure,” in East of Shiraz, on the route between
that city and Kerman the country is said to be in parts “picturesque and
romantic,” consisting of “low luxuriant valleys or; plains separated
by ranges of low mountains, green to their very summits with beautiful
turf.” The plains of Khubbes, Merdasht, Ujan, Shiraz, Kazerun,
and others, produce abundantly under a very inefficient system of
cultivation. Even in the most arid tracts there is generally a time of
greenness immediately after the spring rains, when the whole country
smiles with verdure.

It has been already remarked that the Empire, which, commencing from
Persia Proper, spread itself towards the close of the sixth century
before Christ, over the surrounding tracts, included a number of
countries not yet described in these volumes, since they formed no part
of any of the four Empires which preceded the Persian. To complete,
therefore, the geographical survey proper to our subject, it will be
necessary to give a sketch of the tracts in question. They will
fall naturally into three groups, an eastern, a north-western, and a
southwestern--the eastern extending from the skirts of Mount Zagros to
the Indian Desert, the north-western from the Caspian to the Propontis,
and the south-western from the borders of Palestine to the shores of the
Greater Syrtis.

Inside the Zagros and Elburz ranges, bounded on the north and west by
those mountain-lines, on the east by the ranges of Suliman and Hala, and
on the south by the coast-chain which runs from Persia Proper nearly
to the Indus, lies a vast tableland, from 3000 to 5000 feet above the
sea-level, known to modern geographers as the Great Plateau of Iran. Its
shape is an irregular rectangle, or trapezium, extending in its greatest
length, which is from west to east, no less than twenty degrees, or
above 1100 miles, while the breadth from north to south varies from
seven degrees, or 480 miles (which is its measure along the line of
Zagros), to ten degrees, or 690 miles, where it abuts upon the Indus
valley. The area of the tract is probably from 500,000 to 600,000 square
miles.

It is calculated that two thirds of this elevated region are absolutely
and entirely desert. The rivers which flow from the mountains
surrounding it are, with a single exception--that of the Etymandrus or
Helmend--insignificant, and their waters almost always lose themselves,
after a course proportioned to their volume, in the sands of the
interior. Only two, the Helmend and the river of Ghuzni, have even the
strength to form lakes; the others are absorbed by irrigation, or sucked
up by the desert. Occasionally a river, rising within the mountains,
forces its way through the barrier, and so contrives to reach the sea.
This is the case, especially, on the south, where the coast chain is
pierced by a number of streams, some of which have their sources at a
considerable distance inland. On the north the Heri-rud, or River of
Herat, makes its escape in a similar way from the plateau, but only to
be absorbed, after passing through two mountain chains, in the sands of
the Kharesm. Thus by far the greater portion of this region is desert
throughout the year, while, as the summer advances, large tracts, which
in the spring were green, are burnt up--the rivers shrink back towards
their sources--the whole plateau becomes dry and parched--and the
traveller wonders that any portion of it should be inhabited.

It must not be supposed that the entire plateau of which we have been
speaking is to the eye a single level and unbroken plain. In the western
portion of the region the plains are constantly intersected by “brown,
irregular, rocky ridges,” rising to no great height, but serving to
condense the vapors held in the air, and furnishing thereby springs
and wells of inestimable value to the inhabitants. In the southern and
eastern districts “immense” ranges of mountains are said to occur; and
the south-eastern as well as the north-eastern corners of the plateau
are little else than confused masses of giant elevations. Vast flats,
however, are found. In the Great Salt Desert, which extends from Kashan
and Koum to the Deriah or “Sea” in which the Helmend terminates, and
in the sandy desert of Seistan, which lies east and south-east of that
lake, reaching from near Furrah to the Mekran mountains, plains of above
a hundred miles in extent appear to occur, sometimes formed of loose
sand, which the wind raises into waves like those of the sea, sometimes
hard and gravelly, or of baked and indurated clay.

The tract in question, which at the present day is divided between
Afghanistan, Beloochistan, and Iran, contained, at the time when
the Persian Empire arose, the following nations: the Sagartians, the
Cossseans, the Parthians, the Hariva or Arians, the Gandarians, the
Sattagydians, the Arachotians, the Thamanseans, the Sarangae, and the
Paricanians. The Sagartians and Cossseans dwelt in the western portion
of the tract, the latter probably about the Siah-Koh mountains, the
former scattered over the whole region from the borders of Persia Proper
to the Caspian Gates and the Elburz range. Along its northern edge, east
of the Sagartians, were the Parthians, the Arians, and the Gandarians.
occurring in that order as we proceed from west to east. The Parthians
held the country known now as the Atak or “Skirt,” the flat tract at the
southern base of the Elburz from about Shahrud to Khaff, together with
a portion of the mountain region adjoining. This is a rich and valuable
territory, well watered by a number of small streams, which, issuing
from the ravines and valleys of the Elburz, spread fertility around, but
lose themselves after a short, course in the Salt Desert. Adjoining the
Parthians upon the east were the Haroyu, Hariva, or Arians, an Iranic
race of great antiquity, who held the country along the southern skirts
of the mountains from the neighborhood of Khaff to the point where the
Heri-rud (Arius) issues from the Paropamisan mountains. The character
of this country closely resembles that of Parthia, whereof it is a
continuation; but the copious stream of the Heri-rud renders it even
more productive.

The Gandarians held Kabul, and the mountain tract on both sides of the
Kabul river as far as the upper course of the Indus, thus occupying
the extreme north-eastern corner of the plateau, the region where its
elevation is the greatest. Lofty mountain-ridges, ramifying in various
directions but tending generally to run east and west, deep gorges,
narrow and tremendous passes, like the Khyber, characterize this
district. Its soil is generally rocky and barren; but many of the
valleys are fertile, abounding with enchanting scenery and enjoying a
delightful climate. More especially is this the case in the neighborhood
of the city of Kabul, which is perhaps the Caspatyrus of Herodotus,
where Darius built the fleet which descended the Indus.

South of Aria and Gandaria, in the tract between the Great Desert
and the Indus valley, the plateau was occupied by four nations--the
Thamanseans, the Sarangians, the Sattagydians, and the Arachotians.
The Thamanaean country appears to have been that which lies south and
south-east of Aria (Herat), reaching from the Haroot-rud or river of
Subzawar to the banks of the Helmend about Ghirisk. This is a varied
region, consisting on the north and the north-east of several high
mountain chains which ramify from a common centre, having between
them large tracts of hills and downs, while towards the south and the
south-west the country is comparatively low and flat, descending to
the level of the desert about the thirty second parallel. Here the
Thamanseans were adjoined upon by the Sarangians, who held the land
about the lake in which the Helmend terminates--the Seistan of Modern
Persia. Seistan is mainly desert. One third of the surface of the soil
is composed of moving sands, and the other two thirds of a compact
sand, mixed with a little clay, but very rich in vegetable matter. It
is traversed by a number of streams, as the Haroot-rud, the river
of Furrah, the river of Khash, the Helmend, and others, and is
very productive along their banks, which are fertilized by annual
inundations; but the country between the streams is for the most part an
arid desert.

The Sattagydians and Arachotians divided between them the remainder of
Afghanistan, the former probably occupying south-eastern Kabul, from the
Ghuzni river and its tributaries to the valley of the Indus, while the
latter were located in the modern Candahar, upon the Urghand-ab and
Turnuk rivers. The character of these tracts is similar to that of
north-western Kabul, but somewhat less rugged and mountainous. Hills and
downs alternate with rocky ranges and fairly fertile vales. There is
a scantiness of water, but still a certain number of moderate-sized
rivers, tolerably well supplied with affluents. The soil, however, is
either rocky or sandy; and without a careful system of irrigation great
portions of the country remain of necessity barren and unproductive.

The south-eastern corner of the plateau, below the countries of the
Sarangians and the Arachotians, was occupied by a people, called
Paricanians by Herodotus, perhaps identical with the Gedrosians of
later writers. This district, the modern Beloochistan, is still very
imperfectly known, but appears to be generally mountainous, to have a
singularly barren soil, and to be deficient in rivers. The nomadic life
is a necessity in the greater part of the region, which is in few places
suitable for cultivation, but has good pastures in the mountains or the
plains according to the season of the year. The rivers of the country
are for the most part mere torrents, which carry a heavy body of
water after rains, but are often absolutely dry for several months in
succession. Water, however, is generally obtainable by digging wells in
their beds; and the liquid procured in this way suffices, not only for
the wants of man and beast, but also for a limited irrigation.

The Great Plateau which has been here described is bordered everywhere,
except at its north-eastern and north-western corners, by low regions.
On the north the lowland is at first a mere narrow strip intervening
between the Elburz range and the Caspian, a strip which has been already
described in the account given of the Third Monarchy. Where, however,
the Caspian ends, its shore trending away to the northward, there
succeeds to this mere strip of territory a broad and ample tract of
sandy plain, extending from about the 54th to the 68th degree of east
longitude--a distance of 760 miles--and reaching from the 36th to the
50th parallel of north latitude--a distance not much short of a thousand
miles! This tract which comprises the modern Khanats of Khiva and
Bokhara, together with a considerable piece of Southern Asiatic Russia,
is for the most part a huge trackless desert, composed of loose sand,
black or red, which the wind heaps up into hills. Scarcely any region on
the earth’s surface is more desolate. The boundless plain lies stretched
before the traveller like an interminable sea, but dead, dull, and
motionless. Vegetation, even the most dry and sapless, scarcely exists.
For three or four hundred miles together he sees no running stream.
Water, salt, slimy, and discolored, lies Occasionally in pools, or
is drawn from wells, which yield however only a scanty supply. For
anything like a drinkable beverage the traveller has to trust to the
skies, which give or withhold their stores with a caprice that is truly
tantalizing. Occasionally, but only at long intervals, out of the
low sandy region there issues a rocky range, or a plateau of moderate
eminence, where the soil is firm, the ground smooth, and vegetation
tolerably abundant. The most important of the ranges are the Great
and Little Balkan, near the Caspian Sea, between the 39th and 40th
parallels, the Khalata and Urta Tagh, north-west, of Bokhara, and the
Kukuth; still further to the north-west in latitude 42° nearly. The
chief plateau is that of Ust-Urt, between the Caspian and the Sea of
Aral, which is perhaps not more than three or four hundred feet above
the sandy plain, but is entirely different in character.

This desolate region of low sandy plain would be wholly uninhabitable,
were it not for the rivers. Two great streams, the Amoo or Jyhun
(anciently the Oxus), and the Sir or Synuti (anciently the Jaxartes),
carry their waters across the desert, and pour them into the basin of
the Aral. Several others of less volume, as the Murg-ab, or river of
Merv, the Abi Meshed or Tejend, the Heri-rud, the river of Maymene, the
river of Balkh, the river of Khulm, the Shehri-Sebz, the Ak Su or river
of Bokhara, the Kizil Deria, etc., flow down from the high ground
into the plain, where their waters either become lost in the sands, or
terminate in small salt pools. Along the banks of these streams the soil
is fertile, and where irrigation is employed the crops are abundant. In
the vicinity of Khiva, at Kermineh on the Bokhara river, at Samarcand,
at Balkh--and in a few other places, the vegetation is even luxuriant;
gardens, meadows, orchards, and cornfields fringe the river-bank; and
the natives see in such favored spots resemblances of Paradise! Often,
however, even the river-banks themselves are uncultivated, and the
desert creeps up to their very edge; but this is in default, not in
spite, of human exertion. A well-managed system of irrigation could,
in almost every instance, spread on either side of the streams a broad
strip of verdure.

In the time of the Fifth Monarchy, the tract which has been here
described was divided among three nations. The region immediately to the
east of the Caspian, bounded on the north by the old course of the Oxus
and extending eastward to the neighborhood of Merv, though probably
not including that city, was Chorasmia, the country of the Chorasmians.
Across the Oxus to the north-east was Sogdiana (or Sugd), reaching
thence to the Jaxartes, which was the Persian boundary in this
direction. South of Sogdiana, divided from it by the Middle and Upper
Oxus, was Bactria, the country of the Bakhtars or Bactrians. The
territory of this people reached southward to the foot of the
Paropamisus, adjoining Chorasmia and Aria on the west, and on the south
Sattagydia and Gandaria.

East of the table-land lies the valley of the Indus and its tributaries,
at first a broad tract, 350 miles from west to east, but narrowing as
it descends, and in places not exceeding sixty or seventy miles,
across. The length of the valley is not less than 800 miles. Its area is
probably about a hundred thousand square miles. We may best regard it
as composed of two very distinct tracts--one the broad triangular plain
towards the north, to which, from the fact of its being watered by five
main streams, he natives have given the name of Punj-ab, the other the
long and comparatively narrow valley of the single Indus river, which,
deriving its appellation from that noble stream, is known in modern
geography as Sinde. The Punjab, which contains an area of above fifty
thousand square miles, is mountainous towards the north, where it
adjoins on Kashmeer and Thibet, but soon sinks down into a vast plain,
with a soil which is chiefly either sand or clay, immensely productive
under irrigation, but tending to become jungle or desert if left without
human care. Sinde, or the Indus valley below the Punjab, is a region of
even greater fertility. It is watered, not only by the main stream of
the Indus, but by a number of branch channels which the river begins to
throw off from about the 28th parallel. It includes, on the right bank
of the stream, the important tract called Cutchi Gandava, a triangular
plain at the foot of the Suliman and Hala ranges, containing about 7000
square miles of land which is all capable of being made into a garden.
The soil is here for the most part rich, black, and loamy; water is
abundant; and the climate suitable for the growth of all kinds of grain.
Below Cutchi Gandava the valley of the Indus is narrow for about a
hundred miles, but about Tatta it expands and a vast delta is formed.
This is a third triangle, containing above a thousand square miles of
the richest alluvium, which is liable however to floods and to vast
changes in the river beds, whereby often whole fields are swept away.
Much of this tract is moreover low and swampy; the climate is trying;
and rice is almost the only product that can be advantageously
cultivated.

The low region lying south of the Great Plateau is neither extensive
nor valuable. It consists of a mere strip of land along the coast of
the Indian Ocean, extending a distance of about nine degrees (550 miles)
from the mouth of the Persian Gulf to Cape Monze, near Kurrachee, but
in width not exceeding ten or, at the most, twenty miles. This tract
was occupied in ancient times mainly by a race which Herodotus called
Ethiopians and the historians of Alexander Ichthyophagi (Fish-Eaters).
It is an arid, sultry, and unpleasant region, scarcely possessing a
perennial stream, and depending for its harvests entirely upon the
winter rains, and for its water during the summer on wells which are
chiefly brackish. Tolerable pasturage is, however, obtainable in places
even during the hottest part of the year, and between Cape Jask and
Gwattur the crops produced are far from contemptible.

A small tract of coast, a continuation of the territory just described,
intervening between it and Kerman, was occupied in the early Persian
times by a race known to the Persians as Maka, and to the Greeks as
Mycians. This district, reaching from about Cape Jask to Gombroon,
is one of greater fertility than is usual in these regions, being
particularly productive in dates and grain. This fertility seems,
however, to be confined to the vicinity of the sea-shore.

To complete the description of the Eastern provinces two other tracts
must be mentioned. The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau on
the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of Elburz, broadens
out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea till it
covers a space of nearly three degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead
of the single lofty ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low
Caspian region, we find between the fifty-fourth and fifty-ninth degrees
of east longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel to
one another, having a general direction of east and west. Broad and rich
valleys are enclosed between these latitudinal ranges which are watered
by rivers of a considerable size, as more especially the Ettrek and
the Gurgan. Thus a territory is formed capable of supporting a largish
population, a territory which possesses a natural unity, being shut in
on three sides by mountains, and on the fourth by the Caspian. Here in
Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani; and from them the
tract derived the name of Hyrcania (Vehrkana), while the lake on which
it adjoined came to be known as “the Hyrcanian Sea.” The fertility
of the region, its broad plains, shady woods and lofty mountains were
celebrated by the ancient writers.

Further to the east, beyond the low sandy plain, and beyond the
mountains in which its great rivers have their source--on the other
side of the “Roof of the World,” as the natives name this elevated
region--lay a tract unimportant in itself, but valuable to the Persians
as the home of a people from whom they obtained excellent soldiers. The
plain of Chinese Tartary, the district about Kashgar and Yarkand, seems
to have been in possession of certain Sacans or Scythians, who in the
flourishing times of the empire acknowledged subjection to the Persian
crown. These Sacans, who call themselves Huma-varga or Amyrgians,
furnished some of the best and bravest of the Persian troops. Westward
they bordered on Sogdiana and Bactria; northward they extended probably
to the great mountain-chain of the Tien-chan; on the east they were shut
in by the vast desert of Gobi or Shamoo; while southward they must have
touched Gandaria and perhaps India. A portion of this country--that
towards the north and west--was well watered and fairly productive; but
the southern and eastern part of it must have been arid and desert.

From this consideration of the Eastern provinces of the Empire, we pass
on naturally to those which lay towards the North-West. The Caspian Sea
alone intervened between these two groups, which thus approached each
other within a distance of some 250 or 260 miles.

Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a high
table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches eastward for more
than eighteen degrees between the 37th and 41st parallels. This highland
may properly be regarded as a continuation of the great Iranean plateau,
with which it is connected at its south-eastern corner. It comprises
a portion of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia
Minor. Its principal mountain-ranges are latitudinal or from west to
east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or longitudinal direction.
Of the latitudinal chains the most important is the Taurus, which,
commencing at the southwestern corner of Asia Minor in longitude 29°
nearly, bounds the great table-land upon the south, running parallel
with the shore at the distance of sixty or seventy miles as far as
the Pylse Cilicise, near Tarsus, and then proceeding in a direction
decidedly north of east to the neighborhood of Lake Van, where it unites
with the line of Zagros. The elevation of this range, though not equal
to that of some in Asia, is considerable. In Asia Minor the loftiest of
the Taurus peaks seem to attain a height of about 9000 or 10,000 feet.
Further to the east the elevation appears to be even greater, the peaks
of Ala Dagh, Sapan, Nimrud, and Mut Khan in the tract about Lake Van
being all of them considerably above the line of perpetual snow, and
therefore probably 11,000 or 12,000 feet.

At the opposite side of the table-land, bounding it towards the north,
there runs under various names a second continuous range of inferior
elevation, which begins near Brusa, in the Keshish Dagh or Mysian
Olympus, and proceeds in a line nearly parallel with the northern coast
to the vicinity of Kars. Between this and Taurus are two other important
ridges, which run westward from the neighborhood of Ararat to about the
34th degree of east longitude, after which they subside into the plain.

The heart of the mountain-region, the tract extending from the district
of Erivan on the east to the upper course of the Kizil-Irmak river
and the vicinity of Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia.
Amidst these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep
and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and occasional broad
plains--a country of rich pasture grounds, productive orchards, and
abundant harvests--this interesting people has maintained itself almost
unchanged from the time of the early Persian kings to the present day.
Armenia was one of the most valuable portions of the Persian Empire,
furnishing, as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most
important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent horses to the
stud of the Persian king.

The highland west of Armenia, the plateau of Asia Minor, from the
longitude of Siwas (37° E.) to the sources of the Meander and the
Hermus, was occupied by the two nations of the Cappadocians and
Phrygians, whose territories were separated by the Kizil-Irmak or Halys
river. This tract, though diversified by some considerable ranges, and
possessing one really lofty mountain, that of Argseus, was, compared
with Armenia, champaign and level. Its broad plains afforded the best
possible pasturage for sheep, while at the same time they bore excellent
crops of wheat. The entire region was well-watered; it enjoyed a
delightful climate; and besides corn and cattle furnished many products
of value.

Outside the plateau on the north, on the north-east, on the west, and
on the south, lie territories which, in comparison with the high
region whereon they adjoined, may be called lowlands. The north-eastern
lowland, the broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds closely
with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was in the possession of a
people called by Herodotus Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify
with the Iberians of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the
south, probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the neighborhood
of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must be connected with that
of the great mountain. On the other side of the Sapeirian country, in
the tracts now known as Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful
beauty and fertility, were the Colchians--dependants, but not exactly
subjects, of Persia.

The northern lowland, which consisted of a somewhat narrow strip of land
between the plateau and the Euxine, was a rich and well-wooded region,
630 miles in length, and in breadth from forty to a hundred. It was
inhabited by a large number of rude and barbarous tribes, each of whom
possessed a small portion of the sea-board. These tribes, enumerated in
the order of their occurrence from east to west, were the following:
the Moschi, the Macrones (or Tzani), the Mosy-noeci, the Mares, the
Tibareni, the Chalybes, the Paphlagones, the Mariandyni, the Bithyni,
and the Thyni. The Moschi, Macrones, Mosynoeci, Mares, and Tibareni
dwelt towards the east, occupying the coast from Batoum to Ordou.
The Chalybes inhabited the tract immediately adjoining on Sinope.
The Paphlagonians held the rest of the coast from the mouth of the
Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba, where they were succeeded by the Mariandyni,
who owned the small tract between Cape Baba and the mouth of
the Sakkariyeh (Sangarius). From the Sangarius to the canal of
Constantinople dwelt the Thynians and Bithynians intermixed, the former
however affecting the coast and the latter the interior of the country.
The entire tract was of a nearly uniform character, consisting of wooded
spurs from the northern mountain-chain, with, valleys of greater or
less width between them. Streams were numerous, and vegetation was
consequently rich; but it may be doubted whether the climate was
healthy.

The western lowland comprised the inland regions of Mysia, Lydia,
and Caria, together with the coast-tracts which had been occupied by
immigrant Greeks, and which were known as Juolis, Doris, and Ionia. The
broad and rich plains, the open valleys, the fair grassy mountains, the
noble trees, the numerous and copious rivers of this district are too
well known to need description here. The western portion of Asia Minor
is a terrestrial paradise, well deserving the praises which Herodotus
with patriotic enthusiasm bestowed upon it. The climate is delightful,
only that it is somewhat too luxurious; the soil is rich and varied in
quality; the vegetable productions are abundant; and the mountains, at
any rate anciently, possessed mineral treasures of great value.

The lowland upon the south is narrower and more mountainous than either
of the others. It comprised three countries only--Lycia, Pamphylia, and
Cilicia. The tract is chiefly occupied by spurs from Taurus, between
which lie warm and richly wooded valleys. In Lycia, however, the
mountain-ridges embrace some extensive uplands, on a level not much
inferior to that of the central plateau itself, while in Pamphylia and
Cilicia are two or three low alluvial plains of tolerable extent and
of great fertility. Of these the most remarkable is that near Tarsus,
formed by the three streams of the Cydnus, the Sarus, and the Pyramus,
which extends along the coast a distance of forty miles and reaches
inland about thirty, the region which gave to the tract where it occurs
the name of Cilicia Campestris or Pedias.

The Persian dominion in this quarter was not bounded by sea. Opposite to
Cilicia lay the large and important island of Cyprus, which was included
in the territories of the Great King from the time of Cambyses to the
close of the Empire. Further to the west, Rhodes, Cos, Samos, Chios,
Lesbos, Tenedos, Lemnus, Imbrus, Samothrace, Thasos, and most of the
islands of the Egean were for a time Persian, but were never grasped
with such firmness as to be a source of real strength to their
conquerors. The same may be said of Thrace and Pseonia, subjugated under
Darius, and held for some twenty or thirty years, but not assimilated,
not brought into the condition of provinces, and therefore rather
a drain upon the Empire than an addition to its resources. It seems
unnecessary to lengthen out this description of the Persian territories
by giving an account of countries and islands, whose connection with the
Empire was at once so slight and so temporary.

A few words must, however, be said respecting Cyprus. This island, which
is 140 miles long from Bafa (Paphos) to Cape Andrea, with an average
width for two thirds of its length of thirty-five, and for the remaining
third of about six or seven miles, is a mountainous tract, picturesque
and varied, containing numerous slopes, and a few plains, well fitted
for cultivation. According to Eratosthenes it was in the more ancient
times richly wooded, but was gradually cleared by human labor. Its soil
was productive, and particularly well suited for the vine and the olive.
It grew also sufficient corn for its own use. But its special value
arose from its mineral products. The copper mines near Tamasus were
enormously productive, and the ore thence derived so preponderated over
all other supplies that the later Romans came to use the word Cyprium
for the metal generally--whence the names by which it is even now known
in most of the languages of modern Europe. On the whole Cyprus was
considered inferior to no known island. Besides its vegetable and
mineral products, it furnished a large number of excellent sailors to
the Persian fleet.

It remains to notice briefly those provinces of the south-west which had
not been included within any of the preceding monarchies, and which are
therefore as yet undescribed in these volumes. These provinces are the
African, and may be best considered under the three heads of Egypt,
Libya, and the Cyrenaica.

Egypt, if we include under the name not merely the Nile valley and the
Delta, but the entire tract interposed between the Libyan Desert on the
one side and the Arabian Gulf or Red Sea on the other, is a country of
nearly the size of Italy. It measures 520 miles from Elephantine to the
Mediterranean, and has an average width of 150 or 160 miles. It must
thus contain an area of about 80,000 square miles. Of this space,
however, at least three fourths is valueless, consisting of bare rocky
mountain or dry sandy plain. It is only along the course of the narrow
valley in which the Nile flows from the Cataracts to beyond Cairo, in
the tract known as the Faioum, and in the broad region of the Delta,
that cultivation is possible. Even in the Delta itself there are large
spaces which are arid, and others which are permanent marshes, so that
considerable portions of its surface are unfitted for husbandry. But if
the quantity of cultivable land is thus limited in Egypt, the quality is
so excellent, in consequence of the alluvial character of the soil, that
the country was always in ancient times a sort of granary of the world.
The noble river, bringing annually a fresh deposit of the richest soil,
and furnishing a supply of water, which is sufficient, if carefully
husbanded, to produce a succession of luxuriant crops throughout the
year, makes Egypt--what it is even at the present day--one of the most
fertile portions of the earth’s surface--a land of varied products,
all excellent--but especially a land of corn, to which the principal
nations of the world looked for their supplies, either regularly, or at
any rate in times of difficulty.

West of Egypt was a dry and sandy tract, dotted with oases, but
otherwise only habitable along the shore, which in the time of the
Persian Empire was occupied by a number of wild tribes who were mostly
in the lowest condition to which savage man is capable of sinking. The
geographical extent of this tract was large, exceeding considerably that
of Egypt; but its value was slight. Naturally, it produced nothing but
dates and hides. The inhumanity of the inhabitants made it, however,
further productive of a commodity, which, until the world is
christianized, will probably always be regarded as one of high
value--the commodity of negro slaves, which were procured in the Sahara
by slave-hunts, and perhaps by purchase in Nigritia.

Still further to the west, and forming the boundary of the Empire in
this direction, lay the district of the Cyrenaica, a tract of singular
fertility and beauty. Between Benghazi, in east longitude 20°, and the
Ras al Tynn (long. 23° 15’), there rises above the level of the adjacent
regions an extensive table land, which, attracting the vapors that float
over the Mediterranean, condenses them, and so abounds with springs
and rills. A general freshness and greenness, with rich vegetation in
places, is the consequence. Olives, figs, carobs, junipers, oleanders,
cypresses, cedars, myrtles, arbutus-trees, cover the flanks of the
plateau and the hollows which break its surface, while the remainder is
suitable alike for the cultivation of cereals and for pasturage. Nature
has also made the region a special gift in the laserpitium or silphium,
which was regarded by the ancients as at once a delicacy and a plant
of great medicinal power, and which added largely to the value of the
country.

Such was the geographical extent of the Persian Empire, and such
were the chief provinces which it contained besides those previously
comprised in the empires of Media or Babylon. Territorially, the great
mass of the Empire lay towards the east, between long. 50° and 75°, or
between the Zagros range and the Indian Desert. But its most important
provinces were the western ones. East of Persepolis, the only regions
of much value were the valleys of the Indus and the Oxus. Westward lay
Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, Armenia, Iberia, Cappadocia, Asia
Minor, Cyprus, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the Cyrenaica--all countries of
great, or at least considerable, productiveness. The two richest grain
tracts of the ancient world, the best pasture regions, the districts
which produced the most valuable horses, the most abundant of known
gold-fields, were included within the limits of the Empire, which may
be looked upon as self-sufficing, containing within it all that man in
those days required, not only for his necessities, but even for his most
cherished luxuries.

The productiveness of the Empire was the natural result of its
possessing so many and such large rivers. Six streams of the first
class, having courses exceeding a thousand miles in length, helped to
fertilize the lands which owned the sway of the Great King. These were
the Nile, the Indus, the Euphrates, the Jaxartes, the Oxus, and the
Tigris. Two of the six have been already described in these volumes, and
therefore will not need to detain us here; but a few words must be
said with respect to each of the remaining four, if our sketch of the
geography of the Empire is to make any approach to completeness.

The Nile was only in the latter part of its course a Persian stream.
Flowing, as we now know that it does, from within a short distance of
the equator, it had accomplished more than three fourths of its course
before it entered a Persian province. It ran, however, through Persian
territory a distance of about six hundred miles, and conferred on
the tract through which it passed immeasurable benefits. The Greeks
sometimes maintained that “Egypt was the gift of the river;” and, though
this was very far from being a correct statement in the sense intended,
there is a meaning of the words in which we may accept them as
expressing a fact. Egypt is only what she is through her river. The Nile
gives her all that makes her valuable. This broad, ample, and unfailing
stream not only by its annual inundation enriches the soil and prepares
it for tillage in a manner that renders only the lightest further labor
necessary, but serves as a reservoir from which inexhaustible supplies
of the precious fluid can be obtained throughout the whole of the year.
The water, which rises towards the end of June, begins to subside early
in October, and for half the year--from December till June--Egypt is
only cultivable through irrigation. She produces, however, during this
period, excellent crops--even at the present day, when there are few
canals--from the facility with which water is obtained, by means of
a very simple engine, out of the channel of the Nile. This unfailing
supply enabled the cultivator to obtain a second, a third, and even
sometimes a fourth crop from the same land within the space of a year.

The course of the Nile from Elephantine, where it entered Egypt, to
Cercasorus, near Heliopolis, where it bifurcated, was in general north,
with, however, a certain tendency westward. It entered Egypt nearly in
long. 33°, and at Neapolis (more than two degrees further north) it was
still within 15° of the same meridian; then, however, it took a westerly
bend, crossed the 32nd and 31st meridians, and in lat. 28° 23 reached
west as far as long. 30° 43’. After this it returned a little eastward,
recrossed the 31st meridian, and having reached long. 31° 22’ near
Aphroditopolis (lat.29° 25), it proceeded almost due north to Cercasorus
in lat. 30° 7’. The course of the river up to this point was, from its
entry into the country, about 540 miles. At Cercasorus the Delta began.
The river threw out two branches, which flowed respectively to the
north-east and the north-west, while between them was a third channel,
a continuation of the previous course of the stream, which pierced the
Delta through its centre, flowing almost due north. Lower down, further
branch channels were thrown out, some natural, some artificial, and the
triangular tract between the two outer arms of the river was intersected
by at least five, and (in later times) by fourteen large streams. The
right and left arms appear to have been of about equal in length, and
may be estimated at 150 or 160 miles; the central arm had a shorter
course, not exceeding 110 miles. The volume of water which the Nile
pours into the Mediterranean during a day and night is estimated at from
150,000 millions to 700,000 millions of cubic metres. It was by far the
largest of all the rivers of the Empire.

The Indus, which was the next largest of the Persian rivers to the Nile,
rose (like the Nile) outside the Persian territory. Its source is in the
region north of the Himalaya range, about lat. 31°, long. 82° 30’. It
begins by flowing to the north-west, in a direction parallel to that of
the Western Himalayas, along the northern flank of which it continues
in this line a distance of about 700 miles, past Ladak, to long. 75°
nearly. Here it is met by the Bolor chain, which prevents its further
progress in this direction and causes it to turn suddenly nearly at a
right angle to the south-west. Entering a transverse valley, it finds a
way (which is still very imperfectly known) through the numerous ridges
of the Himalaya to the plain at its southern base, on which it debouches
about thirty miles above Attock. It is difficult to say at what exact
point it crossed the Persian frontier, but probably at least the first
700 miles of its course were through territory not Persian. From Attock
to the sea the Indus is a noble river. It runs for 900 miles in a
general direction of S.S.W. through the plain in one main stream (which
is several hundred yards in width), while on its way it throws off also
from time to time small side streamlets, which are either consumed in
irrigation or rejoin the main channel. A little below Tatta its Delta
begins--a Delta, however, much inferior in size to that of the Nile. The
distance from the apex to the sea is not more than sixty miles, and
the breadth of the tract embraced between the two arms does not exceed
seventy miles. The entire course of the Indus is reckoned at 1960 miles,
of which probably 1260 were through Persian territory. The volume of
the stream is always considerable, while in the rainy season it is very
great. The Indus is said then to discharge into the Indian ocean
446,000 cubic feet per second, or 4280 millions of cubic yards in the
twenty-four hours.

The Oxus rises from an Alpine lake, lying on the western side of the
Bolor chain in lat. 37° 40’, long. 73° 50’. After a rapid descent from
the high elevation of the lake, during which it pursues a somewhat
serpentine course, it debouches from the hills upon the plain about
long. 69° 20’, after receiving the river of Fyzabad, and then proceeds,
first west and afterwards north-west, across the Great Kharesmian Desert
to the Sea of Aral. During the first 450 miles of its course, while it
runs among the hills, it receives from both sides numerous and important
tributaries; but from the meridian of Balkh those fail entirely, and
for above 800 miles the Oxus pursues its solitary way, unaugmented by a
single affluent, across the waste of Tartary, rolling through the desert
a wealth of waters, which must diminish, but which does not seem very
sensibly to diminish, by evaporation. At Kilef, sixty miles north-west
of Balkh, the width of the river is 350 yards; at Khodja Salih, thirty
miles lower down, it is 823 yards with a depth of twenty feet; at Kerki,
seventy miles below Khodja Salih, it is “twice the width of the Danube
at Buda-Pesth,” or about 940 yards; at Betik, on the route between
Bokhara and Merv, its width has diminished to 650 yards, but its depth
has increased to twenty-nine feet. Finally, at Gorlen Hezaresp near
Khiva, the breadth of the Oxus is so great that both banks are hardly
distinguishable at the same time; but the stream is here comparatively
shallow, ceasing to be navigable at about this point. The present course
of the Oxus from its rise in Lake Sir-i-Kol to its termination in the
Sea of Aral is estimated at 1400 miles. Anciently its course must have
been still longer. The Oxus, in the time of the Achaemenian kings, fell
into the Caspian by a channel which can even now be traced. Its length
was thus increased by at least 450 miles, and, exceeding that of the
Jaxartes, fell but little short of the length of the Indus.

The Oxus, like the Nile and the Indus, has a periodical swell, which
lasts from May to October. It does not, however, overflow its
hanks. Under a scientific system of irrigation it is probable that a
considerable belt of land on either side of its course might be brought
under cultivation. But at present the extreme limit to which culture
is carried, except in the immediate vicinity of Khiva, seems to be four
miles; while often, in the absence of human care, the desert creeps up
to the very brink of the river.

The Jaxartes, or Sir-Deria, rises from two sources in the Thian-chan
mountain chain, the more remote of which is in long. 79° nearly. The two
streams both flow to the westward in almost parallel valleys, uniting
about long. 71°. After their junction the course of the stream is still
to the westward for two degrees; but between Khokand and Tashkend the
river sweeps round in a semicircle and proceeds to run first due north
and then north-west, skirting the Kizil Koum desert to Otrar, where
it resumes its original westerly direction and flows with continually
diminishing volume across the desert to the Sea of Aral. The Jaxartes
is a smaller stream than the Oxus. At Otrar, after receiving its last
tributary, it is no more than 250 yards wide. Below this point it
continually dwindles, partly from evaporation, partly from the branch
stream which it throws off right and left, of which the chief are the
Cazala and the Kuvan Deria. On its way through the desert it spreads but
little fertility along its banks, which are in places high and arid, in
others depressed and swampy. The branch streams are of some service for
irrigation; and it is possible that a scientific system might turn the
water of the main channel to good account, and by its means redeem from
the desert large tracts which have never yet been cultivated. But no
such system has hitherto been applied to the Sir, and it is doubtful
whether success would attend it. The Sir, where it falls into the Sea
of Aral, is very shallow, seldom even in the flood season exceeding four
feet. The length of the stream was till recently estimated at more than
1208 miles; but the latest explorations seem to require an enlargement
of this estimate by at least 200 or 250 miles.

In rivers of the second class the Persian Empire was so rich that it
will be impossible, within the limits prescribed for the present work,
to do more than briefly enumerate them. The principal were, in Asia
Minor, the Hermus (Ghiediz Chai), and the Maeander (Mendere) on the
west, the Sangarius (Sakka-riyeh), the Halys (Kizil Irmak), and the Iris
(Yechil Irmak) on the north, the Cydnus (Tersoos Chai), Sarus (Cilician
Syhun), and Pyramus (Cilician Jyhun) on the south; in Armenia and the
adjacent regions, the Araxes (Aras), Cyrus (Kur), and Phasis (Eion); on
the Iranic plateau, the Sefid-rud, the Zenderud or river of Isfahan, the
Etymandrus (Helmend), and the Arius (Heri-rud); in the low country east
of the Caspian, the Gurgan and Ettrek, rivers of Hyrcania, the Margus
Churghab (or river of Merv), the Delias or river of Balkh, the Ak Su or
Bokhara river, and the Kizil Deria, a stream in the Khanat of Kokand;
in Afghanistan and India, the Kabul river, the Hydaspes (Jelum), the
Aoesines (Chenab), the Hydraotes (Ravee), and the Hyphasis (Sutlej
or Gharra); in Persia Proper, the Oroatis (Hindyan or Tab), and the
Bendamir; in Susiana, the Pasitigris (Kuran), the Hedypnus (Jerahi),
the Choaspes (Kerkhah), and the Eulsenus (a branch of the same); in the
Upper Zagros region, the Gyndes (Diyaleh), and the Greater and Lesser
Zabs; in Mesopotamia, the Chaboras (Kha-bour), and Bilichus (Belik);
finally, in Syria and Palestine, the Orontes or river of Antioch
(Nahr-el-asy), the Jordan, and the Barada or river of Damascus. Thus,
besides the six great rivers of the Empire, forty other considerable
streams fertilized and enriched the territories of the Persian monarch,
which, though they embraced many arid tracts, where cultivation was
difficult, must be pronounced upon the whole well-watered, considering
their extent and the latitude in which they lay.

The Empire possessed, besides its rivers, a number of important lakes.
Omitting the Caspian and the Aral, which lay upon its borders, there
were contained within the Persian territories the following important
basins: the Urumiyeh, Lake Van, and Lake Goutcha or Sivan in Armenia;
Lakes Touz-Ghieul, Egerdir, Bey-Shehr, Chardak, Soghla, Buldur,
Ghieul-Hissar, Iznik, Abullionte, Maniyas, and many others in Asia
Minor; the Sabakhah, the Bahr-el-Melak, and the Lake of Antioch in
Northern Syria; the Lake of Hems in the Coele-Syrian valley; the
Damascus lakes, the Lake of Merom, the Sea of Tiberias, and the Dead
Sea in Southern Syria and Palestine; Lake Moeris and the Natron lakes in
Egypt; the Bahr-i-Nedjif in Babylonia; Lake Neyriz in Persia Proper;
the Lake of Seistan in the Iranic Desert; and Lake Manchur in the In dus
valley. Several of these have been already described in these
volumes. Of the remainder the most important were the Lake of Van, the
Touz-Ghieul, the great lake of Seistan, and Lake Moeris. These cannot be
dismissed without a brief description.

Lake Van is situated at a very unusual elevation, being more than 5400
feet above the sea level. It is a triangular basin, of which the three
sides front respectively S.S.E., N.N.E., and N.W. by W. The sides
are all irregular, being broken by rocky promontories; but the chief
projection lies to the east of the lake, where a tract is thrown out
which suddenly narrows the expanse from about fifty miles to less than
five. The greatest length of the basin is from N.E. to S.W., where it
extends a distance of eighty miles between Amis and Tadvan; its greatest
width is between Aklat and Van, where it measures across somewhat more
than fifty miles. The scenery which surrounds it is remarkable for
its beauty. The lake is embosomed amid high mountains, picturesque in
outline, and all reaching in places the level of perpetual snow. Its
waters, generally placid, but sometimes lashed into high waves, are
of the deepest blue; while its banks exhibit a succession of orchards,
meadows, and gardens which have scarcely their equals in Asia. The lake
is fed by a number of small streams flowing down from the lofty ridges
which surround it, and, having no outlet, is of course salt, though
far less so than the neighboring lake of Urumiyeh. Gulls and cormorants
float upon its surface fish can live in it; and it is not distasteful to
cattle. Set in the expanse of waters are a few small islets, whose vivid
green contrasts well with the deep azure which surrounds them.

The Touz-Ghieul is a basin of a very different character. Situated on
the upland of Phrygia, in lat. 39°, long. 33°, 30’, its elevation is not
more than 2500 feet. Low hills of sandstone and conglomerate encircle
it, but generally at some distance, so that a tract of plain, six or
seven miles in width, intervenes between their base and the shore. The
shape of the lake is an irregular oval, with the greater axis running
nearly due north and south. Its greatest length is estimated at
forty-five miles, its width varies, but is generally from ten to sixteen
miles. At one point, however, nearly opposite to Kodj Hissar, the lake
narrows to a distance of no more than five miles; and here a causeway
has been constructed from shore to shore, which, though ruined, still
affords a dry pathway in the summer. The water of the Touz-Ghieul is
intensely salt, containing at some seasons of the year no less than
thirty-two per cent of saline matter, which is considerably more than
the amount of such matter in the water of the Dead Sea. The surrounding
plain is barren, in places marshy, and often covered with an
incrustation of salt. The whole scene is one of desolation. The acrid
waters support no animal organization; birds shun them; the plain grows
nothing but a few stunted and sapless shrubs. The only signs of life
which greet the traveller are the carts of the natives, which pass him
laden with the salt that is obtained with ease from the saturated water.

The Zerreh or Sea of Seistan--called sometimes the Hamun, or
“expanse”--is situated in the Seistan Desert on the Great Iranic
plateau, and consequently at an elevation of (probably) 3000 feet. It
is formed by the accumulation of the waters brought down by the Helmend,
the Haroot-rud, the river of Khash, the Furrah-rud and other streams,
which flow from the mountains of Afghanistan, with converging courses
to the south-west. It is an extensive basin, composed of two arms, an
eastern and a western. The western arm, which is the larger of the
two, has its greatest length from N.N.E. to S.S.W., and extends in this
direction about ninety miles. Its greatest width is about twenty-five
miles. The eastern arm is rather more than forty miles long, and from
ten to twenty broad. It is shaped much like a fish’s tail. The two arms
are connected by a strait seven or eight miles in width, which joins
them near their northern extremities. The water of the lake, though
not salt, is black and has a bad taste. Fish support life in it with
difficulty, and never grow to any great size. The lake is shallow, not
much exceeding a depth of three or four feet. It contracts greatly in
the summer, at which time the strait connecting the two arms is often
absolutely dry. The edges of the lake are clothed with tamarisk and
other trees; and where the rivers enter it, sometimes by several
branches, the soil is rich and cultivation productive; but elsewhere the
sand of the desert creeps up almost to the margin of the water, clothed
only with some sickly grass and a few scattered shrubs.

The Birket-el-Keroun, or Lake Moaris of the classical writers, is a
natural basin--not, as Herodotus imagined, an artificial one--situated
on the western side of the Nile valley, in a curious depression which
nature has made among the Libyan hills. This depression--the modern
district of the Faioom--is a circular plain, which sinks gradually
towards the north-west, descending till it is more than 100 feet below
the surface of the Nile at low water. The Northern and northwestern
portion of the depression is occupied by the lake, a sheet of brackish
water shaped like a horn (whence the modern name) measuring about
thirty-five or thirty-six miles from end to end, and attaining in the
middle a width of between five and six miles. The area of the lake is
estimated roughly at 150 square miles, its circumference at about ninety
miles. It has a depth varying from twelve to twenty-four feet. Though
the water is somewhat brackish, yet the Birket contains several species
of fresh-water fish; and in ancient times its fisheries are said to have
been exceedingly productive.

The principal cities of the Empire were, besides Pesargadae and
Persepolis, Susa--the chief city of Susiana--which became the capital;
Babylon, Ecbatana, Rhages, Zadracarta, Bactra (now Balkh), Maracanda
(now Samarcand), Aria, or Artacoana (Herat), Caspatyrus on the Upper
Indus,Taxila (Attock?), Pura (perhaps Bunpoor), Carmana (Kerman),
Arbela, Nisibis, Amida (now Diarbekr); Mazaca in Cappadocia; Trapezus
(Trebizond), Sinope, Dascyleium, Sardis, Ephesus, Miletus, Gordium,
Perga, and Tarsus in Asia Minor: Damascus, Jerusalem, Sidon, Tyre,
Azotus or Ashdod, and Gaza in Syria; Memphis and Thebes in Egypt; Cyrene
and Barca in the Cyrenaica. Of these, while Susa had from the time of
Darius Hystaspis a decided pre-eminence as the main residence of the
court, and consequently as the usual seat of government, there were
three others which could boast the distinction of being royal abodes
from time to time, either regularly at certain seasons, or occasionally
at the caprice of the monarch. These were Babylon, Ecbatana, and
Persepolis, the capitals respectively of Chaldaea, Media, and Persia
Proper, all great and ancient cities, accustomed to the presence of
Courts, and all occupying positions sufficiently central to render them
not ill-suited for the business of administration. Next to these in
order of dignity may be classed the satrapial residences, often the
chief cities of old monarchies, such as Sardis, the capital city of
Lydia, Dascyleium of Bithynia, Memphis of Egypt, Bactra of Bactria, and
the like; while the third rank was held by the towns, where there was no
Court, either royal or satrapial.

Before this chapter is concluded a few words must be said with respect
to the countries which bordered upon the Persian Empire. The Empire
was surrounded, for the most part, either by seas or deserts. The
Mediterranean, the Egean, the Propontis, the Euxine, the Caspian, the
Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and the Arabian Gulf or Bed Sea washed
its shores, bounding almost all its western, and much of its northern
and southern sides; while the sands of the Sahara, the deserts of
Arabia and Syria of India and Thibet, filled up the greater part of the
intervening spaces. The only countries of importance which can be viewed
as in any sense neighbors of Persia are European and Asiatic Scythia,
Hindustan, Arabia, Ethiopia, and Greece.

Where the Black Sea, curving round to the north, ceased to furnish to
the Empire the advantage of a water barrier, a protection of almost
equal strength was afforded to it by the mountain-chain of the Caucasus.
Excepting on the extreme east, where it slopes gently to the Caspian,
this range is one of great elevation, possessing but few passes, and
very difficult to traverse. Its fastnesses have always been inhabited by
wild tribes, jealous of their freedom; and these tribes may have caused
annoyance, but they could at no time have been a serious danger to
the Empire. They were weak in numbers, divided in nationality and in
interests, and quite incapable of conducting any distant expedition.
Like their modern successors, the Circassians, Abassians, and Lesghians,
their one and only desire was to maintain themselves in possession of
their beloved mountains; and this desire would cause them to resist
all attempts that might be made to traverse their country, whether
proceeding from the north or from the south, from the inhabitants of
Europe or from those of Asia. Persia was thus strongly protected in this
quarter; but still she could not feel herself altogether safe. Once at
least within historic memory the barrier of the Caucasus had proved to
be surmountable. From the vast Steppe which stretches northwards from
its base, in part salt, in part grassy, had crossed into Asia--through
its passes or round its eastern flank--a countless host, which had swept
all before it, and brought ruin upon flourishing empires. The Scythian
and Samaritan hordes of the steppe-country between the Wolga and
the Dnieper were to the monarchies of Western Asia a permanent, if a
somewhat distant, peril. It could not be forgotten that they had
proved themselves capable of penetrating the rocky barrier which would
otherwise have seemed so sure a protection, or that when they swarmed
across it in the seventh century before our era, their strength was at
first irresistible. The Persians knew, what the great nations of the
earth afterwards forgot, that along the northern horizon there lay a
black cloud, which might at any time burst, carrying desolation to
their homes and bringing ruin upon their civilization. We shall find the
course of their history importantly affected by a sense of this danger,
and we shall have reason to admire the wisdom of their measures of
precaution against it.

It was not only to the west of the Caspian that the danger threatened.
East of that sea also was a vast steppe-region--rolling plains of sand
or grass--the home of nomadic hordes similar in character to those who
drank the waters of the Don and Wolga. The Sacse, Massagetse, and Dahse
of this country, who dwelt about the Caspian, the Aral, and the Lower
Jaxartes, were an enemy scarcely less formidable than the Sarmatians
and the Scyths of the West. As the modern Iran now suffers from the
perpetual incursions of Uzbegs and Turcomans, so the north-eastern
provinces of the ancient Persia were exposed to the raids of the Asiatic
Scythians and the Massagetse, who were confined by no such barrier as
the Caucasus, having merely to cross a river, probably often fordable
during the summer, in order to be in Persia. Hyrcania and Parthia had
indeed a certain amount of protection from the Kharesmian Desert; but
the upper valleys of the great streams--the satrapies of Sogdiana and
Bactria--must have suffered considerable annoyance from such attacks.

On the side of India, the Empire enjoyed a twofold security. From the
shores of the Indian Ocean in the vicinity of the Runn of Cutch to the
31st parallel of north latitude--a distance of above 600 miles--there
extends a desert, from one to two hundred miles across, which
effectually shuts off the valley of the Indus from the rest of
Hindustan. It is only along the skirts of the mountains, by Lahore,
Umritsir, and Loodiana, that the march of armies is possible--by this
line alone can the Punjabis threaten Central India, or the inhabitants
of Central India attack the Punjab. Hence in this quarter there was but
a very narrow tract to guard; and the task of defence was still further
lightened by the political condition of the people. The Gangetic
Indians, though brave and powerful, were politically weak, from their
separation into a number of distinct states under petty Rajahs, who
could never hope to contend successfully against the forces of a mighty
Empire. Persia, consequently, was safe upon this side, in the division
of her adversaries. Nor had she neglected the further security which was
obtainable by an interposition between her own actual frontier and her
enemies’ dominions of a number of half-subject dependencies. Native
princes were allowed to bear sway in the Punjab region, who acknowledged
the suzerainty of Persia, and probably paid her a fixed tribute, but
whose best service was that they prevented a collision between the Power
of whom they held their crowns and the great mass of their own nation.

The Great Arabian Peninsula, which lay due south of the most central
part of the Empire, and bordered it on this side for about thirteen
degrees, or (if we follow the line of the boundary) for above a thousand
miles, might seem to have been the most important of all the adjacent
countries, since it contains an area of a million of square miles, and
is a nursery of brave and hardy races. Politically, however, Arabia is
weak, as has been shown in a former volume; while geographically she
presents to the north her most arid and untraversable regions, so that
it is rarely, and only under very exceptional circumstances, that she
menaces seriously her northern neighbors. Persia seems never to have
experienced any alarm of an Arab invasion; her relations with the tribes
that came into closest contact with her were friendly; and she left the
bulk of the nation in unmolested enjoyment of their independence.

Another country adjoining the Persian Empire on the south, and one which
might have been expected to cause some trouble, was Ethiopia. To Egypt
Ethiopia had always proved an unquiet, and sometimes even a dangerous,
neighbor; she was fertile, rich, populous; her inhabitants were tall,
strong, and brave; she had a ready means of marching into Egypt down the
fertile valley of the Nile; and her hosts had frequently ravaged,
and even held for considerable terms of years, that easily subjected
country. It is remarkable that during the whole time of the Persian
dominion Ethiopia seems to have abstained from any invasion of the
Egyptian territory. Apparently, she feared to provoke the power which
had seated itself on the throne of the Pharaohs, and preferred the quiet
enjoyment of her own wealth and resources to the doubtful issues of a
combat with the mistress of Asia.

On her western horizon, clearly discernible from the capes and headlands
of the Asiatic coast, but separated from her, except in one or two
places, by a tolerably broad expanse of sea, and so--as it might have
seemed--less liable to come in contact with her than her neighbors upon
the land, lay the shores and isles of Greece--lovely and delightful
regions, in possession of a brave and hardy race, as yet uncorrupted by
luxury, though in the enjoyment of a fair amount of civilization. As the
eye looked across the Egean waters, resting with pleasure on the varied
and graceful forms of Sporades and Cyclades, covetous thoughts might
naturally arise in the beholder’s heart; and the idea might readily
occur of conquering and annexing the fair tracts which lay so temptingly
near and possessed such numerous attractions. The entire region,
continent and islands included, was one of diminutive size--not half
so large as an ordinary Persian satrapy; it was well peopled, but its
population could not have amounted to that of the Punjab or of Egypt,
countries which Persia had overrun in a single campaign; its inhabitants
were warlike, but they were comparatively poor, and the true sinews of
war are money; moreover, they were divided amongst themselves, locally
split up by the physical conformation of their country, and politically
repugnant to anything like centralization or union. A Persian king like
Cambyses or Darius might be excused if, when his thoughts turned to
Greece, he had a complacent feeling that no danger could threaten him
from that quarter--that the little territory on his western border was a
prey which he might seize at any time that it suited his convenience or
seemed good to his caprice; so opening without any risk a new world
to his ambition. It required a knowledge that the causes of military
success and political advance lie deeper than statistics can reach--that
they have their roots in the moral nature of man, in the grandeur of his
ideas and the energy of his character--in order to comprehend the fact,
that the puny power upon her right flank was the enemy which Persia had
most to fear, the foe who would gradually sap her strength, and finally
deal her the blow that would lay her prostrate.




CHAPTER II. CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS.


It is evident that an Empire which extended over more than twenty
degrees of latitude, touching on the one hand the tropic of Cancer,
while it reached upon the other to the parallel of Astrakan, and which
at the same time varied in elevation, from 20,000 feet above to 1300
below the sea level, must have comprised within it great differences of
climate, and have boasted an immense variety of productions. No general
description can be applicable to such a stretch of territory; and it
will therefore be necessary to speak of the various parts of the
Empire successively in order to convey to the reader a true idea of
the climatic influences to which it was subject, and the animals,
vegetables, and minerals which it produced.

Commencing with Persia Proper, the original seat and home of the race
with whose history we are specially concerned at present, we may observe
that it was regarded by the ancients as possessing three distinct
climates--one along the shore, dry and scorchingly hot; another in the
mountain region beyond, temperate and delightful; and a third in the
tract further inland, which was thought to be disagreeably cold and
wintry. Moderns, on the contrary, find two climates only in Fars--one
that of the Desbistan or “low country,” extremely hot and dry,
with frequent scorching and oppressive winds from the south and the
south-east; the other, that of the highlands, which is cold in winter,
but in summer pleasant and enjoyable. In the Deshistan snow never falls,
and there is but little rain; heavy dews, however, occur at night, so
that the mornings are often fresh and cool; but the middle of the day
is almost always hot, and from March to November the temperature at noon
ranges from 90° to 100° of Fahrenheit. Occasionally it reaches 125°, and
is then fearfully oppressive. Fierce gusts laden with sand sweep over
the plain, causing vegetation to droop or disappear, and the animal
world to hide itself. Man with difficulty retains life at these trying
times, feeling a languor and a depression of spirits which are barely
supportable.10 All who can do so quit the plains and betake themselves
to the upland region till the great heats are past, and the advance of
autumn brings at any rate cool nights and mornings. The climate of the
uplands is severe in winter. Much snow falls, and the thermometer often
marks from ten to fifteen degrees of frost. From time to time there are
furious gales, and, as the spring advances, a good deal of wet falls;
but the summer and autumn are almost rainless. The heat towards midday
is often considerable, but it is tempered by cool winds, and even at the
worst is not relaxing. The variations of temperature are great in the
twenty-four hours, and the climate is, so far, trying; but, on the
whole, it seems to be neither disagreeable nor unhealthy.

A climate resembling that of the Deshtistan prevailed along the entire
southern coast of the Empire, from the mouth of the Tigris to that of
the Indus. It was exchanged in the lower valleys of the great streams
for a damp close heat, intolerably stifling and oppressive. The upper
valleys of these streams and the plains into which they expanded were at
once less hot and less moist, but were subject to violent storms, owing
to the near vicinity of the mountains. In the mountains themselves, in
Armenia and Zagros, and again in the Elburz, the climate was of a more
rigorous character--intensely cold in winter, but pleasant in the summer
time. [PLATE XXVII., Fig. 3.] Asia Minor enjoyed generally a warmer
climate than the high mountain regions; and its western and southern
coasts, being fanned by fresh breezes from the sea, or from the hills
of the interior, and cooled during the whole of the summer by frequent
showers, were especially charming. In Syria and Egypt the heats of
summer were somewhat trying, more especially in the Ghor or depressed
Jordan valley, and in the parts of Egypt adjoining on Ethiopia; but the
winters were mild, and the springs and autumns delightful. The rarity of
rain in Egypt was remarkable, and drew the attention of foreigners,
who recorded, in somewhat exaggerated terms, the curious meteorological
phenomenon. In the Cyrenaica there was a delicious summer climate--an
entire absence of rain, with cool breezes from the sea, cloudy skies,
and heavy dews at night, these last supplying the moisture which through
the whole of summer covered the ground with the freshest and loveliest
verdure. The autumn and winter rains were, however, violent; and
terrific storms were at that time of no unusual occurrence. The natives
regarded it as a blessing, that over this part of Africa the sky was
“pierced,” and allowed moisture to fall from the great reservoir of
“waters above the firmament;” but the blessing must have seemed one of
questionable value at the time of the November monsoon, when the country
is deluged with rain for several weeks in succession.

On the opposite side of the Empire, towards the north and the
north-east, in Azerbijan, on the Iranian plateau, in the Afghan plains,
in the high flat region east of the Bolor, and again in the low plain
about the Aral lake and the Caspian, a severe climate prevailed during
the winter, while the summer combined intense heat during the day with
extraordinary cold--the result of radiation--at night. Still more bitter
weather was experienced in the mountain regions of these parts--in
the Bolor, the Thian Chan, the Himalaya, and the Paropamisus or Hindu
Kush--where the winters lasted more than half the year, deep snow
covering the ground almost the whole of the time, and locomotion being
rendered almost impossible; while the summers were only moderately hot.
On the other hand, there was in this quarter, at the very extreme
east of the Empire, one of the most sultry and disagreeable of all
climates--namely, that of the Indus valley, which is either intolerably
hot and dry, with fierce tornadoes of dust that are unspeakably
oppressive, or close and moist, swept by heavy storms, which, while
they somewhat lower the temperature, increase the unhealthiness of the
region. The worst portion of the valley is its southern extremity, where
the climate is only tolerable during three months of the year. From
March to November the heat is excessive; dust-storms prevail; there are
dangerous dews at night; and with the inundation, which commences in
April, a sickly time sets in, which causes all the wealthier classes
to withdraw from the country till the stagnant water, which the swell
always leaves behind it, has dried up.

Upon the whole, the climate of the Empire belonged to the warmer class
of the climates which are called temperate. In a few parts only, indeed,
as in the Indus valley, along the coast from the mouth of the Indus
to that of the Tigris, in Lower Babylonia and the adjoining portion
of Susiana, in Southern Palestine, and in Egypt, was frost absolutely
unknown; while in many places, especially in the high mountainous
regions, the winters were bitterly severe; and in all the more elevated
portions of the Empire, as in Phrygia and Cappadocia, in Azerbijan, on
the great Iranian plateau, and again in the district about Kashgar and
Yarkand, there was a prolonged period of sharp and bracing weather. But
the summer warmth of almost the whole Empire was great, the thermometer
probably ranging in most places from 90° to 120° during the months of
June, July, August, and September. The springs and autumns were, except
in the high mountain tracts, mild and enjoyable; the Empire had few very
unhealthy districts; while the range of the thermometer was in most of
the provinces considerable, and the variations in the course of a single
day and night were unusually great, there was in the climate, speaking
generally, nothing destructive of human vigor--nothing even inimical to
longevity.

The vegetable productions of Persia Proper in ancient times (so far as
we have direct testimony on the subject) were neither numerous nor very
remarkable. The low coast tract supplied dates in tolerable plenty,
and bore in a few favored spots, corn, vines, and different kinds of
fruit-trees; but its general character was one of extreme barrenness.
In the mountain region there was an abundance of rich pasture, excellent
grapes were grown, and fruit-trees of almost every sort, except the
olive, flourished. One fruit-tree, regarded as indigenous in the
country, acquired a special celebrity, and was known to the Romans
as the persica, whence the German Pfirsche, the French peche, and our
“peach.” Citrons, which grew in few places, were also a Persian fruit.
Further, Persia produced a coarse kind of silphium or assafoetida; it
was famous for its walnuts, which were distinguished by the epithet
of “royal”; and it supplied to the pharmacopeia of Greece and Rome a
certain number of herbs.

The account of Persian vegetable products which we derive from antiquity
is no doubt very incomplete; and it is necessary to supplement it from
the observations of modern travellers. These persons tell us that, while
Fars and Kerman are ill-supplied with forest-trees, they yet produce in
places oaks, planes, chenars or sycamores, poplars, willows, pinasters,
cypresses, acacias, fan-palms, konars, and junipers. Among shrubs, they
bear the wild fig, the wild almond, the tamarisk, the myrtle, the box,
the rhododendron, the camel’s thorn, the gum tragacanth, the caper
plant, the benneh, the blackberry, and the liquorice-plant. They boast a
great abundance of fruit-trees--as date-bearing palms, lemons, oranges,
pomegranates, vines, peaches, nectarines, apricots, quinces, pears,
apples, plums, figs, cherries, mulberries, barberries, walnuts, almonds,
and pistachio-nuts. The kinds of grain chiefly cultivated are wheat,
barley, millet, rice, and Indian corn or maize, which has been imported
into the country from America. Pulse, beans, sesame, madder, henna,
cotton, opium, tobacco, and indigo, are also grown in some places. The
three last-named, and maize or Indian corn, are of comparatively recent
introduction; but of the remainder it may be doubted whether there is a
single one which was unknown to the ancient inhabitants.

Among Persian indigenous animals may be enumerated the lion, the bear,
the wild ass, the stag, the antelope, the ibex or wild goat, the wild
boar, the hyena, the jackal, the wolf, the fox, the hare, the porcupine,
the otter, the jerboa, the ichneumon, and the marmot. The lion appears
to be rare, occurring only in some parts of the mountains. The ichneumon
is confined to the Deshtistan. The antelope, the wild boar, the wolf,
the fox, the jackal, the porcupine, and the jerboa are common. Wild
asses are found only on the northern side of the mountains, towards the
salt desert. In this tract they are frequently seen, both singly and in
herds, and are hunted by the natives, who regard their flesh as a great
delicacy.

The most remarkable of the Persian birds are the eagle, the vulture, the
cormorant, the falcon, the bustard, the pheasant, the heath-cock, the
red-legged partridge, the small gray partridge, the pin tailed grouse,
the sand-grouse, the francolin, the wild swan, the flamingo, the stork,
the bittern, the oyster-catcher, the raven, the hooded crow, and
the cuckoo. Besides these, the lakes boast all the usual kinds of
water-fowl, as herons, ducks, snipe, teal, etc.; the gardens and groves
abound with blackbirds, thrushes, and nightingales; curlews and peewits
are seen occasionally; while pigeons, starlings, crows, magpies, larks,
sparrows, and swallows are common. The francolin is hunted by men on
foot in the country between Shiraz and Kerman, and is taken by the hand
after a few flights. The oyster-catcher, which is a somewhat rare bird,
has been observed only on Lake Neyriz. The bustard occurs both in the
low plain along the coast, and on the high plateau, where it is captured
by means of hawks. The pheasant and the heath-cock (the latter a black
species spotted with white) are found in the woods near Failyun. The
sand-grouse and the pin-tailed grouse belong to the eastern portion
of the country, the portion known anciently as Carmania or “the hot
region.” The other kinds are diffused pretty generally.

The shores and rivers of Persia Proper supplied the people very
plentifully with fish. The ancient writers tell us that the inhabitants
of the coast tract lived almost wholly on a fish diet. The Indian Sea
appears in those days to have abounded with whales, which were not
unfrequently cast upon the shores, affording a mine of wealth to the
natives. The great ribs were used as beams in the formation of huts,
while the jaws served as doors and the smaller bones as planking.
Dolphins also abounded in the Persian waters; together with many other
fish of less bulk, which were more easy to capture. On these smaller
fish, which they caught in nets, the maritime inhabitants subsisted
principally. They had also an unfailing resource in the abundance of
oysters, and other shell-fish along their coast--the former of excellent
quality.

In the interior, though the lakes, being salt or brackish, had no
piscatory stores, the rivers were, for the most part, it would seem,
well provided; at least, good fish are still found in many of the
streams, both small and large; and in some they are exceedingly
plentiful. Modern travellers fail to distinguish the different kinds;
but we may presume that they are not very unlike those of the adjoining
Media, which appear to be trout, carp, barbel, dace, bleak, and gudgeon.

The reptiles of Persia Proper are not numerous. They are chiefly
tortoises, lizards, frogs, land-snakes, and water-snakes. The
land-snakes are venomous, but their poison is not of a very deadly
character; and persons who have been bitten by them, if properly
treated, generally recover. The lizards are of various sizes, some quite
small, others more than three feet long, and covered with a coarse rough
skin like that of a toad. They have the character of being venomous, and
even dangerous to life; but it may be doubted whether they are not, like
our toads and newts, in reality perfectly harmless.

The traveller in Persia suffers less from reptiles than from insects.
Scorpions abound in all parts of the country, and, infesting houses,
furniture, and clothes, cause perpetual annoyance. Mosquitoes swarm
in certain places and seasons, preventing sleep and irritating the
traveller almost beyond endurance. A poisonous spider, a sort of
tarantula, is said to occur in some localities; and Chardin further
mentions a kind of centipede, the bite of which, according to him, is
fatal. To the sufferings which these creatures cause, must be added a
constant annoyance from those more vulgar forms of insect life which
detract from the delights of travel even in Europe.

Persia, moreover, suffers no less than Babylonia and Media, from the
ravages of locusts. Constantly, when the wind is from the south-east,
there cross from the Arabian coast clouds of these destructive insects,
whose numbers darken the air as they move, in flight after flight,
across the desert to the spots where nature or cultivation has clothed
the earth with verdure. The Deshtistan, or low country, is, of course,
most exposed to their attacks, but they are far from being confined to
that region. The interior, as far as Shiraz itself, suffers terribly
from this scourge, which produces scarcity, or even famine, when (as
often happens) it is repeated year after year. The natives at such times
are reduced to feeding on the locusts themselves; a diet which they do
not relish, but to which necessity compels them.

The locusts of Persia Proper are said to be of two kinds. One, which
is regarded as bred in the country, bears the name of _missri_, being
identified with the locust of Egypt. The other, which is thought to
be blown over from Arabia, and thus to cross the sea, is known as the
_melelch deriai_, or “sea-locust.” The former is regarded as especially
destructive to the crops, the latter to the shrubs and trees.

The domestic animals in use at the present day within the provinces of
Fars and Kerman are identical with those employed in the neighboring
country of Media, and will need only a very few words of notice here.
The ordinary horse of the country is the Turcoman, a large, strong, but
somewhat clumsy animal, possessed of remarkable powers of endurance;
but in the Deshtistan the Arabian breed prevails, and travellers tell us
that in this region horses are produced which fall but little short of
the most admired coursers of Nejd. Cows and oxen are somewhat rare, beef
being little eaten, and such cattle being only kept for the supply
of the dairy, and for purposes of agriculture. Sheep and goats are
abundant, and constitute the chief wealth of the inhabitants; the goat
is, on the whole, preferred, and both goats and sheep are generally of
a black or brown color. The sheep of Kerman are small and short-legged;
they produce a wool of great softness and delicacy.

It is probable that in ancient times the domestic animals of the country
were nearly the same as at the present day. The statement of Xenophon,
that anciently a horse was a rarity in Persia Proper, is contradicted by
the great bulk of the early writers, who tell us that the Persians were
from the first expert riders, and that their country was peculiarly well
fitted for the breeding of horses. Their camels, sheep, goats, asses,
and oxen, are also expressly mentioned by the Greeks, who even indicate
a knowledge of the fact that goats were preferred to sheep by the
herdsmen of the country.

The mineral treasures of the country appear to have been considerable,
though to what extent they were known and made use of in ancient times
is open to some question. Mines of gold, silver, copper, iron, red lead,
and orpiment are said to have been actually worked under the Persian
kings; and some of the other minerals were so patent and obvious, that
we can scarcely suppose them to have been neglected. Salt abounded in
the region in several shapes. It appeared in some places as rock salt,
showing itself in masses of vast size and various colors. In other
places it covered the surface of the ground for miles together with a
thick incrustation, and could be gathered at all seasons with little
labor. It was deposited by the waters of several lakes within the
territory, and could be collected round their edges at certain times
of the year. Finally, it was held in solution, both in the lakes and in
many of the streams; from whose waters it might have been obtained by
evaporation. Bitumen and naphtha were yielded by sources near Dalaki,
which were certainly known to the ancients. Sulphur was deposited upon
the surface of the ground in places. Some of the mountains contained
ordinary lead; but it is not unlikely that this metal escaped notice.

Ancient Persia produced a certain number of gems. The pearls of
the Gulf, which have still so great a reputation, had attracted the
attention of adventurers before the time of Alexander, whose naval
captains found a regular fishery established in one of the islands. The
Orientals have always set a high value on this commodity; and it appears
that in ancient times the Gulf pearls were more highly esteemed than any
others. Of hard stones the only kinds that can be distinctly assigned to
Persia Proper are the iritis, a species of rock-crystal; the atizoe, a
white stone which had a pleasant odor; the mithrax, a gem of many hues,
the nipparene, which resembled ivory; and the the lycardios or mule,
which was in special favor among the natives of the country.

From this account of the products of Persia Proper we have now to pass
to those of the Empire in general--a wide subject, which it will be
impossible to treat here with any completeness, owing to the limits to
which the present work is necessarily confined. In order to bring the
matter within reasonable compass, the reader may be referred in the
first instance to the account which was given in a former volume of the
products of the empire of Babylon; and the enquiry may then be confined
to those regions which were subject to Persia, but not contained within
the limits of the Fourth Monarchy.

Among the animals belonging to these regions, the following are
especially noticeable:--The tiger, the elephant, the hippopotamus, the
crocodile, the monitor, the two-humped camel, the Angora goat, the elk,
the monkey, and the spotted hysena, or _Felis chaus_. The tiger, which
is entirely absent from Mesopotamia, and unknown upon the plateau of
Iran, abounds in the low tract between the Elburz and the Caspian, in
the flat region about the Sea of Aral, and in the Indus valley. The
elephant was, perhaps, anciently an inhabitant of Upper Egypt, where the
island of Elephantine remained an evidence of the fact. It was also in
Persian times a denizen of the Indus valley, though perhaps only in a
domesticated state. The hippopotamus, unknown in India, was confined to
the single province of Egypt, where it was included among the animals
which were the objects of popular worship. The crocodile--likewise a
sacred animal to the Egyptians--frequented both the Nile and the Indus.
Monitors, which are a sort of diminutive crocodiles, were of two kinds:
one, the _Lacerta Nilotica_, was a water animal, and was probably found
only in Egypt; the other, _Lacerta scincus_, frequented dry and sandy
spots, and abounded in North Africa and Syria, as well as in the Nile
valley. The two-humped camel belonged to Bactria, where he was probably
indigenous, but was widely spread over the Empire, on account of his
great strength and powers of endurance.

The Angora goat is, perhaps, scarcely a distinct species. If not
identical with the ordinary wild goat of Persia and Mesopotamia (_Capra
cegagrus_), he is at any rate closely allied to it; and it is possible
that all his peculiar characteristics may be the effect of climate. He
has a soft, white, silky fleece, very long, divided down the back by
a strong line of separation, and falling on either side in beautiful
spiral ringlets; his fleece weighs from two to four pounds. It is
of nearly uniform, length, and averages from five to five and a half
inches.

The elk is said to inhabit Armenia, Affghanistan, and the lower part of
the valley of the Indus; but it is perhaps not certain that he is really
to be found in the two latter regions. Monkeys abound in Eastern Oabul
and the adjoining parts of India. They may have also existed formerly
in Upper Egypt. The spotted hyena, _Felis chaus_ (_Canis crocuta_ of
Linnaeus), is an Egyptian animal, inhabiting principally the hills on
the western side of the Nile. In appearance it is like a large cat,
with a tuft of long black hair at the extremities of its ears--a feature
which it has in common with the lynx.

Among the rarer birds of the Empire may be mentioned the ostrich, which
occurred in Mesopotamia; parrots, which were found in Cabul and the
Punjab; ibises, which abounded in Egypt, and in the Delta of the Indus,
the great vulture (Vultur cinereus), which inhabited the Taurus, the
Indian owl (_Athena Indica_), the spoonbill (_Platalea nudifrons_); the
benno (_Ardea bubulcus_), and the sicsac (_Charadrius melanocephalus_).

The most valuable of the fish belonging to the Persian seas and rivers
were the pearl oyster of the Gulf, and the murex of the Mediterranean,
which furnished the famous purple dye of Tyre. After these may be placed
the sturgeon and sterlet of the Caspian, the silurus of the Sea of Aral,
the Aleppo eel, and the palla, a small but excellent fish, which is
captured in the Indus during the flood season. The Indian Ocean and
the Persian Gulf, as we have seen, were visited by whales; dolphins,
porpoises, cod, and mullet abounded in the same seas; the large rivers
generally contained barbel and carp; while some of them, together with
many of the smaller streams, supplied trout of a good flavor. The
Nile had some curious fish peculiar to itself, as the oxyrinchus,
the lepidotus, the Perca Nilotica, the Silurus Schilbe Niloticus, the
Silurus carmuth and others. Great numbers of fish, mostly of the same
species with those of the Nile, were also furnished by the Lake Moeris;
and from these a considerable revenue was derived by the Great Kings.

Among the more remarkable of the reptiles which the Empire comprised
within its limits may be noticed--besides the great saurians already
mentioned among the larger animals--the Nile and Euphrates turtles
(_Trionyx Egypticus_ and _Trionyx Euphraticus_), iguanas (_Stellio
vulgaris_ and _Stellio spinipes_), geckos, especially the Egyptian house
gecko (_O. lobatus_), snakes, such as the asp (_Coluber haje_) and
the horned snake (_Coluber cerastes_), and the chameleon. The Egyptian
turtle is a large species, sometimes exceeding three feet in length. It
is said to feed on the young of the crocodile. Both it and the Euphrates
turtle are of the soft kind, i.e., of the kind which has not the shell
complete, but unites the upper and under portions by a coriaceous
membrane. The turtle of the Euphrates is of moderate size, not exceeding
a a length of two feet. It lives in the river, and on warm days suns
itself on the sandbanks with which the stream abounds. It is active,
strong, violent, and passionate. When laid on its back it easily
recovers itself. If provoked, it will snap at sticks and other objects,
and endeavor to tear them to pieces. It is of an olive-green color, with
large irregular greenish black spots.

Iguanas are found in Egypt, in Syria, and elsewhere. The most common
kind (_Stellio vulgaris_) does not exceed a foot in length, and is of
an olive color, shaded with black. It is persecuted and killed by the
Mahometans, because they regard its favorite attitude as a derisive
imitation of their own attitude of prayer. There is another species,
also Egyptian, which is of a much larger size, and of a grass-green
color. This is called _Stellio spinipes_: it has a length of from two to
three feet.

The gecko is a kind of nocturnal lizard. Its eyes are large, and the
pupil is extremely contractile. It hides itself during the day, and is
lively only at nights. It haunts rooms, especially kitchens, in Egypt,
where it finds the insects which form its ordinary food. Its feet
constitute its most marked characteristic. The five toes are enlarged
and furnished with an apparatus of folds, which, by some peculiar
action, enable it to adhere to perfectly smooth surfaces, to ascend
perpendicular walls, cross ceilings, or hang suspended for hours on the
under side of leaves. The Egyptians called it the abu burs, or “father
of leprosy,” and there is a wide-spread belief in its poisonous
character; but modern naturalists incline to regard the belief as
unfounded, and to place the gecko among reptiles which are absolutely
harmless. [PLATE XXVIII., Fig. 1.]


[Illustration: PLATE XXVIII.]


The asp of Egypt (_Coluber haje_) is a species of cobra. It is a large
snake, varying from three to six feet in length, and is extremely
venomous. It haunts gardens, where it is of great use, feeding on mice,
frogs, and various small reptiles. It has the power of greatly dilating
the skin of the neck, and this it does when angered in a way that is
very remarkable. Though naturally irritable, it is easily tamed; and the
serpent-charmers of the East make it the object of their art more often
than any other species. [PLATE XXVIII., Fig. 2.] After extracting the
fangs or burning out the poison-bag with a red-hot iron, the charmer
trains the animal by the shrill sounds of a small flute, and it is soon
perfectly docile.

The cerastes is also employed occasionally by the snake-charmers. It
has two long and thin excrescences above the eyes, whereto the name of
“horns” has been given: they stand erect, leaning a little backwards;
no naturalist has as yet discovered their use. The cerastes is of a
very pale brown color, and is spotted with large, unequal, and
irregularly-placed spots. Its bite is exceedingly dangerous, since it
possesses a virulent poison; and, being in the habit of nearly burying
itself in the sand, which is of the same color with itself, it is the
more difficult of avoidance. Its size also favors its escaping notice,
since in length it rarely much exceeds a foot. [PLATE XXVIII., Fig. 3.]

The chameleon has in all ages attracted the attention of mankind. It is
found in Egypt, and in many others parts of Africa, in Georgia, and in
India. The power of changing color which it possesses is not really its
most remarkable characteristic. Far more worthy of notice are its slow
pace, extraordinary form, awkward movements, vivacity, and control of
eye, and marvellous rapidity of tongue. It is the most grotesque of
reptiles. With protruding and telescopic eyes, that move at will in
the most opposite directions, with an ungainly head, a cold, dry,
strange-looking skin, and a prehensile tail, the creature slowly steals
along a branch or twig, scarcely distinguishable from the substance
along which it moves, and scarcely seeming to move at all, until it has
come within reach of its prey. Then suddenly, with a motion rapid as
that of the most agile bird, the long cylindrical and readily extensile
tongue is darted forth with unerring aim, and the prey is seized
and swallowed in a single moment of time. The ordinary color of the
chameleon is a pale olive-green. This sometimes fades to a sort of
ashen-gray, while sometimes it warms to a yellowish-brown, on which
are seen faint spots of red. Modern naturalists, for the most part,
attribute the changes to the action of the lungs, which is itself
affected chiefly by the emotions of anger, desire, and fear. [PLATE
XXVIII., Fig. 5.]

The great extent of the Empire caused its vegetable productions to
include almost all the forms known to the ancient world. On the one
hand, the more northern and more elevated regions bore pines, firs,
larches, oaks, birch, beech, ash, ilex, and junipers, together with the
shrubs and flowers of the cooler temperate regions; on the other
hand, the southern tracts grew palms of various kinds, mangoes,
tamarind-trees, lemons, oranges, jujubes, mimosas, and sensitive plants.
Between these extremes of tropical and cold-temperate products, the
Empire embraced an almost infinite variety of trees, shrubs, and
flowers. The walnut and the Oriental plane grew to avast size in many
places. Poplars, willows, fig-mulberries, konars, cedars, cypresses,
acacias, were common. Bananas, egg-plants, locust-trees, banyans,
terebinths, the gum-styrax, the gum-tragacanth, the assafoetida plant,
the arbor vitse, the castor-oil plant, the Judas-tree, and other
somewhat rare forms, sprang up side by side with the pomegranate,
the oleander, the pistachio-nut, the myrtle, the bay, the laurel, the
mulberry, the rhododendron, and the arbutus. The Empire grew all the
known sorts of grain, and almost all the known fruits. Among its various
productions of this class, it is only possible to select for notice
a few which were especially remarkable either for their rarity or for
their excellent quality.

The ancients celebrated the wheat of AEolis, the dates of Babylon,
the citrons of Media, the Persian peach, the grapes of Carmania,
the Hyrcanian fig, the plum of Damascus, the cherries of Pontus, the
mulberries of Egypt and of Cyprus, the silphium of Gyrene, the wine of
Helbon, the wild-grape of Syria. It is not unlikely that to these
might have been added as many other vegetable products of first-rate
excellence, had the ancients possessed as good a knowledge of the
countries included within the Empire as the moderns. At present, the
mulberries of Khiva, the apricots of Bokhara, the roses of Mexar, the
quinces and melons of Isfahan, the grapes of Kasvin and Shii-az, the
pears of Natunz, the dates of Dalaki, have a wide-spread reputation,
which appears in most cases to be well deserved. On the whole, it is
certain that for variety and excellence the vegetable products of the
Persian Empire will bear comparison with those of any other state or
community that has as yet existed, either in the ancient or the modern
world.

Two only of these products seem to deserve a longer description. The
Cyrenaic silphium, of which we hear so much, as constituting the main
wealth of that province, was valued chiefly for its medicinal qualities.
A decoction from its leaves was used to hasten the worst kind of labors;
its root and a juice which flowed from it were employed in a variety
of maladies. The plant, which is elaborately described by Theophrastus,
appears to have been successfully identified by modern travellers in
the Cyrenaica, who see it in the drias or derias of the Arabs, an
umbelliferous plant, which grows to a height of about three feet, has a
deleterious effect on the camels that browse on it, and bears a striking
resemblance to the representations of the ancient silphium upon
coins and medals. This plant grows only in the tract between Merj and
Derna--the very heart of the old silphium country, while that it has
medicinal properties is certain from its effects upon animals; there can
thus be little doubt that it is the silphium of the ancients, somewhat
degenerated, owing to want of cultivation.

The Egyptian byblus or papyrus (_Cyperus papyrus_) was perhaps the
most valuable of all the vegetables of the Empire. The plant was a
tall smooth reed of a triangular shape. It grew to the height of ten or
fifteen feet, and terminated in a tuft or plume of leaves and flowers.
Though indigenous in the country, it was the subject of careful
cultivation, and was grown in irrigated ground, or in such lands as were
naturally marshy. The root of the plant was eaten, while from its stem
was made the famous Egyptian paper. The manufacture of the papyrus was
as follows; The outer rind having been removed, there was exposed a
laminated interior, consisting of a number of successive layers of inner
cuticle, generally about twenty. These were carefully separated from
one another by the point of a needle, and thus were obtained a number
of strips of the raw material, which were then arranged in rows, covered
with a paste, and crossed at right angles by another set of strips
placed over them, after which the whole was converted into paper by
means of a strong pressure. A papyrus roll was made by uniting together
a greater or less number of such sheets. The best paper was made
from the inmost layers of cuticle. The outer rind of the papyrus was
converted into ropes; and this fabric was found to be peculiarly adapted
for immersion in water.

The mineral treasures of the Empire were various and abundant. It has
been noticed already that Persia Proper, if we include in it Carmania,
possessed mines of gold, silver, copper, iron, red lead, orpiment, and
salt, yielding also bitumen, naphtha, sulphur, and most probably common
lead. We are further informed by ancient writers that Drangiana, or
Sarangia, furnished the rare and valuable mineral tin, without which
copper could not be hardened into bronze; that Armenia yielded emery, so
necessary for the working and polishing of gems; that the mountains
and mines of the Empire supplied almost all the varieties of useful and
precious stones; and that thus there was scarcely a mineral known to and
required by the ancients for the purposes of their life which the Great
King could not command without having recourse to others than his own
subjects. It may be likewise noticed that the more important were very
abundant, being found in many places and in large quantities. Gold was
furnished from the mountains and deserts of Thibet and India, from the
rivers of Lydia, and probably from other places where it is still found,
as Armenia, Cabul, and the neighborhood of Meshed. Silver, which was
the general medium of exchange in Persia, must have been especially
plentiful. It was probably yielded, not only by the Kerman mines,
but also by those of Armenia, Asia Minor, and the Elburz. Copper was
obtained in great abundance from Cyprus, as well as from Carmania; and
it may have been also derived, as it is now in very large quantities,
from Armenia. Iron, really the most precious of all metals, existed
within the Persian territory in the shape of huge boulders, as well
as in nodules and in the form of ironstone. Lead was procurable from
Bactria, Armenia, Korman, and many parts of Affghanistan; orpiment
from Bactria, Kerman, and the Hazareh country; antimony from Armenia,
Affghanistan, and Media; hornblende, quartz, talc, and asbestos, from
various places in the Taurus.

Of all necessary minerals probably none was so plentiful and so widely
diffused as salt. It was not only in Persia Proper that nature had
bestowed this commodity with a lavish hand--there was scarcely
a province of the Empire which did not possess it in superfluous
abundance. Large tracts were covered by it in North Africa, in Media,
in Carmania, and in Lower Babylonia. In Asia Minor, Armenia, Syria,
Palestine, and other places, it could be obtained from lakes. In Kerman,
and again in Palestine, it showed itself in the shape of large masses,
not inappropriately termed “mountains.” Finally, in India it was the
chief material of a long mountain-range, which is capable of supplying
the whole world with salt for many ages.

Bitumen and naptha were also very widely diffused. At the eastern foot
of the Caucasus, where it subsides into the Caspian Sea, at various
points in the great Mesopotamian plain, in the Deshtistan or low country
of Persia Proper, in the Bakh-tiyari mountains, and again in the distant
Jordan valley, these two inseparable products are to be found, generally
united with indications of volcanic action, present or recent. The
bitumen is of excellent quality, and was largely employed by the
ancients. The naphtha is of two kinds, black naphtha or petroleum, and
white naphtha, which is much preferred to the other. The bitumen-pits
also, in some places, yielded salt.

Another useful mineral with which the Persians were very plentifully
supplied, was sulphur. Sulphur is found in Persia Proper, in Carmania,
on the coast of Mekran, in Azerbijan, in the Elburz, on the Iranian
plateau, in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, and in very large quantities
near Mosul. Here it is quarried in great blocks, which are conveyed to
considerable distances.

Excellent stone for building purposes was obtainable in most parts of
the Empire. Egypt furnished an inexhaustible supply of the best possible
granite; marbles of various kinds, compact sandstone, limestone, and
other useful sorts were widely diffused; and basalt was procurable from
some of the outlying ranges of Taurus. In the neighborhood of Nineveh,
and in much of the Mesopotamian region, there was abundance of grey
alabaster, and a better kind was quarried near Damascus. A gritty
silicious rock on the banks of the Euphrates, a little above Hit, was
suitable for mill-stones.

The gems furnished by the various provinces of the Empire are too
numerous for mention. They included, it must be remembered, all the
kinds which have already been enumerated among the mineral products of
the earlier Monarchies. Among them, a principal place must, one would
think, have been occupied by the turquoise--the gem, par excellence, of
modern Persia--although, strange to say, there is no certain mention
of it among the literary remains of antiquity. This lovely stone
is produced largely by the mines at Nishapur in the Elburz, and is
furnished also in less abundance and less beauty by a mine in Kerman,
and another near Khojend. It is noticed by an Arabian author as early as
the twelfth century of our era. A modern writer on gems supposes that it
is mentioned, though not named, by Theophrastus; but this view scarcely
seems to be tenable.

Among the gems of most value which the Empire certainly produced were
the emerald, the green ruby, the red ruby, the opal, the sapphire, the
amethyst, the carbuncle, the jasper, the lapis lazuli, the sard, the
agate, and the topaz. Emeralds were found in Egypt, Media, and Cyprus;
green rubies in Bactria; common or red rubies in Caria; opals in Egypt,
Cyprus, and Asia Minor; sapphires in Cyprus; amethysts also in Cyprus,
and moreover in Egypt, Galatia, and Armenia; carbuncles in Caria;
jaspers in Cyprus, Asia Minor, and Persia Proper; the lapis lazuli in
Cyprus, Egypt, and Media; the sard in Babylonia; the agate in Carmania,
Susiana, and Armenia; and the topaz or chrysoprase in Upper Egypt.

The tales which are told of enormous emeralds are undoubtedly fictions,
the material which passed for that precious substance being really in
these cases either green jasper or (more probably) glass. But lapis
lazuli and agate seem to have existed within the Empire in huge masses.
Whole cliffs of the former overhang the river Kashkar in Kaferistan; and
the myrrhine vases of antiquity which were (it is probable) of agate,
and came mainly from Carmania, seem to have been of a great size.

We may conclude this review by noticing, among stones of less
consequence produced within the Empire, jet, which was so called from
being found at the mouth of the river Gagis in Lycia, garnets, which are
common in Armenia, and beryl, which is a product of the same country.




CHAPTER III. CHARACTER, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS, DRESS, ETC., OF THE PEOPLE.


“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.]


Thus far the monarch’s costume, though richer in material than the dress
of the Persian nobles, and in some points different in color, was on the
whole remarkably like that of the upper class of his subjects. It
was, however, most important that his dress should possess some
distinguishing feature, and that that feature should be one of
very marked prominency. In an absolute monarchy the king must be
unmistakable, at almost any distance, and almost in any light.
Consequences of the gravest kind may follow from any mistake of the
royal identity; and it is therefore essential to the comfort both of
prince and subject that some very conspicuous badge shall mark and
notify the monarch’s presence. Accordingly, it appears that the Persian
ruler was to be known by his headdress, which was peculiar alike
in shape and in color, and was calculated to catch the eye in both
respects. It bore the name _kitaris_ or _hidaris_, and was a tall stiff
cap, slightly swelling as it ascended, flat at top, and terminating in a
ring or circle which projected beyond the lines of the sides. Round
it, probably near the bottom, was worn a fillet or band--the diadem
proper--which was blue, spotted with white.

As the other Persians wore either simple fillets round their heads, or
soft, rounded, and comparatively low caps, with no band round them, the
king’s headdress, which would tower above theirs and attract attention
by its color, could readily be distinguished even in the most crowded
Court.

It has been asserted that the _kidaris_, or tiara of the Persian kings,
was “commonly adorned with gold and jewelry;” and this may possibly have
been the case, but there is no evidence that it was so. Its material
was probably either cloth or felt, and it was always of a bright color,
though not (apparently) always of the same color. Its distinguishing
features were its height, its stiffness, and the blue and white fillet
which encircled it.

Among other certain indications of the royal presence may be mentioned
the golden sceptre, and the parasol. The sceptre, which is seen
frequently in the king’s hands, was a plain rod, about five feet in
length, ornamented with a ball, or apple, at its upper end, and at its
lower tapering nearly to a point. The king held it in his right hand,
grasping it near, but not at, the thick end, and rested the thin end on
the ground in his front. When he walked, he planted it upright before
him, as a spearman would plant his spear. When he sate, he sloped it
outwards, still, however, touching the ground with its point.

The parasol, which has always been in the East a mark of dignity, seems
in Persia, as in Assyria, to have been confined, either by law or usage,
to the king. The Persian implement resembled the later Assyrian, except
that it was not tasselled, and had no curtain or flap. It had the same
tent-like shape, the same long thick stem, and the same ornament at the
top. It only differed in being somewhat shallower, and in having the
supports, which kept it open, curved instead of straight. It was held
over the king’s head on state occasions by an attendant who walked
immediately behind him. [PLATE XXXII., Fig. 3.]

The throne of the monarch was an elevated seat, with a high back, but
without arms, cushioned, and ornamented with a fringe, and with moldings
or carvings along the back and legs. The ornamentation consisted chiefly
of balls and broad rings, and contained little that was artistic or
elaborate. The legs, however, terminated in lions’ feet, resting upon
half balls, which were ribbed or fluted. The sides of the chair
below the seat appear to have been panelled, like the thrones of the
Assyrians, but were not adorned with any carving. The seat of the throne
was very high from the ground, and without a rest the legs would have
dangled. A footstool consequently was provided, which was plain, like
the throne, but was supported on legs terminating in the feet of bulls.
Thus the lion and the bull, so frequent in the symbolism of the East,
were here again brought together, being represented as the supports of
the throne.

With respect to the material whereof the throne was composed, there
can be no doubt that it was something splendid and costly. Late writers
describe it as made of pure gold; but, as we hear of its having silver
feet, we may presume that parts at least were of the less precious
metal. Ivory is not said to have been used in its composition. We may,
perhaps, conjecture, that the frame of the throne was wood, and that
this was overlaid with plates of gold or silver, whereby the whole of
the woodwork was concealed from view, and an appearance of solid metal
presented.

The person of the king was adorned with golden ornaments. He had
earrings of gold in his ears, often inlaid with jewels he wore golden
bracelets upon his wrists; and he had a chain or collar of gold about
his neck. [PLATE XXXIII., Fig. 1.] In his girdle, which was also of
gold, he carried a short sword, the sheath of which was formed of a
single precious stone. The monuments, unfortunately, throw little light
on the character and workmanship of these portions of the royal costume.
We may gather from them, perhaps, that the bracelets had a large jewel
set in their centre, and that the collars were of twisted work, worn
loosely around the neck. The sword seems to have differed little from
that of the ordinary Persians. It had a short straight blade, a mere
crossbar for a guard, and a handle almost devoid of ornament. This
plainness was compensated, if we may trust Curtius, by the magnificence
of the sheath, which was, perhaps, of jasper, agate, or lapis lazuli.
[PLATE XXXIII., Fig. 2.]


[Illustration: PLATE XXXIII.]


The officers in most close attendance on the monarch’s person were,
in war, his charioteer, his stool-bearer, his bow-bearer, and his
quiver-bearer; in peace, his parasol-bearer, and his fan bearer, who
was also privileged to carry what has been termed “the royal
pocket-handkerchief.”

The royal charioteer is seemingly unarmed. His head is protected merely
by a fillet. He sits in front of his master, and both his hands are
fully occupied with the management of the reins. He has no whip, and
seems to urge his horses forward simply by leaning forward himself, and
slackening or shaking the reins over them. He was, no doubt, in every
case a Persian of the highest rank, such near proximity to the Royal
person being a privilege to which none but the very noblest could
aspire. [PLATE XXXIII., Fig. 2.]

The office of the stool-bearer, was to assist the king as he mounted his
chariot or dismounted from it. He carried a golden stool, and followed
the royal chariot closely, in order that he might be at hand whenever
his master felt disposed to alight. On a march, the king was wont to
vary the manner of his travelling, exchanging, when the inclination took
him, his chariot for a litter, and riding in that more luxurious vehicle
till he was tired of it, after which he returned to his chariot for
a space. The services of the stool-bearer were thus in constant
requisition, since it was deemed quite impossible that his Majesty could
ascend or descend his somewhat lofty war-car without such aid.

The rank of the bow-bearer was probably nearly as great as that of the
driver of the chariot. He was privileged to stand immediately behind the
monarch on grand occasions, so carrying in his left hand the weapon from
which he derived his appellation. The quiver-bearer had the next place.
Both wore the Median costume--the _candys_, or flowing robe, the girdle,
the high shoe, and the stiff fluted cap, or, perhaps, occasionally the
simple fillet. Sometimes the two offices would seem to have been held
by the same person, unless we are to attribute this appearance, where
it occurs, to the economy of the artist, who may have wished to save
himself the trouble of drawing two separate figures. [PLATE XXXIII.,
Fig. 5.]

The parasol-bearer was attired as the bow and quiver bearers,
except that he was wholly unarmed, and had the fillet for his proper
head-dress. Though not a military officer, he accompanied the monarch in
his expeditions, since in the midst of war there might be occasions of
state when his presence would be convenient. The officer who bore the
royal fan and handkerchief had generally the same costume; but sometimes
his head was enveloped in a curious kind of cowl or muffler, which
covered the whole of it except the forehead, the eyes, the nose, the
mouth, and the upper portion of the cheeks. [PLATE XXXIV., Fig. 1.]


[Illustration: PLATE XXXIV.]


The fan, or fly-chaser, had a long straight handle, ornamented with
a sort of beading, which held a brush of some springy fibrous matter.
[PLATE XXXIII., Fig. 4.] The bearer, whose place was directly behind the
monarch, held his implement, which bent forward gracefully, nearly at
arm’s length over his master’s head.

It would seem that occasionally the bearer of the handkerchief
laid aside his fly-chaser, and assumed in lieu of it a small bottle
containing perfumery. [PLATE XXXIV., Fig. 4.] In a sculptured tablet at
Persepolis, given by Ker Porter, an attendant in the Median robe, with a
fillet upon his head, who bears the handkerchief in the usual way in his
left hand, carries in the palm of his right what seems to be a bottle,
not-unlike the scent-bottle of a modern lady. It has always been an
Oriental custom to wash the hands before meals, and the rich commonly
mix some perfumery or other with the water. We may presume that this
was the practice at the Persian Court, and that the Great King therefore
took care to have an officer, who should at all times be ready to
provide his guests, or himself, with the scent which was most rare or
most fashionable.

The Persians seem to have been connoisseurs in scents. We are told that,
when the royal tiara was not in wear, it was laid up carefully with a
mixture of myrrh and _labyzus_, to give it an agreeable odor. Unguents
were thought to have been a Persian invention, and at any rate were most
abundantly used by the upper classes of the nation. The monarch applied
to his own person an ointment composed of the fat of lions, palm wine,
saffron, and the herb helianthes, which was considered to increase the
beauty of the complexion. He carried with him, even when he went to the
wars, a case of choice unguents; and such a treasure fell into the hands
of Alexander, with the rest of Darius’s camp equipage, at Arbela. It may
be suspected that the “royal ointment” of the Parthian kings, composed
of cinnamon, spikenard, myrrh, cassia, gum styrax, saffron, cardamum,
wine, honey, and sixteen other ingredients, was adopted from the
Persians, who were far more likely than the rude Parthians to have
invented so recondite a mixture. Nor were scents used only in this form
by the ingenious people of whom we are speaking. Arabia was required
to furnish annually to the Persian crown a thousand talents’ weight of
frankincense; and there is reason to believe that this rare spice was
largely employed about the Court, since the walls of Persepolis have
several representations of censers, which are sometimes carried in
the hands of an attendant, while sometimes they stand on the ground
immediately in front of the Great King.321 [PLATE XXXIV., Fig. 2.]

The box or vase in which the Persians commonly kept their unguents was
of alabaster. This stone, which abounded in the country, was regarded as
peculiarly suited for holding ointments, not only by the Persians, but
also by the Egyptians, the Greeks, and (probably) the Assyrians. The
Egyptian variety of stone seems to have been especially valued; and
vases appear to have been manufactured in that country for the use of
the Persian monarch, which were transmitted to the Court, and became
part of the toilet furniture of the palace.330 [PLATE XXXIV., Fig. 3.]

Among the officers of the Court, less closely attached to the person of
the monarch than those above enumerated, may be mentioned the steward
of the household; the groom or master of the horse; the chief eunuch,
or keeper of the women; the king’s “eyes” and “ears,” persons whose
business it was to keep him informed on all matters of importance;
his scribes or secretaries, who wrote his letters and his edicts; his
messengers, who went his errands; his ushers, who introduced strangers
to him; his “tasters,” who tried the various dishes set before him lest
they should be poisoned; his cupbearers who handed him his wine, and
tasted it; his chamberlains, who assisted him to bed; and his musicians,
who amused him with song and harp. Besides these, the Court comprised
various classes of guards, and also doorkeepers, huntsmen, grooms,
cooks, and other domestic servants in great abundance, together with
a vast multitude of visitors and guests, princes, nobles, captives of
rank, foreign refugees, ambassadors, travellers. We are assured that
the king fed daily within the precincts of his palace as many as fifteen
thousand persons, and that the cost of each day’s food was four hundred
talents. A thousand beasts were slaughtered for each repast, besides
abundance of feathered game and poultry. The beasts included not only
sheep, goats, and oxen, but also stags, asses, horses, and camels. Among
the feathered delicacies were poultry, geese, and ostriches.

The monarch himself rarely dined with his guests. For the most part he
was served alone. Sometimes he admitted to his table the queen and two
or three of his children. Sometimes, at a “banquet of wine,” a certain
number of privileged boon companions were received, who drank in the
royal presence, not, however, of the same wine, nor on the same terms.

The monarch reclined on a couch with golden feet, and sipped the rich
wine of Helbon; the guests drank an inferior beverage, seated upon the
floor. At a great banquet, it was usual to divide the guests into two
classes. Those of lower degree were entertained in an outer court or
chamber to which the public had access, while such as were of higher
rank entered the private apartments, and drew near to the king. Here
they were feasted in a chamber opposite to the king’s chamber, which had
a curtain drawn across the door, concealing him from their gaze, but not
so thick as to hide them from their entertainer. Occasionally, on some
very special occasion, as, perhaps, on the Royal birthday, or other
great festival, the king presided openly at the banquet, drinking and
discoursing with his lords, and allowing the light of his countenance to
shine freely upon a large number of guests, whom, on these occasions,
he treated as if they were of the same flesh and blood with himself.
Couches of gold and silver were spread for all, and “royal wine in
abundance” was served to them in golden goblets. On these, and, indeed,
on all occasions, the guests, if they liked, carried away any portion
of the food set before them which they did not consume at the time,
conveying it to their homes, where it served to support their families.

The architecture of the royal palace will be discussed in another
chapter; but a few words may be said in this place with respect to its
furniture and general appearance. The pillared courts and halls of
the vast edifices which the Achaemenian monarchs raised at Susa and
Persepolis would have had a somewhat bare and cold aspect, if it had not
been for their internal fittings. The floors were paved with stones
of various hues, blue, white, black, and red, arranged doubtless into
patterns, and besides were covered in places with carpeting. The spaces
between the pillars were filled with magnificent hangings, white green,
and violet, which were fastened with cords of fine linen (?) and purple
to silver rings and pillars of marble, screening the guests from sight,
while they did not too much exclude the balmy summer breeze. The walls
of the apartments were covered with plates of gold. All the furniture
was rich and costly. The golden throne of the monarch stood under an
embroidered canopy or awning supported by four pillars of gold inlaid
with precious stones. [PLATE XXXV.] Couches resplendent with silver and
gold filled the rooms. The private chamber of the monarch was adorned
with a number of objects, not only rich and splendid, but valuable as
productions of high art. Here, impending over the royal bed, was the
golden vine, the work of Theodore of Samos, where the grapes were
imitated by means of precious stones, each of enormous value. Here,
probably, was the golden plane-tree, a worthy companion to the
vine, though an uncourtly Greek declared it was too small to shade a
grasshopper. Here, finally, was a bowl of solid gold, another work
of the great Samian metallurgist, more precious for its artistic
workmanship than even for its material.


[Illustration: PLATE XXXV.]


Nothing has hitherto been said of the Royal harem or seraglio, which,
however, as a feature of the Court always important, and ultimately
preponderating over all others, claims a share of our attention. In the
early times, it would appear that the Persian kings were content with
three or four wives, and a moderate number of concubines. Of the wives
there was always one who held the most exalted place, to whom alone
appertained the title of “Queen,” and who was regarded as “wife” in a
different sense from the others. Such was Atossa to Darius Hystaspis,
Amestris to Xerxes, Statira to Darius Codomannus. Such, too, were Vashti
and Esther to the prince, whoever he was, whose deeds are recorded in
Scripture under the name of Ahasuerus. The chief wife, or Queen-Consort,
was privileged to wear on her head a royal tiara or crown. She was
the acknowledged head of the female apartments or Gynaeceum, and the
concubines recognized her dignity by actual prostration. On great
occasions, when the king entertained the male part of the Court, she
feasted all the females in her own part of the palace. She had a
large revenue of her own, assigned her, not so much by the will of her
husband, as by an established law or custom. Her dress was splendid,
and she was able to indulge freely that love of ornament of which few
Oriental women are devoid. Though legally subject to her husband as much
as the meanest of his slaves, she could venture on liberties which would
have been fatal to almost any one else, and often, by her influence over
the monarch, possessed a very considerable share of power.

The status of the other wives was very inferior to this; and it is
difficult to see how such persons were really in a position much
superior to that of the concubines. As daughters of the chief
nobles--for the king could only choose a wife within a narrow
circle--they had, of course, a rank and dignity independent of that
acquired by marriage; but otherwise they must have been almost on a par
with those fair inmates of the Gynaeceum who had no claim even to
the name of consort. Each wife had probably a suite of apartments to
herself, and a certain number of attendants--eunuchs, and tirewomen--at
her disposal; but the inferior wives saw little of the king, being only
summoned each in their turn to share his apartment, and had none of the
privileges which made the position of chief wife so important.

The concubines seem to have occupied a distinct part of the Gynaeceum,
called “the second house of the women.” They were in the special charge
of one of the eunuchs, and were no doubt kept under strict surveillance.
The Empire was continually searched for beautiful damsels to fill the
harem, a constant succession being required, as none shared the royal
couch more than once, unless she attracted the monarch’s regard very
particularly. In the later times of the Empire, the number of the
concubines became enormous, amounting (according to one authority) to
three hundred and twenty-nine, (according to another) to three hundred
and sixty. They accompanied the king both in his wars and in his hunting
expeditions. It was a part of their duty to sing and play for the royal
delectation; and this task, according to one author, they had to perform
during the whole of each night. It is a more probable statement that
they entertained the king and queen with music while they dined, one of
them leading, and the others singing and playing in concert.

The Gynaeceum--in the Susa palace, at any rate--was a building distinct
from the general edifice, separated from the “king’s house” by a court.
It was itself composed of at least three sets of apartments--viz.
apartments for the virgins who had not yet gone into the king,
apartments for the concubines, and apartments for the Queen-Consort and
the other wives. These different portions were under the supervision
of different persons. Two eunuchs of distinction had the charge
respectively of the “first” and of the “second house of the women.” The
Queen-Consort was, at any rate nominally, paramount in the third, her
authority extending over all its inmates, male and female.

Sometimes there was in the Gynaeceum a personage even more exalted than
any which have as yet been mentioned. The mother of the reigning prince,
if she outlived his father, held a position at the Court of her son
beyond that even of his Chief Wife. She kept the ensigns of royalty
which she had worn during the reign of her husband; and wielded, as
Queen-Mother, a far weightier and more domineering authority than she
ever exercised as Queen-Consort. The habits of reverence and obedience,
in which the boy had been reared, retained commonly their power over the
man; and the monarch who in public ruled despotically over millions
of men, succumbed, within the walls of the seraglio, to the yoke of a
woman, whose influence he was too weak to throw off. The Queen-Mother
had her seat at the royal table whenever the king dined with his wife;
and, while the wife sat below, she sat above the monarch. She had a
suite of eunuchs distinct from those of her son. Ample revenues were
secured to her, and were completely at her disposal. She practically
exercised--though she could not perhaps legally claim--a power of life
and death. She screened offenders from punishment, procuring for them
the royal pardon, or sheltering them in her own apartments; and she
poisoned, or openly executed, those who provoked her jealousy or
resentment.

The service of the harem, so far as it could not be fitly performed by
women, was committed to eunuchs. Each legitimate wife--as well as the
Queen-Mother--had a number of these unfortunates among her attendants;
and the king intrusted the house of the concubines, and also that of the
virgins, to the same class of persons. His own attendants seem likewise
to have been chiefly eunuchs. In the later times, the eunuchs acquired
a vast political authority, and appear to have then filled all the chief
offices of state. They were the king’s advisers in the palace, and his
generals in the field. They superintended the education of the young
princes, and found it easy to make them their tools. The plots and
conspiracies, the executions and assassinations, which disfigure the
later portion of the Persian annals, maybe traced chiefly to their
intrigues and ambition. But the early Persian annals are free from these
horrors; and it is clear that the power of the eunuchs was, during this
period, kept within narrow bounds. We hear little of them in authentic
history till the reign of Xerxes. It is remarkable that the Persepolitan
sculptures, abounding as they do in representations of Court life, of
the officers and attendants who approached at all closely to the person
of the monarch, contain not a single figure of a eunuch in their entire
range. We may gather from this that there was at any rate a marked
difference between the Assyrian and the early Persian Court in the
position which eunuchs occupied at them respectively: we should not,
however, be justified in going further and questioning altogether the
employment of eunuchs by the Persian monarchs during the early period,
since their absence from the sculptures may be accounted for on other
grounds.

It is peculiarly noticeable in the Persian sculptures and inscriptions
that they carry to excess that reserve which Orientals have always
maintained with regard to women. The inscriptions are wholly devoid
of all reference to the softer sex, and the sculptures give us no
representation of a female. In Persia, at the present day, it is
regarded as a gross indecorum to ask a man after his wife; and anciently
it would seem that the whole sex fell under a law of taboo, which
required that, whatever the real power and influence of women, all
public mention of them, as well as all representations of the female
form, should be avoided. If this were so, it must of course still more
have been the rule that the women--or, at any rate, those of the upper
classes--should not be publicly seen. Hence the indignant refusal of
Vashti to obey the command of King Aha-suerus to show herself to his
Court. Hence, too, the law which made it a capital offence to address or
touch one of the royal concubines or even to pass their litters upon
the road. The litters of women were always curtained; and when the Queen
Statira rode in hers with the curtains drawn, it was a novelty which
attracted general attention, as a relaxation of the ordinary etiquette,
though only females were allowed to come near her. Married women
might not even see their nearest male relatives, as their fathers and
brothers; the unmarried had, it is probable, a little more liberty.

As the employment of eunuchs at the Persian Court was mainly in the
harem, and in offices connected therewith, it is no wonder that
they shared, to some extent, in the law of taboo, which forbade the
representation of women. Their proper place was in the female courts and
apartments, or in close attendance upon the litters, when members of
the seraglio travelled, or took the air--not in the throne-room, or the
antechambers, or the outer courts of the palace, which alone furnished
the scenes regarded as suitable for representation.

Of right, the position at the Persian Court immediately below that of
the king belonged to the members of certain privileged families. Besides
the royal family itself--or clan of the Achaemenidae--there were
six great houses which had a rank superior to that of all the other
grandees. According to Herodotus these houses derived their special
dignity from the accident that their heads had been fellow-conspirators
with Darius Hystaspis; but there is reason to suspect that the rank
of the families was precedent to the conspiracy in question, certain
families conspiring because they were great, and not becoming great
because they conspired. At any rate, from the time of Darius I.,
there seem to have been seven great families, including that of the
Achaemenidae, whose chiefs had the privilege of free communication
with the monarch, and from which he was legally bound to choose his
legitimate wives. The chiefs appear to have been known as “the Seven
Princes,” or “the Seven Counsellors,” of the king. They sat next to him
at public festivals; they were privileged to tender him their advice,
whenever they pleased; they recommended important measures of state, and
were, in part, responsible for them; they could demand admission to the
monarch’s presence at any time, unless he were in the female apartments;
they had precedence on all great occasions of ceremony, and enjoyed
a rank altogether independent of office. Sometimes--perhaps most
commonly--they held office; but they rather conferred a lustre on the
position which they consented to fill, than derived any additional
splendor from it.

It does not appear that the chiefs of the seven great families had any
peculiar insignia. Officers of the Court, on the contrary, seem to have
always carried, as badges marking their position, either wands about
three feet in length, or an ornament resembling a lotos blossom, which
is sometimes seen in the hands of the monarch himself. Such officers
wore, at their pleasure, either the long Median robe and the fluted cap,
or the close-fitting Persian tunic and trousers, with the loose felt
[Greek name]. All had girdles, in which sometimes a dagger was placed;
and all had collars of gold about their necks, and earrings of gold in
their ears. The Median robes were of various colors--scarlet, purple,
crimson, dark gray, etc. Over the Persian tunic a sleeved cloak, or
great coat, reaching to the ankles, was sometimes worn; this garment was
fastened by strings in front, and descended loosely from the shoulders,
no use being commonly made of the sleeves, which hung empty at the
wearer’s side. [PLATE XXXVI., Fig. 1.]


[Illustration: PLATE XXXVI.]


An elaborate Court ceremonial was the natural accompaniment of the ideas
with respect to royalty embodied in the Persian system. Excepting
the “Seven Princes,” no one could approach the royal person unless
introduced by a Court usher, Prostration--the attitude of worship--was
required of all as they entered the presence. The hands of the persons
introduced had to be hidden in their sleeves so long as their audience
lasted. In crossing the Palace Courts it was necessary to abstain
carefully from touching the carpet which was laid for the king to walk
on. Coming into the king’s presence unsummoned was a capital crime,
punished by the attendants with instant death, unless the monarch
himself, as a sign that he pardoned the intrusion, held out towards the
culprit the golden sceptre which he bore in his hands. It was also a
capital offence to sit down, even unknowingly, upon the royal throne;
and it was a grave misdemeanor to wear one of the king’s cast-off
dresses. Etiquette was almost as severe on the monarch himself as on
his subjects. He was required to live chiefly in seclusion; to eat his
meals, for the most part, alone; never to go on foot beyond the palace
walls; never to revoke an order once given, however much he might regret
it; never to draw back from a promise, whatever ill results he might
anticipate from its performance. To maintain the quasi-divine character
which attached to him it was necessary that he should seem infallible,
immutable, and wholly free from the weakness of repentance.

As some compensation for the restrictions laid upon him, the Persian
king had the sole enjoyment of certain luxuries. The wheat of Assos was
sent to the Court to furnish him with bread, and the vines of Helbon
were cultivated for the special purpose of supplying him with wine.
Water was conveyed to Susa for his use from distant streams regarded as
specially sweet and pure; and in his expeditions he was accompanied, by
a train of wagons, which were laden with silver flasks, filled from the
clear stream of the Choaspes. The oasis of Ammon contributed the salt
with which he seasoned his food. All the delicacies that the Empire
anywhere produced were accumulated on his board, for the supply of which
each province was proud to send its best and choicest products.

The chief amusements in which the Great King indulged were hunting and
playing at dice. Darius Hystaspis, who followed the chase with such
ardor as on one occasion to dislocate his ankle in the pursuit of a wild
beast, had himself represented on his signet-cylinder as engaged in a
lion-hunt. From this representation, we learn that the Persian monarchs,
like the Assyrian, pursued the king of beasts in their chariots, and
generally despatched him by means of arrows. Seated in a light car,
and attended by a single unarmed charioteer, they invaded the haunts of
these fiercest of brutes, rousing them from their lairs--probably with
Indian hounds, and chasing them at full speed if they fled, or, if they
faced the danger, attacking them with arrows or with the javelin. [PLATE
XXXVI., Fig. 2.] Occasionally the monarch might indulge in this sport
alone; but generally he was (it seems) accompanied by some of his
courtiers, who shared the pleasures of the chase with him on the
condition that they never ventured to let fly their weapons before he
had discharged his. If they disregarded this rule they were liable
to capital punishment, and might esteem themselves fortunate if they
escaped with exile.

Besides lions, the Persian monarch chased, it is probable, stages,
antelopes, wild asses, wild boars, bears, wild sheep, and leopards.
[PLATE XXXVI., Fig. 3.] These animals all abounded in the neighborhood
of the royal palaces, and they are enumerated by Xenophon among the
beasts hunted by Cyrus. The mode of chasing the wild ass was for the
horsemen to scatter themselves over the plain, and to pursue the
animal in turns, one taking up the chase when the horse of another was
exhausted. The speed of the creature is so great that no horse with
a rider on his back can long keep pace with him; and thus relays were
necessary to tire him out, and enable the hunters to bring him within
the range of their weapons.

When game was scarce in the open country, or when the kings were
too indolent to seek it in its native haunts, they indulged their
inclination for sport by chasing the animals which they kept in their
own “paradises.” These were walled enclosures of a large size, well
wooded, and watered with sparkling streams, in which were bred or kept
wild beasts of various kinds, chiefly of the more harmless sorts, as
stags, antelopes, and wild sheep. These the kings pursued and shot with
arrows, or brought down with the javelin; but the sport was regarded as
tame, and not to be compared with hunting in the open field.

Within the palace the Persian monarchs are said to have amused
themselves with dice. They played, it is probable, chiefly with their
near relatives, as their wives, or the Queen-Mother. The stakes, as was
to be expected, ran high, as much as a thousand darics (nearly L 1100.)
being sometimes set on a single throw. Occasionally they played for the
persons of their slaves, eunuchs, and others, who, when lost, became the
absolute property of the winner.

Another favorite royal amusement was carving or planing wood. According
to AElian, the Persian king, when he took a journey, always employed
himself, as he sat in his carriage, in this way; and Ctesias speaks of
the occupation as pursued also within the walls of the palace. Manual
work of this kind has often been the refuge of those rulers, who, sated
with pleasure and devoid of literary tastes, have found time hang heavy
upon their hands.

In literature a Persian king seems rarely to have taken any pleasure at
all. Occasionally, to beguile the weary hours, a monarch may have had
the “Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Persia and Media” read
before him; but the kings themselves never opened a book, or studied any
branch of science or learning. The letters, edicts, and probably even
the inscriptions, of the monarch were the composition of the Court
scribes, who took their orders from the king or his ministers, and
clothed them in their own language. They did not even call upon their
master to sign his name to a parchment; his seal, on which his name was
engraved, sufficiently authenticated all proclamations and edicts.

Among the more serious occupations of the monarch were the holding of
councils, the reviewing of troops, the hearing of complaints, and the
granting or refusing of redress, the assignment of rewards, perhaps, in
some cases, the trying of causes, and, above all, the general direction
of the civil administration and government of the Empire. An energetic
king probably took care to hear all the reports which were sent up to
the Court by the various officials employed in the actual government of
the numerous provinces, as well as those sent in by the persons who from
time to time inspected, on the part of the Crown, the condition of this
or that satrapy. Having heard and considered these reports, and perhaps
taken advice upon them, such a monarch would give clear directions as
to the answers to be sent, which would be embodied in despatches by his
secretaries, and then read over to him, before he affixed his seal to
them. The concerns of an empire so vast as that of Persia would have
given ample employment for the greater part of the day to any monarch
who was determined not only to reign, but to govern. Among the Persian
sovereigns there seems to have been a few who had sufficient energy and
self-denial to devote themselves habitually to the serious duties of
their office. Generally, however, the cares of government were devolved
upon some favorite adviser, a relative, or a eunuch, who was entrusted
by the monarch with the entire conduct of affairs, in order that he
might give himself up to sensual pleasures, to the sports of the field,
or to light and frivolous amusements.

The passion for building, which we have found so strong in Assyria and
Babylonia, possessed, but in a minor degree, a certain number of the
Persian monarchs. The simplicity of their worship giving little scope
for architectural grandeur in the buildings devoted to religion, they
concentrated their main efforts upon the construction of palaces and
tombs. The architectural character of these works will be considered in
a later chapter. It is sufficient to note here that a good deal of the
time and attention of many monarchs were directed to these objects; and
particularly it is interesting to remark, that, notwithstanding their
worldly greatness, and the flattering voices of their subjects, which
were continually bidding them “live for ever,” the Persian kings were
quite aware of the frail tenure by which man holds his life, and, while
they were still in vigorous health, constructed their own tombs.

It was an important principle of the Magian religion that the body
should not after death be allowed to mingle with, and so pollute, any
one of the four elements. Either from a regard for this superstition, or
from the mere instinctive desire to preserve the lifeless clay as long
as possible, the Persians entombed their kings in the following way.
The body was placed in a golden coffin, which was covered with a
close-fitting lid, and deposited either in a massive building erected to
serve at once as a tomb and a monument, or in a chamber cut out of some
great mass of solid rock, at a considerable elevation above its base. In
either case, the entrance into the tomb was carefully closed, after the
body had been deposited in it, by a block or blocks of stone. [PLATE
XXXVII., Fig. 1.] Inside the tomb were placed, together with the coffin,
a number of objects, designed apparently for the king’s use in the other
world, as rich cloaks and tunics, trousers, purple robes, collars of
gold, earrings of gold, set with gems, daggers, carpets, goblets,
and hangings. Generally the tomb was ornamented with sculptures, and
sometimes, though rarely, it had an inscription (or inscriptions) upon
it, containing the name and titles of the monarch whose remains reposed
within.


[Illustration: PLATE XXXVII.]


If the tomb were a building, and not rock-hewn, the ground in the
vicinity was formed into a park or garden, which was planted with all
manner of trees. Within the park, at some little distance from the
tomb, was a house, which formed the residence of a body of priests, who
watched over the safety of the sepulchre.

The Greeks seem to have believed that divine honors were sometimes paid
to a monarch after his decease; but the spirit of the Persian religion
was so entirely opposed to any such observance that it is most probable
the Greeks were mistaken. Observing that sacrifices were offered once a
month in the vicinity of some of the royal tombs, they assumed that
the object of the cult was the monarch himself, whereas it was no doubt
really addressed either to Ormazd or to Mithras. The Persians cannot
rightly be accused of the worship of dead men, a superstition from which
both the Zoroastrian and the Magian systems were entirely free.

From this account of the Persian monarchs and their Court, we may
now turn to a subject which moderns regard as one of much greater
interest--the general condition, manners, and customs of the Persian
people. Our information on these points is unfortunately far less full
than on the subject which we have been recently discussing, but still it
is perhaps sufficient to give us a tolerably complete notion of the real
character of the nation.

The Persians, according to Herodotus, were divided into ten tribes, of
which four were nomadic and three agricultural. The nomadic were the
Dai, the Mardi, the Dropici, and the Sagartii; the agricultural were
the Panthilaei, the Derusisei, and the Germanii, or Carmanians. What the
occupation of the other three tribes was Herodotus does not state;
but, as one of them--the Pasargadae--was evidently the ruling class,
consisting, therefore (it is probable), of land owners, who did not
themselves till the soil, we may perhaps assume that all three occupied
this position, standing in Persia somewhat--as the three tribes of
Dorians stood to the other Greeks in the Peloponnese. If this were the
case, the population would have been really divided broadly into the two
classes of settled and nomade, whereof the former class was subdivided
into those who were the lords of the soil, and those who cultivated it,
either as farmers or as laborers, under them.

The ordinary dress of the poorer class, whether agricultural or nomade,
was probably the tunic and trousers of leather which have been already
mentioned as the true national costume of the people. The costume was
completed by a loose felt cap upon the head, a strap or belt round the
waist, and a pair of high shoes upon the feet, tied in front with a
string. [PLATE XXXVIII., Fig. 2.] In later times a linen or muslin rag
replaced the felt cap, and the tunic was lengthened so as to reach half
way between the knee and the ankle.


[Illustration: PLATE XXXVIII.]


The richer classes seem generally to have adopted the Median costume
which was so prevalent at the Court. They wore long purple or flowered
robes with loose hanging sleeves, flowered tunics reaching to the knee,
also sleeved, embroidered trousers, tiaras, and shoes of a more elegant
shape than the ordinary Persian. Nor was this the whole of their dress.
Under their trousers they wore drawers, under their tunics shirts, on
their hands gloves, and under their shoes socks or stockings--luxuries
these, one and all, little known in the ancient world. The Persians
were also, like most Orientals, extremely fond of ornaments. Men of rank
carried, almost as a matter of course, massive chains or collars of gold
about their necks, and bracelets of gold upon their arms. The sheaths
and handles of their swords and daggers were generally of gold,
sometimes, perhaps, studded with gems. Many of them wore earrings. Great
expense was lavished on the trappings of the horses which they rode or
drove; the bridle, or at least the bit, was often of solid gold, and the
rest of the equipment was costly. Among the gems which were especially
affected, the pearl held the first place. Besides being set in the
ordinary way, it was bored and strung, in order that it might be used
for necklaces, bracelets, and ankles. Even children had sometimes golden
ornaments, which were preferred when the gold was of a reddish color.

Very costly and rich too was the furniture of the better class of
houses. The tables were plated or inlaid with silver and gold. Splendid
couches, spread with gorgeous coverlets, invited the inmates to repose
at their ease; and, the better to insure their comfort, the legs of the
couches were made to rest upon carpets, which were sufficiently elastic
to act as a sort of spring, rendering the couches softer and more
luxurious than they would otherwise have been. Gold and silver plate,
especially in the shape of drinking-cups, was largely displayed in all
the wealthy mansions, each household priding itself on the show which it
could make of the precious metals.

In respect of eating and drinking, the Persians, even better sort, were
in the earlier times noted for their temperance and sobriety. Their
ordinary food was wheaten bread, barley-cakes, and meat simply roasted
or boiled, which they seasoned with salt and with bruised cress-seed, a
substitute for mustard. The sole drink in which they indulged was water.
Moreover, it was their habit to take one meal only each day. The poorer
kind of people were contented with even a simpler diet, supporting
themselves, to a great extent, on the natural products of the soil, as
dates, figs, wild pears, acorns, and the fruit of the terebinth-tree.
But these abstemious habits were soon laid aside, and replaced by luxury
and self-indulgence, when the success of their arms had put it in their
power to have the full and free gratification of all their desires and
propensities. Then, although the custom of having but one meal in the
day was kept up, the character of the custom was entirely altered by
beginning the meal early and making it last till night. Not many sorts
of meat were placed on the board, unless the occasion was a grand one;
but course after course of the lighter kinds of food flowed on in
an almost endless succession, intervals of some length being allowed
between the courses to enable the guests to recover their appetites.
Instead of water, wine became the usual beverage; each man prided
himself on the quantity he could drink; and the natural result followed
that most banquets terminated in general intoxication. Drunkenness even
came to be a sort of institution. Once a year, at the feast of Mithras,
the king of Persia, according to Duris, was bound to be drunk. A general
practice arose of deliberating on all important affairs under the
influence of wine, so that, in every household, when a family crisis
impended, intoxication was a duty.

The Persians ate, not only the meats which we are in the habit of
consuming, but also the flesh of goats, horses, asses, and camels. The
hump of the last-named animal is considered, even at the present day, a
delicacy in many parts of the East; but in ancient Persia it would seem
that the entire animal was regarded as fairly palatable. The horse
and ass, which no one would touch in modern Persia, were thought,
apparently, quite as good eating as the ox; and goats, which were far
commoner than sheep, appeared, it is probable, oftener at table. The
dietery of a grand house was further varied by the admission into it
of poultry and game--the game including wild boars, stags, antelopes,
bustards, and probably partridges; the poultry consisting of geese
and chickens. Oysters and other fish were used largely as food by the
inhabitants of the coast-region.

Grades of society were strongly marked among the Persians; and the
etiquette of the Court travelled down to the lowest ranks of the people.
Well-known rules determined how each man was to salute his equal,
his inferior, or his superior; and the observance of these rules was
universal. Inferiors on meeting a decided superior prostrated themselves
on the ground; equals kissed each other on the lips; persons nearly but
not quite equals kissed each other’s cheeks. The usual Oriental rules
prevailed as to the intercourse of the sexes. Wives lived in strict
seclusion within the walls of the Gynaeceum, or went abroad in litters,
seeing no males except their sons, their husbands, and their husbands’
eunuchs. Concubines had somewhat more freedom, appearing sometimes at
banquets, when they danced, sang, and played to amuse the guests of
their master.

The Persian was allowed to marry several wives, and might maintain in
addition as many concubines as he thought proper. Most of the richer
class had a multitude of each, since every Persian prided himself on the
number of his sons, and it is even said that an annual prize was given
by the monarch to the Persian who could show most sons living. The
concubines were not unfrequently Greeks, if we may judge by the case of
the younger Cyrus, who took two Greek concubines with him when he made
his expedition against his brother. It would seem that wives did
not ordinarily accompany their husbands, when these went on military
expeditions, but that concubines were taken to the wars by most Persians
of consideration. Every such person had a litter at her disposal, and a
number of female attendants, whose business it was to wait upon her and
execute her orders.

All the best authorities are agreed that great pains were taken by
the Persians--or, at any rate, by those of the leading clans--in the
education of their sons. During the first five years of his life the boy
remained wholly with the women, and was scarcely, if at all, seen by his
father. After that time his training commenced. He was expected to rise
before dawn, and to appear at a certain spot, where he was exercised
with other boys of his age in running, slinging stones, shooting with
the bow, and throwing the javelin. At seven he was taught to ride, and
soon afterwards he was allowed to begin to hunt. The riding included,
not only the ordinary management of the horse, but the power of jumping
on and off his back when he was at speed, and of shooting with the bow
and throwing the javelin with unerring aim, while the horse was still at
full gallop. The hunting was conducted by state-officers, who aimed at
forming by its means in the youths committed to their charge all the
qualities needed in war. The boys were made to bear extremes of heat
and cold, to perform long marches, to cross rivers without wetting their
weapons, to sleep in the open air at night, to be content with a single
meal in two days, and to support themselves occasionally on the wild
products of the country, acorns, wild pears, and the fruit of the
terebinth-tree. On days when there was no hunting they passed their
mornings in athletic exercises, and contests with the bow or the
javelin, after which they dined simply on the plain food mentioned above
as that of the men in the early times, and then employed themselves
during the afternoon in occupations regarded as not illiberal--for
instance, in the pursuits of agriculture, planting, digging for roots,
and the like, or in the construction of arms and hunting implements,
such as nets and springes. Hardy and temperate habits being secured
by this training, the point of morals on which their preceptors mainly
insisted was the rigid observance of truth. Of intellectual education
they had but little. It seems to have been no part of the regular
training of a Persian youth that he should learn to read. He was given
religious notions and a certain amount of moral knowledge by means of
legendary poems, in which the deeds of gods and heroes were set before
him by his teachers, who recited or sung them in his presence, and
afterwards required him to repeat what he had heard, or, at any rate,
to give some account of it. This education continued for fifteen years,
commencing when the boy was five, and terminating when he reached the
age of twenty.

The effect of this training was to render the Persian an excellent
soldier and a most accomplished horseman. Accustomed from early boyhood
to pass the greater part of every day in the saddle, he never felt so
much at home as when mounted upon a prancing steed. On horseback he
pursued the stag, the boar, the antelope, even occasionally the bear
or the lion, and shot his arrows, or slung his stones, or hurled his
javelin at them with deadly aim, never pausing for a moment in his
career. [PLATE XXXVII., Fig. 2.] Only when the brute turned on his
pursuers, and stood at bay, or charged them in its furious despair, they
would sometimes descend from their coursers, and receive the attack,
or deal the _coup de grace_ on foot, using for the purpose a short
but strong hunting-spear. [PLATE XXXVII., Fig. 3.] The chase was the
principal delight of the upper class of Persians, so long as the ancient
manners were kept up, and continued an occupation in which the bolder
spirits loved to indulge long after decline had set in, and the advance
of luxury had changed, to a great extent, the character of the nation.

At fifteen years of age the Persian was considered to have attained to
manhood, and was enrolled in the ranks of the army, continuing liable to
military service from that time till he reached the age of fifty. Those
of the highest rank became the body-guard of the king, and these formed
the garrison of the capital. They were a force of not less than fourteen
or fifteen thousand men. Others, though liable to military service, did
not adopt arms as their profession, but attached themselves to the Court
and looked to civil employment, as satraps, secretaries, attendants,
ushers, judges, inspectors, messengers. A portion, no doubt, remained
in the country districts, and there followed those agricultural pursuits
which the Zoroastrian religion regarded as in the highest degree
honorable. But the bulk of the nation must, from the time of the great
conquests, have passed their lives mainly, like the Roman legionaries
under the Empire, in garrison duty in the provinces. The entire
population of Persia Proper can scarcely have exceeded two millions. Not
more than one fourth of this number would be males between the ages
of fifteen and fifty. This body of 500,000 men, besides supplying the
official class at the Court and throughout the provinces, and also
furnishing to Persia Proper those who did the work of its cultivation,
had to supply to the whole Empire those large and numerous garrisons on
whose presence depended the maintenance of the Persian dominion in every
province that had been conquered. According to Herodotus, the single
country of Egypt contained, in his day, a standing army of 120,000
Persians; and, although this was no doubt an exceptional case, Egypt
being more prone to revolt than any other satrapy, yet there is abundant
evidence that elsewhere, in almost every part of the Empire, large
bodies of troops were regularly maintained; troops which are always
characterized as “Persians.” We may suspect that under the name were
included the kindred nation of the Medes, and perhaps some other Arian
races, as the Hyrcanians, and the Bactrians, for it is difficult to
conceive that such a country as Persia Proper could alone have kept up
the military force which the Empire required for its preservation;
but to whatever extent the standing army was supplemented from these
sources, Persia must still have furnished the bulk of it; and the
demands of this service must have absorbed, at the very least, one third
if not one half of the adult male population.

For trade and commerce the Persians were wont to express extreme
contempt. The richer classes made it their boast that they neither
bought nor sold, being supplied (we must suppose) from their estates,
and by their slaves and dependents, with all that they needed for the
common purposes of life. Persians of the middle rank would condescend to
buy, but considered it beneath them to sell; while only the very lowest
and poorest were actual artisans and traders. Shops were banished
from the more public parts of the towns; and thus such commercial
transactions as took place were veiled in what was regarded as a decent
obscurity. The reason assigned for this low estimation of trade was that
shopping and bargaining involved the necessity of falsehood.

According to Quintus Curtius, the Persian ladies had the same objection
to soil their hands with work that the men had to dirty theirs with
commerce. The labors of the loom, which no Grecian princess regarded
as unbecoming her rank, were despised by all Persian women except the
lowest; and we may conclude that the same idle and frivolous gossip
which resounds all day in the harems of modern Iran formed the main
occupation of the Persian ladies in the time of the Empire.

With the general advance of luxury under Xerxes and his successors, of
which something has been already said, there were introduced into the
Empire a number of customs of an effeminate and demoralizing character.
From the earliest times the Persians seem to have been very careful of
their beards and hair, arranging the latter in a vast number of short
crisp curls, and partly curling the former, partly training it to hang
straight from the chin. After a while, not content with this degree
of care for their personal appearance, they proceeded to improve it by
wearing false hair in addition to the locks which nature had given them,
by the use of cosmetics to increase the delicacy of their complexions,
and by the application of a coloring matter to the upper and lower
eyelids, for the purpose of giving to the eye an appearance of greater
size and beauty. They employed a special class of servants to perform
these operations of the toilet, whom the Greeks called “adorners”. Their
furniture increased, not merely in splendor, but in softness; their
floors were covered with carpets, their beds with numerous and delicate
coverlets; they could not sit upon the ground unless a cloth was first
spread upon it; they would not mount a horse until he was so caparisoned
that the seat on his back was softer even than their couches. At the
same time they largely augmented the number and variety of their viands
and of their sauces, always seeking after novel delicacies, and offering
rewards to the inventors of “new pleasures.” A useless multitude of lazy
menials was maintained in all rich households, each servant confining
himself rigidly to a single duty, and porters, bread-makers, cooks,
cup-bearers, water-bearers, waiters at table, chamberlains, “awakers,”
 “adorners,” all distinct from one another, crowded each noble mansion,
helping forward the general demoralization. It was probably at this
comparatively late period that certain foreign customs of a sadly
lowering character were adopted by this plastic and impressible people,
who learnt the vice of paederasty from the Greeks, and adopted from the
Assyrians the worship of Beltis, with its accompaniment of religious
prostitution.

On the whole the Persians may seem to have enjoyed an existence free
from care, and only too prosperous to result in the formation of a high
and noble character. They were the foremost Asiatic people of their
time, and were fully conscious of their pre-eminency. A small ruling
class in a vast Empire, they enjoyed almost a monopoly of office, and
were able gradually to draw to themselves much of the wealth of the
provinces. Allowed the use of arms, and accustomed to lord it over the
provincials, they themselves maintained their self-respect, and showed,
even towards the close of their Empire, a spirit and an energy seldom
exhibited by any but a free people. But there was nevertheless a dark
side to the picture--a lurking danger which must have thrown a shadow
over the lives of all the nobler and richer of the nation, unless
they were utterly thoughtless. The irresponsible authority and cruel
dispositions of the kings, joined to the recklessness with which they
delegated the power of life and death to their favorites, made it
impossible for any person of eminence in the whole Empire to feel sure
that he might not any day be seized and accused of a crime, or even
without the form of an accusation be taken and put to death, after
suffering the most excruciating tortures. To produce this result, it was
enough to have failed through any cause whatever in the performance of
a set task, or to have offended, even by doing him too great a service,
the monarch or one of his favorites. Nay, it was enough to have
provoked, through a relation or a connection, the anger or jealousy of
one in favor at Court; for the caprice of an Oriental would sometimes
pass over the real culprit and exact vengeance from one quite
guiltless--even, it may be, unconscious--of the offence given.
Theoretically, the Persian was never to be put to death for a single
crime; or at least he was not to suffer until the king had formally
considered the whole tenor of his life, and struck a balance between his
good and his evil deeds to see which outweighed the other. Practically,
the monarch slew with his own hand any one whom he chose, or, if
he preferred it, ordered him to instant execution, without trial
or inquiry. His wife and his mother indulged themselves in the same
pleasing liberty of slaughter, sometimes obtaining his tacit consent to
their proceedings, sometimes without consulting him. It may be said
that the sufferers could at no time be very many in number, and that
therefore no very wide-spread alarm can have been commonly felt; but
the horrible nature of many of the punishments, and the impossibility
of conjecturing on whom they might next fall, must be set against their
infrequency; and it must be remembered that an awful horror, from which
no precautions can save a man, though it happen to few, is more terrible
than a score of minor perils, against which it is possible to guard.
Noble Persians were liable to be beheaded, to be stoned to death, to be
suffocated with ashes, to have their tongues torn out by the roots, to
be buried alive, to be shot in mere wantonness, to be flayed and then
crucified, to be buried all but the head, and to perish by the lingering
agony of “the boat.” If they escaped these modes of execution, they
might be secretly poisoned, or they might be exiled, or transported for
life. Their wives and daughters might be seized and horribly mutilated,
or buried alive, or cut into a number of fragments. With these perils
constantly impending over their heads, the happiness of the nobles can
scarcely have been more real than that of Damocles upon the throne of
Dionysius.

In conclusion, we may notice as a blot upon the Persian character and
system, the cruelty and barbarity which was exhibited, not only in these
abnormal acts of tyranny and violence, but also in the regular and legal
punishments which were assigned to crimes and offences. The criminal
code, which--rightly enough--made death the penalty of murder, rape,
treason, and rebellion, instead of stopping at this point, proceeded
to visit with a like severity even such offences as deciding a cause
wrongfully on account of a bribe, intruding without permission on the
king’s privacy, approaching near to one of his concubines, seating
oneself, even accidentally, on the throne, and the like. The modes of
execution were also, for the most part, unnecessarily cruel. Poisoners
were punished by having their heads placed upon a broad stone, and then
having their faces crushed, and their brains beaten out by repeated
blows with another stone. Ravishers and rebels were put to death by
crucifixion. The horrible punishment of “the boat” seems to have been no
individual tyrant’s cruel conception, but a recognized and legal form of
execution. The same may be said also of burying alive. Again the Persian
secondary punishments were for the most part exceedingly barbarous.
Xenophon tells us, as a proof of the good government maintained by the
younger Cyrus, in his satrapy, that under his sway it was common to see
along all the most frequented roads numbers of persons who had had
their hands or feet cut off, or their eyes put out, as a punishment
for thieving and rascality. And other writers relate that similar
mutilations were inflicted on rebels, and even on prisoners of war.
It would seem, indeed, that mutilation and scourging were the ordinary
forms of secondary punishment used by the Persians, who employed
imprisonment solely for the safe custody of an accused person between
his arrest and his execution, while they had recourse to transportation
and exile only in the case of political offenders.




CHAPTER IV. LANGUAGE AND WRITING.


It has been intimated in the account of the Median Empire which was
given in a former-volume that the language of the Persians, which was
identical, or almost identical, with that of the Medes, belonged to the
form of speech known to moderns as Indo-European. The characteristics of
that form of speech are a certain number of common, or at least
widely spread, roots, a peculiar mode of inflecting, together with
a resemblance in the inflections, and a similarity of syntax or
construction. Of the old Persian language the known roots are, almost
without exception, kindred forms to roots already familiar to the
philologist through the Sanscrit, or the Zend, or both; while many are
of that more general type of which we have spoken--forms common to all,
or most of the varieties of the Indo-European stock. To instance in a
few very frequently recurring words--“father” is in old Persian (as
in Sanscrit) _pitar_, which differs only in the vocalization from the
Zendic _patar_, the Greek [ ], and the Latin _pater_, and of which
cognate forms are the Gothic _fadar_, the German voter, the English
_father_, and the Erse _athair_.

     [See the html version for the following pages of this
     chapter which is a section with hundreds of Greek
     words.]


[Illustration: PAGE 365]

[Illustration: PAGE 366]

[Illustration: PAGE 367]

[Illustration: PAGE 368]

[Illustration: PAGE 369]

[Illustration: PAGE 370]

[Illustration: PAGE 371]

[Illustration: PAGE 372]

[Illustration: PAGE 373]

[Illustration: PAGE 374]

[Illustration: PAGE 375]

[Illustration: PAGE 376]

[Illustration: PAGE 377]

[Illustration: PAGE 378]


The ordinary Persian writing was identical with that which has been
described in the second volume of this work as Median. A cuneiform
alphabet, consisting of some thirty-six or thirty-seven forms,
expressive of twenty-three distinct sounds, sufficed for the wants of
the people, whose language was simple and devoid of phonetic luxuriance.
Writing was from left to right, as with the Arian nations generally.
Words were separated from one another by an oblique wedge; and were
divided at any point at which the writer happened to reach the end of
a line. Enclitics were joined without any break to the words which they
accompanied.

The Persian writing which has come down to us is almost entirely upon
stone. It comprises various rock tablets, a number of inscriptions upon
buildings, and a few short legends upon vases and cylinders. It is in
every case incised or cut into the material. The letters are of various
sizes, some (as those at Elwend) reaching a length of about two inches,
others (those, for instance, on the vases) not exceeding the sixth of
an inch. The inscriptions cover a space of at least a hundred and eighty
years, commencing with Cyrus, and terminating with Artaxerxes Ochus,
the successor of Mnemon. The style of the writing is, on the whole,
remarkably uniform, the latter inscriptions containing only two
characters unknown to the earlier times. Orthography, however, and
grammar are in these later inscriptions greatly changed, the character
of the changes being indicative of corruption and decline, unless,
indeed, we are to ascribe them to mere ignorance on the part of the
engravers.

There can be little doubt that, besides the cuneiform character, which
was only suited for inscriptions, the Persians employed a cursive
writing for common literary purposes. Ctesias informs us that the royal
archives were written on parchment; and there is abundant evidence that
writing was an art perfectly familiar to the educated Persian. It might
have been supposed that the Pehlevi, as the lineal descendant of the
Old Persian language, would have furnished valuable assistance towards
solving the question of what character the Persians employed commonly;
but the alphabetic type of the Pehlevi inscriptions is evidently
Semitic; and it would thus seem that the old national modes of writing
had been completely lost before the establishment by Ardeshir, son of
Babek, of the new Persian Empire.




CHAPTER V. ARCHITECTURE AND OTHER ARTS.


If in the old world the fame of the Persians, as builders and artists,
fell on the whole below that of the Assyrians and Babylonians--their
instructors in art, no less than in letters and science--it was not so
much that they had not produced works worthy of comparison with those
which adorned Babylon and Nineveh, as that, boasting less antiquity and
less originality than those primitive races, they did not strike in the
same way the imagination of the lively Greeks, who moreover could not
but feel a certain jealousy of artistic successes, which had rewarded
the efforts of a living and rival people. It happened, moreover, that
the Persian masterpieces were less accessible to the Greeks than the
Babylonian, and hence there was actually less knowledge of their real
character in the time when Greek literature was at its best. Herodotus
and Xenophon, who impressed on their countrymen true ideas of the
grandeur and magnificence of the Mesopotamian structures, never
penetrated to Persia Proper, and perhaps never beheld a real Persian
building. Ctesias, it is true, as a resident at the Achaemenian Court
for seventeen years, must certainly have seen Susa and Ecbatana, if not
even Persepolis, and he therefore must have been well acquainted with
the character of Persian palaces; but, so far as appears from the
fragments of his work which have come down to us, he said but little
on the subject of these edifices. It was not until Alexander led his
cohorts across the chain of Zagros to the high plateau beyond, that a
proper estimate of the great Persian buildings could be made; and then
the most magnificent of them all was scarcely seen before it was laid
in ruins. The barbarous act of the great Macedonian conqueror, in
committing the palace of Persepolis to the flames, tended to prevent
a full recognition of the real greatness of Persian art even after the
Greeks had occupied the country; but we find from this time a certain
amount of acknowledgment of its merits--a certain number of passages,
which, like that which forms the heading to this chapter, admit alike
its grandeur and its magnificence.

If, however, the ancients did less than justice to the efforts of the
Persians in architecture, sculpture, and the kindred arts, moderns have,
on the contrary, given them rather an undue prominence. From the
middle of the seventeenth century, when Europeans first began freely to
penetrate the East, the Persian ruins, especially those of Persepolis,
drew the marked attention of travellers; and in times when the site of
Babylon had attracted but scanty notice, and that of Nineveh and the
other great Assyrian cities was almost unknown, English, French, and
German savans measured, described, and figured the Persian remains with
a copiousness and exactness that left little to desire. Chardin, the
elder Mebuhr, Le Brun, Ouseley, Ker Porter, exerted themselves with the
most praiseworthy zeal to represent fully and faithfully the marvels of
the Chehl Minar; and these persevering efforts were followed within no
very lengthy period by the splendid and exhaustive works of the Baron
Texier and of MM. Flandin and Coste. Persepolis rose again from its
ashes in the superb and costly volumes of these latter writers, who
represented on the grandest scale, and in the most finished way,
not only the actual but the ideal--not only the present but the
past--placing before our eyes at once the fullest and completest views
of the existing ruins, and also restorations of the ancient structures,
some of them warm with color and gilding, which, though to a certain
extent imaginary, probably give to a modern the best notion that it is
now possible to form of an old Persian edifice.

It is impossible within the limits of the present work, and with the
resources at the author’s command, to attempt a complete description of
the Persian remains, or to vie with writers who had at their disposal
all the modern means of illustration. By the liberality of a well-known
authority on architecture, he is able to present his readers with
certain general views of the most important structures; and he also
enjoys the advantage of illustrating some of the most curious of the
details with engravings from a set of photographs recently taken. These
last have, it is believed, an accuracy beyond that of any drawings
hitherto made, and will give a better idea than words could possibly do
of the merit of the sculptures. With these helps, and with the addition
of reduced copies from some of MM. Flandin and Coste’s plates, the
author hopes to be able to make his account fairly intelligible, and to
give his readers the opportunity of forming a tolerably correct judgment
on the merit of the Persian art in comparison with that of Babylon and
Assyria.

Persian architectural art displayed itself especially in two forms of
building--the palace and the tomb. Temples were not perhaps unknown in
Persia, though much of the worship may always have been in the open
air; but temples, at least until the time of Artaxerxes Mnemon, were
insignificant, and neither attracted the attention of contemporaries,
nor were of such a character as to leave traces of themselves to after
times. The palaces of the Persian kings, on the other hand, and the
sepulchres which they prepared for themselves, are noticed by many
ancient writers as objects of interest; and, notwithstanding certain
doubts which have been raised in recent years, it seems tolerably
certain that they are to be recognized in the two chief classes of
ancient ruins which still exist in the country.

The Persian palatial buildings, of which traces remain, are four in
number. One was situated at Ecbatana, the Median capital, and was a sort
of adjunct to the old residence of the Median kings. Of this only a very
few vestiges have been hitherto found; and we can merely say that it
appears to have been of the same general character with the edifices
which will be hereafter described. Another was built by Darius and
his son Xerxes on the great mound of Susa; and of this we have the
ground-plan, in a great measure, and various interesting details. A
third stood within the walls of the city of Persepolis, but of this not
much more is left than of the construction at Ecbatana. Finally, there
was in the neighborhood of Persepolis, but completely distinct from the
town, the Great Palace, which, as the chief residence, at any rate of
the later kings, Alexander burnt, and of which the remains still to
be seen are ample, constituting by far the most remarkable group of
buildings now existing in this part of Asia.

It is to this last edifice, or group of edifices, that the reader’s
attention will be specially directed in the following pages. Here the
greatest of the Persian monarchs seem to have built the greatest of
their works. Here the ravages of time and barbarism, sadly injurious
as they may have been, have had least effect. Here, moreover, modern
research has spent its chief efforts, excavations having been made,
measurements effected, and ground-plans laid down with accuracy. In
describing the Persepolitan buildings we have aids which mostly fail us
elsewhere--charts, plans, drawings in extraordinary abundance and often
of high artistic value, elaborate descriptions, even photographs. [PLATE
XXXVIII., Fig. 3.] If the describer has still a task of some difficulty
to perform, it is because an overplus of material is apt to cause almost
as much embarrassment as too poor and scanty a supply.


[Illustration: PLATE XXVIII.]


The buildings at Persepolis are placed upon a vast platform. It was
the practice of the Persians, as of the Assyrians and Babylonians, to
elevate their palaces in this way. They thus made them at once more
striking to the eye, more dignified, and more easy to guard. In
Babylonia an elevated habitation was also more healthy and more
pleasant, being raised above the reach of many insects, and laid open to
the winds of heaven, never too boisterous in that climate. Perhaps the
Assyrians and Persians in their continued use of the custom, to some
extent followed a fashion, elevating their royal residences, not so much
for security or comfort, as because it had come to be considered that a
palace ought to have a lofty site, and to look down on the habitations
of meaner men; but, however this may have been, the custom certainly
prevailed, and at Persepolis we have, in an almost perfect condition,
this first element of a Persian palace. [PLATE XXXIX.]


[Illustration: PLATE XXXIX.]


The platform at Persepolis is built at the foot of a high range of
rocky hills, on which it abuts towards the east. It is composed of solid
masses of hewn stone, which were united by metal clamps, probably of
iron or lead. The masses were not cut to a uniform size, nor even always
to a right angle, but were fitted together with a certain amount
of irregularity, which will be the best understood from the woodcut
overleaf. Many of the blocks were of enormous size; and their
quarrying, transport, and elevation to their present places, imply very
considerable mechanical skill. They were laid so as to form a perfectly
smooth perpendicular wall, the least height of which above the
plain below is twenty feet. The outline of the platform was somewhat
irregular. Speaking roughly, we may call it an oblong square, with a
breadth about two thirds of its length; but this description, unless
qualified, will give an idea of far greater uniformity than actually
prevails. [PLATE XL., Fig. 1.] The most serious irregularity is on the
north side, the general line of which is not parallel to the south side,
nor at right angles with the western one, but forms with the general
line of the western an angle of about eighty degrees. The cause of this
deviation lay probably in the fact that, on this side, a low rocky
spur ran out from the mountain-range in this direction, and that it
was thought desirable to accommodate the line of the structure to the
natural irregularities of the ground. In addition to the irregularity
of general outline thus produced, there is another of such perpetual
occurrence that it must be regarded as an essential element of the
original design, and therefore probably as approving itself to the
artistic notions of the builder. This is the occurrence of frequent
angular projections and indentations, which we remark on all three sides
of the platform equally, and which would therefore seem to have been
regarded in Persia, no less than in Assyria, as ornamental.


[Illustration: PLATE XL.]


The whole of the platform is not of a uniform height. On the contrary,
it seems to have been composed, as originally built, of several quite
distinct terraces. Three of these still remain, exhibiting towards the
west a very marked difference of elevation. The lowest of the three is
on the south side, and it may therefore be termed the Southern Terrace.
It extends from east to west a distance of about 800 feet, with a width
of about 170 or 180, and has an elevation above the plain of from twenty
to twenty-three feet. Opposite to this, on the northern side of the
platform, is a second terrace, more than three times the breadth of the
southern one, which may be called, by way of distinction, the Northern
Terrace. This has an elevation above the plain of thirty-five feet.
Intermediate between these two is the great Central or Upper Terrace,
standing forty-five feet above the plain, having a length of 770 feet
along the west face of the platform, and a width of about 400. Upon
this Upper Terrace were situated almost all the great and important
buildings.

The erection of a royal residence on a platform composed of several
terraces involved the necessity of artificial ascents, which the
Persian architects managed by means of broad and solid staircases. These
staircases constitute one of the most remarkable features of the place,
and seem to deserve careful and exact description. [PLATE XLI., Fig. 2.]


[Illustration: PLATE XLI.]


The first, and grandest in respect of scale, is on the west front of the
platform towards its northern end, and leads up from the plain to the
summit of the northern terrace, furnishing the only means by which the
platform can even now be ascended. It consists of two distinct sets of
steps, each composed of two flights, with a broad landing-place between
them, the steps themselves running at right angles to the platform wall,
and the two lower flights diverging, while the two upper ones converge
to a common landing-place on the top. The slope of the stairs is so
gentle that, though each step has a convenient width, the height of a
step is in no case more than from three to four inches. It is thus
easy to ride horses both up and down the staircase, and travellers are
constantly in the habit of ascending and descending it in this way.

The width of the staircase is twenty-two feet--space sufficient to allow
of ten horsemen ascending each flight of steps abreast. Altogether this
ascent, which is on a plan unknown elsewhere, is pronounced to be the
noblest example of a flight of stairs to be found in any part of the
world. It does not project beyond the line of the platform whereto it
leads, but is, as it were, taken out of it. [PLATE XLII.]


[[Illustration: PLATE XLII.]


The next, and in some respects the most remarkable of all the
staircases, conducts from the level of the northern platform to that of
the central or upper terrace. This staircase fronts northward, and opens
on the view as soon as the first staircase (A on the plan) has been
ascended, lying to the right of the spectator at the distance of about
fifty or sixty yards. It consists of four single flights of steps, two
of which are central, facing one another, and leading to a projecting
landing-place (B), about twenty feet in width; while the two others
are on either side of the central flights, distant from them about
twenty-one yards. The entire length of this staircase is 212 feet;
its greatest projection in front of the line of the terrace whereon it
abuts, is thirty-six feet. The steps, which are sixteen feet wide, rise
in the same gentle way as those of the lower or platform staircase. The
height of each is under four inches; and thus there are thirty-one steps
in an ascent of ten feet.

The feature which specially distinguishes this staircase from the lower
one already described is its elaborate ornamentation. The platform
staircase is perfectly plain. The entire face which this staircase
presents to the spectator is covered with sculptures. In the first
place, on the central projection, which is divided perpendicularly into
three compartments, are represented, in the spandrels on either side,
a lion devouring a bull, and in the compartment between the spandrels
eight colossal Persian guardsmen, armed with spears and either with
sword or shield. Further, above the lion and bull, towards the edge of
the spandrel where it slopes, forming a parapet to the steps, [PLATE
XLIII., Fig. 1.] there was a row of cypress trees, while at the end of
the parapet and along the whole of its inner face were a set of small
figures, guardsmen habited like those in the central compartment, but
carrying mostly a bow and quiver instead of a shield. Along the extreme
edge of the parapet externally was a narrow border thickly set with
rosettes. [PLATE XLIII., Fig. 2.] Next, in the long spaces between the
central stairs and those on either side of them, the spandrels contain
repetitions of the lion and bull sculpture, while between them and the
central stairs the face of the wall is divided horizontally into three
bands, each of which has been ornamented with a continuous row of
figures. The highest row of the three is unfortunately mutilated, the
upper portion of all the bodies being lost in consequence of their
having been sculptured upon a parapet wall built originally to protect
the edge of the terrace, but now fallen away. The middle and lowest rows
are tolerably perfect, and possess considerable interest, as well as
some artistic merit. The entire scene represented on the right side
seems to be the bringing of tribute or presents to the monarch by the
various nations under his sway. On the left-hand side this subject was
continued to a certain extent; but the greater part of the space was
occupied by representations of guards and officers of the court, the
guards being placed towards the centre, and, as it were, keeping the
main stairs, while the officers were at a greater distance. The three
rows of figures were separated from one another by narrow bands, thickly
set with rosettes.


[Illustration: PLATE XLIII.]


The builder of this magnificent work was not content to leave it to
history or tradition to connect his name with his construction, but
determined to make the work itself the means of perpetuating his memory.
In three conspicuous parts of the staircase, slabs were left clear of
sculpture, undoubtedly to receive inscriptions commemorative of the
founder. The places selected were the front of the middle staircase, the
exact centre of the whole work, and the space adjoining the spandrels to
the extreme right and the extreme left. In one instance alone, however,
was this part of the work completed. On the right hand, or western
extremity of the staircase, an inscription of thirty lines in the old
Persian language informs us that the constructor was “Xerxes, the Great
King, the King of Kings, the son of King Darius, the Achaemenian.” The
central and left-hand tablets, intended probably for Babylonian and
Scythic translations of the Persian legend, were never inscribed, and
remain blank to the present day.

The remaining staircases will not require very lengthy or elaborate
descriptions. They are six in number, and consist, in most instances,
of a double flight of steps, similar to the central portion of the
staircase which has been just described. Two of them (e and f) belonged
to the building marked as the “Palace of Darius” on the plan, and gave
entrance to it from the central platform above which it is elevated
about fourteen or fifteen feet. Two others (c and d) belonged to the
“Palace of Xerxes.” These led up to a broad paved space in front of
that building, which formed a terrace, elevated about ten feet above
the general level of the central platform. Their position was at the two
ends of the terrace, opposite to one another; but in other respects
they cannot be said to have matched. The eastern, which consisted of two
double flights, was similar in general arrangement to the staircase by
which the platform was mounted from the plain, excepting that it was not
recessed, but projected its full breadth beyond the line of the terrace.
It was decidedly the more elegant of the two, and evidently formed the
main approach. It was adorned with the usual bull and lion combats, with
figures of guardsmen, and with attendants carrying articles needed for
the table or the toilet. The inscriptions upon it declare it to be
the work of Xerxes. [PLATE XLIV.] The western staircase was composed
merely of two single flights, facing one another, with a narrow
landing-place between them. It was ornamented like the eastern, but
somewhat less elaborately.


[Illustration: PLATE XLIV.]


A staircase, very similar to this last, but still one with certain
peculiarities, was built by Artaxerxes Ochus, at the west side of the
Palace of Darius, in order to give it a second entrance. [PLATE XLV.,
Fig. 1.] There the spandrels have the usual figures of the lion and
bull; but the intermediate space is somewhat unusually arranged. It is
divided vertically and horizontally into eight squared compartments,
three on either side, and two in the middle. The upper of these two
contains nothing but a winged circle, the emblem of Divinity being thus
placed reverently by itself. Below, in a compartment of double size, is
an inscription of Ochus, barbarous in language, but very religious in
tone. The six remaining compartments had each four figures, representing
tribute-bearers introduced to the royal presence by a court officer.


[Illustration: PLATE XLV.]


The other, and original, staircase to this palace (f on the plan) was
towards the north, and led up to the great portico, which was anciently
its sole entrance. Two flights of steps, facing each other, conducted to
a paved space of equal extent with the portico and projecting in front
of it about five feet. On the base of the staircase were sculptures in
a single line--the lion and bull in either spandrel--and between the
spandrels eighteen colossal guardsmen, nine facing either way towards
a central inscription, which was repeated in other languages on slabs
placed between the guardsmen and the bulls. Above the spandrels, on
the parapet which fenced the stairs, was a line of figures representing
attendants bringing into the palace materials for the banquet. A similar
line adorned the inner wall of the staircase.

Opposite to this, at the distance of about thirty-two yards, was another
very similar staircase, leading up to the portico of another
building, erected (apparently) by Artaxerxes Ochus, which occupied the
south-western corner of the upper platform. The sculptures here seem to
have been of the usual character but they are so mutilated that no very
decided opinion can be passed upon them.

Last of all, a staircase of a very peculiar character, (h on the plan)
requires notice. This is a flight of steps cut in the solid rock,
which leads up from the southern terrace to the upper one, at a point
intervening between the south-western edifice, or palace of Artaxerxes,
and the palace of Xerxes, or central southern edifice. These steps are
singular in facing the terrace to which they lead, instead of being
placed sideways to it. They are of rude construction, being without a
parapet, and wholly devoid of sculpture or other ornamentation.
They furnish the only communication between the southern and central
terraces.

It is a peculiarity of the Persepolitan ruins that they are not
continuous, but present to the modern inquirer the appearance, at
any rate, of a number of distinct buildings. Of these the platform
altogether contains ten, five of which are of large size, while the
remainder are comparatively insignificant.

Of the five large buildings four stand upon the central or upper
terrace, while one lies east of that terrace, between it and the
mountains. The four upon the central terrace comprise three buildings
made up of several sets of chambers, together with one great open
pillared hall, to which are attached no subordinate apartments. The
three complex edifices will be here termed “palaces,” and will take
the names of their respective founders, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes
Ochus: the fourth will be called the “Great Hall of Audience.” The
building between the upper terrace and the mountains will be termed the
“Great Eastern Edifice.”

The “Palace of Darius,” which is one of the most interesting of the
Persepolitan buildings, stands near the western edge of the platform,
midway between the “Great Hall of Audience” and the “Palace of
Artaxerxes Ochus.” [PLATE XLVI., Fig. 1.] It is a building about one
hundred and thirty five feet in length, and in breadth a little short of
a hundred. Of all the existing buildings on the platform it occupies
the most exalted position, being elevated from fourteen to fifteen feet
above the general level of the central terrace, and being thus four or
five feet higher than the “Palace of Xerxes.” It fronted towards the
south, where it was approached by a double staircase of the usual
character, which led up to a deep portico of eight pillars arranged in
two rows. On either side of the portico were guard-rooms, which opened
upon it, in length twenty-three feet, and in breadth thirteen. Behind
the portico lay the main chamber, which was a square of fifty feet,
having a roof supported by sixteen pillars, arranged in four rows of
four, in line with the pillars of the portico. [PLATE XLV., Fig. 2.]
The bases for the pillars alone remain; and it is thus uncertain whether
their material was stone or wood. They were probably light and slender,
not greatly interrupting the view. The hall was surrounded on all sides
by walls from four to five feet in thickness, in which were doors,
windows, and recesses, symmetrically arranged. The entrance from the
portico was by a door in the exact centre of the front wall, on either
side of which were two windows, looking into the portico. The
opposite, or back, wall was pierced by two doors, which faced the
intercolumniations of the side rows of pillars, as the front door faced
the intercolumniation of the central rows. Between the two doors
which pierced the back wall was a squared recess, and similar recesses
ornamented the same wall on either side of the doors. The side walls
were each pierced originally by a single doorway, between which and the
front wall was a squared recess, while beyond, between the doorways
and the back wall, were two recesses of the same character. Curiously
enough, these side doorways and recesses fronted the pillars, not the
intercolumniations.


[Illustration: PLATE XLVI.]


No sculpture, so far as appears, adorned this apartment, excepting
in the doorways, which however had in every case this kind of
ornamentation. The doorways in the back wall exhibited on their jambs
figures of the king followed by two attendants, one holding a cloth, and
the other a fly-chaser. [PLATE XLV., Fig. 3.] These figures had in every
case their faces turned towards the apartment. The front doorway showed
on its jambs the monarch followed by the parasol-bearer and the bearer
of the fly-chaser, with his back turned to the apartment, issuing forth,
as it were, from it. On the jambs of the doors of the side apartments
was represented the king in combat with a lion or a monster, the king
here in every case facing outwards, and seeming to guard the entrances
to the side chambers.

At the back of the hall, and at either side, were chambers of very
moderate dimensions. The largest were to the rear of the building,
where there seems to have been one about forty feet by twenty-three, and
another twenty-eight feet by twenty. The doorways here had sculptures,
representing attendants bearing napkins and perfumes. The side chambers,
five in number, were considerably smaller than those behind the great
hall, the largest not exceeding thirty-four feet by thirteen.

It seems probable that this palace was without any second story. There
is no vestige in any part of it of a staircase--no indication of its
height having ever exceeded from twenty-two to twenty-five feet. It was
a modest building, simple and regular, covering less than half the space
of an ordinary palace in Assyria. [PLATE XLV., Fig. 2.] Externally,
it must have presented an appearance not very dissimilar to that of
the simpler Greek temples; distinguished from them by peculiarities of
ornamentation, but by no striking or important feature, excepting
the grand and elaborately sculptured staircase. Internally, it was
remarkable for the small number of its apartments, which seem not to
have been more than twelve or thirteen, and for the moderate size of
most of them. Even the grand central hall covered a less area than three
out of the five halls in the country palace of Sargon. The effect
of this room was probably fine, though it must have been somewhat
over-crowded with pillars. If these were, however (as is probable),
light wooden posts, plated with silver or with gold, and if the ceiling
consisted (as it most likely did) of beams, crossing each other at right
angles, with square spaces between them, all likewise coated with the
precious metals; if moreover the cold stone walls, excepting where
they were broken by a doorway, or a window, were similarly decked; if
curtains of brilliant hues hung across the entrances; if the pavement
was of many-colored stones, and in places covered with magnificent
carpets; if an elevated golden throne, under a canopy of purple, adorned
the upper end of the room, standing against the wall midway between the
two doors--if this were in truth the arrangement and ornamentation of
the apartment, we can well understand that the _coup d’oeil_ must
have been effective, and the impression made on the spectator highly
pleasing. A room fifty feet square, and not much more than twenty high,
could not be very grand; but elegance of form, combined with richness
of material and splendor of coloring, may have more than compensated for
the want of that grandeur which results from mere size.

If it be inquired how a palace of the dimensions described can have
sufficed even for one of the early Persian kings, the reply must
seemingly be that the building in question can only have contained
the public apartments of the royal residence--the throne-room,
banqueting-rooms, guard-rooms, etc.,--and that it must have been
supplemented by at least one other edifice of a considerable size, the
Gynaeceum or “House of the Women.” There is ample room on the platform
for such a building, either towards the east, where the ground is now
occupied by a high mound of rubbish, or on the west, towards the edge of
the platform, where traces of a large edifice were noted by Niebuhr. On
the whole, this latter situation seems to be the more probable; and the
position of the Gynaeceum in this quarter may account for the alteration
made by Artaxerxes Ochus in the palace of Darius, which now seriously
interferes with its symmetry. Artaxerxes cut a doorway in the outer
western wall, and another opposite to it in the western wall of the
great hall, adding at the same time a second staircase to the building,
which thus became accessible from the west no less than from the south.
It has puzzled the learned in architecture to assign a motive for this
alteration. May we not find an adequate one in the desire to obtain a
ready and comparatively private access to the Gynaeceum, which must have
been somewhere on the platform, and which may well have lain in this
direction?

The minute account which has been now given of this palace will render
unnecessary a very elaborate description of the remainder. Two grand
palatial edifices seem to have been erected on the platform by later
kings--one by Xerxes and the other by Artaxerxes Ochus; but the latter
of these is in so ruined a condition, and the former is so like the
palace of Darius, that but few remarks need be made upon either. The
palace of Xerxes is simply that of Darius on a larger scale, the pillars
in the portico being increased from two rows of four to two rows of six,
and the great hall behind being a square of eighty instead of a square
of fifty feet, with thirty-six instead of sixteen pillars to support
its roof. On either side of the hall, and on either side of the portico,
were apartments like those already described as abutting on the same
portions of the older palace, differing from them chiefly in being
larger and more numerous. The two largest, which were thirty-one feet
square, had roofs supported on pillars, the numbers of such supports
being in each case four. The only striking difference in the plans of
the two buildings consisted in the absence from the palace of Xerxes of
any apartments to the rear of the great hall. In order to allow space
for an ample terrace in front, the whole edifice was thrown back so
close to the edge of the upper platform that no room was left for any
chambers at the back, since the hall itself was here brought almost to
the very verge of the sheer descent from the central to the low southern
terrace. In ornamentation the palaces also very closely resembled each
other, the chief difference being that the combats of the king with
lions and mythological monsters, which form the regular ornamentation
of the side-chambers in the palace of Darius, occur nowhere in the
residence of his son, where they are replaced by figures of attendants
bringing articles for the toilet or the table, like those which adorn
the main staircase of the older edifice. Figures of the same kind also
ornament all the windows in the palace of Xerxes. A tone of mere sensual
enjoyment is thus given to the later edifice, which is very far from
characterizing the earlier; and the decline of morals at the Court,
which history indicates as rapid about this period, is seen to
have stamped itself, as such changes usually do, upon the national
architecture.

A small building, at the distance of about twenty or twenty-five yards
from the eastern wall of the palace of Xerxes, possesses a peculiar
interest, in consequence of its having some claims to be considered
the most ancient structure upon the platform. It consists of a hall and
portico, in size, proportions, and decoration almost exactly resembling
the corresponding parts of Darius’s palace, but unaccompanied by any
trace of circumjacent chambers, and totally devoid of inscriptions. The
building is low, on the level of the northern, rather than on that of
the central terrace, and is indeed half buried in the rubbish which has
accumulated at its base. Its fragments are peculiarly grand and massive,
while its sculptures are in strong and bold relief. There can be little
doubt but that it was originally, like the hall and portico of Darius,
surrounded on three sides by chambers. These, however, have entirely
disappeared, having probably been pulled down to furnish materials for
more recent edifices. Like the palaces of Xerxes and Artaxerxes Ochus,
and unlike the palace of Darius, the building faces to the north, which
is the direction naturally preferred in such a climate. We may suppose
it to have been the royal residence of the earlier times, the erection
of Cyrus or Cambyses, and to have been intended especially for summer
use, for which its position well fitted it. Darius, wishing for a winter
palace at Persepolis, as well as a summer one, took probably this early
palace for his model, and built one as nearly as possible resembling it,
except that, for the sake of greater warmth, he made his new erection
face southwards. Xerxes, dissatisfied with the size of the old summer
palace, built a new one at its side of considerably larger dimensions,
using perhaps some of the materials of the old palace in his new
building. Finally, Artaxerxes Ochus made certain additions to the palace
of Xerxes on its western side, and at the same time added a staircase
and a doorway to the winter residence of Darius. Thus the Persepolitan
palace, using the word in its proper sense of royal residence, attained
its full dimensions, occupying the southern half of the great central
platform, and covering with its various courts and buildings a space
500 feet long by 375 feet wide, or nearly the space covered by the less
ambitious of the palaces of Assyria.

Besides edifices adapted for habitation, the Persepolitan platform
sustained two other classes of buildings. These were propylaea, or
gateways--places commanding the approach to great buildings, where a
guard might be stationed to stop and examine all comers--and halls of a
vast size, which were probably throne-rooms, where the monarch held
his court on grand occasions, to exhibit himself in full state to his
subjects. The propylaea upon the platform appear to have been four
in number. One, the largest, was directly opposite the centre of the
landing-place at the top of the great stairs which gave access to the
platform from the plain. This consisted of a noble apartment, eighty-two
feet square, with a roof supported by four magnificent columns, each
between fifty and sixty feet high. The walls of the apartment were from
sixteen to seventeen feet thick. Two grand portals, each twelve feet
wide by thirty-six feet high, led into this apartment, one directly
facing the head of the stairs, and the other opposite to it, towards the
east. Both were flanked with colossal bulls, those towards the staircase
being conventional representations of the real animal, while the
opposite pair are almost exact reproductions of the winged and
human-headed bulls, with which the Assyrian discoveries have made us so
familiar. The accompanying illustration [PLATE XLVII., Fig. 1.], which
is taken from a photograph, exhibits this inner pair in their present
condition. The back of one of the other pair is also visible. Two of
the pillars--which alone are still standings appear in their places,
intervening between the front and the back gateway.


[Illustration: PLATE XLVII.]


The walls which enclosed this chamber, notwithstanding their immense
thickness, have almost entirely disappeared. On the southern side alone,
where there seems to have been a third doorway, unornamented, are there
any traces of them. We must conclude that they were either of burnt
brick or of small blocks of stone, which the natives of the country
in later times found it convenient to use as material for their own
buildings.

An edifice, almost exactly similar to this, but of very inferior
dimensions, occupied a position due east of the palace of Darius, and
a little to the north of the main staircase leading to the terrace in
front of the palace of Xerxes. The bases of two pillars and the jambs
of three doorways remain, from which it is easy to reconstruct the main
building. Its position seems to mark it as designed to give entrance
to the structure, whatever it was, which occupied the site of the great
mound (M on the Plan) east of Darius’s palace, and north of the palace
of his son. The ornamentation, however, would rather connect it with
the more eastern of the two great pillared halls, which will have to be
described presently.

A third edifice of the same kind stood in front of the great eastern
hall, at the distance of about seventy yards from its portico. This
building is more utterly ruined than either of the preceding, and its
dimensions are open to some doubt. On the whole, it seems probable that
it resembled the great propylaea at the head of the stairs leading from
the plain rather than the central propylaea just described. Part of its
ornamentation was certainly a colossal bull, though whether human-headed
or not cannot be determined.

The fourth of the propylaea was on the terrace whereon stood the palace
of Xerxes, and directly fronting the landing-place at the head of its
principal stairs, just as the propylaea first described fronted the
great stairs leading up from the plain. Its dimensions were suited to
those of the staircase which led to it, and of the terrace on which it
was placed. It was less than one fourth the size of the great propylaea,
and about half that of the propylaea which stood the nearest to it.
The bases of the four pillars alone remain in situ; but, from the
proportions thus obtained, the position of the walls and doorways is
tolerably certain.

We have now to pass to the most magnificent of the Perse-politan
buildings--the Great Pillared Halls--which constitute the glory of Arian
architecture, and which, even in their ruins, provoke the wonder and
admiration of modern Europeans, familiar with all the triumphs of
Western art, with Grecian temples, Roman baths and amphitheatres,
Moorish palaces, Turkish mosques, and Christian cathedrals. Of these
pillared halls, the Persepolitan platform supports two, slightly
differing in their design, but presenting many points of agreement. They
bear the character of an earlier and a later building--a first effort
in the direction which circumstances compelled the architecture of the
Persians to take, and the final achievement of their best artists in
this kind of building.

Nearly midway in the platform between its northern and its southern
edges, and not very far from the boundary of rocky mountain on which
the platform abuts towards the east, is the vast edifice which has been
called with good reason the “Hall of a Hundred Columns,” since its
roof was in all probability supported by that number of pillars. This
building consisted of a single magnificent chamber, with a portico, and
probably guard-rooms, in front, of dimensions quite unequalled upon
the platform. The portico was 183 feet long by 52 feet deep, and was
sustained by sixteen pillars, about 33 feet high, arranged in two rows
of eight. The great chamber behind was a square of 227 feet, and had
therefore an area of about 51,000 feet. Over this vast space were
distributed, at equal distances from one another, one hundred columns,
each 35 feet high, arranged in ten rows of ten each, every pillar thus
standing at a distance of nearly 20 feet from any other. The four walls
which enclosed this great hall had a uniform thickness of 10 1/2 feet,
and were each pierced at equal intervals by two doorways, the doorways
being thus exactly opposite to one another, and each looking down an
avenue of columns. In the spaces of wall on either side of the doorways,
eastward, westward, and southward, were three niches, all square-topped,
and bearing the ornamentation which is universal in the case of all
niches, windows, and doorways in the Persepolitan ruins. [PLATE XLVII.,
Fig. 2.] In the northern, or front, wall, the niches were replaced by
windows looking upon the portico, excepting towards the angles of the
building, where niches were retained, owing to a peculiarity in the
plan of the edifice which has now to be noticed. The portico, instead
of being, as in every other Persian instance, of the same width with the
building which it fronted, was 44 feet narrower, its antce projecting
from the front wall, not at either extremity, but at the distance of 11
feet from the corner. While the porch was thus contracted, so that the
pillars had to be eight in each row instead of ten, space was left on
either side for a narrow guard-room opening on to the porch, indications
of which are seen in the doorways placed at right angles to the front
wall, which are ornamented with the usual figures of soldiers armed
with spear and shield. It has been suggested that the hall was, like the
smaller pillared chambers upon the platform, originally surrounded on
three sides by a number of lesser apartments; and this is certainly
possible: but no trace remains of any such buildings. The ornamentation
which exists seems to show that the building was altogether of a public
character. Instead of exhibiting attendants bringing articles for the
toilet or the banquet, it shows on its doors the monarch, either engaged
in the art of destroying symbolical monsters, or seated on his throne
under a canopy, with the tiara on his head, and the golden sceptre in
his right hand. The throne representations are of two kinds. On the
jambs of the great doors leading out upon the porch, we see in the top
compartment the monarch seated under the canopy, accompanied by five
attendants, while below him are his guards, arranged in five rows of
ten each, some armed with spears and shields, others with spears, short
swords, bows and quivers. Thus the two portals together exhibit the
figures of 200 Persian guardsmen in attendance on the person of the
king. The doors at the back of the building present us with a still
more curious sculpture. On these the throne appears elevated on a lofty
platform, the stages of which, three in number, are upheld by figures
in different costumes, representing apparently the natives of all the
different provinces of the Empire. It is a reasonable conjecture that
this great hall was intended especially for a throne-room, and that in
the representations on these doorways we have figured a structure which
actually existed under its roof (probably at t in the plan)--a platform
reached by steps, whereon, in the great ceremonies of state, the royal
throne was placed, in order that the monarch might be distinctly seen at
one and the same time by the whole Court.


[Illustration: PLATE XLVIII.]


The question of the lighting of this huge apartment presents some
difficulties. On three sides, as already observed, the hall had (so
far as appears) no windows--the places where windows might have been
expected to occur being occupied by niches. The apparent openings are
consequently reduced to some fifteen, viz., the eight doorways, and
seven windows, which looked out upon the portico, and were therefore
overhung and had a north aspect. It is clear that sufficient light could
not have entered the apartment from these--the only visible--apertures.
We must therefore suppose either that the walls above the niches were
pierced with windows, which is quite possible, or else that light was in
some way or other admitted from the roof. The latter is the supposition
of those most competent to decide. M. Flandin conjectures that the roof
had four apertures, placed at the points where the lines drawn from
the northern to the southern, and those drawn from the eastern to the
western, doors would intersect one another. He seems to suppose that
these openings were wholly unprotected, in which case they would have
admitted, in a very inconvenient way, both the sun and the rain. May we
not presume that, if such openings existed, they were guarded by louvres
such as have been regarded as probably lighting the Assyrian halls, and
of which a representation has already been given?

The portico of the Hall of a Hundred Columns was flanked on either side
by a colossal bull, standing at the inner angle of the antes, and thus
in some degree narrowing the entrance. Its columns were fluted, and
had in every case the complex capital, which occurs also in the great
propylaea and in the Hall of Xerxes. It was built of the same sort of
massive blocks as the south-eastern edifice, or Ancient Palace--blocks
often ten feet square by seven feet thick, and may be ascribed probably
to the same age as that structure. Like that edifice, it is situated
somewhat low; it has no staircase, and no inscription. We may fairly
suppose it to have been the throne-room or great hall of audience of the
early king who built the South-eastern Palace.

We have now to describe the most remarkable of all the Persepolitan
edifices--a building the remains of which stretch nearly 350 feet in one
direction, while in the other they extend 246 feet. Its ruins consist
almost entirely of pillars, which are divided into four groups. The
largest of these was a square of thirty-six pillars, arranged in six
rows of six, all exactly equidistant from one another, and covering
an area of above 20,000 square feet. On three sides of this square,
eastward, northward, and westward, were magnificent porches, each
consisting of twelve columns, arranged in two rows, in line with the
pillars of the central cluster. These porches stood at the distance of
seventy feet from the main building, and have the appearance of having
been entirely separate from it. They are 143 feet long, by thirty broad,
and thus cover each an area of 4260 feet. The most astonishing feature
in the whole building is the height of the pillars. These, according to
the measurements of M. Flandin, had a uniform altitude throughout the
building of sixty-four feet. Even in their ruin, they tower over every
other erection upon the platform, retaining often, in spite of the
effects of time, an elevation of sixty feet.

The capitals of the pillars were of three kinds. Those of the side
colonnades were comparatively simple: they consisted, in each case, of
a single member, formed, in the eastern colonnade, of two half-griffins,
with their heads looking in opposite directions [PLATE XLVII, Fig. 2];
and, in the western colonnade, of two half-bulls, arranged in the
same manner [PLATE XLVII., Fig. 3]. The capitals of the pillars in the
northern colonnade, which faced the great sculptured staircase, and
constituted the true front of the building, were of a very complex
character. They may be best viewed as composed of three distinct
members--first, a sort of lotos-bud, accompanied by pendent leaves;
then, above that, a member, composed of volutes like those of the Ionic
order, but placed in a perpendicular instead of a horizontal direction;
and at the top, a member composed of two half-bulls, exactly similar to
that which forms the complete capital of the western group of pillars.
The pillars of the groat central cluster had capitals exactly like those
of the northern colonnade.

The bases of the colonnade pillars are of singular beauty. Bell-shaped,
and ornamented with a double or triple row of pendent lotus-leaves, some
rounded, some narrowed to a point; they are as graceful as they are rare
in their forms, and attract the admiration of all beholders. Above them
rise the columns, tapering gently as they ascend, but without any swell
or entasis. They consist of several masses of stone, carefully joined
together, and secured at the joints by an iron cramp in the direction of
the column’s axis. All are beautifully fluted along their entire length,
the number of the incisions or flutings being from forty-eight to
fifty-two in each pillar. They are arcs of circles smaller than
semicircles, thus resembling those of the Doric, rather than those of
the Ionic or Corinthian order. The cutting of all is very exact and
regular.

There can be little doubt but that both the porches, and the
great central pillar-cluster, were roofed in. The double-bull and
double-griffin capital are exactly suited to receive the ends of beams,
which would stretch from pillar to pillar, and support a roof and an
entablature. [PLATE L., Fig.1.] We may see in the entrances to the royal
tombs the true use of pillars in a Persian building, and the character
of the entablature which, they were intended to sustain, Assuming,
then, that both the great central pillar phalanx and the three detached
colonnades supported a roof, the question arises, were the colonnades
in any way united with the main building, or did they stand completely
detached from it? It has been supposed that they were all porticos _in
antis_, connected with the main building by solid walls--that the great
central column-cluster was surrounded on all sides by a wall of a very
massive description, from the four corners of which similar barriers
were carried down to the edge of the terrace, abutting in front upon
the steps of the great sculptured staircase, and extending eastward and
westward, so as to form the antce of an eastern and a western portico.
In the two corners between the northern in _antae_ of the side porticos
and the _antae_ of the portico in front are supposed to have been large
guard-rooms, entirely filling up the two angles. The whole building is
thus brought into close conformity with the “Palace of Xerxes,” from
which it is distinguished only by its superior size, its use of stone
pillars, and the elongation of the tetrastyle chambers at the sides of
that edifice into porticos of twelve pillars each.


[Illustration: PLATE L.]


The ingenuity of this conception is unquestionable; and one is tempted
at first sight to accept a solution which removes so much that is
puzzling, and establishes so remarkable a harmony between works whose
outward aspect is so dissimilar. It seems like the inspiration of genius
to discern so clearly the like in the unlike, and one inclines at first
to believe that what is so clever cannot but be true. But a rigorous
examination of the evidence leads to an opposite conclusion, and if it
does not absolutely disprove Mr. Fergusson’s theory, at any rate shows
it to be in the highest degree doubtful. Such walls as he describes,
with their _antae_ and their many doors and windows, should have left
very marked traces of their existence in great squared pillars at the
sides of porticos, in huge door-frames and window-frames, or at least
in the foundations of walls, or, the marks of them, on some part of the
paved terrace. Now the entire absence of squared pillars for the ends
of antce, of door-frames, and window-frames, or even of such sculptured
fragments as might indicate their former existence, is palpable and is
admitted; nor is there any even supposed trace of the walls, excepting
in one of the lines which by the hypothesis they would occupy. In front
of the building, midway between the great pillar-cluster and the north
colonnade, are the remains of four stone bases, parallel to one another,
each seventeen feet long by five feet six inches wide. Mr. Fergusson
regards these bases as marking the position of the doors in his front
wall; and they are certainly in places where doors might have been
looked for, if the building had a front wall, since the openings are
exactly opposite the inter-columniations of the pillars, both in the
portico and in the main cluster. But there are several objections to the
notion of these bases being the foundations of the jambs of doors. In
the first place, they are too wide apart, being at the distance from one
another of seventeen feet, whereas no doorway on the platform exceeds a
width of twelve or thirteen feet. In the second place, if these massive
stone bases were prepared for the jambs of doors, it could only have
been for massive stone jambs like those of the other palaces; but
in that case, the jambs could not have disappeared. Thirdly, if the
doorways on this side were thus marked, why were they not similarly
marked on the other sides of the building? On the whole, the supposition
of M. Flandin, that the bases were pedestals for ornamental statues,
perhaps of bulls, seems more probable than that of Mr. Fergusson;
though, no doubt, there are objections also to M. Flandin’s hypothesis,
and it would be perhaps best to confess that we do not know the use of
these strange foundations, which have nothing that at all resembles them
upon the rest of the platform.

Another strong objection to Mr. Fergusson’s theory, and one of which
he, to a certain extent, admits the force, is the existence of drains,
running exactly in the line of his side walls, which, if such walls
existed, would be a curious provision on the part of the architect for
undermining his own work. Mr. Fergusson supposes that they might be
intended to drain the walls themselves and keep them dry. But as it is
clear that they must have carried off the whole surplus water from
the roof of the building, and as there is often much rain and snow
at Persepolis, their effect on the foundations of such a wall as Mr.
Fergusson imagines would evidently be disastrous in the extreme.

To these minute and somewhat technical objections may be added the
main one, whereof all alike can feel the force--namely, the entire
disappearance of such a vast mass of building as Mr. Fergusson’s
hypothesis supposes. To account for this, Mr. Fergusson is obliged to
lay it down, that in this magnificent structure, with its solid
stone staircase, its massive pavement of the same material, and its
seventy-two stone pillars, each sixty-four feet high, the walls were of
mud. Can we believe in this incongruity? Can we imagine that a prince,
who possessed an unbounded command of human labor, and an inexhaustible
supply of stone in the rocky mountains close at hand, would have had
recourse to the meanest of materials for the walls of an edifice which
he evidently intended to eclipse all others upon the platform. And,
especially, can we suppose this, when the very same prince used solid
blocks of stone, in the walls of the very inferior edifice which he
constructed in this same locality? Mr. Fergusson, in defence of
his hypothesis, alleges the frequent combination of meanness with
magnificence in the East, and softens down the meanness in the present
case by clothing his mud walls with enamelled tiles, and painting them
with all the colors of the rainbow. But here again the hypothesis is
wholly unsupported by fact. Neither at Persepolis, nor at Pasargadae,
nor at any other ancient Persian site, has a single fragment of an
enamelled tile or brick been discovered. In Babylonia and Assyria, where
the employment of such an ornamentation was common, the traces of it
which remain are abundant. Must not the entire absence of such traces
from all exclusively Persian ruins be held to indicate that this mode of
adorning edifices was not adopted in Persia?

If then we resign the notion of this remarkable building having been a
walled structure, we must suppose that it was a summer throne-room,
open to all the winds of heaven, except so far as it was protected by
curtains. For the use of these by the Persians in pillared edifices, we
have important historical authority in the statement already quoted from
the Book of Esther. The Persian palace, to which that passage directly
refers, contained a structure almost the exact counterpart of this
at Persepolis; and it is probable that at both places the interstices
between the outer pillars of, at any rate, the great central colonnade,
were filled with “hangings of white and green and blue, fastened with
cords of white and purple to silver rings,” which were attached to the
“pillars of marble;” and that by these means an undue supply of light
and air, as well as an unseemly publicity, were prevented. A traveller
in the country well observes, in allusion to this passage from Esther:
Nothing could be more appropriate than this method at Susa and
Persepolis, the spring residences of the Persian monarchs. It must be
considered that these columnar halls were the equivalents of the modern
throne-rooms, that here all public business was dispatched, and that
here the king might sit and enjoy the beauties of the landscape. With
the rich plains of Susa and Persepolis before him, he could well, after
his winter’s residence at Babylon, dispense with massive walls, which
would only check the warm fragrant breeze from those verdant prairies
adorned with the choicest flowers. A massive roof, covering the whole
expanse of columns, would be too cold and dismal, whereas curtains
around the central group would serve to admit both light and warmth.
Nothing can be conceived better adapted to the climate or the season.

If the central cluster of pillars was thus adapted to the purposes of
a throne-room, equally well may the isolated colonnades have served as
ante-chambers or posts for guards. Protected, perhaps, with curtains
or awnings of their own, of a coarser material than those of the main
chamber, or at any rate casting, when the sun was high, a broad and deep
shadow, they would give a welcome shelter to those who had to watch
over the safety of the monarch, or who were expecting but had not yet
received their summons to the royal presence. Except in the very hottest
weather, the Oriental does not love to pass his day within doors. Seated
on the pavement in groups, under the deep shadows of these colonnades,
which commanded a glorious view of the vast fertile plain of the
Bendamir, of the undulating mountain-tract beyond, and of the
picturesque hills known now as Koh-Istakhr, or Koh-Rhamgherd, the
subjects of the Great King, who had business at Court, would wait,
agreeably enough, till their turn came to approach the throne.

Our survey of the Persepolitan platform is now complete; but, before we
entirely dismiss the subject of Persian palaces, it seems proper to say
a few words with respect to the other palatial remains of Achasmenian
times, remains which exist in three places--at Murgab or Pasargadse, at
Istakr, and at the great mound of Susa. The Murgab and Istakr ruins were
carefully examined by MM. Coste and Flandin; while General Williams and
Mr. Loftus diligently explored, and completely made out, the plan of the
Susian edifice.

The ruins at Murgab, which are probably the most ancient in Persia,
comprise, besides the well-known “Tomb of Cyrus,” two principal
buildings. The largest of these was of an oblong-square shape, about 147
feet long by 116 wide. It seems to have been surrounded by a lofty
wall, in which were huge portals, consisting of great blocks of
stone, partially hollowed out, to render them portable. There was an
inscription on the jambs of each portal, containing the words, “I am
Cyrus the King, the Achaemenian.” Within the walled enclosure which may
have been skirted internally by a colonnade was a pillared building, of
much greater height than the surrounding walls, as is evident from the
single column which remains. This shaft, which is perfectly plain, and
shows no signs of a capital, has an altitude of thirty-six feet, with
a diameter of three feet four inches at the base. On the area around,
which was carefully paved, are the bases of seven other similar pillars,
arranged in lines, and so situated as apparently to indicate an oblong
hall, supported by twelve pillars, in three rows of four each. The
chief peculiarity of the arrangement is, a variety in the width of the
intercolumniations, which measure twenty-seven feet ten inches in one
direction, but twenty-one feet only in the other. The smaller building,
which is situated at only a short distance from the larger one, covers a
space of 125 feet by fifty. It consists of twelve pillar bases, arranged
in two rows of six each, the pillars being somewhat thicker than those
of the other building, and placed somewhat closer together. [PLATE
XLIX., Fig. 5.] The form of the base is very singular. It exhibits
at the side a semicircular bulge, ornamented with a series of nine
flutings, which are carried entirely round the base in parallel
horizontal circles. [PLATE L., Fig. 2.] In front of the pillar bases,
at the distance of about twenty-three feet from the nearest, is a square
column, still upright, on which is sculptured a curious mythological
figure, together with the same curt legend, which appears on the larger
building--“I am Cyrus, the King, the Achaemenian.”


[Illustration: PLATE XLIX.]


There are two other buildings at Murgab remarkable for their masonry.
One is a square tower, with slightly projecting corners, built of
hewn blocks of stone, very regularly laid, and carried to a height
of forty-two feet. The other is a platform, exceedingly massive and
handsome, composed entirely of squared stone, and faced with blocks
often eight or ten feet long, laid in horizontal courses, and rusticated
throughout in a manner that is highly ornamental. [PLATE L. Fig. 3.] The
style resembles that of the substructions of the Temple of Jerusalem.
It occurs occasionally, though somewhat rarely, in Greece; but there
is said to exist nowhere so extensive and beautiful a specimen of it as
that of the platform at this ancient site. [PLATE L., Fig. 4.]

The palace at Istakr is in better preservation than either of the two
pillared edifices at Murgab; but still, it is not in such a condition as
to enable us to lay down with any certainty even its ground-plan. [PLATE
LI., Fig. 1.] One pillar only remains erect; but the bases of eight
others have been found in situ; the walls are partly to be traced,
and the jambs of several doorways and niches are still standing. These
remains show that in many respects, as in the character of the pillars,
which were fluted and had capitals like those already described, in the
massiveness of the door and window jambs, and in the thickness of
the walls, the Istakr Palace resembled closely the buildings on the
Persepolitan platform; but at the same time they indicate that its plan
was wholly different, and thus our knowledge of the platform buildings
in no degree enables us to complete, or even to carry forward to any
appreciable extent, the ground-plan of the edifice derived from actual
research. The height of the columns, which is inferior to that of the
lowest at the great platform, would seem to indicate, either that the
building was the first in which stone pillars were attempted, or that
it was erected at a time when the Persians no longer possessed the
mechanical skill required to quarry, transport, and raise into place the
enormous blocks used in the best days of the nation.


[Illustration: PLATE LI.]


The palace of Susa, exhumed by Mr. Loftus and General Williams,
consisted of a great Hall or Throne-room, almost exactly a duplicate
of the Chehl Minar at Persepolis, and of a few other very inferior
buildings. It stood at the summit of the great platform, a quadrilateral
mass of unburnt brick, which from a remote antiquity had supported the
residence of the old Susian kings. It fronted a little west of north,
and commanded a magnificent view over the Susianian plains to the
mountains of Lauristan. An inscription, repeated on four of its
pillar-bases, showed that it was originally built by Darius Hystaspis,
and afterwards repaired by Artaxerxes Longimanus. As it was so exactly
a reproduction of an edifice already minutely described, no further
account of it need be here given.

From the palaces of the Persian kings we may now pass to their tombs,
remarkable structures which drew the attention of the ancients, and
which have been very fully examined and represented in modern times.
These tombs are eight in number, but present only two types, so that
it will be sufficient to give in this place a detailed account of two
tombs--one of each description.

The most ancient, and, on the whole, the most remarkable of the tombs,
is almost universally allowed to be that of the Great Cyrus. It is
unique in design, totally different from all the other royal sepulchres;
and, though it has been often described, demands, and must
receive, notice in any account that is given of the ancient Persian
constructions. The historian Arrian calls it “a house upon a pedestal;”
 and this brief description exactly expresses its general character. On a
base, composed of huge blocks of the most beautiful white marble,1 which
rises pyramidically in seven steps of different heights, there stands a
small “house” of similar material, crowned with a stone roof, which
is formed in front and rear into a pediment resembling that of a Greek
temple. [PLATE LI., Fig.3.] The “house” has no window, but one of the
end walls was pierced by a low and narrow doorway, which led into a
small chamber or cell, about eleven feet long, seven broad, and seven
high. Here, as ancient writers inform us, the body of the Great Cyrus
was deposited in a golden coffin. Internally the chamber is destitute
of any inscription, and indeed seems to have been left perfectly plain.
Externally, there is a cornice of some elegance below the pediment, a
good molding over the doorway, which is also doubly recessed--and two
other very slight moldings, one at the base of the “house,” and the
other at the bottom of the second step. [PLATE LI., Fig. 2.] Except for
these, the whole edifice is perfectly plain. Its present height above
the ground is thirty-six feet, and it may originally have been a foot
or eighteen inches higher, for the top of the roof is worn away. It
measures at the base forty-seven feet by forty-three feet nine inches.

The tomb stands within a rectangular area, marked out by pillars, the
bases or broken shafts of which are still to be seen. They appear to
have been twenty-four in number; all of them circular and smooth, not
fluted; six pillars occupied each side of the rectangle, and they stood
distant from each other about fourteen feet. It is probable that they
originally supported a colonnade, which skirted internally a small
walled court, within which the tomb was placed. The capitals of the
pillars, if they had any, have wholly disappeared; and the researches
conducted on the spot have failed to discover any trace of them.

The remainder of the Persian royal sepulchres are rock-tombs,
excavations in the sides of mountains, generally at a considerable
elevation, so placed as to attract the eye of the beholder, while they
are extremely difficult of approach. Of this kind of tomb there are
four in the face of the mountain which bounds the Pulwar Valley on the
north-west, while there are three others in the immediate vicinity of
the Persepolitan platform, two in the mountain which overhangs it, and
one in the rocks a little further to the south. The general shape of
the excavations, as it presents itself to the eye of the spectator,
resembles a Greek cross. [PLATE LII., Fig. 1.] This is divided by
horizontal lines into three portions, the upper one (corresponding with
the topmost limb of the cross) containing a very curious sculptured
representation of the monarch worshipping Ormazd; the middle one, which
comprises the two side limbs, together with the space between them,
being carved architecturally so as to resemble a portico; and the third
compartment (corresponding with the lowest limb of the cross) being left
perfectly plain. In the centre of the middle compartment is sculptured
on the face of the rock the similitude of a doorway, closely resembling
those which still stand on the great platform; that is to say, doubly
recessed, and ornamented at the top with lily-work. The upper portion of
this doorway is filled with the solid rock, smoothed to a flat surface
and crossed by three horizontal bars. The lower portion, to the height
of four or five feet, is cut away; and thus entrance is given to the
actual tomb, which is hollowed out in the rock behind.


[Illustration: PLATE LII.]


Thus far the rock tombs, are, with scarcely an exception, of the same
type. The excavations, however, behind their ornamental fronts, present
some curious differences. In the simplest case of all, we find, on
entering, an arched chamber, thirteen feet five inches long by seven
feet two inches wide, from which there opens out, opposite to the door
and at the height of about four feet from the ground, a deep horizontal
recess, arched, like the chamber. Near the front of this recess is a
further perpendicular excavation, in length six feet ten inches, in
width three feet three inches, and in depth the same. This was the
actual sarcophagus, and was covered, or intended to be covered, by a
slab of stone. In the deeper part of the recess there is room for two
other such sarcophagi; but in this case they have not been excavated,
one burial only having, it would seem, taken place in this tomb. Other
sepulchres present the same general features, but provide for a much
greater number of interments. In that of Darius Hystaspis the sepulchral
chamber contains three distinct recesses, in each of which are three
sarcophagi, so that the tomb would hold nine bodies. It has, apparently,
been cut originally for a single recess, on the exact plan of the tomb
described above, but has afterwards been elongated towards the left.
[PLATE LIII., Fig. 1.] Two of the tombs show a still more elaborate
ground-plan--one in which curved lines take to some extent the place
of straight ones. [PLATE LII., Fig. 2.] The tombs above the platform of
Persepolis are more richly ornamented than the others, the lintels
and sideposts of the doorways being covered with rosettes, and the
entablature above the cornice bearing a row of lions, facing on either
side towards the centre. [PLATE LIII., Fig. 2.]


[Illustration: PLATE LIII.]


A curious edifice, belonging probably to the later Achaemenian times,
stands immediately in front of the four royal tombs at Nakhsh-i-Eustam.
This is a square tower, composed of large blocks of marble, cut with
great exactness, and joined together without mortar or cement of
any kind. The building is thirty-six feet high; and each side of it
measures, as near as possible, twenty-four feet. It is ornamented with
pilasters at the corners and with six recessed niches, or false windows,
in three ranks, one over the other, on three out of its four faces. On
the fourth face are two niches only, one over the other; and below
them is a doorway with a cornice. The surface of the walls between the
pilasters is also ornamented with a number of rectangular depressions,
resembling the sunken ends of beams. The doorway, which looks north,
towards the tombs, is not at the bottom of the building, but half-way up
its side, and must have been reached either by a ladder or by a flight
of steps. It leads into a square chamber, twelve feet wide by nearly
eighteen high, extending to the top of the building, and roofed in with
four large slabs of stone, which reach entirely across from side to
side, being rather more than twenty-four feet long, six feet wide, and
from eighteen inches to three feet in thickness. [PLATE LIII., Fig. 3.]
On the top these slabs are so cut that the roof has every way a slight
incline; at their edges they are fashioned between the pilasters, into
a dentated cornice, like that which is seen on the tomb. Externally they
were clamped together in the same careful way which we find to have been
in use both at Persepolis and Parsargadae. The building seems to have
been closed originally by two ponderous stone doors. [PLATE LIV., Fig.
1.]


[Illustration: PLATE LIV.]


Another remarkable construction, which must belong to a very ancient
period in the history of the country, is a gateway composed of enormous
stones, which forms a portion of the ruins of Istakr. [PLATE LIV., Fig.
2.] It has generally been regarded as one of the old gates of the city;
but its position in the gorge between the town wall and the opposite
mountain, and the fact that it lies directly across the road from
Pasargadae into the plain of Merdasht, seem rather to imply that it was
one of those fortified “gates,” which we know to have been maintained by
the Persians, at narrow points along their great routes, for the purpose
of securing them, and stopping the advance of an enemy. On either
side were walls of vast thickness, on the one hand abutting upon the
mountain, on the other probably connected with the wall of the town,
while between them were three massive pillars, once, no doubt, the
supports of a tower, from which the defenders of the gate would engage
its assailants at a great advantage.

We have now described (so far as our data have rendered it possible)
all the more important of the ancient edifices of the Persians, and
may proceed to consider the next branch of the present inquiry, namely,
their skill in the mimetic arts. Before, however, the subject of their
architecture is wholly dismissed, a few words seem to be required on its
general character and chief peculiarities.

First, then, the simplicity and regularity of the style are worthy of
remark. In the ground-plans of buildings the straight line only is used;
all the angles are right angles; all the pillars fall into line; the
intervals between pillar and pillar are regular, and generally equal;
doorways are commonly placed opposite intercolumniations; where there is
but one doorway, it is in the middle of the wall which it pierces; where
there are two, they correspond to one another. Correspondence is the
general law. Not only does door correspond to door, and pillar to
pillar, but room to room, window to window, and even niche to niche.
Most of the buildings are so contrived that one half is the exact
duplicate of the other; and where this is not the case, the irregularity
is generally either slight, or the result of an alteration, made
probably for convenience sake. Travellers are impressed with the Grecian
character of what they behold, though there is an almost entire absence
of Greek forms. The regularity is not confined to single buildings, but
extends to the relations of different edifices one to another. The sides
of buildings standing on one platform, at whatever distance they may be,
are parallel. There is, however, less consideration paid than we should
have expected to the exact position, with respect to a main building,
in which a subordinate one shall be placed. Propylaea, for instance,
are not opposite the centre of the edifice to which they conduct, but
slightly on one side of the centre. And generally, excepting in the
parallelism of their sides, buildings seem placed with but slight regard
to neighboring ones.

For effect, the Persian architecture must have depended, firstly,
upon the harmony that is produced by the observance of regularity and
proportion; and, secondly, upon two main features of the style. These
were the grand sculptured staircases which formed the approaches to all
the principal buildings, and the vast groves of elegant pillars in and
about the great halls. The lesser buildings were probably ugly, except
in front. But such edifices as the Chehl Minar at Persepolis, and its
duplicate at Susa--where long vistas of columns met the eye on every
side, and the great central cluster was supported by lighter detached
groups, combining similarity of form with some variety of ornament,
where richly colored drapings contrasted with the cool gray stone of the
building, and a golden roof overhung a pavement of many hues--must
have been handsome, from whatever side they were contemplated, and for
general richness and harmony of effect may have compared favorably
with any edifices which, up to the time of their construction, had been
erected in any country or by any people. If it may seem to some that
they were wanting in grandeur, on account of their comparatively low
height--a height which, including that of the platform, was probably in
no case much more than a hundred feet--it must be remembered that the
buildings of Greece and (except the Pyramids) those of Egypt, had the
same defect, and that, until the constructive powers of the arch came to
be understood, it was almost impossible to erect a building that should
be at once lofty and elegant. Height, moreover, if the buildings are for
use, implies inconvenience, a waste of time and power being involved
in the ascent and descent of steps. The ancient architects, studying
utility more than effect, preferred spreading out their buildings
to piling them up, and rarely, unless in thickly-peopled towns, even
introduced a second story.

The spectator, however, was impressed with a sense of grandeur in
another way. The use of huge blocks of stone, not only in platforms,
but in the buildings themselves, in the shafts of pillars, the antae of
porticos, the jambs of doorways, occasionally in roofs, and perhaps in
epistylia, produced the same impression of power, and the same feeling
of personal insignificance in the beholder, which is commonly effected
by great size in the edifice, and particularly by height. The mechanical
skill required to transport and raise into place the largest of these
blocks must have been very considerable, and their employment causes not
merely a blind admiration of those who so built on the part of ignorant
persons, but a profound respect for them on the part of those who are by
their studies and tastes best qualified for pronouncing on the relative
and absolute merits of architectural masterpieces.

Among the less pleasing peculiarities of the Persian architecture may be
mentioned a general narrowness of doors in proportion to their height, a
want of passages, a thickness of walls, which is architecturally clumsy,
but which would have had certain advantages in such a climate, an
inclination to place the doors of rooms near one corner, an allowance of
two entrances into a great hall from under a single portico, a peculiar
position of propylaea, and the very large employment of pillars in
the interior of buildings. In many of these points, and also in the
architectural use which was made of sculpture, the style of building
resembled, to some extent, that of Assyria; the propylaea, however, were
less Assyrian than Egyptian; while in the main and best features of the
architecture, it was (so far as we can tell) original. The solid and
handsome stone platforms, the noble staircases, and the profusion of
light and elegant stone columns, which formed the true glory of
the architecture--being the features on which its effect chiefly
depended--have nowhere been discovered in Assyria; and all the
evidence is against their existence. The Arians found in Mesopotamia an
architecture of which the pillar was scarcely an element at all--which
was fragile and unenduring--and which depended for its effect on a
lavish display of partially colored sculpture and more richly tinted
enamelled brick. Instead of imitating this, they elaborated for
themselves, from the wooden buildings of their own mountain homes, a
style almost exactly the reverse of that with which their victories had
brought them into contact. Adopting, of main features, nothing but the
platform, they imparted even to this a new character, by substituting
in its construction the best for the worst of materials, and by further
giving to these stone structures a massive solidity, from the employment
of huge, blocks, which made them stand in the strongest possible
contrast to the frail and perishable mounds of Babylonia and Assyria.
Having secured in this way a firm and enduring basis, they proceeded to
erect upon it buildings where the perpendicular line was primary and the
horizontal secondary--buildings of almost, the same solid and massive
character as the platform itself--forests of light but strong columns,
supporting a wide-spreading roof, sometimes open to the air, sometimes
enclosed by walls, according as they were designed for summer or winter
use, or for greater or less privacy. To edifices of this character
elaborate ornamentation was unnecessary; for the beauty of the column is
such that nothing more is needed to set off a building. Sculpture
would thus be dispensed with, or reserved for mere occasional use, and
employed not so much on the palace itself as on its outer approaches;
while brick enamelling could well be rejected altogether, as too poor
and fragile a decoration for buildings of such strength and solidity.

The origination of this columnar architecture must be ascribed to the
Medes, who, dwelling in or near the more wooden parts of the Zagros
range, constructed, during the period of their empire, edifices of
considerable magnificence, whereof wooden pillars were the principal
feature, the courts being surrounded by colonnades, and the chief
buildings having porticos, the pillars in both cases being of wood. A
wooden roof rested on these supports, protected externally by plates of
metal. We do not know if the pillars had capitals, or if they supported
an entablature; but probability is in favor of both these arrangements
having existed. When the Persians succeeded the Medes in the
sovereignty of Western Asia, they found Arian architecture in this
condition. As stone, however, was the natural material of their country,
which is but scantily wooded and is particularly barren towards the edge
of the great plateau, where their chief towns were situated, and as
they had from the first a strong desire of fame and a love for the
substantial and the enduring, they almost immediately substituted for
the cedar and cypress pillars of the Medes, stone shafts, plain or
fluted, which they carried to a surprising height, and fixed with such
firmness that many of them have resisted the destructive powers of
time, of earthquakes, and of vandalism for more than three-and-twenty
centuries, and still stand erect and nearly as perfect as when they
received the last touch from the sculptor’s hand more than 2000 years
ago. It is the glory of the Persians in art to have invented this style,
which they certainly did not learn from the Assyrians, and which
they can scarcely be supposed to have adopted from Egypt, where the
conception of the pillar and its ornamentation were wholly different.
We can scarcely doubt that Greece received from this quarter the impulse
which led to the substitution of the light and elegant forms which
distinguish the architecture of her best period from the rude and clumsy
work of the more ancient times.

Of the mimetic art of the Persians we do not possess any great amount,
or any great variety, of specimens. The existing remains consist of
reliefs, either executed on the natural rock or on large slabs of hewn
stone used in building, of impressions upon coins, and of a certain
number of intaglios cut upon gems. We possess no Persian statues, no
modelled figures, no metal castings, no carvings in ivory or in wood, no
enamellings, no pottery even. The excavations on Persian sites have been
singularly barren of those minor results which flowed so largely
from the Mosopotamian excavations, and have yielded no traces of the
furniture, domestic implements, or wall-ornamentation of the people;
have produced, in fact, no small objects at all, excepting a few
cylinders and some spear and arrow heads, thus throwing scarcely any
light on the taste or artistic genius of the people.

The nearest approach to statuary which we meet with among the Persian
remains are the figures of colossal bulls, set to guard portals,
or porticos, which are not indeed sculptures in the round, but are
specimens of exceedingly high relief, and which, being carved in front
as well as along the side, do not fall very far short of statues. Of
such figures, we find two varieties--one representing the real animal,
the other a monster with the body and legs of a bull, the head of a
man, and the wings of an eagle. There is considerable merit in both
representations. They are free from the defect of flatness, or want of
breadth in comparison with the length, which characterizes the similar
figures of Assyrian artists; and they are altogether grand, massive, and
imposing. The general proportions of the bulls are good, the limbs are
accurately drawn, the muscular development is well portrayed, and the
pose of the figure is majestic. Even the monstrous forms of human-headed
bulls have a certain air of quiet dignity, which is not without its
effect on the beholder; and, although implying no great artistic merit,
since they are little more than reproductions of Assyrian models,
indicate an appreciation of some of the best qualities of Assyrian
art--the combination of repose with strength, of great size with the
most careful finish, and of strangeness with the absence of any approach
to grotesqueness or absurdity. The other Persian reliefs may be divided
under four heads:

(1) Mythological representations of a man--the king apparently--engaged
in combat with a lion, a bull, or a monster; (2) Processions of guards,
courtiers, attendants, or tribute-bearers; (3) Representations of the
monarch walking, seated upon his throne, or employed in the act of
worship; and (4) Representations of lions and bulls, either singly or
engaged in combat.

On the jambs of doorways in three of the Persepolitan buildings, a human
figure, dressed in the Median robe, but with the sleeve thrown back from
the right arm, is represented in the act of killing either a lion, a
bull, or a grotesque monster. In every case the animal is rampant, and
assails his antagonist with three of his feet, while he stands on the
fourth. The lion and bull have nothing about them that is very peculiar;
but the monsters present most strange and unusual combinations. One
of them has the griffin head, which we have already seen in use in
the capitals of columns, a feathered crest and neck, a bird’s wings,
a scorpion’s tail, and legs terminating in the claws of an eagle. The
other has an eagle’s head, ears like an ass, feathers on the neck, the
breast, and the back, with the body, legs, and tail of a lion. [PLATE
LV., Fig. 1.] Figures of equal grotesqueness, some of which possess
certain resemblances to these, are common in the mythology of Assyria,
and have been already represented in these volumes; but the Persian
specimens are no servile imitations of these earlier forms. The idea of
the Assyrian artist has, indeed, been borrowed; but Persian fancy has
worked it out in its own way, adding, modifying, and subtracting in such
a manner as to give to the form produced a quite peculiar, and (so to
speak) native character.


[Illustration: PLATE LV.]


Persian gems abound with monstrous forms, of equal, or even superior
grotesqueness. As the Gothic architects indulged their imagination
in the most wonderful combinations to represent evil spirits or the
varieties of vice and sensualism, so the Persian gem-engravers seem
to have allowed their fancy to run riot in the creation of monsters,
representative of the Powers of Darkness or of different kinds of evil,
The stones exhibit the king in conflict with a vast variety of monsters,
some nearly resembling the Persepolitan, while others have strange
shapes unseen elsewhere. Winged lions, with two tails and with the horns
of a ram or an antelope, sphinxes and griffins of half a dozen different
kinds, and various other nondescript creatures, appear upon the Persian
gems and cylinders, furnishing abundant evidence of the quaint and
prolific fancy of the designers.

The processional subjects represented by the Persian artists are of
three kinds. In the simplest and least interesting the royal guards, or
the officers of the court, are represented in one or more lines of very
similar figures, either moving in one direction, or standing in two
bodies, one facing the other, in the attitude of quiet expectation. In
these subjects there is a great sameness, and a very small amount of
merit. The proportion of the forms is, indeed, fairly good, the heads
and hands are well drawn, and there is some grace in certain of
the figures, but the general effect is tame and somewhat heavy; the
attitudes are stiff, and present little variety, while, nevertheless,
they are sometimes impossible; there is a monotonous repetition of
identically the same figure, which is tiresome, and a want of grouping
which is very inartistic. If Persia had produced nothing better than
this in sculpture, she would have had to be placed not only behind
Assyria, but behind Egypt, as far as the sculptor’s art is concerned.

Processional scenes of a more attractive character are, however,
tolerably frequent. Some exhibit to us the royal purveyors arriving at
the palace with their train of attendants, and bringing with them the
provisions required for the table of the monarch. Here we have some
varieties of costume which are curious, and some representations
of Persian utensils, which are not without a certain interest.
Occasionally, too, we are presented with animal forms, as kids, which
have considerable merit.

But by far the most interesting of the processional scenes, are those
which represent the conquered nations bringing to the monarch those
precious products of their several countries which the Lord of Asia
expected to receive annually, as a sort of free gift from his subjects,
in addition to the fixed tribute which was exacted from them. Here we
have a wonderful variety of costume and equipment, a happy admixture of
animal with human forms, horses, asses, chariots, sheep, cattle, camels,
interspersed among men, and the whole divided into groups by means of
cypress-trees, which break the series into portions, and allow the eye
to rest in succession upon a number of distinct pictures. Processions of
this kind occurred on several of the Persepolitan staircases; but by far
the most elaborate and complete is that on the grand steps in front of
the Chehl Minar, or Great Hall of Audience, where we see above twenty
such groups of figures, each with it own peculiar features, and all
finished with the utmost care and delicacy. The illustration [PLATE LV.,
Fig. 2], which is taken from a photograph, will give a tolerable idea
of the general character of this relief; it shows the greater portion of
six groups, whereof two are much injured by the fall of the parapet-wall
on which they were represented, while the remaining four are in good
preservation. It will be noticed that the animal forms--the Bactrian
camel and the humped ox--are superior to the human, and have
considerable positive merit as works of art. This relative superiority
is observable throughout the entire series, which contains, besides
several horses (some of which have been already represented in these
volumes), a lioness, an excellent figure of the wild ass, and two
tolerably well-drawn sheep. [PLATE LVI., Fig. 2 and 3.]


[Illustration: PLATE LVI.]


The representations of the monarch upon the reliefs are of three kinds.
In the simplest, he is on foot, attended by the parasol-bearer and
the napkin-bearer, or by the latter only, apparently in the act of
proceeding from one part of the palace to another. In the more elaborate
he is either seated on an elevated throne, which is generally supported
by numerous caryatid figures, or he stands on a platform similarly
upheld, in the act of worship before an altar. This latter is the
universal representation upon tombs, while the throne scenes are
reserved for palaces. In both representations the supporting figures
are numerous; and it is here chiefly that we notice varieties of
physiognomy, which are evidently intended to recall the differences
in the physical type of the several races by which the Empire was
inhabited. In one case, we have a negro very well portrayed; in others
we trace the features of Scyths or Tatars. It is manifest that the
artist has not been content to mark the nationality of the different
figures by costume alone, but has aimed at reproducing upon the stone
the physiognomic peculiarities of each race.

The purely animal representations which the bas-reliefs bring before us
are few in number, and have little variety of type. The most curious and
the most artistic is one which is several times repeated at Persepolis,
where it forms the usual ornamentation of the triangular spaces on the
facades of stairs. This is a representation of a combat between a lion
and a bull, or (perhaps, we should rather say) a representation of a
lion seizing and devouring a bull; for the latter animal is evidently
powerless to offer any resistance to the fierce beast which has sprung
upon him from behind, and has fixed both fangs and claws in his body.
[PLATE LVI., Fig. 4.] In his agony the bull rears up his fore-parts, and
turns his head feebly towards his assailant, whose strong limbs and jaws
have too firm a hold to be dislodged by such struggles as his unhappy
victim is capable of making. In no Assyrian drawing is the massiveness
and strength of the king of beasts more powerfully rendered than in
this favorite group, which the Persian sculptors repeated without the
slightest change from generation to generation. The contour of the lion,
his vast muscular development, and his fierce countenance are really
admirable, and the bold presentation of the face in full, instead of in
profile, is beyond the ordinary powers of Oriental artists.

Drawings of bulls and lions in rows, where each animal is the exact
counterpart of all the others, are found upon the friezes of some of the
tombs, and upon the representations of canopies over the royal throne.
These drawings are fairly spirited, but have not any extraordinary
merit. They reproduce forms well known in Assyria. A figure of a sitting
lion seems also to have been introduced occasionally on the facades of
staircases, occurring in the central compartment of the parapet-wall at
top. These figures, in no case, remain complete; but enough is left
to show distinctly what the attitude was, and this appears not to have
resembled very closely any common Assyrian type. [PLATE LVII., Fig. 1.]


[Illustration: PLATE LVII.]


The Persian gem-engravings have considerable merit, and need not fear a
comparison with those of any other Oriental nation. They occur upon
hard stones of many different kinds, as cornelian, onyx, rock-crystal,
sapphirine, sardonyx, chalcedony, etc., and are executed for the most
part with great skill and delicacy. The designs which they embody are in
general of a mythological character; but sometimes scenes of real life
occur upon them, and then the drawing is often good, and almost
always spirited. In proof of this, the reader may be referred to the
hunting-scenes already given, which are derived wholly from this source,
as well as to the gems figured [PLATE LVI., Fig. 3], one of which is
certainly, and the other almost certainly, of Persian workmanship. In
the former we see the king, not struggling with a mythological lion but
engaged apparently in the actual chase of the king of beasts Two lions
have been roused from their lairs, and the monarch hastily places an
arrow on the string, anxious to despatch one of his foes before the
other can come to close quarters The eagerness of the hunter and the
spirit and boldness of the animals are well represented. In the other
gem, while there is less of artistic excellence, we have a scene of
peculiar interest placed before us. A combat between two Persians and
two Cythians seems to be represented. The latter marked by their peaked
cap and their loose trousers, fight with the bow and the battle-axe,
the former with the bow and the sword One Scyth is receiving his
death-wound, the other is about to let loose a shaft, but seems at the
same time half inclined to fly The steady confidence of the warriors
on the one side contrasts well with the timidity and hesitancy of their
weaker and smaller rivals. [PLATE LVII., Fig. 3.]

The vegetable forms represented on the gems are sometimes graceful
and pleasing. This is especially the case with palm-trees, a favorite
subject of the artists, who delineated with remarkable success the
feathery leaves, the pendant fruit and the rough bark of the
stem. [PLATE LVIII., Fig 1.] The lion-hunter represented on the
signet-cylinder of Darius Hystaspis takes place in a palm-grove, and
furnishes the accompanying example of this form of vegetable life.


[Illustration: PLATE LVIII.]


One gem, ascribed on somewhat doubtful grounds to the Persians of
Achaemenian times, contains what appears to be a portrait. It is thought
to be the bust of a satrap of Salamis in Cyprus, and is very carefully
executed. If really of Persian workmanship, it would indicate a
considerable advance in the power of representing the human countenance
between the time of Darius Hystaspis and that of Alexander [PLATE LVII.
Fig. 2.]

Persian coins are of three principal types. The earliest have on the one
side the figure of a monarch bearing the diadem and armed with the bow
and javelin, while on the other there is an irregular indentation of the
same nature with the _quadratum incusum_ of the Greeks. This rude form
is replaced in later times by a second design, which is sometimes a
horseman, sometimes the forepart of a ship, sometimes the king drawing
an an arrow from his quiver. Another type exhibits on the obverse the
monarch in combat with a lion while the reverse shows a galley, or a
towered and battlemented city with two lions standing below it, back to
back. The third common type has on the obverse the king in his chariot,
with his charioteer in front of him, and (generally) an attendant
carrying a fly-chaser behind. The reverse has either the trireme or the
battlemented city. A specimen of each type is given. [PLATE LVII., Fig.
4.]

The artistic merit of these medals is not great. The relief is low,
and the drawing generally somewhat rude. The head of the monarch in the
early coins is greatly too large. The animal forms are, however, much
superior to the human, and the horses which draw the royal chariot, the
lions placed below the battlemented city, and the bulls which are found
occasionally in the same position, must be pronounced truthful and
spirited.

Of the Persian taste in furniture, utensils, personal ornaments and the
like, we need say but little. The throne and footstool of the monarch
are the only pieces of furniture represented in the sculptures,
and these, though sufficiently elegant in their forms, are not very
remarkable. Costliness of material seems to have been more prized than
beauty of shape; and variety appears to have been carefully eschewed,
one single uniform type of each article occurring in all the
representations. The utensils represented are likewise few in number,
and limited to certain constantly repeated forms. The most elaborate is
the censer, which has been already given. With this is usually seen
a sort of pail or basket, shaped like a lady’s reticule, in which the
aromatic gums for burning were probably kept. [PLATE LVIII., Fig. 5.]
A covered dish, and a goblet with an inverted saucer over it, are also
forms of frequent occurrence in the hands of the royal attendants; and
the tribute-bearers frequently carry, among their other offerings, bowls
or basons, which, though not of Persian manufacture, were no doubt left
at the court, and took their place among the utensils of the palace.
[PLATE LVIII., Figs. 2 and 3.]

In the matter of personal ornaments the taste of the Persians seems to
have been peculiarly simple. Earrings were commonly plain rings of gold;
bracelets mere bands of the same metal. Collars were circlets of gold
twisted in a very inartificial fashion. There was nothing artistic
in the sheaths or hilts of swords, though spear-shafts were sometimes
adorned with the representation of an apple or a pomegranate. Dresses
seem not to have been often patterned, but to have depended generally
for their effect on make and color. In all these respects we observe
a remarkable contrast between the Arian and the Semitic races,
extreme simplicity characterizing the one, while the most elaborate
ornamentation was affected by the other.

Persia was not celebrated in antiquity for the production of any special
fabrics. The arts of weaving and dyeing were undoubtedly practised in
the dominant country, as well as in most of the subject provinces, and
the Persian dyes seem even to have had a certain reputation; but none
of the productions of their looms acquired a name among foreign nations.
Their skill, indeed, in the mechanical arts generally was, it is
probable, not more than moderate. It was their boast that they were
soldiers, and had won a position by their good swords which gave them
the command of all that was most exquisite and admirable, whether in the
natural world or among the products of human industry. So long as the
carpets of Babylon and Sardis, the shawls of Kashmir and India, the fine
linen of Borsippa and Egypt, the ornamental metal-work of Greece,
the coverlets of Damascus, the muslins of Babylonia, the multiform
manufactures of the Phoenician towns, poured continually into Persia
Proper in the way of tribute, gifts, or merchandise, it was needless for
the native population to engage largely in industrial enterprise.

To science the ancient Persians contributed absolutely nothing. The
genius of the nation was adverse to that patient study and those
laborious investigations from which alone scientific progress ensues.
Too light and frivolous, too vivacious, too sensuous for such pursuits,
they left them to the patient Babylonians, and the thoughtful, many-sided
Greeks. The schools of Orchoe, Borsippa, and Miletus flourished under
their sway, but without provoking their emulation, possibly without so
much as attracting their attention. From first to last, from the dawn
to the final close of their power, they abstained wholly from scientific
studies. It would seem that they thought it enough to place before the
world, as signs of their intellectual vigor, the fabric of their Empire
and the buildings of Susa and Persepolis.




CHAPTER VI. RELIGION.


The original form of the Persian religion has been already described
under the head of the third or Median monarchy. It was identical with
the religion of the Medes in its early shape, consisting mainly in
the worship of Ahura-Mazda, the acknowledgment of a principle of
evil--Angro-Mainyus, and obedience to the precepts of Zoroaster. When
the Medes, on establishing a wide-spread Empire, chiefly over races by
whom Magism had been long professed, allowed the creed of their subjects
to corrupt their own belief, accepted the Magi for their priests, and
formed the mixed religious system of which an account has been given in
the second volume of this work, the Persians in their wilder country,
less exposed to corrupting influences, maintained their original faith
in undiminished purity, and continued faithful to their primitive
traditions. The political dependence of their country upon Media during
the period of the Median sway made no difference in this respect; for
the Medes were tolerant, and did not seek to interfere with the creed of
their subjects. The simple Zoroastrian belief and worship, overlaid by
Magism in the now luxurious Media, found a refuge in the rugged Persian
uplands, among the hardy shepherds and cultivators of that unattractive
region, was professed by the early Achaemenian princes, and generally
acquiesced in by the people.

The main feature of the religion daring this first period was the
acknowledgment and the worship of a single supreme God--“the Lord God of
Heaven”--“the giver (i.e. maker) of heaven and earth”--the disposer of
thrones, the dispenser of happiness. The foremost place in inscriptions
and decrees was assigned, almost universally, to the “great god,
Ormazd.” Every king, of whom we have an inscription more than two lines
in length, speaks of Ormazd as his upholder; and the early monarchs
mention by name no other god. All rule “by the grace of Ormazd.” From
Ormazd come victory, conquest, safety, prosperity, blessings of every
kind. The “law of Ormazd” is the rule of life. The protection of Ormazd
is the one priceless blessing for which prayer is perpetually offered.

While, however, Ormazd holds this exalted and unapproachable position,
there is still an acknowledgment made, in a general way, of “other
gods.” Ormazd is “the greatest of the gods” (_mathista baganam_). It is
a usual prayer to ask for the protection of Ormazd, together with that
of these lesser powers (_hada bagaibish_). Sometimes the phrase is
varied, and the petition is for the special protection of a certain
class of Deities--the _Dii familiares_--or “deities who guard the
house.”

The worship of Mithra, or the Sun, does not appear in the inscriptions
until the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, the victor of Cunaxa. It is,
however, impossible to doubt that it was a portion of the Persian
religion, at least as early as the date of Herodotus. Probably it
belongs, in a certain sense, to primitive Zoroastrianism, but was kept
in the background during the early period, when a less materialistic
worship prevailed than suited the temper of later times.

Nor can it be doubted that the Persians held during this early period
that Dualistic belief which has been the distinguishing feature of
Zoroastrianism from a time long anterior to the commencement of the
Median Empire down to the present day. It was not to be expected
that this belief would show itself in the inscriptions, unless in the
faintest manner; and it can therefore excite no surprise that they are
silent, or all but silent, on the point in question. Nor need we wonder
that this portion of their creed was not divulged by the Persians to
Herodotus or to Xenophon, since it is exactly the sort of subject on
which reticence was natural and might have been anticipated. Neither the
lively Halicarnassian, nor the pleasant but somewhat shallow Athenian,
had the gift of penetrating very deeply into the inner mind of a
foreign people; added to which, it is to be remembered that they were
unacquainted with Persia Proper, and drew their knowledge of Persian
opinions and customs either from hearsay or from the creed and practices
of the probably mixed garrisons which held Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.

Persian worship, in these early times, was doubtless that enjoined by
the Zendavesta, comprising prayer and thanksgiving to Ormazd and the
good spirits of his creation, the recitation of Gathas or hymns, the
performance of sacrifice, and participation in the Soma ceremony.
Worship seems to have taken place in temples, which are mentioned
(according to the belief of most cuneiform scholars) in the Behistun
inscription. Of the character of these buildings we can say nothing.
It has been thought that those two massive square towers so similar in
construction, which exist in a more or less ruined condition at Murgab
and Nakhsh-i-Rustam, are Persian temples of the early period, built to
contain an altar on which the priests offered victims. But the absence
of any trace of an altar from both, the total want of religious emblems,
and the extremely small size of the single apartment which each tower
contains, make strongly against the temple theory; not to mention that a
much more probable use may be suggested for the buildings.

With respect to the altars upon which sacrifice was offered, we are not
left wholly without evidence. The Persian monarchs of the early period,
including Darius Hystaspis, represented themselves on their tombs in the
act of worship. Before them, at the distance of a few feet, stands an
altar, elevated on three steps, and crowned with the sacrificial fire.
Its form is square, and its only ornaments are a sunken squared recess,
and a strongly projecting cornice at top. The height of the altar,
including the steps, was apparently about four and a half feet. [PLATE
LVIII., Fig. 4.]

The Persians’ favorite victim was the horse; but they likewise
sacrificed cattle, sheep, and goats. Human sacrifices seem to have been
almost, if not altogether, unknown to them, and were certainly alien to
the entire spirit of the Zoroastrian system. The flesh of the victim was
probably merely shown to the sacred fire, after which it was eaten by
the priests, the sacrificer, and those whom the latter associated with
himself in the ceremony.

The spirit of the Zendavesta is wholly averse to idolatry, and we may
fully accept the statement of Herodotus that images of the gods were
entirely unknown to the Persians. Still, they did not deny themselves a
certain use of symbolic representations of their deities, nor did
they even scruple to adopt from idolatrous nations the forms of their
religious symbolism. The winged circle, with or without the addition of
a human figure, which was in Assyria the emblem of the chief Assyrian
deity, Asshur, became with the Persians the ordinary representation of
the Supreme God, Ormazd, and, as such, was placed in most conspicuous
positions on their rock tombs and on their buildings. [PLATE LVIII.,
Fig. 7.] Nor was the general idea only of the emblem adopted, but all
the details of the Assyrian model were followed, with one exception. The
human figure of the Assyrian original wore the close-fitting tunic, with
short sleeves, which was the ordinary costume in Assyria, and had on
its head the horned cap which marked a god or a genius. In the Persian
counterpart this costume was exchanged for the Median robe, and a tiara,
which was sometimes that proper to the king,23 sometimes that worn with
the Median robe by court officers. [PLATE LVIII., Fig. 7.]

Mithra, or the Sun, is represented in Persian sculptures by a disk or
orb, which is not four-rayed like the Assyrian, but perfectly plain
and simple. In sculptures where the emblems of Ormazd and Mithra occur
together, the position of the former is central, that of the latter
towards the right hand of the tablet. The solar emblem is universal on
sculptured tombs, but is otherwise of rare occurrence.

Spirits of good and evil, the Ahuras and Devas of the mythology, were
represented by the Persians under human, animal, or monstrous forms.
There can be little doubt that it is a good genius--perhaps the
“well-formed, swift, tall Serosh”--who appears on one of the square
pillars set up by Cyrus at Pasargadae. This figure is that of a colossal
man, from whose shoulders issue four wings, two of which spread upwards
above his head, while the other two droop and reach nearly to his feet.
[PLATE LIX.] It stands erect, in profile, with both arms raised and the
hands open. The costume of the figure is remarkable. It consists of a
long fringed robe reaching from the neck to the ankles--apparently of
a stiff material, which conceals the form--and of a very singular
head-dress. This is a striped cap, closely fitting the head,
overshadowed by an elaborate ornament, of a character purely Egyptian.
First there rise from the top of the cap two twisted horns, which,
spreading right and left, become a sort of basis for the other forms to
rest upon. These consist of two grotesque human-headed figures, one at
either side, and of a complex triple ornament between them, clumsily
imitated from a far more elegant Egyptian model. [PLATE LX., Fig. 1.]


[Illustration: PLATE LIX.]


The winged human-headed bulls, which the Persians adopted from the
Assyrians, with very slight modifications, were also, it is probable,
regarded as emblems of some god or good genius. They would scarcely
otherwise have been represented on Persian cylinders as upholding the
emblem of Ormazd in the same way that human-headed bulls uphold the
similar emblem of Asshur on Assyrian cylinders. [PLATE LX., Fig. 2.]
Their position, too, at Persepolis, where they kept watch over the
entrance to the palace, accords with the notion that they represented
guardian spirits, objects of the favorable regard of the Persians. Yet
this view is not wholly free from difficulty. The bull appears in
the bas-reliefs of Persepolis among the evil, or at any rate hostile,
powers, which the king combats and slays; and though in these
representations the animal is not winged or human-headed, yet on some
cylinders apparently Persian, the monarch contends with bulls of exactly
the same type as that which is assigned in other cylinders to the
upholders of Ormazd. It would seem therefore that in this case the
symbolism was less simple than usual, the bull in certain combinations
and positions representing a god or a good spirit, while in others he
was the type of a deva or evil genius.


[[Illustration: PLATE LX.]


The most common representatives of the Evil Powers of the mythology
were lions, winged or unwinged, and monsters of several different
descriptions. At Persepolis the lions which the king stabs or strangles
are of the natural shape, and this type is found also upon gems and
cylinders; but on these last the king’s antagonist is often a winged,
while sometimes he is a winged and horned, lion. [PLATE LX., Fig. 3.]
The monsters are of two principal types. In both the forms of a bird and
a beast are commingled; but in the one the bird, and in the other the
beast predominates. Specimens are given [PLATE LX., Fig. 4] taken from
Persian gems and cylinders.

Such seems to have been, in outline, the purer and more ancient form
of the Persian religion. During its continuance a fierce iconoclastic
spirit animated the princes of the Empire, who took every opportunity of
showing their hatred and contempt for the idolatries of the neighboring
nations, burning temples, confiscating or destroying images, scourging
or slaying idolatrous priests, putting a stop to festivals,
disturbing tombs, smiting with the sword animals believed to be divine
incarnations. Within their own dominions the fear of stirring up
religious wars compelled them to be moderately tolerant, unless it
were after rebellion, when a province lay at their mercy; but when they
invaded foreign countries, they were wont to exhibit in the most open
and striking way their aversion to materialistic religions. In Greece,
during the great invasion, they burned every temple that they came near;
in Egypt, on their first attack, they outraged every religious feeling
of the people.

It was during this time of comparative purity, when the anti-idolatrous
spirit was in full force, that a religious sympathy seems to have drawn
together the two nations of the Persians and the Jews. Cyrus evidently
identified Jehovah with Ormazd, and, accepting as a divine command the
prophecy of Isaiah, undertook to rebuild their temple for a people who,
like his own, allowed no image of God to defile the sanctuary. Darius,
similarly, encouraged the completion of the work, after it had been
interrupted by the troubles which followed the death of Cambyses. The
foundation was thus laid for that friendly intimacy between the two
peoples, of which we have abundant evidence in the books of Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther, a friendly intimacy which caused the Jews to
continue faithful to Persia to the last, and to brave the conqueror
of Issus rather than desert masters who had shown them kindness and
sympathy.

The first trace that we have of a corrupting influence being brought
to bear on the Persian religion is connected with the history of the
pseudo-Smerdis. According to Herodotus, Cambyses, when he set out on
his Egyptian expedition, left a Magus, Patizeithes, at the capital, as
comptroller of the royal household. The conferring of an office of such
importance on the priest of an alien religion is the earliest indication
which we have of a diminution of zeal for their ancestral creed on the
part of the Achaemenian kings, and the earliest historical proof of the
existence of Magism beyond the limits of Media. Magism was really, it
is probable, an older creed than Zoroastrianism in the country where the
Persians were settled; but it now, for the first time since the Persian
conquest, began to show itself, to thrust itself into high places, and
to attract general notice. From being the religion of the old Scythic
tribes whom the Persians had conquered and whom they held in subjection,
it had passed into being the religion of great numbers of the Persians
themselves. The same causes which had corrupted Zoroastrianism in Media
soon after the establishment of the Empire, worked also, though more
slowly, in Persia, and a large section of the nation was probably weaned
from its own belief, and won over to Magism, before Cambyses went
into Egypt. His prolonged absence in that country brought matters to
a crisis. The Magi took advantage of it to attempt a substitution
of Magism for Zoroastrianism as the religion of the state. When
this attempt failed, there was no doubt a reaction for a time, and
Zoroastrianism thought itself triumphant. But a foe is generally most
dangerous when he is despised. Magism, repulsed in its attempt to oust
the rival religion, derived wisdom from the lesson, and thenceforth set
itself to sap the fortress which it could not storm. Little by little
it crept into favor, mingling itself with the old Arian creed, not
displacing it, but only adding to it. In the later Persian system the
Dualism of Zoroaster and the Magian elemental worship were jointly
professed--the Magi were accepted as the national priests--the rights
and ceremonies of the two religions were united--a syncretism not
unusual in the ancient world blended into one two creeds originally
quite separate and distinct, but in few respects antagonistic--and the
name of Zoroaster being still fondly cherished in the memory of the
nation, while in their practical religion Magian rites predominated,
the mixed religion acquired the name, by which it was known to the later
Greeks, of “the Magism of Zoroaster.”

The Magian rites have been described in the chapter on the Median
Religion. Their leading feature was the fire-worship, which is still
cherished among those descendants of the ancient Persians who did
not submit to the religion of Islam. On lofty spots in the high
mountain-chain which traversed both Media and Persia, fire-altars were
erected, on which burnt a perpetual flame, watched constantly lest it
should expire, and believed to have been kindled from heaven. Over the
altar in most instances a shrine or temple was built; and on these
spots day after day the Magi chanted their incantations, displayed
their barsoms or divining-rods, and performed their choicest ceremonies.
Victims were not offered on these fire-altars. When a sacrifice took
place, a fire was laid hard-by with logs of dry wood, stript of their
bark, and this was lighted from the flame which burned on the altar.
On the fire thus kindled was consumed a small part of the fat of the
victim; but the rest was cut into joints, boiled, and eaten or sold
by the worshipper. The true offering, which the god accepted, was,
according to the Magi, the soul of the animal.

If human victims were ever really offered by the Persians as sacrifices,
it is to Magian influence that the introduction of this horrid practice
must be attributed, since it is utterly opposed to the whole spirit of
Zoroaster’s teaching. An instance of the practice is first reported in
the reign of Xerxes, when Magism, which had been sternly repressed by
Darius Hystaspis, began once more to lift its head, crept into favor
at Court, and obtained a status which it never afterwards forfeited.
According to Herodotus, the Persians, on their march into Greece,
sacrificed, at Ennea Hodoi on the Strymon river, nine youths and nine
maidens of the country, by burying them alive. Herodotus seems to have
viewed the act as done in propitiation of a god resembling the Grecian
Pluto; but it is not at all certain that he interpreted it correctly.
Possibly he mistook a vengeance for a religious ceremony. The Brygi, who
dwelt at this time in the vicinity of Ennea Hodoi, had given Mardonius
a severe defeat on a former occasion; and the Persians were apt to
treasure up such wrongs, and visit them, when occasion offered, with
extreme severity.

When the Persians had once yielded to the syncretic spirit so far as to
unite the Magian tenets and practices with their primitive belief, they
were naturally led on to adopt into their system such portions of the
other religions, with which they were brought into close contact, as
possessed an attraction for them. Before the date of Herodotus they had
borrowed from the Babylonians the worship of a Nature-Goddess, whom the
Greeks identified at one time with Aphrodite, at another with Artemis,
at another (probably) with Here, and had thus made a compromise with one
of the grossest of the idolatries which, theoretically, they despised
and detested. The Babylonian Venus, called in the original dialect of
her native country Nana, was taken into the Pantheon of the Persians,
under the name of Nansea, Anaea, Anaitis, or Tanata, and became in a
little while one of the principal objects of Persian worship. At first
idolatry, in the literal sense, was avoided; but Artaxerxes Mnemon, the
conqueror of Cunaxa, an ardent devotee of the goddess, not content with
the mutilated worship which he found established, resolved to show his
zeal by introducing into all the chief cities of the Empire the image
of his patroness. At Susa, at Persepolis, at Babylon, at Ecbatana, at
Damascus, at Sardis, at Bactra, images of Anaitis were set up by his
authority for the adoration of worshippers. It is to be feared that at
this time, if not before, the lascivious rites were also adopted, which
throughout the East constituted the chief attraction of the cult of
Venus.

With the idolatry thus introduced, another came soon to be joined.
Mithra, so long an object of reverence, if not of actual worship, to
the Zoroastrians, was in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, honored, like
Anaitis, with a statue, and advanced into the foremost rank of deities.
The exact form which the image took is uncertain; but probability is in
favor of the well-known type of a human figure slaying a prostrate bull,
which was to the Greeks and Romans the essential symbol of the Mithraic
worship. The intention of this oft-repeated group has been well
explained by Hyde, who regards it as a representation of the Sun
quitting the constellation of Taurus, the time when in the East his
fructifying power is the greatest. The specimens which we possess of
this group belong to classical art and to times later than Alexander;
but we can scarcely suppose the idea to have been Occidental. The
Western artists would naturally adopt the symbolism of those from whom
they took the rites, merely modifying its expression in accordance with
their own aesthetic notions.

Towards the close of the Empire two other gods emerged from the
obscurity in which the lower deities of the Zoroastrian system were
shrouded during the earlier and purer period. Vohu-manu, or Bah-man,
and Amerdat, or Amendat, two of the councillors of Ormazd, became the
objects of a worship, which was clearly of an idolatrous character.
Shrines were built in their honor, and were frequented by companies
of Magi, who chanted their incantations, and performed their rites
of divination in these new edifices as willingly as in the old
Fire-temples. The image of Bah-man was of wood, and was borne in
procession on certain occasions.

Thus as time went on, the Persian religion continually assimilated
itself more and more to the forms of belief and worship which prevailed
in the neighboring parts of Asia. Idolatries of several kinds came
into vogue, some adopted from abroad, others developed out of their
own system. Temples, some of which had a character of extraordinary
magnificence, were erected to the honor of various gods; and the
degenerate descendants of pure Zoroastrian spiritualists bowed down to
images, and entangled themselves in the meshes of a sensualistic and
most debasing Nature-worship. Still, amid whatsoever corruptions, the
Dualistic faith was maintained. The supremacy of Ormazd was from first
to last admitted. Ahriman retained from first to last the same character
and position, neither rising into an object of worship, nor sinking into
a mere personification of evil. The inquiries which Aristotle caused to
be made, towards the very close of the Empire, into the true nature of
the Persian Religion, showed him Ormazd and Ahriman still recognized
as Principles, still standing in the same hostile and antithetical
attitude, one towards the other, which they occupied when the first
Fargard of the Vendidad was written, long anterior to the rise of the
Persian Power.




CHAPTER VII. CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY.


“I saw the man pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so
that no beast might stand before him, neither was there any that could
deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became
great.”--Daniel, viii. 4.


The history of the Persian Empire dates from the conquest of Astyages by
Cyrus, and therefore commences with the year B.C. 558. But the present
inquiry must be carried considerably further back, since in this, as
in most other cases, the Empire grew up out of a previously existing
monarchy. Darius Hystaspis reckons that there had been eight Persians
kings of his race previously to himself; and though it is no doubt
possible that some of the earlier names may be fictitious, yet we can
scarcely suppose that he was deceived, or that he wished to deceive, as
to the fact that long anterior to his own reign, or that of his elder
contemporary, Cyrus, Persia had been a monarchy, governed by a line of
princes of the same clan, or family, with himself. It is our business in
this place, before entering upon the brilliant period of the Empire, to
cast a retrospective glance over the earlier ages of obscurity, and
to collect therefrom such scattered notices as are to be found of the
Persians and their princes or kings before they suddenly attracted
the general attention of the civilized world by their astonishing
achievements under the great Cyrus.

The more ancient of-the sacred books of the Jews, while distinctly
noticing the nation of the Medes, contain no mention at all of Persia
or the Persians. The Zendavesta, the sacred volume of the people
themselves, is equally silent on the subject. The earliest appearance
of the Persians in history is in the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings,
which begin to notice them about the middle of the ninth century B.C.
At this time Shalmaneser II. found them in south-western Armenia, where
they were in close contact with the Medes, of whom, however, they seem
to have been wholly independent. Like the modern Kurds in this same
region, they owned no subjection to a single head, but were under the
government of numerous petty chieftains, each the lord of a single town
or of a small mountain district. Shalmaneser informs us that he took
tribute from twenty-five such chiefs. Similar tokens of submission were
paid also to his son and grandson. After this the Assyrian records are
silent as to the Persians for nearly a century, and it is not until the
reign of Sennacherib that we once more find them brought into contact
with the power which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of
their reappearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have descended the
line of Zagros and reached the districts which lie north and north-east
of Susiana, or that part of the Bakhtiyari chain which, if it is not
actually within Persia Proper, at any rate immediately adjoins upon it.
Arrived thus far, it was easy for them to occupy the region to which
they have given permanent name; for the Bakhtiyari mountains command it
and give a ready access to its valleys and plains.

The Persians would thus appear not to have completed their migrations
till near the close of the Assyrian period, and it is probable that
they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the fall of
Nineveh. At any rate we hear of no Persian ruler of note or name in the
Assyrian records, and the reign of petty chiefs would seem therefore to
have continued at least to the time of Asshur-bani-pal, up to which date
we have ample records. The establishment, however, about the year
B.C. 660, or a little later, of a powerful monarchy in the kindred and
neighboring Media, could not fail to attract attention, and might well
provoke imitation in Persia; and the native tradition appears to have
been that about this time. Persian royalty began in the person of a
certain Achaemenes (Hakhamanish), from whom all their later monarchs,
with one possible exception, were proud to trace their descent.

The name Achaemenes cannot fail to arouse some suspicion. The Greek
genealogies render us so familiar with heroes eponymi--imaginary
personages, who owe their origin to the mere fact of the existence
of certain tribe or race names, to account for which they were
invented--that whenever, even in the history of other nations, we
happen upon a name professedly personal, which stands evidently in close
connection with a tribal designation, we are apt at once to suspect it
of being fictitious. But in the East tribal and even ethnic names
were certainly sometimes derived from actual persons; and it may be
questioned whether the Persians, or the Iranic stock generally, had the
notion of inventing personal eponyms. The name Achaemenes, therefore,
in spite of its connection with the royal clan name of Achaemenidae, may
stand as perhaps that of a real Persian king, and, if so, as probably
that of the first king, the original founder of the monarchy, who united
the scattered tribes in one, and thus raised Persia into a power of
considerable importance.

The immediate successor of Achaemenes appears to have been his son,
Teispes. Of him and of the next three monarchs, the information that
we possess is exceedingly scanty. The very names of one or two in the
series are uncertain. One tradition assigns either to the second or the
fourth king of the list the establishment of friendly relations with
a certain Pharnaces, King of Cappadocia, by an intermarriage between a
Persian princess, Atossa, and the Cappadocian monarch. The existence
of communication at this time between petty countries politically
unconnected, and placed at such a distance from one another as
Cappadocia and Persia, is certainly what we should not have expected;
but our knowledge of the general condition of Western Asia at the period
is too slight to justify us in a positive rejection of the story, which
indicates, if it be true, that even during this time of comparative
obscurity, the Persian monarchs were widely known, and that their
alliance was thought a matter of importance.

The political condition of Persia under these early monarchs is a more
interesting question than either the names of the kings or the foreign
alliances which they attracted. According to Herodotus, that condition
was one of absolute and unqualified subjection to the sway of the Medes,
who conquered Persia and imposed their yoke upon the people before
the year B.C. 634. The native records, however, and the accounts which
Xenophon preferred, represent Persia as being at this time a separate
and powerful state, either wholly independent of Media, or, at any
rate, held in light bonds of little more than nominal dependence. On the
whole, it appears most probable that the true condition of the country
was that which this last phrase expresses. It maybe doubted whether
there had ever been a conquest; but the weaker and less developed of
the two kindred states owned the suzerainty of the stronger, and though
quite unshackled in her internal administration, and perhaps not very
much interfered with in her relations towards foreign countries, was,
formally, a sort of Median fief, standing nearly in the position in
which Egypt now stands to Turkey. The position was irksome to the
sovereigns rather than unpleasant to the people. It detracted from the
dignity of the Persian monarchs, and injured their self-respect; it
probably caused them occasional inconvenience, since from time to time
they would have to pay their court to their suzerain; and it seems
towards the close of the Median period to have involved an obligation
which must have been felt, if not as degrading, at any rate as very
disagreeable. The monarch appears to have been required to send his
eldest son as a sort of hostage to the Court of his superior, where he
was held in a species of honorable captivity, not being allowed to
quit the Court and return home without leave, but being otherwise well
treated. The fidelity of the father was probably supposed to be in this
way secured while it might be hoped that the son would be conciliated,
and made an attached and willing dependent.

When Persian history first fairly opens upon us in the pages of Xenophon
and of Nicolaus Damascenus, this is the condition of things which we
find existing. Cambyses, the father of Cyrus the Great--called Atradates
by the Syrian writer--is ruler of Persia, and resides in his native
country, while his son Cyrus is permanently, or at any rate usually,
resident at the Median Court, where he is in high favor with the
reigning monarch, Astyages. According to Xenophon, who has here the
support of Herodotus, he is Astyages’ grandson, his father, Cambyses,
being married to Mandane, that monarch’s daughter. According to
Nicolaus, who in this agrees with Ctesias, he is no way related to
Astyages, who retains him at his court because he is personally attached
to him. In the narrative of the latter writer, which has already been
preferred in these volumes, the young prince, while at the Court,
conceives the idea of freeing his own country by a revolt, and enters
into secret communication with his father for the furtherance of his
object. His father somewhat reluctantly assents, and preparations are
made, which lead to the escape of Cyrus and the commencement of a war
of independence. The details of the struggle, as they are related by
Nicolaus, have been already given. After repeated defeats, the Persians
finally make a stand at Pasargadae, their capital, where in two great
battles they destroy the power of Astyages, who himself remains a
prisoner in the hands of his adversary.

In the course of the struggle the father of Cyrus had fallen, and its
close, therefore, presented Cyrus himself before the eyes of the Western
Asiatics as the undisputed lord of the great Arian Empire which had
established itself on the ruins of the Semitic. Transfers of sovereignty
are easily made in the East, where independence is little valued,
and each new conqueror is hailed with acclamations from millions. It
mattered nothing to the bulk of Astyages’ subjects whether they were
ruled from Ecbatana or Pasargadae, by Median or Persian masters. Fate
had settled that a single lord was to bear sway over the tribes and
nations dwelling between the Persian Gulf and the Euxine; and the
arbitrament of the sword had now decided that this single lord should be
Cyrus. We may readily believe the statement of Nicolaus that the nations
previously subject to the Medes vied with each other in the celerity
and zeal with which they made their submission to the Persian conqueror.
Cyrus succeeded at once to the full inheritance of which he had
dispossessed Astyages, and was recognized as king by all the tribes
between the Halys and the desert of Khorassan.

He was at this time, if we may trust Dino, exactly forty years of age,
and was thus at that happy period in life when the bodily powers
have not yet begun to decay, while the mental are just reaching their
perfection. Though we may not be able to trust implicitly the details of
the war of independence which have come down to us, yet there can be no
doubt that he had displayed in its course very remarkable courage and
conduct. He had intended, probably, no more than to free his country
from the Median yoke; by the force of circumstances he had been led on
to the destruction of the Median power, and to the establishment of a
Persian Empire in its stead. With empire had come an enormous accession
of wealth. The accumulated stores of ages, the riches of the Ninevite
kings--the “gold,” the “silver,” and the “pleasant furniture” of those
mighty potentates, of which there was “none end”--together with all the
additions made to these stores by the Median monarchs, had fallen into
his hands, and from comparative poverty he had come per saltum into the
position of one of the wealthiest--if not of the very wealthiest--of
princes. An ordinary Oriental would have been content with such a
result, and have declined to tempt fortune any more. But Cyrus was
no ordinary Oriental. Confident in his own powers, active, not to say
restless, and of an ambition that nothing could satiate, he viewed,
the position which he had won simply as a means of advancing himself to
higher eminence. According to Ctesias, he was scarcely seated upon the
throne, when he led an expedition to the far north-east against the
renowned Bactrians and Sacans; and at any rate, whether this be true or
no--and most probably it is an anticipation of later occurrences--it
is certain that, instead of folding his hands, Cyrus proceeded with
scarcely a pause on a long career of conquest, devoting his whole life
to the carrying out of his plans of aggression, and leaving a portion
of his schemes, which were too extensive for one life to realize, as a
legacy to his successor. The quarter to which he really first turned
his attention seems to have been the north-west. There, in the somewhat
narrow but most fertile tract between the river Halys and the Egean Sea,
was a state which seemed likely to give him trouble--a state which had
successfully resisted all the efforts of the Medes to reduce it, and
which recently, under a warlike prince, had shown a remarkable power
of expansion. An instinct of danger warned the scarce firmly-settled
monarch to fix his eye at once upon Lydia; in the wealthy and successful
Croesus, the Lydian king, he saw one whom dynastic interests might
naturally lead to espouse the quarrel of the conquered Mede, and whose
power and personal qualities rendered him a really formidable rival.

The Lydian monarch, on his side, did not scruple to challenge a contest.
The long strife which his father had waged with the great Cyaxares
had terminated in a close alliance, cemented by a marriage, which made
Croesus and Astyages brothers. The friendship of the great power of
Western Asia, secured by this union, had set Lydia free to pursue
a policy of self-aggrandizement in her own immediate, neighborhood.
Rapidly, one after another, the kingdoms of Asia Minor had been reduced;
and, excepting the mountain districts of Lycia and Cilicia, all Asia
within the Halys now owned the sway of the Lydian king. Contented with
his successes, and satisfied that the tie of relationship secured him
from attack on the part of the only power which he had need to fear,
Croesus had for some years given himself up to the enjoyment of his
gains and to an ostentatious display of his magnificence. It was a rude
shock to the indolent and self-complacent dreams of a sanguine optimism,
which looked that “to-morrow should be as to-day, only much more
abundant,” when tidings came that revolution had raised its head in the
far south-east, and that an energetic prince, in the full vigor of life,
and untrammelled by dynastic ties, had thrust the aged Astyages from
his throne, and girt his own brows with the Imperial diadem. Croesus,
according to the story, was still in deep grief on account of the
untimely death of his eldest son, when the intelligence reached
him. Instantly rousing himself from his despair, he set about his
preparations for the struggle, which his sagacity saw to be inevitable.
After consultation of the oracles of Greece, he allied himself with the
Grecian community, which appeared to him on the whole to be the most
powerful. At the same time he sent ambassadors to Babylon and Memphis,
to the courts of Labynetus and Amasis, with proposals for an alliance
offensive and defensive between the three secondary powers of the
Eastern world against that leading power whose superior strength and
resources were felt to constitute a common danger. His representations
were effectual. The kings of Babylon and Egypt, alive to their own
peril, accepted his proposals; and a joint league was formed between the
three monarchs and the republic of Sparta for the purpose of resisting
the presumed aggressive spirit of the Medo-Persians.

Cyrus, meanwhile, was not idle. Suspecting that a weak point in his
adversary’s harness would be the disaffection of some of his more
recently conquered subjects, he sent emissaries into Asia Minor to sound
the dispositions of the natives. These emissaries particularly addressed
themselves to the Asiatic Greeks, who, coming of a freedom-loving stock,
and having been only very lately subdued, would it was thought, be
likely to catch at an opportunity of shaking off the yoke of their
conqueror. But, reasonable as such hopes must have seemed, they were in
this instance doomed to disappointment. The Ionians, instead of hailing
Cyrus as a liberator, received his overtures with suspicion. They
probably thought that they were sure not to gain, and that they might
possibly lose, by a change of masters. The yoke of Croesus had not,
perhaps, been very oppressive; at any rate it seemed to them preferable
to “bear the ills they had,” rather than “fly to others” which might
turn out less tolerable.

Disappointed in this quarter, the Persian prince directed his efforts to
the concentration of a large army, and its rapid advance into a position
where it would be excellently placed both for defence and attack. The
frontier province of Cappadocia, which was only separated from the
dominions of the Lydian monarch by a stream of moderate size, the
Halys, was a most defensible country, extremely fertile and productive,
abounding in natural fastnesses, and inhabited by a brave and warlike
population. Into this district Cyrus pushed forward his army with all
speed, taking, as it would seem, not the short route through Diarbekr,
Malatiyah, and Gurun, along which the “Royal Road” afterwards ran,
but the more circuitous one by Erzerum, which brought him into Northern
Cappadocia, or Pontus, as it was called by the Romans. Here, in a
district named Pteria, which cannot have been very far from the coast,
he found his adversary, who had crossed the Halys, and taken several
Cappadocian towns, among which was the chief city of the Pterians.
Perceiving that his troops considerably outnumbered those of Crcesus, he
lost no time in giving him battle. The action was fought in the Pterian
country, and was stoutly contested, terminating at nightfall without any
decisive advantage to either party. The next day neither side made any
movement; and Crcesus, concluding from his enemy’s inaction that, though
he had not been able to conquer him, he had nothing to fear from
his desire of vengeance or his spirit of enterprise, determined on
a retreat. He laid the blame of his failure, we are told, on the
insufficient number of his troops, and purposed to call for the
contingents of his allies, and renew the war with largely augmented
forces in the ensuing spring.

Cyrus, on his part, allowed the Lydians to retire unmolested, thus
confirming his adversary in the mistaken estimate which he had formed of
Persian courage and daring. Anticipating the course which Croesus would
adopt under the circumstances, he kept his army well in hand, and, as
soon as the Lydians were clean gone, he crossed the Halys, and marched
straight upon Sardis. Croesus, deeming himself safe from molestation,
had no sooner reached his capital than he had dismissed the bulk of
his troops to their homes for the winter, merely giving them orders to
return in the spring, when he hoped to have received auxiliaries
from Sparta, Babylon, and Egypt. Left thus almost without defence, he
suddenly heard that his audacious foe had followed on his steps, had
ventured into the heart of his dominions, and was but a short distance
from the capital. In this crisis he showed a spirit well worthy of
admiration. Putting himself at the head of such an army of native
Lydians as he could collect at a few hours’ notice, he met the advancing
foe in the rich plain a little to the east of Sardis, and gave him
battle immediately. It is possible that even under these disadvantageous
circumstances he might in fair fight have been victorious, for the
Lydian cavalry were at this time excellent, and decidedly superior
to the Persian. But Cyrus, aware of their merits, had recourse to
stratagem, and by forming his camels in front, so frightened the Lydian
horses that they fled from the field. The riders dismounted and fought
on foot, but their gallantry was unavailing. After a prolonged and
bloody combat the Lydian army was defeated, and forced to take refuge
behind the walls of the capital.

Croesus now in hot haste sent off fresh messengers to his allies,
begging them to come at once to his assistance. He had still a good hope
of maintaining himself till their arrival, for his city was defended
by walls, and was regarded by the natives as impregnable. An attempt to
storm the defences failed; and the siege must have been turned into
a blockade but for an accidental discovery. A Persian soldier had
approached to reconnoitre the citadel on the side where it was strongest
by nature, and therefore guarded with least care, when he observed one
of the garrison descend the rock after his helmet, which had fallen from
his head, pick it up, and return with it. Being an expert climber, he
attempted the track thus pointed out to him, and succeeded in reaching
the summit. Several of his comrades followed in his steps; the citadel
was surprised, and the town taken and plundered.

Thus fell the greatest city of Asia Minor after a siege of fourteen
days. The Lydian monarch, it is said, narrowly escaped with his life
from the confusion of the sack; but, being fortunately recognized
in time, was made prisoner, and brought before Cyrus. Cyrus at first
treated him with some harshness, but soon relented, and, with that
clemency which was a common characteristic of the earlier Persian kings,
assigned him a territory for his maintenance, and gave him an honorable
position at Court, where he passed at least thirty years, in high favor,
first with Cyrus, and then with Cambyses. Lydia itself was absorbed at
once into the Persian Empire, together with most of its dependencies,
which submitted as soon as the fall of Sardis was known. There still,
however, remained a certain amount of subjugation to be effected. The
Greeks of the coast, who had offended the Great King by their refusal of
his overtures, were not to be allowed to pass quietly into the condition
of tributaries; and there were certain native races in the south-western
corner of Asia Minor which declined to submit without a struggle to
the new conqueror. But these matters were not regarded by Cyrus as
of sufficient importance to require his own personal superintendence.
Having remained at Sardis for a few weeks, during which time he received
an insulting message from Sparta, whereto he made a menacing reply, and
having arranged for the government of the newly-conquered province and
the transmission of its treasures to Ecbatana, he quitted Lydia for
the interior, taking Croesus with him, and proceeded towards the
Median capital. He was bent on prosecuting without delay his schemes
of conquest in other quarters--schemes of a grandeur and a
comprehensiveness unknown to any previous monarch.

Scarcely, however, was he departed when Sardis became the scene of an
insurrection. Pactyas, a Lydian, who had been entrusted with the duty
of conveying the treasures of Croesus and his more wealthy subjects to
Ecbatana, revolted against Tabalus, the Persian commandant of the town,
and being joined by the native population and numerous mercenaries,
principally Greeks, whom he hired with the treasure that was in his
hands, made himself master of Sardis, and besieged Tabalus in the
citadel. The news reached Cyrus while he was upon his march; but,
estimating the degree of its importance aright, he did not suffer it to
interfere with his plans. He judged it enough to send a general with
a strong body of troops to put down the revolt, and continued his own
journey eastward. Mazares, a Mede, was the officer selected for
the service. On arriving before Sardis, he found that Pactyas had
relinquished his enterprise and fled to the coast, and that the revolt
was consequently at an end. It only remained to exact vengeance. The
rebellious Lydians were disarmed. Pactyas was pursued with unrelenting
hostility, and demanded, in succession, of the Cymaeans, the
Mytilenseans, and the Chians, of whom the last-mentioned surrendered
him. The Greek cities which had furnished Pactyas with auxiliaries were
then attacked, and the inhabitants of the first which fell, Priene, were
one and all sold as slaves.

Mazares soon afterwards died, and was succeeded by Ha-pagus, another
Mede, who adopted a somewhat milder policy towards the unfortunate
Greeks. Besieging their cities one by one, and taking them by means
of banks or mounds piled up against the walls, he, in some instances,
connived at the inhabitants escaping in their ships, while, in others,
he allowed them to take up the ordinary position of Persian subjects,
liable to tribute and military service, but not otherwise molested. So
little irksome were such terms to the Ionians of this period that even
those who dwelt in the islands off the coast, with the single exception
of the Samians--though they ran no risk of subjugation, since the
Persians did not possess a fleet--accepted voluntarily the same
position, and enrolled themselves among the subjects of Cyrus.

One Greek continental town alone suffered nothing during this time of
trouble. When Cyrus refused the offers of submission, which reached him
from the Ionian and AEolian Greeks after his capture of Sardis, he made
an exception in favor of Miletus, the most important of all the Grecian
cities in Asia. Prudence, it is probable, rather than clemency, dictated
this course, since to detach from the Grecian cause the most powerful
and influential of the states was the readiest way of weakening the
resistance they would be able to make. Miletus singly had defied the
arms of four successive Lydian kings, and had only succumbed at last
to the efforts of the fifth, Croesus. If her submission had been now
rejected, and she had been obliged to take counsel of her despair, the
struggle between the Greek cities and the Persian generals might have
assumed a different character.

Still more different might have been the result, if the cities
generally had had the wisdom to follow a piece of advice which the great
philosopher and statesman of the time, Thales, the Milesian, is said
to have given them. Thales suggested that the Ionians should form
themselves into a confederation, to be governed by a congress which
should meet at Teos, the several cities retaining their own laws and
internal independence, but being united for military purposes into a
single community. Judged by the light which later events, the great
Ionian revolt especially, throw upon it, this advice is seen to have
been of the greatest importance. It is difficult to say what check, or
even reverse, the arms of Persia might not have at this time sustained,
if the spirit of Thales had animated his Asiatic countrymen generally;
if the loose Ionic Amphictyony, which in reality left each state in
the hour of danger to its own resources, had been superseded by a
true federal union, and the combined efforts of the thirteen Ionian
communities had been directed to a steady resistance of Persian
aggression and a determined maintenance of their own independence.
Mazares and Harpagus would almost certainly have been baffled, and the
Great King himself would probably have been called off from his eastern
conquests to undertake in person a task which after all he might have
failed to accomplish.

The fall of the last Ionian town left Harpagus free to turn his
attention to the tribes of the south-west which had not yet made their
submission--the Carians, the Dorian Greeks, the Caunians, and the people
of Lycia. Impressing the services of the newly-conquered Ionians and
AEolians, he marched first against Caria, which offered but a feeble
resistance. The Dorians of the continent, Myndians, Halicarnassians, and
Cnidians. submitted still more tamely, without any struggle at all; but
the Caunians and Lycians showed a different spirit. These tribes, which
were ethnically allied, and of a very peculiar type, had never yet, it
would seem, been subdued by any conqueror. Prizing highly the liberty
they had enjoyed so long, they defended themselves with desperation.
When they were defeated in the field they shut themselves up within
the walls of their chief cities, Caunus and Xanthus, where, finding
resistance impossible, they set fire to the two places with their own
hands, burned their wives, children, slaves, and valuables, and then
sallying forth, sword in hand, fell on the besiegers’ lines, and fought
till they were all slain.

Meanwhile Cyrus was pursuing a career of conquest in the far east. It
was now, according to Herodotus, who is, beyond all question, a better
authority than Ctesias for the reign of Cyrus, that the reduction of the
Bactrians and the Sacans, the chief nations of what is called by moderns
Central Asia, took place. Bactria was a country which enjoyed the
reputation of having been great and glorious at a very early date. In
one of the most ancient portions of the Zendavesta it was celebrated
as “Bahhdi eredhwo-drafsha,” or “Bactria” with the lofty banner; and
traditions not wholly to be despised made it the native country of
Zoroaster. There is good reason to believe that, up to the date of
Cyras, it had maintained its independence, or at any rate that it had
been untouched by the great monarchies which for above seven hundred
years had borne sway in the western parts of Asia. Its people were
of the Iranic stock, and retained in their remote and somewhat savage
country the simple and primitive habits of the race. Though their arms
were of indifferent character, they were among the best soldiers to
be found in the East, and always showed themselves a formidable enemy.
According to Ctesias, when Cyrus invaded them, they fought a pitched
battle with his army, in which the victory was with neither party.
They were not, he said, reduced by force of arms at all, but submitted
voluntarily when they found that Cyrus had married a Median princess.
Herodotus, on the contrary, seems to include the Bactrians among the
nations which Cyrus subdued, and probability is strongly in favor of
this view of the matter. So warlike a nation is not likely to have
submitted unless to force; nor is there any ground to believe that a
Median marriage, had Cyrus contracted one, would have made him any the
more acceptable to the Bactrians.

On the conquest of Bactria followed, we may be tolerably sure, an attack
upon the Sacae. This people, who must certainly have bordered on the
Bactrians, dwelt probably either on the Pamir Steppe, or on the high
plain of Chinese Tartary, east of the Bolar range--the modern districts
of Kashgar and Yarkand. They were reckoned excellent soldiers. They
fought with the bow, the dagger, and the battle-axe, and were equally
formidable on horseback and on foot. In race they were probably Tatars
or Turanians, and their descendants or their congeners are to be seen
in the modern inhabitants of these regions. According to Ctesias, their
women took the field in almost equal numbers with their men; and the
mixed army which resisted Cyrus amounted, including both sexes, to half
a million. The king who commanded them was a certain Amorges, who was
married to a wife called Sparethra. In an engagement with the Persians
he fell into the enemy’s hands, whereupon Sparethra put herself at the
head of the Sacan forces, defeated Cyrus, and took so many prisoners
of importance that the Persian monarch was glad to release Amorges in
exchange for them. The Sacse, however, notwithstanding this success,
were reduced, and became subjects and tributaries of Persia.

Among other countries subdued by Cyrus in this neighborhood, probably
about the same period, may be named Hyrcania, Parthia, Chorasmia,
Sogdiana, Aria (or Herat), Drangiana, Arachosia, Sattagydia, and
Gandaria. The brief epitome which we possess of Ctesias omits to make
any mention of these minor conquests, while Herodotus sums them all
up in a single line; but there is reason to believe that the Cnidian
historian gave a methodized account of their accomplishment, of which
scattered notices have come down to us in various writers. Arrian
relates that there was a city called Cyropolis, situated on the
Jaxartes, a place of great strength defended by very lofty walls, which
had been founded by the Great Cyrus. This city belonged to Sogdiana.
Pliny states that Capisa, the chief city of Capisene, which lay not far
from the upper Indus, was destroyed by Cyrus. This place is probably
Kafshan, a little to the north of Kabul. Several authors tell us that
the Ariaspse, a people of Drangiana, assisted Cyrus with provisions when
he was warring in their neighborhood, and received from him in return a
new name, which the Greeks rendered by “Euergetse”--“Benefactors.” The
Ariaspae must have dwelt near the Hamoon, or Lake of Seistan. We have
thus traces of the conqueror’s presence in the extreme north on the
Jaxartes, in the extreme east in Affghanistan, and towards the south as
far as Seistan and the Helmend; nor can there be any reasonable doubt
that he overran and reduced to subjection the whole of that vast tract
which lies between the Caspian on the west, the Indus valley and the
desert of Tartary towards the east, the Jaxartes or Sir Deria on the
north, and towards the south the Great Deserts of Seistan and Khorassan.

More uncertainty attaches to the reduction of the tract lying south
of these deserts. Tradition said that Cyrus had once penetrated into
Gedrosia on an expedition against the Indians, and had lost his entire
army in the waterless and trackless desert; but there is no evidence at
all that he reduced the country. It appears to have been a portion of
the Empire in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, but whether that monarch,
or Cambyses, or the great founder of the Persian power conquered it,
cannot at present be determined.

The conquest of the vast tract lying between the Caspian and the
Indus, inhabited (as it was) by a numerous, valiant, and freedom-loving
population, may well have occupied Cyrus for thirteen or fourteen years.
Alexander the Great spent in the reduction of this region, after the
inhabitants had in a great measure lost their warlike qualities, as
much as five years, or half the time occupied by his whole series of
conquests. Cyrus could not have ventured on prosecuting his enterprises,
as did the Macedonian prince, continuously and without interruption,
marching straight from one country to another without once revisiting
his capital. He must from time to time have returned to Ecbatana or
Pasargadae; and it is on the whole most probable that, like the Assyrian
monarchs, he marched out from home on a fresh expedition almost every
year. Thus it need cause us no surprise that fourteen years were
consumed in the subjugation of the tribes and nations beyond the Iranic
desert to the north and the north-east, and that it was not till B.C.
539, when he was nearly sixty years of age, that the Persian monarch
felt himself free to turn his attention to the great kingdom of the
south.

The expedition of Cyrus against Babylon has been described already.
Its success added to the Empire the rich and valuable provinces of
Babylonia, Susiana, Syria, and Palestine, thus augmenting its size by
about 240,000 or 250,000 square miles. Far more important, however,
than this geographical increase was the removal of the last formidable
rival--the complete destruction of a power which represented to the
Asiatics the old Semitic civilization, which with reason claimed to be
the heir and the successor of Assyria, and had a history stretching back
for a space of nearly two thousand years. So long as Babylon, “the
glory of kingdoms,” “the praise of the whole earth,” retained her
independence, with her vast buildings, her prestige of antiquity, her
wealth, her learning, her ancient and grand religious system, she could
scarcely fail to be in the eyes of her neighbors the first power in the
world, if not in mere strength, yet in honor, dignity, and reputation.
Haughty and contemptuous herself to the very last, she naturally imposed
on men’s minds, alike by her past history and her present pretensions;
nor was it possible for the Persian monarch to feel that he stood before
his subjects as indisputably the foremost man upon the earth until he
had humbled in the dust the pride and arrogance of Babylon. But, with
the fall of the Great City, the whole fabric of Semetic greatness was
shattered. Babylon became “an astonishment and a hissing”--all her
prestige vanished--and Persia stepped manifestly into the place, which
Assyria had occupied for so many centuries, of absolute and unrivalled
mistress of Western Asia.

The fall of Babylon was also the fall of an ancient, widely spread,
and deeply venerated religious system. Not of course, that the religion
suddenly disappeared or ceased to have votaries, but that, from a
dominant system, supported by all the resources of the state, and
enforced by the civil power over a wide extent of territory, it became
simply one of many tolerated beliefs, exposed to frequent rebuffs and
insults, and at all times overshadowed by a new and rival system--the
comparatively pure creed of Zoroastrianism, The conquest of Babylon by
Persia was, practically, if not a death-blow, at least a severe wound,
to that sensuous idol-worship which had for more than twenty centuries
been the almost universal religion in the countries between the
Mediterranean and the Zagros mountain range. The religion never
recovered itself--was never reinstated. It survived, a longer or a
shorter time, in places. To a slight extent it corrupted Zoroastrianism;
but, on the whole, from the date of the fall of Babylon it declined.
“Bel bowed down; Nebo stooped;” “Merodach was broken in pieces.”
 Judgment was done upon the Babylonian graven images; and the system, of
which they formed a necessary part, having once fallen from its proud
pre-eminence, gradually decayed and vanished.

Parallel with the decline of the old Semitic idolatry was the advance
of its direct antithesis, pure spiritual Monotheism. The same blow which
laid the Babylonian religion in the dust struck off the fetters from
Judaism. Purified and refined by the precious discipline of adversity,
the Jewish system, which Cyrus, feeling towards it a natural sympathy,
protected, upheld, and replaced in its proper locality, advanced from
this time in influence and importance, leavening little by little the
foul mass of superstition and impurity which came in contact with it.
Proselytism grew more common. The Jews spread themselves wider. The
return from, the captivity, which Cyrus authorized almost immediately
after the capture of Babylon, is the starting point from which we may
trace a gradual enlightenment of the heathen world by the dissemination
of Jewish beliefs and practices--such dissemination being greatly helped
by the high estimation in which the Jewish system was held by the civil
authority, both while the empire of the Persians lasted, and when power
passed to the Macedonians.

On the fall of Babylon its dependencies seem to have submitted to
the conqueror, with a single exception. Phoenicia, which had never
acquiesced contentedly either in Assyrian or in Babylonian rule, saw,
apparently, in the fresh convulsion that was now shaking the East, an
opportunity for recovering autonomy. It was nearly half a century since
her last struggle to free herself had terminated unsuccessfully. A new
generation had grown up since that time--a generation which had seen
nothing of war, and imperfectly appreciated its perils. Perhaps some
reliance was placed on the countenance and support of Egypt, which, it
must have been felt, would view with satisfaction any obstacle to the
advance of a power wherewith she was sure, sooner or later, to come into
collision. At any rate, it was resolved to make the venture. Phoenicia,
on the destruction of her distant suzerain, quietly resumed her freedom;
abstained from making any act of submission to the conqueror; while,
however, at the same time, she established friendly relations for
commercial purposes with one of the conqueror’s vassals, the prince who
had been sent into Palestine to re-establish the Jews at Jerusalem.

It might have been expected that Cyrus, after his conquest of Babylon,
would have immediately proceeded towards the south-west. The reduction
of Egypt had, according to Herodotus, been embraced in the designs which
he formed fifteen years earlier. The non-submission of Phoenicia
must have been regarded as an act of defiance which deserved signal
chastisement. It has been suspected that the restoration of the Jews was
prompted, at least in part, by political motives, and that Cyrus, when
he re-established them in their country, looked to finding them of use
to him in the attack which he was meditating upon Egypt. At any rate it
is evident that their presence would have facilitated his march through
Palestine, and given him a _point d’appui_, which could not but have
been of value. These considerations make it probable that an Egyptian
expedition would have been determined on, had not circumstances occurred
to prevent it.

What the exact circumstances were, it is impossible to determine.
According to Herodotus, a sudden desire seized Cyrus to attack the
Massagetae, who bordered his Empire to the north-east. He led his troops
across the Araxes (Jaxartes?), defeated the Massagetae by stratagem in
a great battle, but was afterwards himself defeated and slain, his body
falling into the enemy’s hands, who treated it with gross indignity.
According to Ctesias, the people against whom he made his expedition
were the Derbices, a nation bordering upon India, Assisted by Indian
allies, who lent them a number of elephants, this people engaged Cyrus,
and defeated him in a battle, wherein he received a mortal wound.
Reinforced, however, by a body of Sacae, the Persians renewed the
struggle, and gained a complete victory, which was followed by the
submission of the nation. Cyrus, however, died of his wound on the third
day after the first battle.

This conflict of testimony clouds with uncertainty the entire closing
scene of the life of Cyrus. All that we can lay down as tolerably well
established is, that instead of carrying out his designs against Egypt,
he engaged in hostilities with one of the nations on his north-eastern
frontier, that he conducted the war with less than his usual success,
and in the course of it received a wound of which he died (B.C. 529),
after he had reigned nine-and-twenty years. That his body did not fall
into the enemy’s hands appears, however, to be certain from the fact
that it was conveyed into Persia Proper, and buried at Pasargadae.

It may be suspected that this expedition, which proved so disastrous to
the Persian monarch, was not the mere wanton act which it appears to be
in the pages of our authorities. The nations of the north-east were at
all times turbulent and irritable, with difficulty held in check by the
civilized power that bore rule in the south and west. The expedition
of Cyrus, whether directed against the Massagetae or the Derbices, was
probably intended to strike terror into the barbarians of these regions,
and was analogous to those invasions which were undertaken under the
wisest of the Roman Emperors, across the Rhine and Danube, against
Germans, Goths, and Sarmatae. The object of such inroads was not to
conquer, but to alarm--it was hoped by an imposing display of organized
military force to deter the undisciplined hordes of the prolific North
from venturing across the frontier and carrying desolation through large
tracts of the Empire. Defensive warfare has often an aggressive look. It
may have been solely with the object of protecting his own territories
from attack that Cyrus made his last expedition across the Jaxertes, or
towards the upper Indus.

The character of Cyrus, as represented to us by the Greeks, is the
most favorable that we possess of any early Oriental monarch. Active,
energetic, brave, fertile in stratagems, he has all the qualities
required to form a successful military chief. He conciliates his people
by friendly and familiar treatment, but declines to spoil them by
yielding to their inclinations when they are adverse to their true
interests. He has a ready humor, which shows itself in smart sayings and
repartees, that take occasionally the favorite Oriental turn of parable
or apologue. He is mild in his treatment of the prisoners that fall into
his hands, and ready to forgive even the heinous crime of rebellion. He
has none of the pride of the ordinary eastern despot, but converses on
terms of equality with those about him. We cannot be surprised that the
Persians, contrasting him with their later monarchs, held his memory
in the highest veneration, and were even led by their affection for
his person to make his type of countenance their standard of physical
beauty.

The genius of Cyrus was essentially that of a conqueror, not of an
administrator. There is no trace of his having adopted anything like a
uniform system for the government of the provinces which he subdued.
In Lydia he set up a Persian governor, but assigned certain important
functions to a native; in Babylon he gave the entire direction of
affairs into the hands of a Mede, to whom he allowed the title and style
of king; in Judaea he appointed a native, but made him merely “governor”
 or “deputy;” in Sacia he maintained as tributary king the monarch who
had resisted his arms. Policy may have dictated the course pursued
in each instance, which may have been suited to the condition of the
several provinces; but the variety allowed was fatal to consolidation,
and the monarchy, as Cyrus left it, had as little cohesion as any of
those by which it was preceded.

Though originally a rude mountain-chief, Cyrus, after he succeeded to
empire, showed himself quite able to appreciate the dignity and value
of art. In his constructions at Pasargadae he combined massiveness
with elegance, and manifested a taste at once simple and refined. He
ornamented his buildings with reliefs of an ideal character. It is
probably to him that we owe the conception of the light tapering stone
shaft, which is the glory of Persian architecture. If the more massive
of the Persepolitan buildings are to be ascribed to him, we must regard
him as haying fixed the whole plan and arrangement which was afterwards
followed in all Persian palatial edifices.

In his domestic affairs Cyrus appears to have shown the same moderation
and simplicity which we observe in his general conduct. He married, as
it would seem, one wife only, Cassandane, the daughter of Pharnaspes,
who was a member of the royal family. By her he had issue two sons
and at least three daughters. The sons were Cambyses and Smerdis;
the daughters Atossa, Artystone, and one whose name is unknown to us.
Cassandane died before her husband, and was deeply mourned by him.
Shortly before his own death he took the precaution formally to settle
the succession. Leaving the general inheritance of his vast dominions to
his elder son, Cambyses, he declared it to be his will that the younger
should be entrusted with the actual government of several large and
important provinces. He thought by this plan to secure the well-being of
both the youths, never suspecting that he was in reality consigning
both to untimely ends, and even preparing the way for an extraordinary
revolution.

The ill effect of the unfortunate arrangement thus made appeared almost
immediately. Cambyses was scarcely settled upon the throne before he
grew jealous of his brother, and ordered him to be privately put to
death. His cruel orders were obeyed, and with so much secrecy that
neither the mode of the death, nor even the fact, was known to more than
a few. Smerdis was generally believed to be still alive; and thus an
opportunity was presented for personation--a form of imposture very
congenial to Orientals, and one which has often had very disastrous
consequences. We shall find in the sequel this opportunity embraced, and
results follow of a most stirring and exciting character.

It required time, however, to bring to maturity the fruits of the crime
so rashly committed. Cambyses, in the meanwhile, quite unconscious of
danger, turned his attention to military matters, and determined on
endeavoring to complete his father’s scheme of conquest by the reduction
of Egypt. Desirous of obtaining a ground of quarrel less antiquated
than the alliance, a quarter of a century earlier, between Amasis and
Croesus, he demanded that a daughter of the Egyptian king should be sent
to him as a secondary wife. Amasis, too timid to refuse, sent a damsel
named Nitetis, who was not his daughter; and she, soon after her
arrival, made Cambyses acquainted with the fraud. A ground of quarrel
was thus secured, which might be put forward when it suited his purpose;
and meanwhile every nerve was being strained to prepare effectually
for the expedition. The difficulty of a war with Egypt lay in her
inaccessibility. She was protected on all sides by seas or deserts; and,
for a successful advance upon her from the direction of Asia, it was
desirable both to obtain a quiet passage for a large army through the
desert of El-Tij, and also to have the support of a powerful fleet in
the Mediterranean. This latter was the paramount consideration. An army
well supplied with camels might carry its provisions and water through
the desert, and might intimidate or overpower the few Arab tribes which
inhabited it; but, unless the command of the sea was gained and the
navigation of the Nile closed, Memphis might successfully resist
attack. Cambyses appears to have perceived with sufficient clearness
the conditions on which victory depended, and to have applied himself at
once to securing them. He made a treaty with the Arab Sheikh who had the
chief influence over the tribes of the desert; and at the same time
he set to work to procure the services of a powerful naval force. By
menaces or negotiations he prevailed upon the Phoenicians to submit
themselves to his yoke, and having thus obtained a fleet superior to
that of Egypt, he commenced hostilities by robbing her of a dependency
which possessed considerable naval strength, in this way still further
increasing the disparity between his own fleet and that of his enemy.
Against the combined ships of Phoenicia, Cyprus, Ionia, and AEolis,
Egypt was powerless, and her fleets seem to have quietly yielded the
command of the sea. Cambyses was thus able to give his army the support
of a naval force, as it marched along the coast, from Carmel probably
to Pelusium; and when, having defeated the Egyptians at the last-named
place, he proceeded against Memphis, he was able to take possession of
the Nile, and to blockade the Egyptian capital both by land and water.

It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian monarch in his
preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It was not until B.C. 525 that
he entered Egypt at the head of his troops, and fought the great battle
which decided the fate of the country. The struggle was long and bloody.
Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father Amasis, had the services, not
only of his Egyptian subjects, but a large body of mercenaries besides,
Greeks and Carians. These allies were zealous in his cause, and are said
to have given him a horrible proof of their attachment. One of
their body had deserted to the Persians some little time before the
expedition, and was believed to have given important advice to the
invader. He had left his children behind in Egypt; and these his former
comrades now seized, and led out in front of their lines, where they
slew them before their father’s eyes, and, having so done, mixed their
blood in a bowl with water and wine, and drank, one and all, of the
mixture. The battle followed immediately after; but, in spite of their
courage and fanaticism, the Egyptian army was completely defeated.
According to Ctesias, fifty thousand fell on the vanquished side, while
the victors lost no more than seven thousand. Psammenitus, after his
defeat, threw himself into Memphis, but, being blockaded by land
and prevented from receiving supplies from the sea, after a stout
resistance, he surrendered. The captive monarch received the respectful
treatment which Persian clemency usually accorded to fallen sovereigns.
Herodotus even goes so far as to intimate that, if he had abstained from
conspiracy, he would probably have been allowed to continue ruler
of Egypt, exchanging, of course, his independent sovereignty for a
delegated kingship held at the pleasure of the Lord of Asia.

The conquest of Egypt was immediately followed by the submission of the
neighboring tribes. The Libyans of the desert tract which borders the
Nile valley to the west, and even the Greeks of the more remote Barca
and Cyrene, sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his
tributaries. But Cambyses placed little value on such petty accessions
to his power. Inheriting the grandeur of view which had characterized
his father, he was no sooner master of Egypt than he conceived the idea
of a magnificent series of conquests in this quarter, whereby he hoped
to become Lord of Africa no less than of Asia, or at any rate to leave
himself without a rival of any importance on the vast continent which
his victorious arms had now opened to him. Apart from Egypt, Africa
possessed but two powers capable, by their political organization and
their military strength, of offering him serious resistance. These were
Ethiopia and Carthage--the one the great power of the South, the equal,
if not even the superior, of Egypt--the other the great power of the
West--remote, little known, but looming larger for, the obscurity in
which she was shrouded, and attractive from her reputed wealth. The
views of Cambyses comprised the reduction of both these powers, and
also the conquest of the oasis of Ammon. As a good Zoroastrian, he was
naturally anxious to exhibit the superiority of Ormazd to all the
“gods of the nations;” and, as the temple of Ammon in the oasis had the
greatest repute of all the African shrines, this design would be best
accomplished by its pillage and destruction. It is probable that he
further looked to the subjugation of all the tribes on the north coast
between the Nile valley and the Carthaginian territory; for he would
undoubtedly have sent an army along the shore to act in concert with his
fleet, had he decided ultimately on making the expedition. An unexpected
obstacle, however, arose to prevent him. The Phoenicians, who formed
the main strength of his navy, declined to take any part in an attack
on Carthage, since the Carthaginians were their colonists, and the
relations between the two people had always been friendly. Cambyses
did not like to force their inclinations, on account of their recent
voluntary submission; and as, without their aid, his navy was manifestly
unequal to the proposed service, he felt obliged to desist from the
undertaking.

While the Carthaginian scheme was thus nipped in the bud, the
enterprises which Cambyses attempted to carry out led to nothing but
disaster. An army, fifty thousand strong, despatched from Thebes against
Ammon, perished to a man amid the sands of the Libyan desert. A still
more numerous force, led by Cambyses himself towards the Ethiopian
frontier, found itself short of supplies on its march across Nubia, and
was forced to return, without glory, after suffering considerable loss.
It became evident that the abilities of the Persian monarch were
not equal to his ambition--that he insufficiently appreciated the
difficulties and dangers of enterprises--while a fatal obstinacy
prevented him from acknowledging and retrieving an error while retrieval
was possible. The Persians, we may be sure, grew dispirited under such
a leader; and the Egyptians naturally took heart. It seems to have
been shortly after the return of Cambyses from his abortive expedition
against Ethiopia that symptoms of an intention to revolt began to
manifest themselves in Egypt. The priests declared an incarnation of
Apis, and the whole country burst out into rejoicings. It was probably
now that Psammenitus, who had hitherto been kindly treated by his
captor, was detected in treasonable intrigues, condemned to death, and
executed. At the same time, the native officers who had been left in
charge of the city of Memphis were apprehended and capitally punished.
Such stringent measures had all the effect that was expected from them;
they wholly crushed the nascent rebellion; they left, however, behind
them a soreness, felt alike by the conqueror and the conquered, which
prevented the establishment of a good understanding between the Great
King and his new subjects. Cambyses knew that he had been severe, and
that his severity had made him many enemies; he suspected the people,
and still more suspected the priests, their natural leaders; he soon
persuaded himself that policy required in Egypt a departure from the
principles of toleration which were ordinarily observed towards their
subjects by the Persians, and a sustained effort on the part of the
civil power to bring the religion, and its priests, into contempt.
Accordingly, he commenced a serious of acts calculated to have this
effect. He stabbed the sacred calf, believed to be incarnate Apis; he
ordered the body of priests who had the animal in charge to be publicly
scourged; he stopped the Apis festival by making participation in it a
capital offence; he opened the receptacles of the dead, and curiously
examined the bodies contained in them, he intruded himself into the
chief sanctuary at Memphis, and publicly scoffed at the grotesque
image of Phtha; finally, not content with outraging in the same way the
inviolable temple of the Cabeiri, he wound up his insults by ordering
that their images should be burnt. These injuries and indignities
rankled in the minds of the Egyptians, and probably had a large share in
producing that bitter hatred of the Persian yoke which shows itself in
the later history on so many occasions; but for the time the policy was
successful: crushed beneath the iron heel of the conqueror--their faith
in the power of their gods shaken, their spirits cowed, their hopes
shattered--the Egyptian subjects of Cambyses made up their minds to
submission. The Oriental will generally kiss the hand that smites him,
if it only smite hard enough. Egypt became now for a full generation the
obsequious slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator
than the weakest or the most contented of the provinces.

The work of subjection completed, Cambyses, having been absent from his
capital longer than was at all prudent, prepared to return home. He had
proceeded on his way as far as Syria, when intelligence reached him of
a most unexpected nature. A herald suddenly entered his camp and
proclaimed, in the hearing of the whole army, that Cambyses, son of
Cyrus, had ceased to reign, and that the allegiance of all Persian
subjects was henceforth to be paid to Smerdis, son of Cyrus. At first,
it is said, Cambyses thought that his instrument had played him false,
and that his brother was alive and had actually seized the throne; but
the assurances of the suspected person, and a suggestion which he made,
convinced him of the contrary, and gave him a clue to the real solution
of the mystery. Prexaspes, the nobleman inculpated, knew that the
so-called Smerdis must be an impostor, and suggested his identity with
a certain Magus, whose brother had been intrusted by Cambyses with the
general direction of his household and the care of the palace. He was
probably led to make the suggestion by his knowledge of the resemblance
borne by this person to the murdered prince, which was sufficiently
close to make personation possible. Cambyses was thus enabled to
appreciate the gravity of the crisis, and to consider whether he could
successfully contend with it or no. Apparently, he decided in the
negative. Believing that he could not triumph over the conspiracy
which had decreed his downfall, and unwilling to descend to a private
station--perhaps even uncertain whether his enemies would spare his
life--he resolved to fly to the last refuge of a dethroned king, and
to end all by suicide. Drawing his short sword from its sheath, he gave
himself a wound, of which he died in a few days.

It is certainly surprising that the king formed this resolution. He
was at the head of an army, returning from an expedition, which, if
not wholly successful, had at any rate added to the empire an important
province. His father’s name was a tower of strength; and if he could
only have exposed the imposture that had been practised on them,
he might have counted confidently on rallying the great mass of the
Persians to his cause. How was it that he did not advance on the
capital, and at least strike one blow for empire? No clear and decided
response can be made to this inquiry; but we may indistinctly discern
a number of causes which may have combined to produce in the monarch’s
mind the feeling of despondency whereto he gave way. Although he
returned from Egypt a substantial conqueror, his laurel wreath was
tarnished by ill-success; his army, weakened by its losses, and
dispirited by its failures, was out of heart; it had no trust in
his capacity as a commander, and could not be expected to fight with
enthusiasm on his behalf. There is also reason to believe that he was
generally unpopular on account of his haughty and tyrannical temper,
and his contempt of law and usage, where they interfered with the
gratification of his desires. Though we should do wrong to accept as
true all the crimes laid to his charge by the Egyptians, who detested
his memory, we cannot doubt the fact of his incestuous marriage with his
sister, Atossa, which was wholly repugnant to the religious feelings of
his nation. Nor can we well imagine that there was no foundation at
all for the stories of the escape of Croesus, the murder of the son
of Prexaspes, and the execution in Egypt on a trivial charge of twelve
noble Persians. His own people called Cambyses a “despot” or “master,”
 in contrast with Cyrus, whom they regarded as a “father,” because, as
Herodotus says, he was “harsh and reckless,” whereas his father was
mild and beneficent. Further, there was the religious aspect of the
revolution, which had taken place, in the background. Cambyses may have
known that in the ranks of his army there was much sympathy with Magism,
and may have doubted whether, if the whole conspiracy were laid bare,
he could count on anything like a general adhesion of his troops to the
Zoroastrian cause. These various grounds, taken together, go far
towards accounting for a suicide which at first sight strikes us as
extraordinary, and is indeed almost unparalleled.

Of the general character of Cambyses little more need be said. He
was brave, active, and energetic, like his father: but he lacked his
father’s strategic genius, his prudence, and his fertility in resources.
Born in the purple, he was proud and haughty, careless of the feelings
of others, and impatient of admonition or remonstrance. His pride made
him obstinate in error; and his contempt of others led on naturally
to harshness, and perhaps even to cruelty. He is accused of “habitual
drunkenness,” and was probably not free from the intemperance which
was a common Persian failing; but there is not sufficient ground for
believing that his indulgence was excessive, much less that it proceeded
to the extent of affecting his reason. The “madness of Cambyses,”
 reported to and believed in by Herodotus, was a fiction of the Egyptian
priests, who wished it to be thought that their gods had in this way
punished his impiety. The Persians had no such tradition, but merely
regarded him as unduly severe and selfish. A dispassionate consideration
of all the evidence on the subject leads to the conclusion that Cambyses
lived and died in the possession of his reason, having neither destroyed
it through inebriety nor lost it by the judgment of Heaven.

The death of Cambyses (B.C. 522) left the conspirators, who had
possession of the capital, at liberty to develop their projects, and
to take such steps as they thought best for the consolidation and
perpetuation of their power. The position which they occupied was one
of peculiar delicacy. On the one hand, the impostor had to guard against
acting in any way which would throw suspicion on his being really
Smerdis, the son of Cyrus. On the other, he had to satisfy the Magian
priests, to whom he was well known, and on whom he mainly depended for
support, if his imposture should be detected. These priests must have
desired a change of the national religion, and to effect this must have
been the true aim and object of the revolution. But it was necessary to
proceed with the utmost caution. An open proclamation that Magism was
to supersede Zoroastrianism would have seemed a strange act in an
Achaemenian prince, and could scarcely have failed to arouse doubts
which might easily terminate in discovery. The Magian brothers shrank
from affronting this peril, and resolved, before approaching it, to
obtain for the new government an amount of general popularity which
would make its overthrow in fair fight difficult. Accordingly the new
reign was inaugurated by a general remission of tribute and military
service for the space of three years--a measure which was certain to
give satisfaction to all the tribes and nations of the Empire, except
the Persians. Persia Proper was at all times exempt from tribute, and
was thus, so far, unaffected by the boon granted, while military service
was no doubt popular with the ruling nation, for whose benefit the
various conquests were effected. Still Persia could scarcely take
umbrage at an inactivity which was to last only three years, while
to the rest of the Empire the twofold grace accorded must have been
thoroughly acceptable.

Further to confirm his uncertain hold upon the throne, the
Pseudo-Smerdis took to wife all the widows of his predecessor. This is
a practice common in the East; and there can be no doubt that it gives a
new monarch a certain prestige in the eyes of his people. In the present
case, however, it involved a danger. The wives of the late king were
likely to be acquainted with the person of the king’s brother; Atossa,
at any rate, could not fail to know him intimately. If the Magus allowed
them to associate together freely, according to the ordinary practice,
they would detect his imposture and probably find a way to divulge it.
He therefore introduced a new system into the seraglio. Instead of the
free intercourse one with another which the royal consorts had enjoyed
previously, he established at once the principle of complete isolation.
Each wife was assigned her own portion of the palace; and no visiting
of one wife by another was permitted. Access to them from without was
altogether forbidden, even to their nearest relations; and the wives
were thus cut off wholly from the external world, unless they could
manage to communicate with it by means of secret messages. But
precautions of this kind, though necessary, were in themselves
suspicious; they naturally suggested an inquiry into their cause and
object. It was a possible explanation of them that they proceeded from
an extreme and morbid jealousy; but the thought could not fail to occur
to some that they might be occasioned by the fear of detection.

However, as time went on, and no discovery was actually made, the Magus
grew bolder, and ventured to commence that reformation of religion which
he and his order had so much at heart. He destroyed the Zoroastrian
temples in various places, and seems to have put down the old worship,
with its hymns in praise of the Zoroastrian deities. He instituted
Magian rites in lieu of the old ceremonies, and established his
brother Magians as the priest-caste of the Persian nation. The changes
introduced were no doubt satisfactory to the Medes, and to many of
the subject races throughout the Empire. They were even agreeable to a
portion of the Persian people, who leant towards a more material worship
and a more gorgeous ceremonial than had contented their ancestors. If
the faithful worshippers of Ormazd saw them with dismay, they were too
timid to resist, and tacitly acquiesced in the religious revolution.

In one remote province the change gave a fresh impulse to a religious
struggle which was there going on, adding strength to the side of
intolerance. The Jews had now been engaged for fifteen or sixteen years
in the restoration of their temple, according to the permission granted
them by Cyrus. Their enterprise was distasteful to the neighboring
Samaritans, who strained every nerve to prevent its being brought to a
successful issue, and as each new king mounted the Persian throne,
made a fresh effort to have the work stopped by authority. Their
representations had had no effect upon Cambyses; but when they were
repeated on the accession of the Pseudo-Smerdis, the result was
different. An edict was at once sent down to Palestine, reversing the
decree of Cyrus, and authorizing the inhabitants of Samaria to interfere
forcibly in the matter, and compel the Jews to desist from building.
Armed with this decree, the Samaritan authorities hastened to Jerusalem,
and “made the Jews to cease by force and power.”

These revelations of a leaning towards a creed diverse from that of the
Achaemenian princes, combined with the system of seclusion adopted in
the palace--a system not limited to the seraglio, but extending also
to the person of the monarch, who neither quitted the palace precincts
himself, nor allowed any of the Persian nobles to enter them--must have
turned the suspicions previously existing into a general belief and
conviction that the monarch seated on the throne was not Smerdis the son
of Cyrus, but an impostor. Yet still there was for a while no outbreak.
It mattered nothing to the provincials who ruled them, provided that
order was maintained, and that the boons granted them at the opening of
the new reign were not revoked or modified. Their wishes were no doubt
in favor of the prince who had remitted their burthens; and in Media a
peculiar sympathy would exist towards one who had exalted Magism. Such
discontent as was felt would be confined to Persia, or to Persia and a
few provinces of the north-east, where the Zoroastrian faith may have
maintained itself.

At last, among the chief Persians, rumors began to arise. These were
sternly repressed at the outset, and a reign of terror was established,
during which men remained silent through fear. But at length some of
the principal nobles, convinced of the imposture, held secret council
together, and discussed the measures proper to be adopted under the
circumstances. Nothing, however, was done until the arrival at the
capital of a personage felt by all to be the proper leader of the nation
in the existing crisis. This was Darius, the son of Hystaspes, a
prince of the blood royal who probably stood in the direct line of the
succession, failing the issue of Cyrus. At the early age of twenty he
had attracted the attention of that monarch, who suspected him even then
of a design to seize the throne. He was now about twenty-eight years
of age, and therefore at a time of life suited for vigorous enterprise;
which was probably the reason why his father, Hystaspes, who was still
alive, sent him to the capital, instead of proceeding thither in person.
Youth and vigor were necessary qualifications for success in a struggle
against the holders of power; and Hystaspes no longer possessed those
advantages. He therefore yielded to his son that headship of the
movement to which his position would have entitled him; and, with the
leadership in danger, he yielded necessarily his claim to the first
place, when the time of peril should be past and the rewards of victory
should come to be apportioned.

Darius, on his arrival at the capital, was at once accepted as head of
the conspiracy, and with prudent boldness determined on pushing matters
to an immediate decision. Overruling the timidity of a party among the
conspirators, who urged delay, he armed his partisans, and proceeded,
without a moment’s pause, to the attack. According to the Greek
historians, he and his friends entered the palace in a body, and
surprised the Magus in his private apartments, where they slew him
after a brief struggle. But the authority of Darius discredits the Greek
accounts, and shows us, though with provoking brevity, that the course
of events must have been very different. The Magus was not slain in the
privacy of his palace, at Susa or Ecbatana, but met his death in a small
and insignificant fort in the part of Media called “the Maesan plain,”
 or, more briefly, “Nisaea,” whither he appears to have fled with a band
of followers. Whether he was first attacked in the capital, and escaping
threw himself into this stronghold, or receiving timely warning of his
danger withdrew to it before the outbreak occurred, or merely happened
to be at the spot when the conspirators decided to make their attempt,
we have no means of determining. We only know that the scene of the
last struggle was Sictachotes, in Media; that Darius made the attack
accompanied by six Persian nobles of high rank; and that the contest
terminated in the slaughter of the Magus and of a number of his
adherents, who were involved in the fall of their master.

Nor did the vengeance of the successful conspirators stop here.
Speeding to the capital, with the head of the Magus in their hands, and
exhibiting everywhere this proof at once of the death of the late king
and of his imposture, they proceeded to authorize and aid in carrying
out, a general massacre of the Magian priests, the abettors of the later
usurpation. Every Magus who could be found was poniarded by the enraged
Persians; and the caste would have been well-nigh exterminated, if it
had not been for the approach of night. Darkness brought the carnage
to an end; and the sword, once sheathed, was not again drawn. Only, to
complete the punishment of the ambitious religionists who had insulted
and deceived the nation, the day of the massacre was appointed to be
kept annually as a solemn festival, under the name of the Magophonia;
and a law was passed that on that day no Magus should leave his house.

The accession of Darius to the vacant throne now took place (Jan. 1,
B.C. 521). According to Herodotus it was preceded by a period of debate
and irresolution, during which the royal authority was, as it were, in
commission among the Seven; and in this interval he places not only the
choice of a king, but an actual discussion on the subject of the proper
form of government to be established. Even his contemporaries, however,
could see that this last story was unworthy of credit and it may be
questioned whether any more reliance ought to be placed on the remainder
of the narrative. Probably the true account of the matter is, that,
having come to a knowledge of the facts of the case, the heads of the
seven great Persian clans or families met together in secret conclave
and arranged all their proceedings beforehand. No government but the
monarchical could be thought of for a moment, and no one could assert
any claim to be king but Darius. Darius went into the conspiracy as a
pretender to the throne: the other six were simply his “faithful men,”
 his friends and well-wishers. While, however, the six were far from
disputing Darius’s right, they required and received for themselves a
guarantee of certain privileges, which may either have belonged to them
previously, by law or custom, as the heads of the great clans, or may
have been now for the first time conceded. The king-bound himself to
choose his wives from among the families of the conspirators only, and
sanctioned their claim to have free access to his person at all times
without asking his permission. One of their number, Otanes, demanded and
obtained even more. He and his house were to remain “free,” and were to
receive yearly a magnificent kaftan, or royal present. Thus, something
like a check on unbridled despotism was formally and regularly
established; an hereditary nobility was acknowledged; the king became
to some extent dependent on his grandees; he could not regard himself as
the sole fountain of honor; six great nobles stood round the throne
as its supports; but their position was so near the monarch that they
detracted somewhat from his prestige and dignity.

The guarantee of these privileges was, we may be sure, given, and the
choice of Darius as king made, before the attack upon the. Magus began.
It would have been madness to allow an interval of anarchy. When
Darius reached the capital, with the head of the Pseudo-Smerdis in his
possession, he no doubt proceeded at once to the palace and took his
seat upon the vacant throne. No opposition was offered to him. The
Persians gladly saw a scion of their old royal stock installed in power.
The provincials were too far off to interfere. Such malcontents as
might be present would be cowed by the massacre that was going on in the
streets. The friends and intimates of the fallen monarch would be only
anxious to escape notice. The reign of the new king no doubt commenced
amid those acclamations which are never wanting in the East when a
sovereign first shows himself to his subjects.

The measures with which the new monarch inaugurated his reign had for
their object the re-establishment of the old worship. He rebuilt the
Zoroastrian temples which the Magus had destroyed, and probably restored
the use of the sacred chants and the other accustomed ceremonies. It may
be suspected that his religious zeal proceeded often to the length of
persecution, and that the Magian priests were not the only persons who,
under the orders which he issued, felt the weight of the secular arm.
His Zoroastrian zeal was soon known through the provinces; and the Jews
forthwith resumed the building of their temple, trusting that their
conduct would be consonant with his wishes. This trust was not
misplaced: for, when the Samaritans once more interfered and tried to
induce the new king to put a stop to the work, the only result was
a fresh edict, confirming the old decree of Cyrus, forbidding
interference, and assigning a further grant of money, cattle,
corn, etc., from the royal stores, for the furtherance of the pious
undertaking. Its accomplishment was declared to be for the advantage of
the king and his house, since, when the temple was finished, sacrifices
would be offered in it to “the God of Heaven,” and prayer would be made
“for the life of the king and of his sons.” Such was the sympathy which
still united pure Zoroastrianism with the worship of Jehovah. But the
reign, which, so far, might have seemed to be auspiciously begun,
was destined ere long to meet opposition, and even to encounter armed
hostility, in various quarters. In the loosely organized empires of
the early type, a change of sovereign, especially if accompanied
by revolutionary violence, is always regarded as an opportunity for
rebellion. Doubt as to the condition of the capital paralyzes the
imperial authority in the provinces; and bold men, taking advantage
of the moment of weakness, start up in various places, asserting
independence, and seeking to obtain for themselves kingdoms out of
the chaos which they see around them. The more remote provinces are
especially liable to be thus affected, and often revolt successfully on
such an occasion. It appears that the circumstances under which Darius
obtained the throne were more than usually provocative of the spirit
of disaffection and rebellion. Not only did the governors of remote
countries, like Egypt and Lydia, assume an attitude incompatible with
their duty as subjects, but everywhere, even in the very heart of the
Empire, insurrection raised its head; and for six long years the new
king was constantly employed in reducing one province after another to
obedience. Susiana, Babylonia, Persia itself, Media, Assyria, Armenia,
Hyrcania, Parthia, Margiana, Sagartia, and Sacia, all revolted during
this space, and were successively chastised and recovered. It may
be suspected that the religious element entered into some of these
struggles, and that the unusual number of the revolts and the obstinate
character of many of them were connected with the downfall of Magism and
the restoration of the pure Zoroastrian faith, which Darius was bent on
effecting. But this explanation can only be applied partially. We must
suppose, besides, a sort of contagion of rebellion--an awakening of
hopes, far and wide, among the subject nations, as the rumor that
serious troubles had broken out reached them, and a resolution to take
advantage of the critical state of things, spreading rapidly from one
people to another.

A brief sketch of these various revolts must now be given. They
commenced with a rising in Susiana, where a certain Atrines assumed
the name and state of king, and was supported by the people. Almost
simultaneously a pretender appeared in Babylon, who gave out that he was
the son of the late king, Nabonidus, and bore the world-renowned name
of Nebuchadnezzar. Darius, regarding this second revolt as the more
important of the two, while he dispatched a force to punish the
Susianians, proceeded in person against the Babylonian pretender. The
rivals met at the river Tigris, which the Babylonians held with a naval
force, while their army was posted on the right bank, ready to dispute
the passage. Darius, however, crossed the river in their dispute, and,
defeating the troops of his antagonist, pressed forward against the
capital. He had nearly reached it, when the pretender gave him battle
for the second time at a small town on the banks of the Euphrates.
Fortune again declared in favor of the Persians, who drove the host of
their enemy into the water and destroyed great numbers. The soi-disant
Nebuchadnezzar escaped with a few horsemen and threw himself into
Babylon; but the city was ill prepared for a siege, and was soon taken,
the pretender falling into the hands of his enemy, who caused him to be
executed.

Meanwhile, in Susiana, Atrines, the original leader of the rebellion,
had been made prisoner by the troops sent against him, and, being
brought to Darius while he was on his march against Babylon, was put to
death. But this severity had little effect. A fresh leader appeared in
the person of a certain Martes, a Persian who, taking example from the
Babylonian rebel, assumed a name which connected him with the old kings
of the country, and probably claimed to be their descendant, but the
hands of Darius were now free by the termination of the Babylonian
contest, and he was able to proceed towards Susiana himself. This
movement, apparently, was unexpected; for when the Susianians heard of
it they were so alarmed that they laid hands on the pretender and slew
him.

A more important rebellion followed. Three of the chief provinces of
the empire, Media, Armenia, and Assyria, revolted in concert. A Median
monarch was set up, who called himself Xathrites, and claimed descent
from the great Oyaxares; and it would seem that the three countries
immediately acknowledged his sway. Darius, seeing how formidable the
revolt was, determined to act with caution. Settling himself at the
newly-conquered city of Babylon, he resolved to employ his generals
against the rebels, and in this way to gauge the strength of the
outbreak, before adventuring his own person into the fray. Hydarnes,
one of the Seven conspirators, was sent into Media with an army, while
Dadarses, an Armenian, was dispatched into Armenia, and Vomises, a
Persian, was ordered to march through Assyria into the same country.
All three generals were met by the forces of the pretender, and several
battles were fought, with results that seem not to have been very
decisive. Darius claims the victory on each occasion for his own
generals; but it is evident that his arms made little progress, and
that, in spite of several small defeats, the rebellion maintained a bold
front, and was thought not unlikely to be successful. So strong was
this feeling that two of the eastern provinces, Hyrcania and Parthia,
deserted the Persian cause in the midst of the struggle, and placed
themselves under the rule of Xathrites. Either this circumstance, or the
general position of affairs, induced Darius at length to take the field
in person. Quitting Babylon, he marched into Media, and being met by the
pretender near a town called Kudrus, he defeated him in a great battle.
This is no doubt the engagement of which Herodotus speaks, and which he
rightly regards as decisive. The battle of Kudrus gave Ecbatana into the
hands of Darius, and made the Median prince an outcast and a fugitive.
He fled towards the East, probably intending to join his partisans in
Hyrcania and Parthia, but was overtaken in the district of Rhages and
made prisoner by the troops of Darius. The king treated his captive with
extreme severity. Having cut off his nose, ears, and tongue, he kept
him for some time chained to the door of his palace, in order that there
might be no doubt of his capture. When this object had been sufficiently
secured, the wretched sufferer was allowed to end his miserable
existence. He was crucified in his capital city, Ecbatana, before the
eyes of those who had seen his former glory.

The rebellion was thus crushed in its original seat, but it had still to
be put down in the countries whereto it had extended itself. Parthia
and Hyrcania, which had embraced the cause of the pretender, were still
maintaining a conflict with their former governor, Hystaspes, Darius’s
father. Darius marched as far as Rhages to his father’s assistance, and
dispatched from that point a body of Persian troops to reinforce him.
With this important aid Hystaspes once more gave the rebels battle, and
succeeded in defeating them so entirely that they presently made their
submission.

Troubles, meanwhile, had broken out in Sagartia. A native chief, moved
probably by the success which had for a while attended the Median rebel
who claimed to rule as the descendant and representative of Cyaxares,
came forward with similar pretensions, and was accepted by the
Sargartians as their monarch. This revolt, however, proved unimportant.
Darius suppressed it with the utmost facility by means of a mixed
army of Persians and Medes, whom he placed under a Median leader,
Tachamaspates. The pretender was captured and treated almost exactly
in the same way as the Mede whose example he had followed. His nose and
ears were cut off; he was chained for a while at the palace door; and
finally he was crucified at Arbela.

Another trifling revolt occurred about the same time in Margiana. The
Margians rebelled and set up a certain Phraates, a native, to be their
king. But the satrap of Bactria, within whose province Margiana lay,
quelled the revolt almost immediately.

Hitherto, however thickly troubles had come upon him, Darius could have
the satisfaction of feeling that he was contending with foreigners,
and that his own nation at any rate was faithful and true. But now
this consolation was to be taken from him. During his absence in
the provinces of the north-east Persia itself revolted against his
authority, and acknowledged for king an impostor, who, undeterred by the
fate of Gomates, and relying on the obscurity which still hung over
the end of the real Smerdis, assumed his name, and claimed to be the
legitimate occupant of the throne. The Persians at home were either
deceived a second time, or were willing to try a change of ruler; but
the army of Darius, composed of Persians and Medes, adhered to the
banner under which they had so often marched to victory, and enabled
Darius, after a struggle of some duration, to re-establish his sway.
The impostor suffered two defeats at the hands of Artabardes, one
of Darius’s generals, while a force which he had detached to excite
rebellion in Arachosia was engaged by the satrap of that province and
completely routed. The so-called Smerdis was himself captured, and
suffered the usual penalty of unsuccessful revolt, crucifixion.

Before, however, these results were accomplished--while the fortune of
war still hung in the balance--a fresh danger threatened. Encouraged
by the disaffection which appeared to be so general, and which had at
length reached the very citadel of the Empire, Babylon revolted for the
second time. A man, named Aracus, an Armenian by descent, but settled
in Babylonia, headed the insurrection, and, adopting the practice
of personation so usual at the time, assumed the name and style of
“Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus.” Less alarmed on this occasion than
at the time of the first revolt, the king was content to send a
Median general against the new pretender. This officer, who is called
Intaphres, speedily chastised the rebels, capturing Babylon, and taking
Aracus prisoner. Crucifixion was again the punishment awarded to the
rebel leader.

A season of comparative tranquillity seems now to have set in; and it
may have been in this interval that Darius found time to chastise
the remoter governors, who without formally declaring themselves
independent, or assuming the title of king, had done acts savoring of
rebellion. Oroetes, the governor of Sardis, who had comported himself
strangely even under Cambyses, having ventured to entrap and put to
death an ally of that monarch’s, Polycrates of Samos, had from the
time of the Magian revolution assumed an attitude quite above that of a
subject. Having a quarrel with Mitrobates, the governor of a neighboring
province, he murdered him and annexed his territory. When Darius sent a
courier to him with a message the purport of which he disliked, he set
men to waylay and assassinate him. It was impossible to overlook such
acts; and Darius must have sent an army into Asia Minor, if one of
his nobles had not undertaken to remove Oroetes in another way. Arming
himself with several written orders bearing the king’s seal, he went
to Sardis, and gradually tried the temper of the guard which the satrap
kept round his person. When he found them full of respect for the royal
authority and ready to do whatever the king commanded, he produced
an order for the governor’s execution, which they carried into effect
immediately.

The governor of Egypt, Aryandes, had shown a guilty ambition in a more
covert way. Understanding that Darius had issued a gold coinage of
remarkable purity, he, on his own authority and without consulting the
king, issued a silver coinage of a similar character. There is reason to
believe that he even placed his name upon his coins; an act which to
the Oriental mind distinctly implied a claim of independent sovereignty.
Darius taxed him with a design to revolt, and put him to death on the
charge, apparently without exciting any disturbance.

Still, however, the Empire was not wholly tranquillized. A revolt in
Susiana, suppressed by the conspirator Gobryas, and another among the
Sacse of the Tigris, quelled by Darius in person, are recorded on the
rock of Behistun, in a supplementary portion of the Inscription. We
cannot date, unless it be by approximation, these various troubles; but
there is reason to believe that they were almost all contained within
a space not exceeding five or six years. The date of the Behistun
Inscription is fixed by internal evidence to about B.C. 516-515--in
other words, to the fifth or sixth year of the reign of Darius. Its
erection seems to mark the termination of the first period of the reign,
or that of disturbance, and the commencement of the second period, or
that of tranquillity, internal progress, and patronage of the fine arts
by the monarch.

It was natural that Darius, having with so much effort and difficulty
reduced the revolted provinces to obedience, should proceed to consider
within himself how the recurrence of such a time of trouble might be
prevented. His experience had shown him how weak were the ties which had
hitherto been thought sufficient to hold the Empire together, and how
slight an obstacle they opposed to the tendency, which all great empires
have, to disruption. But, however natural it might be to desire a remedy
for the evils which afflicted the State, it was not easy to devise one.
Great empires had existed in Western Asia for above seven hundred years,
and had all suffered more or less from the same inherent weakness; but
no one had as yet invented a cure, or even (so far as appears) conceived
the idea of improving on the rude system of imperial sway which the
first conqueror had instituted. It remained for Darius, not only to
desire, but to design--not only to design, but to bring into action--an
entirely new form and type of government. He has been well called “the
true founder of the Persian state.” He found the Empire a crude and
heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely together by
the single tie of subjection to a common head; he left it a compact
and regularly organized body, united on a single well-ordered system,
permanently established everywhere.

On the nature and details of this system it will be necessary to speak
at some length. It was the first, and probably the best, instance of
that form of government which, taking its name from the Persian word
for provincial ruler, is known generally as the system of “satrapial”
 administration. Its main principles were, in the first place, the
reduction of the whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution
of one mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of
fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable and
uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a variety of checks
and counterpoises among the officials to whom it was necessary that the
crown should delegate its powers, which tended greatly to the security
of the monarch and the stability of the kingdom. A consideration of the
modes in which these three principles were applied will bring before us
in a convenient form the chief points of the system.

Uniformity, or a near approach to it, was produced, not so much by the
abolition of differences as by superadding one and the same governmental
machinery in all parts of the Empire. It is an essential feature of
the satrapial system that it does not aim at destroying differences, or
assimilating to one type the various races and countries over which
it is extended. On the contrary, it allows, and indeed encourages, the
several nations to retain their languages, habits, manners, religion,
laws, and modes of local government. Only it takes care to place above
all these things a paramount state authority, which is one and the same
everywhere, whereon the unity of the kingdom is dependent. The authority
instituted by Darius was that of his satraps. He divided the whole
empire into a number of separate governments--a number which must have
varied at different times, but which seems never to have fallen short
of twenty. Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil
governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the revenue,
the administration of justice, the maintenance of order, and the general
supervision of the territory. These satraps were nominated by the king
at his pleasure from any class of his subjects, and held office for no
definite term, but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation
or death at any moment, without other formality than the presentation
of the royal firman. While, however, they remained in office they were
despotic--they represented the Great King, and were clothed with a
portion of his majesty--they had palaces, Courts, body-guards, parks
or “paradises,” vast trains of eunuchs and attendants, well-filled,
seraglios. They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the
tribute on the several towns and villages within their jurisdiction
at their pleasure, and appointed deputies--called sometimes, like
themselves, satraps--over cities or districts within their province,
whose office was regarded as one of great dignity. They exacted from
the provincials, for their own support and that of their Court, over and
above the tribute due to the crown, whatever sum they regarded them as
capable of furnishing. Favors, and even justice, had to be purchased
from them by gifts. They were sometimes guilty of gross outrages on the
persons and honor of their subjects. Nothing restrained their tyranny
but such sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear of
removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the monarch.

Besides this uniform civil administration, the Empire was pervaded
throughout by one and the same military system. The services of the
subject nations as soldiers were, as a general rule, declined, unless
upon rare and exceptional cases. Order was maintained by large and
numerous garrisons of foreign troops--Persians and Medes--quartered
on the inhabitants, who had little sympathy with those among whom they
lived, and would be sure to repress sternly any outbreak. All places of
much strength were occupied in this way; and special watch was kept upon
the great capitals, which were likely to be centres of disaffection.
Thus a great standing army, belonging to the conquering race, stood
everywhere on guard throughout the Empire, offending the provincials no
doubt by their pride, their violence, and their contemptuous bearing,
but rendering a native revolt under ordinary circumstances hopeless.

Some exceptions to the general uniformity had almost of necessity to be
made in so vast and heterogeneous an empire as the Persian. Occasionally
it was thought wise to allow the continuance of a native dynasty in a
province; and the satrap had in such a case to share with the native
prince a divided authority. This was certainly the case in Cilicia, and
probably in Paphlagonia and Phoenicia. Tribes also, included within
the geographical limits of a satrapy, were sometimes recognized as
independent; and petty wars were carried on between these hordes and
their neighbors. Robber bands in many places infested the mountains,
owing no allegiance to any one, and defied alike the satrap and the
standing army.

The condition of Persia Proper was also purely exceptional. Persia paid
no tribute, and was not counted as a satrapy. Its inhabitants were,
however, bound, when the king passed through their country, to bring him
gifts according to their means. This burthen may have been felt sensibly
by the rich, but it pressed very lightly on the poor, who, if they could
not afford an ox or a sheep, might bring a little milk or cheese, a
few dates, or a handful of wild fruit. On the other hand, the king was
bound, whenever he visited Pasargadae, to present to each Persian woman
who appeared before him a sum equal to twenty Attic drachmas, or about
sixteen shillings of our money. This custom commemorated the service
rendered by the sex in the battle wherein Cyrus first repulsed the
forces of Astyages.

The substitution of definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable
and uncertain charges was aimed at, rather than effected, by the new
arrangement of the revenue which is associated with the name of Darius.
This arrangement consisted in fixing everywhere the amount of tribute
in money and in kind which each satrapy was to furnish to the crown. A
definite money payment, varying, in ordinary satrapies, from 170 to
1000 Babylonian silver talents,330 or from L42,000. to L250,000. of our
money, and amounting, in the exceptional case of the Indian satrapy, to
above a million sterling, was required annually by the sovereign,
and had to be remitted by the satrap to the capital. Besides this, a
payment, the nature and amount of which was also fixed, had to be made
in kind, each province being required to furnish that commodity, or
those commodities, for which it was most celebrated. This latter burthen
must have pressed very unequally on different portions of the Empire,
if the statement of Herodotus be true that Babylonia and Assyria paid
one-third of it. The payment seems to have been very considerable
in amount. Egypt had to supply grain sufficient for the nutriment of
120,000 Persian troops quartered in the country. Media had to contribute
100,000 sheep, 4000 mules, and 3000 horses; Cappadocia, half the above
number of each kind of animal; Armenia furnished 20,000 colts; Cilicia
gave 360 white horses and a sum of 140 talents (L35,000.) in lieu
of further tribute in kind. Babylonia, besides corn, was required to
furnish 500 boy eunuchs. These charges, however, were all fixed by the
crown, and may have been taken into consideration in assessing the money
payment, the main object of the whole arrangement evidently being to
make the taxation of each province proportionate to its wealth and
resources.

The assessment of the taxation upon the different portions of his
province was left to the satrap. We do not know on what principles he
ordinarily proceeded, or whether any uniform principles at all were
observed throughout the Empire. But we find some evidence that, in
places at least, the mode of exaction and collection was by a land-tax.
The assessment upon individuals, and the actual collection from them,
devolved, in all probability, on the local authorities, who distributed
the burthen imposed upon their town, village, or district as they
thought proper. Thus the foreign oppressor did not come into direct
contact with the mass of the conquered people, who no doubt paid the
calls made upon them with less reluctance through the medium of their
own proper magistrates.

If the taxation of the subject had stopped here, he would have had
no just ground of complaint against his rulers. The population of the
Empire cannot be estimated at less than forty millions of souls. The
highest estimate of the value of the entire tribute, both in money and
kind, will scarcely place it at more than ten millions sterling. Thus
far, then, the burthen of taxation would certainly not have exceeded
five shillings a head per annum. Perhaps it would not have reached half
that amount. But, unhappily, neither was the tribute the sole tax which
the crown exacted from its subjects, nor had the crown the sole right
of exacting taxation. Persian subjects in many parts of the Empire paid,
besides their tribute, a water-rate, which is expressly said to have
been very productive. The rivers of the Empire were the king’s; and when
water was required for irrigation, a state officer superintended the
opening of the sluices, and regulated the amount of the precious fluid
which might be drawn off by each tribe or township. For the opening of
the sluices a large sum was paid to the officer, which found its way
into the coffers of the state. Further, it appears that such things
as fisheries--and if so, probably salt-works, mines, quarries, and
forests--were regarded as crown property, and yielded large sums to the
revenue. They appear to have been farmed to responsible persons, who
undertook to pay at a certain fixed rate, and made what profit they
could by the transaction. The price of commodities thus farmed would be
greatly enhanced to the consumer.

By these means the actual burthen of taxation upon the subject was
rendered to some extent uncertain and indefinite, and the benefits of
the fixed tribute system were diminished. But the chief drawback upon
it has still to be mentioned. While the claims of the crown upon its
subjects were definite and could not be exceeded, the satrap was at
liberty to make any exactions that he pleased beyond them. There
is every reason to believe that he received no stipend, and that,
consequently, the burthen of supporting him, his body-guard, and his
Court was intended to fall on the province which had the benefit of his
superintendence. Like a Roman proconsul, he was to pay himself out of
the pockets of his subjects; and, like that class of persons, he took
care to pay himself highly. It has been calculated that one satrap of
Babylon drew from his province annually in actual coin a sum equal to
L100,000. of our money. We can scarcely doubt that the claims made by
the provincial governors were, on the average, at least equal to
those of the crown; and they had the disadvantage of being irregular,
uncertain, and purely arbitrary.

Thus, what was gained by the new system was not so much the relief of
the subject from uncertain taxation as the advantage to the crown of
knowing beforehand what the revenue would be, and being able to regulate
its expenditure accordingly. Still a certain amount of benefit did
undoubtedly accrue to the provincials from the system; since it gave
them the crown for their protector. So long as the payments made to the
state were irregular, it was, or at least seemed to be, for the interest
of the crown to obtain from each province as much as it could anyhow
pay. When the state dues were once fixed, as the crown gained nothing by
the rapacity of its officers, but rather lost, since the province became
exhausted, it was interested in checking greed, and seeing that the
provinces were administered by wise and good satraps.

The control of its great officers is always the main difficulty of a
despotic government, when it is extended over a large space of territory
and embraces many millions of men. The system devised by Darius for
checking and controlling his satraps was probably the best that has
ever yet been brought into operation. His plan was to establish in every
province at least three officers holding their authority directly from
the crown, and only responsible to it, who would therefore act as checks
one upon another. These were the satrap, the military commandant, and
the secretary. The satrap was charged with the civil administration, and
especially with the department of finance. The commandant was supreme
over the troops. The office of the secretary is less clearly defined;
but it probably consisted mainly in keeping the Court informed by
despatches of all that went on in the province. Thus, if the satrap
were inclined to revolt, he had, in the first place, to persuade the
commandant, who would naturally think that, if he ran the risk, it might
as well be for himself; and, further, he had to escape the lynx eyes of
the secretary, whose general right of superintendence gave him entrance
everywhere, and whose prospects of advancement would probably depend a
good deal upon the diligence and success with which he discharged the
office of “King’s Eye” and “Ear.” So, if the commandant were ambitious
of independent sway, he must persuade the satrap, or he would have no
money to pay his troops; and he too must blind the secretary, or else
bribe him into silence. As for the secretary, having neither men
nor money at his command, it was impossible that he should think of
rebellion.

But the precautions taken against revolt did not end here. Once a year,
according to Xenophon, or more probably at irregular intervals, an
officer came suddenly down from the Court with a commission to inspect
a province. Such persons were frequently of royal rank, brothers or sons
of the king. They were accompanied by an armed force, and were empowered
to correct whatever was amiss in the province, and in case of necessity
to report to the crown the insubordination or incompetency of its
officers. If this system had been properly maintained, it is evident
that it would have acted as a most powerful check upon misgovernment,
and would have rendered revolt almost impossible.

Another mode by which it was sought to secure the fidelity of the
satraps and commandants was by choosing them from among the king’s blood
relations, or else attaching them to the crown by marriage with one of
the princesses. It was thought that the affection of sons and brothers
would be a restraint upon their ambition, and that even connections by
marriage would feel that they had an interest in upholding the power and
dignity of the great house with which they had been thought worthy of
alliance. This system, which was entensively followed by Darius, had on
the whole good results, and was at any rate preferable to that barbarous
policy of prudential fratricide which has prevailed widely in Oriental
governments.

The system of checks, while it was effectual for the object at which it
specially aimed, had one great disadvantage. It weakened the hands of
authority in times of difficulty. When danger, internal or external,
threatened, it was an evil that the powers of government should be
divided, and the civil authority lodged in the hands of one officer, the
military in those of another. Concentration of power is needed for rapid
and decisive action, for unity of purpose, and secrecy both of plan and
of execution. These considerations led to a modification of the original
idea of satrapial government, which was adopted partially at first--in
provinces especially exposed to danger, internal or external--but which
ultimately became almost universal. The offices of satrap, or civil
administrator, and commandant, or commander of the troops, were vested
in the same person, who came in this way to have that full and complete
authority which is possessed by Turkish pashas and modern Persian
khans or beys--an authority practically uncontrolled. This system was
advantageous for the defence of a province against foes; but it was
dangerous to the stability of the Empire, since it led naturally to the
occurrence of formidable rebellions.

Two minor points in the scheme of Darius remain to be noticed, before
this account of his governmental system can be regarded as complete.
These are his institution of posts, and his coinage of money.

In Darius’s idea of government was included rapidity of communication.
Regarding it as of the utmost importance that the orders of the Court
should be speedily transmitted to the provincial governors, and that
their reports and those of the royal secretaries should be received
without needless delay, he established along the lines of routes already
existing between the chief cities of the Empire a number of post-houses,
placed at regular intervals, according to the estimated capacity of a
horse to gallop at his best speed without stopping. At each post-house
were maintained, at the cost of the state, a number of couriers and
several relays of horses. When a despatch was to be forwarded it was
taken to the first post-house along the route, where a courier received
it, and immediately mounting on horseback galloped with it to the next
station. Here it was delivered to a new courier, who, mounted on a fresh
horse, took it the next stage on its journey; and thus it passed from
hand to hand till it reached its destination. According to Xenophon, the
messengers travelled by night as well as by day; and the conveyance was
so rapid that some even compared it to the flight of birds. Excellent
inns or caravanserais were to be found at every station; bridges or
ferries were established upon all the streams; guard-houses occurred
here and there, and the whole route was kept secure from the brigands
who infested the Empire. Ordinary travellers were glad to pursue so
convenient a line of march; it does not appear, however, that they could
obtain the use of post-horses even when the government was in no need
of them. The coinage of Darius consisted, it is probable, both of a gold
and silver issue. It is not perhaps altogether certain that he was
the first king of Persia who coined money; but, if the term “daric” is
really derived from his name, that alone would be a strong argument in
favor of his claim to priority. In any case, it is indisputable that
he was the first Persian king who coined on a large scale, and it is
further certain that his gold coinage was regarded in later times as of
peculiar value on account of its purity. His gold darics appear to have
contained, on an average, not quite 124 grains of pure metal, which
would make their value about twenty two shillings of our money.
They were of the type usual at the time both in Lydia and in
Greece--flattened lumps of metal, very thick in comparison with the size
of their surface, irregular, and rudely stamped. The silver darics
were similar in general character, but exceeded the gold in size. Their
weight was from 224 to 230 grains, and they would thus have been worth
not quite three shillings of our money. It does not appear that any
other kinds of coins besides these were ever issued from the Persian
mint. They must, therefore, it would seem, have satisfied the commercial
needs of the people.

From this review of the governmental system of Darius we must now return
to the actions of his later life. The history of an Oriental monarchy
must always be composed mainly of a series of biographies; for, as the
monarch is all in all in such communities, his sayings, doings, and
character, not only determine, but constitute, the annals of the State.
In the second period of his reign, that which followed on the time of
trouble and disturbance, Darius (as has been already observed)
appears to have pursued mainly the arts of peace. Bent on settling and
consolidating his Empire, he set up everywhere the satrapial form of
government, organized and established his posts, issued his coinage,
watched over the administration of justice, and in various ways
exhibited a love of order and method, and a genius for systematic
arrangement. At the same time he devoted considerable attention to
ornamental and architectural works, to sculpture, and to literary
composition. He founded the royal palace at Susa, which was the main
residence of the later kings. At Persepolis he certainly erected one
very important building; and it is on the whole most probable that he
designed--if he did not live to execute--the Chehl Minor itself--the
chief of the magnificent structures upon the great central platform. The
massive platform itself, with its grand and stately steps, is certainly
of his erection, for it is inscribed with his name. He gave his works
all the solidity and strength that is derivable from the use of huge
blocks of a good hard material. He set the example of ornamenting the
stepped approached to a palace with elaborate bas-reliefs. He designed
and caused to be constructed in his own lifetime the rock-tomb at
Nakhsh-i-Rustam, in which his remains were afterwards laid. The
rock-sculpture at Behistun was also his work. In attention to the
creation of permanent historical records he excelled all the Persian
kings, both before him and after him. The great Inscription of Behistun
has no parallel in ancient times for length, finish, and delicacy
of execution, unless it be in Assyria or in Egypt. The only really
historical inscription at Persepolis is one set up by Darius. He was the
only Persian king, except perhaps one, who placed an inscription upon
his tomb. The later monarchs in their records do little more than repeat
certain religious phrases and certain forms of self-glorification which
occur in the least remarkable inscriptions of their great predecessor.
He alone oversteps those limits, and presents us with geographical
notices and narratives of events profoundly interesting to the
historian.

During this period of comparative peace, which may have extended
from about B.C. 516 to B.C. 508 or 507, the general tranquillity was
interrupted by at least one important expedition. The administrational
merits of Darius are so great that they have obscured his military
glories, and have sent him down to posterity with the character of an
unwarlike monarch--if not a mere “peddler,” as his subjects said, yet,
at any rate, a mere consolidator and arranger. But the son of Hystaspes
was no carpet prince. He had not drawn the sword against his domestic
foes to sheath it finally and forever when his triumph over them was
completed. On the contrary, he regarded it as incumbent on him to carry
on the aggressive policy of Cyrus and Cambyses, his great predecessors,
and like them to extend in one direction or another the boundaries of
the Empire. Perhaps he felt that aggression was the very law of the
Empire’s being, since if the military spirit was once allowed to become
extinct in the conquering nation, they would lose the sole guarantee of
their supremacy. At any rate, whatever his motive, we find him, after
he had snatched a brief interval of repose, engaging in great wars
both towards his eastern and his western frontier--wars which in both
instances had results of considerable importance.

The first grand expedition was towards the East. Cyrus, as we have seen,
had extended the Persian sway over the mountains of Affghanistan and the
highlands from which flow the tributaries of the Upper Indus. From these
eminences the Persian garrisons looked down on a territory possessing
every quality that could attract a powerful conqueror. Fertile,
well-watered, rich in gold, peopled by an ingenious yet warlike race,
which would add strength no less than wealth to its subjugators, the
Punjab lay at the foot of the Sufeid Koh and Suliman ranges, inviting
the attack of those who could swoop down when they pleased upon the low
country. It was against this region that Darius directed his first great
aggressive effort. Having explored the course of the Indus from Attock
to the sea by means of boats, and obtained, we may suppose, in this way
some knowledge of the country and its inhabitants, he led or sent an
expedition into the tract, which in a short time succeeded in completely
reducing it. The Punjab, and probably the whole valley of the Indus, was
annexed, and remained subject till the later times of the Empire. The
results of this conquest were the acquisition of a brave race, capable
of making excellent soldiers, an enormous increase of the revenue, a
sudden and vast influx of gold into Persia, which led probably to the
introduction of the gold coinage, and the establishment of commercial
relations with the natives, which issued in a regular trade carried
on by coasting-vessels between the mouths of the Indus and the Persian
Gulf.

The next important expedition--one probably of still greater
magnitude--took exactly the opposite direction. The sea which bounded
the Persian dominion to the west and the north-west narrowed in two
places to dimensions not much exceeding those of of the greater Asiatic
rivers. The eye which looked across the Thracian Bosphorus or the
Hellespont seemed to itself to be merely contemplating the opposite
bank of a pretty wide stream. Darius, consequently being master of
Asia Minor, and separated by what seemed to him so poor a barrier
from fertile tracts of vast and indeed indefinite extent, such as were
nowhere else to be found on the borders of his empire, naturally turned
his thoughts of conquest to this quarter. His immediate desire was,
probably, to annex Thrace; but he may have already entertained wider
views, and have looked to embracing in his dominions the lovely isles
and coasts of Greece also, so making good the former threats of Cyrus.
The story of the voyage and escape of Democedes, related by Herodotus
with such amplitude of detail, and confirmed to some extent from other
sources, cannot be a mere myth without historical foundation. Nor is
it probable that the expedition was designed merely for the purpose of
“indulging the exile with a short visit to his native country,” or of
collecting “interesting information.” If by the king’s orders a vessel
was fitted out at Sidon to explore the coasts of Greece under the
guidance of Democedes, which proceeded as far as Crotona in Magna
Grsecia, we may be tolerably sure that a political object lay at the
bottom of the enterprise. It would have exactly the same aim and end as
the eastern voyage of Scylax, and would be intended, like that, to pave
the way for a conquest. Darius was therefore, it would seem, already
contemplating the reduction of Greece Proper, and did not require
to have it suggested to him by any special provocation. Mentally, or
actually, surveying the map of the world, so far as it was known to
him, he saw that in this direction only there was an attractive country
readily accessible. Elsewhere his Empire abutted on seas, sandy deserts,
or at best barren steppes; here, and here only, was there a rich prize
close at hand and (as it seemed) only waiting to be grasped.

But if the aggressive force of Persia was to be turned in this
direction, if the stream of conquest was to be set westward along the
flanks of Rhodope and Haemus, it was essential to success, and even to
safety, that the line of communication with Asia should remain intact.
Now, there lay on the right flank of an army marching into Europe a vast
and formidable power, known to be capable of great efforts, which, if
allowed to feel itself secure from attack, might be expected at any
time to step in, to break the line of communication between the east
and west, and to bring the Persians who should be engaged in conquering
Pseonia, Macedonia, and Greece, into imminent danger. It is greatly to
the credit of Darius that he saw this peril--saw it and took effectual
measures to guard against it. The Scythian expedition was no insane
project of a frantic despot, burning for revenge, or ambitious of an
impossible conquest. It has all the appearance of being a well-laid
plan, conceived by a moderate and wise prince, for the furtherance of
a great design, and the permanent advantage of his empire. The lord of
South-Western Asia was well aware of the existence beyond his northern
frontier of a standing menace to his power. A century had not sufficed
to wipe out the recollection of that terrible time when Scythian hordes
had carried desolation far and wide over the fairest of the regions that
were now under the Persian dominion. What had occurred once might recur.
Possibly, as a modern author suggests, “the remembrance of ancient
injuries may have been revived by recent aggressions.” It was at any
rate essential to strike terror into the hordes of the Steppe Region in
order that Western Asia might attain a sense of security. It was still
more essential to do so if the north-west was to become the scene
of war, and the Persians were to make a vigorous effort to establish
themselves permanently in Europe. Scythia, it must be remembered,
reached to the banks of the Danube. An invader, who aspired to the
conquest even of Thrace, was almost forced into collision with her next
neighbor.

Darius, having determined on his course, prefaced his expedition by a
raid, the object of which was undoubtedly to procure information. He
ordered Ariaramnes, satrap of Cappadocia, to cross the Euxine with a
small fleet, and, descending suddenly upon the Scythian coast, to carry
off a number of prisoners. Ariaramnes executed the commission skilfully,
and was so fortunate as to make prize of a native of high rank, the
brother of a Scythian chief or king. From this person and his companions
the Persian monarch was able to obtain all the information which he
required. Thus enlightened, he proceeded to make his preparations.
Collecting a fleet of 600 ships, chiefly from the Greeks of Asia, and
an army estimated at from 700,000 to 800,000 men, which was made up
of contingents from all the nations under his rule, he crossed the
Bosphorus by a bridge of boats constructed by Mandrocles a Samian;
marched through Thrace along the line of the Little Balkan, receiving
the submission of the tribes as he went; crossed the Great Balkan;
conquered the Getae, who dwelt between that range and the Danube; passed
the Danube by a bridge, which the Ionian Greeks had made with their
vessels just above the apex of the Delta; and so invaded Scythia. The
natives had received intelligence of his approach, and had resolved not
to risk a battle. They retired as he advanced, and endeavored to bring
his army into difficulties by destroying the forage, driving off the
cattle, and filling in the wells. But the commissariat of the Persians
was, as usual, well arranged. Darius remained for more than two months
in Scythia without incurring any important losses. He succeeded in
parading before the eyes of the whole nation the immense military power
of his empire. He no doubt inflicted considerable damage on the hordes,
whose herds he must often have captured, and whose supplies of forage he
curtailed. It is difficult to say how far he penetrated. Herodotus was
informed that he marched east to the Tanais (Don), and thence north to
the country of the Budini, where he burnt the staple of Gelonus, which
cannot well have been below the fiftieth parallel, and was probably
not far from Voronej. It is certainly astonishing that he should have
ventured so far inland, and still more surprising that, having done
so, he should have returned with his army well-nigh intact. But we can
scarcely suppose the story that he destroyed the staple of the Greek
trade a pure fiction. He would be glad to leave his mark in the country,
and might make an extraordinary effort to reach the only town that was
to be found in the whole steppe region. Having effected his purpose by
its destruction, he would retire, falling back probably upon the coast,
where he could obtain supplies from his fleet. It is beyond dispute that
he returned with the bulk of his army, having suffered no loss but
that of a few invalid troops whom he sacrificed. Attempts had been made
during his absence to induce the Greeks, who guarded the bridge over
the Danube, to break it, and so hinder his return; but they were
unsuccessful. Darius recrossed the river after an interval of somewhat
more than two months, victorious according to his own notions, and
regarded himself as entitled thenceforth to enumerate among the subject
races of his empire “the Scyths beyond the sea.” On his return march
through Thrace, he met, apparently, with no opposition. Before passing
the Bosphorus, he gave a commission to one of his generals, a certain
Megabazus, to complete the reduction of Thrace, and assigned him for the
purpose a body of 80,000 men, who remained in Europe while Darius and
the rest of his army crossed into Asia.

Megabazus appears to have been fully worthy of the trust reposed in him.
In a single campaign (B.C. 506) he overran and subjugated the entire
tract between the Propontis and the Strymon, thus pushing forward the
Persian dominion to the borders of Macedonia. Among the tribes which he
conquered were the Perinthians, Greeks; the Pseti, Cicones, Bistones,
Sapaei, Dersaei and Edoni, Thracians; and the Paeoplae and Siripasones,
Pseonians. These last, to gratify a whim of Darius, were transported
into Asia. The Thracians who submitted were especially those of the
coast, no attempt, apparently, being made to penetrate the mountain
fastnesses and bring under subjection the tribes of the interior.

The first contact between Persia and Macedonia possesses peculiar
interest from the circumstances of the later history. An ancestor of
Alexander the Great sat upon the throne of Macedon when the general of
Darius was brought in his career of conquest to the outskirts of the
Macedonian power. The kingdom was at this time comparatively small, not
extending much beyond Mount Bermius on the one hand, and not reaching
very far to the east of the Axius on the other. Megabazus saw in it,
we may be sure, not the fated destroyer of the Empire which he was
extending, but a petty state which the mere sound of the Persian
name would awe into subjection. He therefore, instead of invading the
country, contented himself with sending an embassy, with a demand
for earth and water, the symbols, according to Persian custom, of
submission. Amyntas, the Macedonian king, consented, to the demand
at once; and though, owing to insolent conduct on the part of the
ambassadors, they were massacred with their whole retinue, yet this
circumstance did not prevent the completion of Macedonian vassalage.
When a second embassy was sent to inquire into the fate of the first,
Alexander, the son of Amyntas, who had arranged the massacre, contrived
to have the matter hushed up by bribing one of the envoys with a large
sum of money and the hand of his sister, Gygsea. Macedonia took up the
position of a subject kingdom, and owned for her true lord the great
monarch of Western Asia.

Megabazus, having accomplished the task assigned him, proceeded to
Sardis, where Darius had remained almost, if not quite, a full year His
place was taken by Otanes, the son of Sisamnes, a different person from
the conspirator, who rounded off the Persian conquests in these parts
by reducing, probably in B.C. 505, the cities of Byzantium, Chalcedon,
Antandrus, and Lamponium, with the two adjacent islands of Letnnos and
Imbrus. The inhabitants of all were, it appears, taxable, either with
having failed to give contingents towards the Scythian expedition,
or with having molested it on its return--crimes these, which Otanes
thought it right to punish by their general enslavement.

Darius, meanwhile, had proceeded to the seat of government, which
appears at this time to have been Susa. He had perhaps already built
there the great palace, whose remains have been recently disinterred
by English enterprise; or he may have wished to superintend the work of
construction. Susa, which was certainly from henceforth the main Persian
capital, possessed advantages over almost any other site. Its climate
was softer than that of Ecbatana and Persepolis, less sultry than that
of Babylon. Its position was convenient for communicating both with
the East and with the West. Its people were plastic, and probably
more yielding and submissive than the Medes or the Persians. The king,
fatigued with his warlike exertions, was glad for a while to rest and
recruit himself at Susa, in the tranquil life of the Court. For some
years he appears to have conceived no new aggressive project; and he
might perhaps have forgotten his designs upon Greece altogether, had not
his memory been stirred by a signal and extraordinary provocation.

The immediate circumstances which led to the Ionian Revolt belong to
Greek rather than to Persian history, and have been so fully treated of
by the historians of the Hellenic race that a knowledge of them may be
assumed as already possessed by the reader. What is chiefly remarkable
about them is, that they are so purely private and personal. A chance
quarrel between Aristagoras of Miletus and the Persian Megabates,
pecuniary difficulties pressing on the former, and the natural desire
of Histiseus, father-in-law of Aristagoras, to revisit his native place,
were undoubtedly the direct and immediate causes of what became a
great national outbreak. That there must have been other and wider
predisposing causes can scarcely be doubted. Among them two may be
suggested. The presence of Darius in Asia Minor, and his friendliness
towards the tyrants who bore sway in most of the Greek cities, were
calculated to elate those persons in their own esteem, and to encourage
in them habits and acts injurious or offensive to their subjects. Their
tyranny under these circumstances would become more oppressive and
galling. At the same time the popular mind could not fail to associate
together the native despot and the foreign lord, who (it was clear to
all) supported and befriended each other. If the Greeks of Asia, like so
many of their brethren in Europe, had grown weary of their tyrants
and were desirous of rising against them, they would be compelled to
contemplate the chances of a successful resistance to the Persians.
And here there were circumstances in the recent history calculated
to inspirit them and give them hopes. Six hundred Greek ships, manned
probably by 120,000 men, had been lately brought together, and had
formed a united fleet. The fate of the Persian land-army had depended
on their fidelity. It is not surprising that a sense of strength should
have been developed, and something like a national spirit should have
grown up in such a condition of things.

If this were the state of feeling among the Greeks, the merit of
Aristagoras would be, that he perceived it, and, regardless of all class
prejudices, determined to take advantage of the chance which it gave
him of rising superior to his embarrassments. Throwing himself on the
popular feeling, the strength of which he had estimated aright, he by
the same act gave freedom to the cities, and plunged his nation into
a rebellion against Persia. It was easy for reason to show, when the
matter was calmly debated, that the probabilities of success against
the might of Darius were small. But the arrest of the tyrants by
Aristagoras, and his deliverance of them into the hands of their
subjects, was an appeal to passion against which reason was powerless.
No state could resist the temptation of getting rid of the tyranny under
which it groaned. But the expulsion of the vassal committed those who
took part in it to resist in arms the sovereign lord.

In the original revolt appear to have been included only the cities
of Ionia and AEolis. Aristagoras felt that some further strength was
needed, and determined to seek it in European Greece. Repulsed from
Sparta, which was disinclined to so distant an expedition, he applied
for aid to cities on which he had a special claim. Miletus counted
Athens as her mother state; and Eretria was indebted to her for
assistance in her great war with Chalcis. Applying in these quarters
Aristagoras succeeded better, but still obtained no very important help.
Athens voted him twenty ships, Eretria five and with the promise of
these succors he hastened back to Asia.

The European contingent soon afterwards arrived; and Aristagoras,
anxious to gain some signal success which should attract men to his
cause, determined on a most daring enterprise. This was no less than an
attack on Sardis, the chief seat of the Persian power in these parts,
and by far the most important city of Asia Minor. Sailing to Ephesus, he
marched up the valley of the Cayster, crossed Mount Tmolus, and took
the Lydian capital at the first onset. Artaphernes, the satrap, was only
able to save the citadel; the invaders began to plunder the town, and in
the confusion it caught fire and was burnt. Aristagoras and his troops
hastily retreated, but were overtaken before they could reach Ephesus by
the Persians quartered in the province, who fell upon them and gave
them a severe defeat. The expedition then broke up; the Asiatic Greeks
dispersed among their cities; the Athenians and Eretrians took ship and
sailed home.

Results followed that could scarcely have been anticipated. The failure
of the expedition was swallowed up in the glory of its one achievement.
It had taken Sardis--it had burnt one of the chief cities of the Great
King. The news spread like wildfire on every side, and was proclaimed
aloud in places where the defeat of Ephesus was never even whispered.
Everywhere revolt burst out. The Greeks of the Hellespont--not only
those of Asia but likewise those of Europe--the Carians and Caunians of
the south-western coast--even the distant Cyprians broke into rebellion;
the Scythians took heart and made a plundering raid through the Great
King’s Thracian territories;4 vassal monarchs, like Miltiades, assumed
independence, and helped themselves to some of the fragments of the
Empire that seemed falling to pieces. If a great man, a Miltiades or
a Leondias, had been at the head of the movement, and if it had been
decently supported from the European side, a successful issue might
probably have been secured.

But Aristagoras was unequal to the occasion; and the struggle for
independence, which had promised so fair, was soon put down. Despite a
naval victory gained by the Greeks over the Phoenician fleet off Cyprus,
that island was recovered by the Persians within a year. Despite a
courage and a perseverance worthy of a better fate, the Carians were
soon afterwards forced to succumb. The reduction of the Hellespontine
Greeks and of the AEolians followed. The toils now closed around Ionia,
and her cities began to be attacked one by one; whereupon the incapable
Aristagoras, deserting the falling cause, betook himself to Europe,
where a just Nemesis pursued him: he died by a Thracian sword. After
this the climax soon arrived. Persia concentrated her strength upon
Miletus, the cradle of the revolt, and the acknowledged chief of the
cities; and though her sister states came gallantly to her aid, and a
fleet was collected which made it for a while doubtful which way victory
might incline, yet all was of no avail. Laziness and insubordination
began and treachery completed the work which all the force of Persia
might have failed to accomplish; the combined Ionian fleet was totally
defeated in the battle of Lade; and soon after Miletus herself fell.
The bulk of her inhabitants were transported into inner Asia and settled
upon the Persian Gulf. The whole Ionian coast was ravaged, and the
cities punished by the loss of their most beautiful maidens and youths.
The islands off the coast were swept of their inhabitants. The cities on
the Hellespont and Sea of Marmora were burnt. Miltiades barely escaped
from the Chersonese with the loss of his son and his kingdom. The flames
of rebellion were everywhere ruthlessly trampled out; and the power
of the Great King was once more firmly established over the coasts and
islands of the Propontis and the Egean Sea.

It remained, however, to take vengeance upon the foreigners who had
dared to lend their aid to the king’s revolted subjects, and had borne
a part in the burning of Sardis. The pride of the Persians felt such
interference as an insult of the grossest kind: and the tale may well be
true that Darius, from the time that he first heard the news, employed
an officer to bid him daily “remember Athens.” The schemes which he had
formerly entertained with respect to the reduction of Greece recurred
with fresh force to his mind; and the task of crushing the revolt was no
sooner completed than he proceeded to attempt their execution.
Selecting Mardonius, son of Gobryas the conspirator, and one of his
own sons-in-law, for general, he gave him the command of a powerful
expedition, which was to advance by way of Thrace, Macedonia, and
Thessaly, against Eretria and Athens. At the same time, with a wisdom
which we should scarcely have expected in an Oriental, he commissioned
him, ere he quitted Asia, to depose the tyrants who bore rule in the
Greek cities, and to allow the establishment of democracies in their
stead. Such a measure was excellently calculated to preserve the
fidelity of the Hellenic population and to prevent any renewal of
disturbance. It gave ample employment to unquiet spirits by opening to
them a career in their own states--and it removed the grievance which,
more than anything else, had produced the recent rebellion.

Mardonius having effected this change proceeded into Europe. He had a
large land force and a powerful navy, and at first was successful both
by land and sea. The fleet took Thasos, an island valuable for its
mines; and the army forced the Macedonians to exchange their position
of semi-independence for that of full Persian subjects, liable to both
tribute and military service. But this fair dawn was soon overcast. As
the fleet was rounding Athos a terrible tempest arose which, destroyed
300 triremes and more than 20,000 men, some of whom were devoured by
sea-monsters, while the remainder perished by drowning. On shore,
a night attack of the Brygi, a Thracian tribe dwelling in the tract
between the Strymon and the Axius, brought disaster upon the land force,
numbers of which were slain, while Mardonius himself received a wound.
This disgrace, indeed, was retrieved by subsequent operations, which
forced the Brygi to make their submission; but the expedition found
itself in no condition to advance further, and Mardonius retreated into
Asia.

Darius, however, did not allow failure to turn him from his purpose.
The attack of Mardonius was followed within two years by the well-known
expedition under Datis (B.C. 490), which, avoiding the dangers of Athos,
sailed direct to its object, crossing the Egean by the line of the
Cyclades, and falling upon Eretria and Attica. Eretria’s punishment
warned the Athenians to resist to the uttermost; and the skill of
Miltiades, backed by the valor of his countrymen, gave to Athens the
great victory of Marathon. Datis fell back upon Asia, having suffered
worse disasters than his predecessor, and bore to the king the
melancholy tidings that his vast force of from 100,000 to 200,000 men
had been met and worsted by 20,000 Athenians and Plataeans.

Still Darius was not shaken in his resolution. He only issued fresh
orders for the collection of men, ships, and materials. For three years
Asia resounded with the din of preparation; and it is probable that in
the fourth year a fresh expedition would have been led into Greece, had
not an important occurrence prevented it. Egypt, always discontented
with its subject position under a race which despised its religion, and
perhaps occasionally persecuted it, broke out into open revolt (B.C.
487). Darius, it seems, determined to divide his forces, and proceed
simultaneously against both enemies; he even contemplated leading one
of the two expeditions in person; but before his preparations were
completed his vital powers failed. He died in the year following the
Egyptian revolt (B.C. 486), in the sixty-third year of his age, and
the thirty-sixth of his reign, leaving his crown to his eldest son by
Atossa, Xerxes.

The character of Darius will have revealed itself with tolerable
clearness in the sketch which has been here given of the chief events
of his reign. But a brief summary of some of its main points may not be
superfluous. Darius Hystaspis was, next to Cyrus, the greatest of the
Persian kings; and he was even superior to Cyrus in some particulars.
His military talent has been underrated. Though not equal to the founder
of the Empire in this respect, he deserves the credit of energy, vigor,
foresight, and judicious management in his military expeditions, of
promptness in resolving and ability in executing, of discrimination in
the selection of generals, and of a power of combination not often found
in Oriental commanders. He was personally brave, and quite willing to
expose himself, even in his old age, to dangers and hardships. But
he did not unnecessarily thrust himself into peril. He was content to
employ generals, where the task to be accomplished did not seem to be
beyond their powers; and he appears to have been quite free from an
unworthy jealousy of their successes. He was a man of kindly and warm
feeling--strongly attached to his friends; he was clement and even
generous towards conquered foes. When he thought the occasion required
it, he could be severe but his inclination was towards mildness and
indulgence. He excelled all the other Persian kings in the arts of
peace. To him, and him alone, the Empire owed its organization. He was
a skilful administrator, a good financier, and a wise and far-seeing
ruler. Of all the Persian princes he is the only one who can be called
“many-sided.” He was organizer, general, statesman, administrator,
builder, patron of arts and literature, all in one. Without him Persia
would probably have sunk as rapidly as she rose, and would be known to
us only as one of the many meteor powers which have shot athwart the
horizon of the East.

Xerxes, the eldest son of Darius by Atossa, succeeded his father by
virtue of a formal act of choice. It was a Persian custom that the king,
before he went out of his dominions on an expedition, should nominate a
successor. Darius must have done this before his campaign in Thrace
and Scythia; and if Xerxes was then, as is probable, a mere boy, it is
impossible that he should have received the appointment. Artobazanes,
the eldest of all Darius’s sons, whose mother, a daughter of Gobryas,
was married to Darius before he became king, was most likely then
nominated, and was thenceforth regarded as the heir-apparent. When,
however, towards the close of his reign Darius again proposed to head
a foreign expedition, an opportunity occurred of disturbing this
arrangement, of which Atossa, Darius’s favorite wife, whose influence
over her husband was unbounded, determined to take advantage. According
to the law, a fresh signification of the sovereign’s will was now
requisite; and Atossa persuaded Darius to make it in favor of Xerxes.
The pleas put forward were, first, that he was the eldest son of the
king, and secondly, that he was descended from Cyrus. This latter
argument could not fail to have weight. Backed by the influence of
Atossa, it prevailed over all other considerations; and hence Xerxes
obtained the throne.

If we may trust the informants of Herodotus, it was the wish of Xerxes
on his accession to discontinue the preparations against Greece, and
confine his efforts to the re-conquest of Egypt. Though not devoid of
ambition, he may well have been distrustful of his own powers; and,
having been nurtured in luxury, he may have shrunk from the perils of a
campaign in unknown regions. But he was surrounded by advisers who had
interests opposed to his inclinations, and who worked on his facile
temper till they prevailed on him to take that course which seemed best
calculated to promote their designs. Mardonius was anxious to retrieve
his former failure, and expected, if Greece were conquered, that the
rich prize would become his own satrapy. The refugee princes of the
family of Pisistratus hoped to be reinstated under Persian influence as
dependent despots of Athens. Demaratus of Sparta probably cherished
a similar expectation with regard to that capital. The Persian nobles
generally, who profited by the spoils of war, and who were still full of
the military spirit, looked forward with pleasure to an expedition
from which they anticipated victory, plunder, and thousands of valuable
captives. The youthful king was soon persuaded that the example of his
predecessors required him to undertake some fresh conquest, while the
honor of Persia absolutely demanded that the wrongs inflicted upon her
by Athens should be avenged. Before, however, turning his arms against
Greece, two revolts required his attention. In the year B.C. 485--the
second of his reign--he marched into Egypt, which he rapidly reduced to
obedience and punished by increasing its burthens. Soon afterwards he
seems to have provoked a rebellion of the Babylonians by acts which they
regarded as impious, and avenged by killing their satrap, Zopyrus, and
proclaiming their independence. Megabyzus, the son of Zopyrus, recovered
the city, which was punished by the plunder and ruin of its famous
temple and the desolation of many of its shrines.

Xerxes was now free to bend all his efforts against Greece, and,
appreciating apparently to the full the magnitude and difficulty of the
task, resolved that nothing should be left undone which could possibly
be done in order to render success certain. The experience of former
years had taught some important lessons. The failure of Datis had proved
that such an expedition as could be conveyed by sea across the Egean
would be insufficient to secure the object sought, and that the only
safe road for a conqueror whose land force constituted his real strength
was along the shores of the European continent. But if a large army
took this long and circuitous route, it must be supported by a powerful
fleet; and this involved a new danger. The losses of Mardonius off Athos
had shown the perils of Egean navigation, and taught the lesson that the
naval force must be at first far more than proportionate to the needs
of the army, in order that it might still be sufficient notwithstanding
some considerable disasters. At the same time they had indicated one
special place of danger, which might be avoided, if proper measures
were taken. Xerxes, in the four years which followed on the reduction of
Egypt, continued incessantly to make the most gigantic preparations
for his intended attack upon Greece, and among them included all the
precautions which a wise foresight could devise in order to ward off
every conceivable peril. A general order was issued to all the satraps
throughout the Empire, calling on them to levy the utmost force of their
province for the new war; while, as the equipment of Oriental troops
depends greatly on the purchase and distribution of arms by their
commander, a rich reward was promised to the satrap whose contingent
should appear at the appointed place and time in the most gallant array.
Orders for ships and transports of different kinds were given to the
maritime states, with such effect that above 1200 triremes and 3000
vessels of an inferior description were collected together. Magazines
of corn were formed at various points along the intended line of route.
Above all, it was determined to bridge the Hellespont by a firm and
compact structure, which it was thought would secure the communication
of the army from interruption by the elements; and at the same time it
was resolved to cut through the isthmus which joined Mount Athos to the
continent, in order to preserve the fleet from disaster at that most
perilous part of the proposed voyage. These remarkable works, which made
a deep impression on the minds of the Greeks, have been ascribed to
a mere spirit of ostentation on the part of Xerxes; the vain-glorious
monarch wished, it is supposed, to parade his power, and made a useless
bridge and an absurd cutting merely for the purpose of exhibiting to
the world the grandeur of his ideas and the extent of his resources. But
there is no necessity for travelling beyond the line of ordinary human
motive in order to discover a reason for the works in question. The
bridge across the Hellespont was a mere repetition of the construction
by which Darius had passed into Europe when he made his Scythian
expedition, and probably seemed to a Persian not a specially dignified
or very wonderful way of crossing so narrow a strait, but merely the
natural mode of passage. The only respect in which the bridge of Xerxes
differed from constructions with which the Persians were thoroughly
familiar, was in its superior solidity and strength. The shore-cables
were of unusual size and weight, and apparently of unusual materials;
the formation of a double line--of two bridges, in fact, instead of
one--was almost without a parallel; and the completion of the work by
laying on the ordinary plank-bridge a solid causeway composed of earth
and brushwood, with a high bulwark on either side, was probably, if not
unprecedented, at any rate very uncommon. Boat-bridges were usually,
as they are even now in the East, somewhat rickety constructions, which
animals unaccustomed to them could with difficulty be induced to cross.
The bridge of Xerxes was a high-road, as AEschylus calls it along, which
men, horses, and vehicles might pass with as much comfort and facility
as they could move on shore.

The utility of such a work is evident. Without it Xerxes must have been
reduced to the necessity of embarking in ships, conveying across the
strait, and disembarking, not only his entire host, but all its stores,
tents, baggage, horses, camels, and sumpter-beasts. If the numbers of
his army approached even the lowest estimate that has been formed of
them, it is not too much to say that many weeks must have been spent in
this operation. As it was, the whole expedition marched across in seven
days. In the case of ship conveyance, continual accidents would have
happened: the transport would from time to time have been interrupted by
bad weather; and great catastrophes might have occurred. By means of the
bridge the passage was probably effected without any loss of either man
or beast. Moreover, the bridge once established, there was a safe
line of communication thenceforth between the army in Europe and the
headquarters of the Persian power in Asia, along which might pass
couriers, supplies, and reinforcements, if they should be needed.
Further, the grandeur, massiveness, and apparent stability of the work
was calculated to impose upon the minds of men, and to diminish their
power of resistance by impressing them strongly with a sense of the
irresistible greatness and strength of the invader.

The canal of Athos was also quite a legitimate and judicious
undertaking. [PLATE LXI.] No portion of the Greek coast is so dangerous
as that about Athos. Greek boatmen even at the present day refuse to
attempt the circumnavigation; and probably any government less apathetic
than that of the Turks would at once re-open the old cutting. The work
was one of very little difficulty, the breadth of the isthmus being less
than a mile and a half, the material sand and marl, and the greatest
height of the natural ground above the level of the sea about fifty
feet. The construction of a canal in such a locality was certainly
better than the formation of a ship-groove or Diolcus--the substitute
for it proposed by Ferodotus, [PLATE LXI.] not to mention that it is
doubtful whether at the time that this cutting was made ship-grooves
were known even to the Greeks.


[Illustration: PLATE LXI.]


Xerxes, having brought his preparations into a state of forwardness,
having completed his canal and his bridge--after one failure with the
latter, for which the constructors and the sea were punished--proceeded,
in the year B.C. 481, along the “Royal Road” from Susa to Sardis, and
wintered at the Lydian capital. His army is said to have accompanied
him; but more probably it joined him in the spring, flocking in,
contingent after contingent, from the various provinces of his vast
Empire. Forty-nine nations, according to Herodotus, served under his
standard; and their contingents made up a grand total of eighteen
hundred thousand men. Of these, eighty thousand were cavalry, while
twenty thousand rode in chariots or on camels; the remainder served on
foot. There are no sufficient means of testing these numbers. Figures
in the mouth of an Oriental are vague and almost unmeaning; armies are
never really counted: there is no such thing as a fixed and definite
“strength” of a division or a battalion. Herodotus tells us that a rough
attempt at numbering the infantry of the host was made on this occasion;
but it was of so rude and primitive a description that little dependence
can be placed on the results obtained by it. Ten thousand men were
counted, and were made to stand close together; a line was then drawn
round them, and a wall built on the line to the height of a man’s waist;
within the enclosure thus made all the troops in turn entered, and each
time that the enclosure appeared to be full, ten thousand were supposed
to be within it. Estimated in this way, the infantry was regarded as
amounting to 1,700,000. It is clear that such mode of counting was of
the roughest kind, and might lead to gross exaggeration. Each commander
would wish his troops to be thought more numerous than they really were,
and would cause the enclosure to appear full when several thousands
more might still have found room within it. Nevertheless there would be
limits beyond which exaggeration could not go; and if Xerxes was made to
believe that the land force which he took with him into Europe amounted
to nearly two millions of men, it is scarcely doubtful but that it must
have exceeded one million.

The motley composition of such a host has been described in a former
chapter. Each nation was armed and equipped after its own fashion, and
served in a body, often under a distinct commander. The army marched
through Asia in a single column, which was not, however, continuous,
but was broken into three portions. The first portion consisted of the
baggage animals and about half of the contingents of the nations; the
second was composed wholly of native Persians, who preceded and followed
the emblems of religion and the king; the third was made up of the
remaining national contingents. The king himself rode alternately in
a chariot and in a litter. He was preceded immediately by ten sacred
horses, and a sacred chariot drawn by eight milk-white steeds. Round
him and about him were the choicest troops of the whole army, twelve
thousand horse and the same number of foot, all Persians, and those too
not taken at random, but selected carefully from the whole mass of the
native soldiery. Among them seem to have been the famous “Immortals”--a
picked body of 10,000 footmen, always maintained at exactly the same
number, and thence deriving their appellation.

The line of march from Sardis to Abydos was only partially along the
shore. The army probably descended the valley of the Hermus nearly to
its mouth, and then struck northward into the Caicus vale, crossing
which it held on its way, with Mount Kara-dagh (Cane) on the left,
across the Atarnean plain, and along the coast to Adramytium (Adramyti)
and Antandros, whence it again struck inland, and, crossing the ridge
of Ida, descended into the valley of the Scamander. Some losses were
incurred from the effects of a violent thunderstorm amid the mountains;
but they cannot have been of a any great consequence. On reaching the
Scamander the army found its first difficulty with respect to water.
That stream was probably low, and the vast host of men and animals
were unable to obtain from it a supply sufficient for their wants. This
phenomenon, we are told, frequently recurred afterwards; it surprises
the English reader, but is not really astonishing, since, in hot
countries, even considerable streams are often reduced to mere threads
of water during the summer.

Rounding the hills which skirt the Scamander valley upon the east, the
army marched past Rhoeteum, Ophrynium, and Dardanus to Abydos. Here
Xerxes, seated upon a marble throne, which the people of Abydos had
erected for him on the summit of a hill, was able to see at one glance
his whole, armament, and to feast his eyes with the sight. It is not
likely that any misgivings occurred to him at such a moment. Before him
lay his vast host, covering with its dense masses the entire low ground
between the hills and the sea; beyond was the strait, and to his left
the open sea, white with the sails of four thousand ships; the green
fields of the Chersonese smiled invitingly a little further on; while,
between him and the opposite shore, the long lines of his bridges lay
darkling upon the sea, like a yoke placed upon the neck of a captive.
Having seen all, the king gave his special attention to the fleet, which
he now perhaps beheld in all its magnitude for the first time. Desirous
of knowing which of his subjects were the best sailors, he gave orders
for a sailing-match, which were at once carried out. The palm was borne
off by the Phoenicians of Sidon, who must have beaten not only their own
countrymen of Tyre, but the Greeks of Asia and the islands.

On the next day the passage took place. It was accompanied by religious
ceremonies. Waiting for the sacred hour of sunrise, the leader of the
host, as the first rays appeared, poured a libation from a golden goblet
into the sea, and prayed to Mithra that he might effect the conquest of
Europe. As he prayed he cast into the sea the golden goblet, and with it
a golden bowl and a short Persian sword. Meanwhile the multitude strewed
all the bridge with myrtle boughs, and perfumed it with clouds of
incense. The “Immortals” crossed first, wearing garlands on their
heads. The king, with the sacred chariot and horses passed over on the
second day. For seven days and seven nights the human stream flowed
on without intermission across one bridge, while the attendants and the
baggage-train made use of the other. The lash was employed to quicken
the movements of laggards. At last the whole army was in Europe, and the
march resumed its regularity.

It is unnecessary to follow in detail the advance of the host along the
coast of Thrace, across Chalcidice, and round the Thermaic Gulf into
Pieria. If we except the counting of the fleet and army at Doriscus no
circumstances of much interest diversified this portion of the march,
which lay entirely through territories that had previously submitted
to the Great King. The army spread itself over a wide tract of country,
marching generally in three divisions, which proceeded by three parallel
lines--one along the coast, another at some considerable distance
inland, and a third, with which was Xerxes himself, midway between them.
At every place where Xerxes stopped along his line of route the natives
had, besides furnishing corn for his army, to entertain him and his
suite at a great banquet, the cost of which was felt as a heavy burthen.
Contributions of troops or ships were also required from all the cities
and tribes; and thus both fleet and army continually swelled as they
advanced onward. In crossing the track between the Strymon and the Axius
some damage was suffered by the baggage-train from lions, which came
down from the mountains during the night and devoured many of the
camels; but otherwise the march was effected without loss, and the fleet
and army reached the borders of Thessaly intact, and in good condition.
Here it was found that there was work for the pioneers, and a
reconnaissance of the enemy’s country before entering it was probably
also thought desirable. The army accordingly halted some days in Pieria,
while preparations were being made for crossing the Olympic range into
the Thessalian lowland.

During the halt intelligence arrived which seemed to promise the invader
an easy conquest. Xerxes, while he was staying at Sardis, had sent
heralds to all the Grecian states, excepting Athens and Sparta, with a
demand for earth and water, the recognized symbols of submission. His
envoys now returned, and brought him favorable replies from at least
one-third of the continental Greeks--from the Perrhaebians, Thessalians,
Dolopians, Magnetians, Achaeans of Phthiotis, Enianians, Malians,
Locrians, and from most of the Boeotians. Unless it were the
insignificant Phocis, no hostile country seemed to intervene between the
place where his army lay and the great object of the expedition, Attica.
Xerxes, therefore, having first viewed the pass of Tempe, and seen with
his own eyes that no enemy lay encamped beyond, passed over the Olympic
range by a road cut through the woods by his army, and proceeded
southwards across Thessaly and Achaea Phthiotis into Malis, the fertile
plain at the mouth of the Spercheius river. Here, having heard that a
Greek force was in the neighborhood, he pitched his camp not far from
the small town of Trachis.

Thus far had the Greeks allowed the invader to penetrate their country
without offering him any resistance. Originally there had been an
intention of defending Thessaly, and an army under Evsenetus, a Spartan
polemarch, and Themistocles, the great Athenian, had proceeded to Tempe,
in order to cooperate with the Thessalians in guarding the pass. But the
discovery that the Olympic range could be crossed in the,place where
the army of Xerxes afterwards passed it had shown that the position was
untenable; and it had been then resolved that the stand should be
made at the next defensible position, Thermopylae. [PLATE LXII.] Here,
accordingly, a force was found--small, indeed, if it be compared with
the number of the assailants, but sufficient to defend such a position
as that where it was posted against the world in arms. Three hundred
Spartans, with their usual retinue of helots, 700 Lacedaemonians, other
Peloponnesians to the number of 2800, 1000 Phocians, the same number
of Locrians, 700 Thespians, and 400 Thebans, formed an army of 9000
men--quite as numerous a force as could be employed with any effect in
the defile they were sent to guard. The defile was a long and narrow
pass shut in between a high mountain, Callidromus, and the sea, and
crossed at one point by a line of wall in which was a single gateway.
Unless the command of the sea were gained, or another mode of crossing
the mountains discovered, the pass could scarcely be forced.


[Illustration: PLATE LXII.]


Xerxes, however, confident in his numbers--after waiting four days at
Trachis, probably in the hope that his fleet would join him--proceeded
on the fifth day to the assault. First the Medes and Cissians, then
the famous “Immortals” were sent into the jaws of the pass against the
immovable foe; but neither detachment could make any impression. The
long spears, large shields, and heavy armor of the Greeks, their skilful
tactics, and steady array, were far more than a match for the inferior
equipments and discipline of the Asiatics. Though the attack was made
with great gallantry, both on this day and the next, it failed to
produce the slightest effect. Very few of the Greeks were either slain
or wounded; and it seemed as if the further advance of a million of men
was to be stopped by a force less than a hundredth part of their number.

But now information reached Xerxes which completely changed the face
of affairs. There was a rough mountain-path leading from Trachis up
the gorge of the Asopus and across Callidromus to the rear of the Greek
position, which had been unknown to the Greeks when they decided on
making their first stand at Thermopylae, and which they only discovered
when their plans no longer admitted of alteration. It was, perhaps,
not much more than a goat-track, and apparently they had regarded it as
scarcely practicable, since they had thought its defence might be safely
entrusted to a thousand Phocians. Xerxes, however, on learning the
existence of the track, resolved at once to make trial of it. His
Persian soldiers were excellent mountaineers. He ordered Hydarnes to
take the “Immortals,” and, guided by a native, to proceed along the path
by night, and descend with early dawn into the rear of the Greeks, who
would then be placed between two fires. The operation was performed with
complete success. The Phocian guard, surprised at the summit, left the
path free while they sought a place of safety. The Greeks in the pass
below, warned during the night of their danger, in part fled, in part
resolved on death. When morning came, Leonidas, at the head of about
half his original army, moved forward towards the Malian plain, and
there met the advancing Persians. A bloody combat ensued, in which the
Persians lost by far the greater number; but the ranks of the Greeks
were gradually thinned, and they were beaten back step by step into the
narrowest part of the pass, where finally they all perished, except the
four hundred Thebans, who submitted and were made prisoners.

So terminated the first struggle on the soil of Greece, between the
invaders and the invaded. It seemed to promise that, though at vast
cost, Persia would be victorious. If her loss in the three days’ combat
was 20,000 men, as Herodotus states, yet, as that of her enemy was 4000,
the proportionate advantage was on her side.

But, for the conquest of such a country as Greece, it was requisite, not
only that the invader should succeed on land, but also that he should be
superior at sea. Xerxes had felt this, and had brought with him a fleet,
calculated, as he imagined, to sweep the Greek navy from the Egean. As
far as the Pagasaean Gulf, opposite the northern extremity of Euboea,
his fleet had advanced without meeting an enemy. It had encountered one
terrible storm off the coast of Magnesia, and had lost 400 vessels; but
this loss was scarcely felt in so vast an armament. When from Aphetse,
at the mouth of the gulf, the small Greek fleet, amounting to no more
than 271 vessels, was seen at anchor off Artemisium, the only fear which
the Persian commanders entertained was lest it should escape them. They
at once detached 200 vessels to sail round the Coast coast of Euboea,
and cut off the possibility of retreat. When, however, these vessels
were all lost in a storm, and when in three engagements on three
successive days, the Greek fleet showed itself fully able to contend
against the superior numbers of its antagonist, the Persians themselves
could not fail to see that their naval supremacy was more than doubtful.
The fleet at Artemisium was not the entire Greek naval force; on another
occasion it might be augumented, while their own could scarcely expect
to receive reinforcements. The fights at Artemisium foreshadowed a day
when the rival fleets would no longer meet and part on equal terms, but
Persia would have to acknowledge herself inferior.

Meanwhile, however, the balance of advantage rested with the invaders.
The key of Northern Greece was won, and Phocis, Locris, Boeotia, Attica,
and the Megarid lay open to the Persian army. The Greek fleet could gain
nothing by any longer maintaining the position of Artemisium, and fell
back towards the south, while its leaders anxiously considered where it
should next take up its station. The Persians pressed on both by land
and sea. A rapid march through Phocis and Boeotia brought Xerxes to
Athens, soon after the Athenians, knowing that resistance would be vain,
had evacuated it. The Acropolis, defended by a few fanatics, was taken
and burnt. One object of the expedition was thus accomplished. Athens
lay in ruins; and the whole of Attica was occupied by the conqueror.
The Persian fleet, too, finding the channel of the Euripus clear, sailed
down it, and rounding Sunium, came to anchor in the bay of Phalerum.

In the councils of the Greeks all was doubt and irresolution. The
army, which ought to have mustered in full force at Thermopylae and
Callidromus, and which, after those passes were forced, might have
defended Cithseron and Parnes, had never ventured beyond the Isthmus
of Corinth, and was there engaged in building a wall across the neck of
land from sea to sea. The fleet lay off Salamis, where it was detained
by the entreaties of the Athenians, who had placed in that island the
greater part of the non-combatant population; but the inclination was
strong on the part of many to withdraw westward and fight the next
battle, if a battle must be fought, in the vicinity of the land force,
which would be a protection in case of defeat. Could Xerxes have had
patience for a few days, the combined fleet would have broken up. The
Peloponnesian contingents would have withdrawn to the isthmus; and the
Athenians, despairing of success, would probably have sailed away to
Italy. But the Great King, when he saw the vast disproportion
between his own fleet and that of the enemy, could not believe in the
possibility of the Greeks offering a successful resistance. Like a
modern emperor, who imagined that, if only he could have been with his
fleet, all would necessarily have gone well, Xerxes supposed that by
having the sea-fight under his own eye he would be sure of victory. Thus
again, as at Artemisium, the only fear felt was lest the Greeks should
fly, and in that way escape chastisement. Orders were therefore issued
to the Persian fleet to close up at once, and blockade the eastern end
of the Salaminian strait, while a detachment repeated the attempted
manoeuvre at Euboea, and sailed round the island to guard the channel at
its western outlet.

These movements were executed late in the day on which the Persian
fleet arrived at Phalerum. During the night intelligence reached the
commanders that the retreat of the Greeks was about to commence at once;
whereupon the Persian right wing was pushed forward into the strait,
and carried beyond the Greek position so as to fill the channel where
it opens into the bay of Eleusis. The remainder of the night passed
in preparations for the battle on both sides. At daybreak both fleets
advanced from their respective shores, the Persians being rather the
assailants. Their thousand vessels were drawn up in three lines, and
charged their antagonists with such spirit that the general inclination
on the part of the Greeks was at first to retreat. Some of their ships
had almost touched the shore, when the bold example of one of the
captains, or a cry of reproach from unknown lips, produced a revulsion
of feeling, and the whole line advanced in good order. The battle was
for a short time doubtful; but soon the superiority of Greek naval
tactics began to tell. The Persian vessels became entangled one with
another, and crashing together broke each other’s oars. The triple
line increased their difficulties. If a vessel, overmatched, sought to
retreat, it necessarily came into collision with the ships stationed
in its rear. These moreover pressed too eagerly forward, since their
captains were anxious to distinguish themselves in order to merit the
approval of Xerxes. The Greeks found themselves able to practice
with good effect their favorite manoeuvre of the _periplus_, and thus
increased the confusion. It was not long before the greater part of
the Persian fleet became a mere helpless mass of shattered or damaged
vessels. Five hundred are said to have been sunk--the majority by the
enemy, but some even by their own friends. The sea was covered with
wrecks, and with wretches who clung to them, till the ruthless enemy
slew them or forced them to let go their hold.

This defeat was a death-blow to the hopes of Xerxes, and sealed the fate
of the expedition. From the moment that he realized to himself the fact
of the entire inability of his fleet to cope with that of the Greeks,
Xerxes made up his mind to return with all haste to Asia. From
over-confidence he fell into the opposite extreme of despair, and made
no effort to retrieve his ill fortune. His fleet was ordered to sail
straight for the Hellespont, and to guard the bridges until he reached
them with his army. He himself retreated hastily along the same road
by which he had advanced, his whole army accompanying him as far as
Thessaly, where Marnonius was left with 260,000 picked men, to prevent
pursuit, and to renew the attempt against Greece in the ensuing year.
Xerxes pressed on to the Hellespont, losing vast numbers of his troops
by famine and sickness on the way, and finally returned into Asia, not
by his magnificent bridge, which a storm had destroyed, but on board a
vessel, which, according to some, narrowly escaped shipwreck during the
passage. Even in Asia disaster pursued him. Between Abydos and Sardis
his army suffered almost as much from over-indulgence as it had
previously suffered from want; and of the mighty host which had gone
forth from the Lydian capital in the spring not very many thousands can
have re-entered it in the autumn.

Still, however, there was a possibility that the success which his
own arms had failed to achieve might reward the exertions of his
lieutenants. Mardonius had expressed himself confident that with 300,000
picked soldiers he could overpower all resistance, and make Greece
a satrapy of Persia. Xerxes had raised his forces to that amount by
sending Artabazus back from Sestos at the head of a _corps d’armee_
numbering 40,000 men. The whole army of 300,000 wintered in Thessaly;
and Mardonius, when spring came, having vainly endeavored to detach the
Athenians from the Grecian ranks, marched through Boeotia in Attica, and
occupied Athens for the second time. Hence he proceeded to menace the
Peloponnese, where he formed an alliance with the Argives, who promised
him that they would openly embrace the Persian cause. At the same time
the Athenians, finding that Sparta took no steps to help them, began to
waver in their resistance, and to contemplate accepting the terms which
Mardonius was still willing to grant them. The fate of Greece trembled
in the balance, and apparently was determined by the accident of a death
and a succession, rather than by any wide-spread patriotic feeling or
any settled course of policy. Cleombrotus, regent for the young son
of Leonidas, died, and his brother Pausanias--a brave, clever, and
ambitious man--took his place. We can scarcely be wrong in ascribing--at
least in part--to this circumstance the unlooked-for change of policy,
which electrified the despondent ambassadors of Athens almost as soon as
Pausanias was installed in power. It was suddenly announced that
Sparta would take the offensive. Ten thousand hoplites and 400,000
light-armed--the largest army that she ever levied--took the field,
and, joined at the isthmus by above 25,000 Peloponnesians, and soon
afterwards by almost as many Athenians and Megarians, proceeded to seek
the foreigners, first in Attica, and then in the position to which they
had retired in Boeotia. On the skirts of Citheeron, near Platsea, a
hundred and eight thousand Greeks confronted more than thrice their
number of Persians and Persian subjects; and now at length the trial
was to be made whether, in fair and open fight on land, Greece or Persia
would be superior. A suspicion of what the result would be might have
been derived from Marathon. But there the Persians had been taken at a
disadvantage, when the cavalry, their most important arm, was absent.
Here the error of Datis was not likely to be repeated. Mardonius had a
numerous and well-armed cavalry, which he handled with no little skill.
It remained to be seen, when the general engagement came, whether, with
both arms brought fully into play, the vanquished at Marathon would be
the victors.

The battle of Plataea was brought on under circumstances very
unfavorable to the Greeks. Want of water and a difficulty about
provisions had necessitated a night movement on their part. The
cowardice of all the small contingents, and the obstinacy of an
individual Spartan, disconcerted the whole plan of the operation, and
left the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians at daybreak separated from
each other, and deserted by the whole body of their allies. Mardonius
attacked at once, and prevented the junction of the two allies, so that
two distinct and separate engagements went on at the same time. In both
the Greeks were victorious. The Spartans repulsed the Persian horse and
foot, slew Mardonius and were the first to assail the Persian camp. The
Athenians defeated the _medizing_ Greeks, and effected a breach in
the defences of the camp, on which the Spartans had failed to make any
impression. A terrible carnage followed. The contingent of 40,000 troops
under Artabazus alone drew off in good order.

The remainder were seized with panic, and were either slaughtered like
sheep or fled in complete disarray. Seventy thousand Greeks not only
defeated but destroyed the army of 300,000 barbarians, which melted
away and disappeared making no further stand anywhere. The disaster of
Marathon was repeated on a larger scale, and without the resource of
an embarkation. Henceforth the immense superiority of Greek troops to
Persian was well known on both sides; and nothing but the distance from
Greece of her vital parts, and the quarrels of the Greek states among
themselves, preserved for nearly a century and a half the doomed empire
of Persia.

The immediate result of the defeats of Salamis and Platsea was a
contraction of the Persian boundary towards the west. Though a few
Persian garrisons maintained themselves for some years on the further
side of the straits, soothing thereby the wounded vanity of the Great
King, who liked to think that he had still a hold on Europe; yet there
can be no doubt that, after the double flight of Xerxes and Artabazus,
Macedonia, Pseonia, and Thrace recovered their independence. Persia lost
her European provinces, and began the struggle to retain those of Asia.
Terminus receded, and having once receded never advanced again in this
quarter. The Greeks took the offensive. Sailing to Asia, they not only
liberated from their Persian bondage the islands which lay along the
coast, but landing their men on the continent, attacked and defeated
an army of 60,000 Persians at Mycale, and destroyed the remnant of the
ships that had escaped from Salamis. Could they have made up their minds
to maintain a powerful fleet permanently on the coast of Asia, they
might at once have deprived Persia of her whole sea-hoard on the
Propontis and the Egean; but neither of the two great powers of Greece
was prepared for such a resolve. Sparta disliked distant expeditions;
and Athens did not as yet see her way to undertaking the protection
of the continental Greeks. She had much to do at home, and had not
yet discovered those weak points in her adversary’s harness, which
subsequently enabled her to secure by treaty the freedom of the Greek
cities upon the mainland. For the present, therefore, Persia only lost
the bulk of her European possessions, and the islands of the Propontis
and the Egean.

The circumstances which caused a renewal of Greek agressions upon Asia
towards the close of the reign of Xerxes are not very clearly narrated
by the authors who speak of them. It appears, however, that after twelve
years of petty operations, during which Eion was recovered, and Doriscus
frequently attacked, but without effect, the Athenians resolved, in B.C.
466, upon a great expedition to the eastward. Collecting a fleet of
300 vessels, which was placed under the command of Cimon, the son of
Miltiades, they sailed to the coast of Caria and Lycia, where they drove
the Persian garrisons out of the Greek towns, and augmenting their
navy by fresh contingents at every step, proceeded along the shores of
Pamphylia as far as the mouth of the river Eurymedon, where they found
a Phoenician fleet of 340 vessels, and a Persian army, stationed to
protect the territory. Engaging first the fleet they defeated it, and
drove it ashore, after which they disembarked and gained a victory
over the Persian army. As many as two hundred triremes were taken
or destroyed. They then sailed on towards Cyprus, where they met and
destroyed a squadron of eighty ships, which was on its way to reinforce
the fleet at the Eurymedon. Above a hundred vessels, 20,000 captives,
and a vast amount of plunder were the prize of this war; which had,
however, no further effect on the relations of the two powers.

In the following year the reign of Xerxes came to an end abruptly.
With this monarch seems to have begun those internal disorders of the
seraglio, which made the Court during more than a hundred and forty
years a perpetual scene of intrigues, assassinations, executions, and
conspiracies. Xerxes, who appears to have only one wife, Amestris,
the daughter (or grand-daughter) of the conspirator, Otanes, permitted
himself the free indulgence of illicit passion among the princesses
of the Court, the wives of his own near relatives. The most horrible
results followed. Amestris vented her jealous spite on those whom she
regarded as guilty of stealing from her the affections of her husband;
and to prevent her barbarities from producing rebellion, it was
necessary to execute the persons whom she had provoked, albeit they were
near relations of the monarch. The taint of incontinence spread among
the members of the royal family; and a daughter of the king, who was
married to one of the most powerful nobles, became notorious for
her excesses. Eunuchs rose into power, and fomented the evils which
prevailed. The king made himself bitter enemies among those whose
position was close to his person. At last, Artabanus, chief of the
guard, a courtier of high rank, and Aspamitres, a eunuch, who held the
office of chamberlain, conspired against their master, and murdered him
in his sleeping apartment, after he had reigned twenty years.

The character of Xerxes falls below that of any preceding monarch.
Excepting that he was not wholly devoid of a certain magnanimity, which
made him listen patiently to those who opposed his views or gave him
unpalatable advice and which prevented him from exacting vengeance on
some occasions, he had scarcely a trait whereon the mind can rest with
any satisfaction. Weak and easily led, puerile in his gusts of passion
and his complete abandonment of himself to them--selfish, fickle,
boastful, cruel, superstitious, licentious--he exhibits to us the
Oriental despot in the most contemptible of all his aspects--that
wherein the moral and the intellectual qualities are equally in defect,
and the career is one unvarying course of vice and folly. From Xerxes we
have to date at once the decline of the Empire in respect of territorial
greatness and military strength, and likewise its deterioration in
regard to administrative vigor and national spirit. With him commenced
the corruption of the Court--the fatal evil, which almost universally
weakens and destroys Oriental dynasties. His expedition against Greece
exhausted and depopulated the Empire; and though, by abstaining from
further military enterprises, he did what lay in his power to recruit
its strength, still the losses which his expedition caused were
certainly not repaired in his lifetime.

As a builder, Xerxes showed something of the same grandeur of conception
which is observable in his great military enterprise and in the works by
which it was accompanied. His Propylaea, and the sculptured staircase in
front of the Chebl Minar, which is undoubtedly his work, are among the
most magnificent erections upon the Persepolitan platform; and are quite
sufficient to place him in the foremost rank of Oriental builders. If
we were to ascribe the Chehl Minar itself to him, we should have to give
him the palm above all other kings of Persia; but on the whole it
is most probable that that edifice and its duplicate at Susa were
conceived, and in the main, constructed, by Darius.

Xerxes left behind him three sons--Darius, Hystaspes, and
Artaxerxes--and two daughters, Amytis and Rhodogune. Hystaspes was
satrap of Bactria, and at the time of their father’s death, only Darius
and Artaxerxes were at the Court.

Fearing the eldest son most, Artabanus persuaded Artaxerxes that the
assassination of Xerxes was the act of his brother, whereupon Artaxerxes
caused him to be put to death, and himself ascended the throne (B.C.
465).

Troubles, as usual, accompanied this irregular accession. Artabanus, not
content with exercising an influence under Artaxerxes such as has
caused some authors to speak of him as king, aimed at removing the
young prince, and making himself actual monarch. But his designs being
betrayed to Artaxerxes by Megabyzus, and at the same time his
former crimes coming to light, he was killed, together with his tool
Aspamitres, seven months after the murder of Xerxes. The sons of
Artabanus sought to avenge his death, but were defeated by Megabyzus in
an engagement, wherein they lost their lives.

Meanwhile, in Bactria, Hystaspes, who had a rightful claim to the
throne, raised the standard of revolt. Artaxerxes marched against him
in person, and engaged him in two battles, the first of which was
indecisive, while in the second the Bactrians suffered defeat, chiefly
(according to Ctesias) because the wind blew violently in their faces.
So signal was victory, that Bactria at once submitted. Hystaspes’ fate
is uncertain.

Not long after the reduction of Bactria, Egypt suddenly threw off the
Persian yoke (B.C. 460). Inarus, a king of the wild African tribes who
bordered the Nile valley on the west, but himself perhaps a descendant
of the old monarchs of Egypt, led the insurrection, and, in conjunction
with an Egyptian, named Amyrtseus, attacked the Persian troops stationed
in the country, who were commanded by Achaemenes, the satrap. A battle
was fought near Papremis in the Delta, wherein the Persians were
defeated, and Achaemenes fell by the hand of Inarus himself. The
Egyptians generally now joined in the revolt; and the remnant of the
Persian army was shut up in Memphis. Inarus had asked the aid of Athens;
and an Athenian fleet of 200 sail was sent to his assistance. This fleet
sailed up the Nile, defeated a Persian squadron, and took part in the
capture of Memphis and the siege of its citade (White Castle). When
the Persian king first learned what had happened, he endeavored to rid
himself of his Athenian enemies by inducing the Spartans to invade their
country; but, failing in his attempt, he had recourse to arms, and,
levying a vast host, which he placed under the command of Megabyzus,
sent that officer to recover the revolted province. Megabyzus marched
upon Memphis, defeated the Egyptians and their allies in a great battle,
relieved the citadel of Memphis from its siege, and recovered the rest
of the town. The Athenians fled to the tract called Prosopitis, which
was a a portion of the Delta, completely surrounded by two branch
streams of the Nile. Here they were besieged for eighteen months, till
Megabyzus contrived to turn the water from one of the two streams,
whereby the Athenian ships were stranded, and the Persian troops were
able to march across the river bed, and overwhelm the Athenians with
their numbers. A few only escaped to Cyrene. The entire fleet fell into
the enemy’s hands; and a reinforcement of fifty more ships, arriving
soon after the defeat, was attacked unawares after it had entered the
river, and lost more than half its number. Inarus was betrayed by some
of his own men, and, being carried prisoner to Persia, suffered death by
crucifixion. Amyrtseus fled to the fens, where for a while he maintained
his independence. Egypt, however, was with this exception recovered to
the Empire (B.C. 455); and Athens was taught that she could not always
invade the dominions of the Great King with impunity.

Six years after this, the Athenians resolved on another effort. A fleet
of 200 ships was equipped and placed under the command of the victor
of the Eurymedon, Cimon, with orders to proceed into the Eastern
Mediterranean, and seek to recover the laurels lost in Egypt. Cimon
sailed to Cyprus, where he received a communication from Amyrtseus,
which induced him to dispatch sixty ships to Egypt, while with the
remaining one hundred and forty he commenced the siege of Citium. Here
he died, either of disease or from the effects of a wound; and his
armament, pressed for provisions, was forced soon afterwards to raise
the siege, and address itself to some other enterprise. Sailing past
Salamis, it found there a Cilician and Phoenician fleet, consisting of
300 vessels, which it immediately attacked and defeated, notwithstanding
the disparity of number. Besides the ships which were sunk, a hundred
triremes were taken; and the sailors then landed and gained a victory
over a Persian army upon the shore. Artaxerxes, upon this, fearing lest
he should lose Cyprus altogether, and thinking that, if Athens became
mistress of this important island, she would always be fomenting
insurrection in Egypt, made overtures for peace to the generals who were
now in command. His propositions were favorably received. Peace was made
on the following terms:--Athens agreed to relinquish Cyprus, and recall
her squadron from Egypt; while the king consented to grant freedom to
all the Greek cities on the Asiatic continent, and not to menace them
either by land or water. The sea was divided between the two powers,
Persian ships of war were not to sail to the west of Phaselis in the
Levant, or of the Cyanean islands in the Euxine; and Greek war-ships, we
may assume, were not to show themselves east of those limits. On these
conditions there was to be peace and amity between the Greeks and the
Persians, and neither nation was to undertake any expeditions against
the territories of the other. Thus terminated the first period of
hostility between Greece and Persia, a period of exactly half a century,
commencing B.C. 499 and. ending B.C. 449, in the seventeenth year of
Artaxerxes.

It was probably not many years after the conclusion of this peace that
a rebellion broke out in Syria. Megabyzus, the satrap of that important
province, offended at the execution of Inarus, in violation of the
promise which he had himself made to him, raised a revolt against
his sovereign, defeated repeatedly the armies sent to reduce him to
obedience, and finally treated with Artaxerxes as to the terms on which
he would consent to be reconciled. Thus was set an example, if not of
successful insurrection, yet at any rate of the possibility of rebelling
with impunity--an example which could not fail to have a mischievous
effect on the future relations of the monarch with his satraps. It
would have been better for the Empire had Megabyzus suffered the fate
of Oroetes, instead of living to a good old age in high favor with the
monarch whose power he had weakened and defied.

Artaxerxes survived the “Peace of Callias” twenty-four years. His
relations with the Greeks continued friendly till his demise, though,
on the occasion of the revolt of Samos (B.C. 440), Pissuthnes, satrap of
Sardis, seems to have transgressed the terms of the treaty, and to
have nearly brought about a renewal of hostilities. It was probably
in retaliation for the aid given to the revolted Samians, that the
Athenians, late in the reign of Artaxerxes, made an expedition against
Caunus, which might have had important consequences, if the Caunians
had not been firm in their allegiance. A revolt of Lycia and Caria under
Zopyrus, the son of Megabyzus, assisted by the Greeks, might have proved
even more difficult to subdue than the rebellion of Syria under his
father. Persia, however, escaped this danger; and Artaxerxes, no doubt,
saw with pleasure a few years later the Greeks turn their arms against
each other--Athens, his great enemy, being forced into a contest for
existence with the Peloponnesian confederacy under Sparta.

The character of Artaxerxes, though it receives the approval of Plutarch
and Diodorus, must be pronounced on the whole poor and contemptible.
His ready belief of the charge brought by Artabanus against his brother,
Darius, admits perhaps of excuse, owing to his extreme youth; but his
surrender of Inarus to Amestris on account of her importunity, his
readiness to condone the revolt of Megabyzus, and his subjection
throughout almost the whole of his life to the evil influence of Amytis,
his sister, and Amestris, his mother--both persons of ill-regulated
lives--are indications of weakness and folly quite unpardonable in
a monarch. That he was mild in temperament, and even kind and
good-natured, is probable. But he had no other quality that deserves the
slightest commendation. In the whole course of his long reign he seems
never once to have adventured himself in the field against an enemy.
He made not a single attempt at conquest in any direction. We have no
evidence that he patronized either literature or the arts. His peace
with Athens was necessary perhaps, but disgraceful to Persia. The
disorders of the Court increased under his reign, from the license
(especially) which he allowed the Queen-mother, who sported with the
lives of his subjects. The decay of the Empire received a fatal impulse
from the impunity which he permitted to Megabyzus.

Like his father, Artaxerxes appears to have had but one legitimate wife.
This was a certain Damaspia, of whom nothing is known, except that she
died on the same day as her husband, and was the mother of his only
legitimate son, Xerxes. Seventeen other sons, who survived him, were
the issue of various concubines, chiefly--it would appear--Babylonians.
Xerxes II. succeeded to the throne on the death of his father (B.C.
425), but reigned forty-five days only, being murdered after a festival,
in which he had indulged too freely, by his half-brother, Secydianus or
Sogdianus. Secydianus enjoyed the sovereignty for little more than half
a year, when he was in his turn put to death by another, brother, Ochus,
who on ascending the throne took the name of Darius, and became known to
the Greeks as Darius Nothus.

Darius Nothus had in his father’s lifetime been made satrap of Hyrcania,
and had married his aunt, Parysatis, a daughter of Xerxes. He had
already two children at his accession,--a daughter, Amestris, and a
son, Arsaces, who succeeded him as Artaxerxes. His reign, which lasted
nineteen years, was a constant scene of insurrections and revolts, some
of which were of great importance, since they had permanent and
very disastrous consequences. The earliest of all was raised by his
full-brother, Arsites, who rebelled in conjunction with a son of
Megabyzus, and, obtaining the support of a number of Greek mercenaries,
gained two victories over the forces dispatched against him by the king.
At last, however, the fortune of war changed. Persian gold was used
to corrupt the mercenaries; and the rebels being thus reduced to
extremities, were forced to capitulate, yielding themselves on the
condition that their lives should be spared. Parysatis induced her
husband to disregard the pledges given and execute both Arsites and his
fellow-conspirator--thus proclaiming to the world that, unless by the
employment of perfidy, the Empire was incapable of dealing with those
who rebelled against its authority.

The revolt of Pissuthnes, satrap of Lydia, was the next important
outbreak. Its exact date is uncertain; but it seems not to have very
long preceded the Athenian disasters in Sicily. Pissuthnes, who had held
his satrapy for more than twenty years, was the son of a Hystaspes, and
probably a member of the royal family. His wealth--the accumulations of
so long a term of office--enabled him to hire the services of a body of
Greek mercenaries, who were commanded by an Athenian, called Lycon. On
these troops he placed his chief dependence; but they failed him in the
hour of need. Tissaphernes, the Persian general sent against him, bribed
Lycon and his men, who thereupon quitted Pissuthnes and made common
cause with his adversaries. The unfortunate satrap could no longer
resist, and therefore surrendered upon terms, and accompanied
Tissaphernes to the Court. Darius, accustomed now to disregard the
pledged word of his officers, executed him forthwith, and made over his
satrapy to Tissaphernes, as a reward for his zeal. Lycon, the Athenian
traitor, received likewise a handsome return for his services, the
revenues of several towns and districts being assigned him by the Great
King.

The rebellion, however, was not wholly crushed by the destruction of
its author, Amorges, a bastard son of Pissuthnes, continued to maintain
himself in Caria, where he was master of the strong city of Iasus, on
the north coast of the Sinus Iasicus, and set the power of Tissaphernes
at defiance. Having probably inherited the wealth of his father, he
hired a number of Peloponnesian mercenaries, and succeeded in maintaining
himself as an independent monarch for some years.

Such was the condition of things in Asia Minor, when intelligence
arrived of the fearful disasters which had befallen the Athenians in
Sicily--disasters without a parallel since those of Salamis--sudden,
unexpected, overwhelming. The news, flying through Asia, awoke
everywhere a belief that the power of Athens was broken, and that her
hostility need no longer be dreaded. The Persian monarch considered that
under the altered circumstances it would be safe to treat the Peace of
Callias as a dead letter, and sent down orders to the satraps of Lydia
and Bithynia that they were once more to demand and collect the tribute
of the Greek cities within their provinces. The satraps began to
speculate on the advantages which they might derive from alliance with
the enemies of Athens, and looked anxiously to see a Peloponnesian fleet
appear off the coast of Asia. Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus vied with
each other in the tempting offers which they made to Sparta, and it was
not long before a formal treaty was concluded between that state
and Persia, by which the two powers bound themselves to carry on war
conjointly against Athens.

Thus the contest between Persia and her rival entered upon a new phase.
Henceforth until the liberties of Greece were lost, the Great King could
always count on having for his ally one of the principal Grecian powers.
His gold was found to possess attractions which the Greeks were quite
unable to resist. At one time Sparta, at another Athens, at another
Thebes yielded to the subtle influence; Greek generals commanded the
Persian armies; Greek captains manoeuvered the Persian fleets; the very
rank and file of the standing army came to be almost as much Greek as
Persian. Acting on the maxim, _Divide et impera_, Persia prolonged for
eighty years her tottering Empire, by the skilful use which she made of
the mutual jealousies and divisions of the Hellenic states.

It scarcely belongs to the history of Persia to trace in detail the
fortunes of the contending powers during the latter portion of the
Peloponnesian war. We need only observe that the real policy of the
Court of Susa, well understood, and, on the whole, tolerably well
carried out by the satraps, was to preserve the balance of power
between Athens and Sparta, to allow neither to obtain too decided a
preponderance, to help each in turn, and encourage each to waste the
other’s strength, but to draw back whenever the moment came for striking
a decisive blow against either side. This policy skilfully pursued
by Tissaphernes (who had a genius for intrigue and did not require
an Alcibiades to give him lessons in state-craft), more clumsily
by Pharnabazus, whose character was comparatively sincere and
straightforward, prevailed until the younger Cyrus made his appearance
upon the scene, when a disturbing force came into play which had
disastrous effects both on the fortunes of Greece and on those of
Persia. The younger Cyrus had personal views of self-aggrandizement
which conflicted with the true interests of his nation, and was so bent
on paving the way for his own ascent to sovereign power that he did not
greatly care whether he injured his country or no. As the accomplishment
of his designs depended mainly on his obtaining a powerful land-force,
he regarded a Spartan as preferable to an Athenian alliance; and, having
once made his choice, he lent his ally such effectual aid that in
two years from the time of his coming down to the coast the war was
terminated. Persian gold manned and partly built the fleet which
conquered at AEgos-Potami; perhaps it contributed in a still more
decisive manner to the victory. Cyrus, by placing his stores at the
entire command of Lysander, deserved and acquired the cordial good-will
of Sparta and the Peloponnesians generally--an advantage of which we
shall find him in the sequel making good use.

The gain to Persia from the dominion which she had reacquired over the
Greeks of Asia was more than counter-balanced by a loss of territory in
another quarter, which seems to have occurred during the reign of Darius
Nothus, though in what exact year is doubtful. The revolt of Egypt is
placed by Heeren and Clinton in B.C. 414, by Eusebius in B.C. 411, by
Manetho in the last year of Darius Nothus, or B.C. 405. The earlier
dates depend on the view that the Amyrtseus of Manetho’s twenty-eighth
dynasty was the leader of the rebellion, and had a reign of six years
at this period--a view which is perhaps unsound. Manetho probably
represented Nepherites (Nefaorot) as the leader; and it is quite clear
that he placed the re-establishment of the old throne of the Pharaohs in
the year that Darius Nothus died. As his authority is the best that we
can obtain upon this obscure point, we may regard the last days of
the Persian monarch as clouded by news of a rebellion, which had been
perhaps for some time contemplated, but which did not break out until he
was known to be in a moribund condition.

A few years earlier, B.C. 408 or 409, the Medes had made an unsuccessful
attempt to recover their independence. The circumstances of this revolt,
which is mentioned by no writer but Xenophon, are wholly unknown, but we
may perhaps connect it with the rebellion of Terituchmes, a son-in-law
of the king. The story of Terituchmes, which belongs to this period,
deserves at any rate to be told, as illustrating, in a very remarkable
way, the corruption, cruelty, and dissoluteness of the Persian Court at
the time to which we have now come. Terituchmes was the son of Idernes,
a Persian noble of high rank, probably a descendant of the conspirator
Hydarnes. On the death of his father, he succeeded to his satrapy, as
to a hereditary fief, and being high in favor with Darius Nothus, he
received in marriage that monarch’s daughter, Amestris. Having, however,
after his marriage become enamored of his own half-sister, Roxana, and
having persuaded her to an incestuous commerce, he grew to detest his
wife, and as he could not rid himself of her without making an enemy of
the king, he entered into a conspiracy with 300 others, and planned to
raise a rebellion. The bond of a common crime, cruel and revolting in
its character, was to secure the fidelity of the rebels one to another.
Amestris was to be placed in a sack, and each conspirator in turn was
to plunge his sword into her body. It is not clear whether this intended
murder was executed or no. Hoping to prevent it, Darius commissioned
a certain Udiastes, who was in the service of Terituchmes, to save his
daughter by any means that might be necessary; and Udiastes, collecting
a band, set upon Terituchmes and slew him after a strenuous resistance.
After this, his mother, brothers, and sisters were apprehended by the
order of Parysatis, the queen, who caused Roxana to be hewn in pieces,
and the other unfortunates to be buried alive. It was with great
difficulty that Arsaces, the heir-apparent, afterwards Artaxerxes
Mnemon, preserved his own wife, Statira, from the massacre. It happened
that she was sister to Terituchmes, and, though wholly innocent of his
offence, she would have been involved in the common destruction of her
family had not her husband with tears and entreaties begged her life of
his parents. The son of Terituchmes maintained himself for a while in
his father’s government; but Parysatis succeeded in having him taken off
by poison.

The character of Darius Nothus is seen tolerably clearly in the account
of his reign which has been here given. He was at once weak and wicked.
Contrary to his sworn word, he murdered his brothers, Secydianus and
Arsites. He broke faith with Pissuthnes. He sanctioned the wholesale
execution of Terituchmes’ relatives. Under him the eunuchs of the palace
rose to such power that one of them actually ventured to aspire to the
sovereignty. Parysatis, his wife, one of the most cruel and malignant
even of Oriental women, was in general his chosen guide and counsellor.
His severities cannot, however, in all eases be ascribed to her
influence, for he was anxious that she should put the innocent Statira
to death, and, when she refused, reproached her with being foolishly
lenient. In his administration of the Empire he was unsuccessful; for,
if he gained some tracts of Asia Minor, he lost the entire African
satrapy. Under him we trace a growing relaxation of the checks by which
the great officers of the state were intended to have been held
under restraint. Satraps came to be practically uncontrolled in their
provinces, and the dangerous custom arose of allowing sons to succeed,
almost as a matter of course, to the governments of their fathers.
Powers unduly large were lodged in the hands of a single officer, and
actions, that should have brought down upon their perpetrators sharp
and signal punishment, were timorously or negligently condoned by the
supreme authority. Cunning and treachery were made the weapons wherewith
Persia contended with her enemies. Manly habits were laid aside, and the
nation learned to trust more and more to the swords of mercenaries.

Shortly before the death of Darius there seems to have been a doubt
raised as to the succession. Parysatis, who preferred her second son to
her first-born, imagined that her influence was sufficient to induce her
husband to nominate Cyrus, instead of Arsaces, to succeed him; and Cyrus
is said to have himself expected to be preferred above his brother. He
had the claim, if claim it can be called, that he was the first son
born to his father after he became king; but his main dependence was
doubtless on his mother. Darius, however, proved less facile in his
dying moments than he had been during most of his life, and declined
to set aside the rights of the eldest son on the frivolous pretence
suggested to him. His own feelings may have inclined him towards
Arsaces, who resembled him far more than Cyrus did in character; and
Cyrus, moreover, had recently offended him, and been summoned to court,
to answer a very serious charge. Arsaces, therefore, was nominated, and
took the name of Artaxerxes--as one of a king who had reigned long, and,
on the whole, prosperously.

An incident of ill omen accompanied the commencement of the new reign
(B.C. 405). The inauguration of the monarch was a religious ceremony,
and took place in a temple at Pasargadae, the old capital, to which
a peculiar sanctity was still regarded as attaching. Artaxerxes had
proceeded to this place, and was about to engage in the ceremonies, when
he was interrupted by Tissaphernes, who informed him that his life was
in danger. Cyrus, he said, proposed to hide himself in the temple,
and assassinate him as he changed his dress, a necessary part of the
formalities. One of the officiating priests--a Magus, as it would
seem--confirmed the charge. Cyrus was immediately arrested, and would
have been put to death on the spot, had not his mother interfered, and,
embracing him in her arms, made it impossible for the executioner to
perform his task. With some difficulty she persuaded Artaxerxes to spare
his brother’s life and allow him to return to his government, assuring
him, and perhaps believing, that the charges made against her favorite
were without foundation.

Cyrus returned to Asia Minor with the full determination of attacking
his brother at the earliest opportunity. He immediately began the
collection of a mercenary force, composed wholly of Greeks, on whose
arms he was disposed to place far more reliance than on those of
Orientals. As Tissaphernes had returned to the coast with him, and was
closely watching all his proceedings, it was necessary to exercise great
caution, lest his intentions should become known before he was ready to
put them into execution. He therefore had recourse to three different
devices. Having found a cause of quarrel with Tissaphernes in the
ambiguous terms of their respective commissions, he pressed it on to
an actual war, which enabled him to hire troops openly, as against this
enemy; and in this way he collected from 5000 to 6000 Greeks--chiefly
Peloponnesians. He further gave secret commissions to Greek officers,
whose acquaintance he had made when he was previously in these parts,
to collect men for him, whom they were to employ in their own quarrels
until he needed their services. From 3000 to 4000 troops were gathered
for him by these persons. Finally, when he found himself nearly ready
to commence his march, he discovered a new foe in the Pisidians of
the Western Taurus, and proceeded to levy a force against them, which
amounted to some thousands more. In all, he had in readiness 11,000
heavy-armed and about 2000 light-armed Greeks before his purpose became
so clear that Tissaphernes could no longer mistake it, and therefore
started off to carry his somewhat tardy intelligence to the capital.

The aims of Cyrus were different from those of ordinary rebel satraps;
and we must go back to the times of Darius Hystaspis in order to find a
parallel to them. Instead of seeking to free a province from the Persian
yoke, or to carve out for himself an independent sovereignty in some
remote corner of the Empire, his intention was to dethrone his brother,
and place on his own brows the diadem of his great namesake. It was
necessary for him therefore to assume the offensive. Only by a bold
advance, and by taking his enemy to some extent unprepared, and so at a
disadvantage, could he hope to succeed in his audacious project. It is
not easy to see that he could have had any considerable party among
the Persians, or any ground for expecting to be supported by any of
the subject nations. His following must have been purely personal; and
though it may be true that he was of a character to win more admiration
and affection than his brother, yet Artaxerxes himself was far from
being unpopular with his subjects, whom he pleased by a familiarity and
a good-nature to which they were little accustomed. Cyrus knew that
his principal dependence must be on himself, on his Greeks, and on the
carelessness and dilatoriness of his adversary, who was destitute of
military talent and was even thought to be devoid of personal bravery.

Thus it was important to advance as soon as possible. Cyrus therefore
quitted Sardis before all his troops were collected (B.C. 401), and
marched through Lydia and Phrygia, by the route formally followed in the
reverse direction by the army of Xerxes, as far as Celsense, where
the remainder of his mercenaries joined him. With his Greek force thus
raised to 13,000 men, and with a native army not much short of 100,000,
he proceeded on through Phrygia and Lycaonia to the borders of Cilicia,
having determined on taking the shortest route to Babylon, through the
Cilician and Syrian passes, and then along the course of the Euphrates.
At Caystrupedion he was met by Epyaxa, consort of Syennesis, the
tributary king of Cilicia, who brought him a welcome supply of money,
and probably assured him of the friendly disposition of her husband, who
was anxious to stand well with both sides. In Lycaonia, Cyrus divided
his forces, and sending a small body of troops under Menon to escort
Epyaxa across the mountains and enter Cilicia by the more western of the
two practicable passes he proceeded himself with the bulk of his troops
to the famous Pylae Cilicias, where he probably knew that Syennesis
would only make a feint of resistance. He found the pass occupied; but
it was evacuated the next day, on the receipt of intelligence that Menon
had already entered the country and that the fleet of Cyrus--composed
partly of his own ships, partly of a squadron furnished to him by
Sparta--had appeared off the coast and threatened a landing. Cyrus
thus crossed the most difficult and dangerous of all the passes that
separated him from the heart of the Empire, without the loss of a man.

Thus far it would appear that Cyrus had to a certain extent masked his
plans. The Greek captains must have guessed, if they had not actually
learnt, his intentions; but to the bulk of the soldiery they had been
hitherto absolutely unknown. It was only in Cilicia that the light broke
in upon them, and they began to suspect that they were being marched
into the interior of Asia, there to engage in a contest with the entire
power of the Great King. Something of the horror which is ascribed to
Cleomenes, when it was suggested to him a century earlier that he should
conduct his Spartans the distance of a three months’ journey from the
sea, appears to have taken possession of the minds of the mercenaries
on their awaking to this conviction. They at once refused to proceed. It
was only by the most skilful management on the part of their captains,
joined to a judicious liberality on the part of Cyrus, that they were
induced to forego their intention of returning home at once, and so
breaking up the expedition. A perception of the difficulty of effecting
a retreat, together with an increase of pay, extorted a reluctant assent
to continue the march, of which the real term and object were even now
not distinctly avowed. Cyrus said he proposed to attack the army of
Abrocomas, which he believed to be posted on the Euphrates. If he did
not find it there, a fresh consultation might be held to consider any
further movement.

The march now proceeded rapidly. The gates of Syria--a narrow pass on
the east coast of the Gulf of Issus, shut in, like Thermopylae,
between the mountains and the sea, and strengthened moreover by
fortifications--were left unguarded by Abrocomas; and the army, having
traversed them without loss, crossed the Amanus range by the pass of
Beilan, and in twenty-nine days from Tarsus reached Thapsacus on
the Euphrates. The forces of Artaxerxes had nowhere made their
appearance--Abrocomas, though he had 300,000 men at his disposal, had
weakly or treacherously abandoned all these strong and easily defensible
positions; he does not seem even to have wasted the country; but,
having burnt the boats at Thapsacus, he was content to fall back upon
Phoenicia, and left the way to Babylon and Susa open. At Thapsacus there
was little difficulty in persuading the Greeks, who had no longer the
sea before their eyes, to continue the march; they only stipulated for a
further increase of pay, which was readily promised them by the sanguine
prince, who believed himself on the point of obtaining by their aid the
inexhaustible treasures of the Empire. The river, which happened to be
unusually low for the time of year, was easily forded. Cyrus entered
Mesopotamia, and continued his march down the left bank of the Euphrates
at the quickest rate that it was possible to move a hundred thousand
Orientals. In thirty-three days he had accomplished above 600 miles, and
had approached within 120 miles of Babylon without seeing any traces
of an enemy. His only difficulties were from the nature of the country,
which, after the Khabour is passed, becomes barren, excepting close
along the river. From want of fodder there was a great mortality among
the baggage-animals; the price of grain rose; and the Greeks had to
subsist almost entirely upon meat. At last, when the Babylonian alluvium
was reached, with its abundance of fodder and corn, signs of the enemy
began to be observed. Artaxerxes, who after some doubts and misgivings
had finally determined to give his enemy battle in the plain, was
already on his way from Babylon, with an army reckoned at 900,000 men
and had sent forward a body of horse, partly to reconnoitre, partly
to destroy the crops, in order to prevent Cyrus and his troops from
benefiting by them. Cyrus now advanced slowly and cautiously, at the
rate of about fourteen miles a day, expecting each morning to fight a
general engagement before evening came. On the third night, believing
the battle to be imminent, he distributed the commands and laid down a
plan of operations. But morning brought no appearance of the enemy, and
the whole day passed tranquilly. In the course of it, he came upon a
wide and deep trench cut through the plain for a distance of above forty
miles--a recent work, which Artaxerxes had intended as a barrier to stop
the progress of his enemy. But the trench was undefended and incomplete,
a space of twenty feet being left between its termination and the
Euphrates. Cyrus, having passed it, began to be convinced that his
brother would not risk a battle in the plain, but would retreat to the
mountains and make his stand at Persepolis or Ecbatana. He therefore
continued his march negligently. His men piled their arms on the wagons
or laid them, across the beasts of burthen; while he himself exchanged
the horse which he usually rode for a chariot, and proceeded on his way
leisurely, having about his person a small escort, which preserved
their ranks, while all the rest of the troops were allowed to advance in
complete disarray.

Suddenly, as the army was proceeding in this disorderly manner through
the plain, a single horseman was perceived advancing at full gallop from
the opposite quarter, his steed all flecked with foam. As he drew near,
he shouted aloud to those whom he met, addressing some in Greek, others
in Persian, and warning them that the Great King, with his whole force,
was close at hand, and rapidly approaching in order of battle. The news
took every one by surprise, and at first all was hurry and confusion.
The Greeks, however, who were on the right, rapidly marshalled their
line, resting it upon the river; while Cyrus put on his armor, mounted
his horse, and arranged the ranks of his Asiatics. Ample time was given
for completing all the necessary dispositions; since three hours, at the
least, must have elapsed from the announcement of the enemy’s approach
before he actually appeared. Then a white cloud of dust arose towards
the verge of the horizon, below which a part of the plain began soon to
darken; presently gleams of light were seen to flash out from the dense
mass which was advancing, the serried lines of spears came into view,
and the component parts of the huge army grew to be discernible. On the
extreme left was a body of horsemen with white cuirasses, commanded by
Tissaphernes; next came infantry, carrying the long wicker shield, or
_gerrhum_ then a solid square of Egyptians, heavily armed, and bearing
wooden shields that reached to the feet; then the contingents of many
different nations, some on foot, some on horseback, armed with bows
and other weapons. The line stretched away to the east further than the
Greeks, who were stationed on the right, could see, extending (as it
would seem) more than twice the distance which was covered by the
army of Cyrus. Artaxerxes was in the centre of his line, on horseback,
surrounded by a mounted guard of 6000 Persians. In front of the line,
towards the river, were drawn up at wide intervals a hundred and fifty
scythed chariots, which were designed to carry terror and confusion into
the ranks of the Greeks.

On the other side, Cyrus had upon the extreme right a thousand
Paphlagonian cavalry with the more lightly armed of the Greeks;
next, the Greek heavy-armed, under Clearchus; and then his Asiatics,
stretching in a line to about the middle of his adversary’s army, his
own special command being in the centre; and his left wing being led
by the satrap, Ariaeus. With Ariseus was posted the great mass of the
cavalry; but a band of six hundred, clad in complete armor, with their
horses also partially armed, waited on Cyrus himself, and accompanied
him wherever he went. As the enemy drew near, and Cyrus saw how much he
was outflanked upon the left, he made an attempt to remedy the evil by
ordering Clearchus to move with his troops from the extreme right to
the extreme left of the line, where he would be opposite to Artaxerxes
himself. This, no doubt, would have been a hazardous movement to make in
the face of a superior enemy; and Clearchus, feeling this, and regarding
the execution of the order as left to his discretion, declined to move
away from the river. Cyrus, who trusted much to the Greek general’s
judgment, did not any further press the change, but prepared to fight
the battle as he stood.

The combat began upon the right. When the enemy had approached within
six or seven hundred yards, the impatience of the Greeks to engage could
not be restrained. They sang the paean and started forwards at a pace
which in a short time became a run. The Persians did not await their
charge. The drivers leaped from their chariots, the line of battle
behind them wavered, and then turned and fled without striking a blow.
One Greek only was wounded by an arrow. As for the scythed chariots,
they damaged their own side more than the Greeks; for the frightened
horses in many cases, carried the vehicles into the thick of the
fugitives, while the Greeks opened their ranks and gave passage to such
as charged in an opposite direction. Moderating their pace so as to
preserve their tactical arrangement, but still advancing with great
rapidity, the Greeks pressed on the flying enemy, and pursued him a
distance of two or three miles, never giving a thought to Cyrus, who,
they supposed, would conquer those opposed to him with as much ease as
themselves.

But the prince meanwhile was in difficulties. Finding himself
outnumbered and outflanked, and fearing that his whole army would be
surrounded, and even the victorious Greeks attacked in the rear, he set
all upon one desperate cast and charged with his Six Hundred against
the six thousand horse who protected his brother. Artagerses, their
commander, who met him with a Homeric invective, he slew with his own
hand. The six thousand were routed and took to flight; the person of the
king was exposed to view; and Cyrus, transported at the sight, rushed
forward shouting, “I see the man,” and hurling his javelin, struck him
straight upon the breast, with such force that the cuirass was pierced
and a slight flesh-wound inflicted. The king fell from his horse; but at
the same moment Cyrus received a wound beneath the eye from the javelin
of a Persian, and in the melee which followed he was slain with eight of
his followers. The Six Hundred could lend no effectual aid, because they
had rashly dispersed in pursuit of the flying enemy.

As the whole contest was a personal one, the victory was now decided.
Fighting, however, continued till nightfall. On learning the death of
their leader, the Asiatic troops under Ariseus fled--first to their
camp, and then, when Artaxerxes attacked them there, to the last night’s
station. The Grecian camp was assaulted by Tissaphernes, who at the
beginning of the battle had charged through the Greek light-armed,
without however, inflicting on them any loss, and had then pressed on,
thinking to capture the Grecian baggage. But the guard defended their
camp with success, and slew many of the assailants. Tissaphernes and
the king drew off after a while, and retraced their steps, in order to
complete the victory by routing the troops of Clearchus. Clearchus was
at the same time returning from his pursuit, having heard that his camp
was in danger, and as the two bodies of troops approached, he found
his right threatened by the entire host of the enemy, which might have
lapped round it and attacked it in front, in flank, and in rear. To
escape this peril he was about to wheel his line and make it rest
alone its whole extent upon the river, when the Persians passed him and
resumed the position which they had occupied at the beginning of the
battle. They were then about to attack, when once more the Greeks
anticipated them and charged. The effect was again ludicrous. The
Persians would not abide the onset, but fled faster than before. The
Greeks pursued them to a village, close by which was a knoll or mound,
whither the fugitives had betaken themselves. Again the Greeks made a
movement in advance, and immediately the flight recommenced. The last
rays of the setting sun fell on scattered masses of Persian horse and
foot flying in all directions over the plain from the little band of
Greeks.

The battle of Cunaxa was a double blow to the Persian power. By the
death of Cyrus there was lost the sole chance that existed of such a
re-invigoration of the Empire as might have enabled it to start again
on a new lease of life, with ability to held its own, and strength to
resume once more the aggressive attitude of former times. The talents of
Cyrus have perhaps been overrated, but he was certainly very superior
to most Orientals; and there can be no doubt that the Empire would have
greatly gained by the substitution of his rule for that of his brother.
He was active, energetic, prompt indeed, ready in speech, faithful in
the observance of his engagements, brave, liberal--he had more foresight
and more self-contro than most Asiatics; he knew how to deal with
different classes of men; he had a great power of inspiring affection
and retaining it; he was free from the folly of national prejudice,
and could appreciate as they deserved both the character and the
institutions of foreigners. It is likely that he would have proved a
better administrator and ruler than any king of Persia since Darius
Hystaspis. He would, therefore, undoubtedly have raised his country
to some extent. Whether he could really have arrested its decline, and
enabled it to avenge the humiliations of Marathon, Salamis, and the
peace of Callias, is, however, exceedingly doubtful. For Cyrus, though
he had considerable merits, was not without great and grievous defects.
As the Tartar is said always to underlie the Russ, so the true Oriental
underlay that coating of Grecian manners and modes of thought and act,
with which a real admiration of the Hellenic race induced Cyrus to
conceal his native barbarism. When he slew his cousins for an act which
he chose to construe as disrespect, and when he executed Orontes for
contemplated desertion, secretly and silently, so that no one knew
his fate, when transported with jealous rage he rushed madly upon his
brother, exposing to hazard the success of all his carefully formed
plans, and in fact ruining his cause, the acquired habits of the
Phil-Hellene gave way, and the native ferocity of the Asiatic came
to the surface. We see Cyrus under favorable circumstances, while
conciliation, tact, and self-restraint were necessities of his position,
without which he could not possibly gain his ends--we do not know what
effect success and the possession of supreme power might have had upon
his temper and conduct; but from the acts above-mentioned we may at any
rate suspect that the result would have been very injurious.

Again, intellectually, Cyrus is only great for an Asiatic. He has more
method, more foresight, more power of combination, more breadth of mind
than the other Asiatics of his day, or than the vast mass of Asiatics of
any day. But he is not entitled to the praise of a great administrator
or of a great general. His three years’ administration of Asia Minor
was chiefly marked by a barbarous severity towards criminals, and by a
lavish expenditure of the resources of his government, which left him in
actual want at the moment when he was about to commence his expedition.
His generalship failed signally at the battle of Cunaxa, for the loss of
which he is far more to be blamed than Clearchus. As he well knew that
Artaxerxes was sure to occupy the centre of his line of battle, he
should have placed his Greeks in the middle of his own line, not at
one extremity. When he saw how much his adversary outflanked him on the
left--a contingency which was so probable that it ought to have occurred
to him beforehand--he should have deployed his line in that direction,
instead of ordering such a movement as Clearchus, not unwisely, declined
to execute. He might have trusted the Greeks to fight in line, as they
had fought at Marathon; and by expanding their ranks, and moving off
his Asiatics to the left, he might, have avoided the danger of being
outflanked and surrounded. But his capital error was the wildness
and abandon of his charge with the Six Hundred--a charge which it was
probably right to make under the circumstances, but which required a
combination of coolness and courage that the Persian prince evidently
did not possess when his feelings were excited. Had he kept his
Six Hundred well in hand, checked their pursuit, and abstained from
thrusting his own person into unnecessary danger, he might have joined
the Greeks as they returned from their first victory and participated
in their final triumph. At the same time, Clearchus cannot but be blamed
for pushing his suit too far. If, when the enemy in his front fled, he
had at once turned against those who were engaging Cyrus, taking them
on their left flank, which must have been completely uncovered, he might
have been in time to prevent the fatal results of the rash charge made
by his leader.

Thus the death of Cyrus, though a calamity to Persia, was scarcely the
great loss which it has been represented. A far worse result of the
Cyreian expedition was the revelation which it made of the weakness of
Persia, and of the facility with which a Greek force might penetrate
to the very midst of the Empire, defeat the largest army that could be
brought against it, and remain, or return, as it might think proper.
Hitherto Babylon and Susa had been, even to the mind of a Greek
statesman, remote localities, which it would be the extreme of rashness
to attempt to reach by force of arms, and from which it would be
utter folly to suppose that a single man could return alive except by
permission of the Great King. Henceforth these towns were looked upon
as prizes quite within the legitimate scope of Greek ambition, and their
conquest came to be viewed as little more than a question of time. The
opinion of inaccessibility, which had been Persia’s safeguard hitherto,
was gone, and in its stead grew up a conviction that the heart of the
Empire might be reached with very little difficulty.

It required, however, for the production of this whole change, not
merely that the advance to Cunaxa should have been safely made, and the
immeasurable superiority of Greek to Asiatic soldiers there exhibited,
but also that the retreat should have been effected, as it was effected,
without disaster. Had the Ten Thousand perished under the attacks of the
Persian horse, or even under the weapons of the Kurds, or amid the
snows of Armenia, the opinion of Persian invulnerability would have been
strengthened rather than weakened by the expedition. But the return to
Greece of ten thousand men, who had defeated the hosts of the Great King
in the centre of his dominions, and fought their way back to the
sea without suffering more than the common casualties of war, was an
evidence of weakness which could not but become generally known, and of
which all could feel the force. Hence the retreat was as important as
the battle. If in late autumn and mid-winter a small Greek army, without
maps or guides, could make its way for a thousand miles through Asia,
and encounter no foe over whom it could not easily triumph, it was clear
that the fabric of Persian power was rotten, and would collapse on the
first serious attack.

Still, it will not be necessary to trace in detail the steps of the
retreat. It was the fact of the return, rather than the mode of its
accomplishment, which importantly affected the subsequent history of
Persia. We need only note that the retreat was successfully conducted in
spite, not merely of the military power of the Empire, but of the most
barefaced and cruel treachery--a fact which showed clearly the strong
desire that there was to hinder the invaders’ escape. Persia did not
set much store by her honor at this period; but she would scarcely have
pledged her word and broken it, without the slightest shadow of excuse,
unless she had regarded the object to be accomplished as one of vast
importance, and seen no other way which offered any prospect of the
desired result. Her failure, despite the success of her treachery,
places her military weakness in the strongest possible light. The
Greeks, though deprived of their leaders, deceived, surprised, and
hemmed in by superior numbers, amid terrific mountains, precipices,
and snows, forced their way by sheer dogged perseverance through all
obstacles, and reached Trebizond with the loss of not one fourth of
their original number.

There was also another discovery made during the return which partly
indicated the weakness of the Persian power, and partly accounted for
it. The Greeks had believed that the whole vast space enclosed between
the Black Sea, Caucasus, Caspian, and Jaxartes on the one hand, and the
Arabian Desert, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean on the other, was bound
together into one single centralized monarchy, all the resources of
which were wielded by a single arm. They now found that even towards the
heart of the empire, on the confines of Media and Assyria, there existed
independent tribes which set the arms of Persia at defiance; while
towards the verge of the old dominion whole provinces, once certainly
held in subjection, had fallen away from the declining State, and
succeeded in establishing their freedom. The nineteenth satrapy of
Herodotus existed no more; in lieu of it was a mass of warlike and
autonomous tribes--Chalybes, Taochi, Chaldeans, Macronians, Scythians,
Colchians, Mosynoecians, Tibarenians--whose services, if he needed them,
the King of Persia had to buy, while ordinarily their attitude towards
him was one of distrust and hostility. Judging of the unknown from the
known, the Greeks might reasonably conclude that in all parts of
the Empire similar defections had occurred, and that thus both
the dimensions and the resources of the state had suffered serious
diminution, and fell far below the conception which they had been
accustomed to form of them.

The immediate consequence of the Cyreian expedition was a rupture
between Persia and Sparta. Sparta had given aid to Cyrus, and thus
provoked the hostility of the Great King. She was not inclined to
apologize or to recede. On the contrary, she saw in the circumstances
of the expedition strong grounds for anticipating great advantages
to herself from a war with so weak an antagonist. Having, therefore,
secured the services of the returned Ten Thousand, she undertook the
protection of the Asiatic Greeks against Persia, and carried on a war
upon the continent against the satraps of Lydia and Phrygia for the
space of six years (B.C. 399 to B.C. 394). The disorganization of the
Persian Empire became very manifest during this period. So jealous were
the two satraps of each other, that either was willing at any time
to make a truce with the Spartans on condition that they proceeded to
attack the other; and, on one occasion, as much as thirty silver talents
was paid by a satrap on the condition that the war should be transferred
from his own government to that, of his rival. At the same time the
native tribes were becoming more and more inclined to rebel. The Mysians
and Pisidians had for a long time been practically independent. Now the
Bithynians showed a disposition to shake off the Persian yoke, while
in Paphlagonia the native monarchs boldly renounced their allegiance.
Agesilaus, who carried on the war in Asia Minor for three years, knew
well how to avail himself of all these advantageous circumstances;
and it is not unlikely that he would have effected the separation
from Persia of the entire peninsula, had he been able to continue the
struggle a few years longer. But the league between Argos, Thebes, and
Corinth, which jealousy of Sparta caused and Persian gold promoted,
proved so formidable, that Agesilaus had to be summoned home: and
after his departure, Conon, in alliance with Pharnabazus, recovered the
supremacy of the sea for Athens, and greatly weakened Spartan influence
in Asia. Not content with this result, the two friends, in the year B.C.
393, sailed across the Egean, and the portentous spectacle of a Persian
fleet in Greek waters was once more seen--this time in alliance with
Athens! Descents were made upon the coasts of the Peloponnese, and the
island of Cythera was seized and occupied. The long walls of Athens were
rebuilt with Persian money, and all the enemies of Sparta were richly
subsidized. Sparta was made to feel that if she had been able at one
time to make the Great King tremble for his provinces, or even for
his throne, the King could at another reach her across the Egean, and
approach Sparta as nearly as she had, with the Cyreians, approached
Babylon.

The lesson of the year B.C. 393 was not thrown away on the Spartan
government. The leading men became convinced that unless they could
secure the neutrality of the Persians, Sparta must succumb to the
hostility of her Hellenic enemies. Under these circumstances they
devised, with much skill, a scheme likely to be acceptable to the
Persians, which would weaken their chief rivals in Greece--Athens and
Thebes--while it would leave untouched their own power. They proposed
a general peace, the conditions of which should be the entire
relinquishment of Asia to the Persians, and the complete autonomy of all
the Greek States in Europe. The first attempt to procure the acceptance
of these terms failed (B.C. 393); but six years later, after Antalcidas
had explained them at the Persian Court, Artaxerxes sent down an
ultimatum to the disputants, modifying the terms slightly as regarded
Athens, extending them as regarded himself so as to include the islands
of Clazomenae and Cyprus, and requiring their acceptance by all the
belligerents, on pain of their incurring his hostility. To this threat
all yielded. A Persian king may be excused if he felt it a proud
achievement thus to dictate a peace to the Greeks--a peace, moreover,
which annulled the treaty of Callias, and gave back absolutely into
his hands a province which had ceased to belong to his Empire more than
sixty years previously.

It was the more important to Artaxerxes that his relations with the
European Greeks should be put upon a peaceful footing, since all the
resources of the Empire were wanted for the repression of disturbances
which had some years previously broken out in Cyprus. The exact date
of the Cyprian revolt under Evagoras, the Greek tyrant of Salamis, is
uncertain; but there is evidence that, at least as early as B.C. 391, he
was at open war with the power of Persia, and had made an alliance
with the Athenians, who both in that year and in B.C. 388 sent him aid.
Assisted also by Achoris, independent monarch of Egypt, and Hecatomnus,
vassal king of Caria, he was able to take the offensive, to conquer
Tyre, and extend his revolt into Cilicia and Idumaea. An expedition
undertaken against him by Autophradates, satrap of Lydia, seems to have
failed. It was the first object of the Persians, after concluding the
“Peace of Antalcidas,” to crush Evagoras. They collected 300 vessels,
partly from the Greeks of Asia, and brought together an army of 300,000
men. The fleet of Evagoras numbered 200 triremes, and with these he
ventured on an attack, but was completely defeated by Tiribazus, who
shut him up in Salamis, and, after a struggle which continued for at
least six years, compelled him to submit to terms (B.C. 380 or 379).
More fortunate than former rebels, he obtained not merely a promise of
pardon, which would probably have been violated, but a recognition of
his title, and permission to remain in his government, with the single
obligation of furnishing to the Great King a certain annual tribute.

During the continuance of this war, Artaxerxes was personally engaged in
military operations in another part of his dominions. The Cadusians,
who inhabited the low and fertile tract between the Elburz range and the
Caspian, having revolted against his authority, Artaxerxes invaded their
territory at the head of an army which is estimated at 300,000 foot and
10,000 horse. The land was little cultivated, rugged, and covered with
constant fogs; the men were brave and warlike, and having admitted him
into their country, seem to have waylaid and intercepted his convoys.
His army was soon reduced to great straits, and forced to subsist on the
cavalry horses and the baggage-animals. A most disastrous result must
have followed, had not Tiribazus, who had been recalled from Cyprus
on charges preferred against him by the commander of the land force,
Orontes, contrived very artfully to induce the rebels to make their
submission. Artaxerxes was thus enabled to withdraw from the country
without serious disaster, having shown in his short campaign that he
possessed the qualities of a soldier, but was entirely deficient in
those of a general.

A time of comparative tranquillity seems to have followed the Cadusian
campaign. Artaxerxes strengthened his hold upon the Asiatic Greeks by
razing some of their towns and placing garrisons in others. His satraps
even ventured to commence the absorption of the islands off the coast;
and there is evidence that Sanaos, at any rate, was reduced and added
to the Empire. Cilicia, Phoenicia, and Idumaea were doubtless recovered
soon after the great defeat of Evagoras. There remained only one
province in this quarter which still maintained its revolt, and enjoyed,
under native monarchs, the advantages of independence. This was Egypt,
which had now continued free for above thirty years, since it shook off
the yoke of Darius Nothus. Artaxerxes, anxious to recover this portion
of his ancestral dominions, applied in B.C. 375 to Athens for the
services of her great general, Iphicrates. His request was granted, and
in the next year a vast armament was assembled at Acre under Iphicrates
and Pharnabazus, which effected a successful landing in the Delta at the
Mendesian mouth of the Nile, stormed the town commanding this branch of
the river, and might have taken Memphis, could the energetic advice of
the Athenian have stirred to action the sluggish temper of his Persian
colleague. But Pharnabazus declined to be hurried, and preferred to
proceed leisurely and according to rule. The result was that the season
for hostilities passed and nothing had been done. The Nile rose as the
summer drew on, and flooded most of the Delta; the expedition could
effect nothing, and had to return. Pharnabazus and Iphicrates parted
amid mutual recriminations; and the reduction of Egypt was deferred for
above a quarter of a century.

In Greece, however, the Great King still retained that position of
supreme arbiter with which he had been invested at the “Peace of
Antalcidas.” In B.C. 372 Antalcidas was sent by Sparta a second time up
to Susa, for the purpose of obtaining an imperial rescript, prescribing
the terms on which the then existing hostilities among the Greeks should
cease. In B.C. 367 Pelopidas and Ismenias proceeded with the same object
from Thebes to the Persian capital. In the following year a rescript,
more in their favor than former ones, was obtained by Athens. Thus every
one of the leading powers of Greece applied in turn to the Great King
for his royal mandate, so erecting him by common consent into a sort of
superior, whose decision was to be final in all cases of Greek quarrel.

But this external acknowledgment of the imperial greatness of Persia
did not, and could not, check the internal decay and tendency to
disintegration, which was gradually gaining head, and threatening the
speedy dissolution of the Empire. The long reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon
was now verging towards its close. He was advanced in years, and
enfeebled in mind and body, suspicious of his sons and of his nobles,
especially of such as showed more than common ability. Under these
circumstances, revolts on the part of satraps grew frequent. First
Ariobarzanes, satrap of Phrygia, renounced his allegiance (B.C. 366),
and defended himself with success against Autophradates, satrap of
Lydia, and Mausolus, native king of Caria under Persia, to whom the
task of reducing him had been entrusted. Then Aspis, who held a part
of Cappadocia, revolted and maintained himself by the help of the
Pisidians, until he was overpowered by Datames. Next Datames himself,
satrap of the rest of Cappadocia, understanding that Artaxerxes’ mind
was poisoned against him, made a treaty with Ariobarzanes, and assumed
an independent attitude in his own province. In this position he
resisted all the efforts of Autophradates to reduce him to obedience;
and Artaxerxes condescended first to make terms with him and then to
remove him by treachery. Finally (B.C. 362), there seems to have been
something like a general revolt of the western provinces, in which the
satraps of Mysia, Phrygia, and Lydia, Mausolus, prince of Caria, and the
people of Lycia, Pamphylia, Cilicia, Syria, and Phoenicia participated.
Tachos, king of Egypt, fomented the disturbances, which were also
secretly encouraged by the Spartans. A terrible conflict appeared to be
imminent; but it was avoided by the ordinary resources of bribery and
treachery. Orontes, satrap of Phrygia, and Rheomithras, one of the
revolted generals, yielding to the attractions of Persian gold, deserted
and betrayed their confederates. The insurrection was in this way
quelled, but it had raised hopes in Egypt, which did not at once
subside. Tachos, the native king, having secured the services of
Agesilaus as general, and of Chabrias, the Athenian, as admiral of his
fleet, boldly advanced into Syria, was well received by the Phoenicians,
and commenced the siege of some of the Syrian cities. Persia might
have suffered considerable loss in this quarter, had not the internal
quarrels of the Egyptians among themselves proved a better protection to
her than her own armies. Two pretenders to the throne sprang up as soon
as Tachos had quitted the country, and he was compelled to return to
Egypt in order to resist them. The force intended to strike a vigorous
blow against the power of Artaxerxes was dissipated in civil conflicts;
and Persia had once more to congratulate herself on the intestine
divisions of her adversaries. A few years after this, Artaxerxes died,
having reigned forty-six years, and lived, if we may trust Plutarch,
ninety-four. Like most of the later Persian kings, he was unfortunate
in his domestic relations. To his original queen, Statira, he was indeed
fondly attached; and she appears to have merited and returned his love,
but in all other respects his private life was unhappy. Its chief curse
was Parysatis, the queen-mother. This monster of cruelty held Artaxerxes
in a species of bondage during almost the whole of his long reign, and
acted as if she were the real sovereign of the country. She encouraged
Cyrus in his treason, and brought to most horrible ends all those who
had been prominent in frustrating it. She poisoned Statira out of hatred
and jealousy, because she had a certain degree of influence over her
husband. She encouraged Artaxerxes to contract an incestuous marriage
with his daughter Atossa, a marriage which proved a fertile source
of further calamities. Artaxerxes had three sons by Statira--Darius,
Ariaspes, and Ochus. Of these Darius, as the eldest, was formally
declared the heir. But Ochus, ambitious of reigning, intrigued with
Atossa, and sought to obtain the succession by her aid. So good seemed
to Darius the chances of his brother’s success that he took the rash
step of conspiring against the life of his father, as the only way of
securing the throne. His conspiracy was detected, and he was seized and
executed, Ariaspes thereby becoming the eldest son, and so the natural
heir. Ochus then persuaded Ariaspes that he had offended his father,
and was about to be put to a cruel and ignominious death, whereupon that
prince in despair committed suicide. His elder brothers thus removed,
there still remained one rival, whom Ochus feared. This was Arsames, one
of his half-brothers, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who stood high
in his favor. Assassination was the weapon employed to get rid of this
rival. It is said that this last blow was too much for the aged and
unhappy king, who died of grief on receiving intelligence of the murder.

Artaxerxes was about the weakest of all the Persian monarchs. He was
mild in temperament, affable in demeanor, goodnatured, affectionate
and well-meaning. But, possessing no strength of will, he allowed the
commission of the most atrocious acts, the most horrible cruelties, by
those about him, who were bolder and more resolute than himself. The
wife and son, whom he fondly loved, were plotted against before his
eyes; and he had neither the skill to prevent nor the courage to avenge
their fate. Incapable of resisting entreaty and importunity, he granted
boons which he ought to have refused, and condoned offences which it
would have been proper to punish. He could not maintain long the most
just resentment, but remitted punishments even when they were far milder
than the crime deserved. He was fairly successful in the management
of his relations with foreign countries, and in the suppression of
disturbances within his own dominions; but he was quite incapable
of anything like a strenuous and prolonged effort to renovate and
re-invigorate the Empire. If he held together the territories which he
inherited, and bequeathed them to his successor augmented rather than
diminished, it is to be attributed more to his good fortune than to his
merits, and to the mistakes of his opponents than to his own prudence or
sagacity.

Ochus, who obtained the crown in the manner related above, was the most
cruel and sanguinary of all the Persian kings. He is indeed the only
monarch of the Achaemenian line who appears to have been bloodthirsty
by temperament. His first act on finding himself acknowledged king (B.C.
359) was to destroy, so far as he could, all the princes of the blood
royal, in order that he might have no rival to fear. He even, if we may
believe Justin, involved in this destruction a number of the princesses,
whom any but the most ruthless of despots would have spared. Having
taken these measures for his own security, he proceeded to show himself
more active and enterprising than any monarch since Longimanus. It was
now nearly half a century since one of the important provinces of the
Empire--Egypt--had successfully asserted its independence and restored
the throne of its native kings. General after general had been employed
in vain attempts to reduce the rebels to obedience. Ochus determined
to attempt the recovery of the revolted province in person. Though
a rebellion had broken out in Asia Minor, which being supported by
Thebes, threatened to become serious, he declined to be diverted from
his enterprise. Levying a vast army, he marched into Egypt, and engaged
Noctanebo, the king, in a contest for existence. Nectanebo, however,
having obtained the services of two Greek generals, Diophantus, an
Athenian, and Lamius, a citizen of Sparta, boldly met his enemy in the
field, defeated him, and completely repulsed his expedition. Hereupon
the contagion of revolt spread. Phoenicia assumed independence under the
leadership of Sidon, expelled or massacred the Persian garrisons, which
held her cities, and formed an alliance with Egypt. Her example was
followed by Cyprus, where the kings of the nine principal towns assumed
each a separate sovereignty.

The chronology of this period is somewhat involved; but it seems
probable that the attack and failure of Ochus took place about B.C. 351;
that the revolts occurred in the next year, B.C. 350; while it was not
till B.C. 346, or four years later, that Ochus undertook his second
expedition into these regions. He had, however, in the meanwhile,
directed his generals or feudatories, to attack the rebels, and bring
them into subjection. The Cyprian war he had committed to Idrieus,
prince of Caria, who employed on the service a body of 8000 Greek
mercenaries, commanded by Phocion, the Athenian, and Evagoras, son of
the former Evagoras, the Cyprian monarch; while he had committed to
Belesys, satrap of Syria, and Mezseus, satrap of Cilicia, the task of
keeping the Phoenicians in check. Idrieus succeeded in reducing Cyprus;
but the two satraps suffered a single defeat at the hands of Tennes, the
Sidonian king, who was aided by 40,000 Greek mercenaries, sent him by
Nectanebo, and commanded by Mentor the Rhodian. The Persian forces were
driven out of Phoenicia; and Sidon had ample time to strengthen its
defences and make preparations for a desperate resistance. The approach,
however, of Ochus, at the head of an army of 330,000 men, shook the
resolution of the Phoenician monarch, who endeavored to purchase his
own pardon by treacherously delivering up a hundred of the principal
citizens of Sidon into the hands of the Persian king, and then admitting
him within the defences of the town. Ochus, with the savage cruelty
which was his chief characteristic, caused the hundred citizens to be
transfixed with javelins, and when 500 more came out as suppliants to
entreat his mercy, relentlessly consigned them to the same fate. Nor did
the traitor Tennes derive any advantage from his guilty bargain.
Ochus, having obtained from him all he needed, instead of rewarding his
desertion, punished his rebellion with death. Hereupon the Sidonians,
understanding that they had nothing to hope from submission, formed the
dreadful resolution of destroying themselves and their town. They had
previously, to prevent the desertion of any of their number, burnt their
ships. Now they shut themselves up in their houses, and set fire each
to his own dwelling. Forty thousand persons lost their lives in the
conflagration; and the city was reduced to a heap of ruins, which Ochus
sold for a large sum. Thus ended the Phoenician revolt. Among its most
important results was the transfer of his services to the Persian king
on the part of Mentor the Rhodian, who appears to have been the ablest
of the mercenary leaders of whom Greece at this time produced so many.

The reduction of Sidon was followed closely by the invasion of
Egypt. Ochus, besides his 330,000 Asiatics, had now a force of 14,000
Greeks--6000 furnished by the Greek cities of Asia Minor; 4000 under
Mentor, consisting of the troops which he had brought to the aid of
Tennes from Egypt; 3000 sent by Argos; and 1000 from Thebes. He divided
his numerous armament into three bodies, and placed at the head of
each two generals--one Persian and one Greek. The Greek commanders were
Lacrates of Thebes, Mentor of Rhodes, and Nicostratus of Argos, a man
of enormous strength, who regarded himself as a second Hercules, and
adopted the traditional costume of that hero--a club and a lion’s skin.
The Persians were Rhossaces, Aristazanes, and Bagoas, the chief of the
eunuchs. Nectanebo was only able to oppose to this vast array an army
less than one third of the size. Twenty thousand, however, out of the
100,000 troops at his disposal were Greeks; he occupied the Nile and
its various branches with a numerous navy the character of the country,
intersected by numerous canals, and full of strongly fortified towns,
was in his favor; and he might have been expected to make a prolonged,
if not even a successful, resistance. But he was deficient in generals,
and over-confident in his own powers of command: the Greek captains
out-manoeuvred him; and no sooner did he find one line of his defences
forced than his ill-founded confidence was exchanged for an alarm
as little reasonable. He hastily fell back upon Memphis, leaving the
fortified towns to the defence of their garrisons. These consisted of
mixed troops, partly Greek and partly Egyptian; between whom jealousies
and suspicions were easily sown by the Persian leaders, who by these
means rapidly reduced the secondary cities of Lower Egypt, and were
advancing upon Memphis, when Nectanebo in despair quitted the country
and fled southwards to Ethiopia. All Egypt submitted to Ochus, who
demolished the walls of the cities, plundered the temples, and after
amply rewarding his mercenaries, returned to his own capital with an
immense booty, and with the glory of having successfully carried through
a most difficult and important enterprise.

It has been well observed that “the reconquest of Egypt by Ochus must
have been one of the most impressive events of the age,” and that it
“exalted the Persian Empire in force and credit to a point nearly as
high as it had ever occupied before.” Ochus not only redeemed by means
of it his former failure, but elevated himself in the opinions of men to
a pitch of glory such as no previous Persian king had reached, excepting
Cyrus, Cambyses, and the first Darius. Henceforth we hear of no more
revolts or rebellions. Mentor and Bagoas, the two generals who had most
distinguished themselves in the Egyptian campaign, were advanced by the
gratitude of Ochus to posts of the highest importance, in which their
vigor and energy found ample room to display themselves. Mentor, who was
governor of the entire Asiatic sea-board, exerted himself successfully
to reduce to subjection the many chiefs who during the recent troubles
had assumed an independent authority, and in the course of a few
years brought once more the whole coast into complete submission and
dependence. Bagoas, carried with him by Ochus to the capital, became
the soul of the internal administration, and maintained tranquillity
throughout the rest of the Empire. The last six years of the reign of
Ochus form an exceptional period of vigorous and successful government,
such as occurs nowhere else in the history of the later Persian
monarchy. The credit of bringing about such a state of things may be due
especially to the king’s officers, Bagoas and Mentor; but a portion of
it must reflect upon himself, as the person who selected them, assigned
them their respective tasks, and permanently maintained them in office.

It was during this period of vigor and renewed life, when the Persian
monarchy seemed to have recovered almost its pristine force and
strength, that the attention of its rulers was called to a small cloud
on the distant horizon, which some were wise enough to see portended
storm and tempest. The growing power of Macedon, against which
Demosthenes was at this time in vain warning the careless Athenians,
attracted the consideration of Ochus or of his counsellors; and orders
went forth from the Court that Persian influence was to be used to check
and depress the rising kingdom. A force was consequently despatched to
assist the Thracian prince, Cersobleptes, to maintain his independence;
and such effectual aid was given to the city of Perinthus that the
numerous and well-appointed army with which Philip had commenced its
siege was completely baffled and compelled to give up the attempt (B.C.
340). The battle of Chseroneia had not yet been fought, and Macedonia
was still but one of the many states which disputed for supremacy over
Greece; but it is evident that she had already awakened the suspicions
of Persia, which saw a rival and a possible assailant in the rapidly
growing monarchy.

Greater and more systematic efforts might possibly have been made, and
the power of Macedon might perhaps have been kept within bounds, had not
the inveterate evil of conspiracy and revolution once more shown itself
at the Court, and paralyzed for a time the action of the Empire on
communities beyond its borders. Ochus, while he was a vigorous ruler
and administrator, was harsh and sanguinary. His violence and cruelty
rendered him hateful to his subjects; and it is not unlikely that they
caused even those who stood highest in his favor to feel insecure.
Bagoas may have feared that sooner or later he would himself be one
of the monarch’s victims, and have been induced by a genuine alarm
to remove the source of his terrors. In the year B.C. 338 he poisoned
Ochus, and placed upon the throne his youngest son, Arses, at the same
time assassinating all the brothers of the new monarch. It was evidently
his aim to exercise the supreme power himself, as counsellor to a prince
who owed his position to him, and who was moreover little more than a
boy. But Arses, though subservient for a year or two, began, as he grew
older, to show that he had a will of his own, and was even heard to
utter threats against his benefactor whereupon Bagoas, accustomed now to
crime, secured himself by a fresh series of murders. He caused Arses and
his infant children to be assassinated, and selected one of his friends,
Codomannus, the son of Arsanes, to fill the vacant throne. About the
same time (B.C. 336), Philip of Macedon was assassinated by the incensed
Pausanias; and the two new monarchs--Codomannus, who took the name
of Darius, and Alexander the Great--assumed their respective sceptres
almost simultaneously.

Codomannus, the last of the Persian kings, might with some reason have
complained, like Plato, that nature had brought him in the world too
late. Personally brave, as he proved himself into the Cadusian war,
tall and strikingly handsome, amiable in temper, capable of considerable
exertion, and not altogether devoid of military capacity, he would have
been a fairly good ruler in ordinary times, and might, had he fallen
upon such times, have held an honorable place among the Persian
monarchs. But he was unequal to the difficulties of such a position as
that in which he found himself. Raised to the throne after the victory
of Chaeroneia had placed Philip at the head of Greece, and when a
portion of the Macedonian forces had already passed into Asia, he was
called upon to grapple at once with a danger of the most formidable
kind, and had but little time for preparation. It is true that Philip’s
death soon after his own accession gave him a short breathing-space:
but at the same time it threw him off his guard. The military talents of
Alexander were untried, and of course unknown; the perils which he had
to encounter were patent. Codomannus may be excused if for some months
after Alexander’s accession he slackened his preparations for defence,
uncertain whether the new monarch would maintain himself, whether
he would overpower the combinations which were formed against him in
Greece, whether he would inherit his father’s genius for war, or adopt
his ambitious projects. It would have been wiser, no doubt, as the event
proved, to have joined heart and soul with Alexander’s European enemies,
and to have carried the war at once to the other side of the Egean. But
no great blame attaches to the Persian monarch for his brief inaction.
As soon as the Macedonian prince had shown by his campaigns in Thrace,
Illyria, and Boeotia that he was a person to be dreaded, Darius
Codomannus renewed the preparations which he had discontinued, and
pushed them forward with all the speed that was possible. A fleet was
rapidly got ready: the satraps of Asia Minor were reinforced with troops
of good quality from the interior of the Empire, and were ordered to
raise a strong force of mercenaries; money was sent into Greece to the
Lacedaemonians and others in order to induce them to create disturbances
in Europe; above all, Memnon the Rhodian, a brother of Mentor, and a
commander of approved skill, was sent to the Hellespont, at the head of
a body of Greeks in Persian pay, with an authority co-ordinate to that
of the satraps.

A certain amount of success at first attended these measures. Memnon
was able to act on the offensive in North-Western Asia. He marched upon
Cyzicus and was within a little of surprising it, obtaining from the
lands and villas without the walls an immense booty. He forced Parmenio
to raise the seige of Pitane; and when Callas, one of the Macedonian
leaders, endeavored to improve the condition of things by meeting the
Persian forces in the open field, he suffered a defeat and was compelled
to throw himself into Rhoeteum.

These advantages, however, were detrimental rather than serviceable to
the Persian cause; since they encouraged the Persian satraps to regard
the Macedonians as an enemy no more formidable than the various tribes
of Greeks with whom they had now carried on war in Asia Minor for
considerably more than a century. The intended invasion of Alexander
seemed to them a matter of no great moment--to be classed with
expeditions like those of Thimbron and Agesilaus, not to need, as it
really did, to be placed in a category of its own. Accordingly, they
made no efforts to dispute the passage of the Hellespont, or to oppose
the landing of the expedition on the Asiatic shore. Alexander was
allowed to transport a force of 30,000 foot and 4000 or 5000 horse from
the Chersonese to Mysia without the slightest interference on the part
of the enemy, notwithstanding that his naval power was weak and that
of the Persians very considerable. This is one of those pieces of
remissness in the Persian conduct of military matters, whereof we have
already had to note signal instances, and which constantly caused the
failure of very elaborate and judicious preparations to meet a danger.
Great efforts had been made to collect and equip a numerous fleet, and
a few weeks later it was all-powerful in the Egean. But it was absent
exactly at the time when it was wanted. Alexander’s passage and landing
were unopposed, and the Persians thus admitted within the Empire without
a struggle the enemy who was fated to destroy it.

When the Persian commanders heard that Alexander was in Asia, they
were anxious to give him battle. One alone, the Rhodian Greek, Memnon,
proposed and urged a wholly different plan of operations. Memnon advised
that a general engagement should be avoided, that the entire country
should be laid waste, and even the cities burnt, while the army
should retire, cut off stragglers, and seek to bring the enemy into
difficulties. At the same time he recommended that the fleet should be
brought up, a strong land force embarked on board it, and an effort made
to transfer the war into Europe. But Memnon’s colleagues, the satraps
and commandants of the north-western portion of Asia Minor, could not
bring themselves to see that circumstances required a line of action
which they regarded as ignominious. It is not necessary to attribute to
them personal or selfish motives. They probably thought honestly that
they were a match for Alexander with the troops at their disposal, and
viewed retreat before an enemy numerically weaker than themselves as
a disgrace not to be endured unless its necessity was palpable.
Accordingly they determined to give the invader battle. Supposing that
Alexander, having crossed into Asia at Abydos, would proceed to attack
Dascyleium, the nearest satrapial capital, they took post on the
Granicus, and prepared to dispute the further advance of the Macedonian
army. They had collected a force of 20,000 cavalry of the best quality
that the Empire afforded, and nearly the same number of infantry,
who were chiefly, if not solely, Greek mercenaries. With these
they determined to defend the passage of the small stream above
mentioned--one of the many which flow from the northern flank of Ida
into the Propontis.

The battle thus offered was eagerly accepted by the Macedonian. If he
could not defeat with ease a Persian force not greatly exceeding his
own, he had miscalculated the relative goodness of the soldiers on
either side, and might as well desist from the expedition. Accordingly,
he no sooner came to the bank of the river, and saw the enemy drawn up
on the other side, than, rejecting the advice of Parmenio to wait till
the next day, he gave orders that the whole army should enter the stream
and advance across it. The Granicus was in most places fordable; but
there were occasional deeper parts, which had to be avoided; and there
was thus some difficulty in reaching the opposite bank in line. That
bank itself was generally steep and precipitous, but offered also
several gentle slopes where a landing was comparatively easy. The
Persians had drawn up their cavalry along the line of the river close to
the water’s edge, and had placed their infantry in the rear. Alexander
consequently attacked with his cavalry. The engagement began upon the
right. Amytas and Ptolemy, who were the first to reach the opposite
bank, met with a strenuous resistance and were driven back into the
stream by the forces of Memnon and his sons. The battle, however, on
this side was restored by Alexander himself, who gradually forced the
Persians back after a long hand-to-hand fight, in which he received
a slight wound, and slew with his own hand several noble Persians.
Elsewhere the resistance was less determined. Parmenio crossed on the
left with comparative ease, by his advance relieving Alexander. The
Persians found the long spears of the Macedonians and their intermixture
of light-armed foot with heavy-armed cavalry irresistible. The
Macedonians seem to have received orders to strike at their adversaries’
faces--a style of warfare which was as unpleasant to the Persians as it
was to the soldiers of Pompey at Pharsalia. Their line was broken
where it was opposed to Alexander and his immediate companions; but the
contagion of disorder rapidly spread, and the whole body of the cavalry
shortly quitted the field, after having lost a thousand of their number.
Only the infantry now remained. Against these the Macedonian phalanx was
brought up in front, while the cavalry made repeated charges on
either flank with overwhelming effect. Deserted by their horse, vastly
outnumbered, and attacked on all sides, the brave mercenaries stood
firm, fought with desperation, and were mostly slaughtered where they
stood. Two thousand out of the 20,000--probably wounded men--were made
prisoners. The rest perished, except a few who lay concealed among the
heaps of slain.

The Persians lost by the battle 20,000 of their best footmen, and one or
two thousand horse. Among their slain the proportion of men of rank
was unusually large. The list included Spithridates, satrap of Lydia,
Mithrobarzanes, governor of Cappadocia, Pharnaces, a brother-in-law, and
Mithridates, a son-in-law of Darius, Arbupales, a grandson of Artaxerxes
Mnemon, Omares, the commander of the mercenaries, Niphates, Petines,
and Ehoesaces, generals. The Greek loss is said to have been exceedingly
small. Aristobulus made the total number of the slain thirty-four;
Arrian gives it as one hundred and fifteen, or a little over. It has
been suspected that even the latter estimate is below the truth; but the
analogy furnished by the other great victories of the Greeks over the
Persians tends rather to confirm Arrian’s statement.

The battle of the Granicus threw open to Alexander the whole of Asia
Minor. There was no force left in the entire country that could venture
to resist him, unless protected by walls. Accordingly, the Macedonian
operations for the next twelve months, or during nearly the whole
space that intervened between the battles of the Granicus and of Issus,
consist of little more than a series of marches and sieges. The reader
of Persian history will scarcely wish for an account of these operations
in detail. Suffice it to say that Alexander rapidly overran Lydia,
Ionia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Phrygia, besieged and took
Miletus, Halicarnassus, Marmareis, and Sagalassus, and received the
submission of Dascyleium, Sardis, Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, the Lycian
Telmisseis, Pinara, Xanthus, Patara, Phaselis, Side, Aspendus, Celaenee,
and Gordium. This last city was the capital of Phrygia; and there the
conqueror for the first time since his landing gave himself and his army
a few months’ rest during the latter part of the winter.

With the first breath of spring his forces were again in motion.
Hitherto anxious with respect to the state of things on the coast and in
Greece, he had remained in the western half of Asia Minor, within call
of his friends in Macedonia, at no time distant more than about 200
miles from the sea. Now intelligence reached him which made him feel at
liberty to advance into the interior of Asia. Memnon the Rhodian fell
sick and died in the early spring of B.C. 333. It is strange that so
much should have depended on a single life; but it certainly seems that
there was no one in the Persian service who, on Memnon’s death, could
replace him--no one fitted for the difficult task of uniting Greeks and
Asiatics together, capable of influencing and managing the one while he
preserved the confidence of the other. Memnon’s death disconcerted all
the plans of the Great King, who till it occurred had fully intended to
carry the war into his enemy’s country. It induced Darius even to give
up the notion of maintaining a powerful fleet, and to transfer to the
land service the most efficient of his naval forces. At the same time it
set Alexander free to march wherever he liked, liberating him from the
keen anxiety, which he had previously felt, as to the maintenance of the
Macedonian power in Europe.

It now became the object of the Persian king to confront the daring
invader of his Western provinces with an army worthy of the Persian
name and proportionate to the vastness of the Empire. He had long been
collecting troops from many of the most warlike nations, and had got
together a force of several hundred thousand men. Forgetting the lessons
of his country’s previous history, he flattered himself that the host
which he had brought together was irresistible, and became anxious to
hurry on a general engagement. Starting from Babylon, probably about the
time that Alexander left Gordium in Phrygia, he marched up the valley of
the Euphrates, and took up a position at Sochi, which was situated in
a large open plain, not far from the modern Lake of Antioch. On his
arrival there he heard that Alexander was in Cilicia at no great
distance; and the Greeks in his service assured him that it would not
be long before the Macedonian monarch would seek him out and accept his
offer of battle. But a severe attack of illness detained Alexander at
Tarsus, and when he was a little recovered, troubles in Western Cilicia,
threatening his communications with Greece, required his presence;
so that Darius grew impatient, and, believing that his enemy had no
intention of advancing further than Cilicia, resolved to seek him in
that country. Quitting the open plain of Sochi, he marched northwards,
having the range of Amanus on his left, almost as far as the
thirty-seventh parallel, when turning sharply to the west, he crossed
the chain, and descended upon Issus, in the inner recess of the gulf
which bore the same name. Here he came upon Alexander’s hospitals, and
found himself to his surprise in the rear of his adversary, who, while
Darius was proceeding northwards along the eastern flank of Amanus, had
been marching southwards between the western flank of the same range and
the sea. Alexander had crossed the Pylse, or narrowest portion of the
pass, and had reached Myriandrus--a little beyond Iskonderum--when news
reached him that Darius had occupied Issus in his rear, and had put
to death all the sick and wounded Macedonians whom he had found in the
town. At first he could not credit the intelligence; but when it was
confirmed by scouts, whom he sent out, he prepared instantly to retrace
his steps, and to fight his first great battle with the Persian king
under circumstances which he felt to be favorable beyond anything that
he could have hoped. The tract of flat land between the base of the
mountains and the sea on the borders of the Gulf of Issus was nowhere
broader than about a mile and a half. The range of Amanus on the
east rose up with rugged and broken hills, so that on this side the
operations of cavalry were impracticable. It would be impossible to
form a line of battle containing in the front rank more than about 4000
men,1048 and difficult for either party to bring into action as many as
30,000 of their soldiers. Thus the vast superiority of numbers on the
Persian side became in such a position absolutely useless, and even
Alexander had more troops than he could well employ. No wonder that the
Macedonian should exclaim, that “God had declared Himself on the Grecian
side by putting it into the heart of Darius to execute such a movement.”
 It may be that Alexander’s superior generalship would have made him
victorious even on the open plain of Sochi; but in the defile of Issus
success was certain, and generalship superfluous.

Darius had started from Issus in pursuit of his adversary, and had
reached the banks of the Pinarus, a small stream flowing westward from
Amanus into the Mediterranean, when he heard that Alexander had hastened
to retrace his stops, and was coming to meet him. Immediately he
prepared for battle. Passing a force of horse and foot across the stream
in his front, to keep his adversary in check if he advanced too rapidly,
he drew up his best troops along the line of the river in a continuous
solid mass, the ranks of which must have been at least twenty deep.
Thirty thousand Greek mercenaries formed the centre of the line, while
on either side of them were an equal number of Asiatic “braves”--picked
probably from the mass of the army. Twenty thousand troops of a lighter
and inferior class were placed upon the rough hills on the left, the
outskirts of the Amanian range, where the nature of the ground allowed
them to encircle the Macedonian right, which, to preserve its ranks
unbroken, kept the plain. The cavalry, to the number of 30,000, was
massed upon the other wing, near the sea.

The battle began by certain movements of Alexander against the flank
force which menaced his right. These troops, assailed by the Macedonian
light-armed, retreated at once to higher ground, and by their manifest
cowardice freed Alexander from all anxiety on their account. Leaving 300
horse to keep the 20,000 in check, he moved on his whole line at a slow
pace towards the Pinarus till it came within bow-shot of the enemy, when
he gave the order to proceed at a run. The line advanced as commanded;
but before it could reach the river, the Persian horse on the extreme
right, unable to restrain themselves any longer, dashed across the
shallow stream, and assailed Alexander’s left, where they engaged in a
fierce battle with the Thessalian cavalry, in which neither attained any
decided advantage. The infantry, meanwhile, came into conflict along
the rest of the line. Alexander himself, with the right and the
right-centre, charged the Asiatic troops on Darius’s left, who, like
their brethren at Cunaxa, instantly broke and fled. Parmenio, with the
left-centre, was less successful. The north bank of the Pinarus was in
this part steep and defended by stakes in places; the Greek mercenaries
were as brave as the Macedonians, and fought valiantly. It was not till
the troops which had routed the Persian right began, to act against
their centre, assailing it upon the flank, while it was at the same time
engaged in front, that the mercenaries were overpowered and gave way.
Seeing their defeat, the horse likewise fled, and thus the rout became
general.

It is not quite clear what part Darius took in the battle, or how far
he was answerable for its untoward result. According to Arrian, he was
struck with a sudden panic on beholding the flight of his left wing, and
gave orders to his charioteer instantly to quit the field. But Curtius
and Diodorus represent him as engaged in a long struggle against
Alexander himself, and as only flying when he was in imminent danger of
falling into the enemy’s hands. Justin goes further, and states that
he was actually wounded. The character gained by Darius in his earlier
years makes it improbable that he would under any circumstances have
exhibited personal cowardice. On the whole it would seem to be most
probable that the flight of the Persian monarch occurred, not when the
left wing fled, but when the Greek mercenaries among whom he had placed
himself began to give way before the irresistible phalanx and the
impetuous charges of Alexander. Darius, not unwisely, accepted the
defeat of his best troops as the loss of the battle, and hastily retired
across Amanus by the pass which had brought him to Issus, whence
he hurried on through Sochi to the Euphrates, anxious to place that
obstacle between himself and his victorious enemy. His multitudinous
host, entangled in the defiles of the mountains, suffered by its own
weight and size, the stronger fugitives treading down the weaker, while
at the same time it was ruthlessly slaughtered by the pursuing enemy,
so long as the waning light allowed. As many as 100,000--90,000 foot and
10,000 horse--are said to have fallen. The ravines were in places choked
with the dead bodies, and Ptolemy the son of Lagus related that in one
instance he and Alexander crossed a gully on a bridge of this kind.
Among the slain were Sabaces, satrap of Egypt, Bubaces, a noble of high
rank, and Arsames, Rheomithres, and Atizyes, three of the commanders
at the Granicus. Forty thousand prisoners were made. The whole of the
Persian camp and camp-equipage fell into the enemy’s hands, who found in
the royal pavilion the mother, wife, and sister of the king, an
infant son, two daughters, and a number of female attendants, wives of
noblemen. The treasure captured amounted to 3000 silver talents. Among
the trophies of victory were the chariot, bow, shield, and robe of the
king, which he had abandoned in his hurried flight.

The loss on the side of the Macedonians was trivial. The highest
estimate places it at 450 killed, the lowest at 182. Besides these,
504 were wounded. Thus Alexander had less than 1000 men placed hors de
combat. He himself received a slight wound in the thigh from a sword,
which, used a little more resolutely, might have changed the fortunes of
the world.

The defeat of the Persians at Issus seems to have been due simply to the
fact that, practically, the two adversaries engaged with almost equal
numbers, and that the troops of Alexander were of vastly superior
quality to those of Darhis. The Asiatic infantry--notwithstanding their
proud title of “braves”--proved to be worthless; the Greek mercenaries
were personally courageous, but their inferior arms and training
rendered them incapable of coping with the Macedonian phalanx. The
cavalry was the only arm in which the Persians were not greatly at a
disadvantage; and cavalry alone cannot gain, or even save a battle.
When Darius put himself into a position where he lost all the advantages
derivable from superiority of numbers, he made his own defeat and his
adversary’s triumph certain.

It remained, therefore, before the Empire could be considered as
entirely lost, that this error should be corrected, this false step
retrieved. All hope for Persia was not gone, so long as her full force
had not been met and defeated in a fair and open field. When Darius fled
from Issus, it was not simply to preserve for a few months longer his
own wretched life; it was to make an effort to redeem the past--to give
his country that last chance of maintaining her independence which she
had a right to claim at his hands--to try what the award of battle
would be under the circumstances which he had fair grounds for
regarding as the most favorable possible to his own side and the most
disadvantageous to his adversary. Before the heart of the Empire
could be reached from the West, the wide Mesopotamian plain had to be
traversed--there, in those vast flats, across which the enemy must come,
a position might be chosen where there would be room for the largest
numbers that even his enormous Empire could furnish--where cavalry and
even chariots would be everywhere free to act--where consequently he
might engage the puny force of his antagonist to the greatest advantage,
outflank it, envelop it, and perhaps destroy it. Darius would have
been inexcusable had he given up the contest without trying this last
chance--the chance of a battle in the open field with the full collected
force of Persia.

His adversary gave him ample time to prepare for this final struggle.
The battle of Issus was fought in November, B.C. 333. It was not till
the summer of B.C. 331, twenty months later that the Macedonian forces
were set in motion towards the interior of the Empire. More than a year
and a half was consumed in the reduction of Phoenicia, the siege of
Gaza, and the occupation of Egypt. Alexander, apparently, was confident
of defeating Darius in a pitched battle, whenever and under whatever
circumstances they should again meet; and regarded as the only
serious dangers which threatened him, a possible interruption of his
communications with Greece, and the employment of Persian gold and
Persian naval force in the raising of troubles on the European side of
the Egean. He was therefore determined, before he plunged into the depth
of the Asiatic continent, to isolate Persia from Greece, to destroy her
naval power, and to cripple her pecuniary resources. The event showed
that his decision was a wise one. By detaching from Persia and bringing
under his own sway the important countries of Syria, Phoenicia,
Palestine, Idumsea, and Egypt, he wholly deprived Persia of her navy,
and transferred to himself the complete supremacy of the sea, he greatly
increased his own resources while he diminished those of the enemy, and
he shut out Persia altogether from communication with Greece, excepting
through his territories. He could therefore commence his march into the
interior with a feeling of entire security as to his communications and
his rear. No foe was left on the coast capable of causing him a moment’s
uneasiness. Athens and Sparta might chafe and even intrigue; but without
the Persian “archers,” it was impossible that any force should be raised
which could in the slightest degree imperil his European dominions.

From Babylon, whither Darius proceeded straight from Issus, he appears
to have made two ineffectual attempts at negotiating with his enemy. The
first embassy was despatched soon after his arrival, and, according
to Arrian, was instructed merely to make proposals for peace, and to
request the restitution of the Queen, the Queen-mother, Sisygambis, the
infant prince, and the two princesses, captured by Alexander. To this
Alexander replied, in haughty and contemptuous terms, that if Darius
would acknowledge him as Lord of Asia, and deliver himself into his
power, he should receive back his relatives: if he intended still to
dispute the sovereignty, he ought to come and fight out the contest, and
not run away.

The second embassy was sent six or eight months later, while Alexander
was engaged in the siege of Tyre. Darius now offered, as a ransom for
the members of his family held in captivity by Alexander, the large sum
of ten thousand talents (L240,000.), and was willing to purchase peace
by the cession of all the provinces lying west of the Euphrates, several
of which were not yet in Alexander’s possession. At the same time he
proposed that Alexander should marry his daughter, Statira, in order
that the cession of territory might be represented as the bestowal of a
dowry. The reply of Alexander was, if possible, ruder and haughtier than
before. “What did Darius mean by offering money and territory? All his
treasure and all his territory were Alexander’s already. As for the
proposed marriage, if he (Alexander) liked to marry a daughter of
Darius, he should of course do so, whether her father consented or not.
If Darius wanted merciful treatment, he had better come and deliver
himself up at once.”

The terms of this reply rendered further negotiation impossible.
Darius had probably not hoped much from his pacific overtures, and was
therefore not greatly concerned at their rejection. He knew that the
members of his family were honorably and even kindly treated by their
captor, and that, so far at any rate, Alexander had proved himself a
magnanimous conqueror. He can scarcely have thought that a lasting peace
was possible between himself and his young antagonist, who had only just
fleshed his maiden sword, and was naturally eager to pursue his career
of conquest. Indeed, he seems from the moment of his defeat at Issus to
have looked forward to another battle as inevitable, and to have been
unremitting in his efforts to collect and arm a force which might
contend, with a good hope of victory, against the Macedonians. He
replaced the panoplies lost at Issus with fresh ones; he armed his
forces anew with swords and spears longer than the Persians had been
previously accustomed to employ, on account of the great length of the
Macedonian weapons; he caused to be constructed 200 scythed chariots; he
prepared spiked balls to use against his enemy’s cavalry; above all, he
laid under contribution for the supply of troops all the provinces,
even the most remote, of his extensive Empire, and asked and obtained
important aid from allies situated beyond his borders. The forces which
he collected for the final struggle comprised--besides Persians, Medes,
Babylonians, and Susianians from the centre of the Empire--Syrians from
the banks of the Orontes, Armenians from the neighborhood of Ararat,
Cappadocians and Albanians from the regions bordering on the Euxine,
Cadusians from the Caspian, Bactrians from the Upper Oxus, Sogdians from
the Jaxartes, Arachosians from Cabul, Arians from Herat, Indians from
Punjab, and even Sacse from the country about Kashgar and Yarkand, on
the borders of the Great Desert of Gobi. Twenty-five nations followed
the standard of the Great King, and swelled the ranks of his vast army,
which amounted (according to the best authorities) to above a million of
men. Every available resource that the Empire possessed was brought
into play. Besides the three arms of cavalry, infantry, and chariots,
elephants were, for perhaps the first time in the history of military
science, marshalled in the battle-field, to which they added an unwonted
element of grotesqueness and savagery.

The field of battle was likewise selected with great care, and
artificially prepared for the encounter. Darius, it would seem, had
at last become convinced that his enemy would seek him out wherever he
might happen to be, and that consequently the choice of ground rested
wholly with himself. Leaving, therefore, the direct road to Babylon
by the line of the Euphrates undefended, he selected a position which
possessed all the advantages of the Mesopotamian plain, being open,
level, fertile, and well supplied with water, while its vicinity to the
eastern and northern provinces, made it convenient for a rendezvous.
This position was on the left or east bank of the Tigris, in the heart
of the ancient Assyria, not more than thirty miles from the site of
Nineveh. Here, in the region called by the Greeks Adiabene, extended
between the Tigris and the river Zab or Lycus, a vast plain broken by
scarcely any elevations, and wholly bare of both shrubs and trees. The
few natural inequalities which presented themselves were levelled by
order of Darius, who made the entire plain in his front practicable not
only for cavalry but for chariots. At the same time he planted, in the
places where Alexander’s cavalry was likely to charge, spiked balls to
damage the feet of the horses.

Meanwhile, Alexander had quitted Egypt, and after delaying some months
in Syria while his preparations were being completed, had crossed the
Euphrates at Thapsacus and marched through northern Mesopotamia along
the southern flank of the Mons Masius, a district in which provisions,
water, and forage were abundant, to the Tigris, which he must have
reached in about lat. 36° 30’, thirty or forty miles above the site of
Nineveh. No resistance was made to his advance; even the passage of
the great rivers was unopposed. Arrived on the east bank of the Tigris,
Alexander found himself in Assyria Proper, with the stream upon his
right and the mountains of Gordyene Kurdistan at no great distance upon
his left. But the plain widened as he advanced, and became, as he drew
near the position of his enemy, a vast level, nowhere less than thirty
miles in breadth, between the outlying ranges of hills and the great
river. Darius, whose headquarters had been at Arbela, south of the Zab,
on learning Alexander’s approach, had crossed that stream and taken post
on the prepared ground to the north, in the neighborhood of a small town
or village called Gaugamela. Here he drew up his forces in the order
which he thought best, placing the scythed chariots in front, with
supports of horse--Scythian, Bactrian, Armenian, and Cappadocian--near
to them; then, the main line of battle, divided into a centre and two
wings, and composed of horse and foot intermixed; and finally a reserve
of Babylonians. Sitaceni, and others, massed in heavy column in the
rear. His own post was, according to invariable Persian custom, in
the centre; and about him were grouped the best troops--the Household
brigade, the Melophori or Persian foot-guards, the Mardian archers, some
Albanians and Carians, the entire body of Greek mercenaries, and the
Indians with their elephants.

Alexander, on his side, determined to leave nothing to chance. Advancing
leisurely, resting his troops at intervals, carefully feeling his way by
means of scouts, and gradually learning from the prisoners whom he
took, and the deserters who came over to him, all the dispositions and
preparations of the enemy, he arrived opposite the position of Darius on
the ninth day after his passage of the Tigris. His officers were eager
to attack at once; but with great judgment he restrained them, gave his
troops a night’s rest, and obtained time to reconnoitre completely the
whole position of the enemy and the arrangement which he had made of his
forces. He then formed his own dispositions. The army with which he
was to attack above a million of men consisted of 40,300 foot and 7000
horse. Alexander drew them up in three lines:

The first consisted of light-armed troops, horse and foot, of good
quality, which were especially intended to act against the enemy’s
chariots. The next was the main line of battle, and contained the
phalanx with the rest of the heavy infantry in the centre, the heavy
cavalry upon the two wings. The third line consisted of light troops,
chiefly horse, and was instructed to act against such of the Persians as
should outflank the Macedonian main line and so threaten their rear.
As at Issus, Alexander took the command of the right wing himself, and
assigned the left to Parmenio.

As the two armies drew near, Alexander, who found himself greatly
outflanked on both wings, and saw in front of him smooth ground
carefully prepared for the operations of chariots and cavalry, began a
diagonal movement towards the right, which tended at once to place him
beyond the levelled ground, and to bring him in contact with his enemy’s
left wing rather than with his direct front. The movement greatly
disconcerted his adversary, who sought to prevent it by extending and
advancing his own left, which was soon engaged with Alexander’s right
in a fierce hand-to-hand conflict. Alexander still pressed his slanting
movement, and in resisting it Darius’s left became separated from his
centre, while at the same time he was forced to give the signal for
launching the chariots against the foe sooner than he had intended, and
under circumstances that were not favorable. The effect of the operation
was much the same as at Cunaxa. Received by the Macedonian light-armed,
the chariots were mostly disabled before the enemy’s main line was
reached; the drivers were dragged from the chariot-boards; and the
horses were cut to pieces. Such as escaped this fate and charged the
Macedonian line, were allowed to pass through the ranks, which opened to
receive them, and were then dealt with by grooms and others in the rear
of the army.

No sooner had the chariot attack failed, and the space between the two
lines of battle become clear, than Alexander, with the quick eye of a
true general, saw his opportunity: to resist his flank movement, the
Bactrians and Sacae with the greater part of the left wing had broken
off from the main Persian line, and in pressing towards the left
had made a gap between their ranks and the centre. Into this gap the
Macedonian king, at the head of the “Companion” cavalry and a portion of
the phalanx, plunged. Here he found himself in the near neighborhood
of Darius, whereupon he redoubled the vigor of his assault, knowing the
great importance of any success gained in this quarter. The Companions
rushed on with loud cries, pressing with all their weight, and thrusting
their spears into the faces of their antagonists--the phalanx, bristling
with its thick array of lances, bore them down. Alexander found himself
sufficiently near Darius to hurl a spear at him, which transfixed his
charioteer. The cry arose that the king had fallen, and the ranks at
once grew unsteady. The more timid instantly began to break and fly;
the contagion of fear spread; and Darius was in a little while almost
denuded of protection on one side. Seeing this, and regarding the battle
as lost, since his line was broken, his centre and left wing defeated,
while only his right wing remained firm, the Persian monarch yielded to
his alarm, and hastily quitting the field, made his way to Arbela. The
centre and left fled with him. The right, which was under the command
of the Syrian satrap, Mazseus, made a firmer stand. On this side the
chariots had done some damage, and the horse was more than a match for
the Thessalian cavalry. Parmenio found himself in difficulties about the
time when the Persian king fled. His messengers detained a part of the
phalanx, which was about to engage in the pursuit, and even recalled
Alexander, who was hastening upon the track of Darius. The careful
prince turned back, but before he could make his way through the crowd
of fugitives to the side of his lieutenant, victory had declared in
favor of the Macedonians in this part of the field also. Mazseus and his
troops, learning that the king was fled, regarded further resistance as
useless, and quitted the field. The Persian army hurriedly recrossed
the Zab, pursued by the remorseless conquerors, who slew the unresisting
fugitives till they were weary of slaughter. Arrian says that 300,000
fell, while a still larger number were taken prisoners. Other writers
make the loss considerably less. All, however, agree that the army was
completely routed and dispersed, that it made no attempt to rally, and
gave no further trouble to the conqueror.

The conduct of Darius in this--the crisis of his fate--cannot be
approved; but it admits of palliation, and does not compel us to
withdraw from him that respectful compassion which we commonly accord
to great misfortunes. After Issus, it was his duty to make at least one
more effort against the invader. To this object he addressed himself
with earnestness and diligence. The number and quality of the troops
collected at Arbela attests at once the zeal and success of his
endeavors. His choice and careful preparation of the field of battle
are commendable; in his disposition of his forces there is nothing with
which to find fault. Every arm of the service had full room to act; all
were brought into play; if Alexander conquered, it was because he was a
consummate general, while at the same time he commanded the best troops
in the world. Arbela was not, like Issus, won by mere fighting. It was
the leader’s victory, rather than the soldiers. Alexander’s diagonal
advance, the confusion which it caused, the break in the Persian line,
and its prompt occupation by some of the best cavalry and a portion
of the phalanx, are the turning-points of the engagement. All the
rest followed as a matter of course. Far too much importance has been
assigned to Darius’s flight, which was the effect rather than the cause
of victory. When the centre of an Asiatic army is so deeply penetrated
that the person of the monarch is exposed and his near attendants begin
to fall, the battle is won. Darius did not--indeed he could not--“set
the example of flight.” Hemmed in by vast masses of troops, it was not
until their falling away from him on his left flank at once exposed
him to the enemy and gave him room to escape, that he could extricate
himself from the melee.

No doubt it would have been nobler, finer, more heroic, had the Persian
monarch, seeing that all was lost, and that the Empire of the Persians
was over, resolved not to outlive the independence of his country. Had
he died in the thick of the fight, a halo of glory would have surrounded
him. But, because he lacked, in common with many other great kings and
commanders, the quality of heroism, we are not justified in affixing to
his memory the stigma of personal cowardice. Like Pompey, like
Napoleon, he yielded in the crisis of his fate to the instinct of
self-preservation. He fled from the field where he had lost his crown,
not to organize a new army, not to renew the contest, but to prolong for
a few weeks a life which had ceased to have any public value.

It is needless to pursue further the dissolution of the Empire.
The fatal blow was struck at Arbela--all the rest was but the long
death-agony. At Arbela the crown of Cyrua passed to the Macedonian;
the Fifth Monarchy came to an end. The HE-GOAT, with the notable horn
between his eyes, had come from the west to the ram which had two horns,
and had run into him with the fury of his power. He had come close to
him, and, moved with choler, had smitten the ram and broken his two
horns--there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he had
cast him down to the ground and stamped upon him--and there was none to
deliver the ram out of his hand.