Those splendid Persians!

[rez]

Well having done the business in criticising the Persians at least a little i can now make a nicer post. You may want to wear sunglasses to avoid being blinded by the nationalism. However i do try my best to keep it less biased.

I plan to post a few of the finer points of the Persian empire and the Persians themselves.


The rise of persia


Looking at the world in 559 BC (ascension of Cyrus the Great to the Persian throne) we would have seen an incredibly unstable and war torn Middle east carved up amongst four massive and powerful empires. The Medes, the Lydians, The Babylonians and the Egyptians. All rich well grounded empires with very strong military structures and political infrastructures.

This picture is from 600 BC but you get the general idea.



Now who could suspect that a single tribe in a small provnce of the Median empire would overthrow them all? and in consecutive campaigns conducted in lightning speed.

The Median empire being the most gargantuan it could field huge numbers of fierce Iranian tribesmen from the east. Wildy rich and very powerful the Medes were a very serious opponent. Unfortunately little material is available on them so i can't really tell you exactly how their military precisely worked. - however we at Rise of Persia have some ideas, can't really tell you here.

The Babylonian and Lydian armies were two of the best in the world in my opinion. The Babylonians making use of large amounts of armour and even a well trained proffesional army. They effected troops as heavy and efficient as hoplites whilst still maintaining strong archery traditions. Furthermore the chariots and armoured cavalry were a superb supporting force. (Mostly figured out from reliefs and the research of FliegerAD)

The Lydian empire was singularly spectacular in that they succeded in fusing strong heavy infantry (hoplites) with excellent heavy cavalry (and by excellent i mean top notch! the nobility). This was done hundreds of years before Alexander the great yet they are never given enough credit! (again indebted to Flieger AD for his research). But imagine how well trained and equipped an army such as this was put to flight by far lighter and far far less experienced troops.

The Median war lasted for a suprising 3 years according to the nabunaid chronicle. 3 years being far more in depth and actually contested than herodotus would have you believe. Ctesias who would have spoken with Persians on the matter (He was a court surgeon under Artaxerxes II) said that the Persians fought three battles with the Medes. The third being fought in the heart of Persis and the only one in which the Persians triumphed.

So what we can note is that the first two battles would have been Median victories, which of course inflicted casualties for both sides but to the Persians, who live in a small province with arguably few people (later il come to this), it would have been devastating to their manpower and war effort. I find it incredible that they had the tenacity to keep coming back and with logically fewer numbers. The medes however would have had their enormous empire to replenish their reserves with. The final battle must have been a real epic struggle of the underdog! And yet the Persians triumph! I would like to assume that great courage, skill and determination prevailed. However this may also be where Herodotus's tale of Harpagus revolting occurs. Id prefer the courage skill and determination story but it seems far more likely that this was where Harpagus to a contingent of the Medes to join Cyrus and together they defeated Astyages. Nonetheless the courage to repeatedly stand in the face of overwhelming odds is impressive to say the least.

The Lydians are an even greater puzzle to me. They had possibly the finest army in the world and a nouveaux riche (Sp? ah you know what i mean) band of Iranians defeated them. The clever use of camels would be a decisive factor in destroying the Lydian cavalry threat. However Herodotus maintains that the Lydian cavalry took up the fight on foot - and those nobles would still have been a formidable force. Not to mention the undoubtedly huge amount of hoplites the Lydians could field from their empire. Considering how many ionian/carian towns the Lydians controlled plus the Lydian hoplites themselves it is very interesting to note how the Persians so often chastised for being inferior to Greek style heavy infantry stood, fought and matched the hoplite force! This time a solid testimony to the prowess of the Persians

This being followed by the first recorded winter campaign i can think of to suprise the Lydians at home. Lastly the babylonians were decisively defeated at the battle of the Opis river, allowing a relatively peaceful capture of Babylon. (brief version here people). We have a Persian force this time which has admittedly a replenished reserve of manpower following their recent conquests but i should stress no Lydian support. Herodotus states that Cyrus forebade the Lydians from martial practice in order to prevent them from revolting. Clearly he was more interested in the wealth Lydia generated rather than her soldiers. So again a wonderfully powerful army fails to defeat the Persians. I for one wish to know a LOT more about the battle at Opis - all we know is that the Persians won.

Now we can say that the Persians merely overwhelmed their enemies with the multitude of manpower they recieved from the Median empire conquest. However Herodotus argues that the east had to be re-conquered by Cyrus after the conquest of Lydia the exact date is uncertain but we know Cyrus couldnt rely on the eastern forces against Lydia. OR we could trust Ctesias who states that a few eastern provinces initially revolted but then submitted to Cyrus in place of Astyages. Ctesias of course would be hearing this from court stories of Cyrus. Many don't trust him outright. But im not inclined to believe a huge swathe of peoples with no centralised authority collectively decided to submit to a foreign power which was not directly threatening them at the time.

Against Babylon the Persian numbers would not have been massive as a large proportion of Cyrus's troops were still in asia minor subduing the ionians under Harpagus. So at the battle of Opis the Persians would not have had astronomical amounts of troops. Although the troop ratio between Persian and Babylonian can't really be compared to the previous campaigns with Media and Lydia.

At this point i also want to give special mention to Darius the great and his army which defeated 19 seperate armies in the great set of revolts. I suggest reading the behistun inscription to really get a feel for the odds they faced. But i don't believe Darius gets a tenth of the credit he deserves for coming out with a stable empire.

Society

Persian Society was characterised by its education system. From 5 until twenty the male youths would be taught how to ride a horse, how to use a bow, and to speak the truth. According to herodotus lies were the worst crimes possible in Persia. I should add that interestingly in modern Iranian culture lies are still held in utter contempt. The military style education of children to men is something skipped over by many and i believe is one of the key factors in determining why the persians were superior soldiers. Whilst hardly Spartan i believe it is basically the humane version of the laconian education.

For instance we can tell that the Persians did not practice infanticide because of the large amount of girls in the Persis workforce (attested by the persepolis fortification tablets - below being one example). Furthermore the Persians placed a huge onus on raising large families, it seems insane to assume they were tried hard to raise children yet still regularly exposed unwanted children. Im not saying they never killed children, as thats not something i can prove, but in they did not "Practice" infanticide on the same level as the greeks, specifically the Spartans.

This brings me back to the population of the Persians. I should state that the below is an idea - not a rock solid belief of mine.

One of my personal theories (not one ive read about yet) is that the earlier Persians also had the added misfortune of being an underpopulated people. Herodotus tells us that aside from courage in battle the Persians valued propagating a large family as a very Manly attribute. (Herodotus 1.136)

Secondly the persepolis tablets show that recent mothers were given ration rewards for giving birth. Such a large consideration of the persian population tells me they was concern over the manpower of the persian people. They were from a small province and the overpopulation a secure state would suffer from this much attention to birthing does not appear to have happened. In history the only times i have seen states sponsor population growth is when they are in of a boost.

However im still wondering on this one and i am ready to accept im wrong if it becomes clear.

Whilst were on families i think i will hold up the persian treatment of women for you all to marvel at. In my opinion the most equal of the urban civilisations of the time were the persians. Truly an exemplary practice which again is not given enough credit.

The translations of tablets found at Persepolis suggest a great equality of gender in persian society. Tablets 846 and 847 show the payment of workers in the persian workforce. It appears to suggest that people are paid by the amount of skill involved in their labour rather than their gender. In some cases it shows women being payed more than men. -

"16 men (each recieve) 30 quarts, 7 boys 20, 5 boys 15, 6 boys 10. 1 woman 50, 34 women 40, 9 women 30, 1 woman 20." - persepolis fortification tablet 847.

Im sure we can all see the results without me having to explain them.

on a seperate note the Persepolis fortification tablets 733, 1835, 1836 and some others show that women could own property (as in estates). Noble women of course but this is still hundreds of years ahead of their contempory civilisations.

Slaves are an interesting point in early persia. No mention of them is found in any persian source. indeed i have not even found an old Persian word for slave (though its quite possible i just missed it). They seem to have permitted them for their subjects as they did not interfere with previous systems too much. The huge slave trade in Babylon being a massive source of income. We can also tell from the persepolis tablets that all workers were paid for their labour. rather than just have a worker class who do their bidding they recieve payment as is examplified in my earlier citation. Again this is another interesting thought (not belief) but at the moment i am inclined to believe the Persians did not practice slavery. At least originally.

The Pax Persica

I would like to briefly mention the achievement of the Persians in taking one of the most war torn areas the world had ever seen and replacing it with the stability and safety of unification. of course it was still bandit infested and the occasional war/civil strife/revolt would break out. But in relative comparison to the age before the persians it was a vast improvement.


Governing policies

Lastly i want to say a little about the way the Persians governed. It was not done because they were enlightened nice people. It was done to maintain happy subjects who are easier to control and pay their taxes.

But the persians allowed their subjects their religion and more importantly their political structures. they showed due respect to the conquered by assuming the role of their previous monarch. For the ionians however it was a little different. initially they were given puppet tyrants to rule as governors. At least they were native. but when the ionians yearned for democracy mardonius (my favourite Persian), after suppressing their revolts, let them have a degree of say in their government and removed the ionian tyrants. Almost giving democracy to the conquered.

Again just to make them calmer subjects. but still this leniency is admirable when compared to other empires of the day (Assyria comes to mind)

Well theres always more to write but its 3:30 AM and i don't think i can keep going any longer.

Enjoy!

Edit: forgot the sources! Well the sources i have on me. my avatar explains my emotions

Maria Brosius - "The Persian empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I"
Pierre Briant - "From Cyrus to Alexander"
J.M. Cook - "The Persians"
Richard N. Frye - "The Heritage of Persia"
Xenophon - "The education of Cyrus"
Herodotus - "The histories"
Nicholas Sekunda - "The Persian army"
S. G.W. Benjamin - "Persia"
J. Weishoffer - "Ancient Persia"
Peter Green - "The Greco - Persian wars"


-Rez

[Ahiga]

Of any nation which is misunderstood and unfairly hated by the west in ignorance, I think persia is one of the most unfair in having it.

The 'oriental despotism' seemed the same as the struggle of monarch and nobles in europe, and while not an ideal system, was not in itself evil, but became so when you had a poor leader.

I personally believe that Greeks did not loathe persia on the level that we consider them to have. In my brief scanning of Xenophon's 10,000, he actually depicts the Cyrus they fight for as a handsome, valiant hero whose cause is a just one for the greeks to fight, and who is a good individual. I believe the greeks also had such praise for the original Cyrus the Great. Athen's would have hated them and other's might have as well, but I think it was not a zealous loathing of one or the other.

Had Greece been united as they were by Phillip and Alexander, they would have gone out to conquer (as they had, in small degree, in Italy) in the same way that Persia had. And I think Persian conquest was not an end to freedom and right that we see it being with the Persian-wars against Greece.


Very educating and very interesting to read. I liked it. I would suggest writing an editorial of just why the Persian Military was mighty and how they conquered more than just 'unarmored rabble', to educate the masses on TWC who think the persian's were simply a bit superior to a world of weaklings beyond the greeks, when they had whupped the Ionian Greeks.

[rez]

Again thats stuff for the future. i want to get around to all of it eventually. But the Persian military is such a massive subject my best efforts would be on the early army. I still have much to learn about the subject though.

Thanks!

[robyn]

Splendid? i don‘t think so!