Summary

The Achaemenids (pronounced

The name "Achaemenid" (Old Persian: Haxāmanišiya) refers to the founding clan which, around 550 BC, freed itself from the tutelage of the Medes, previously their rulers, and to the great Empire which subsequently resulted from their domination. The Empire founded by the Achaemenids seized Anatolia by defeating Lydia, then conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire and Egypt, uniting the oldest civilizations in the Middle East into a single, lasting political entity. The Achaemenid Empire twice threatened ancient Greece and collapsed, defeated by Alexander the Great, in 330 BC, but not without bequeathing a significant part of its cultural and political features to the Diadochi who succeeded it.

During the two centuries of its supremacy, the Achaemenid Empire developed an imperial model incorporating many of the features of its Assyrian and Babylonian predecessors, while at the same time displaying original aspects, such as constant flexibility and pragmatism in its relations with dominated peoples, as long as the latter respected its domination. The Persian kings carried out major works on several sites in the heart of their Empire (Pasargadae, Persepolis, Susa), synthesizing the architectural and artistic contributions of several of the dominated countries and pompously expressing their imperial ideology.

Sources

The great Achaemenid kings left royal inscriptions, which provide a wealth of information about their construction activities and their vision of the Empire. They provide numerous clues which, when put into perspective with the historical context of the period, help us to understand the kings' political will and their way of conceiving the exercise of power. They have been rediscovered and translated since the mid-19th century. Other evidence comes from administrative, satrapic or royal archives, in which the most important decisions were recorded (land movements, tax documents, etc.).

Achaemenid history has traditionally been recorded in external writings, notably by Greek authors such as Herodotus, Strabo, Ctesias, Polybius, Elian and others. In the Bible, the Book of Ezra, the Book of Esther and the Book of Daniel also contain references to the great kings. Ancient authors also wrote about Persia, in works called the Persika, of which only a few fragments are known, the rest having been lost.

All in all, documentation on the Achaemenids is extensive and varied. Iconographic elements are numerous, but their analysis poses a problem as they are very unevenly distributed in space and time, as is the case with archaeological work, which has long favored certain regions. This has resulted in a documentary gap: there are few or no sources on certain regions, while others such as Fars, Susiana, Egypt and Babylon are very well documented. What's more, while documents on the reigns of Cyrus the Great, Artaxerxes I and Darius II abound, the same cannot be said for other periods. These tendencies surely reflect ancient realities (the best-known regions are probably those that were the most densely occupied, the most literate and the most prosperous), but recent archaeological research is tending to offset some of these imbalances.

Development of studies on the Achaemenids

After a long period of marginalization between studies of Ancient Greece and the rest of the Ancient Near East, work on the Achaemenid Empire has been on the rise since the 1980s, spurred on by a number of researchers who set up structures and colloquia to facilitate communication between specialists of the period. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (en) set up the Achaemenid History Workshops from Groningen between 1980 and 1990, later assisted by Amelie Kurth. This resulted in several publications in the Achaemenid History series.

Pierre Briant, professor at the University of Toulouse II-Le Mirail and then at the Collège de France, where he held the History and Civilization of the Achaemenid World and Alexander's Empire chair from 1999 to 2012, heads up two particularly active working and coordination tools: the Achemenet website and the Persika series of publications, which includes the proceedings of regular colloquia reviewing the progress of research on various subjects.

Recent projects include the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project at the Oriental Institute of Chicago, under the direction of Matthew Stolper, which aims to give impetus to work on the Persepolis fortification archives, little studied since their discovery in the 1930s.

Origins of the dynasty

The founder of this dynasty is said to be Achaemenes (Old Persian: Haxāmaniš, Ancient Greek Ἀχαιμένης, or هخامنش in modern Persian meaning "wise man, of friendly spirit"). This is a person whose existence remains controversial (see below), head of a Persian clan probably ruling over other Persian tribes as early as the 9th century B.C. Settled in northern Iran (near Lake Orumieh), the Achaemenids were then tributaries of the Assyrians.

Under pressure from the Medes, Assyrians and Urartians, they migrated south of the Zagros Mountains and gradually settled in the Anshan region towards the end of the 2nd millennium and the beginning of the 1st millennium. Teisspes is said to have enlarged Achaemenid territory by conquering the kingdom of Anshan and Fars, thus earning the title of King of Anshan, while Assurbanipal took Susa and the Elamite kingdom temporarily disappeared.

Teispès was the first Achaemenid king to bear the title of King (of the city) of Anshan. Inscriptions reveal that when Teispès died, the kingdom was divided between two of his sons, Cyrus I (Kurāsh or Kurāš), ruler of Anshan, and Ariaramnes (Ariyāramna, "He who brought peace to the Iranians"), ruler of Parsumaš. They were succeeded by their respective sons: Cambyses I (Kambūjiya, "the eldest") on the throne of Anshan, and Arsames (Aršāma, "he of heroic power") on Parsumaš. These kings played only a limited role in the region, which was then dominated by the Medes and Assyrians. The existence of Cyrus and his reign over Anshan is attested by a seal bearing the mention Kurāš of Anšan, son of Teispès. However, an inscription dated 639 mentions the payment of tribute to Assurbanipal by Kurāš of Parsumaš, suggesting that the king of Parsumaš was the same Cyrus, unifying the two crowns. This element could then synchronize Persian and Assyrian histories. However, this interpretation is disputed, and Parsumash, Parsa and Anshan seem to have to be distinguished. After the fall of the Assyrian kingdom, the Achaemenids recognized the authority of the Medes. Although Herodotus wrote "it had long been the case that the Persians did not take kindly to being commanded by the Medes", the origins and modalities of this subjection are still unknown.

Darius I was the first to mention Achaemenes, whom he presented as the ancestor of Cyrus the Great (making him the founder of the Achaemenid line of rulers). However, it is possible that Achaemenes was a fictitious character used by Darius to usurp the Persian throne and legitimize his power. The Achaemenid dynasty spans the period from around 650 to 330.

Achaemenid rulers

In 559 BC, Cyrus II, also known as Cyrus the Great, succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan. Having also succeeded Arsames (during his lifetime) to the crown of Parsumaš, Cyrus thus unified the two Persian kingdoms and is thus considered the first true king of the Achaemenid dynasty, his predecessors still being enslaved to the Medes.

Between 553 and 550, a war broke out between the Medes and the Persians, at the end of which Cyrus II defeated Astyages, king of the Medes, and captured Ecbatane (Hagmatāna, "City of Gatherings", present-day Hamadan). On this occasion, he declares that the Persians, "once slaves to the Medes, have become their masters". Cyrus let Astyages live, and set about acting as his legitimate successor. According to Ctesias and Xenophon, he married Amytis, Astyages' daughter. Ecbatane remained one of the regular residences of the Great Kings, as it was of undoubted strategic importance for those wishing to control Central Asia.

The Persian takeover of Media was a major upheaval on a Middle Eastern scale. The fact that Cyrus presented himself as Astyages' heir led him to clash with the neighboring powers of Lydia and Babylon. Croesus, king of Lydia and Astyages' brother-in-law, "worried about the ruin of Astyages' empire and concerned about the increase in Persian business", attacked Cyrus in 547-546. But the Persians counter-attacked and pursued Croesus to his capital, Sardis, which quickly fell into Cyrus' hands. Croesus took himself prisoner, then finally received a Median city whose revenues would sustain him.

From 546 onwards, Cyrus left Asia Minor without having subdued the Ionian and Aeolian cities. Indeed, the king undertook a new campaign, as Babylon, Sacia, Bactria and Egypt posed a threat. Little is known about this period, but it seems that Cyrus captured Babylon in 539, then subdued the Bactrians and Sacians. It was perhaps at this time that Cyrus conquered Parthia, Drangiane, Arie, Chorasmie (see Khwarezm), Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandhara, Scythia, Sattagydie, Arachosia and Makran. At the beginning of his reign, Darius presented these countries as acquired. After the capture of Babylon, Cyrus allowed the exiled Judeans to return to Jerusalem, instructing his subjects to facilitate their return. He then conquered Transeuphratene and subdued the Arabs of Mesopotamia. Cyprus later surrendered of its own accord.

After Cyrus' death, his son Cambyses II conquered Egypt in 527.

The revolt was led by a group of priests who had lost their power after the conquest of Media by Cyrus. These priests, whom Herodotus calls magi, usurped the throne in order to place one of their own, Gaumata, who claimed to be Cambyses II's younger brother, Smerdis (or Bardiya), probably assassinated three years earlier. Because of Cambyses' despotism and long absence from Egypt, "the whole people, Persians, Medes, and all the other nations", recognize this usurper as their king, and all the more so because he grants them a tax rebate for three years.

According to the Behistun inscription, Smerdis reigned for seven months before being overthrown in 522 by a distant member of the Achaemenid family branch, Darius I (from Old Persian Dāryavuš, also known as Darayarahush or Darius the Great). The "Magi", though persecuted, continued to exist. In the year following Gaumata's death, they attempt to reinstall a second usurper in power, Vahyazdāta, who presents himself as the son of Cyrus. The attempt met with transitional success, then finally failed.

Darius then continued to expand the Empire. He had Oroites (en), satrap of Sardis, executed for rebelling around 522-520, and then sought to extend his domination to the Aegean islands. He conquered Samos around 520-519, then marched on Europe. He crossed the Bosphorus, left Greek troops at the mouth of the Danube (cities of Hellespont and Propontide) and marched towards Thrace. Thrace was of great importance to the Persians, as the province was rich in strategic products: wood for shipbuilding and precious metals.

Darius I then attacked Greece, which had supported the rebellions of the Greek colonies then under his aegis. His defeat at the battle of Marathon in 490 forced him to restrict the limits of his empire to Asia Minor.

It was under the reign of Darius I, from 518-516, that the royal palaces of Persepolis and Susa were built, serving as capitals for subsequent generations of Achaemenid kings.

Stabilizing the Empire and unrest at court

After the death of Darius, the Achaemenid Empire held sway over territories stretching from the Indus to the Aegean Sea for some two and a half centuries, a longevity not achieved by previous empires (Assyria and Babylon). This reflects the solidity of the political structure put in place by Cyrus II and Darius, which was preserved by their heirs, a fact which runs counter to the long-held view of the empire's decadence after its founders. However, this was not without its problems: failures in Greece, revolts in several regions, sometimes led by their satraps, while unrest at the head of the state persisted.

Xerxes I (Old Persian: Xšayārša, "Hero among kings") succeeded his father Darius around 486-485. Revolts broke out in Egypt and Greece, and Xerxes began his reign by leading an expedition against Egypt. After a rapid reconquest, Xerxes marched on Greece and defeated the Greeks at Thermopylae. Athens was conquered and sacked, and the Parthenon was set on fire. Athenians and Spartans retreat behind their last defensive lines on the Isthmus of Corinth and in the Saronic Gulf.

The early years of Xerxes' reign were marked by a change in policy towards conquered peoples. Unlike his predecessors, who respected the sanctuaries of the subjugated peoples, Xerxes had temples destroyed in Babylonia, Athens, Bactria and Egypt. The titles of Pharaoh and King of Babylonia were abandoned, and the provinces reorganized into satrapies. Twice, the Egyptians succeeded in regaining their independence. According to Manetho's study, Egyptian historians associate the periods of Achaemenid domination in Egypt with the XXVIIth (525 - 404) and XXXIst dynasties (343-332) respectively.

At Artemisia, the battle, made indecisive by a storm that destroyed ships on both sides, came to a premature halt when news arrived of the defeat at Thermopylae. The Greeks decided to retreat. Finally, the battle of Salamis on September 28, 480 was won by the Athenians. The loss of sea links with Asia forced Xerxes to retreat to Sardis. The army with which he left Greece, under the command of Mardonios, suffered another defeat at the battle of Plataea in 479. A further Persian defeat at Mycale encouraged the Greek cities of Asia Minor to revolt. These revolts led to the foundation of the League of Delos, and the Persian defeats that followed consecrated these territorial losses in the Aegean.

Nevertheless, by the 5th century B.C., Achaemenid rulers ruled over territories roughly covering those of the following present-day countries: Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece (eastern part), Egypt, Syria, Pakistan (large part), Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Caucasus, Central Asia, Libya, and Saudi Arabia (northern part). The empire went on to become the largest in the ancient world, with a territory covering approximately 7.5 million km2.

Xerxes' defeats are omitted from royal inscriptions. However, some Greeks rallied to Xerxes, such as Pausanias, commander of the Greek fleet in 478, and Themistocles, the victor of Salamis. This enabled the Persian Empire to retain a number of allies in the Greek cities of Asia Minor. Following succession problems, Xerxes, who had not designated a legitimate successor, was assassinated, possibly by one of his sons.

Artaxerxes I, one of Xerxes' sons, ascended the throne in 465. Just after taking power, he faced a revolt in Bactria, which he overcame. Artaxerxes modified court etiquette and redefined his hierarchy, which seems to mark the redefinition of the relationship between the Great King and the aristocracy. He continued work at Persepolis between 464, and the role of the Persian capital seemed to change: it was less frequently occupied, to the benefit of Susa and Babylon. Hypotheses suggesting a change in the role of Persepolis, becoming "a sanctuary rather than a city", remain uncertain. After Bactria, Egypt rose up against the authority of the Great Achaemenid King. Diodorus reports that news of Xerxes' assassination and the ensuing unrest prompted the Egyptians to oust the Persian tribute-holders and bring a certain Inaros to royal power (463-462). Inaros proposed an alliance to the Greeks, who accepted and sent a fleet down the Nile. The alliance between Greeks and Egyptians lasted six years (460-454). In 454, the Persian army and fleet liberated the Persians entrenched and besieged at Memphis. Inscriptions engraved in Egypt at this time suggest that only the Nile Delta region had risen up. The revolts of this period reveal gaps in Persian territorial domination. In the 450s, fighting resumed between Athens and Persia. Known documentation from this period does not give us any insight into Persian territorial developments in Asia Minor: only the lists of Attic and Persian tributes indicate that positions in this region may have changed from one year to the next.

Artaxerxes I died in Susa, and his body was brought back to Persepolis to be buried beside the tombs of his ancestors. His eldest son, Xerxes II, Artaxerxes' only legitimate son, succeeded him immediately, but was assassinated by one of his half-brothers, Sogdianos, forty-five days later. Ochos, another half-brother of Xerxes, then in Babylon, rallied his supporters and marched on Persia. He put the assassin to death and was crowned King of Kings as Darius II in 423. The course of this succession once again posed a problem, as Ochos and Sogdianos must each have conducted a propaganda campaign aimed at gaining the support of the Persian people and thus demonstrating the legitimacy of their accession to the throne.

From the reign of Darius II onwards, the documents found are rather rare and only provide information on the situation in the western marches of the empire, where hostilities between the Greek cities and the Persians continued. Between 411 and 407, the Athenians reconquered part of Asia Minor, aided by the haphazard and competing initiatives of the satraps controlling these regions.

Darius II died in 405-404. As with previous great kings, his succession once again provoked opposition between two of his sons, Arsès and Cyrus. It was Arsès, the eldest, who ascended the throne as Artaxerxès II in 404. Cyrus contested his power and a war ensued between 404 and 401. Cyrus raised an army, relying mainly on Persians from Asia Minor, but also on Greek mercenaries (the "Ten Thousand"). The two brothers clashed at Counaxa in Mesopotamia in 401. Cyrus was killed in the battle, and Artaxerxes II immediately began a process of relegitimizing his royal power. Egypt took advantage of this unrest to revolt against Persian domination under the leadership of Amyrteus.

The satrapies and cities of Asia Minor that had sided with Cyrus were entrusted to Tissapherne to restore order to the region. Artaxerxes II intended to regain control of the Aegean coastline. Those who refused to submit turned to the Greeks, and Sparta in particular, for help. Agesilaus II led the Spartan military campaign in Asia Minor, with little success. He was recalled to Sparta as other Greek cities, including Athens, threatened the city. The Persians then found themselves caught between the Athenian and Lacedemonian battles in Asia Minor around 396. Artaxerxes II then had to contend with the attacks and alliances of Evagoras of Salamis in Cyprus and Egypt, between 391 and 387. Exhausted by constant warfare, the Greek cities longed for peace. In 386, Artaxerxes II imposed his peace (also known as the "Peace of Antalcidas") on the Greek cities, which all accepted it except Thebes. The King needed to free up his armies to deal with Egypt, which had also entered into rebellion. Around 381-380, the Persians were defeated by the Egyptians, who succeeded in regaining their independence. Following this defeat, the Achaemenid armies left Egypt without succeeding in regaining control of the country. The peace of 386 with the Greeks was confirmed twice, in 375 and 371.

Shortly afterwards, between 366 and 358, the empire was in turmoil: satraps rebelled in Cappadocia, Caria and Lycia, and the Egyptians led an offensive against the Persians. The revolts in Asia Minor were of little consequence. Taken together with the failure in Egypt, these events seem to demonstrate the instability of imperial power and its inability to overcome rebellion.

Artaxerxes' last years were marked by conspiracy. The King had three legitimate sons, Darius (the eldest), Ariaspes and Ochos, and numerous bastards by his concubines. According to Plutarch, the King designated Darius as his heir. Darius plotted against his father, was discovered, tried and put to death. Ochos used maneuvering to destabilize his brother Ariaspes, who committed suicide. He then killed another half-brother, Arsames. It was against this backdrop that King Artaxerxes II died of old age in 359.

Fall of the empire

Ochos ascended the throne as Artaxerxes III (358-338). From the start of his reign, Artaxerxes III was beset by unrest: battles pitted Athens' allies against the Persians in Asia Minor, and revolts broke out in Phoenicia and Cyprus between 351 and 345. The Persian army also suffered another defeat in Egypt in 351. In 343, Artaxerxes III defeated Nectanebo II and reconquered Egypt, which once again became a Persian satrapy. In Greece, the Kingdom of Macedonia began to confront the Persian Empire on its western front. In 338, Philip II unified certain Greek states within the League of Corinth, while others opposed to Philip II counted on the help of the Great King. The exact relationship is not well known, but Briant says that "the court was informed of Philip II's operations". In the same year, 338, Artaxerxes III was poisoned by his minister, the Egyptian eunuch Bagoas.

Arsès succeeded Artaxerxès III as Artaxerxès IV, and was also poisoned by Bagoas two years later. Bagoas is said to have killed not only all the children of Arsès, but also several other local princes, probably satraps. Bagoas then placed Darius III (336 - 330), a cousin of Artaxerxes III, on the throne. For the Macedonians, Bagoas brought one of his slave friends to power under the name of Darius III. For the Persians, Darius was brought to power because he showed exceptional courage in a singular duel against the Cadusians. Darius III's accession to the throne was surrounded by violence, and uncertainties remained over the conditions of access to the throne. Briant reports that Darius III was a member of the "royal stock", presented as an elite warrior and supported by a large part of the aristocracy and army.

Darius III, although previously satrap of Armenia, had no imperial experience. Nevertheless, he proved his courage in the first year of his reign as emperor by personally forcing Bagoas to swallow a poison. In 334, just as Darius had succeeded in re-subduing Egypt, Alexander attacked in Asia Minor. In response to the Macedonian aggression, the satraps of the west mobilized and came to meet the invader. Darius III and several of his satraps called on Greek mercenaries to reinforce their armies. The role of Greek mercenaries in the decadence of Persian military power remains unclear, according to various sources. The Persian army suffered its first defeat at the Granic against battle-hardened Macedonian troops. This was followed by defeats at the battles of Issos (333), Gaugamèles and Babylon (331). According to various authors, the populations conquered by the Macedonians were relieved to have been freed from the Persian yoke. Pushing on, Alexander then marched on Susa, which capitulated and surrendered a vast treasure. The conqueror then headed east towards Persepolis, which surrendered in early 330. Darius took refuge in Ecbatane and gathered an army around him. From Persepolis, Alexander headed north to Pasargadae, where he treated the tomb of Cyrus II with respect. He then headed for Ecbatane. On the way, some of Darius III's satraps surrendered to Alexander in view of the unfavorable balance of power. When Darius III fled, the satraps closest to the king seem to have organized a plot against him. Darius III was assassinated by several of his satraps, who either surrendered to Alexander or returned to their provinces to be proclaimed king. On Alexander's orders, the body of the sovereign was brought to Persepolis for burial.

The downfall of the Achaemenid Empire to the armies led by Alexander has often been explained by the fact that he was a "colossus with feet of clay", and therefore an ideal prey, another common approach among Alexander specialists being not to really bother studying his opponent. More recently, the capabilities of the Persian army and its king, Darius III, generally disparaged because of their defeats, have been reassessed. In any case, documentation from several regions of the empire seems to indicate that the imperial administration functioned as before in the years leading up to the conflict, and that Achaemenid domination does not appear to have been weakened. In fact, members of the Persian administration were integrated into Alexander's, thus contributing to the transition and continuity between the two dominations.

The Achaemenid Empire came to an end with the death of Darius III. After Alexander's conquest and reign came the era of the Seleucids, a dynasty descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals, who succeeded the Achaemenids.

The Achaemenid imperial structure revolved around the King of Kings, who was the symbolic center of the empire, wherever he might be. Geographically, the center of the empire can be found in Persia (today's Fars province), the dynasty's region of origin, where it is embodied in a number of palatial sites. The monuments found there are places of expression of royal power, but their exact function remains undetermined and they do not seem to exert a strong pull on the rest of the empire. To dominate a vast territory from this initially unprosperous region, the Persian kings relied on an administration and an army led by those closest to them, the members of the Persian aristocracy who, in the words of P. Briant, formed a "dominant ethno-class", united by their membership of interrelated tribes and clans and the practice of a common language and religion, which they never sought to extend to the peoples they dominated.

The "King of Kings

The king occupies the central place in the Persian empire, both in its administration and symbolically. According to the consecrated title, he is the "King of kings", xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām. Darius I's inscriptions at Naqsh-e Rostam and Behistun neatly summarize the conception of royal power, its foundations and its insertion into the cosmic order. According to the texts from the second site, the king, like other men, is a creation of the great god Ahura Mazda, but he is different because the latter has endowed him with remarkable qualities. He is king thanks to the god, who has placed him at the head of the peoples of the earth, with the mission of ruling them justly and ensuring that the world is put in order by fighting evil and falsehood (according to a dualistic principle). He is thus the intermediary between Ahura Mazda and mankind to bring about the triumph of good over evil, as is evident from the Behistun bas-reliefs, in which rebels are seen as manifestations of falsehood and are punished by the king himself, for it is he who must accomplish justice. To fulfill this role, he has been endowed by the god with superior intelligence and infallible judgment. He is also an accomplished warrior, able to wield a bow and spear and ride a horse. The fighting qualities of kings often feature in depictions of these characters on seals or coins, illustrating them in victorious positions in hunting or war. The king's link with the divine world was also reflected in his priestly function, as he was required to perform sacrifices at regular intervals in Persia, primarily to Iranian deities.

More prosaically, the Persian king ascended the throne through the principle of dynastic succession, which was also firmly anchored in the titulary and, in particular, the notion of the Achaemenid dynasty, the descendants of Achaemenes, which was undoubtedly established at the time of Darius I to link himself to the family of Cyrus II, a link reinforced by his union with the latter's daughter, Atossa. The dynastic principle was subsequently respected, even in the face of numerous potential heirs to the throne due to dynastic unrest. On a wider scale, the king's power was also based on his links with the Persian nobility, the "dominant ethno-class" that governed the most important positions in the empire and was often linked to the royal family by matrimonial ties. All their power emanates from the king, who assigns them their functions, but who also has to deal with the most powerful and influential among them. Outside Iranian circles, the king ensured the loyalty of his provinces through a combination of constraints (notably fear of reprisals) and adaptation to local traditions, as can be seen in Babylonia and Egypt, where the king's inscriptions and representations take on many aspects of the ancient native rulers. The bas-reliefs of the tribute-bearing delegations in Persepolis emphasize the link between the king and his subjects: he is the "King of the peoples", xšāyaθiya dahyūnām.

Places of royal power

The power controlling the empire is located where the king and his entourage are. In practical terms, the Persian kings took up the habit of the kings who had preceded them of residing in palatial complexes, with the particularity that they had several in which they resided periodically, and that they could move throughout their empire if need be. Greek authors report that Achaemenid kings moved their capital according to the season: in winter, the kings were in Susa, in summer in Ecbatane, in autumn in Persepolis and the rest of the year in Babylon. It should be noted, however, that apart from Babylon, there is as yet no indication that these "capitals" were major agglomerations, since archaeological excavations and surveys have identified only royal and provincial palatial sites in Achaemenid Iran, and no "cities". We must therefore consider temporary cities, made up of tents or other forms of short-term settlement during periods of court residence, and depopulated the rest of the time. This raises the question of their exact function, which is still uncertain and debated, particularly in the case of Persepolis, which some see primarily as a ceremonial center.

The original capital of the dynasty may have been Anzan (Tell-e Malyan in Fars), the ancient Elamite city claimed by the first Persian kings. But there are no notable traces of occupation from their time, and it may be that the site was never a Persian capital, but that the presence of the city's name in the titulature of the first kings is explained above all by its ancient and prestigious status. In the time of Cyrus II, the Mede capital Ecbatane (today's Hamadan) became another capital after his conquest, but Persian-period levels were not excavated there. Babylon took on the same role after its conquest, and Achaemenid-period developments have been identified in its "Southern Palace", whose known levels are mostly attributed to the Babylonian Empire, although a large proportion may be attributable to the Achaemenids (notably Darius I). Cyrus established the first truly Persian capital in Fars, Pasargadae, a vast palatial complex set in gardens reminiscent of an encampment, reminiscent of the nomadic tradition of Persian kings. Other constructions were completed on this site by later kings, who seem to have made it their coronation site. Susa, another old Elamite capital, became the empire's capital probably from the time of Darius I, who erected a vast royal palace on its acropolis shortly after his enthronement, and later Artaxerxes II had another palace built on the same site, but lower down on the banks of the Chaur. Darius also had another large royal palace built on the same model at Persepolis, the "City of the Persians", also in Fars. Xerxes I continued building on the latter site, which was the largest architectural complex built by the Achaemenid dynasty, and was intended to be the best symbol of their power. The two great palaces of Susa and Persepolis, built on vast terraces, are dominated by an edifice known to archaeologists as the apadana, a square-shaped building consisting of a vast hypostyle hall and porticoes on the outside, probably used as a reception hall or for important gatherings. These are the most characteristic forms of Achaemenid palatial architecture, found on many palatial sites throughout the empire. They adjoin residential and administrative buildings organized around central courtyards following the Mesopotamian model. Important treasures must have been stored here, even if it's not easy to identify them.

Other places symbolizing royal power in the center of the empire were the royal tombs. Cyrus erected his on the site of Pasargadae in a garden in the form of a building built on a plinth, while his successors opted for the form of rock tombs, located first at Naqsh-e Rostam, an ancient Elamite rock sanctuary, following Darius I, and then in the vicinity of Persepolis.

The expression of power in Persian capitals

Achaemenid art was dignified, serving to glorify the reigning dynasty throughout the empire. As the Achaemenid empire expanded, so did its art. The apogee of Achaemenid art coincided with the apogee of Persian power, thanks in particular to the tributes collected throughout the empire. This is reflected in the royal sites of south-western Iran, where the most important traces of Achaemenid power have been unearthed.

It was Cyrus who first used architecture and town planning to express the cultural diversity of the empire and assert the strength of the central power. Pasargadae was designed by the king and his advisors, and the work was carried out by Lydian and Mesopotamian craftsmen, whose presence is attested by tablets. Stylistic borrowings from Anatolian, Assyro-Babylonian and even Phoenician and Egyptian regions are numerous at Pasargadae. The result, however, is not a juxtaposition of heterogeneous styles, but a new ensemble that is part of an imperial and dynastic program. Pasargadae thus marks a first stage in the development of Persian architectural and urbanistic style: situated on a plain within a vast irrigated park and dominated by a fortress, its structure covers some 10 hectares and is organized according to an orthogonal but not yet symmetrical plan. Square pavilions adorned with colonnades form the entrances to the various zones of the complex, which also includes two asymmetrical hypostyle palaces. One, flanked on either side by two large porticoes of unequal length, is "H"-shaped; the other, a true stylistic sketch, foreshadows the future apadanas of Susa and Persepolis. Its asymmetrical wings and the presence of lateral recesses are indicative of unfinished architectural research and trial and error. To mark his accession to power and ensure his legitimacy on the throne, Darius the Great launched a gigantic program of construction, transformation and embellishment at Pasargadae, then above all at Susa and Persepolis. He also carried out work in Babylon and Ecbatane. Inscriptions and foundation deposits clearly show that Darius wanted to project the image of his sovereign and unlimited power. This monumental program was later taken up by his successors: Persepolis remained under construction until the fall of the Persian Empire. The Achaemenid architectural style was then at its apogee. The plan of Persepolis was rationalized and balanced: the square plan was systematized, and hypostyle spaces were generalized. Columns were strictly arranged, including in the palace annexes. Another major innovation: the transitions from the porticoes to the lateral sides were ensured by corner towers on the apadana. Large doors and various passageways lead to the major buildings.

One of the hallmarks of Achaemenid Persia was the erection of monumental palatial buildings from the reign of Cyrus the Great, a complete break with the absence of such constructions in earlier periods. In fact, the Persians originally possessed no architectural skills of their own: they were a semi-nomadic people of pastoralists and horsemen. They therefore called on the skills of workers, craftsmen and architects from all the nations of the empire, integrating these influences and rapidly proposing an original art form whose style is marked by the combination of elements from the civilizations they subjugated. This was not hybridization, but rather a fusion of styles to create a new one. Persian architecture is utilitarian, ritualistic and emblematic. Present in the Middle East before the Persians, the principle of internal spaces created by wooden supports and ceilings evolved, with the hypostyle hall becoming the central element of the palace. The contribution of Greek techniques enabled Persian architecture to create different types of construction, where space had different functions: the clearing of vast spaces by means of tall, slender columns was an architectural revolution unique to Persia. Hypostyle halls were designed for crowds, not just priests as in Greece and Egypt. As Ionia was included in the empire's satrapies, Persian Achaemenid architecture was marked by a Greek-Ionian influence, visible in the hypostyle halls and porticoes of the Persepolis palaces. Lydian and Ionian architects were employed on the construction sites at Pasargadae, and later at Persepolis and Susa. They were also responsible for some of the construction work, and graffiti in Greek can be found in the quarries near Persepolis, mentioning the names of quarry foremen. The participation of Greeks in erecting columns and decorating palaces in Persia is also mentioned in the Charter of Susa, as well as by Pliny the Elder. Achaemenid palaces also bear the marks of Mesopotamian influences (particularly in the palatine formula combining two palaces, one for public audience and the other for private audience), and more specifically Babylonian (enamelled and polychrome reliefs) and Assyrian (orthostats adorned with low reliefs, winged bull-men at the doors), as well as Egyptian (grooves in the cornices overhanging the doors, porticoes). All Achaemenid palaces systematically had mud-brick walls, which may seem surprising in a region where building stone is available in abundance. In fact, it's a feature common to all Middle Eastern peoples, who reserved stone walls for temples and city walls. None of the Persepolis walls have survived, the only elements still standing being doorframes and stone columns.

The craftsmen who worked on these sites had to follow to the letter the instructions given by the king's advisors. Borrowings from the region's earlier arts were then fused into a royal art that followed a precise program: to show the omnipotence of the Great King and his ability to ensure the unity of the world under the protection of Ahura Mazda and to mobilize the peoples of the world despite their diversity. This can be seen concretely in the foundation inscriptions found in Persian palaces, whose purpose is to convey this message to those who visit them and, above all, to posterity, such as the inscription of Darius I found on a building in Susa, stating that all vassal peoples contributed their labor or materials for the construction of the palace. This message is also conveyed by representations of delegations of gift-bearers from the Persepolis empire, each bringing products characteristic of their country, or on the Darius tomb at Naqsh-e Rostam, on whose façade the peoples of the empire are depicted carrying the upper register where the king pays homage to his great god who overlooks the scene.

Many of these scenes probably refer to ceremonies that took place on palatial sites. These had an obvious ceremonial function, enabling the royal power to assert itself symbolically, notably in its link with the gods during sacrifices or other acts of worship. It remains to be determined whether the representations of the offering bearers in the Persepolis apadana symbolize a ritual of homage that actually took place, perhaps on New Year's Day (Nowrouz, in March), according to a principle found in post-Empire Iranian and Indian texts, which would symbolize the link between the king and his people. This once again raises the question of whether ritual function is the primary reason for the site's existence.

Art forms in royal palaces

The artistic material from Persian royal sites is rather limited in terms of quantity, but it suffices to illustrate the essential characteristics of the aulic art of this period, symbolizing the power of the empire and synthesizing influences brought to its center by craftsmen from various regions. It is represented above all by the bas-relief sculptures of palatial buildings, the glazed bricks that adorned others, and precious metal tableware.

The best-known and most widespread form of Achaemenid sculpture is bas-relief, particularly in Persepolis, where bas-reliefs systematically decorated staircases, the sides of palace platforms and the interior of bays. It is also assumed that they were used to decorate hypostyle halls. Egyptian and Assyrian inspiration is evident, as is Greek finesse of execution. Most of the stereotypes of ancient oriental representations are present: all figures are depicted in profile; although perspective is sometimes present, the different planes are generally rendered one beneath the other; the proportions between figures, animals and trees are not respected; the principle of isocephaly is strictly applied, including on various stair treads. The subjects depicted are parades of representatives of the empire's peoples, Persian nobles and guards, audience scenes, royal representations and battles between a royal hero and real or imaginary animals. These bas-reliefs are remarkable for their quality of execution, with every detail rendered with great finesse.

Very few Achaemenid sculptures in the round are known; that of Darius, found in Susa, is the best known (for example, Plutarch mentions that a large statue of Xerxes I stood in Persepolis).

However, many decorative elements can be considered as ronde-bosse. It is mainly used for representations of real or mythological animals, often included as architectural elements in doors and capitals. Bulls are mainly depicted as guardians of the gates, as well as in the portico of the Hall of the Hundred Columns. Column capitals end with imposts featuring animal prototypes: bulls, lions, griffins, etc. The animals are highly stylized, with no variation. A few statues in the round have also been found, such as the one representing a dog, which decorated a corner tower of the Apadana.

Unlike Persepolis, the palaces of Susa do not feature bas-reliefs carved in stone. Instead, they are decorated with glazed brickwork creating vast panels of Mesopotamian-inspired polychrome ceramics. They feature animal figures (lions, bulls, griffins) and representations of Melophores like those on Persepolitan reliefs. Polychromy thus played a considerable role in Achaemenid representative art, transfiguring the figures depicted and giving palaces a colorful glow.

Notwithstanding the discovery of polychrome ceramics from Susa, the use of coloured paint in Persepolis has often been underestimated due to the many alterations that pigments undergo over time. The evidence of multiple colors on numerous pieces from most Persepolitan palaces and buildings attests to the richness and ubiquity of polychrome paintings in Persepolis. It's not just a question of evidence based on persistent pigment traces on objects, but consistent evidence such as paint agglomerates forming lumps, colors having set en masse in bowls found in multiple locations around the site. These colors were used not only on architectural elements (walls, reliefs, columns, doors, floors, staircases, statues), but also on fabrics and other decorations. Glazed bricks, red ochre or green-grey gypsum-lime flooring, painted columns and hangings adorned the interiors and exteriors of palaces. The wide range of colors found gives an idea of the polychromatic richness originally present: black (asphalt), red (opaque red glass, vermilion, red ochre hematite), green, Egyptian blue, white, yellow (ochre or gold). The use of vegetable pigments has been suggested, but to date has not been proven.

Goldsmithing was a key area of the tribute imposed on subjugated nations by Persian rulers. The tributary reliefs and the Persepolis tablets highlight the importance of the drainage of works of art by the Persians through all their possessions.

The numerous discoveries of precious metal tableware (gold, electrum, silver) dating from the Achaemenid period testify to the importance of an art of pageantry in the service of sumptuous banquets during cultic celebrations. Direct heirs to the metallurgical art of Marlik or Greek goldsmiths, gold and silver rhytons are remarkable for their aesthetic maturity and technological perfection. Similarly, silver amphorae, goblets and gadrooned dishes, vases, jewels (see the Oxus treasure), ornaments and ceremonial weapons combine classicism and syncretism. As with other Persian artistic fields, goldsmithing incorporated multiple influences and skills from all over the empire, combining them to create a new, original Persian royal style.

Although goldworking was already developed in the territory corresponding to the Persian Empire at Hasanlu, in Amlach and in Urartu, the similarity between certain pieces of Achaemenid goldsmithery and others from Marlik is such that they seem to have come out of the same workshops, although sometimes produced several decades or even centuries apart. Certain stylistic and thematic analogies can be found in Anatolia, Greece, Persia and as far afield as Thrace, testifying to the importance of stylistic diffusion throughout the empire, notably through Scythian tribal migrations.

Life at the royal court

The royal court seems to be the place par excellence of power in the Achaemenid empire: it's where the king lives, with his family and friends. It is also where nobles must reside, where administrative and strategic decisions are taken, and where satraps are summoned or received. However, documents on court life are rare and unevenly distributed.

The Achaemenid king traveled periodically between the various royal residences (Persepolis, Susa, Ecbatane, etc.), accompanied by the court and its various departments. During his travels, the sovereign would stay in a luxurious tent set up in the middle of the camp, complete with distinctive signs. Life at the royal court seems to be governed by very strict rules of aulic etiquette. The King is surrounded by high-ranking court officers, in charge of various affairs (Royal Treasury, Chancellery), who report directly to him. A large staff was also responsible for servicing the audiences. Solicitors and supplicants come to the king's door. These visitors pass on their messages to guards or message carriers, and are only received before the king when summoned.

For safety's sake, the king usually eats alone. At banquets, the seating arrangements are carefully chosen, both to show the king's favor and to ensure his safety. Greek authors are all struck by the luxury and pomp of court banquets. The king's food was transported separately, like that of the Immortals. Poisoning was commonplace at court; the king took water from the Choaspes, the river that flows through Susa, with him everywhere. The water is boiled and transported in silver vases. Similarly, the role of cupbearer was very important at court: the king drank a wine reserved for him, and the cupbearer also acted as taster.

These measures not only served to underline the king's special position, they also seem to have been designed to preserve his health. Physicians also played an important role in the royal entourage. As close to the king as the cupbearers, they could easily poison the monarch. These functions were therefore reserved for people who could be trusted. Royal physicians were mainly Greek and Egyptian.

Court staff also included eunuchs, divided into two categories: those who were part of the king's inner circle, and others who were servants. The service of the king and royal princesses required a large number of eunuchs. Their role is to look after the king's and princesses' chambers. They generally come from subjugated countries, and their status is similar to that of slaves, although their intimacy with the king gives them a special status.

Many ancient authors tell us that the King, and others, practiced polygamy and had numerous concubines. The royal princesses, and all women in general, had their own apartments. Concubines reside in a "women's house" after spending a night with the Great King, and stay with him. Royal princesses enjoy greater autonomy and travel, as the Persepolis tablets attest. They also managed their lands, their servants and even their workshops.

Hunting was undoubtedly the favorite pastime of kings. In fact, it has the advantage of being an excellent physical preparation for the young nobleman, and an event in which he can demonstrate his courage, skill and power (the first trait is reserved for him). Hunting is practiced in "paradises" (pairidaeza), large-scale fenced parks: the word meaning "fenced on all sides". These gardens are both places of relaxation and enjoyment, laid out by horticulturists, and immense hunting reserves. Hunting techniques were varied: on foot, on horseback or in a chariot; using swords, bows, javelins or nets.

The Persian aristocracy

The structure of the Persian empire was based on men linked to the king, belonging to the families of the Persian aristocracy, the "dominant ethno-class". These people are identified by their "people", dahyu, a term that can also be translated as "tribe"; these are the Persians, but also their "cousins" the Medes, with whom the Greeks often confused them. Next come the clan (zara), such as that of the "Achaemenids" (descendants of a distant common ancestor), then the family (in the broadest sense) or house (viθ), which we find in the mention of the character's father and grandfather, i.e. direct ancestors. Persian society is highly hierarchical, organized around aristocratic families each headed by a head of household, with the king as head of all. The men of these families held the highest administrative positions in the royal court, satrapies and army. In fact, they are the primary beneficiaries of the wealth accumulated by the empire, because they control its flow and benefit first and foremost from the kings' largesse, even if this position can be precarious. They are linked by ancestral blood ties, reinforced by matrimonial alliances, forming a large "household" presiding over the empire's destiny. The most powerful, notably the king and princes, formed personal relationships with other aristocrats who became their bandaka, a complex term implying submission and loyalty, and ruthless repression in the event of betrayal. At the top of the empire, the relationship between the king and the elites was therefore complex, based on the integration of the great families into the royal hierarchy and the capture of the empire's profits in exchange for their loyalty, as well as on a common culture (based in particular on language, religion and aristocratic education) that no attempt was ever made to extend to other peoples. This system proved durable and therefore solid, despite several shocks.

Several written sources provide information on the education of young Persian aristocrats, which provided them with the cultural baggage of the "dominant ethno-class". Although education was in principle open to all Persians, the children of the working classes remained outside this system, which was reserved for the elite. The best families even sent their sons to be educated at the royal court, to prepare them as best they could for high administrative and military positions, and thus to become loyal servants of the king. According to known texts, the education of young Achaemenid nobles began at the age of five, and lasted from ten to twenty years, depending on the source. Strabo says that the youngsters practiced gymnastics, were trained in hunting with bow, spear and sling, and learned to plant trees, gather plants and make clothes and nets. Xenophon points out that their education also includes a part designed to develop their sense of justice, obedience, endurance and self-control, with Herodotus specifying that they learn to "speak the truth".

Writing and languages of the Persian kings

Several types of written sources from the Achaemenid period have come to light in the center of the empire. Royal inscriptions in cuneiform are the longest known. Many of them are presented in trilingual form: Old Persian, Akkadian (Babylonian) and Elamite. They served as the basis for the deciphering of cuneiform scripts in the 19th century, occupying a special place in the history of Assyriology, even if they were soon relegated to the background following the discovery of more abundant sources in this script in other regions of the Middle East. They often recount acts of construction by the king, sometimes military victories, and are inscribed on stone, sometimes metal - durable materials capable of passing on the sovereign's glory to future generations, following a tradition directly taken from the Mesopotamian and Elamite kingdoms. Texts of this practice have been unearthed in Susa and especially Persepolis, the vast majority of them administrative acts written in Elamite, sometimes in Akkadian, Aramaic and even Old Persian in one case. They were written on clay tablets, a material that is fairly resistant to the ravages of time, even if it is not used for long-term preservation.

Old Persian cuneiform is a predominantly phonetic writing system, with some 30 syllabic signs and three pure vowels (a, e, i), but including eight logograms (signs with a word value, such as "country", "king", "god"). It was probably developed for the inscriptions of Darius I, and its use outside Persia was very limited (in trilingual or even quadrilingual inscriptions found in Egypt or Anatolia, for example). The language in which it is written is Iranian, inspired by that spoken by the Persians of the time, but including words from the languages of other Iranian peoples, notably the Medes, the languages spoken by the empire's ruling elites. It must therefore be considered as a construction for the purpose of royal inscriptions, in the same way as the scripture that reports it.

By adopting the cuneiform system for inscriptions in Old Persian, the Achaemenid chancellery was following in the footsteps of earlier kingdoms. It did so even more by directly adopting their monumental forms of writing. This reflects the Persian habit of adopting scripts already used before them in the regions they dominated by employing local scribes, rather than imposing their own form of language and writing. Babylonian, a Semitic language that is a dialect of Akkadian, is, as its name suggests, the language of the inscriptions of Babylonian kings and the literary and administrative texts of Babylonia, which was also used in Elam. It was written in the most common form of cuneiform script, combining dozens of syllabic and logographic signs. The Elamite language was the linguistic isolate used by the people who preceded the Persians in southwestern Iran. In addition to royal inscriptions, it was also used by the Persian administration to write accounting tablets in Iranian territories (as attested at Persepolis and also at Kandahar). In the Egyptian context, royal inscriptions also appear in hieroglyphs.

The language most widely used in the administration of the empire, and not one of those used for monumental inscriptions, was Aramaic in its so-called "imperial" form. This was another Semitic language, written in an alphabet and generally written on parchment or papyrus, perishable materials that could not be preserved outside the Elephantine archives. It was already the most widespread script and the most widely spoken language (in various dialectal forms that did not necessarily correspond to those written down) during the latter stages of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, and was taken over by the Persian kings, who probably helped to spread it even further due to its vehicular nature. It was used in particular for administrative acts, but also to broadcast official proclamations to a wide audience.

The religion of the Persian kings and Persia

The religion of the people of Persia in the Achaemenid period is known primarily from the top down, through documents issued by the Persian royal powers and elites. First and foremost, the official inscriptions of the kings. As for beliefs, they indicate that the great Persian god was Ahura Mazda ("Lord Wisdom"), who remained the great god of the Iranians until the Islamic conquest. According to the inscriptions of Darius, he "created the earth, the sky, man and happiness for man": he is a creator god. Above all, he is mentioned as the sovereign deity, the one who created the king, endowed him with qualities surpassing those of other men, then granted him victory and placed him at the head of his empire. This form of religion is called henotheism, since other gods exist, but of inferior rank. The inscriptions of Darius invoke "other gods that exist", without further clarification; those of Artaxerxes II or III show that this king elevated the rank of Anahita and Mithra, two other major Iranian deities. The Persepolis tablets indicate that the royal palace in the heart of Persia provided for the worship of various deities, some of which have been identified as Iranian (Naryasanga, perhaps Zurvan) and others as Elamite deities who continue to be worshipped in the same places where they had been for several centuries before the arrival of the Persians (Humban, Napirisha).

The question of whether or not the Achaemenids were Zoroastrians is highly controversial. On the one hand, their supreme god was Ahura Mazda, and the name of the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster) did reach contemporary Greek authors. But on the other hand, he does not appear in known Persian sources (but why would he?), nor do the Amesha Spenta (hypostases of Ahura Mazda) or the sacred Zoroastrian texts (the Avesta and especially the Gathas), and several acts of worship known to the Persian kings are not in line with the reforms attributed to Zarathustra, particularly at the time of funerals (the kings have themselves buried whereas this is proscribed by Zoroastrianism). Concepts present in Zoroastrianism are reflected in royal inscriptions, such as the opposition between "truth" (hašiya) and "truth" (hašiya).

The cult as we know it is placed under the patronage of Persian kings, who themselves perform rituals. The "clergy" appears mainly in texts from Persepolis, but also in Greek texts. The "Magi" (maguš) seem to be the priests of the Iranian gods par excellence, perhaps constituting a priestly tribe (of Mede origin if we follow Herodotus), charged with performing sacrifices and even oniromancy. Priests of the ancient Elamite religion (šatin) are mentioned in the Persepolis texts, apparently collaborating with priests of the Persian religion, the boundary between the two apparently not being clear-cut following a process of fusion or even acculturation between the two ethnic groups. Other priests are designated according to their ritual function: the lan-lirira is "he who performs the lan ceremony", a ritual whose nature is debated; the atravaša is "he who guards the fire", which would indicate the practice of a Fire cult in the purest Iranian tradition, which several seals also seem to represent. But here again, nothing is certain, as the use of fire in a ritual does not mean that it is worshipped. In any case, rituals were accompanied by offerings, the deliveries of which are recorded in Persepolitan tablets: small livestock, cereals, fruit, wine and beer. Places of worship are not well known. Herodotus says that the Persians had no temples, so it's likely that they didn't build them until Artaxerxes (II or III), who mentions them in his inscriptions. The Persepolis archives do indicate the presence of numerous places of worship, some of which are undoubtedly temples (linked more to the Elamite religion?). Archaeology has not been able to locate any temples, only probable open-air worship areas with altars, as at Pasargadae (two stone pedestals, one with a burner).

The Achaemenid Persian Empire was a hierarchical, multinational state that controlled most of its territories well, thanks to an administration in the hands of the "dominant ethno-class" that controlled local institutions and resources. The old territorial divisions served as the basis for the new administrative division, the most striking innovation of which was the creation of vast provinces, the satrapies, whose governors (a satrap) were responsible for maintaining order and collecting tribute. The main aim was to ensure the empire's security and development, while taking into account the constraints of its vastness and the diversity of its populations. This was achieved by a variety of means: tax and communication systems, an army, agricultural development projects, and sometimes the introduction of a monetary system.

Satrapies and provincial administration

The expansion of the Achaemenid empire posed a problem of territorial division. The political entities preceding the conquests of Cyrus and his successors already had administrative frameworks that could be integrated into the Persian administration, but their geographical extension was diverse and generally too small in relation to the new empire. It was therefore necessary to create territorial units between the existing echelons and that of the empire run by the king and his court: these were the vast provinces that the Greeks called "satrapies", from the Old Persian xšaçapāvan, a term designating the satrap. This echelon, set up as early as the reigns of Cyrus II and Cambyses II, was an essential element in the cohesion of the empire, which sometimes took over the boundaries of conquered kingdoms (initially Babylon and Egypt) and in most cases was created ex nihilo. This is part of a strategy designed to establish domination on the basis of an ideology that calls for collaboration with local power structures. In this way, conquerors seek to be seen as protecting traditions and sanctuaries rather than disrupting them. Local elites were thus associated with the smooth running of the new empire.

The satrapies, which numbered around twenty from the reign of Darius I onwards, were governed by satraps, appointed by the king for an unlimited period. As their title implies, satraps are "protectors of the kingdom", not tributary kings. However, they are directly responsible to the king, representing him in the provinces. Their remit is vast. First and foremost, they were responsible for maintaining order in their provinces, with an armed force stationed in garrisons, and for ensuring peace between the different political components of the territory under their jurisdiction. They are also responsible for collecting tribute and taxes, and dispensing justice. They also have the power to negotiate with neighboring states and to wage war. Satraps were generally chosen from among the Persian and Mede aristocracy, as they were key to their control of the empire, or even among royal princes. Hystapes, father of Darius, was satrap of Parthia, and Masiste, brother of Xerxes, was satrap of Bactria. The satraps themselves were subject to inspections by royal inspectors, known as the "eyes" or "ears" of the king. These inspectors travel throughout the empire, accompanied by sufficient troops in case immediate action is required. They make unannounced visits to inspect the administration of satraps or other members of the royal administration, and report what they see directly to the king. Comparable to the power of a king, the satraps' power was exercised on a smaller scale, as the role of the satraps of Asia Minor in Greek affairs clearly shows. However, over time, some satraps became disobedient to royal power, behaving like real kings. Over time, power within the Achaemenid Empire shifted to the satraps.

At the level below the satrapies, which is often poorly understood, the Achaemenids generally seem to have retained pre-existing institutions. Thus, Greek and Phoenician cities retained their institutions (in some cases their kings), as did Babylonian cities and their temples, which played an administrative role. Satrapies may have been subdivided into districts headed by sub-governors, while in Egypt, too, the ancient provincial division into nomes served as a basis for Persian administration. Key military, fiscal and judicial posts remained in Persian hands, but other positions were held by natives. They made extensive use of local writing systems (Akkadian cuneiform in Babylonia, Demotic and hieroglyphs in Egypt, Ancient Greek in Asia Minor), although Empire Aramaic was also widely used, as satraps communicated in this script and the Aramaic language was spoken throughout much of the empire, playing a centralizing role. As Persian administrators had little command of the languages of the provinces, they had to rely heavily on interpreters.

However, the reconstruction of the Achaemenid administration is still very incomplete, notably due to the lack of sources for many provinces. In recent years, archaeological excavations have enabled us to gain a better understanding of the administrative coverage of the empire, through the discovery of buildings belonging to representatives of central power, primarily governors' residences. A large number of such "palaces" have been excavated in the south of the Levant, a region where archaeological excavations are particularly dense (Lakish, Ascalon, Ashdod, Akko, Buseirah, etc.). Fortresses undoubtedly serving as the seat of local power have been explored in Anatolia (Meydancikkale), in the Caucasus (where the ancient Uratetian fortresses of Erebuni and Altintepe have been reoccupied), and to a lesser extent in eastern Iran and Central Asia (Dahan-e Golaman, Old Kandahar). There is no architectural unity between these different centers of power, which would seem to reinforce the idea of a diversity of ways of controlling the different regions of the empire. Future discoveries should shed further light on aspects of Achaemenid domination.

Wealth extraction

Most of Persia's demands of the provinces were based on the need to collect wealth to ensure the functioning and security of the empire. The aim was to raise sufficient sums to finance the expenses of the state and the king: payment of royal servants and officials, financing of public works and pomp (building palaces, roads and canals, for example). However, it should not be ruled out that this was also motivated by a desire to enrich and appropriate provincial resources for the benefit of Persian elites.

Wealth in ancient societies was primarily derived from agricultural production, and so the Persian administration and elites appropriated this essential resource as the basis of their wealth. The Persepolis archives provide a good illustration of this situation in the heart of Persia, where the administration had vast estates farmed by agricultural dependents, the kurtaš, as well as large herds, whose produce was stored in warehouses and then redistributed according to various needs (court maintenance, staff remuneration, offerings to the gods). Crown lands (notably "paradises") also existed throughout the empire, and it was on at least some of these that estates were granted to members of the royal family and high dignitaries. Documents from Babylonia and Elephantine also show that the state organized the division of certain terroirs for the financing of troops, who received a quantity of land proportional to the equipment needed to maintain them, depending on whether they were archers, horsemen or chariots, although it is unclear whether this land was used to pay for the financing of the military unit or to directly maintain a unit assigned to it. Last but not least, agricultural land was used to pay taxes.

From the reign of Darius, who initiated a veritable "tax reform", all tax districts corresponding to the various administrative territories headed by the satraps (cities, kingdoms, provinces) were required to levy and pay a fixed tribute, the amount of which was defined in gold and silver weights, plus goods in kind according to the district's economic resources (grain, wood, horses, etc.). This tax was introduced because, in order to carry out his reform of the empire, Darius needed to provide his administration with funding based on a new economic foundation. Detailed statistics on tributes are given by Herodotus.

These tributes appear to be the empire's most important source of revenue. The gold and silver collected went to the royal treasuries (ganza in Old Persian) in Susa, Ecbatane and Persepolis. The administration of these treasures gave rise to inventories and accounts, recorded on numerous Elamite tablets, the examination of which makes it possible to reconstruct the activities of tax officials. The tablets also mention other sources of revenue for the treasury, such as trade and customs taxes levied on royal roads or at city gates, taxes on mineral production and levies on behalf of the satrap. The empire's populations could also be subject to corvées (notably for canal maintenance), to the accommodation and upkeep of the king's court, the satrap or administrators, or to exceptional levies.

Communications

The vast size of the empire (perhaps as much as 7,500,000 km2) necessitated the development of roads: the imperial administration had to facilitate the movement of people, information and goods over the enormous distances separating the different parts of the empire. Darius I ordered the construction of roads to speed the travel of trade caravans, troops and the king's inspectors. The satrapies were linked by a network of roads connecting Susa and Babylon with the provincial capitals. The most impressive part of this network is the King's Road, which stretches over 2,500 km between Susa and Sardis, built on a commission from Darius I. This route comprised around a hundred stations and mobilized a large number of personnel: garrisons protecting the posts, road controllers, caravan leaders and, above all, express messengers who could carry messages in a few days from one end of the empire to the other, taking turns (15 days minimum, according to Herodotus). The Persepolis tablets indicate the rations received by the various members of the administration who had to make long journeys, based on the length of the journey and their rank.

Water communications were important, facilitated by major works, the most famous of which was the digging of the ancient Suez Canal, linking the Red Sea to the Mediterranean (via the Nile Delta). Planned by Pharaoh Nekao II, the canal was actually completed by Darius I, who commemorated his work with several multilingual stelae. River transport was important in regions where it had long been developed, such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. Rivers are generally crossed by boat bridges. In terms of maritime flows, the eastern Mediterranean was actively explored under the impetus of the Phoenicians and Greeks, while new routes were explored to the east: Darius also financed expeditions such as that of Scylax of Caryanda, who discovered the mouths of the Indus by following the coastal route from the Persian Gulf. The Périple de Scylax de Caryanda is the first piece of information on India known to the West.

These various long-distance communication routes were used for administrative and military purposes, as well as for trade. Following habits dating back several centuries, metals circulated widely (copper and iron from Anatolia, copper from Cyprus, tin from Iran), as did wine and dyed wool from the Levant. Phoenician cities played an important role as hubs for these various products. Travelers and products were subject to various tolls and transaction taxes.

Army

The Persian army was modeled on that of predecessor empires, especially Assyria, but also incorporated Egyptian and Elamite elements. It was also marked by aspects that were distinctly Medo-Persian. Like the imperial administration, it was in the hands of the king, the royal family and the Perso-Median aristocracy, whose education was largely determined by their preparation for war. By the time of Cyrus I, all Persian men were expected to fight for the king. In addition to its strategic military importance, the imperial army also played an important political role, ensuring the political union of all the territories united under Achaemenid rule. Its elite is the corps of 10,000 Immortals, from which the royal palace guards are drawn. The head of this unit (called hazāparati), as the "king's second-in-command", also assumed command of the entire imperial army.

In times of war, this professional army was supplemented by conscript troops drawn from the various peoples of the empire. This army was then divided into national units and equipped according to national customs. If we are to believe Herodotus' writings describing the reviews of his army conducted by Xerxes I in Thrace or near the Hellespont, the imperial army was indeed very heterogeneous and motley. They were grouped into units of 10, 100, 1,000 and sometimes even 10,000 men, following a principle taken from the Mesopotamian kingdoms. A distinction is made between the Persian and Mede troops, who form the core of the army, and the provincial troops who reinforce them. The outfits and equipment of the latter, as described by Herodotus, are extremely heterogeneous, depending on the people involved. They reflect a great diversity. Mercenaries could also be recruited.

These contingents, commanded by Persians of high lineage, fall into three categories: infantry, cavalry and navy. Infantry and cavalry each included contingents of archers. These were essential units in the Persian system. Infantrymen also included shield-bearers armed with spears. Horsemen, who occupy a prominent place, seem to have borrowed much of their offensive and defensive equipment from the traditions of Central Asian peoples such as the Sakas. They are also armed with javelins. War chariots, notably the "Scythian chariot" described by Diodorus, are still in use, although their place seems secondary. Naval troops were made up of crews recruited from the Phoenicians and Ionians. The most widely used boat was the trireme, a fast boat with three rows of oarsmen, said to have been invented by the Sidonians or Corinthians.

The army had permanent garrisons throughout the empire, commanded by Persian officers. Garrisons were placed at strategic points: forts on the empire's main roads, at frontiers or even in military colonies (such as Elephantine on the Egyptian-Nubian border). These garrisons were made up of Persians, Medes, Greeks, Chorasmians and, in particular, Jews. The satraps were responsible for supplying, maintaining and financing the armed forces stationed in their administrative domains, but not for their military command. This was in fact the responsibility of a separate hierarchy, subject to royal authority. According to sources from Nippur (and also Elephantine), the troops were supported by agricultural service estates, which provided them with equipment. The size of these estates depended on the unit to be maintained: "archers' lands" were the smallest, followed by "horse lands" and "chariot lands".

The heterogeneity of the troops, their weaponry and equipment, and their combat techniques, naturally raises the question of the effectiveness of command and the difficulty of coordinating maneuvers in battle. Quinte Curce even points out that the diversity was such that the king didn't know all the peoples making up his army, and the peoples themselves didn't know who their allies were. For Briant, while this diversity may have been the primary explanation for the Persian defeats of the Greeks and Macedonians, it fails to take into account the fact that the contingents described by Herodotus never actually took part in the fighting, which involved mainly elite troops from the Iranian plateau. The combatants at Thermopylae were Persians, Kishians and immortal guards; those at Plataea were Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Indians, Satians and Mycals.

Briant observes that Xerxes' reviews of his armies were rather ceremonial: the king acknowledged his power through the presentation of his army. The aim was not to count the military forces available, but for the king to take note of the diversity of his empire and boost the morale of his troops. Based on Quinte Curce's interpretation, he draws a distinction between these parade troops, staged to represent the imperial space down to its most marginal peoples, and the selected, mostly Iranian, fighting troops. By the end of the Achaemenid era, Persian soldiers were increasingly replaced by Greek mercenaries.

Agricultural development

The Achaemenid era brought major changes to agriculture, one of the mainstays of the empire's economic life. Irrigation improved considerably, particularly in water-scarce regions such as Egypt, Babylonia, Iran and Central Asia. In Babylonia, the Achaemenid kings and their satraps continued the work of the Neo-Babylonian kings who had preceded them by restoring and extending the irrigation system, contributing to the extension of crops and the growth of agricultural production. The irrigation system known as qanat, which still provides water in Iran and Afghanistan today, was in fact developed at this time. According to the traditional interpretation of a text by Polybius, it was the king himself who had these underground irrigation canals built, and who leased them out or gave usufruct of them for five generations to the family involved in their construction, but in reality the Iranian origin of qanats and their expansion under Achaemenid rule are still poorly established.

The regularity of agricultural production and the profitability of estates were essential to the running of the empire. The largest agricultural estates were at the disposal of the king, aristocratic Persian families, temples (at least in Babylonia, Egypt and Greek cities) and certain major entrepreneurs. As we have already seen, these resources were essential because they provided a significant proportion of taxes, but also because the system of allocating land to members of the aristocracy, the administration and the army served to finance their service or reward them for a meritorious action, or to ensure their loyalty through this "gift".

Monetary systems and practices

The study of monetary practices in the empire reveals a new facet of its organizational flexibility. Two main zones can be identified. The first, corresponding to the eastern part of the empire (east of the Euphrates), continued to use age-old practices in which silver served as an instrument of exchange and the main unit of account, and was valued according to its weight. There may have been ingots or other silver objects of standardized weight, but there is no known preferred form; this currency probably circulated in "anonymous", unmarked form. In the western part of the empire, these practices declined in the face of the expansion of coinage, which had appeared in Lydia before the Persian conquest (the "cresae" of Croesus). Cyrus II continued to issue these coins, which at the same time spread to neighboring Greek cities, which issued civic coins. At an unspecified date, Darius I issued a "royal" monetary system, based on two coins: the daric (from the Akkadian šekel, síglos in Greek), weighing around 5.60 grams. Twenty shekels are worth one daric. 3,000 dariques make up one talent, the largest unit of weight and currency. These coins depict the king with a bow and sometimes other weapons, in various warlike poses. In the 5th and especially 4th centuries, satraps from Asia Minor temporarily issued so-called "satrapic" coins: a Pharnabazus in Cyzic, Tissapherne in Tarsus, Mazaios and others in Cilicia. These exceptional issues, probably authorized by the royal authorities, were used to finance exceptional operations, particularly military ones. These coins are made of silver or bronze, their weights are based on the Persian standard (double shekels, also called staters) and the types are local, using the symbols of the regions where they were issued (divinities, animals). Use of this currency then spread to Phoenicia, Palestine and Egypt. Greek cities, Anatolian kingdoms (such as the Hecatomnides in Caria), Cypriots and Phoenicians also issued coins for their local needs. In this western zone, the coinage is counted and has a face value rather than a weight value, marking a crucial break in the history of monetary practices. It may retain a weight value, particularly in eastern regions where some of these coins are found cut or discarded to alter their weight before being weighed for a transaction.

The exact use to which these new forms of currency were put remains unclear, especially as regards current transactions outside the sphere of the ruler who issued them primarily for his own needs (military or fiscal). We know at least from the archives of Persepolis and Babylonia that salaries were generally paid in kind, following the ancestral principle of maintenance rations (essentially grain, wool and oil). The economy of the regions of the Persian Empire was probably not monetized, with the exception of the western cities in contact with the Greek world. Coins circulated in different political spheres: the daric was very popular in the Aegean world, while Greek coins, including the very popular Athenian "owls", also circulated in Asia Minor and Egypt, where they served as a model for certain issues that adopted their weight (tetradrachma) and sometimes even their type. Once again, we see the flexibility of the Persian administration, which had a centralizing instrument in the form of royal issues, but also left room for autonomy with local issues in the west, and did not seek to upset the monetary practices of the eastern regions.

A pragmatic, flexible approach to power

In its various aspects, the Achaemenid imperial model reflects a pragmatic, less centralizing approach to domination. Above all, it left room for adaptation to provincial structures and customs, involving their elites in the exercise of power and granting them relative autonomy (albeit in a generally subordinate position). The aim was not to reign by terror (like the Assyrians and, to a lesser extent, the Babylonians) or to disrupt habits by seeking to spread a homogeneous culture to accompany its imperial project. This is evidenced by the fact that the Persian religion and language were not exported to subjugated peoples, while local temples were realistically supported and empire Aramaic was used as a lingua franca, as it had already been under the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. In the field of law, the same approach is evident: local legal traditions seem to have been preserved, as evidenced by the fact that Darius I sponsored a codification of Egyptian laws. But legal supremacy belonged to the representatives of power, and ultimately to the king.

However, it is exaggerated to consider the Achaemenids, and Cyrus II in particular, as the precursors of religious tolerance or even human rights, notions that are anachronistic in the context of the Achaemenid empire, not least as a result of misinterpretations of the "Cylinder", which in fact places the Persian king in the ancient Babylonian tradition, showing that he was not there to upset local traditions and in particular the power of his great temples. Rather, as long as his authority and demands for resources are respected, Achaemenid power is not intrusive and leaves a considerable margin of autonomy, and only rebels are subject to truly coercive and punitive measures, notably resorting to practices of terror and destruction like his predecessors, as evidenced by the repression of revolts in Ionia, Babylonia and Egypt. This in no way calls into question his ability to control the territories he dominated, which was ultimately more solid than historiography has long recognized, nor the willingness and ability of the Persian administration to gradually modify certain aspects of the institutions of the dominated countries.

The Achaemenid Empire occupies a special place in the history of the Ancient Near East. First of all, as an imperial construct, it follows in the footsteps of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, and can to some extent draw lessons from their experiences, both successes and failures. In any case, it does not have to start from scratch, and represents a new stage in the affirmation of imperialism in the Ancient Near East.

Indeed, it was under the Achaemenids that previously competing kingdoms were brought together in a single state formation stretching from the Indus to the Aegean Sea. The previous kingdoms effectively disappeared, replaced by the administrative organization of the empire. The various traditions of the conquered empires were preserved, but recast into a new whole with the introduction of new ideology and practices, as exemplified by Achaemenid art and certain administrative innovations (satrapies). Iranian administrators played a key role in these innovations. The Achaemenids probably managed to hold on to their power for so long thanks to the support their kings received from the Persian nobility.

However, the extreme diversity of the peoples making up the empire makes it difficult to have a precise vision of the exact nature of the royal power's hold over the various nations of the empire. But there is no evidence that the Persian hold on the empire was weaker than before in the years leading up to the conquest. Alexander, who can be seen as the last of the Achaemenids according to P. Briant, adopted part of the Achaemenid model and set himself up as the successor to Darius III, trying to prepare a fusion between the Iranian and Greek elites, which drew opposition from the Macedonian nobility, who were unable to organize Alexander's succession after his death. The creation of the great Hellenistic kingdoms, particularly the Seleucid kingdom, that followed in the region was in part a continuation of Achaemenid practices. Some Hellenic and Balkan kings even adopted Persian social practices to create a cultural community with the nobles of the conquered country.

The legacy of Achaemenid political construction can be found in the empires that succeeded them, notably the Seleucids and Parthians, even if the pragmatic and flexible approach of Achaemenid domination is only incompletely taken up. The Achaemenids found heirs in the Sassanid Persian dynasty, which emerged in the 3rd century AD from the former heart of the first Persian empire. Although Achaemenid cult sites such as Persepolis and Naqsh-e Rostam were visited by the Sassanid kings, who left inscriptions and bas-reliefs there, thus placing themselves in the continuity of their illustrious ancestors, Persian historiography of the Sassanid period, like that of the Islamic era, did not really preserve the memory of the Achaemenid kings, limited to a few mentions of Cyrus II or Darius I. It was not until after the Sassanid Empire that the Sassanids were mentioned in the history of Persia. It was only after the rediscovery of Achaemenid monuments by European explorers and archaeologists, and above all the accession to power of Reza Shah in 1925, that the memory of the first Persian empire was fully integrated into the national heritage of modern Iranians.

Sources

1. Achaemenid Empire
2. Achéménides
3. 2002 Oxford Atlas of World History p.42 (West portion of the Achaemenid Empire) and p.43 (East portion of the Achaemenid Empire).
4. (en) Patrick Karl O'Brien, Atlas of World History, Oxford University Press, 2002, 42–43 p. (ISBN 9780195219210, lire en ligne).
5. The Times Atlas of World History, p. 79 (1989) : (en) Geoffrey Barraclough, The Times Atlas of World History, Times Books, 1997 (ISBN 978-0-7230-0906-1, lire en ligne).
6. Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, Westermann, Braunschweig 1985, (ISBN 3-14-100919-8), pp. 14 à 23.
7. ^ The standard was described as "a golden eagle mounted upon a lofty shaft." This image is a reconstruction, the design based on an Achaemenid tile from Persepolis, and the coloring based on the Alexander Mosaic, which depicts the standard in dark red and gold.[1]
8. ^ daivā-inskriften (Xph §3) uppräknar fortfarande de joner som bor nära havet, de joner som bor på andra sidan havet och invånarna i Skudra.
9. Ver «Historical Estimates of World Population» no website do Departamento do Censo dos Estados Unidos.[19]
10. The Persian Empire is an empire in the modern sense – like that which existed in Germany, and the great imperial realm under the sway of Napoleon; for we find it consisting of a number of states, which are indeed dependant, but which have retained their own individuality, their manners, and laws. The general enactments, binding upon all, did not infringe upon their political and social idiosyncrasies, but even protected and maintained them; so that each of the nations that constitute the whole, had its own form of constitution. As light illuminates everything – imparting to each object a peculiar vitality – so the Persian Empire extends over a multitude of nations, and leaves to each one its particular character. Some have even kings of their own; each one its distinct language, arms, way of life and customs. All this diversity coexists harmoniously under the impartial dominion of Light […] a combination of peoples – leaving each of them free. Thereby, a stop is put to that barbarism and ferocity with which the nations had been wont to carry on their destructive feuds.
11. "For thousands of years Persians have been creating beauty. Sixteen centuries before Christ there went from these regions or near it […] You have been here a kind of watershed of civilization, pouring your blood and thought and art and religion eastward and westward into the world […] I need not rehearse for you again the achievements of your Achaemenid period. Then for the first time in known history an empire almost as extensive as the United States received an orderly government, a competence of administration, a web of swift communications, a security of movement by men and goods on majestic roads, equaled before our time only by the zenith of Imperial Rome."