ANCIENT HISTORY

PERSIA FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE ARAB CONQUEST.

BY  W. S. W. VAUX

INTRODUCTION

The history of Persia, as generally understood, may be considered as a supplement to that of Assyria and Babylonia, the events that have made her most famous in antiquity having been achieved after the empire of the first had passed away, and the second had been subjugated by the Persians.

The small province of Persis (in the Bible Paras, in the native inscriptions Parsa), whence the name of Persia is derived, was bounded on the north by Media, on the south by the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, on the east by Caramania (Kerman), and on the west by Susiana. It was, indeed, nearly the same district as the modern Farsistan, the name of which is obviously derived from it; and in length and breadth not more than 450 and 250 miles respectively.

With regard to the population which occupied this district at the earliest historical period, it is certain from the Cuneiform inscriptions, that they were not the original dwellers  in the district, but  themselves immigrants, though it is not so certain whence. It would lead us too far a-field to discuss here the wide question of the settlement of the nations after the Biblical Flood, confirmed so remarkably as this is by Mr. George Smith's recent discoveries. Moreover, it is not possible to fill up, except conjecturally, many wide spaces, both of time and territory. Admitting, however, the existence of a Deluge, such as that recorded in Holy Writ, a long period must have elapsed before the different families of mankind had arranged themselves in the groups and in the districts we find them occupying at the dawn of history.

There are reasonable grounds for thinking the highlands of Central Asia the historical cradle of the Japhetic race; whether, with some writers, we conceive this mountainous region to be the Alpine plateau of Little Bokhara, or, with others, the great chain south and south-west of the Caspian Sea: the first theory suits best for a descent into India; the second for a migration into Europe.

The former view, taken broadly, is confirmed by the early Persian traditions preserved in the two first chapters of the Vendidad, (though this compilation as we now have it, is very modern), an outline, in the judgment of Heeren, so evidently historical, as to require nothing but sufficient geographical knowledge for the identification of the places therein mentioned. Whether any of these traditional legends are really due to Zoroaster (Zarathustra), [indeed whether a Zoroaster ever lived], is of little importance: but this much, however, is certain that the enshrine fragments of the most ancient belief of the Persians. Thus, they describe as the original seat of the Persian race, a delicious country named Eriene-Veedjo, the first creation of Ormuzd, the Spirit of Good, with a climate of seven months of summer and five of winter. But Ahriman, the Spirit of Evil, smote this land with the plague of ever-increasing cold, till at last it had only two months of summer to ten of winter. Hence, the people quitted their ancient homes, Ahriman having, for fifteen successive times, thwarted the good works of Ormuzd, and having, by one device or another, rendered each new abode uninhabitable. The names of these abodes are given and some of then maybe even now identified; and there can be little doubt, that they indicate a migration from the north-east towards the south and south-west, that is, from the Hindu-Kush westward to Media and Persia. The original situation of Eriene, a name of the same origin as the modern Irin (and possibly of Erin or Ireland), would, on this supposition, be to the north of the western chains of the Himalaya, a country enjoying a short summer, and great extremes of heat and cold.

Such, briefly, is the legendary story of Persia, which it is best to leave as it is. As, however, I shall have again to refer to what has been called the creed of Zoroaster, that is, the theory of the separate existence of principles of good and evil. I must give the substance of what is most usually acknowledged about him and the religious system named after him. Those who care for fuller details can consult the Zend-Avesta as first published by Anquetil Du Perron, and the various commentaries or modifications of it, suggested by the studies of MM. Westergaard, Spiegel, Haug, Burnouf, Oppert, and others.

I do not myself doubt that Zoroaster, whether or not a king (as some have held), was truly a teacher and reformer, and, further, that his religious views represent the reaction of the mind against the mere worship of nature, tending as this does, directly, to polytheism and to the doctrine of "Emanations." It is, I think, equally evident that such views embody the highest struggle of the human intellect (unaided by Revelation) towards spiritualism, and that they are, so far, an attempt to create a religious system by the simple energies of human reason. Hence their general direction is towards a pure monotheism; and, had no evil existed in the world, the theory embodying them would have remained unassailed and logically successful. On this rock, however, all the spiritual theories of early times necessarily split. Zoroaster or his disciples halted where all must halt who have not the light from on high, the one sure support of Jew and Christian alike. They could not believe that God, the good, the just, the pure, and the perfect, would have placed evil in a world he must have created good, like himself: hence, as evil is none the less ever present, they were forced to imagine a second creator, Ahriman, the author of evil, and to give him, during the present existence, equal power with that wielded by the Spirit of Good. They held, however (and this is a most important part of Zoroastrianism), that a day would come when the powers of evil would be finally annihilated, and the truth be reinstated, never again to fail. I ought to add that the modern Parsees, whether of Jezd in Persia or of Bombay, do not represent the purity of the original Zoroastrian faith, their views being essentially pantheistic, in that they substitute emanation for creation and confound the distinctions of good and evil, by making both spring from one creative principle.

Of the two other great races who take their names respectively from Ham and Shem, it is enough to state here that modern philology attributes to Ham the Cushite tribes of Arabia and Ethiopia, the Egyptians, Philistines, Canaanites as well as the so-called Hamitic populations to the south of Egypt.

In like manner, the Semitic population seems from the earliest period to which they can be traced back, to have occupied nearly the same abodes as in later times, viz.:—the range of country from Armenia (Arphaxad) over Assyria and Babylonia, to the southern end of Arabia. That there may have been in the southern part of the same country a still earlier race, the Acadians, I do not doubt.

Certain broad characteristics have been accepted as distinguishing in a remarkable manner each of these races. Thus the so-called Hamites appear, universally, as the pioneers of material civilization, with a great power over some elements of know­ledge, but with an equally entire absence of all elevating ideas. Their former presence is recognized in the foundations of states by brute force, and by the execution of gigantic works in stone, like Stonehenge, Carnac, &c, if, indeed, these monuments are, as has been usually maintained, attributable to so remote a period. Along, however, with this material grandeur, we find the grossest forms of nature-worship; while so remarkably have the Hamite population fallen into the background or disappeared, in comparison with the other races, that we are forcibly reminded of the prophetic words, "Cursed be Canaan (or Ham), a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren"; and again, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant."

In striking contrast to the Hamites, the Japhetic peoples appear everywhere as the promoters of moral as well as of intellectual civilization. As a rule, practices of agriculture rather than hunters, with fixed abodes in preference to tents, their several dialects (now easily traceable by comparative philology) amply confirm the early existence among them of institutions fitted to raise human beings above the "beasts that perish."

Hence we find them, in the most remote ages, planting corn and feeding on meat instead of on acorns and berries, contracting marriages by fixed and settled forms, resisting polygamy, and protecting their wives with the veneration Tacitus so much admired in the German tribes of his day. To them, also, is due the institution of the Family and of a Religion, at first, as shown by the Vedic hymns, a pure Theism—the worship of one God—though with an early and natural tendency to "emanations" and their ultimate result, Polytheism. One of the hymns of the Rig-Veda (according to Professor Max Muller) explains with singular clearness the progress of this change, in the words, "The wise men give many names to the Being who is One." Sacrifices to please or propitiate the powers thus separately deified, were the natural but later developments of the Polytheistic idea.

The characteristics of the third or great Shemite1 race, stand out in equally bold relief against the dark background of material Hamitism, though, like the other early races, they too, at times, exhibited abundant and luxuriant forms of idolatry. In these, generally, we find a moral and spiritual eminence superior to the best which the Japhetic races have worked out, while to one of them, the Jews, we owe the guardianship of that Book, in which alone we find religious subjects dealt with in a language of adequate sublimity; the one volume, indeed, to which we can refer with unhesitating faith as containing, though with tantalizing brevity, all that is certain of the origin of the human race. It is satisfactory to know that, though, naturally, the tenth chapter of the book of Genesis,—the Toldoth-beni-Noah, or roll-call of the sons of Noah, in other words, of the nations,—has been discussed in innumerable volumes, has been in fact the battle-ground of believers as well as of infidels, the main outline there traced is con­firmed in all essential particulars by recent Assyrian discoveries. It is quite worth the while of any scholar to look back at the interpretation given to it by the learned Bochart, two centuries and a half ago: he will, I think, be surprised to see how much of what that great Frenchman proposed so long ago, is still admitted by the more complete investigations of the comparatively new science of philology.

 

I.

Cyrus — Croesus —War in North-east Asia — Fall of Babylon — Tomb of Cyrus — Cambyses — Pseudo-Bardes — Darius — Campaign in Scythia — Home at Susa —Inscription and Coin of Pythagoras — Burning of Sardis — Second Invasion of Europe — Mardonius and Datis — Marathon.

 

Having said so much by way of introduction, now proceed to give some account of what we know of Persia historically (from the sixth century BC to the seventh century AD), and of the monuments still therein attesting its former grandeur. Now, first, it may be noted that there is no mention of Persia in the tenth chapter of Genesis, or in the Zend-Avesta, nor does this name occur on any Assyrian monument before the ninth century BC. On the other hand, the list in this chapter places the Madai or Medes among the sons of Japheth, which, as Aryans, is their right position. The natural inference is, that those Aryan tribes who were subsequently called Persians, had not yet descended so far to the south, but were still clinging to the steeps of the Taurus. A little later, the inscriptions of Shalmaneser show that they had reached Armenia, but, as only petty chiefs are recorded, it is probable that their government had not yet crystallized into a settled monarchy. Later however, under Sennacherib, the Perso-Aryans had reached the Zagros, and, thence, their further descent by the defiles of the Bakhtyari mountains into Persia was comparatively easy and rapid, though their migrations perhaps (il not cease till near the close of the great empire of Assyria. The Aryan Medes had, on the other hand, held for many years a prominent, place among the Western Asiatic populations, and it is likely that the Persian tribes acknowledged the superiority of the Median monarch, much as at the present day the Khedive of Egypt acknowledges the supreme rule of the Sultan of Turkey, in other words, that the ruler of Persia was the chief feudatory of the Median empire. It must not however be forgotten, that Darius the son of Hystaspes claims for his own house, the possession of a kingdom with eight imme­diate predecessors, he himself being the ninth, a claim he could hardly have put forth publicly had there been at the time any doubt about it. The Median empire appears to have been established about BC 647, just when the adjoining nations were marshalling their forces to put an end to Nineveh, which had so long ruled them with a rod of iron; while, from this statement of Darius, it is further probable that there were tributary kings in Persia up to about the same period.

Darius himself asserts that the first king of Persia was called Achaemenes, a statement confirmed by the well-known fact that the Achaemenids were acknowledged as the leading family among the Persians.   Indeed, as Professor Rawlinson has well remarked, in the East, an ethnic name is very often derived from that of one person, as in the case of Midianite, Moabite, from Midian and Moab. But though there can be little doubt that Persian history may be deemed historical from the time of Cambyses, the father of Cyrus, there is nothing really worth recording till we come to Cyrus himself, under whom Persia takes the place in Western Asia, formerly held by the Semitic empires of Assyria and Babylon.

How Cyrus attained to this pre-eminence has been much discussed; but we do not really want more than the notice in the Bible, which is remarkably clear and graphic: "Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great." And again, "The ram which thou saw having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia."

It has been argued by Heeren (indeed this was the common view put forward by writers fifty years ago), that the rise of Cyrus was similar to that of many other personages in Eastern history, in fact, nothing but the successful uprising of a rude mountain tribe  of nomad  habits.

The history of the rise of Cyrus has been revealed to us by the Cuneiform inscriptions. Two documents of special importance have been brought from Baby­lonia which were compiled officially shortly after his conquest of Babylonia. One of them is an annalistic account of the reign of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylonia, and of the conquest of his kingdom by Cyrus. It is generally known to Assyriologists as the "Annalistic Tablet." The other document is an edict issued by Cyrus not long after his occupation of Babylonia, justifying his conquest of the country, and declaring that he had been called to the work by Bel Merodach, the god of Babylon, himself. As the inscriptions render a commentary needless we give them here in full. The Annalistic Tablet is as follows, the lacuna in it being marked by dotted lines—"

... in the month Tebet (December) in the country of Hamath he  remained in the  month Ab (July) the mountain of Amanus, a mountain [of the West, he ascended]. Reeds as many as exist [and cedars] to the midst of Babylon [he brought. The mountain] he left and survived. In the month Kisleu (November) king (Nabonidus) [collected] his army [and marched to] the sea; and Nebo-makhrib-akhi . . . [from] the sea of the country of Syria to Istuvegu (Astyages) gathered [his forces] together and marched against Cyrus king of Ansan, and . . . The army of Istuvegu revolted against him and seized [him] with the hands; to Cyrus they delivered [him]. Cyrus [marched] against the country of Ekbatana, the royal city. Silver, gold, goods and chattels, [the spoil] of the country of Ekbatana, they carried away, and he brought them to the land of Ansan.    The goods and chattels were deposited in [Ansan]. The seventh year (BC 549) king (Nabonidus) was in Teva (the western quarter of Babylon); the king's son, the nobles, and his soldiers were in the country of Akkad (Northern Babylonia). [The king in the month Nisan] did not go to Babylon. Nebo did not go to Babylon; Bel came not forth; the [new year's] festival [took place]; they offered sacrifices in the temples of E-Saggil and E-Zida to the gods of Babylon and Borsippa as [peace-offerings]. The priest inspected the painted work (?) of the temple. The eighth year (nothing took place). The ninth year (BC 547) Nabonidus the king was in Teva. The king's son, the nobles, and the soldiers were in the country of Akkad. The king in the month Nisan did not go to Babylon. Nebo did not go to Babylon; Bel came not forth; the new year's festival took place. They offered sacrifices in E-Saggil and E-Zida to the gods of Babylon and Borsippa as peace-offerings. The fifth day of Nisan the mother of the king, who was in the fortress of the camp on the Euphrates above Sippara, died. The king's son and his soldiers mourned for three days. There was lamentation. In the month Sivan (May) there was lamentation in the country of Akkad over the mother of the king. In the month Nisan, Cyrus king of Persia collected his army and crossed the Tigris below the city of Arbela, and in the month Iyyar (April) [he marched] against the country of the Sute (nomad Arabs). Its king he slew; his goods he took. He ascended the country. [He departed again] after his ascent, and a king existed there again. The tenth year (BC 546) the king was in Teva; the king's son, the nobles, and his soldiers were in the country of Akkad; the king in the month [Nisan did not go to Babylon]. Nebo did not go to Babylon; Bel came not forth. The new year's festival took place. They offered sacrifices in E-Saggil and E-Zida to the gods of Babylon and Borsippa as peace-offerings. On the twenty-first day of the month Sivan ... of the country of Elam, in the land of Akkad ... a governor in the city of Erech .... The eleventh year (BC 545) the king was in Teva; the king's son, the nobles, and his soldiers were in the country of Akkad. [In the month Nisan the king did not go to Babylon. In the month] Elul (August) the king did not come forth to Bel. The new year's festival took place. They offered sacrifices [in E-Saggil and E-Zida as peace-offerings to the gods] of Babylon [and Borsippa In the seventeenth year and the month] Tebet the king entered E-tur-Kalama . . . and the lower sea (the Persian Gulf) revolted . . . Bel came forth; the new year's festival as a peace-offering was kept; in the month . . . [Lugal-banda and] the other gods of the city of Marad, Zamama and the other gods of Kis, Beltis and the other gods of Kharsak-Kalama entered Babylon; at the end of the month Elul (?) the gods of the country of Akkad, which are above the sky and below the sky, entered Babylon; but the gods of Borsippa, Kutha, and Sippara did not enter. In the month Tammuz (June) when Cyrus had delivered battle against the soldiers of Akkad in the city of Rutu (?) on the banks of the river Nizallat, (and) when the men of Akkad had delivered (battle), the men of Akkad raised a revolt:  some persons were slain. On the fourteenth day of the month Sippara was taken without fighting; Nabonidus fled.  On the sixteenth day Gobryas, the governor of the country of Gutium (Kurdistan), and the soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting. Afterwards Nabonidus was captured when he had been caught in Babylon. At the end of the month Tammuz the javelin-throwers of the country of Gutium guarded the gates of E-Saggil: there was no cessation of the services in E-Siggil and the other temples, but no special festival was observed. On the third day of the month Marchesvan (October) Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions before him were allayed. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish; peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas his governor  proclaim. Governors in Babylon he appointed. From the month Chisleu (November) to the month Adar (February) the gods of the country of Akkad whom Nabonidus had transferred to Babylon returned to their own cities. The eleventh day of the month Marchesvan during the night Gobryas was on the bank of the . . .   The  wife  of  the  king (Nabonidus) died. From the twenty-seventh day of Adar to the third day of Nisan there was lamentation in the country of Akkad. All the people smote their heads. The fourth day Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, conducted the burial at the temple of the Sceptre of-the World. The priest of the temple of the Sceptre of Nebo, who upbears the sceptre [of the god in the temple of the god] in an Elamite robe took the hands of Nebo ... The son of the king offered free-will offerings in full to ten times [the usual amount]. He confined [the image] of Nebo to E-Saggil. Victims before Bel to ten times [the usual amount he sacrificed] ..."

The rest of the text is too mutilated for translation. This is unfortunately also the case with the beginning and end of the edict of Cyrus, which, as it is written on a cylinder of clay, is usually known as his "cylinder-inscription." Where this first becomes legible we read:

"The costly duty of the daily sacrifice did (Nabonidos) cause to cease ... he had established within the city (of Babylon?) the worship of Merodach the king of the gods; in ... his hand had planned (?) hostility to the city; daily had his hand destroyed his [people], all of them, (who remained) in unquiet submission. At their complaining, Bel (the lord) of the gods was mightily wrathful, and [caused the priests to leave?] their dwelling-place. The gods who dwelt among them left their habitations in wrath when they were made (by Nabonidos) to enter Babylon. Merodach in [mercy] journeyed to all peoples wherever they are found, and the men of Sumer and Akkad who are like his own body, did he visit ... he granted pardon to all countries, even all of them; he rejoiced and fed them; he appointed also a prince who should guide in righteousness the wish of the heart which his hand upholds, even Cyrus the king of the city of Ansan; he has prophesied his name for sovereignty; all men everywhere commemorate his name. The land of Kurdistan and all the people of the Manda he has subjected to his feet; the men of the black-heads (the Babylonians) he has caused his hand to conquer. In justice and righteousness he has governed them. Merodach the great lord, the restorer of his people, beheld with joy the deeds of his vicegerent who was righteous in hand and heart. To his city of Babylon he summoned his march; he bade him also take the road to Babylon; like a friend and a comrade he went at his side. The weapons of his vast army, whose number, like the waters of a river, could not be known, were marshalled in order, and it spread itself at his side. Without fighting and battle (Merodach) caused him to enter into Babylon; his city of Babylon he spared; in a hiding-place Nabonidus the king, who revered him not, did he give into his hand. The men of Babylon, all of them, and the whole of Sumer and Akkad, the nobles and the high-priest, bowed themselves beneath him; they kissed his feet; they rejoiced at his sovereignty; their faces shone. Bel-Merodach, who through trust in himself raises the dead to life, who benefits all men in difficulty and fear, has in goodness drawn nigh to him, has made strong his name. I am Cyrus the king of multitudes, the great king, the powerful king, the king of Babylon, the king of Sumer and Akkad, the king of the four zones, the son of Cambyses, the great king, the king of the city of Ansan; the grand­son of Cyrus the great king, the king of the city of Ansan; the great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, the king of the city of Ansan; of the ancient seed-royal, whose rule Bel and Nebo love, whose sovereignty they desire according to the goodness of their hearts. At that time I entered into Babylon in peace. With joy and gladness I founded the throne of dominion in  the palace of the princes.    Merodach the great lord enlarged my heart; the sons of Babylon and ... on that day I appointed his ministers. My vast army spread itself peacefully in the midst of Babylon; throughout Sumer and Akkad I permitted no gainsayer. Babylon and all its cities I governed in peace. The sons of Babylon [gave me] the fullness of their hearts, and they bore my yoke, and I restored their lives, their seat, and their ruins. I delivered their prisoners. For my work ... Merodach the great lord . . . established a decree; unto me, Cyrus, the king, his worshipper, and to Cambyses my son, the offspring of my heart, [and to] all my people he graciously drew nigh, and in peace before them we duly [ruled?]. All the kings who inhabit the high places of all regions from the Upper Sea (of Van) to the Lower Sea (the Persian Gulf), the inhabitants of the inland, the kings of Syria and the inhabitants of tents, all of them brought their rich tribute and in Babylon kissed my feet. From the city of ... to the cities of Assur, Istar-sumeli (?) and Accad, the land of Umlias, the cities of Zamban, Me-Tumut, and Durili, as far as the frontier of Kurdistan, the cities [which lie upon] the Tigris, whose seats had been established from of old, I restored the gods who dwelt within them to their places, and I founded for them a seat that should be long-enduring; all their peoples. I collected, and I restored their habitations. And the gods of Sumer and Accad whom Nabonidos, to the anger of (Merodach) the lord of the gods, had brought into Babylon, by the command of Merodach the great lord I settled in their sanctuaries in peace in seats according to their hearts. May all the gods whom I have brought into their own cities intercede daily before Bel and Nebo that my days be long, may they pronounce blessings upon me, and may they say to Merodach my lord: Let Cyrus the king, thy worshipper, and Cambyses his son [accomplish the desire] of their heart; [let them enjoy length] of days ... I have settled [the gods] of all countries in a place of rest ..."

The facts revealed to us in these documents are in open conflict with the history of the rise of Cyrus and the conquest of Babylonia which Greek writers have handed down. For the first time we have a true and contemporaneous account of the events which led to the rise of the Persian empire, narrated by the chief actors in them themselves. Cyrus proves to have been originally king, not of Persia, but of Ansan or Anzan. Ansan was a district of Elam, considerably to the north of Persia, and it had formed an important part of the territory over which the ancient kings of Elam had claimed rule. Indeed, in one Assyrian text Ansan is stated to be synonymous with Elam. Teispes, the ancestor of Cyrus, is said by Darius to have been the son of the Persian Achaemenes, and since Cyrus does not trace the kings of Ansan further back than Teispes, it seems probable that it was Teispes who conquered Ansan and established his authority there. Darius Hystaspes also traced his descent to Teispes through a brother of Cyrus I, and as he declares at Behistan that eight of his forefathers had been kings before him "in two lines," it has been supposed that while one of the sons of Teispes received Ansan as his share after his father's death, another son, the great-grandfather of Darius, received Persia. At all events we learn from the Annalistic Tablet that Cyrus II did not become king of Persia until between the years 550 and 547 BC. In 550 BC he is still "king of Ansan," in 547 BC he has for the first time become "king of Persia."

Another fact which the newly-discovered inscriptions have brought to light is that Babylon was taken without a siege and even "without fighting." The same fact is evidenced by the contract-tablets, which show that there was no cessation of business transactions in Babylon during the period that elapsed between the overthrow of Nabonidus and the entrance of Cyrus into the city, and that the trading community at once transferred its allegiance from the one ruler to the other. As soon as the army of Nabonidus was defeated near Sippara, all resistance to the invader was at an end. He had a strong party in his favor in Babylonia itself, and he was welcomed there as a deliverer from the tyranny of Nabonidus. Nabonidus had been a usurper, unrelated to the family of Nebuchadrezzar, and he had bitterly offended what maybe called "the country-party" by endeavoring to destroy the local cults, and centralize the religion of Babylonia, and therewith the political life of the country, in the capital. All who had been interested in the worship of the local deities naturally resented the attempt of the king.

Cyrus showed his political wisdom by undoing this centralizing work of his predecessor as soon as Babylonia was in his hands. The images of the gods were restored to their old seats, and the populations who had been transported from one part of the empire to another were allowed to return home. Light is thus cast on the motives which led Cyrus to permit the Jewish exiles to return to Palestine. It was part of a general policy, and the Jews differed from the other peoples who were similarly restored to their native lands only in having no divine images to take back with them. Instead of gods, the sacred vessels of the temple were what they carried back to Jerusalem.

It is quite plain from the inscriptions that Cyrus had none of the proselytizing zeal of Zoroastrianism, none of the belief in monotheism, which has so often been ascribed to him. The king of Ansan was a polytheist, and after the conquest of Babylonia adopted the deities of the country who, as he asserts, had bestowed it upon him. Like the kings of Babylon who had gone before him, he and his son Cambyses were worshippers of Bel and Nebo. The first Zoroastrian ruler of Babylon was Darius Hystaspes, not Cyrus the Elamite prince.

It is probable that "the son" of the Babylonian king who is described in the Annalistic Tablet as commanding the army in Northern Babylonia was Belshazzar, whose name occurs in several inscriptions. It is strange that no mention is made of him in the final struggle with Cyrus, and it is therefore possible that he was killed in the battle near Sippara.

When Cyrus overthrew Istuvegu or Astyages he was still on good terms with Nabonidus. In an in­scription found at Sippara Nabonidus states that Merodach had appeared to him in a dream, and had ordered him to rebuild the temple of the Moon-god at Harran, which had been destroyed by "the Manda"or Nomads of whom Astyages was king. Nabonidus objected that the Manda surrounded Harran, making any approach to it impossible; whereupon the god assured him that within three years "the people of the Manda of whom thou speakest, they, their land, and the kings their allies, shall exist no more. In the third year when it shall arrive I will cause them to come, and Cyrus, the king of Anzan, their little servant, with his small army shall overthrow the widespread people of the Manda; Istuvegu the king of the people of the Manda he shall capture, and bring him a prisoner to his own country." All which duly came to pass, and Nabonidus subsequently restored the great temple of Harran.

It will be noticed that Istuvegu is called king of the Manda, and not of the Mada or Medes. It is clear, therefore, that the classical writers, in making Astyages king of the Medes, have been led into error by the similarity of the two names Manda and Mada. In the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions they are however distinct from one another. The Mada or Medes were the tribes, partly Aryan, partly non-Aryan, who inhabited the mountains of Kurdistan and the country still further to the east, while the Manda meant "nomads." Teuspa or Teispes, the Cimmerian chief who was defeated by Esarhaddon and forced to march westward, is called a Manda; so, too, is a later Cimmerian chief Tuktammu, who was driven beyond the frontiers of Assyria by the generals of Assurbanipal, the son and successor of Esarhaddon. According to Herodotus, the invasion of Western Asia by the Cimmerians was followed by that of the Scyths, the Scyths for a while overthrowing the Median empire of Cyaxares, and making themselves masters of Ecbatana, the Median capital. All this seems to have been a confused echo of the actual history of events. It is probable that under the name of Manda the Assyrians and Babylonians included both the Cimmerians and the Scyths of classical story; at all events Ecbatana remained in the possession of the Manda, and Istuvegu or Astyages, instead of being a Median monarch, was really a chief of the Manda. His alleged relationship to Cyrus, however, is not at all impossible, since Teispes, as we have seen, was a leader of the Manda, and Teispes is a Persian name. It may be, therefore, that between the Persians and the Cimmerians there was an affinity of race.

Having united the "Medes and Persians," Cyrus at once contemplated making his empire the foremost in Asia; and for the first steps he took he had pretest enough to satisfy the conscience of any Asiatic chieftain. Without going into details on a portion of history well known to all readers of Herodotus and Xenophon, it is enough to state here that, owing to the invasion and ultimate repression of the horde of Cimmerian nomads from the North, a war of considerable dimensions had taken place a few years before between Asia Minor and "Media," in which the final struggle is said to have been stopped by the eclipse predicted by Thales. The conquests of Cyrus naturally tended to fan the flame, and so much alarmed the then chief ruler in Asia Minor, Croesus of Lydia, that he was induced to seek the alliance of Greece, Egypt, and Babylon, though whether with the view of attacking Cyrus or of repelling an invasion by him, is not certain. On the other hand, Cyrus acted at once, and, with the decision of an able general, closed on the Lydian king before he could receive the sought-for aid, and thus put an end, in the briefest manner, to the separate existence of the kingdom of Croesus, who remained for more than thirty years the guest of himself and of successive Persian monarchs. Nor was this all; the conquest of the rest of Asia Minor, by the aid of his Median generals Harpagus and "Mazares, immediately followed, while we may believe that the proposed alliance of Croesus with Babylon and Egypt was not forgotten when Cyrus had leisure to turn against these powers his conquering legions.

The next period of the life of Cyrus is involved in obscurity, and we know little more than that he was engaged in a series of wars, of the actual motives of which we are uninformed, with the Bactrians and other tribes of North-east Asia, which lasted for thirteen or fourteen years. As Arrian however places a Cryopolis (elsewhere called Cyreschata) on the Jaxartes, we may presume that even Sogdiana fell under the sway of Cyrus. Again, as we find traces of him to the extreme north-east, as far as the territory, believed to be that of the Sacae, and also to the south-east and south, in Seistan (Sacastene) and Khorasan, we must suppose that, at various intervals, he overran the whole district between the Jaxartes on the north, the Indus on the east, and the Indian Ocean on the south. Perhaps too, as suggested by Professor Rawlinson, these wars really resembled the annual out-marches recorded of the kings  of Assyria, rather than a sustained and continuous campaign of many years' duration.

At all events, when Cyrus died his empire was the most extensive that had yet existed in the East. He had succeeded to the heritage of the great powers which had previously ruled over Western Asia, Assyria, and Babylonia, and though Egypt still remained to be conquered, he had reduced under his sway countries which had been independent of the most powerful Assyrian and Babylonian kings. Not only was Asia Minor in the west subject to him, but he had subdued tribes and districts in the distant north and east, many of which had hardly been known even by name to his predecessors.

Of the rest of the life of Cyrus, we have no satisfac­tory account; but it is probable that he fell in a war with some of the tribes to the north-east of Asia, a conflict on the origin of which it is easy enough to speculate, as the wild tribes of that part of Asia, like other nomads, are almost always in a state of partial insurrection. Certain, however, it is, that he died 529 BC, after a reign of twenty-nine years, while his remarkable tomb at Pasargadae, affords some evidence that his body was recovered and carried back to the centre of his kingdom or faith. Professor Rawlinson, justly remarks that "the character of Cyrus as represented to us by the Greeks, is the most favorable that we possess of any early Oriental monarch."

On the death of Cyrus, a conqueror rather than an administrator, his vast domains, mainly descended to his eldest son Cambyses, but Cyrus, at the same time, arranged that his second son, Bardes, or, as he is called in Greek history, Smerdis, should receive certain provinces as his patrimony; a plan, in itself sufficiently questionable, especially in an empire as yet scarcely organized, and one therefore promptly put an end to by Cambyses. Bardes, by his orders, was slain by Prexaspes at Susa, but in a manner so secret as to lead to the remarkable impersonation we shall presently notice.

The first act of Cambyses was to attempt the carrying out of his father's schemes for the conquest of Egypt; so, to provoke a quarrel, he demanded of the weak king of Egypt his daughter as a second wife. Amasis complied with the request to the letter but not to the spirit, as, instead of his daughter, he sent another damsel, who is said herself to have revealed to Cambyses the imposition practiced on him by the Egyptian monarch. This was alone a sufficient pretext for war; but four years elapsed before Cambyses was able to secure the naval aid of Tyre and Cyprus.

The Egyptians fought bravely, the more so, perhaps, that their new ruler, Psammenitus, was largely aided by Greek and Carian mercenaries; but, after a decisive battle fought near Pelusium, the overthrow, perhaps we ought rather to say the collapse, of Egypt, became complete. Psammenitus sometime after surrendering at discretion, was kindly treated by the conqueror, and, but for a subsequent conspiracy, would, like the king of the Sacae under Cyrus, have probably been per­mitted to remain a tributary king, perhaps even as viceroy of Egypt under Cambyses.

Egypt once subdued, the adjacent tribes of the Libyans, with the Greeks of Barca and Cyrene, professed submission, and, had Cambyses been content with such peaceful acquisitions, his future reign might have been one of repose and prosperity. Cambyses, however, inherited something of his father's grandeur of character: to have left, therefore, Ethiopia and Carthage unsubdued, seemed to him unchivalrous. He failed, however, utterly in both of these schemes: in the case of Carthage, the Phoenicians, as yet unsubdued by Persia, refused to fight against their kindred colonies; and, in the case of Lybia, one army sent from Thebes against Ammon, perished in the desert, while another, led by the king in person, failed to force its way into Nubia. The only result was that the Persians lost heart, while the Egyptians were encouraged to resist, and that Cambyses at once saw his error and his danger. The old king of Egypt, up to this time well treated, was now seized and executed; while the native officers were apprehended and slain, and a severity adopted wholly alien to the usual habits of the Persians. The priests, as the natural leaders of the people, were everywhere exposed to needless insult and cruelty; Cambyses, it is said, setting the example by stabbing the sacred calf, believed by all Egyptians to be the incarnation of Apis. Egypt, "the basest of the nations," tamely submitted, and made no further effort for many years to shake off the iron yoke of the Persians, becoming thus, as Professor Rawlinson observes, "the obsequious slave of Persia," and obeying, as it would seem cheerfully, mandates she had not the spirit to resist.

But a new trouble was about to befall Cambyses, the first springs of which were, as has been remarked, suggested by the secret execution of his brother Bardes: though, even without this, his long absence from his capital, a fatal error in Eastern countries, would have given ample opportunities to any unquiet spirits at home. On his way homeward we are told that he was met by a herald, who announced that he had ceased to reign, and that the allegiance of Persians was now due to his brother Bardes. At first it would seem that Cambyses was himself taken in, but he soon detected the imposition, and then, with little reason, destroyed himself by his own hand: Herodotus, writing many years later, softens down this story, and makes him die of a trifling accident.

It is difficult to imagine why Cambyses committed an act at once so cowardly and so foolish; especially as he was returning to his own country at the head of an army, not in itself likely, one would think, to make common cause with the first usurper who might set up his pretensions to the empire. Nor, indeed, can we suppose that his soldiers would have been led to act thus, or wholly endorse the legends Herodotus has preserved, which represent Cambyses as a monster of tyranny: Heeren speaks to the point, where he says that we ought to be on our guard with reference to the stories related of this prince, as our information about him is mainly due to the report of his bitterest enemies, the Egyptian priests. There is, indeed, nothing, as Bishop Thirlwall has remarked, to show "that the actions ascribed to him are more extravagant than those recorded of other despots, whose minds were only disturbed by the possession of arbitrary power"—yet Mr. Grote, generally so calm and dispassionate, accepts the madness of Cambyses as an established fact.

The tale of the uprising of the Pseudo-Bardes, is but another instance of a revolution, supported if not suggested by religious motives, in so far as it was the reply on the part of the nature-worshippers to Cyrus and to his friends, the high caste followers of Zoroaster. From the superiority in numbers of the Medes to the Persians, as already pointed out, the army of Cambyses must have been largely recruited from the masses whose secret sympathies were with Magism, and the king probably knew that he could not count on them in any direct attack made on their ancient beliefs or practices. Nor can it be denied that Cambyses himself had done much, though unconsciously, to favor the sedition which led to his own suicidal act, in that on his march to Egypt he had left behind him, as the controller of the royal household, a Magian, Patizeithes, a man who, once gained to the side of a revolting faction of his own fellow-believers, would, of course, be of the greatest use to them. Add to which, the tales of the losses Cambyses had met with in Egypt, though doubtless much exaggerated, would naturally have led the Magian party to believe the game completely in their hands.

Herodotus supposed that the Pseudo-Bardes was, like the young man he personated, really named Smerdis; but we now know from the Behistan inscription that his name was Gomates. Naturally the foolish self-murder of Cambyses gave renewed hopes to the conspirators, and when some time had elapsed, and no  discovery  had  been  made,  bolder steps were adopted, and the new reign was in­augurated by a measure sure to be popular, the remission of all the taxes for three years: then, following the usual Oriental custom, the Pseudo-Bardes married all the wives of his predecessor; at the same time, to prevent intercommunication between these ladies, giving to each one a separate establishment.

His next step was to overthrow the existing system of religion, by destroying the Zoroastrian temples and establishing Magian rites in the place of the former ceremonies; a change not unlikely to have found favor with many, probably with the majority of the mixed population; but it must at the same time be remembered that the Pseudo-Bardes was himself a Persian not a Mede, and therefore that his usurpation was not a Median revolt, as some writers like Heeren, Grote, and Niebuhr have supposed. 

But a system of complete isolation (for the Pseudo-Bardes neither left his palace, nor admitted even the highest of his nobles into it), must sooner or later have aroused the suspicion that all was not right at Court. At length, some of the leading Persians began to take counsel together, and Darius, the son of Hystaspes, was acknowledged as their leader. We have no details of what took place, except that the conspirators were successful, the impostor being slain, according to Darius's own account, in Media: Darius adds that he proceeded himself, at once, to the capital (probably) Ecbatana, with his head, and caused a general assassination of all the Magi that could be found, an event subsequently recorded by an annual festival called the "Magophonia" or "Slaughter of the Magi." In the more essential parts of this story, Herodotus agrees with Darius's own narrative on his inscription, and where he varies from it, this variation is probably due to the uncertainty of oral testimony. Eighty years after the events, when the Greek historian wrote, there would have been but few persons able to correctly interpret the Cuneiform records; while we do not know that he was ever himself in Persia, or saw any of the monuments himself. It has been supposed that after the Magophonia, the principal chieftains who had joined with Darius, remained about the throne, and that thus a sort of hereditary nobility grew up, the king being no longer the sole fountain or dispenser of honor. But this, I fancy, is rather a Western interpretation of a course of action, by no means uncommon in Oriental history.

Darius ascended the throne on January 1, 521 BC, at first, as it would seem, with little opposition from the provinces immediately around him, but this period of repose was of brief duration, and he soon encoun­tered a series of formidable rebellions in many parts of his extensive dominions, and was in fact occupied fully six years in gradually stamping out their ashes. Some of these, though not all, were doubtless connected with the overthrow of Magism; but those of the greatest importance, such as the first revolt of Babylon, and those of Assyria and Egypt, had probably little or nothing to do with religious matters. In most cases, personation was the ordinary practice, the rebel asserting that he was the son, grandson, or lineal descendant of some previously famous monarch. Against the Babylonians Darius marched in person, and, after two great battles, captured the city of Babylon; in most other cases, he was content to send one or other of the six chiefs, as Hydarnes and Gobryas, &c. It would also appear that against the mountain tribes to the north Darius found it necessary to march him­self, as, though a series of victories had been duly claimed by his generals, it is clear that these had been temporary if not nominal. In the course of this war, the Ecbatana of Upper Media (Takt-i-Suleiman) fell into his hands; while the rebellion in Parthia and Hyrcania was crushed by an advance upon Rhages. Professor Rawlinson has pointed out that, so far as there is any historical substratum to the book of Judith, the events there related belong to this period, as the story given in that apocryphal book agrees fairly with what we can gather from other sources. The Arphaxad taken prisoner at Rhages must, on this supposition, be the rebel Xathrites, and Nebuchadonosor Darius himself. The Bebistan inscription is believed to have been executed about 516-515 BC, and, if so, must have have been carved during the period of repose which followed the suppression of the first great rebellions, or in the fifth or sixth years of Darius.

Having reduced the various revolts that had so long troubled his empire, Darius divided his vast dominions into a series of local governments, called “satrapies”, their number ranging between twenty at their commencement and twenty-nine, as recorded on one of his latest inscriptions. The satraps were entrusted with the complete rule of their own satrapies, and with the power of life and death, but were liable to recall or removal whenever this step seemed good to the monarch. They were selected from any class at the king's pleasure; even Greeks, such as Xenocrates and Memnon being occasionally promoted to this office. In some instances, as in that of Cilicia, a native dynasty was allowed to bear rule in its own province, while Persia alone paid no tribute.

The fiscal arrangements consisted chiefly in reducing all dues to a fixed sum in money or kind, but the tribute thus exacted was in too many instances neither paid in itself, nor judiciously collected. Besides this, each province paid largely of what it was most famed for: thus Egypt supplied vast quantities of grain; Media, sheep, mules, and horses; Armenia, colts; Cilicia, white horses, &c. Some provinces, too, were much more heavily burdened with imposts than others. Thus in Persia itself, where water was generally scarce, the king claimed as his right the rivers and streamlets, and imposed heavy fines for opening the sluices required for the irrigation of the fields. One direct advantage was certainly obtained by this plan, that it enabled the chief ruler to know on what amount of revenue he could count; and, though the people at large often, doubtless, suffered from the selfish oppression of the satraps, who took care to pay themselves handsomely while they provided for the royal demands, they secured this advantage, that the central government was directly interested in supporting them against proconsular rapacity. Obviously, the wiser and gentler the rule of the satrap, the better chance for the crown to secure its demands from the actual cultivators of the soil.

The next point Darius considered was the establishment of efficient checks on the satraps themselves, and here he devised a scheme well fitted for this purpose, consisting as it did in the threefold power of the satrap, or civil governor, of the commander of the troops, and of his own secretary, the duties of each office being so arranged as to prevent the concentration of these powers in any one person. Thus neither of the two former could plan or carry out an insurrection without being outwitted by a minister, who in the province was rightly deemed to be the king's "eye" and "ear." The provinces, too, themselves were liable to the inspection of another officer, who, with an armed force, acted directly for the king in the redressing of grievances. It is hardly necessary to add that the success of such a system depended greatly on the personal vigor of the sovereign; and, hence, that it rapidly degenerated under the later Persian princes, till at length the same person often secured all the three offices himself, the satrap then becoming much the same as the Turkish pasha or the Persian Bey, with powers practically unlimited. Posts, or rather a sys­tem of couriers, were also established along what was, hence, called the "royal road" from Susa to Sardis, with places for rest and change at convenient intervals. To Darius, probably, is also due the creation of the first Oriental coinage; his money, of which many specimens still exist, technically called from him "Darics", being pieces of gold and silver, weighing respectively 124 and 224 to 230 grains of pure metal, and having for their device a somewhat rude representation of an archer. Moreover we do not know of any other coins throughout the Persian empire for nearly two centuries subsequently to Darius himself. To his other great works, as his memorable inscription at Behistan, his palace at Susa, his buildings at Persepolis, and his tomb at Nakhsh-i-Rustam, we shall recur hereafter when we shall describe the principal antiquities of Persia.

After a period of peace, which may have lasted five or six years, subsequently to 516 BC, Darius resolved to carry out two other great wars, one to the East and the other to the West. It may be inferred from the Behistan inscription that the former preceded the latter, as the name of India does not occur on it: the inducement to it may have been the reports of those who had accompanied Cyrus in his expeditions in the direction of Central Asia. In order to ascertain the nature of the Indus itself, a fleet was ordered to navigate it under the command of a certain Scylax of Caryanda, and the fact that he  accomplished  this  remarkable  feat apparently without loss, proves either that the power of Darius was well known in those remote regions, or that the inhabitants were not unwilling to accept the king of Persia as their lord paramount. Anyhow, we cannot doubt that Darius was successful in annexing to his dominions the valleys of the Indus and of its affluents, now known under the collective name of the Punjab, together with Scinde, its outlet to the Indian Ocean, deriving thence, an immense tribute and opening out a vast trade.

It has been thought by some distinguished scholars that to this trade between the East and West are due certain ancient alphabets found chiefly on the rocks in the west and south-west of India, with inscriptions on them of a date as early as 250 BC; and it cannot be denied that there is much probability in favors of this view, especially as the evidence of a more remote alphabet of unquestionably Indian invention is, as yet, somewhat doubtful. The characters on these inscriptions exhibit, as has been fully shown by James Prinsep and Prof. A. Weber, a striking resemblance to the earliest Phoenician alphabet, and may naturally have been adopted from the necessities of a trade which, from the time of Solomon, and, possibly, still earlier than he, was carried on along the shores of the Indian Ocean, from the mouths of the Indus to the Gulf of Akaba.

Of Darius's next expedition, that against Thrace, we have ample details, the whole narrative indicating a well-considered scheme rather than an insane and foolish plan of mere aggression. Besides this, we may  fairly  suppose  that  Darius had  clearly in  his memory the Cimmerian inroad of a century before; and that he may have judged it well to ascertain for himself the real nature of the populations who supplied such hordes, and at the same time to let them see how great his power really was. Again, as we know that he had some time previously dispatched one Democedes on a cruise from Sidon to Europe, and that this officer actually went as far as Crotona, we may be sure that he had thereby acquired some knowledge of the characteristics of the climate, productions, and material wealth of the Greek nations to the West. Anyhow, the expedition into Scythia, as far North, Professor Rawlinson thinks, as the fiftieth parallel, can hardly have been merely a raid. Nay, more than this, as Darius was at this time master of the whole of Asia Minor, it may have seemed to him a wise policy to annex to his dominions a tract of land in Europe, on which side his empire was peculiarly vulnerable. His careful precautions are further shown, by his dispatching Ariaramnes, the satrap of Cappadocia, across the Black Sea with a small fleet, to examine the Scythian coasts, a commission he so successfully performed that even the brother of the Scythian king was carried off, and much valuable information obtained.

Darius then, with the aid of the Asiatic Greeks, having collected a fleet of 600 ships and a vast army composed of all or most of the nations tributary to him, crossed the Bosphorus on a bridge constructed for him by a Greek, passed along the line of the Little, and crossed the Great Balkan, and conquered the Getae, who lived between that range and the Danube. Arrived at this great river, Darius crossed it by means of a bridge of boats, also built for him by the Greeks, and advanced into Scythia, leaving the de­fence of the bridge to his faithful Greeks. How far northward he actually penetrated is hard to say, but Herodotus tells us that he burnt the staple of Gelonus, a place Professor Rawlinson supposes to be near Voronej. Thence he fell back on his bridge, recrossed the Danube and the Dardanelles, and returned to Sardis, leaving his general Megabyzus to complete the subjugation of Thrace itself. During the execution of this duty, Megabyzus compelled Alexander the son of Amyntas, king of Macedon, to pay tribute, under the usual Persian symbols of earth and water; and the principal of the Greek cities in the neighborhood, Byzantium, Chalcedon, &c, were subsequently reduced about B.C. 505 by Otanes, the successor in this command to Megabyzus. From Sardis, Darius retired to Susa, where he built a great palace, the ruins of which have been recently explored by Mr. Loftus.

It is, perhaps, as well to notice here two curious matters in connection with Susa; the first, that in the Koyunjik Gallery, at the British Museum, there is a ground plan or map of a town, in the centre of which is a Cuneiform inscription, reading—"City of Madaktu;" a map older by more than two centuries than the famous bronze one of Hecataeus, which Aristagoras laid before the Spartan king Cleomenes. This curious monument represents, according to Mr. Loftus, with minute accuracy, the ground plan of the ancient capital of Susa, as laid open by his excavations.”The  large  mound”, says  he, “on  the left of the sculpture, is without doubt the great mound or citadel, the smaller mound, the palace, while the town with its walls  and  date  trees, exactly   corresponds  with  the low eastern ruins”.

Now, although the reading of the name "Madaktu," is accepted by all Cuneiform scholars, and probably represents a place named Badaca, about twenty-five miles from Susa, I do not see how we can ignore altogether Mr. Loftus's distinct identification: I am, inclined, therefore, to think that the sculptor, himself probably an Assyrian, has, in error, engraved on it “Madaktu”, instead of “Susa”.

Mr. Loftus at the same time found among the ruins of Susa, a curious Greek Inscription, bearing the name of Pythagoras: the accompanying woodcut (from the paper impression, given to me by Mr. Loftus), exhibits the inscription as found, built in, topsy-turvy, and forming the base of a later column: It may be translated—"Pythagoras, son of Aristarchus, captain of the body-guard; (in honor of) his friend, Arreneides the son of Arreneides, governor of Susiana."

Both these officers were, we may presume, Greeks in the service of the king of Persia; and the form of the letters on the inscription suit well with a period not long antecedent to Alexander the Great. Most re­markably, there is in the British Museum a Persian silver dark, with the same Greek name, Pythagoras; the only specimen of Persian money yet met with, bearing any inscription.

I have had this coin engraved here, inasmuch as it affords a good representation of the usual type of the daric—that is of those "Archers" of which we hear so much in Greek History, subsequently to the Retreat of the Ten Thousand, and because it is likely that this individual coin, was struck to pay the Greek mercenaries whom Pythagoras commanded.

In his delightful residence at Susa Darius apparently remained for several years, nor would perhaps have undertaken any further expedition against the "Isles of the West" had he not been roused from his repose by events to which we shall now call atten­tion.

The great Ionian revolt, which ultimately led to the two Persian invasions of Greece, really sprang out of a comparatively petty quarrel between Aristagoras of Miletus and a Persian general named Megabates; the result being a general uprising in all the Greek cities of Asia Minor against their Persian rulers, and the almost universal overthrow of the Persian authority. The first outbreak was confined to the cities of Ionia and Aeolis, but as it was soon seen that they could not stand alone, help was sought from Greece, but given with a grudging hand, even by Athens, while Sparta gave none. The chief early event of the outbreak was the capture and burning of Sardis, the western capital of the great king's empire. So daring a deed could not be left unavenged: moreover the flames of rebellion soon included many places far distant from one another and but little interested in the causes that had led to the first insurrection. Sending, there­fore, an efficient force, Darius gradually reconquered each place, defeated the Ionian fleet utterly in the battle of Lade, and retook Miletus, the Greeks having to rue the day when they allowed themselves to entertain the wild schemes of Aristagoras; moreover the character of the outbreak naturally led Darius to plan a further attack on his own part, in which he hoped to make an example of those European powers who had thought fit to help their Asiatic brethren.

For this purpose Mardonius, the son of Gobryas, and the son-in-law of Darius, was ordered to advance with a powerful force by the way of Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly, against Eretria and Athens. On his way,  by doing   all   he   could  to  conciliate  the Greeks of the towns themselves, and by permitting the people to establish democratic councils in the place of "tyrants," Mardonius was at first completely successful, in that he captured Thasos and its gold mines, and reduced Macedonia to the status of a Persian province: but here his good fortune deserted him; the elements fought on the side of the Greeks, and, on attempting to round Mount Athos, 300 of his ships and 20,000 of his men found a watery grave; more than this, he suffered further heavy loss by the night attack of the Thracian tribe of the Brigae, the result being his retreat into Asia Minor dispirited at his losses. But Darius himself was not so easily cast down; a fresh army under Datis was collected, and a direct descent was made two years afterwards upon Eretria and Attica. The glorious victory of Marathon was the reply of the Greeks, under Miltiades, to this second attack upon their liberties. The loss Darius suffered in the failure of these two great inva­sions must have been very severe even to a king, at that time, of almost unlimited resources; but he was not, apparently, appalled by these misfortunes. A third invasion was planned, and simultaneously with it, one against Egypt, to be led in person by Darius, but, before all the preparations could be completed, he himself was dead.

Darius died BC 486, after a reign of thirty-five years, and was immediately succeeded by Xerxes, his son by Atossa.

The position of Persia when Darius died is the best evidence of administrative abilities, which have been rather unduly estimated by some writers of eminence.

It is clear that if Cyrus deserves the title of the actual founder of the empire, in that he was the first to conquer a large portion of the territory his successors ruled, Darius more than he welded it into a consistent and well-working machine, which, indeed, it was no fault of Cyrus that he had been compelled to leave in the rough. Though as a warrior unquestionably inferior to Cyrus, and in other respects scarcely so grand a character, Darius deserves, as Professor Rawlinson has remarked, "the credit of energy, vigor, foresight, and judicious management in his military expeditions, of promptness in resolving, and ability in executing, of discrimination in the selection of his generals, and of a power of combination not often found in Oriental commanders."