Though the era of the Persian Wars (early 5th century B.C.E) saw heightened conflict between the Greeks and the Persians, I agree with Bulliet in his assertion that both empires had commonalities in political strategy, social organization, and Indo-European language than meet the eye. However, differences in political organization and state religion did, in my view, have some advantages for the Persians.
The Persian imperial organization had to accommodate for their vast landholdings. Darius divided the empire into twenty provinces, each under the supervision of an appointed governor, or satrap. The hereditary role of the satrap meant that his family knew the local area well, which is a good model for municipal government. Though the royal road system allowed for slow communication back and forth to the central administration, Persepolis, most of these provinces operated pretty autonomously. The tribute system, however, illustrates that the citizens maintained an economic connection to the king. The idea of parsing huge territory into smaller, more manageable municipalities is comparable to the Greek polis system. There were hundreds of Greek poleis, however, and their complete independence from one another caused internal strife between poleis, less unification, and more political instability than in Persia.
Zoroastrian religion was also a smart political move on behalf of the Persians. Moral theology buttressed the king's power, and gave context for his rule and his relationship to the empire. In the Behistun text, Darius writes that: "The right, that is what I desire...the man who is cooperative, according to his cooperation I will reward him...I give much to loyal men" (114.) This passage reveals the morals held high in this society (morality, cooperation, loyalty,) and the king's relationship with the divine and his own endorsement of these values made his people more likely to follow suit and be content in being upright citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment