The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology

A cohesive, comprehensive program known from the reign of Darius I onward dominates discussions of Achaemenid royal ideology, a universal ideology in the character of its influences and the extent of its application throughout the em­pire.

Important ideological elements are already traceable from Cyrus's and Cambyses's reigns. For example, the sculptural program instituted at Cyrus's cap­ital Pasargadae contains a number of elements that borrow from the Persians' im­perial predecessors and that anticipate the ideology implemented by Darius.^[356] Cyrus's plain but elegant tomb has several international elements. It rests upon a monumental, tiered platform that recalls the stepped pyramid of Djoser in Egypt and, more directly, the ziggurats of Mesopotamia and Elam. A large fragment of a relief from one of the gateways of Pasargadae's Palace S portrays the lower legs of a bull-man and a human figure wearing a long fish-cloak. Both images are well- known as protective figures in Assyrian art and a close parallel exists in a royal re­lief of the ruler Senacherib. More striking is the guardian genius from a gateway in Pasargadae's Palace R: a hybrid wearing an Elamite garment, with Assyrian-type wings, and an Egyptian triple crown. This figure incorporates a wide-ranging sym­bolism. The inclusion of the Egyptian headdress may imply that the installation of the figure was done in the time of Cambyses or even Darius.

In both Babylonian and Hebrew written sources, Cyrus is portrayed as the fa­vored of the gods—of Marduk and of Yahweh, respectively—and the restorer of their temples and rites. In the Cyrus Cylinder and the so-called Verse Account of Nabonidus, both cuneiform inscriptions from Babylonia, Cyrus's righteousness is contrasted with Nabonidus's impiety. In the biblical accounts of Second Isaiah and Ezra, Cyrus is a messianic figure, the one who released the Jews from captivity and facilitated the rebuilding of the Temple.^[357] Cyrus is lionized in Classical accounts as well, an extreme example found in Xenophon's paean to him as the ideal leader and ruler, a father-figure, in the Cyropaedia.

The foremost expression of Achaemenid royal ideology—in grandeur and in scale—was Persepolis. The sculptures along the side walls of the apadana (or Audience Hall) express this most clearly, a procession of Persians and Medes leading the subjects of the empire bearing gifts to the king. Each delegation of the empire's subjects is depicted in that people's traditional dress and bears an offering, an animal or product associated with that area or culture.^[358] The Achaemenid kings did not portray in their monumental sculptures the violent subjugation of enemies, with the exception being the Bisitun relief of Darius I. The message of the Persepolis apadana reliefs seems rather one of solidarity or inclusiveness between the king— to whom the procession and the gifts are directed—and his subjects, though the message may also be considered one of hierarchical submission. The nuances may be cast in a multitude of ways, but the underlying message is one of an order estab­lished and preserved by a benign king, the agent of Ahuramazda, the chief god of the Zoroastrian tradition, to whom Darius and his successors all credit their rule. All this matches the rhetoric of the royal inscriptions.

Darius's Bisitun Inscription served as the blueprint for a new Achaemenid royal ideology.

Subsequent royal inscriptions lack the battle narratives given at Bisitun, but they follow and develop a universalist ideology. The king has a special relationship with Ahuramazda: the divine imprimatur that provided the legitimizing factor so cen­tral to royal legitimacy throughout Near Eastern history. The king is chosen by Ahuramazda, who created him and made him king and who provides him with le­gitimacy and protection. The king is the guardian of order and the safeguard against the forces of chaos. The king protects what is right and strives actively against false­hood (often translated as the Lie, the Old Persian word is drauga); he respects the interests of all his subjects, strong and weak. The list goes on. Beyond the attributes of good character and intelligence, the king himself is also effective in combat; this involved being an accomplished warrior on horse and on foot, with both bow and with spear. These qualities also appear in descriptions of the Persian royals else­where; for example, Xenophon’s lengthy encomium of Cyrus the Younger relays the exact qualities mentioned here (Anabasis 1.9).

Last, but certainly not least because it is emphasized in almost all the royal inscriptions, the king is an Achaemenid, descended from the eponymous ancestor Achaemenes. Except for this last point, which is simply a variation of the theme of legitimacy by descent, most of the preceding elements listed were typical in Near Eastern traditions since the oldest royal inscriptions and reliefs. Darius’s royal titles and lineage at Bisitun (§1-4) emphasize his descent from Achaemenes, for whom the dynasty is named. Achaemenes is not attested before Darius’s inscriptions. Darius does not provide his full lineage in subsequent inscriptions, but he is always an Achaemenid. He also places great emphasis on being Persian and, in inscriptions at Naqsh-i Rustam and Susa (DNa and DSe) he emphasizes being Iranian (Old Persian Ariya) as well. Explanations for these emphases vary, but they become the dominant markers in royal identity thereafter, first and foremost the label “Achaemenid.”^[359]

Imperialism may be motivated by some of the previously noted qualities— especially as cast within an ideological plane—but the reasons for expansion could be many. Not least is that expanding the realm had been a feature of royal ide­ology throughout Mesopotamian and Elamite history, and examples are legion. In the often-extensive and never modest lists of titles and epithets of Assyrian kings, increase is a frequent theme, and increase applied also to enlarging Assyrian do­minion. “May they [the gods] give him [Ashurbanipal] a straight scepter to extend the land and his peoples ” Elamite kings such as Shutruk-Nahhunte II incor­

porated the epithet “Expander of the Realm” (likume risakki and variants) in their royal titles.^[360] There are echoes of this in the Greek tradition, for example when Herodotus (7.8.2) dramatically casts Xerxes’s rationale for invading Greece in the context of Xerxes’s comparison with his predecessors: “When I received this throne, I began to worry lest I fall short of those who came before me as king and increase Persian dominion no less than they did...

Some scholars have attempted, by comparing the so-called provincial (or sa­trapy) lists, to track the territorial expansion or contraction of the empire, but this is a tricky undertaking. The ideological expression of empire may not match the bureaucratic or structural organization on the ground. Nevertheless, these lists are the closest thing to an imperial map that we can access and assess; but they are not easily interpreted from a geopolitical perspective. The lists are of specific dahyava, the plural form of Old Persian dahyu, and with one exception dating to Xerxes's reign they all come from inscriptions of Darius I. The Old Persian word dahyu may mean either “people” or “country,” and the context is not always clear. Each list includes both peoples and places, the latter not necessarily synonymous with the boundaries of a formal satrapy.^[362]

Except for the Bisitun inscription (ca. 520 bce), it is impossible to date any royal inscriptions with any precision. But they are ideologically consistent. For example, whether Xerxes's list (XPh §3) dates after his failed invasion of Greece is uncertain, but if so, there is no acknowledgment of any loss of territory. Xerxes's is the longest list, and the various Yauna (Greeks) are still included.