Rhetoric within the Achaemenid Persian Empire at the time of its creation and expansion
Jacob Wright
MAJ Garriott
ERH 201WX
Date:11/11/18
Word Count: 2696
Help Received: Sources collected from research, google to verify names and events
Rhetoric within the Achaemenid Persian Empire at the time of its creation and expansion
The goal of this chapter is to demonstrate the importance of the Achaemenid Persian Empire to the western rhetorical tradition and explain how rhetorics of display were used within the empire.
Origins of the Persian people
The Achaemenid Persian Empire existed alongside the Ancient Greeks for several centuries before being destroyed by the Macedonian king Alexander the Great in his bid to conquer the world.
The Achaemenid Persians began in a small city on the coast of the Persian Gulf. The area to the north was controlled by a group called the Medes who shared many of the same cultural identities of the Persian people. To the west of the Persians was the ancient civilizations of the Tigress and Euphrates river valley civilizations which had long dominated the region in conflict and in culture. Far to the east was The Indian civilizations with their high mountains and fertile river valleys. The great civilizations of the Bronze age had collapsed centuries prior do to environmental changes and invasions by groups called the sea peoples destroying centralized government in the cradle of civilization.
Cyrus the Great
It was in this environment surrounded by petty kingdoms the people who would one day be known to the world as the Persians conquered the ancient world under Cyrus the Great. Cyrus’s conquered the Medes people and through a series of bloody wars eventually toppled the Neo-Babylonian empire as well. When Cyrus entered Babylon, he did not burn it to the ground and instead acknowledged the gods that were held dear to the Babylonian people. This tolerance of foreign cultures was unique to its time period. Earlier empires in the region often decimated those that they had vanquished without mercy. The Babylonians themselves often did this to conquered peoples including the Hebrews which explains their bad reputation in the Bible. This policy of tolerance for the conquered people enabled Cyrus to lay the foundations for a multi-ethnic empire that could last forever.
Cyrus the great established a tradition of tolerance for other people during his reign. By holding hands with the deity statue of the Babylonians he demonstrated that he would not try to do away with their way of life and to trust him.[1] This was continued by his decedents to demonstrate their protection of the Babylonian people. This ritual enabled the Persians to wield greater control over their empire as there was not as much internal decent to their rule. Rhetorically this was significant as it played off some of the theories that the Greeks had about rhetoric with regards to public ceremony at this time. This means that rhetoric is transcultural in nature.
Zoroastrianism
The religion of the Persian people was Zoroastrianism. In modern times this religious practice has often been portrayed as evil by popular culture movies such as the Ghost Busters and 300. In fact, many of the elements of modern Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are derived from adaptations of Zoroastrian faith. The ideas of good vs evil and tolerance of others are core tenets of Zoroastrianism. Cyrus the Great permitted the Jews to return to the holy land and rebuild their temples. This got Cyrus good press in the Bible.[2] The Achaemenid Persians also outlawed slavery which is something that did not happen in Western civilizations until the 19th century.
The ideas behind Zoroastrianism encouraged tolerance of others in their beliefs and encouraged cooperation between peoples who in the past had often warred with one another. In addition to this the structure of the religious hierarchy of Zoroastrianism was subjected to the king.[3] This complete control over religious practices gave the Persian king the rhetorical platform that other rulers in the cradle of civilization had not possessed before. The Persian kings could therefore dictate changes as necessary in religious circles to expand the concepts defined by Zoroastrianism as needed in the empire.
The subjugation of religion to the state is not to uncommon in ancient civilizations. Egyptian pharaohs were often deified after their deaths. What made Zoroastrianism different was that it was monotheistic with the only other monotheistic faith at the time being Judaism. Without having to compete with a pantheon of gods, Persian kings could embrace a more tolerant policy towards conquered people enabling them to avoid having to commit cultural genocide against subjects like other empires in the past.
Within the rhetorical tradition Zoroastrianism and its relationship with the kings of Persia provides a strength to the words and decisions of the kings that would otherwise not be present.[4] The ethos of the Persian kings is enhanced as they are seen at the top of both the political and religious worlds making it difficult to assail their position in Persian society.
Darius I
The next great ruler of what would become the Achaemenid Persian Empire was Darius the Great. After winning a short civil war, Darius established an effective bureaucracy to govern the empire.[5] This government used satraps, or governors, over parts of the empire effectively breaking it down into manageable pieces. The satraps paid the king in gold and provide soldiers to fight in their wars. Other than this local government could continue as it had before with relatively little oversight from the king. Persian officials that moved into areas occupied by native peoples often adopted the styles and rituals of the people that they were living with. It was under Darius I that the Achaemenid Empire reached its height adding all the lands between Egypt and India to its domain. Because of these conquests Darius was endowed with many spoils from his campaigns. Darius embarked on a building project to assert his power of the people.
Stele from the Palace at Persepolis build by Darius I
This Stele from the Palace built under Darius describes the position of the people under his rule. All of them are dressed in their own native attire; however, they are all giving tribute to the king of the Achaemenid empire who was Darius at that time. A stele is a piece of art work done on public buildings in the ancient world that are meant to tell a story about the ruler who had them built. This is a common phenomenon all over the middle east in this time and even before this. In addition to building the palace Darius had all the people who worked on it recorded and had cultures from every part of his empire work on some part of the construction of the building. Although this Stele is distinctly Persian in origin there is plenty of art work and statues form the Babylonian tradition as well. At the front entrance of the palace two great mythological creatures that are derived from Assyrian mythology stand guard. All these works make the palace a statement of the greatness of the Achaemenid empire and what the divided people of the land can accomplish if they work together. It also stands as a symbol of the power of the Persian kings hold over their subjects as the craftsmen of many civilizations could be drafted with great expense to build something so grand.
The stele is from a part of rhetoric called rhetorics of display. Rhetorics of display is a relatively new field of study and is the subject of much criticism from the existing scholarly community. This rhetorical tradition focuses on statues and artifacts being rhetorical. This changes rhetoric from being solely about the written and spoken word into what the implied meaning of a symbol is. This can be applied to lots of things like paintings and other forms of art work. In this case the Palace of Persepolis and specifically this stele is rhetorical in that they are trying to convey a message of power over a people to the people. The Stele represents the different ethnic groups that are within the empire coming to the king bearing tribute. They all wear their traditional clothing, the only thing that they are giving up is what is owed to the king. This stele is particularly powerful in that the tribute bearers depicted in the stele would have been real people who had to bring the tribute to the palace every year. This demonstrates what appears to be the natural order of the world to the tribute bearers as it appears to them that it is set in stone with how things are supposed to be. Additionally, since the Persians allowed subject people to hang on to their cultural identities even in the pictures depicted then to them the only thing that the subjects would be giving up is a little bit of tribute every year in exchange for protection. The tribute bearers would have been leading members of their community and often work as part of the Persian bureaucracy further solidifying the connection between their status and the empire.
The Persians did not stop with steles. Using the immense wealth acquired through their conquests the Persians built a number of statues all over the empire often displaying the image of the king of the Persian empire.[6] This too falls under the idea of rhetorics of display. By building large statues of themselves the kings of the Persian empire could demonstrate their power to their subjects. This reduced the potential for rebellion within the empire and inspired loyalty to the king. The statues reinforced the image of the king to a much larger audience then the stele as many more people could witness it then just those that occasionally visited the royal palace. This ability to reach a wider audience without the need to speak the same language as them was beneficial to the kings of Persia as they would not need as many armies to deal with internal rebellions.
The titles used by the Achaemenid Emperors was also important to note. The head of the empire held the title king of the Persians but also, they held the title king of the Babylonians after Cyrus conquered their civilization. Darius added the title of Pharaoh of Egypt to the list kingships that he possessed after conquering the Egyptians. The Achaemenids made the title King of Kings to demonstrate the power of their leader and as a more convenient title then to call the ruler all the other kingships. Symbolically this gave the Persian kings a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects.
In total the figure that Darius I presents to the people of his kingdom is one of strength and power. He does this using a variety of rhetorical methods including visual rhetoric. The diverse methods that Darius I take to influence his subjects differs from the methods of rhetoric that the Greeks use in their systems of government and day to day life. The use of rhetorics of display helps the Persians reach a large audience that might not be able to speak the same language as them but can understand the images that are presented to them.
The First Invasion of Greece
The Invasion of Greece undertaken by Darius I was a direct response to Greek attempts to support peoples in Anatolia fight the Persians. The Achaemenids were empire builders and the Greek city states on the outskirts of their empire appeared to be an easy target to Darius who had recently added Egypt to his empire. Darius invade Greece with a massive army drawn from all parts of his empire demonstrating the effectiveness of the bureaucracy and tolerance policies but in place by the king and his predecessor. Eventually Darius was beaten at the battle of Marathon leaving the task of subjugating Greece to his son Xerxes.
Xerxes I and the Second invasion of Greece
Xerxes was elected king of kings with the help of his uncle. Xerxes continued with his father’s empire however he did not acknowledge previous customs done by Achaemenid kings since Cyrus I of acknowledging Babylonian gods as legitimate. This started a rebellion that lead to Xerxes renouncing his title as King of the Babylonians. Xerxes faced several other rebellions through his tenure as King of the Persians particularly among those of the people that had been subjugated by previous Kings who now felt their place within the empire was not secure. After crushing these rebellions Xerxes invaded Greece.
Before crossing the Hellespont Xerxes ordered a bridge be built so that his army may cross. When the bridge failed Xerxes ordered the sea be whipped and the bridge builders hanged.[7] This demonstrated Xerxes control over all things in the world even the elements to his troops. It also exemplified the price of failure to the soldiers within the Persian army. Once in Greece Xerxes faced stiff resistance at the Battle of Thermopylae as his superior numbers could not break through the Greek lines. Eventually a route around the Greek army was discovered and they were wiped out by the Persians. This is often remembered fondly by westerners as a great battle of resistance that prevented the Persian menace form destroying democracy in its cradle. We forget that the Persians were effectively in control of Greece for several years after the battle only being forced back with rebellions popping up within their own empire. After Xerxes death there were no more attempts by the Persians to invade the Greeks. Even if the Persians had taken over the Athenians would have been able to keep their democracy only having give up slavery. It is ironic then that the greatest threat to democracy came from the Macedonians rather than the Persians as Athens was subjugated by fellow Greeks.
The invasions of Greece and the conflicts between the Persian and Greek cultures are important in shaping latter western cultural practices. The rhetorical strategies the Persians use are latter applied by latter western empires. Particularly the organization of the empire is copied as it is very effective means of control. This control reduces the number of people that the king needs to influence rhetorically to maintain their positions on the throne.
Conclusion
The rhetoric of the west has often portrayed the Achaemenid empire as the attempted murder of democracy in its infancy. However, the Achaemenids upon closer inspection adhere closer to our present understanding of morality then the Greeks. The rhetoric of the Persians and Zoroastrianism has found its way into the Judo-Christian tradition through close interactions during the time of the writing to the old testament. Many of the works built by the subjects of Achaemenid rule still stand today and have survived because of the patronage given by the kings of the Persian empire. The rhetoric of the Persians is still on display today in the art work that they produced, in the records that they kept, and the stories that we have taken as our own.
Questions for Discussion
- What are some examples of rhetoric of display that you see in your daily life?
- What was the impact of Zoroastrianism on Persian rhetoric towards subject peoples?
- How did Persian institutions reinforce themselves through rhetoric?
Key Words
Cyrus the Great- First king of the Persians, established precedent of tolerance for conquered people.
Darius I- Created the Palace at Persepolis, implemented the satrap system for government, established a standard weight and measurement system for monetary purposes, built the empire to its greatest extent.
Xerxes I- Demonstrated what would have happened sooner if Persian kings had ignored local customs, finished the projects of his father.
Palace at Persepolis- The prime example of rhetoric of display within the Persian empire. Built by Darius I
Rhetoric of display- something built for the public to influence them in some way.
Stele- Pictorial device used by many middle eastern cultures to demonstrate ideas to others.
Zoroastrianism- Religion based on the ideas of good and evil. Religion of the Persian people and very influential on early Judaism
Satraps- Military governors in charge of different parts of the Empire, reported directly to the king.
Work Cited
Abbott, Jacob. History of Xerxes the Great. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1854.
Cook, J.M. The Persian Empire. New York: Schocken Books, 1983.
Frye, Richard Nelson. The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company, 1963.
Olmstead, A.T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959.
Sykes, Percy. A History of Persia. 3rd ed. London: Mac Millan and Co., 1951.
Rogers, Robert Williams. A History of Ancient Persia. New York and London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929.
[1] Percy Sykes, A History of Persia, 3rd ed. (London: Mac Millan and Co., 1951) 150-151.
[2] Isaiah 45:1, 4.
[3] Robert Williams Rogers, A History of Ancient Persia (New York and London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929), 18.
[4] Richard Nelson Frye, The Heritage of Persia (Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company, 1963) 91.
[5] A.T. Olmstead History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959) 119.
[6] J.M. Cook, The Persian Empire (New York: Schocken Books, 1983) 158-160.
[7] Jacob Abbott, History of Xerxes the Great (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1854) 103.