Day of Empire

by Amy Chua

  Nevertheless, for two centuries the Achaemenid kings successfully ruled over an empire of unprecedented territorial scale, and policies of tolerance made it possible for them to do so. By embracing local laws and traditions, and by allowing local languages, religions, and rituals to flourish, the Achaemenids minimized the likelihood of opposition and revolt among conquered peoples. By drawing on the specialized talents of the empire's best artists, thinkers, workers, and fighters regardless of ethnicity or religion, the Achaemenid kings turned cultural diversity into a source of synergy and strength.

  Achaemenid culture was dazzlingly cosmopolitan. Just as their paradise gardens boasted the rarest, most valuable flora and fauna from all over the empire, the Achaemenid kings’ royal tables overflowed with the choicest, most exotic foodstuffs that subjugated countries had to offer: Arabian ostrich, “acanthus oil from Carma-nia,” fish from the Persian Gulf, grain from “the wheatfields of Assos in Aeolis,” and “dates from Babylon, exclusively from the gardens of Bagöas.” According to Xenophon, “The Persian king has vintners scouring every land to find some drink that will tickle his palate.” Royal cooks traveled vast distances, searching for new recipes, and prizes were given to anyone who brought the king new culinary delights.37

  The Greeks would later disparage the excess and sumptuous-ness of Persian meals. On birthdays, wrote Herodotus, rich Persians would have “an ox or a horse or a camel or a donkey baked whole in the oven.” (Poor Persians got only sheep and goats.) Herodotus also stressed the great variety of Persian dishes, contrasting it with Greek restraint: “They have many sorts of dessert, the various courses being served separately. It is this custom that has made them say that the Greeks leave the table hungry, because we never have anything worth mentioning after the first course: they think that if we did, we should go on eating.”

  Royal banquets were on a different order of magnitude. According to Heraclidis, “One thousand animals are slaughtered daily for the king.” (This figure seems so incredible that at least one historian believes it refers to soldiers’ rations.) Dishes and cups were of silver and gold. Over three hundred royal concubine musicians were available to play the harp or sing throughout the banquet.38

  The magnificent Achaemenid palaces—which fused architectural styles from conquered kingdoms—were also metaphors for the empire as a whole. By incorporating Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and other foreign elements into their buildings and monuments, the Achaemenid kings announced their continuity with earlier empires and demonstrated their ascendance over them. For the Achaemenids, power was most effectively demonstrated not by homogenizing and “Persianizing” subject peoples, but by preserving, incorporating, and exploiting the empire's tremendous ethno-cultural diversity.39

  THE FALL OF THE FIRST HEGEMON

  Achaemenid Persia was the first world-dominant power in history. Cyrus and Darius had mastered the secret of strategic tolerance, which enabled them to build an empire that included “the whole of the known world and a good deal of territory till then unknown,” stretching “from the burning sands of Africa to the icebound border of China.”40 But if history has glorified Cyrus and Darius, so it has villainized Darius's son Xerxes. Indeed, the beginning of the end of the Achaemenid Empire is usually traced to Xerxes’ “despotic” reign (485-465 BC), which was marked by a number of major military setbacks for the Persians and the first hints of Greek ascendancy.

  Our knowledge of Xerxes largely comes from the Greeks, who tell us that he brutally crushed rebellions across the empire—desecrating temples and sanctuaries, killing priests, even enslaving subjects in the process. In addition to being cruel and intolerant, Xerxes is also reputed to have been decadent and licentious. Not content with his harems, it seems that Xerxes fell in love with many women, including his sister-in-law, his daughter-in-law, and his niece. (None of these relationships worked out.) Greek sources suggest that Xerxes also insisted more forcefully on the “Persian” character of the empire. He elevated the Persian god Ahura Mazda over all other deities in a way that none of the earlier Achaemenid kings did. In Egypt and Babylonia, where Cyrus and Darius had left the local population considerable autonomy and respected their local customs, Xerxes reduced these countries to a condition of “servitude.”41

  These classical Greek depictions of Xerxes may well be biased. After all, Xerxes mounted a massive military campaign against Greece and, in his brief capture of Athens, laid waste to the shrines of the Acropolis. But since it was common for ancient rulers to take such retributive measures in cases of rebellion, it is difficult to know whether Xerxes was actually more “despotic” than the earlier Achaemenid kings. According to some modern historians, Xerxes merely continued the Achaemenid tradition of tolerance when it was strategically possible and ruthless retaliation when it was not—the difference being that Xerxes faced much more serious and widespread threats to Persian rule.42

  In any event, Xerxes managed to preserve the Persian Empire, although the latter half of the Achaemenid dynasty was marked by revolts throughout the land, especially in Asia Minor, often followed by harsh suppressions. Egypt was lost around 400 BC only to be retaken sixty years later by Artaxerxes III, the penultimate Achaemenid ruler. As a conqueror, Artaxerxes seems more a reflection of Xerxes than of Cyrus or Darius. According to Diodorus, after “demolishing the walls of the most important [Egyptian] cities, by plundering the shrines [Artaxerxes] gathered a vast quantity of silver and gold, and he carried off the inscribed records from the ancient temples.” A court eunuch eventually poisoned Artaxerxes. In many ways, the Achaemenid dynasty in its death throes had come to mirror the empires that preceded it.43

  Darius III, the last Achaemenid king, ascended the throne in 336 BC. Meanwhile, a new power was rising in Greece. Around 338, the Macedonian king Philip united the Greek city-states behind him. Within six years of Philip's death, his son Alexander the Great conquered the once invincible Persian empire.

  Why did the Achaemenid Empire fall? Classical Greek accounts emphasize the increasing brutality and repression of the later Achaemenid kings, provoking violent uprisings among subject peoples and causing them to favor Alexander. According to classical historians, the Egyptians rejoiced at Alexander's arrival: “For since the Persians had committed impieties against the temples and had governed harshly, the Egyptians welcomed the Macedonians.” In Phoenicia, “the inhabitants accepted him willingly.” At Ephesus, after paying homage to the local sanctuary of Artemis, Alexander issued a proclamation to the Greek coastal cities: “He ordered the oligarchies everywhere to be overthrown and democracies to be established; he restored its own laws to each city…Straightway [sic] all the cities sent missions and presented the king with golden crowns and promised to co-operate with him in everything.”

  Like the Cyrus cylinder, such accounts almost certainly contain a substantial dose of imperial propaganda. It is implausible that Alexander was universally hailed as a liberator. He was after all a conqueror and reputedly “the most brilliant (and ambitious) field-commander in history. “44 Nevertheless, it appears accurate that the later Achaemenid period was characterized by growing intolerance, unrest, and violence. This is consistent with the basic thesis of this book: As Persian rule grew more intolerant, it became increasingly difficult to maintain political stability across the vast Achaemenid domains or to harness the energies of diverse subject peoples in the service of the empire.

  But here's the final and most important twist. Ironically, the very tolerance that enabled Cyrus and Darius to build their immense empire sowed the seeds of the intolerance that followed. As the world's first hyperpower, Achaemenid Persia faced—but never solved—the same fundamental problem that would confront every subsequent world-dominant power.

  The Persians incorporated within their realm unprecedentedly large numbers of diverse peoples. This they accomplished because Cyrus and Darius had the shrewdness neither to try to Persianize their subjects nor to suppress their local religions, languages, social networks, and
aspirations. Initially, some of these conquered peoples were so close to them—culturally, geographically, linguistically—that the Persians were able simply to absorb them. The Medes, for example, essentially merged with their Persian conquerors. But as the empire expanded, it came to include increasingly divergent peoples and cultures, which remained distinct communities under their Persian overlords.

  Although militarily unified, the Achaemenid Empire had no overarching political identity, as modern nations do. No common religion, language, or culture bound the sprawling empire together. Precisely because of the legendarily tolerant policies of Cyrus the Great, “a Greek felt that he was a Greek and spoke Greek, an Egyptian felt that he was an Egyptian and spoke Egyptian, and so on.” Achaemenid subjects generally did not feel any special allegiance to the empire or take any particular pride in belonging to it—as, for example, the subjects of the Roman Empire did by the fourth century AD. “[Tjhere was no Achaemenid identity that might have induced the peoples, in all of their diversity, to rise up and defend some common norms.”45

  As a result, powerful forces of disintegration lay at the heart of the empire. With increasing antagonism, the distinct peoples whose identities had been preserved and strengthened through Persian tolerance eventually turned on the empire itself. Lacking any strong ideological glue capable of holding the empire's disparate peoples together, the centralizing power eventually lost control. By the late Achaemenid period, separatist rebellions were constantly erupting. Nothing but military might held the empire together. When Alexander of Macedon conquered their countries and made it clear to the local elites that their positions and lives would not change, Achaemenid subjects simply traded one overlord for another.

  ALEXANDER THE GREAT

  Classical writers give us a physical description of Alexander. At thirteen, he was not especially tall, but unusually muscular, compact, and fleet of foot. He was fair-skinned and had blond tousled hair resembling a lion's mane. His eyes were an unsettling mismatch, one gray-blue, the other dark brown. He had sharply pointed teeth—“like little pegs.” His voice was slightly high-pitched, and his gait was fast and edgy. He held his head tilted upward and to the left, possibly an affectation. In the historian Peter Green's words, “There is something almost girlish about his earliest portraits, a hint of leashed hysteria behind the melting charm.”

  Alexander grew up believing that he was a blood descendant of heroes and divinities such as Achilles and Herakles, and this idea nourished his lifelong ambition. By his father's arrangement, and for a hefty honorarium, Alexander was tutored by Aristotle, who was warned that the boy was “a trifle unmanageable.” Like most Greeks at the time, Aristotle was unrelentingly ethnocentric. He believed that all “barbarians”—non-Greeks—were born to be slaves and that it was just and fitting for Greeks to rule over them. It is said that Alexander relied on a version of the Iliad annotated by his teacher as a “handbook of warfare.” Whether young Alexander originally shared and then later shed his tutor's contempt for “barbarians” is a matter of debate. In any event, immediately after his father's assassination in 336, Alexander ascended to the Macedonian throne, consolidated his military allies, and began his conquest of Persia.46

  Was Alexander tolerant? In his recent biography of Alexander, the historian Guy MacLean Rogers cautions against applying modern concepts to a distinctly pre-modern figure: “[Alexander] cannot be resolved into an individual who was either gay or straight (as some have claimed), an ultranationalist or someone who went native, a mass murderer or a messiah. Rather, Alexander was an ambiguous genius who defeats our polarized and polarizing modern categories.” At the same time (using some pretty modern concepts himself), Rogers describes Alexander as “a kind of unacknowledged proto-feminist, limited multi-culturalist, and religious visionary” who established an extraordinary empire ruled by the “best” among humankind. What is indisputable is this: As his power grew, Alexander increasingly followed the great Persian emperors before him, employing strategic tolerance to win favor with his conquered peoples and incorporating the most talented warriors and leaders of all ethnicities into his military and administration.47

  When Alexander entered Persia, he presented himself not as a foreign conqueror but as the avenger of the murdered Darius—his former opponent—and as the legitimate successor to the Achaeme-nid throne. Alexander conspicuously honored Cyrus and reinstated a number of the Achaemenid satraps even though they had fought against him. He also married a Persian, encouraging other Greeks to do the same. Although these policies baffled and frustrated many of his Greek subjects, they succeeded in winning the support of the Persian aristocracy and much of the local population.

  After conquering Babylon, Alexander ordered the rebuilding of temples that Xerxes had allegedly destroyed, including the temple of Baal, the powerful storm god. Alexander pointedly made sacrifices to Baal, following the precise instructions of the Babylonian priests. Whether the Babylonians actually saw Alexander as their deliverer from Persian oppression or merely feared his wrath, they welcomed him with open arms. They also gave his Macedonian troops the time of their lives. For an entire month, Alexander's men were feted and lodged in the city's poshest private homes and given unlimited access to wine, food, and women, including the wives and daughters of prominent citizens. Professional courtesans offered their expert services; after-dinner striptease was apparently a favorite entertainment. The soldiers were also shown the city's most popular sites, including the marvelous Hanging Gardens.

  Alexander engaged in similar crowd-pleasing religious rituals after conquering Egypt. Writing about Alexander's success with the Egyptians, Peter Green adds a fascinating psychological gloss:

  [Alexander] got rather more than he bargained for. What had been conceived as a piece of political diplomacy turned into a profoundly felt emotional and spiritual experience…The Persian kings had been, ex officio, Pharaohs of Egypt, by right of conquest over the native dynasty. Alexander had put down Darius: in the priests’ eyes he now became their legitimate ruler. So, on 14 November 332, the young Macedonian was solemnly instated as Pharaoh. They placed the double crown on his head, and the crook and flail in his hands. He became simultaneously god and king, incarnation and son of Ra and Osiris…There [were earlier] signs that…Alexander [had begun] to lose touch with his Macedonians…Now, amid the ancient splendours of Egypt—a civilization which invariably bred semi-mystical awe in the Greek mind—he learnt that he was in truth a god, and the son of a god.48

  Around 330 BC, Alexander heard that a Persian rival was organizing an uprising against him. In response, Alexander went to Bactria and filled his court with Persian ushers and bodyguards, including Oxathres, Darius's brother. He put on a Persian diadem, dressed himself in the traditional Persian white robes and sash, and even outfitted his horses in Persian harnesses. Several ancient writers criticized Alexander's adoption of Persian dress and customs as a decline into luxury and “orientalism.” But once again, it was more likely part of a shrewd strategy of instrumental tolerance—a strategy that reached a spectacular high point in the mass marriage Alexander organized at Susa.

  In 324 BC, Alexander and (on his orders) roughly ninety of his Greek and Macedonian officers took Persian or Median brides, all from royal or noble families. Scholars debate Alexander's motives, but it appears that he wanted both to establish himself as the legitimate heir to the Achaemenid Empire and to create a mixed-blooded ruling class. In any case, Alexander married two women at Susa: Barsine, the oldest daughter of the dead king Darius, and another daughter of the Persian royal family. Unlike Alexander's first marriage (to a Bactrian woman named Roxane), which had been in the Macedonian style, the mass wedding was extravagantly Persian. Following a simple ceremony, a lavish five-day wedding bacchanalia ensued. According to an ancient source, Alexander had a special pavilion constructed with one hundred bridal chambers,

  furnished in the most costly and magnificent manner, with sumptuous garments and cloths, and beneath them we
re other cloths of purple, and scarlet, and gold…[P]illars supported the tent, each twenty cubits long, plated all over with gold and silver, and inlaid with precious stones; and all around these were spread costly curtains embroidered with figures of animals, and with gold, having gold and silver curtain-rods.49

  Like the Achaemenids, Alexander raised the largest army on earth through his ability and willingness to incorporate men from every part of his empire. Thirty thousand young Persians, chosen for their strength and grace, were taught Greek, trained in Macedonian military techniques, and made part of the army. His cavalry included not just Persians but Bactrians, Sogdians, Arachotians, Zarangians, Areians, and Parthians. His navy was similarly diverse. With a massive fleet of nearly two thousand ships, he propelled 120,000 troops down the Indus into India. Working on the ships were Phoenicians, Cypriots, and Egyptians, as well as mainly Greek and Persian commanders. Alexander's six-month campaign on the Indus was notoriously brutal. Encountering intense resistance, his army killed at least 80,000 Indians and enslaved many more.

  Many Greeks, including a good number of Alexander's soldiers, scorned and resented their king's reliance on foreigners and his ostentatious adoption of foreign customs. Concerns that Alexander had become “barbarianized” led to an attempted mutiny at Opis. Alexander prevailed, and in victory, he hosted a celebratory feast for nine thousand people. To reconcile himself to the Greeks, Alexander segregated the guests according to ethnicity and merit. Alexander sat with the Greeks, who sat next to the Persians, who sat next to soldiers from other ethnic groups, with no intermingling across peoples.