Political System Of Ancient Persia

In the beginning, the ancient Persian Empire was tolerant and diplomatic, but later on, the land scape saw many ruthless and savage rulers known for their heinous acts. The landscape was ruled by various empires overtime, which kept expanding and shrinking. At its peak, the empire ruled 20 provinces and the 3 main kings were Darius, Cambyses, and Cyrus the Great who ruled at different times. They established political order to Southeast Asia. Even after conquering other regions, they would not always kill its inhabitants but rather, they would let them stay once conquered and in return would place heavy taxes on them. Some of the rulers did manage to make the region stable, but over ambitious targets, extra-lustrous lifestyle of the kings increased the tax load on the people. Secondly, the satrap’s hunger for power led to assassinations and other internal problems. Resultantly, the Persian Empire finished in 7^th century because the wisest ancient Persians were unable to save it.

Persia or Iran, also the land of Aryans, was home to one of the oldest civilizations in human history. Beginning around 8000 years ago, Iranian bureaucracy and public administration grew first in the city-state of Susa, one of the oldest sites of ancient civilizations contemporary to Sumer and then as the major institution of governance under the successive empires of Elam, Media, Achaemenids, Persia, and Sasanids (6000 B.C. - 651 A.D.).

The Empire’s administrative systems was advanced and much more developed than any of the previous civilizations under the rule of Cyrus. The Persian bureaucracy was the largest organization of administration of ancient times and the Persian bureaucrats were historically known for being good administrators. ¹

Governance System

A five-level hierarchical structure formed the refined systems of governance and administration of the empire, with an organizational authority flowing from the great king and central government to the satrapal and local governments. This hierarchical structure may be divided into two general levels: central and satrapal. At the top of the pyramid was the king, his court, and the central government armed with an efficient, professional bureaucracy along with the army; next were the satrap and his court establishment, followed by the sub-satraps in charge of the provincial and local administrative districts.

The state was headed by a hereditary monarchy. The king was believed to be the sovereign, enjoying a religious sanction. ‘By the grace of Ahura-Mazda, I am king; Ahura-Mazda gave me the kingdom’ were the words of Darius in the Behistun inscription. As the Empire grew larger and incorporated the previous empires, the Persian kings ‘sought and obtained the sanction of the religion of these countries, nationalities, and people for their sovereignty. Cyrus the Great was called to rule Babylonians by their god Marduk, and Darius and Xerxes adopted names relating to the Egyptian god Re. The Persian King had supreme authority and recognized ‘no equal on earth’. His titles, great king and king of kings, had unique meanings to his kingship, for there were no other kings under the Persian King. The Greeks called him Basileus, ‘the one and only real king in the world.’ Cambyses was made king of Babylon—an exception—but only in subordination to Cyrus, who was the ‘king of lands.’ Like his successors, Darius claims that he was ‘one king of many, one lord of many; the great king, king of kings, king of the countries possessing all kinds of people, king of this great earth far and wide.’ The succession from Cyrus the Great to Darius and all the following kings was based on the Achaemenid blood, and Darius’s succession was based on the virtue of ‘his being the oldest surviving line of the hereditary royal family.’ Xerxes succeeded him because of his mother Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus.

The king’s will, as expressed in words was law. His word, however, was based on consultation with various sources, including the Persian nobles, the official experts of the bureaucracy (a custom required of the king), the Council of Advisors, the Council of Cabinet Ministers, and the regard for the countries and people of the satrapies concerned. The king of Persia did whatsoever he desired, yet, in practice, he generally had regard to law and custom, and indeed in certain respects, he was practically limited by the privileges enjoyed by the Persian nobles, including but not limited to the six prominent families associated with Darius in the overthrow of Gaumata the Magi. These families enjoyed unannounced access to the king, and only from these families could he take his wives. Therefore, the king’s supreme authority was limited by custom, tradition, and nobility. ²

Satrapy

A Satrapy was an enormous territory, which included several nations, kingdoms, and people and was headed by a Satrap or governor appointed by the great king. The satrapal system in the United State of Persia was based on several organizational principles and institutions of political and legal control. These principles included, tolerant governance, centralization combined with a sufficient degree of decentralization, a multiplicity of institutional controls, relative equality before the law, the divine kingship—the great king as the sovereign, the standardization of the state functions and administrative processes, based on a centralized, professionalized, and powerful bureaucracy. Below the great king and his central government was the satrap, the governor of an enormous territory with tremendous power in civil, judicial, and military administration. ³ Many Persian royal inscriptions provide lists of the lands/peoples (dahyava) of the empire. 31 different people appear at one time or another (counting various types of Ionian and Scythian as one, though more than one can appear at once), though no list has more than 26. ⁴

Administration

Since the state of ancient Persia was governed by different civilizations at different times, its administrative systems also varied accordingly. Their details are given below:

Shush Empire

Susa (Persian Shusha) was one of the oldest sites of ancient civilization with a political life on a massive scale beginning around 6000 B.C. or earlier. As a city state rival to Sumer in Mesopotamia, Susa nurtured some of the earliest human achievements in governance, administration, architecture and culture. The city state of Susa and its larger realm of Susiana (Shushiana) formed the foundation of the early Iranian civilization and administration on a large scale. With the rise of another early Iranian people, Elamites, Susa served as the capital of one of the oldest empires of antiquity, Elam, around 3000 B.C., a tradition Susa proudly continued under the Persian Empire for a long time. ⁵ Therefore, the earliest experience of state tradition and administrative functions on a massive scale in Iran began around 6000 B.C. The main instrument of public administration and governance under the long history of the federal state of Elam was the bureaucracy, which also played a powerful role under the Median and the Persian Empires. ⁶

Elamite Empire

Elam was one of the main players of ancient power for over 2500 years until it fell to Medians in 600 B.C. Rival to Sumer and Babylon, Elam’s achievements in art, administration and government at least equaled if not surpassed its contemporaries. Its occupation of Babylon for almost 500 years transformed that ancient power in to an Iranian extension and expanded Iranian influence beyond the Mesopotamia. The main instrument of public administration and governance under the long history of the federal state of Elam was the bureaucracy which also played a powerful role under the Median and Persian Empires.

The federal structure of the Elamite Empire was organized in to three administrative layers of governance: the various provinces were ruled over by the governors, Halmenik who were under the control of a Viceroy or Sakanakkun, who was subject to the actual king of Elam, Zunkir. The kings had used two capitals; one in the lowland city of present Dizful and the other in Susa, the oldest civilization center of politics, trade, communication, and administration between the east and the west. ⁷

Median Empire

The Medes were a young, vigorous people with great military ambitions and with refined skills in government and administration. They were the ones who had adopted the concept of state and put it in to practice. The Medes sought to regularize relations among the people in society and by referring to the state, all citizens had access to the deal with a unified entity, the ‘Median State’. The Military officials and civil bureaucrats of the state were also considered servants of the state at the head of which stood the King. The state concept promoted impartiality among citizens dealing with the administrative state of the empire.

The Medes also adopted a federated system of governance and administration, a system of collective decision making centered in Ecbatana (modern Hamadan). They established a strict administration of justice particularly since the time of the King Dieoces, a just arbitrator with a high reputation who was chosen by the Median assemblymen as their King. He established the Monarchy, organized the sovereign domain with high efficiency of power and united the diverse people of the large Median Empire through his harsh policies which should have been avoided. The Federal system of government allowed for great flexibility among non-Median people or nations under the supreme authority of the Median King. The Magis played a major role through their religious blackmailing in the state administration of the empire and convinced the people to follow the king’s instruction by referring it as a will of god.

The Medes also developed an administrative system based on a trained bureaucracy. They learned statecraft and bureaucratic administration, not the kind that Assyrians practiced uprooting the subject people with brutality, but a system with high efficiency while maintaining respect for local people’s input. The Bureaucracy under the Medes was professionalized by two principles, elaborate training and apprenticeship for administrative positions and systematic experience in office characterized by role specialization, organizational hierarchy, and unity of command system.

Many bureaucrats came from nobility and from the Median priests, who played a formidable role in the government and society but also came from the class of common men with great ability who aspired to join the rank of men of pen and serve the state and the king. The formation of a professional association by the bureaucrats led to the creation of a guild system which was closed to non-bureaucrats. This association served its members as well as the state by becoming an organizational mechanism through which the aspiration of many young career-oriented administrators was realized. ⁸

Achaemenid Empire

The Persian approach to administration did not involve abolishing existing structures and replacing them with a unified Persian one, but rather they included the system prevalent in the area. Typically, that Achaemenid rulers –were eager to adopt the titles and status of some of the monarchs whom they displace. ⁹

The Achaemenids were an ancient Iranian people from the Pars province of southern Iran. At its peak, the Achaemenid Empire was the largest of the ancient world. ¹⁰ At its greatest extent, under Darius, the Persian Empire included 20 provinces or Satrapies, embracing Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Phoenicia, Lydia, Phrygia, Ionia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Armenia, Assyria, The Caucasus, Babylonia, Media, Persia, The modern Afghanistan and Baluchistan, India, West of the Indus, Sogdiana, Bacteria, and the regions of the Massagetae and other central Asiatic tribes. ¹¹

Normally, the king did not travel far from the royal palaces which were located in the center of the empire, ¹² but in order to control the vast Achaemenid Empire it was essential to operate a highly sophisticated and efficient organization. This was a world empire, of hitherto unprecedented geographical dimensions, political power and economic resources. The conquered kingdoms and principalities had to be governed as one entity, requiring a political organization on a scale for which there was no precedent or model. What was in place, however, in the highly developed societies of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Levant and Asia Minor, was an administrative tradition which had already been developed over several millennia, and it was one of Cyrus the Great’s most ingenious decisions to leave the existing administration of the conquered lands in place, rather than imposing a Persian model on them.

One innovation by Cyrus was the introduction of a governor to head each conquered land. This governor was the protector of the realm and was called satrap as mentioned previously. In the very early phase of conquest the satraps and other high officials were recruited at local level.

The satrap ruled the province, or satrapy, as the king’s representative. He resided in his own satrapal palace set amidst a park. He maintained his own court and entourage, and enjoyed the same royal activities, i.e. banqueting and hunting, for which he kept his own enclosures or paradises. He enjoyed the privileges of being the royal representative of the king, albeit on a smaller scale. His duties included managing of the satrapal administration, collection of taxes, overseeing the satrapy’s commerce and trade, and mustering military forces if and when required. In times of political unrest in a province, the king ordered the governors of the neighboring satrapies to levy troops and quash the rebellion. A satrap could make political decisions at regional level, but had to consult the king on any major issues.

Other responsibilities of satraps included the observation of royal court duties, such as celebrating royal feast days, maintaining the royal fire, and observing the royal religious cult. Like the king, the satrap may have held audiences for delegations from his satrapy or for foreign ambassadors seeking his support in political or military matters.

Satraps were not the only governors in the empire. City-kings or tyrants ruled in the coastal cities of Asia Minor and in the city-states of Cyprus and Phoenicia. They exercised their power within the walls of their city, while pledging allegiance to the Persian king, and offering the same services as the satraps, including the collection of taxes and the mustering of military forces. High officials working under a satrap could be recruited at local level, enjoying considerable status within the administration. ¹³

Seleucid Empire

The Seleucid Empire was the Persian kingdom of the Macedonian dynasty of the Seleucids, whose rule began with the collapse of Alexander's empire and faded away between Roman and Parthian growth of power in the 1st century B.C. ¹⁴

Macedonians aside from continuing Alexander methods (accepting migrants in order to help economic and military improvements), kept all intact administrative and political structures at their disposal. They also used the provinces that the Macedonian governors were ruling and turned them into new cities. However, the Greek–Iranian cities, besides being granted the self-governing opportunity from the Seleucid kings had limited self-governing merits compared to the main cities. The foreign relationship issues were related to the Seleucid king living in Seleucid, Antioch and Lydia. On the other hand, the pro-king sector was fully aware of the financial and legal issues of the king and were ready to defend them if necessary. Other than that, one or more garrisons were present in the city so the cities would become fully obedient to the king, the governor of the city was not that much serious or even important.

The Seleucid kings were very kind to their allied cities letting them have freedom in their domestic issues even minting coins. They taxed the cities and gave them large lands; internal affairs were supervised by the local rich. However, cities never got the value and importance of a big city called ‘Polis’ at that time. Iranian cities needed self-governing system in their vicinity which was governed by the local councils included people who were responsible for everything. Each city had its own troops, elite laws and worshipping method on the framework of the civil rights, and along with other structures they taught Greece traditions to the people. These cities were built in the Eastern, Western and Central parts of Iran. They were cultural and economic bases of Seleucid. ¹⁵

Arsacid Empire

Parthia occupied much of the territory of what is today northeastern Iran and was one of the great civilizations of the ancient world. This empire existed for several centuries until Parthia was dissolved into the Sassanid Empire in the 220 A.D. The word Parthia was derived from the indigenous term ‘Parthava,’ which may in turn have been a local variant of the name Parsa, for Persian. However, ancient Assyria also acknowledged a land named Partukka or Partakka in the region dating back to the 7^th century B.C. ¹⁶

When the Parthians came along in these regions and other parts of the empire, they retained the dynasts who had been acting on behalf of the Selucids (or had just become independent) when establishing their sovereignty in these regions. This recognition was also a condition for the confirmation (or re-establishment) of the regional mintage right and other prerogatives. These ‘petty kings’, for their part, carried out their own policies under certain political circumstances. They interfered in fights about the throne, like Izates of Adiabene, who supported Artabanus II; they went over to the enemy’s side, like the king of Mesene after Trajan’s campaign; or else they aspired towards full independence from the empire. Normally these dynasts were committed to go to war for the Arsacids, in particularly important parts of the empire, such as Media or Armenia, members of the Arsacid family were appointed as kings after the reign of Mithridates-II. So, it was not surprising for the Romans (Pliny) the Arsacid Empire of the first century A.D. appeared as an association of regna rather than as a unified state. Aside from the ‘kingdoms’, there were regions subject to the king alone and administered by ‘satraps’ (or strategoi), for example in Mesopotamia. Tacitus mentions praefecturae as territorial units, Isidorus of Charax refers to the provinces by their names (Choarene, Comisene, etc.). On a Greek inscription from Bisutun, there is even a ‘satrap of satraps’, conceptually a deliberate imitation of the title ‘king of kings.

Important officials were also mentioned in the ostraca from Nisa, for instance hptrpn (satraps), a mrzwpn (margrave, warden of the marches) and a dyzpty (commander of a fortress). Dura mentions a hargbad (Greek arkapates: chief tax collector or a commander-in-chief of a fortress). The magnates of the empire possessed vast landed properties in Iran: the Suren clan in Sistan, and the Karin in the Nihavand area in Media. ¹⁷

Sassanian Empire

Under Ardashir (A.D. 224–241/2), the founder of the Sasanian empire, all the former Parthian provinces except Armenia fell into the Sasanids’ hands. ¹⁸ Late during the reign of the Sassanids, the empire was divided in to four regions. ¹⁹ This new empire was similar to the Achaemenian Empire in area and size, was based on effective bureaucracy and military, on the wealth and trade of the Middle East and Central Asia, and on an alliance between rulership and Zoroastrianism. ²⁰

Like the Late Roman Empire, the Sasanid Empire was a hierarchically organized and relatively centralized state. The heartland of the empire was Mesopotamia with its rich agricultural lands and many wealthy cities. Administratively, Sasanian society was divided into kingdoms and provinces, which in turn were divided into smaller units, each of which was administrated by a variety of office-holders on behalf of the king. Politically and socially, Sassanian society was highly stratified, its social order similar to that of the contemporary Roman Empire.

The ‘king of kings’, the empire’s ruler (whose status was divine), stood at the top of the hierarchical pyramid; his court was the center of royal power and administration. Just below came the prominent aristocratic clans and the local gentry, who assisted the king in administrating the empire and leading the armies. In the early Sasanian period, the power of these elites rested on lineage, the owning of land, and the holding of office. That, and their closeness to the king, sealed their partnership with him and determined the status of individual aristocrats and their families. This partnership, however, shows the vulnerability of the monarch’s power. He could not rule without the consent and support of the nobles in his realm. He needed their cooperation for governing the empire, collecting taxes, and recruiting armies. Enforcing his authority in his vast empire occupied the king permanently, and one may wonder how strong and effective that vaunted authority was in regions like the Iranian highlands and in the kingdoms and provinces on the outskirts of his empire. The administrative reforms of Khusro-I (A.D. 531–79) addressed that problem by creating a new nobility. Its members were more dependent on the king for their position and influence, which made it easier to harness their support – something that Roman emperors continued to find difficult in relation to their own provincial elites. ²¹

Famous Leaders

Over hundreds of years, many rulers from different dynasties ruled ancient Persia. However, some rulers managed to carve their names in the books of history due to their greatness or for their eccentric acts. Their details are given below:

Cyrus (600 – 530 B.C.)

Cyrus was the founding father of the Persian Empire and the Iranian monarchy with a new constitution. In less than 30 years, Cyrus expanded the Persian Empire from Asia in the East to Eastern Europe and North Africa including Egypt and most of the Greek territory in the West. More than 47 empires, kingdoms, and nations were incorporated in to his Empire, forming a truly multinational, multiracial realm. ²²

The first principle of his policy was that the various people of his empire were left free in their religious worship and beliefs as he understood the first principle of statesmanship that religion was stronger than the state. Instead of sacking cities, wrecking temples he showed a courteous respect for the deities of the conquered, and contributed to maintain their shrines; even the Babylonians, who had resisted him for so long, had a warm attitude towards him when they found him preserving their sanctuaries and honoring their pantheon.

He died of excessive ambition. Having won all the near east, he began a series of campaigns aimed to free Media and Persia from the inroads of central Asia’s nomadic barbarians. He carried these excursions as far as the Jaxartes on the north and India on the east. Suddenly at the height of his curve, he was slain in battle with the Massagetae, an obscure tribe that peopled the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. Like Alexander he conquered an empire, but did not live to organize it. ²³

Cambyses-II (Birth Unknown - 522 B.C.)

Cambyses, son of Cyrus the Great, ruled the Achaemenid Empire from 530 B.C. until his death. Cambyses' grandfather was Cambyses-I, king of Anshan. He began his career by killing his brother and rival Smerdis, then, lured by the accumulated wealth of Egypt, he set forth to extend the Persian Empire to the Nile. He succeeded, but apparently at the cost of his sanity. Memphis was captured easily, but an army of 50,000 Persians sent to annex the Oasis of Ammon perished in the desert, and an expedition to Carthage failed because the Phoenician crews of the Persian fleet refused to attack a Phoenician colony. Cambyses lost his head, and abandoned the wise clemency and tolerance of his father. He publicly scoffed at the Egyptian religion, and plunged his dagger derisively into the bull revered by the Egyptians as the god Apis. He exhumed mummies and pried into royal tombs regardless of ancient curses. He profaned the temples and ordered their idols to be burned. He also killed his sister and wife Roxana, slew his son Prexaspes with an arrow, buried twelve noble Persians alive, condemned Croesus to death, repented, rejoiced to learn that the sentence had not been carried out, and punished the officers who had delayed in executing it. On his way back to Persia, he learned that a usurper had seized the throne and was being supported by widespread revolution and as tradition has it, he committed suicide. ²⁴

Darius-I (550–486 B.C.)

Darius-I or Darius the Great, consolidated the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus-II. Darius was born about 550 B.C., son of Hystaspes, who was later satrap of Parthia. On Cabyses’s death in early 522 B.C., Darius went straight to Media to press his claim to the throne through a common great-great-grandfather with Cambyses, Achaemenes. Although Darius was successful militarily, his greatest achievement was the creation of an effective administration of the empire. According to Herodotus, as soon as peace was established, Darius set up 20 satrapies, or administrative units. In each of the satrapies, he established tax systems and recruitment requirements for his armies. He also built systems of royal roads and set upon them places where a change of horses, food and lodging could be found for those moving about the empire. With such far flung empire, the satraps in charge for each satrapy had to operate with a significant degree of independence from the central government. Since that independence had the potential to threaten the emperor’s control, Darius set up a system of inspectors known as the king’s eyes whose job was to check on the effectiveness and loyalty of the satraps.

Darius followed Cyrus’s example with a religious policy tolerant of a wide variety of gods. Under his rule the Persians captured a number of Greek islands and then landed at Marathon, some miles from Athens. This battle was won by the Greeks, however, the Persians controlled the Aegean Sea and set this as their westernmost boundary. In 486 B.C., Darius died at the age of 64 leaving behind his successor Xerxes. ²⁵

Xerxes (519–465 B.C.)

Xerxes-I, also known as Xerxes the Great, was the king of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. His official title was Shahanshah which, though usually translated as ‘emperor’, actually meant ‘king of kings’. He is identified as the Ahasuerus of Persia in the biblical Book of Esther (although his son, Artaxerxes-I, is also a possibility as is Artaxerxes-II) and is referenced at length in the works of Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and, to a lesser extent, in Plutarch. Herodotus is the primary source for the story of his expedition to Greece. The name `Xerxes’ is the Greek version of the Persian ‘Khshayarsa’ (or Khashyar Shah), and so he is known in the west as ‘Xerxes’ but in the east as ‘Khshayarsa’. ²⁶

Xerxes was designated heir-apparent by his father and served as satrap of Babylon from 498 B.C. to his accession in 486 B.C. Xerxes lacked the toleration and sensitivity of Cyrus and the foresight of Darius. He did not have the military ability of his predecessors as well. Still, he began an assault on Greece on the stupid advice of his advisors and faced massive defeats.

Xerxes inherited an empire that was basically sound, but he was not equal to the task of maintaining its vitality. The description of his character in Esther agrees with evidence from other sources. His undisciplined temper and moral weakness cost him everything he had gained. ²⁷ Xerxes became extremely cruel to his subjects, and made his rule so intolerable that he was murdered in 464 B.C. ²⁸

Artaxerxes-I (Unknown - 424 B.C.)

Artaxerxes-I was the 6^th king of Achaemenid Empire, and the 3^trd son of Xerxes-I. He was surnamed in Greek Macrocheir which means the long-handed person ²⁹ and in Latin Longimanus. Being a younger son of Xerxes-I and Amestris, he was raised to the throne by the commander of the guard, Artabanus, who had murdered Xerxes. A few months later, Artaxerxes slew Artabanus in a hand-to-hand combat. His reign, though generally peaceful, was disturbed by several insurrections, the first of which was the revolt of his brother the satrap of Bactria. More dangerous was the rebellion of Egypt under Inaros, who received assistance from the Athenians. Achaemenid rule in Egypt was restored by Megabyzus, satrap of Syria, after a prolonged struggle (460–454 B.C.). In 448 B.C., fighting between the Achaemenids and the Athenians ended, and in the Samian and Peloponnesian wars, Artaxerxes remained neutral; toward the Jews, he pursued a tolerant policy. His building inscriptions at Persepolis record the completion of the throne hall of his father. The tomb of Artaxerxes is at Naqsh-e Rustam. ³⁰

Ardashir-I (180–242 AD)

Ardashir-I brought centralization to Persia once more, uniting the country under one ruler and avoiding the federal political structure of the Parthians. The Sassanian dynasty (the area ruled by the Sassanid dynasty) regarded itself as building on the legacy of the Achaemenid rulers Darius and Cyrus and continued those two kings’ policy of imperial expansion. He also invested his own brand of religious fervor, establishing the cult of Ahura Mazda as the official state religion. Other religions faced persecution, especially Christianity, since the Christians were seen as sympathetic to the Byzantines, who were then the Persians’ chief opponents. ³¹

The detail of the above kings and their administrative systems indicate that the strength of the system was the coherence of the Persian ruling aristocracy and the wide latitude they left to their subjects. However, the empire reached to a turning point after the Greeks defeated it and began to degenerate. From those defeats onwards Persia was reduced to immobility and stagnation and this process was assisted by the deterioration as a consequence of civilization and world dominion of the ruling race. The influence of the harem, the eunuchs and similar court officials made appalling progress and energetic men found the temptations of power stronger than patriotism and devotion to the king. In fact, kings such as Xerxes and Artaxerxes were murdered brutally. As a consequence, the empire never again undertook an important enterprise and lost its civilizing mission. ³²

Their system of politics was more focused on succession and keeping the blood line pure rather than working for the betterment of the state and its people. This was also the reason for the brutal murders which occurred for the accession of the throne. These people didn’t want the throne to work for the betterment for the people, but to lead luxurious lives by building huge palaces, and having hundreds of sexual partners, and maintaining their authority over the people by keeping huge armies which were basically servants of the ruler. All these costs were paid from the taxes which were extorted from the poor. It was no wonder that eventually people became sick and tired from a ruler and his rule was put to an end.

• ¹ Ali Farazmand (2002), Public Administration Quarterly: Administrative Legacies of the Persian World-State Empire, Implications for Modern Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, The Southern Public Administration Education Foundation, Pennsylvania, USA, Pg. 280-281.
• ² Ali Farazmand (2001), Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 41.
• ³ Ibid, Pg. 42.
• ⁴ Ian Carradice (1987), Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, Bar International Series, Oxford, U.K., Pg. 121.
• ⁵ Ali Farazmand (2002), Public Administration Quarterly: Administrative Legacies of the Persian World-State Empire, Implications for Modern Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, The Southern Public Administration Education Foundation, Pennsylvania, USA, Pg. 280-288.
• ⁶ Ali Farazmand (2001), Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 34.
• ⁷ Ali Farazmand (2002), Public Administration Quarterly: Administrative Legacies of the Persian World-State Empire, Implications for Modern Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, The Southern Public Administration Education Foundation, Pennsylvania, USA, Pg. 280-288.
• ⁸ Ali Farazmand (2002), Public Administration Quarterly: Administrative Legacies of the Persian World-State Empire, Implications for Modern Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, The Southern Public Administration Education Foundation, Pennsylvania, USA, Pg. 290-291.
• ⁹ Ian Carradice (1987), Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires, Bar International Series, Oxford, U.K., Pg. 111.
• ¹⁰ Jamie Stokes (2009), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 2.
• ¹¹ Will Durrant (1942), The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, Simon & Schuster, New York, USA, Pg. 353-355.
• ¹² John Curtis & Nigel Tallis (2005), Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia, The British Museum Press, London, U.K., Pg. 185.
• ¹³ Maria Brosius (2006), The Persians: An Introduction, Routledge, New York, USA, Pg. 47-48.
• ¹⁴ Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online): https://www.ancient.eu/Seleucid_Empire/: Retrieved 08-03-2019
• ¹⁵ Mehrnaaz Behroozi & Leila Kochaki Kia (2017), International Journal of Culture and History: The Administrative Structure of Achaemenid and Seleucid Empires in Observing Civil Rights, Macrothink Institute, Nevada, USA, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pg. 54.
• ¹⁶ Jamie Stokes (2009), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 548.
• ¹⁷ Josef Wieshofer (2001), Ancient Persia: From 550 B.C. to 650 A.D. (Translated by Azizeh Azodi), I. B. Taurus Publishers, London, U.K., Pg. 145.
• ¹⁸ A. J. S. Spawforth (2007), The Court and Society in Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Pg. 59.
• ¹⁹ Touraj Daryaee (2009), Sassanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, I. B. Taurus, London, U.K., Pg. 124.
• ²⁰ Gene R. Garthwaite (2005), The Persians, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, U.K., Pg. 86.
• ²¹ Philip Rousseau (2009), A Companion to Late Antiquity, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, U.K., Pg. 442-443.
• ²² Ali Farazmand (2002), Public Administration Quarterly: Administrative Legacies of the Persian World-State Empire, Implications for Modern Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, The Southern Public Administration Education Foundation, Pennsylvania, USA, Pg. 294.
• ²³ Will Durrant (1942), The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, Simon & Schuster, New York, USA, Pg. 353.
• ²⁴ Ibid, Pg. 353-354.
• ²⁵ Marsha E. Ackermann, Janice J. Terry & et al (2008), Encyclopedia of World History: The Ancient World, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 108-109.
• ²⁶ Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): https://www.ancient.eu/Xerxes_I/: Retrieved: 06-03-2019
• ²⁷ Geoffery W. Bromiley (1988), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, William B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, Michigan, USA, Vol. 4, Pg. 1161.
• ²⁸ John Piggot (1874), Persia: Ancient and Modern, Henry S. King & Co., London, U.K., Pg. 3.
• ²⁹ The Greeks gave Artaxerxes the surname Μακρόχειρ (Longimanus, Long-Hand), asserting, probably correctly, that his right hand was longer than his left. (The Jewish Encyclopedia (Online Version): http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1827-artaxerxes-i: Retrieved: 06-03-2019)
• ³⁰ Encyclopedia Britannica (Online Version): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Artaxerxes-I: Retrieved: 06-03-2019
• ³¹ Jamie Stokes (2009), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Facts on File Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 555.
• ³² S. E. Finer, The History of Government: Ancient Monarchies and Empires, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., Vol. 1, Pg. 310.