Show me a statue of an influential persian women.
Show me the persian court and justice system and some excerpts of laws.
Where and how could persians vote? Where was the persian senate located? I want really learn about that.
The persian king Cyrus himself was an absolute savage who tortured people, let them dig up in sand and eat by ants, so please spare us the myth.
It was predicted in 1978 that Iran by 2000 would have an economy similar to Germany.
In general, mass slavery as a whole has never been practiced by Persians, and in many cases the situation and lives of semi-slaves (prisoners of war) were, in fact, better than those of the commoner.
On the whole, in the
Achaemenid empire, there was only small number of slaves in relation to the number of free persons and moreover the word used to call a slave was utilized also to express general dependence. Usually, captives were prisoners of war that were recruited from those that rebelled against Achaemenid rule.
About Cyrus:
British historian
Charles Freeman suggests that "In scope and extent his achievements [Cyrus] ranked far above that of the Macedonian king, Alexander, who was to demolish the [Achaemenid] empire in the 320s but fail to provide any stable alternative." Cyrus has been a personal hero to many people, including
Thomas Jefferson,
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and
David Ben-Gurion.
According to
Xenophon: And those who were subject to him, he treated with esteem and regard, as if they were his own children, while his subjects themselves respected Cyrus as their "Father" ... What other man but 'Cyrus', after having overturned an empire, ever died with the title of "The Father" from the people whom he had brought under his power? For it is plain fact that this is a name for one that bestows, rather than for one that takes away!
The policies of Cyrus with respect to treatment of minority religions are well documented in Babylonian texts as well as Jewish sources and the historians accounts. Cyrus had a general policy of religious tolerance throughout his vast empire. Whether this was a new policy or the continuation of policies followed by the Babylonians and Assyrians (as Lester Grabbe maintains) is disputed. He brought peace to the Babylonians and is said to have kept his army away from the temples and restored the statues of the Babylonian gods to their sanctuaries.
Although ruled by kings, we had knowledge of the concept of democracy:
Diodorus mentions that after the Assyrians had ruled Asia for five hundred years "they were conquered by the
Medes, and thereafter no king arose for many generations to lay claim to supreme power, but the city-states, enjoying a regimen of their own, were administered in a democratic fashion"
Herodotus puts great emphasis on the fact that the proposals put forward included the idea of establishing "democracy" in Persia. Herodotus in
Histories gives an account on a debate over the constitution of Iran (Persia) in 522 BC, where
Otanes argued in favor of democracy, the principle of
equality before the law, and the accountable government. He advocates a complete democracy, on the grounds that under a democratic system "offices of state are exercised by lot".
In that session, Otanes also talked about the disadvantages of monarchy. He notes that democratic rule does not share any of the malice of a tyranny. Otanes was one of the seven members who overthrew Gaumata.
He recommended that the management of public affairs should be entrusted to the whole nation. He said, "it seems advisable, that we should no longer have a single man to rule over us. the rule of one is neither good nor pleasant... How indeed is it possible that monarchy should be a well-adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable?... I vote, therefore, that we do away with monarchy, and raise the people to power. For the people are all in all."
Otanes seems to find democracy inherently more equitable: "the rule of many has first a name attaching to it which is the fairest of all names, that is to say 'Equality.'"popular government ensures moderate rule, he suggests.
The book "The Archaic Smile of Herodotus" notes that "in arguing that democracy will be good for Persia, Otanes contradicts himself, for he proposes to change the traditional form of government. This violation of ancient custom is just the practice of which he accuses tyrants." However Otanes was advocating a return to the equality and democracy that was customary in ancient Persia. So violation of these customs was what he was accusing tyrants about. Perhaps Otanes considered democracy reflecting Persia's tribal roots.
Even though Otanes has not used the term demokratia in his speech, but his emphasis on equality under the law, elections by lot, and collective decisions makes it clear that he represents the democratic viewpoint. Some scholars have gone further by considering that not only Otanes was in fact advocating the democracy, but also "a pretty radical form of it".
Some scholars have tended to equate Otanes' arguments with those of the author himself (Herodotus). Others have titled Otanes as "the champion of democracy".
According to Arirstotle the three parts of a
politeia are the deliberative, the magistracies, and the judiciary. This tripartite structure of the politeia was a traditional idea; Aristotle only elaborated upon it. The threefold division is already evident in Otanes' defence of democracy, where he defends democracy for its virtues in all three areas.
From the viewpoint of the methodological approach, Otanes provided a "practical example" of Cambyses, that how he acted as a monarch in power. The moral force of Otanes' argument derives from his conviction that monarchy and oligarchy have proven untrustworthy, insofar as natural vanity is bount to corrupt even good individuals if left unchecked.
In addition to book 3, later in book 6 Herodotus once again insists that the account of the debate is historical, and he vents his spleen at those who deny that Otanes advised the Persians to demokrateesthai.
At the time of
Parthians, kings were elected through the Parthian parliament, Megisthanes. The parliament was of two parts: one of the wise men and
magi from across the country, and the second the relatives of the royal family. In this way the king could be the representative of the whole nation.
Megisthanes was the first parliament of Iran. It can be concluded that the Parthian parliament was the result of the achievements of past civilizations specially the Achaemenids (who had their own councils) and Greeks.
Justin (41.2.2), has called this parliament as senate.
Tacitus states that the parliament was composed of 300 of the rich and wise men, which was forming a council like that of the senate. People are in charge of their legitimate power. Until the parliament and people have consensus, they are not afraid of the Parthian kings, but as soon as there appears a disagreement between them, each one of them (people, and the parliament) chose a party for themselves until their party succeeds.
The two parts separately and together, were forming three different councils. The third one being the result of assembling of the members of two other councils in cases of emergency, where this council (of the two other councils) was called as Megisthanes.
Strabo writes that "the Council of the Parthians, according to Poseidonius, consists of two groups, one that of kinsmen, and the other that of wise men and Magi, from both of which groups the kings were appointed." The number of wise men in the parliament was more than that of the magis
In 1979 some demon took over our country and we had 8 years wars after that, else we be one of the richest countries by now. Anyways, some started to troll here, I don't want to waste my time on them.
