EMPIRE.] PERSIA 569 doubtful loyalty. Darius gives the day of the month for the most important events, but unfortunately not the year. Moreover, in consequence of the mutilation of the Babylonian text it is only of some of the Persian months that we can say with certainty to what parts of the year they roughly correspond. 1 Thus the particular chronology of these insurrections remains in many points quite un certain, especially as it can be seen that many events nar rated as successive were contemporaneous. In any case Darius acted very energetically and promptly ; and the chief provinces were undoubtedly again reduced to sub jection in the first three years of his reign. The insur rection of Athrina in Susiana was promptly suppressed by a Persian army. More dangerous was the revolt in Babylon of Nidintubel (Nadintabaira), a real or pretended member of the Babylonian royal house who assumed the august name of Nabukadrachara (Nebuchadnezzar). Darius hastened thither and defeated him in several battles. But the long siege after which, according to Herodotus, the rebel city fell into the hands of Darius, cannot have taken place then. 2 While Darius was in Babylon a whole series of revolts broke out. That of Martiya in Susiana, who called himself Imani, and appeared in the character of king of that country, was indeed soon put down with the help of the people of Susiana them selves, but in Media, the heart of the monarchy, the situa tion was much more grave. Phraortes (Frawarti), who gave himself out to be a scion of the old royal house of Media, was made king of Media, and the Parthians and Hyrcanians to the eastward, whose satrap was Hystaspes, father of Darius, sided with him. The king s generals could effect nothing decisive against Phraortes ; at last he was overthrown by the king in person. Like all rebels who deduced their descent rightly or wrongly from the old dynasties, he was put to death with circumstances of especial cruelty. In the meantime one of Darius s generals had put down a second false Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon ; others had to suppress insurrections in two regions of Armenia, which were, perhaps, connected with the revolt of Phraortes, and a rising in the distant Margiana (the district of Merv). Even Persis had risen. Another false Smerdis, Vahyazdata, appeared in the east while Darius was in Babylon, and crowds nocked to him. His power increased so much that he was even able to send an army to Arachosia (a part of western Afghanistan). While Darius in person took the field against Phraortes, he despatched against Vahyazdata a general who at last over threw the rebel. Arachosia, too, was reduced to subjection. So, too, was the nomad tribe of the Sagartii (perhaps on the northern or north-eastern frontier of Persis), with Chitratahma at their head, who also claimed to be of the royal house of Media. Afterwards Gobryas (Gaubruva), one of the seven, suppressed a third revolt in Persis. The king in person reconquered the Sacas, who had been in subjection before. The generals employed by Darius were Persians and Medes ; but there was one Armenian among them. His faithful army was composed of Persians and Medes, but his adversaries were also supported in part by Persians and Medes. Darius must have been a great ruler to conquer them all. Picture his position when he took 1 The obvious assumption that the strange name Andmaka, i.e., "anonymous," for a month means an intercalary month would compel us to infer that all the events falling in this mouth belonged to one and the same year, for two successive years or every other yeai cannot each have an intercalary month. But a careful consideration of the particulars shows that all these events could not fall in the same year. Another obstacle to regarding Anamaka as an intercalary month is the circumstance that it corresponds to the tenth Babylonian month Teliet, i.e., probably to December or January, whereas intercalary months usually follow the twelfth or sixth month. 2 See below under Xerxes. the field against Phraortes ; Babylonia was his once more, 521-515. and its wealth must have supplied him with the means of war, but almost the whole of Iran and Armenia was in the hands of men whom he calls rebels and liars, but some of whom, at least, had perhaps more right than he to the sovereignty, and whose people were devoted to them. No sooner had he reached Media than Babylon was again in arms. Nothing but great energy and circumspection could have carried him safely through all his difficulties. The satrap of Sardis, Oroetes, had not revolted, but his conduct was that of an independent prince. Him Darius put out of the way by stratagem (Herod., iii. 120 sq.). At the same time Samos became definitively a Persian pro vince, after a royal army had, with much bloodshed, set up as tyrant Syloson, brother of Polycrates, whom Oroetes had put to death. The removal of Aryandes, 3 governor of Egypt, who assumed, even at that date, the royal privi lege of minting money, seems to have followed not long afterwards. 4 He had extended his power westwards. But we see from Herodotus that to the west of the last mouth of the Nile the Persian rule was always precarious ; and that he can have conquered Carthage, whose naval power was perhaps a match for that of the whole Persian empire, is quite incredible. At the most it is possible that the prudent leaders of that commercial state may in negotia tions and treaties have occasionally recognized the king in ambiguous phrases as their lord. The experience gained by Darius in the first unsettled Organi- years of his reign must have been in part the occasion of zation of his introducing numerous improvements into the organiza- en P ire> tion of the empire. Governors with the title of satraps (kkskathrapdvan, i.e., land-rulers) there had been before, but Darius determined their rights and duties. Vassal princes of dangerous power were tolerated only with reluctance. The satrap had indeed the power and splendour of a king, but he was nevertheless under regular control. The court received from special officials direct reports of the conduct of the governors, and from time to time royal commissioners appeared with troops to hold an inspection. The satrap commanded the army of his province, but the fortresses he was obliged to leave in the hands of troops directly under the king. But the most important part of the reform was that Darius regulated the taxes and imposed a fixed sum upon each province, with the exception of the land of his fathers, which enjoyed immunity. The Persians were discontented at this, and dubbed Darius in consequence " higgler " (KctTr^Aos) ; but this is doubtless only the cry of high officials, to whom any regulated fiscal system was objectionable, as making it somewhat more difficult for them to fleece their subordinates. It is not at all to be supposed that the irregular contributions ("presents," Herod., iii. 89) previously levied were less burdensome to the subjects. However imperfect the Persian state system was, and however illusory the measures of control may often have been, still the organization introduced by Darius marks a great step in advance over the thoroughly rude old Asiatic system. In the Behistim inscription, which is placed not long Expedi- after the conclusion of the great revolts, India does not as tion to yet appear as a province, though it does in the later India - inscriptions of Persepolis, and in the epitaph of Darius. Herodotus says that Darius caused the Indus to be explored from the land of the Pactyans (Pakhtu, Afghans) to its mouth by Scylax, a Greek or rather Carian, and then con quered the country. But in any case this Persian " India " was only one portion of the region of the Indus. If this conquest was somewhat adventurous, much more so was 3 Polyrenus, vii. 10. 7, calls him Oryandres. 4 Wiedemann, op. cit., p. 236, fixes as the date the year 517 ; but his grounds are not conclusive. XVIII. 72
