Forerunners and rivals of Christianity : $b being studies in religious history from 330 B.C. to 330 A.D., Vol. 1 (of 2)Legge, Francis
Religion
Forerunners and rivals of Christianity : $b being studies in religious history from 330 B.C. to 330 A.D., Vol. 1 (of 2)
Legge, Francis
Christianity and other religions; Religions
That this vast dominion should be loosely compacted was of the nature of
things. The twenty or more provinces into which it was divided enjoyed a
large measure of self-government, and had preserved, for the most part,
their native laws and customs unaltered. Each of these divisions was
ruled by a satrap who, like a Chinese viceroy, was allowed to maintain
armies and even fleets of his own. But a check, imperfect no doubt but
still existent, was exercised over his proceedings by the presence of a
Royal Secretary in each satrapy, whose business it was to supervise the
accounts, and to send up regular reports to the capital of the doings,
of his coadjutor[31], while the troops were under the command of a
general appointed directly by the Crown. From time to time, also, a
Royal Commissioner called the King’s Eye visited the province with a
strong guard to hear complaints and to see that all was in order[32].
The satrap, too, only held his post during his master’s pleasure, and
was liable at any moment to be removed to another province, degraded, or
put to death, on the strength of a simple letter bearing the Royal Seal;
and the tribute which each satrapy had to pay to the Great King being
settled at a fixed and known amount, there was less chance than under
some similar systems of devolution that the satrap might squeeze out of
his subjects a sum far greater than that which he transmitted to the
Treasury[33]. Above all, the Persians were of Aryan stock, and early
showed signs of the talent for governing older races which seems to have
stuck to the Aryans throughout their history. They made excellent roads,
and established swift running posts that did much to make communication
easy between the most important parts of their empire; while, as the
satraps’ standing armies were composed either of native Persians or
hired mercenaries, the subject populations had an opportunity, rare
enough in the ancient world, of peacefully developing their internal
resources without constant fear of disturbance by foreign enemies, or
forced participation in wars of aggression[34]. It was only when the
word went forth from Babylon or Susa, Ecbatana or Persepolis, for the
calling-out of the Ban of the whole Empire that the other than Persian
subject of Artaxerxes or Darius had to join the levy of his satrapy,
and, on orders given to him through an interpreter, to assist the Great
King in crushing some rebellious satrap or repelling foreign invasion.
At other times, he must have known him only as a kind of divinity,
having power to throw down and to set up, to whom he might cry, not
always in vain, against the oppression of his own immediate ruler. Those
writers are no doubt justified who say that the government of the
Persian Empire was to the humbler classes of Asiatics a great
improvement upon any that had preceded it[35], and that the rule of the
Great King never awoke the fierce resentment in its subjects aroused by
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account