WI: Ancient Persian Democracy

What if Ancient Persian Democracy

Ancient Persia is admired by many for its advanced and enlightened society. Cyrus the Great in particular influenced many future democratic leaders. With this in mind would the establishment of a democracy or an oligarchy have been possible in ancient Persia? Best POD seems to be after the rule of Bardia(or his impostor) in 522 when people are most sick of the monarchy. What are the implications for this? Effect on history and the Persian Empire?

Democracy: a Persian Invention?

Now, Otanes makes the most audacious suggestion. Monarchy is not pleasant or good, he claims. Since a single ruler is submitted to no public examination,the people have to endure the arrogance, indiscriminate anger and envy, inherent in his unchecked supremacy. A monarchy disrupts the laws, takes women by force, and puts men to death without trial. The only alternative option is the rule of the majority.
http://www.academia.edu/2172143/Democracy_a_Persian_Invention

Otanes then gathered six noblemen and plots to get rid of the false Smerdis. A seventh nobleman, Darius, arrives at the capital Susa shortly thereafter, and was then included in the group. Following the overthrow of the false Smerdis, the seven co-conspirators hold a council to discuss the way forward (3.80–82). Otanes, speaking first, argues for turning the government over to the people, and for the principle of equality before the law (3.80.2, 3.83.1, 6.43.3, isonomíē). Megabyzus spoke next, urging that they resort to an oligarchy "of the best men, ... ourselves among them" (3.81.3). The third to express his opinion was Darius, who argues for a monarchy. In a vote, the majority decides in favour of a monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otanes


Herodotus: The Persians Reject Democracy/Darius' State

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persdemo.asp
 
Last edited:
Herodotos wrote this, but I doubt this ever happened.

The Persians had the Greek City-State democracy model and the Tribal democracy model available, but there was no precedent of a state as large as theirs ruled democratically. I don't think such an option was ever considered... Nor the Greek nor the tribal models would work for them.
 
Herodotos wrote this, but I doubt this ever happened.

The Persians had the Greek City-State democracy model and the Tribal democracy model available, but there was no precedent of a state as large as theirs ruled democratically. I don't think such an option was ever considered... Nor the Greek nor the tribal models would work for them.

Thanks for the post. I'm always skeptical of Herodotus myself but I don't think its too odd for them to at some point consider something of this nature. My thinking was the general structure of the empire would be the same with Satraps and such. The people taking part in this so called democracy or oligarchy would be limited to the Persian core or the aristocrats.
 
It might exist in Babylon, let's say, but not the whole empire. The result is they crumble sooner, perhaps keeping the Greeks so busy with slim pickins that it averts the Peloponnesian War. Being that democracies are fickle and ran moronically, I still bet the Persians have unsuccesful invasions of Greece, so we still get 300 and the Delian League. As a result, Athens is poised to take most advantage of the collapse of the Persian position in Turkey and Syria. THe question is whether or not the Athenians sack enough loot where they can pay the mercenaries to invade Egypt (Persia would likely still be too strong in Babylon and would be husbanding their forces to prevent revolts among their Scythian and Afghan subjects.)

So, the irony of it all is that a Persian Democracy leads to their collapse, which in turn leads to the ascendancy of a Greek democracy, avoiding that same Greek democracies big failure (their war with Sparta.) After Egypt, the Greeks in-fight until a power like Macedonia conquers them. Perhaps Philip gets a little farther than Alexander did, being that Persia is weaker.
 
I think the discussion Herodotus describes is his literary invention. But if the rule of Smerdis had been foloowed by the introduction of a monarchy, how would it have looked like? Even in "democratic" Athens, the fanchise was small, and I think no one would have tried to introduce the equality of all men and women, of Persians, Egyptians, Bactrians, Arachosians, Syrians, Ionians, Cappadocians et. al.
Most likely, even a democratic Persian Empire would have seen political power restricted to male Persians and maybe Medians. Before Dareios, the ruler of Persia was simultaneously the ruler of the conquered kingdoms. Splitting them up into smaller satrapies was iirc Dareios' policy as reaction to post-Smerdis rebellions and secession attempts.
Most likely of all forms of democracy seems a system based on the vote/acclamation by military assemblies, eg. an annual convention of all or many able-bodied male Persians at Pasargadai, electing the officers of state for the next year.
 
Herodotus' constitutional discussion is an invention, a contribution to political sciences and to the controversy about the best form of government going around in Greece when his Historia was written.

Some thoughts on the WI: Democracy, as understood in ancient times, worked only in city states (poleis). The two major exceptions were Athens, which had its "Empire" organized as a confederation of nominally equal cities, and Rome, whose constitution wasn't really democratic and denied political rights to those inhabitants living in the provinces. Persia however wasn't a city state, but a large cultural area (compare the territory of the city of Athens with the size of today's Iran). Both the Median and the Persian Empire were monarchies. The Persian Empire itself was created by the rebellion of a local ruler, Kuros II, King of Anshan; the Persian Empire was a feudal monarchy governed by a King of Kings of Persia with vassal kings (satraps) administrating the different provinces of the otherwise ungovernable empire.

I hope you now understand why a Persian democracy is impossible. 1) because Iranian, Median and Persian traditions aren't what you would call "egalitarian" 2) because there is no core city state 3) because this core city isn't democratically governed 4) because the Empire is governed as a feudal monarchy 5) because the empire is simply too large to be governed as democracy. Even if only Persians have political rights, the distance between the different corners of the empire is still to long. Persians served in the army fighting in India and Greece, Persians were satraps and government officials, Persia itself is quite big. How do you want to assemble all these persons in Persepolis?

But assume that you've granted citizenships to all Persians, and that all citizens make up a popular assembly gathering once in a year in Persepolis to discuss the most important affairs and elect in council administrating the empire between the assemblies (so assume that the Persian Empire, by miracle, became a democracy after the conquests of Kuros II). Most notably, the political discussion will concentrate around the needs of the inhabitants of Persepolis, since who else will have the possibility to assist the assemblies? The politicians will promise everything to the citizens of the capital just to be elected, they will exploit the satrapies to fulfill they campain-pledges, the periphery of the empire will be neglected. The citizens of Persepolis have no idea what the army and the fleet need, both will decline and it will become more and more difficult to protect the borders.

Don't hope for campaigns against Greece and India; it will be the Greeks, the Nomads and the Indians who will attack the weakened empire. The Egyptians will revolt and probably be succesful. At the same time, the subjects of the Persians, like the Medians, Babylonians, Jews, Lydians and Bactrians, whom you denied the civil rights, will start of civil war (this one, just for the whole Persian Empire and not just for Italy) to get the said rights. This civil war will either see the dissolution of the empire or the extension of civil rights to all inhabitants of the empire. They will not langer accept that politics are centred around one city, but will argue for a sort of confederal government, who will either be aristocratic or dissolve in the long term.
 
The Persians were against slavery, which to my way of thinking is big and could have significantly influenced the ancient world.

Although as we've discussed, this may not have always been the case in practice.
 
During this era, you might get elected village councils, or something like that. A Persian Empire that is even remotely democratic is a long way off - it needs much better infrastructure.
 
Top