Memphis, in Lydia – Sardis, in Media – Ecbatana, in Mesopotamia – Babylon. But
modifications to this older system were also introduced, although not all at the same
time but in response to particular circumstances. Thus, for example, Hellespontine
Phrygia was reorganised in the wake of Xerxes’ Greek campaign to strengthen this
vulnerable frontier. Again, probably early in Xerxes’ reign, the area that had formed
the Neo-Babylonian empire was divided into two new, more manageable satrapies:
‘Beyond the River’ – west of the Euphrates and stretching down to the Egyptian frontier
- and Babylonia – the whole of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and north-eastern Syria).
The satrapal capital functioned as the administrative centre of the governor. It is
here that tax was collected and stored (or sent on), satrapal archives were kept, petitions
sent and royal orders and edicts received. Each satrapal capital contained a palace,
used by the satrap himself but also maintained for the king on visits. Nebuchad-
nezzar II’s old palace in Babylon was used as the seat of the Persian satrap and, late
in the fifth century, an elegant Persian style columned hall (OP apadana) was
constructed in its western sector. Such royal and satrapal residences in the provinces
are further attested, textually, for Memphis, Daskyleion, Sardis, Damascus, Ecbatana
and, perhaps, Samarkand. Each satrapy almost certainly had more than one palatial
Persian centre, frequently associated with a substantial estate, called by the Persian-
derived word ‘paradise’; Uruk in Babylonia, for example, certainly had a palace with
a royal domain at nearby Ab/manu. In addition, there were fortified storehouses
serving provincial sub-districts. In the Persian heartlands (Fars, Elam) were the major
royal centres, such as the old city of Susa, which was extensively and lavishly rebuilt
for the royal court in Achaemenid style, and the new, spectacular foundations of
Pasargadae and Persepolis.
The satrap himself was, within his satrapy, in control of military affairs, such as
general mobilisation and the garrisons which served to protect the population as well
as maintain order in the province. He also controlled its administrative and financial
affairs to ensure the province’s continued productivity and profitability. The two
concerns were closely linked as individuals held land-grants on which military and
public service and taxes were owed.
Regional variationDespite the unification of all these different areas in the person of the Persian king,
which creates an impression of uniformity, there were regional variations in admin-
istration and differences in the formulation of dependence and subjection in some
regions.
The transhumant populations of the great Zagros mountain chain, for example,
were never fully integrated into the central structure. Its productive potential was
slight and topography made military campaigns difficult; in addition, the highly
mobile population was hard to pin down. Here the Persians and these scattered
mountain dwellers arrived at a modus vivendi. The Persian king regularly presented
the local leaders with gifts, which placed the recipients under obligation to help him.
In return, the king was able to draw on their manpower resources when needed; the
various tribes helped to secure his routes through the mountains when necessary, and
their goodwill reduced the incidence of raids on nearby adjacent settled communities.
— Amélie Kuhrt —