by Jews. Neighbouring Samaria was administered by the local family of Sanballat.
The Phoenician cities continued under the control of local rulers. Ammon, east of
the Jordan, also formed a provincial subdivision under a local governor and, in the
fourth century, the new administrative district of Idumaea was organised. So, while
all these divergent entities were answerable to the Persian satrap in Damascus,
internally they lived according to local custom. Similarly in Turkey, there were
individual Greek cities, variously governed by democratic city councils, oligarchies
or city-tyrants, and local regional dynasts, attested particularly for Caria, Lycia and
Cilicia. Yet all these different political units related to the relevant satrap as the
overarching authority. A similar picture is now emerging for the region of Bactria-
Sogdiana, where the satrap and his regional subordinates interacted with the local
aristocracies of the different communities.
Central controlThis variation in patterns of rule should not be seen as a sign of imperial weakness
nor yet as showing that these diverse political units were loosely joined together,
easily detachable from Persian control. The varieties of political relationship and
domination should, rather, be seen as a positive element, which made central
government more elastic and sensitive in its response to local needs and conditions,
while ensuring strong overall control for its own benefit (note the case of Babylonia,
above, p. 567 ).
It is worth emphasising that the Persian empire lasted over 200 years, experiencing
within that time only one serious loss, i.e., Egypt, which had seceded by 400 / 399 ;
however, it was regained in 343 after repeated campaigns, so even that loss proved not
to be permanent. Moreover, from Darius I on, the grip of the Achaemenid family on
the throne was never broken. Despite repeated violent struggles for the royal succession,
the family’s hold on the kingship was never effectively challenged. From c. 480 onwards,
all serious revolts, with the exception of Egypt, took place insidethe Persian power-
structure itself and centred on struggles at court for the throne; in other words, they
did not threaten the structure of the empire – they turned on who should rule it.
Despite local variations in the form of Persian rule, control of the various provinces
was, and remained, extremely effective. The practice of exclusively appointing Persians
to these high positions seems generally to have been the norm, reinforced by Persians
or Iranians always holding the highest military commands and the most important
posts in the provinces. This should not obscure the fact that members of the central
authority developed close links with local elites in various areas of the empire, which
could lead eventually to the recruitment of members from such groups to powerful
governmental positions. One example is the case of the Babylonian Belshunu, who
was district governor of Babylon from 422 – 415 , and rose to the position of satrap
of Beyond-the-River in 407 , which he held until at least 401. This may have been
a reward for his support in Darius II’s struggle for the succession in 424 / 3 , which
closely involved Babylonia. Beyond that, there are indications of intermarriage: Persian
nobles married women from the families of local dynasts (e.g., Herodotus 5. 21 ;
Xenophon, Hellenica 4. 1. 6 – 7 ); local dignitaries or soldiers, who had particularly dis-
tinguished themselves, are attested receiving a wife from a high-ranking Persian
family (Herodotus 6. 41 ). Particularly interesting is the chance information that the
— Amélie Kuhrt —