previous next


The conquest of Persia by the Medes is disputed, because it is inferred from the B. I. that the title ‘king’ was borne by the Achaemenids as far back as Teispes I (perhaps circ. 675), and Cyrus calls his three immediate ancestors ‘great king’ (App. IV, § 1); but this does not disprove H.'s statement, for apart from the possibility of filial flattery, in any case Persia must have been dependent on Media in the time of the next king, Cyaxares; and the reference in Ez. 38. 5 to Persia as an ally of Gog (circ. 580 B.C.) is too late and too vague to prove anything. All we can say is that H.'s statement may be true; but it quite lacks confirmation, and may be an invention of Median vanity (Prášek, i. 137; cf. App. IV, § 4).


κατεστρέφετο; it is important to notice the inceptive imperfect; H. knows the real founder of the Median Empire (103. 1, 2) was Cyaxares.

τότε: H. antedates the break up of the Assyrian Empire; Phraortes died circ. 625 B.C., and Assurbanipal's reign (circ. 668-626) seemed to leave Assyria as strong as ever; Babylon had been humbled (648), and Elam wiped out (circ. 640). But the mistake is venial, for the strength of Assyria was exhausted (App. II, § 4). The conquests of Phraortes may have been really aided by the Assyrian victory over Elam.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: