A Manual of Ancient History. A. H. L. Heeren
Constitution of the great Asiatic Empires.
Magnitude of the empires in Asia.
1. Asia contained in ancient times, as it does at present, empires of immense extent, differing materially both in this respect and in their constitution from the civilized nations of Europe. Changes were frequent; but the form of government continued nearly always the same. Some deeply rooted and active principles therefore must have been in constant operation, to have given so repeatedly, in these various revolutions, the same organization to the kingdoms of Asia.
Nature of their revolutions.
2. The great revolutions of Asia, with the exception of that caused by Alexander, were effected by the numerous and powerful nomad races which inhabited a large portion of that continent. Pressed by necessity or circumstances, they forsook their own seats, founded new kingdoms, and carried war and conquest into the fruitful and cultivated lands of southern Asia, until, enervated by luxury, the consequence of the change in their mode of life, they were in their turn, and in a similar manner, subjugated.
Their short existence.
3. This origin, common to all Asiatic kingdoms, accounts for their immense extent, their rapid establishment, and their generally brief duration.
Similarity in their constitutions.
4. The internal organization must, for the same reasons, have been nearly alike in all; and the constant reappearance of despotism is accounted for, partly by the rights of conquest, partly by the vast extent of the subdued countries, which obliged the rulers to have recourse to satrap-government.
Effects of polygamy.
5. To this, it must moreover be added, that among all the considerable nations of inner Asia, the paternal government of every household was corrupted by polygamy: where that custom exists, a good political constitution is impossible; fathers being converted into domestic despots, are ready to pay the same abject obedience to their sovereign that they exact from their family and dependants in their domestic economy.
To avoid confusion, it will be necessary to define the terms despotism and despotic government. In theory, we must admit THREE essentially different kinds of government. 1st. The despotic, in which the members of the state are not secured in the possession of their rights as men, (personal freedom and security of property,) nor of their rights as citizens, (active participation in the legislative power). Such a constitution exists only by force, and can never be lawful. 2nd. The autocratic, in which the members of the state are in full possession of their rights as men, but not of their rights as citizens. This government, therefore, arises from the union of the legislative and executive powers in the person of the ruler. In form, it is either monarchical or aristocratical (a pure monarchy, or a pure aristocracy). This kind of government is most likely to be established by usurpation; it may, nevertheless, be acquired by succession, or even adopted by common consent: it may therefore be lawful. 3rd. The republican, in which the members of the state are in possession of their rights, both as men and as citizens. This government necessarily presupposes a separation of the legislative and executive powers; and with regard to its form, may be either monarchical or aristocratical, (a moderate monarchy, or a moderate aristocracy).—How far can a pure democracy be called a government, and comprised under any of the foregoing heads?—Explanation of the despotism in the Asiatic kingdoms, and the attempts made to limit it by religion and religious institutions.
Rise, progress, and fall of nomad empires.
6. General features in the gradual internal development of all empires formed by nomad conquerors. (a) At first the mere occupation of rich territories, and levying of tribute. (b) Hence the constitutions already established among the conquered or tributary nations generally suffered to remain. (c) Gradual progress towards the adoption of a fixed abode and the building of cities, together with the assumption of the customs and civilization of the conquered. (d) Division into provinces, and, as a necessary consequence, the establishment of satrap-government. (e) Insurrections of the satraps, and the internal ruin of the state prepared thereby. (f) The influence of the seraglio on the government has the same effect, for its unavoidable consequences are—effeminacy and indolence in the rulers. (g) Hence the dissolution of the empire, or its total annihilation by some violent attack from without.
Fragments of the History of the ancient Asiatic Kingdoms previous to Cyrus.
Sources, and their critical examination: 1. Jewish writings, particularly the books of Kings, Chroniclers, and the Prophets; together with the Mosaic records. 2. Greek writers, Herodotus, Ctesias, and Diodorus: later chroniclers, Syncellus, Eusebius, Ptolemy. 3. Native writer, Berosus. Futility of all endeavours to arrange into one work the accounts of authors so entirely different by birth and the times in which they flourished: a task attempted by the French writers, Sevin, Freret, and Debrosse, in their papers contained in the Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscript.
Volney, Recherches nouvelles sur l'Histoire ancienne. 1808—1814: very important and authentic, so far as regards the system of Herodotus's chronology.
I. Assyrian monarchy.
Assyrians of the Greeks different from those of the Hebrews.
1. With the Greeks, Assyrian is generally a common name applied to the ruling nations about the Euphrates and Tigris before the time of Cyrus. With the Jews, on the contrary, it signifies a distinct nation of conquerors, and the founders of an empire. Hence a necessary discrepancy between the Grecian and Hebrew statements.
Grecian account.
2. Assyrian history, according to Grecian authorities, particularly Ctesias and Diodorus, is nothing more than mere traditions of ancient heroes and heroines, who at some early period founded a large kingdom in the countries about the Euphrates and Tigris; traditions without any chronological data, and in the style of the east. Ninus—Semiramis—Ninyas—Sardanapalus.
According to Herodotus, an Assyrian empire of 520 years' duration, 1237—717. Lists of Assyrian kings in the chronicles of Syncellus and Eusebius.
Jewish account.
3. Assyrian history, according to Jewish authorities. Chronological history of an Assyrian empire between BC 800 and 700.—Seat of the nation in Assyria, properly so called.—Capital: Nineveh on the Tigris.—Extension of their dominion as far as Syria and Phœnicia.
Line of Assyrian kings: 1. Pul, about 773. Invasion of Syria. 2. Tiglath-Pileser, about 740. He overthrows the kingdom of Damascus. 3. Shalmaneser, about 720. He destroys the kingdom of Samaria. Transplantation of the inhabitants into inner Asia. 4. Sennacherib, about 714. Mighty expedition against Egypt, frustrated by a pestilence. 5. Esarhaddon.
Contemporary: Jews, the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah.—Greeks, decennial archons at Athens.—Romans, rise of the state and the two first kings.
II. Median monarchy.
Different acceptations of the word Medes.
1. The name of Medes is undoubtedly often used by the Greeks to designate one nation; it is, however, frequently made use of as a common appellation of the ruling nations in eastern Asia, from the Tigris to the Indus, (or Persia, in the more extensive sense of that word,) before Cyrus.—With the Jews: nothing more than general hints of the Medes as a conquering nation.
Great nations known to have existed east of the Tigris.
2. Although the statements of the Grecian writers, as well as of the Zendavesta, sufficiently prove that long before the rise of the Persian power mighty kingdoms existed in these regions; and particularly in the eastern part, or Bactria; yet we have no consistent or chronological history of these states: nothing but