FEUDAI.IBM IN PERSIA — DE MORGAN. 581 



the Persians and Medes, while his ancestors had been ruled by the 

 king of the Medes and Persians. The chief men of the realms kept 

 their estates and their rank, and, according as they were either of 

 Persian or Medic origin, they continued to compose the royal council. 

 It is true that at first they were less favored in what concerned im- 

 portant affairs, but little by little equilibrium was established and the 

 Persians and Medes became a single nation. 



The Acha^menian sovereigns divided their empire among satraps, 

 for the most part hereditary proprietors of the land, whom it would 

 be a great injury to have as governors, in the sense given to that 

 title in our day. The seigniors of less importance conserved their 

 rights, their privileges, their lands, as well as the moral situation 

 they had in the State. This aristocracy was a curb on the royal 

 power; the kings dreaded it and willingly or by force governed 

 under it. 



To be sure, in times of trouble or revolt many members of this 

 nobility, both great and humble, would be losers ; ^ but these rigor- 

 ous measures applied only to individuals and the principles were not 

 in the least broken. As a result of traditional influence, where a 

 king could be found to preserve it, the feudal organization was much 

 more favored than opposed by the Acheemenidse. Moreover, feudal- 

 ism insured great security through the loyaltj^ of subjects of the 

 empii"e. 



The Macedonian Conquest brought the first great change which 

 still survives in the political and social life of Persia. The Greeks 

 must have a governor for themselves if tlie}'^ would preserve the 

 empire. Nearly all of the great satraps, Greeks or natives, were 

 appointed according to the governmental views of the conqueror 

 and his followers. Macedonian garrisons occupied the principal 

 cities to maintain the obedience of the inhabitants, to lend a strong 

 hand to the governors, and at the same time to watch their conduct. 

 The Persians who under Alexander performed the duties of satraps 

 Avere no more than officials, obedient to higher powers. As to the 

 common aristocracy, it felt this change in power in a much less 

 degree, for its privileges were continued, its property remained in 

 its possession, and perhaps its local influence was even increased by 

 the debasement of the chief seigniors. 



The defeat of Darius Codomanus brought to the high Iranian 

 nobility the loss of its army, which was the chief source of its riches 

 and of its credit. After Alexander, the principal officers were Greeks, 

 commanding the troops of their nations, and if at times certain 

 Persian nobles served in the Macedonian army it was only at the 

 head of native troops, and consequently without much authority. 



1 See in this connection tlie inscription of Darius at Bisoutouu. 



