ABSTRACT
The source profile for this period of nearly seventy years is fundamentally the same as for the preceding two reigns and suffers from the same limitations (see 8, Introduction). In other words, it is dominated by the material contained in Graeco-Roman historians and a handful of inscriptions, whose vision is largely confined to the north-western periphery of Achaemenid territory, only occasionally taking in places further afield, such as Egypt and Cyprus, and the more sensational stories of intrigues at court (see, e.g., 9, nos.5; 72). Thus Greek-Persian relations and affairs in Asia Minor predominate, forcing us to focus attention on this region. The exception, again, is Egypt, which seceded successfully between 405 and 399. For the next sixty years or so Greeks were involved in the drawn-out conflict between Persia and Egypt as soldiers. As in the earlier Egyptian revolt (8, Section A(b)), it is on the stories of Greek involvement here that the classical writers concentrate, not on internal Egyptian developments as such. Egypt was only reconquered in 343/2, after repeated efforts. This long period of independence served to feed debates in Greek circles about the realities of Persian might. One powerful exponent of the idea that Achaemenid power was in decline was the Attic orator Isocrates (9, nos.48; 62). His impassioned speeches painted an image of a crumbling empire against which Greeks might well be successful, if only they would unite. The picture created by Isocrates’ urgings has left a strong imprint on subsequent evaluations of the strength of the Achaemenid empire, right up to our own time. A series of not very clearly related disturbances in Asia Minor, known to modern scholarship as ‘The Great Satrap’s Revolt’, also figure in our Graeco-Roman sources for this period (360s). But it is hard to see them as a concerted rebellion that threatened to destroy the empire’s integrity, given the lack of unanimity and cohesion among the rebels and the very uncertain chronology. The unrest is perhaps more symptomatic of the chronic problems of control experienced by the Achaemenid régime, especially given the endemic rivalries that existed in the ranks of the Persian nobility (see Weiskopf 1989; Briant 1996a: 675-94 [2002: 656-75]; Grabbe 2004: 346-7). Aspects of this ‘revolt’ are, therefore, presented in the context of relations between king and nobility (13, nos.31-2; 35-6).
