obituary (1.9). The Empire of the Great King (Artaxerxes II) was regarded with a certain distance. Tissaphernes, for instance, was given the prototypical role of a devious politician. The events around the battle of Cunaxa still disguise the perception of Tissaphernes' well‐calculated policy of power as described in Xenophon's Hellenica. His rival, Pharnabazus, instead was portrayed as a noble character who was committed to his family tradition and the king, while being aware of the conflicts that went along with his loyalty (cf. Hellenica 3.4.5–4.6 with 4.1.29–1.40) (Tuplin 2004; Stoll 2013).
A literary analysis of prudent leadership can be found all along in Xenophon's works. However, in his Cyropaedia he projected all his ideals of military cautiousness and smart guidance, along with philosophical wisdom, economic understanding, and statesman‐like awareness, onto one person. There Xenophon illustrates the development of a universal monarchy on a morally and institutionally stable basis exemplified by a mostly fictional story of the founder of the Persian Empire, king Cyrus the Great. Thus, at a time when Greece was divided by internal conflicts and the ascent of Philipp II of Macedonia was still not yet to be foreseen. According to the underlying logic, the main institutions that Herodotus attributed to Darius are presented as creations of Cyrus. His fairness in warfare, his clemency as a judge, and his moral integrity make him into a character worth admiring. Novelistic parts contribute to an oriental ambiance, but they lack the dark and brutal atmosphere so typical of the scenes at court in the contemporary Persica. Cicero fittingly referred to the Cyropaedia as an exemplary model of a “just rulership” (iustum imperium: Ad Quintum fratrem 1.1.23). Its reception history was striking, but its tendency toward idealization was equally noticeable. Plato's snappy critique hit the blind spot: the integrity of the state depended on the integrity of a king who was not capable of guaranteeing a good line of succession (Nomoi 3.694c/695b). Xenophon himself had not managed to get rid of the contemporary tendencies to hold contempt against the Persian Empire, for there lies a deep gap between the fictitious past and the author's own period, when the Persian Empire is characterized by a typical set of clichés including decadence and decline (final chapter 8.8) (Walser 1984; Flower 2017).
Similar clichés are employed in Isocrates' political rhetoric. In his Panegyricus (380 BCE) he suggested unleashing a new Persian War, unifying the Greeks under the leadership of Athens and Sparta. According to him, the education for servitude and the luxurious life of the Persian elite led to cowardice and weakness among the Persian population. The satraps were said to be faithless, cowardly, submissive, and arrogant (c.f. esp. 123 f.; 149–155). Lastly, the prospect of rich treasures, namely the gems of Asia, were to spur on for battle (187). Half a century later, in 346 BCE, Isocrates urged Philipp II of Macedonia in a similar way to wage war against Artaxerxes III. In his eyes it was a shame that the Barbarians in Asia lived in greater prosperity than the Greeks. A new Persian War was to bring Philipp treasures and glory (Philippus 124–126, 132–137). Such clichés of Persian lifestyle were a useful tool for political agitation. Examples are also to be found in Demosthenes' speeches, however with an entirely different intention. There it is Philipp who was perceived as the more threatening “barbaric” enemy, and an alliance with the Great King became an attractive option. In this case, one should overcome the common clichés, stated the famous orator (cf. Philippica 4.31–4.34) (Marincola 2007).
An important contribution to Persian history within the frame of a Greek history was made by Ephorus of Cyme. His work, which originated in the time of Philipp II and made use of the different Persica of the fourth century is lost but was of great influence for later authors such as Diodorus and Strabo. Ephorus developed the idea that in 480–479 BCE Greece had been threatened by a unified attack of Persians and Carthaginians (FGrH 186 F 70). Unfortunately, the Philippica of Theopompus of Chios, written soon after Ephorus' work, are also lost. The author was admired and feared for his rigid moral judgments. The work focused on Philipp II but also concerned the Persian Empire of the fourth century and depicted the luxurious lifestyle of the Great King's court. When Alexander took up the military operation against the Great King already initiated by his father, the conquerors conceptualized the Persian Empire according to the conventional ideas developed by Greek tradition in the fourth century BCE (Marincola 2007; Parmeggiani 2014).
The classical authors' descriptions of Alexander the Great's campaigns are important but also problematic sources concerning the Persian Empire. They are of great importance for our knowledge about the empire's institutions and structures. This applies to the satrapies and their administration, for instance the structure of the army, as well as the king's court in the battlefield. Furthermore, we receive important data about the eastern parts of the empire of which little had been known until Alexander's conquest. The Alexander‐historians mainly focused on the assessment of the personality of the conqueror. Thereby the Persian Empire serves as the setting for a dramatic story with a hero who is presented from different angles. The protagonists on the side of the enemy have a backstage role in a play concentrated on the successful conqueror, whereas Darius III (336–330) found his place in the shadow of Alexander (Briant 2003). The adaption of traditional Persian customs and court ceremonial by Alexander staging himself as the legitimate successor of Darius III (just as he claimed to be the successor of the Pharaohs in Egypt) could be perceived as a sign of Alexander's growing hubris. With Callisthenes (FGrH 124), Alexander had brought along a historiographer who described his campaign as a Panhellenic war of revenge. The image of Darius fleeing prematurely and in a cowardly way both at Issus and Arbela (333 and 331 BCE) probably dates back to him, as does the account of the burning of Persepolis' palace as a deliberate demonstration of the successful revenge. Meanwhile, Callisthenes himself was sentenced to death (327 BCE). His critique of Alexander's taking over the ceremony of proskynesis was stylized as a memorial of Hellenic love of freedom (Briant 2003; Rollinger 2016; Ruffing 2017).
It was only after Alexander's death that an entire series of publications emerged, written mostly by companions of the king or at least by people who took part in the great campaign. All these accounts are preserved only thanks to their quotation in later works. This makes it difficult to determinate their chronological order and their reciprocal intertextuality. The staging of the military campaign in a fascinating way, exhibiting a world full of marvels and interesting encounters, started off relatively early with the novelistic work of Onesicritus. He is known for his marvelous tales about India where Alexander appeared as a wise man in arms (FGrH/BNJ 134 F 17) (Müller 2011; Winiarczyk 2011). The reception of the work of Nearchus (FGrH/BNJ 133) was also mainly due to his reports about India and his account about the passage of a fleet led by him from the mouth of the river Indus to the Persian Gulf. Most important for the image of the Persian Empire was the work of Cleitarchus, whose father Dinon had already become known through his Persica. Cleitarchus should better not be regarded an eye‐witness. His history of Alexander with its flowery novelistic style found a great number of readers (FGrH 137). It is considered the main source of the historical tradition used by Diodorus, Trogus/Iustinus, Curtius (and partly Plutarch), referred to as Vulgate. There Alexander begins to develop increasingly despotic traits along with his victories over Darius III, whereas in comparison with the accounts of Plutarch and Arrian, his enemy is described as a far more noble person. The latter authors both give a rather euphemistic and idealizing account of Alexander's personality. With the work of Ptolemy (FGrH 138), Arrian had deliberately chosen an adequate main source. While recalling Alexander's great deeds, Ptolemy managed to bring in the appraisal of his own merits and, what was more, he also managed to find a way of legitimizing his political ideas in the later struggle for power after Alexander's death. The crucial question of priority between the writings of Cleitarchus and Ptolemy cannot be definitely decided although a recently published papyrus (POxy LXXI, 4808) suggests a later date for the former. Arrian's second important source, Aristobulus' history (FGrH/BNJ 139), is considered the latest report of one of Alexander's companions. It also presented an idealistic image of Alexander and described the marvels of the remote countries in the east (Gilhaus 2017).
From the Hellenistic Age to the Roman Empire
The main focus of Hellenistic historiography was concentrated on the wars in the aftermath of Alexander the Great, the development of the Hellenistic empires,