Achaemenid legal practice

[agesilaos]

Whilst I am familiar with the Greek practice is there anyone out there who can enlighten me as to the Persian way of investigating and trying a case? Especially in the abscence of the Great King.

[marcus]

I'm afraid that I have no idea. I'm sure Nick might be able to help, as he seems to be a bit of a fount of knowledge when it comes to the Achaemenids.Whatever you do, don't believe anything you might read in Paul Doherty's historical whodunnit books! If you thought Manfredi was bad...All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

Marcus!I have just started one of those! I can't remember what it is called...the first one; the other is still in hardback. I found it in an airport bookshop.I actually think it is less harmful than Manfredi, as it is just a whodunnit, and not purporting to be an historical novel. I quite like Alexander in this - he has a swagger about him. Don't tell me whodidit...

[agesilaos]

I have heard of him I think Murder in Macedonia with a Jewish slave-girl sleuth? There is a good web-site which reviews Alexander fiction, BeyondRenault or something like that and a very pleasant American professeuse of Classics tears it to shreds.Anyway I don't even believe all I read in Arrian!

[Linda]

KarlI am only a third of the way through - the one I am reading is The House of Death, with a physician sleuth based on Philip the doctor. I am not as disappointed with it as the reviewer on the Beyond Renault site; I can stand a few historical inaccuracies for a fun story. Where I do agree with her is that Doherty's depictions of gay characters is dreadful - simpering queens to a man. But I have very low expectations of an airport book - just a quick read. But so far, his Alexander isn't bad - a cartoon stereotype but nearer to how I imagine Alexander than Manfredu and possibly Renault. But I have only read a wee bit.

[marcus]

There have been four books so far: A Murder in Macedon, A Murder in Thebes, The House of Death and The Godless Man.I have to say that I agree with all the criticisms on the Beyond Renault site, but I do agree that they are a fun read - I have, after all, bought and read all of them so far.But the characterisations, historical inaccuracies - hell, even the *geographical* inaccuracies! - should mean that they carry a huge caveat.All the bestMarcus

[nick]

(Marcus, you may have given me too much credit here.)Karl, you are inquiring about a subject that required scholars like Cook or Briant an entire chapter in their studies to come up with a decent answer. I can only hint at a few topics here - I would need a full hour of study to answer your question completely.1. Law in Achaemenid Persia, as far as I know, was not written down. A circle of 'court judges' was supposed to know the law by heart.2. The office of 'judge' - like almost anything else in Achaemenid Persia - was probably restricted to a certain 'social class': not something that required scholarship or training, but a profession reserved for certain families.3. My cultural interpretation (see http://www.gaugamela.com) is that Achaemenid Persia was - in contrast to Greeks and Romans - a society with a low level of 'uncertainty avoidance'. This means: a society with relatively very few laws, which were formulated in a broad sense and could be interpreted in various ways depending on the situation. The essence of our modern justice is finding or confirming 'the truth'. The Achaemenids may have hold the view that something like 'the truth' does simply not exist, because what is 'true' always depends on one's point of view.4. Herodotus has this funny story about Persians making a decision when they are sober, only to reconsider it when they are drunk. Or vice versa. This 'fairy tale' might expose a key element of Achaemenid thinking: there are always two sides to the medal.5. In Achaemenid Persia many high ranking people were 'elevated' above the law. (One particular family was even excepted from obeying the King's
orders.) Of the King it could be said that whatever he said, was considered true and just by definition. Many other officials must have had a similar 'authority' - to a lesser extent of course.These are all aspects that should be considered when researching the Persian way of 'trying a case'.
As you can see I have no solid answer to your question. If you want me to dig a little deeper, please tell me and I would be happy to do so.Nick

[marcus]

I knew you would rise to the challenge, Nick :-)Thanks for that - very interesting!All the bestMarcus

[agesilaos]

The titles of the books would suffice, the only Briant I know is the author of 'Antigone le Borgne' Which betrays the poverty of my Achaemenidism, thanks.

[nick]

Hi Karl -
Please - Sikander and Halil have created this wonderful "Book Reviews" page on our website. It took them so many hours to collect all the contributions and place them in a proper order - please visit that page.
Regards -
Nick

[wmp]

Marcus - I thought the series improved
(marginally) after the first two - although I nearly
died laughing in a Vergina cafe when reading
about Alexander & his pet tortoise... (Maybe
that's why Doherty abandoned the pseudonym
he used for the first two?)yours,wmp

[marcus]

I don't remember anything about a pet tortoise. Crikey!My theory about Doherty abandoning the pseudonym is that he wasn't getting any sales under the Anna Apostolou name. If you look at the incredible number of 'murder mysteries' he has published (medieval, Ancient Egypt and the Alexander ones) there must be a big group of people who buy all his books, irrespective of quality. So he sold none as Apostolou, but could be sure that publishing under Doherty would pay his electricity bills.Apparently Doherty is a headmaster who read history at Oxford. All I can say is that he didn't study Ancient History! :-)All the bestMarcusPS: But don't get me wrong, I've read all the Alexander books and I have found them fun to read. It's just the incredible inaccuracies that get my goat (or my tortoise?)