The strategy more effective for imperial power was for a ruler to be seen as kind and just. If a leader could set an example for how best to act, his people would loyally follow, emulate his benevolent nature, and pay tribute with little to none fight. For example, the Persians were more accepting of local indigenous traditions, and encouraged different cultures and religions. Cyrus is known as being a great and kind ruler- freeing the people of Juduh from the Babylonians and, “encouraging them to rebuild their temple (Video: Persia).” This fostering of knowledge and different ideas without fighting over who was right or wrong allowed for a society with good communication, trade, and plentiful schools of thought. On the other hand, the Assyrians harsh rule created resentment in those they defeated, or those outside of the “yoke of Asshur.” This resentment would eventually lead to their downfall as their system was overthrown by a coalition allied with the Babylonians. Now, one could argue that Persia, just as Assyria fell and that technically, Assyria did last longer; however, Persia’s political context at the time of their demise furthers the argument that ruling with benevolence is more beneficial for all parties. During the 5th century this, “benevolent image, memory of the oder of the Persian Shaw was altered after conflict and war broke out between Persians and Greeks… image of the Persians in the West became increasingly viewed in an adversarial light (Video: Persia).” Of course, following this discourse, their empire fell as challenges with the Greeks and invading armies arose. As soon as their image of benevolent emancipators fell, they became more subjected to conflict and attack- further proving that their initial strategy- perhaps best emulated in King Cyrus, was what provided their successes in communication with others, trade facilitation, and military efforts.
