Kevin Thomas
Violence and Civilization
With chapter 3, Lincoln lays out two basic methods by which the Persian kings established their legitimacy: Dynasty and Charisma. With dynasty, kings prove that they have a genetic link to the throne and are of a sufficient royal lineage. Charisma, as they defined it, was the proof that a person has divine favor and is the “chosen one” of the god or gods, thus giving them a religious power base. When one link was weaker, as in the case of Darius’ questionable lineage, the other option is emphasized to make up for the lost status. These of course are also used in reverse to justify the conquest of other rulers. Rival kings are said to come from false dynasties, or are shown to have fallen out of God’s favor—of which ill events within their kingdom were proof. A particularly interesting point is that, post-conquest, scribes of the conquered (or liberated) would co-opt the Persian kings as their god’s favored, such as the Jews proclaiming Cyrus to be a servant of YHWH. This was a complicated result of both Persian propaganda, conquered people’s currying favor, and religious conviction.
Chapter 6 details how the beliefs of the Persian Empire would lead to the existence of a horrible form of execution like the trough punishment. Essentially, the Persian king’s power
(and that of the empire) rests on the belief in his religious righteousness and complete purity.
Because the Lie was the ultimate conception of evil, the king must always (in belief, not practice) be truthful and a savior to the people. So, when someone accuses the king of lying, they must be punished grievously, as in the case of Mithridates. Even more importantly, the trough execution was, through religious symbolism, designed to prove his guilt by the punishment itself. The excrement and maggots are signs of the Lie and evil within him, especially since he was fed the purest of foods. Lincoln argues that the Empire was built on the conviction that the king and their cause was always divinely sanctioned and legally established; therefore they had to continually invent new ways to uphold their myth, including the development of this execution method.
I think that Lincoln makes some excellent observations regarding the Persian conception of their Empire and the propaganda they used to uphold their hegemony. In committing violent conquest, their religious outlook portrayed themselves as liberators, bringing the light to various corners of the Earth. His breakdown of their power structure and ideology is a case study that seems applicable to many situations. I was especially struck with how the system of the Wise
Lord and the Lie automatically created “the other” in any circumstance when matched against the king. The king was considered pure, therefore anything against him must have some form of darkness, which it was his duty to rectify.
However, I think that Lincoln’s sweeping claims about the nature of empire, and most especially his attempts to connect these to Abu Ghraib, fall flat. One example of torture is not enough to support his claim that the Persian empire was in a constant propaganda and religious battle to uphold their own myth of purity and righteousness, in order to justify all their conquests.
He bases much of this on the contrast between the “bestial” executions and behavior and the empire’s supposed charitable existence that was designed to bring about heaven. But who’s to say that this appeared to be a contradiction to the Persians? I think that Lincoln has gotten seduced by the brutality of the act and let it cloud his perspective on the Persian view of the world. He sees them as committing some horrible act of violent, domineering conquest that demands their absolute authority in good. To be honest, many of the facts he presented made the empire seem positively enlightened to me, at least by the standards of the day. As for his Abu

Ghraib section, it’s horrible. As I see it, he makes only the broadest of connections between the
Persian Empire and modern America, that could be said of almost any leader engaged in any war throughout history. His theory that Abu Ghraib reflected the need of the soldiers to prove their
“moral worth” is unsupported and ignores dozens of basic psychological principles that can better explain the events. About all he says that is correct is that the prisoners were viewed as outsiders, or “the other”. This is blindingly obvious, and could support many other theories besides his own.
Chapter three is largely about propaganda, violence, and myth-making.
It interestingly shows competing forces, such as the Babylonians, Persians, and Jews, who all try to co-opt Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon.
The dual powers of dynasty and charisma (or divine favor) highlight two simple aspects of power—legacy and moral righteousness.
It’s interesting that Darius goes from being king of the land to king of all the earth as the legitimacy of his power increases
It’s also interesting that their deity, the Wise Lord, is so completely passive. He’s an instrument of conferring cosmological favor, and an indicator of moral (and therefore meritable) worth.
Chapter 6