system, moreover, was one which allowed greater liberty to the subject
races than the Macedonian, as it had been understood and carried out by
the Seleucidae; and so far some real gain was to be expected from the
change. Religious motives must also have conspired to make the Persians
sympathize with the new power, rather than with that which for centuries
had despised their faith and had recently insulted it.

The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian lords seems, on the
whole, to have been marked by moderation. Mithridates indeed, the
original conqueror, is accused of having alienated his new subjects by
the harshness of his rule; and in the struggle which occurred between
him and the Seleucid king, Demetrius II., Persians, as well as
Elymseans and Bactrians, are said to have fought on the side of the
Syro-Macedonian. But this is the only occasion in Parthian history,
between the submission of Persia and the great revolt under Artaxerxes,
where there is any appearance of the Persians regarding their masters
with hostile feelings. In general they show themselves submissive and
contented with their position, which was certainly, on the whole, a less
irksome one than they had occupied under the Seleucidae.

It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to allow the
subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern themselves. These peoples
generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled by native kings, who
succeeded to the throne by hereditary right, had the full power of life
and death, and ruled very much as they pleased, so long as they paid
regularly the tribute imposed upon them by the "King of Kings," and sent
him a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a military
expedition. Such a system implies that the conquered peoples have
the enjoyment of their own laws and institutions, are exempt from
troublesome interference, and possess a sort of semi-independence.