Ernst Badian has argued that it would have been ideologically unacceptable for the great king of Persia to submit to negotiations with Athens and to bind himself by oath to the resulting Peace of Callias. This interpretation, however, is the result of the later Greek conception of the Peace of Callias as an Athenian victory over Persia, and the Peace of Antalcidas as a Persian humiliation of Greece. In this paper, I argue that the Achaemenid kings of Persia inherited notions of kinship, empire, and diplomacy from their Neo-Assyrian predecessors, and therefore saw treaties as an honorable and legitimate tool of empire.
van. CompernolleR., '“Une tradition achéménide sur l’exil de Thémistocle?”', in J. Servais(ed), Stemmata: Mélanges de philologie d’histoire et d’archéologie grecques: offerts à Jules Labarbe, (Liège1987) 267-273.
FalesF. M., '“On Pax Assyriaca in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries BCE and Its Implications”', in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook(eds), Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International Relations: Swords into Plowshares, (New York2008) 17-35.
Pongratz-LeistenB., '“The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in Assyrian Politics”', in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting(eds), Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki 7–11 September 1995, (Helsinki1997) 245-252.
StronachD., '“From Cyrus to Darius: Notes on Art and Architecture in Early Achaemenid Palaces”', in I. Nielson(ed), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West, (Athens2001) 95-111.