Essa tese tem por objetivo analisar as percepções gregas do Império Persa Aquemênida e outros impérios orientais enquanto entidades políticas, com ênfase sobre o olhar remoto de Heródoto. Em primeiro lugar, o autor resume o estado da pesquisa acadêmica sobre as Histórias de Heródoto e sobre as atitudes gregas em relação à Pérsia, num esforço de esclarecer a complexidade das relações greco-persas, que, de acordo com a pesquisa mais recente, não eram apenas hostis, mas repletas de receptividade. A seguir, o autor examina as ideias persa e assíria de império, bem como suas organizações imperiais concretas. Analisa-se demoradamente a iconografia real persa e conceitos políticos tais quais bumi- e xaça-, concluindo-se que estes poderiam veicular uma ideia inovadora de império, embora profundamente enraizada em tradições mesopotâmicas anteriores. Descreve-se a maneira como as fontes clássicas nomearam o império ao longo do tempo, com atenção particular à formulação de autores mais antigos como Heródoto, Ésquilo e Tucídides. O autor se esforça para explicar em cada caso o uso de hgemonía, arch e até mesmo pólis para designar o Império Persa. Por fim, o autor examina a terminologia de Heródoto usada para designar o Império Aquemênida e como ela demonstra uma estratégia de alusões e ressonâncias com implicações críticas quanto à política expansionista de Atenas. Propõe-se que Atenas incorporou as ideias persas de império, enquanto, paradoxalmente, denunciava sua violência e tirania internacional. Essa postura contraditória teve seus impactos sobre historiadores como Heródoto e Tucídides e é uma chave interpretativa instrutiva para as Histórias. / This thesis aims to analyze Greek perceptions of the Achaemenid Persian Empire and other Near Eastern empires taken as political entities, emphasizing the early look of Herodotus. The author first summarizes the state of scholarly research on Herodotus Histories and Greek attitudes towards Persia in an effort to clarify the complexity of Greco-Persian relations, which, according to the most recent research, were not only hostile, but also full of receptivity. The author examines next Assyrian and Persian ideas of empire and their concrete imperial organizations. One analyzes at length Persian royal iconography and political concepts such as bumi- and xaça-, concluding that these could convey an innovative idea of empire, albeit deeply rooted in older Mesopotamian traditions. One describes the way classical sources named the empire over time, with particular attention to the wording of early authors such as Herodotus, Aeschylus, and Thucydides. The author strives to explain in each case the use of hgemonía, arch, and even pólis to designate the Persian Empire. Finally, the author examines Herodotus terminology to name the Achaemenid Empire and how it conveys a strategy of allusions and resonances with critical overtones towards Athenian expansive policy. One proposes that Athens paradoxically incorporated Persian ideas of empire, while publicly denouncing Persian violence and international tyranny. This contradictory stance had its impacts over historians such as Herodotus and Thucydides and it is an instructive interpretative key to the Histories.

Essa tese tem por objetivo analisar as percepções gregas do Império Persa Aquemênida e outros impérios orientais enquanto entidades políticas, com ênfase sobre o olhar remoto de Heródoto. Em primeiro lugar, o autor resume o estado da pesquisa acadêmica sobre as Histórias de Heródoto e sobre as atitudes gregas em relação à Pérsia, num esforço de esclarecer a complexidade das relações greco-persas, que, de acordo com a pesquisa mais recente, não eram apenas hostis, mas repletas de receptividade. A seguir, o autor examina as ideias persa e assíria de império, bem como suas organizações imperiais concretas. Analisa-se demoradamente a iconografia real persa e conceitos políticos tais quais bumi- e xaça-, concluindo-se que estes poderiam veicular uma ideia inovadora de império, embora profundamente enraizada em tradições mesopotâmicas anteriores. Descreve-se a maneira como as fontes clássicas nomearam o império ao longo do tempo, com atenção particular à formulação de autores mais antigos como Heródoto, Ésquilo e Tucídides. O autor se esforça para explicar em cada caso o uso de hgemonía, arch e até mesmo pólis para designar o Império Persa. Por fim, o autor examina a terminologia de Heródoto usada para designar o Império Aquemênida e como ela demonstra uma estratégia de alusões e ressonâncias com implicações críticas quanto à política expansionista de Atenas. Propõe-se que Atenas incorporou as ideias persas de império, enquanto, paradoxalmente, denunciava sua violência e tirania internacional. Essa postura contraditória teve seus impactos sobre historiadores como Heródoto e Tucídides e é uma chave interpretativa instrutiva para as Histórias. / This thesis aims to analyze Greek perceptions of the Achaemenid Persian Empire and other Near Eastern empires taken as political entities, emphasizing the early look of Herodotus. The author first summarizes the state of scholarly research on Herodotus Histories and Greek attitudes towards Persia in an effort to clarify the complexity of Greco-Persian relations, which, according to the most recent research, were not only hostile, but also full of receptivity. The author examines next Assyrian and Persian ideas of empire and their concrete imperial organizations. One analyzes at length Persian royal iconography and political concepts such as bumi- and xaça-, concluding that these could convey an innovative idea of empire, albeit deeply rooted in older Mesopotamian traditions. One describes the way classical sources named the empire over time, with particular attention to the wording of early authors such as Herodotus, Aeschylus, and Thucydides. The author strives to explain in each case the use of hgemonía, arch, and even pólis to designate the Persian Empire. Finally, the author examines Herodotus terminology to name the Achaemenid Empire and how it conveys a strategy of allusions and resonances with critical overtones towards Athenian expansive policy. One proposes that Athens paradoxically incorporated Persian ideas of empire, while publicly denouncing Persian violence and international tyranny. This contradictory stance had its impacts over historians such as Herodotus and Thucydides and it is an instructive interpretative key to the Histories.

This study aims to analyse and compare the accounts of Darius I, Herodotus, and Ctesias of Cnidus regarding the uprising of the false Smerdis in 522 BCE, and to give a suggestion for a reconstruction of the chain of events. The theoretical framework employed consists of New Historicism, intertextuality and the concept of “the Other”, which is combined with a close reading, grammatical analysis, and translation to Swedish of the relevant ancient texts. The dynastic background in the Achaemenid Empire, the described secrecy of the murder of the real Smerdis, and the intertextuality between the sources are all discussed in relation to the question of the historicity of the events of the uprising. The key word kāra of the Old Persian inscription is defined by its more semantically precise Akkadian equivalent uqu as referring to the army in two passages describing the uprising, and this interpretation is shown to be incompatible with the accounts of the Greek historians. It is concluded that Herodotus and Ctesias relied on oral sources for their accounts of the uprising. One of the deviant names in Ctesias’ account, Barisses, so far thought to be a hapax legomenon, is shown to be the same name as that of a high ranked official in Persepolis during the reign of Xerxes I. The most valuable source for the uprising is Darius’ version, even though there is reason to question several of the assertions in his inscriptions. It is concluded that the uprising took place largely as described in the account of Darius, and that there was indeed an impostor on the throne of Persia in 522 BCE. While in agreement with Darius on the most fundamental points, the Greek historians described this originally military uprising as court intrigues in order to contrast Achaemenid Persia with Greece, while at the same time embroidering their accounts with literary, folkloric, and fantastical motives.