Medes: The Forgotten Predecessors of Persia

In the grand narrative of ancient Iran, the Achaemenid Empire often occupies centre stage. With figures such as Cyrus the Great, Darius the Lawgiver, and Xerxes the Invader, it is no surprise that this empire’s glory outshines much of what came before. Yet beneath the marble grandeur of Persepolis and the proclamations of the Behistun Inscription lies the silent shadow of another realm — the Median Empire. Overshadowed by its more celebrated successor, the Median Empire was not only Persia’s precursor in time but also in structure, ideology, and ambition. To understand how the Achaemenids emerged and flourished, we must first unearth the legacy of the Medes — the forgotten predecessors of Persia.

The Origins of the Medes

The Medes were an Indo-Iranian people, part of the broader Aryan migrations into the Iranian plateau around the end of the second millennium BCE. Closely related to the Persians by language and culture, the Medes settled in the north-western regions of modern-day Iran, in an area historically known as Media. While they appear as a somewhat nebulous presence in early sources, by the 9th century BCE, Assyrian records begin to mention them as a distinct group. Initially, these references depict the Medes not as a coherent political entity, but as a constellation of tribes, pastoral and warlike, scattered across the Zagros Mountains.

It would take centuries for these fragmented clans to coalesce into something resembling a state. Their tribal society, though fluid and decentralised, maintained a strong warrior ethos and an affinity for mounted warfare — traits that would later become synonymous with Iranian imperial identity. Moreover, their proximity to Assyria meant they were constantly subjected to military pressure, tribute demands, and cultural exchange, which would deeply shape their evolution.

From Vassals to Sovereigns

The tipping point came in the late 8th and early 7th centuries BCE. Assyrian dominance in the region was at its zenith, and Media, like many of its neighbours, was under the thumb of Nineveh. But empires that stretch too far often crack from within, and the Assyrian hold began to weaken under internal strife and external revolts. It was in this shifting landscape that a Median leader named Deioces emerged.

According to Herodotus — our primary source, albeit an embellished one — Deioces (Δηϊόκης) was a just judge who gradually attracted followers and authority. In Iranian tradition, he is remembered as Diāko (دیاکو) or Diyā-oko (دیااوکو), likely derived from a Median or Old Persian form Dahyu-ka, meaning “tribal leader.” Tired of tribal chaos, the Medes allegedly chose him as their king, and he established a capital at Ecbatana (modern Hamadan), reputedly building a grand, seven-walled city. While Herodotus’ account may romanticise the foundation of the Median kingdom, archaeological and Assyrian records support the rise of a centralised Median power during this period. The Medes were no longer mere clients or rebels — they were becoming sovereigns.

Deioces was succeeded by his son Phraortes (Φραόρτης), whose original Median name was likely Fravartiš (𐎳𐎼𐎺𐎼𐎫𐎡𐏁), rendered in modern Persian as Farāvartiš (فراورتیش) or Farāwart (فرائورت). The name is linked to the Avestan fravarti, related to the guardian spirits (fravashis), and suggests divine allegiance or protection. Fravartiš expanded the kingdom and began aggressive campaigns to unite the Iranian tribes, including the Persians. However, he fell in battle against the Assyrians, a reminder that Media had not yet eclipsed the great imperial beast. That final blow would come with his successor, Cyaxares.

Cyaxares (Κυαξάρης), known in reconstructed Median as Hvaxšaθra (possibly pronounced Hovakhshatra, هووخشتَرَه in Persian), reigned in the early 6th century BCE and represents the zenith of Median power. His name is etymologically related to the Old Persian xšaça (kingdom or rule), and the root xšāyaθiya (king), making his name roughly mean “he who holds the desirable kingdom.” He reorganised the army, introduced a professional military structure, and forged an alliance with the Neo-Babylonian Empire, culminating in the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE — a moment that redefined the balance of power in the Near East.

Cyaxares and the Zenith of Median Power

This victory did not merely mark the end of Assyria; it signalled the dawn of a new world order in the Near East. With Assyria vanquished, its former territories were carved up between the Medes and Babylonians. Media now held sway over vast stretches of Iran, eastern Anatolia, and parts of Mesopotamia. It was, for a time, the dominant power in the region — an empire in all but name.

But Cyaxares’ vision was not simply military. Under his rule, Media began developing administrative practices, regional satrapies, and an imperial ideology rooted in divine favour and kingship. Many of these ideas, later perfected by the Achaemenids, began their gestation in the Median court. Cyaxares’ realm was the first true Iranian empire, and though no inscriptions from his reign survive, his legacy is whispered through the systems that Cyrus would later inherit.

The Transition from Median to Persian Power

The rise of the Persians is often presented as an overthrow — a sudden revolution led by a visionary figure, Cyrus the Great, against a corrupt Median overlord. This account, largely derived from Herodotus and supported in part by Babylonian sources like the Nabonidus Chronicle, tells of Astyages, the last Median king, ruling with growing despotism. Cyrus, his grandson through Astyages’ daughter Mandane, allegedly rebelled and overthrew him in 550 BCE.

But the truth may be more nuanced.

There is considerable scholarly debate over the nature of this transition. Was Cyrus’ rebellion truly a dramatic rupture, or was it a dynastic reconfiguration within a shared cultural-political continuum? Several factors point to continuity rather than violent overthrow. First, the Achaemenid administrative structure — satrapies, royal roads, military divisions — mirrors that of the Medes. Second, there are no records of a long, drawn-out war or massive cultural purge following the Persian ascent. Third, the Medes appear to have retained high positions within the new empire, and Media itself remained a privileged region.

In many ways, Cyrus inherited a functioning imperial model and expanded upon it with brilliance and clemency. His conquest of Media was not a decimation, but an integration. The Median elite became part of the new Persian order, and the ideological core of kingship, divine mandate, and multi-ethnic governance was preserved — albeit with Persian vocabulary and Zoroastrian overtones.

Cultural and Political Legacy

The cultural impact of the Medes is harder to trace, as they left behind few inscriptions or monumental architecture. Yet their influence is palpable in the fabric of Achaemenid Iran. The very notion of an empire ruled by a single king over diverse peoples with local governors finds its first practical expression in Media. Moreover, Median attire, court customs, and even architectural styles were adopted by the Persians. In later Achaemenid reliefs, figures dressed in the distinctive Median robe — long-sleeved, belted, and flowing — appear prominently, often as nobles or advisors. Their presence is not that of the conquered, but of co-founders.

Additionally, the Median experience with the Assyrians — both as subjects and conquerors — provided an essential template for the Persian approach to empire. Where Assyria ruled by terror and deportation, the Medes, and later the Persians, ruled with a degree of pragmatism, tolerance, and decentralised control. This evolution in imperial philosophy owes much to the Median interlude between Assyria’s brutality and Persia’s benevolence.

Historical Memory and Obscurity

Why, then, have the Medes been so neglected in popular history?

Part of the reason lies in sources. The Medes did not leave behind extensive inscriptions or buildings to sing their own praises. Much of what we know comes through the lens of others — the Greeks, the Babylonians, and the Achaemenids. Herodotus’ narrative, while colourful, is more myth than chronicle, and the silence of Median archives has left historians to fill gaps with speculation.

The Achaemenids, too, had little incentive to preserve Median glory. While they honoured their predecessors in subtle ways, their imperial narrative emphasised Persian exceptionalism, divine favour, and the just rule of the house of Cyrus. In this story, the Medes became a stepping stone — respected, but ultimately superseded.

And yet, without the Medes, there could have been no Persia as we know it.

Conclusion: Remembering the Median Inheritance

The Achaemenid Empire did not rise in a vacuum. It was the heir to centuries of Iranian migration, tribal consolidation, warfare, diplomacy, and imperial experimentation. At the heart of this inheritance stood the Medes — a people who built the first Iranian empire, toppled Assyria, and laid the foundations of Persian statecraft.

To study the Medes is to look into the wellspring from which Persia drew its strength. They were not merely the ones who came before; they were the blueprint, the rehearsal, the architects whose work was continued, polished, and immortalised in Persian stone and scripture. Forgotten by many, the Medes deserve a return to memory — not as a footnote in Achaemenid history, but as its indispensable prologue.