2Stone structures are susceptible to weathering and erosion over time, necessitating the identification and elimination of damaging factors to ensure their preservation. This research focused on diagnosing the damage to the tomb of XERXES located at the historical site of Naqsh-e Rostam through a multidisciplinary approach encompassing library research, field observations, laboratory analyses, and geological studies. Petrographic studies revealed that the rocks comprising the tomb belong to the Seruk Formation. The sedimentary sequence within this formation exhibited thick and light-colored limestone layers. Utilizing the geophysical technique of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), two major fractures were identified along the boundaries of the tomb. These fractures predominantly followed north-south and east-west orientations. The intersection of these fracture sets, combined with the layering surfaces, resulted in the development of dissolution phenomena, leading to the formation of dissolution holes and cavernous porosity on the structure. Additionally, field studies investigated the presence of plants and cyanobacterial lichens on the tomb.

The narration of the Persian wars by the Greek historians, especially Herodotus, in the absence of the Iranian narrative, is a one-sided narrative that deprives the reader of obtaining and understanding other aspects of these wars. In the Greek narrative, the military and policing strategies of these wars are either not discussed or only a brief mention is enough. The Battle of Thermopylae is one of the Persian wars that was the key to capturing Athens. Therefore, the main question in this research is, what was XERXES' military and policing strategy in the states located on the way to Greece and in the battle of Thermopylae? The findings of the research show that according to the military supplies and support of XERXES' army, the movement and movement of troops, the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of roads and bridges, clothing and war equipment and strategic plans during the war, XERXES, in the first place, followed It was to secure the western borders of the empire and to regulate the western states, which was accomplished by completely conquering Thrace and Macedonia to the north of Greece. The capture of northern Greece was the first consequence and fruit of XERXES's preparations and strategic plan, which continued with the victory in Thermopylae and, more importantly, the capture of Athens. XERXES' advance towards Athens should be studied in the context of his satisfaction with his military strategy. In fact, Thermopylae and the capture of Athens were the result of XERXES' planning, logistics and policy in organizing the developments of the western borders, which was a great achievement for XERXES before the defeat of Salamis. This research is written based on the descriptive-analytical approach using the narrative analysis method.

Some scholars doubt that the dialog "Alcibiades Major" was written by Plato, but this conversation has an important place among the works belonging to the Platonic school. "Alcibiades Major" contains a dialog between Socrates and the young Alcibiades, and in some parts of the conversation they also talk about the Achaemenid Empire. In this study, only one part of the conversation has been considered, namely that Socrates mentions Cyrus the Great and XERXES I as the only people the young and ambitious Alcibiades respects. Thus, the aim of this study is to identify, through a critical and comparative reading of the conversation of "Alcibiades Major", the concepts and images that led the author to mention the names of Cyrus and XERXES as the only honorable persons for Alcibiades". Finally, this study aims to analyze the hidden ideas that existed in the public opinion of the Greeks of the 5th and 4th centuries BC about these two Achaemenid great kings.

The evolution in the structure and methods of warfare of the Achaemenid army during the XERXES rule brought his distinct military performance in wars against Greek nation-states. This has stressed the importance of inquiring into the effective military benchmarks of the Achaemenid army. Against this backdrop, the present study, taking a descriptive-analytical approach, analyzed distinctive specifications of the army during the XERXES rule. Multi-national army, becoming equipped with new military tools and means, and finally the fortification of the navy force to continue conquests were some of the most important characteristics of the army during the XERXES rule that influenced the military performance of the Achaemniand. Nevertheless, the differences in the methods of warfare of the multinational army of the XERXES was a downside leading to the inefficacity of the Achaemenid army in their fighting the Greeks.

The battles of the Achaemenid Empire against the European Greeks, alongside the battles of Thermopylae and Marathon, are among the most famous military events in world history.Nowadays, the description of this great Persian campaign is only available to researchers through Greek writings, and therefore, the Eastern perspective on what happened in this event has been left out. Based on Herodotus' reports in his seventh, eighth, and ninth books, and following it, Diodorus in his eleventh book, the Persian army of the Achaemenid Empire was ultimately defeated in the Battle of Salamis after several victories, and with their voluntary withdrawal from the captured city of Athens, the Achaemenids returned to Asia. This was followed by the initial victories of Mardonius and his ultimate failure, which led the military borders of this empire back to its previous European satrapies.This article analyzes another report that depicts a vivid narrative in an Arsacid palace, according to which, XERXES himself called his final victories in these battles, contrary to the claims of the Greeks.This article concludes that firstly, memories and details related to the events of the Achaemenid era were preserved in the historiography of the Arsacid era, and secondly, based on the ancient Eastern perspective, Greek narratives related to the subject of the Achaemenid campaign in Europe can be seriously criticized.In sum, this article states that the forces of XERXES and Mardonius were not defeated by the Greek forces. However, due to the damage caused by two storms, their military power was weakened, and as a result, they failed to achieve all their goals. Furthermore, this research suggests that the Battle of Plataea did not unfold as described by Herodotus and Diodorus regarding the role of the Greeks in its outcome.In conclusion, XERXES' military operations weakened and brought severe calamity to Northern Greece's foundation.

Inscriptions are one of the most important historical references that are vital to the study of ancient history. Not only with studying inscriptions helps us directly understand very important historical point, but also we can challenge existing doubts and prejudices. According to historical linguistics, there are different subjects: political, military, social, cultural and economical subjects and also the changes in the regulations. While the most important subject in the Achaemenids inscriptions which can be surveyed in the side of religious scopes, such as monotheism and religious negligence upon the beliefs of the followers. At the other side it contains moral values such as truthfulness, honesty, gratefulness and freedom. These values all show the peaceful religious policy of the Achaemenids kings and also show their lawful positions.Undoubtedly, the most amount of the Achaemenids inscriptions are related to Darius the Great (BC 521-486) and the most special epigraph among all is the Bistoon inscription which is so important in the historical researches. By studying these inscriptions we can not only understand the historical points of the era but also to a considerable degree the religious policy of the Achaemenids. In this essay, with the great inspection of the Achaemenids inscription, it has been made efforts to find out how the religious policy and the legal position of the Achaemenids king were gained at the period.

This Study depicts the narratives of Aeschylus and Herodotus about the Achaemenid emperors and tries to show how they gave a narrative about the Achaemenid emperors and what sources they relied on in this regard. Its importance lies in a better understanding of Herodotus’s historiography and its use of Aeschylus’s narration among other sources. The main question and the problem that has been raised is to what sources did Aeschylus and Herodotus use in their narration and what narration they give. The approach and the research Methodology of this study is a thought. This means that it puts the narratives of Aeschylus and Herodotus next to each other to find out how they gave a narrative about the Achaemenid emperors. The thesis is that Aeschylus, who himself witnessed the Persian campaign, while giving a first-hand account, rewrote it based on the model of Greek tragedies, and Herodotus, while largely is influenced by Aeschylus’ account of the Achaemenid emperors and XERXES’ campaign to Greece, he used other sources in his narration. As a result and data, the narratives of Aeschylus and Herodotus about the Achaemenid emperors and XERXES’s campaign to Greece show similarities and differences. Based on the model of Greek tragedies, Aeschylus’s narrative tells the story of XERXES’ campaign as a king whose delusions lead him to do brazen actions that involve an inevitable fate from the gods. Herodotus’ narrative is largely derived from Aeschylus’s narrative. The ups and downs that Herodotus depicts in the lives of the Achaemenid emperors and especially XERXES and the influence of the intervention of gods and fate in their lives are all reminiscent of the ancient Greek tragedies, here specifically the Persians of Aeschylus. At the same time, Herodotus also uses other sources and gives more details than Aeschylus to show the reasons and agents of this campaign as a historian. Despite this, Aeschylus’s narrative is decades ahead of Herodotus’s narrative and is closer to the time of the event. Also, his narration of the Achaemenid emperors, as narrated by Atossa, Darius and XERXES, has significant differences from Herodotus’s narration

The Battle of Marathon, the first direct confrontation between the Persians and the Greeks in 490 BC, was a turning point in the relations between the Achaemenid Empire and the Greek world. Over time, this battle become an epic in defense of Greek freedom. However, less attention, despite the inspirational feature of the battle, has been paid to its narration and the perception of Greek historians and their audiences of it. This article seeks to answer the question of the motif the Greek sources, especially Herodotus, used in the narration of the Battle of Marathon and the subjectivity of their Greek audiences. Research findings show that Herodotus, the most important narrator of the battle, paid less attention to the Marathon than to the XERXES wars, but by placing it in the field of Persian wars, on the one hand, he has made the Marathon the end point of the Ionian uprising and on the other hand, the introduction of the XERXES wars, by which he has intended to make his audience believe that the catastrophic wars between the Persians and the Greeks were rooted in the Persians' overthrow of the Ionians, the collaboration of the Ionian tyrants with the Persians, and eventually the Ionian uprising. From Herodotus's point of view, the Marathon was the result of the Ionian uprising, and Salamis was the result of the Battle of Marathon. Thus, the Marathon was a link between the string of Persian and Greek wars.

Achaemenian's imperia (government) were established in 550 B.C, by the Median crash, by Cyrus the great. By the first battle that redounded to Median crash, Cyrus' basic theory in internal and external diplomacy, it means, "tolerance and forbearance" was founded. Kings were nearly next to this policy. Campuses followed the territorial expansion policy and after the capture of Egypt followed his fathers soft policy. Darius transformed "tolerance and forbearance" to political doctrine and endeavored to the methods peaceful ways to reach his goals.Following the attacks XERXES to Greece Delos confederacy led by Athens, was formed. First ArtaXERXES followed the consistency and patience policy. Second Darius and Second ArtaXERXES adopting the policy "divide and rule". Finally, with Macedonian attacks on Darius III, Achaemenid Empire sun life, fell.