The Persian rule would best be described as trying to promote peace, security and prosperity.
From Libya across to Central Asia.
AlexanderAlexander
They would have had to continue their struggle against Persian rule instead of going back to increasingly vicious and costly wars with each other. And Macedonia would not have been free form Persian rule to dominate the weakened Greek city-states.
We can not answer this question. We don't know the situations given you.
The Ionians were not satisfied with the tyrants appointed by Persia to rule them.
The exact content on "Desiporn" website can not be described since otherwise this answer would not be applicable for all ages - and thus would violate one of CrowdFlower's rule.
The 26 dynasty was under the rule of the Nubians, it ended when the Persians invaded Egypt.
The Medes were partners, under the leadership of the Persian king.
They retained traditional local government, while the empire provided security and encouraged prosperity.
They tried to bring security, peace and prosperity to their empire while leaving habitual local government to remain in place.
The Greeks saw the Persians off, so nothing changed.
Assimilation