Can I ask you some historical questions?
Knight-Dragon (our chinese history authority) said that the Silk Road started around the beginning of the Christian
era, once a Chinese envoy made contact with the Kushans, who had been driven to the west by the Hsiung-nu.
But according to the following links it seems that in the persian empire there was a kind of embryonic silk route.
Well, I'd like to put it this way.
Trade routes, and such titanical ones as the silk route in particular, don't turn up over night.
Often they develop over time.
The silk route as we know it (i.e. a trade route through all of central asia for the trade of silk) could very well have started to exist as Knight-Dragon put it.
But there are definite evidences of mercantile connections between China and the west, and of course, these routes went through Persia.
Greek historians, for example, write a lot about 'Persian' fruits such as peaches, citrus, etc.
These do not appear on any Persian list, or on the Elamite administration tablets (Fortification tablets, etc.) found in Persepolis.
They did, however, exist in China, so it is quite obvious that there was such trade.
Later, during Roman times, silk became more interesting, so the main focus on trade between the west and China, of course, was silk.
Right now I'm reading 'Creation' by Gore Vidal. Vidal is a very attentive historian novelist, as it appears, and the main character in this book is a persian envoy to Athens, India and China (Carthay). This might be interesting in that context..
And I also want to ask you about something I never understood widely.
In the persian empire Babylon was one of the biggest cities, religious and trade centers of the world.
And in a way the old mesopotamian culture remained alive there.
After the conquer of Alexander established his capital city in Babylon but during the seleucid kingdom Babylon
decayed very rapidly until disappearing completely.
Why?
Well...
First of all, I'd like to point out that there is no clear evidence that Alexander did aim to make Babylon his capital. I'll come back to that.
Seleucus Nicator attempted to create a new Greek empire, not a Graeco-Iranian empire as Alexander wanted to. That is why, for example, Seleucus payed virtually no attention to the eastern provinces of his empire, so Persia, Media Atropatene , etc. became independent, and the Parthians had quite an easy time later on to conquer this area (the Seleucids are often also called 'kings of Syria').
Well, Seleucus founded a new city in Mesopotamia, Seleucia (or Seleukeia, in Greek), as a new capital. This was layed out to metropolitan dimensions.
But his loss of interest in the east, and the gain of interest towards the greek west soon motivated him to establish a new residence in Syria, Antiochia (Antiocheia), which soon became one of the largest cities in the Graeco-Roman world (This is what might have happened to Alexandreia in Egypt if Alexander had lived on).
Now, Babylon lost its privileged situation in all of Mesopotamia, as Seleucia, and later, its Iranian/Parthian counterweight, Ctesiphon, gained the suprerior role in this area.
The elité, who resided in Babylon, of course, now moved away, and so, the people of Babylon lost the support they had had during Persian times. And as there were a lot new greek foundings in Mesopotamia, the people moved there and established their future.
As a cultural center, Babylon lost its position simply because in the new greek cities new temples were built, and so there was no need to build new ones in Babylon.
The Parthians continued that tradition, and so did the Sasanians. There were a lot of new foundings during Parthian and Sasanian times.
So, very simple, the people lost interest in Babylon and moved away, there was no support, and the city just went down.
Of course, here I wrote a lot of own opinions, but I think most of it won't be bullsh!t.
OK, here now are the answers to the other questions (they were quite hard, sorry):
1.) Blind, as Kubilai said correctly
2.) Artaxerxes II (404-359 BC)
3.) Taq-i Kisra
4.) 5.283.220 (estimated to have been ca. 200.000-250.000 in reality)
5.) As Kubilai said correctly, Xerxes II was killed by Sogdianos (Sekyndianos), who in return was killed by Ochos (Darius II, 423-404 BC)
6.) As Nahuixtelotzin said correctly, Surenas commanded the Parthian forces, and he was killed by Pomaxathres.
7.) Plutarch mentions Artaxerxes II's original name to be Arsicas, relating to Ctesias, but mentions that Dinon said his original name was Oarses (Arses).
8.) He planned to use the Phoenecian (Tyran) fleet to conquer Carthage, but the Phoenecians refused to start war against their own people (Carthage was founded by the Phoenecians, and there were still close commercial ties to its mother city, Tyrus, but I think that is clear).
9.) Peroz was defeated by the Hephtalites (White Huns) from central asia twice, in 465 and in 484 AD. The second time, the Hephtalites chased him and his cavalry into a hidden trench, where they broke into and were slaughtered man by man (but later buried in Zoroastrian tradition).
10.) That's a tricky one. The assumed tomb of Darius III (unfinished) is situated ca. 500 metres southeast to the terace of Persepolis.
Want any more (easier) questions?
)?
My memory fails me! 
