Final answer:
As a king of a vassal state in the Persian Empire, the lenient treatment from Persian rulers, the benefits of the administrative reforms, and the risks of facing the Persian military might generally dissuade rebellion unless there were severe provocation or ideological motives.
Step-by-step explanation:
If I were the king of a vassal state in the Persian Empire, my consideration of rebellion would be heavily influenced by the policies and treatment experienced under Persian rule. The Persian rulers, including Darius I, employed leniency and administrative reforms to maintain control over their vast empire. They allowed subjects to practice their own religions and customs, paid taxes, and sent troops only when necessary, which contributed to the stability of the empire. The construction of the Royal Road and reforms that Darius I implemented, such as standardizing laws and coinage, enhanced communication and governance. Considering these advantageous conditions, rebellion might not seem a favorable option unless the empire's protection weakened considerably or if the terms of vassalage became intolerably oppressive.
Additionally, any potential revolt would have to be weighed against the Persian military might and their capacity to quell uprisings effectively, as demonstrated by Darius's suppression of the rebellions following his ascent to power. The social benefits granted by the Persian kings and the logistical challenges of a rebellion in such a vast and well-managed empire would likely dissuade a vassal king from considering an insurrection unless driven by extreme circumstances or ideological motives.