Persian monarch indeed reflected the way Persian monarchs wished to be
referred to in writing. For instance Darius I’s inscription at Behistun states:
‘I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of
countries.’ The ‘king of kings’ title, adopted from Urartu no doubt via the
Medes, demonstrated the Persian ruler’s superiority over local princes and
kings as well as the universal character of his monarchy. The Great King
28 Tod, GHI 179. Bosworth 1988, pp. 191-192; Billows 1990, pp. 190-194; Jehne
1994, pp. 7-28; Blackwell 1999, pp. 39-48; Adams 1999; Corvisier 2002, pp. 257-
262; Zahrnt 2009, pp. 23-25; Poddighe 2009, pp. 103-106.
29 Billows 1990, p. 193; Faraguna 2003, p. 102; Poddighe 2009, pp. 105-106.
The Heir to the Throne
57
was surrounded by an abundance of luxury that would have greatly
impressed Greek observers and his court’s opulence and magnificence was
quite unmatched elsewhere. One of the aspects of this lifestyle was huge
feasts in which even as many as 15,000 banqueters could participate.
However, by all accounts contemporary Greek observers did not know that
this was a form of redistributing royal wealth among the banqueting court
aristocracy and palace guards. Among the court attendants Greek sources
mention the ubiquity of eunuchs. Their prominent role in ancient Persia
was for a long time interpreted by modern historians as a clear symptom of
chronic decadence in the Achaemenid state, one whose history had
descended into a continual series of harem intrigues. Today we know that
only some of these so-called eunuchs were castrated slaves employed in
harems; whereas others described as such in Greek sources were in reality
high-ranking dignitaries and no doubt members of the Iranian aristocracy.
The Great King wore special attire. In the case of Artaxerxes II it was
allegedly worth 12,000 talents, which was 15 times more than the cost of
building the Parthenon in Athens. He travelled in a richly ornamented
chariot which he ascended using a gold stool. In the palace courtyard
Lydian carpets were laid out for him so that his foot never touched the
ground. He would meet his subjects on formal occasions which precluded
normal conversation. Anyone who approached him had to wear a white
cloak out of respect for the sacredness of the Persian monarchy. Although
he was served by hundreds of courtiers, the king always ate his meals
alone, separated by a screen from his own family and the court aristocracy.
The Great King only drank water from the river Choaspes in Elam and
Chalybian wine from Syria, supplies of which were taken with him
wherever he travelled. Delicacies were served at the monarch’s table from
all parts of his domain to symbolically reflect his material and political
strength. Such complex court ceremonies, which the Greeks found quite
astounding, were meant to create an image of an authority of superhuman
proportions – of a hero guarding a universal monarchy.30
Modern scholarship used to advance a theory that a symptom and also
a cause of the decline of the Achaemenid state was an alleged economic
crisis in the 4th century. In his classic book A. Olmstead compares the
Achaemenid rulers to a vampire sucking blood in the form of tributes out
of its victim, the economy. Instead of reinvesting these tributes, the Persian
rulers were supposed to feel satisfied with a primitive thesaurization. The
30 Eddy 1961, pp. 44-47; Frye 1964, pp. 36-37; Cook 1985, pp. 225-231; Briant
1996, pp. 202-216, 236-237, 274-326; Wiesehöfer 1996, pp. 29-30, 39-41;
Aperghis 2001, p. 77; Llewellyn-Jones 2002 (astoundingly conservative approach
to eunuchs issue); Nawotka 2004; Brosius 2007, pp. 26-27.
58
Chapter II
economy thus deprived of ores and state care was supposed to have
experienced crisis that terminally weakened the empire, which was then
easily defeated by Alexander. Today we know that such theories based on
Greek sources overly sticking to certain stereotypes are untenable.
Actually only a small proportion of collected taxes were thesaurized,
the royal and satraps’ courts. 4th century documents attest uninterrupted
continuation of the royal economy with taxes, storage, redistribution
throughout the Persian empire from Bactria to Idumea. Moreover, the state
was investing in major irrigation projects to stimulate agriculture and
economic growth. Not only is there no proof of a shortage of ores but
numismatic evidence shows a steady rise in the use of coins in trade,
especially in Egypt and Asia Minor. The long period of peace could not
but have benefited traditional trading nations such as the Phoenicians and
Greeks of Asia Minor. Evidence of this is not only an increased circulation
of money in 4th-century Ionia but also the number of monumental building
projects in that part of the Greek world, which was noticeably larger than
in the preceding century.31
Among the major achievements of the Achaemenid Empire to be
particularly noticed and admired by the Greeks were the excellent roads
linking its major centres. Their total length has been estimated to be
13,000 km. Archaeologically uncovered sections of ancient Persian
highways reveal a very carefully levelled, 5-7 metre wide gravel road.
Where necessary such roads cut through rock. Thanks to these highways
more or less kept safe by the state authorities and with postal stations
approximately every 30 km a royal messenger could cover 2,400 km from
the Aegean coast to Susa within one or two weeks, while a normal journey
on this road would not exceed three months. The royal court was nearly
always on the move. Every year it travelled hundreds of kilometres along
these highways, known as the Royal Road, between the four capitals of
Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana, spending a few months in each.
As custom dictated, on his journeys the monarch would always be greeted
by the local people with gifts.32
Although he was never deified by his Persian subjects, the Great King
ruled by the grace of the Iranian Lord of Wisdom – Ahura Mazda.
According to the doctrine formulated by the prophet Zarathustra – and
least the later Achaemenids if not all of them were its adherents – Ahura
31 Olmstead 1948; contra: Kuhrt 1990; Stolper 1994, p. 259; Carlier 1995, p. 145;
Dandamayev 1999, pp. 296-298; Debord 1999, pp. 22-23; Briant 2009.
32 Hdt., 5.50.3. Mellink 1988, p. 216; Cuyler Young 1988, pp. 79-81; Graf 1994;
Debord 1999, pp. 34-36.
The Heir to the Throne
59
Mazda fought a cosmic battle against the essence of evil Angra Mainyu
(Ahriman). It was the king’s mission to lead the state along the road of
justice, enlightenment and truth. This did not imply suppressing the
religious practices of his pagan and non-Iranian subjects but naturally
those who opposed the Great King as the guardian of the Truth were
amoral followers of lies and indeed are described as such in royal
Achaemenid inscriptions. Awaren
ess of the Zoroastrian doctrine in Greek
literature is famously expressed in The Histories of Herodotus, where he
states that young Persians were taught three things: horse riding, archery
and telling the truth. The empire was bound by numerous cultural and
religious taboos. According to Ahura Mazda’s law the king of Iran could
only be a Persian Aryan from the Achaemenid dynasty who happened to
be endowed with a special charisma of kingship, in ancient Persian called
khvarenah. Connected with fire and light, it was an internal force ( mana)
which predestined someone to hold power. However, it could not be
acquired by force but only inherited down the male line of the ruling
dynasty. A monarch possessing khvarenah stood at the head of a
hierarchical society personifying perfect unity in a multi-ethnic monarchy.
Numerous works of Persian art, particularly friezes at Persepolis, present
the image of a just, sovereign and unlimited royal rule over many nations
and symbolically over the entire world.33
The Greeks were shocked by the behaviour of Persian women, which
was far more open than that of women in their own country. This was
especially true of the Persian court, where aristocratic women were
granted a higher status and were therefore more visible. Persian women
did not hide within the walls of palaces or houses but played an active role
in social and economic life; they owned property and managed it
themselves. Worse still, Persepolis tablets show that even women who
were commoners could have active professional lives. Generally
misogynistic Greek authors saw in all this yet another symptom of Persian
decadence. Notice was taken of the fact that apart from official wives, the
Great King also had 360 concubines and a similar number of female
musicians who played and sang for his pleasure. From among the King’s
numerous children only the sons of official wives had the right to
succession, whereas the children of his concubines, a vast array of royal
relatives well documented in the sources, accompanied the monarch at
banquets, during hunting and in military expeditions. According to Curtius
Rufus, Darius III would be accompanied by 200 propinqui and 15,000
cognati. But the number of those children entitled to the throne was also
33 Frye 1964, pp. 45-46; Schwartz 1985, p. 677; Cuyler Young 1988, pp. 99-105;
Wiesehöfer 1996, pp. 30-33; Briant 1996, pp. 183-195, 222-229.
60
Chapter II
very large, which, as naturally happens, made succession a very emotive
political issue in Persia. In the last 70 years of the Achaemenid rule
violence became a practically inseparable part of the process of succession.
Shortly after ascending the throne in 405/405 Artaxerxes II had to fight a
war against his brother Cyrus the Younger. Artaxerxes II’s son Artaxerxes
III protected himself against potential pretenders by conducting a great
purge among the male members of the dynasty. He himself perished in
338, apparently in the Greek tradition of being poisoned by a highly
placed courtier called Bagoas, though an almost contemporary Babylonian
tablet seems to indicate that the king died of natural causes. In 336 Bagoas
also murdered Artaxerxes III’s son and successor Artaxerxes IV, who was
also known by his earlier name of Arses. After eliminating the main
Achaemenid line the ambitious Bagoas helped install on the throne a
member of a lesser branch of the dynasty stemming from Darius II called
Artashata, by Justin probably erroneously called Codomannus, who on the
throne adopted the name Darius III. And it was Darius III who finally
outsmarted Bagoas by forcing him to drink a poison that the latter had
actually prepared in order to kill the king. Naturally the problems with
succession weakened the Persian state, which could not have escaped
Philip II’s notice, all the more so because Pella became the natural refuge
for those who rebelled against the Great King, such as the satrap
Artabazus and the mercenary general Memnon.34
4th-century Greeks were generally very ignorant not only about the
Persian Empire’s geography but also about the actual state. Although
many years had passed and contacts with Persia had been intensive,
knowledge of the Persian Empire and her peoples did not go far beyond
what had been written by Herodotus. Unfortunately the writings of Ctesias
of Cnidus, a physician at the court of Artaxerxes II in the early 4th century
and therefore someone who knew Persia well, are more noted for their
lightness of style and penchant for tales of romance and intrigue than for
insight into Persian realities. The Greeks were very familiar with the
western provinces of the Achaemenid Empire, but their knowledge of its
core territories to the east of the Zagros Mountains, i.e. Iran, was more in
the realms of legend than reality. Tablets found in Persepolis testify that
the Persian state closely monitored the travels of foreigners east of the
Zagros Mountains and that there is no evidence of Greek travellers or
34 Curt., 3.3.9-25; Just., 10.3.3; Diod., 16.52.3. 17.5.3-6; SEG 27.942; Babylonian
tablet BM 71537. Badian 1985, p. 422; Cook 1985, pp. 226-228; Guyot 1990, pp.
189-190 (no. 17); Wiesehöfer 1996, pp. 82-85; Brosius 1996, pp. 83-97, 123-180;
Brosius 2003a, p. 235; Briant 1996, pp. 292-296, 789-790, 799; Briant 2003, pp.
64-65; Hammond 1994, p. 129-130; Heckel 1997, p. 197; Walker 1997, p. 22.
The Heir to the Throne
61
diplomats ever visiting that particular Persian capital.35 Greeks, most
probably forced labourers, employed in Fars were deliberately disfigured
because the Persians knew that in such a state taboos concerning beauty
and the flawlessness of the human body would effectively prohibit their
return to Greece. As far as we can tell, Persepolis, which played such a
crucial role in the Persian state, was basically unknown to the Greek
public before Alexander’s expedition. The Persian capital where the Great
King usually accepted Greek envoys was Susa in Elam to the west of the
Zagros Mountains.36 Indeed, in Greek literature written before Alexander’s
expedition Susa is mentioned at least 36 times, whereas Persepolis no
more than twice.37
Furthermore the Greeks did not understand that the Achaemenid
Empire was basically a feudal state, not a tyranny ruled by an almighty
despot. They knew that the state was divided into satrapies, but they were
not aware of the way in which satraps were subordinate to the Great King.
The 26 satrapies that had functioned under Darius III were taken over
virtually unchanged by Alexander during his conquest of the Achaemenid
Empire. The fact that there was a network of trusted informants poetically
called the ‘king’s eyes and ears’ by Herodotus is also confirmed in Eastern
sources, but the Persian state was not controlled by a secret police force.
Nor was it controlled by the state’s efficient and well developed
bureaucracy operating in the Achaemenids’ home province of Fars – about
which we know from thousands of the clay tablets found at Persepolis. As
is u
sual in a system not based on a written constitution but on custom and
the charisma of kingship, the significance of the central government and
its ability to mobilise forces rested to a large extent on the ruler’s
personality. With someone of the strong and outstanding personality of
Artaxerxes III no one could resist the state, whereas when the ruler was
weak, the state became sluggish. Many of the satraps were members of the
ruling family, but all of them were bound by the feudal principle of loyalty
and fealty. According to Xenophon, in a conversation between King
Agesilaus and the satrap Pharnabazus the satrap turned down the Spartan’s
proposal to defect and free himself from the Great King by replying: ‘If
the king sends another as general and makes me his subordinate, I shall
choose to be your friend and ally; but if he assigns the command to me –
35 Cook 1985, p. 241.
36 Curt., 5.5; Diod., 17.69.3-4; Just., 11.14. Briant 1996, pp. 755-756; Tuplin 1996,
pp. 137-140.
37 Under the name Parsa/Persai: Arist., Mir., 838a; Ctes., FGrH, 688 F36. Ctesias, however, could have in mind Fars (Persis) or even Pasargadae and not Persepolis,
Głombiowski 1981, pp. 19-21.
62
Chapter II
so strong, it seems, is the power of honour – you may well be assured that
I shall wage war upon you to the best of my ability.’ This expression of
feudal mentality is a good illustration of how the Persian Empire was
administered. There once someone was made a satrap he held that position
for life and any attempts to remove him from his post frequently led to
rebellion. A satrap, like every high-ranking Persian official, was a vassal.
The Persian word for vassal was bandaka, which the Greeks, not
understanding Persian social structures, translated as doulos, i.e. slave. To
modern historians studying Persian history mainly from Greek sources the
Achaemenid Empire for a long time gave the impression of being a
despotic state where the monarch’s subjects were basically his slaves.