About Persia

Jump to:

Reconstructing the History of the Persian Empire

Conquest of Babylonia

Bisitun Inscription

Darius’ Ascension to the Throne

Persepolis Fortification Tablets

Xerxes’ Ascension to the Throne

Pasargadae Inscription

Artaxerxes I

Rise of Darius II

Murashu Archive

Arshama Archive

Accession of Artaxerxes II

Rise of Artaxerxes III

Accession of Darius III

Babylonian Tablets


Reconstructing the History of the Persian Empire

Reconstructing the history of the Persian empire requires a nuanced reading of various sources.   In order to understand Persian history, historians rely on Greek histories, inscriptions, and administrative documents, among other sources.  However, these resources are not evenly spread out among the time and space of the Persian empire.  Instead, they are concentrated from the late 6th to early 5th centuries B.C.E., especially in the western section of the empire.  Unlike previous empires, such as the Assyrians who left annals of the kings, the Persians did not leave behind narratival accounts of their history (with the exception of Darius’ trilingual inscription).   Thus, in order to reconstruct an outline of Persian’s history, we must rely on Greek historians’ writings about Persia.  Writers such as Herodatus, Ctesias of Cnidus, and Xenophon wrote histories of Persia, but Greek authors nonetheless embody a Greek bias when writing about the Persian empire.  Herodatus features most prominently when reconstructing Persian history, in part because he is not as hostile towards the Persians as many other Greek historians.  Ctesias of Cnidus worked as a doctor in the court of Artaxerxes II, and while his history of Persia has not survived, existing only in summaries and citations, it nonetheless provides a different perspective on Persian history.  Xenophon wrote a work on the early life of Cyrus, (Cyropaedia), which depicts Cyrus as the embodiment of Greek royal virtue.  These authors demonstrate the benefits and pitfalls of using Greek sources to understand the Persian empire.  Like the works who cite Ctesias of Cnidus, many Greek histories are working off of Greek accounts who had first-hand experience with the Persian empire.  However, as Xenophon’s Cyropaedia illustrates, the Greek historians operate with Greek worldview, and thus reflect Greek, rather than Persian, agendas.  This is also clear in the depiction of kingship in many Greek histories, that portray the king as weak and easily manipulated by those around him.  This reflects a reversal of Greek ideals, and thus likely does not represent an accurate depiction of the Persian kings.  Thus, while the Greek texts are essential to understanding the history of the Persian empire, one must sift through their biases and agendas in order to ascertain what information might be useful to reconstruct Persian history.

Aside from the Greek sources, a plethora of materials are available to understand the Persian empire.  For example, the Old Testament discusses the Persia empire, representing two images of Persian kingship.  The first, seen in texts such as the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Isaiah 45 depict a positive portrayal of the Persia king who aids in the return of the exiles from Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple.  However, some biblical portrayals of Persia, such as the book of Esther, represent Persian kingship like the Greek authors, as an easily manipulated figure, which might indicate their authorship in a Greek context.  Furthermore, Persian kings wrote inscriptions praising their building projects.  These inscriptions were often written in Old Persian, a language that most people could not speak, and thus were designed to provide a visual representation of the Persian monarchy, although they were often accompanied by inscriptions in the local dialect.  Finally, we have a wealth of administrative documents from various locations within the Persian empire, which documents how the Persians managed the bureaucracy of their vast empire.  Thus, despite the lack of narratival historical accounts from the Persians themselves, the Persian empire can nonetheless be well understood through this variety of resources.

Bibliography:

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire – Baylor University Libraries. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Back to top

 


Conquest of Babylonia

Cyrus Cylinder

The Persian empire completed its rise to power when Cyrus overtook Babylon in 539 BCE.  At this point, Nabonidus, the leader of the Babylonian empire, had been away from Babylon for around ten years and his son Belshazzar managed the empire.  In the fall of 539 BCE, Cyrus won a battle at Opic and captured the city of Sippar.  After these two victories, Cyrus was able to peacefully march into Babylon and capture Nabonidus.  Some accounts suggest that Nabonidus was exiled, but the Babylonian emperor’s fate remains unclear.

Three texts represent much of our understanding of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylonia: the Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus Cylinder, and Verse Account of Nabonidus.  The Nabonidus chronicle demonstrates the Babylonians’ preoccupations surrounding the Persian empire’s gaining strength.  Traditionally, this tablet was used to date Cyrus’ campaign against Lydia to 547 BCE.  However, there is a crack in the tablet, obscuring the name where Cyrus was campaigning.  Now, this tablet is typically read as Urartu, which places Cyrus 547 conquest in south-eastern Anatolia, instead of Lydia.  This chronicle further explains that in the summer of 539, the statues of Babylonian gods were taken from other cities within the empire to Babylon, most likely as a precaution against a Persian attack.  This chronicle further demonstrates that the New Year’s festival did not take place for several years.  These disturbances in the traditional cult structure provide the background for the depictions of Cyrus’ activities in the Cyrus Cylinder and the Verse Account of Nabonidus, both of which were written by the Persians.  Finally, the Nabonidus Chronicle explains the Persians ‘conquest of Babylon, explaining that after Cyrus won the battle of Opis, he captured Sippar without a battle on the 14th day (of October), and entered Babylon without a battle on the 16th day of the same month.

The Cyrus Cylinder is written in Akkadian, and was found in Babylon, in the sanctuary of the Babylonian God Marduk.  The inscription is found on a barrel cylinder, about 23 cm long and 8 cm in diameter, a standard format for a foundation inscription used in Mesopotamia.  The Nabonidus chronicle refers to a message Cyrus had read to everyone in Babylon.  while the Cyrus Cylinder is not that message, it might represent something similar.  the cylinder portrays Nabonidus as unstable and impious, as he defiled the gods and did not properly manage the cult.  As a result of Nabonidus’ faults, Marduk chose Cyrus as his agent to restore peace, particularly with regards to the cultic institutions.  As such, the statues of the gods would be returned, the sanctuaries restored, and exiled peoples will return home.  This portrayal of Cyrus found in Babylon is remarkably similar to the perspective preserved in the Old Testament, which places Cyrus in a prophetic context, and sees Cyrus as the god’s agent.  this image of Cyrus was carefully crafted by the Persians to legitimate Cyrus’ capture of Babylon and the Persians’ rule.  The Verse Account of Nabonidus further supports this depiction of the Babylonian king.  This account attempts to explain why Nabonidus spent so much time away from Babylonia, giving the power to reign to his eldest son.  This account portrays the king as mad, a similar depiction of Nabonidus as the biblical book of Daniel.  This account also portrays Cyrus as the one who restores order, as he returns the gods to their respective cities.  Thus, the historical sources outlining Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon not only emphasizes the Persians’ military conquest but also work to legitimize Persian rule.

Bibliography:

“ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle).” Livius, n.d. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/.

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire – Baylor University Libraries. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

“Cyrus Cylinder.” Livius, n.d. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/.

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

“Verse Account of Nabonidus.” Livius, n.d. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/verse-account-of-nabonidus/.

Back to top

 


Bisitun Inscription

Bisitun Relief and Inscription

The Bisitun inscription, a relief carved on Mt. Bisitun accompanied by 3 inscriptions, depicts Darius’ ascension to the throne through his victory over rebel kings.  Located about 100 meters off the ground, travelers on a busy road connecting Ecbatana and Babylon could see the relief, but not the inscriptions.  The relief depicts Darius and two colleagues’ victory over the kings who rebelled, who are depicted with ropes around their necks.  A depiction of the Persian god Ahuramazda floats over the human scene, depicting the god’s involvement in Darius’ military success.  Thus, the relief portrays two important components of Darius’ right to rule: (1) Ahuramazda’s design, and (2) Darius’ military prowess to quell the rebellious kings.  The accompanying inscriptions are translations of the same narrative into three languages, Elamite, Akkadian, and Old Persian, with enough variances to keep scholars busy.  The only extant example of a naratival Persian inscription, these texts depict Darius’ version of events in how he ascended the throne.  These inscriptions are a foundational document in Assyriology, allowing for the decipherment of the Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian cuneiform script.

Bibliography:

Lendering, Jona. “Behistun.” Livius, n.d. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/behistun/.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Darius’ Ascension to the Throne

Date 522

Darius’ rising to the throne is a story, relayed to us mainly by Herodotus and the Bititun inscription, that befits Sherlock Holmes as much as ancient history.  Cambyses kills his brother Smerdis (called Bardiya in Bititun), thinking he rebelled against him.  According to the Bititun inscription, Cambyses died of natural causes.   The magus Gaumata rebels, claiming to be Smerdis, and rules Persia until Darius and his cohort invade the palace and kill the imposter king.  The Greek accounts vary in some regards, but they agree on a handful of points, including Cambyses’ murder of his brother Smerdis, and that the second Smerdis was kept a secret from everyone.  Further, Herodotus and Darius’ inscription agree on some key points: the rebel was a magus who assumed the throne, and Cambyses ordered his brother’s execution, which was kept a secret.  In describing the decision of who among the rebels will take the throne, Herodotus mentions a debate about the best kind of government between three of the conspirators, Otanes, Megabyzus, and Darius, advocating for or democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy respectively.  Such a debate undoubtedly reflects a fifth century Athenian context rather than a sixth century Persian one, and thus reflects the Greek bias in the classical sources and need to parse through them when determining their historicity.

The historicity of this story remains somewhat suspect.  Largely, scholars suggest that there was no imposter king Gaumata, and he was created by Darius.  However, substitute king rituals in the ancient Near East provide some precedence for a double king.  In these rituals, a substitute king would be placed on the throne in instances where an omen forewarned disaster for the king.  Such a ritual was performed with Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, so we know that this ritual was extant during the Persian period.  However, this explanation does not solve all of the problems with the imposter king, as it is unclear what happened to the real Bardiya if Darius killed the imposter, and Cambyses’ actions still remain suspect.

Ultimately, Darius’ rise to power, as he himself tells in the Bisitun inscription, demonstrates the need for the new king to legitimate his rule, which he does through the will of Ahuramazda, his connection to the Achaemenid royal line, and (likely the most convincing in history), his military prowess in subduing various revolts that emerged from the chaos in Cambyses’ succession.

Bibliography:

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Lendering, Jona. “Behistun.” Livius, n.d. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/behistun/.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Persepolis Fortification Tablets

Persepolis tablets, written in Elamite

In the 1930s, excavators working at Persepolis discovered two groups of tablets, the Persepolis Treasury Tablets consisting of 129 texts (with additional fragments) dating from 492-457 BCE (reigns of Darius I  to Artaxerxes I), and the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, consisting of anywhere from 4,000-30,000 texts, dating from 509-493 BCE (the reign of Darius I).  These tablets, largely written in an Elamite cuneiform script, provide a wealth of information regarding the day-to-day operations of the Persian administrative system.  The tablets overwhelmingly consist of documentation of the collection, storage, and distribution of food and animals.  Harvests and livestock would be collected in a warehouse, with two officials overseeing the warehouses, one to administer the inventory and another to authorize the disbursements.  Every year, an inventory from each warehouse was sent to the central office in Persepolis.  Furthermore, warehouse officials were stationed at major stops on trade routes, so travelers could gain provisions.  Seals, functioning as a sort of signature, were impressed on the tablets, which bot provides information on who controlled what commodity and provides a vast array of information regarding Persian iconography, providing a window into Persian art and culture.  Furthermore, some texts describe the value of the commodities in terms of silver, which allows us to directly compare the value of products with each other.  A variety of people were given rations, including royal figures, administrative officials, travelers, priests, and workers.  The records attest to the state’s maintenance of the religious cult and its sacrifices.  Disbursements were also given to a group of people, the kurtas, which roughly translates to workers, although it is unclear exactly who they were.  Most likely the word refers to a large class of laborers, who could have performed a wide variety of jobs.  Rations, typically in the form of grain, but occasionally including wine or beer, were distributed on the basis of gender, age, and status.  The records attest to a variety of ethnicities among the workers, including Bactrians, Sogdians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Arabs, Syrians, Egyptians, Lycians, Carians, Sardinians, Cappadocians, Thracians, which raises questions about how these people came to Persepolis.  It is possible they were conquered peoples deported from their homeland, or possibly skilled workers who came for work, but the exact mechanism of their relocation is unclear.  However, it does appear that the large numbers of this group are due to population group, perhaps suggesting that the kurtas were a class of people.  While these tablets were not the only administrative documents used at Persepolis (they themselves occasionally mention Babylonian scribes writing on parchment), they are the most likely media to survive, and provide a wealth of information about the administrative machine in the Persian empire.

Bibliography:

Allen, Lindsay. The Persian Empire: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

“Persepolis Fortification Archive.” The Oriental Institute, n.d. https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/persepolis-fortification-archive.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Xerxes’ Ascension to the Throne

Following the drama of his father’s coup to take the Persian throne, Xerxes’ transition was substantially more peaceful.  A preserved fragment if Ctesias’ Persica does not indicate any tension or debate in Xerxes becoming king.  However, a tablet from Persepolis (XP4), indicates that Xerxes’ succession was unusual, because Darius had other sons who also had claims to the throne.  According to this tablet, Darius became king because it was the desire of Ahuramazda.  Herodotus (VII 2-3) and Justin (II 10.1-10) provide more detail.  Darius had viable heirs to the throne from two of his wives, his eldest son from his first wife, who was born before he became king, and Xerxes, his eldest son from Cyrus’ daughter Atossa, who was born after he was king.  Herodotus and Justin tell the story slightly differently.  For Herodotus, Cyrus had to choose an heir because according to Persian law, the king must designate a successor before embarking on a campaign, although there is no other evidence that such a law existed.  In this account, Xerxes was chosen king because of the persistence of his mother Atossa.  According to Justin, Xerxes’ succession was determined after his father’s death, by an arbiter who resolved the dispute between Xerxes and his half-brother Ariaramnes.  What is clear from both these accounts is that Xerxes was chosen as king because of his familial connection to Cyrus, who was seen as the founder of the great empire.

Bibliography:

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Pasargadae Inscription

Pasargadae Inscription

When Cyrus came to the world’s stage, the Persians did not have a tradition of major cities or its corresponding architecture.  In order to fill this void, Cyrus built a new capital at Pasargadae, around forty kilometers from Persepolis.  While Cyrus began this project, Pasargadae was unfinished at his death, and Darius continued the building, and in doing so, co-opted the city to support his own right to the throne.  This is most clearly seen in trilingual inscriptions, from the 510s BCE, written in persona Cyrus, but were likely written by Darius.  These inscriptions, accompanied by a carving of a bearded man with four wings, and Elamite robe and Egyptian-style crown, describes Cyrus as an “Achaemenian” and the “Great King.”  The titles used to describe Cyrus demonstrate these Darius’ use of Cyrus’ legacy to bolster his own legitimacy by connecting himself to the earlier king.  They also provide a window into what Persian royal ideology looked like, seeing the king as the agent of the divine Ahuramazda, and the one who maintains order.

Bibliography:

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Lendering, Jona. “Pasargadae, Palace P – Livius.” Livius, February 2019. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/pasargadae/pasargadae-photos/pasargadae-palace-p/.

Van de Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC. Third edition. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Artaxerxes I

A Babylonian tablet claims that Xerxes’ son killed him in 465, and an Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine mentions Artaxerxes on the throne at a date that corresponds to late December 465 or early January 464. Greek sources, Ctesias, Diodorus, and Justin provide a narrative detailing Xerxes’ death and Artaxerxes’ rise to power.  Xerxes had three sons, Darius, Artaxerxes (both who lived at the palace), and Hystapes, who was away from home in charge of the satrapy of Bactria.  A high official, Artapanus assassinates Xerxes, and, hoping to gain the throne, convinces Artaxerxes that his brother Darius killed his father, prompting Artaxerxes to kill Darius.  Artapanus then attempts at Artaxerxes’ life, which leads to the officials’ death.  The three accounts differ on some of these details.  For example, in Ctesias, Artaxerxes orders Artapanus’ death by placing him in a hollowed-out vessel, whereas, in Diodorus, Artaxerxes kills Artapanus in a fight following his assassination attempt.  Scholars are skeptical about the veracity of the Greek accounts, largely because of the Babylonian tablet claiming that it was Xerxes’ son who killed him.  In this light, one would look to Artaxerxes as his father’s killer, since he took the throne, but these surmisings are ultimately speculation.

Bibliography:

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Rise of Darius II

The narrative of the transition from Artaxerxes I to Darius II is narrated in a fragment form Ctesias’ Persica.  According to Ctesias, after reigning for 42 years, Artaxerxes I died, and was succeeded by his only son Xerxes.  However, on of Artaxerxes’ illegitimate children, Sogdianos, kills Xerxes 45 days into his reign, while he was asleep drunk after a feast, and becomes king.  Before his death, Artaxerxes has given one of his illegitimate children, Ochus, a satrapy in Hyrcania.  Following Sogdianos’ arrival to the throne, Ochus raises an army and seven months into Sogdianos’ reign, takes the throne and becomes king, renaming himself Darius II.  There is no record of Xerxes or Sogdianos in the Babylonian record, which might question this narrative, although it is possible that the Babylonians did not consider Xerxes or Sogdianos valid kings, and so they recorded Darius II as following Artaxerxes I’s reign.

Bibliography:

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Murashu Archive

Texts: http://www.achemenet.com/en/tree/?/textual-sources/texts-by-languages-and-scripts/babylonian/murasu-archive/1/24/0

The Murashu archive refers to a series of documents from a Babylonian family of businessmen who engaged in a variety of ventures.  More than seven hundred tablets ranging from the reign of Artaxerxes I and Darius II (mostly concentrated from 440-439 BCE and 417-146 BCE), document how the family managed land estates around Nippur, both privately and state controlled.  The owner would give the land over to a businessman like Murashu, functioning as a sort of property manager, who would sublet the land to farmers and then collect rent and taxes.  Most importantly, these texts give us insight into how the Persians recruited members for their military, giving land to individuals in return for military service.  Called the hatru system, the government would give individuals what were called “bow lands” (a reference to military equipment) in return for military service.  People from all socio-economics statuses received “bow lands,” although how much land one received was commensurate with their status and the amount of service expected in return.  Individuals would then turn their property over to someone like Murashu, who would manage the land for them.  “Bow lands” can be dated back to Nebuchadnezzar II, and thus was an old system to recruit and pay for one’s military.

Bibliography:

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Van de Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC. Third edition. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Arshama Archive

The Arshama archive is a late fifth century archive that details the day-to-day workings of the Egyptian satrapy.  With documents ranging from the reign of Darius I and Darius II, this archive details the vast bureaucracy of the Persian imperials system, as seen in topics ranging from repairing government-owned boats to restocking garrisons.  For example, in a document surrounding the provisioning of a military garrison, it is clear that individuals are personally responsible for the goods in their care, so if they were to be lost or stolen, their caretaker would have to provide their replacement out of his own pocket.  Such documents provide an insight into how the daily operations of the Persian system in Egypt functioned.

Bibliography:

Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Accession of Artaxerxes II

Darius II’s death was followed by a civil war between his eldest son and successor, Artaxerxes II and his younger brother Cyrus.  According to both Xenophon and Plutarch, Cyrus attempted to kill Artaxerxes II during the coronation ceremony, but his mother Parystatis, who preferred Cyrus to Artaxerxes, intervened on Cyrus’ behalf and prevented the death and execution of her sons.  Following this, Cyrus returned to his satrapy in Lydia, which is in Asia minor, and began to rally troops to revolt against his brother.  Ultimately, Cyrus rebelled, and was killed on the battle field in Cunaxa, and Artaxerxes II remained king.

Bibliography:

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Rise of Artaxerxes III

According to Babylonian texts, Artaxerxes II ruled for 46 years, and his son, Artaxerxes III ruled for 21 years.  These dates disagree slightly with Diodorus’ account, who claims Artaxerxes II ruled for 43 years, and his son ruled for 23 years.  Plutarch, in his Life of Artaxerxes, details a story about Artaxerxes III taking the throne.  According to Plutarch, Artaxerxes II had three sons, Darius, Ariaspes, and Ochus (who eventually becomes Artaxerxes III).  Darius was named crown prince, but nonetheless rebelled and was killed in the process.  Ochus, portrayed as bloodthirsty, drove his brother Ariaspes to suicide, and further encouraged a noble Arapates to kill his father’s favored illegitimate son, opening the way for himself to take the throne.  The historicity of Plutarch’s account his highly suspect, largely because the story reads like a romance and appears to be inspired by elements of Ctesias’ Persica.

Bibliography:

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Accession of Darius III

The transition from Artaxerxes III, to Artaxerxes IV, and finally Darius III concludes the ever-dramatic Greek accounts of the succession of Persian kings.  According to a Babylonian solar eclipse tablet, Artaxerxes III “went to his fate,” suggesting he died of natural causes, and was succeeded by his son Arses (Artaxerxes IV).  However, Diodorus tells a story much more befitting a television drama, claiming Artaxerxes III and his son were both killed by a eunuch, Bagoas.  According to Diodorus, Bagoas killed Artaxerxes III and made his son Artaxerxes IV king, also murdering members of Artaxerxes IV’s family to make his claim to the throne more secure.  Naturally, Artaxerxes IV was unhappy about his family’s murder, so during the third year of his reign, Bagoas killed him, and made his second cousin, Darius III king.  Bagoas eventually turned against Darius III as well, but with a satisfying flair of justice, Darius, in a show of friendship, had Bagoas drink the poisoned cup intended for the king, thus ending the eunuch’s particularly bloody tenure.  The tale of Bagoas ought to be taken with a pinch of salt, because it nicely fits the motif of a treacherous eunuch.  However, a Babylonian text mention’s Artaxerxes IV’s death by a eunuch, so there is perhaps some historical plausibility to the story.

Bibliography:

Kuhrt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. London: Routledge, 2010.

Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550-330 BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Back to top

 


Babylonian Tablets

ABC 07 Nabonidus Chronicle, Obverse
The Nabonidus Chronicle

A variety of Babylonian tablets mention the Persian kings.  For example, the Chronicle of Nabonidus catalogues Cyrus’ military conquests, providing a Babylonian perspective to Cyrus’ military campaign against the Babylonians.  A Babylonian tablet from the late Babylonian period discusses Artaxerxes III and his relocating prisoners taken at Sidon to Babylon and Susa.  Several tablets from the Seleucid era discuss the Persian kings, particularly in relation to Alexander’s conquest.  One Seleucid era tablet mentions Artaxerxes and part of Alexander’s campaign against Darius III.  The Chronicle of Nabonidus also discusses Cambyses’ military actions against Egidri-kalama-sumu.  These tablets provide valuable historical information, and particularly given the lack of Persian narratival sources, help to adjudicate the historicity of our other sources.

Bibliography:

Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Edited by Benjamin R. Foster. WAW 19. Atlanta: SBL, 2004.

Back to top