Author: Mariam Hanna Title: Darius I as the Victor: A Question of Legitimacy or Legacy? Source: Prandium - The Journal of Historical Studies, Vol.

Transcription

1 Author: Mariam Hanna Title: Darius I as the Victor: A Question of Legitimacy or Legacy? Source: Prandium - The Journal of Historical Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring, 2017). Published by: The Department of Historical Studies, University of Toronto Mississauga Stable URL:

2 The facts involving the transfer of power from Cambyses to Darius I are ambiguous across ancient sources, most prominent among which is Darius own account in the Bisitun inscription and Herodotus account in Herodotus III, but even within a single source there are inconsistencies and contradictions that detract from the accounts plausibility as a whole. 1 Darius deference to royal lineage and divine favour as reasons for his success are significant because they garnered him support and allowed him to craft a royal image of able kingship. Darius and Herodotus, although both problematic sources, create contrasts that make Darius seem like a legitimate king by placing his traits of competent kingship in juxtaposition with his opponents deficiencies. I will argue that contrasts of poor kingship reinforce Darius image as the rightful king. By examining the inconsistencies and contradictions of Herodotus account and Darius account, I will also argue that the details each source chooses to stress or evade reveals more about the source s political agenda than it does about Darius legitimacy or illegitimacy. In the face of problematic sources, the question of legitimacy in Darius I s right to the Persian Empire, is of lesser consideration than the question of able kingship. Darius legitimized his reign not through royal lineage but through strategic (sometimes sly) political maneuvers that strengthened his claim to the throne whether or not that claim was true by demonstrating his capabilities as a ruler. While no single ancient account is entirely reliable, when we consider the political narrative and social motivations of the writers, certain patterns begin to emerge. Darius account is invested in legitimizing his seizure of power. To prove his legitimacy, he stresses divine favour and his supposed royal lineage, effectively advancing his assertion that he was the only person able to remove the imposters and restore order. He is vague on the genealogy of his royal lineage and the exact dates (though they are provided elsewhere in the account) of Cambyses death, and he shrouds in secrecy the identity of the imposter and how he uncovered his supposed deception while all others failed. Although neither account is entirely free from external agendas, both Herodotus and Darius, to different extents, are deliberately engaged in writing a victor s tale and many features of their narrative revolve around establishing this. Three main arguments about Darius suitability for kingship run throughout his account: he is from a royal line, those who oppose him are rebels, and he has the favour of Auramazda (the high god). That Darius makes repeated references to his royal lineage and divine favour suggests these were considered important, perhaps even necessary, elements of Persian kingship. Darius unlike his predecessor Cambyses was favoured by the Greek sources and his own account is also clearly invested in painting an image of him as the legitimate king. In both these accounts, Darius emerges as a good king and his ascension to the Persian throne a restoration of a supposed natural line. Whether or not Darius claim to the Persian throne was legitimate, the sources suggest that he nevertheless fulfilled many of the elements of good Achaemenid kingship: he became king, he maintained kingship, he had divine favour, was militarily successful, he overcame revolts and ultimately maintained stability in his empire. 1 Mariam Hanna is currently a fourth-year student at UTM completing a specialist in History with a double minor in English and Ethics. Following graduation, Mariam hopes to apply the research and analytical skills she honed in her undergraduate studies to pursue a degree in law. A version of this essay was originally submitted for Professor Chrubasik s CLA390 Fall 2016.

3 Herodotus, meanwhile, is interested in crafting a moralizing narrative and it is repeatedly evident that his account is invested in the narrative pattern of fall of the bad king (Cambyses) and rise of good king (Darius). 2 The narrative structure of good king Darius rising to power after bad king Cambyses is archetypical in that it follows similar Greek patterns and shares common motifs with Greek historical (or pseudo-historical) narratives. 3 For example, Cambyses is presented as a mad king and his madness is consistent with his account of the madness of Croesus. 4 The moralizing narrative of Cambyses corruption before Darius is important because it makes Darius appear all the better in contrast with the evil of his predecessor. Furthermore, Herodotus account of Cambyses death draws parallels between his killings of the Apis bull and completes the narrative that he was an immoral king who (rightly) came to a bad end. Herodotus recounts Cambyses sacrilege of the Egyptian temples, sacrifices and festivals as well as his blatant scorn for the Egyptian gods: When the priests brought the Apis, Cambyses, now half insane, drew his dagger intending to stab the Apis in the belly, but struck his thigh 5 Similar motifs are present elsewhere in Herodotus account. For example, the role of Prexaspes as a double-agent is not unique in Herodotus's Histories, and it is therefore, necessary to contextualize him amongst other Herodotean double-agents in order to filter out what is peculiar to him. 6 Furthermore, Herodotus Greek political influence is also evident in his narrative. While the Bisitun inscription maintains that Darius ascended the throne because of his royal lineage, Herodotus asserts that after the Pseudo-Smerdis [Gaumata] had been deposed the seven conspirators, Otanes, Aspathines, Gobyras, Intaphrenes, Megabyzus, and Darius, met to discuss and decide the government of the state. 7 Patrick Brannan argues that this conference or constitutional debate in Herodotus seems more plausible than Darius account of natural lineal ascension to the throne. 8 However, this reading is problematic. A constitutional debate to decide on a form of government seems more in-line with Greek expectations of government than Persian notions of kingship. It seems much more like a Greek attempt to make palatable the Persian styles of kingship. Therefore, while it would be unwise to dismiss Herodotus account entirely, recognizing his political, social and literary agendas and expectations is necessary when making claims about Darius right to the Persian Empire. Darius account is a conscious effort to legitimize his kingship and his emphasis on divine favour along with his royal lineage are center around creating a strong image of kingship. Darius repeated assertions in his account suggest that he was aware of the precariousness of his position and recognized the necessity of writing himself into divine favour and royal lineage. Like Herodotus, he presents contrasts that further enforce his image as the legitimate king. 2 Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002), Khurt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. (New York: Routledge, 2007), Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, Citations from Herodotus come from: Amelie Khurt. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. (New York: Routledge, 2007) Mabel L. Lang. Prexaspes and Usurper Smerdis. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51, no. 3 (Jul., 1992): Patrick T. Brannan, Herodotus And History: The Constitutional Debate Preceding Darius' Accession. Traditio 19, (1963): Brannan, Herodotus and History, 438.

4 However, he also stresses that no one, neither Persian nor Mede nor anyone else, dared to rise up against the false Bardiya but in contrast, Darius was able to. 9 Darius is invested in creating a the royal image that presented [him] as the only person who could eliminate the usurper. 10 The figure of Darius who stood up to an imposter when no other person dared and succeeded in overthrowing him further reinforces his image as true king. The logic being that he was successful because of divine favour and royal lineage. This creates a clear contrast between Darius and all the other nobles and adds another element to his legitimacy not only is he backed by divine power and royal lineage he is also (perhaps because of the first two elements) the strongest among strong men. Darius position in his first year was precarious and the emphasis on his kingly traits in contrast to the vices of his opposition serve to make him appear more legitimate and kingly. 11 Even before detailing how he came to power, Darius asserts his royal lineage, his favour from Auramazda and the fact that many peoples/countries already obey him. 12 He is clearly invested in presenting the story of someone who has already won, and rightfully so. The Bisitun inscription begins by asserting Darius connection with the royal line,...we are called Achaemenids. From long ago we are noble; from long ago we are royal...eight of our family were kings before; I am the ninth; nine kings were in succession. 13 He then goes on to assert (and continues to do so throughout) that he is king by favour of Auramazda. 14 After recounting how he seized the throne Darius again returns to the notion that his kingship is a matter of natural progression: the kingdom which had been taken away from our family, I re-established it, I put it back in its place I strove until I restored our house to its legitimate place. 15 In this way, Darius ascension to the throne was successful because it was a divinely sanctioned restoration of the royal lineage. This stands in direct contrast with the failed reign of Gaumata who failed because he was a usurper. The contrast is significant because if Gaumata was really Bardiya/Smerdis brother of Cambyses and son of Cyrus, Darius would be the true usurper. 16 Furthermore, the fact that he removed an imposter is crucial because it establishes that Darius never fought a legitimate king and highlights that he was not struggling for power but rather restoring natural royal lineage. 17 Gaumata s presence in Darius narrative is convenient because it further emphasises that Darius revolted against an imposter (rather than a king) and opportunely explains Darius presence in the story. Therefore, whether or not there was a Gaumata (and his existence has been questioned in recent scholarship) is less relevant than his convenient presence in Darius account. 18 Presenting him as the villain (whether or not it was true) was a strategic political move because it allows Darius to rise in opposition as a saviour figure. 9 Briant, Ibid., Richard T. Hallock, The One Year of Darius I, Inscription DB in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 13 Inscription DB in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 14 Inscription DB. 5, 6, 9. in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 15 Inscription DB. 14. in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 16 Khurt, Chapter 5 Introduction: From Cambyses to Darius, Ibid. 18 Ibid.

5 Thus, contrasts make Darius claims more legitimate because by emphasising the failures and the vices of the opposition, Darius position looks all the better compared to the much worse alternative of imposters and rebels. Darius subsequent accounts of rebellions similarly demonstrate his success and legitimacy but also highlight the utter defeat of all the rebels that opposed him. 19 The utter defeat and Darius assured success create further contrasts between Darius and his opposition he is as militarily strong as they are weak. Darius leadership is also contrasted with the failed leadership of the rebels. Darius gives examples of imposters who lie to the people by pretending to be royal only to be defeated by Darius and their lies exposed: And a man, a Babylonian, called Nadintabaira rebelled in Babylon; he lied to the people I am Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus following this Darius recounts how he confronted the rebel army of the Babylonians and twice declares I utterly defeated the army of Nadintabaira. 20 Nadintabaira s death is equally humiliating Then Nabintabaira fled with a few horsemen I captured both Babylon and Nadintabaira. After that I killed Nadintabaira in Babylon. 21 This pattern of royal pretender lying to the people, discovered by Darius, militarily defeated, and killed by Darius echoes the defeat of Gaumata and the later defeats of other rebel states. Therefore, set alongside the lies, the cowardliness and the defeat of the rebels, Darius success stands out as all the more legitimate because his kingship is divinely sanctioned (he defeated the rebels by the favour of Auramazda ) and of royal lineage unlike the easily defeated rebels who pretend to be royal. This makes the situation very black and white Darius is a restorer of order and legitimacy and anyone who opposes him is the opposite, a liar and a rebel who is rightly defeated. Although Darius repeatedly claims that the peoples/countries throughout the empire were faithful to and obeyed him, the focus of Darius claims to legitimacy seem to be focused on maintaining a royal image in the center of the Persian empire at least in the first year of his reign. 22 He does not go out of his way to embed himself into local royal lineages in the periphery of the empire. In Egypt for example, Darius does not make claims to selection by the gods and that the royal titulary of Darius in Egypt, which seems to conform to earlier Egyptian usage must therefore be regarded as purely formal, inherited from Cambyses without bearing upon his claims to legitimacy. 23 His efforts to present his legitimacy are therefore concentrated in Persia and it is in Persia, the center of his empire, that Darius seems most concerned with garnering support at least in the beginning of his reign. Therefore, even though Darius still achieved recognition as king throughout the empire (in twenty-three countries) and asserts that all these countries obeyed his command, it is in Persia that he needs to appear legitimate and his right to the rest of the empire seems to be a matter of inheritance. 24 Therefore while he claims that he had the obedience and support of satraps in the periphery of the empire, it seems more probable that he is embellishing the chronology of events at this point. 25 Richard Hallock writes Darius was not in a position to send him orders, nor was Darius, at this point, much concerned 19 Inscription DB. 41. in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 20 Inscription DB. 16. in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 21 Inscription DB. 20. in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 22 Inscription DB. 6, 7, 8. in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period 23 Atkinson, K. M. T. The Legitimacy of Cambyses and Darius as Kings of Egypt Journal of the American Oriental Society 76, no. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1956): Arno Poebel, Chronology of Darius' First Year of Reign, 147, and Atkinson, The Legitimacy of Cambyses and Darius, Hallock, The One Year of Darius I, 36-7.

6 with possible disaffection in remote Margiana. A year later the situation was different. 26 Thus, Darius treatment of the various rebellions and how quickly and efficiently he utterly defeated opposing armies does not seem to fit into the one-year time frame, creating an inconsistency that detracts from his credibility. The details Darius glosses over are also significant because they point out some holes in his claims. The dating and chronology of certain events, for example, is vague on some crucial points where it is very specific with others. For example, the conspiracy of a pretender on the throne whose identity is discovered by Darius and a few others is ambiguous. The death of Cambyses is simply declared he died his own death. 27 Matt Waters points out the ambiguity of the statement and offers speculation whether Darius was concealing something with such drab wording. 28 Another example is Darius defeat of Gaumata which is dated within the one year after he became king. 29 This too is problematic because he became king only after Gaumata's death even though Gaumata allegedly reigned while Cambyses was still alive. 30 Thus, the ambiguity and inconsistencies over crucial points in Darius account suggest that he had something to hide though in the absence of another contemporary account such an assessment is still inconclusive. 31 The question of legitimacy is certainly important and Bisitun inscription emphasises Darius desire to appear legitimate. However, Darius also couples arguments about his legitimacy with his accomplishments which suggests that both are necessary for making a compelling claim to the throne. The Bisitun inscription writes Darius into Persian kingship as the victor and by contrasting him with the losers his success is further emphasised. This creates a juxtaposition between his traits (traits of good kingship) and the traits of the imposter (traits of a false king): a good king therefore has divine favour, is of royal lineage and (perhaps because of these two factors) is triumphant over his enemies and successful in his military campaigns. Was Darius a usurper? Certainly if Bardiya was the real son of Cyrus brother of Cambyses, then Darius was a usurper. But perhaps this is a lesser consideration when assessing the legacy of Darius kingship and his relative success at maintaining a stable empire. Despite the ambiguous and problematic circumstances surrounding Darius s rise to power presented in his own account and in Herodotus s account, the fact remains: Darius still managed to maintain longevity of reign. If Darius was a usurper he was certainly an effective one; he managed to seize power, retain power, garner the support of the Persian elite, overcome revolts, and create a relatively stable empire. Perhaps then Darius rule was legitimate, not so much because he was strictly 26 Hallock, The One Year of Darius I, Inscription DB. 11. in The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 28 Matthew Waters. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, BCE. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014) Depuydt, Leo. Evidence for Accession Dating under the Achaemenids. Journal of the American Oriental Society 115, no. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1995): Ibid., 31 Shayegan, M. Rahim. Bardiya and Gaumāta: An Achaemenid Enigma Reconsidered. Bulletin of the Asia Institute New Series 20, (2006): 72.

7 following the rules of Persian transfer of power, but because the Persian empire ultimately accepted him even if it was through sheer force at first.

8 Bibliography Atkinson, K. M. T. The Legitimacy of Cambyses and Darius as Kings of Egypt. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1956): Brannan, Patrick T. Herodotus And History: The Constitutional Debate Preceding Darius' Accession. Traditio, Vol. 19 (1963): Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Indiana: Eisenbrauns: Depuydt, Leo. Evidence for Accession Dating under the Achaemenids. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 115, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1995): Hallock, Richard T. The One Year of Darius I. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan., 1960): Herodotus. Histories. In The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. New York: Routledge, Khurt, Amelie. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. New York: Routledge, Lang, Mabel L. Prexaspes and Usurper Smerdis. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Jul., 1992): Poebel, Arno. Chronology of Darius First year of Reign. The American journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Apr, 1938): Shayegan, M. Rahim. Bardiya and Gaumāta: An Achaemenid Enigma Reconsidered. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series, Vol. 20 (2006): Waters, Matthew. Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, BCE. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

9 Waters, Matthew. Cyrus and the Achaemenids. Iran 42, (2004):