106: Persian Successions

A king is murdered, a throne becomes a prize, and the world’s biggest empire has to prove it can still hold together. We pull away from the Peloponnesian War just long enough to track the Persian succession shocks that set the stage for Persia’s return to Greek politics, starting with the assassination of Xerxes and the hard-won rise of Artaxerxes I. Along the way, we sort Babylonian cuneiform evidence from Greek accounts packed with intrigue, and we ask what those contradictions tell us about propaganda, perspective, and how ancient history gets written.

From there, we follow the early tests of Artaxerxes’ rule, especially the Egyptian revolt led by Inaros and the disastrous Athenian intervention in the Nile Delta. It’s a sharp reminder that the Achaemenid Empire is not just a backdrop to Greek history: it has its own internal pressures, powerful nobles, and regional flashpoints that can either drain imperial attention or force rapid adaptation.

The story then turns to the chaotic handover after Artaxerxes’ death and the violent climb of Darius II. Once stability returns, Persia pivots west with a smarter approach than invasion: leverage. We dig into how Persian objectives in Asia Minor shape support for Sparta, why Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus pursue different strategies, and how later decisions, including the rise of Cyrus the Younger, help set up the flow of Persian silver that changes the naval war against Athens.

If you enjoyed this deep dive into Persian successions, satrap politics, and the Persian Empire’s role in the Peloponnesian War, subscribe, share the episode, and leave a review so more listeners can find the series.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Opening And Series Context

SPEAKER_00 0:48

I am Darius, the great king, the king of kings, the king of all kinds of people, the king of this earth, great and wide, the son of King Artaxerxes, Artaxerxes, the son of King Xerxes, Xerxes, the son of King Darius, Yachmenid. Gold Tablet from Akbakna. Hello, I'm Markselak and welcome back to Casting Through Ancient Greece, episode 106, Persian Successions. In the last few episodes, we had been looking at the Athenian expedition and the disaster that befell them in Sicily. We then finished by looking at the direct aftermath of what this meant for Athens. We had seen panic set in within the city, with the full gravity of the reports finally being believed. However, those in political positions managed to recover their senses quickly and began working on how to place Athens in a position to deal with the likely threats that they were now approaching. These threats would come from several directions. The first was their old rival Sparta and the Peloponnesians, who were more confident in returning to open hostilities and continuing the Peloponnesian War. Others who sensed weakness were those who had lived under Athenian control within the Athenian Empire. They could now see that the time was ripe to break away from their master and attempt to regain their independence. Also watching closely was the Persian Empire, which saw an opportunity to regain its position along the Anatolian coast and restore its influence over the Greek cities of Asia Minor. All were watching a weakened Athens and saw opportunities for themselves. This common interest would bring them into contact and encourage attempts at cooperation. However, each power had its own motivations and individual interests, which would make any lasting alliance extremely difficult to maintain. We had seen that the Spartans were looking to take advantage of Athens' allies, who were considering breaking away. Aegis had identified Lesb as being in a position to revolt, and Spartan aid could help to ensure its success. However, around the same time, Persian messengers, as well as representatives from eastern Greek cities, who had been in contact with the Persians, arrived seeking Spartan assistance. This would now introduce the possibility of Persian funding being provided to Sparta in return for their support. This was exactly the type of assistance Sparta desperately needed. Persian money could allow the Spartans to build up their navy, provide a genuine challenge to Athenian naval supremacy, and create the possibility of defeating Athens once and for all. To complicate matters further, requests would come from two competing satraps within the Persian Empire, each seeking Spartan assistance for their own objectives. The end result would see Sparta developing a strategy that focused on three separate objectives, each offering a different path towards weakening Athens. So with the Persia once again entering into the forefront of Greek affairs, I thought it would be a good opportunity to take a pause in our narrative and revisit the Persian Empire. By doing this we can gain a better understanding of what had been developing within the Empire since we last visited. The last time we had looked at events within Persia was during the Egyptian revolt against Artaxerxes in four hundred sixty five BC. However, even then we were examining these events primarily from the Greek perspective, focusing on their involvement in the campaign. We only briefly

Why Persia Returns To Focus

SPEAKER_00 4:22

touched upon the assassination of Xerxes and the rise of Artaxerxes within the context of the revolt that followed. For this episode, I want to return to the Persian Empire and examine what was taking place within the Empire itself. We will see succession crisis, challenges to royal authority, and threats emerging against the throne. We will see that although Persia remained largely in the background from a Greek historical perspective, the empire would begin to stabilize after the succession crisis and would once again start to enter back into Greek affairs. I think we should begin back at the assassination of Xerxes and the rise of Artaxerxes, allowing us to refresh ourselves on the events that brought him to power. From there we will continue through the reign of Artaxerxes and examine the transition from Artaxerxes to Darius II. Here we explore the instability that emerged within the Empire, the challenges Darius faced in securing his position and how he worked to restore stability. This will bring us to a point where the western regions of the Persian Empire have been stabilized once again under Darius II, and Persia was preparing to return to the forefront of events within the Greek world. A Babylonian tablet contains the reference to the death of Xerxes, providing us with a precise date for when this event took place. Using our modern dating system, the tablet places Xerxes' death around late August of four hundred sixty five BC. The tablet also states that he was killed by his own son, but beyond this the information it provides is extremely limited. We know that Xerxes had more than one son, and no explanation is given for why the assassination took place, or for whom may have been responsible.

Who Really Killed Xerxes

SPEAKER_00 6:10

For a more detailed narrative account, we must turn to the Greek sources. However, these accounts must be approached with caution, as they were written from outside the Persian court and often contained dramatic elements of intrigue, betrayal, and personal ambition. According to these Greek accounts, one of Xerxes' leading courtiers, Annabanus, was responsible for organizing the plot that would lead to the king's death. However, little explanation is provided as to why Artabanus decided to carry out such a dangerous plan in the first place. One account suggests that Xerxes' defeat during the invasion of Greece was responsible for the decline in the fortunes of the empire, and that this contributed to dissatisfaction within the court. However, this explanation is difficult to accept fully. The invasion of Greece had occurred fifteen years earlier, and despite the setbacks suffered during the campaign, the Archmenid Empire remained intact and continued to function effectively. As we have seen previously, the western regions of the empire, particularly those bordering the Greek world, often received less attention from the Persian court, compared to the wealthier and more strategically important regions of the empire. If we continue with the Greek accounts, we are told that Xerxes had three sons, Darius, Artaxerxes I, and Hataspes. Artabanus was supposedly a powerful figure within the royal court, and it is said that he had seven sons, whom he had placed in important positions throughout the administration. His influence had supposedly grown over many years through his involvement in religious matters and court politics. According to this tradition, Artabanus's ultimate intention was to overthrow the Archmenid dynasty and replace the royal family with his own. The assassination of Xerxes was therefore not simply a personal act, but part of a wider attempt to seize control of the Persian throne. The Greek sources tell us that Xerxes was assassinated through an arrangement between Artabanus and other court officials. After the murder, Artabanus supposedly convinced the young Artaxerxes that his elder brother, Darius, had been responsible for their father's death. Believing this accusation, Artaxerxes had Darius executed. However, according to the account, Artabanus had intended to remove Artaxerxes as well and take the throne for himself. The plan would ultimately fail. Artaxerxes discovered Artabanus' intention and moved against him, resulting in the death of Artabanus and the preservation of the Archminid royal line. We're also provided another version of events from Greek sources. In this account, Artabanus first murdered Darius and then arranged the assassination of Xerxes. Artaxerxes eventually learned what had taken place and responded by having Artabanus and his sons executed. In this version, the Persian noble and general Megabasus appears to have played an important role in revealing Artabanus' actions to Artaxerxes. According to this tradition, Megabonus switched sides and informed Artaxerxes of the conspiracy, allowing him to uncover Artabanus' intentions and preserve the Archmenid dynasty. Megabonus himself was a descendant of one of the original seven Persian conspirators, who had overthrown a previous royal pretender, who had seized the throne after the death of Cyrus the Great. Following this event, Darius I, also one of the seven conspirators, would become the legitimate ruler of Persia and establish the line of kings that Xerxes and Artaxerxes belonged to. However, once again, these competing accounts leave us with a confusing picture of what truly happened. The Babylonian evidence tells us that Xerxes was killed by one of his sons, while the Greek accounts place the responsibility primarily in the hands of Artabanus. These contradictions have led historians to question whether the Greek traditions may have been shaped after the fact, perhaps reflecting the information that emerged from a Persian court now controlled by Artaxerxes. This raises the possibility that the official version of events was influenced by those who benefited from Artaxerxes' rise to power. If Artaxerxes had taken the throne through the removal of his father and brother, presenting himself instead as the rightful advenger who restored order would have been politically valuable. Therefore, we may never know the exact sequence of events. What is clear is that the death of Xerxes created a succession crisis that threatened the stability of the Persian Empire and ultimately brought Artaxerxes to the throne. So whatever the exact actions were that led to the death of Xerxes, in four hundred sixty five BC Artaxerxes would ascend to the throne and continue the Achminid royal line. However, his reign would be immediately tested by a major challenge that confronted Persian kings throughout their history rebellion within the Empire. One of the first major issues that Artaxes had to deal with was a revolt that broke out in Egypt. The rebellion was led by a man named Enaros, who held kingship over parts of Libya and sought

Egypt Revolt Tests Artaxerxes

SPEAKER_00 11:24

to extend his influence into the northern marshlands of Persian controlled Egypt. Greek sources suggest that the revolt broke out due to the chaos surrounding the death of Xerxes and the uncertainty created by the transition of power. As we have seen previously, the period when power transfers from one ruler to another is often when subject regions attempt to assert their independence. A new king must establish his authority, secure loyalty among the nobility, and deal with potential rivals within the court. This period of uncertainty could provide an opportunity for those within the empire who had long resented Persian rule to make their move. The revolt would pose a serious challenge for Artaxerxes. As the rebellion spread, Persian tax collectors, operating on behalf of the empire, were driven out of the northern regions of Egypt. Enaros was also able to recruit a substantial mercenary force from his own territories and bring these troops into the marsh regions, which provided natural protection and had historically been difficult areas for foreign powers to control. During the first few years of the revolt, Enaros was able to establish effective control over the northern marshlands of Egypt. The terrain of this region, with its waterways, islands, and difficult access points, gave the rebels significant defensive advantages and allowed them to resist Persian attempts to immediately restore imperial authority. Around 460 BC, the revolt grew even further when the Athenians became involved, providing military assistance to the Egyptian rebels for the next five years. This is something we previously covered in episode 60, where we looked at the Athenian involvement in the Egyptian revolt and the wider consequences of their intervention. With the Athenian assistance, the rebels were able to defeat Persian forces that had been sent against them near Memphis. Following this victory, the Egyptian rebels and their Athenian allies were able to besiege the remaining Persian forces within a fortress known as the White Castle. For a time it appeared that the Persian authority in Egypt was on the verge of collapse. However, Artaxerxes was able to organize another Persian expedition and send a new force against both the rebels and the Athenians. This Persian army was able to break the siege and force the rebels into retreat, while the Athenian fleet, supporting the revolt, became isolated on an island. The Persians then drained the river surrounding the island, allowing their forces to approach the Athenian position by land. According to Thucydides, the majority of the Athenian forces were destroyed. To make matters worse for the Athenians, a reinforcing fleet, fifty ships arrived unaware of the defeat suffered by their allies. Upon entering the Nile Delta, this fleet was also destroyed by the Persians. This defeat marked a turning point in the revolt and allowed Artaxerxes to begin restoring Persian authority in Egypt. The remaining rebel forces were gradually isolated, and eventually Henaros himself was betrayed. After Megabasus negotiated terms with him, Anaaros surrendered, believing he would be granted favorable treatment. However, these terms were not honored, and Artaxerxes had Enaros taken into Persian custody and executed by impalment, bringing the main phase of the rebellion to an end. Rebel activity would continue in parts of the Western Delta, but this region had always been one of the most difficult areas for Persian rulers to maintain complete control over. The marshlands had provided refuge for previous Egyptian resistance movements and would continue to do so in the future. Ultimately, however, Persian authority in Egypt was stabilized. Artaxerxes faced a major challenge almost immediately after taking the throne, but successfully suppressing the revolt that despite the instability surrounding his ascension, the Persian Empire remained capable of responding to serious internal threats. There would also appear to have been other revolts that Artaxerxes had to deal with during the early years of his reign. However, these events are much more difficult to determine, with certainty. The true extent of these rebellions is unclear, and some historians even question whether certain revolts occurred at all. Much of our information comes through the historian Tesius, who was writing around 400 BC and recorded events surrounding the career of Megabasus. We have already seen that Megabasus played an important role in securing the Artaxerxes' position after the assassination of Xerxes, while he also commanded the Persian forces that effectively brought the Egyptian revolt to an end. According to Tesius, after Megabasus felt betrayed by the king over the treatment of Anaros and the failure to honor the terms that had been agreed upon, he became deeply distressed and withdrew to Syria. There he would eventually rebel against Artaxerxes. This would represent a serious threat, as Megabazos was not only a highly respected Persian noble, but also an experienced military commander with significant influence. Teseus tells us that Megabazos was able to defeat the two Persian armies that were sent against him, demonstrating both his military ability and the difficulty Artaxerxes faced in dealing with such a powerful figure. However, after a period of negotiation, the two sides would eventually reach an agreement, and Megabazos was restored to favour. While the details of his rebellion are difficult to verify, it highlights the challenges faced by Persian kings in maintaining loyalty among the powerful

Murky Revolts And Conflicting Sources

SPEAKER_00 17:55

nobles who helped administer the empire. There are also suggestions of a possible revolt or period of unrest taking place in the Levant, specifically involving the Jewish community within the Persian province of Yihad. This was connected with the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, whose activities are recorded in the Old Testament. According to these accounts, their mission was to restore religious practices and teach the laws of God to Israelites who were unfamiliar with them. It was also claimed that many members of the community had begun marrying foreign women who followed different religious traditions, and Ezra sought to enforce adherence to the Torah and restore religious identity among the population. It is this aspect of the account that has led some historians to consider whether these events may have represented a form of political resistance or even rebellion. While the Persian Empire was generally known for its tolerance of local customs and religious practices, this tolerance existed so long as those traditions did not conflict with imperial authority or stability. Any movement that challenged Persian administration or encouraged separation from imperial control could potentially have been viewed as a threat. However, whether an actual revolt occurred remains highly debated. Even the date of Ezra's mission is uncertain, with scholars divided over whether it took place during the reign of Artaxerxes I or later under Artaxerxes II. Furthermore, the historical reliability of the account itself is questioned, particularly because there are no independent references outside the biblical texts confirming the details of Ezra's mission. Therefore, while the early reign of Artaxerxes appears to have included several challenges to imperial authority, the evidence varies greatly in reliability. The Egyptian revolt remains the clearest and most significant rebellion of this period, while the others demonstrate the difficulty historians faced when attempting to reconstruct events within the Archmenid Empire using limited and often conflicting sources. The last major direct action in the Greek and Persian conflict had been the Battle of the Eurymedon in the early 460s, where Persia had attempted to counter Athenian efforts to expand their influence into Anatolia. The battle would involve both land and naval engagements, ultimately resulting in a significant Persian defeat. However, despite this victory, the outcome would create something of a stalemate between the two powers when it came to any further large scale military action. For the Persians, Eurymedon represented a clear military setback, with a large portion of their fleet destroyed or captured. However, for Athens, the victory also demonstrated the limits of further expansion. While the Athenians had been successful in pushing Persian influence back from the Aegean, extending their power deeper into Persian territory risked overstretching their resources and commitments. Therefore, the outcome of the battle created a situation where neither side was willing to continue escalating the conflict. Persia had suffered a defeat but remained a powerful empire with significant resources. While Athens had achieved its objective, but recognized that further campaigns in the east could become increasingly costly, rather than attempting to launch another major offensive against Athens, Persia would begin to look towards other methods of influencing Greek affairs as the century progressed. Persian and Greek interactions remain relatively unclear in the surviving sources during the decades following Euribidon. Although it appears that Athens and Persia had gradually settled into their respective spheres of influence, there remained an

The Peace Of Callias Question

SPEAKER_00 21:38

underlying awareness within Athens that the Persian threat had not disappeared. This can be seen in the way Athens continued to manage the Dilian League, with the original justification for its alliance, the continued threat of Persia, remaining an important factor in maintaining Athenian control over its allies. We would see another example of renewed hostilities when conflict broke out on Cyprus, where Athenian forces achieved a double victory against the Persians. However, unlike the previous campaigns, Athens did not attempt to incorporate Cyprus into the Delian League, in the same way it had done with many of the other Greek cities in the Aegean. Some historians have suggested that the campaign in Cyprus was less an attempt at territorial expansion, and more a raid intended to gather wealth and demonstrate Athenian power. Perhaps Athens recognized that maintaining control over the island would require a level of commitment that it was not prepared to make. Cyprus remained within the Persian sphere of influence, and the empire still possessed the ability to project power into the region. This may have represented a more realistic understanding within Athens of the limits of its power. While the Didian League had transformed Athens into a major naval empire, confronting Persia directly across such a vast distance required resources that even Athens could not commit indefinitely. The Athenian campaign in Cyprus, we are told, would eventually end with the unsuccessful siege of Chiton on the island. Some sources suggest that this came down to a supply issue faced by the Athenians, but here we also find another possible reason for the end of hostilities. This comes in the form of a treaty between Athens and Persia, with some historians using this agreement as a point that marked the official end of the Greek and Persian conflict. However, we need to be mindful that this This treaty, known as the Peace of Calius, is highly debated. There is uncertainty over when it actually took place, whether it occurred at all, and even if an official treaty existed. There are suggestions that it may have been more of an informal agreement or understanding between the two powers. What makes this peace difficult to determine is the many conflicting reports surrounding it, along with the fact that some of our most reliable sources did not mention it at all. The most common interpretation of the peace comes from Diodorus Siculus, who places the agreement after the Cypriot campaign. However, other sources suggest that some form of settlement may have occurred much earlier, possibly after the Battle of the Eurymedon nearly twenty years before. The account provided by Diodorus would suggest that the agreement was an attempt by both Persian and Athenians to establish boundaries around where their spheres of influence met. Rather than one side accepting defeat, it appears to represent a recognition that both powers had reached the limits of what they were willing and able to achieve. Diodorus writes A treaty was made by the Athenians and their allies for peace with the Persians, the main points of which were the following All the Greek cities throughout Asia were to be autonomous, and the satraps of the Persians were not to come closer to the sea than three days' journey. Nor was any vessel to sail within Vasileus and Cyene. If the king and the satraps kept these terms, the Athenians would not campaign into the territory that the king rules. Although the peace of Calius remains disputed in its terms of its existence and exact details, it does appear that some form of agreement had been reached between Athens and Persia during this period. Following this, direct hostilities between the two powers would come to an end, and Athens would increasingly turn its attention towards maintaining control over its allies, whose relationship with Athens had gradually transformed from alliance into empire. Perhaps this was another motivation for Athens seeking an understanding with Persia. By reducing the possibility of Persian intervention, Athens could limit the chance of Persia providing support to any member of the Delian League who attempted to revolt. A Persian-backed rebellion within the Empire could have created a serious challenge, particularly given the wealth and naval resources still available to the Persian Empire. This official or perhaps unofficial peace would establish a general status quo between Athens and Persia for the remainder of Artazerxy's reign. There would still be moments where Persian officials became involved in Greek affairs, such as the revolt of Samos in four hundred forty, when Persian satraps in the region intervened. However, similar to other agreements throughout history, occasional violations of the agreement did not immediately result in the return to open warfare. The outbreak of the Peloponnesian War would also see Sparta begin seeking contact with Persia. However, while Athens maintained its naval dominance and remained a stronger power at sea, Artaxerxes was not willing to commit Persian resources towards a campaign against them. He would maintain open diplomatic channels with Sparta, but no meaningful agreement would be reached. Athens, also viewing Persia as a potential renewed threat, was also preparing to re-engage in negotiations and establish an updated agreement with the Persian Empire. However, before the Athenian envoys could begin their mission, Artaxerxes would die, and his successor Darius II would come to the throne. With this transition, the relationship between Athens and Persia would begin to change. The cautious distance that had existed between the two powers would gradually disappear, and Persia would once again become directly involved in the affairs of the Greek world. However, before we return to these developments, we first need to examine the succession crisis that would bring Darius II to power. The succession from the death of Artaxerxes I to the rise of Darius II is a particularly murky period in Persian history. The ancient sources do not always agree on the sequence of events or the details surrounding the various claims. However, modern historians generally attempt to reconstruct what took place by combining these accounts with Babylonian caneiform evidence, which provides a more reliable framework for chronology. I am certainly no expert on Persian history, so for this episode I'll be following what appears to be the most widely accepted reconstruction of events. Artaxerxes had ruled the Persian Empire for roughly forty years. As we have seen, his reign began in the aftermath of the assassination of his father Xerxes in 465 BC. Artaxerxes secured power by eliminating the court official Artabanus and possibly his own elder brother Darius, who had briefly emerged as a rival claimant to the throne, in some sources. After four decades of rule, Artaxerxes would die in 424 BC, apparently from natural causes. The surviving sources provide no suggestion of assassination or foul play, something that Greek writers would likely have highlighted had there been even a suspicion of such an event. However, although Artaxerxes' death was not violent, the succession that followed certainly would be. Artaxerxes left behind several legitimate and illegitimate sons, but for our purposes, three figures are the most important. Xerxes II, his legitimate heir, and

A Violent Succession After Artaxerxes

SPEAKER_00 29:06

two of his illegitimate sons, Zolgdianus and Ocus. The future Darius II. Xerxes II appears to have succeeded his father, but his reign would last only around forty-five days. Both Greek writers and Babylonian records agree that his time on the throne was extremely brief. According to the tradition preserved in the sources, Xerxes was assassinated while drunk at a banquet through a conspiracy led by Sogdianus and other court nobles. Following this, Sogdianus seized the throne and proclaimed himself king, ruling for approximately six months. His reign appears to have been confirmed through Babylonian economic tablets, which contained documents dated to his time as king. Greek writers would later describe his rule as cruel and unpopular, although this portrayal may have also reflected the propaganda of those who ultimately defeated him. During this period, another of Artagerxy's illegitimate sons would enter the struggle. Occus was at this stage the satrap of Haracania, a fertile region southwest of the Caspian Sea. Upon hearing of his father's death and Sogdianus' seizure of power, Occhus began taking steps to challenge his brother's claim. Rather than immediately moving against Sogdianus, Occus first worked to seize the support of eastern satraps, senior military commanders, and influential Persian nobles. It appears he had ambitions for the throne from the beginning, but he needed time to gather enough support to make a legitimate challenge. With Sogdianus already occupying the throne, Ocus's preparations would ultimately develop into full scale rebellion. The result of Ocus' actions was a civil war within the eastern regions of the Empire. Because the conflict took place far from the Greek world, our information is extremely limited. Greek sources were often unreliable or silent regarding events in the eastern parts of the Persian Empire, leaving Babylonian records as our main source of information. These documents indicate that there was a genuine uncertainty over who held the throne during this period, supporting the idea that this was more than a simple palace coup. Eventually Sogdianus appears to have lost the struggle, as supporters who had originally gathered around him began abandoning his cause. According to the ancient historian Tesius, Sogdianus surrendered after receiving promises that he would not be killed by the sword, poison, or starvation. However, once he was captured, he was reportedly executed by suffocation in hot ashes, supposedly being buried alive amongst them. Modern historians generally accept that Sogdianus was executed after surrendering, although the exact method of his death cannot be verified. With Sogdianus removed and Ocus victorious, he assumed the throne and took the royal name Darius II, bringing the succession crisis to an end. Most historians view this period as a genuine dynastic struggle, rather than a simple palace coup. The rapid succession of three rulers in less than a year exposed divisions within the Persian court and amongst the nobles in the empire. Although Darius II was ultimately able to restore stability, the crisis weakened central authority and increased the influence of powerful satraps and court factions. For the Greek world this crisis occurred at a pivotal moment. While Persia was consumed by internal struggles, without significant Persian intervention, however, once Darius II secured his position, Persia would gradually return to Greek affairs. From 412 BC onwards, Darius II would authorize the Western satraps, most notably Tisophenes and Pharnabas, to support Sparta in its struggle against Athens. When Darius II emerged victorious over his half brother Sogdianus and claimed the throne in 423 BC, his immediate priority was securing his position. Although he had won the civil war, victory on the battlefield did not guarantee a stable reign. The Persian Empire was vast, stretching from the Indus Valley to the Mediterranean, and its continued stability depended on the loyalty of powerful nobles, satraps and military commanders, and influential members of the court. As with almost every new Persian king, consolidating power meant removing those who might challenge his legitimacy. According to Teseus, supporters of Sogdianus were executed, rival noble families lost influence, provincial governors were reshuffled, and trusted allies were appointed to key satrapies throughout the empire. Although Teseus does like to emphasize the intrigue and violence in the Persian court, these measures were not unusual. They reflected the practical realities of Persian politics, where a successful succession often depended as much on securing the loyalty of the empire's elites as it did on inheriting the royal title. Among the figures who rose to prominence during this period, none would prove more influential than Darius' wife, Parasatus, a daughter of Artaxerxes I and therefore Darius' half sister. Her royal lineage strengthened the legitimacy of her husband's rule. Ancient sources portray Parasatus as an exceptionally intelligent, politically astute, and ruthless in advancing

Darius II Secures The Throne

SPEAKER_00 34:36

the interests of her family. Although many of the more sensational stories about her should be treated with caution, there is little doubt that she became one of the most powerful women in Persian history. Throughout Darius's reign, she exercised considerable influence in court, and even after his death she remained a dominant political figure, particularly during the succession struggle between her sons, Artaxes II and Cyrus the Younger. Her prominence illustrates the significant, if not informal, role that royal women could play in the politics of the Persian court. Having secured the throne, Darius II entered a period of focusing less on conquest and more on preserving the stability of the empire. Unlike several of his predecessors, he did not inherit an empire threatened by widespread rebellion or foreign invasion. Although local disputes and regional unrest would invariably arise across such a vast empire, there were no major empire-wide revolts during the early years of his rein. This relative peace allowed Darius to concentrate on reinforcing the administrative foundations of Persian rule. His priorities were practical rather than ambitious. The regular collection of tribute and taxes remained essential to financing the royal court. The army and the empire's vast administrative network. The satrapal system through which the empire was governed continued to serve as the backbone of Persian administration. Darius worked to ensure the loyalty of these governors, balancing their considerable regional authority with oversight from royal officials and the expectation that they remained accountable to the great king. Much of his success rested upon the administrative framework established more than a century earlier under Darius I. The complex bureaucracy that had developed continued to function with remarkable efficiency, allowing orders, taxes and information to flow across the empire, stretching thousands of kilometers. The royal road linking the imperial capitals with the Western satrapies remained secure and facilitated both official communication and commercial activity. Trade continued to flourish as merchants moved goods across the empire under the protection of Persian authority, contributing to the prosperity of major centers such as Babylon, which remained one of the empire's richest and most important administrative capitals. Meanwhile, Egypt, despite its long history of resistance to Persian rule, remained firmly under Persian control throughout this period. Although tensions would continue to simmer beneath the surface, Darius was spared the costly campaigns that had occurred that had occupied some of his predecessors. By maintaining stability rather than seeking dramatic expansion, he preserved the empire's wealth and resources, placing Persia in a strong position to once again play an active role in the affairs of the Greek world later in his reign. With Darius securing his position and bringing stability to the empire, he was now able to turn his attention to matters that his predecessors had not had the opportunity to address. One of these matters that concerns us was the ability to return to Greek affairs. For almost seventy years, since the failures of the Persian invasion under Xerxes and the Greek victory in the Greco-Persian Wars, the Persian Empire had largely avoided direct military involvement in mainland Greece. Instead, Persian kings had genuinely focused on maintaining control over their western territories, particularly the wealthy Greek cities on the Aegean coast and satrapies of western Anatolia. This policy had served Persia well. The Greek cities of Ionia remained part of the empire following the Persian reconquest after the Ionian Revolt. But the rise of the Delian League under Athenian leadership had gradually changed the balance of power in the region. What had originally begun as a defensive alliance against Persia after the Persian Wars had evolved into an Athenian empire, with the Athenians collecting tribute from hundreds of Allied cities and maintaining a powerful navy in the Aegean. Although Persia had not directly challenged Athens for decades, the growth of Athenian influence represented a continuing loss of Persian authority over territories that had once firmly belonged within the empire. By the time Darius II turned his attention westwards, however, the situation had changed dramatically. The long conflict between Athens and Sparta had exhausted both powers. The Peloponnesian War had already lasted more than fifteen years, draining

Persia’s Strategy For Greek Rivalries

SPEAKER_00 39:11

manpower, wealth, and political stability throughout the Greek world. Athens remained a formidable naval power, but its disastrous expedition against Syracuse between four hundred fifteen and four hundred thirteen had resulted in the destruction of a major Athenian army and fleet. Sparta, meanwhile, had struggled to challenge Athenian naval dominance and lacked the financial resources needed to build a fleet capable of competing in the Aegean. Darius recognized an opportunity. Rather than launching a costly invasion of Greece, he could achieve Persian objectives by exploiting the divisions amongst the Greek states. The Empire did not need to conquer Athens or Sparta. It only needed to ensure that neither power could dominate the Aegean and threaten Persian interests in the western Anatolia. The primary objective was therefore the restoration of Persian authority over Ionia and the Greek cities of Asia Minor, which had once been among the empire's most important western provinces. The tribute and influence that Athens had extracted from these cities would also be another objective, effectively reversing decades of Athenian expansion, while also Persian control of the Eastern Aegean, ensuring that no Greek power could again establish a naval empire capable of challenging the Persian frontier. This represented a return to the traditional Persian approach toward the Greek world. Not direct conquest, but strategic influence. Since the reign of Cyrus the Great, Persian rulers had understood that controlling the Greek cities of Asia Minor was essential to securing the empire's western border. Darius II therefore adopted a policy that relied on diplomacy, financial support, and careful manipulation of Greek rivalries, rather than large-scale military campaigns. To carry out this strategy, he turned to the powerful satraps of Western Anatolia, particularly Tisifernes of Caria, and later Pharnabazos of Hellespontine Pharygia. These officials would become the instruments through which Persia re-entered Greek politics, providing money, negotiations, and eventually naval support to Sparta. The decision to intervene would prove to be one of the most consequential choices of Darius II's reign. By using Persian wealth to support Sparta, he helped transform the balance of power in the Peloponnesian War. The same Greek rivalries that had once limited Persian influence now became the mechanism through which Persia could work at restoring its position in the Aegean. We were introduced to Tisiphernes and Pharnabazos in the last episode, where we saw Persian contact being made with the Spartans. It would be these two satraps rather than Darius himself, who would initially become the main points of contact between Persia and the Greek world. Therefore I think it is worth looking at both of these figures in a little more detail before examining the rivalry that would develop as they began separate negotiations with Sparta. Little is known about Tisiferne's early life before he emerged as one of the Empire's senior officials under Darius II. He was almost certainly born into one of the great Persian aristocratic families, whose members traditionally supplied the Empire with satraps, military commanders and royal advisers. His name in Old Persian roughly translates as having splendid glory, reflecting the prestige associated with his lineage. His first attested role came around 413 BC, when he succeeded the satrap Pisthenes, in governing the important satrapy of Lydia. Pistothenes had rebelled against Darius II several years earlier in an attempt to establish himself as an independent ruler. After suppressing the revolt with the assistance of Greek mercenaries, the Persian court executed Pisthenes and entrusted this vital western province to Tisiphenes. His appointment demonstrated that he had already earned it the confidence of the king. As Satrap of Lydia, Tisifenes governed one of the empire's wealthiest and most strategically important regions. His authority extended over much of western Anatolia, including the Greek cities of Ionia. His loyalty had long been contested between Persia and Athens. His responsibilities were extensive, he collected royal tribute, commanded regional military forces, oversaw justice, and represented the authority of the great king along the empire's western frontier. Perhaps most importantly, he became responsible for carrying out Darius II's renewed policy towards the Greek world.

Tissaphernes And Pharnabazus Compared

SPEAKER_00 43:51

Pharnabazos II came from one of the oldest and most distinguished noble families in the empire. Unlike Tisiphernes, whose ancestry remains somewhat obscure, Pharnabazos belongs to a hereditary line of satraps who had governed the Hellespontine region for generations. His family had served successive great kings since at least the reign of Darius I, and possibly even earlier. This long tradition of service gave Pharnabazos considerable prestige within the imperial administration. Pharnabazos governed Hellespontine for a gear, a strategically vital satrapi surrounding the Asian side of the Hellespont, modern day Dardanelles. This region controlled one of the most important waterways in the ancient world. Any fleet or army moving between the Aegean and the Black Sea passed through this territory under his supervision. The Satrapi was also rich in agriculture and taxation, providing substantial resources to the Persian Empire. As we have discussed previously, both Tisopernes and Pharnabazos approached Sparta separately rather than together. Although they were both acting under the royal authority of Darius. We have already covered the initial talks that took place and Sparta's response, so here I want to focus on the rivalry between the two satraps and their differing approaches as negotiations continued. Although both men were loyal servants of Darius and shared the objectives of restoring Persian authority in Asia Minor, they frequently disagreed on how that objective should be achieved. Their differing approaches also appear to have been influenced by the interests of the The regions they controlled. Their differences centered on several key issues. They adopted contrasting military strategies, pursued different diplomatic approaches, and often disagreed over how Persia should deal with both Sparta and Athens. Tisophernes generally favored a cautious policy, seeking to prolong the conflict by ensuring that neither Greek power became dominant. He was often reluctant to provide Sparta with the full financial support it requested, believing the prolonged war would best serve Persian interests. Varnabazos, by contrast, tended to advocate more decisive action. He proved more willing to work closely with Spartan commanders, when doing so offered the prospect of weakening Athens and restoring Persian influence more quickly. These differing approaches occasionally created friction between the two satraps, with each attempting to shape Persian policy according to his own judgment. Yet rather than viewing this rivalry as a problem that required immediate resolution, Darius largely allowed both men to remain in office. Modern historians often see this as an example of the Persian system of competitive administration with overlapping responsibilities, acted as a check upon one another. By encouraging a degree of competition between powerful governors, the great king reduced the likelihood that any single satrap would accumulate enough military and political influence to become a threat to the throne. While this system helped preserve royal authority, it also produced inconsistencies in Persian policy. Greek commanders frequently found themselves negotiating with satraps whose priorities differed, resulting in delays, conflicting promises, and shifting alliances. These frustrations became particularly evident among the Spartans, who increasingly viewed Tisophernes as unreliable while finding Pharnabazos a far more dependable partner. Ultimately, Darius sought to resolve these competing approaches by appointing his younger son, Cyrus the Younger, to oversee Persian affairs in Western Anatolia in 408 BC. Although a look at Persia pauses here in 412 BC, it is worth briefly looking a few years ahead to see where Darius II's Western policy ultimately led. One of his defining decisions of his reign came in 408 BC when he appointed his younger son Cyrus the Younger to oversee Persian affairs in Western Asia Minor. Despite his youth, Cyrus was entrusted with significant authority, serving as satrap of Lydia, assuming control over neighboring territories, and becoming commander of the Persian forces stationed along the empire's western frontier. His appointment fundamentally altered the balance of power within the Persian administration. It reduced the influence of Tisiphenes, whose cautious and measured approach had often frustrated Sparta and placed Persian policy in the hands of a prince far more willing to intervene directly in Greek affairs. Almost immediately, Cyrus forged a close relationship with the Spartan admiral Lysander. Where Tisiphenes had sought to keep Athens and Sparta locked in a prolonged struggle, Cyrus pursued a much more decisive course. Persian silver would flow into Spartan coffers in unprecedented quantities, paying the wages of rowers, building new triremes, and giving Sparta the financial resources it had long lacked to challenge Athenian naval supremacy. Those decisions would prove transformative. In the years that followed, Persian wealth would become one of the deciding factors in the closing stages of the Peloponnesian War, helping Sparta build the fleet that would eventually bring Athens to defeat. But that is a story for another time. For now we return

Cyrus The Younger And Spartan Silver

SPEAKER_00 49:11

to 412 BC. The negotiations between Sparta and the Persian satraps have concluded. Alliances have been forged, and the great king has once again become an active player in Greek affairs. After decades of watching the Greek city-states exhaust themselves in war, Persia was preparing to shape the conflict in a way that would ultimately alter the balance of power across the Eastern Mediterranean. Thank you everyone for your continued support and a big shout out to all those who've been supporting the series over on Patreon and through Buy Me a Coffee. I would like to give an extra special shout out to all those supporting the series at the Archon level. So thank you to Nick Kablifarkas, Neil Bennett, John, Ben Williams, and Joshua Mann. Everyone's contribution plays a big part in helping me financially keeping the series going. If you've also found some value in the show and would like to support the series, please consider checking out the Castings for Ancient Greece Patreon page or buy me a coffee page. Otherwise, leaving reviews and sharing episodes on social media also help the series grow through word of mouth. Be sure to stay connected and updated on what's happening in the series and join me over on Facebook or Instagram at Castings for Ancient Greece or on X at Casting Greece. I hope you can join me next time where we continue the narrative in the series.