— Kaveh Farrokh (Ph.D.) — Langara College
The Achaemenid Empire of the Medes and the Persians (the Khshassa [Empire]) was essentially the first true world empire composed of a diversity of peoples, languages and cultures. A key figure from that empire echoing across the millennia is Xerxes I (Old Persian: Xšayāršā; r. 486-465 BCE) who was enthroned following the death of his father Darius the Great (Dārayava[h]uš; r. 522- 486 BCE) in November 486 BCE. In practice, Darius’ first-born son was Artobazanes, whose mother was a daughter of Gobrytas, a member of one of the empire’s leading families. Darius was evidently cognizant that the elevation of Artobazanes as heir would have resulted in the promotion of Gobrytas’ lineage at the expense of the Achaemenid house. Xerxes’ mother was Atoosa, the daughter of Cyrus the Great, making him a close relative of the founder of the Khshassa. In this regard, Xerxes’ blood ties to Cyrus made him a favoured choice for Darius as heir. Indeed, Darius’ inscription at Behistun (also in modern Persian: Bisutun or Bisitun; Old Persian: Bagastana [god’s locale/land]) made clear his message of being united with the lineage of Cyrus. It is also notable that the Behistun inscription clarifies Darius’ cognizance that his succession be conferred upon one of his own sons as to ensure the continuity of the Achaemenid dynasty. Interestingly Xerxes’ inscription at Persepolis (Old Persian: Pârsa) attests:
“Saith Xerxes the king: Other sons of Darius there were, (but) thus onto Ahuramazda was the desire, Darius my father made me the greatest after himself. When my father Darius went away from the throne, I became king on his throne by the grace of Ahuramazda. After I became king, I finished what had been done by my father, and I added other works.” (XPf, Harem inscription)
Another factor that may have regally privileged Xerxes in Darius’ eyes was the fact that Xerxes had been born after Darius had secured the throne. Interestingly, Herodotus attributes Xerxes’ ascension as having been due to the power of Atoosa’s influence concomitant with her determined resistance against other regal claimants to the Achaemenid throne. Modern historiography questions this view; note that the XPf makes no mention of Atoosa for example. While Atoosa certainly had a privileged status at the Achaemenid court (i.e., Athenaeus, XIII, 556b), her standing as the mother of the crown prince did not bestow her with any privileged entitlements perse.
Who was Xerxes as a personage of history? Despite the plethora of academic and popular literature (and entertainment media) descriptions of the king, much of the historiography pertaining to Xerxes has been biased as a result of Hellenistic propaganda derived as a consequence of the Greco-Persian wars. The most significant and detailed descriptions that have formed the basis for the characterization of Xerxes have been from the (oft uncritical analysis) of Herodotus’ Histories (VI-IX) and Classical sources in general. This has essentially led to the judgement of Xerxes as having been dominated by passion rather than reason and being characterized by self-righteousness, spending much time with women of maleficent influence, as well as being a sanctimonious man beset with lethargy, cruelty, superstition, childish dispositions, neurasthenia and religious fanaticism. In summary, Xerxes is summed up as a ruler with a feckless personality who stood in the shadow of his great father Darius. These conclusions however are grossly derivative from the Hellenic perspective. As averred to by modern historical experts, the Greek sources distinctly fail to provide concrete factual information on the actual character of Xerxes. The Hellenic and Classical perspectives in general, have been the base of much historiography concerning the ancient Achaemenids (and ancient Iran in general).
Modern scholarship has experienced a significant paradigm shift towards a more comprehensive study by moving away from a singular reliance upon the Classical views (and derivative secondary historiography) of Xerxes, the Achaemenids and ancient Iran. Modern scholarship for the study of the Achaemenids consults sources such as the following: (1) cuneiform sources in Old Persian but also in Elamite, Akkadian and Babylonian – of special note are the Persepolis Treasury Archives and the Persepolis Fortification Archives (30,000 cuneiform tablets) (2) Egyptian popular/colloquial as well as hieroglyphic texts (also letters from Jews based in Elephantine, etc.) (3) Babylonian (as well as astronomical) and Aramaic sources (4) the Hebrew Bible and Jewish sources (5) archaeological sources such as seal impressions and seals, coins, metal works, and various artifacts (6) archaeological sites such as Bisitun and their inscriptions as well as architectural sites such as Persepolis and of course (7) Classical or Greco-Roman sources. It is in the meticulous and balanced examination of all of these sources that modern historians have, in past decades, arrived at a much more nuanced reconstruction of the person of Xerxes (and the Achaemenids in general). It is thus notable that non-Hellenic sources (e.g., Aramaic, Akkadian, Elamite, Egyptian) dated to the Achaemenid period (555-330 BCE) often contradict the writings of Greco-Roman writers such as Ctesias, Arrian, Herodotus, etc. Nevertheless, Greco-Roman sources continue to provide a valuable resource with respect to the military history of the Achaemenids and these also can, while qualified with bias, also provide information on the Achaemenids in general.
The reconstruction of the person of Xerxes, notably his upbringing and education, remains a formidable academic task due to the inadequate and fragmentary nature of the sources pertaining to his reign. With respect to education, we can again to refer to the Hellenic perspective of Plato who described Xerxes as having had “…a womanish education” (Laws, 695ce), indicative of the negative views of women as held by Greek writers (e.g. Plato, Republic, Book V, note dialogue of Socrates, 455c, 456a, 563b) who often derided the Persians as “effeminate” (e.g. Athenaeus, XII, 528e-f). In reference to the education of Persian nobles Herodotus states that they were taught “riding and archery and truth-telling” (Histories, I, 136) with Xenophon (who also cites of javelin throwing and hunting – Cyropaedia, I, 2.3-16) stating that “… [Persian] boys go to school and spend their time in learning justice…” (Cyropaedia, I, 6). Strabo also notes of Persian education involving the recitation of the accomplishments of past heroes (Geography, XV, III, 18). Cyrus the Younger (d. 401 BCE) is generally acknowledged for example for having excelled at archery, javelin throwing and the hunt as well as having engaged in gardening. These descriptions would suggest a traditional “Spartan” upbringing involving the cultivation of a warrior ethos concomitantly imbued with the sense of justice, veracity and the extolling of past heroes. Interestingly Plato (while not referring to Xerxes per se in the Alcibiades I) describes of teachers instructing their Persian pupils to exert their sense of self (or impulse) control (notably with respect to pleasures) and to cultivate judiciousness, sagacity, and courageousness. Notable is also the following description by Dīogénēs Lāértios:
“When King Xerxes was entertained by the father of Democritus, he left instructors there, from whom, while still a boy, he learned theology and astronomy.” (9.34)
Extrapolating from these select sources, it would not be unlikely that Xerxes’ upbringing and ensuing character would have been significantly influenced by this type of education reserved for the Persian nobility. Even with the limitations imposed by the available sources, it may be surmised that the singular portrayal of Xerxes as a ruler primarily animated by maladaptive characteristics, is open to question.
Due to his subsequent invasion of Greece, Xerxes’ portrayal by the classical sources is that of a pompous and vainglorious ruler, a view increasingly questioned by modern historians of ancient Iran. One of the emergent schools of thought for example, views Xerxes as a ruler bestowed with a sense of benevolence as well as having had an appreciation for artistry and architecture. It has been proposed that Xerxes may have wanted to avoid a major war against the Greeks but was forced to relent to his generals (led by his cousin Mardonius) after they had accused him of timorousness. Nevertheless, it must be cautioned that a full-spectrum psychological analysis of Xerxes (or indeed of any of the Achaemenid rulers) is not possible. This is mainly due to the Hellenic sources (e.g., Herodotus) and the available inscriptions essentially providing a Classical interpretation of an Iranian monarch and (Achaemenid) imperial ideology respectively. Portrayals of Achaemenid monarchs at sites such as Persepolis and Nagshe Rustam certainly provide static “imperial” visual representations (attire, headgear, etc.) but these are void of any information with respect to the personality profile of the persons being depicted.
Xerxes’ family history during his married life remains challenging to reconstruct given the available sources having so assertively set the narrative of this domain. In general, he is known to have married a noblewoman named Amestris as his primary queen. Amestris was the daughter of Otanes, one of Darius’ chief supporters who had aided his seizure of the Achaemenid throne in 522 CE. Mention must be made of the Hebrew Bible’s Book of Esther which narrates a Jewish girl named Esther who, entering as a concubine of the harem, subsequently succeeds in marrying Xerxes. The Book of Esther (which a number of scholars have concluded as being essentially fictional) then describes Esther as having used her influence to safeguard the Jews from the nefarious designs of the Achaemenid aristocrat, Haman.
While Xerxes is well known for his epic invasion of Greece, notably the land battles of Thermopylae (480 BCE) and Plataea (479 BCE), as well as the naval battle of Salamis (480 BCE), he was obliged to combat anti-Achaemenid rebellions in Egypt and Babylon prior to his invasion. A powerful rebellion had been underway in Egypt since the end of Darius I’s reign. The death of Pherendates (the local Achaemenid satrap) posed a serious military challenge against the authority of the empire. This explains in part Xerxes’ obligation to arrive in person with the Achaemenid military into Egypt to crush the rebellion and restore Achaemenid authority. A major challenge in scholarship however pertains to the three general paradigms as to the chronology of the Egyptian rebellion during Xerxes’ reign: (1) the Classical school generally proposes 487-485 BCE (or 487/486 to 485/484 BCE) (2) the Egyptology school commonly suggests the dates(s) of 486–485/484 BCE (3) with a more confined third school of historiography proposing 486/485–485/484 BCE as the chronology of these events. In general, it is agreed that the Egyptian revolt occurred after Darius’ failure at the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) and before Xerxes’ invasion of Greece (480-479 BCE). After Darius’ defeat in Greece, mobilization efforts were made to raise troops for a new army. In the fourth year of these troop-raising efforts (as per Herodotus, Histories, 7.1) a massive rebellion is said to have broken out in Egypt. This would be in 486 BCE, four years after the defeat at Marathon, which may have actually begun earlier in 487 BCE. A hint of this may be provided by the Daivā inscription of Xerxes (XPh, lines 28-34):
Proclaims Xerxes, the king “When I became king, there was among those lands that are inscribed … that was in turmoil. … By the favor of Ahuramazda, that land I defeated …
While the above description certainly alludes to a serious rebellion, it is cautioned that the XPh does not specify as to exactly where this occurred. It may even be referring to a different event, notably the rebellion which broke out in Babylon as discussed further below. In general, not all Egyptians fought against the Achaemenids with some of these even remaining loyal to the empire. Xerxes in turn crushed the anti-Achaemenid rebels to then install his brother Achaemenes as the new satrap of Egypt (Herodotus, Histories, 7.5-7).
Following the subjugation of Egypt, the Achaemenid military undertook four years of preparations for Xerxes’ upcoming invasion of Greece. In practice the Achaemenids were to be diverted (from their upcoming invasion of Greece) with more serious revolts, this time in Babylon. Achaemenid rule in Babylon had been viewed with increasing dissatisfaction by the local populace. The revolt which did break out in 484 BCE may have had a religious element alongside the endeavour to (re)establish an independent Babylonian nation. A possible indication of a religious element in the rebellion may be provided by the Daivā inscription of Xerxes (XPh, 35-39):
And among those lands, there was (one) where (where) the daivā were worshiped. Afterwards by the favor of Ahuramazdā, that place of the daivā I destroyed.
Nevertheless, as in the previous citation of the XPh in its possible Egyptian revolt context, the linear application of the above quotes to the Babylonian rebellion cannot be set with absolute certainty as no actual mention of Babylon is provided. Scholarship is in agreement that the scope of the rebellion was widespread, beyond just the city of Babylon and inclusive of cities such as Borsippa, Dibat, Sippar and Kish. In general, the rebellion is believed to have broken out in July 484 BCE. In practice there were two factions in the rebellion: (1) A northern faction led by Shamash-eriba with its power centre in Sippar and (2) a southern faction led by Bel-shimanni, based in Dilbat and Borsippa. What is less clear is whether these leaders were coordinating their revolt against the Achaemenids or were in rivalry against one another. What may be surmised is that Bel-shimanni’s rebellion was very brief (approximately 2 weeks) after which Shamash-eriba became the sole leader of the entire Babylonian rebellion. It’s possible that Bel-shimanni decided to yield leadership to Shamash-eriba or that he was coerced (or defeated) by Bel-shimanni, however the combatants of both factions do appear to have united in order to fight against the Achaemenids. As in Egypt, Xerxes was forced to deploy the Achaemenid army in a massive counter-insurgency operation in order to put down the rebellion, a task not accomplished until (circa) the end of October 484 BCE. In practice it was Megabyzus who militarily accomplished the crushing of the rebellion. Megabyzus who was Xerxes’ cousin (and son-in-law married to his daughter, Amytis) was to later become one of the leading Achaemenid commanders in the upcoming invasion of Greece. Modern historians (and Assyriologists in particular) have questioned the veracity of Greek sources claiming that Xerxes exacted widespread destruction and harshness following the defeat of the rebellion. Archeologists for example have reported on the lack of evidence for vehement devastation in the aftermath of the Babylonian revolt. Instead, modern historiography reports of Xerxes’ policies as having been restrained, proficient and stable.
Xerxes, like his father Darius before him, was a builder. Darius had initiated the construction of the magnificent city-palace of Persepolis (Old Persian: Pârsa) in circa 515 BCE with this project being vigorously continued by Xerxes, notably the Gate of Nations and the Hall of a Hundred Columns. Pârsa was not just a “ceremonial” capital, as revealed by the meticulous excavations of researchers and archaeologists. In addition to the large audience halls (and reception rooms) as well as private quarters, Pârsa also featured a massive network of military billets, stockrooms and treasury centers. While the Achaemenids also moved their capital between Susa, Ecbatana and Babylon each year, Pârsa was the site where Xerxes and other Achaemenid kings would engage for the annual Nowruz spring equinox on March 21, a tradition continuing among Iranian and Persianate peoples to the present. The following inscription by Xerxes reveals the multi-cultural aspects of the Khshassa (not unlike that to be seen with the later Roman Empire):
“Saith Xerxes the king: By the favour of Ahuramazda these are the countries of which I was king outside Persia [roughly equivalent of Iran’s contemporary Fars province] … Media, Elam, Arachosia, Armenia, Drangiana, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Soghdiana, Chorasmia, Babylonia, Assyria, Sattagydia, Sardis, Egypt, Ionians, those who dwell by the sea and those who dwell across the sea, the Maka people, Arabia, Gandara, Indus, Cappadocia, Dahae, Scythians who drink haoma, Pointed-Cap Scythians, Skudra, the Akaufaka people, Libyans, Carians, Nubians. ” (Xph, 13-28)
In contrast to the militaristic depictions of violence against conquered peoples in Assyrian arts for example (e.g., flaying alive of prisoners in the siege of Lachish, British Museum, no.124909), Pârsa depicts a myriad of peoples in harmonious and non-violent procession bringing tribute to the king in celebration – absent are depictions of warfare, violence or suppression at the city-palace. Exceptions are those depictions at Pârsa of Achaemenid kings locked in combat against evil entities represented in non-human form.
Xerxes however had yet to resolve “the Greek Question” – Darius’ unfinished business of bringing the Greeks of Europe under Achaemenid dominion. The massive military expedition to come against the Greeks (for more see Persian Heritage, 2021, no.101, p.22) was as much about the extension of Achaemenid dominion into Europe as it was about maritime and economic commerce in the eastern Mediterranean. The Greeks however would prove to be an exceptionally formidable opponent for Xerxes, whose failed campaign against them would mark the zenith of the Khshassa’s military efforts at territorial expansion.