DARIUS i. The Name

Dārīus (or Dārēus) is the common Latin form of Greek Dareîos, itself a shortened rendering of Old Persian five-syllable Dārayavauš (spelled d-a-r-y-v-u-š), the throne name of Darius the Great and two other kings of the Achaemenid dynasty (see iii-v, below), which thus enjoyed considerable popularity among noblemen in later periods (see vi-viii, below). The original Old Persian form was also reflected in Elamite Da-ri-(y)a-ma-u-iš (cf. Hinz and Koch, pp. 289, 291), Babylonian Da-(a-)ri-ia-(a-)muš and so on, Aramaic dryhwš and archaizingdrywhwš, and perhaps the longer Greek form Dareiaîos (attested only in Ctesias, Jacoby, Fragmente IIIC, pp. 462, 464 frags. 13-14 pars. 24, 33-34; and Xenophon, Hellenica 2.1.8-9). On the other hand, the shorter forms Elamite Da-ri-ya-(h)u-(ú-)iš (cf. Hinz and Koch, pp. 290-91), Babylonian Da-(a-)ri-muš and so on, Aramaic drwš, drywš (cf. Schmitt, 1987, pp. 150-51), Egyptian tr(w)š, trjwš, intr(w)š, intrjwš (cf. Posener, pp. 161-63), Lycian Ñtarijeus-, Greek Dareîos (the standard form from Aeschylus onward), and Latin Dārīus, Dārēus are renderings of a haplologically shortened allegro form Old Persian *Dārayauš (replacing normal Dārayavauš), for which further indirect evidence may be found (Schmitt, 1990, pp. 197-98) in *Dariaus, the basis of the toponym Dariāsa (Ptolemy, Geography 6.2.12). The proposal by Chlodwig Werba (p. 148) that Greek Dareîos reflects a two-stem hypocoristic form *Dāraya-v-a- does not take into account the other forms mentioned. Old Persian Dāraya-vauš, which is composed of the present stem dāraya- “hold” and the adjective vau- “good,” must be translated as “holding firm the good” (cf. analogous expressions in Vedic texts) or the like. All attempts to explain it as shortened from a three-part compound name like *Dāraya-vau-manah-, *Dāraya-vau-xšaça-, or *Dāraya-vau-dāta- (cf. Werba, pp. 149-50) are erroneous, however. The ancient etymologies given by both Greek and Persian “authorities” may be passed over in silence.

DARIUS ii. Darius the Mede

In the Old Testament Book of Daniel Darius the Mede is mentioned (5:30-31) as ruler after the slaying of the “Chaldean king” Belshazzar. Daniel is supposed to have flourished during the reigns of Darius and of Cyrus “king of Persia” (Daniel 6.28, 10.1), to be identified with Cyrus the Great (see CYRUS iii; 529-29 B.C.E.). According to the narrative in its present form, Darius, identified as the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), a descendant of the Medes, was about sixty-two years old at his succession (Daniel 5:31, 9:1). These references, which do not conform to what is known of the history of the period, have caused problems for scholars trying to unravel the discrepancies in the text, a work of the Hellenistic period, long after the fall of the Achaemenids (see DĀNĪĀL-E NABĪ i).

The Book of Daniel is a collection of moralistic and religious stories, rather than a historical work, and, as such writings were popular among common folk, accuracy was not a prime characteristic. Many explanations of the discrepancies have been proposed by scholars (see listing in Rowley, p. 2), including the suggestion that different authors were involved in the composition of the book at different times. This explanation does not, however, account for the incorrect sequence in which the name of Darius the Mede precedes that of “Cyrus the Persian.” Other scholars have proposed that verse 6:28 should be interpreted as referring not to Darius and Cyrus but to Darius as a throne name for Cyrus (Wiseman, p. 15); the age of sixty-two years would certainly fit with the facts known about the life of Cyrus. D. J. Wiseman (pp. 12-14) has suggested further that all the names of the Achaemenid kings were throne names, hence liable to confusion in the minds of subjects living far from the court. As the names of the Achaemenid kings were later lost, even in the Persian tradition, it is not surprising that in an area far from Persia the names and events of the Achaemenid period were reported incorrectly. Failure to recognize the distinction between Mede and Persian is, of course, found in other texts and was not unusual.

The confusion may thus be attributed to the popular nature of the Book of Daniel and its distance in time from the period of the early Achaemenid kings. The same confusion about Darius the Mede persisted in Arabic and Syriac sources (cf. Ṭabarī, I, pp. 647, 652-54, 665-68, 717; Bīrūnī, Qānūn, p. 154; idem, Āṯār, p. 89; Bar Hebršus, Chronography, ed. E. A. W. Budge, p. 31; cf. Yarshater, pp. 54-58).

DARIUS iii. Darius I the Great

Darius I the Great was the third Achaemenid king of kings (r. 29 September 522-October 486 B.C.E.; Figure 1). He was born in 550 B.C.E. (cf. Herodotus, 1.209), the eldest son of Vištāspa (Hystaspes) and *Vardagauna (Gk. Rhodog(o)únē, NPers. Golgūn; Justi, Namenbuch, p. 261; Hinz, 1975a, p. 270). Before his accession to the throne he served Cambyses (529-22 B.C.E.) as a spear bearer in Egypt (Herodotus, 3.139).

Figure 1. Head of Darius (see BISOTUN iii).View full image in a new tab

Sources.

The primary sources are of four basic kinds. First, there is Darius’ record relief (DB) at Bīsotūn (for the Old Persian text, see now Schmitt; for the Babylonian text, with some variants, see von Voigtlander); an additional fragment of the relief (Seidl) and one of the Babylonian inscription (von Voigtlander, pp. 63-65) are also known, as are substantial portions of an Aramaic version (Greenfield and Porten). The second category includes texts and monuments from Persepolis (Schmidt; Kent, Old Persian; Cameron; Hallock, 1969; cf. evaluations by Lewis, 1977, pp. 4-26; idem, 1990; Bivar, CAH2, pp. 204-10; Tuplin, pp. 115 ff.), Susa (Schmidt, I, pp. 29-33; ART IN IRANiii, pp. 574-75), Babylon (Strassmaier; Oppenheim, pp. 559-60; Cardascia, pp. 5-8; Haerinck; van Dijk and Mayer, no. 88; Stolper, 1985, esp. pp. 41-60; Dandamayev, 1992, pp. 3, 5, 10-11 and passim), and Egypt (Posener; Schmidt, I, pp. 26-27; Bresciani, pp. 507-9; Ray, pp. 262-66; Hinz, 1975b; Lloyd). A fragmentary Old Persian inscription from Gherla, Rumania (Harmatta), and a letter from Darius to Gadates, preserved in a Greek text of the Roman period (F. Lochner-Hüttenbach, in Brandenstein and Mayrhofer, pp. 91-98) also belong to this category. The third source is a detailed and colorful narrative by Herodotus (books 3-6; cf. How and Wells). Finally, there are briefer notices by other classical authors (listed and analyzed by Meyer, pp. 3-7; Prášek, II, pp. 10-11; Drews, pp. 20 ff.) and a few references in the Bible i).

Accounts of Darius’ accession and rebellions in the provinces. Darius began his “autobiography” in the trilingual (Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonian) inscription on the rock face at Bīsotūn with a genealogy purporting to establish his right to the Achaemenid throne (DB 1.1-11; Table 2), followed by a long account of the Magian usurper Gaumāta (DB 1.26-61). According to this version, after Gaumāta’s death at the hands of Darius some provincial magnates rebelled, but Darius slew them all (DB 1.72-3.92). Thereafter his rule was established throughout the empire. He immediately published at Bīsotūn and elsewhere inscriptions providing an exact record of these events, explaining the causes of the rebellions (DB 4.34: “Falsehood [drauga-] made them rebellious”; see Schaeder, 1941, pp. 31-32) and his own success (DB 4.61-67; see BĪSOTŪN iii).

Table 2. Family Tree of Darius the Great.View full image in a new tab

In Herodotus’ version Cambyses left Patizeithes, a Magian, as “steward of his household” (3.61, 3.63, 3.65) and went to Egypt, whence he sent a trusted Persian, Prexaspes, to murder his full brother Smerdis (i.e., Bardiya) in secret (3.31). Only a few Persians, among them Darius, knew of this murder, so that Patizeithes was able to place upon the throne his own brother, also called Smerdis and “greatly resembling the son of Cyrus” (3.61). The imposter was discovered, in the eighth month of his reign, by the Persian noble Otanes (Utāna; 3.68). Five other Persian nobles, Aspathines (see ASPAČANĀ, Gobryas (Gau-buruva), Intaphernes (Vindafarnah), Megabyzus (Bagabuxša), and Hydarnes (Vidarna), joined Otanes; Darius had also “hastened to Susa to accomplish the death of the Magian” (3.71). The seven exchanged oaths and at Darius’ urging entered the imposter’s castle and slew him and his brother (3.71-78); then, joined by other Persians, they slaughtered many Magians (3.71). According to Herodotus, “All peoples of Asia mourned his loss exceedingly, save only the Persians” (3.67), who continued to celebrate the anniversary of this slaughter (3.79). The seven leaders then debated the most suitable mode of government for Persia (for a detailed discussion, see Gschnitzer, 1977; idem, 1988). Otanes urged democracy, but Darius’ view that monarchy was “the rule of the very best man in the whole state” prevailed (3.80-88). The seven then resolved to ride out together the next morning and to accept as ruler of the kingdom the one of their number whose horse neighed first after the sun was up (3.84). Darius’ groom, Oebares, devised a stratagem that caused his master’s horse to neigh first, whereupon Darius was saluted as king (3.84; cf. Widengren, 1959, pp. 244, 255). About the ensuing rebellions Herodotus remarked only that there had been a period of “troubles” after Cambyses’ death (3.126), though he did include the story of Oroetes (see below), as well as a legendary account of the revolt of Babylon and its recapture through a stratagem (1.150-58).

Ctesias reported that before leaving for Egypt Cambyses had ordered a Magian named Spendadates to kill and impersonate Tanyoxarkes, the younger son of Cyrus and Amytis and satrap of the Bactrians, Chorasmians, Parthians, and Carmanians. After Cambyses’ death Spendadates ascended the throne but was betrayed by one of his own associates. Then seven Persians, Ataphernes, Onaphas, Mardonius, Hydarnes, Norondabates, Barisses, and Darius, plotted and slew him, and Darius won the throne through the “horse trick.” Since then the Persians had celebrated the anniversary of the slaughter of the Magians (Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 688 frag. 13.18). Xenophon reported that Tanaoxares, identified as Cyrus’ younger son and satrap of Media, Armenia, and Cadusia, had quarreled with Cambyses upon the accession of the latter (Cyropaedia 8.8.2), and Plato (Leges 3.694-95; Epistulae 7.332A) added that in the quarrel one had killed the other. According to Trogus (Justin, 1.9), the trusted friend chosen to kill the “son of Cyrus” was Cometes (i.e., Gaumāta), who did so after Cambyses’ death and placed his own brother Oropastes (“who resembled Smerdis very much”) on the throne. The rest follows Herodotus’ version.

Darius’ veracity. Most historians have accepted Darius’ testimony as trustworthy and have used it to check and correct classical accounts (cf. Gershevitch), but others have argued for his mendacity (e.g., Balcer; Bickerman and Tadmor; Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 78-89; Cook, pp. 8-9, 46-57; Culican, pp. 64-65; Dandamaev, 1963; Nyberg, pp. 74-75; Olmstead, 1938, pp. 392-416; idem, 1948, pp. 107-18; Rost, 1897a, pp. 107-10, 208-10; idem, 1897b; Wiesehöfer; Winckler; Young, pp. 53-62). The present author subscribes to the former view. In 1889 Hugo Winckler (p. 128) suggested that “perhaps” Darius had lied in claiming to be related to Cyrus (cf. Rost, 1897a, p. 107; idem, 1897b). Subsequently such scholars as A. T. Olmstead, A. R. Burn, and Muhammad A. Dandamayev elaborated on this hypothesis. Their main arguments are of nine basic types. First, Darius’ insistence that all his opponents lied arouses suspicion of his own trustworthiness, especially as Herodotus (3.72) had quoted Darius as defending a justifiable untruth (Olmstead, 1938, p. 397; cf. Dandamaev, 1976, p. 121; Balcer, p. 59). This assessment involves a highly biased interpretation of Darius’ motives, whereas Herodotus’ report is unreliable; not only did he comment elsewhere on the Persians’ high regard for truth (1.136), but also it has been suggested that this casuistry “is purely Greek” (How and Wells, I, p. 276 n. 4; similarly Meyer, p. 35 n. 1). Second, it has been argued that Darius was not a royal prince, let alone the rightful heir (Olmstead, 1938, p. 394; Burn, p. 95). As Cambyses and Bardiya had left no sons, however, the nearest to the throne would have been Aršāma, Darius’ grandfather, who was then too old to take the field. His son Vištāspa (Hystaspes) was in charge of Parthia and Hyrcania (DB 2.92-98) and could not have led an army to Media undetected. The task thus fell to Darius, one of “the Achaemenids” whom Cambyses had besought on his deathbed to restore the Persian monarchy (Herodotus, 3.65, 3.73). Darius’ right was supported by other living Achaemenids, including Bardiya’s daughter and sisters (Herodotus, 3.88). Third, it has been doubted that a mighty satrap, a son of Cyrus (i.e., Bardiya), could disappear without arousing suspicion (Olmstead, 1938, p. 396; Nyberg, pp. 75-76; Dandamaev, 1976, p. 116; Boyce, II, pp. 80-81). Nevertheless, with the help of court officals the death of Artaxerxes II was kept secret for nearly a year (Polyaenus, Stratagemata 7.17) and in the Islamic period that of the Buyid ʿAżod-al-Dawla for three months (Margoliouth and Amedroz, Eclipse VI, pp. 78-79).

The fourth argument is based on Herodotus’ report that the “true” and “false” Bardiyas were so alike that even the former’s mother and sisters were deceived (Olmstead, 1938, p. 396). Yet elsewhere Herodotus reported that Bardiya’s mother had died much earlier (2.1) and that his sister, Queen Atossa, was kept under strict confinement by the false Bardiya precisely to prevent her from communicating with others (3.68; Shahbazi, 1971, p. 43). Fifth, the date Darius claimed for the slaying of Gaumāta was deemed by Olmstead (1938, pp. 397-98) not to agree with that in Babylonian documents, which give his reign as having lasted “one year and seven months,” but Olmstead’s chronology was proved incorrect by Arno Poebel (1939). Sixth, in his inscription Darius identified his opponents precisely, except for Gaumāta, whom he styled merely as “the Magian,” giving the impression that the latter was fictitious (Dandamaev, 1976, p. 119; cf. Bickerman and Tadmor, pp. 246-61; Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 85-86). But in the Babylonian version of Darius’ inscription at Bīsotūn (1.18) it is specified that Gaumāta was “a Mede, a Magian,” which, incidentally, is evidence that he was not a priest but a Median nobleman from the tribe of the Magi (as Benveniste adduced in 1938, p. 17, with Herodotus, 1.101; it should be noted that in the Babylonian text, l. 23, Gaumāta’s followers are called “nobles”).

A seventh argument involves the Babylonian tablets, which, according to Olmstead (1938, p. 403), proved false Darius’ repeated claim that he had made the majority of his expeditions “in the same year after I became King.” Walther Hinz (1942), Richard Hallock (1960), and Riekele Borger have shown, however, that the period from Darius’ first dated victory (13 December 522) to his last (28 December 521) fell within one year, including an intercalated month. Eighth, in Aeschylus’ contemporary play Persae (773-76) Darius’ ghost announces that after a son of Cyrus “ruled Mardos, a disgrace to his country and ancient throne, whom Artaphernes slew by guile.” Olmstead argued that Aeschylus thus had no doubt that Mardos was a legitimate ruler (1938, p. 396; similarly Dandamaev, 1976, p. 120). But in fact Aeschylus merely indicated that Cambyses was followed by a disgraceful king officially known as Mardos (Bardiya); no legitimacy is implied (Burn, p. 94 n. 44). Finally, Darius’ marriages to Bardiya’s daughter and sisters have been interpreted as moves to gain necessary legitimacy (Olmstead, 1938, pp. 396-97). On the contrary, however, they are evidence of Darius’ innocence of Bardiya’s murder, for otherwise family vengeance would certainly not have permitted him to survive for thirty-six more years (Prášek, I, p. 265).

Other evidence confirms Darius’ testimony. First, as J. V. Prášek (I, p. 265) noted, many foreigners, Greeks in particular, served Darius, and some wrote about his affairs unfavorably (e.g., Herodotus, 3.118-19, 3.133, 4.43), yet none suggested that he was a usurper. Second, although a Persian king was expected to conduct his royal duties openly in the capital, the false Bardiya lived secluded in a castle in the mountains (between Ḥolwān and Hamadān; Marquart, 1905, II, p. 159), and, fearing detection, he “never quitted the citadel nor ever gave audience to a Persian nobleman” (Herodotus, 3.68). To claim that this residence was, in fact, the summer capital (Dandamaev, 1976, p. 137) is to ignore the fact that the summer capital was in Ecbatana and that 29 September was too late to be summer in Media. Third, upon his accession the false Bardiya had abolished taxes and military service “for all nations under his rule for a period of three years” (Herodotus, 3.67), the actions of a usurper desperate for popular support and fearful of the warrior nobility, who had the means to raise new armies. No Persian prince would have thus undermined royal authority (Widengren, 1968, p. 521). In addition, under Persian law the king was required to name a successor before leaving on a dangerous expedition. Cyrus had appointed Cambyses, and later Xerxes I (486-65) chose his uncle Artabanus (Herodotus, 1.208, 7.2, 7.52; cf. 7.53, 8.54). That Cambyses left Patizeithes, a Median official, as his viceroy (3.65) is evidence that his brother Bardiya was already dead. Poebel (1938, p. 314) thus concluded that “Darius, in full accord with his earnest claim to personal veracity, had no intention whatever to exaggerate, as has been assumed, nor that he consciously indulged in any inaccuracy, however small it might be” (sic).

Chronology of Darius’ reign.

Darius’ second and third regnal years were devoted to consolidating his authority. A fresh rebellion in Elam was suppressed by Gobryas (DB 5.3-14), and Oroetes, satrap of Sardis, was executed for the murders of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos; Mithrobates, satrap of Phrygia; and the latter’s son (Herodotus, 3.120-29). Darius himself marched against “the rebellious Scythians” of Central Asia, who threatened the northern and eastern flanks of the empire; he crossed the Caspian Sea, defeated the group known as the Pointed-Hat Scythians (Sakā tigraxaudā), captured their “king,” Skunxa, and installed a loyal leader in his stead (DB 5.20-33; for detailed commentary, see Shahbazi, 1982, pp. 189-96). On his return he added the image of Skunxa and an account of the Elamite and Scythian campaigns to the reliefs at Bīsotūn. In autumn 517 he traveled to Egypt and succeeded in pacifying the rebellious Egyptians by showing respect for their religion and past glory and by ordering the codification of their laws; in turn he received their obeisance and reverence (Polyaenus, Strategemata 7.11.7; Diodorus, 1.95.4-5; for details, see Bresciani, pp. 507-9; Ray, pp. 262-64). After he returned to Persia Darius executed Intaphernes for treason (Herodotus, 3.118-19) and sent a naval reconnaissance mission down the Kabul river to the Indus; it explored the eastern borderlands, Sind, the Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea and arrived in Egypt near modern Suez thirty months later (Hinz, 1976, p. 198; Bivar, CAH2, pp. 202-4). Following this expedition “Darius conquered the Indians [of Sind], and made use of the sea in those parts” (Herodotus, 4.44).

A major event in Darius’ reign was his European expedition. The region from the Ukraine to the Aral Sea was the home of north Iranian tribes (Rostovtzeff; Vasmer) known collectively as Sakā (Gk. Scythians). Some Sakā had invaded Media (Herodotus, 1.103-6), others had slain Cyrus in war (1.201, 1.214; see CYRUS iii), and some groups had revolted against Darius (DB 2.8). As long as they remained hostile his empire was in constant danger, and trade between Central Asia and the shores of the Black Sea was in peril (Meyer, pp. 97-99). The geography of Scythia was only vaguely known (Figure 2), and it seemed feasible to plan a punitive campaign through the Balkans and the Ukraine, returning from the east, perhaps along the west coast of the Caspian Sea (Meyer, pp. 101-4; Schnitzler, pp. 63-71). Having first sent a naval reconnaissance mission to explore shores of the Black Sea (cf. Fol and Hammond, pp. 239-40), in about 513 Darius crossed the Bosporus into Europe (Shahbazi, 1982, pp. 232-35), marching over a pontoon bridge built by his Samian engineer, Mandrocles. He continued north along the Black Sea coast to the mouth of the Danube, above which his fleet, led by Ionians, had bridged the river; from there he crossed into Scythia (Herodotus, 4.87-88, 4.97). The Scythians evaded the Persians, wasting the countryside as they retreated eastward. After following them for a month Darius reached a desert and began to build eight frontier fortresses; owing to Scythian harrassment of his troops and the October weather, which threatened to hinder further campaigning, he left them unfinished and returned via the Danube bridge. He had, however, “advanced far enough into Scythian territory to terrify the Scythians and to force them to respect the Persian forces” (Herodotus, 4.102-55; cf. Meyer, pp. 105-7; Macan, pp. 2-45; Prášek, II, pp. 91-108; Rostovtzeff, pp. 84-85; Junge, 1944, pp. 104-5, 187-88; Schnitzler, pp. 63-71; Fol and Hammond, pp. 235-43; Černenko, with further references). Shortly afterward Megabyzus reduced gold-rich Thrace and several Greek cities of the northern Aegean; Macedonia submitted voluntarily (Herodotus, 4.143, 5.1-30), and Aryandes, satrap of Egypt, annexed Cyrene (Libya; 4.167, 4.197-205). Four new “satrapies” were thus added to Darius’ empire: Sakā tyaiy paradraya “Overseas Scythians,” Skudra (Thrace and Macedonia), Yaunā takabarā or Yaunā tyaiyparadraya (Thessalians and Greek islanders), and Putāyā (Libya).

Figure 2. Peoples of the Persian empire, as recorded on the relief on the tomb of Darius I at Naqš-e Rostam (numbered in the order in which the peoples are represented on the relief and named in the accompanying text).View full image in a new tab

By 510 B.C.E. the Asiatic Greeks and many islanders had accepted Persian rule and were being governed by tyrants responsible to Darius. There were also pro-Persian parties, the “Medizing Greeks,” in Greece itself, especially at Athens (Herodotus, 6.115, 6.124; Gillis, pp. 39-58; on the term “Medism,” see Graf). Darius encouraged these tendencies and opened his court and treasuries to those Greeks who wanted to serve him—as soldiers, artisans, mariners, and statesmen (Junge, 1944, pp. 98 ff.). Greek fear of growing Persian might and Persian annoyance at Greek interference in Ionia and Lydia made conflict between them inevitable, however (Meyer, pp. 277-80; Hignett, pp. 83-85). When, in 500 B.C.E., deposed oligarchs of Naxos in the Cyclades appealed to Artaphernes (see ARTAPHRENĒS), Darius’ brother and satrap of Lydia, he sent a fleet to Naxos; partly owing to a falling out with Aristagoras, tyrant of Miletus, the expedition failed, however. Aristagoras then organized the “Ionian revolt.” Eretrians and Athenians supported him by sending ships to Ionia and burning Sardis. Military and naval operations continued for six years, ending with the Persian reoccupation of all Ionian and Greek islands. The prudent statesman Artaphernes then reorganized Ionia politically and financially. As anti-Persian parties gained ascendance in Athens, however, and aristocrats favorable to Persia were exiled from there and from Sparta, Darius retaliated by sending a force, led by his son-in-law Mardonius, across the Hellespont. Owing to a violent storm and harassment by Thracians he was defeated. Darius then sent a second expedition (of about 20,000 men; Hignett, p. 59) under Datis the Mede, who captured Eretria and, guided by Hippias, exiled tyrant of Athens, landed at Marathon in Attica. In the late summer of 490 the Persians were defeated by a heavily armed Athenian infantry (9,000 men, supported by 600 Plataeans and some 10,000 lightly armed “attendants”) under Miltiades (Meyer, pp. 277-305; Hignett, pp. 55-74).

Meanwhile, Darius was occupied with his building programs in Persepolis, Susa, Egypt, and elsewhere (Hinz, 1976, pp. 177-82, 206-18, 235-42). He had linked the Nile to the Red Sea by means of a canal running from modern Zaqāzīq in the eastern Delta through Wādī Ṭūmelāt and the lakes Boḥayrat al-Temsāḥ and Buḥayrat al-Morra near modern Suez (Hinz, 1975b; Tuplin, 1991). In 497 he again traveled to Egypt, “opened” his “Suez canal” amid great fanfare, executed Aryandes for treason, erected several commemorative monuments, and returned to Persia, where he found that the codification of Egyptian law had been completed (Bresciani, p. 508); a statue of Darius in Egyptian style, found at Susa (EIr. II, p. 575 fig. 40), reflects the influence of this journey. Following Datis’ defeat at Marathon Darius resolved to lead a punitive expedition in person, but another revolt in Egypt (possibly led by the Persian satrap; Bresciani, p. 509) and failing health prevented him. He died in October 486 and was entombed in the rock-cut sepulcher he had prepared at Naqš-e Rostam (see Schmidt, III, pp. 80-90, pls. 18-39). He had already designated as his successor Xerxes, his eldest son by Queen Atossa (XPf, 27-31; Kent, Old Persian, p. 150; Ritter, pp. 20-23, 29-30); the throne thus returned to Cyrus’ line.

Darius’ empire.

Cyrus and Cambyses had incorporated Elam, Media, Lydia, Babylonia, Egypt, and several eastern Iranian states into a loose federation of autonomous satrapies, subject to irregular taxation (Herodotus, 3.89; 3:120-29; 4.165-67, 200-205; cf. DB 3.14, 3.56; Meyer, pp. 46-47; Lehmann-Haupt, cols. 85-90; Ehtécham, pp. 110-27; Petit, pp. 16-97). They had relied heavily on non-Persian officials and the established institutions of the subject states (Dandamaev, 1975; idem, 1992, pp. 3 ff.; Bivar, Camb. Hist. Iran, pp. 610-21), which encouraged particularism among Iranian magnates and nationalism among conquered nations. These tendencies resulted in chaos and rebellion and led to the destruction of the Achaemenid federation in 522 B.C.E. (Schaeder, 1941, p. 32; Junge, 1944, pp. 41-43, 51; Stolper, 1985, p. 6). Darius thus faced the task of reconquering the satrapies and integrating them into a strong empire. The accomplishment of his first year was “the actual creation, for the first time, of a real empire: a governmental structure based on the army, on certain classes of the society whose loyalty was to the throne and not to some specific geographical region, and on the charisma, intelligence and moral fortitude of one man, Darius” (Young, p. 63). Darius knew that an empire could flourish only when it possessed sound military, economic, and legal systems, as is clear from his prayer “May Ahuramazda protect this country from a [hostile] army, from famine, from the Lie” (DPd 15-17; Kent, Old Persian, p. 135; cf. Tuplin, pp. 144-45). Once he gained power, Darius placed the empire on foundations that lasted for nearly two centuries and influenced the organization of subsequent states, including the Seleucid and Roman empires (Stolper, 1989, pp. 81-91; Kornemann, pp. 398 ff., 424 ff.; Junge, 1944, pp. 150, 198 n. 46). Himself a soldier of the first rank “both afoot and on horseback” (DNb 31-45; Kent, Old Persian, p. 140), Darius provided the empire with a truly professional army. Earlier Achaemenids had relied on regional contingents, especially cavalry, apparently recruited as the need arose. Darius put his trust mainly in Iranians, including Medes, Scythians, Bactrians, and other kindred peoples (see ARMY i.3) but above all Persians: “If you thus shall think, ‘May I not feel fear of (any) other,’ protect this Persian people” (DPe 18-22; Kent, Old Persian, p. 136). Thenceforth the mainstay of the imperial army was an infantry force of 10,000 carefully chosen Persian soldiers, the Immortals, who defended the empire to its very last day (Curtius Rufus, 3.3.13).

Darius ruled about 50 million people in the largest empire the world had seen (Meyer, p. 85). His subjects (kāra) or their lands (dahyu) were several times listed, and also depicted, in varying order at Bīsotūn and Persepolis (Junge, 1944, pp. 132-59; Kent, 1943; Ehtécham, pp. 131-63; Walser; Hinz, 1969, pp. 95-113; Calmeyer), but the definitive account is carved on his tomb (EIr. V, p. 722 fig. 46). In the relief on his tomb Darius and his royal fire are depicted upon the imperial “throne” supported by thirty figures of equal status, who symbolize the nations of the empire, as explained in the accompanying inscription (DNa 38-42). The text reflects Darius’ status, ideals, and achievements. He introduces himself as “Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan [=Iranian], having Aryan lineage” (DNa 8-15; Kent, Old Persian, p. 138). Next “the countries other than Persis” are enumerated in what is clearly intended to be a geographical order. According to Herodotus (3.89), Darius “joined together in one province the nations that were neighbors, but sometimes he passed over the nearer tribes and gave their places to more remote ones.” Applying this scheme to the lands recorded in the record relief, it is possible to distinguish, beside Persis, six groups of nations, recalling the traditional Iranian division of the world into seven regions (Shahbazi, 1983, pp. 243-46 and fig. 3; cf. Plato, Leges, 3.695c, where it is reported that power was divided among seven leading Persians). The sevenfold division of Darius’ empire, revealing his geographical conception, is as follows: (1) the central region, Persis (Pārsa), which paid no tribute, though some of its districts sent commodities (Herodotus, 3.97; Koch; cf. Briant, pp. 342-501), possibly to pay for garrisons; (2) the western region encompassing Media (Māda) and Elam (Ūja); (3) the Iranian plateau encompassing Parthia (ParΘava), Aria (Haraiva), Bactria (Bāxtri), Sogdiana (Sugda), Chorasmia (Uvārazmiya), and Drangiana (Zrankā; cf. Herodotus, 3.93, according to whom these lands paid little tribute); the borderlands: Arachosia (Harauvati), Sattagydia (atagu), Gandara (Gandāra), Sind (Hindu), and eastern Scythia (Sakā); (5) the western lowlands: Babylonia (Bābiru), Assyria (AΘurā), Arabia (Arabāya), and Egypt (Mudrāya); (6) the northwestern region encompassing Armenia (Armina), Cappadocia (Katpatuka), Lydia (Sparda), Overseas Scythians (Sakā tyaiy paradraya), Skudra, and Petasos-Wearing Greeks (Yaunā takabarā); and (7) the southern coastal regions: Libya (Putāyā), Ethiopia (Kūša), Maka (Maciya), and Caria (Karka, i.e., the Carian colony on the Persian Gulf; Schaeder, 1932, p. 270; Shahbazi, 1983, p. 245 n. 28; Figure 2).

Early in his reign Darius established twenty archi (provinces), called “satrapies,” assigning to each an archon (satrap) and fixing tribute to be paid by neighboring “nations,” joined together in each satrapy (Herodotus, 3.89). The list is preserved in the confused but invaluable catalogue of Herodotus (3.90-97; for detailed analysis, see Junge, 1941; Leuze, pp. 25-144; Lehmann-Haupt, cols. 91-109; Ehtécham, pp. 96-102, 127-63; for Babylonian data, see also Dan-damayev, 1992, pp. 8-12 and passim). It begins with Ionia and lists the rest in a sequence from west to east, with the exception of “the land of the Persians,” which did not pay tax. The nations in each satrapy are enumerated. The fixed annual tributes to Darius’ treasury were paid according to the Babylonian talent in silver but to the Euboic talent (25.86 kg) in gold (3.89). The total yearly tribute, according to Herodotus’ somewhat contradictory calculations, seems to have been less than 15,000 silver talents (3.95).

Most of the satraps were Persian, members of the royal house or of the six great noble families (Meyer, pp. 47 ff.; Schaeder, 1941, p. 18; cf. Petit, pp. 219-26). They were appointed directly by Darius to administer these tax districts, each of which could be divided into subsatrapies and smaller units with their own governors, usually nominated by the central court but occasionally by the satrap (see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY ii). To ensure fair assessments of tribute, Darius sent a commission of trusted men (cf. OPers. *hamara-kāra-; Stolper, 1989, p. 86; Dandamayev, 1992, p. 36) to evaluate the revenues and expenditures of each district (cf. Plutarch, Moralia 172F; Polyaenus, Stratagemata 7.11.3). Similarly, after the Ionian revolt his brother Artaphernes calculated the areas of Ionian cities in parasangs and fixed their tributes (OPers. bāji-; see BĀJ) at a rate “very nearly the same as that which had been paid before the revolt,” a rate that continued unaltered down to Herodotus’ time (Herodotus, 6.42). Contemporary Babylonian documents attest the existence of a detailed land register in which property boundaries, ownership (of cattle and probably other movable goods, as well as of urban and rural real estate), and assessments were recorded (Stolper, 1977, pp. 259-60; Dandamayev, 1992, pp. 11-12). In the Persepolis Elamite texts officials who “write people down” and “make inquiries” are mentioned (see Tuplin, p. 145, with references). To prevent concentration of power in one person, each satrap was normally accompanied by a “secretary,” who observed affairs of the state and communicated with the king; a treasurer, who safeguarded provincial revenues; and a garrison commander, who was also responsible to the king. Further checks were provided by royal inspectors with full authority over all satrapal affairs, the so-called “eyes” and “ears” of the king (Meyer, pp. 39-89; Kiessling; Schaeder, 1934; Ehtécham, pp. 56-62; Frye, 1984, pp. 106-26; see also Hirsch, pp. 101-43; Tuplin; Petit, pp. 109-72).

Coordination of the imperial administration was the responsibility of the chancery, with headquarters at Persepolis, Susa, and Babylon (Junge, 1944, pp. 78 ff.; Hinz, 1971; idem, 1976, pp. 226-31; idem, 1979), although such chief cities of the empire as Bactria, Ecbatana, Sardis, Dascylium, and Memphis also had branches (Ehtécham, pp. 58-62; Tuplin, with full references). Bureaucratic organization was deeply rooted in the Near East (Schaeder, 1941, p. 17), but Darius reformed it in accordance with the needs of a centralized empire. Aramaic was retained as the common language, especially in trade, and “imperial Aramaic” soon spread from India to Ionia, leaving permanent traces of Achaemenid organization (see ART IN IRAN iii, pp. 571-72). Elamite and Babylonian, written in cuneiform, were used in western Asia, and Egyptian, written in hieroglyphics, prevailed in Egypt. Early in his reign, however, Darius appears to have commissioned a group of scholars to create a writing system specifically for Persian (Junge, 1944, p. 63; Hinz, 1973, pp. 15-27; Mayrhofer, pp. 175, 179); the result was the creation of what Darius called “Aryan” script (Old Persian cuneiform; cf. DB 4.88-89; Schmitt, p. 73 and n. 89), the simplest cuneiform system, which bears clear traces of having been modeled on the Urartian signs (Mayrhofer, p. 179). Although this script was merely “ceremonial,” used for official inscriptions only, it nevertheless contributed to the distinctive identity of the Persian empire.

In keeping with his “very clear creative role” in the patronage of “an Achaemenid canon for imperial art, edicts and administrative mechanisms” (Root, p. 8), Darius introduced (before 500 B.C.E.; Root, pp. 1-12) a new monetary system based on silver coins (Gk. síglos) with an average weight of 8 g and gold coins weighing 5.40 g, equaling in value 20 silver coints (see DERHAM i). The gold coin, *dārayaka-, Gk. dareikós, was probably named after Darius (see DARIC), as ancient sources attest (cf. Meyer, p. 75 n. 2; Schwyzer, pp. 8-19; Kent, Old Persian, p. 189 [cf. W. B. Henning apud Robinson, p. 189 n. 1]; Brandenstein and Mayrhofer, p. 115; Hinz, 1975a, p. 83; Cook, p. 70; Bivar, Camb. Hist. Iran, p. 621; for a different derivation, see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY ii, p. 421).

In order to enhance trade, Darius built canals, underground waterways, and a powerful navy (Hinz, 1976, pp. 206 ff.). He further improved the network of roads and way stations throughout the empire, so that “there was a system of travel authorization by King, satrap, or other high official, which entitled the traveller to draw provisions at daily stopping places” (Tuplin, p. 110; cf. Hallock, 1978, p. 114; Lewis, 1977, pp. 4-5; Bivar, CAH2, pp. 204-8). Some standardization of weights and measures was also effected (see Bivar, Camb. Hist. Iran, pp. 621-37). Darius appointed loyal subjects, primarily Persians, to senior posts but was eager to listen to and follow the advice of non-Persian counselors as well (Cook, pp. 71-72). He recognized the kinship between the Greeks and Persians and promoted an “open door” policy under which Hellenic aristocrats could enter his service and receive honored positions (Junge, 1944, pp. 95-120, 185-91).

Darius sponsored large construction projects in Susa, Babylon, Egypt, and Persepolis (Hinz, 1976, pp. 235-42). The monuments were often inscribed in the scripts and languages of the empire: Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonian, and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Large numbers of workers and artisans of diverse nationalities, some of them deportees (Dandamaev, 1975; Koch) were employed on these projects, enhancing both the Persian economy and intercultural relations (see DEPORTATIONS). The king was also deeply interested in agriculture. In his letter to Gadates, a governor in Asia Minor, he echoed the Avestan statement (Vd. 3.4, 23) “the Earth feels most happy … where one of the faithful cultivates corn, grass and fruits” (Lochner-Hüttenbach, in Brandenstein and Mayrhofer, pp. 91-92). Darius’ codification of Egyptian law has been mentioned above; he also sanctioned various other local codes (Schaeder, 1941, pp. 25-26; Tuplin, pp. 112-13). Little need be said about Darius’ religion (see ACHAEMENID RELIGION). It is clear that he felt himself chosen by Ahura Mazdā: “Ahuramazda, when he saw this earth in commotion, thereafter bestowed it upon me, made me king. I am king, by the favor of Ahuramazda I put it down in its place” (DNa 30 ff.; Kent, Old Persian, p. 138); “Ahuramazda is mine; I am Ahuramazda’s” (DSk 3-5; Kent, Old Persian, p. 145). These sentiments echo Zoroaster’s utterances and attest Darius’ piety (Hinz, 1976, pp. 242-45). With characteristic Achaemenid tolerance (Schaeder, 1941, pp. 22, 34), however, Darius supported alien faiths and temples “as long as those who held them were submissive and peaceable” (Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, p. 127). He funded the restoration of the Jewish temple originally decreed by Cyrus (Ezra 5:1-6:15), showed favor toward Greek cults (attested in his letter to Gadatas), observed Egyptian religious rites related to kingship (Posener, pp. 24-34, 50-63), and supported Elamite priests (Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 132-35). In H. H. Schaeder’s opinion (1941, p. 29), “the great politics of the King reveal his clear understanding of what were possible and what necessary …; [and] the organizations which he established in the empire earn him the title of the greatest statesman of ancient East.”

DARIUS iv. Darius II

Darius II was the sixth Achaemenid king of kings (r. February 423- March 403 B.C.E.). He had been satrap of Hyrcania. Darius was his throne name; his given name is reported in classical sources as Ochus (Babylonian Ú-ma-kušor Ú-ma-su; Stolper, p. 115). The Old Persian name may have been either *Vauka (Schmitt, 1977, pp. 422-23; idem, 1982, p. 84) or *Va(h)uš (cf. Stolper, p. 115). His father was Artaxerxes I (465-25 B.C.E.), his mother a Babylonian. Greek authors therefore considered him a bastard (Gk. nóthos), though this epithet appeared rather late (Pausanias, 6.5.7). According to Ctesias (Jacoby, Fragmente 688 frag. 15.47-51), Darius II ascended the throne after the short reigns of two of his half-brothers, Xerxes II (425-24) and Sogdianus (or Sekyndianus; 424). In the dating formulas of the Babylonian business documents, however, these kings are not mentioned, and Darius II directly succeeds Artaxerxes I. The struggle for the throne probably took place during the first years of Darius’ reign, rather than before it, as Greek authors have it (cf. Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente 688 frag. 15.47-49; Diodorus, 11.69.6, 12.7.1, 12.64.1). Its effects appear to be reflected in the archive of the Babylonian banking family the Murašūs: In the second year of the reign of Darius II Ochus there was an increase in the number of mortgages, possibly resulting from the fiscal and military demands of his first year (Stolper, pp. 122-23). The names of those who supported Sogdianus and Darius given by Ctesias are confirmed in these cuneiform documents (Stolper, p. 116); these names include that of Parysatis, Darius’ wife and half-sister. In discussionss of her presumed pernicious influence at court (e.g., Olmstead, pp. 356, 364; Cook, p. 135) little account is taken of her wealth and landholdings, as they appear in the Murašū tablets.

Iranian evidence for the rule of Darius II is scarce; all his inscriptions refer to building activities. He built at Susa (cf. Kent, Old Persian, p. 154, D2Sa, D2Sb, both fragmentary; but cf. Lewis, p. 78, for mention of an unpublished inscription, presumably from Hamadān), and one of the three anepigraphic tombs at Naqš-e Rostam is ascribed to him; he was the last Achaemenid to be buried there.

Darius’ reign was conspicuous for frequent revolts, led partly by satraps who had acquired a power base in regions where their families had ruled for generations. Ctesias mentioned a revolt by Darius’ full brother Arsites, assisted by Artyphios, son of the satrap Megabyzus, who had mounted a revolt during Artaxerxes’ reign. The revolt of the satrap Pissoúthnēs at Sardis was crushed by Tissaphernes (see ČIΘRAFARNAH), probably in 422 (cf. Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente 688 frag. 15.53), who bribed Pissoúthnēs’ Greek mercenary troops to abandon their commander. Tissaphernes’ sojourn in Asia Minor signaled the start of intensified Persian interference in Greek affairs during the Peloponnesian war. The Paphlagonian eunuch Artoxares, who had once helped Darius to become king, also attempted a coup at an uncertain date (Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente 688 frag. 15.54). In addition, the novelistic tale of the insubordination of Teritouchmes, married to a daughter of Darius II, may well mask a more serious threat to the throne (Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente 688 frag. 15.55-56). There is evidence of trouble in Egypt in 410 B.C.E., prelude to a successful revolt in 404 (on its origins, cf. Briant, pp. 138 ff.; Ray, 1987; idem, 1988). Finally, in the heart of the empire the crushing of a Median revolt (Xenophon, Hellenica 1.11.19) was followed by a campaign against the Cadusii

(Gk. Kadoúsioi).

Darius II died in 404 in Babylon (Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente 688 frag. 16.57). He was survived by Parysatis, who supported her younger son, Cyrus the Younger (see CYRUS vi), in his well-known rebellion against his full brother Artaxerxes II (405-359), reported by Xenophon in the first book of his Anabasis. Dependence on Greek sources, notably Ctesias (Sancisi-Weerdenburg, pp. 34 ff.), and the virtual absence of Near Eastern documentation seriously biases current views on the reign of Darius II.

DARIUS v. Darius III

Darius III (b. ca. 380 B.C.E., d. mid-330; cf. Arrian, Anabasis 3.22.6), the last Achaemenid king.

Sources. The lack of sources for the last century of Achaemenid rule (Frye, p. 135) is especially severe for the life and reign of Darius III. There are no Persian royal texts or monuments, and what is known comes almost solely from the Greek historians, who depicted his career mainly as a contrast to the brilliant first few years of Alexander the Great. There are a few documents from Babylonia, including the Uruk king list; an astronomical diary that has been interpreted as giving the date of the battle of Gaugamela and of Alexander’s entry into Babylon (20 October 331); and some astronomical observations collected by Abraham Sachs, in which Darius’ personal name, not mentioned elsewhere, is given in two slightly different transcriptions (cf. Stolper, CAH², with additional references). The main literary sources, all written centuries after Darius’ reign, are the Greek accounts of Alexander’s career and their derivatives: the universal history of Diodorus Siculus (bk. 17; 1st century B.C.E.); Arrian’s Anabasis (2nd century C.E., drawing chiefly on two contemporary accounts) and, in Latin, Curtius Rufus (probably 1st century C.E.; cf. Rutz), both chiefly based on a romanticized contemporary account by Cleitarchus; Plutarch, Alexander and some references in the Moralia (based on a great variety of sources of variable value; ca. 100 C.E.); and Justin’s 3rd-century epitome of Pompeius Trogus’ world history (in Latin, based on Greek sources; 1st century B.C.E.). The only useful monumental source is the Alexander mosaic from Pompeii.

Darius’ life. Even in antiquity Darius’ origin was obscure (see especially Diodorus, 17.5.5-6; Justin, 10.3.3-6; Plutarch, Moralia 326F; Strabo, 15.3.24). Furthermore, his life before his accession has received no detailed treatment in modern scholarly literature. He seems to have had some connection with the royal family but probably not a close one. In the Greek tradition he was unanimously depicted as an outsider who had risen to the throne through outstanding bravery, first shown in single combat in an early expedition of Artaxerxes III Ochus (359-38 B.C.E.) against the Cadusii. Justin, who gave the fullest account, reported that, although Darius had been an obscure figure (quidam) before, he was rewarded for his valor with the satrapy of Armenia and later became king; according to both Diodorus and Strabo, the Achaemenid dynasty had ended with his predecessor, Arses (338-36 B.C.E.). Diodorus also included the Cadusian story but in his introduction called Darius a son of “Arsanes” (i.e., Arsames, OPers. Aršāma, the name of the grandfather of Darius I; see iii, above) and grandson of Ostanes, a son of Darius II (424-405; see iv, above). This lineage was clearly the official version, probably adopted, along with the throne name Darius (cf. Dandamaev, p. 112 n. 3), at his accession. In Babylonian documents his personal name appears as Ar-ta-šá-a-ta/u (probably OPers. *Artašiyāta, lit, “happy in Arta”). Of the Greeks only Justin, who was generally well informed about names and must be accepted as reproducing the Greek tradition, mentioned a personal name, Codomannus, which Darius bore before gaining prominence. The name of his mother (by birth or adoption) appears as Sisyngambris (Diodorus) or Sisigambis (Curtius, with numerous manuscript variants). Curtius, in a rhetorical passage (10.5.23), seems to have identified her as a cousin of Ochus, who eliminated a brother of Ostanes with all his sons on his accession. She cannot have been a full cousin, however, for Ochus would not then have spared Darius’ life, let alone promoting him. Darius had a brother Oxyathres (whether a full or “official” brother is unknown), who fought loyally for him and was held in honor by Alexander after Darius’ death.

At some unspecified time Darius was probably in charge of the royal “postal service,” an exalted position, perhaps the same one that is ascribed to the great Parnaka in the Persepolis Fortification tablets. Plutarch (Moralia 326F) called him both a “courier” (using the Persian loanword astándes) and a slave (as in other sources); he was thus presumably the king’s bandaka (see BANDA i) in the public service. After the succession of Arses he was one of the king’s “friends” at court, and it may be at that time that he was promoted from his satrapy to the postal service; he may in fact already have been elevated by his old patron Ochus, perhaps about 340, when he seems to have married the royal princess Stateira, whom Curtius described as his sister or cousin; his only son by her, Ochus, was six years old when captured by Alexander late in 333. Three daughters by an earlier wife are attested, one married to a Mithridates who died fighting on the Granicus (see below), and two who as adolescents accompanied their father on the campaign that ended in the battle of Issus and were captured along with his mother, wife, and son. One unreliable source reported that he also had another son, Ariobarzanes, whom he had executed for treason.

When the general Bagōas murdered Arses and his sons he installed Darius as king, no doubt because (as reported in the Greek sources) his reputation for valor made him acceptable to the nobles; Darius’ probable connection with the royal family and the memory of Artaxerxes Ochus’ favor must also have contributed to their acceptance. Bagōas must have thought that the outsider would have to rely on him, but Darius soon eliminated him and assumed full control, at about the time that Alexander the Great succeeded in Macedonia (autumn 336). Darius may have been faced with immediate rebellions in Egypt (see Kienitz, pp. 110, 185 ff., though the chronology and interpretation are unclear) and Babylon; a native king was briefly in occupation of Memphis at about that time, and in the Uruk king list a king with a Babylonian name appears just before Darius. These rebellions cannot have been of major importance, however, as both pretenders quickly disappeared from the record, evidence that their revolts were quickly suppressed; nevertheless, they must have added to Darius’ feeling of insecurity.

This insecurity, together with a deceptively easy success against an expedition sent by Philip II into Asia Minor, dissuaded him from strengthening his forces in the west, despite Alexander’s preparations for resuming the invasion (cf. Dandamaev, pp. 314-19). He did not establish there a unified command comparable to that of the Rhodian Greek Mentor under Ochus. Mentor’s brother Memnon was perhaps the only man who could have handled such a command, but, as a brother-in-law of Artabazus, satrap of Phrygia, he had joined in the latter’s rebellion against Ochus and long exile in Macedonia. Other commanders, mainly eminent Persians and some even members of the royal family, were unacceptable to a king of doubtful legitimacy who feared their power. Thus, when Alexander invaded Asia Minor early in 334, he was met at the river Granicus by only a small force, divided among several commanders with different strategic ideas. A strike at Alexander himself failed, and after his victory the whole of Asia Minor lay open before him, with the exception of one or two fortified and garrisoned cities, which he at firat bypassed, then conquered.

It was only after receiving Memnon’s wife and children as hostages that Darius named him “commander of the seashore and the fleet” (the position once held by Cyrus the Younger; see CYRUS vi). Even then, some troops were actually recalled from the coast, for Darius had decided to meet the invader in person, in a land battle. Memnon was given a free hand only at sea, but Alexander had dismissed his own fleet through fear of Greek disloyalty. Memnon launched a successful counteroffensive, intending to recapture the main island bases and then to carry the war to Greece, where Agis III of Sparta was eager to lead an alliance to overthrow Macedonian domination. But Memnon died, and his successors were less capable. By the time they met Agis off the Greek coast, Darius had been defeated at Issus (in late 333). Agis was given some funds and, after collecting mercenaries, launched his war in Greece, but by then he could receive no further support. Early in 330 he was defeated and killed. Darius himself died soon afterward.

During 334-33 Darius collected an army with unprecedented speed, and by October 333 he was crossing the Taurus mountains; through a failure in Alexander’s intelligence, he was able to appear at his rear. But he lacked experience of major command and, persuaded by his advisers that victory was certain, he faced Alexander on the small coastal plain of Issus, where his superior cavalry could not be deployed to envelop the enemy’s left. Parmenio, the most experienced Macedonian commander, held it back while Alexander routed the king. For the Persians the battle was a disaster. Darius himself escaped before it was over, and Greek historians were quick to charge him with cowardice—though bravery was his best-attested quality. It is more probable that he had kept his head and had understood that the only chance of saving the kingdom lay in saving himself; had he died, there was no plausible successor who could command allegiance and lead resistance to the invasion.

His family had fallen into Alexander’s hands, however. There is no reason to disbelieve the stories of his anxiety over their treatment and his surprise at Alexander’s magnanimity. Nonetheless, that they were hostages dissuaded Darius from attempting a counterattack. While Persia’s allies confidently waited for him to do so (the city of Tyre holding out for nearly a year against all Alexander’s siegecraft), the king began negotiations for a settlement. The details cannot be recovered, for the documents quoted in Greek sources are as usual fictitious, but it is clear that he faced decisions inconceivable to his predecessors. The minimum terms that offered hope of acceptance were cession of large territories and recognition of Alexander as an equal. In addition, Darius offered a large ransom for his family and a marriage alliance to seal the bargain. It is said that Parmenio advised Alexander to accept, but, quite apart from Alexander’s heroic ambition, he could not easily do so. Once peace had been made and the hostages released, he would have to return home, leaving garrisons to guard a long frontier; Darius would then be free to attack at a time of his own choosing. Alexander therefore decided instead to seize his chance of inflicting further humiliation. He rejected all terms and demanded that Darius pay homage to him as his superior. Darius thus had no choice but to fight on.

He had few Greek mercenaries left to form a usable infantry force, but he decided to improve the equipment of his native forces after the Greek model; his cavalry was vastly superior, and he had both elephants (which the enemy had never seen) and the fearsome scythe chariots used by Cyrus the Younger at Cunaxa. Furthermore, this time he would be fighting on his own ground. He seems to have awaited Alexander in Mesopotamia and to have offered no opposition when the Greek forces crossed the desert and the Euphrates. But Alexander, probably by chance, traveled farther north to avoid the extreme heat, crossing both the Euphrates and the Tigris. Darius thus had to find suitable ground east of the Tigris; he took a position near the village of Gaugamela north of Arbela, with the Maqlūb ridge covering his flank. The plain was large enough for his cavalry, and he had it leveled in order to allow full use of the chariots. But with the decision to await the enemy’s attack he had lost the initiative. Alexander moved up slowly, allowing his men to rest while keeping Darius on the alert. He halted overlooking the edge of the plain; the moon was in its last quarter, and in a night attack the disciplined Macedonians would have overwhelmed the motley Iranian forces. Darius thus kept his men under arms all night, while Alexander allowed his troops to rest, then attacked at sunrise, on 1 October 331. As at Cunaxa, the chariots proved useless against disciplined forces, and, despite his improved equipment, Darius had nothing to set against the Greek phalanx. The cavalry, as planned, fought successfully against Alexander’s left, commanded by Parmenio, but Alexander, who was on the right, ignored the threat of encirclement, let the Persians pour through a gap in his center, then charged straight at the weary troops in Darius’s center, where the king himself commanded (Figure 1). The line was broken, and Darius again had to flee. His army disintegrated, and Alexander never again had to face the grand Persian army in full-scale battle.

Figure 1. The Battle of Gaugamela (or else that of Issus, 333 BCE), depicted in the Alexander Mosaic from the House of the Faun, Pompeii. Museo Archeologico Nazionale Napoli. Photograph licensed under the GFDL by the author of the photograph; released under the GNU Free Documentation License. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alexandermosaic.jpg.)View full image in a new tab

Darius fled to Ecbatana, hoping either to draw Alexander after him or to gain time while Alexander occupied the other royal capitals. Alexander took the latter course, occupying Babylon (where his army rested for a month) and Susa without opposition and continuing on to Persepolis. En route, at the so-called “Persian Gate,” Ariobarzanes, commander of Persis, caught Alexander in a trap and inflicted on him the only defeat he is attested to have suffered at Persian hands. Neverthless, Alexander found a way of going around the narrow pass to Ariobarzanes’ rear and avenged his defeat; in mid-January 330 he reached Persepolis and destroyed the lower city. He remained there four months, except for a limited campaign to occupy the rest of Persis, including Pasargadae, while he waited for news of Agis’ war in Greece. Having heard nothing by May, he destroyed the terrace and royal buildings at Persepolis, in a symbolic gesture of revenge for Xerxes’ destruction in Greece, and set out on the mountain road to Ecbatana. The Greek sources do not provide information on how Darius used the time he had gained at such cost. There is no sign that he assembled another army, either at Ecbatana or farther east, and such a task was probably impossible in winter. When Alexander approached he left him to occupy the city and, with a few remaining nobles and a small force, retreated eastward. Alexander organized Media and slowly followed him, until he heard that Darius had been taken prisoner by his own companions.

The surviving account of Darius’ last days is ultimately based on unreliable sources: Darius’ Greek mercenaries, who were loyal to the end but had little idea of what was going on, and Persian nobles who later joined Alexander and were unlikely to tell the whole truth. The lead in the plot against Darius was said to have been taken by Bessos, satrap of Bactria, who was related to the royal family and may have had as valid a claim to the Persian throne as the king himself. Bessos is contradictorily reported to have been ambitious for the royal dignity and to have hoped to buy his own safety by surrendering Darius. He and several others, including the hazārapati- (chiliarch) Nabarzanes, bound the king in golden fetters. When Alexander heard of this development from Persian deserters, he hastened to take the king alive, but by the time he arrived, somewhere near Hecatompylus, it was too late. The conspirators, fearing capture, had stabbed Darius and left him to die while they escaped to the east. Bessos then assumed the royal tiara and the throne name Artaxerxes. In later fiction the two rulers met, and Darius uttered a great speech of proud resignation before dying.

It is possible only to guess the realities that lay behind these events, but Alexander’s eagerness to reach Darius while he was alive and the conspirators’ determination to prevent this meeting and to carry on the war in the east suggest that Darius was ready to do what Alexander had demanded two years earlier: to pay homage to him as a superior and thus to confer some legitimacy on his attempt to assume the Achaemenid succession. Some eminent nobles had joined Alexander after the battle at Gaugamela and had been rewarded with satrapies and honors, but the destruction of Persepolis had largely undone the effect of Alexander’s striving for legitimacy. Only recognition by Darius might yet have spared him years of war in the east, which did in fact ensue. Darius’ motives are less clear. Several instances in which he put personal honor below his country’s interests have been mentioned. Despair for the present and desire to spare Persia further suffering may have been mingled with hope for future recovery. The young “barbarian” might not have been able to hold what he had won, and another chance might have come for Darius. His death was a misfortune for both sides but a disaster for Persia.

Alexander sent Darius’ body to be buried “among the royal tombs”; it is not clear where they were, but he cannot have been placed in the unfinished tomb at Persepolis. His monument, if he had one, does not survive, any more than does that of Alexander.

DARIUS vi. Achaemenid Princes

Darius was the name of two Achaemenid princes in addition to the emperors who bore it.

Eldest son of Xerxes I (486-65 B.C.E.). This Darius was born of Amestris and was thus the brother of Hystaspes, Artaxerxes I, Amytis, and Rhodogune (Ctesias, in Jacoby, Fragmente III.C, p. 462 frag. 13 par. 24; Diodorus, 11.69.2). After the battle of Mycale in 479 B.C.E. Xerxes married Darius to Artaynte, daughter of his brother Masistes and his wife, whom he loved himself (Herodotus 9.108.1-2). In 465-64 Darius was linked to the assassination of Xerxes and also himself fell a victim in the ensuing events, though details of this court revolution are not entirely clear from the sources. According to contemporary opinion, as represented by Ctesias (in Jacoby, Fragmente III.C, p. 464 frags. 13-14 pars. 33-34), Diodorus Siculus (11.69.1-5), and Justin (3.1.1-5), who differed only slightly in their accounts, Xerxes was murdered by Artabanus (2; Ctesias: Artapanus, probably the correct form), the chief of his bodyguards, and some other confidants, whose identities vary in the sources. Artapanus then went to the king’s younger son Artaxerxes and accused Darius of the murder; Artaxerxes decided to kill Darius before he could seize the throne. Artapanus’ plan to take power for himself failed, however, as the truth came to light at last. A totally different version of these events was given by Aristotle (Politica 1311b.36 ff.), who reported that Artapanes (sic) first killed Darius without royal orders, then murdered Xerxes for fear of the king’s vengeance.

DARIUS vii. Parthian Princes

Darius was the name of several petty princes in the Parthian period.

In 64 B.C.E. while his father, Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus (ca. 121/20-63 B.C.E.), was fighting his last, losing campaign against the troops of the Roman general Pompey (106-48 B.C.E.), the child Darius was taken prisoner, along with several brothers and his sister Eupatra, in Phanagoria (Appian, Mithridatica 108). He was carried in procession among the defeated kings, princes, and other royal figures at Pompey’s triumphal reentry into Rome (Appian, Mithridatica 117).

His nephew, son of Pharnaces II (63-47 B.C.E.), was Darius, king of Pontus, appointed by Mark Antony in 39 B.C.E. (Appian, Bellum Civile 5.319). He ruled for only about two years before being dethroned by Polemon, son of the rhetor Zeno of Laodicia.

A third Darius, son of Mithridates, was king of Media Atropatene, though almost nothing is known about him. In order to rid himself of his Armenian overlords, he submitted to Pompey in about 65 B.C.E., during the conflict between the Romans and the Armenian king Tigranes. He is said to have ruled later over part of Armenia, under the suzerainty of the Parthians (Appian, Mithridatica 106; cf. 117).

DARIUS viii. Darius Son of Artabanus

A son of the Parthian king Artabanus II (r. ca. 10-38 C.E.) named Darius was sent as a hostage to Rome (Josephus, Antiquitates 18.4.5) shortly after an interview between Artabanus and the Roman legate for Syria, Vitellius, in 37 C.E. (Suetonius, Caligula 14.3; idem, Vitellius 2.4; Dion Cassius, 59.27.3).

Darius seems to have led an obscure life in the Roman empire. He is mentioned only once as having ridden before Gaius [Caligula] during one of his repeated crossings of the bridge between Baiae and the bay of Puteoli (Pozzuoli; Suetonius, Caligula 19.2). Five fragments of water conduits found at Nemi (ca. 40 km from Rome) bear the inscription “Darii Regis” (Morpurgo, p. 280 no. 109). It has been suggested that the inscription could refer to the hostage Darius (Stein, p. 2), but the could hardly have used the title “king.” Alfred von Gutschmid (p. 49 and n. 19) has identified Darius with Vologases I, mentioned as a son of Artabanus II by Josephus (Antiquitates 20.3.4), but this identification is untenable (cf. Kahrstedt, p. 18 and n. 9), as it would mean that Darius had been sent back to Artabanus.