Darius III. The last Achaemenid on the Persian throne

20
Darius III. The last Achaemenid on the Persian throne
Darius III in O. Stone's film "Alexander", 2004


The last representative of the Persian Achaemenid dynasty, King Darius III (Darayavaush - "Good-natured") traditionally remains in the shadow of his great opponent Alexander the Great. He is only a secondary character in stories about him, this tradition was established by ancient authors, and, acting as Alexander's antagonist, Darius only emphasizes the greatness of the conqueror. But today we will try to make him the main character of two short articles.



Origin and early years of life of the last of the Achaemenids


Darius III was born in 381 BC and was a member of a collateral line of the Achaemenid dynasty. His father, Arsames, was a grandson of Darius II, and his mother, whom Diodorus Siculus calls Sisygambris and Curtius Sisygambis, was, according to the second author, a cousin of Ochus, who killed his brother Ostanes and his sons and ascended the throne as Artaxerxes III.

However, some authors deny the hero of the article's royal origin. Some modern researchers agree with them, pointing out that Artaxerxes III, who ascended the throne, ordered all his brothers to be killed, and the future Darius III somehow survived. Plutarch calls the hero of the article a royal messenger, and Claudius Aelianus calls him a slave. Commenting on Plutarch's message, Harvard professor E. Badian suggested that Darius could have been not an ordinary messenger, but the head of the palace postal service.

One way or another, it is clear that he was not among the closest contenders for the throne and stood far from the throne.

At birth, the future last Persian king received the name Artaxiata, and Marcus Junianus Justinus, the only author, calls him Codomanus. Young Darius was known as a strong and skilled warrior, at the age of 20 he became famous for the fact that before one of the battles, in front of King Artaxerxes III, he defeated an opponent from the hostile tribe of Cadusii in a traditional duel. Soon after, he was appointed to the post of satrap of Armenia.

Path to the throne


In 338 BC, the last strong king of the Achaemenid dynasty, Artaxerxes III, died in Persia. He was poisoned by the court eunuch Bagoas, an Egyptian by origin, who had such influence that "Artaxerxes did nothing without his advice" (Diodorus Siculus). Apparently, he hoped to become the de facto ruler of the country, using the heirs of the poisoned king as weak-willed puppets.

At first, his choice fell on Prince Arses, who ascended the throne as Artaxerxes IV. But he somehow did not please Bagoas and was also poisoned. This time, the eunuch elevated the hero of the article to the throne, who then became Darius III.

It is curious that Darius and Alexander became kings almost simultaneously – in 336 BC. Alexander was only 20 years old at that time, Darius was 45 years old, and he did not wait for his portion of poison – he poisoned the eunuch himself.

The problem was that Darius III was not really suited to rule a huge empire. Once in power, he indulged in luxury that surprised even those close to the previous kings. Plutarch later wrote about the impression that Darius' treasure-filled tent made on Alexander the Great. The young conqueror, who had never seen anything like it, told his friends:

“This is, apparently, what it means to reign.”

What can we say about the palaces and residences of Darius?

What this king did not have was an army capable of protecting both himself and his enormous wealth from an invasion from the north. Meanwhile, back in 401 BC, an event occurred after which many in Hellas began to think that the enormous Persian empire was essentially a colossus with feet of clay. We are talking about the famous Anabasis. After the death of this prince, a detachment of Greek mercenaries of Cyrus the Younger found themselves on the banks of the Euphrates without senior commanders, killed during negotiations by the Persians, but with continuous fighting they managed to break through to the Black Sea and return to Hellas.


The Greeks, who were left without leaders, were led by the Athenian Xenophon, who was a contemporary of Plato and a student of Socrates, but at the same time a great admirer of Sparta and its customs. He later described this campaign in the third person under the name Themistogenes of Syracuse.


Xenophon, a monument in Vienna

His work did not go unnoticed, and Polybius in his "Universal stories" claimed that it was Xenophon's book that inspired Alexander the Great to conquer Asia. The Byzantine historian Eunapius agreed with him. And the Greek historian and geographer Arrian, having written a book about the campaigns of Alexander the Great, directly called it "Alexander's Anabasis".

The Persian kings still tried to play on the contradictions of the Greek states, using not only iron but also gold. The same Artaxerxes II, whose reign was marked by the "Anabasis", soon expelled the Spartan army of King Agesilaus II from Asia Minor with the help of "an army of 30 thousand archers" (depicted on Persian gold coins).


Darik of Artaxerxes II

Having bribed the people's leaders (literally, demagogues), he formed an anti-Spartan coalition of Athens, Thebes, Corinth, Argos and some city-states of the Aegean islands. But the military weakness of the Persian state, demonstrated by the campaign of 401 BC, was not forgotten and had far-reaching consequences.

Many politicians in Athens and Sparta had the idea: if a relatively small Greek detachment left Persia under the most unfavorable conditions, then another, stronger one, could probably just as easily enter it?

A war of conquest against Persia was inevitable, but it could only take place if at least half of the Greek states united around Athens or Sparta, if not all. And with a guarantee that the other half of the Greek cities would not attack the first, which had sent its troops on a large Persian campaign.

The task of uniting Greece seemed impossible and overwhelming – until a third force appeared – barbarian Macedonia, led by the clever and strong king Philip II. He managed to force all the states of Hellas (except Sparta) to submit after winning the battle at Chaeronea, which took place in August or September 338 BC. e.


Head of Philip II of Macedon, Carlsberg Glyptothek

Representatives of the Greek city-states signed a treaty in Corinth to create the Hellenic Union, with Philip declared hegemon. He declared war on Persia for the sacrilegious crimes against Greek temples and other shrines committed by Xerxes. His son Alexander later declared Darius an accomplice of the eunuch Bagoas, and himself an avenger for the murdered Persian kings, writing to him:

"With the help of Bagoas, you killed Arses and seized power - unjustly, contrary to Persian law. You are unfair to the Persians."

Army of Darius III



Richard Scollins. Darius III and his warriors

It should be said that the Persian army at that time was already different from the army of Xerxes. It included cardacians, of whom Arrian says: "They were also hoplites." Detachments of warriors similar to the Greek peltasts (takabara) were formed; they were armed with small axes and javelins, and had small shields that resembled a crescent in shape. However, archers and slingers still predominated in the infantry. The heavy cavalry was represented mainly by Massagetan horsemen, as Arrian reports in describing the battle of Gaugamela:

“The barbarians were overwhelming in numbers, and besides, both the Scythians themselves and their horses were carefully protected by armor.”

The Persian cavalry consisted mainly of mounted archers and horsemen armed with javelins (paltons), which were used in hand-to-hand combat if necessary. The few heavily armed Persian cavalrymen, according to Curtius, were ineffective:

"The Persian horses and riders alike were weighed down by plate armor and moved with difficulty."

Curtius gives the following description of the army of Darius III:

"The marching order was as follows... horsemen of 12 tribes in various clothes and armed in different ways. Next came those whom the Persians call "immortals", numbering up to 10 thousand, no one else had such barbarically luxurious clothing: they had gold necklaces, cloaks embroidered with gold, and tunics with long sleeves, decorated with precious stones. At a short distance came the so-called "relatives of the king", numbering up to 15 thousand.

This crowd, with its almost feminine luxury in attire, stood out more for its splendor than for the beauty of its weapons. The courtiers who followed them, who usually kept the royal clothes, were called spearmen. They walked in front of the king's chariot, in which he towered above the rest.

Behind the chariot walked 10 thousand spearmen with spears richly decorated with silver and arrows with gold tips. About 200 close nobles followed to the right and left of the king. Their detachment was closed by 30 thousand infantrymen accompanied by 400 royal horses… then 600 mules and 300 camels carried the royal treasury: they were accompanied by a detachment of archers.

The last to come were the lightly armed soldiers, each with their own commander.”

The Persian army's weak points were its mixed national composition and low discipline. And so the most combat-ready units were the Greek mercenaries.

Greek mercenaries of Darius III


The tradition of hiring Greek hoplites by the Persian kings was not new. Darius' father, Artaxerxes III, had them too. One of them, the Athenian Apollodorus, helped defend the city of Perinthus, which was being besieged by the army of Philip II.

After Alexander the Great's father conquered the Thessalian city of Pherae in 344 BC, its native Aristomedes went into the service of Artaxerxes, teaching the Persians to fight the Greeks. weapons and in the Greek line. At the Battle of Issus, the Greek mercenaries stood in the center of the Persian army, and the 20 "students" of Aristomedes stood to their left.

In Persia there was also a native of the island of Eudeia, Charidemus, who had a reputation as one of the most outstanding military leaders of his time. Diodorus Siculus called him "the most skillful and experienced strategist in military affairs," Quintus Curtius Rufus - "a man of amazing courage." The modern English historian Clifford Edmund Bosworth called him "a famous military leader," and the doctor of historical sciences, vice-president of the Russian Association of Classical Scholars L. P. Marinovich - the most prominent representative of the cohort of ancient Greek mercenary adventurers of the 4th century BC.

Other Greek commanders of Darius III were the Aetolian Glaucus and the Phocian Patron, whose troops confronted the Macedonian phalanx at the Battle of Gaugamela. Outstanding Greek commanders in Persian service were the Rhodian Mentor and his brother Memnon (whose widow Barsine later became a concubine of Alexander the Great and in 327 BC bore him a son, Hercules).


Memnon and Barsine in the film "Alexander the Great", 1956

Mentor suppressed the anti-Persian rebellion in Egypt, and in close cooperation with that same Bagoas, who commanded one of the armies: apparently, this eunuch was a truly capable man - not only a master of court intrigues, perhaps his poisoning was one of the reasons for the fall of the Persian Empire. Mentor was appointed commander-in-chief of all troops stationed in the coastal Asian provinces, but died in 340 BC. e.

Alexander the Great, according to Quintus Curtius Rufus, considered his younger brother Memnon to be his most dangerous opponent, believing that only he could thwart his plans. This author called Memnon's advice on using "scorched earth tactics" a "saving plan" for the Persians, and Diodorus Siculus assessed them as excellent.

Memnon successfully fought against the 10-strong corps of Parmenion and Attalus, which Philip II sent to Asia Minor as the vanguard of the invasion army. Memnon fought no less successfully against Parmenion's successor Calas. After the defeat of the Persians at the Granicus River, Memnon took part in the fortification of the city of Halicarnassus, then captured the island of Chios and several cities on the island of Lesbos, but in 333 BC he died of some disease during the siege of the city of Mytilene.

The Macedonians also served Darius. One of them, Amyntas, fled to Persia after Alexander's accession to the throne - from the repressions launched by the new king's mother, Olympias.

Even after the defeat at Gaugamela, about 1 Greek mercenaries remained loyal to Darius III. After Darius's death, they surrendered and their new commander was Andronicus, the husband of Alexander the Great's wet nurse Lanica (whose brother was Cleitus the Black).

It must be said that Darius III took Philip of Macedon more than seriously, and was very afraid of him – and therefore felt great relief upon receiving news of the king’s death. Darius was wrong, since he could probably have come to an agreement with the pragmatist Philip and retained the throne – by sacrificing some of the territories and paying a huge ransom. Alexander destroyed the Achaemenid Empire.

In any case, after Philip's murder, Darius practically stopped preparing for war, especially since Memnon had driven the Macedonian corps of Attalus and Parmenion back to the Hellespont. Attalus, who had once insulted Alexander, was killed on the orders of the young king, and Philip's best commander, Parmenion, was recalled to Macedonia for consultations; the Persian king regarded his departure as a sign that Alexander had abandoned the campaign to the east.

Calas, who remained in command, was defeated in Troad, but retained important bridgeheads on the Asian shore of the Hellespont, which Darius did not attach much importance to. The new Macedonian king did not seem a dangerous opponent to him, and he even ordered that if Philip II's son appeared in Persia, he should be taken alive and delivered to Susa. Darius wrote to Alexander:

"You will grow old in the time it takes you to even walk through my domain."

In the next article we will continue our story and see how wrong the last Persian king was.
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    26 September 2024 07: 52
    Darius III married...native sister Statira.
    And although in that dynasty, close marriages were accepted, it was wild.
  2. +2
    26 September 2024 08: 49
    Mentor suppressed the anti-Persian revolt in Egypt, and in close cooperation with Bagoas, who commanded one of the armies: apparently, this eunuch was a truly capable man

    Indeed, he could well have been a statesman who saw that the degenerate Achaemenids were ruining Persia and tried to find at least one of them who would not interfere with saving the country. But the insignificant Darius who poisoned him naturally declared him an arrant villain and monster.
    1. +1
      26 September 2024 10: 13
      Moreover, Bagoas was a eunuch, which meant he could not lay claim to the throne and found his own dynasty. If he is a capable man, give him a slap on the head so he doesn't lose his bearings, and assign him to something useful. Evon is the same Narses under Justinian...
  3. +2
    26 September 2024 09: 42
    With such a number of mounted archers - it is generally unclear why the hell the Persians needed to give general battles time after time... Let's remember the fate of the same Crassus - that's how they should have acted. Filippych didn't have light cavalry in sacks, and mounted archers - it seems he didn't have any at all.. Just circle around day after day, and shoot the same foragers and other separate units.. And the army itself constantly trudging along in battle formation - that's quite a task. In such a situation - they won't go far.

    Moreover, the Persians already had the sad experience of clashes on the battlefield with trained heavy infantry, they should have already figured out what to counter this with. Again, the spaces are huge, there is room to roam.
    1. +2
      26 September 2024 09: 50
      Memnon, apparently, was proposing something like this. But the Persian commanders probably wanted glory and exploits! Shooting foragers from afar is not particularly famous.
      1. +5
        26 September 2024 10: 08
        Well, okay - then again it is unclear why the Persians needed to go head-on against the phalanx in battle.. Put archers against it, including mounted ones, and let them shoot without getting involved in hand-to-hand combat. Macedonian phalangists are not, for example, a Swiss battle, they are rather poor in protective equipment.. An arrow - sooner or later it will find a crack..

        And the bulk of them - to the flanks. And work on them. You can hardly deploy a phalanx in battle, and Macedonian didn't seem to have any special reserves. And if you send a couple thousand more cavalry on a long detour...


        In general - IMHO, all the loud glory went to Alexander only because his opponent was Darius III. If his opponent had not even been Cyrus the Great - but at least the same Darius I, the situation could have been completely different...
        1. +4
          26 September 2024 10: 28
          Quote: paul3390
          With such a number of mounted archers


          With what number of shooters?
          Actually, Persian horsemen did not shoot from bows, but threw a coat
          The Sacae had mounted archers, a contingent of them is mentioned at Gaugamela, but there could not have been very many of them.
          There is simply nothing to fight with in the Parthian style.

          Quote: paul3390
          Why did the Persians need to go head-on against the phalanx in battle?

          Quote: paul3390
          And the main mass - to the flanks.


          The Persians at Issus and Gaugamela did just that. There is no evidence that their elite cavalry was killed by the phalanx, on the contrary, Arrian emphasizes that they were concentrated on the flanks against the Macedonian cavalry.
          1. +3
            26 September 2024 11: 34
            Firstly, the Persians did have archers. Under the Achaemenids, and under the Arsacids, and under the Sassanids. Secondly, you are standing in the phalanx formation. What difference does it make to you whether they shoot you with an arrow from 100 meters, or a dart from 30? You have nothing to respond with anyway.

            Besides, we have an excellent example of using extremely light cavalry armed with javelins. This is Hannibal's Numidian cavalry. And I don't recall the Romans treating it with disdain on such an occasion...

            Of course - no one threw cavalry at the phalanx. The Persian infantry rushed there. They had no options against it.

            Arrian lived 400 years after those events! So it is not a fact that his information corresponds to reality. Perhaps it is just a reconstruction based on personal experience.
            1. +4
              26 September 2024 11: 52
              There were archers, but the Achaemenids weren't very good with mounted archers.
              Under the Arshakids, there was a different army in principle - mounted Dahae and Sakas, who conquered Iran. Under the Achaemenids, the Sakas were a marginal tribe that either did not enter the state at all or submitted conditionally. The Achaemenids did not have masses of mounted archers.

              Secondly, you are standing in the phalanx formation. What difference does it make to you whether they shoot you with an arrow from 100 meters or a dart from 30? You have nothing to respond with anyway.

              The horseman has one or two coats. The phalanx is covered from the front by excellent skirmishers like the Agrians, who themselves are good at throwing javelins.

              The most important thing is that by placing horsemen against the phalanx in the center, you removed them from the flanks, making the task of defeating them and subsequently enveloping your center as easy as possible. Alexander would say thank you).

              In addition, we have an excellent example of the use of extremely light cavalry armed with javelins. This is Hannibal's Numidian cavalry.


              Which almost always acted on the flank, starting the battle against the enemy cavalry

              Of course - no one threw cavalry at the phalanx. The Persian infantry rushed there. They had no options against it.


              On the contrary, the Persian infantry in all major battles stood on the defensive and did not advance anywhere. At the same time, the Persians were constantly looking for ways to further strengthen it. At Issus, the infantry had a good position, reinforced by a palisade, at Gaugamela, there were chariots in front of the infantry, which were supposed to disrupt the enemy infantry.

              Arrian lived 400 years after those events!

              Arrian clearly used the works of Ptolemy and Callisthenes, which have not reached us. This is an invaluable source. Plus, he himself was an officer in the Roman army and understood ancient battle.
              1. 0
                26 September 2024 12: 06
                How many cavalry did Alexander have? Certainly significantly less.

                I didn't say that it was necessary to put cavalry. The main thing is someone who could conduct a long-range battle and not get involved in a direct clash.

                Chariots are definitely stupid. Their age ended in the late Assyria. Why would they have to break through at least 16 ranks with long spears?

                We do not know what Arrian used. And he understood not the ancient battle, but the contemporary Roman one. Who had already accumulated by that time considerable experience in combat operations against light shooting cavalry. Having for such a case significant contingents of auxillaries, just to counteract such antics.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. +3
                  26 September 2024 12: 27
                  How many cavalry did Alexander have? Certainly significantly less.

                  According to Arrian, 7000 at Gaugamela. The Persians had fabulous numbers, but most likely they were one and a half to two times more.
                  Only the Macedonians have an army united by discipline and the authority of the king. And the Persians have a motley contingent from all over the empire, the most combat-ready of which were recruited on the outskirts. Why are you so sure that the Sakas would remain in the army for long? This is not their war, they are here for the spoils.

                  I didn't say that it was necessary to put cavalry. The main thing is someone who could conduct a long-range battle and not get involved in a direct clash.

                  Are you going to fight? If so, you have problems. There is no recipe for victory in a field battle. If not, you have problems - how to protect the richest cities in the heart of Iran? "Scythian warfare" works in desert areas, where there are no important centers that the enemy can threaten. It partially worked for the Sakas beyond the Jaxartes against Alexander and worked for the Parthians against Crassus, who literally dragged his troops into the desert.

                  Chariots are definitely stupid. Their age ended in the late Assyria. Why would they have to break through at least 16 ranks with long spears?

                  Hellish hindsight. You're so smart now that you know the result.

                  We don't know what Arrian used.

                  You don't know this. laughing
                  Arrian himself listed the sources.
    2. +2
      26 September 2024 14: 49
      Circle around day after day and shoot the same foragers and other separate units.. Yes

      A little later, when Persia was already basically finished, Alexander encountered similar tactics - with the Scythians or whoever was there in Central Asia at the time. The Macedonian did not admit defeat then, of course, but he could not win either, so he spat and went to conquer India.
  4. +6
    26 September 2024 09: 55
    In general - if we take the same battle at Gaugamela, there is a feeling that Alexander was actually losing it... If Darius had not put on his skis, but had delayed the Macedonian cavalry for at least an hour - Parmenion's left flank would have certainly collapsed. With all the consequences for the phalanx. They were already fighting in the rear with their last strength.

    It was entirely possible to delay Macedonian, the hetairoi are not cataphracts or medieval knightly cavalry. They would certainly get bogged down in such a mass of infantry, and Bessus was not that far away. He could have managed to get rid of the Macedonian light infantry, and then he would have struck the hetairoi right in the flank.

    But Darius chose to run away.. Here it is - the role of personality in history..
  5. 0
    26 September 2024 09: 59
    The territory of the Mediterranean coast itself turned into a union of Hellenic cities. But this did not happen in one year, but began with the Trojan War. And perhaps the Assyrians with the Thutmose in the change of the invasion of the peoples of the sea had a hand in this.
    Darius III may not have been related to the first Achaemenids. His name translates as Good from the East.
    But if we take into account that there were lion people, then perhaps there was one belief with the Achaemenids.
    But in Rome they didn’t like Lions, they used them to hunt slaves. And the Roman Emperor Caracalla strangled Lions like kittens.
    1. VLR
      +1
      26 September 2024 10: 21
      Lysimachus also killed a lion - with his bare hands. He came from a family of Penestan peasants, a bodyguard of Alexander the Great, who valued him for his enormous physical strength and bravery. One of the commanders of the Macedonian cavalry. After the death of the conqueror, he received Ionia and Thrace.
      Curtius Rufus claims that Lysimachus killed a lion while hunting in Syria, Justin claims that Lysimachus was thrown into a lion's cage by order of Alexander the Great - as punishment for daring to give poison to the cruelly suffering philosopher Callisthenes (who was put in a cage by order of the same Alexander). Having become a Diadochi, Lysimachus honored to mint the image of a lion on his coins. Here is one of them.
      1. 0
        26 September 2024 11: 07
        Yes, everything is clear with these personalities. Karikulla from the Sever dynasty was from Africa.
  6. VLR
    +2
    26 September 2024 11: 15
    By the way, what organizations do you think are located in this "luxurious" mansion on Dmitry Ulyanov Street 19, near the Akademicheskaya metro station?

    The answer is in the next photo.

    Institutes of Russian history and Russian archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Officials are often housed in historical mansions, but for historians and archeologists of the Russian Academy of Sciences, such a building will do. The attitude is obvious, isn't it?
  7. +1
    26 September 2024 13: 13
    Quote: paul3390
    Chariots are definitely stupid. Their age ended in the late Assyria. Why would they have to break through at least 16 ranks with long spears?


    Chariots were used in later times as well. Another thing is that they were not used for ramming attacks. A chariot is a tachanka of antiquity, its purpose is to fire with bows or slings. And knives on wheels are used when pursuing a fleeing enemy.
  8. 0
    26 September 2024 13: 26
    Quote: Engineer
    Are you going to fight? If so, you have a problem. There is no recipe for victory in a field battle. If not, you have a problem - how to protect the richest cities in the heart of Iran?


    Scorched earth tactics. Rapid cavalry attacks on the march of the enemy (out of formation, the Macedonians' weapons are not very convenient). Use of throwing weapons, including throwing pots of burning oil.
    Foraging, poisoned wells and all that...
    The Persians, however, were obsessed with honor and other prejudices, and considered such "barbaric" methods to be unworthy of themselves. They clearly lacked pragmatism.
    I suspect that corruption and betrayal of some Persian officials remained behind the scenes. Bags of gold also sometimes help to win victories, but the court chroniclers of the winning side prefer to remain silent about this. Alexander himself and his victories are covered with a thick varnish of mythologization, which is sometimes so useful to the successors of a successful conqueror.
  9. 0
    26 September 2024 13: 28
    Quote: paul3390
    In general, if we take the same battle at Gaugamela, there is a feeling that Alexander was actually losing it...


    The film "Alexander" showed that in his youth he made mistakes that his older but less distinguished comrades had to correct. It was not very politically correct to advertise such things back then, the tsar is the tsar for a reason, he is always right. laughing