The Achaemenid Empire, also known as the Persian Empire was the first of its kind in history. It was the first ‘world empire’ founded by Cyrus the Great in 550 BC. It ended in 330 BC with the defeat of Darius III by Alexander of Macedonia. Over a span of 230 years, the Achaemenid empire covered a vast geographical area, including modern-day Iran, parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and various regions in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

While the legacy of Achaemenid kings like the founder, Cyrus the Great and his successors, like Darius the Great and Xerxes the Great are celebrated throughout history, the legacy of the last King of the Achaemenid Empire, Darius III, is overshadowed by his defeat and the eventual dissolution of the Achaemenid Empire. What’s worse, Greek historians who largely documented the reign of Darius III, have portrayed him as a weak and cowardly king, overpowered by the military genius of Alexander. These historical inaccuracies need addressing with objectivity.

Historical Inaccuracies

Herodotus, in his ‘Histories,’ depicts Darius III as a weak and indecisive ruler compared to his predecessors, notably Darius I. He portrays Darius III as someone who fled battle when facing Alexander, indicating the king’s lack of courage and leadership. Herodotus’ account emphasizes Darius III’s inability to effectively lead his army and which ultimately contributed to the fall of the Achaemenid Empire. But how accurate is Herodotus in summing up the leadership qualities (or the lack of it) of Darius III?

There is a well-known African proverb: “Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.” This proverb highlights the potential for biased narratives and is somewhat similar to yet another saying: “History is written by the victors.”

While it is true that Herodotus was one of the most well-known Greek historians who lived from around 484 to 425 BCE and regarded as the ‘father of history’, he has been criticized by both contemporary and current writers for fabricating many of his accounts in order to entertain his audience. A large source of scholarly criticism of Herodotus stems from the method that he uses to gather his information. Herodotus himself states in his ‘Histories’: “it is my rule throughout that I record whatever is told me as I have heard it.” In other words, Herodotus was seldom a personal witness to historical events that he recorded.

The Rise of Darius III

Darius’s journey to the throne began during the Cadusian expedition of Artaxerxes III in 350 BC, during which he demonstrated considerable bravery. Recognizing his valour, Artaxerxes III rewarded him with the Satrapy (governorship) of Armenia. This role marked a turning point in Darius’s life, elevating him from relative obscurity to the higher echelons of Persian power. It can also be seen from this recognition accorded by King Artaxerxes III, that Darius was no coward as the Greek historians mistakenly portrayed him.

Greek sources have also erroneously depicted Darius III as either a ‘courier’ or ‘slave’ of the king. However, the Greeks misinterpreted the Persian title Bandaka which conveyed a sense of loyalty and high status rather than servitude as a slave. Also, Darius was put in charge of the royal postal service (the first of its kind in history), an important and prestigious administrative role within the empire that required trust, wisdom and skill. Clearly, Darius was no ordinary courier but in command of a vital administrative portfolio.

Court Intrigue And Rise To Power

The chain of events that led Darius to the throne began with the actions of the court eunuch Bagoas, who wielded significant influence in the royal court. Around 338 BC, Bagoas killed Artaxerxes III by poisoning him and clearing the path to power for Arses, Artaxerxes’s son. However, Arses, seeking to remove Bagoas’s influence, attempted to have him killed. Bagoas retaliated by poisoning Arses and then installing Darius, whom he mistakenly viewed as a manageable ruler, on the throne in 336 BC.

Darius soon demonstrated that he would not be a puppet ruler. Shortly after assuming power, he uncovered a plot by Bagoas to poison him as well. Darius responded by forcing Bagoas to drink the poison he had prepared, effectively eliminating one of the most influential figures in the court. This decisive action established Darius as an independent ruler, yet it also exposed the instability within the Achaemenid Empire’s power structures. Darius III was loyal to the empire, wise and a capable administrator. However, at the same time he was surrounded by treacherous defectors within the empire.

Was Darius III A Fleeing Coward?

Greek historians have criticized Darius III for fleeing from the battles of Issus and Gaugamela, actions that seem to contrast sharply with Alexander’s relentless pursuit and bravery. These retreat from battle have contributed to a perception of Darius III as a weak and ineffective ruler. However, these retreats could also be viewed as the king’s strategic realism, acknowledging the fact that further engagement would be fruitless against Alexander’s superior battle tactics.

The saying, “flee to fight another day,” or “he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day,” emphasizes the value of strategic retreat in order to save oneself for a more advantageous engagement in the future. It acknowledges that sometimes, the best way to win a war is not to win every single battle, but to conserve resources and strength to fight another day.

It is sometimes a wise strategy to retreat from a difficult situation or battle to conserve resources and gain a stronger position for a future confrontation. It suggests that abandoning a current fight can be a calculated move to preserve one’s strength and ability to fight again later, rather than risking complete defeat or exhaustion.

Even Richard the Lionheart who is well known for his military prowess and who led a successful campaign in the Third Crusade was strategic enough to know when to retreat and regroup. He famously negotiated with Saladin after the Battle of Arsuf, recognizing that a full-scale war would be unsustainable, and agreed to a truce.

Thus, Darius III fleeing from the battles of Issus and Gaugamela is a not a reflection of his weakness or cowardice but a reflection of his royal prudence over personal pride and desire to live in order to fight another day.

Betrayal By His Own

The Battle of Gaugamela (near modern Iraq) in 331 BC, was a decisive one where Darius III assembled one of the largest forces in Achaemenid history. However, despite the numerical strength of the Achaemenid army and a well-prepared battleground, Alexander’s tactical brilliance resulted in yet another retreat that sealed Darius’ defeat and the end of the Achaemenid power.

Following the defeat at Gaugamela, Alexander captured key Persian cities, including Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis, the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire which he burned in a drunken fit. With the heart of his empire lost, Darius retreated further east, seeking to regroup and possibly rally his remaining forces in Bactria and Ecbatana. However, his hopes of restoring his empire were undermined by the erosion of loyalty among his followers.

Even as Alexander continued in his pursuit to expand his empire, Darius’ Satraps (territorial Governors), led by Bessus, conspired against him. Bessus was a member of the Royal Achaemenid family and after the defeat of Darius III proclaimed himself as successor to the Persian throne and took on the royal name Artaxerxes V. Bessus was governor of Bactria an ancient region in Central Asia, located between the Hindu Kush mountains and the Amu Darya River (formerly known as the Oxus River).

In 330 BC, Bessus and other high-ranking Achaemenid officials arrested Darius III with the intent of trading him off in a treaty with Alexander. However, when Alexander’s forces drew near, Bessus and his co-conspirators abandoned Darius, fatally wounding him before fleeing. Alexander found Darius critically wounded and almost dead in an ox-cart, where he was left alone by those who had once served him.

It is important to note here that Darius III was not killed in battle by Alexander. Darius was betrayed and killed by his own Achaemenid governors who were hungry for power.

Alexander, despite being an opponent, treated Darius with respect after his death. He took Darius’ signet ring as a symbol of his succession and ordered that the fallen king receive a royal burial befitting of his royal status. This gesture was both politically and symbolically significant, as it allowed Alexander to present himself not just as a conqueror but as the legitimate heir to the Achaemenid Empire.

Those Who Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword

After the death of Darius III, Bessus attempted to hold the eastern part of the empire against Alexander but his realm quickly started to fall apart, including Bactria. While fleeing to Sogdia, he was arrested by his own officers, who handed him over to Alexander, who promptly had him executed at Ecbatana (modern Hamadan) which was the summer capital of the Achaemenid empire.

Bessus was executed in a particularly brutal fashion, as a warning to others who might consider similar betrayal. According to some accounts, his nose and ears cut off (a traditional Persian punishment for treason), and was then crucified (a punishment invented by the Persians for those convicted for treason). This punishment symbolized the dishonour of his actions, marking an end to Bessus’s short and ignoble claim to the Persian throne. In a way, Alexander avenged Darius III by executing his betrayer.

Legacy Of The Last Achaemenid King

Darius III was the Royal name of the last king of the Achaemenid Empire. His original name was Artashata, which means ‘happy in Arta’ (truth). His life, reign, and eventual defeat at the hands of Alexander marked the end of the Persian Empire and the beginning of a new era of Hellenistic rule. His ascent to power, tenure as king, and ultimate fall at the hands of the Macedonian forces provide an intricate glimpse into a time of profound political and military upheaval.

Darius’s reign highlights the challenges faced by large empires in maintaining cohesion across vast and diverse territories. The power struggle between Darius and Bagoas, as well as the loyalty erosion that led to Bessus’s betrayal, highlights the inherent difficulties within Achaemenid governance. These internal fractures contributed to the empire’s vulnerability when facing an external threat like Alexander’s invasion. The empire fell not because the enemy was stronger. It fell because the empire had weakened from within.

In historical memory, Darius III stands as both a cautionary figure and a reminder of the resilience of Persian identity. His rule, although marked by defeat, contributed to the shaping of subsequent Persian kingdoms (Parthian and Sasanian), which sought to restore and honour their Persian heritage in the wake of foreign domination.