DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN ANCIENT GREEK SCHOLAR. FOR THE FULL DISCLAIMER, READ HERE
Buy my new book None Escapes Life's Coils: My Journey Through the Plays of Sophocles. Kindle and Paperback versions available.
“It is not in the power of human nature to run away from what is to be.”
HERODOTUS, HISTORIES, BOOK 3.65; A. D. GODLEY TRANSLATION
Summary
Herodotus returns from his tangent on Samos to continue writing on the reign of Cambyses. Recall that, during his madness, one of the terrible acts Cambyses had committed was have his brother Smerdis murdered because he had a dream that Smerdis was going to take the throne from him. Since the murder was kept secret, it gave the Magi (the Median religious caste) an opportunity to retake power from the Persians.
One of the Magi was a steward of Cambyses’ house and he had a brother who was not only named Smerdis, but looked a lot like the murdered brother of Cambyses. So, the brother installed Smerdis on the throne and declared that Smerdis, son of Cyrus and brother of Cambyses, was now king, and the Persians had to obey him.
When word of this reached Cambyses, he called his advisor Prexaspes, who was the one sent to murder Smerdis the brother of Cambyses, and demanded an explanation. Prexaspes insisted he killed Smerdis and advised Cambyses to catch and question one of the heralds spreading the news and Cambyses agreed.
When one of the heralds was caught, he told Cambyses that, indeed, Smerdis was on the throne, but since he’d never met the real Smerdis before, he couldn’t tell Cambyses if it was actually Smerdis. Prexaspes then correctly deduced that Cambyses’ steward and his brother are behind the ruse.
Cambyses recalled his dream and realized that he had been mistaken on his interpretation and lamented killing his brother. When Cambyses hopped onto his horse to make haste home, the cap of his scabbard popped off and his sword stabbed him in the thigh—the same place where he had stabbed Apis (the calf the Egyptians believed to be a god come to earth). When Cambyses was stabbed, the shock of his wound snapped him out of his madness and he knew he was going to die soon.
Twenty days later, Cambyses called to himself all the prominent Persians. He revealed that he had killed his brother Smerdis, that the Magi had taken the throne, and declared a curse on them if they allowed the Magi to keep the throne. Shortly after that, Cambyses died from his wound which had become infected. Cambyses had ruled Persians for over seven years and was childless.
Prexaspes denied that he had killed the real Smerdis, so for months the fake Smerdis ruled Persia without fear of retaliation. However, eight months into their reign, Otanes, one of the prominent Persian nobles, became suspicious of the fake Smerdis because he never summoned any notable Persians to his presence nor did he ever leave his palace. Otanes sent a message to his daughter, who had been Cambyses’ wife but then came under the care of the fake Smerdis when Cambyses died, to feel the fake Smerdis’ head the next time he went to bed with her. If he had ears, he was Smerdis the brother of Cambyses. If he didn’t have ears, he was Smerdis the Magi. In the past, Cyrus had Smerdis’ ears cut off as punishment for something he did.
Otanes’ daughter obeyed, at great risk to herself, and found out Smerdis had no ears. When Otanes learned of this, he shared his revelation with two other noble Persians, who then brought in three more noble Persians in order to plot how to depose the Magi. By coincidence, a seventh noble Persian had come to Susa (the Persian capitol), suspecting foul play, and was brought in to the conspiracy. That man was named Darius.
Darius urged the group to act immediately or they would all be killed while Otanes said they should wait and bide their time. Everyone ended up agreeing with Darius and Darius gave them the plan: walk into the palace under the pretense that Darius had a message for the king (his father was a governor). The guards wouldn’t dare stop seven men from some of the noblest families in Persia. After that, overthrow the impostor and his brother.
Meanwhile, the fake Smerdis summoned Prexaspes to himself since he knew the truth about the real Smerdis. He bribed Prexaspes into staying quiet and petitioned him to summon the Persians to the walls of the palace, stand on a tower, and proclaim to them that the fake Smerdis is indeed the real Smerdis. Prexaspes agreed, but when he summoned the Persians and got on top of the tower, he instead told the Persians the truth and threw himself from the tower.
When the seven learned of this, Otanes once again urged the group to delay and Darius once again urged the group to act quickly. When an omen appeared in front of them that seemed to show them they would be victorious in their plot, the group again sided with Darius and went to the palace. The guards let them in no problem, but the eunuchs in charge of delivering messages to the king stopped them. The seven killed the eunuchs and stormed the throne room. A fight ensued and the fake Smerdis and his brother were killed. The seven then started sweeping through the palace killing any Magi they saw. Other Persians joined in, and the only thing that kept the Persians from killing every last Magi was that it had become night.
A few days later, the seven had a council to decide what kind of government Persia should have. After arguing between a democracy, an oligarchy, and a monarchy, a monarchy was eventually decided on. Then, six of the seven competed for who would become the next king. Otanes opted out under the condition that his house would not have to answer to the king if it didn’t want to as long as it obeyed Persian law. The other six agreed and included other conditions for their own households concerning the monarchy.
The competition they decided on would be to sit on their horses in middle of the city and the first one whose horse whinnied after the sun rose would become king. Due to the clever plan of his groom, Darius’ horse whinnied first and he became the new king of Persia.
The Achaemenid dynasty had begun.
A Machiavellian Observation
While Darius was telling his plan to the other six about how to get into the palace and reach the fake Smerdis, he tells them this:
“When it is necessary to lie, lie. For we want the same thing, liars and those who tell the truth; some lie to win credence and advantage by lies, while others tell the truth in order to obtain some advantage by the truth and to be more trusted; thus we approach the same ends by different means. If the hope of advantage were taken away, the truth-teller would be as ready to lie as the liar to tell the truth.”
Herodotus, Histories, Book 3.72; A. D. Godley translation
This is a rather cold observation about the nature of politics and getting what you want. Lie when it’s advantageous, tell the truth when it’s advantageous. I suppose, then, if this advice were to be followed, that the person would then have to figure out when it is advantageous to lie and when it is advantageous to tell the truth. Also, when it would be disadvantageous to do either. You don’t want to tell a lie that will earn you so much distrust that you can’t effectively rule the people anymore—not without coercion and force anyway. But, you also don’t want to tell a truth that will cause you to lose respect from the people you rule or be used as a weapon against you by your opponents.
I suppose this is why it takes a special breed of person to be a politician—especially one who will be effective in a modern democracy. Think about Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Bill Kristol, Al Sharpton, John Bolton, Anthony Fauci… Any decent human being would not want to have anything to do with them. They wouldn’t want to go to their cocktail parties or fundraisers. And yet, they’re our leaders because the decent people we actually need to be leaders would refuse to do what these politicians did to get to the top.
At the end of the day though, I think I’ll stand by the ninth commandment: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16; NET translation). Also, this statement from the book of Proverbs: “The one who tells the truth will endure forever, but the one who lies will last only for a moment” (Proverbs 12:19; NET translation).
This is why no one trusts politicians—even though the conundrum still remains that, despite their lies, they’re the ones in power and making all the decisions. Meanwhile, the truth-tellers have hardly a scrap of power to do much with the truth they proclaim.
What to do with this conundrum?
What Government is Best?
After the Magi are overthrown, the seven who overthrew them had a debate about what kind of government should be installed in Persia. Should they keep with a monarchy? Or, should they try another form of government?
Otanes argued they become a democracy:
“How can monarchy be a fit thing, when the ruler can do what he wants without impunity? Give this power to the best man on earth, and it would stir him to unaccustomed thoughts. Insolence is created in him by the good things to hand, while from birth envy is rooted in man. Acquiring the two he possesses complete evil; for being satiated he does many reckless things, some from insolence, some from envy. And yet an absolute ruler ought to be free of envy, having all good things; but he becomes the opposite of this towards his citizens; he envies the best who thrive and live, and is pleased by the worst of his fellows; and he is the best confidant of slander. Of all men he is the most inconsistent; for if you admire him modestly he is angry that you do not give him excessive attention, but if one gives him excessive attention he is angry because one is a flatter. But I have yet worse to say of him than that; he upsets the ancestral ways and rapes women and kills indiscriminately. But the rule of the multitude has in the first place the loveliest name of all, equality, and does in the second place none of the things that a monarch does. It determines offices by lot, and holds power accountable, and conducts all deliberating publicly.”
Herodotus, Histories, Book 3.80; A. D. Godley translation
Megabyzus argued they become an oligarchy:
“Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; for men fleeing the insolence of a tyrant to fall victim to the insolence of the unguided populace is by no means to be tolerated. Whatever the one does, he does with knowledge, but for the other knowledge is impossible; how can they have knowledge who have not learned or seen for themselves what is best, but always rush headlong and drive blindly onward, like a river in flood? Let those like democracy who wish ill to Persia; but let us choose a group of the best men and invest these with the power. For we ourselves shall be among them, and among the best men it is likely that there will be the best counsels.”
Herodotus, Histories, Book 3.81; A. D. Godley translation
However, Darius argued they should remain a monarchy:
“One could describe nothing better than the rule of the one best man; using the best judgment, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service often produces bitter hate among them; for because each one wishes to be first and to make his opinions prevail, violent hate is the outcome, from which comes faction and from faction killing, and from killing it reverts to monarchy, and by this is shown how much better monarchy is. Then again, when the people rule it is impossible that wickedness will not occur; and when wickedness towards the state occurs, hatred does not result among the wicked, but strong alliances; for those that want to do the state harm conspire to do it together. This goes on until one of the people rises to stop such men. He therefore becomes the people’s idol, and being their idol is made their monarch; and thus he also proves that monarchy is best.”
Herodotus, Histories, Book 3.82; A. D. Godley translation
The three arguments seem to boil down to competency. Can the people be competent enough to rule themselves? Can a small group of elites be competent to rule the rest? Can one man be competent to rule the rest? If yes, then what about the next generation/group/man? Or the generation/group/man after that?
Here are my thoughts on each of their arguments:
For democracy: Otanes uses that landmine of a word: equality. Only in fantasy land is everyone equal. Also, we are seeing the results in real time what happens when a populace gets to vote on leaders and laws (especially the populace we have now which is uninformed and uninterested): a bloated bureaucracy, a failing education system, never ending conflict at home and abroad, a nanny state, and a decaying currency. For those who are informed and interested and don’t want any of it? Tough luck. Sucks to be you. Democracy rules.
For oligarchy: As Megabyzus openly admitted: the people who want an oligarchy are usually the people who believe they are one of the few fit to rule. And, they probably believe that because they come from a “prestigious” (read: old, cunning, moneyed, has their fingers in everything) family. They believe their blood, their connections, or their money, gives them the ability to rule others without any regard to their actual competency in leadership. The only real benefit to an oligarchy is that when things go south we know exactly who to blame because they are a smaller group than “the people” (in the case of a democracy).
For monarchy: Darius may, unfortunately, have a point that democracies and oligarchies all eventually revert/devolve (depending on your perspective) into monarchies. We feel the impulse every time we see our government failing to protect the people from violence, corrupt lawyers and businessmen, a crumbling infrastructure, forced changes on our neighborhoods: “I wish someone would just come in and take care of business.” Also, with a monarchy, if things go wrong there’s only one guy to pin it on. The big issue with monarchy though is finding someone who is competent enough to lead and make good (and tough) decisions… and then finding the next competent person when the first one steps down or dies. And so on, and so on. There’s a reason why names like Alexander, Julius Caesar, and Cyrus stand out from all leaders who ever existed: 1) Good leaders are difficult to come by; 2) The men who can become good and competent leaders don’t always come from families or circumstances where they’ll be found out and acknowledged by everyone else (Bob the electrician from Mississippi might have been the best leader America would have ever known, but unfortunately for us, he’s not a Clinton or a Bush or a Trump or a Biden, and so he’ll never be elevated to the occasion or taken seriously by the rest of us).
That's all for the Histories, Book 3.61-88.
May your days be filled with grace.
-Andronikos Anodos
Kindle and paperback versions available.
Find me on social media!
The books list I am going through.
Thumbnail: The Behistun Inscription, carved sometime during Darius’ reign (522-486 BC). Depicts Darius with his foot on the defeated Smerdis. A Zoroastrian spirits floats above giving its blessing.