What qualified a man to be king? What role did lineage play in the royal succession? Persian kingship was hereditary and the right to rule was kept strictly within the Achaemenid family and thereby a king’s possession of the blood-royal was the very basis of the monarchy; this is why the Old Persian title Haxdmanisiya, ‘an Achaemenid’, is reiterated time and again in the official texts of successive kings.
While there is little doubt that the birth of a king’s first son was a cause for court celebration and that this prince continued to hold a position of prestige throughout his life (Plato, Alcibiades 121c; Athenaeus 12.515a), it does not mean to say that he was automatically destined to follow his father to the throne. Primogeniture did not operate at the Persian court (after all, the king was not subject to any constitutional law), and in this the Achaemenids followed a practice witnessed in the courts of Egypt, Assyria, and Israel, where on several occasions we learn that kings chose younger (more favoured or more able) sons to succeed them. For instance, David of Israel was succeeded by Solomon, his youngest (known) son (1 Kings 1) and Sennacherib selected his youngest son Esarhaddon for the kingship (Kwasman and Parpola 1991: xxix-xxxiv). Both of these succession decisions triggered fierce rebellions at court (which reveals that there was perhaps an expectation that the first-born or elder son would succeed his father). Sennacherib’s choice of heir resulted in his assassination (see further Chapter 5), prompting Esarhaddon, when his time came to appoint a successor, to take steps to secure a smooth succession for his chosen relative, his grandson Ashurbanipal, who ascended the throne backed by powerful nobles who had been forced to swear an oath of loyalty to him (A3).
Some Persian monarchs named their heirs in a more timely fashion (as Darius II did with prince Arsaces, the future Artaxerxes II), but others did not. When Xerxes left for his military expedition against the Greeks, he had not designated an heir and consequently his uncle Artabanus was left in charge of the court (but was not appointed regent); this begs the question, what would have happened had Xerxes died on campaign? Pierre Briant (2002: 567) provides a frank answer: ‘Dynastic wars, already frequent during anticipated successions, would have raged’.
To avoid this chaos a king appointed his successor while he was still strong enough to defend his decision and provide the heir-designate with the support and instruction he needed. We know for instance that upon his appointment to office, the Assyrian crown prince moved into the so-called ‘succession palace’ (a distinct physical space separated from the main royal residence) and began his grooming for power. He acquired a harem and a wife (or wives - the ‘ladies of the house’; see Svard and Luukko 2009) and proceeded to take on royal duties both at the seat of government and in active military service in the provinces (Montero Fenollos 2006). A similar situation might have existed for the Achaemenid crown prince, since we know that he could acquire his own household of wives, ministers, and servants (although there is no direct evidence for a Persian ‘succession house’), and was provided with appropriate robes, a crown, and a chariot and horses (which are depicted on the walls of Persepolis; see generally Sanchez 2006) befitting his exalted status. He also received expert tuition in government from the Magi and other royal tutors (although he shared this privileged education with his bothers and the sons of courtiers - A4; see further Xenophon, Anabasis 1.9.2) and Briant (2002: 522) makes the important observation that, given the high infant mortality rate, it would be unwise of a king not to educate all of his sons to a high standard - any one of them had the potential to become king.
It is possible that the crown prince was known by a specific title, *visa-puthra (‘son of the clan’), which set him above the other ‘princes of the (royal) house’ (Aramaic, br-byt’), although in a text recalling his succession to the throne (XPf §4-5) Xerxes allies himself to his father’s memory and designates himself madista (literally, ‘the greatest [after him]’):
Darius had other sons, but - thus was Ahuramazda’s desire - my father Darius made me the greatest [maOista] after him. When my father Darius went away from the throne, by the grace of Ahuramazda I became king on my father’s throne.
In the visual programme of Persepolis, the crown prince is sometimes represented at the side of the Great King wearing similar garments, crowns, and hairstyles to his father (F3); there is also is a tiny but exquisite lapis lazuli head of a beardless, crowned youth (F4), perhaps (but by no means certainly) representing a young crown prince.
Xerxes’ statement that he was made the ‘greatest’ of Darius’ sons is full of confidence and bravado, but is perhaps more hyperbole than reality, at least if we choose to follow the story of Darius’ succession as told by Herodotus (A5), who reports a ‘violent struggle’ which erupted between Darius’ many sons. Xerxes emerges victorious because he pulls rank over his brothers, the sons born to Darius while he was still a private man, but also because, as Herodotus insists, his mother, Atossa, Cyrus’ eldest daughter, ‘had all the power’. Female intervention in the politics of succession is not at all infeasible (see Chapter 4), although Herodotus’ foregrounding of Atossa’s power and influence does not sit well with the scant mentions of her in authentic Persian sources. Only two texts from Persepolis refer to ‘Udusana’ - Atossa - and they can be dated to 500/499 bce, but there is no mention of her beyond that date; the evidence from the tablets suggests that ‘she did not rise to real prominence before 493 bc (the end of the archive) and probably not until after the accession of Xerxes’ (Henkelman 2010b: 33). Perhaps
Herodotus was developing a trend in Greek literature which traditionally depicted Xerxes’ mother as influential and calmly authoritative (consider Aeschylus’ portrayal of Atossa - called simply ‘the queen’ - in his tragedy Persians of 472 bce; see Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1983, although perhaps she overestimates the idea of the Greek ‘construction’ of Persian women; see further Chapter 5).
Moreover, enticing (if somewhat tentative) evidence has recently emerged from the Persepolis Fortification archive (PF-NN1657; A6) which opens up the possibility of a new reading for a co-regency between Darius and Xerxes. It is the earliest known document of Xerxes and can be dated to May/June 498 bce. It suggests that he was serving as a military commander in Parthia a full twelve years before his mention in Herodotus as Darius’ heir. While PF-NN1657 does not categorically state that he was a joint ruler, the document shows Xerxes taking full responsibility for the chain of command in Parthia, and, as Henkelman notes:
Since the Parthian men were travelling from the king to Parthia, and were carrying a sealed authorisation from the king, they may have been initially
Dispatched by Xerxes to report to his father. Having done so, they were
Now heading back with the king’s response. The context makes the scribe’s silence on Xerxes’ title (or the fact that he was Darius’ son) eloquent: his position was apparently well-known. (Henkelman 2010b: 31)
Text PF-NN1657 perhaps confirms Calmeyer’s once controversial thesis that Xerxes was ‘king and co-regent’ for twelve years before Darius’ death and that his reign began in 498 bce (Calmeyer 1976: 83).
Borchhardt (1976: 121-3) has also argued for a co-regency between Artaxerxes II and his son Artaxerxes III, who, as a young joint monarch, decisively put down the satraps’ revolt, but this interpretation is dubious (Briant 2002: 996), as is the question of a co-regency between Cyrus II and Cambyses II. Although Cambyses was awarded the title ‘King of Babylon’ following his father’s conquest of the city, we should not regard this as evidence of a co-regency between the king and his eldest (known) son (the Babylonian title was, however, Cyrus’ recognition of Cambyses as his heir). The late epitomist Justin also comments on Persian co-regencies (A7) and he insists that Artaxerxes II took great delight in appointing his son Darius (who was already fifty years old) as his co-ruler, although he also suggests that this was an unusual situation: ‘Artaxerxes broke with Persian custom, amongst whom there is a change of king only at death’. Before his sole accession to the throne, however, Darius plotted against his father and was sentenced to death and executed, allowing Ochus eventually to ascend to imperial power as Artaxerxes III (Plutarch, Artaxerxes 27.5-28.5, 29.1, 29.8-10; cf. Justin 10.2.5; the chronology of the events is not precise but they might be dated to 362 or 361 bce; see further Chapter 5 and E26 and E27).
Briant (2002: 522) suggests that the sacred office of kingship could not accommodate the notion of co-regency and that ‘the official recognition of a crown prince in no way signified a sharing of power: the king was One’. Indeed, it is important to realise that, in spite of his status at court, a crown prince could fall victim to royal disfavour, as Prince Darius learned when his father, Artaxerxes II, accused him of treason. The evidence for co-regency is scant and contradictory, and the question of whether the Achaemenid monarchs ever employed the co-regency system must remain open.
World History
