The Accession of Darius III

**Lord Oda Nobunaga** · December 13, 2021, 05:29 PM

According to the problematic account of Diodorus Siculus, the eunuch minister Bagoas had Artaxerxes III and his son Artaxerxes IV assassinated. He then put Darius III into power, who was the great grandson of Darius II. Darius III's father was a certain Arsames and his grandfather was an Ostanes, son of Darius II. However neither an Arsames nor an Ostanes are attested to outside of any Greek sources.

In fact Darius III is not mentioned by name in any Achaemenid source. Not so much as an inscription on a cliff side, coin, or monument. The closest we have are a couple Babylonian tablets which mentions Darius and his defeat by Alexander. This does not mean that Darius III did not exist but it shows his tenuous position as a usurper and puts Greek sources into doubt. What little that can be determined is that according to a cuneiform tablet, Artaxerxes III died from natural causes. But we can neither prove the truth of the Greek account nor the existence of Bagoas specifically.

According to these Greek accounts Darius III served in the Cadusian campaign of Artaxerxes III. He allegedly slew a Cadusian "champion" in battle and was rewarded by being made a satrap in Armenia. He is then referred to as a slave of the king by the Greeks, but this is no doubt a mistranslation of a Persian term, which was likely "loyal servant".

Supposedly the young Artaxerxes IV was put into power by Bagoas. How exactly this occurred is not stated. Then Bagoas for whatever reason assassinated Artaxerxes IV. Interestingly Bagoas is also credited with the assassination of Philip. He is blamed in Greek sources for mismanaging the empire which led to uprisings in Egypt and Babylon, though no evidence exists of the latter revolt.

In that same year, 336 BC, Philip sent Parmenion to invade Anatolia. Meanwhile the satrap Darius Codomannus had received support from members of the Persian nobility and various satraps (such as Pharnabazus of Phrygia). Bagoas had Artaxerxes IV killed and then offered the throne to Darius III. Although Darius III came to power his attempts to control Darius failed and the new king had this eunuch executed.

All we can really surmise is that Darius III had experience in the field and was made a satrap in Armenia. He was apparently powerful and influential enough to seize the throne. Though the exact details are unknown to us and we cannot trust the Greek accounts. Apparently Darius III was capable and popular enough to seize the throne from Artaxerxes IV, who although a young king, and supposedly the puppet of Bagoas, was a legitimate successor of Artaxerxes III. Unlike Darius III who was merely a descendant of Darius II.

The Greek account is problematic. Not least of which because it falls into the common trope of 'blaming the eunuch'. But the claim that he assassinated Artaxerxes III is contradicted by a cuneiform tablet. While the existence of Artaxerxes IV is barely confirmed, only known to us from two inscriptions. Moreover the further claim that he assassinated Philip sounds absurd. We are led to believe that Bagoas killed two Persian kings, many individuals of the Achaemenid royal family, as well as Philip.

It is somewhat clear that the intention here is to contrast Darius III with Alexander. The Persians are depicted as being controlled by eunuchs and Darius III comes to power through the intercession of a eunuch. The invasion of Persia is justified through the crimes perpetrated by Bagoas. It is possible that a controversial eunuch vizier existed but Bagoas himself might be an invention by Diodorus, or at least an exaggeration.

It is more than likely that Artaxeres III died of natural causes. Even quite possible that his successor Artaxerxes IV died from any cause; he was assassinated by a eunuch or noble or otherwise, or was deposed by Darius III himself. That Darius III gained the throne by the influence of Bagoas or a eunuch is not necessary. It is quite likely that Darius III had Artaxerxes IV assassinated, or actually marched on the capital and had himself made king.

This is further supported by the unpopular rule of Artaxerxes IV. As a young lad he was evidently not seen as capable. He more than likely killed members of the royal family to secure his position. Whether by the influence of a eunuch or a Bagoas. The revolts in Egypt and the invasion by Philip in Anatolia, possibly even a revolt in Babylon, made him more unpopular. Greek sources maintain that Darius III was supported by several satraps.

Furthermore the Babylonian text known as "The Dynastic Prophecy" refers to the rebellion by Darius, his march on the capital, and his seizure of power. This strongly implies that Darius III actually rebelled against Artaxerxes IV, received support from key satraps, marched on Persepolis, defeated and deposed the young Artaxerxes IV, and crowned himself king with the regnal name of "Darius" (originally referred to as Artashata in obscure Babylonian texts).

Though interestingly the Babylonian "Dynastic Prophecy" states that Artaxerxes IV ruled for two years, was murdered by a eunuch, and that a rebel prince seized his throne. This rebel prince (Darius) then had five years of kingship. Additionally in the "Uruk King List" a Babylonian king known as Nidin-Bel ruled for some months, prior to the five years of Darius III. Which apparently confirms that Darius III may have needed to put down a revolt in Babylon upon seizing the throne. He at the very least pacified Egypt.

It has also been suggested that "Codomannus" comes from Persian meaning "warlike", but I don't think that is confirmed. Only Justin uses this name in any case. Greek sources tend to call him "Darius". While some Babylonian texts use the Persian name "Artašata".

**Lord Oda Nobunaga** · December 13, 2021, 05:32 PM

Diodorus Siculus "World History"

[17.5.3] While Philip was still king, Ochus (Artaxerxes III) ruled the Persians and oppressed his subjects cruelly and harshly. Since his savage disposition made him hated, the chiliarch (vizier) Bagoas, a eunuch in physical fact but a militant rogue in disposition, killed him by poison administered by a certain physician. And he placed upon the throne the youngest of Ochus' sons, Arses (Artaxerxes IV).

*This is not proven and in fact is contradicted by a Babylonian tablet (BM 71537), which states that Artaxerxes III died of natural causes. It at least suggests that Diodorus is exaggerating potentially true events.

[17.5.4] He similarly made away with the brothers of the new king, who were barely of age, in order that the young man might be isolated and tractable to his control.

*Or Artaxerxes IV executed his brothers to secure his throne. Which actually makes more sense than the stated reason.

But the young king let it be known that he was offended at Bagoas' previous outrageous behavior and was prepared to punish the author of these crimes, so Bagoas anticipated his intentions and killed Arses (Artaxerxes IV) and his children also, while he was still in the third year of his reign.

*The Babylonian text "Dynastic Prophecy" gives Artaxerxes IV two years of rule. Still he may have been killed at the start of his third year, not actually having ruled three years.

*"Dynastic Prophecy" states that Artaxerxes IV was killed by a eunuch (Akkadian "sha reshi"), interestingly enough. But does not say this with regards to Artaxerxes III. However it does not confirm the existence or role of any vizier named Bagoas.

*Justin's account does not even mention an Artaxerxes IV. Instead Darius accedes to the throne right after the death of Artaxerxes III.

[17.5.5] The royal house was thus extinguished, and there was no one in the direct line of descent to claim the throne.
Instead, Bagoas selected a certain Darius, a member of the court circle, and secured the throne for him. He was the son of Arsames, and grandson of that Ostanes who was a brother of Artaxerxes (Artaxerxes II, son of Darius II), who had been king.

*Notice that the name Darius is used here. Diodorus wrote circa 60 BC. Justin (circa 100's AD) uses "Codomannus". Babylonian texts refer to this prince with the traditional Persian name of Artashata.

*No Persian or Babylonian source mentions an Arsames or Ostanes in this context. Darius III himself is only mentioned in Greek and Babylonian sources. Likely an indication of his status as a usurper and how he abruptly was required to take the reins after the invasions by Philip and Alexander.

*The "Dynastic Prophecy" states that the rebel prince marched on the capital and seized the throne from Artaxerxes IV. Indicating that Darius III actually defeated the young king and seized power through force.

[17.5.6] As to Bagoas, an odd thing happened to him and one to point a moral. Pursuing his habitual savagery he attempted to remove Darius by poison. The plan leaked out, however, and the king, calling upon Bagoas, as it were, to drink to him a toast and handing him his own cup compelled him to take his own medicine.

*Poetic but unlikely. Did Bagoas even exist? None of the Babylonian texts state what happened to the eunuch who killed Artaxerxes IV. Only that a eunuch murdered this king, but not who the eunuch was, nor his name.

[17.6.1] Darius' selection for the throne was based on his known bravery, in which quality he surpassed the other Persians. Once when king Artaxerxes (III) was campaigning against the Cadusians, one of them with a wide reputation for strength and courage challenged a volunteer among the Persians to fight in single combat with him. No other dared accept, but Darius alone entered the contest and slew the challenger, being honored in consequence by the king with rich gifts, while among the Persians he was conceded the first place in prowess.

*A heroic anecdote. But more likely it was Darius himself who campaigned against the Cadusians. At the very least he was likely made a satrap of Armenia. The Cadusians inhabiting that area of northern Iran and the Zagros mountains coincides with a satrapy in Armenia. Since the "Dynastic Prophecy" mentions the rebellion of Darius, then he at the very least had some political power and access to soldiers.

[17.6.2] It was because of this prowess that he was thought worthy to take over the kingship. This happened about the same time as Philip died and Alexander became king.

*Disregarding the claim that Bagoas made Darius king. This statement would actually be the reasons for Darius's accession. The Persian Empire was now in dire straits and led by an incompetent king. Darius was a better candidate to take the reins. His forces, with the support of Greek mercenaries, were able to contain Parmenion. While Darius had to put an end to the uprisings in Egypt and Babylon. The "Uruk King List" mentions a king in Babylon prior to the five years of Darius III.

[17.6.3] Such was the man whom fate had selected to be the antagonist of Alexander's genius, and they opposed one another in many and great struggles for the supremacy.

**Akar** · December 13, 2021, 10:33 PM

Interesting post, but the text size and font make it incredibly difficult to read.

**Abdülmecid I** · December 14, 2021, 04:46 AM

Yeah, Diodorus' account is garbled and very stereotypical, so I also lean towards the hypothesis that Artaxerxes III died from natural causes. He was quite aged in 338 BC (probably around his sixties), so it looks reasonable. As far as I know, the tablet does not specify the causes of his death, but the expression used "met his destiny" doesn't imply any wrongdoing. On the contrary, in the case of Xerxes' death, a Babylonian tablet (BM 32234) explicitly mentions that the Great King was murdered by his son. In my opinion, Diodorus duplicated the alleged circumstances of Arses' elimination, probably inspired from the extravagant stories already circulating about the supposedly atrocious demise of Artaxerxes III. Some of them are reported by Aelian and Suda, are even less credible than the passage of the Historical Library and may betray the Egyptian origins of the story.

That being said, I don't see why the existence of Bagoas should be denied. As you said, the contribution of a court dignitary in the overthrow of Arses is confirmed by an independent source and I don't see why he should not be identified with Bagoas. His role in the conspiracy was definitely distorted, in order to fit the literary tropes of malevolent eunuchs or present Darius in a positive light, but a court official was certainly involved and there is no reason to deny the claims of his name being Bagoas. Darius being the satrap of Armenia and marching to the capital (probably Susa) also sounds convincing, but his satrapal position is only attested by Justin, as the Dynastic Prophecy simply states that the pretender marched to the throne. In my opinion, disgruntled or ambitious officials may have taken advantage of the new monarch's still unconsolidated position to overthrow him. Darius revolted in one of the satrapies (Armenia? The Cadusians were near the region, but the story is legendary, although there might be a kernel of truth inside, like a battle between Persians and Cadusians, where Darius participated) and Bagoas plotted against Arses in the palace. Once Arses was out of the picture, Darius and Bagoas quarreled, the former prevailed and then tarnished the latter's reputation, in order to reinforce his legitimacy.

That being said, I don't see how the lack of documents dated under Darius could be interpreted as a sign of his dubious legitimacy. Contracts and correspondence were always dated under a specific monarch. The rarity of Darius' name's attestations is a result of not many tablets dating from his reign having been discovered, which is not that unreasonable, as we lack large corpora from that era, not to mention the fact that Darius' reign was rather brief. After all, murdering your predecessor or the legitimate heir was not that uncommon in Achaemenid history. That's how Darius I, Artaxerxes I, Sogdianus and Darius II gained the royal power. Finally, in regards to the alleged Babylonian rebellion, it probably never happened. The name of the rebel leader is Nidin-Bêl, which is essentially identical to that of Nidintu-Bêl, the first Babylonian rebel between the reigns of Bardiya and Darius I. My guess is that the scribe, writing under the Seleucids, made a clerical mistake, mixed up the two Darius and inserted Nidintu-Bêl before Darius III, instead of Darius I. The most serious trouble came from Egypt, where Khababash controlled Memphis and the delta, most probably in parallel with Arses' reign. His insurrection may have inadvertently helped the plans of the conspirators.