The First Clash: The Miraculous Greek Victory at Marathon and Its Impact on Western Civilization

by Jim Lacey

  In this version of events, rather than being murdered, as would be the expected fate of any possible challenger to the throne, Smerdis was left behind as regent. However, this new tale has its own problems. Unfortunately for those holding this position, there is no ancient evidence extant that even alludes to this being the case. It is also likely that if any persons actually believed it was the real Smerdis whom Darius deposed, their version of events would have to have come to Herodotus’s ears. And since this would have proven Darius’s duplicity and illegitimacy, it would have been just the kind of story his audience would have welcomed. Therefore, with no evidence to the contrary available, it would be unwise not to accept the essence of what the existing sources present us.

  The pretend Smerdis, probably with the help of his brother, a Magian priest whom Cambyses had left in charge of his household, seized the throne in March 522 BC. Garnering support by declaring a peace policy to a war-weary population brought the brothers some initial support. Further popularity was bought by declaring a three-year moratorium on what must have been ruinous war taxes for the bulk of the population. In April, Babylon accepted him as its ruler, and by early July, most of the empire had accepted him as the legitimate ruler of the empire.8 However, there are indications that almost from the start there was a growing resentment of his rule among the powerful Persian nobles and even some Median nobles and Magi priests.9 The reason for this discontent is not clear. Nevertheless, some assumptions can be made. First, the nobility could not have been happy to see its power being usurped by the priests. Furthermore, it could not have taken long for Smerdis to discover that governing was impossible without a constant stream of tax revenues. Unable to retract his three-year tax holiday for the masses, Smerdis would have had only one other source of sizable revenue: forced exactions from the accumulated wealth of the nobles and temples, a sure means of alienating his most powerful subjects.

  As the high and mighty of the empire began turning away from Smerdis and his brother, the new leadership of Cambyses’ army bided their time. With Cambyses dead, seven Persian nobles had come together to take command of the army and plot the overthrow of the pretender. According to Herodotus, the Persian nobles were Otanes, Gobryas, Intaphrenes, Hydarnes, Megabyzus, Aspathines, and a late joiner, Darius.10 All were young men who possessed substantial constituencies within the empire. In Darius’s case, for instance, both his father and grandfather were still alive, and probably both were serving as satraps with powerful local forces under their command. When Darius eventually assumed the throne, it was to these young nobles and co-conspirators he most often turned for help in running the empire, and with one exception, they all maintained substantial power throughout his reign.11 At the conclusion of his Behistun inscription, Darius went so far as to commend each of his successors’ honor and assist the families of these men in perpetuity.

  Unsure of their position or how much support they had at home, the seven nobles did nothing for the moment. When the pretender’s heralds eventually arrived to order the army to abandon its leaders and swear allegiance to Smerdis, they were met with silence. The army, which was probably mostly Persians at this point, rejected the pretender and remained loyal to Darius and his noble friends. This was not surprising, as armies at this time were prone to identify themselves with their commanders and not with any central state. This was particularly true if those commanders were promising them great rewards, as the seven nobles most assuredly were. It is also worth noting that these soldiers were probably aware that after declaring a three-year tax holiday, Smerdis would have little with which to reward them.

  The Nabonidus Chronicle documents the reign of Babylon’s last king, Nabonidus, as well as the rise and conquests of Cyrus. It is crucial to historians of the period, as it presents a chronology for the last half of the sixth century. The British Museum

  As the seven conspirators bided their time, discontent within the Persian and Median nobility continued to build. Soon, Smerdis’s growing insecurity caused him to retreat to the Median fortress of Sikayauvatish, which isolated him from the general population, who still supported him.12 At about this time, a Persian noble named Prexaspes announced that he had killed the real Smerdis on Cambyses’ orders. Prexaspes, father of one of the seven nobles, Otanes, then rather conveniently committed suicide. Rumors were already circulating among the masses that Smerdis was an impostor, and Prexaspes’ revelation undoubtedly fanned the flames. As Smerdis was in self-imposed exile, he could not influence the people, and popular support dwindled rapidly. To a peasant in the sixth century BC, the king was not only a secular ruler, but a direct conduit to the gods and often considered a god himself. Only a king favored by the gods could through his direct intercession on his people’s behalf ensure a good harvest. In fact, one of the primary reasons the people of Babylon turned away from their king, Nabonidus, in his war with Cyrus was that he had failed to attend the great religious festivals and therefore was not there to ask the gods for bountiful harvests. As far as the people were concerned, if Smerdis was a pretender, then the gods would refuse to favor him and their harvests would fail.

  Although some of the seven conspirators feared the empire’s unsettled condition, they chose to act and entered the great fortress of Sikayauvatish without hindrance from the guards. However, in the main courtyard they were met by a troop of eunuchs who demanded the seven state their purpose for being there. Committed now, the seven young nobles gave a shout, drew their weapons, and slashed the eunuchs to death. Continuing their charge, they passed through the king’s harem and into his private quarters. Inside they found Smerdis and his brother, who desperately attempted to defend themselves. Smerdis drew a bow, but the nobles were too close for it to be of much use, so he retreated into a dark bedroom. His brother, attacking with a spear, wounded Aspathines in the thigh and Intaphrenes in the eye before being cut down.

  Darius and Gobryas followed Smerdis into the bedroom, where Gobryas wrestled the pretender to the ground. Darius stood off to one side, uninvolved, until Gobryas called for his help. Saying that he was afraid to strike as he might injure his friend, Darius continued to hesitate. Gobryas then shouted for Darius to strike even if it meant his sword would kill them both. In the darkness, Darius thrust, killing Smerdis and fortunately missing Gobryas.

  What to make of this act? One cannot properly count it as a revolt, as the seven conspirators were not acting against what people were then fairly certain wasn’t a rightful king. However, as Cambyses had not left a male heir, the seven were not exactly acting on behalf of a rightful authority. In reality, Smerdis was the revolutionary, trying to wrest ultimate power away from the Persian newcomers and place a Median king back on the throne. In this light, Darius and his co-conspirators were leading a counterrevolution designed to ensure that the Persians remained on the top rungs of the leadership ladder.

  Through common agreement, the seven nobles placed Darius on the throne. Although he came late to the conspiracy, he had become its driving force and natural leader. It was also important that he was a member of the Achaemenid royal family, as was Cyrus. Darius, however, was from the older Ariaramnes branch of the family, while Cyrus’s branch was considered upstarts by the rest of the Persian nobility. The fact that the throne did not go to Darius’s father or grandfather, who were still alive and closer relations to Cyrus than Darius, demonstrates the military character of this coup and suggests the forcefulness of Darius’s character.

  The pretender was dead, and a new generation had risen to rule the Persian Empire. Unfortunately, the genie of insurrection was not yet ready to be placed back into the bottle.

  Chapter 5

  TRIAL BY FIRE

  Darius was king, but his empire was crumbling. Having become accustomed to de facto independence during the period of revolution and counterrevolution, many of the empire’s provinces and client states revolted against what they perceived as a greatly weakened central power. In this, the moment of his greatest crisis, Darius demonstr
ated a cool, calculating, and ruthless determination to overcome—whatever the odds. Fortunately, he was not alone, for despite Darius’s undoubted personal abilities, he still would have failed were it not for the loyal support of his friends and the army.

  In the east, Darius’s father, Hystaspes, held Parthia; to the southeast, two other loyal satraps held the provinces of Arachosia and Bactria.1 All three men were loyal to Darius and also capable commanders and administrators. Although they were often hard-pressed over the next year, they won battles, held their ground, and allowed Darius to concentrate his energies on the more dangerous revolts in the heart of the empire. To deal with these, Darius had the veteran troops of the Egyptian campaign at his disposal. So despite Darius’s claims in the Behistun inscription that his army was always small, he neglects to mention that it was far and away the best trained and most experienced combat force in the empire. Moreover, it displayed a remarkable degree of loyalty and stood unwaveringly behind Darius throughout the crisis. But Darius had one other advantage of inestimable value. Despite an overwhelming need to act in concert, none of his enemies ever acted in combination. This failure of the individual provincial revolts to coordinate their military activities allowed Darius to turn on and crush each in succession.2 Still, it was a period of intense combat and danger, the extent of which Darius spelled out at the conclusion of the Behistun inscription:

  After I became king, I fought nineteen battles in a single year and by the grace of Ahuramazda nine kings and I made them captive.

  The first revolts were launched only four days after Darius slew the false Smerdis. Babylon and the province of Susiana were the first to make a break for freedom, the latter declaring itself an independent kingdom under a new king. Despite being able to spare only a small force to crush the Susianans, it proved sufficient to cow the rebels. Tightly bound, the new Susianan king was brought before Darius and promptly executed.

  Suppressing Babylon, however, was a more serious affair, and after preparing for two months, Darius himself led the bulk of his army out of Media to deal with it.3 The Babylonians placed their loyalty and faith behind a local noble, Nidintu-Bel, who, claiming to be a son of the deposed Nabonidus, took the great royal name of Nebuchadnezzar. Aware that Darius was on the march, Nidintu-Bel led his hastily assembled army north to contest passage of the Tigris River. As typically happens when hastily raised levies meet battle-hardened professionals, Nidintu-Bel’s army was, in Darius’s words, “smote utterly.” Nidintu-Bel did manage to reconstitute his forces at Zazana on the Euphrates, but again the Babylonians were overmatched by Darius’s veterans. This time, though, the Babylonian army was pushed back against the river and annihilated. Nidintu-Bel, with the luck of a true survivor, managed to escape the battlefield and fled to Babylon. Darius’s rapid pursuit of his fleeing foe, however, left the Babylonians little time to prepare for a siege even if they were so inclined. But Darius was impatient and did not desire even a short siege. Without pausing after his arrival, he ordered the city taken by immediate storm. After having two field armies massacred, the population was dispirited and incapable of repelling a determined assault. With Nidintu-Bel’s capture and execution, Babylon once again recognized Darius as its king.4

  While Darius rested his army at Babylon, he learned that Media, believing he would be tied down in a prolonged siege, had risen in rebellion. Even more troubling was news that many of the empire’s eastern provinces were also in open revolt.

  Understanding that controlling Media was the key to ultimate success, Darius could spare few of his forces for action in the east. Fortunately, several satraps in critical provinces remained loyal. Unaided by Darius, they were able to repel and in some cases destroy the rebel armies in their regions. Only to the Persian homeland itself did Darius dispatch any of his veterans. Here another rebel, declaring himself to be yet another true Smerdis, seized the Persian crown. Darius, despite the threat posed by a resurgent Media, could not remain idle while a pretender sat on the Persian throne. So, taking advantage of the new Smerdis’s decision to send a large portion of his forces to attack another eastern province, Darius sent a portion of his own small army into Persia.5 There it defeated a rebel force at Rakha and rejoined Darius in time for his campaign in Media. The new Smerdis was eventually cornered by a loyal satrap and executed along with his supporters.

  With his loyal satraps more than holding their own, Darius focused his attention on the Median rebels, who were joined by rebellions in nearby Armenia and Parthia. When the revolts and civil wars began, Darius had tarried in Media for two months to ensure the region remained stable and loyal, even as the Babylonian revolt raged. Despite this precaution, Media rebelled almost as soon as Darius’s army entered Babylonian territory. The Medes were led by one of their own nobles, Fravartish, who claimed descent from the royal family of Cyaxares, the father of Astyages and the king who freed Media from the Assyrians. As such, he appealed to the Medes as their rightful ruler, as opposed to the usurper Darius.6 While Darius settled affairs in Babylon, Fravartish seized Ecbatana, and the Medes began flocking to his standard. For Darius, this was the most dangerous revolt he faced, as his veteran army possessed a substantial Median contingent. Although Darius could count on the loyalty of his Median soldiers when facing any other enemy, they would be suspect in any fight against fellow Medes.

  Although caught by surprise, Darius did not hesitate. Even as he continued the pacification of Babylon, he sent a portion of his army, presumably the Persians, to halt the southward march of the newly assembled Median army. This force, under a Persian officer, Hydarnes, fought the Medes to a standstill at the Battle of Marush in January 521 BC but was unable to advance farther. The Median army, though inexperienced, probably had an increasing advantage, as Fravartish’s forces continued to be supplied with new levies. Nevertheless, Fravartish appeared content to hold his position and guard the border. The fact that Darius’s father, Hystaspes, still had an undefeated army in Parthia (the Median rear) must have entered into Fravartish’s calculations. If the Median army advanced too far south, Hystaspes could march into the Median heartland unopposed or even into the rear of the Median army, trapping it between himself and Darius’s army. Still, standing idle in the face of a commander as skilled and aggressive as Darius was a risky strategy.

  In Babylon, Darius furiously raised new forces and was able to detach a significant number of his veterans to deal with Armenia. Assuming that he had sent his Persian troops to face Fravartish’s Medes, the force he sent against Armenia was probably made up mostly of his own Median troops. He was counting on their personal loyalty to him, but he did take the precaution of ensuring that loyalty with payments of Babylonian gold and promises of large hauls of booty in Armenia.7

  Putting down the Armenian revolt proved a difficult and protracted affair. Over several months, Darius was forced to dispatch two armies for the purpose. The first marched along the Tigris River into the heart of Armenia. Although this army won a major battle against a hastily raised Armenian force, it was unable to march farther, as Fravartish’s Medes were on its right flank and could cut it off in the event it went too deep into Armenia.8 When Darius eventually began his advance against the Medes, the Armenian invasion also recommenced. This time, it consisted of two separate armies marching parallel to each other along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In a lightning advance, the two armies fought four major battles and crushed the main Armenian field forces. Despite these losses, a determined Armenia remained in rebellion until Darius himself entered the region some months later, but from this point forward the province presented no military threat.

  Probably in April 521 BC, Darius marched out of Babylon to the aid of Hydarnes, who was still warily watching the growing Median army he had earlier fought to a standstill at the Battle of Marush. Before starting his march, Darius sent out orders to each of his loyal satraps to renew their own offensives against the rebels and to coordinate their activities with his. Remarkably, Darius managed to dire
ct the simultaneous efforts of several widely dispersed field armies toward a common purpose, an achievement almost unparalleled in ancient military affairs. Achieving such coordination remains difficult even in the modern era; doing so without the aid of modern communications marks Darius as one of history’s foremost military practitioners and qualifies him to be included among the ranks of the “great captains.”

  The decisive all-fronts offensive began in May 521 BC. On the eighth day of that month, Darius’s army met the Median host at Kundar. As Darius’s account states, “Then we joined battle. Ahuramazda brought me help; by the grace of Ahuramazda did my army utterly overthrow that rebel host.”9 Darius commemorated this great victory by later having the Behistun inscription carved into the craggy rocks that overlooked the battlefield. Defeated, the Median commander, Fravartish, retreated toward Ragae, hotly pursued by Darius’s cavalry.10 After he was run to ground, Darius demonstrated that some of Assyria’s tradition of brutality still remained popular among its formerly subject peoples. For as Darius proudly boasted:

  I cut off his nose, his ears, and his tongue, and I put out one eye, and he was kept in chains at my palace entrance, and all the people beheld him. Then did I impale him in Ecbatana; and the men who were his foremost followers, those at Ecbatana within the fortress, I flayed and hung out their hides, stuffed with straw.