In this episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, the impact of absolute power on rulers throughout history is explored. Carlin contrasts leaders like Cyrus the Great with his son Cambyses, who may have succumbed to tyrannical tendencies. The challenges of leadership transitions and theories surrounding the shift from Cambyses to Darius are also examined.
The podcast delves into the military strategies and cultural differences that shaped the ancient Greek-Persian wars. Carlin analyzes how the Greeks viewed this conflict as a fight for freedom against the centralized Persian autocracy. He explores the factors that allowed the Greeks to resist Persian conquest and develop traditions influential to Western civilization.
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
Dan Carlin explores the challenges rulers face in wielding absolute power without succumbing to detrimental mental states like megalomania and paranoia. He suggests that few leaders throughout history could handle such unchecked authority over long periods.
While Cyrus the Great built a vast empire, his son Cambyses inherited dangerous levels of absolute power. According to Carlin and historian Will Durant, this may have driven Cambyses to instability and tyrannical behavior like executing his brother and committing atrocities against Egyptians.
However, Risa Sargami notes that modern scholarship contrasts with Herodotus's portrayal of Cambyses as cruel, suggesting the notion of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is overly simplistic. Some rulers like Darius the Great practiced restraint to govern effectively.
The transition from Cyrus to Darius highlights the volatility of power shifts in ancient empires. Despite Cyrus's efforts to ensure a smooth transfer to Cambyses, uncertainty surrounded Cambyses's death.
Darius claimed an imposter seized power, providing his rationale for taking the throne. Carlin explores various theories around this transition, which Darius portrayed through carvings asserting divine right and noble lineage. Darius then restructured the empire to prevent future turmoil, suggesting the rise of an oligarchy.
The podcast examines the Persian military's combined arms approach relying heavily on archers, cavalry hit-and-run tactics, and an effective navy. This differed from the Greek hoplite phalanx of heavily-armored citizen infantry.
At Marathon, the Greeks employed strategy like thinning the phalanx's center to counter Persian numbers. Factors like terrain, proximity, and psychological forces like fear also impacted ancient battles.
Beyond the military engagements, the Greek-Persian wars represented an ideological clash between the centralized Persian autocracy and the emerging Greek democracies valuing freedoms.
Greek historians like Herodotus portrayed Greeks as protagonists defending Western civilization. Victory at Marathon allowed Athens to develop cultural and political traditions influential to the modern West.
The ongoing rivalry between the powers shaped the ancient Mediterranean world. While Persia displayed imperial resilience, Greek resistance stemmed from a cultural drive for liberty and prevented Persian conquest of Europe.
1-Page Summary
The psychological impact of absolute power on rulers has been a subject of debate and historical scrutiny. The stories of Cyrus the Great and his son Cambyses highlight the adversity of wielding unchecked authority and its potential to corrupt or drive rulers into tyranny and madness.
Dan Carlin proposes a question about the human ability to handle absolute power without losing one’s mind, suggesting a rarity in such capacity. He acknowledges that power might ebb at a person's mental stability over decades, despite any initial aptitude for leadership. Carlin also indicates that while powerful rulers often avoided insanity, there were notorious cases such as Hitler, who suffered from megalomania and paranoia, possibly due to Parkinson's disease or drug effects, and Alexander the Great, whose paranoia and megalomania could be attributed to severe alcoholism.
Will Durant contrasts Cyrus the Great's character with that of Cambyses, stating that while Cambyses inherited his father's cruelty, he lacked Cyrus's generosity. Cambyses' tyrannical behavior during his reign is well-documented. He began with executing his brother and rapidly expanded his power through the conquest of Egypt. Herodotus recounts that Cambyses committed acts of significant cruelty, such as degrading and punishing both Egyptian people and their religious beliefs, which ultimately led the Egyptians to believe that Cambyses was punished by the gods when he fell ill.
Historians like Risa Sargami contemplate the peculiarities of historical narratives, including the official account of Cambyses’ insanity. Modern scholarship, contrasting Herodotus's portrayal, finds evidence to suggest that Cambyses may not have been the cruel ruler as once thought, with Egyptian records indicating that he performed all due rites upon the natural death of the Apis bull, which symbolizes continuity rather than turmoil in his policy.
The Nature of Absolute Power and Its Psychological Effects on Rulers
The Persian Empire's transition from Cyrus the Great to Darius the Great illuminates the precarious nature of leadership succession and the potential volatility of power transitions within ancient empires.
Carlin outlines that Cyrus the Great worked diligently to ensure a seamless transition of power to Cambyses. Cyrus trained Cambyses to take over the empire, giving him on-the-job training as Viceroy of Babylon, and having him spend time with the army. Additionally, to prevent a conflict of succession, Cyrus provided his younger son, Bardiya, with a significant territory in Central Asia, along with monetary benefits, while still subjecting him to Cambyses.
However, despite Cyrus' foresight, Cambyses' reign was marred by uncertainty. The transition was initially seamless but subsequent events became so corrupted that historians have had to work backward from the end of his reign to truly understand its beginning. There were allegations of conspiracy and cover-ups, indicating challenges in the stability and portrayal of Cambyses' reign, similar to conspiracy narratives that surround the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Cambyses had no heirs, which complicated the succession after his death. Additionally, Cambyses' harsh behaviors, erratic actions, and policies, like reducing funding for the Egyptian priesthood, may have compounded his unpopularity. Darius claimed that an imposter named Gaumata, assuming Bardiya's identity, had seized power, and he organized an assassination squad to dispose of the usurper. This narrative was central to Darius’s claim to the throne and led to his efforts to reorganize the empire's power structure to prevent future uncertainty in succession.
Carlin suggests various scenarios surrounding the power transition from Cambyses to Darius, with the histori ...
The challenges of leadership succession and power transitions in ancient empires
In examining the tactical variety and battlefield dynamics, the podcast reflects on the differences between the Persian and Greek military forces and how these shaped their encounters.
Dan Carlin traces the evolution of the Persian military forces and their use of a larger number of archers inherited from their predecessors, the Assyrians. By fielding this devastating missile barrage, the Persian army's infantry formation became particularly effective against large mounted forces. Nigel Tallis says Persians followed an Elamite tradition of maximizing the number of archers over shielded spearmen, unlike the Assyrians’ 50-50 ratio.
Carlin delves into the effectiveness of Persian cavalry tactics, likening them to the combat styles of the Scythians, Huns, and Mongols—emphasizing their hit-and-run approach with missile weapons. Persian infantry would follow up, mopping up disorganized or weakened enemy formations. The Persian army was a combined arms force, maximizing the effectiveness of their cavalry in concert with their infantry. Their strategy included rationalizing the reduction of close combat troops in favor of more archers, with the cavalry complementing the missile firepower. Even a 50,000-man Persian army could unleash two million arrows in twenty minutes, underscoring the force's reach and diversity.
Additionally, the Persians utilized their naval capabilities and prowess with the Phoenician fleet to project power across the Aegean, posing a significant existential threat to the Greek city-states. Herodotus emphasized their efficient multi-regional force assembly and advanced preparations for amphibious assaults.
The Greek hoplite phalanx, described by Carlin as a civic militia consisting of citizens like farmers, artisans, and politicians, featured heavily armed and armored infantrymen who did not require extensive training to operate effectively. The phalanx's configuration, with well-regarded warriors stationed at the front and rear, and less experienced troops sandwiched in the middle, resembled a part of a machine. The disciplined formation could accommodate soldiers of different ages, allowing the collective to move as one unit with controlled movements.
Close shoulder-to-shoulder formations allowed the phalanx to act like an "irresistible steamroller" on flat terrain, but uneven terrain could disrupt their ranks. Carlin notes the inherent fear in ancient warfare’s close quarters, where combat often involved spears and swords, and how such psychological f ...
The military strategies, tactics, and battlefield experiences of the Persian and Greek armies
The conflict between the Persian Empire and ancient Greece was more than a series of battles; it was a clash of cultures and ideologies with significant long-term implications. Dan Carlin sheds light on the deep-seated cultural tensions and political rivalries that underpinned this epochal period.
The Persian Empire, as described in the podcast, had a reach that extended to the edges of the known world, encompassing diverse territories under its centralized rule, from modern-day Pakistan to the lands of the Greeks. Darius the Great, notable for expanding Persian authority to the east, signified the vast power of this empire. Meanwhile, Athens was testing the nascent institution of democracy, emphasizing individual freedoms and political participation, a sharp contrast to Persian autocracy.
Herodotus, often referred to as the "Father of History," portrayed the Greeks as the protagonists in this struggle, the "home team" of western civilization, against the Persian "visiting team." Greek playwrights and historians used the conflict to reflect on themes of tyranny and freedom, as well as to celebrate Greek resiliency and valor. This narrative, such as Herodotus's dramatic account of the battle of Marathon, was crafted to resonate with Greek identity and cultural pride.
The tangible fear Greeks had for Persians, evident in Herodotus's narrative prior to the battle at Marathon, was alleviated by the decisive victory the Greeks achieved. The disproportionate number of Persian casualties at Marathon and the autonomous preservation of cities like Athens enabled the flourishing of Greek culture, which significantly shaped Western civilization.
The broader cultural and historical context of the conflict between the Persian Empire and ancient Greece
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser