In this episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, Carlin examines the effects of absolute power on Persian rulers of the Achaemenid Empire. He explores contrasting views on whether unchecked authority enabled rulers like Cyrus the Great and Xerxes I to govern responsibly or indulge in excess.
While chronicling the Achaemenid Empire's rise under Cyrus and Darius I, Carlin also delves into challenges surrounding the interpretation of Persian history. He discusses factors like potential Greek biases in sources, lack of primary records, and ongoing scholarly debates surrounding key events and figures. The episode raises thought-provoking questions about the roles of absolute power, politics, and warfare in the empire's trajectory.
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
Dan Carlin examines the effects of absolute power on Persian rulers like Cyrus the Great and Xerxes I. Although Persian kings wielded immense power, Carlin notes that some, like Cyrus and Darius I, governed responsibly, resisting corruption. However, he subscribes to the traditional view that Xerxes I degraded into excess, offering apparent proof that absolute power corrupts.
Cyrus the Great rapidly expanded the Persian Empire through his conquests. Darius I further strengthened its structure. Meanwhile, Xerxes I's Greek campaigns resulted in pivotal Battles like Thermopylae and Salamis, which began eroding Persian power.
While some historians argue unchecked power enabled rulers like Xerxes I to indulge excessively, contributing to decline, modern scholars like Pierre Briant question such oversimplified moral judgments. They suggest factors like logistics, diplomacy, and warfare tactics played complex roles.
According to Llewellyn-Jones, certainties about Achaemenid history are rare. Greek biases pervade sources like Herodotus's. Scholars debate the accuracy of accounts on Persian leaders' deaths, battle details, and Alexander's conquests. The lack of comprehensive primary sources perpetuates uncertainty around key events and figures.
1-Page Summary
Dan Carlin's examination of the Achaemenid Persian Empire reveals whether the old adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely" holds true, especially when considering the reigns of influential Persian monarchs such as Cyrus the Great and Darius I, and contrasting with the later kings like Xerxes I.
The Achaemenid Persian Empire was notable for rulers who possessed immense, unchecked power; however, characters like Cyrus the Great and Darius I went down in history for their restraint and commendable governance.
Cyrus the Great is seen by Carlin as an ideal monarch who resisted the corrupting impact of absolute power, with tales such as Cyrus warning against luxury and its potential to soften a nation's character, illustrating his wisdom and foresight. He was a king who chose rugged living to maintain dominion, rather than moving to fertile lands and risking subjugation. As for Darius I, although he held great power, he is remembered for reorganizing the empire efficiently rather than for descending into the excesses common with absolutism.
Traditionally, Xerxes I is depicted as indulging excessively and being ineffective as a monarch, seemingly confirming the idea that absolute power corrupts. This image aligns with the narrative of empires growing decadent and weakening over t ...
The question of whether absolute power corrupts absolutely, as seen through the Persian kings
The Achaemenid Persian Empire, founded by Cyrus the Great, expanded rapidly under his leadership and through the efforts of his successors, Cambyses and Darius I. However, the empire began its decline following a series of defeats in pivotal battles against the Greeks and ultimately succumbed to Alexander the Great's conquests.
Dan Carlin acknowledges Cyrus the Great as not only the founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire but also one of the greatest conquerors before Alexander the Great. His military prowess significantly expanded Persian territory. Following Cyrus' strong start, Darius the Great emerged as a competent ruler, capable of reorganizing and strengthening the empire’s structure.
Xerxes I's Greek campaign, which was part of a continued effort following the Battle of Marathon, saw the Persians face the Greeks in significant battles, including Thermopylae and Salamis. Athens' decision to build a powerful navy was pivotal in this clash of civilizations, marking its emergence as a prominent naval force. Despite their substantial army and fleet, Persian forces faced difficulties against Greek warfare tactics. At Thermopylae, the Spartans exhibited tactical prowess, though they were eventually overwhelmed by Persian numbers. The Athenians played a crucial role at the Battle of Salamis, under the strategic leadership of Themistocles. Greek victories marked a turning point, initiating the erosion of Persian power.
Xerxes I's reign is traditionally viewed as the beginning of the empire's decline. After his campaigns, internal challenges, including revolts in Egypt and Babylonia, indicated that Xerxes was increasingly struggling to maintain the empire’s territory and strength. Artaxerxes III managed to restore so ...
The rise and fall of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, including key battles, figures, and events
The study of the Achaemenid Persian Empire presents significant challenges due to the limited availability of reliable historical information, leading to ongoing debates among scholars. As historians grapple with scarce primary sources and inherent biases from predominantly Greek accounts, interpretations of Persian history remain varied and contentious.
Dan Carlin and others address the temporal distance between events and their documentation, raising concerns about legends and stereotypes creeping into the historical narrative. Carlin suggests that even the Persians might have had a spun version of their own history, presenting a contrast to the Greek depiction. Arguably, due to these challenges, historians must untangle fact from fiction, especially considering the biases rooted in Greek cultural perspectives.
Llewellyn-Jones contends with the complexities of understanding ancient Persian history, where certainties are rare, and multiple interpretations abound. Xerxes' historical reputation, for example, may have been shaped by inaccurate portrayals. Historical accounts of Persian kings' deaths, such as Xerxes', typically lack confirmation and are steeped in tradition rather than solid evidence. Discrepancies in sources and contradictory narratives add to the difficulty of establishing a clear historical picture.
Pierre Briant, Warwick Ball, and other modern historians question the narrative of Persian decline traditionally ascribed to Xerxes' reign, suggesting that the causes for any perceived decline were more complex than simple moral decay. The reexamination of ancient sources and archaeological evidence has sparked revised understandings of Persian military strategies, the empire's diplomatic latticework, and its overarching historical arc.
The Persian Empire's military logistics are compared to a company with subcontractors, indicating a complex organizational structure that challenges consistent historical interpretation. The difficulty in validating ancient sources' numbers for the Persian army's size fuels ongoing academic debate.
The challenges and debates in interpreting the historical sources and perspectives around these events
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser