Persians: Diodoros on expansionism and arrogance of Persian kings (mid-first century BCE)

Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Persians: Diodoros on expansionism and arrogance of Persian kings (mid-first century BCE),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified March 26, 2024, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=18197.

Ancient author: Diodoros of Sicily (mid-first century BCE), Library of History 10.13-15,19,25, fragments from a series of extracts done for Constantine Porphyrogennetos (link).

Comments: These later extracts from lost books of Diodoros’ work are consistently concerned with particular characterizations of Persians by way of a picture of Persian kings as overly arrogant and unpredictable (or crazy), as well as unable to handle relative success. The consistent Persian aim of controlling the entire inhabited world, in particular, is characterized as the ultimate sign of arrogance.

In light of the more positive portrayal of Cyrus specifically in fragments associated with book nine of Diodoros, it is not entirely clear what Diodoros’ own opinions would be (link). This may simply be a reflection of different sources with different characterizations, however.  Or this could involve a notion of Cyrus’ decline with sucess.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

[For Diodoros’ preceding discussion of Croesus and the Lydians, go to this link.]

Book 10

[Cyrus’ expansionism and failure to cope with good fortune]

13  Cyrus, the king of the Persians, after he had reduced the land of the Babylonians and the Medes [ca. 550 BCE], was hoping to possess the entire inhabited world. Now that he had subjugated these powerful and great peoples (ethnē), he thought that there was no king or citizen body (dēmos) which could withstand his power. This is because among those who are possessed by irresponsible power, some do not deal with their good fortune the way that human beings should.

[Cambyses, his violations, and failure to cope with good fortune]

14  Cambyses​ [ca. 529-522 BCE] was crazy by nature and his powers of reasoning were disturbed. Also, the greatness of his kingdom made him much more cruel and arrogant. (2) Since Cambyses the Persian could not deal with his good fortune as men should, after he had taken Memphis and Pelousion [ca. 525 BCE], Cambyses ​dug up the tomb of Amasis, the former king of Egypt. Finding his mummified corpse in the coffin, he violated the body of the dead man, and after demonstrating every form of violation towards the senseless corpse, he finally ordered it to be burned. For since it was not the practice of the locals (enchorioi) to consign the bodies of their dead to fire, he thought that in this fashion he would be giving offence to him who had been long dead. (3)

When Cambyses was about to begin his campaign against Ethiopia, he dispatched a part of his army against the inhabitants of Ammonion [i.e. the site of the oracle of Ammon, the present oasis of Siwah],​ giving orders to its commanders to plunder and burn the oracle and to enslave everyone who lived near the temple.

15 After Cambyses, the king of the Persians, had made himself lord over all of Egypt, the Libyans and Cyrenaeans, who had been allies of the Egyptians, sent presents to him and declared their willingness to obey his every command. . . [omitted extracts].

[Darius’ expansionism, lack of achievement, and violations of his general]

19  When men make definitive statements about certain things, saying that such things can never possibly happen, their words usually are followed by a kind of retribution which exposes human weakness. (2) Megabyzos, who was also called Zopyros and was a friend of king Darius, had scourged himself and mutilated his features [cf. Herodotos, Histories 3.153ff.],​ because he had resolved to become a deserter​ and betray Babylon to the Persians. We are told that Darius was then deeply moved and declared that he would rather have Megabyzos whole again, if it were possible, than bring ten Babylons under his power, although his wish could not be achieved. (3) The Babylonians chose Megabyzos to be their general, being unaware that the benefaction he would render them would be a kind of bait to entice them to the destruction which was soon to follow. (4) The successful turn of events constitutes a sufficient proof of what has been predicted.

(5) After Darius had made himself master of practically all of Asia, he wanted to subjugate Europe [ca. 519 BCE].​ For since the desires he entertained for further possessions were limitless and he had confidence in the greatness of the power of Persia, he aimed to possess the inhabited world in his power. He thought that it was a disgraceful thing that the kings before his time, though possessing inferior resources, had reduced in war the greatest peoples, whereas he, who had forces greater than any man before him had ever acquired, had made no achievement worthy of mention. . . [omitted extracts].

25  The Persians learned about burning temples from the Greeks, repaying those who had been the first to offend justice with the same arrogant act [cf. Herodotos, Histories 5.102].

[For Diodoros’ subsequent discussion of the Medes and Datis, go to this link.]

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Source of the translation: C. H. Oldfather, Diodorus Sicilus: Library of History, volumes 1-6, LCL (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1935-1952), public domain (passed away in 1954), adapted by Victoria Muccilli and Harland.

Leave a comment or correction

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *