143 pages • 4 hours read
HerodotusA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Book 3 resumes the narrative of Persian expansion after the discussion of Egypt in Book 2. In this section, Herodotus describes the Persian king Cambyses’ reign, conquest of Egypt, and descent into madness; the usurpation of the Persian throne by the Magi after Cambyses’ death; and the rise of Darius to power in Persia after a coup d’etat. In two notable digressions, Herodotus recounts the careers of the Greek tyrants Polycrates of Samos and Periander of Corinth. Finally, in a geographical aside, he discusses the natural history and wealth of India, Arabia, and western Europe, arguing that the most distant lands harbor the most valuable and desirable resources.
According to the Persians, Herodotus claims, Cambyses invaded Egypt to punish Amasis for deceiving him. Prompted by an Egyptian physician at his court who was angry with Amasis, Cambyses asked for the hand of Amasis’ daughter. Amasis, suspecting Cambyses intended her as a concubine, sent the daughter of the late pharaoh Apries in her place, which rankled the Persian king. Herodotus recounts two other variants of the story, neither of which provide a political explanation for the invasion but repeat the pattern of personal revenge that often serves as historical causality in the Histories.
The Arabian king granted the Persian army safe passage through Arabia, supplying water to cross the desert. Psammenitus, the son of Amasis, met the Persian host at a mouth of the Nile, where the Egyptian army was routed. Herodotus claims he visited the battlefield and saw the bones of the Persian and Egyptian soldiers lying where they fell. The skulls of the Egyptians were thick but those of the Persians were thin as eggshells. He ascribes the difference to the sun’s effect on the bare heads of the Egyptians and the Persian custom of wearing felt caps.
Cambyses took possession of Memphis after a short siege. He seated Psammenitus and other leading Egyptians in the public square, where he paraded their daughters, dressed as slaves, before them. He then marched Psammenitus’ son with 2,000 other youths, bound in chains and destined for death, before the assembled Egyptians. During the spectacle, the Egyptian nobility wept openly except for Psammenitus, who kept silent. When an elderly man who had once been Psammenitus’ friend but was now a beggar passed before the group, Psammenitus burst into tears, to the surprise of Cambyses. Questioned why he cried at this sight after showing no reaction to the indignities forced upon his own children, Psammenitus answered: “Son of Cyrus, my own suffering was too great for tears, but I could not but weep for the trouble of a friend, who has fallen from great wealth and good fortune and been reduced to beggary on the threshold of old age” (159). Pleased with this response, Cambyses kept Psammenitus at his court where he was well treated. Psammenitus, however, eventually tried to raise a revolt among the Egyptians and was executed.
Cambyses then planned to attack the Carthaginians, the Ammonians of Libya, and the Ethiopians. The Carthaginian venture failed when the Phoenicians refused to assist Cambyses, and the detachment of 50,000 Persian soldiers sent to Ammon entirely disappeared in the desert without word. Cambyses sent spies to the Ethiopian king under the pretense of offering friendship, but they were rebuked by the Ethiopian ruler who saw through the deception. The Ethiopian king gave the Persian delegates an unstrung bow, warning that their emperor was vain to think he could conquer Ethiopia before Persians were capable of easily drawing the enormous bow. Enraged with this response, Cambyses immediately began his march against Ethiopia without securing provisions for his army. Before they had covered a fifth of the distance, food ran out and his soldiers were reduced to cannibalism. Cambyses was forced to order a retreat and the army returned to Memphis.
Cambyses, Herodotus claims, was already unhinged before this disastrous campaign, but now completely lost his reason. After conquering Egypt, he disinterred and abused the corpse of the pharaoh Amasis; now he outlawed the Egyptian feast of Apis, killing the calf which the Egyptians believed embodied the god. He executed his own brother Smerdis, envious that the latter was able to draw the Ethiopian bow slightly and suspecting that he was plotting against him. Enraged by his pregnant wife for lamenting Smerdis’ death, he kicked her, causing a fatal miscarriage.
Herodotus suggests Cambyses’ insanity was caused by epilepsy; at any rate, he is depicted as a maniacally savage despot who exulted in sacrilegious behavior: “I have no doubt whatever that Cambyses was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt” (169). Herodotus concludes by observing that, among human groups, “custom is king,” and that each nation believes its own habits and traditions are natural and correct.
Herodotus then shifts to an account of the Greek tyrant Polycrates of Samos, against whom the Lacedaemonians sent a force while Cambyses was engaged in his Egyptian expedition. Polycrates had seized power on the Ionian island, and with a large fleet, began to amass a string of economic and military successes that made him the most powerful Greek ruler in the East. He concluded a pact of friendship with Amasis, the Egyptian pharaoh, who became concerned about Polycrates’ good fortune. Amasis advised Polycrates to discard his most valuable possession to escape the wrath of the gods lest they grew envious of his prosperity. The tyrant complied, casting his signet-ring into the sea. Several days later a fisherman caught a magnificent fish, which he presented to Polycrates as a gift. When the fish was gutted, the ruler’s signet-ring was found inside. Sensing a divine hand at work, Polycrates informed Amasis of what occurred. Convinced that Polycrates’ fate was sealed because even what he threw away came back to him, Amasis ended their alliance, certain that Polycrates would come to a miserable end.
Eager to ally himself with a stronger power, Polycrates supported Cambyses’ invasion of Egypt with a fleet of 40 ships, the crews of which he wished to get rid of for suspected disloyalty. The exiled Samians instead sailed to Sparta and asked the Lacedaemonians to help them oust Polycrates from power. After their lengthy petition, the Spartans, a people known for few words, replied they had forgotten the beginning of the speech and could not understand the end, so the Samians had to try again. At their second audience, the Samians brought an empty bag and said it needed flour. The Spartans consented to their request and outfitted a force which laid siege to the Samian capital for 40 days. This was the first military expedition to Asia ever undertaken by the Lacedaemonians. The siege was unsuccessful, however, and the Lacedaemonians returned to the Peloponnese.
The Corinthians were also willing to help the exiled Samians to avenge an insult they had suffered a generation earlier during the reign of the Corinthian tyrant Periander. The Samians had rescued 300 boys from Corcyra, a Corinthian colony, whom Periander had kidnapped and was sending to Sardis to be made eunuchs. Corinth and Corcyra had been on hostile terms ever since the Corcyraeans murdered Periander’s son, who had sought refuge in the colony after Periander killed the boy’s mother. Later in life, Periander tried to make amends with his son, hoping he would return to Corinth and become tyrant in his stead. Periander promised to exile himself to Corcyra if the latter would take power in Corinth. To prevent this, the Corcyraeans killed the young man, which inaugurated a long-standing feud between the two cities. The exiled Samians broke off the siege when the Lacedaemonians departed; they established a city in Crete but ultimately were enslaved when they were defeated by a combined force of Cretans and Aeginetans. Herodotus concludes his digression on the history of the Samians by noting that they were responsible for three of the greatest engineering feats in the Greek world.
While Cambyses lingered in Egypt after his military failures, two brothers of the Magi (a priestly caste of Medes) conspired against him in Persia. One of the brothers, whose name was Smerdis—the same name as Cambyses’ brother, whom the Persian king had secretly assassinated—impersonated the dead man and took the throne. He proclaimed that all the Persian troops in the empire should now take orders from him, rather than Cambyses. When Cambyses heard of this, he suspected that his confidant Prexaspes had disobeyed his order to kill Smerdis. Questioning a Persian herald in Egypt, however, Cambyses realized what had happened—namely, that his own steward and that man’s brother had rebelled against him. On his way back to Susa to set matters straight, Cambyses accidentally stabbed himself in the thigh with his own sword, in the same place where he had struck Apis, the sacred Egyptian calf.
Believing the wound fatal, and remorseful for killing his own brother, he confessed the fratricide to the leading Persians in his retinue and begged them to prevent the Medes from taking control of the empire. Cambyses died shortly afterward, without offspring, after a reign of seven years. The false Smerdis continued on the Persian throne for seven months, winning popular favor by suspending tax collection and military service. He was ultimately exposed as an impostor by one of his wives, who informed her father, Otanes, a leading Persian noble. Otanes recruited several other Persian aristocrats, intending to unseat the usurper and return the throne to Persian rule. Among the seven conspirators was Darius, who urged the group to act immediately and decisively. Meanwhile, the two Magi bribed Prexaspes, Cambyses’ close associate, to proclaim before the public that the false Smerdis was indeed the son of Cyrus and legitimately held the throne. Prexaspes, however, declared that he had been forced to kill the true Smerdis by Cambyses and he urged the Persians to punish the Magi usurpers. He then threw himself off the tower from which he addressed the gathering. The seven conspirators rushed the royal palace, killed the brothers, and massacred every Magi they could find in the streets of Susa.
Five days later the conspirators met to decide how to proceed. Herodotus records their speeches as a constitutional debate on the merits of particular forms of government. Otanes argued that Persia should abolish monarchy due to the evils of envy and pride that inevitably corrupt the autocrat and adopt a democratic government. Megabyzus advocated that oligarchy by the select few is superior to rule by the masses, and Darius insisted that monarchy, in the right hands, is better than both democracy and oligarchy. Darius’ argument held sway, and the seven agreed to award the throne to the one among them whose horse neighed first after sunrise; Otanes abstained because he did not want to be king. Darius’ groom devised a plan to ensure his master would prevail. He allowed Darius’ horse to mount his favorite mare that evening along the road at the outskirts of the city; in the morning when the six were riding out, Darius’ horse reared when they reached that spot, and Darius was recognized king of Persia.
Ruler of all Asia except Arabia, Darius married Cyrus’ two daughters, as well as the daughter of Cyrus’ late son Smerdis and the daughter of Otanes. He set up 20 provisional governorships for the empire and established new tax assessments for the provinces. Enumerating the tribute provided to Persia by the Indians and (voluntarily) by the Arabians, Herodotus discusses the ethnography and natural history of these distant countries. The Indians collect gold in the desert, following giant ants whose burrowing unearths gold-rich sands. Herodotus claims that India is the most easterly country of the inhabited world, its animals and birds larger than any elsewhere. Arabia is the southernmost country; when collecting frankincense, the Arabians must drive off hordes of flying snakes by burning storax. The Arabians collect cinnamon by tricking birds who carry the spice to their nests; the sweet-smelling ledanon, which the Arabians use as incense, is found in the malodorous beards of goats. Commenting on the abundance of exotic animals of these regions, Herodotus observes that “it is hard to avoid the belief that divine providence, in the wisdom that one would expect of it, has made prolific every kind of creature which is timid and preyed upon by others, in order to ensure its continuance, while savage and noxious species are comparatively unproductive” (196).
Among the exotic marvels found at the ends of the earth, Herodotus notes that Ethiopia has immense deposits of gold, huge elephants, and the tallest, longest-lived, and most beautiful people in the world. He admits he knows little of northern Europe, where amber and tin are sourced, but believes that the rarest and most prized materials are to be found in the extremities of the world. After this interlude, Herodotus returns to his narrative of Darius’ reign. While Cambyses lay dying of his self-inflicted wound, Oroetes, the Persian governor of Sardis, decided to kill Polycrates of Samos. Oroetes had been insulted by another Persian governor who shamed him for not having brought Samos under Persian rule. Oroetes invited Polycrates to Sardis under false pretenses, claiming that he wished to make an alliance with the powerful Greek tyrant. Polycrates believed that Oroetes was extremely wealthy and would assist him in his own plan to gain control over all of Greece. Dismissing the pleas of his friends and daughter, as well as the advice of soothsayers, he sailed to Sardis where he was butchered by Oroetes and crucified after death.
It was not long, Herodotus says, before Polycrates had his revenge. After Cambyses’ death, Oroetes refused to help overthrow the Magian usurpation. After he killed one of Darius’ couriers, the newly installed Persian king decided to punish Oroetes for his defiance. Darius sent a herald to Sardis, who, through a series of proclamations from the emperor, tested the loyalty of Oroetes’ bodyguard. The final imperial order instructed the Persian guards to kill Oroetes, which they immediately did. Shortly afterwards, Darius dislocated his ankle while dismounting from his horse. The Egyptian physicians who attended him made the matter worse, so he called upon a Greek doctor, Democedes, who had accompanied Polycrates to Sardis and was now a prisoner among Oroetes’ slaves. Democedes cured Darius’ foot and interceded with him on behalf of the Egyptian physicians, whom Darius intended to execute as punishment. Pleased with Democedes’ service, Darius installed him in his court and liberated the Egyptian doctors. Democedes enjoyed every privilege in Susa, except the freedom to return to Greece.
After curing Darius’ wife of an abscess, Democedes made her promise to persuade the king to allow him to travel to Greece, ostensibly as an informant for a campaign that Darius was planning. Darius agreed, with the proviso that Democedes not be allowed to escape at any cost. When the small expedition reached southern Italy, Democedes jumped ship and made his way to Crotona, his native city. The Persians pursued him but were forced to abandon the chase, and returned to Asia.
Polycrates’ brother, Syloson, who had been exiled from Samos while the tyrant was in power, appealed to Darius to help reinstate him. He had met Darius in Egypt during Cambyses’ expedition, while the future king was a member of Cambyses’ guard, and had given Darius a scarlet cloak. Darius agreed to help Syloson and equipped him with a detachment led by Otanes, one of the seven conspirators. The rule of Samos, meanwhile, had passed to Polycrates’ friend Maeandrius after the tyrant’s death. Maeandrius, no lover of autocracy, at first proposed that the Samians form a democracy, but quickly realized that if he surrendered the tyranny, someone else would seize absolute power.
Maeandrius arrested the leading men in the city, and his brother subsequently had them executed. As a result, when the Persians arrived to restore Syloson, the Samians provided no resistance. Maeandrius agreed to abdicate but wanted to inflict as much damage as possible so that Syloson would inherit a weakened populace and chaotic state of affairs. Maeandrius’ brother attacked and killed a group of unsuspecting Persians; in response, Otanes laid siege to the citadel of Samos and massacred all the Samians. The Persians thus presented Syloson with an empty island; this was the first territory, Herodotus reports, that Darius conquered.
While these events were occurring, Babylon revolted. The insurrection had been planned for a long time; when it began, to reduce food consumption, the Babylonians strangled all the women in the city except for their mothers and one other woman each man chose to bake bread for him. Darius laid siege to the city for 19 months without success. Finally, a Persian named Zopyrus was inspired by a prodigy—a mule foaled, fulfilling a Babylonian prophecy concerning the capture of the city. Zopyrus mutilated his body and presented himself to the Babylonians, claiming to seek asylum from the violence of Darius. He had arranged with the Persian king that a detachment of low-level Persian soldiers should be placed at intervals outside several of the main gates of Babylon. At the appointed time, Zopyrus led the Babylonian forces victoriously against these Persian platoons, winning the confidence and praise of the Babylonians, who eventually anointed him the city’s hero and Guardian of the Wall. Finally, at a pre-arranged time, Darius unleashed the entire Persian army against Babylon.
Zopyrus, who had been given keys to the city’s gates, opened them, allowing the Persians to storm the city. Darius executed 3,000 of its leading citizens and destroyed Babylon’s battlements. Afterwards, to repopulate the city, he compelled the surrounding territories to send upwards of 50,000 women to Babylon as breeding stock. Darius lauded Zopyrus as the greatest benefactor of the Persians after Cyrus and rewarded him with the governorship of Babylon.
Book 3 resumes the story of the rise of the Persian empire after the lengthy digression on the history, geography, and ethnography of Egypt in Book 2 of the Histories. Herodotus picks up with Cambyses’ invasion of Egypt and subsequent unsuccessful campaigns against Carthage, Ammon, and Ethiopia. The Book describes Darius’ accession to the Persian throne after the revolt of the Magi and Cambyses’ death, concluding with Darius’ seizure of Samos and reconquest of Babylon. The events of the main historical narrative of the Book cover approximately 530-515 BCE. Amid these events, Herodotus inserts discussions of the Greek autocrats Polycrates of Samos and Periander of Corinth, a list of the Persian satrapies and their annual tribute under Darius, as well as comments on the natural resources of India, Arabia, and other outlying lands.
Thematically, the Book is important for the light it sheds on Herodotus’ views of tyranny and freedom, his complex portrayal of the Persians, his interest in the exotic and marvelous, and his inclination towards tolerance in cultural and religious matters. The Book also exemplifies revenge as a major form of causation in the Histories, as the Lacedaemonian invasion of Samos demonstrates. Finally, the Book provides evidence of Herodotus’ methodology, stressing the importance of firsthand information, as shown in his description of the Egyptian battlefield where the historian viewed the skeletons of the combatants.
Morally, Cambyses serves as a foil to his father Cyrus, who liberated Persia from the Medes and is described in admirable, if not unequivocally favorable, terms by Herodotus—until he overreaches by attacking the Massagetae. Cambyses, by contrast, is seen by Herodotus as a monstrous despot, violent, insane, and sacrilegious. Herodotus suggests that epilepsy, which the ancient Greeks called “the sacred sickness,” could have been at the root of his madness. Herodotus characteristically alternates between natural and supernatural causes without a sense of incongruity or mutual exclusivity. He notes that Cambyses’ self-inflicted wound occurred in the thigh, just where he had mortally stabbed the Egyptian calf-god Apis—implying that Cambyses’ fatal accident was the work of divine retribution. Moreover, Cambyses’ belated—and lucid—recognition after the accident that he had murdered his brother in a fit of folly, and that “it is not in human power to avert what is destined to be,” suggests the influence of Athenian tragedy on Herodotus’ dramatization of the Persian despot’s deathbed scene. Like a Sophoclean hero, Cambyses experiences an epiphanic recognition of his culpability for his undoing, accompanying the reversal of fortune that culminates in his death. These moral and narratological concepts are characteristically Greek.
The example of Cambyses’ depravity effectively sets up the constitutional debate about the merits of different forms of government that takes place afterwards among the seven Persian conspirators. Herodotus frames the discussion as a philosophical exchange of political beliefs among freedom-loving Persians who have liberated their country from foreign usurpation. The question of whether political power should be invested in one (monarchy), the few (oligarchy), or the many (Herodotus uses the word isonomia, literally, “equality before the law,” a term predating “democracy”) was fiercely debated in the classical Greek world, and the sentiments voiced are consistent with contemporary Greek thought. Notably, the debate centers more upon the disadvantages of each system of rule rather than on their respective merits.
Herodotus’ audience would hardly have believed that a Persian would advocate for democracy. Indeed, the entire debate is dubious and suggests Herodotus had little understanding of the actual institutions of Persian imperial government, which he depicts as if it were a Greek city-state. Otanes’ thoughtful argument that popular government is a safeguard to the excesses of autocratic rule demonstrates, nevertheless, that Herodotus held an uncommonly nuanced view of the Persian character. A more typical view of Persian despotism is suggested by Darius’ speech, which, not surprisingly, argues for monarchy as superior to the mob rule of democracy or the competitive interests that undermine oligarchy. Darius prevails in the debate; Otanes makes clear he does not want to serve as king, and Darius manipulates the contest among the remaining six aspirants to win the throne, reinstating the monarchy established by Cyrus. (The story that Darius secured the throne with a bit of deceptive horseplay is likely fictitious).
The conflict between despotic autocracy and the ideals of freedom and individualism also informs Herodotus’ treatment of political tyranny in Greece. The tyrant was a man who assumed absolute power over a city-state and was usually connected to an aristocratic family. He was backed with the support of one or more noble families, occasionally with popular support, and operated essentially without legal restraint. Tyrannies typically lasted only one or two generations, and, while frequently marked by the excesses condemned in Otanes’ speech, Herodotus credits notable tyrants, such as Pisistratus of Athens, with sound and beneficent government.
From Herodotus’ viewpoint, a perspective echoed in contemporary Athenian tragedy, the tyrant was nevertheless temperamentally vulnerable to excess and the violent oppression of opposition, whether opposition was legitimate or merely imagined. Herodotus’ accounts of Polycrates of Samos and Periander of Corinth exemplify this danger. Polycrates’ remarkable success attracted the folkloric motif of the miraculously returning ring to his biography, and Herodotus notes that, other than the autocrats of Syracuse, Polycrates was the most magnificent tyrant the Greek world had known. An astute reader of the Histories would realize from Amasis’ warning, however, that the overachiever would inevitably suffer a reversal of fortune. Desirous of money and ambitious to extend his power over the whole of Ionia, Polycrates disregarded his advisors and the pleas of his daughter, who dreamt that a disastrous fate awaited her father. Enticed by Oroetes’ deceptive promise of friendship, he sailed to Sardis where he met a humiliating end “unworthy of his personal distinction and high ambition” (202), trussed up publicly on a cross following his murder.
By most ancient accounts, Periander, tyrant of Corinth from 627-585 BCE, was remarkably violent and abusive toward his subjects. Herodotus reports that he killed all his rivals in the city and murdered his wife, defiling her corpse. Herodotus’ account of Periander is nested within his discussion of the Lacedaemonian expedition against Polycrates; the causes of this conflict demonstrate the motif of reciprocal revenge that often precipitates personal and historical action in Herodotus. A group of Samians, exiled by Polycrates, appealed to the Spartans to help them oust the tyrant. The Samians claim the Spartans helped in return for the support they gave the latter in Sparta’s war with the Messenians; the Spartans, however, claimed that they wanted to punish the Samians for stealing a bowl the Spartans gave to Croesus. The Corinthians participate in the expedition against Samos in revenge for an insult they received from the islanders a generation earlier. Periander, seeking to punish the Corinthian colony of Corcyra to avenge the killing of his son Lycophron, kidnapped 300 Corcyraean boys and sent them to Sardis to be enslaved. The youths were rescued and repatriated by the Samians; Corinth was eager to redress this wrong.
The concept of retributive justice pervades Herodotus’ text, extending even to the natural world. In his discussion of Arabia in Book 3, Herodotus observes that its female flying snakes are punished for decapitating their mates during the sexual act by their offspring, who gnaw their way through their mother’s belly to avenge their father’s death. This imaginative detail, echoing a Greek mythological motif, also embodies the theme of the exotic that underlies the Book’s discussion of the distant lands of India, Arabia, and northwestern Europe. Herodotus (and the Greeks in general) knew little about northern Europe, from which tin and amber derived, yet exotic and mysterious lands stimulate his scientific curiosity and imagination. They also elicit his critical intelligence; Herodotus dismisses some stories he has heard as not credible, such as the one-eyed Arimaspians who allegedly steal gold from griffins in northern Europe. Moreover, by demonstrating the vast expanse of Persian hegemony—even distant territories not under Persian rule, such as Ethiopia, Arabia, and Colchis, near the Caucasus mountains, donate tribute to the empire—Herodotus meticulously develops a map of an immense global powerhouse with which the confederation of small Greek city-states will soon be forced to contend.
This encompassing perspective is accompanied by an attitude of cultural tolerance, or what some might term cultural relativism. As previously noted, Herodotus gives a remarkably balanced portrayal of the Persians for a fifth-century Greek. Moreover, he sees Cambyses’ desecration of the Egyptian temples of Hephaestus and the Cabiri as incontrovertible evidence of the king’s insanity, because only a madman would compulsively commit sacrilege upon what another culture holds sacred. Echoing the Greek poet Pindar’s saying, “Custom is king,” Herodotus believes it is a universal truth that each nation thinks its own customs and religion to be the best. While not refraining from moral judgments about foreign customs he finds particularly reprehensible, Herodotus generally displays a tolerant or agnostic attitude toward specific matters of culture and religion. In Book 2, for instance, he says that he does not believe any nation knows much more about religious matters than any other, and his ethnographies of barbarian peoples, while clearly influenced by Greek preconceptions and attitudes, frequently display a surprising degree of neutrality.