The End of Egypt & The Madness of Cambyses
Commentary on Book III of Herodotus' Histories
Contents
The Battle of Pelusium and the End of Egypt
Hostilities between Egypt and Persia broke out around 525 BC. According to the Persians, Cambyses (Cyrus’ son and now king) was persuaded by an Egyptian serving in his court to take King Amasis’ daughter as a concubine. Amasis was fearful of Persian power and knew he could not refuse without bringing destruction upon his people. So he devised a scheme where he sent Cambyses a decoy girl. The ruse did not last long, and Cambyses soon set out to conquer Egypt. Whether this story was the actual pretext for an invasion or not, Egypt was probably just the next logical step on the path of Persian expansion. King Amasis died right as the Persians arrived in Egypt, so his son Psammenitos had to assume the helm in the midst of an existential storm. Egyptian civilization was on the brink, and a decisive Persian victory at the ensuing battle of Pelusium sealed its fate.
In the mix of all of this, Herodotus tells us of a man named Phanes who was a Greek strategist and mercenary from Halicarnassus. Phanes initially served as a mercenary under King Amasis but switched sides and became an advisor to Cambyses. Before the battle of Pelusium, the Egyptians brutally massacred the sons of Phanes:
The Persians had marched quite through the waterless region and were encamped near the Egyptians with design to engage battle, then the foreign mercenaries of the Egyptian king, who were Hellenes and Carians, having a quarrel with Phanes because he had brought against Egypt an army of foreign speech, contrived against him as follows: — Phanes had children whom he had left behind in Egypt: these they brought to their camp and into the sight of their father, and they set up a mixing-bowl between the two camps, and after that they brought up the children one by one and cut their throats so that the blood ran into the bowl.
A quick note here: Phanes seems to have been the first medizer, or a Greek that allied themselves to the Persians. From Phanes, to Themistokles, to the Thebans, and many others: there was always a cost to doing business with the Persians. It seemed divined by the gods that whenever a Greek sought gain by means of the Persians, they only brought pain and suffering onto themselves and their cities. Maybe Alexander the Great saw this in some unique way, and this partially explains his righteous crusade to annihilate the Persians. At any rate, back to the Phanes:
Then when they had gone through the whole number of the children, they brought and poured into the bowl both wine and water, and not until the mercenaries had all drunk of the blood, did they engage battle. Then after a battle had been fought with great stubbornness, and very many had fallen of both the armies, the Egyptians at length turned to flight.
After their decisive defeat at Pelusium, Egyptian civilization basically ended. Pelusium was to the Egyptians what Leuctra would be to Spartans or Chaeronea to the Athenians. Yes, Egyptian civilization would continue but their destiny began to formally sunset — their thousand-year flame would become a dim and fading glow. Egypt would hereafter be passed around like a cheap whore: a Persian satrap one day, a volatile Diadochi kingdom the next, later a Roman province, and from then on one sad thing to the next.
Egypt contra Greece — An ancient civilization compared to a young civilization; a people burnt out after cycles of rulers, conflicts, and challenges running thousands of years compared to a people that self-immolated just as it seemed they had been born. A great old man finally fading away compared to a dazzling hero dying in the fire of his youth. Both are very different forms of tragedy.
Psammenitos: Woe to the Vanquished
After their defeat at Pelusium, the Egyptians fled to Memphis and hunkered down for a siege, but it did not last long. Cambyses would quickly subdue the city subjecting Psammenitos and other Egyptian nobles to great shame and dishonor:
On the tenth day after that on which he received the surrender of the fortress of Memphis, Cambyses set the king of the Egyptians Psammenitos, who had been king for six months, to sit in the suburb of the city, to do him dishonor, — him I say with other Egyptians he set there, and he proceeded to make trial of his spirit as follows: — having arrayed his daughter in the clothing of a slave, he sent her forth with a pitcher to fetch water, and with her he sent also other maidens chosen from the daughters of the chief men, arrayed as was the daughter of the king: and as the maidens were passing by their fathers with cries and lamentation, the other men all began to cry out and lament aloud, seeing that their children had been evilly entreated, but Psammenitos when he saw it before his eyes and perceived it bent himself down to the earth.
Then when the water-bearers had passed by, next Cambyses sent his son with two thousand Egyptians besides who were of the same age, with ropes bound round their necks and bits placed in their mouths; and these were being led away to execution to avenge the death of the Mytilenians who had been destroyed at Memphis with their ship: for the Royal Judges had decided that for each man ten of the noblest Egyptians should lose their lives in retaliation. He then, when he saw them passing out by him and perceived that his son was leading the way to die, did the same as he had done with respect to his daughter, while the other Egyptians who sat round him were lamenting and showing signs of grief.
Psammenitos is among the most unfortunate type of men: those that were born to lead a people destined to perish. I am disturbed even pretending to imagine myself in Psammenitos’ situation. Imagine the horror of your entire civilization collapsing upon you. Thousands of years, countless generations of effort all crashing down, the future embodied in your son, being slaughtered before your eyes. Your sovereignty and freedom are gone, your values destroyed, your people subjugated. But Psammenitos bears all this misfortune with dignity:
When these also had passed by, it chanced that a man of his table companions, advanced in years, who had been deprived of all his possessions and had nothing except such things as a beggar possesses, and was asking alms from the soldiers, passed by Psammenitos the son of Amasis and the Egyptians who were sitting in the suburb of the city: and when Psammenitos saw him he uttered a great cry of lamentation, and he called his companion by name and beat himself upon the head. Now there was, it seems, men set to watch him, who made known to Cambyses all that he did on the occasion of each going forth: and Cambyses marveled at that which he did, and he sent a messenger and asked him thus:
"Psammenitos, thy master Cambyses asks thee for what reason, when thou sawist thy daughter evilly entreated and thy son going to death, thou didst not cry aloud nor lament for them, whereas thou didst honour with these signs of grief the beggar who, as he hears from others, is not in any way related to thee?"
Thus he asked, and the other answered as follows: "O son of Cyrus, my own troubles were too great for me to lament them aloud, but the trouble of my companion was such as called for tears, seeing that he has been deprived of great wealth, and has come to beggary upon the threshold of old age."
Of course, Croesus just happened to be here. He more than anyone could relate to the misfortunes of Psammenitos:
Croesus shed tears (for he also, as fortune would have it, had accompanied Cambyses to Egypt) and the Persians who were present shed tears also; and there entered some pity into Cambyses himself, and forthwith he bade them save the life of the son of Psammenitos from among those who were being put to death, and also he bade them raise Psammenitos himself from his place in the suburb of the city and bring him into his own presence.
As for the son, those who went for him found that he was no longer alive, but had been cut down first of all, but Psammenitos himself they raised from his place and brought him into the presence of Cambyses, with whom he continued to live for the rest of his time without suffering any violence; and if he had known how to keep himself from meddling with mischief, he would have received Egypt so as to be ruler of it, since the Persians are wont to honour the sons of kings, and even if the kings have revolted from them, they give back the power into the hands of their sons.
Of this, namely that it is their established rule to act so, one may judge by many instances besides and especially by the case of Thannyras the son of Inaros, who received back the power which his father had, and by that of Pausiris the son of Amyrtaios, for he too received back the power of his father: yet it is certain that no men ever up to this time did more evil to the Persians than Inaros and Amyrtaios. As it was, however, Psammenitos devised evil and received the due reward: for he was found to be inciting the Egyptians to revolt; and when this became known to Cambyses, Psammenitos drank bull's blood and died forthwith. Thus he came to his end.
Rebellion is the only noble thing a slave is capable of. Psammenitos contra Croesus — a lesson on courage and nobility in the face of misfortune and disgrace.
The Ethiopian King Offers Sound Advice
When we think forward to Persia’s failed invasion of Greece, it is clear they forgot what the Ethiopian King had once told them:
When the Persian spies arrived in Ethiopia, they presented gifts to the king and spoke these words: "The king of the Persians Cambyses, desiring to become a friend and guest to thee, sent us with command to come to speech with thee, and he gives thee for gifts these things which he himself most delights to use."
The Ethiopian however, perceiving that they had come as spies, spoke to them as follows: "Neither did the king of the Persians send you bearing gifts because he thought it a matter of great moment to become my guest-friend, nor do ye speak true things (for ye have come as spies of my kingdom), nor again is he a righteous man; for if he had been righteous he would not have coveted a land other than his own, nor would he be leading away into slavery men at whose hands he has received no wrong. Now however give him this bow and speak to him these words: The king of the Ethiopians gives this counsel to the king of the Persians, that when the Persians draw their bows (of equal size to mine) as easily as I do this, then he should march against the Long-lived Ethiopians, provided that he be superior in numbers; but until that time he should feel gratitude to the gods that they do not put it into the mind of the sons of the Ethiopians to acquire another land in addition to their own."
Do not set your heart on a country other than your own — timeless political wisdom.
The Madness of Cambyses
After subduing Egypt, Cambyses set his sight on the Ethiopians. However, crossing the desert with a large army proved to be incredibly difficult. The Persian expedition quickly ran out of provisions and the entire army was eventually lost in the desert. Anything related to Ethiopia reminds me of the hilarious dig Winston Churchill threw at The Duce, Benito Mussolini:
To cast an army of nearly a quarter of a million men, embodying the flower of Italian manhood, upon a barren shore two thousand miles from home, against the good will of the whole world and without command of the sea, and then in this position embark upon what may well be a series of campaigns against a people and in regions which no conqueror in four thousand years ever thought it worth while to subdue, is to give hostages to fortune unparalleled in all history.
I am sure Churchill knew about Cambyses, so I think he meant “no sane conqueror in four thousand years ever thought [Ethiopia] worthwhile to subdue.” But shortly after the failed invasion of Ethiopia, Herodotus tells us that Cambyses went mad. First, upon returning through the desert, an epiphany of Apis occurred to the Egyptians. They began celebrating a holy cow and Cambyses suspected that the Egyptians were rejoicing at his horrible military disaster. Cambyses commanded the Egyptian priests to bring Apis before him:
When the priests had brought Apis, Cambyses being somewhat affected with madness drew his dagger, and aiming at the belly of Apis, struck his thigh: then he laughed and said to the priests: "O ye wretched creatures, are gods born such as this, with blood and flesh, and sensible of the stroke of iron weapons? Worthy indeed of Egyptians is such a god as this. Ye however at least shall not escape without punishment for making a mockery of me."
Having thus spoken he ordered those whose duty it was to do such things, to scourge the priests without mercy, and to put to death any one of the other Egyptians whom they should find keeping the festival. Thus the festival of the Egyptians had been brought to an end, and the priests were being chastised, and Apis wounded by the stroke in his thigh lay dying in the temple.
Next, Cambyses had his brother Smerdis killed because he had a dream that Smerdis was sitting on the royal throne. It turned out that the Smerdis in the dream referred to a different Smerdis and not Cambyses’ brother. So he accidentally sent his hitman Prexaspes to kill his brother. He then profaned Persian customs by marrying two of his sisters and proceeded to murder the younger one. Herodotus provides two accounts of the murder:
The Hellenes say that Cambyses had matched a lion's cub in fight with a dog's whelp, and this wife of his was also a spectator of it; and when the whelp was being overcome, another whelp, its brother, broke its chain and came to help it; and having become two instead of one, the whelps then got the better of the cub: and Cambyses was pleased at the sight, but she sitting by him began to weep; and Cambyses perceived it and asked wherefore she wept; and she said that she had wept when she saw that the whelp had come to the assistance of its brother, because she remembered Smerdis and perceived that there was no one who would come to his assistance.
The Hellenes say that it was for this saying that she was killed by Cambyses: but the Egyptians say that as they were sitting round at table, the wife took a lettuce and pulled off the leaves all round, and then asked her husband whether the lettuce was fairer when thus plucked round or when covered with leaves, and he said "when covered with leaves.” She then spoke thus: "Nevertheless thou didst once produce the likeness of this lettuce, when thou didst strip bare the house of Cyrus." And he moved to anger leapt upon her, being with child, and she miscarried and died.
The nobles around the king started to get concerned. Prexaspes was next in the crosshairs for failing to provide a satisfactory answer as to what the Persian people thought of Cambyses. Prexaspes’ told Cambyses that the people gave him high praise in all things but were concerned by him being excessively fond of wine. Madness again overtook Cambyses:
"Learn then now for thyself whether the Persians speak truly, or whether when they say this they are themselves out of their senses: for if I, shooting at thy son there standing before the entrance of the chamber, hit him in the very middle of the heart, the Persians will be proved to be speaking falsely, but if I miss, then thou mayest say that the Persians are speaking the truth and that I am not in my right mind."
Having thus said he drew his bow and hit the boy; and when the boy had fallen down, it is said that he ordered them to cut open his body and examine the place where he was hit; and as the arrow was found to be sticking in the heart, he laughed and was delighted, and said to the father of the boy:
"Prexaspes, it has now been made evident, as thou seest, that I am not mad, but that it is the Persians who are out of their senses; and now tell me, whom of all men didst thou ever see before this time hit the mark so well in shooting?" Then Prexaspes, seeing that the man was not in his right senses and fearing for himself, said: "Master, I think that not even God himself could have hit the mark so fairly."
But wait, there’s more! Another time Cambyses took twelve noble Persians and for no good reason had them buried alive. Finally, Croesus had enough of this madness and chastised Cambyses with these words:
"O king, do not thou indulge the heat of thy youth and passion in all things, but retain and hold thyself back: it is a good thing to be prudent, and forethought is wise. Thou however are putting to death men who are of thine own people, condemning them on charges of no moment, and thou art putting to death men's sons also. If thou do many such things, beware lest the Persians make revolt from thee. As for me, thy father Cyrus gave me charge, earnestly bidding me to admonish thee, and suggest to thee that which I should find to be good."
Cambyses lost it and went after Croesus:
"Dost thou venture to counsel me, who excellently well didst rule thine own country, and well didst counsel my father, bidding him pass over the river Araxes and go against the Massagetae, when they were willing to pass over into our land, and so didst utterly ruin thyself by ill government of thine own land, and didst utterly ruin Cyrus, who followed thy counsel. However thou shalt not escape punishment now, for know that before this I had very long been desiring to find some occasion against thee!"
Thus having said this, Cambyses took his bow meaning to shoot him, but Croesus started up and ran out: and so since he could not shoot him, he gave orders to his attendants to take and slay him. The attendants however, knowing his moods, concealed Croesus, with the intention that if Cambyses should change his mind and seek to have Croesus again, they might produce him and receive gifts as the price of saving his life; but if he did not change his mind nor feel desire to have him back, then they might kill him. Not long afterwards Cambyses did in fact desire to have Croesus again, and the attendants perceiving this reported to him that he was still alive: and Cambyses said that he rejoiced with Croesus that he was still alive, but that they who had preserved him should not get off free, but he would put them to death: and thus he did.
Such was the madness of Cambyses. I believe much of this madness was due to the fact that Cambyses lived in the shadow of Cyrus and wanted to rival his father’s glory. But after Egypt was conquered, there was not really any place for the Persian Empire to logically expand. To the North, indomitable steppe nomads; to the East, the edge of the world where Cyrus met his doom; to the West lay Carthage and Greece. Persia depended on Tyre for its naval forces, and the Phoenicians in Tyre would never wage war against their kin who went on to colonize Carthage sometime around 9th century BC. Greece was a logistical challenge too. The land was mountainous, there were fortified cities with bronze-clad warriors to the south, hordes of barbarian Thracians to the North, and crossing the Aegean Sea with enough forces to subdue Greece was a lot easier said than done.
Cambyses's successor, King Darius, would derive his fame by “reorganizing” the empire, but once this well of glory was drained, he would run into the same problem Cambyses faced. These Persian kings needed to expand but simply could not get it done. Similar to how I suggested the destiny of Egypt ended when it stopped building, the destinies of great empires like Persia and Rome ended when they could no longer conquer new lands.
One final thing: observe the difference between the madness of Cambyses and the madness of other tyrants — particularly that of the Roman emperors like Nero and Caligula. The right often likes to reconsider the madness of these Roman tyrants and cast it as a sort of Nietzschean letting loose. We often hear, “These guys were real free spirits! The ultimate gigachads that mogged weak soyjack senators and old republic-enjoyers!”
It seems absurd to cast Cambyses in the same light, but why? While the Persian Empire was something serious, Imperial Rome was a parody. Rome was a republic founded on tyrannicide, so it is ironic that they eventually found themselves submitting to tyrants that paraded around as petulant wanna-be gods. But with the Persians and the madness of Cambyses, where is the irony? Where is the joke?
Laconic Speech
We need to be talking less. Politically, we should learn to describe our crisis, our vision, and our strategy with just a few words. Laconic-synthesis: this would be a great accomplishment.
When those of the Samians who had been driven out by Polycrates reached Sparta, they were introduced before the magistrates and spoke at length, being urgent in their request. The Spartan magistrates however at the first introduction replied that they had forgotten the things which had been spoken at the beginning and did not understand those which were spoken at the end. After this, The Samians were introduced a second time, and bringing with them a bag they said nothing else but this, namely that the bag was in want of meal; to which the Spartans replied that they had overdone it with the bag. However, they resolved to help them.
The Tactical Lie
Patizeithes and Smerdis, two brothers who were part of the Magi clan, eventually revolted against Cambyses. Many in Persia still believed that Cambyses’ brother Smerdis was still alive, and the Magi Smerdis bore a striking resemblance to the slain brother. The scheme was simply for the Magi Smerdis to rule as an imposter. They sent heralds all through the kingdom letting people know that Smerdis was in, and Cambyses was out.
Then Cambyses, when he heard the name of Smerdis, perceived at once the true meaning of this report and of the dream, for he thought in his sleep that someone had reported to him that Smerdis was sitting upon the royal throne and had touched the heaven with his head: and perceiving that he had slain his brother without need, he began to lament for Smerdis; and having lamented for him and sorrowed greatly for the whole mishap, he was leaping upon his horse, meaning as quickly as possible to march his army to Susa against the Magian; and as he leapt upon his horse, the cap of his sword-sheath fell off, and the sword being left bare struck his thigh. Having been wounded then in the same part where he had formerly struck Apis the god of the Egyptians.
So Cambyses’ crimes eventually caught up with him and he died from his wound soon after. The imposter Smerdis quickly consolidated his rule, but a gang of Persian nobles who knew the truth began to conspire. Future king Darius was one of the seven Persian patriots and the most decisive. He orchestrated a plan to storm the royal palace in the city of Susa and slay the Magi usurpers without hesitation. To get past the royal guards, Darius would have to lie, and he offered this justification for lying:
“For where it is necessary that a lie be spoken, let it be spoken; seeing that we all aim at the same object, both they who lie and they who always speak the truth; those lie whenever they are likely to gain anything by persuading with their lies, and these tell the truth in order that they may draw to themselves gain by the truth, and that things may be entrusted to them more readily. Thus, while practicing different ways, we aim all at the same thing. If however they were not likely to make any gain by it, the truth-teller would lie and the liar would speak the truth, with indifference.”
Darius the Nietzschean! For Darius, telling the truth and lying are just two equal means to express one's will to power. If Darius had been a stickler for the truth and weighed down by a bad conscious towards lying, he would never have become a great man and Persia would have continued under the rule of illegitimate Magi imposters.
Otanes Presents the Case for Democracy
When all the commotion had subsided, the men who had revolted against the Magi consulted with one another about the whole situation. Three cases were put forward as to what kind of government they should create. Otanes was the first to speak and presented the case for democracy:
“Otanes urged that they should resign the government into the hands of the whole body of the Persians, and his words were as follows: "To me it seems best that no single one of us should henceforth be ruler, for that is neither pleasant nor profitable. Ye saw the insolent temper of Cambyses, to what lengths it went, and ye have had experience also of the insolence of the Magi.”
Against monarchy: everyone in the society is liable to the caprice of one man.
“How should the rule of one alone be a well-ordered thing, seeing that the monarch may do what he desires without rendering any account of his acts? Even the best of all men, if he were placed in this disposition, would be caused by it to change from his wonted disposition: for insolence is engendered in him by the good things which he possesses, and envy is implanted in man from nature.”
Against monarchy: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
“Having these two things [insolence and envy], he has all vice: for he does many deeds of reckless wrong, partly moved by insolence proceeding from satiety, and partly by envy. And yet a despot at least ought to have been free from envy, seeing that he has all manner of good things. He is however naturally in just the opposite temper towards his subjects; for he grudges to the nobles that they should survive and live, but delights in the basest of citizens, and he is more ready than any other man to receive calumnies.”
Against monarchy — all virtue must drain to the sovereign. Any virtue outside the sovereign is a threat to their rule and legitimacy. Therefore, the citizenry must be obedient children, not self-governing men. This has the effect of creating a weak society of people that are easy to conquer (contrast how swiftly Alexander took Persia down with the difficulties the Persians had with the Scythians and Greeks).
“Then of all things he is the most inconsistent; for if you express admiration of him moderately, he is offended that no very great court is paid to him, whereas if you pay court to him extravagantly, he is offended with you for being a flatterer. And the most important matter of all is that which I am about to say: — he disturbs the customs handed down from our fathers, he is a ravisher of women, and he puts men to death without trial.”
Against monarchy: a man having absolute authority over another man is unnatural.
“On the other hand the rule of many has first a name attaching to it which is the fairest of all names, that is to say 'Equality'; next, the multitude does none of those things which the monarch does: offices of state are exercised by lot, and the magistrates are compelled to render account of their action: and finally all matters of deliberation are referred to the public assembly. I therefore give as my opinion that we let monarchy go and increase the power of the multitude; for in the many is contained everything.”
For democracy: majority rule presupposes natural equality among all people under the law (not political or economic equality). In addition, checks and balances come naturally to democratic regimes.
In all, Otanes case for democracy is pretty weak and will get picked apart by Megabyzos in the next speech. It is childish to suppose that the rule of the majority is somehow better or less prone to error. In all, the Greeks and their conception of mixed regimes is far superior to any single form mentioned among these Persians. It also seems unlikely that a monarchical multicultural empire could suddenly flip the switch and make a successful transition to democracy.
Megabyzos Makes the Case for Oligarchy
Next, Megabyzos urged the group to support an oligarchic form of government:
"That which Otanes said in opposition to a tyranny, let it be counted as said for me also, but in that which he said urging that we should make over the power to the multitude, he has missed the best counsel: for nothing is more senseless or insolent than a worthless crowd; and for men flying from the insolence of a despot to fall into that of unrestrained popular power, is by no means to be endured: for he, if he does anything, does it knowing what he does, but the people cannot even know; for how can that know which has neither been taught anything noble by others nor perceived anything of itself, but pushes on matters with violent impulse and without understanding, like a torrent stream?”
Against democracy: the “people” are nothing more than a mob. Giving power to the people would be like putting a ship on a stormy sea without a crew or captain. Democracy is hoisting a sail and leaving your fate to the wind.
“So let those hostile to the Persians be government by the many; but let us choose a company of the best men, and to them attach the chief power; for in the number of these we shall ourselves also be, and it is likely that the resolutions taken by the best men will be the best."
For oligarchy: a country is best off when the best men alone have the power to make the important decisions.
Megabyzos’ critique of democracy is an extremely pessimistic counter to Otanes’ optimism. Democracy works when there is moral and physical equality among the people. For example, in a city comprised of ten thousand citizen-warriors that till their own land, follow the same customs, and value the same values, maybe you can have a democracy. Thucydides tells us that men are more inflamed by being cheated by an equal than compelled by a superior — moral and physical equals will not tolerate being arbitrarily ruled by someone else. Where the many are virtuous, they will make a democracy for themselves if they want it, but where the many are more like decadent drones, the aristocrats have a moral obligation to keep the reins of power far away from the mob. But thinking more closely, Megabyzos’ dig suggesting that the people are nothing more than a dumb and uninformed mob might actually be a powerful case for democracy. What means?
Democracy allows for virtuous stupidity, and to understand this you need to try and juggle multiple perspectives. Kings and oligarchs may degrade the people and write them off as idiots, but their perspectives may be skewed. Just look at how our own ruling class dismisses what we perceive to be legitimate and real grievances. While the people’s stupidity can certainly doom a state (the Athenians after the Greco-Persian Wars supply countless examples of that) it can also rescue the state from tyrannical cabals. In the world of lies, “truth” is just a plastic cover to try and legitimize the regime’s power. Their truth is not your truth. So, delighting in stupidity is the only way out for dissidents. The final virtue of Our Democracy ™ is that the people are always just one demagogue away from devolving into delirious stupidity and breaking through the veil of lies.
Darius Makes the Case for Monarchy
Lastly, we hear from Darius and his case for sticking with monarchy:
"To me it seems that in those things which Megabyzos said with regard to the multitude he spoke rightly, but in those which he said with regard to the rule of a few, not rightly: for whereas there are three things set before us, and each is supposed to be the best in its own kind, that is to say a good popular government, and the rule of a few, and thirdly the rule of one, I say that this last is by far superior to the others; for nothing better can be found than the rule of an individual man of the best kind; seeing that using the best judgment he would be guardian of the multitude without reproach; and resolutions directed against enemies would so best be kept secret.”
For monarchy: if oligarchy is rule by the best men, why shouldn’t the best oligarch just rule alone as king?
“In an oligarchy however it happens often that many, while practicing virtue with regard to the commonwealth, have strong private enmities arising among themselves; for as each man desires to be himself the leader and to prevail in counsels, they come to great enmities with one another, whence arise factions among them, and out of the factions comes murder, and from murder results the rule of one man; and thus it is shown in this instance by how much that is the best.”
Against oligarchy: feuds will inevitably arise among the oligarchs. They will even harm the common good to secure their own private advantage.
“Again, when the people rule, it is impossible that corruption should not arise, and when corruption arises in the commonwealth, there arise among the corrupt men not enmities but strong ties of friendship: for they who are acting corruptly to the injury of the commonwealth put their heads together secretly to do so. And this continues so until at last someone takes the leadership of the people and stops the course of such men. By reason of this the man of whom I speak is admired by the people, and being so admired he suddenly appears as monarch. Thus he too furnishes herein an example to prove that the rule of one is the best thing.”
For monarchy: if all roads eventually lead to monarchy why not just skip to the end? Why even go through oligarchy and democracy?
“Finally, to sum up all in a single word, whence arose the liberty which we possess, and who gave it to us? Was it a gift of the people or of an oligarchy or of a monarch? I therefore am of opinion that we, having been set free by one man, should preserve that form of rule, and in other respects also that we should not annul the customs of our fathers which are ordered well; for that is not the better way."
It is Darius’ final argument that is most compelling. The form of government a people live under is a reflection of their spirit (or at least a reflection of the spirit of those who founded it). Here we also see the classic divide between the ancient and modern views of natural rights. The ancient Persian thinks their freedom comes from the king while the modern citizens understands that their freedom is inherent in their being.
Understand this: Cambyses was possessed by madness; he then secretly killed his brother, and then the Magi went on to impersonate the slain brother. Subsequently, Cambyses mortally wounded himself while mounting his horse, and just like that, the monarch had died, and the government had been usurped by imposters. That was the recent experience the Persians had in mind when deciding to continue with monarchy. So remember, custom is king.
The Ideal Executive
Herodotus gives us a helpful summary of the three Persian kings that have appeared in his story to this point:
The Persians say that Darius was a shopkeeper, Cambyses a master, and Cyrus a father; the one because he dealt with all his affairs like a shopkeeper, the second because he was harsh and had little regard for anyone, and the other because he was gentle and contrived for them all things good.
Is it better for an executive to lean into just one of these traits or to incorporate them altogether? Can Cambyses be left out of this synthesis or is the harsh and scornful master a necessary element of the ideal executive?
The current bureaucratic pseudo-democracy we currently have is the system least suited to the well being and flourishing of the bugmen, and so it is the system that the bugmen deserve.