The Fractured Succession: A Kingdom Divided

In 486 BCE, as Darius the Great prepared for another expedition against Athens, the Persian Empire faced twin crises: a major revolt in Egypt and a bitter succession dispute among his sons. Darius had fathered seven sons—three by the daughter of the noble Gobryas (the eldest being Artobazanes) and four by Atossa, daughter of Cyrus the Great (the eldest being Xerxes). The rivalry between Artobazanes and Xerxes encapsulated a clash of traditions: while Artobazanes argued for primogeniture, Xerxes leveraged his royal lineage through Atossa and Cyrus.

The exiled Spartan king Demaratus, seeking refuge at Susa, intervened decisively. He advised Xerxes to frame his claim around a technicality: since Artobazanes was born before Darius became king, whereas Xerxes was born after Darius’s coronation, Persian custom—mirroring Spartan practice—favored the latter. This argument, combined with Atossa’s political influence, secured Xerxes’ designation as heir. The resolution came just in time: Darius died soon after, leaving Xerxes to inherit an empire in turmoil.

The Egyptian Revolt and Xerxes’ Iron Fist

Xerxes’ first test as king was subduing rebellious Egypt. His campaign in 485 BCE was brutal, imposing harsher rule than under Darius. Egypt’s governance was entrusted to Xerxes’ brother Achaemenes, whose eventual assassination in 460 BCE underscored the region’s volatility. This early victory set a tone for Xerxes’ reign—one of uncompromising authority and expansionist ambition.

The Council of War: Voices for and Against Greece

Initially indifferent to Greece, Xerxes was swayed by his cousin Mardonius, who envisioned governing a conquered Greek province. Mardonius’s arguments blended vengeance (for Athens’ burning of Sardis in 499 BCE) and imperial glory: “Europe’s fertile lands await your rule,” he urged. Support came from Greek exiles like the Thessalian Aleuadae and Athens’ ousted tyrant Hippias, who promised tribute and divine favor through cherry-picked oracles.

Yet dissent emerged from Xerxes’ uncle Artabanus, a veteran of Darius’s ill-fated Scythian campaign. Warning of logistical nightmares—particularly the vulnerability of the Hellespont bridge—and invoking divine retribution against hubris, Artabanus proposed a wager: let Mardonius lead the army alone, with their sons’ lives as collateral. Xerxes, however, dismissed such caution as cowardice. “Inaction invites attack,” he declared, framing the invasion as a binary choice: dominate or be dominated.

The Dream and the Omen: A King’s Fate Sealed

On the eve of war, Xerxes dreamed of an olive crown withering after briefly spanning the earth. Zoroastrian priests interpreted this as a prophecy of universal dominion—a reading Xerxes embraced. The empire mobilized, lured by promises of rewards. The stage was set for the Greco-Persian Wars’ defining clash: Thermopylae, Salamis, and the unraveling of Persian ambitions in Europe.

Legacy: The Cost of Overreach

Xerxes’ Greek campaign (480–479 BCE) became a cautionary tale. Despite early victories, the battles of Salamis and Plataea shattered Persian momentum. The empire’s overextension, coupled with cultural arrogance (embodied in Mardonius’s dismissal of Greek tactics), revealed fatal flaws. Artabanus’s warnings proved prescient: the campaign drained resources, emboldened Greek unity, and eroded Persian prestige.

Modern parallels abound—from Napoleon’s Russia to contemporary military quagmires. Xerxes’ story underscores the perils of imperial overreach, the volatility of succession politics, and the seductive danger of unchecked ambition. His reign, though marked by grandeur, ultimately highlighted the limits of even history’s mightiest empires.