Xerxes' death, aftermath and interpretations: HSC Ancient History
“The last years and the assassination of Xerxes in 465 BC, the court conspiracy of Artabanus the chiliarch, the accession of Artaxerxes I, an assessment of the reign and the empire's condition, and the problem of evidence: the hostile Greek tradition, Persian royal self-presentation, and modern revisionist interpretations”
Xerxes reigned 486-465 BC. After the failed invasion of Greece (Salamis 480 BC; Plataea and Mycale 479 BC), he lost a distant western frontier but the empire stayed intact and prosperous, its wealth advertised by the completion of Persepolis. In 465 BC he was assassinated in a court conspiracy led by Artabanus the chiliarch, reportedly with the eunuch Aspamitres; the crown prince Darius was killed and Artaxerxes I took the throne (465-424 BC), though these details come from late, contradictory Greek sources (Ctesias, Diodorus, Justin, Aristotle) and are genuinely unreliable. The evaluation turns on the problem of evidence: the dominant hostile Greek tradition (Aeschylus' Persae 472 BC, Herodotus) built the arrogant, hubristic despot; the Persian royal inscriptions (the daiva inscription) present a pious king favoured by Ahuramazda; and modern revisionists (Briant, Kuhrt, Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Wiesehofer) reject the Hellenocentric "decline" narrative, noting the empire survived until 330 BC. No neutral, contemporary portrait of Xerxes survives, so any confident verdict says as much about its makers as about the king.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
NESA's "Evaluation" strand for Xerxes wants you to explain how his reign actually ended - the last years after the Greek campaign and the court assassination of 465 BC - trace the accession of Artaxerxes I, assess the real condition of the empire he left behind, and then weigh how three very different bodies of evidence have each produced a different "Xerxes": the hostile Greek tradition, the Persian royal self-presentation, and modern revisionist scholarship. This is the historiography capstone of the personality: the page where source reliability, perspective and the problem of a one-sided record carry the marks.
Imagine the only surviving reviews of a football coach were written by the fans of the team that beat him. They will tell you he was arrogant, that he cheated the weather, that his dressing room was a snake-pit - and almost nothing about the games he actually won or the club he kept running smoothly for years. That is the Xerxes problem. Nearly everything colourful we "know" - the tyrant who whipped the sea, the palace murder in the dark - comes from Greek writers cheering their own famous win, or from a court gossip columnist writing decades later. Xerxes' own side left mostly polished official statues and inscriptions, like a company's glossy annual report: "everything is wonderful, the boss is wise and blessed by God." Modern historians now argue we have been believing the rival fans for 2,500 years, and that the "arrogant despot" is at least half a Greek invention. The trick in the exam is not to pick a side but to show you can see the whole crowd.
The answer
The last years after the invasion
Xerxes became king in 486 BC on the death of his father Darius I, and his reign is dominated in the Greek record by the great invasion of Greece in 480-479 BC. After the naval defeat at Salamis (480 BC) and the land and sea defeats at Plataea and Mycale (479 BC), Xerxes withdrew from the Greek theatre. For the empire this was the loss of a distant western frontier, not a mortal blow: the vast bulk of the empire - the satrapies of the Near East, the tribute system, the royal roads - continued to function, and Xerxes' enormous building programme at Persepolis (the Gate of All Nations and the Throne Hall, or Hall of a Hundred Columns) went on projecting undiminished wealth and power.
The Greek sources, having little access to the Persian court, fill these later years mostly with tales of harem intrigue and decadence. These stories should be treated with great caution: they suit the Greek image of an oriental court in moral decline and are not confirmed by Persian evidence.
Xerxes reigned 486-465 BC. The invasion of Greece failed at Salamis (480 BC) and Plataea and Mycale (479 BC), but the empire remained territorially intact and prosperous. Xerxes was assassinated in a court conspiracy in 465 BC and succeeded by his son Artaxerxes I (reigned 465-424 BC). The Achaemenid Empire survived until Alexander's conquest in 330 BC, roughly 135 years later.
The assassination of 465 BC
In 465 BC Xerxes was assassinated in a palace conspiracy. The dominant tradition, preserved by the Greek writer Ctesias (Persica) and by Diodorus Siculus, names the ringleader as Artabanus, the chiliarch - the commander of the royal bodyguard and one of the most powerful officials at court. (This Artabanus must not be confused with Xerxes' uncle of the same name, who in Herodotus counselled against invading Greece: they are two different men a generation apart.) Working with a court eunuch named Aspamitres, Artabanus is said to have killed Xerxes in his bedchamber at night.
The story then turns on a deception. Artabanus reportedly persuaded Xerxes' younger son, Artaxerxes, that the murder had been committed by his elder brother, the crown prince Darius; Artaxerxes had Darius killed, and so was manoeuvred toward the throne. Artabanus, aiming at the kingship himself, then plotted against Artaxerxes but was exposed and destroyed. Artaxerxes I secured the throne and reigned until 424 BC.
These details are genuinely unreliable and should always be flagged as such. The accounts are late, non-Persian and contradictory. Aristotle (Politics) gives a different motive altogether, saying Artabanus killed Xerxes out of fear of punishment for having earlier put Darius to death on the king's own orders - reversing the sequence of the murders. Ctesias in particular drew on court gossip and dramatic palace-intrigue tales, exactly the "eunuchs and daggers" shape the Greeks liked to attach to the Persian court, so the narrative is as much a Greek literary stereotype as a record of fact.
Assessment of the reign
If the reign is judged by the Greek record alone, it reads as a story of hubris and failure: a colossal invasion humbled at Salamis, followed by decline and murder. Judged from the empire's own side, the picture is very different. The Greek campaign was an expensive failure on the western edge of a huge empire, but it did not shake the imperial core. Early revolts in Egypt (c. 485 BC) and Babylon (c. 484 BC, under the rebels Bel-shimanni and Shamash-eriba) were suppressed, demonstrating that the centre still commanded the provinces. The tribute economy, the administration and the road network continued, and the monumental completion of Persepolis advertised a confident, wealthy state.
Crucially, the empire did not fall or fragment after Xerxes. It passed to Artaxerxes I and endured, through further Achaemenid kings, for roughly another 135 years, until Alexander the Great overthrew Darius III in 330 BC. This survival is the strongest single argument against the old "decline begins with Xerxes" thesis: an empire that lasted more than a century after the supposed turning point was not, in any structural sense, in terminal decline in 465 BC.
The problem of evidence: three Xerxes
The heart of this dot point is that we do not have one Xerxes but three, produced by three different kinds of evidence that pull in different directions.
- The hostile Greek tradition (dominant)
- This is the source of almost every vivid detail. Aeschylus' tragedy The Persians (472 BC) is the earliest surviving account and casts Xerxes as the type of the hubristic tyrant, punished by the gods for yoking the Hellespont and overreaching human limits, set against the wise dead king Darius. Herodotus (Histories, especially Books 7-9) develops the same pattern - the whipping of the Hellespont, the vast doomed host, the king swayed by flatterers - though Herodotus is more complex than the caricature and grants Xerxes moments of pathos, such as weeping at Abydos at the thought that all his soldiers would be dead within a century. Ctesias and later writers add court decadence and eunuch conspiracy. This tradition is powerful, early and detailed, but it is the perspective of the enemies who defeated him.
- Persian royal self-presentation
- Against this stands the evidence Xerxes' own regime produced: the royal inscriptions and the building programme. The trilingual "daiva inscription" from Persepolis presents Xerxes as a pious king ruling by the favour of Ahuramazda, suppressing false gods (daivas) and upholding order (arta). The architecture - the Gate of All Nations, the Throne Hall - projects legitimate, ordered, universal kingship. This evidence is in the king's own voice and is highly useful for how the Persian court wished Xerxes to be seen, but it is official ideology, not a candid record: it tells us the image, not the man.
- Modern revisionist rehabilitation
- Twentieth and twenty-first century historians of the Achaemenids have argued that scholarship must stop reading Persia through Greek eyes. Pierre Briant (From Cyrus to Alexander, English 2002) reconstructs the empire on its own administrative terms and rejects the "decadence" narrative. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg coined the critique of "Hellenocentrism", arguing that the "decline of Persia" was a Greek literary theme, not a Persian reality. Amelie Kuhrt (The Persian Empire, 2007) and Josef Wiesehofer (Ancient Persia, 1996) likewise work to reclaim Xerxes and the empire from the Greek caricature, stressing the stability and longevity of Achaemenid rule. The corrective is essential, but it has its own limit: because the Persian sources are formulaic propaganda, the revisionists can dismantle the Greek despot more easily than they can reconstruct a fully rounded alternative Xerxes.
How to read a source on this topic
Section III sources on Xerxes' death and image typically include extracts adapted from Herodotus or Aeschylus, museum-style descriptions of Persepolis reliefs or inscriptions, later narratives of the assassination, or quotations from modern historians. Three reading habits matter here.
First, always ask which of the three traditions a source belongs to. A passage of Aeschylus or Herodotus is hostile Greek MEMORY; a royal inscription or a description of Persepolis is Persian SELF-PRESENTATION; a quotation from Briant or Kuhrt is modern INTERPRETATION of the other two. Each answers a different question, and confusing them is the classic error.
Second, treat the assassination narrative as contested, not settled. Ctesias, Diodorus, Justin and Aristotle disagree on the motive and the order of the killings. A source that recounts the bedchamber murder as plain fact is simplifying a genuinely unreliable tradition, and you should say so.
Third, when a source quotes a modern historian, place them: is this the Greek-derived "despot and decline" reading, or the revisionist "stable empire, Greek distortion" reading (Briant, Kuhrt, Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Wiesehofer)? Naming the side, and why they hold it, is what turns name-dropping into historiography.
- Command words
- "Outline" wants a compact, sequenced factual answer (the assassination sequence, the reign's dates). "Explain" wants a causal or interpretive LINK (why the sources are unreliable, why the empire did not decline). "Assess" / "evaluate" / "to what extent" demand a sustained JUDGEMENT: state a verdict on the question and defend it in every paragraph, rather than describing both sides neutrally.
- Using a source in four moves
- (1) Content: what does it actually show (a line of Aeschylus, a clause of the daiva inscription, a king-list omission). (2) Reliability: who produced it, how long after the events, with what likely bias (Aeschylus is Athenian tragedy eight years after Salamis). (3) Usefulness: what specific question it can answer despite that bias (useful for the Greek image, not for Persian policy). (4) Perspective: whose interest it serves (Greek victor, Persian court, or modern scholar).
- Weaving in historiography
- Never simply list historians. Use the pattern "[source] shows X; [historian] reads this as Y because Z; against [counter-evidence or a second historian], the more defensible reading is W." For Xerxes the strongest move is to set the hostile Greek tradition against the revisionists (Briant, Sancisi-Weerdenburg) and then judge the reliability of the evidence itself.
1. Source-analysis response (content, reliability, usefulness). "Aeschylus' The Persians, staged in 472 BC, is useful evidence for how Athens constructed Xerxes, but not for Xerxes himself. Its content - the king who yokes the Hellespont and is punished by the gods for hubris - fixes the archetype of the arrogant oriental despot. Its reliability as a report of Persia is very low: it is a tragedy written for an Athenian audience only eight years after Salamis, and its purpose is moral and civic rather than documentary. Its usefulness therefore lies in showing the ORIGIN and perspective of the hostile Greek tradition, not in telling us what Xerxes actually did or intended."
Marker's note: this response separates content from reliability and usefulness explicitly, dates the source, and identifies its perspective as Athenian rather than treating it as a neutral account of Persia.
2. Essay paragraph (weighing the Greek tradition against the revisionists). "Where the Greek tradition, from Aeschylus to Herodotus, reads Xerxes' reign as hubris followed by decline, the modern revisionists read the same outcome very differently. Briant and Sancisi-Weerdenburg argue that the loss of a distant Greek frontier left the imperial core - its satrapies, tribute and roads - untouched, and that the 'decline of Persia' is a Hellenocentric literary theme rather than an administrative fact. The decisive evidence is longevity: the empire passed intact to Artaxerxes I and survived until 330 BC, more than a century later, which is difficult to reconcile with a state supposedly in terminal decline from 465 BC. The more defensible reading is therefore that the 'decline' belongs to the Greek record, not to the empire."
Marker's note: names competing positions with their actual arguments, ties the judgement to the concrete evidence of the empire's survival to 330 BC, and reaches an explicit verdict rather than juxtaposing two views.
3. Short-answer response (the unreliability of the assassination accounts). "The accounts of Xerxes' murder in 465 BC are unreliable. No contemporary Persian record survives; the narrative depends on later Greek writers - Ctesias, Diodorus, Justin - who disagree with one another, and Aristotle gives a different motive again, reversing the order of the deaths of Xerxes and the prince Darius. Ctesias in particular drew on court gossip and the Greek stereotype of a decadent, eunuch-ridden Persian court, so the vivid bedchamber detail should be treated as a probable literary construction rather than established fact."
Marker's note: rewards naming several sources, one concrete contradiction, and the Hellenocentric stereotype, and reaching a qualified conclusion rather than retelling the murder as certain.
- Retelling the invasion instead of evaluating the reign
- This dot point is about the death, aftermath and INTERPRETATION of Xerxes; a blow-by-blow of Salamis earns little. Use the campaign only as evidence in an argument about the reign and its image.
- Presenting the assassination narrative as certain
- The bedchamber murder, the framing of Darius and the roles of Artabanus and Aspamitres come from late, contradictory Greek sources; say "in the dominant tradition" and note Aristotle's variant, rather than "Artabanus killed Xerxes and then...".
- Accepting the "decline begins with Xerxes" thesis uncritically
- The empire remained intact and lasted until 330 BC; the decline is largely a Greek reading. Cite the survival of the empire and the revisionists (Briant, Sancisi-Weerdenburg) to counter it.
- Treating the Greek sources as neutral, or listing historians
- Aeschylus and Herodotus are the victors' perspective; the daiva inscription is court propaganda; Briant and Kuhrt are modern correctives. Name each source's tradition and use it to build an argument, rather than dropping names without positions.
Practice questions
Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.
foundation4 marksSource A: an ExamExplained reconstruction of the kind of later Greek court narrative used to describe Xerxes' death: "In the night Artabanus, commander of the royal guard, with the help of a chamberlain, entered the king's bedchamber and killed him. He then went to the younger son and told him that his brother, the crown prince, was the murderer, and so turned the two brothers against each other."
Using Source A and your own knowledge, outline what this evidence suggests about how Xerxes died.
Show worked solution →
1 mark: identifies that Xerxes was assassinated (not killed in battle or by natural causes) in a palace/court setting in 465 BC.
1 mark: identifies the assassin as a senior court official, Artabanus the chiliarch (commander of the royal guard), acting with an accomplice (a eunuch chamberlain).
1 mark: identifies the second stage - Artabanus falsely accused the crown prince Darius, so that the younger son (Artaxerxes) had his brother killed and eventually took the throne himself.
1 mark: notes the source's nature - it is a later Greek narrative of court intrigue (the Ctesias/Diodorus tradition), so its vivid bedchamber detail is likely embellished and should be treated with caution.
Marker's note: full marks require BOTH the identity of the assassin AND the false-accusation twist, plus a note that this is a late, gossip-based tradition; a response that only says "he was murdered" caps at 2 marks.
foundation4 marksOutline the sequence of events surrounding Xerxes' death and the accession of Artaxerxes I in 465 BC.Show worked solution →
1 mark: Xerxes is assassinated in 465 BC, about fifteen years after the failed invasion of Greece.
1 mark: the killing is led by Artabanus, the chiliarch (commander of the royal bodyguard), reportedly with the eunuch Aspamitres.
1 mark: the crown prince Darius, Xerxes' eldest son, is also killed - in the dominant tradition, framed by Artabanus and executed by his brother.
1 mark: Artaxerxes I becomes king (reigned 465-424 BC), and soon destroys Artabanus, who had aimed at the throne himself.
Marker's note: rewards the correct order plus the qualifier that the details come from unreliable later sources; do not present the bedchamber narrative as certain fact.
core6 marksSource B: an ExamExplained paraphrase of the kind of trilingual royal inscription set up by Xerxes at Persepolis (in the style of the "daiva inscription"): "By the favour of Ahuramazda I am Xerxes, the great king, king of kings. Among these lands there was a place where formerly the daivas (false gods) were worshipped. By the favour of Ahuramazda I destroyed that sanctuary of the daivas and proclaimed: the daivas shall not be worshipped. Where formerly the daivas were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahuramazda with reverence."
Using Source B and your own knowledge, explain how this source reflects Xerxes' self-presentation as a king.
Show worked solution →
1-2 marks: describes the content - the king, empowered by the god Ahuramazda, claims to have destroyed a sanctuary of "daivas" (false or demonic gods) and re-established correct worship.
2 marks: explains the self-image conveyed - Xerxes presents himself not as a despot but as the pious upholder of divine order (arta) against falsehood, ruling by the favour of Ahuramazda; this is the standard Achaemenid royal ideology, also seen in his building programme at Persepolis (the Gate of All Nations, the Throne Hall).
2 marks: evaluates the source as evidence - it is official royal propaganda in the king's own voice, so it is highly useful for how the Persian court wished Xerxes to be seen, but it is not a neutral record of events; its "daiva" claim may be generic pious formula rather than a specific historical act, and it flatly contradicts the Greek image of an impious, hubristic tyrant.
Marker's note: top responses explicitly contrast this Persian self-presentation with the hostile Greek tradition and use the term "perspective" or "propaganda", rather than treating the inscription as a plain factual report.
core5 marksExplain why historians treat the ancient accounts of Xerxes' assassination as unreliable.Show worked solution →
1 mark: states the problem - there is no contemporary Persian record of the murder; the narrative depends on later Greek writers, chiefly Ctesias (Persica, early 4th century BC) and Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), with Justin and Aristotle giving further variants.
2 marks: identifies the contradictions - the sources disagree on the details and even the motive: Ctesias and Diodorus have Artabanus frame the crown prince Darius, while Aristotle (Politics) has Artabanus kill Xerxes out of fear of punishment for having earlier killed Darius on the king's orders; the order of the deaths and the accomplices vary.
2 marks: explains the cause - Ctesias drew on court gossip and dramatic palace-intrigue tales rather than documents, and Greek writers were predisposed to depict the Persian court as a nest of decadence, eunuchs and murder, so the "harem conspiracy" shape of the story is partly a Greek literary stereotype.
Marker's note: rewards naming at least two sources and one concrete contradiction, and recognising the Hellenocentric bias of the tradition, not just "the sources are old".
core6 marksAssess the usefulness of Aeschylus' The Persians (472 BC) as evidence for the reign and image of Xerxes.Show worked solution →
1-2 marks: identifies the source - the earliest surviving account of the Persian invasion, an Athenian tragedy staged in 472 BC, only eight years after Salamis, dramatising the Persian court's reaction to defeat.
2 marks: assesses its usefulness - it is extremely useful for the ORIGIN of the hostile Greek image: it fixes Xerxes as the type of the hubristic tyrant, punished by the gods for yoking the Hellespont and defying natural limits, and set against the idealised, wise dead king Darius; it also reflects the Athenian mood of triumph.
2 marks: assesses its limits - it is a work of Athenian tragedy for an Athenian audience, not a report from Persia; its purpose is moral and civic, so its Persians are Greek constructions, and it tells us far more about how Athens wished to remember its victory than about Xerxes' actual policy or character.
Marker's note: rewards a judgement that separates "useful for the Greek tradition/perspective" from "unreliable for Persian reality", with the date and genre named.
exam12 marksTo what extent did the failure of the invasion of Greece mark the beginning of decline for the Persian Empire under Xerxes?Show worked solution →
A strong response argues a clear "to what extent" judgement, using dated evidence and named historians, not a narrative of the battles.
- Thesis
- The "decline begins with Xerxes" idea is largely a Greek-centred distortion: the Greek campaign was a costly failure on a distant frontier, but the empire remained territorially intact, wealthy and stable, and survived for over a century afterwards.
- Evidence the failure mattered little to the empire
- After Plataea and Mycale (479 BC), Persia lost its foothold in mainland Greece and the Aegean coast, but this was a marginal periphery. The core satrapies, tribute system and royal roads continued; Xerxes' vast building programme at Persepolis (the Gate of All Nations, the Throne Hall) proceeded, projecting undiminished wealth and power. Egypt (c. 485 BC) and Babylon (c. 484 BC) revolts early in the reign were suppressed, showing the centre still held the empire firmly.
- Evidence for strain
- The Greek sources (and older modern scholarship) read the defeat, the loss of the Aegean to the emerging Delian League, and the later court intrigue and assassination (465 BC) as signs of a court turning inward and decadent.
- Historiography
- The "decline" thesis is Hellenocentric (Sancisi-Weerdenburg's term). Pierre Briant (From Cyrus to Alexander, 2002), Amelie Kuhrt and Josef Wiesehofer argue the empire's institutions were robust and the "decadence" narrative reflects Greek prejudice, not Persian reality; the empire endured until Alexander (Darius III killed 330 BC), roughly 135 years later.
- Judgement
- The failure checked Persian expansion westward but did NOT begin a structural decline; the impression of decline is largely a projection of the hostile Greek tradition.
Marker's note: Band 6 answers weigh both sides, name the revisionist historians, cite the empire's survival to 330 BC, and explicitly identify the "decline" thesis as a Hellenocentric reading rather than accepting it.
exam25 marksESSAY. 'The traditional image of Xerxes as an arrogant despot owes more to the hostility of the Greek sources than to the evidence of his reign.' Evaluate this statement with reference to ancient and modern interpretations and the problems of evidence.Show worked solution →
A Band 6 essay sustains a judgement on the statement, uses named evidence, and weaves ancient AND modern historiography. Plan plus model paragraph.
- Thesis
- The statement is largely, but not wholly, correct: the "arrogant despot" is above all a construction of hostile and self-interested Greek writers, yet because Persian evidence is sparse and formulaic, no confident portrait of the "real" Xerxes can fully replace it. The debate is therefore as much about the reliability of evidence as about Xerxes' character.
- Argument line 1: the Greek tradition built the despot
- Aeschylus' The Persians (472 BC) fixed Xerxes as the hubristic tyrant punished by the gods for yoking the Hellespont. Herodotus (Histories 7-9) elaborated this: the whipping of the sea, the vast doomed host, the king ruled by bad counsel - though Herodotus also grants pathos (Xerxes weeping at Abydos). Ctesias and later writers added court decadence and eunuch intrigue. These are Athenian and Greek perspectives shaped by the victors.
- Argument line 2: Persian self-presentation gives a different Xerxes
- The royal inscriptions, including the "daiva inscription" from Persepolis, present a pious upholder of order (arta) ruling by the favour of Ahuramazda, and the building programme (Gate of All Nations, Throne Hall) projects legitimate, ordered power - the opposite of the Greek caricature.
- Argument line 3: the modern revision
- Pierre Briant (From Cyrus to Alexander, 2002), Amelie Kuhrt, Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Josef Wiesehofer argue the "decadent despot" and "decline" narratives are Hellenocentric distortions; the empire under Xerxes remained intact, wealthy and stable and lasted until 330 BC, so the Greek image should not be taken at face value.
- Argument line 4: the limits of rehabilitation
- The Persian sources are official propaganda in the king's own voice and reveal ideology, not personality; the early revolts (Egypt c. 485 BC, Babylon c. 484 BC) and the assassination of 465 BC are real, so a fully rehabilitated Xerxes would over-correct. The honest verdict is that we cannot see past the two rival images to a neutral one.
- Model paragraph (line 1)
- The despot of the textbooks was largely made in the Athenian theatre. Aeschylus, staging The Persians only eight years after Salamis, needed a Xerxes whose defeat proved that hubris meets divine justice, and so gave the Greeks the tyrant who whips the sea and defies natural limits; Herodotus then wove this into a grand tragic pattern of overreach. Neither writer had access to Persian counsel, and both wrote for audiences invested in the victory, so their Xerxes is a moral exhibit as much as a man. As Sancisi-Weerdenburg argued, to read Persia only through such sources is Hellenocentrism, mistaking the enemy's self-flattering memory for the empire's reality.
- Conclusion
- The statement is sound: the arrogant despot is chiefly a Greek artefact, and the Persian and revisionist evidence shows a competent king of a stable empire. But the Persian record is too formulaic to prove a fully opposite character, so the safest verdict is that Xerxes is visible only through two hostile-or-partial lenses, and any confident portrait says as much about its makers as about the king.
Marker's note: Band 6 answers name at least three historians across the traditions (Aeschylus/Herodotus for the hostile image, Briant/Kuhrt/Sancisi-Weerdenburg for the revision), use specific dated evidence (Persae 472 BC, the daiva inscription, the 465 BC assassination), and treat the problem of evidence explicitly rather than choosing "despot" or "hero" as a simple fact.