Great Books Ep 112. Herodotus - The History - Book 3 (Thalia). Leadership and the Destiny of Nations
Leaders and their decisions have direct impact on the fate of people they lead, not only in that generation but also the next or more.
“How indeed is it possible that monarchy should be a well-adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable? Such licence is enough to stir strange and unwonted thoughts in the heart of the worthiest of men. Give a person this power, and straightway his manifold good things puff him up with pride, while envy is so natural to human kind that it cannot but arise in him.”
~ ‘The History’ (Book 3) by Herodotus (George Rawlinson transl. GB6 - p. 107)
Thoughts
Book 3 takes us back to the Persian Empire, and the main story is about Cyrus’ son, Cambyses’ reign and fall and the rise of Darius. But you do get to read about many other kings, their decisions, and leadership strategies that had far-reaching consequences beyond their reign.
Kings, their decisions and consequences
Amasis, the Egyptian king, who Herodotus (in Book 2) called the greatest of Egyptian rulers, sends the most skilled eye-doctor to Cyrus when Cyrus asks for one. But the physician is completely upset due to being torn away from his family and sent to a foreign land. He puts the idea into Cambyses’ (Cyrus’ son) mind to ask for Amasis’ daughter in marriage. Amasis, fearing his daughter would be a mere concubine, sends the daughter of the former king, Nitetis, instead. When Cambyses finds out about this, he invades Egypt due to the insult. Amasis dies before Cambyses reaches Egypt, and the brunt of Cambyses’ wrath is borne by his son, Psammenitus. Could Amasis have been more careful in selecting which doctor to send to Cyrus? Would it have been better for him to have given up his daughter?
Psammenitus, the Egyptian king who is defeated by the Persian King Cambyses, sees his son and daughter paraded in rags but does not weep for them. He cries out when he sees an old companion reduced to a beggarly state. He says his own misfortunes were too great for tears. He is killed when he plots a coup against Cambyses. Was it an error in judgment to plan a coup? Did his close friends betray him, I wonder?
The Ethiopian King (no name) sees through the deception of Cambyses’ emissaries, though they lavish him with gifts. Was it wise to insult a king who had already defeated Egypt? What if the distance were shorter and Cambyses was able to march into Ethiopia? The Egyptians bear the brunt of Cambyses’ failed campaign to Ethiopia, since when he returns defeated, he kills multitudes.
Smerdis the Magus usurps the Persian throne by pretending to be the deceased Smerdis, son of Cyrus. How long did he think he could fool everyone? He is not even able to come out of the palace to meet the nobles due to this deception.
Polycrates, king of Samos, whom Amasis called the luckiest person alive since he never failed at anything he did, uses his luck with cruelty. After taking control of Samos, he kills one of his brothers who helped him and exiles the other. He then plunders everyone, including friends, with the dark logic that “a friend was better pleased if you gave him back what you had taken from him, than if you spared him at the first”. Amasis tells him to forcefully sacrifice something valuable so that the gods are not jealous of him. He throws an expensive signet ring into the sea, but gets it back through a fish soon. Eventually, he runs out of luck when he is lured, betrayed, and crucified by a Persian governor. I wonder if he got so blindsided by his victories that he never thought his luck would run out.
Periander, king of Corinth, caused the death of his wife (killed her?) and when her father mentions that to his sons, one of his sons stops talking to him, and Periander has him exiled. But later in life, he goes to his son to ask him to inherit the kingdom, but he refuses. When Periander decides to go to the place where his son is, the locals kill the son. He was so quick to banish his son, but became desperate in later years to hand over the kingdom to him. I guess his son also didn’t want to carry over the legacy of a tyrant.
Cambyses, the harsh, reckless Master
A few more minor kings are mentioned, but not much to talk about. The overshadowing theme of Book 3 is the cruelty and madness of Cambyses. Herodotus mentions a few times that Cambyses had lost his senses. The only wise thing he does is to forge a pact with the Arabs to help him cross the desert into Egypt, and then he defeats Egypt. But from then on, it is pure madness. Since his anger was against Amasis, and when he finds that Amasis is dead when he arrives, he has his body taken out of the pyramid and beats it up and burns it, though it was sacrilege for Egyptians and Persians to use fire against a dead body. He marches in a hurry against the Ethiopians since he feels offended. The provisions run out midway, and the army is forced into cannibalism by drawing lots. He is forced to retreat. When he reaches Memphis in Egypt, he finds people celebrating. They are celebrating the feast of Apis, but he thinks they are mocking him for his defeat. He stabs Apis in the thigh and has all the priests killed. He sees a dream that Smerdis is taking over Persia and has his brother Smerdis killed. When his sister (who is also his wife) asks about it, he kills her also. He shoots an arrow into the heart of Prexaspes’ son to prove that he is not drunk, though Prexaspes was his most trusted lieutenant. He even tries to kill Croesus, who was his father’s advisor. Overall, Cambyses is portrayed as an example of a leader you would never want to have.
Darius, the Huckster
One of the most interesting parts of the book was the debate between the noblemen who revolted against the Magi and took over the kingdom of Persia. They argue for three forms of government - democracy, oligarchy and monarchy.
Democracy - Otanes argues for democracy, saying that they should do away with monarchy altogether. He says that the rule of one man is “neither good nor pleasant”. Monarchy grants a man the license to do as he likes without being answerable, and it stirs “strange and unwonted thoughts in the heart of the worthiest of men”. There is pride and envy if the king feels his subjects are smarter than he is. There is inconsistency and corruption if the king favors someone over someone else. In comparison, democracy is fair. People cast lots to elect magistrates who will be answerable for their actions.
Oligarchy - Megabyzus argues for oligarchy, saying that the common people are “unwieldy rabble” and are “void of understanding”. He agrees that monarchy is bad. He says it would be foolish to escape the wantonness of a tyrant only to give oneself up to the “wantonness of a rude unbridled mob”. He advises choosing a “certain number of the worthiest” from the citizens and putting the government into their hands. Since power is in the hands of the learned few, the kingdom would be better off.
Monarchy - Darius argues for monarchy, saying that he agrees that democracy is bad since it will result in chaos. He says oligarchy also has the same issue in which the chosen few could have rivalries among them, which would rise to quarrels and fights, which someone would have to put down, and that person would end up being the monarch. Darius wins over everyone with his speech, saying that monarchy far surpasses the other two forms of government. He says that the best government is that of the “very best man in the whole state”, and gives the example of King Cyrus, who, as a single man, won freedom for Persia and made it a great kingdom.
When they vote, everyone agrees that a monarchy is better, and they do a test to elect a monarch, and Darius becomes the king. Darius is true to his promise and ends up being one of the most efficient and organized rulers in the area. He organizes the kingdom into twenty satrapies and sets up annual tributes for all. Herodotus provides a detailed list of these satrapies and the amount of silver and gold dust they paid. I was surprised at the mention of India as the largest tribute provider.
Persians refer to Cyrus as ‘The Father’, Cambyses as ‘The Master’ and Darius as ‘The Huckster’ (Shopkeeper/Businessman) since he turned the empire into a massive, organized financial machine focused on consistent revenue.
End Note - What do we need?
I wonder what kind of a leader the world really needs today? I feel that the same arguments for democracy, oligarchy and monarchy persist even today. In the decades while I was growing up, democracy seemed to be the clear winner; academics were revered, and the average person was becoming wiser with a broader worldview. But this decade feels so depressing, as though the clock is being turned back. People seem to want autocrats and strong men with a total lack of empathy. There is bigotry and hate speech everywhere, even in advanced countries.
Off late, I’ve been watching an emotional, crime-thriller series called ‘Task’ on HBO, which makes me think after every episode - about the nature of our lives and how little control we have sometimes have over our circumstances, how much our fate is determined by people in power. In one of the scenes, Tom Brandies (Mark Ruffalo), the head of a task force assigned to investigate a crime, is given an old home to set up as a base for his team (since FBI is a govt. agency and it doesn’t really have funds). He goes to this old home and starts to clean the home, clearing the cobwebs, cleaning the floors, etc. He doesn’t wait for his team to arrive and then make them do it or do it together. He makes things easier for his team so that they can focus on the job. That is the type of leader the world needs - not a masculine macho who goes about making people submit to them or take them out, but one who serves, prepares, and leads by example.