Karanos 6, 2023 11-29




    Darius III’s Death: Alexander’s Great Misunderstanding*

                                    by Borja Antela-Bernárdez
                                Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
                                      Borja.Antela@uab.cat


ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to examine the figure of Archelaos I and
developments in Macedon during his reign and the 5th century as a whole. Literary
accounts point to what might have been an attempt to improve the administration and
organization of the kingdom. A careful analysis of the sources is essential to understand
the role played by Archelaos I, together with the position that Macedon occupied in the
Greek world, in a series of developments during those years which offered the kingdom
the opportunity to increase its power.

KEYWORDS Darius III’s Death, Choaspes, Alexander the Great, Achaemenid rites of
Succession.



The episode of the death of Darius III deserves a prominent place in the stories of
Alexander the Great. As scholarship has strongly remarked, the care of Darius’ corpse,
the prosecution and execution of his murderers allows Alexander both to claim himself
as heir of the last legitimate Great King, Darius III, and also as the kind conqueror who
shows the main respect to his antagonistic enemy1. But the accounts of Darius’ death
and the later treatment of his corpse by Alexander deserves, to our judge, a closer look
and some revisions and reflections.
Our sources tells not much about what happened with Darius, the traitors that killed
him, or how Alexander took care of the Great King’s dead body. The earliest extant
source, Diodorus tells us that during the flight to Bactria, Darius was “seized and
murdered” by Bessus. Alexander, who “rode up in hot pursuit”, found him dead, and
later he gave him a royal funeral. Diodorus also mentions that, in a different version of
the events2, some other authors explain Alexander found Darius still alive, and he urged
Alexander to avenge his death3. Plutarch records a very close version to that of
Diodorus4.

*
  I am in doubt here mainly with the precedent works by Pierre Briant. Likewise, I want to thanks Antonio
Ignacio Molina Marín and Mario Agudo Villanueva for their help during the writing of this paper and
their unvaluable comments on the first draft. Marc Mendoza also read and comment with helpful views
and criticism. Joseph Roisman gently help me to be more precise on some ideas. I am in debt with them
all, but any fault is completely mine.
1
  Bosworth 1981, 338-345-346 does not address precisely the topics we focus on here. The most shocking
silence, however, is that of Briant 2003 (cf. 388-394), who does not link the events in our sources to his
own research (Briant 1991; 1994; it also happens in Briant 2002). However, the present research is clearly
in debt with Briant’s work, and we try to follow here the steps of the clues he already noted in his brilliant
papers.
2
  See Bosworth 1981, 345.
3
  D.S. 17.73.2-4. Cf. Prandi 2013, 119-120.
4
  Plu. Alex. 42.3-43.3.

eISSN: 2604-3521                      https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/karanos.75
ISSN: 2604-6199
                                     BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ


The order of the information in the account of Plutarch is quite interesting. First, the
story of the pursuit of Darius is completed with the episode of the thirsty soldiers and
the refusal of Alexander to drink. We will get back to this later. Then, Plutarch describes
the arrival of Alexander and some of his soldiers to the enemy camp, where they found
gold and silver thrown away5, wagons of women and children but no drivers, and, after
those, Darius’ own wagon. Plutarch accepts the version Diodorus seemed to reject.
According to Plutarch, a Macedonian soldier, Polystratus, attend the king in his ill-fated
hour6. Darius asked to drink, and Polystratus gave him some cold water. Then, in a very
rhetorical speech (for a dying man), Darius shows his good will towards Alexander
because of the way his family had been treated by the Macedonians, and he dies. Then,
Alexander arrived there and covered the corpse of the dead Great King with his own
cloak. Plutarch also stresses the role of Alexander as the avenger of Darius, with the
later torment of the murderer Bessus. Finally, Darius’ dead body was laid out by
Alexander in royal state to his mother, who was then at ???.
Arrian’s account of Alexander’s pursuit and Darius’ death is rich in details7. Beyond
the usual tone of Arrian and his attention to details of army logistics, the account
stresses most of the topics we already know for the episode of Darius’ death:
Alexander’s fast chase to find Darius, the role of the traitors, and the imprisonment of
Darius in a wagon. It is quite interesting to acknowledge the connection between the
episode of the lack of water and the thirst of Alexander’s soldiers in Plutarch (Alex.
42.4-6), and the people’s advice in Arrian concerning the lack of water in the region by
those who guide Alexander (???). Besides the description of the cold facts, Arrians also
adds a kind of portrait of the dead king Darius, clearly hostile in fact, quite close to a
summary judgement by the historian8.
If we focus now on the Latin sources, Justin’s Epitome of Pompeius Trogus contains
the same details already noted in the tradition9. Justin seems to share with Arrian the
same aim for stressing that the best that happened to Darius as king was, in fact, to be
defeated by the great and honourable man and king who was Alexander. The parallels
between the judging epilogue to Darius’ death by Arrian, as we have seen, and Justin’s
pray of a dying Darius (for being grateful to Alexander) are highly remarkable. Of
course, the rest of the details are common to the tradition, although the reader can feel
here that the encounter of Polystratus and Darius is the fruit of fortune, one more lucky
strike for Alexander10. Also, the presence of a prisoner can help the reader to believe
the scene of a Macedonian, Polystratus, talking with the dying Persian king11. However,

5
  Briant 2003, 394 argues that the silver mentioned here by the sources were, in fact, the silver vessels
that the Great King used to transport the water of the river Choaspes for his unique consumption.
6
  See Briant 2003, 388-394.
7
   Arr. An. 3.22???. Cf. Bosworth 1980, 339-346. Milns “Alexander’s Pursuit of Darius through Iran”
authoritatively refuses the validity of Arrian’s description of Alexander and his army’s march rates in
the pursuit of Darius, against the uncritical opinion of Tarn and Hammond.
8
  And his conclusion is also helpful to this research: “[Darius] then, a homeless fugitive in the land he
once ruled, ruthlessly betrayed by his own guards, a monarch in chains contemptuously struggled away
from the scene of his former glory, he was finally murdered by the treachery of those most bound in
duty to serve him. Such was the unhappy life of Darius; dead, he was mare fortunate; for he was buried
in the royal tomb, his children were given by Alexander the same upbringing and education they would
have had if he had still been king - and his daughter became Alexander’s wife. He was about fifty when
he died” (Arr. An. 3.23.???).
9
  Just. 11.15.
10
   Landucci Commentario a 71.1-2...
11
   Although we can possibly argue that the Persian King could speak fluent Greek, we can doubt he spoke
Greek while dying.

Karanos 5/2022
                                                   12
                   DARIUS III’S DEATH: ALEXANDER’S GREAT MISUNDERSTANDING


there are other interesting elements in Justin’s account, especially the fact that Darius’
wagon was a ‘covered vehicle’, where he was conveyed by night.
Likewise, all these accounts are somehow very brief and lightly related, with not many
details about the way Darius was betrayed and how his murderers manage the killing.
Fortunately, we count on Curtius’ narrative, which is by far the longest and richest
account we can read for this episode. Despite the long rhetorical elements at play, the
richness of details provided by Curtius’ long account is overwhelming; even more, if
we have to compare it with the rest of the information preserved by the other sources.
Curtius shows here a deep knowledge of both some facts the rest of the extant historians
on Alexander dismissed or simply ignored, and also about the Achaemenid culture and
traditions12. The mention of Melon, the Greek interpreter of Darius who could have
been also the prisoner who translated the words of the dying Darius to Polystratus in
the rest of the sources13, or the statement that the initial aim of the traitors of Darius
was in fact to look for Alexander’s favour, are elements that enrich our perception of
such a major moment in the whole history of Alexander’s conquest of Asia and the end
of the Achaemenid Empire. Also, we can observe our own conclusions through the
narrative of Curtius, like with all those who are said to desert from the traitors’ side and
go to meet Alexander (Bagistanes, Orsilos, Mithracenes, Brochubelus14…), while what
is really happening is that they flew from the Persian camp because they probably hear
about the close advance of the Macedonian army, and not because they were refusing
the regicide. If we believe Curtius, in fact, all these events happened before Darius was
finally killed. However, the main aim of this research is just to focus now on the facts
around the supposed conspiracy and treason against Darius and the interpretation of the
events until his death.
In one of his brilliant papers, Pierre Briant lists the elements we know about the
funerary protocols and arrangements in Achaemenid Persia when a Great King died15.
Despite the scarce knowledge we have on this matter, we can observe a period of public
grief16, related also with a ritual extinction of the fire (which later will reappear)17.
Everyone, then, dressed in mourning clothes, and some people even shaved their hair.
All these gestures tried to stress the period of grief as a time of suspended life. Then,
there was an assembly, and the result of it would be the beginning of a period of anomia
(for five days?), which could even result in tumults and strife symbolically displaying
the effects of the death of the king (and consequently, the lack of power and order)18.
Then, the successor or heir19 of the king would drive the remains of the dead king to
the royal tombs. To carry out this duty, the corpse and some possessions of the death
king were loaded in a chariot or a wagon. However, there was also a kind of silence and
the death of the king is somehow, in a ritual way, kept in secret, like in the case of

12
   Like he also seems to show at Curt. 4.6.5-6.
13
   Although Curtius 5.11.4 says Darius “had some knowledge of Greek”. However, in the same episode,
Curtius also adds that “Darius’ conversation with the Greeks was being kept from the interpreters”, so
these interpreters used to be in presence of the Great King. To sum up, we can hardly say if the knowledge
of notions of Greek language was characteristic of every Persian king or just a personal skill of Darius
III himself.
14
   According to Curt. 5.13.11, he was the son of Mazaeus. Scholarship used to refuse this information,
as far as...
15
   Briant 1991.
16
   Briant 1991, 1-2.
17
   Briant 1991, 2-3.
18
   Briant 1991, 3-4.
19
   Briant 1991, 5: “l’héritier, c’est le successeur aus sacra, aux nomizoména; le roi difunt se continue á
travers son successeur qui conduit les cérémonies funèbres”.

                                                   13
                                     BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ


Ochus who kept the death of Artaxerxes in secret while he managed to rule in the death
king’s name (up to ten months!)20. This process of succession in Achaemenid Persia is
interesting as far as it allows us to try to understand the mechanics of the transition of
power, and even the conceptual essence of Achaemenid royal power itself.
Nevertheless, the new king could not legally rule until he was recognized (and maybe
even proclaimed) by an assembly of the Persians.
If we re-read carefully Curtius’ account, we find some references that, albeit vague and
obscure, may be related to what Briant describes in his brief paper. Actually, the
narrative of Curtius for the days around Darius’ arrest and death begins with a Persian
assembly (Curt. 5.9.1), and the proposal to Darius by Nabarzanes to be temporarily
substituted as the king21, a procedure already described by Briant. Curtius also mentions
secret meetings (Curt. 5.9.11), and then the Persian camp “was under no one’s
command, feelings were divided, and they no longer met as before to consult the
common interest” (5.9.14), and “in the meantime Artabazus fulfilled all the functions
of a commander, constantly visiting the Persian’s tents…” (5.9.17) in an episode of
what we can clearly consider a lack of command (although Darius was still alive). This
period of absence of power is also stressed in the description of the Persian camp: “His
[Darius] money and his furniture were looted, as though the act was sanctioned by the
conventions of war, and the conspirators22 made off in flight, laden with the spoils they
had acquired by this final piece of villainy” (5.12.17). However, while these all
happened, Darius was still alive, and Curtius tries to explain this fact by saying that
“misinterpreting the lamentations, their soldiers had brought a report to Bessus and
Nabarzanes that the king had died by his own hand” (5.12.14). It is hard to say how
many days Darius is out of vision of his army, but clearly, we face an act of anomia,
and a lot of expressions of a ritual procedure.
In the whole episode, I wonder what role Artabazus played, and I consider him a kind
of priest or ritual chief. Actually, although there is no clear mention in Curtius of the
fire to be put out, there is a sentence that can recall this fact: when Artabazus is
mourning for what seems a deadly destiny for his king, he “embrace [Darius] as if he
were to see him no more and, bathed in their mutual tears, he ordered him to be taken
away by force as he still clung to the king. Then, covering his head so as not to witness
the grief of Artabazus, who left as though from a funeral pyre…”. Even the covered
head can remember us of Briant’s statement concerning the public and private showings
of grief, like the head’s shaving. Also, after these facts, the Persians started to tear their
clothes “and wailing lugubriously in the barbarian manner” (5.12.12). Curtius’ words
also recall the rituals explained by Briant, with a constant remembrance of the isolation
of Darius in his tent23. Finally, we hear of Darius being driven in a wagon, covered with
dirty skins (5.12.20), one more element of the Achaemenid features of a royal funeral
process.
Indeed, Curtius says, at some point, that “Bessus and Nabarzanes and the Bactrian
soldiers appeared at the entrance to the king’s tent just before dawn masking their secret
treachery with the guise of solemn duty”. The hour of the day, i.e. “just before dawn”,
and the reference both to masking (that might somehow mean in the original source a

20
   Briant 1991, 5-6.
21
   Curt. 5.9.4: “Temporarily transfer your authority and your command to another who can carry the title
of king only until the enemy quits Asia and who can then, victorious, return your kingdom to you”; 5.9.8:
“let us appoint Bessus, the satrap of the area, as temporary king, and when the issue is settled he will
return to you, the legitimate king, the command he has held in trust”.
22
   This is a clear clue that the looting mentioned is not referred to Alexander’s.
23
   For exemple, Curt. 5.12.9 (solitude) and 10 (isolation)

Karanos 5/2022
                                                   14
                   DARIUS III’S DEATH: ALEXANDER’S GREAT MISUNDERSTANDING


kind of grief costume, like the covered head we already hear of Artabazus) and the
“solemn duty” drive us again to the field of ritual features.
The rich narrative of Curtius allows also a careful reader to find clues about the aims
of those who scholarship usually considers as the traitors and usurpers who took part in
the plot to put Darius to death. In fact, we can already read this plan in Nabarzanes’
words, when put forward to substitute Darius in order to regain the realm from the
Macedonian invaders (as we already quote it, supra). But also, there is a great
consciousness of the main role of keeping the Great King safe from being captured by
the enemy. In fact, Curtius puts this idea in the mouth of the Macedonians: “In his
person [i.e., Darius] lies our victory, and speed will reward us with this great prize”
(5.13.4). Despite the usual explanation by the scholarship of Bessus and Nabarzanes’
behaviour as simple traitors who greedily desired to become themselves kings instead
of Darius, some sentences in Curtius allows at least the shadow of a doubt. Actually,
when Patron, the mercenary Greek commander, informed Darius of his perception and
fears of a possible conjure against the king, “Darius, however, was not in the least
alarmed”. This first clue for what can have been a great misinterpretation of the events
by the Greek (and Roman) audience and beyond, is again stressed by the following
passage:
“[15] Bessus and his fellow-conspirators came to Darius’ wagon and started urging him
to mount a horse and flee to escape his enemy. [16] Darius, however, declared that the
gods had come to avenge him and, calling for Alexander’s protection, refused to go
along with the traitors. At this they were furious. They hurled their spears at the king
and left him there, run through many times. [17] They also maimed his animals to
prevent them advancing any further, and killed the two slaves accompanying the king.
[18] After this crime, to scatter the traces of their flight. Nabarzanes made for Hyrcania
and Bessus, with a small retinue of cavalry, for Bactra (…)
[20] None of the captives was able to identify Darius’ cart and, though the wagons were
individually searched as the Macedonians overtook them, there was no indication of
where the king had fled. (…) [23] Meanwhile, since they lacked a driver, the animals
pulling Darius had left the main road and after wandering around for four stades had
come to a stop in a certain valley, exhausted as much by the heat as by their wounds.
[24] There was a spring close by. This had been pointed out to the Macedonian
Polystratus by people who knew the area, and he now came to it because he was
tormented with thirst. While he drank the water from his helmet, he caught sight of the
spears stuck in the bodies of the dying animals [25] and, surprised at their being
wounded rather than driven off… [was shocked by the cries] of a man only half alive”.
(Curt. 5.13.15-20).
Why urge Darius to fly if the conspirers had managed to betray the king? Were they as
conscious as the Macedonians (as is clearly shown in 5.13.4) that the Persian king
should be kept alive in order to still resist the invaders? However, they finally killed
him, but just after Darius (in the version given by Curtius) had bestowed Alexander as
his protector. Had, thus, Darius betrayed the Persian throne? Many questions, indeed,
and we must keep in mind that the text of Curtius (as the rest of our sources) is produced
for a concrete audience, who already knew the story and how it happened in general
terms24. But the behaviour of Bessus and Nabarzanes is quite surprising: they did not
desert25, like many others. Our sources, however, say they want to deliver Darius to


24
  And this fact helps to interpret some parts of Curtius’ account, like the explanations of 5.9.6-7.
25
   Curt. 5.11.11: “He [Darius] preferred to endure among his men anything that fortune brought him
rather than to become a deserter, he said, and if his soldiers did not wish him to be saved, his death was

                                                   15
                                  BORJA ANTELA-BERNÁRDEZ


Alexander in order to gain the favour of the Macedonians26. On the contrary, and far
from what we expect, they manage to carry out the funeral rites we already noticed
concerning the usual Achaemenid features of succession and funeral for a king (and in
this case, they began when the last king was still alive). Bessus might have probably
been in charge of conducting at some point these preparations and arrangements, and
Briant also stated that there was the responsibility of the successor to manage these
details. So, might have been Bessus just following the usual patterns in the present
circumstances? Are we in front of some rituals of Achaemenid succession that the
sources (and scholarship) misinterpreted through centuries? A large possibility to think
about.
Thirst and Water Springs
Although the sources, except for Curtius, avoid including the details of Darius’ arrest
and death in their accounts, all the authors mention at some point the presence of a
spring and the water Darius took before he died. Leaving Polystratus aside, the
inclusion of this element is quite strange, even more, due to the consensus of the sources
to include it. In order to offer a possible interpretation, the narrative of Plutarch is here
of the main importance.
In the order he presents his episodes, Plutarch explains first the story of the thirst of the
Macedonian soldiers with Alexander, and how he, despite the lack of water, refused the
ration some people had offered him. For Plutarch’s aim and method, as a biographer,
the episode is, in fact, a new chance for him to stress the goodness and kindness of
Alexander’s character. Actually, the stories found in Plutarch’s chapter 42 of his Life
of Alexander (where the lack of water and thirsty soldiers is included) are related to the
precedent chapters and belong to the motif of Alexander’s relationship with excess and
his self-control. So, we can simply consider the case of the refusal to drink water by
Alexander in order to avoid his thirsty soldiers to “be out of heart” (quoting Plutarch
verbatim). However, we can also consider the aim of establishing an opposition
between Alexander’s self-control and his greatness as a ruler, which result in deep
respect from his men, with Darius’ end, being betrayed by his own people. But we can
even go further, and think about Darius and his thirst, which is attended by Polystratus.
Quite a surprise, indeed, to read of a Persian king drinking water from a common spring,
if we bear in mind that the Achaemenid kings, in the words of Herodotus, did not drink
water any other than the one from the Choaspes River27. Of course, this feature should
be considered as a ritual custom28, and more in the case of a dying Darius. However,
there is a clear connection between Alexander’s refusal to drink water and Darius’
thirst. In my opinion, this is also a hint at Alexander’s legitimacy, and his position as
the legal heir of Darius against the other Persian pretenders (i.e. Bessus, mainly). We
also hear of Alexander visiting the Choaspes River, where he probably drank the
water29. So, if Alexander had already tasted the water of Achaemenid legitimacy from
the Choaspes, he of course could not drink any other water but that, in quality of the




coming too late”. This words can perfectly fit with Bessus and Nabarzanes’ behavior as showed in
Curtius’ account of the facts.
26
   Curt. 5.10-5 and 12.1.
27
   Hdt. 1.188. Béquignon 1940; Briant 1994; 2002, 263-264.
28
   On the relationship between the Achaemenids and the waters see Béquignon 1940; Briquel 1981;
Briant 1994.
29
   Curt. 5.2.9.

Karanos 5/2022
                                              16
                   DARIUS III’S DEATH: ALEXANDER’S GREAT MISUNDERSTANDING


new Great King. As a consequence, a dying Darius, already stripped of his royal power,
needs to drink and the source of this water is no more a matter of royalty or legitimacy30.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BEQUIGNON, Y. 1940: “Le brevauge du Grand Roi”, REA 42: 20-24.
BRIANT, P. 1991: “Le roi est mort: vive le roi! Remarques sur les rites et rituels de
     succession chez les Achéménides”, in J. Kellens (ed.), La religion iranienne à
     l'époque achéménide, Gent: 1-11.
BRIANT, P. 1994: “L’eau du Grand Roi,” in L. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient
     Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East, Padua: 45-65.
BRIANT, P. 2002: From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire, Ann
     Arbor.
BRIANT, P. 2003: Darius dans l’ombre d’Alexandre, Paris.
BRIQUEL, D. 1981: “Sur un passage d’Hérodote: prise de Babylone et prise de Véies”,
     Bull. Ass. G. Budé 3: 293-306.
MILNS, R. D. 1966: “Alexander’s Pursuit of Darius through Iran”, Historia 15: 256.
PRANDI, L. 2013: Diodoro Siculo. Biblioteca storica, libro XVII. Commento storico,
     Milano.




30
  However, again we must be cautious with our interpretations. Maybe this can be a Macedonian version
of the facts, but the fact that Darius was dying near a water spring can also be related with the
Achaemenid funerary rituals: Briant 1991, 7 argues that sometimes the funerary rites and the trespassing
of royal power from the death (or dying) Persian king to his successor took place in the temple of Anahita,
“à la fois déese des eaux, de la fertilié mais aussi déesse guerrière).

                                                    17