To what extent have the interpretations of Xerxes changed over time?
“History is written by the victors” - Winston Churchill
Since antiquity, Xerxes I, the infamous shahanshah of the Achaemenid Empire, has been the subject of vigorous debates; interpretations of the king varying greatly over time and different perspectives offering wildly disparate opinions of his character and achievements. This is mainly due to the dominant Graeco-Roman discourse established following his defeat in the Graeco-Persian War in 479 BC.
The eldest son of Darius and Atossa, Xerxes ascended the throne in 486 BC and ruled the vast empire for 20 years until his assassination in 465 BC. During his reign, Xerxes dealt with insurrections in Egypt and Babylonia which consolidated his power, as well as the second invasion of Greece which aimed to expand the empire. Due to this failed expansionist attempt, his legacy has been stained and vilified from a western Hellenic-centric perspective, as “history is written by the victors”. Contemporary western historiography has been strongly influenced by the perspective of Graeco-Roman historians, as well as their societal structure, which differed exceedingly from Persian society. The paucity of Persian sources makes it difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the Graeco-Roman narrative, influencing the complex way interpretations of Xerxes, considered in his own time as a “hero among kings”, have developed over time. This essay examines Xerxes’ legacy as represented in Persian sources, as well the interpretation in Classical writing, followed by an analysis of the extent to which both discursive and negative portrayals in modern sources - both popular and historiographical - have changed since the early representations of the king.
The limitations of these representations start after the Graeco-Persian War; however, Xerxes’ Eastern legacy is still shown in buildings, inscriptions and reliefs mostly found at Persepolis. They offer an insight into Xerxes’s kingship from a Persian perspective, focusing on ideologies rather than events, suggesting this conflict was less significant to Xerxes’s rule than the Greeks portray, or at least, not worthy of mentioning. In his own time, seen by some as a “golden age” in Persian history, the king is mostly represented in conjunction with Achaemenid ideology, rather than through personal propaganda. It is noted by historians Persian iconography displays motifs which show the dynasty as peaceful and administrative, rather than the conquering ruler the Graeco-Roman propaganda insinuated. For example, one relief at Persepolis features Xerxes sitting on a throne upheld by his subjects, showing a sense of unity of the satrapies. A motif commonly featured in these reliefs is the lotus flower to symbolise eternity, which implies imagery of kingly ideology rather than specifically Xerxes. The nature of Persian kingship is clearly illustrated in these sources and show the misinterpretations of the Graeco-Roman narrative.
Persian sources depicted Xerxes as “chosen by his father” Darius, as well as “supporting the beliefs in truth speaking and upholding integrity”, Gripton (2019) also suggest Xerxes felt he had to fulfil Persian customs and “the expectations and traditions of a Persian king”. When it comes to interpreting Persian sources, Root (1979) suggests the art certainly “conveys...a political message of calculated significance” yet it cannot be determined whether the inscriptions are to be read as “pure metaphor of royal power” or as “actual ceremonial displays of imperial might”. That aside, Xerxes is presented as “proud of his lineage” a “ruler of a great empire” and “upholding truth and integrity” (Hurley 2019) under Ahuramazda, illustrating Archmeind ideology surrounding kingship.
Persepolis, known as Parsa to its inhabitants, was excavated in 1931 under the direction of Ernst Herzfeld. Destroyed by Alexander the Great, the work started by Cyrus and Darius was finished by Xerxes, and the ruins of the UNESCO World Heritage Site remain ostentatious to this day. Strabo notes Persepolis was a “beautifully constructed city” illustrative of the wealth of the Achaemenid kings, “and the largest, having a palace that was remarkable” prior to its destruction. Granger (2005) suggests the extensive work at Persepolis instigated by Xerxes was to “bequeath a lasting testament to his reign” and show “ideology converted into stone”. The city served a variety of functions; an administrative centre, a focus of religious rituals - possibly the Nowruz Festival due to the reliefs depicting tribute processions. The majority of the building work was completed during the reign of Xerxes, hence why the city is a vital Persian source in understanding Xerxes’ representation in his own time, as it shows his immense wealth, the administration of the vast empire, as well as the religious structure of the empire and the military achievements of the king. The Fortification and Treasury tablets from Persepolis also offer an insight into the efficient administration and great wealth of the empire under Xerxes. They contain exhaustive information about the issuing of passports and orders of gold and silver, illustrating Xerxes was an effective ruler rather than the “degenerative” king displayed in Graeco-Roman sources. Xerxes maintained the borders of his vast empire - the Daeva inscription, among others - can be interpreted as Xerxes indicating his foreign policy; “by the favour of Ahuramazda, I smote that country”, yet evidence suggests he also put this policy into action, as his military achievements include quashing the 486 BC revolts of Egypt, as well as cuneiform documentation that indicates two Babylonian revolts occurred in 484 BC.
Nonetheless, throughout Classical historiography, Xerxes has been maligned by historians, who portrayed him as an arrogant, impetuous, sadistic and gullible leader, a Greek perspective which has been perpetuated into contemporary interpretations of Xerxes due to the influence of Hellenic socio-political beliefs on the western world. The disparities between Graeco-Roman sources and Persian sources are illustrative of the misinterpretations and biases of the Western world.
Greek xenophobia and anti-Persian propaganda are illustrated by dramatist Aeschylus, who depicted Xerxes as a “coward” and described him as “slothful”, “timorous” and “impetuous”, as well as maligning his leadership by asserting his “rashness emptied Asia of its men”. Aeschylus’s biased morality play, The Persians (472 BC), argues Xerxes, in "mortal folly thought to overpower immortal gods" and in doing so, committed an act of hubris in invading Greece, reflective of Greek religious perspectives. Additionally, Herodotus’s interpretation in the pioneering but still biased work, The Histories, written just 50 years after Xerxes’ reign, characterises him as a “tyrant among tyrants”, Herodotus depicts Xerxes as unsophisticated and “barbarous”, which has been misinterpreted over time from meaning foreign, to meaning brutal. Herodotus used Xerxes as the almost godlike-villain in his oral Histories to emphasise the unlikely Greek victory and instate legendary status to those who fought Xerxes. He records details of Xerxes’ severe punishments for those who had angered him, such as “find Pythius’ eldest son and cut him in half”, as well as instructing his soldiers to “whip” and “brand” with “hot irons” people for misdemeanours, although it is hard to tell from Herodotus’ perspective whether this is an accurate and justified account or not. This Classical criticism of Xerxes can be clearly exemplified by the passage in The Persians which dramatises the night before the Battle of Salamis, in which, Aeschylus, who was present at this battle, reports the Greeks sent Themistocles’ slave Sicinnus to trick Xerxes, who “with no thought of man’s guile” or trickery launched, without hesitation, the “main body” of his fleet, leading to his subsequent failure at Salamis, suggesting the king’s gullibility.
In contrast to Aeschylus’ and Herodotus’ Athenian pro-democracy interpretation, Xenophon’s Spartan pro-oligarchy outlook still provides a negative interpretation of Xerxes, depicting him as an “ambitious, cruel and despotic ruler, a courtly womaniser … only concerned with Persian expansion” in contrast with Xenophon’s depiction of Cyrus as “modest, tolerant and wise” according to Gripton and Roberts (2019). Additionally, Aeschylus, suggests Xerxes never “added to the wealth won by his noble fathers” which is clearly disproved by the vast building work and reliefs at Persepolis, but also gives us an interesting insight into the Hellenic perspective of the Achaemenid dynasty, “noble” implying the Greeks respected Xerxes’ forefathers and the Graeco-Persian conflict was a catalyst for the subsequent enmity between the East and West.
In contrast to the dominant discourse of Xerxes as tyrannical, the Romano-Jewish historian Josephus asserted Xerxes was “exceeding[ly] friendly to the Jews” a link to the religious tolerance portrayed in Persian sources. Additionally, Herodotus did indeed agree with the Persian perspective to a certain point, suggesting“there was not one man who, for stature and noble bearing, was more worthy than Xerxes to wield so vast a power”.
Essentially, Greek anti-Persian propaganda in Classical historiography created a dominant discourse surrounding the interpretation of Xerxes, which has been perpetuated over time due to the presence of Greek influence in the West.
Since the Greek victory in 480 BC, the Graeco-Roman perspective and representation of Xerxes have infiltrated the historical analysis of the king. Modern interpretations of Xerxes vary; some, like the scholars Granger and Stoneman, attempt to reinterpret Xerxes’ legacy to forge a more accurate representation of the king’s character and achievements without the historical bias of the past. They agree the evidence suggests a ‘golden age’ of the Persian Empire during Xerxes’ two decades of sovereignty. Others continue to reaffirm the popular discourse established by the Graeco-Roman historians, thus suggesting the Western view is so pervasive it can be challenging to recognise the Eastern perspective. Granger suggests contemporary scholars continually “disagree ...over Xerxes’s character and achievements” asserting the “truth must lie” somewhere between the evidence shown at Persepolis and the work of Aeschylus and other ancient historians. This could be interpreted as a need for a balance to be found between the analysis of Greek and Persian sources - an awareness of the biases of both will reveal the most accurate representation of Xerxes. Likewise, Mayrhofer (1989) suggests “we will probably never know the real Xerxes” as the evidence is based “on a mixture of Greek and oriental legend” and there are significant biases in both perspectives. Additionally, the contemporary social lens is majoritively based on a democratic western perspective, who saw Xerxes as an autocratic leader, ergo, undemocratic and against the socio-political principles of the west. This may have influenced both the dominant discourse and contemporary interpretations of him, suggesting little change occurred in the representations of the king over time.
Unfortunately, there has been a consistency to the misrepresentations of Xerxes over time, yet in recent years historians are taking a more methodical holistic approach to a reexamination of middle eastern sources in order to accurately dissect the trials and tribulations faced by Xerxes, his achievements and failures, and evaluate his kingship and its representation over time. This movement was catalysed at Ann Arbor, Michigan, between 1981 and 1990 by Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Kuhurt, resulting in a scholarly journal Achaemenid History which brought about the “partial dissolution of the ‘greek paradigm” (Granger 1991) of representations of Xerxes. Stoneman (2015) asserts Xerxes is “remembered mainly as the king who failed to conquer Greece” but should be “recognised for his achievements”. Which include the crushing of “several provincial revolts” including the Egyptian, and Babylonian revolts. Stoneman also notes “Xerxes did indeed maintain a great empire, and build a great city, even if he did lose his grip at the end” of “the long and successful reign” which suggests to an extent in recent years there has been a change in the discourse surrounding Xerxes, a movement away from just the Greek sources and more analysis of what the Persian sources present. Frye (1972) as referenced in Granger’s 1991 article Administration of the Achaemenid Empire, suggests the strength and longevity of the Persian Empire, which is characteristically derided by the Graeco-Roman narrative as easily collapsed by Xerxes’ “inept” governing, is due to the Persians ‘borrowing’ “methods and ideologies” of governing from the “vanquished … creating a rigorous … comprehensive … imperial administration.” This is a clear example of the change in interpretations over time as contemporary historians like Granger look at both perspectives with academic rigour, yet wry observational tendency. Granger debunks myths such as “the idea that the Great King was a god is false...they were never worshipped by their subjects” as misinterpreted by Aeschylus. He goes on to suggest this was in part due to the Greek abhorrence of the Persian custom of proskynesis. Granger (2005) also asserts even after the 1935 discovery of Persian inscriptions, the “hellenocentric bias” of the historiography of Xerxes “underwent no significant change”, representations did not start changing until the Ann Arbor mission.
Despite the advances in modern interpretations of Xerxes by historians like Granger and Stoneman, the dominant discourse established by the Graeco-Roman historians has been perpetuated into popular culture and understanding of the history of the Middle East, creating a “distorted” perspective of Xerxes. This is exemplified by Snyder’s 2007 period-action film adaptation of the 1998 comic series 300, which is based on the 1962 film The 300 Spartans, a fictionalised account of the Battle of Thermopylae, which presents Leonidas as the hero and Xerxes as the “effeminate” “god-king” villain. Banned in Iran for being “hurtful American propaganda”, according to Hanson (2007), 300 is illustrative of the continued enmity between East and West and reiterates the idea history is written by the victors. Portrayed as a beard-less giant covered in jewellery, treading on his subjects, this representation of Xerxes is very different from the Persian sources, who present him as bearded, human and fair to his subjects. The film has been disregarded by historians and critics alike as incredibly inaccurate. Other aspects of modern popular culture represent Xerxes based on the Greek narrative, Stoneman (2015) suggests the operas, Handel’s 1738 Serse and Bach’s 1736 Temistocle give a “glimpse of Xerxes the lover” perpetuating the Graeco-Roman narrative of a tyrannical king ruled by passions.
However, it is not just popular culture which perpetuates the interpretations of Xerxes established by the Greeks; historian Olmstead (1948) also follows the negative Greek representation of Xerxes as influenced by women, which is commonly illustrated by the misinterpretation of the Harem building at Persepolis, not of Persian sexual culture, and the “eunuch chamberlain Aspamitres” towards the end of his reign. As reported by Stoneman (2015), as late as the 80s historians like Immerwahr believed Xerxes “lived by passion not reason”, additionally Frye saw Xerxes as “living in the shadow of his greater father” which Stoneman suggests is due to historians basing their interpretations on the “narrative of Herodotus”.
By the 21st century, interpretations of Xerxes in historiography had started to change to a certain extent, yet it is still a fraction of historians who approach Xerxes’ legacy without the bias of the Graeco-Roman narrative, consistently representing the king in a negative light. Popular culture still perpetuates the Classical narrative as Xerxes is still seen as the“caricature created from hostile Greek sources” (Granger, 2005). This shows the victorious, in terms of socio-political influence, as well as literally in battle, create the dominant narrative, reiterating the framing Churchill quote to this essay, which is corroborated by the divergent ancient sources. In conclusion, the enigmatic king-of-kings has been portrayed in a myriad of ways throughout history, however, the dominant Graeco-Roman discourse which has permeated historiography since Aeschylus’ 472 BC drama of Xerxes’ hamartia - hubris - has led to a consistently gradual change in the representations and interpretations of Xerxes over time.
Brown, B., & Aeschylus. (2011). The Persians by Aeschylus. Ann Arbor: Displaced Press.
Cool Root, M (1979/81) The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire. American Journal of Archaeology
Gripton, A., & Roberts, P. (2019). Year 12 ancient history. Pascal Press.
Granger, R (1991) Administration of the Achaemenid Empire. Teaching history.
Granger, R (2005) Legacy: An Assessment of Xerxes Reign pt 1. Teaching history.
Granger, R (2006) Legacy: An Assessment of Xerxes Reign pt 2. Teaching history.
Hanson, V. D (March 2007) ‘300’: Fact or Fiction? Retrieved from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/23/20070323-085421-8261r/
Herodotus. (1988). The Persian Wars a companion to the Penguin translation of Books 5-9 from Herodotus: The Histories, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt. London.
Hurley, T & Murray, C. (2019) Antiquity 2 (4th edition). Oxford University Press.
Josephus, F. (1998). Jewish antiquities. Harvard University Press.
Olmstead, A. T. (1948). History of the Persian Empire. The University of Chicago Press.
Mayrhofer, M. (1989) Xerxes, roi des rois. Peeters presse, Belgium.
Stoneman, R. (2015). Xerxes: A Persian life. Yale University Press.
Snyder, Z. (2007). 300. Burbank, CA: Distributed by Warner Home Video.
The eldest son of Darius and Atossa, Xerxes ascended the throne in 486 BC and ruled the vast empire for 20 years until his assassination in 465 BC. During his reign, Xerxes dealt with insurrections in Egypt and Babylonia which consolidated his power, as well as the second invasion of Greece which aimed to expand the empire. Due to this failed expansionist attempt, his legacy has been stained and vilified from a western Hellenic-centric perspective, as “history is written by the victors”. Contemporary western historiography has been strongly influenced by the perspective of Graeco-Roman historians, as well as their societal structure, which differed exceedingly from Persian society. The paucity of Persian sources makes it difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the Graeco-Roman narrative, influencing the complex way interpretations of Xerxes, considered in his own time as a “hero among kings”, have developed over time. This essay examines Xerxes’ legacy as represented in Persian sources, as well the interpretation in Classical writing, followed by an analysis of the extent to which both discursive and negative portrayals in modern sources - both popular and historiographical - have changed since the early representations of the king.
The limitations of these representations start after the Graeco-Persian War; however, Xerxes’ Eastern legacy is still shown in buildings, inscriptions and reliefs mostly found at Persepolis. They offer an insight into Xerxes’s kingship from a Persian perspective, focusing on ideologies rather than events, suggesting this conflict was less significant to Xerxes’s rule than the Greeks portray, or at least, not worthy of mentioning. In his own time, seen by some as a “golden age” in Persian history, the king is mostly represented in conjunction with Achaemenid ideology, rather than through personal propaganda. It is noted by historians Persian iconography displays motifs which show the dynasty as peaceful and administrative, rather than the conquering ruler the Graeco-Roman propaganda insinuated. For example, one relief at Persepolis features Xerxes sitting on a throne upheld by his subjects, showing a sense of unity of the satrapies. A motif commonly featured in these reliefs is the lotus flower to symbolise eternity, which implies imagery of kingly ideology rather than specifically Xerxes. The nature of Persian kingship is clearly illustrated in these sources and show the misinterpretations of the Graeco-Roman narrative.
Persian sources depicted Xerxes as “chosen by his father” Darius, as well as “supporting the beliefs in truth speaking and upholding integrity”, Gripton (2019) also suggest Xerxes felt he had to fulfil Persian customs and “the expectations and traditions of a Persian king”. When it comes to interpreting Persian sources, Root (1979) suggests the art certainly “conveys...a political message of calculated significance” yet it cannot be determined whether the inscriptions are to be read as “pure metaphor of royal power” or as “actual ceremonial displays of imperial might”. That aside, Xerxes is presented as “proud of his lineage” a “ruler of a great empire” and “upholding truth and integrity” (Hurley 2019) under Ahuramazda, illustrating Archmeind ideology surrounding kingship.
Persepolis, known as Parsa to its inhabitants, was excavated in 1931 under the direction of Ernst Herzfeld. Destroyed by Alexander the Great, the work started by Cyrus and Darius was finished by Xerxes, and the ruins of the UNESCO World Heritage Site remain ostentatious to this day. Strabo notes Persepolis was a “beautifully constructed city” illustrative of the wealth of the Achaemenid kings, “and the largest, having a palace that was remarkable” prior to its destruction. Granger (2005) suggests the extensive work at Persepolis instigated by Xerxes was to “bequeath a lasting testament to his reign” and show “ideology converted into stone”. The city served a variety of functions; an administrative centre, a focus of religious rituals - possibly the Nowruz Festival due to the reliefs depicting tribute processions. The majority of the building work was completed during the reign of Xerxes, hence why the city is a vital Persian source in understanding Xerxes’ representation in his own time, as it shows his immense wealth, the administration of the vast empire, as well as the religious structure of the empire and the military achievements of the king. The Fortification and Treasury tablets from Persepolis also offer an insight into the efficient administration and great wealth of the empire under Xerxes. They contain exhaustive information about the issuing of passports and orders of gold and silver, illustrating Xerxes was an effective ruler rather than the “degenerative” king displayed in Graeco-Roman sources. Xerxes maintained the borders of his vast empire - the Daeva inscription, among others - can be interpreted as Xerxes indicating his foreign policy; “by the favour of Ahuramazda, I smote that country”, yet evidence suggests he also put this policy into action, as his military achievements include quashing the 486 BC revolts of Egypt, as well as cuneiform documentation that indicates two Babylonian revolts occurred in 484 BC.
Nonetheless, throughout Classical historiography, Xerxes has been maligned by historians, who portrayed him as an arrogant, impetuous, sadistic and gullible leader, a Greek perspective which has been perpetuated into contemporary interpretations of Xerxes due to the influence of Hellenic socio-political beliefs on the western world. The disparities between Graeco-Roman sources and Persian sources are illustrative of the misinterpretations and biases of the Western world.
Greek xenophobia and anti-Persian propaganda are illustrated by dramatist Aeschylus, who depicted Xerxes as a “coward” and described him as “slothful”, “timorous” and “impetuous”, as well as maligning his leadership by asserting his “rashness emptied Asia of its men”. Aeschylus’s biased morality play, The Persians (472 BC), argues Xerxes, in "mortal folly thought to overpower immortal gods" and in doing so, committed an act of hubris in invading Greece, reflective of Greek religious perspectives. Additionally, Herodotus’s interpretation in the pioneering but still biased work, The Histories, written just 50 years after Xerxes’ reign, characterises him as a “tyrant among tyrants”, Herodotus depicts Xerxes as unsophisticated and “barbarous”, which has been misinterpreted over time from meaning foreign, to meaning brutal. Herodotus used Xerxes as the almost godlike-villain in his oral Histories to emphasise the unlikely Greek victory and instate legendary status to those who fought Xerxes. He records details of Xerxes’ severe punishments for those who had angered him, such as “find Pythius’ eldest son and cut him in half”, as well as instructing his soldiers to “whip” and “brand” with “hot irons” people for misdemeanours, although it is hard to tell from Herodotus’ perspective whether this is an accurate and justified account or not. This Classical criticism of Xerxes can be clearly exemplified by the passage in The Persians which dramatises the night before the Battle of Salamis, in which, Aeschylus, who was present at this battle, reports the Greeks sent Themistocles’ slave Sicinnus to trick Xerxes, who “with no thought of man’s guile” or trickery launched, without hesitation, the “main body” of his fleet, leading to his subsequent failure at Salamis, suggesting the king’s gullibility.
In contrast to Aeschylus’ and Herodotus’ Athenian pro-democracy interpretation, Xenophon’s Spartan pro-oligarchy outlook still provides a negative interpretation of Xerxes, depicting him as an “ambitious, cruel and despotic ruler, a courtly womaniser … only concerned with Persian expansion” in contrast with Xenophon’s depiction of Cyrus as “modest, tolerant and wise” according to Gripton and Roberts (2019). Additionally, Aeschylus, suggests Xerxes never “added to the wealth won by his noble fathers” which is clearly disproved by the vast building work and reliefs at Persepolis, but also gives us an interesting insight into the Hellenic perspective of the Achaemenid dynasty, “noble” implying the Greeks respected Xerxes’ forefathers and the Graeco-Persian conflict was a catalyst for the subsequent enmity between the East and West.
In contrast to the dominant discourse of Xerxes as tyrannical, the Romano-Jewish historian Josephus asserted Xerxes was “exceeding[ly] friendly to the Jews” a link to the religious tolerance portrayed in Persian sources. Additionally, Herodotus did indeed agree with the Persian perspective to a certain point, suggesting“there was not one man who, for stature and noble bearing, was more worthy than Xerxes to wield so vast a power”.
Essentially, Greek anti-Persian propaganda in Classical historiography created a dominant discourse surrounding the interpretation of Xerxes, which has been perpetuated over time due to the presence of Greek influence in the West.
Since the Greek victory in 480 BC, the Graeco-Roman perspective and representation of Xerxes have infiltrated the historical analysis of the king. Modern interpretations of Xerxes vary; some, like the scholars Granger and Stoneman, attempt to reinterpret Xerxes’ legacy to forge a more accurate representation of the king’s character and achievements without the historical bias of the past. They agree the evidence suggests a ‘golden age’ of the Persian Empire during Xerxes’ two decades of sovereignty. Others continue to reaffirm the popular discourse established by the Graeco-Roman historians, thus suggesting the Western view is so pervasive it can be challenging to recognise the Eastern perspective. Granger suggests contemporary scholars continually “disagree ...over Xerxes’s character and achievements” asserting the “truth must lie” somewhere between the evidence shown at Persepolis and the work of Aeschylus and other ancient historians. This could be interpreted as a need for a balance to be found between the analysis of Greek and Persian sources - an awareness of the biases of both will reveal the most accurate representation of Xerxes. Likewise, Mayrhofer (1989) suggests “we will probably never know the real Xerxes” as the evidence is based “on a mixture of Greek and oriental legend” and there are significant biases in both perspectives. Additionally, the contemporary social lens is majoritively based on a democratic western perspective, who saw Xerxes as an autocratic leader, ergo, undemocratic and against the socio-political principles of the west. This may have influenced both the dominant discourse and contemporary interpretations of him, suggesting little change occurred in the representations of the king over time.
Unfortunately, there has been a consistency to the misrepresentations of Xerxes over time, yet in recent years historians are taking a more methodical holistic approach to a reexamination of middle eastern sources in order to accurately dissect the trials and tribulations faced by Xerxes, his achievements and failures, and evaluate his kingship and its representation over time. This movement was catalysed at Ann Arbor, Michigan, between 1981 and 1990 by Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Kuhurt, resulting in a scholarly journal Achaemenid History which brought about the “partial dissolution of the ‘greek paradigm” (Granger 1991) of representations of Xerxes. Stoneman (2015) asserts Xerxes is “remembered mainly as the king who failed to conquer Greece” but should be “recognised for his achievements”. Which include the crushing of “several provincial revolts” including the Egyptian, and Babylonian revolts. Stoneman also notes “Xerxes did indeed maintain a great empire, and build a great city, even if he did lose his grip at the end” of “the long and successful reign” which suggests to an extent in recent years there has been a change in the discourse surrounding Xerxes, a movement away from just the Greek sources and more analysis of what the Persian sources present. Frye (1972) as referenced in Granger’s 1991 article Administration of the Achaemenid Empire, suggests the strength and longevity of the Persian Empire, which is characteristically derided by the Graeco-Roman narrative as easily collapsed by Xerxes’ “inept” governing, is due to the Persians ‘borrowing’ “methods and ideologies” of governing from the “vanquished … creating a rigorous … comprehensive … imperial administration.” This is a clear example of the change in interpretations over time as contemporary historians like Granger look at both perspectives with academic rigour, yet wry observational tendency. Granger debunks myths such as “the idea that the Great King was a god is false...they were never worshipped by their subjects” as misinterpreted by Aeschylus. He goes on to suggest this was in part due to the Greek abhorrence of the Persian custom of proskynesis. Granger (2005) also asserts even after the 1935 discovery of Persian inscriptions, the “hellenocentric bias” of the historiography of Xerxes “underwent no significant change”, representations did not start changing until the Ann Arbor mission.
Despite the advances in modern interpretations of Xerxes by historians like Granger and Stoneman, the dominant discourse established by the Graeco-Roman historians has been perpetuated into popular culture and understanding of the history of the Middle East, creating a “distorted” perspective of Xerxes. This is exemplified by Snyder’s 2007 period-action film adaptation of the 1998 comic series 300, which is based on the 1962 film The 300 Spartans, a fictionalised account of the Battle of Thermopylae, which presents Leonidas as the hero and Xerxes as the “effeminate” “god-king” villain. Banned in Iran for being “hurtful American propaganda”, according to Hanson (2007), 300 is illustrative of the continued enmity between East and West and reiterates the idea history is written by the victors. Portrayed as a beard-less giant covered in jewellery, treading on his subjects, this representation of Xerxes is very different from the Persian sources, who present him as bearded, human and fair to his subjects. The film has been disregarded by historians and critics alike as incredibly inaccurate. Other aspects of modern popular culture represent Xerxes based on the Greek narrative, Stoneman (2015) suggests the operas, Handel’s 1738 Serse and Bach’s 1736 Temistocle give a “glimpse of Xerxes the lover” perpetuating the Graeco-Roman narrative of a tyrannical king ruled by passions.
However, it is not just popular culture which perpetuates the interpretations of Xerxes established by the Greeks; historian Olmstead (1948) also follows the negative Greek representation of Xerxes as influenced by women, which is commonly illustrated by the misinterpretation of the Harem building at Persepolis, not of Persian sexual culture, and the “eunuch chamberlain Aspamitres” towards the end of his reign. As reported by Stoneman (2015), as late as the 80s historians like Immerwahr believed Xerxes “lived by passion not reason”, additionally Frye saw Xerxes as “living in the shadow of his greater father” which Stoneman suggests is due to historians basing their interpretations on the “narrative of Herodotus”.
By the 21st century, interpretations of Xerxes in historiography had started to change to a certain extent, yet it is still a fraction of historians who approach Xerxes’ legacy without the bias of the Graeco-Roman narrative, consistently representing the king in a negative light. Popular culture still perpetuates the Classical narrative as Xerxes is still seen as the“caricature created from hostile Greek sources” (Granger, 2005). This shows the victorious, in terms of socio-political influence, as well as literally in battle, create the dominant narrative, reiterating the framing Churchill quote to this essay, which is corroborated by the divergent ancient sources. In conclusion, the enigmatic king-of-kings has been portrayed in a myriad of ways throughout history, however, the dominant Graeco-Roman discourse which has permeated historiography since Aeschylus’ 472 BC drama of Xerxes’ hamartia - hubris - has led to a consistently gradual change in the representations and interpretations of Xerxes over time.
Bibliography
Brown, B., & Aeschylus. (2011). The Persians by Aeschylus. Ann Arbor: Displaced Press.
Cool Root, M (1979/81) The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire. American Journal of Archaeology
Gripton, A., & Roberts, P. (2019). Year 12 ancient history. Pascal Press.
Granger, R (1991) Administration of the Achaemenid Empire. Teaching history.
Granger, R (2005) Legacy: An Assessment of Xerxes Reign pt 1. Teaching history.
Granger, R (2006) Legacy: An Assessment of Xerxes Reign pt 2. Teaching history.
Hanson, V. D (March 2007) ‘300’: Fact or Fiction? Retrieved from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/23/20070323-085421-8261r/
Herodotus. (1988). The Persian Wars a companion to the Penguin translation of Books 5-9 from Herodotus: The Histories, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt. London.
Hurley, T & Murray, C. (2019) Antiquity 2 (4th edition). Oxford University Press.
Josephus, F. (1998). Jewish antiquities. Harvard University Press.
Olmstead, A. T. (1948). History of the Persian Empire. The University of Chicago Press.
Mayrhofer, M. (1989) Xerxes, roi des rois. Peeters presse, Belgium.
Stoneman, R. (2015). Xerxes: A Persian life. Yale University Press.
Snyder, Z. (2007). 300. Burbank, CA: Distributed by Warner Home Video.
Comments
Post a Comment