Chapter Seven: The Reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus – The Great King of the Peace of Callias

 

From Shadow to Stewardship: The Ascension of Artaxerxes I

The assassination of Xerxes in 465 BC marked a critical juncture in Achaemenid history, bringing to power Artaxerxes I Longimanus, son of Xerxes and Queen Amestris, and grandson of the formidable Atossa. His ascension occurred amid palace intrigue and regicide, yet Artaxerxes would prove to inherit not merely the imperial diadem but also the strategic and spiritual legacies of his predecessors Darius and Xerxes. Where his forebears had pursued imperial expansion through military campaigns, Artaxerxes would instead favor diplomacy, ideological soft power, and strategic restraint—marking a decisive turn from conquest to consolidation.

Educated within the Zoroastrian-Mithraic tradition under the profound influence of his grandmother Atossa, Artaxerxes conceptualized kingship as a divine covenant. Mithra, as the cosmic overseer of loyalty and justice, embodied this sacred duty and fundamentally shaped the king's ideological and administrative framework. Artaxerxes' policies reflected this theological foundation: he sought to unify a fractured court and restore imperial authority without exhausting the empire's finite resources.

Rather than engaging in direct conflict with the Greeks, Artaxerxes chose to exploit their internal rivalries with remarkable sophistication. His deployment of gold as a diplomatic instrument—standing in deliberate contrast to Xerxes' reliance on spears—proved highly effective in sustaining Persian influence throughout Ionia and the eastern Aegean. Greek mercenaries, strategic bribes, and calculated subversion became his preferred arsenal, deployed with considerable success from the Athenian sphere to Egypt and Cyprus.

Artaxerxes also embraced cultural patronage as a tool of imperial legitimacy, promoting imperial symbols at Persepolis and supporting religious sanctuaries from Babylon to Susa. Most significantly, he likely authorized the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, thereby reinforcing his legitimacy as a tolerant, divinely appointed monarch in accordance with Achaemenid traditions of religious pluralism.

His reign represented a crucial pivot in Achaemenid history—one that skillfully combined ideological piety, diplomatic acumen, and strategic pragmatism. Under the vigilant eye of Mithra, Artaxerxes governed not merely as a successor to Xerxes, but as a conscious restorer of imperial balance and cosmic order.

Court Intrigue and Dynastic Transition

The circumstances surrounding Artaxerxes' accession, as recorded by Ctesias and transmitted through Photius, reveal a complex web of palace conspiracies. Artabanus, commander of the royal guard, orchestrated Xerxes' assassination with the assistance of the eunuch Aspamitres, subsequently manipulating the situation to implicate Crown Prince Darius. Deceived by this machination, Artaxerxes executed his own brother. However, Artabanus' ambitions extended beyond this initial success, and he soon conspired against the new king himself. His plot was ultimately exposed by Megabyzus, satrap of Syria, who had grown suspicious following the murder of his wife, Princess Amytis, daughter of Xerxes. Both Artabanus and Aspamitres were subsequently executed.

Despite this bloody beginning, Artaxerxes was remembered by contemporaries as notably generous in his dealings with subjects and subordinates. The epithet Makrocheir ("Long-Handed"), later rendered as Longimanus, may reflect his symbolic magnanimity and open-handed generosity rather than any anatomical peculiarity.

The Athenian Empire and Persian Diplomatic Strategy

The rise of Athens in the Aegean and Ionia represents a fascinating study in imperial metamorphosis. While Athens initially founded the Delian League in 478 BC as a defensive alliance against Persian aggression, the League rapidly evolved into an Athenian empire. Thucydides astutely observed that Athens ruled not through consent but through coercion—systematically extracting tribute, imposing democratic façades on subject cities, and ruthlessly punishing dissent.

Under Cimon's leadership, the League conducted successful campaigns against Persian forces, achieving notable victories at the Eurymedon River and in the Thracian Chersonese. Yet Athens' aggressive expansion simultaneously created new vulnerabilities. Artaxerxes, demonstrating keen strategic insight into the limitations of direct military action, responded with an innovative strategy of calculated bribery and proxy manipulation.

Among the most prominent defectors to the Persian cause was Themistocles, who rescued Greece from defeat at Salamis. Since the tumultuous nature of Athenian politics led to his ostracism, in a remarkable twist of fate, this former savior of Greece eventually defected to the court of Artaxerxes I, the son of Xerxes. Writing to the Persian king, Themistocles reportedly emphasized his past "service" to Artaxerxes' father, a testament to his complex legacy and the shifting allegiances of the ancient world. Upon seeking refuge at the Persian court, he allegedly declared with characteristic boldness: "I, who harmed your house more than any Greek, now come seeking your favor."

However, the circumstances surrounding Themistocles' defection may be more complex than Pan-Hellenistic historians suggest. His case must be understood alongside that of Pausanias, the Spartan regent who led Greek forces to victory at Plataea in 479 BCE. Pausanias subsequently adopted Persian customs and dress, arousing suspicion among fellow Greeks. He allegedly negotiated secretly with Persian authorities, offering to help subject Greece to Persian rule in exchange for marrying the king's daughter and gaining power in Sparta. When evidence of his treason—including a letter ordering a messenger's death—came to light, Pausanias sought refuge in the Temple of Athena of the Brazen House in Sparta, where the Spartans walled up the entrance, effectively starving him to death.

Crucially, Themistocles was implicated in Pausanias's plot through their correspondence. While ancient historians debate the extent of his actual involvement in the treasonous aspects of Pausanias's plan, the Spartans formally accused him of conspiring to betray Greece. Facing these accusations and a death sentence in absentia, Themistocles fled to Persia—suggesting that his "defection" may have been less a dramatic change of allegiance than the continuation of pre-existing covert relationships. Artaxerxes granted him governance over Magnesia, Myus, and Lampsacus—territories generating combined annual revenues of fifty talents. The substantial power and wealth bestowed upon Themistocles raises intriguing questions about the nature of his relationship with Persia. It is reasonable to suggest that his extensive rewards may indicate a deeper, perhaps pre-existing, connection to Persian intelligence networks. This interpretation gains credence when considering that Xerxes' forces had successfully burned Athens in revenge for Sardis, and that Xerxes' return to Persia was motivated not solely by the reported naval defeats but by the practical necessities of governing a vast empire.

If Themistocles had indeed served as a Persian agent, Greek historians—writing within the propagandistic framework of Athenian democracy—would naturally have portrayed Athens' pyrrhic survival as a decisive victory and transformed a potential collaborator into a patriotic hero. The seamless transition from Greek "patriot" to Persian administrator, combined with his immediate access to the highest levels of the Persian court, suggests that his defection may have been less dramatic than traditional sources imply. Whether viewed as Persian magnanimity toward a former enemy or as compensation for covert services rendered, Themistocles' remarkable elevation illustrates the complex and often obscured realities of ancient diplomatic intelligence.

The Egyptian Revolt and Imperial Response

In 460 BC, the empire faced a significant challenge when Inarus, a Libyan prince claiming Egyptian royal descent, initiated a major revolt against Persian rule. Crucially supported by Athens, which dispatched a substantial fleet of 200 ships from Cyprus, Inarus succeeded in seizing most of Memphis and blockading the Persian naval forces.

However, his alliance with Athens proved counterproductive, alienating many native Egyptians who viewed the Greeks as foreign occupiers rather than liberators. When Persian forces, commanded by the capable generals Megabyzus and Arshama, returned with substantial reinforcements, they decisively defeated the rebel coalition at Mendes. In a display of remarkable engineering prowess, Persian forces diverted the Nile River to isolate the Athenian forces on Prosopitis Island. After an exhausting 18-month siege, Persian forces successfully overran the Greek positions.

Herodotus noted that even decades later, the dam constructed to divert the Nile remained preserved as a testament to Persian engineering capabilities. While Inarus was captured and executed, his son Thaniras was installed as a client ruler under Persian oversight—a decision consistent with traditional Achaemenid practices of demonstrating clemency toward royal progeny and maintaining local legitimacy.

The Cypriot Campaign and the Death of Cimon

Following the catastrophic defeat in Egypt, Athens dispatched Cimon to Cyprus in an attempt to regain strategic initiative in the eastern Mediterranean. However, his campaign encountered significant difficulties from the outset. During the siege of Kition in 450 BC, Cimon died—sources disagree whether from illness or battle wounds. His death was initially concealed from the troops to maintain morale, though a Delphic oracle later confirmed his passing.

Plutarch contrasted Cimon's honorable conduct with the treachery of Greek collaborators such as Pausanias and Themistocles. Nevertheless, Cimon's ultimately unsuccessful campaign demonstrated the practical limitations of Athenian power projection in the face of Persian resistance. Artaxerxes had successfully blunted Athenian expansion through strategic patience and resource management rather than overwhelming military force.

The Peace of Callias: Diplomacy and Strategic Accommodation

By 449 BC, Pericles had reached the pragmatic conclusion that Athens, despite its Delian League allies, could not effectively match the vast wealth and territorial reach of Artaxerxes' empire. Persian satraps had demonstrated remarkable skill in employing gold to bribe rival factions throughout the Greek world, effectively destabilizing Athenian hegemony from within. Consequently, Athens dispatched the experienced diplomat Callias to Susa to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement.

This agreement, known to history as the Peace of Callias (Εἰρήνη τοῦ Καλλία), remains a subject of scholarly controversy. While its existence is affirmed by reputable sources including Herodotus, Plutarch, Isocrates, and Diodorus, other ancient historians such as Theopompus expressed skepticism regarding its authenticity.

According to Olmsted's account, an Argive delegation led by Hammond arrived in Susa coincidentally at the same time as the Athenian envoys. They reminded Artaxerxes of their historic friendship with Persia, which the king graciously reaffirmed. The resulting treaty provided mutual strategic benefits: Persia secured peace in the crucial regions of Egypt and Cyprus, while Athens gained immunity from Persian naval aggression in the Aegean.

Bryant argues that the treaty ultimately proved more advantageous to Persian interests, allowing the empire to reassert authority over Asia Minor's Greek cities with minimal expenditure of resources. Ernst Badian emphasizes the treaty's institutional innovation in recognizing "autonomous tributary cities" under Persian sovereignty. Although tribute levels were reduced to pre-Ionian Revolt rates—rendered nearly worthless by subsequent inflation—the treaty preserved Persia's crucial right to call upon these cities for military service when required.

The treaty also served broader Iranian strategic objectives: by enforcing the nominal autonomy of city-states subject to Athens, Persian satraps could systematically foment rebellions and weaken Athenian imperial cohesion. Thucydides later identified this tactic as a key factor in the eventual destabilization of the Athenian Empire.

Athens violated the treaty in 439 BC by attacking Samos, prompting Artaxerxes to retaliate through calculated provocations in Ionia. When the Peloponnesian War erupted, Persian satraps strategically funded various Greek factions, with Spartan envoys eventually seeking direct support from Artaxerxes, requesting Persian gold to finance their naval operations.

Recognizing the growing threat of Persian influence, the Athenians relocated the treasury of the Delian League from Delos to Athens. The Peace of Callias would subsequently serve as a diplomatic template for the more comprehensive "Peace of Susa" in 387 BC, where Artaxerxes II was formally recognized as "lord of Greece."

Final Years and Historical Legacy

Artaxerxes I ruled for 41 years, a period that included the brief reign of his son Xerxes II, who was assassinated after merely six weeks on the throne. This chronology is confirmed by Babylonian records and the Ptolemaic Chronicle. Archaeological evidence from Nippur and Babylon, including an alabaster vase preserved in Paris bearing inscriptions in Old Persian, Elamite, Babylonian, and Egyptian, provides material testimony to his extended rule.

Greek sources consistently remembered him as a handsome, generous, and devout monarch. The Book of Nehemiah records his favorable treatment of Jewish envoys, permitting the reconstruction of Jerusalem's walls in accordance with his policy of religious tolerance. Yet he could also act with characteristic royal caprice: Ctesias recounts how he sentenced Megabyzus to death for killing a lion before the king could strike it during a royal hunt. Later, following intercession by influential court women, Megabyzus was pardoned—demonstrating both the arbitrary nature of royal power and the complex dynamics of court influence.

Conclusion

Artaxerxes I's reign was distinguished not by territorial conquest but by strategic patience and administrative consolidation. Through a sophisticated blend of ideological legitimacy, pragmatic diplomacy, and carefully restrained imperialism, he preserved the Achaemenid realm during a critical period of potential fragmentation. His methods—emphasizing negotiation over confrontation, cultural patronage over military coercion, and strategic accommodation over rigid resistance—demonstrated that empires could endure and even thrive through containment, covenant, and the maintenance of cosmic order.

In doing so, Artaxerxes set the crucial precedent for the imperial resurgence under Darius II and Artaxerxes II, proving that effective governance required not merely the capacity to conquer, but the wisdom to consolidate, accommodate, and maintain the delicate balance between imperial authority and local autonomy. His reign thus represents a masterclass in the art of imperial statecraft and the enduring power of diplomatic finesse over brute force.