Let's say sometime before his war with Greece Xerxes the Great of the achaemenid empire was assasinated. What consequences would this have for his empire and for Greece?
Last edited:
Fixed it. The dating system confused me for a bit so I just generalized the question.Are you sure you aren't confusing him with Darius? Xerxes didn't start ruling until 486 BCE, and was assassinated in 465. But assuming you are referring to Xerxes, who would be 20 at the time, then the eldest son Artobazanes is likely made the heir. Then again, maybe not. Artobazanes was passed up for Xerxes because of the influence of Atossa. The next of Darius's son by Atossa was Masistes. Though I'm not sure if even Darius is daring enough to pass over Artobazanes, Ariabignes, and Arsamenes, all of whom were older than Masistes.
Assuming it's Ariabignes who succeeds Darius, just about all we know about him was that Plutarch calls him the bravest and most just of Xerxes's brothers, so he seems like he'd be a fairly competent ruler at least.
Would they do a better or worse job?Well, who succeeds him depends on who assassinates him. IOTL the person who assassinated Xerxes either also assassinated his eldest son Darius, or framed Darius, who was then executed his other son Artaxerxes. So, assuming Darius isn't killed also, Artaxerxes does not take the throne and Darius should be able to clean things up. Depending on when this happens and how messy the succession is, whoever succeeds Xerxes is probably still going to go through with the invasion of Greece.
We can't really be sure. We know Artaxerxes's preferred strategy was weakening Athens by funding her enemies, but that was after Salamis and Plataea and after Athens had taken most of Ionia. Also, he's less likely to be the successor in this scenario, and we know nothing about Darius.Would they do a better or worse job?