Artaxerxes II: Ruler of the Achaemenid Empire and His Historical Impact

On this page7 sections

Introduction

Artaxerxes II, ruling the Achaemenid Empire from about 405 or 404 until 359 or 358 BCE, presided over one of the longest reigns in Persian royal history. He inherited a vast but fractious realm that stretched from the eastern provinces of the Iranian plateau to the Mediterranean littoral, and his decades on the throne were marked by recurring challenges: dynastic struggle at the center, open warfare with Greek states to the west, revolts among powerful satraps in Anatolia, and persistent unrest in Egypt. His reign matters because it illustrates both the resilience and the limits of late Achaemenid kingship: through diplomacy, building projects, and religious patronage Artaxerxes II maintained imperial structures, yet the centrifugal forces his rule revealed contributed to the gradual weakening of central authority in the generation that followed.

Early Life and Rise to Power

Born before his father Darius II became king, Artaxerxes II was the eldest son of Darius and the queen Parysatis. In youth he bore the personal name Arses or Arsaces and belonged to a large royal household in which sibling rivalry and court factions were significant. His marriage into an influential Persian family, through Stateira the daughter of Hydarnes, tied him to leading aristocratic circles. When Darius II died, Arses assumed the throne under the regnal name Artaxerxes, a traditional formula signalling royal legitimacy.

The accession was followed quickly by a major test. His younger brother Cyrus, who as satrap of western Asia Minor had built an independent power base and cultivated Greek mercenary support, challenged the succession. Cyrus framed his campaign as a military operation but soon revealed his intent to seize the kingship. The confrontation culminated at Cunaxa in 401 BCE; Persian forces won the field in the sector where Artaxerxes’ troops operated, and Cyrus was killed in the melee. The elimination of this claimant preserved Artaxerxes’ hold on the throne, but the episode also opened an extended period of instability, since the involvement of Greek mercenaries and competing Persian governors created new dynamics of contention across the empire.

Consolidation of Power

After Cunaxa Artaxerxes II worked to secure his position through a combination of court action and regional appointments. At home, the royal family and its court officials remained central to his authority; however, palace politics were fraught and Parysatis, his mother, retained considerable influence, at times guiding decisions about marriage, promotion, and punishment. In the provinces, the king relied on satraps and senior commanders to reassert control, while removing or marginalizing those judged unreliable.

In foreign affairs the king used statecraft as well as force. Facing the fallout from Cyrus’ revolt and the wider Greek world’s involvement in Asia Minor, Artaxerxes cultivated diplomatic and financial tools to shape events. Paying subsidies to selected Greek states and commanders, backing friendly leaders, and negotiating settlements were part of a deliberate policy to manage the western frontier without relying solely on extended military campaigns from the Persian heartland.

Reforms and Achievements

Artaxerxes II is remembered for several durable achievements in administration, religion, and monumental patronage. On the religious front, he was the first Achaemenid ruler whose inscriptions clearly name Anahita and Mithra alongside Ahura Mazda. This formal recognition encouraged the building of temples and the public cult of these divinities in imperial centers such as Susa, Ecbatana, Babylon, and at Istakhr in Persis. The inclusion of these deities in royal formulae reflects a broader policy of sanctioning diverse religious practices within imperial ideology.

His building activity was extensive. He undertook restoration of the palace complex of Darius at Susa and renewed fortifications and ceremonial halls at key administrative cities. At Ecbatana he added an audience hall, and his funerary monument at Persepolis followed the royal tomb tradition, decorated with reliefs that visually represented the empire’s many subject peoples. These projects reinforced royal prestige and the visible presence of central authority across the network of Achaemenid capitals.

In international affairs, Artaxerxes’ most consequential diplomatic move came in Greece. During the conflict between Sparta and a coalition of other Greek cities in the later fourth century BCE, Persian gold and naval coordination aided anti-Spartan efforts. That posture shifted when it suited imperial interest, culminating in the negotiated settlement commonly known as the Treaty of Antalcidas in 387 or 386 BCE. The terms secured Persian control over the Ionian and Aeolian cities on the Anatolian coast while granting Sparta influence on the Greek mainland. By employing subsidies and diplomacy, Artaxerxes restored imperial influence in Asia Minor without a full-scale reconquest.

Challenges and Failures

Despite these successes, Artaxerxes II’s reign was troubled by several serious setbacks. The challenge from Cyrus the Younger revealed how regional powerholders and foreign mercenaries could threaten central control. Egypt, which had revolted early in his reign, resisted repeated attempts at reconquest. Major expeditions, including a large force assembled under Pharnabazus and allied Greek commanders in the 370s BCE, failed to recover the Nile kingdom. The logistical difficulties of campaigning in the Delta and coordinated command problems among Persian and Greek leaders turned promising operations into withdrawals.

Another defining crisis was the Great Satraps’ Revolt of the 370s and 360s BCE. Prominent western satraps, including Datames and Ariobarzanes, raised arms against the king, exploiting local power, wealth, and external alliances. These revolts spread across Anatolia and attracted support from Egypt and from Greek states seeking to limit Persian dominance. The rebellion continued intermittently for more than a decade before the royal government reasserted control by the early 360s BCE, but it exposed the limits of royal power in distant provinces and the dangers posed by increasingly autonomous satraps.

Court intrigues and family violence also undermined the king’s household. Parysatis’ interventions, accusations of treason, and episodes of poisoning within the royal family contributed to an atmosphere of suspicion and retaliation. The elimination of rivals, both real and alleged, weakened internal cohesion and foreshadowed a brutal succession process after Artaxerxes’ death.

Death and Succession

Artaxerxes II died in 359 or 358 BCE at an advanced age. The end of his long rule led to an unsettled transition. The royal household contained many princes and claimants, and the court became the theatre of plots and reprisals. In the years surrounding his death, several of his sons were implicated in conspiracies or fell victim to execution and assassination. The most effective political operator among them, Ochus, eliminated rivals and secured recognition as king under the regnal name Artaxerxes III. The final transfer of power was therefore violent and decisive, demonstrating how intrafamilial competition and palace intrigue could determine the dynasty’s continuity.

Legacy

Artaxerxes II left a mixed but consequential legacy. He managed to preserve the Achaemenid state through four decades of pressure, and his diplomatic maneuvers in Greece reset imperial relations with the major city-states of the eastern Mediterranean. His patronage strengthened the cult of Anahita and Mithra within imperial religion, and his restorations and monuments affirmed continuity with earlier Achaemenid programs of royal architecture. Those visible markers helped sustain royal ideology in the face of internal unrest.

At the same time, his reign exposed structural vulnerabilities. The satellite role of powerful satraps, the frequent employment of Greek mercenaries, and the repeated need to finance foreign allies with large sums of gold signalled that the empire’s cohesion depended increasingly on negotiated accommodations rather than unquestioned force. Later commentators, especially Greek historians who recorded the western episodes of his reign, tended to emphasize palace intrigues and the king’s melancholy. Subsequent Iranian and regional traditions, including claims by later dynasties, sometimes invoked descent from Artaxerxes II, indicating the continuing symbolic value of his name.

In sum, Artaxerxes II’s reign preserved imperial institutions and produced durable cultural and religious markers, while also revealing pressures that would shape the late Achaemenid world. His rule stands as a study in the balance between imperial maintenance and the centrifugal forces that ultimately reshaped the Near Eastern political landscape in the generations after him.