In 479 BC, a woman was forcibly dragged into a room inside the Persian royal palace. What was done to her body was so extreme that the ancient historian who recorded it—a man who had spent his life documenting wars, mass executions, and ritual sacrifices across three continents—hesitated before daring to record it. She was not a criminal. She was not a prisoner of war. She was not a slave. She was of royal blood. She was the wife of the king’s own brother, a woman from one of the most protected bloodlines on earth.
And the order did not come from the king; it came from the queen. But the reason it happened, the specific, traceable chain of decisions that led this woman to that room, began years earlier on a battlefield 1,000 miles away from a king who had just suffered the most public humiliation of his life and was unable to come to terms with who he had become.
Before this story ends, the sacred oath will be turned into a weapon. The hand-woven garment will become a statement that no one will be able to deny. The royal birthday will turn into an inescapable trap, and an entire branch of the Persian royal family will be erased from existence. Not by a foreign army, not by revolution, but from within, by people who shared the same blood. And the man who caused it all would be murdered in his own bed by the men he trusted to protect him while he slept.
That’s how it happened. Crimson Historians covers the parts of history that mainstream sources most often omit. And this story is one of the reasons why. If this is the type of content you want to see more of, subscribe now. It costs nothing, and at the same time directly determines whether stories like this will continue to be created.
To understand what happened inside this palace, you must first understand what happened outside its walls. First, the year 480 BC. Xerxes launched the largest military operation the ancient world had ever seen. Even conservative modern estimates place the total force at over 200,000 men. By comparison, most Greek cities were only able to field armies of a few thousand soldiers. The entire military citizen class of Sparta numbered less than 10,000 men.
Xerxes did not invade Greece. He was going to erase her. He inherited the campaign from his father Darius, who was defeated at Marathon in 490 BC and died before he could make a second attempt. Xerxes took this undertaking personally. He spent four years preparing. He ordered a canal to be dug through the peninsula of Mount Athos so that his fleet would not have to repeat the route that had previously led to the disaster of his father’s ships. He also ordered pontoon bridges to be built across Hellespont. When a storm destroyed the first set, Xerxes ordered the water itself to be scourged and branded with heated irons.
This detail is often presented as evidence of madness. It wasn’t madness; it was theater. Xerxes ruled an empire composed of dozens of nations and languages. His power was based on the belief that he operated on a completely different level than ordinary people. By punishing the sea, he sent a message to his own army, and for a time this message worked. His troops entered Europe. At Thermopylae, the Greek rearguard was commanded by 300 Spartans. It defended the narrow pass for three days before being outflanked and destroyed.
Xerxes moved further south. Athens was evacuated and burned. Greece seemed to be collapsing.
Then the Battle of Salamis took place. The Greek fleet lured the Persian navy into the narrow strait. The passage was too narrow for the Persian ships to maneuver freely. The ships collided with each other. Command signals did not reach external formations. The Greeks tore the fleet to pieces.
Xerxes watched everything from a golden throne set on a hill above the strait. He placed it there deliberately so that the fleet would know the king was watching, so that every captain, every rower, every marine would understand that his actions were being watched by a man who, with a single word, could elevate him or destroy him. Now that same throne forced him to watch his own ships crash into each other, fall over, and burn.
When the battle ended, the Greek fleet controlled the strait. The supply line connecting the Persian army with Asia was cut. Without a fleet, the land campaign could not be sustained through the winter. Xerxes made a decision that would determine everything that came next.
He left.
He didn’t stay to regroup. He did not try to rebuild the fleet. He withdrew from Greece completely. He left his general Mardonius with a land army of about 80,000 men. This army fought for another year before being destroyed at the Battle of Plataea in 479 BC. Xerxes never returned to Greece, never launched another campaign in the west. And it is this fact, this withdrawal, the silence that followed it, 14 years of internal retreat, that is where the story truly begins.
Xerxes was not overthrown. The Persian Empire was still the largest political structure on Earth, stretching from Libya to the Indus Valley and encompassing about one-third of the world’s population. But empires don’t function because of territory. They function through the perception of power. Xerxes crossed the Hellespont with the express promise of conquest. He returned without it in a court system in which the king’s authority was linked to divine favor, where the Achaemenid monarch was presented as the chosen instrument of Ahura Mazda, the God of truth and order.
The military defeat was not just a failure; it was a theological problem. No one talked about it openly. Persian court culture did not allow direct criticism of the king, but changes in behavior were evident. Governors began to consolidate regional power. Tribute payments began to slow down. A network of royal informants reported growing independence among provincial administrators.
Inside the palace, the change looked different. Xerxes completely withdrew from military campaigns. For the remaining 14 years of his reign, he did not launch any major military operations. He turned to construction. He expanded Persepolis, commissioning elaborate reliefs emphasizing his titles and the divine origin of his power. He also turned to the inner life of the court. A king who has lost the external stage often tries to regain power on the internal stage. And Xerxes’ inner stage was a palace full of relatives, servants, and aristocrats whose position depended entirely on his favor.
One person in particular caught his attention. Xerxes had a brother named Masistes. Masistes was not a supporting character. He commanded troops during the Greek campaign and governed Bactria, a strategically key province encompassing parts of present-day Afghanistan and Central Asia. He was of royal blood, a professional military man, and a politically significant figure due to his position. He was also married, and Xerxes desired his wife.
This record is found directly in the ninth book of Herodotus’ history. Xerxes courted Masistes’ wife. She refused. She refused the king of the Achaemenid Empire, the man who controlled the largest army, the largest treasury, and the largest administrative network in the world. And to this woman, whose name Herodotus doesn’t even record, he said “no.”
Xerxes didn’t force her, not out of moral hesitation. Herodotus gives no indication that ethics played any role. The reason was strategic. Masistes had troops, he had regional power, he had the loyalty of one of the most militarily capable provinces of the empire. To take his wife by force would be an act of aggression against Masistes himself. And that would create a problem Xerxes couldn’t afford. Not after Greece. Not when the court was already watching closely.
So the king changed his strategy. He wouldn’t attack what he wanted directly. Instead, he would rearrange the board so that what he wanted was within his reach. The tool he used was marriage. He arranged for his eldest son, the crown prince Darius, to marry Masistes’ daughter, a woman named Artainte.
Royal families of the ancient Near East routinely married within their own circle. The Achaemenid dynasty especially practiced inbreeding, maintaining bloodlines, wealth, and alliances within the ruling house. No one would question this marriage. It seemed like simple dynasty maintenance. But its goal wasn’t consolidation. Its goal was proximity. By marrying Artainte and bringing her into the household of the heir to the throne, Xerxes brought Masistes’ entire family physically closer to the royal court, closer to the palace, closer to himself.
The original target, a mother, now became accessible through the social obligations that arose when the daughter was in the king’s household. Family visits, court ceremonies, seasonal transfers between Susa and Persepolis—Xerxes created a reason for this woman to be near him without arousing any suspicion of his true motives.
But proximity has a strange ability to change people’s intentions. Bridges carry traffic in both directions, and the access Xerxes created led to a result he himself had spun out of foresight. Xerxes’ obsession had changed. It had transferred from mother to daughter. Artainte, the woman who had just married his own son.
Herodotus doesn’t describe the seduction; he records only the aftermath. Xerxes and Artainte began an affair—his son’s wife, his brother’s daughter, his own daughter-in-law. Each of these relationships carried its own kind of familial, political, and dynastic violations. And unlike her mother, Artainte didn’t refuse.
Why? The honest answer is: We don’t know. Herodotus doesn’t give her a voice. She might have desired the king. She might have feared him. She might have seen an opportunity. In a court where a woman’s safety depended entirely on the favor of men, proximity to the most powerful man on Earth wasn’t a sentimental choice. It was a calculation of survival. Or perhaps she had no real choice at all. The sources don’t tell us.
What they say is different. The affair continued in secret for a period Herodotus doesn’t specify. The court either did not notice or chose not to. In palaces, where a misjudgment could end a life, strategic blindness was a professional skill. But secrecy required discipline. Xerxes was undisciplined. He made a promise he could never retract.
During one of their meetings, Xerxes swore a royal oath to Artainte. She could ask for anything, and he would grant it. In the Achaemenid system, royal oaths carried religious authority. They invoked Ahura Mazda, the supreme deity whose favor legitimized the king’s authority. Breaking such an oath wasn’t merely shameful; it was an act of cosmic disorder. It undermined the very structure that made the king a king.
Xerxes swore this oath expecting a modest request—gold, jewelry, property. Artainte asked for the robe he wore. It was a distinct, recognizable garment, handwoven by Queen Amestris as a personal gift to the king. The court knew this. When Xerxes wore it, it sent a clear message visible to all: The queen did this for me. We are united.
If Artainte wore it, every layer of this message would turn inside out. The queen’s own work on another woman’s body left no room for interpretation, no room for denial. This robe was a confession embroidered in silk.
Xerxes understood this immediately. He tried to reverse it. He offered Artainte cities, real, profitable cities, for her to rule. He offered unlimited gold. Herodotus records that he even offered her an army under her personal command. Artainte rejected everything. She only wanted that robe. Only the robe.
There are two ways to interpret this moment. The first is that Artainte was simply reckless. She wanted the most impressive object she could see and didn’t calculate the price. The second possibility is that she knew perfectly well what she was doing. This robe wasn’t a trophy; it was a mechanism. As long as the affair remained secret, it was easily removed. The moment it became public knowledge, it became a fact the court had to reckon with.
Herodotus doesn’t tell us which of these interpretations is true. Xerxes gave the robe because no king could overturn it. In the law, the king could reverse a verdict, but in Persia, the king could not break a sacred oath. The robe changed hands, and from that moment on, the countdown began.
Amestris saw the robe on Artainte. She didn’t scream, didn’t confront, didn’t go to Xerxes; she waited. Amestris wasn’t just the king’s wife. She was the daughter of Otanes, one of the seven aristocratic conspirators who overthrew the false king Smerdis and installed Darius on the throne, and her political power was hereditary, independent of Xerxes. She had alliances among the old aristocracy that existed even before her marriage. She had her own network of informants, her own tools of influence within the court, and her position was based on one principle: The queen could not be publicly humiliated without a response.
This was not vanity. In the Persian court, where dozens of women competed for the king’s attention, the queen’s power was maintained by the absolute belief that challenging her would entail consequences. At the moment when this belief was crumbling, every ambitious woman, every rival family, every faction seeking a new patron would begin to shift their positions. Amestris didn’t see the robe and feel betrayal. She saw the robe and recognized the threat. She then made a decision that says more about the court’s power dynamics than almost anything else in Herodotus’s work.
She didn’t strike Artainte; she struck Artainte’s mother, Masistes’ wife.
Herodotus writes that Amestris believed that her mother had orchestrated the affair, that she had pushed Artainte towards the king to elevate the importance of her branch of the family. Did Amestris truly believe this? Did she simply find it convenient to believe? Was it suspicion, or just a justification? The sources cannot tell us. What they say is different.
Amestris didn’t react immediately. She didn’t act impulsively. She looked at the calendar and waited for one specific day. Once a year, on the king’s birthday, Persian custom required the king to fulfill any request made during the royal court feast. It wasn’t optional. It was embedded in the ritual structure of the monarchy. Refusing a birthday request, especially one made by the queen before the assembled court, would be a visible breach of tradition—a breach so serious that it could undermine the king’s very legitimacy.
Amestris had been waiting for this day. During a feast in the presence of nobles, priests, military commanders, and provincial governors, she made her request. She asked that Masistes’ wife be given to her.
Everyone in that hall understood what this meant. Xerxes understood it too. He tried to stop her. He pleaded with Amestris privately, pulling her aside during the feast, trying to redirect her request. He offered alternatives, other gifts, other forms of compensation, other signs of recognition. Amestris remained adamant. She had chosen her request, chosen her moment, chosen her audience. She did not negotiate.
Xerxes then left the feast and went directly to Masistes, without explaining the affair, without revealing the queen’s plan, without revealing any of the real threats. He urged his brother to divorce his wife, to let her go voluntarily. Xerxes offered to arrange a new, better marriage. He even offered his own daughter as a new wife for Masistes.
Think about what that means. The king of the Persian Empire offered his own child to his brother as a replacement, trying to eliminate the target before the blow fell. And he couldn’t explain why.
Masistes refused. He had no idea what was happening. No one told him about the affair, the robe, or the queen’s plan. He loved his wife. He saw no reason to abandon her based on the vague, inexplicable pleas of his brother, who refused to tell the truth.
Caught between a birthday custom he couldn’t break, a wife who had outwitted him, and a brother who refused to cooperate with a rescue he didn’t even know existed, Xerxes capitulated. He betrayed the woman. The man who ruled the largest empire in human history was forced to grant permission for something he desperately did not want. The oath he made to Artainte had taken away his control over the secret. The birthday custom had taken away his control over the consequences. The tools of his own power were turned against him by a woman who understood those tools better than he did.
Masistes’ wife was placed under the rule of Amestris. What followed was a systematic destruction of the body. Herodotus records that the woman was mutilated. He is very precise about this. Body parts were cut off, deliberately selecting those that conveyed social identity, that communicated status, that allowed her to function in public life. She was not killed. She was left alive, conscious, and sent back.
She was carried through the palace corridors past the same guards, the same servants, the same officials who had earlier seen her enter in perfect health. This was not a secret. This was not a silent disappearance that could later be denied. The woman was sent back to the visible world—permanent, undeniable, and impossible to ignore. Because the goal wasn’t just to destroy one woman. It was to implant a message in the minds of everyone who saw her: every noblewoman weighing her ambitions, every rival family weighing their options, every faction searching for a crack in the queen’s authority. This message didn’t need to be spoken; it was written on human flesh.
This is what happens.
Masistes’ wife wasn’t the perpetrator of the affair. She rejected Xerxes when he approached her. According to all available historical evidence, she did nothing to provoke what was done to her. The target was chosen not because of guilt; the target was chosen for maximum visibility. Masistes was a governor. His wife was known. Her condition was to be seen, discussed, and remembered in every corridor of the court. And that was precisely the point.
When Masistes saw what had been done to his wife, his reaction was immediate. He didn’t petition the king, he didn’t seek mediation. He gathered his sons, gathered his household, and marched east toward Bactria. His plan was simple: Incite the province into open rebellion against Xerxes. Use his position as governor, his military experience, and the legitimacy derived from his injustice to gather a force capable of challenging the throne.
For the first time, a private scandal had turned into a threat to the empire. A governor of royal blood, with military experience, regional loyalty, and justifiable cause for anger, marched toward the army he himself controlled. Had he reached Bactria, the situation would have devolved into civil war.
Xerxes had not sent envoys, not initiated negotiations, not offered compensation, but sent soldiers. Swift cavalry detachments received a single command. Masistes and his sons were intercepted on the road before reaching Bactria. They were all killed.
An entire branch of the Achaemenid royal family—his brother, his sons, and their houses—had been wiped out. Not in battle, not by foreign invasion, not by disease, but by a chain of decisions that began when one man heard the word no and decided he couldn’t accept it.
After these assassinations, the Persian Empire continued to function. Taxes were collected, the army was maintained, construction at Persepolis continued. The administrative machinery Darius had created was solid enough to absorb internal bleeding without visibly breaking down. But the court witnessed something never to be forgotten: a king manipulated by his own customs, unable to protect a member of his own family from a punishment he himself had not ordered, ordering the killing of his own brother. Not because of a political dispute or betrayal, but because of a private scandal he himself had initiated.
For the Persian aristocracy—men who had staked their careers and the future of their families on the stability of the throne—this was information. It told them one thing: Proximity to the king was no longer a guarantee of security. It proved that loyalty could be overturned by impulse, and that rituals designed to stabilize the monarchy could be weaponized by anyone who was clever enough to understand them. When such knowledge enters a court, it doesn’t disappear; it stays, sitting in the background of every conversation, shaping every calculation. It changes the answer to the question every man close to power constantly asks himself:
“Am I safe?”
For 14 years, this question circulated in the palaces of Susa and Persepolis. In 465 BCE, the answer arrived. Xerxes was murdered in his own bedroom.
The man who killed him was Artabanus, commander of the Royal Bodyguard—a man whose sole institutional function was to keep the king alive while he slept. He was assisted by Aspamitres, a court eunuch who controlled physical access to the king’s private chambers. Think of this geometry of power. The two men with the most intimate access to the king, the man guarding his door and the man holding the key, together orchestrated his death.
These were not strangers, these were not rebels from a distant province. This was his inner circle. The people who dressed him, who walked beside him, who stood in silence as he slept. They watched him for years. They saw the campaign in Greece end in failure. They saw the Masistes affair unfold. They saw court rituals become weapons and the royal bloodline thinned by the king’s own decision. And at some point, we don’t know exactly when, they stopped seeing him as a king worth protecting.
The assassination wasn’t a sudden event. It was the final burden on a structure that had begun to buckle after Salamis.
After Xerxes’ death, his son Artaxerxes I took the throne. But only after Artabanus attempted to seize power himself and was killed in battle did the Achaemenid dynasty survive for another 130 years. But the pattern that crystallized during Xerxes’ reign—internal destruction, rituals turned into weapons, loyalty met with violence—repeated itself through the generations.
Artainte disappears from the records. After the incident with the robe, her fate is no longer recorded. Masistes’ wife, the woman who refused the king and was destroyed by the decision of others, also disappears from history. Did she endure her wounds for years, or just a few days? Herodotus doesn’t say.
The people who set this entire chain of events in motion retained power. Those caught up in the chain of events did not.
This is the account in Book Nine of Herodotus’s Histories. It’s over 2,500 years old. Most textbooks omit it entirely. Now you know why.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
