Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones

primogeniture as a go-to means of the succession.

So that meant essentially that when a king died, unless he appointed an heir, it was an open game.

Anybody could do it.

Now, I think there's a rationale for that.

You know, we shouldn't dismiss it.

And I think we have to remember in antiquity,

the mortality rate was very high for children.

And even to live into your adulthood, into your teens, was a perilous thing.

You just didn't know if you were ever going to get there.

So I think kings were prepared to hedge their bets and almost play this kind of game of Russian roulette with their prospective heirs, holding off

on appointing one until they were secure that they'd reached their maturity, things looked okay.

Also, I think there's something in the non-primogeniture system which allows a king to choose the son that most appeals to him, who has the right qualities to be a king as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, completely, completely.

No, no, they needed their favourites, you know.

Now, the other thing that we get, and I think I would not want to dismiss this, although some scholars, you know, are a bit more apprehensive about saying this, but I think it's right.

That's the power that...

the mothers of these boys had as well.

Within the imperial system, nobody could get closer to the king than one of his women in bed with him.

What happens between the sheets takes away the mystique of monarchy in a way.

Herodotus says, interestingly, that Darius had many sons.