Persian history

[Epictetus]

I have been wanting to read a good "starter" book on ancient Persian history, but I have no idea where to start. I've searched through Amazon, and didn't see anything that really caught my attention. Does anyone have any recommendations?

[Lyceum]

There's not really much GREAT stuff outside of the academic sphere I'm afraid so I'm not sure how to give sensible suggestions here.

Right. Try the article in Amelie Kuhrt's "Blackwell Companion to the Ancient Near East Vol II" on the Achaemenids, that's useful.

Brosius' book "The Persians" published by Routledge is a friendly one. She also edited a handy volume "The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I". The most popular textbook by far is Briant's "From Cyrus to Alexander" but its getting on now. Most of the really good stuff is in French you see and in general articles are king.

J Morgan has a book coming out on the Edinburgh press soon about Persia through Greek eyes, which is always interesting since it will help contextualise things a bit more....and will be cheap I think.

Other than that there are by and large specific articles on various topics, depending on WHAT you're after specifically, I'm sure I can help in most areas but, before you ask, alas, not military.

Oh, and read Ktesias! It's actually....interesting! Erm what else? I've done some translations of some random old Persian crap (inscriptions etc) I can post up here but they're not very worth while since Akkadian/Imp Aramaic was the lingua franca.

I hope that helps.

[Epictetus]

Thanks! I will start with those and I expect the bibliographies will point me on to other works that catch my interest.

[John W Davison]

Routledge Ancient History has a short chapter in the relevant volume, but it really is not very lengthy:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greek-479-323-Ro...7&sr=1-1#_

Blackwell are supposed to have a volume in the "History of the Ancient World", but it seems to be taking longer to produce than the original Persian Empire. It is "academic" in the sense that it is intended to be a textbook, but based on other volumes in the series, it will be user-friendly and intended as a foundation when it does appear:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Persian-...142&sr=1-1

There is a not very long chapter in the "general" ancient near east volume in the same series, but it should (one day!) be superseded by the above volume:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Ancient-...040&sr=1-1

I imagine you are already aware of the Osprey volume:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1846031087/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

For Achaemenid period, there is the Brill volume for political narrative,a lthough I am shocked to see how expensive this is now:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Histor...263&sr=1-4

There is also this old volume on Parthia, but it looks like you would have to try Alibris as all the editions are currently unavailable:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Histor...456&sr=1-1

The following Pen & Sword volume has quite a lot on the rise of the Parthians and I thought was very good:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Defeat-Rome-Cras...899&sr=1-1

[ScipioAsina]

I recommend Pierre Briant's 1200-page door-stopper, From Cyrus to Alexander (Eisenbrauns, 2002). It's naturally somewhat dense, though the translation flows well.

For something a little more digestible, see Maria Brosius' The Persians: An introduction (Routledge, 2006). However, she makes a number of silly errors, and her smattering of endnotes aren't helpful at all. Josef Wiesehöfer's Ancient Persia (I. B. Tauris, 2001) is excellent but does not really cover political history. Brosius and Wiesehöfer both address the Parthian and Sassanian periods. If you're at all curious, Brosius also wrote Women in Ancient Persia (Oxford University Press, 1996), the only work on the subject as far as I know.

You might be interested in M. A. Dandamaev's A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (Brill, 1989), though Briant's work is much better in my opinion. It's also rather difficult to find outside of university libraries. Same goes for the second volume of The Cambridge History of Iran, edited by Ilya Gershevitz (Cambridge University Press, 1985)--as awfully overpriced as it is.

If you're not worried about reading outdated scholarship, have some fun with A. T. Olmstead's History of the Persian Empire (University of Chicago Press, 1948), J. M. Cook's The Persian Empire (Schocken Books, 1983), and even A. R. Burn's Persia & the Greeks (Stanford University Press, 1984).

Books with lots of illustrations yet solid text: Lindsay Allen's The Persian Empire (University of Chicago Press, 1985), and Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia, edited by John E. Curtis and Nigel Tallis (UC Press, 2005).

On the Parthians, you'll want to see Malcolm A. R. Colledge's The Parthians (Frederck A. Praeger, 1967) and Parthian Art (Paul Elek, 1977)--both are somewhat outdated. The aforementioned work by Gareth C. Sampson, Defeat of Rome in the East (Casemate, 2008), is also definitely worth a read.

I'm not familiar with any literature on the Sassanians.

Hope this helps!

[Vindex]

A new book on the Sas(s)anians is discussed on RAT here

[Lyceum]

Scipio our lists are markedly cognate it would seem.

I would say though, to both you and Vindex, that (in line with current scholarship and the fantastic seminars recently here at Ox) it might be best not to stress the "Persianess" of the later dynasties too much. I mean....sure they were Iranian...but they weren't necessarily Persian in our sense and though previous scholarship has stressed their link with Cyrus etc I think its better to view them linked with the generic N/M East.

Essentially their national mythoi seemed to be along the lines of "we're antique and awesome too, but were suppressed under previous regimes" rather than "bow before me, Cyrus revisited".

[Epictetus]

Thanks, everyone!

[Vindex]

I would say though, to both you and Vindex...

I would say that I didn't say anything about "Persianess" and merely brought the news of a new book to the general forum membership! :roll:

[Epictetus]

That is something else I don't understand (but hopefully these books will help). What is Persia, Parthia, the Achaemenid Empire, the Seleucid Empire, Iran...? Some seem to be in regards to geography, and some seem to be in terms of ruling dynasties. I imagine there are specific definitions that scholars use, but sometimes it doesn't make sense to me why one term is used instead of another.

[Lyceum]

I know that...just pointing out some generic stuff, calm down.

The Achaemenids (the dynasty of Hakamanisha) were the main dynasty for those of us interested in Greek history ruled from the 6th century until Alexander came calling. Slightly complex in that there its unsure or not whether the latter dynasty had anything to do with its founder Kyros (the great). Called Persian due to ostensibly having their origins/base in Parsis (though Kyros called himself an Anshemite, apparently) they really just referred to themselves by the common indo-iranic ethnonym so some form of "Arya" which actually....covers one hell of a lot of people. Confusing.

After Alexander had his way much of the former Persian territories came under Seleukos hence the Seleukid empire (Arkhe Seleukia). Slightly...mind boggling how this happened btw. They were over thrown by another dynasty, the Araskidai whom we call the Parthians. I think calling them "Persians" might be a bit too much in the sense that they weren't very much like the Achaemenids...for a start they were heavily Hellenised.

This guys ruled for a while and then the Sassanids came (children of Sassan), they were also Iranian, possibly Persian and ruled until the Muslim conquest.

Confusion comes in that the ancient (external) sources always mix up Persian, Mede, Parthian etc and that sort of carries into scholarship I guess.

Basically these were all powerful dynasties/cultures under the general banner of "Iranic" who ruled at different times, though historians of Iranian descent seem to misleading argue for continuity between these and the present day.

[Jona Lendering]

Basically these were all powerful dynasties/cultures under the general banner of "Iranic" who ruled at different times, though historians of Iranian descent seem to misleading argue for continuity between these and the present day.

Correct. One of the main debates is that about the continuity in Iranian history. There are indeed certain continuities, but there are also violent discontinuities. In his general history of Persia/Iran, Michael Axworthy offers a nice way out: although there are discontinuities, the idea that there was one Iran, is continuous. Hence, he called his book Persia. Empire of the Mind. It's not a perfect book, but there are worse introductions.

[Vindex]

I know that...just pointing out some generic stuff, calm down.

Without turning this into a Forum spat I am perfectly calm, thank you, but would prefer it if you perhaps considered the content of your posts more carefully and more accurately.

Since you have made an assumption, I will correct it. My only interest in "Persianess" is how many a Greek hoplite could kill in a day.

[Dan D'Silva]

They were over thrown by another dynasty, the Araskidai whom we call the Parthians. I think calling them "Persians" might be a bit too much in the sense that they weren't very much like the Achaemenids...for a start they were heavily Hellenised.

Ethnicity seems to be more murky than region, and the Arsacids are especially so. They came from east of Iran -- they were of the Dahae people, more closely related to the Pashtuns than to the Persians. Then they took over Parthia (which is still far to the east of Persia proper) and adopted the Parthian language, so they're called Parthians. I'd venture that if they married Parthian nobles then after some generations they were Parthians, with a bit of outside ancestry. But I don't know how they identified themselves.

It was Darius who first goes on record saying he was a Persian. Daniel Potts has even suggested that Cyrus the Great and the Teispid kings were Elamite rather than Persian (or more Elamite than Persian).

[Lyceum]

They were over thrown by another dynasty, the Araskidai whom we call the Parthians. I think calling them "Persians" might be a bit too much in the sense that they weren't very much like the Achaemenids...for a start they were heavily Hellenised.

Ethnicity seems to be more murky than region, and the Arsacids are especially so. They came from east of Iran -- they were of the Dahae people, more closely related to the Pashtuns than to the Persians. Then they took over Parthia (which is still far to the east of Persia proper) and adopted the Parthian language, so they're called Parthians. I'd venture that if they married Parthian nobles then after some generations they were Parthians, with a bit of outside ancestry. But I don't know how they identified themselves.

It was Darius who first goes on record saying he was a Persian. Daniel Potts has even suggested that Cyrus the Great and the Teispid kings were Elamite rather than Persian (or more Elamite than Persian).

Well...self identification is an important element isn't it? Its difficult to say. I think personally the fact that Hellenicity evidently played a massive part in their lives (listening to renditions of the Bacchae etc) they probably drew not only from the Achaemenids but also from the Diadochi and...more importantly (judging from things like kings lists etc) several older Mesopotamian traditions.

I agree with your word murky though, very apt.

I think Potts is pretty much on the money in this area.

Basically these were all powerful dynasties/cultures under the general banner of "Iranic" who ruled at different times, though historians of Iranian descent seem to misleading argue for continuity between these and the present day.

Correct. One of the main debates is that about the continuity in Iranian history. There are indeed certain continuities, but there are also violent discontinuities. In his general history of Persia/Iran, Michael Axworthy offers a nice way out: although there are discontinuities, the idea that there was one Iran, is continuous. Hence, he called his book Persia. Empire of the Mind. It's not a perfect book, but there are worse introductions.

Indeed, I mean I generally try to avoid Persian history as a diachronic entity for these reasons....its just so...caught up with things in a way that Greek history rarely is. Also, I find it pretty impenetrable in a way. Learning Old Persian/Avestan is easy as hell...but there are no real sources written in it and it was almost waste of time. My grasp of Akkadian and Aramaic is terrible.

On the other hand when as an undergraduate we had to study Alexander the great and the Macedonians it was a great help to have all this wonderful stuff written about them, French/German or not.