From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire

امپراتوری هخامنشی #1-2

by Pierre Briant

Around 550 B.C.E. the Persian people--who were previously practically unknown in the annals of history--emerged from their base in southern Iran (Fars) and engaged in a monumental adventure that, under the leadership of Cyrus the Great and his successors, culminated in the creation of an immense Empire that stretched from central Asia to Upper Egypt, from the Indus to the Danube. The Persian (or Achaemenid, named for its reigning dynasty) Empire assimilated an astonishing diversity of lands, peoples, languages, and cultures. This conquest of Near Eastern lands completely altered the history of the world: for the first time, a monolithic State as vast as the future Roman Empire arose, expanded, and matured in the course of more than two centuries (530-330) and endured until the death of Alexander the Great (323), who from a geopolitical perspective was "the last of the Achaemenids." Even today, the remains of the Empire-the terraces, palaces, reliefs, paintings, and enameled bricks of Pasargadae, Persepolis, and Susa; the impressive royal tombs of Naqsh-i Rustam; the monumental statue of Darius the Great-serve to remind visitors of the power and unprecedented luxury of the Great Kings and their loyal courtiers (the "Faithful Ones").



Though long eclipsed and overshadowed by the towering prestige of the "ancient Orient" and "eternal Greece," Achaemenid history has emerged into fresh light during the last two decades. Freed from the tattered rags of "Oriental decadence" and "Asiatic stagnation," research has also benefited from a continually growing number of discoveries that have provided important new evidence-including texts, as well as archaeological, numismatic, and iconographic artifacts.



The evidence that this book assembles is voluminous and diverse: the citations of ancient documents and of the archaeological evidence permit the reader to follow the author in his role as a historian who, across space and time, attempts to understand how such an Empire emerged, developed, and faded. Though firmly grounded in the evidence, the author's discussions do not avoid persistent questions and regularly engages divergent interpretations and alternative hypotheses. This book is without precedent or equivalent, and also offers an exhaustive bibliography and thorough indexes.



The French publication of this magisterial work in 1996 was acclaimed in newspapers and literary journals. Now Histoire de l'Empire Perse: De Cyrus a Alexandre is translated in its entirety in a revised edition, with the author himself reviewing the translation, correcting the original edition, and adding new documentation.



Pierre Briant, Chaire Histoire et civilisation du monde ach�menide et de l'empire d'Alexandre, Coll�ge de France, is a specialist in the history of the Near East during the era of the Persian Empire and the conquests of Alexander. He is the author of numerous books.



Peter T. Daniels, the translator, is an independent scholar, editor, and translator who studied at Cornell University and the University of Chicago. He lives and works in New York City.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Iran, War, Middle East, World History

1385 pages, Hardcover

First published June 12, 1996

About the author

Pierre Briant (born September 30, 1940 in Angers) is a French Iranologist, Professor of History and Civilization of the Achaemenid World and the Empire of Alexander the Great at the Collège de France (1999 onwards), Doctor Honoris Causa at the University of Chicago,
He studied History at the University of Poitiers (1960–1965), and reached his doctorat d'État in 1972.
His works deal mainly with the Achaemenid Empire, and related matters as Alexander the Great or the Hellenistic Era.
Known for: From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire

Reviews

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book put me into a violent rage with its first two sentences: “Did the Achaemenid (a.k.a. Persian) Empire (550–330 BC) ever exist? There is no term corresponding to ‘Empire” in any of the languages spoken in the political entity at the time.” Pierre Briant obviously was unaware that having studied Latin in high school I had known since the age of 14 that the first empire in the world was created in 27 BC, when the Roman Senate made Octavian its emperor with the title of Augustus. Briant’s was truly asking was whether the Achaemenid (a.k.a. Persian) Empire was similar in nature to the Roman Empire that came later. Unfortunately, Briant’s convoluted approach displayed in his opening paragraph writing persists throughout the entire book undermining his truly impressive research effort.
Briant is at his absolute best with non-literary sources. He makes brilliant use of coins, inscriptions on statues, murals, tableware, roadways and buildings. He is particularly inspired in his analysis of the cuneiform Elamite tablets from the 2 archives discovered in Persepolis in the 1930. The inscriptions on the statues and the murals reveal a common ideology and religion (Mazdaism) in the empire. The remains of relay stations and roadways demonstrate that the Empire had a complete transportation network. The Elamite tables from the Empire’s administrative archives demonstrate that there was a true Imperial government with a structured system for the recording information as well as collecting taxes and tribute throughout its territory. Due to this masterful analysis of the archeological evidence Briant is answers the question that he has posed: Yes; there was a Persian empire. It was not just a horde of disorganized tribes.
Briant is much less successful with his use of textual sources. The depth of his research is remarkable. He does not cite but rather analyzes in considerable detail the works of the classical historians (i.e. Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias, Diodorus, Plutarch, Arrien, Trogus and Thucydides). He does the same with many of the literary and philosophical writers of the era (e.g. Plato, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Euripides). Finally, he gleans information from the Biblical Books of Judith, Nehemiah and Esther.
Briant’s best accomplishment with the text sources is that he Illustrates the subtlety of the diplomatic relations of the Achaemenid Empire with the Greek city states in Asia Minor. Unfortunately, what Briant does primarily is to discuss the inaccuracies, false theories and blatant lies of the classical authors. He analyzes in such depth that he fails utterly to construct a narrative. Briant debunks without ever telling a story. To be fair, Briant warns the reading. Before beginning his text, he presents the reader with a quotation from Umberto Eco: “It is difficult to know if a given interpretation is true; on the other hand, it is easier to recognize a wrong interpretation.”
Briant has given us an intelligent, deeply researched and semiotic book on the Achaemenid (a.k.a. Persian) empire that never truly tells the history. I guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[Barbara Sydow · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all, here are my (picky) complaints: This book would benefit greatly from another round of editing. I'm not sure if the translation is partially at fault, but I found it to be strangely organized, and full of typos and odd layout decisions. Sometimes a figure would appear pages from where it was referenced. Some figures didn't seem to have been referenced at all, which was confusing. And sometimes the author would describe things in detail (palaces, stelae, coins) and then not include a figure that would have been helpful. That could be a licensing issue, but it was rather frustrating. The organization was also confusing. The book starts with early Persian history, and focuses on the first two or three rulers, so I was expecting the author to just work his way through the history chronologically. He then, however goes off on a 400 page tangent describing customs/religion/tax polices, etc. over the course of the entire history of the empire, jumping back and forth in time between rulers. It just seems like an ironic decision considering how much time he spends complaining about Herodotus' digressions. He then eventually goes back to the chronological layout, and the book ends with the final rulers of the empire before its fall.

All these editorial/design problems aside, it was extremely informative, and about as entertaining as a thousand-page textbook about the Persian empire could be. He has a good sense of humor and includes plenty of fascinating anecdotes about daily life of the rulers and the soldiers, and he really manages to cover a lot of territory (no pun intended). I was a classics major in college and had of course focused on Greek and Roman history; the Persians were only ever described tangentially, and always as aggressors. I wanted a book to fill my knowledge gaps regarding this part of the world, and this book was just what I was looking for. I'd highly recommend it for anyone interested in an in-depth review of the ancient middle east.

[Shapur · Rating 5 out of 5]

The greatest historical overview of the Achaemenid realm ever put together. Do you need anything more?

Looking forward to "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" after finishing the reread. Really want them thicc analyses.

Absolute gobsmack!

[Daniel Ketelhut · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first became interested in ancient Persia as a natural outgrowth of my interest in ancient Greece. Because Persia never established a literary tradition that included narrative histories, it's always been necessary to rely on the classical sources (Herodotus, Xenophon, Arrian, Ctesias, Diodorus, etc.). As well intentioned and knowledgeable as these writers are, they are not of the culture they are describing. Furthermore, they each have specific aims and goals for their writings. As such, bias and misunderstanding inevitably creep in. In addition to the classical sources, there are Biblical sources, archaeological sources, numismatic sources, inscriptions, and artistic depictions. Pierre Briant does a masterful job of making full and judicious use of each of these, resulting in a picture of Acaemenid Persia that is as fair and well rounded as one is likely to get. This is all the more impressive given the very disparate nature of the sources. If anything is lacking, it is that, while the author gives full account of the reasons for and development of the conflicts that the empire finds itself in with neighboring peoples (Babylonians, Medes, Lydians, Greeks, etc.), he gives almost no descriptions of actual battles. A military historian he is not. This aside, "From Cyrus to Alexander" is a masterpiece not to be missed for those looking for a fuller picture of the ancient Persian empire.

[Dave Van Es]

This book is above my level of understanding at this time. I am going to start a less complicated history of the Persian Empire in the hope to move up to this book within the next 6 months or so.

[Bryn Hammond]

Acknowledged daddy of the Persian-perspective historians.

[Farzad · Rating 5 out of 5]

More information in here than I could possibly dig through in the borrowed time I had with this book. Will procure this tome sometime soon.

[Mohammad Azimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Iranian History is Absulutly Great. Praud of this♥💫

[Joseph Ficklen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really was above my level, I skipped large portions that had to do with Persian society and economy, as I was mainly interested in reading Briant’s reconstruction of the Persian historical narrative. And in this I was a bit disappointed, there were few narrative sections that weren’t weighed down by examination of sources. But this is not the book’s nor the author’s fault, as the relative paucity of ancient sources force Briant to examine everything he can and try to integrate them into a coherent thesis. And this he does well, but it seems like he spends half the book questioning Greek sources and correcting their assumptions. I really liked how he integrated Biblical books to illustrate certain parts of his history.

From this book, Cyrus emerges as a propagandistic puppet master, rather than as a humanitarian liberator. Cambyses seems perfectly mild and even competent, as opposed to the mad and sadistic portrait Herodotus paints of him. Darius is another master of smoke and mirrors, who managed to portray his coup as a return to normalcy, and who managed to keep the Empire together and even make improvements. Xerxes doesn’t seem as evil as he is sometimes portrayed, though the humiliation of the Greek victories at Salamis and Plataea are obvious. The Greek victories against Persia seem important, but not enough to cripple the Persian Empire’s functioning.

Overall this is a good book but it is extremely dense and should not be one’s introduction to the subject.

[db67671321 · Rating 5 out of 5]

but there are always some details that we can dig in more

[Manouchehr · Rating 5 out of 5]

بسیار عالی و بدور از خیال پروری و ارائه سند. کتاب خوبی برای دانشجویان.