What do you think?
Rate this book
Perșii: Epoca marilor regi
Marii Regi ai Persiei au domnit peste cel mai mare imperiu al Antichității, care se întindea din Libia până la stepele Asiei și din Etiopia până în Pakistan. În inima Imperiului se găsea fabulosul oraș-palat Persepolis, unde monarhii ahemenizi întrețineau o curte neîntrecută în fast și grandoare. De aici, Cirus cel mare, Darius, Xerxes și urmașii lor aveau să dea legi, să ridice armate și să guverneze peste Imperiul lor multicultural, de o uriașă diversitate.
Într-un demers cu totul inedit, care ia distanță față de interpretările tradiționale tributare scrierilor istoricilor greci, Llewellyn-Jones își îndreaptă atenția spre izvoarele ahemenide autentice (inscripții, artă și recentele descoperiri arheologice din Iran), pentru a crea o veritabilă „versiune persană" a acestui remarcabil prim imperiu al Antichității – Epoca Marilor Regi.
Într-un demers cu totul inedit, care ia distanță față de interpretările tradiționale tributare scrierilor istoricilor greci, Llewellyn-Jones își îndreaptă atenția spre izvoarele ahemenide autentice (inscripții, artă și recentele descoperiri arheologice din Iran), pentru a crea o veritabilă „versiune persană" a acestui remarcabil prim imperiu al Antichității – Epoca Marilor Regi.
416 pages, Paperback
First published April 14, 2022
436 people are currently reading
7808 people want to read
About the author
Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones
20 books85 followersLloyd Llewellyn-Jones is Professor of Ancient History at Cardiff University and a specialist in the histories and cultures of ancient Iran and Greece. He also works on dress and gender in antiquity and on the ancient world in popular culture, especially Hollywood cinema.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 261 reviews
December 3, 2025
کتاب عصر شاهان بزرگ از کوروش کبیر تا داریوش سوم ، کتابی است از لوید لولین جونز ، پژوهشگر و استاد تاریخ باستان که در زمینه تاریخ هخامنشیان تخصص دارد . او در این کتاب کوشیده تا تصویری تازه و منصفانه از هخامنشیان و شاهان بزرگ ایران نشان دهد و روایت کلیشهای غرب که به همت هرودوت آنان را بربرهای وحشی معرفی کرده بود ، را تغییر دهد .
جونز ، شاهان بزرگ ایران را نه تنها بهعنوان فاتحان نظامی، بلکه بهعنوان شخصیتهایی پیچیده و انسانی معرفی میکند؛ انسانهایی که قدرتشان در کنار شمشیر، در آیینها، نمادها و ساختار دربار معنا مییابد. او همچنین به لایههای فرهنگی، آیینی و اجتماعی امپراتوری وسیع هخامنشیان نیز پرداخته .
جونز گرچه کتاب خود را از پیش از هخامنشیان و از زمان چیشپیش شروع کرده ، اما اصل کتاب او را باید هنگامی دانست که کوروش کبیر ، پسر کمبوجیه یکم ، شاه پارس ، پسر کوروش یکم (شاه پارس) ، پسر چیش پیش ، توانست مادها را شکست دهد و با اتحاد قبایل پارسی، نخستین شاهنشاهی جهانی تاریخ را بنیان گذاشت . نویسنده دوران سلطنت هر شاه هخامنشی را شرح داده و سپس به ویژگیهای برجستهٔ آنان پرداخته. او کوروش بزرگ را بهعنوان بنیانگذار شاهنشاهی معرفی میکند؛ مردی که با سیاستهای تسامح مذهبی و احترام به فرهنگهای مغلوب، توانست سرزمینهای وسیعی را در تصرف کند . پس از او، کمبوجیه دوم با فتح مصر قدرت امپراتوری را گسترش داد، هرچند مرگ ناگهانیاش زمینهٔ آشوب را فراهم کرد.
بردیا یا گئومات تنها چند ماه بر تخت نشست و بهسرعت توسط داریوش بزرگ سرنگون شد. داریوش را نویسنده نقطهٔ اوج قدرت هخامنشیان میداند؛ شاهی که با اصلاحات اداری، مالیاتی و نظامی، امپراتوری را به شکلی منظم و پایدار اداره کرد و تخت جمشید را بنا نهاد. خشایارشا یکم با لشکرکشی به یونان شهرت یافت، هرچند شکست در سالامیس شکوه او را خدشه دار کرد.
اردشیر یکم با حکومتی طولانی، ثباتی نسبی به امپراتوری بخشید. پس از او، خشایارشا دوم و سغدیانوس حکومتهای کوتاه و بیثباتی داشتند. داریوش دوم درگیر شورشهای داخلی شد و اقتدار امپراتوری رو به ضعف گذاشت. اردشیر دوم با حکومتی طولانی، کوشید مصر و ساتراپیهای شورشی را مهار کند، اما موفقیت کامل نیافت. اردشیر سوم با اقتدار مصر را بازپس گرفت و دوباره قدرتی تازه به امپراتوری بخشید.
اردشیر چهارم (آرسس) تنها دو سال حکومت کرد و قربانی توطئههای درباری شد. سرانجام داریوش سوم بر تخت نشست؛ آخرین شاه هخامنشی که در برابر اسکندر مقدونی شکست خورد و با مرگ او، امپراتوری هخامنشی پس از حدود دو قرن شکوه و عظمت، به پایان رسید.
جونز شاهان هخامنشی را تنها با جنگهای پرشمار آنان به خواننده معرفی نمی کند ، بیشتر شاهان هخامنشی مجموعهای از اصلاحات، راهسازی، سازماندهی اداری و نوآوریهای اقتصادی را نیز به همراه داشتند. او توضیح میدهد که این شاهان نهتنها در میدان نبرد، بلکه در عرصهٔ مدیریت و ساختار اجتماعی نیز نقش مهمی داشتند.
کوروش بزرگ با سیاستهای تسامح مذهبی و احترام به فرهنگهای مغلوب، پایههای مشروعیت امپراتوری را بنا کرد. داریوش بزرگ با ایجاد ساتراپیها، وضع مالیات منظم، ضرب سکهٔ دریک و ساخت راه شاهی، امپراتوری را به یک شبکهٔ منسجم اقتصادی و سیاسی تبدیل کرد. خشایارشا و اردشیر نیز پروژههای عمرانی بزرگی مانند ادامهٔ ساخت تخت جمشید و توسعهٔ شوش را پیش بردند.
جونز تأکید میکند که هخامنشیان با ایجاد راههای ارتباطی، سیستم پستی، و حمایت از تجارت بینالمللی، نخستین بار مفهوم یک شاهنشاهی جهانی را عملی کردند. این اصلاحات باعث شد اقوام گوناگون از هند تا مصر در چارچوبی واحد زندگی کنند و احساس تعلق به یک ساختار بزرگتر داشته باشند.
در نگاه او، شکوه هخامنشیان تنها در فتوحات نظامی خلاصه نمیشود، بلکه در توانایی آنان برای ادارهٔ سرزمینهای پهناور، ایجاد نظم اداری، و پیوند دادن فرهنگها است که اهمیت واقعی پیدا میکند. از نگاه جونز ، هخامنشیان تمدن پیچیده و پیشرفته را بنا نهادند ، تمدنی که زندگی یونانی ها ، به ویژه اسپارت در برابر آن کوچک و ساده به نظر می رسد .
جونز در حقیقت با دو روایت نسبتا غالب ، کوشیده مبارزه کند ، روایت اول همان تصویر ساده ای است که یونان و سپس غرب از تمدن هخامنشی و ایرانیان ساخته اند ، بربر وحشی و شرقی بی تمدن . او نشان داده که برعکس، هخامنشیان تمدنی پیچیده و چندوجهی بنا کردند، تمدنی که در برابر جامعهٔ ساده و تکبعدی یونان، بهویژه اسپارت، شکوه و عظمت بیشتری داشت .
و روایت دوم همان داستان ساده شبکه های ماهواره ای و انبوه کانال های اینستاگرام است که با نگاهی ساده و امروزی ، هخامنشیان را گویی قهرمانان مبارزه در راه حقوق بشر می داند ، هخامنشیان، بهویژه کوروش و داریوش، گرچه تا اندازهای به آزادی مذهبی سرزمینهای فتحشده احترام میگذاشتند و دین و آیین خود را بر آنان تحمیل نمیکردند، اما در بهترین حالت شاهانی سختگیر و مقتدر بودند. آنان بیش از آنکه به فردیت و آزادیهای مدنی بیندیشند، به حفظ نظم، وفاداری سیاسی و پرداخت مالیات اهمیت میدادند. کوروش با منشور خود نشان داد که میتواند به باورهای مردمان مغلوب احترام بگذارد، اما این احترام در چارچوب قدرت شاهنشاهی معنا پیدا میکرد. داریوش نیز با ایجاد نظام ساتراپیها و مالیاتبندی دقیق، امپراتوری را به شکلی منظم اداره کرد، اما همزمان شورشها را با خشونت سرکوب نمود و هیچگونه مخالفتی با اقتدار مرکزی را تحمل نمیکرد.
در واقع، هخامنشیان تمدنی پیچیده و چندوجهی بنا کردند؛ تمدنی که از یکسو با تسامح مذهبی و احترام به فرهنگهای گوناگون شناخته میشود، و از سوی دیگر با سختگیری سیاسی، تمرکز قدرت در دست شاهنشاه، و کنترل شدید بر سرزمینهای پهناور. این دوگانگی است که آنان را از تصویر سادهٔ و دوگانه سازی قهرمانان آزادی یا بربرهای بیتمدن جدا میکند و نشان میدهد که حقیقت تاریخی میان این دو قطب قرار دارد.
کتاب عصر شاهان بزرگ را نمی توان تنها بازخوانی تاریخ دانست، بلکه باید کتاب را تلاشی دانست برای بازگرداندن صدای فراموششدهٔ هخامنشیان در برابر روایتهای تحریفشدهٔ یونانی و غربی. جونز نشان میدهد که این شاهنشاهی نه بربرهای بیتمدن، و نه قهرمانان حقوق بشر، بلکه تمدنی پیچیده و پرتناقض بود؛ تمدنی که توانست نخستین شاهنشاهی جهانی را بنا کند و فرهنگهای گوناگون را در یک ساختار سیاسی واحد گرد آورد. جونز کوشیده تا هخامنشیان را در جایگاه واقعیشان قرار دهد: قدرتی بزرگ که شکوه و ضعف، تسامح و سختگیری، و پیشرفت و بحران را همزمان در خود داشت.
جونز ، شاهان بزرگ ایران را نه تنها بهعنوان فاتحان نظامی، بلکه بهعنوان شخصیتهایی پیچیده و انسانی معرفی میکند؛ انسانهایی که قدرتشان در کنار شمشیر، در آیینها، نمادها و ساختار دربار معنا مییابد. او همچنین به لایههای فرهنگی، آیینی و اجتماعی امپراتوری وسیع هخامنشیان نیز پرداخته .
جونز گرچه کتاب خود را از پیش از هخامنشیان و از زمان چیشپیش شروع کرده ، اما اصل کتاب او را باید هنگامی دانست که کوروش کبیر ، پسر کمبوجیه یکم ، شاه پارس ، پسر کوروش یکم (شاه پارس) ، پسر چیش پیش ، توانست مادها را شکست دهد و با اتحاد قبایل پارسی، نخستین شاهنشاهی جهانی تاریخ را بنیان گذاشت . نویسنده دوران سلطنت هر شاه هخامنشی را شرح داده و سپس به ویژگیهای برجستهٔ آنان پرداخته. او کوروش بزرگ را بهعنوان بنیانگذار شاهنشاهی معرفی میکند؛ مردی که با سیاستهای تسامح مذهبی و احترام به فرهنگهای مغلوب، توانست سرزمینهای وسیعی را در تصرف کند . پس از او، کمبوجیه دوم با فتح مصر قدرت امپراتوری را گسترش داد، هرچند مرگ ناگهانیاش زمینهٔ آشوب را فراهم کرد.
بردیا یا گئومات تنها چند ماه بر تخت نشست و بهسرعت توسط داریوش بزرگ سرنگون شد. داریوش را نویسنده نقطهٔ اوج قدرت هخامنشیان میداند؛ شاهی که با اصلاحات اداری، مالیاتی و نظامی، امپراتوری را به شکلی منظم و پایدار اداره کرد و تخت جمشید را بنا نهاد. خشایارشا یکم با لشکرکشی به یونان شهرت یافت، هرچند شکست در سالامیس شکوه او را خدشه دار کرد.
اردشیر یکم با حکومتی طولانی، ثباتی نسبی به امپراتوری بخشید. پس از او، خشایارشا دوم و سغدیانوس حکومتهای کوتاه و بیثباتی داشتند. داریوش دوم درگیر شورشهای داخلی شد و اقتدار امپراتوری رو به ضعف گذاشت. اردشیر دوم با حکومتی طولانی، کوشید مصر و ساتراپیهای شورشی را مهار کند، اما موفقیت کامل نیافت. اردشیر سوم با اقتدار مصر را بازپس گرفت و دوباره قدرتی تازه به امپراتوری بخشید.
اردشیر چهارم (آرسس) تنها دو سال حکومت کرد و قربانی توطئههای درباری شد. سرانجام داریوش سوم بر تخت نشست؛ آخرین شاه هخامنشی که در برابر اسکندر مقدونی شکست خورد و با مرگ او، امپراتوری هخامنشی پس از حدود دو قرن شکوه و عظمت، به پایان رسید.
جونز شاهان هخامنشی را تنها با جنگهای پرشمار آنان به خواننده معرفی نمی کند ، بیشتر شاهان هخامنشی مجموعهای از اصلاحات، راهسازی، سازماندهی اداری و نوآوریهای اقتصادی را نیز به همراه داشتند. او توضیح میدهد که این شاهان نهتنها در میدان نبرد، بلکه در عرصهٔ مدیریت و ساختار اجتماعی نیز نقش مهمی داشتند.
کوروش بزرگ با سیاستهای تسامح مذهبی و احترام به فرهنگهای مغلوب، پایههای مشروعیت امپراتوری را بنا کرد. داریوش بزرگ با ایجاد ساتراپیها، وضع مالیات منظم، ضرب سکهٔ دریک و ساخت راه شاهی، امپراتوری را به یک شبکهٔ منسجم اقتصادی و سیاسی تبدیل کرد. خشایارشا و اردشیر نیز پروژههای عمرانی بزرگی مانند ادامهٔ ساخت تخت جمشید و توسعهٔ شوش را پیش بردند.
جونز تأکید میکند که هخامنشیان با ایجاد راههای ارتباطی، سیستم پستی، و حمایت از تجارت بینالمللی، نخستین بار مفهوم یک شاهنشاهی جهانی را عملی کردند. این اصلاحات باعث شد اقوام گوناگون از هند تا مصر در چارچوبی واحد زندگی کنند و احساس تعلق به یک ساختار بزرگتر داشته باشند.
در نگاه او، شکوه هخامنشیان تنها در فتوحات نظامی خلاصه نمیشود، بلکه در توانایی آنان برای ادارهٔ سرزمینهای پهناور، ایجاد نظم اداری، و پیوند دادن فرهنگها است که اهمیت واقعی پیدا میکند. از نگاه جونز ، هخامنشیان تمدن پیچیده و پیشرفته را بنا نهادند ، تمدنی که زندگی یونانی ها ، به ویژه اسپارت در برابر آن کوچک و ساده به نظر می رسد .
جونز در حقیقت با دو روایت نسبتا غالب ، کوشیده مبارزه کند ، روایت اول همان تصویر ساده ای است که یونان و سپس غرب از تمدن هخامنشی و ایرانیان ساخته اند ، بربر وحشی و شرقی بی تمدن . او نشان داده که برعکس، هخامنشیان تمدنی پیچیده و چندوجهی بنا کردند، تمدنی که در برابر جامعهٔ ساده و تکبعدی یونان، بهویژه اسپارت، شکوه و عظمت بیشتری داشت .
و روایت دوم همان داستان ساده شبکه های ماهواره ای و انبوه کانال های اینستاگرام است که با نگاهی ساده و امروزی ، هخامنشیان را گویی قهرمانان مبارزه در راه حقوق بشر می داند ، هخامنشیان، بهویژه کوروش و داریوش، گرچه تا اندازهای به آزادی مذهبی سرزمینهای فتحشده احترام میگذاشتند و دین و آیین خود را بر آنان تحمیل نمیکردند، اما در بهترین حالت شاهانی سختگیر و مقتدر بودند. آنان بیش از آنکه به فردیت و آزادیهای مدنی بیندیشند، به حفظ نظم، وفاداری سیاسی و پرداخت مالیات اهمیت میدادند. کوروش با منشور خود نشان داد که میتواند به باورهای مردمان مغلوب احترام بگذارد، اما این احترام در چارچوب قدرت شاهنشاهی معنا پیدا میکرد. داریوش نیز با ایجاد نظام ساتراپیها و مالیاتبندی دقیق، امپراتوری را به شکلی منظم اداره کرد، اما همزمان شورشها را با خشونت سرکوب نمود و هیچگونه مخالفتی با اقتدار مرکزی را تحمل نمیکرد.
در واقع، هخامنشیان تمدنی پیچیده و چندوجهی بنا کردند؛ تمدنی که از یکسو با تسامح مذهبی و احترام به فرهنگهای گوناگون شناخته میشود، و از سوی دیگر با سختگیری سیاسی، تمرکز قدرت در دست شاهنشاه، و کنترل شدید بر سرزمینهای پهناور. این دوگانگی است که آنان را از تصویر سادهٔ و دوگانه سازی قهرمانان آزادی یا بربرهای بیتمدن جدا میکند و نشان میدهد که حقیقت تاریخی میان این دو قطب قرار دارد.
کتاب عصر شاهان بزرگ را نمی توان تنها بازخوانی تاریخ دانست، بلکه باید کتاب را تلاشی دانست برای بازگرداندن صدای فراموششدهٔ هخامنشیان در برابر روایتهای تحریفشدهٔ یونانی و غربی. جونز نشان میدهد که این شاهنشاهی نه بربرهای بیتمدن، و نه قهرمانان حقوق بشر، بلکه تمدنی پیچیده و پرتناقض بود؛ تمدنی که توانست نخستین شاهنشاهی جهانی را بنا کند و فرهنگهای گوناگون را در یک ساختار سیاسی واحد گرد آورد. جونز کوشیده تا هخامنشیان را در جایگاه واقعیشان قرار دهد: قدرتی بزرگ که شکوه و ضعف، تسامح و سختگیری، و پیشرفت و بحران را همزمان در خود داشت.
March 16, 2022
2.5 stars. Of course, any history of the Persian Empire is particularly interesting. Although that empire was relatively short-lived, from about 559 to 330 BCE, it dates from a period from which we have quite a few written sources ànd archaeological finds. In the case of the Persian Empire, these sources are predominantly Greek and therefore suspect, because the Greeks usually saw Persia as the great enemy. The author of this book, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, puts this in the spotlight and claims to offer nothing less than a correction to that distorted Greek image. His intention is to rely mainly on other sources than Greek ones. Unfortunately, he only lives up to this to a limited extent. His account still seems to be based mainly on Greek sources, and the picture he paints of the Persian leaders (with Cyrus II and Darius the Great as epigones) is just as degrading as, for example, the one Herodotus made. Only the chapters on Persian culture give a bit more space to Persian voices themselves. Moreover, towards the end the book contains a remarkable number of narrative passages, full of fictional descriptions, and without citing source (obviously, they must be Greek ones). Strange. So, this definitely makes for an interesting read, but this book doesn't deliver what it promises, and has a few issues of its own. More on this in my History-account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... Thanks to Netgalley for an Advanced Reading Copy.
Read
October 31, 2025The author of this book definitely has a soft spot for the Persian Empire. You wouldn't expect less from someone who has made it his specialty. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones teaches ancient history at Cardiff University, Wales, and has published numerous works on the history of the relatively short-lived Persian Empire. One such book is King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 Bce, published in 2013. This text (excluding the selection of original documents) also forms the centerpiece of this new book, and it is by far also the most interesting part. Llewellyn-Jones discusses various aspects of life at the Persian court. In doing so, he tries to adjust the Orientalist image of the so-called decadent life of the Persian kings and their entourage, an image that goes back to the one propagated by the ancient Greeks and which was also adopted in the West in the 18th century.
Llewellyn-Jones certainly succeeds in presenting a fairly nuanced and positive picture of Persian history in this book. The Persian Empire mainly built on the Mesopotamian traditions of at least 2 millennia, managed to get and keep almost the entire Near East under control for almost 2 centuries and developped a magnificent material culture, of which the sumptuous palace ruins in Persepolis, Susa, and Ecbatana still witness. The special feature of this vast empire is what we would now call 'multiculturalism': the Persian rulers did not impose their own culture, but respected the local traditions as much as possible and made ample use of their subject peoples for administrative, military and cultural affairs.
Llewellyn-Jones' account makes it clear that this does not mean that we are dealing with peaceful government: the Persian rulers, like their Mesopotamian predecessors, could be quite cruel and ruthless. This corrects the picture we have from Hebrew sources of the beneficent Persian kings who allowed the Jews to return from exile.
All very interesting, absolutely, but this book has some serious issues to contend with. For example, the author claims that he mainly wants to let Persian voices do the talking, to compensate for the negative Greek comments. In this he succeeds only to a very limited extent, because very few Persian sources have been preserved. The fact that the author is constantly citing Greek writers speaks volumes. It is also remarkable that in addition to the dry, factual history it sketches, this book sometimes contains very narrative and even fictional-Romanesque passages, for example about the glorious advance of the Persians in Greece, or about the intricate conflicts at the Persian court. Especially towards the end of this book, the story gets bogged down in endless intrigues between royal relatives and court officials, the details of which probably only come from (suspicious) Greek sources. The author also ends his book with a warm tribute to the great Persian kings, which he strangely connects with an appeal to Iranian nationalists not to forget their great past. “Long may the Great Kings reign”, is his closing sentence, a lyrical exclamation that you would only expect in a 19th century historiographical work.
In short, despite the very interesting subject matter, this is a book with some serious issues. My rating: 2.5 stars. ARC through Netgalley.
Llewellyn-Jones certainly succeeds in presenting a fairly nuanced and positive picture of Persian history in this book. The Persian Empire mainly built on the Mesopotamian traditions of at least 2 millennia, managed to get and keep almost the entire Near East under control for almost 2 centuries and developped a magnificent material culture, of which the sumptuous palace ruins in Persepolis, Susa, and Ecbatana still witness. The special feature of this vast empire is what we would now call 'multiculturalism': the Persian rulers did not impose their own culture, but respected the local traditions as much as possible and made ample use of their subject peoples for administrative, military and cultural affairs.
Llewellyn-Jones' account makes it clear that this does not mean that we are dealing with peaceful government: the Persian rulers, like their Mesopotamian predecessors, could be quite cruel and ruthless. This corrects the picture we have from Hebrew sources of the beneficent Persian kings who allowed the Jews to return from exile.
All very interesting, absolutely, but this book has some serious issues to contend with. For example, the author claims that he mainly wants to let Persian voices do the talking, to compensate for the negative Greek comments. In this he succeeds only to a very limited extent, because very few Persian sources have been preserved. The fact that the author is constantly citing Greek writers speaks volumes. It is also remarkable that in addition to the dry, factual history it sketches, this book sometimes contains very narrative and even fictional-Romanesque passages, for example about the glorious advance of the Persians in Greece, or about the intricate conflicts at the Persian court. Especially towards the end of this book, the story gets bogged down in endless intrigues between royal relatives and court officials, the details of which probably only come from (suspicious) Greek sources. The author also ends his book with a warm tribute to the great Persian kings, which he strangely connects with an appeal to Iranian nationalists not to forget their great past. “Long may the Great Kings reign”, is his closing sentence, a lyrical exclamation that you would only expect in a 19th century historiographical work.
In short, despite the very interesting subject matter, this is a book with some serious issues. My rating: 2.5 stars. ARC through Netgalley.
July 3, 2023
This book starts out strong, aspiring to correct the bias of traditional Western historians and give a richer, more balanced picture. Llewellyn-Jones shows how Greek accounts of the Persians’ depravity, and Iranian accounts of their enlightened rulership, are both simplistic. I learned a fair bit about ancient culture, politics, and religion. But then, in the 125-page-long Part 3, Llewellyn-Jones feels compelled to make his story exciting. He focuses on the twists and turns of political intrigue among members of the royal families, with their often-sordid schemes to eliminate one another. To me, the book ends up too fixated on the royals. I know the ordinary people are little-mentioned in the historical record, but there’s archeological and other evidence that could give a broader, more interesting picture of ancient Persia’s people.
September 16, 2024
I have a question. If someone is writing about an entire dynasty and not just one individual, can it still be called hagiography?
I wanted to like this book. I really did. When living in Istanbul, I had an Iranian Muslim coworker. In my current town, I now have an Iranian Christian coworker. I have also known many other Iranian ex-pats while here in Turkiye. They're everywhere. And one thing that unites all of them, be they Muslim, Christian, or atheist, is their love for Cyrus. For a long time my Muslim coworker was convinced that the Quran said Cyrus was a man without fault. It broke his heart to find out what he had been told as a child was not true. Without question, Cyrus was one of the greatest kings to ever walk this earth. If you don't believe me, just ask any of my Iranian friends.
Or read this book. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones apparently believes the same thing about the entire Achaemenid dynasty that my friend did about Cyrus. Now, in my friend this is excusable. He is just passing along something he had been told and just assumed it was true. In an author, you would assume LLJ had done a little more homework. The first inkling I received that this was not to be so was when I realized that there were no footnotes or references. Perhaps it was because I received an advanced reader's copy, but there were no footnotes or references. I like to check an author I've never read before to see how accurately and faithfully they are using their sources (and what sources they are using). There was no way for me to even know if he was simply making things up out of thin air (and more than once, I was a little suspicious of this). Perhaps this is simply because I am reading the book three months before it hits the shelves. Hopefully, this and common editing mistakes (like "cettainly" on p216) will be fixed before April.
What I have less hope for are the factual mistakes or blatant misrepresentations found throughout the book. I noted a half dozen in my read-through. There were probably many more I didn't catch simply because I am not as familiar with the subject at hand. But here are a few examples:
"The Persians entered Macedon and Xerxes met with his ally, the client king Alexander I..."
Over the course of a few chapters, LLJ mentions his "ally" Alexander I probably at least ten times. The purpose is to cast shade on the later Macedonian kings Philip and Alexander III for their disloyalty to their ally. But LLJ never mentions that Alex I was known as the Philhellene (friend of Greeks). Nor does he point out that even as Alexander I was fulfilling his obligations to Xerxes (who defeated him and forced him into subservience years before), he was also passing information, men, and supplies on to the Greeks, his true friends and allies. This is all well-attested historical fact, but it is deliberately ignored because it doesn't fit into LLJ's propaganda.
In addition, LLJ claims that there were 700 Greeks at Thermopylae. Actually, once the rest retreated, Leonidas had his 300 Spartans and 1,100 Boetians. So, twice what the author claims. I would love to know where he got that number but... no footnotes. But the real error is what comes next. LLJ writes, "Notwithstanding the Western fixation with the story of the 300 Spartans, the Battle of Thermopylae can only be interpreted as a great Persian victory." I had to rub my eyes to make sure I had read that correctly. Then I rubbed them again. Once I realized I wasn't imagining things, I had to put the book down and laugh. The author was imagining things and inviting us to join in his lunacy. At best estimate, Xerxes force outnumbered the Greeks by 50 to 1. More likely it was closer to 100 to 1 or even beyond. I've read legitimate sources who put his army at 360,ooo. Xerxes sent waves of 10,000 men at a time, over and over again to crash against a force a tenth their size. By all accounts, within the first hour, or at best within a few, that small Greek force should have been steamrolled. But instead, they held out for three days. Even then, they were only defeated because Xerxes found a way around them and hit them from both sides. When it was all said and done, more than twenty thousand Persians lay dead on the battlefield. By both numbers and in morale, the Persians were crushed. But don't take my account for that. Just read pretty much every Greek and military historian who has ever written on the subject.
LLJ later comments that Xerxes should not have tried to fight the Athenians at sea but instead should have continued his land crusade instead. Not a chance. The first sea battle was pretty much a draw. He had pretty good odds there. but poor Xerxes was probably still having nightmares of the hotgates. If only 1,400 soldiers could do that much damage, he didn't dare find out what a full force would do. Between Marathon and Thermopylae, he had learned his lesson. But our author is still in dreamland.
I could go on to talk about how LLJ castigates Heroditus for accusing Xerxes for worshipping a tree and decorating it with jewelry, and then about ten pages later points out that Xerxes seal was of him with votive offerings under a tree adorned with jewelry. I could point out how he says that the Persian kings weren't all that decadent and immoral. After all, they are no worse than Ivan the Terrible, Wu Zetian, and Stalin (page 326). I'm sorry, but if that's your comparison... ouch. To be fair, the history of the last few reigns really did seem like something straight out of Game of Thrones, despite his protestations. I could talk about...
But in closing, I will just quote LLJ. "In Iran prose histories and verse histories, written or orally transmitted, were often based on the same historical materials (best not call them 'facts') and were crafted into diverse versions or readings of 'the past'; one version did not have supremacy over another since all shared a place in the Iranians' transmission of their 'history'. What happened in the past, or what is said to have happened, or indeed, what might have happened in the past or never happened at all, was permitted a space in the Persian understanding of the pre-Islamic era." What I was hoping for was a great book on Persian history. What I got was a continuation of this fine tradition of blending fact with fiction.
Take a pass on this one.
I wanted to like this book. I really did. When living in Istanbul, I had an Iranian Muslim coworker. In my current town, I now have an Iranian Christian coworker. I have also known many other Iranian ex-pats while here in Turkiye. They're everywhere. And one thing that unites all of them, be they Muslim, Christian, or atheist, is their love for Cyrus. For a long time my Muslim coworker was convinced that the Quran said Cyrus was a man without fault. It broke his heart to find out what he had been told as a child was not true. Without question, Cyrus was one of the greatest kings to ever walk this earth. If you don't believe me, just ask any of my Iranian friends.
Or read this book. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones apparently believes the same thing about the entire Achaemenid dynasty that my friend did about Cyrus. Now, in my friend this is excusable. He is just passing along something he had been told and just assumed it was true. In an author, you would assume LLJ had done a little more homework. The first inkling I received that this was not to be so was when I realized that there were no footnotes or references. Perhaps it was because I received an advanced reader's copy, but there were no footnotes or references. I like to check an author I've never read before to see how accurately and faithfully they are using their sources (and what sources they are using). There was no way for me to even know if he was simply making things up out of thin air (and more than once, I was a little suspicious of this). Perhaps this is simply because I am reading the book three months before it hits the shelves. Hopefully, this and common editing mistakes (like "cettainly" on p216) will be fixed before April.
What I have less hope for are the factual mistakes or blatant misrepresentations found throughout the book. I noted a half dozen in my read-through. There were probably many more I didn't catch simply because I am not as familiar with the subject at hand. But here are a few examples:
"The Persians entered Macedon and Xerxes met with his ally, the client king Alexander I..."
Over the course of a few chapters, LLJ mentions his "ally" Alexander I probably at least ten times. The purpose is to cast shade on the later Macedonian kings Philip and Alexander III for their disloyalty to their ally. But LLJ never mentions that Alex I was known as the Philhellene (friend of Greeks). Nor does he point out that even as Alexander I was fulfilling his obligations to Xerxes (who defeated him and forced him into subservience years before), he was also passing information, men, and supplies on to the Greeks, his true friends and allies. This is all well-attested historical fact, but it is deliberately ignored because it doesn't fit into LLJ's propaganda.
In addition, LLJ claims that there were 700 Greeks at Thermopylae. Actually, once the rest retreated, Leonidas had his 300 Spartans and 1,100 Boetians. So, twice what the author claims. I would love to know where he got that number but... no footnotes. But the real error is what comes next. LLJ writes, "Notwithstanding the Western fixation with the story of the 300 Spartans, the Battle of Thermopylae can only be interpreted as a great Persian victory." I had to rub my eyes to make sure I had read that correctly. Then I rubbed them again. Once I realized I wasn't imagining things, I had to put the book down and laugh. The author was imagining things and inviting us to join in his lunacy. At best estimate, Xerxes force outnumbered the Greeks by 50 to 1. More likely it was closer to 100 to 1 or even beyond. I've read legitimate sources who put his army at 360,ooo. Xerxes sent waves of 10,000 men at a time, over and over again to crash against a force a tenth their size. By all accounts, within the first hour, or at best within a few, that small Greek force should have been steamrolled. But instead, they held out for three days. Even then, they were only defeated because Xerxes found a way around them and hit them from both sides. When it was all said and done, more than twenty thousand Persians lay dead on the battlefield. By both numbers and in morale, the Persians were crushed. But don't take my account for that. Just read pretty much every Greek and military historian who has ever written on the subject.
LLJ later comments that Xerxes should not have tried to fight the Athenians at sea but instead should have continued his land crusade instead. Not a chance. The first sea battle was pretty much a draw. He had pretty good odds there. but poor Xerxes was probably still having nightmares of the hotgates. If only 1,400 soldiers could do that much damage, he didn't dare find out what a full force would do. Between Marathon and Thermopylae, he had learned his lesson. But our author is still in dreamland.
I could go on to talk about how LLJ castigates Heroditus for accusing Xerxes for worshipping a tree and decorating it with jewelry, and then about ten pages later points out that Xerxes seal was of him with votive offerings under a tree adorned with jewelry. I could point out how he says that the Persian kings weren't all that decadent and immoral. After all, they are no worse than Ivan the Terrible, Wu Zetian, and Stalin (page 326). I'm sorry, but if that's your comparison... ouch. To be fair, the history of the last few reigns really did seem like something straight out of Game of Thrones, despite his protestations. I could talk about...
But in closing, I will just quote LLJ. "In Iran prose histories and verse histories, written or orally transmitted, were often based on the same historical materials (best not call them 'facts') and were crafted into diverse versions or readings of 'the past'; one version did not have supremacy over another since all shared a place in the Iranians' transmission of their 'history'. What happened in the past, or what is said to have happened, or indeed, what might have happened in the past or never happened at all, was permitted a space in the Persian understanding of the pre-Islamic era." What I was hoping for was a great book on Persian history. What I got was a continuation of this fine tradition of blending fact with fiction.
Take a pass on this one.
August 27, 2022
Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones summarizes 200 years of ancient Persian history from its Empire's founding, circa 550 BCE, by Cyrus the Great to its destruction circa 350 by Alexander the Great. This is the story of the Achaemenid Dynasty, members of which are often called by the book’s subtitle: "The Great Kings". These kings expanded their Empire by conquest. It was a violent time to be not only living in an adjacent territory ripe for conquest, but also to be a royal family member.
The author begins by qualifying the sources. Like all ancient history, primary records are sparse and incomplete. This era is further complicated by Greek sources, of which there are relatively many. Llewellyn-Jones, shows how the Greek hatred for the Persians shows in their texts. The negative spin, in many cases overdone, is rooted in the atrocities of the Persians conquest of Greek cities.
This was not an easy read for me. Most of the characters, place names and tribes were totally new to me. There is a list of characters, but placing them each time they appeared was an effort. Many places and tribes are mentioned only once. I could never pass a quiz on this material.
The cruelty stands out. Conquered people may receive generosity or torture. There is no safety, for those living in areas to be subsumed into the empire. In the case of a Civil War, being a hero can bring you ceremonies and wealth, and, later, death. If you picked the winning side, the King might not (be able to?) protect you from the losers.
Those who killed Cyrus the Younger, who made war on his brother for the throne, all met horrible deaths at the hand of the mother of both the King and the challenger. Mithradates, who boasted of his role in this died after 17 days of the worst torture I’ve read at the order of the King’s mother (also the mother of King Artaxerxes).
The last of the tales of war and its horrors was how Alexander took the kingdom.
There is a description of Persian civilization which had advancements such as the first known coins and male trousers. Very good roads connected the cities of the Kingdom; they facilitated trade and a pony express style communications transport.
There was a detailed system by which Kings and their 10,000 person entourages made progresses to view and oversee their territories. There are examples of how royal wives and concubines could amass power through their beauty and by producing male children. They could be prizes stolen in war and held in a (what might be a very luxurious) harem of the invader and held for status, pleasure or negotiation.
There are very helpful line drawings and color plates. There is a map (I could have used one with a contemporary overlay), a chart of the Dynasty’s rulers, and a Dramatis Personnae of several pages. Sources are often cited in the text.
If you are interested in this place and time, I don’t know what else is out there, but this may be a good place to start.
The author begins by qualifying the sources. Like all ancient history, primary records are sparse and incomplete. This era is further complicated by Greek sources, of which there are relatively many. Llewellyn-Jones, shows how the Greek hatred for the Persians shows in their texts. The negative spin, in many cases overdone, is rooted in the atrocities of the Persians conquest of Greek cities.
This was not an easy read for me. Most of the characters, place names and tribes were totally new to me. There is a list of characters, but placing them each time they appeared was an effort. Many places and tribes are mentioned only once. I could never pass a quiz on this material.
The cruelty stands out. Conquered people may receive generosity or torture. There is no safety, for those living in areas to be subsumed into the empire. In the case of a Civil War, being a hero can bring you ceremonies and wealth, and, later, death. If you picked the winning side, the King might not (be able to?) protect you from the losers.
Those who killed Cyrus the Younger, who made war on his brother for the throne, all met horrible deaths at the hand of the mother of both the King and the challenger. Mithradates, who boasted of his role in this died after 17 days of the worst torture I’ve read at the order of the King’s mother (also the mother of King Artaxerxes).
The last of the tales of war and its horrors was how Alexander took the kingdom.
There is a description of Persian civilization which had advancements such as the first known coins and male trousers. Very good roads connected the cities of the Kingdom; they facilitated trade and a pony express style communications transport.
There was a detailed system by which Kings and their 10,000 person entourages made progresses to view and oversee their territories. There are examples of how royal wives and concubines could amass power through their beauty and by producing male children. They could be prizes stolen in war and held in a (what might be a very luxurious) harem of the invader and held for status, pleasure or negotiation.
There are very helpful line drawings and color plates. There is a map (I could have used one with a contemporary overlay), a chart of the Dynasty’s rulers, and a Dramatis Personnae of several pages. Sources are often cited in the text.
If you are interested in this place and time, I don’t know what else is out there, but this may be a good place to start.
February 21, 2023
If all the history books we had to read in school had been like Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones' Persians: The Age of the Great Kings, we all would have been ancient history majors. This beautifully crafted book that interweaves the stories of the great kings with gossipy little tidbits about their eating habits and sex lives is that most desirable of all things--a real page-turner, from its opening sentence: "Some 5000 years ago, nomadic tribal peoples from Central Eurasia settled on the Iranian plateau." Four hundred pages later when you come to the author's acknowledgments, where he divulges that he has a "passion for the study and dissemination of Persian history" and has "written [this book] as a declaration of love to the people of Iran," you didn't need to be told.
If you weren't particularly interested in the Achaemenid Dynasty before, I guarantee by page 125 you will be when he writes, "This is the moment where we explore the 'hows' and 'whys' of being Persian." You know the names: Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes (and their successors all those II's and III's), but Professor Llewellyn-Jones' stories of their lives, loves, wars, and building projects-- beautifully embellished by a careful selection of reliefs and seals whose details illustrate revelations never noticed before--could convert a Philistine (e.g. someone who thinks non-fiction works are BORING).
But that doesn't mean this is one of those overly enthusiastic works where everything shared is glorious or wonderful. The ancient Persian kings may have been beautifully groomed with perfectly arranged beards and draped robes, but they also knew how to torture and kill in ways that would curl anyone's beard. They suffocated their enemies in wells of ashes or staked them out to die by literally thrusting a stake through their bodies pinning them to the ground and letting them die s-l-0-w-l-y for days. Nor were such cruelties limited to the men; in the chapter "Women Beware Women" we learn of Parysatis, 'Queen Mother' of Artaxerxes, whom you wouldn't have wanted to cross. And her grandson, Artaxerxes III, according to Plutarch, "outstripped all in cruelty and bloodlust" (p. 339).
Highly recommended for non-academic readers: turn first to page 415 where there is a list of the standardised academic abbreviations used in citing the references - there you will discover that A3Pa means that it is "Artaxerxes III's Persepolis inscription a" which, believe it or not, makes the text even more interesting as it provides real insights into the relevant ruler's personality and concerns about what he wanted to be remembered as (and for) in the future.
If you weren't particularly interested in the Achaemenid Dynasty before, I guarantee by page 125 you will be when he writes, "This is the moment where we explore the 'hows' and 'whys' of being Persian." You know the names: Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes (and their successors all those II's and III's), but Professor Llewellyn-Jones' stories of their lives, loves, wars, and building projects-- beautifully embellished by a careful selection of reliefs and seals whose details illustrate revelations never noticed before--could convert a Philistine (e.g. someone who thinks non-fiction works are BORING).
But that doesn't mean this is one of those overly enthusiastic works where everything shared is glorious or wonderful. The ancient Persian kings may have been beautifully groomed with perfectly arranged beards and draped robes, but they also knew how to torture and kill in ways that would curl anyone's beard. They suffocated their enemies in wells of ashes or staked them out to die by literally thrusting a stake through their bodies pinning them to the ground and letting them die s-l-0-w-l-y for days. Nor were such cruelties limited to the men; in the chapter "Women Beware Women" we learn of Parysatis, 'Queen Mother' of Artaxerxes, whom you wouldn't have wanted to cross. And her grandson, Artaxerxes III, according to Plutarch, "outstripped all in cruelty and bloodlust" (p. 339).
Highly recommended for non-academic readers: turn first to page 415 where there is a list of the standardised academic abbreviations used in citing the references - there you will discover that A3Pa means that it is "Artaxerxes III's Persepolis inscription a" which, believe it or not, makes the text even more interesting as it provides real insights into the relevant ruler's personality and concerns about what he wanted to be remembered as (and for) in the future.
July 20, 2025
Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones tells a sweeping narrative history of Persia. It’s a fantastic feat. He’s taking the “corrective history” approach, deciding that Persia has too long been victim to having its history told by vindictive, prejudiced outsiders, like hateful Greeks. This kind of corrective history brings with it some issues, mostly of a subjective nature. As long as they’re accounted for the end result here is fantastic. Unfortunately, for much of the book it’s unclear what sources are being used, since Llewellyn-Jones claims the Greeks and most outsiders are not reliable. Instead we are to hear Persian history from the people themselves. But as he tells us, they did not keep accurate history, and were more inclined to legend and fable and narrative. This has held true for most of Iran’s existence, and even today its people look back on the Persian empire mostly through the lens of myth and legend.
Llewellyn-Jones does not clarify exactly what most of his Persian sources are except for the many excerpts from royal tombs or inscriptions, for example. But he offers a compelling narrative history that proves immersive and easy to follow. Strangely, he still refers to Ancient Greek sources often throughout the book. He treats them as authoritative if they support the picture he is trying to paint, but as questionable and to take lightly when they do not support that picture. There’s got to be more to it, but we are not shown much behind the curtain to learn why some sources are valid and others are not. For example, Herodotus’s story of Xerxes fawning at a tree and ornamenting it in celebration is seen by Llewellyn-Jones, like many of Herodotus’s stories, as a story not to take seriously, although we don’t really know why. We are told the story is packed with anti-Persian sentiment and is mocking their eccentric fondness of trees. However, as Llewellyn-Jones describes this Persian attitude toward such trees, we learn that the events may in fact have gone as Herodotus reported them.
Llewellyn-Jones wants to set the record straight and like some other historians, gets a little too close to his subject such that he feels the need to take their side in a yawning battle through history, to defend them from imaginary enemies, and justify their atrocities while bemoaning far lesser atrocities from said enemies. These lopsided and odd decisions aside, which pop up many times, the book is excellent.
We witness Medes and Persians and the establishing of the Persian empire. This is the first book on ancient civilizations I’ve read to give more than a passing mention of the Elamites, who are mentioned in all these books but little seems to be known. Llewellyn-Jones suggests they might be the next discovered civilization. I hope so, because a book-length treatment of this group I have only heard about in the background would be a welcome addition to any study of Mesopotamia.
Anyway, this is a gripping narrative history of the Achaemenid empire, its absolute monarchy and its inner working, its numerous conquests. We study Cyrus’s rule, his invasion and conquest of Babylon, his revisionist history and his propaganda framing the conquest as liberation, his quiet death that is never mentioned in official records. Then we see his son Cambyses as the next ruler, follow his attack on Egypt. We learn of Darius’s rise to power and numerous conquests. Through these great rulers we watch the expansion of the Persian empire.
Darius was a master propagandist. Like many rulers, he had his own alternative facts as his official history. Xerxes, one of his many sons, rises and crushes the Egyptian rebellion. Many other uprisings occurred during Xerxes’ reign, most notably in Babylon. It may have been the strain of Darius’s imperialism pushed to its limits. But as we are told, Persian empire was like Assyrian empire, choosing not to impose their values or beliefs or customs on conquered people. The Persians allowed their subjected people to maintain their ways of life in ways later empires would not.
Xerxes’s attempted but failed conquest of Greece foments in the Greek people a long lasting hostility toward Persia that would one day see its completion in the form of Alexander and his conquest of the Persians. Herodotus is our main source for the details of this campaign, and Persia is suspiciously quiet about this war, perhaps because they lost. The person responsible for Xerxes’s murder remains an open question, but a lone Babylonian source blames the son and next king - Artaxerxes I.
Royal nomadism was perhaps unique to Persia at the time, with the movement of the court throughout the lands. The Persian kings took their whole empire on the road. This occurred too in the empire’s final push against conquest, allowing Alexander to capture most of Darius III’s harem and his royal tent. In great detail the movement of these Persian courts is described and we see how it must have appeared, learn who was involved, and begin to understand the technicalities of such an undertaking.
The construction of the empire’s incredible palaces and gates and gardens is explained. It was a brilliant, magnificent empire with elaborate art and sculpture and larger than life exhibits of royalty and power in its halls. The role of slavery to build the empire is also discussed. Like the Assyrians and Babylonians before them, the Persians uprooted and displaced entire communities of people for forced labor, breaking apart families, dispersing people to where they could best be used. And as Diodorus of Sicily records during a campaign with Alexander the Great, many slaves would be mutilated, being left only with the parts of their bodies necessary for carrying out their skill. There may be exaggeration in this, but it is not clear how much. One thing we can say for sure is that modern Iranians looking at Cyrus the Great as a hero of human liberation and an enemy of slavery are mere fictions that have been blended into the public consciousness as truth. Although, as Llewellyn-Jones clarifies in his epilogue, if your choices are to hail the ancient past empire of Persia as some kind of model for moving forward, or to submit to the oppressive modern Islamist theocracy of Iran, the former certainly seems the more glorious and liberating option.
The transfer of power in Persia was messy, usually violent, and increasingly complicated as the empire aged. After Cyrus the Great, his son Cambyses II took the throne with little fuss. After Cambyses’s leg wound and infection he died, leaving a void that was briefly filled by his brother Bardiya, but this was ended by Darius the Great, the lance-bearer of Cyrus. Darius ruled at Persia’s peak and for a long time. His son Xerxes took the throne and was eventually assassinated, possibly by his son Artaxerxes who became king. Artaxerxes’s death led to his son Xerxes II taking the throne for a mere 45 days before being assassinated by his half brother, Sogdianus. Sogdianus ended up as king for less than a year before being executed by a method of ash suffocation as a prisoner by his half brother, Ochus — who would take the throne as Darius II.
The transition from Darius to Artaxerxes II is a rare example of an uncontested transfer of power, but the gutless and heartless Artaxerxes II, known as a gentle ruler but apparently impotent in justice, saw in his own lifetime his son Ochus leave a trail of bodies in his quest toward the throne, murdering his own brothers to get there. Ochus took the throne as Artaxerxes III and immediately called for the murder of all his brothers and an enormous number of other royalty, including his sister who had championed him toward the throne. Artaxerxes III was eventually murdered too, after a long successful campaign of resubjugation of Egypt. The Achaemenid dynasty was perpetually drenched in its own blood.
The royal harem made the Persian great king, in essence, the dynastic stud. But the harem did not serve a purely sexual function as later Orientalism once suggested. It played a role in politics and allowed for a complex hierarchy across multiple bloodlines branching from the king. Concubines, consorts, wives, and slaves made up the polygynous harem. Its role in the royal court was still one of certain power, as the women had access to the king, but also because they enabled the continuation of powerful rulers through birth. In Persia, these women’s power was amplified by obscurity and being away from the public eye, unlike in our own celebrity-obsessed culture in which fame, publicity, and power are virtually synonymous. Royal mothers were often in charge of the harem, holding a privileged place of power and influence over the king. As in other cultures incestuous unions were common in the Achaemenid dynasty, with kings marrying sisters and daughters in order to keep the bloodline pure and narrow.
Wives and concubines of the kings had enormous influence, as seen in Atossa, who was wife to both Cambyses and Darius, and mother of Xerxes, and the brutal Amesteis, Xerxes’s wife, who plotted with fierceness against all enemies of Persia or the royal family, and most ruthless and cold blooded of them all, Parysatis, wife of Darius II. Like Anestis before her, Parysatis delighted in having enemies, real and imagined, tortured and executed. Some of these executions, like the Ordeal of the Boats, were about as cruel and gruesome as one could dream up. Entire families would be murdered in horrific ways just to ensure no one was left alive to avenge the death of a rebellious or difficult official.
These women tended to adore their sons who they then championed and supported to become king, crushing any opposition they saw, and going to great lengths to orchestrate themselves and their chosen son into the seat of power.
Parysatis’s favorite son Cyrus the Younger led his troops against his brother and king, Artaxerxes II. When Cyrus was killed and his rebellion was vanquished, Parysatis spent the next years of her life systematically murdering everyone she saw as responsible for her son’s death, including champions and heroes of the war defending Artaxerxes, while the king was too impotent a ruler to stop her and protect the men who had saved his realm. He failed to even protect his own wife, who was eventually poisoned by his mother, before Parysatis was slapped on the wrist with an exile to her rich family’s Babylonian lands.
Eunuchs served various roles in the Persian empire, and could even possess military or governmental power. Throughout multiple reigns eunuchs played critical roles in coups, assassinations, and in the case of eunuch Artaxores, even attempting to take the throne for himself — caught only after asking a woman to produce a fake beard for him so that he would look the part. Eunuchs were involved in many of the disruptive power shifts of the empire, and were responsible for the deaths of multiple kings. One eunuch ruled through the king he placed on the throne — Bagoas, the same eunuch who murdered Artaxerxes III. More than an “orientalist fantasy” of the eunuch puppet-master, and Llewellyn-Jones is always quick to dismiss orientalist fantasies, this authentic event also resulted in the puppet king being slain by the same eunuch, as well as his whole family for good measure.
One of the highlights here is the study of Persian religion, and the role of Ahuramazda in Persian theism, who was the template for the Jewish/Biblical God, particularly the features of perfection and goodness, and his role as the creator of all. Darius, as other kings before and after, saw himself as an extension of Ahuramazda, going so far as to emulate the god’s look in stone carvings. If Ahuramazda was the Persians’ God, their Satan was Angra Mainyu, also called Ahriman, leader of demonic hordes, a force of darkness, a dweller of an abyss of endless dark, creator of ‘non-life’, the diametric opposition to Ahuramazda.
To protect the entirety of his creation from Angra Mainyu’s evil immaterial form, residing parasitically in living things, he created a group of Amesha Spentas, Bounteous Immortals: Vohu Manu (Good Thoughts), Asha Vahishta (Best Righteousness), Spenta Armaiti (Holy Devotion), Khsathra Vaiyra (Desirable Dominion), Haruvatat (Wholeness), and Amertat (Immoetality). It was the king’s job to maintain pursuit of the Truth, to follow Ahuramazda’s path. Ahuramazda’s prophet was Zarathustra, or Zoroaster in Greek, thought to have been born sometime between 1200 and 1000 BC. Zoroastrianism exists to this day, though in a greatly changed form, owing to its necessary conformity to larger traditions, religious institutions, and cultures to remain relevant. It is not really clear if the Achaemenids were Zoroastrians. Zarathustra or his teachings were never mentioned in any ancient king’s work.
An engrossing book, a history told like an epic. At times Llewellyn-Jones appears to read the minds of ancient figures, and we must assume he is using some artistic freedoms to write a compelling story. It does not appear he invents anything or speculates too far outside what is defensible from the known sources paired with human nature. He has a talent for tying together an assortment of threads and details in a way that makes a moving, immense, coherent, complex story. He loves the subject and sees the glory and grandeur in it, and captures it expertly.
Llewellyn-Jones does not clarify exactly what most of his Persian sources are except for the many excerpts from royal tombs or inscriptions, for example. But he offers a compelling narrative history that proves immersive and easy to follow. Strangely, he still refers to Ancient Greek sources often throughout the book. He treats them as authoritative if they support the picture he is trying to paint, but as questionable and to take lightly when they do not support that picture. There’s got to be more to it, but we are not shown much behind the curtain to learn why some sources are valid and others are not. For example, Herodotus’s story of Xerxes fawning at a tree and ornamenting it in celebration is seen by Llewellyn-Jones, like many of Herodotus’s stories, as a story not to take seriously, although we don’t really know why. We are told the story is packed with anti-Persian sentiment and is mocking their eccentric fondness of trees. However, as Llewellyn-Jones describes this Persian attitude toward such trees, we learn that the events may in fact have gone as Herodotus reported them.
Llewellyn-Jones wants to set the record straight and like some other historians, gets a little too close to his subject such that he feels the need to take their side in a yawning battle through history, to defend them from imaginary enemies, and justify their atrocities while bemoaning far lesser atrocities from said enemies. These lopsided and odd decisions aside, which pop up many times, the book is excellent.
We witness Medes and Persians and the establishing of the Persian empire. This is the first book on ancient civilizations I’ve read to give more than a passing mention of the Elamites, who are mentioned in all these books but little seems to be known. Llewellyn-Jones suggests they might be the next discovered civilization. I hope so, because a book-length treatment of this group I have only heard about in the background would be a welcome addition to any study of Mesopotamia.
Anyway, this is a gripping narrative history of the Achaemenid empire, its absolute monarchy and its inner working, its numerous conquests. We study Cyrus’s rule, his invasion and conquest of Babylon, his revisionist history and his propaganda framing the conquest as liberation, his quiet death that is never mentioned in official records. Then we see his son Cambyses as the next ruler, follow his attack on Egypt. We learn of Darius’s rise to power and numerous conquests. Through these great rulers we watch the expansion of the Persian empire.
Darius was a master propagandist. Like many rulers, he had his own alternative facts as his official history. Xerxes, one of his many sons, rises and crushes the Egyptian rebellion. Many other uprisings occurred during Xerxes’ reign, most notably in Babylon. It may have been the strain of Darius’s imperialism pushed to its limits. But as we are told, Persian empire was like Assyrian empire, choosing not to impose their values or beliefs or customs on conquered people. The Persians allowed their subjected people to maintain their ways of life in ways later empires would not.
Xerxes’s attempted but failed conquest of Greece foments in the Greek people a long lasting hostility toward Persia that would one day see its completion in the form of Alexander and his conquest of the Persians. Herodotus is our main source for the details of this campaign, and Persia is suspiciously quiet about this war, perhaps because they lost. The person responsible for Xerxes’s murder remains an open question, but a lone Babylonian source blames the son and next king - Artaxerxes I.
Royal nomadism was perhaps unique to Persia at the time, with the movement of the court throughout the lands. The Persian kings took their whole empire on the road. This occurred too in the empire’s final push against conquest, allowing Alexander to capture most of Darius III’s harem and his royal tent. In great detail the movement of these Persian courts is described and we see how it must have appeared, learn who was involved, and begin to understand the technicalities of such an undertaking.
The construction of the empire’s incredible palaces and gates and gardens is explained. It was a brilliant, magnificent empire with elaborate art and sculpture and larger than life exhibits of royalty and power in its halls. The role of slavery to build the empire is also discussed. Like the Assyrians and Babylonians before them, the Persians uprooted and displaced entire communities of people for forced labor, breaking apart families, dispersing people to where they could best be used. And as Diodorus of Sicily records during a campaign with Alexander the Great, many slaves would be mutilated, being left only with the parts of their bodies necessary for carrying out their skill. There may be exaggeration in this, but it is not clear how much. One thing we can say for sure is that modern Iranians looking at Cyrus the Great as a hero of human liberation and an enemy of slavery are mere fictions that have been blended into the public consciousness as truth. Although, as Llewellyn-Jones clarifies in his epilogue, if your choices are to hail the ancient past empire of Persia as some kind of model for moving forward, or to submit to the oppressive modern Islamist theocracy of Iran, the former certainly seems the more glorious and liberating option.
The transfer of power in Persia was messy, usually violent, and increasingly complicated as the empire aged. After Cyrus the Great, his son Cambyses II took the throne with little fuss. After Cambyses’s leg wound and infection he died, leaving a void that was briefly filled by his brother Bardiya, but this was ended by Darius the Great, the lance-bearer of Cyrus. Darius ruled at Persia’s peak and for a long time. His son Xerxes took the throne and was eventually assassinated, possibly by his son Artaxerxes who became king. Artaxerxes’s death led to his son Xerxes II taking the throne for a mere 45 days before being assassinated by his half brother, Sogdianus. Sogdianus ended up as king for less than a year before being executed by a method of ash suffocation as a prisoner by his half brother, Ochus — who would take the throne as Darius II.
The transition from Darius to Artaxerxes II is a rare example of an uncontested transfer of power, but the gutless and heartless Artaxerxes II, known as a gentle ruler but apparently impotent in justice, saw in his own lifetime his son Ochus leave a trail of bodies in his quest toward the throne, murdering his own brothers to get there. Ochus took the throne as Artaxerxes III and immediately called for the murder of all his brothers and an enormous number of other royalty, including his sister who had championed him toward the throne. Artaxerxes III was eventually murdered too, after a long successful campaign of resubjugation of Egypt. The Achaemenid dynasty was perpetually drenched in its own blood.
The royal harem made the Persian great king, in essence, the dynastic stud. But the harem did not serve a purely sexual function as later Orientalism once suggested. It played a role in politics and allowed for a complex hierarchy across multiple bloodlines branching from the king. Concubines, consorts, wives, and slaves made up the polygynous harem. Its role in the royal court was still one of certain power, as the women had access to the king, but also because they enabled the continuation of powerful rulers through birth. In Persia, these women’s power was amplified by obscurity and being away from the public eye, unlike in our own celebrity-obsessed culture in which fame, publicity, and power are virtually synonymous. Royal mothers were often in charge of the harem, holding a privileged place of power and influence over the king. As in other cultures incestuous unions were common in the Achaemenid dynasty, with kings marrying sisters and daughters in order to keep the bloodline pure and narrow.
Wives and concubines of the kings had enormous influence, as seen in Atossa, who was wife to both Cambyses and Darius, and mother of Xerxes, and the brutal Amesteis, Xerxes’s wife, who plotted with fierceness against all enemies of Persia or the royal family, and most ruthless and cold blooded of them all, Parysatis, wife of Darius II. Like Anestis before her, Parysatis delighted in having enemies, real and imagined, tortured and executed. Some of these executions, like the Ordeal of the Boats, were about as cruel and gruesome as one could dream up. Entire families would be murdered in horrific ways just to ensure no one was left alive to avenge the death of a rebellious or difficult official.
These women tended to adore their sons who they then championed and supported to become king, crushing any opposition they saw, and going to great lengths to orchestrate themselves and their chosen son into the seat of power.
Parysatis’s favorite son Cyrus the Younger led his troops against his brother and king, Artaxerxes II. When Cyrus was killed and his rebellion was vanquished, Parysatis spent the next years of her life systematically murdering everyone she saw as responsible for her son’s death, including champions and heroes of the war defending Artaxerxes, while the king was too impotent a ruler to stop her and protect the men who had saved his realm. He failed to even protect his own wife, who was eventually poisoned by his mother, before Parysatis was slapped on the wrist with an exile to her rich family’s Babylonian lands.
Eunuchs served various roles in the Persian empire, and could even possess military or governmental power. Throughout multiple reigns eunuchs played critical roles in coups, assassinations, and in the case of eunuch Artaxores, even attempting to take the throne for himself — caught only after asking a woman to produce a fake beard for him so that he would look the part. Eunuchs were involved in many of the disruptive power shifts of the empire, and were responsible for the deaths of multiple kings. One eunuch ruled through the king he placed on the throne — Bagoas, the same eunuch who murdered Artaxerxes III. More than an “orientalist fantasy” of the eunuch puppet-master, and Llewellyn-Jones is always quick to dismiss orientalist fantasies, this authentic event also resulted in the puppet king being slain by the same eunuch, as well as his whole family for good measure.
One of the highlights here is the study of Persian religion, and the role of Ahuramazda in Persian theism, who was the template for the Jewish/Biblical God, particularly the features of perfection and goodness, and his role as the creator of all. Darius, as other kings before and after, saw himself as an extension of Ahuramazda, going so far as to emulate the god’s look in stone carvings. If Ahuramazda was the Persians’ God, their Satan was Angra Mainyu, also called Ahriman, leader of demonic hordes, a force of darkness, a dweller of an abyss of endless dark, creator of ‘non-life’, the diametric opposition to Ahuramazda.
To protect the entirety of his creation from Angra Mainyu’s evil immaterial form, residing parasitically in living things, he created a group of Amesha Spentas, Bounteous Immortals: Vohu Manu (Good Thoughts), Asha Vahishta (Best Righteousness), Spenta Armaiti (Holy Devotion), Khsathra Vaiyra (Desirable Dominion), Haruvatat (Wholeness), and Amertat (Immoetality). It was the king’s job to maintain pursuit of the Truth, to follow Ahuramazda’s path. Ahuramazda’s prophet was Zarathustra, or Zoroaster in Greek, thought to have been born sometime between 1200 and 1000 BC. Zoroastrianism exists to this day, though in a greatly changed form, owing to its necessary conformity to larger traditions, religious institutions, and cultures to remain relevant. It is not really clear if the Achaemenids were Zoroastrians. Zarathustra or his teachings were never mentioned in any ancient king’s work.
An engrossing book, a history told like an epic. At times Llewellyn-Jones appears to read the minds of ancient figures, and we must assume he is using some artistic freedoms to write a compelling story. It does not appear he invents anything or speculates too far outside what is defensible from the known sources paired with human nature. He has a talent for tying together an assortment of threads and details in a way that makes a moving, immense, coherent, complex story. He loves the subject and sees the glory and grandeur in it, and captures it expertly.
December 15, 2025
I'm torn on this one.
Overall, I think it's fine. Know going in that Llewellyn-Jones is out to tell the Persia story from the Persian perspective, eschewing the tall tales and exaggerations of our Greek sources. Unfortunately for us, the Persians didn't write things down the way the Greeks did, so a lot of it is putting bits and pieces together from inscriptions. Also unfortunately, the Greek version of events is way more exciting.
You know what we DO have a lot of, as far as textual evidence from the Persians? Receipts. We have tons and tons of documents about warehouses and itemized lists . The middle third of this book is just talking about administration of the empire, which ordinarily really interests me, but for some reason in this book I found an absolute drag. Afterwards, it picks up the narrative history again and adds some really salacious stories. So, a strong finish, but I found it really hard to get through in parts.
Highly recommended for anyone with interest in the time period though.
Overall, I think it's fine. Know going in that Llewellyn-Jones is out to tell the Persia story from the Persian perspective, eschewing the tall tales and exaggerations of our Greek sources. Unfortunately for us, the Persians didn't write things down the way the Greeks did, so a lot of it is putting bits and pieces together from inscriptions. Also unfortunately, the Greek version of events is way more exciting.
You know what we DO have a lot of, as far as textual evidence from the Persians? Receipts. We have tons and tons of documents about warehouses and itemized lists . The middle third of this book is just talking about administration of the empire, which ordinarily really interests me, but for some reason in this book I found an absolute drag. Afterwards, it picks up the narrative history again and adds some really salacious stories. So, a strong finish, but I found it really hard to get through in parts.
Highly recommended for anyone with interest in the time period though.
March 18, 2022
‘This story is told by the Persians themselves.’
Half a century ago, when I studied Ancient Greek history, the Persians were the bad guys. The sources we were drawing from, the Greek narratives, focussed on Greek heroism. I may have forgotten much of the history I learned, but the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BCE has stayed in my memory. Those noble Spartans, those dastardly Persians! Herodotus may have exaggerated a bit, but surely the essential facts were correct, or so I hoped. I read a little about Darius and Xerxes, but our studies moved onto the Peloponnesian War, and I left Thermopylae and Herodotus behind.
So, I was intrigued by the title of this book and keen to read more about the great kings of Persia.
As Professor Llewellyn-Jones writes:
‘We cannot believe much of what Herodotus said, and yet we cannot do without him.’
Professor Llewellyn-Jones draws on inscriptional and archaeological evidence from the ancient Near East to provide this detailed, readable account of the Achaemenid dynasty. This account begins with the arrival of the Persians on the Iranian plains. Professor Llewellyn-Jones writes about Persian religion and culture, including the bureaucratic systems developed to govern an empire at one stage which extended from Libya to the Steppes of Asia and from Ethiopia to Pakistan. While the great kings were nomadic travellers around their territory, the palace-city of Persepolis was the heart of the empire.
‘The story of the Achaemenids is an epic soap opera of naked ambition, betrayal, revenge and murder ...’
And through the kings: Cyrus the Great, Darius, Xerxes, and their successors, we learn of fights between brothers for power, of fights between wives and concubines each seeking to promote their own son as successor to the reigning king, while eunuchs and courtiers competed for influence.
The narrative takes us through the fall of the empire at the hands of Alexander and onto an epilogue which provides information about contemporary Iran’s relationship with the Achaemenid heritage.
I finished this book with a greater appreciation of the Achaemenid dynasty, especially of the bureaucratic processes developed to deal with a diverse and widespread empire.
Note: My thanks to NetGalley and Perseus Books for providing me with a free electronic copy of this book for review purposes.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
Half a century ago, when I studied Ancient Greek history, the Persians were the bad guys. The sources we were drawing from, the Greek narratives, focussed on Greek heroism. I may have forgotten much of the history I learned, but the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BCE has stayed in my memory. Those noble Spartans, those dastardly Persians! Herodotus may have exaggerated a bit, but surely the essential facts were correct, or so I hoped. I read a little about Darius and Xerxes, but our studies moved onto the Peloponnesian War, and I left Thermopylae and Herodotus behind.
So, I was intrigued by the title of this book and keen to read more about the great kings of Persia.
As Professor Llewellyn-Jones writes:
‘We cannot believe much of what Herodotus said, and yet we cannot do without him.’
Professor Llewellyn-Jones draws on inscriptional and archaeological evidence from the ancient Near East to provide this detailed, readable account of the Achaemenid dynasty. This account begins with the arrival of the Persians on the Iranian plains. Professor Llewellyn-Jones writes about Persian religion and culture, including the bureaucratic systems developed to govern an empire at one stage which extended from Libya to the Steppes of Asia and from Ethiopia to Pakistan. While the great kings were nomadic travellers around their territory, the palace-city of Persepolis was the heart of the empire.
‘The story of the Achaemenids is an epic soap opera of naked ambition, betrayal, revenge and murder ...’
And through the kings: Cyrus the Great, Darius, Xerxes, and their successors, we learn of fights between brothers for power, of fights between wives and concubines each seeking to promote their own son as successor to the reigning king, while eunuchs and courtiers competed for influence.
The narrative takes us through the fall of the empire at the hands of Alexander and onto an epilogue which provides information about contemporary Iran’s relationship with the Achaemenid heritage.
I finished this book with a greater appreciation of the Achaemenid dynasty, especially of the bureaucratic processes developed to deal with a diverse and widespread empire.
Note: My thanks to NetGalley and Perseus Books for providing me with a free electronic copy of this book for review purposes.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
August 26, 2022
Vivid and forceful writing about the subject, but is sparse with the use of citations and sources. There isn't even a full bibliography in the back, but there is a list of recommended reading. As such, there is only some limited background of what has a more solid background, what is conjectured, and what is completely imagined.
October 28, 2022
পারস্য- প্রাচীন এক সভ্যতা, অনেক মিথ, অনেক কল্পনার পটভূমি। পারস্য সাম্রাজ্যের গৌরব অবিদিত নয় কারোর কাছে। ব্যাবিলন থেকে মিশর, গান্ধার থেকে ম্যাসেডনের সীমানা পর্যন্ত বিস্তৃত সুবিশাল এই সাম্রাজ্যের এক নিরপেক্ষ চিত্র এঁকেছেন লেখক। আকমেদিয়ান রাজবংশের উত্থান থেকে পতন, জুরাথুস্ত্র ধর্মের প্রসার, প্রাচীন স্থাপত্য, জীবনযাত্রা- এক জীবন্ত চিত্র ফুটে উঠেছে প্রতিটি লাইনে। সাইরাস থেকে তৃতীয় দারিউস, আলেকজান্ডারের হাতে সাম্রাজ্যের পতন- পুরোটাই তুলে ধরেছেন ৪০০ পেজের মাঝে৷ ভাইয়ে ভাইয়ে বিবাদ, হেরেমের ভেতরকার রাজনীতি, বাইরের রাজনীতি- গেম অভ থ্রোনসকেও হার মানায়। শুকনো ইতিহাস নয়, অত্যন্ত উপভোগ্য ইতিহাসকারের লেখনি৷ এক নিমিষেই শেষ হয়ে গেলো যেন৷ সত্যিই ইতিহাস কল্পনার চেয়েও অনেক বেশি বর্ণিল৷
March 10, 2024
Um tema fascinante, uma comparação muito interessante entre fontes gregas e persas.
A ler!
A ler!
February 24, 2025
Oh my goodness gracious. I am not even sure I am going to be adequately able to say what I would like to about this book! I want to go back and read a finished copy of this book, looking deeper into some of the areas that I felt were not quite there - almost, but not quit
I enjoyed reading about some of the figures that developed and advanced the Persian empire, but felt that there was some reaching by the author on the subject. Now, admittedly, Persia is not my area of expertise. It is one area that I have been needing to dive into further, but due to time constraints, I never did. This book is a great starting point for me.
Now, I mentioned above that I want to read through it again, and some of ya'll might be asking WHY!?
There are a few reasons. As I said, there are some areas that I want to dive into a bit further and do some of my own research on. I can't sit here and say "that is just wrong, or I am not sure that is how that happened." Until I can research and draw my own conclusions - I am leaving the author as the undisputed expert.
Overall, I did enjoy reading through this book, and I can see a million different rabbit holes that I am wanting to dive into. Cyrus the Great is already on my hit list to dive into, and learn more on.
Decent start, and I look forward to seeing more from this author in the future.
I enjoyed reading about some of the figures that developed and advanced the Persian empire, but felt that there was some reaching by the author on the subject. Now, admittedly, Persia is not my area of expertise. It is one area that I have been needing to dive into further, but due to time constraints, I never did. This book is a great starting point for me.
Now, I mentioned above that I want to read through it again, and some of ya'll might be asking WHY!?
There are a few reasons. As I said, there are some areas that I want to dive into a bit further and do some of my own research on. I can't sit here and say "that is just wrong, or I am not sure that is how that happened." Until I can research and draw my own conclusions - I am leaving the author as the undisputed expert.
Overall, I did enjoy reading through this book, and I can see a million different rabbit holes that I am wanting to dive into. Cyrus the Great is already on my hit list to dive into, and learn more on.
Decent start, and I look forward to seeing more from this author in the future.
April 28, 2022
This is a great book about ancient Iran. The author tried to base his research on new archeological sources and only used the ancient Greek sources if he had too. I personally never really read much about ancient Persian history, and this book was a great introduction without the supposed Greek bias. He doesn't portray Achaemenids as good or bad, but gives a very balanced account.
This book was about the Achaemenid dynasty of Kings that ruled most of the known world for 2 generations. From Cyrus the Great, Darius, Xerxes, the various Artaxerxes' to Darius III who was eventually defeated by Iskandar (Alexander).
The book was split in 3 parts. The first and last was a history of the times, describing the rule and events surrounding each King, while the middle sections explained the life, culture, religion, etc of ancient iran. It then ends with Iran today and how the legacy of the Achaemenids is used in the modern times, from the last Shah to the Islamic government.
I highly recommend this book.
This book was about the Achaemenid dynasty of Kings that ruled most of the known world for 2 generations. From Cyrus the Great, Darius, Xerxes, the various Artaxerxes' to Darius III who was eventually defeated by Iskandar (Alexander).
The book was split in 3 parts. The first and last was a history of the times, describing the rule and events surrounding each King, while the middle sections explained the life, culture, religion, etc of ancient iran. It then ends with Iran today and how the legacy of the Achaemenids is used in the modern times, from the last Shah to the Islamic government.
I highly recommend this book.
May 4, 2025
In de ogen van de Grieken waren de Perzen echt barbaars en ik snap een beetje waar het vandaag komt maar ze waren een heel beschaaft volk. Er zat goede achtergrond in het boek. Grappig om te lezen dat ze zo veel familie drama hadden: jij bent nu koning maar fuck you broer ik dood jou nu ben ik koning. De meeste ruzie van de Perzen was tussen de familie zelf.
January 1, 2022
I read this courtesy of NetGalley.
I really, really wanted to love this book.
(That, children, is called 'foreshadowing'. You can almost see the BUT looming behind those words.)
A book that's basically the postcolonialist version of Persian history we've all been waiting for! A view on Persian history that's not just repeating the Greek and Roman commentaries that were absolutely written with a very particular perspective! YES PLEASE. And even more when the Llewellyn-Jones makes the acerbic comment in the introduction about how the concept of European superiority can be dated back to Herodotus etc and the way they presented the terrifying East. So yes, let's have a version of Persian history that is largely based on Persian sources, or uses the Greek sources very carefully - to find the Persian reality behind the Greek propaganda.
And it starts so well. There's a discussion about Persia vs Iran as a name - and I'm not sure whether his explanation of the political nuances there are accurate, so I defer to others on that, but it seemed to make sense within what I do know. There's a discussion about the archaeological activities that give historians what they know from Persepolis etc, and a candid admission about the lack of sources. The Persian history proper starts with a discussion of the movement of different peoples into the area we know today as Iran, and some speculation about how they interacted etc. Then it moves into discussing the development of the Persian empire as empire, and interaction with the Medes. All of this section was intriguing and the use of inscriptions was well done. I did start to get a bit uncomfortable about the lack of reference to other sources - like other historians; I understand that getting the balance of what can seem to be most approachable, and what can seem too scholarly, may revolve around footnotes etc but... there's just no way the author didn't use other references.
I also started to get a bit uncomfortable when the author claimed that Cyrus' mother "delighted in singing Median nursery rhymes to him" (p60 of the e-version), because that seems... weirdly specific? And then I got to the description of him as "lean and good-looking in that way that Persian men are uniquely handsome" (p63 of the e-version) and I had to stop and blink and decide whether to laugh or cry. What happened to treating the Persians as real people and not exoticising them, which I thought was part of the postcolonial agenda? I also have a problem with the statement that "A society that requires such codes of respectful behaviour" (obeisance before the monarch, etc) "is very likely to have autocratic political organisation, characterised by the coercive power of a king" (pp194-5). It just seems too blanket a statement.
And then! We have Darius' half-sister and wife described as "a Lady Macbeth-like villainess, hellbent on power and ruthless in her bloody ambition" (p288) and I really started to wonder whether it was now a different author, or if he had been to sexy the book up. Next we have "years of adoration and unnaturally demonstrative mother love meant that [Darius] was self-centred, cruel, vindictive, and brutal" (p292); and that mothers experience "that particular twang of jealousy... when their sons give their hearts to other women" (p294). In case we worried that it was about misogyny, we then have a eunuch described as "a veritable creature of the court" (uh, eunuchs who are made eunuchs to BE at court are literally that??) who was "born to corruption, whose ambitions were for the very highest office of state" (p333) and I just can't even. The author then has the temerity to accuse the Greeks of employing the "topos of the wicked eunuch" and I need to ask some questions about self-awareness.
So. I am ambivalent about this book. It's a super necessary idea, and the use of Persian inscriptions and the way some of the Greek sources are handled is a really good example of how to read through sources to get more than they think they're saying. On the other hand, some of the descriptions are clearly ridiculous (robes of "chiffon-like linen, gauzy cotton, and shimmering silk" (p293) - not to mention that nursery rhyme - really need some evidence!). And the bits quoted above are enough to make me despair. Did I learn something about the Persian empire and the kings who ruled, and the way it all worked? Absolutely. Is this the last word in Persian imperial history? I sure hope not.
Would not recommend to someone who is completely new to the history of this area and time, or to someone who is naive in reading historical books. For those looking to deepen their knowledge, it's useful - with the caveats above.
I really, really wanted to love this book.
(That, children, is called 'foreshadowing'. You can almost see the BUT looming behind those words.)
A book that's basically the postcolonialist version of Persian history we've all been waiting for! A view on Persian history that's not just repeating the Greek and Roman commentaries that were absolutely written with a very particular perspective! YES PLEASE. And even more when the Llewellyn-Jones makes the acerbic comment in the introduction about how the concept of European superiority can be dated back to Herodotus etc and the way they presented the terrifying East. So yes, let's have a version of Persian history that is largely based on Persian sources, or uses the Greek sources very carefully - to find the Persian reality behind the Greek propaganda.
And it starts so well. There's a discussion about Persia vs Iran as a name - and I'm not sure whether his explanation of the political nuances there are accurate, so I defer to others on that, but it seemed to make sense within what I do know. There's a discussion about the archaeological activities that give historians what they know from Persepolis etc, and a candid admission about the lack of sources. The Persian history proper starts with a discussion of the movement of different peoples into the area we know today as Iran, and some speculation about how they interacted etc. Then it moves into discussing the development of the Persian empire as empire, and interaction with the Medes. All of this section was intriguing and the use of inscriptions was well done. I did start to get a bit uncomfortable about the lack of reference to other sources - like other historians; I understand that getting the balance of what can seem to be most approachable, and what can seem too scholarly, may revolve around footnotes etc but... there's just no way the author didn't use other references.
I also started to get a bit uncomfortable when the author claimed that Cyrus' mother "delighted in singing Median nursery rhymes to him" (p60 of the e-version), because that seems... weirdly specific? And then I got to the description of him as "lean and good-looking in that way that Persian men are uniquely handsome" (p63 of the e-version) and I had to stop and blink and decide whether to laugh or cry. What happened to treating the Persians as real people and not exoticising them, which I thought was part of the postcolonial agenda? I also have a problem with the statement that "A society that requires such codes of respectful behaviour" (obeisance before the monarch, etc) "is very likely to have autocratic political organisation, characterised by the coercive power of a king" (pp194-5). It just seems too blanket a statement.
And then! We have Darius' half-sister and wife described as "a Lady Macbeth-like villainess, hellbent on power and ruthless in her bloody ambition" (p288) and I really started to wonder whether it was now a different author, or if he had been to sexy the book up. Next we have "years of adoration and unnaturally demonstrative mother love meant that [Darius] was self-centred, cruel, vindictive, and brutal" (p292); and that mothers experience "that particular twang of jealousy... when their sons give their hearts to other women" (p294). In case we worried that it was about misogyny, we then have a eunuch described as "a veritable creature of the court" (uh, eunuchs who are made eunuchs to BE at court are literally that??) who was "born to corruption, whose ambitions were for the very highest office of state" (p333) and I just can't even. The author then has the temerity to accuse the Greeks of employing the "topos of the wicked eunuch" and I need to ask some questions about self-awareness.
So. I am ambivalent about this book. It's a super necessary idea, and the use of Persian inscriptions and the way some of the Greek sources are handled is a really good example of how to read through sources to get more than they think they're saying. On the other hand, some of the descriptions are clearly ridiculous (robes of "chiffon-like linen, gauzy cotton, and shimmering silk" (p293) - not to mention that nursery rhyme - really need some evidence!). And the bits quoted above are enough to make me despair. Did I learn something about the Persian empire and the kings who ruled, and the way it all worked? Absolutely. Is this the last word in Persian imperial history? I sure hope not.
Would not recommend to someone who is completely new to the history of this area and time, or to someone who is naive in reading historical books. For those looking to deepen their knowledge, it's useful - with the caveats above.
February 9, 2022
My thanks to both NetGalley and Perseus Books for an advanced copy of this new historical study.
History is not only written by the victors, but by generations after the victors, based on previous writings. A Biblical of Greek view of history takes precedent over other works, mainly because they parrot a view of history that people have come to accept, or even more want to accept. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, chair in Ancient History at Cardiff University has in his book Persians: The Age of the Great Kings, written a history the Persians using their own sources, works and art and tries to tell more truthful history of these people than history has done.
The book is written well with much sourcing from new finds and recent deciphering and translations from various archeological sites. The story can get a tad confusing, many names, many actions, but Professor Llewellyn-Jones is very good at keeping both the pace and the narrative together and moving. Starting from early migrations and moving to the present day, the story is full of interesting facts and figures, with most of the book focusing on the Achaemenid Dynasty, their power, coups and actions. Professor Llewellyn-Jones is not easy on his subject, quick to point out that the leaders were very aware and very good at propaganda, and used this quite well to cover up some of their messier actions, while acting as benevolent watchman of their subjects.
A very well written history on a subject that I knew about from other works and writers, and have been shown that I knew less than I thought. Professor Llewellyn-Jones has written a comprehensive overview of a complicated subject, and made it interesting and easy to follow. Recommended for readers of history books, which much of this might be new, or to people that enjoy a good book on subjects that are new to them.
History is not only written by the victors, but by generations after the victors, based on previous writings. A Biblical of Greek view of history takes precedent over other works, mainly because they parrot a view of history that people have come to accept, or even more want to accept. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, chair in Ancient History at Cardiff University has in his book Persians: The Age of the Great Kings, written a history the Persians using their own sources, works and art and tries to tell more truthful history of these people than history has done.
The book is written well with much sourcing from new finds and recent deciphering and translations from various archeological sites. The story can get a tad confusing, many names, many actions, but Professor Llewellyn-Jones is very good at keeping both the pace and the narrative together and moving. Starting from early migrations and moving to the present day, the story is full of interesting facts and figures, with most of the book focusing on the Achaemenid Dynasty, their power, coups and actions. Professor Llewellyn-Jones is not easy on his subject, quick to point out that the leaders were very aware and very good at propaganda, and used this quite well to cover up some of their messier actions, while acting as benevolent watchman of their subjects.
A very well written history on a subject that I knew about from other works and writers, and have been shown that I knew less than I thought. Professor Llewellyn-Jones has written a comprehensive overview of a complicated subject, and made it interesting and easy to follow. Recommended for readers of history books, which much of this might be new, or to people that enjoy a good book on subjects that are new to them.
October 19, 2024
I listened to this book on audio and had a really good time. It's also very cool that it is narrated by the author himself.
4 and not 5 stars only because I kept losing focus.
4 and not 5 stars only because I kept losing focus.
September 7, 2025
First Thoughts: Not sure what to think of all these books written in the last few years about different ancient Civilizations. I know very little about these periods but it just feels superficial with lots of speculation based on vary few facts. Is written more for entertainment then a rigorous history.
I think to do these histories well one would have to go through the "facts" and then talk about potential meanings. Instead these writers roll with the interpretation they think is interesting and it's very hard to tell what is fact or speculation.
That said it was interesting. I was thinking "Persians" would cover the post Alexander Empires of the Parthians and Sassanids but this book is just focused on the Achaemenid Empire.
Insights:
The author says that the Persian's were more interesting in the pattern in which events of history are interpreted rather then in what actually happened. This was just true of a ALL religious societies before the Protestant revolution. This insight is foreign for us but not for the Persian's.
The most brutal characters in this history are the women, hands down. The King will forgive someone only to be convinced by his wife or Queen mother to hand the victim over to her so she can torture them to death. Totally shatters the idea that peace will reign if women were in charge... The women of the King's harem are the attack dogs who protect the family from incursions by other blood lines.
The author's two main points was to overturn the Greek slander of the Persian's and that Persia did not go through the decline and fall phase that other historians claim, as well as bring to light the Persian's more multicultural approach to Empire. I understand his point since there are huge holes in the Western mind in regards to major European Empires like Byzantium and Russia. But I found his view that Rome imposed a monoculture on everyone as absurd. Rome was very multicultural and never forced others to conform but they did let people know there ways were superior. Even the Persian's though privileged their own Persian culture over foreigners despite being very willing to adopt foreign culture to ingratiate themselves with the locals. The Roman's were quite happy to allow the local cultures to maintain their distinctness but they never adopted foreign culture in the same way. Neither empire is as multicultural as we are, both had an identity of their own, both demanded complete loyalty.
As for the decline and fall narrative, by the authors own account Persia lost Egypt for 60 years before regaining it somewhat before Alexander arrived and the dynastic family had massive infighting in the years leading up to being toppled which did not occur as far as we know in the previous centuries. On top of that some of the kings right before the last one were ruled by an Eunuch and were killed when they wanted to be independent. Certainly seems like characteristics of decline.
It occurred to me while reading this that the US Empire shares a lot in common with the Athenian Empire. A mythological victory over the forces of "tyranny" that encourages other states to sign a defensive agreement that within a few years turns into abject slavery. That old cliché "history repeats itself" seems to be certainly true in this case.
The history of the Mesopotamian area is one of constant change. Babylon rules and is taken over by Assyria only to be taken over by Persia. My impression of Alexander is he toppled Persia and then just kept going and conquering other peoples. But in reality he basically just toppled the Persian central government and took over the Empire. Maybe he conquered some periphery tribes but that's about it. It seems a lot less great then I had assumed. The author also says Persia had never been challenged in this way. So basically Persia collapsed facing it's first existential threat and did not show a lot of resiliency in doing so either. For an empire that controlled everything from India to Greece, being toppled after three lost battles is pretty quick for an empire that vast.
I had assumed that Persia was like Babylon, a civ with a long history of civilization. I was surprised to learn they were nomads who came to the Persian plateau and had many similarities to the Mongols, even referring to their leaders as khans. Instead of coming and wiping out the agrarians they developed an over lordship much like the Goths and Germans with the fall of Rome. This nomadic background was referenced throughout their reign and somewhat explains their affinity for multiculturalism or at least their version of it.
Religiously, Persia's religion had some similarities with Christianity for example their idea of evil was a deprivation of good. For being polytheistic they had a hierarchy of deities with the top one being Ahuramazda who creates the world and establishes order. Interestingly enough Ahuramazda was very ideological at least according to this author. Ahuramazda establishes truth which the Great Kings uphold on earth and anyone who opposes them it promoting the lie.
I think to do these histories well one would have to go through the "facts" and then talk about potential meanings. Instead these writers roll with the interpretation they think is interesting and it's very hard to tell what is fact or speculation.
That said it was interesting. I was thinking "Persians" would cover the post Alexander Empires of the Parthians and Sassanids but this book is just focused on the Achaemenid Empire.
Insights:
The author says that the Persian's were more interesting in the pattern in which events of history are interpreted rather then in what actually happened. This was just true of a ALL religious societies before the Protestant revolution. This insight is foreign for us but not for the Persian's.
The most brutal characters in this history are the women, hands down. The King will forgive someone only to be convinced by his wife or Queen mother to hand the victim over to her so she can torture them to death. Totally shatters the idea that peace will reign if women were in charge... The women of the King's harem are the attack dogs who protect the family from incursions by other blood lines.
The author's two main points was to overturn the Greek slander of the Persian's and that Persia did not go through the decline and fall phase that other historians claim, as well as bring to light the Persian's more multicultural approach to Empire. I understand his point since there are huge holes in the Western mind in regards to major European Empires like Byzantium and Russia. But I found his view that Rome imposed a monoculture on everyone as absurd. Rome was very multicultural and never forced others to conform but they did let people know there ways were superior. Even the Persian's though privileged their own Persian culture over foreigners despite being very willing to adopt foreign culture to ingratiate themselves with the locals. The Roman's were quite happy to allow the local cultures to maintain their distinctness but they never adopted foreign culture in the same way. Neither empire is as multicultural as we are, both had an identity of their own, both demanded complete loyalty.
As for the decline and fall narrative, by the authors own account Persia lost Egypt for 60 years before regaining it somewhat before Alexander arrived and the dynastic family had massive infighting in the years leading up to being toppled which did not occur as far as we know in the previous centuries. On top of that some of the kings right before the last one were ruled by an Eunuch and were killed when they wanted to be independent. Certainly seems like characteristics of decline.
It occurred to me while reading this that the US Empire shares a lot in common with the Athenian Empire. A mythological victory over the forces of "tyranny" that encourages other states to sign a defensive agreement that within a few years turns into abject slavery. That old cliché "history repeats itself" seems to be certainly true in this case.
The history of the Mesopotamian area is one of constant change. Babylon rules and is taken over by Assyria only to be taken over by Persia. My impression of Alexander is he toppled Persia and then just kept going and conquering other peoples. But in reality he basically just toppled the Persian central government and took over the Empire. Maybe he conquered some periphery tribes but that's about it. It seems a lot less great then I had assumed. The author also says Persia had never been challenged in this way. So basically Persia collapsed facing it's first existential threat and did not show a lot of resiliency in doing so either. For an empire that controlled everything from India to Greece, being toppled after three lost battles is pretty quick for an empire that vast.
I had assumed that Persia was like Babylon, a civ with a long history of civilization. I was surprised to learn they were nomads who came to the Persian plateau and had many similarities to the Mongols, even referring to their leaders as khans. Instead of coming and wiping out the agrarians they developed an over lordship much like the Goths and Germans with the fall of Rome. This nomadic background was referenced throughout their reign and somewhat explains their affinity for multiculturalism or at least their version of it.
Religiously, Persia's religion had some similarities with Christianity for example their idea of evil was a deprivation of good. For being polytheistic they had a hierarchy of deities with the top one being Ahuramazda who creates the world and establishes order. Interestingly enough Ahuramazda was very ideological at least according to this author. Ahuramazda establishes truth which the Great Kings uphold on earth and anyone who opposes them it promoting the lie.
September 6, 2022
http://looneybooks79.blog/2022/09/06/...
De Perzen is een fantastisch verhaal over een oude dynastie die eigenlijk bij ons té weinig gekend is, tenzij door geromantiseerde en/of overdreven fantasierijke overleveringen (die voortvloeien uit een Griekse vertelling en dus eigenlijk niet de ganse waarheid vertellen, dan denk ik bvb aan de graphic novel en de verfilming van 300 en dien vervolg 300: Rise of the Empire. Hoe leuk deze ook waren, het verhaal van 300 Spartanen tegen de Perzen was minder roemrijk dan in deze verhalen worden verteld.)
Maar Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones brengt ons een realistischer beeld en ook een veel uitgebreidere visie op de Perzische koningen en hun veroveringen, maar ook over hun val door onderlinge twisten en broedermoord.
In een heel duidelijke taal en met fantastische beschrijvingen, alsof je ter plekke bent en je de mooie paleizen en kledij van toen voor je ziet, vertelt Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones zijn lezers over hoe er geheerst werd, hoe er veroverd werd, hoe koningen heersten en hoe troonsopvolging bij de Perzische koningen in zijn werk ging. Over een pre-islamitisch verleden met verering van Ahura Mazda tot aan het huidige Iran, beheerst door de Islam en in hoeverre de oude koningen nu nog indruk maken…
Ik heb in ieder geval zin gekregen om nog eens naar het British Museum in London te gaan, want een reisje Iran zie ik nu niet onmiddellijk zitten. Hoewel de site van Persepolis bezoeken op mijn bucket list staat!
Een fantastisch naslagwerk , mooi geschreven en heerlijk mooi verteld. Een stuk geschiedenis waar ik tot nu toe nauwelijks iets van wist en kende, maar waar ik nog meer over wil lezen alvast. De zin om nu ook over het oude Rome, Griekenland én Egypte te lezen is groot (ik heb intussen een leeslijstje opgesteld en al een aantal boeken aangeschaft erover) - en natuurlijk ook over Alexander, de Grote! Want geen oudheid zonder zijn bijdrage 😉
This is a must read if you are a history lover like I am! I didn’t know much about the Persian reign and about the Kings like Cyrus, Darius or Xerxes (to name a few) but this book offers so much information, and is written (told!) in such a clear language (the names might be a struggle sometimes) that everyone can enjoy this book!
The cover is stunning, that was initially appealed to me enormously and made me want to read the book. It’s as if I held a chunk of lapis lazuli in my hands, the beautiful iridescence of its blue, with the golden finishes make me want to experience how the temples and palaces in those days were. Images of hanging gardens pop up in my mind as well… visiting the Persepolis site one day is on my bucket list!
Go on, pick up this book. Immerse yourself into a world of Great Kings, battles and wealth… this is definitely worth a read!
De Perzen is een fantastisch verhaal over een oude dynastie die eigenlijk bij ons té weinig gekend is, tenzij door geromantiseerde en/of overdreven fantasierijke overleveringen (die voortvloeien uit een Griekse vertelling en dus eigenlijk niet de ganse waarheid vertellen, dan denk ik bvb aan de graphic novel en de verfilming van 300 en dien vervolg 300: Rise of the Empire. Hoe leuk deze ook waren, het verhaal van 300 Spartanen tegen de Perzen was minder roemrijk dan in deze verhalen worden verteld.)
Maar Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones brengt ons een realistischer beeld en ook een veel uitgebreidere visie op de Perzische koningen en hun veroveringen, maar ook over hun val door onderlinge twisten en broedermoord.
In een heel duidelijke taal en met fantastische beschrijvingen, alsof je ter plekke bent en je de mooie paleizen en kledij van toen voor je ziet, vertelt Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones zijn lezers over hoe er geheerst werd, hoe er veroverd werd, hoe koningen heersten en hoe troonsopvolging bij de Perzische koningen in zijn werk ging. Over een pre-islamitisch verleden met verering van Ahura Mazda tot aan het huidige Iran, beheerst door de Islam en in hoeverre de oude koningen nu nog indruk maken…
Ik heb in ieder geval zin gekregen om nog eens naar het British Museum in London te gaan, want een reisje Iran zie ik nu niet onmiddellijk zitten. Hoewel de site van Persepolis bezoeken op mijn bucket list staat!
Een fantastisch naslagwerk , mooi geschreven en heerlijk mooi verteld. Een stuk geschiedenis waar ik tot nu toe nauwelijks iets van wist en kende, maar waar ik nog meer over wil lezen alvast. De zin om nu ook over het oude Rome, Griekenland én Egypte te lezen is groot (ik heb intussen een leeslijstje opgesteld en al een aantal boeken aangeschaft erover) - en natuurlijk ook over Alexander, de Grote! Want geen oudheid zonder zijn bijdrage 😉
This is a must read if you are a history lover like I am! I didn’t know much about the Persian reign and about the Kings like Cyrus, Darius or Xerxes (to name a few) but this book offers so much information, and is written (told!) in such a clear language (the names might be a struggle sometimes) that everyone can enjoy this book!
The cover is stunning, that was initially appealed to me enormously and made me want to read the book. It’s as if I held a chunk of lapis lazuli in my hands, the beautiful iridescence of its blue, with the golden finishes make me want to experience how the temples and palaces in those days were. Images of hanging gardens pop up in my mind as well… visiting the Persepolis site one day is on my bucket list!
Go on, pick up this book. Immerse yourself into a world of Great Kings, battles and wealth… this is definitely worth a read!
November 26, 2022
Het is altijd plezant een boek in handen te krijgen over een stuk van de geschiedenis waar je vrijwel niks over afweet, en dat was deze keer niet anders. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones (wauw, 6 L'en) neemt je me naar een paar duizend jaar geleden, naar de geschiedenis van een van de eerste echte rijken der mensheid: dat van de Perzen.
Het boek is verdeeld in drie delen: het eerste en derde deel gaan allebei over de geschiedkundige gebeurtenissen zelf, het tweede deel gaat meer over het leven van de Perzen.
Alles is bijzonder interessant, en het feit dat de Achaemenidische dynastie relatief kortstondig bestaan heeft, maakt dat er echt op die geschiedenis ingegaan kan worden en dat er allerhande gebeurtenissen en details uitgediept kunnen worden. Soms misschien wel iets te veel, en zeker met alle namen wordt het af en toe wel complex. Gelukkig is er achteraan het boek een handig overzicht! En verder mogen we blij zijn dat wij in de verste ver niet in of rond een koninklijk hof vertoeven.
Wat bij het tweede deel wel wat jammer is, vind ik dat het vooral gaat over het leven van de Perzische koningen en de rest van hun familie en het hof gaat. Ik had niet de indruk dat ik echt veel te weten ben gekomen over het gewone volk zelf, op een paar puntjes na. Aan de andere kant: van een rijk van die ouderdom dat grotendeels in mysterie gehuld is, kun je niet veel meer verwachten dan dat de informatie die wel beschikbaar is, over de groten gaat. Zeker aangezien ze zelf nauwelijks een schriftelijke traditie hadden.
Hier en daar had het iets persoonlijker gemogen, want het blijft al bij al een iets te droge tekst naar mijn mening, maar dat maakt het gelukkig niet minder interessant. De vertaling van Aad Janssen en Pon Ruiter is tiptop in orde, buiten een paar typfoutjes heb ik niks gezien, dit leest zoals het moet lezen.
7/10
Het boek is verdeeld in drie delen: het eerste en derde deel gaan allebei over de geschiedkundige gebeurtenissen zelf, het tweede deel gaat meer over het leven van de Perzen.
Alles is bijzonder interessant, en het feit dat de Achaemenidische dynastie relatief kortstondig bestaan heeft, maakt dat er echt op die geschiedenis ingegaan kan worden en dat er allerhande gebeurtenissen en details uitgediept kunnen worden. Soms misschien wel iets te veel, en zeker met alle namen wordt het af en toe wel complex. Gelukkig is er achteraan het boek een handig overzicht! En verder mogen we blij zijn dat wij in de verste ver niet in of rond een koninklijk hof vertoeven.
Wat bij het tweede deel wel wat jammer is, vind ik dat het vooral gaat over het leven van de Perzische koningen en de rest van hun familie en het hof gaat. Ik had niet de indruk dat ik echt veel te weten ben gekomen over het gewone volk zelf, op een paar puntjes na. Aan de andere kant: van een rijk van die ouderdom dat grotendeels in mysterie gehuld is, kun je niet veel meer verwachten dan dat de informatie die wel beschikbaar is, over de groten gaat. Zeker aangezien ze zelf nauwelijks een schriftelijke traditie hadden.
Hier en daar had het iets persoonlijker gemogen, want het blijft al bij al een iets te droge tekst naar mijn mening, maar dat maakt het gelukkig niet minder interessant. De vertaling van Aad Janssen en Pon Ruiter is tiptop in orde, buiten een paar typfoutjes heb ik niks gezien, dit leest zoals het moet lezen.
7/10
July 10, 2024
2.5/5 stars.
Persians is a relatively solid introduction to the Achaemenid era, I suppose. However, it has some serious issues that prevent me from giving it a higher rating. While it is laudable that Llewellyn-Jones criticizes the Greek interpretation of Persian history, he sometimes overshoots and ends up favoring interpretations for the sole reason of conflicting with the Greek sources. Worse, he is often very vague about where the sources end and his own interpretation and extrapolation begins. It's not as bad as, say, Tom Holland's Persian Fire, but it is a very serious issue. Add to that the fact that Llewellyn-Jones oftek contradicts himself, sometimes within one or two sentences, and often lacks references for long stretches of the book and we are left with a confusing book that is hard to trust. I am not saying that Llewellyn-Jones is wrong in this book, but he makes it very hard to judge if and when he should be believed.
Persians is a relatively solid introduction to the Achaemenid era, I suppose. However, it has some serious issues that prevent me from giving it a higher rating. While it is laudable that Llewellyn-Jones criticizes the Greek interpretation of Persian history, he sometimes overshoots and ends up favoring interpretations for the sole reason of conflicting with the Greek sources. Worse, he is often very vague about where the sources end and his own interpretation and extrapolation begins. It's not as bad as, say, Tom Holland's Persian Fire, but it is a very serious issue. Add to that the fact that Llewellyn-Jones oftek contradicts himself, sometimes within one or two sentences, and often lacks references for long stretches of the book and we are left with a confusing book that is hard to trust. I am not saying that Llewellyn-Jones is wrong in this book, but he makes it very hard to judge if and when he should be believed.
August 26, 2023
An anti-Greek polemic, this book would have been better as an angry tweet directed at people who only know about Persia from the movie 300. It’s a shame, as Persian history is severely under-reported relative to its historical significance (e.g. the impact of Persian religion on Judaism & Christianity). Instead, we get Llewellyn-Jones’s arbitrary spin on largely Green historical sources. At points, it felt like a Putinist history of Russia & Ukraine. The author regularly stops to tell us that the Greeks were bad and seemingly problematic Persian actions were actually good (I don't know Lloyd, I think I agree with the Greek figures who said that Persian kings marrying their own daughters was not good). This book would benefit from some understanding of the sociological & economic drivers of cultural flourishing and perhaps some of the historical methods pioneered by the ancient Greeks.
February 14, 2023
There is a lot of heavy duty research that went into writing this book. I learned a lot by reading it. I also realized that a lot more will come to light as archeologists continue uncovering evidence that helps piece the past together. This book couldn't have been written even 50 years ago but is bringing to light an empire that existed 2,500 year ago. It was a fascinating read.
March 9, 2022
An informative and well researched book about the history of a civilization that is usually considered in relation to Greeks.
I found this book well written and interesting.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine
I found this book well written and interesting.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher and Netgalley for this ARC, all opinions are mine
May 3, 2025
An accessible and engaging history of the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550–330 BCE), which privileges Persian sources over Greek/Classical ones, whenever possible. I would have appreciated footnotes or endnotes of some sort, but the “further reading” section at the back of the book is helpful.
November 10, 2025
This detailed journey through the reigns of Persia's Great Kings is a riveting history book that effortlessly transported me from my cosy 21st century life to the ancient empire. I loved everything Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones' words made me imagine whilst simultaneously being glad I was born 2,000+ years later in a different area of the world.
The Topic
From the very first start, Llewellyn-Jones makes it clear that his work is meant to show the Ancient Persians as close as possible to how they would have seen themselves. He begins by rejecting the exaggerations, dramatisations, and sensationalism that classical Ancient historians added to their versions of Persian history. I really liked this approach. History is, after all - or used to be - written by the victors. So his commitment to basing this book on Persian sources as much as possible piqued my interest very early on.
He truly did his best in keeping to this approach. There is only one king about whose life we mostly know through the chronicles of a Greek historian, but that's not for lack of trying on Llewellyn-Jones' part.
I also appreciated that the deeds of some of the political players are portrayed through their eyes rather than ours, even though I disagree with the statement that we shouldn't judge them based on modern attitudes. Whilst I can accept that justice systems changed throughout millennia, there has always been and always will be a difference between law and cruelty. And based on what I've read in this book, the Ancient Persians were very aware of this difference. So despite Llewellyn-Jones' best efforts to make me not judge certain queens too harshly for their actions, I was sitting here appalled, horrified, and very much judging.
The Information
I knew a bit about Persian history, mostly from Hollywood films, and books set in modern Middle-Eastern countries that used to be part of the Persian Empire. I also had an appreciation for Persian culture - the fashion, the architecture, the overall aesthetic of it. So whilst perhaps I started this book with a bit more knowledge and respect than most Europeans have for Ancient Persia, it still added about 95% to my know-how about it.
This is a treasure horde of information about more than just the kings, despite its name. It talks about battles and politics, sure, but also about the lives of people from all walks of life, from the highest (the Achaemenids themselves) to the lowest (the slaves).
Writing Style
I read books with an inner voice, and Llewellyn-Jones' writing style made that voice sound like the narrator of a very juicy documentary. It builds momentum, it creates intrigue, it's sometimes sarcastic, sometimes humorous, sometimes triumphant, and sometimes sad.
It was by far one of the most entertaining, dynamic, and engaging history books I have ever read. I really wish the history books I was made to study in school were written like this. Most people would grow to love history if they were.
Final Thoughts
I absolutely loved this book. It was hard to put it down at times. I can only rate it as a 10 out of 10.
The Topic
From the very first start, Llewellyn-Jones makes it clear that his work is meant to show the Ancient Persians as close as possible to how they would have seen themselves. He begins by rejecting the exaggerations, dramatisations, and sensationalism that classical Ancient historians added to their versions of Persian history. I really liked this approach. History is, after all - or used to be - written by the victors. So his commitment to basing this book on Persian sources as much as possible piqued my interest very early on.
He truly did his best in keeping to this approach. There is only one king about whose life we mostly know through the chronicles of a Greek historian, but that's not for lack of trying on Llewellyn-Jones' part.
I also appreciated that the deeds of some of the political players are portrayed through their eyes rather than ours, even though I disagree with the statement that we shouldn't judge them based on modern attitudes. Whilst I can accept that justice systems changed throughout millennia, there has always been and always will be a difference between law and cruelty. And based on what I've read in this book, the Ancient Persians were very aware of this difference. So despite Llewellyn-Jones' best efforts to make me not judge certain queens too harshly for their actions, I was sitting here appalled, horrified, and very much judging.
The Information
I knew a bit about Persian history, mostly from Hollywood films, and books set in modern Middle-Eastern countries that used to be part of the Persian Empire. I also had an appreciation for Persian culture - the fashion, the architecture, the overall aesthetic of it. So whilst perhaps I started this book with a bit more knowledge and respect than most Europeans have for Ancient Persia, it still added about 95% to my know-how about it.
This is a treasure horde of information about more than just the kings, despite its name. It talks about battles and politics, sure, but also about the lives of people from all walks of life, from the highest (the Achaemenids themselves) to the lowest (the slaves).
Writing Style
I read books with an inner voice, and Llewellyn-Jones' writing style made that voice sound like the narrator of a very juicy documentary. It builds momentum, it creates intrigue, it's sometimes sarcastic, sometimes humorous, sometimes triumphant, and sometimes sad.
It was by far one of the most entertaining, dynamic, and engaging history books I have ever read. I really wish the history books I was made to study in school were written like this. Most people would grow to love history if they were.
Final Thoughts
I absolutely loved this book. It was hard to put it down at times. I can only rate it as a 10 out of 10.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 261 reviews