Two titles to note:
Pierre Briant. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns: 2002) ISBN 1575060310.
Josef Wiesenhofer. Ancient Persian From 550 BC to 650 AD. (Tauris: 2001) ISBN 1850439990.
Review in TLS 2003-07-10 by James Davidson, “Versailles With Panthers”.
On Briant: “his book should be not only required reading for classicists, but also of great interest for students of later monarchical systems, from Britain to Mughal India.”
On Wiesenhofer: “highly readable”
Xenophon’s account of Cyrus’ invasion of Babylon resonates. He knows that his troops are fearful of fighting in the city because the people will go up onto the roofs and fire down on them. Cyrus encourages his troops not to worry since they have plenty of pinewood for torches and will burn down the city – making the rooftops unpalatable places upon which to resist the troops entry into the city. The city was handed over to Cyrus without a fight. To help keep the peace, Cyrus order that all Babylonians had to give up their arms and that wherever weapons were found in a house, the inhabitants were to be put to death.
“Statues are like chess pieces in the ancient Near East, full of power and significance, always being kidnapped, rescued and triumphantly returned.”
The role of the “paradise” gardens in Persian (pre-Islam) is notable since it was later adopted into Islamic culture and theology as well. Tree loving was particularly important since trees were well established images of royal authority in the Near East. Kings were the powers that made the deserts bloom. Paradise means power in the simplest semiotic. The King was seen as a kind of “gardener”. Needless to say, when revolts or invasions took place, one of the first things that was done was to attack the trees and gardens – the symbols of authority.
Briant insists on a view of the Persian polity as one of “imperial consistency and provincial variety. “The peculiar genius of the Achaemenid Empire lay, he suggests, in the balance between cultural diversity and political unity, putting the former at the service of the latter… what kept the whole thing together was a dynastic pact with a thin but enduring layer of socio-ethnic imperial aristocrats, essentially Persian, though not nationalistic, and able to integrate with provincial elites through marriage… The balance between unity and diversity seems also to be bound up with the personal nature of the Empire and the mechanisms of gift-exchange, in the construction of power as superior dignity and subjection as obligation.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.