History of the Persian Empire

A. T. Olmstead

The University of Chicago Press, 1948 [1970, 6th impr.]; Pages: xxxii, 568

Professor Olmstead's History of Persia, edited by his colleagues and published after his death in 1945, consists of an extensive archaeological, cultural, religious, and economic history of the Achaemenid Empire started by Cyrus with his victory over the Medes in 550-49 BCE and brought down by Alexander in 330. It was one of the first volumes to give the "Oriental" version of events, that is, a view not diffracted through the Greek lens, and therefore far more sympathetic to the Persians. In this latter endeavor, Olmstead succeeds remarkably well, although he seems to overdo it at times (e.g. his constant reference to Alexander in very unflattering terms, blaming him for the wanton destruction of Persepolis among other things; a view that has come under attack in recent scholarship.)

The book can be roughly divided in five parts. The first deals with Cyrus and the founding of the empire, along with its first expansion through the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. Among these chapters, there is an interesting account of Zoroastrianism and his influence on the next ruler, the Great King Darius. Some of that account, especially the life of Zarathustra, has been displaced, but the influence of the "native" religion on the political organization of the empire is very important, especially if one is to understand the remarkable religious tolerance of the Persian rulers.

The next part deals with Darius, and the greatest expansion of the empire. Much attention is paid to the famous Bisutun bas-relief depicting the Great King victorious over the rebel Gaumata and the other rebel kings. With its inscription written in Babylonian, Elamite, and Old Persian, the Bisutun rock is a major documentary source for the period. Olmstead also scrupulously covers the three "capitals" Ecbatana, Babylon, and Susa, although he does not dwell much on the political and economic reasons for the "traveling" court which rotated amongst them. He also devotes an entire chapter to Persepolis, the capital of the empire, and the city purportedly looted to extinction by the Macedonian conquerors. (This last part has now been proven false as it seems that despite the looting, which incidentally preserved thousands of clay tables by baking them, the city remained populated for long after its supposed destruction.)

The next, and longest part, deals with Xerxes and his failed invasion of Greece. It is quite remarkable that Olmstead goes against the common stereotype, perpetuated by the patriotic Greek writers, that depicted the Persians as incompetent despots, and the Greeks as the freedom-loving brave warriors. As the author shows, it was Persia, who consistently supported democratic governments in the Greek city-states (because the democrats were cheaper to buy through ensuring good trade than the conservative oligarchs), and that both Athens and Sparta consistently promoted tyrants (when Athens wasn't busy trying to incorporate the city into its empire). It is also sobering to realize that the efficient Greek hoplites formed a large and quite dependable contingent in the Persian army, although the reliance on mercenaries was not a sign of decadence, as Xenophon insists, but rather a sign of the good economic policy of the Persians who could and did pay for the soldiers instead of drafting the peasants who would then be unable to cultivate the land! Olmstead stumbles, however, when he blames the failure of the invasion on the intrigues of women and eunuchs at the court. In this, he follows in the footsteps of the Greek historians (on this more below.)

The next part deals with the temporary success of Artaxerxes II who, after putting down the revolt by Cyrus (the Young), and quelling the problems in Egypt turned his attention to European Greece and, after weathering the Spartan "Second Trojan War," managed to use the traditional hostility between Sparta and Athens to conclude the famous "King's Peace" in which Athens had the dubious distinction to be explicitly named as beneficiary to terms which effectively sold the interests of the Asiatic Greeks to the Persians. Interestingly, it was through the shrewd use of its "ten thousand archers" (i.e. gold coins, which had an archer engraved on them) Persian diplomacy succeeded where Persian arms had failed.

The last part deals with the accession of Darius III, the start of the Hellenic crusade under Philip of Macedon, and its continuation under his son, Alexander. The three famous battles at Granicus, Issus, and Guagamela are vividly described, along with a particularly saddening look at the sacking of Persepolis. With this, the book ends, hinting about how the East managed to conquer its conqueror by persuading Alexander to abandon the Hellenic crusade and embrace distinctly Eastern traits of rule by appointing almost the same people as satraps, and even turning toward his own deification as a king-god.

The book, however, suffers from several serious weaknesses. First, its is poorly organized, which probably reflects the fact that the author could not do the final editing. There are several repetitions, and many passages that are not integrated into the text. For example, there are long (and tedious) translations of prayers to Ahura Mazdah from the Zoroastrian writings, but it is never clear how they relate to the text, and it is not even clear why they are there in the first place. Second, there is an overabundance of material which is of purely archaeological interest, like meticulous descriptions of engravings, bas-reliefs, floor plans, and buildings. For the nonspecialist, these hold no interest, especially when one can see reproductions of the things in question. It would have been more useful to highlight the importance of certain details only than describe what is in plain sight. This incidentally brings me to a gripe about the very long and needlessly detailed descriptions of the amazing state of Babylonian astrology-astronomy. Now, I have to admit to being more than impressed by the astounding precision of the calculations of the Babylonian priests. However, it was not productive to have page after page of calculations to illustrate these results (not the least because to a non-astronomer, most of the numbers will make no sense).

In addition to these quibbles, mostly of organizational and editorial nature, I have to add two severe problems with the book. First, there is virtually no political history. There is no explanation of the Persian policies, both in foreign relations and managing the internal affairs of the empire. Despite the scattered references to economic problems due to overtaxation, and even these are doubtful given the generally light burden placed by the Persians, there is no explanation for the puzzling kaleidoscope of satrapies, their administration, or the organization of communications within the empire. Second, and this is where the Greek bias still shows, many evils of barbaric nature as well as policy failures are blamed on the pernicious influence of women and eunuchs, the so-called "harem intrigues."

This is an old misperception, mostly due to the way all Greek historians and orators have described the Persians. The best example is the contrast between the wise and tolerant founder Cyrus, and the incompetent, effeminate, and barbarous Xerxes. Olmstead takes some of these accounts at face value. For example, the alleged case when Xerxes' soft spot for his brother Masistes' wife and their daughter, Artaynte, caused his wife, Queen Amestris, to demand (and receive) Artaynte's mother as a gift and horribly mutilated her, causing the rebellion of Masistes and the subsequent purge of his entire family. However, as Wiesehöfer points out, if this story is interpreted in its Iranian context, it becomes legible as the royal response to a challenge to the authority of the imperial line (in the full story, Artaynte had demanded the robe of the Queen) and thus can serve as a warning fable.

In addition, the desire to portray Xerxes as a weakling doubtless stems from a need to encourage the Greeks in their fight against the Persians. In that light, depicting Cyrus as benevolent and wise (he was neither, at least no more than his successors), is simply meeting the need to explain the otherwise puzzling rise of the Persian empire. Thus, the Greek story reads as follows. "Years ago, under the rule of the wise Cyrus, the Persians created a huge empire. Now, the empire is under the decadent Xerxes and so should be pretty easy to defeat, as the march of Ten Thousand demonstrates." This construction makes much sense in the Greek context but unfortunately is driven by strategic considerations and so cannot be taken at face value as valid description of historical reality. Olmstead, however, fails to realize that (in which he can be excused for much of recent scholarship depends on texts that had not been available in his time).

This makes me hesitate about the book. It is an impressive collection of knowledge about the history of Persia, but is not well organized and integrated as an explanation. It can therefore be quite confusing. Still, the wealth of information is attractive although it does require more than the usual effort to sift through irrelevant material and doubtful interpretation of events.

November 15, 2001

@book{olmstead-48,
    title     = {History of the Persian Empire},
    author    = {A. T. Olmstead},
    year      = 1948,
    publisher = {The University of Chicago Press},
    address   = {Chicago},
    isbn      = {0-226-62777-2 (pbk.)},
    note      = {Maps, index, bibliography; Pp. xxxii, 568}
}