Josef Weisehofer. Ancient Persia. London, UK: I.B. Tauris, 1996.
This book discusses the progression of Persian culture through three different reigning families. The main point of the book is to address the ways that these periods are currently taught and remembered, and to point out inaccuracies in the popular western descriptions, or to reaffirm the ideas via critical analysis and comparison to primary sources such as relics. Weisehofer accomplishes this by dividing the book into 3 main sections, each devoted to a reigning family of Persia. Within each chapter, the book is formatted in a way that states a specific western claim, and proceeds to address that issue holistically before moving on to an unrelated claim. Dividing the book by time …show more content…
When these two kings are compared in western narratives, they are presented as polar opposites with Cyrus being infinitely compassionate and a near-perfect ruler, and Xerxes being cruel and unjust. Weisehofer begins by explaining why this presentation made sense when thinking of the Achaemenid family, because beginning with Cyrus the empire would continued to grow in power, until the reign of Xerxes which marked the point where it would steadily decline until being overtaken. This idea was also supported by actual accounts from the Persians as well as outsiders, but Weisehofer argues that the only differences between Cyrus’ rule and Xerxes’ rule were the political climates that surrounded their rise to power. With Cyrus, he was tasked with uniting a people and bringing about a new order. Xerxes on the other hand was tasked with maintaining a large empire that faced multiple rebellion attempts in its outer regions. Weisenhofers argument ultimately concludes that despite their radically different public perceptions, there was nothing that Xerxes did that Cyrus would not have done in the exact same …show more content…
This point of Persian history, referred to as the Sasanian Empire, ruled from 263-651 AD, and fundamentally changed a lot of the principles that Persia had functioned on since the empire of Cyrus in 550 BC. In Sasanian Persia, the interactions between the Persian King and the aristocracy was that of mutual obligation. The king would give aristocrats plots of lands with inhabitants that worked identically to the european role of fiefdom. In this exchange the leaders of the estates would pledge military and political service. In the Persian military, people were obligated to provide their own equipment, which led to a group of ‘knights’ which were more heavily armored units comprised of aristocrats. The book even uses the term vassalage to describe the relationship between the aristocracy and royalty, although there were fundamental differences that make it not a direct comparison. One of these differences was that unlike knights in medieval Europe, the heavily armored soldiers in Sasanian Persia did not feel that they were serving primarily out of the piety for Ahura Mazda, but rather out of political allegiance to the king. However, the importance of Zoroastrianism in this period increased to a point that had never before been seen in Persian history. The prior philosophy of religious tolerance in the name of political benefits was completely abandoned, and
This book discusses the progression of Persian culture through three different reigning families. The main point of the book is to address the ways that these periods are currently taught and remembered, and to point out inaccuracies in the popular western descriptions, or to reaffirm the ideas via critical analysis and comparison to primary sources such as relics. Weisehofer accomplishes this by dividing the book into 3 main sections, each devoted to a reigning family of Persia. Within each chapter, the book is formatted in a way that states a specific western claim, and proceeds to address that issue holistically before moving on to an unrelated claim. Dividing the book by time …show more content…
When these two kings are compared in western narratives, they are presented as polar opposites with Cyrus being infinitely compassionate and a near-perfect ruler, and Xerxes being cruel and unjust. Weisehofer begins by explaining why this presentation made sense when thinking of the Achaemenid family, because beginning with Cyrus the empire would continued to grow in power, until the reign of Xerxes which marked the point where it would steadily decline until being overtaken. This idea was also supported by actual accounts from the Persians as well as outsiders, but Weisehofer argues that the only differences between Cyrus’ rule and Xerxes’ rule were the political climates that surrounded their rise to power. With Cyrus, he was tasked with uniting a people and bringing about a new order. Xerxes on the other hand was tasked with maintaining a large empire that faced multiple rebellion attempts in its outer regions. Weisenhofers argument ultimately concludes that despite their radically different public perceptions, there was nothing that Xerxes did that Cyrus would not have done in the exact same …show more content…
This point of Persian history, referred to as the Sasanian Empire, ruled from 263-651 AD, and fundamentally changed a lot of the principles that Persia had functioned on since the empire of Cyrus in 550 BC. In Sasanian Persia, the interactions between the Persian King and the aristocracy was that of mutual obligation. The king would give aristocrats plots of lands with inhabitants that worked identically to the european role of fiefdom. In this exchange the leaders of the estates would pledge military and political service. In the Persian military, people were obligated to provide their own equipment, which led to a group of ‘knights’ which were more heavily armored units comprised of aristocrats. The book even uses the term vassalage to describe the relationship between the aristocracy and royalty, although there were fundamental differences that make it not a direct comparison. One of these differences was that unlike knights in medieval Europe, the heavily armored soldiers in Sasanian Persia did not feel that they were serving primarily out of the piety for Ahura Mazda, but rather out of political allegiance to the king. However, the importance of Zoroastrianism in this period increased to a point that had never before been seen in Persian history. The prior philosophy of religious tolerance in the name of political benefits was completely abandoned, and