Persians: The Age of the Great Kings
by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones
Basic Books 2022

No civilization looms as large in the Western mind as the Persians. In the West, histories of Persia have been at the mercy of Greek, Roman, and later writers who exclusively used Greek and Roman sources. Persians: The Age of the Great Kings by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones seeks to upend the propaganda and misrepresentations of hostile historians and give greater emphasis to Persian voices. Unfortunately, despite a valiant effort, Llewellyn-Jones fails in the attempt.

Persians: The Age of the Great Kings is divided into three parts. The first and third parts are narrative histories of the rise of the Achaemenid Persian Empire (Part One) and the majority of the history of the Achaemenid Persian Empire (Part Three). Part Two steps back and explores various sociological, political, and cultural aspects of the Persians.

For much of the early chapters, Llewellyn-Jones relies on a number of sources from the traditional Greek and Roman histories to Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Persian inscriptions. While the Persians never developed history writing, their inscriptions provide, at times, a needed counterbalance to Greek and Roman sources.

The book is at its strongest in the chapters narrating the foundations of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Llewellyn-Jones manages his sources and incorporates them into his narrative history with an engrossing momentum. Equally well done is the chapter on Xerxes. Llewellyn-Jones’s speculation regarding why Xerxes invaded Greece is interesting and convincing. And the Persian Wars from the Persian side is well done

The book falls apart in Part Two. Part Two interrupts the narrative flow of the history to provide context. The interruption, however, craters the flow to such an extent that the book never recovers.

While the Persian sources play a key role in the early chapters, after a certain point, Greek and Roman sources begin to dominate with little counterbalance. For a book that tries to pride itself on using sources outside of the Greek and Roman historians, this can only be a disappointment.

The Persians were brutal imperialists. Their rulers deported whole populations for enslaved labor (and the sources refer to them as livestock). Horrific, torturous deaths awaited enemies, real or perceived. Yes, the Persians ruled their possessions lightly, and did not impose their culture and language on the conquered. Yes, most empires of the period were as bad. But Llewellyn-Jones spends an inordinate amount of time seemingly defending the indefensible, even with the knowledge that most ancient empires engaged in the same practices. But Llewellyn-Jones pays special attention to Rome and Britain. While the British are guilty as charged given the racist foundations of their empire, the Romans were as light handed as the Persians were in how they governed their empire.

The narrative descends into soap opera with the reign of Darius II and Parysatis, his most influential wife. The focus of the narrative zeroes in on a prolonged series of power struggles within the Achaemenid dynasty itself. Whatever else was happening in the Persian Empire at the time is drowned out by Parysatis scheming and enacting vengeance on enemies both dynastic and personal (including the favored wife of her son Artaxerxes II) in both her husband and son’s reigns. These chapters are presented luridly and horrifically with some of the most stomach-0churning descriptions in the text. Llewellyn-Jones describes Cyrus the Younger as a sociopath. One suspects that Parysatis was an even bigger sociopath who, unsurprisingly, is defended by Llewellyn-Jones.

The last chapter of Part Two explores Persian religion. The chief Persian god was Ahura Mazda who was supported by a pantheon of lesser deities. Opposing Ahura Mazda is an evil deity called Ahriman. This opposition permeates Persian thought. Out of this traditional religion came Zoroaster, who acted as a prophet for Ahura Mazda. A good majority of this chapter is devoted to Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism. But, after the brief history of Zoroastrianism, Llewellyn-Jones mentions that it is not actually known if the Achaemenids were Zoroastrians. Why not just focus on what is known about the religion of the Persians?

The epilogue is curious. Rather than wrapping up the narrative history or some final words on the Achaemenids, three later Persian reactions to this first Persian Empire are explored. First are the Sassanians, who plagued the Romans for centuries before the coming of Islam. Second is Ferdowsi who presented a vision of the Achaemenids in opposition to the Arabs in Shahnameh. Finally, and perhaps most perplexing, are the varied reactions of modern Iran, both pre and post Islamic Revolution. Somehow, Cyrus the Great has become the poster boy for some dissidents against the Islamic Republic.

For all the interest there is in the Achaemenid Persian empire, especially regarding the incorporation of Persian sources, Persians: The Age of the Great Kings fails to escape some of the worst misrepresentations imposed on the Persians. Perhaps the next history of the Persians will move beyond soap opera luridness.

-James Holder has a BA in English Literature. He lives in Texas.