تاریخ شاهنشاهی هخامنشی

by Albert T. Olmstead, محمد مقدم

Out of a lifetime of study of the ancient Near East, Professor Olmstead has gathered previously unknown material into the story of the life, times and thought of the Persians, told for the first time from the Persian rather than the traditional Greek point of view.
"The fullest and most reliable presentation of the history of the Persian Empire in existence."--M. Rostovtzeff

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient, Ancient History, Iran, Historical, Middle East

727 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1948

Reviews

[Mahdi Ghasemi · Rating 3 out of 5]

بسیار کتاب دشواری بود
روایات بیش از اندازه متکی به جغرافیاست.
ویژگی برجسته این کتاب، شرح ۲۰۰ سال ارتباط تنگاتنگ ایران و یونان ، سیاست های خارجی پارسیان ، هنر هخامنشی و سیستم کارگزاری سومین شاهنشاهی بزرگ شرقی پس آشوریان و مادهاست.

[B.G. Brainard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for the reader who desires to learn more about the Achaemenid kings that ruled the Persian Empire from when Cyrus revolved against Astyages, his grandfather and Median overlord, in 549BC until the empire fell to Alexander the Great in 331BC. Primary Persian kings included Cyrus, Cambyses II, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes I. Under King Darius the empire reached its zenith, spreading from the Indus and Jaxartes rivers in the east to Egypt and the Aegean in the west, from the Persian Gulf in the south to the Caspian and Black seas on the north. Olmstead reports in his preface, "The real purpose of the book, however, will be exposition of culture--or rather, of cultures, for Achaemenid history presents a fascinating picture of various civilizations at different stages of evolution and all in the process of intermingling. No more illuminating and instructive picture of such a mixture can be found in the whole of world history." And if your interest lies in Old Testament history, you will find this book a valuable addition to your biblical studies.

[Ming Wei · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is one very good history lesson, by the time I had finished this book my information levels about the Persian Empire had certainly grown. So much information packed within its pages, but presented in a very interested way, the books takes you through the years, giving details about many leading figures and events during this year. A well written history lesson, no editorial errors, very intellectual, erally enjoyed it, the Persian Empire as a topic is very interesting to read about, and I think this book does the history of the Persian Empire does it credit, any negatives, maybe the book cover is not that appealing, but this is only a small issue, I really like it.

[Farzad Naderi · Rating 2 out of 5]

۲۰ سال پیش این کتاب کت و کلفت رو خوندم و اون زمان متمش واسم خیلی سنگین بود. و این ادعا که داریوش هخامنشی رو رباینده تاج و تخت عنوان کرده بود خونمو به جوش میاورد. اما الان که نگاه میکنم میبینم ظاهراً خیلی مستند بوده.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like most other Westerners interested in classical hisory, I had first learned of the Persians in terms of the Greeks. Olmstead's magisterial History of the Persian Empire is a corrective supplement to this perspective and one of the best, most well-written histories of the ancient world I have ever read.

Appropriately, I read this book at Sesi's Turkish Cafe in the Edgewater neighborhood on Chicago's lakefront while intermitantly working on the text and index of Dr. DeVoto's doctoral dissertation about the Spartan king, Agesilaos.

[Joseph Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sometimes you just get to the end of a book and say to yourself, "that was pretty cool." 3 Stars

[Sara · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's clear early on that this was not written or edited by anyone with knowledge of the language.
There is also a confusing mixture of history and mythology, and mythology is often presented as fact.
If you are interested in reading this, I suggest you choose to read the chapters which seem most interesting to you.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 2 out of 5]

I forced myself to finish this even though "finishing" it meant skimming the second half. Badly edited and strangely (for a general history) directed to a group who already knows Persian history. To demonstrate what I mean, I started to type of some sentences and then gave up in despair. It was tedious even to type it. So, instead, I made a list of the names that appear in ONE paragraph. I forced myself--out of a sense of fairness--to go back and add the more well-known names at the end:
Phoenician Amathus, Onesilus, Carians, Artybius, Stasenor, tyrant of Curium, Gorgus, Soli, Caunus, Chersis, Siromus, Evelthon, Hellespontine Greeks, Byzantium, Cyprus, Salamis, Persians, Ionians

Now, I think most of you will understand. And this problem wasn't helped by his use of three separate indexes--topographical, name, and subject. Why????

First started 7/13/14

[Chelsea Jackson · Rating 3 out of 5]

While it is very evident that Olmstead is extremely knowledgeable on the subject-matter, much of the book reads like a dry textbook.

I found that several chapters could have been summarized in a few paragraphs, or rather made into their own book entirely.

In my opinion, the book NEEDED more analysis and less regurgitation of facts.
Without explaining the significance of these findings, it was hard to understand why he was telling us certain things (particularly the chapters on Babylonian business practices); therefore making several chapters rather grueling to get through.

Overall I would recommend this book as it is very informative, but I would definitely warn others that it is not by any means a light read.

[Mark McLean · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's certainly some useful information here, but it's quite painfully a product of its time, drawing on since-debunked fields like phrenology and subracial phenotyping for some of its more colorful commentaries on ancient societies. If you need to sift out facts from assertions that Egyptians were of the Nordic race or that Elamite pottery could only advance technologically through an influx of Russian Nordics, I assure you there are more modern and useful sources.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent history of ancient Persia. It's not only an informative book, but an entertaining one. Read it with Herodotus or Thucydides.

[Windsor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rather good book on Persia, although sadly one of the only few good ones. Def a must read for people interested in per-peleponesian Persia and Cyrus.

[SALAH · Rating 3 out of 5]

قرأت الترجمة للجزء الثاني فقط وهي متوسطة المستوى

[Shane Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super read...the Author is clearly a great admirer of ancient Persia.....

[Charles Kerns · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting content but told in a way that will put you to sleep. Great for bedtime reading.

[فرهاد ذکاوت · Rating 5 out of 5]

به صورت تصادفی دیدم در مورد این کتاب که سالها پیش در حین مطالعه شخصی دوره های مختلف پیش از ساسانیان اینجا ننوشتم. اولمستد (با بعضی تلفظ ها اومستد) آشورشناس بود و جزو معدود افرادی که سعی می‌کردند با جزییات بسیار و دقیق و گاهی در زمان اظهار نظر شخصی حسش رو درباره انچه واقعا از تاریخ مورد مطالعه و موضوع کتابش که تا آن زمان فهمیده صادقانه بنویسد. در این کتاب چنین کرده. با لحنی تند از فرمانراویان و گشورگشایان صحبت کرده و شاید به درستی قوم غالب و در نهایت یکجانشین که دوره هخامنشیان را رقم زدند، بربر می‌نامد که بیشتر دلایل تاریخی دارد تا غرض‌ورزی.

نکته بسیار مهم در بررسی تاریخ دوره های مختلف، شناخت کامل و یا حرفه‌ای از دنیای آن روزگار و آثاری ست که در حوزه های دیگر مرتبط با ان دوره خاص اتفاق افتاده. هخامنشیان اولین ابرقدرت تاریخی جهان بودند بصورت رسمی در تاریخ ثبت شده. هلنی‌ها و هیچکدام از اقوام آن زمان به فکر یک نظام مرکزی نبودند. جغرافیاهای مختلف نظامهای سیاسی و اقتصادی خودشان را داشتند. در همان زمان ایلامیان، بابلیان، آشوریان (با آن قدرت نظامی خطرناک و بی‌رحم افسانه‌ای که آثار حجاری و کاخها و شیوه ثبت آثارشان الهام بخش داریوش اول (بزرگ) بود، نشان از نفوذ فکری این قوم بی‌رحم داشت که امروزه سوریه و بخش کوچکی از عراق جزو قلمروشان بود.

اومستد بنا به آثار یافت شده و بررسی تاریخ آشور و بابل نگاهی از زاویه دیگر به هخامنشیان داشت. ایرادهای ساده لوحانه عده‌ای در مورد نگارش تاریخ هخامنشیان توسط یک آشورشناس حرفه‌ای، وارد نیست. این کتاب دهه سی نوشته شده و کماکان یکی از آثار دسته اول و البته بسیار دشوار این سلسله است. گسسته بودن و پیچیدگی کتاب طبیعی ست و خواننده گرامی کتابهای ساده‌تری که در بحث زمان و وقایع برای افراد غیرمتخصص باید انتخاب کنند. این کتاب تخصصی است که خوشبختانه محمد مقدم برای ما به فارسی به یادگار گذاشت.

مشابه این کتاب که خواننده را سرد��گم میکند و ارجاعات تخصصی و تحلیلها و گزارشهای حرفه‌ای می‌دهد، سری کتابهای آکادمی علوم شوروی بودند که علی رغم نام و سبقه سیاه این کشور در ایران، آکادمی علوم شوروی در بخش‌های مختلف از جمله باستاشناسی و تاریخ، علوم پایه (بخصوص در فیزیک نظری) دانشمندان بی‌نظیری داشت و تا به امروز در حوزه های نامبرده مرجع ما هستند. به دوستانی که این کارها در حوزه تاریخ و باستانشناسی نخوانده‌اند، و میخواهند پبشرفته تر تاریخ را دنبال کنند و بسیار تحلیلی تر از توصیف ساده و منطم تاریخ کار پژوهشی شخصی یا آکادمیک انجام دهند، توصیه میکنم در کنار این کتاب بی نظیر، به آنها هم مراجعه کنند. نشر علمی و فرهنگی (نام پس از انقلاب) و اگر کتابهای قدیمی را یافتند همین نشر با نام بنیاد پهلوی آثار بسیاری را ترجمه کردند. تصور میکنم به دلایل مختلف از جمله مشکل فروش کتاب بسیاری از آن کارها دیگر منتشر نمی‌شوند.

در پایان این کتاب بی‌نظیر را به کسانی که درباره تاریخ هخامنشی بیشتر میخواهند بدانند ولی وارد پیچیدیگیهای تاریخی و باستانشناسی نمیشوند، توصیه نمیکنم. کارهایی چون پی‌یر بریان که هنوز نخوانده ام ولی نگاهی منتقدانه و ظاهرا افسانه زدا دارد شاید بد نباشد. کتابی ست حجیم. ولی شاید جذابترین کارهایی که میشود توصیه کرد، آثار استاد والتر هینتس است و دو شاگردش، هاید ماری کخ و پرویز رجبی (استاد رجبی هم مانند بسیاری دیگر که برگشتند و خواستند در دانشگاه ها بصورت حرفه ای و با استاتداردهای بین المللی کار کنند گوشه نشین‌شان کردند و بسیاری از این اساتید را شبیه افراد بی نام و نشان از دست داده‌ایم).

[James F · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first two sentences of Olmstead’s preface are “Eighty years have passed since George Rawlinson . . . published the first edition of his Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World. During these eighty years ancient history has been made over completely.” I have resisted the temptation to begin with Rawlinson’s 1867 book, although I have a copy of it, but today Olmstead’s book is itself almost eighty years old, and is certainly also very outdated. It is, however, the most complete book I have on ancient Iran under the Achaemenids (the period from Cyrus II, who became “King of Anshan” in 539 BCE and established the Empire in the succeeding decades, to the defeat of Darius III by Alexander the Great two hundred years later) and so I decided to begin with this and supplement it with later (but much shorter) works. (The book actually begins with a chapter on “Iranian Origins”, but this is the most outdated part; fortunately the subject is dealt with in the previous book I read, Pott’s Archaeology of Elam, which is only a quarter of a century old.)

Much (perhaps disproportionately much) of Olmstead’s history is devoted to the relations of Persia with Egypt, Judea, and of course Greece, and I had already read much of this material from the perspectives of those regions, but as in the case of Elam and Mesopotamia in Pott’s book, it all makes more sense when considered against the Persian background. The Greeks do not come off very well in his account, the Egyptians perhaps somewhat better, and it is astonishing how the Biblical prophets were usually totally mistaken in their prophecies. (The story of Ezra and Nehemiah was interesting, though, considered in relation to Persian policies.) Generally, the history of all four regions is presented as a series of personal conflicts and revolts, although he does consider overtaxation as the major cause of the weakness of the Empire; the class conflicts of the landowners in the countryside with the mercantile interests of the cities is disguised by the terms “conservatives” and “democrats.”

After the first few reigns, the eastern part of the Empire tends to get short shrift; this is perhaps understandable given the distribution of the evidence, and the lack of both textual and archaeological sources.

[Alexander Theofanidis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Όπως η πλειονότητα των Ελλήνων (και υποπτεύομαι γενικώς των «δυτικών») ό,τι γνώριζα για την αρχαία Περσία, με ελάχιστες εξαιρέσεις προερχόταν από τις ελληνοπερσικές συγκρούσεις (ιδίως αυτές του 5ου π.Κ.Ε. αιώνα) και τη σχετική βιβλιογραφία (αν και η πλειονότητα των δυτικών αρκέστηκε στο «ΔΙΣ.. ΙΖ.. ΦΦΦΦΠΑΡΤΑΑΑΑΑΡΓΚΧ» του επιμελώς λαδωμένου Λεονάιντας που έστειλε στην πηγάδα τον Πέρση αντιπρόσωπο).

Κατά συνέπεια, το βιβλίο αυτό ήταν μια ευκαιρία να μπει κανείς αν όχι στα ενδότερα, αν μη τι άλλο στον προθάλαμο της περσικής ιστορίας με πιο "ανατολικά" καθαρή ματιά και από άλλη, λιγότερο δυτικότροπη οπτική γωνία.

Φευ, το βιβλίο παρά το ενδιαφέρον του αντικειμένου του, ήταν στο σύνολό του απογοητευτικό. Υπήρξαν κεφάλαια τα οποία θα μπορούσαν είτε να έχουν συμπτυχθεί σε παράγραφο είτε και να λείπουν εντελώς, ενώ η ακρίβεια στις αστρονομικές παρατηρήσεις και οι διεξοδικές αναφορές σε δευτερόλεπτα και τρίτα λεπτά της μοίρας στον ουρανό, ειλικρινά, θα μπορούσαν να έχουν υποστεί γενναίο ψαλίδισμα. Κάποια στιγμή αφαιρέθηκα και απόρησα πότε πήρα να διαβάσω το «ΠΛΗΡΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΛΥΤΟΣ ΑΣΤΡΟΝΟΜΙΚΟΣ ΟΔΗΓΟΣ ΠΟΥ ΔΕ ΘΑ ΣΑΣ ΑΦΗΣΕΙ ΚΑΜΙΑ ΑΠΟΡΙΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΤΙ ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΣΤΟΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟ ΚΑΙ ΘΑ ΜΠΟΡΕΙΤΕ ΝΑ ΓΙΝΕΤΕ Ο ΠΙΟ ΒΑΡΕΤΟΣ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ ΣΕ ΚΑΘΕ ΠΑΡΤΙ». Ξανακοίταξα το εξώφυλλο, και προς μεγάλη μου έκπληξη διαπίστωσα ότι διάβασα την ιστορία της περσικής αυτοκρατορίας.

Αλλού υπάρχει καταιγισμός νέας (για τον αμύητο στα apocryphae της περσικής ιστορίας) πληροφορίας χωρίς το χώρο και χρόνο για να χωνέψει ο αναγνώστης τα εισερχόμενα και αλλού βαδίζουμε και αναμασάμε για ώρα γνωστά σε όλους γεγονότα. Ίσως απλώς το βιβλίο να ανήκει σε μια παλαιότερη γενιά ιστορικών βιβλίων και το σύγχρονο αναγνωστικό κοινό να αναζητά μια διαφορετική προσέγγιση στις εκλαϊκευμένες (τι χυδαίος όρος, χρυshό μου) επιστήμες, ή απλώς μια καλύτερη αρχική επιμέλεια και κάποιος να τραβήξει το αυτί του Όλμστεντ όταν ξεπεράσει τις 50 σελίδες ανάλυσης περί διαφορών στις μετρήσεις αστρονομικών φαινμένων του τότε και του τώρα, όσο εντυπωσιακά κοντά κι αν έφτασαν στις απόλυτες τιμές οι αρχαίοι αστρονόμοι. Το βιβλίο έχει τίτλο «Ιστορία της Περσικής Αυτοκρατορίας» και ο πρώτος που οφείλει να μην το ξεχνάει, είναι ο συγγραφέας.

[Giuseppe Circiello · Rating 3 out of 5]

Siamo abituati a studiare le antiche civiltà orientali con gli occhi dei greci, perché le fonti scritte abbondanti e comprensibili, per lungo tempo, sono state esclusivamente quelle greche.
Ma, le più recenti opere di scavo e di traduzione, hanno riportato alla luce iscrizioni, pergamene e tavolette, dalle quali si può attingere per una conoscenza meno parziale della storia.
E allora diviene interessante e bello vedere, per una volta, i greci con gli occhi dei persiani. Ed "ascoltare" i persiani che parlano di loro stessi.
Fu un grande impero, quello di Ciro e dei suoi successori, minato, purtroppo, da egoismi e cattiva gestione economica.
Leggere di queste civiltà è bellissimo, c'è poco da fare.
A scuola purtroppo c'è spazio solo per poche pagine, sui libri di storia. E allora libri del genere divengono importanti e restituiscono dignità a grandi passati dimenticati.

L'unico aspetto negativo di questo libro sta nel modo in cui è scritto.
Perché se le informazioni sono interessanti, è anche vero che Olmstead ha uno stile prolisso e noioso... e molti paragrafi si perdono in descrizioni e informazioni pressocché inutili. Una buona metà del libro è scritta davvero male. Però, ecco, l'altra metà è interessante e l'argomento paga.
Perciò sono Ciro, Cambise, Serse, Artaserse e i loro successori a far guadagnare al tomo la 3a stellina.

[Mark Merritt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very scholarly account, mainly archeological, of the ancient Persian Empire. This book was completed in 1948 by the eminent Historian A. T. Olmstead, from the University of Chicago. He was a great archeologist and classicist of a kind not to be found anymore.

I found this book to be quite engaging, the Persian Empire usually gets bad press due to the bias some have against it due to the Greek wars. However, Professor Olmstead does us a great favor by carefully chronicling the events of this ancient people mainly through the ancient written word that was baked into clay tablets and through the many archaeological remnants of its past glory. Most of us will never travel to this part of the world, so, this is as close as we will come to understanding these complex people and the land they lived in.

A scholarly read, the list of names of the kings and Satraps will be hard to pronounce and remember. However, we must all remember what they did and also reflect on the fact that no empire lasts forever.

[The Esoteric Jungle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This author’s revelations on dating problems with the Behistun inscriptions’ chronology and it’s relation to the great Magi wars of the Zoroastrians is invaluable alongside the other Persian scholar, Frye. A complete change in Eastern Society took place one sees emerge before one’s periphery.

The usurpation by a false and impersonating Darius over the reign of “the two rightfuls,” the true Darius Bardiya and Ezechios Zarata Zoroaster; and then this impersonator Darius saying in the Behistun inscriptions as the new king that Bardiya rather was the impersonator (!), all of this is too much but revealed here in Olmstead’s work (however much he can’t believe it).

This event throws one of the most important periods of knowing who the Harranian (Abraham came from Harran) Hebrews were and were doing then into obscuration; though we know from records in Heliopolis/On that the two people’s, Harranian Zoroastrians and Harranian Hebrews, were quite blended as Graham Hancock and Collins show.

Thankfully Pliny the Elder and Aeschylus, both remarkably conscious and erudite individuals, said Bardiya Darius and Zoroaster were the true Royals deposed then even though all modern scholarship and known history says otherwise.

And Zoroastrianism was based in Harran then too...Interestingly all this happened around 555 BC near the death of Buddha and I would argue they are not unrelated. But that is another history.

This work shows 100 other important events to the history of Persia. There are more erudite works and more expansively meaningful works making this perhaps 10th on the list but this gets one going as a passable primer.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Poorly edited (which given the death of the author before publication is to be expected), feels like the book contains all the information the author knew on Persia rather than an analysis of the Rise and Fall of the Persian Empire. The book was very hard to follow because of this and also because there didn't seem to be a grand overarching structure to the book asides from loosely chronological, with chapters containing paragraphs on evolution of Judaism, artwork, detailed review of archeological finds, Babylonian business practices and then a few short words on actual Persian Political history, this made the vast majority of the book a slog to get through. When the author actually focuses on Persian political history it is really interesting but 200 or so of the 500 pages are irrelevant. Skip.

[Lucio A. Bianchi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Olmstead was a fine historian and writer whose methodical study of the Achaemenid Persian Empire makes such a distant time feel not so distant at all. Besides some pretty confusing sentences which could have more than likely been redacted, he gets his story across and makes justice to the often-overlooked Ancient Persians. What I especially appreciated about this book was Olmstead's willingness to disregard the all too popular greek view of the Greco-Persian War, instead of narrating it through the eyes and perspectives of the invaders. Great read!

[Cole Lancaster · Rating 3 out of 5]

Academic book that emphasizes places and names over narrative. Very detailed, but some information seems to be outdated - which isn't a knock on the book. It is the nature of new archeology. For example, some of the writings on Zoroastrianism (ancient history of) didn't seem to coalesce with Mary Boyce's book on Zoroastrianism I read several years ago.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rather average editing but a great book to introduce oneself to the Persian empire

[Tomek Ciosek · Rating 1 out of 5]

chaotically written, difficult to follow

[Joy · Rating 2 out of 5]

So dry it seems all the juice was deliberately sucked out of it. Since I haven't read anything else by this author, I can't tell if it was originally written that way, or whether his scholarly friends who worked it into publication shape after his death were determined to make it as "professional" as possible. Fortunately, now that I've read it once, all I need it for is a reference.

I did find it interesting how many similarities to the Assyrians were noted. That supports the theories of Emmet Sweeney.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very comprehensive history of the persian empire. Deals with a lot of pre-history relics and writings. Put history into a perspective when the first line of the book is "When Cyrus entered Bablyon in 539bc the world was old."

It puts history versus currents events into perspective.

The book will lead to more questions and to further reading, but it gives a very good job with laying the ground work for understanding persia and its pre-iran impact.

[Milele · Rating 2 out of 5]

I couldn't finish this. I had a few problems with the common attitudes of the time the book was written. Also, historical scholarship of the middle east and central Asia has progressed beyond Greek sources and archaeology digs in Iran.

Finally there was a lot of "Let me show you my work" which isn't always a problem for me but added to the slog.

Currently reading "Ancient Persia" by Matt Waters as a replacement since there was still a lot to whet my interest in the book.

[sunhermit · Rating 2 out of 5]

Argh, so long. Only wanted this book for the specifics on the burning of Persepolis and it was just a measly paragraph.But still, it was a good book- just not for the study of Alexander the Great's role in the burning of Persepolis.