THE MILITARY AND THE ACHAEMENIDS

Abstract

M. has produced an excellent introduction to the Achaemenid army, in spite of army studies lagging behind similar examinations of Roman military practices (pp. 21, 55–56, 61, 223–6, 355–6). His bibliography displays consultation of a wide range of sources, and he provides a detailed list (pp. 9–19) for transcribing Near Eastern sources. The problem his investigation faces is perhaps best summarised by this citation (p. 39) from P. Green: ‘“Modern Europe owes nothing to the Achaemenids. The civilization . . . is also as alien to us as that of the Aztecs . . .”’. But both imperial peoples were experts in the management of water resources. Chapter 1 discusses the inquiries undertaken into Achaemenid military affairs through to the present (too late to appear to be considered: C. Tuplin and J. Ma [edd.], Arsama and his World, 3 vols [2020]). M.’s summaries are accurate, pointing to gaps in the types of sources used and how those gaps were gradually filled. Leaving aside the so-called ‘Western Way of War’ (pp. 35–9), he notes that recent monographs, in spite of leaving aside Near Eastern evidence as did S. Bittner, i.e. D. Head’s and N. Sekunda’s, have offered very serviceable overviews of Achaemenid military practices. Chapter 2 fills in the gaps in evidence considered by examining Near Eastern ancestors of Achaemenid practice. Here there is a measure of uncertainty that M. addresses, i.e. the problem of defining terms and categories used by the cuneiform sources. There is no one-to-one correspondence for the appearance in reliefs and texts for military armaments. Even the application of a civil/military dichotomy is to be avoided. Organisation of military groups changed based on combat vs non-combat settings; the same holds true for ethnic and regional divisions. Apparently, Assyrian battlefield tactics relied on infantry, cavalry and chariots working in unison. Warfare practices were stable, not rigid, and it is unwise to talk about weaponry being phased out (p. 111). M. rightly states that ‘the spread of technology from one culture to another depends on the wishes of the receiver’ (p. 106). Chapter 3 discusses the kings at war, focusing on royal inscriptions. The Cyrus Cylinder, which circulated via copies, was written in such a way so as to be understood by the wider Babylonian audience. Conquest is justified as Marduk’s will: Cyrus restores what was proper in the past. Darius’ multilingual Bisutun monument transmits his view of events, although military organisation and equipment are not specified. There is a tendency to reduce war to a single battle, each time proof of Ahura Mazda’s favour as Darius restores matters to the way they were supposed to be. The Empire (p. 145) was created in the past and must be preserved in the present (future expansion is rarely mentioned, pp. 149–50). Achaemenid palace art illustrated no distinctive individuals, only order and peace. The world had already been conquered (p. 153). Chapter 4 discusses the ordinary soldier, based primarily on cuneiform and Aramaic sources, the latter located empire-wide. M. outlines the methodological problems (pp. 157–9). The technical terms used in the documents remain opaque to understanding. One requires ‘implicit knowledge’ of how the system worked. Secondly, there is ‘randomness tempered by human choice on what to preserve’, as illustrated by the Aramaic tally-sticks from Bactria. The Gadal-Jama contract from the reign of Darius II (pp. 159–63) is illustrative: many of the words have few parallels in Assyrian dictionaries. The men in the contract are THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 452