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 members of a hatru, a community that is visible particularly in Achaemenid times (holders of a bow, horse or chariot estate). Outside this community the types of men available for military service are proposed by J. MacGinnis (pp. 167–79), but a one-to-one match is problematic. M. proposes there might have been those characterised as ‘wandering experts’ in military technology (pp. 174–5). Again, the assignation of ethnicities is subject to uncertainties. As for a central location for mustering we have evidence in the reign of Darius II for Uruk alone (pp. 192–4). MacGinnis also proposes a number of activities to be carried out while at camp (pp. 194–203), but again distinguishing between pure military and non-military is difficult. M. (pp. 203–18) is on point when discussing the various theories on ‘military decline’, especially the ‘feudal theory’ (we are not writing about the ‘LEGO Knights of the Round Table’). In sum, the different types of soldiers and estates and the practice of substitution are well documented since the Old Babylonian period: they are adopted and adapted by the Achaemenids. Chapter 5 surveys military remains, but linking sites to specific ethnic groups remains difficult, while the Empire's inhabitants used a loose terminology in describing weaponry (cf. pp. 252–3). M. focuses on the tools that normally would be used in camp. In a survey of notable sites (pp. 239–46), most finds are paralleled elsewhere in the Empire or its environs. Many of the physical objects can be compared with written or artistic depictions. But bringing together the archaeological and non-archaeological evidence remains problematic.
Chapter 6 discusses the army ‘in action’ as portrayed in Graeco-Roman literature. Here exists a methodological challenge: to view events synchronically, i.e. one phenomenon presented in numerous sources. Or to view events diachronically, i.e. a single phenomenon changes over time. Since the 1980s attention has been paid to themes, not narratives. Nor should literary skill be conflated with reliability. Neither Greek nor Achaemenid armies are to be viewed as static and unchanging (pp. 261–9). One specific problem is the scythed chariot (pp. 269–78), a creature of classical sources, and a symbol of exotic weapons wielded by incompetents (not unlike the spaceship powered by a cell phone battery in Iron Sky). M. treats the methodological problems of using classical sources, particularly when used uncritically (pp. 278–85). By default, Achaemenid reliance on superior numbers remains unproven (pp. 286–92). He then (pp. 292–307) proposes an alternate model for combat based in part on data taken from Herodotus. Here better illustrations (even line drawings) would have helped strengthen the arguments. M. rightly rejects the Greeks as the cause of change in the Achaemenid military structure (pp. 316–19): changes in warfare are interrelated. Without archival sources it is impossible to pin down the size of Achaemenid forces (pp. 319–31; cf. table on p. 329). Borrowing and adapting ‘foreign’ weaponry is a given for a Weltreich (pp. 331–4), nor did Philip have a monopoly on the development of siege weaponry (pp. 334–44). Methodological difficulties remain for the resolution of all these questions. One must perceive the Achaemenid military as capable of changing military practices (pp. 346–7).
In his conclusion and suggestions for further investigations M. emphasises the need for communication between disciplines and beyond the six models of approaches he outlines. He desires more cross-disciplinary studies. M.'s work is well written and honest in pointing to the uncertainties posed in the interpretation of the various forms of evidence. One may regard his work as providing a solid and sober foundation for future investigation.
