On Torture and the Achaemenids

MrcueEr-Kozun
Au g u n NU N r vE nsrrv

The thesisof Bruce Lincoln's new book is statedon p. xv:

itself as God's
In the chapters
thatfollow,I hopeto showhow Achaemenian
Persiaperceived
of the
choseninstrumentfor the projectof world salvation,and,as such,supreme
benefactor
peoplesit conquered.
led the AchaemeBeyondthis.I arnled to arguethatsucha perspective
niansinto severecontradictions,
whichtheyattempted
anddeny.usingsomerather
to suppress
measures
towardthatimpossible
suggests
conrparison
to certain
desperate
end.This analysis
data.
contemporary
This book takeson a very weighty project,one presentingboth historicalargumentsand
reflectionson empire in general.Working backwardthrough the thesis,the book attemptsto
contemplatethe Achaemenidempire in a way that shedslight on currentevents-particularly
the Americanoccupationof Iraq startingin 2003.Although this is only a small part of the
book, it frames the argument(and appearsin the title) and thereforedeservescareful conAs a historicalargument.I find this part of Lincoln'sthesisunpersuasive;
it relies
sideration.
upon an outmodedview of the Achaemenidempire,yet his generalreflectionson empire
certainly strike home, and are poignantand jarring. Yet I think thesealso miss the mark
when he appliesthem to Achaemenidhistory.While certainlycorrectin general.they fail
to take into accountthe complexitiesof power in empire.
The unifying themeof this book is the useandjustificationof tortureas an instrumentof
imperial control, and Lincoln bookendshis argumentwith two shockingdescriptions,the
first Achaemenid:Accordingto Ctesias(in PlutarchArtaxerxes16.l-4), ArtaxerxesII subjected a Persiansoldierto the ordealof the troughsfor revealinghow Cyrus the Younger
died in the battle of Cunaxa.The secondis the American treatmentof Iraqi prisonersat
Abu Ghraib.The parallelsbetweenthesetwo forms of torture,especiallywhenjuxtaposed
againstthe lofty idealsof empire("the pursuitof paradise,"p. 2), led Lincoln to investigate
the relationshipsamongreligion.torture,and empire.
The introduction(chapterone),which servesto providea historicaloverviewof the first
threekings of the Achaemenidempire(Cyrus,Cambyses,and Darius),containsa troubling
o l n s ta te so u tri g h t th a t, w i th regardto C yrus' geneal ogyi n the C yrus
d i s c r epanc yLinc
.
Cylinder,"none of the namesthat enter this list-his own included-have an identiflable
etymology,leastof all one that would place them in the Iranian languagefamily" (p. 3).
This intimatesthat Cyrus was somethingother than Iranian(in the ethno-linguisticsense),
but Lincoln makesnothingmore of it. Although he skillfully describesDarius' incorporation of Cyrus' Teispidline into the Achaemenid.he skips over the thorny problemof the
ethnicityof Cyrus and Cambyses.
This is by no meansan easyissue,but Lincoln wantsit both ways. On the one hand,he
needsCyrus to be an outsiderto the Persiantradition.so that he can stressDarius' ushering

This is a review articleof: Religion,Entpire.cutdTorture.By BRLTcE

LINCoLN.Chicago:Urtvrnslrv or Curcaco
P n e s s . 2 0 0 7 .P p . x v i i + 1 7 6 ,illu s. $ 3 0 .

Journal oJ the Anerican Oriental Socieh' 129.2(20()9)

281

288

Journal o.fthe American OrientetlSocietr' 129.2(2009)

inof ner v t r a d i ti o n s (s e e p pl 2
. f.a n d 4 4 .1o r hi sfronti ngof theP ersi annessof
hi sempi rei n
contradistinctionto Cyrus (see.for exarnple,pp.22ft.). On the other hand. he also wants
Cy r us t o be Pe rs i a ni n o rd e r to ti e h i s d eedsi nto di sti nctl y P ersi antradi ti ons(see.for
ex am ple.p p . 2 8 f. a n d 9 -5 ).T h i s l e a d s to unfortunatei nternal contradi cti ons.On one
page Lincoln statesthat Cyrus and his ancestorsdo not have lranian names(p. 3). and on
another.in ref-erence
to Cyrus' birth legendin Herodotus,that "Cyrus' fatherand patriline
were unambiguoutltPersian"(p. 33. emphasismine).
The problemhereis real.This book striveshard to readmotivesinto the deedsof Cyrus
and Cambyses,yet can we attributeMazdaeanthought patternsto kings who, for all we
know. rose out of the ethno-cultr"rral
Iranian/Elamitemix of southwestIran in the midf ir s t - m illen n i u ms .c ., k i n g s w h o n e v e r menti onthe W i se Lord? K i ngs w i th non-P ersi an
names?One could make the argumentthat Greek and Biblical evidencereprcsentsa reconceptualization
of Cyrus and Cambyses-one arisingunder the control of Persocentric
court scribesin power after 522-but Lincoln doesnot pursuethat argument.It would also
move us further away from understandingthe actualmotivesof thesekings in history,a
themewhich figureslargely in this book.
A s ec on di s s u e i s mo re p ro b l e rn a ti cLi
. ncol n' s hi stori calsketchof the empi re after
Xerxes'accession-about 150 yearsof history-is but two paragraphslong (p. 14). The
nativePersiansources,it is true, all but die off after the reign of Xerxes,and Lincoln does
give the usual warning of not falling prey to the "Orientalizingtropesas regardsPersian
luxury, decadence,
despotism,and palaceintrigue" (p. l4) that one finds in Greek and biblical sources.Yet this is not good enough.as Lincoln rnakesa distinct historicalargument
aboutthe relationshipbetweentortureand empire.In fact. what is most troublesomeabout
this glossingover of 150 yearsof history is that it comesclose to resurrectingthe very
s t er eot y peLsi n c o l n w a rn sa g a i n s t.
The thesisof the book positsan unfoldingempire.In the beginning,the empirejustified
the violenceneededto establishitself with the notion that "not only force. but also truth
and virtue flow outward from a uniquely privilegedcenterto reach and transformlesser,
outlying peoples. . . where [such force] is usedto transtbrmand perfectthe world according
to God's originalplan for creation"(p. 95). Indeed.as Lincoln avers.Achaemenidideology
was particularlysuited to justifying such campaigns.Br,rthe further arguesthat violence
crippledthis ideology as the empirelived on; he states;
havingovercome
actions
theproblemof moralhesitation
by wrappingel'enits mostdistasteful
in anennobling,
sanctitying
discourse.
theempirenowtacesthepossibility
of mor-al
exhaustion,
in whichits animating
discourse
losesall credibility.
to those
by virtueof its complicitrelation
samerepugnant
actions(p. 96).
He goeson to arguethat in suchsituationsleadersof empireneededto force themselves
and their soldiersto believethat the sanctifyingdiscourseof old still applied.As he seesit,
the empiredevelopedfrom one in which the leaderswere able to useideologyto justily or
dismissthe violencenecessarvto carve out that ernpire.to one whose leadersinstigated
displaysof violencein order to force the argumentthat suchrdeologystill applied(p. 96).
This is a weighty critique of empire and a complex argumentabout the intersectionof
social action,religion, ideology,and power.Yet by charircterizing
the Achaemenidempire
as,in its first fifty years,carvingout a lofty ideologytojustify its violence,and then,for its
last 150 years,paying scantattestationto this way of thinking beyondthe employmentof
torturedevices,Lincoln assumesthat the empireexperienceda declinefrom its sanctifying
idealsover a centuryand a half.

KozuH: On Tortureand the Achaemenids

289

This comesto starkrealizationin the caseof Mithradatesand the ordealof the troughs.
At one point Lincoln throwsideologyasideand says,"[ArtaxerxesII] was not God's agent,
defendingtruth againstthe lie, and strugglingto restoreprimordial perfection.Rather,he
u as defendinghimself againstgossipthat underminedstatepropagandathat laboredto establish his reputationand statusas Cyrus'slayer,rightful king, and championof truth" (p.94).
This is exactlycorrect,and a comparisonbetweenhis take on the ordealof the troughsand
anotherpart of the book is illuminating:
The battles,moreover.
werebloody.Casualties
in excessof 120,000deadarereported.
andall
the rebelswere executed,often by impaling,and accompanied
b.,-scoresof their noble
.tupporters.
. . [two particularrebels]l.'eretortured,mutilated,and placeclon public displat',
lestanyonethink it waspossibleto roll backthe clock andrestorethe situationthatpreceded
(p. 8, emphasis
Persian
supremacy
mine).
This is Lincoln's summaryof the fate of the victims of Darius' reconstitutionof the empire
as relatedin the Behistuninscription.Here we havepiles of bodiesand public mutilations
presentedalong with one of the few written Persianjustificationsfor such treatment(the
r ictims lied, or took sideswith the Lie). In Ctesias,we havea gossipycourl historian'slurid
descriptionof the executionof a potentialpolitical troublemaker.
How do theseaccountsdiffer?For Lincoln, the lattermethodof execution(the troughs)
\erves as a "leitmotif-when the empire finds it increasinglydifficult to contain the contradiction betweenits discourseand its practice"(p. 95). That is to say,Artaxerxes'use of a
sruesomemethodof executionservesas an exampleof imperial violenceno longerjustified
b1 the ideology it served.For Darius, the conquest.the "pursuit of paradise,"and the notion
that virtue flows outwardfrom the centerservedto explain the violenceaway.
I find this unconvincing.One shouldnot take the lack of Persiansourcesdevelopingan
ideologyafterXerxesas evidencethat the contradictionbetweendiscourseand practicebecarre difficult to maintain.In point of fact, ArtaxerxesII had one of the longestreignsof
anv Achaemenidking (404-358 e.c.), he lived to the ageof ninety,and kingshipwas transferredsmoothlyto his son afterhis death(althoughadmittedlymany contendershad earlier
dicd off in various palaceplots). Although ArtaxerxesII never regainedEgypt after it
s as lost in the succession
crisis,otherevidencebespeaksa reign of stabilityand strengthof
enipire.In the absenceof competinginformation,it seemssaferto hold that the ideology
establishedby Darius and Xerxes remainedstrongenoughto sanctifyArtaxerxes'actions,
ratherthan to assumethat the ideologicalbasisof the empirehad brokenapartand exposed
its fl a ws .
But decline is essentialto Lincoln's argument.He later comparesthe troughs to the
atrocitiesat Abu Ghraib (pp. 104tr.),regardingthem as spectacleswith the same goal,
narnely"to restoreflaggingmoral confidenceso that the troopscan continueto commit the
atrocitiesand engagein the depravitieson which an empiredepends"(p. 107).I think this
cheapenshis point. I would arguethat the contradictionbetweenlofty discourseand grueronrepracticeis omnipresentin empire,that Darius' impalingsand Artaxerxes'troughsare
bound togetherin the samecontinuumof controllinginformationand maintainingpower.
In point of fact, the troughsare a leitmotif of empire,not of an empirelosing its bearings.
Lincoln seemsto concedeas much at times,but the overall theme(e.g.,"I am led to differof the Achaeentiatetwo phasesin the historyof empire,"p. 94) revealsan understanding
rnenidempirethat is very out of date.
A more unfortunateconcernlurks behind all of this. Although it is more sophisticated,
Lincoln's oortravalof the Achaemenidsresemblesthe classicnotion of Persiandecadence.

Kozuu: On Tbrtureand the Achaemenids

289

This comesto starkrealizationin the caseof Mithradatesand the ordealof the troughs.
At one point Lincoln throwsideologyasideand says,"[ArtaxerxesII] was not God's agent,
defending truth againstthe lie, and struggling to restoreprimordial perfection. Rather, he
was defendinghimself againstgossipthat underminedstatepropagandathat laboredto establish his reputationand statusas Cyrus' slayer,rightful king, and championof truth" (p. 9a).
This is exactly correct,and a comparisonbetweenhis take on the ordeal of the troughs and
anotherpart of the book is illuminating:
The battles,moreover,
werebloody.Casualties
in excessof 120.000deadarereported,
andall
the rebelswere executed,often by impaling,and ot:c'ompanied
bt' scoreso.f their noble
supporters.. . [two particularrebels]r''eretortured,ntutilated,andplacedon public displut'.
lestanyonethink it waspossibleto roll backthe clock andrestorethe situationthatpreceded
(p. 8, emphasis
Persian
supremacy
mine).
This is Lincoln's summaryof the fate of the victims of Darius' reconstitutionof the empire
as relatedin the Behistuninscription.Here we have piles of bodiesand public mutilations
presentedalong with one of the few written Persianjustifications for such treatment(the
victims lied, or took sideswith the Lie). In Ctesias,we havea gossipycourt historian'slurid
descriptionof the executionof a potentialpolitical troublemaker.
How do theseaccountsdiffer? For Lincoln, the lattermethodof execution(the troughs)
servesas a "leitmotif-when the empirefinds it increasinglydifficult to containthe contradiction betweenits discourseand its practice"(p. 95). That is to say,Artaxerxes'use of a
gruesomemethodof executionservesas an exampleof imperial violenceno longerjustified
by the ideology it served.For Darius. the conquest,the "pursuit of paradise,"and the notion
that virtue flows outward from the center servedto explain the violence away.
I find this unconvincing.One shouldnot take the lack of Persiansourcesdevelopingan
ideologyafterXerxesas evidencethat the contradictionbetweendiscourseand practicebecame difficult to maintain.In point of fact, ArtaxerxesII had one of the longestreignsof
any Achaemenidking (404-358 e.c.), he lived to the ageof ninety,and kingshipwas transferredsmoothlyto his son afterhis death(althoughadmittedlymany contendershad earlier
died off in various palaceplots). Although ArtaxerxesII never regainedEgypt after it
was lost in the succession
crisis,otherevidencebespeaksa reign of stabilityand strengthof
empire.In the absenceof competinginformation,it seemssaferto hold that the ideology
establishedby Darius and Xerxes remainedstrongenoughto sanctifyArtaxerxes'actions,
ratherthan to assumethat the ideologicalbasisof the empirehad brokenapartand exposed
its flaws.
But decline is essentialto Lincoln's argument.He later comparesthe troughs to the
atrocitiesat Abu Ghraib (pp. 104tr.),regardingthem as spectacleswith the same goal,
namely "to restoreflagging moral confidenceso that the troops can continue to commit the
atrocitiesand engagein the depravitieson which an empiredepends"(p. 107).I think this
cheapenshis point. I would arguethat the contradictionbetweenlofty discourseand gruesomepracticeis omnipresentin empire,that Darius' impalingsand Artaxerxes'troughsare
bound togetherin the samecontinuumof controllinginformationand maintainingpower.
In point of fact, the troughs are a leitmotif of empire, not of an empire losing its bearings.
Lincoln seemsto concedeas much at times.but the overall theme(e.g.,"I am led to differentiatetwo phasesin the history of empire."p. 94) revealsan understanding
of the Achaernenidempirethat is very out of date.
A more unfortunateconcernlurks behind all of this. Although it is more sophisticated,
Lincoln's portrayalof the Achaemenidsresemblesthe classicnotion of Persiandecadence,

290

Jottrnal of the American Oriental Societrn129.2(2009)

with frivolous laterAchaemenidsdismissingthe earlieridealsof the empirefor wealthand

bloodlust.The implied parallelsto GeorgeW. Bush-the lazy, incompetentscion of a president, incurious in life, impudent in power, and not even remotely self-aware-only exacerbatethis notion.This unseemlyassociation
will presentitself all too easilyto casualreaders
of this book.
The ability of the Persiansto control massivenumbersof peopleover thousandsof miles
of territoryfor hundredsof yearshasfascinatedoutsiderssincethe time of Cyrus.Basedon
the studiesof PierreBriant, whosework is all but absentfrom this book, a revolutionin our
understandingof the Achaemenidempire has taken place in recentyears,and Lincoln's
postscripton Abu Ghraib led me to hope that he would apply this new understandin-s
to
modern events.There is much to be learnedfrom Persianpractice of empire, and parts of
Lincoln's book areon target,yet I found the torturecomparisonstrainedand unpersuasive.
It is temptingto comparea buffoonishAmericanpresidentto the kings of an empirein decline, but the analogyfails on the Persianside,relying as it doeson a view of the Persian
empirethat is incompleteand reductive.
One of the major challengesfacing thosewho work on Persianreligion is that the distilling ideologyout of the sourcesrequiresa very sensitiveinterpretative
touch.One hasto
presentthesesourcesin sucha way that they do justice to the fact that, on balance,the religious statementsof the Persiankings areterse,circumscribedin time and place,and largely
idiosyncratic.To my mind, it is only with extremecautionthat one can use them to reconstructthe ideologyof the AchaemenidEmpire as a whole.
Lincoln is certainlyawareof this, sayingas much in his own words (pp. l0f.). But it becomesclearearly in the book that he hastakenmany interpretational
liberties,as bestdemonstratedin chaptertwo. He arguesherethat the Behistunrelief is a visualportrayalof the
Zoroastriandualisticcosmologicalbattlebetweengood and evil. In his view, the middle of
the reliet--the spacebetweenGod (Ahuramazda)above and the Lie (Gaumata)belowdepictsearth,the field of battlebetweengood and evil. He seesa dualismon the horizontal
plane as well (albeitin a "weaker tbrm," p. 20), wherethe good is led by Darius and "the
Persians,"who stand to the left of the relief, againstthe evil liar kings, lined up before the
king at the right of the relief. In this up-down,left-right visual representation
of the struggle
betweengood and evil, he arguesthat
(Dariusand his two helpers)areconnected
loyal Persians
above,
to the divine,transcendent
whilethedisloyalothersaresimilarlyconsigned
in negative
to a devalued
below.Characterized
termsby theabsence
from the
of weapons,
stature,
dignity,andtruth,as well as by distance
divine.thatspacernightalsobe considered
infernalor demonic(p.22).
Is this really so? Evil, as personifiedin Gaumata,is not in fact below Darius; Gaumata
is on the sameplane,only supinewhile Darius stands.But this is the leastof the problems.
First-and most obvious-Darius is not at the centerof the composition(pace p. l7), nor
do "both the vertical and horizontalaxescenteron the figure of Darius" (p. 22).One can
usuallylet misstatements
suchas thesepass,but Lincoln'sFigure5 (p.21), a "compositional
structure"of the Behistunrelief, builds upon them. To me, this schemaborderson caricature.
Thereis certainlyan orderlinessto Behistun,but Lincoln distortsthe positionof Darius to
make his point, which endsup greatlydetractingfrom it.
Furthermore,a glanceat the relief itself also disprovesthe notion that "distanceto the
divine" makesthe spaceof the nine liar kings negativeor demonic.In point of fact, at least
four of the nine liar kings are closer to Ahuramazdathan Darius himself; one of them
(numberthree)is so closeto the divine that his later-addedcaptionhad to be written on his

Kozus: On Tortureand the Achaemenids

291

waist. ratherthan abovehinr. as was the casefor the others.While the diminishedstatus,lack
of weapons,and captivenatureof the liars certainlyspeaksto their statusvis-ir-visDarius,
it is quite a reachto seethe Behistunrelief as a depictionof good-evil,above-below,leftright dualism.
Lincoln demandsinterpretationalflexibility, and this often impairs his arguments.Beyond
that,the acceptance
of much of thesechapterswill dependon the proclivitiesof the reader.
For example,I am alwaysdubiousof the use of very late Zoroastrianscripturefor understandingthe Achaemenids,
yet this is acceptedby some,and has a long scholarlypedigree.
It is also in thesechaptersthat the reflectivepart of Lincoin's thesis.that the Achaemenid
empirethought itself to be "God's choseninstrumentfor the project of world salvation,and,
as such,supremebenefactorof the peoplesit conquered,"comesthrough and deservesconsideration.
EventhoughI think Lincoln is wildly off in his descriptionof Behistun,the basic
notion in chaptertwo is a poignantone:
Whenthosewho defineihemselves
as inhabitingthe centeralsoconstrue
that siteas more
noble,moreworthy,moremoralthanthe periphery-aswastruein Median,Persian.
andgeneralIraniancosnrolo-ey-they
cantheorizeconquest
as a benevolent
act thatbringsbenelitsto
(p. 26).
theconquered
Lincoln marshalsan impressivearray of evidenceto make this point. Putting the historical problemsaside(e.g.,do we really know anythingabout Median cosnology?),one
cannothelp but be struckby the comparisonbetweenthe Achaemenidthemethat Lincoln
pursueshereand the partsof Bush's Mission Accomplishedspeechthat he italicizesin the
final chapter ("v'e hat'efought for the cause oJ'libertv, and Jbr tlrc peace of the v'orld . . .
the n'rant has fallen and Iraq is freei' pp. 97f.).
I am les s per s u a d e db y th e fo l l o w i n g tw o c hapters.Much of chapterthree (" God' s
Chosen") involves stories about Cyrus and Cambyses.who carry with them particular
problemswhen discussedin Persianhistory (as noted above).Those notwithstanding,I
think Lincoln oversimplifiesan aspectof empire that, when reconsidered,
is particularly
in both the Persianand Americancontexts.
-qermane
Linc oln pur s u e sa fa m i l i a r a rg u m e n ti n th i s chapter,that the ' A chaemeni dki ng[s]
labored-with considerable
ingenuity-to combinedynasticand charismaticargumentsfor
the legitimacyof [their] rule" (p. 43). Interestingly,he definesthe force of charismaas the
"will of the gods" (sayingthat "the two are one and the same,"p. 36). One of the Persians'
ingeniousways of carving out legitimacy was to style themselvesas liberators.which
Lincoln calls
oneof thegreatimperialfantasies
. . . tbr it is far eiisierto committheactsof violencethatmake
possible
conquest
whenoneis convinced
thatthecauseis . . . moralanddivinelyordained.. .
subjects]
canbepersuaded
thatthenewmaster
is a distinctimprovement
[and]if the[conquered
overtheirformerrulers-betteryet, thathe comesto themcourtesyof a lovinggod who sincerelycaresfor lheir welfare-theywill be everso muchmorelikely to accepttheyokein rel(p.40).
ativequiescence
This is certainlycorrect,but rnissesa larger point. Most of the sourceshe quotesin this
chapterarelocal (i.e.,not Iranian)sources:The Cyrus Cylinder was written in Babylonian,
the Book of Isaiahin Hebrew.and the Apries story presumablycirculatedamong Egyptians(comparethe Udjahoressent
stele,which is not usedhere).That is to say,at leastsome
importantpeopleamongthe subjectpopulationsparticipatedin this imperialfantasy;they
created.in the local language,the legitimacynecessaryfor the Persiansto rule over them
with greatsuccessfor two hundredyears.

292

Journal of the American Oriental Society 129.2(2009)

Lincoln might dismissthesecooperatorsas "toadieseagerto ingratiatethemselveswhile

othersmask their feelingswith smilesand bide their time beforetaking action" (p. 40), but in
doing so he setsup a binary oppositionbetweenrulers and ruled that is too simple. Imperial
control requiresthe acquiescence
of local elites and centersof power. and the motivesbehind
such acquiescencewill vary. Some might indeed set out to rebel againstthe empire; others
might try to take over and reconstitutethe empire for themselves(as did, for example,Cyrus
and Darius).Somemight work for the occupyingpower for riches,stability,or protection;
still others might be forced to acquiesceby the threat of violence. In my opinion, the fact
that locals lent their gods and languageof liberation to the Achaemenidsis more a factor of
local power dynamicsthan of any Achaemenidideologyor policy.
This is particulargermanein comparisonto the Americaninvasionof Baghdadin 2003,
which had absolutelyno supportfrom local centersof power. In fact, de-Bathification,the
dismissalof the Iraqi army,and the disbandingof the local policeled to Hobbesiananarchy
in lraq, setting the stagefor the violent insurgency.Yet, in the early days of the war, all of
this occurredwhile the White Housesuccessfullycontrolledthe message,making it look (and
possiblybelieving)as thoughit had acquiredlegitimacythroughthe act of liberationalone.
The toppling and desecrationof the statueof SaddamHusseinin Firdos Squarewas-and
astonishinglystill is-portrayed as an act of spontaneousemotion by liberated Iraqis. The
reality, as Lincoln states,is that it was a scripted affair, and the liberatedIraqis were expatriate goons,long on the U.S. payroll, flown in essentiallyto simulatelegitimacyfor television cameras(pp. 99f.).
Those are toadies.Comparethem to the lraqi officer mentionedby CharlesFerguson:
Oneof theofficersI wasworkingwith-one of theIraqioflicers-towardtheendof thesecond
or thirdmeeting,whenBaghdad
wasgoing,it wasin chaos,said,"ColonelPaul,I canhaveten
thousandrnilitarypolicemenfbr you nextweek.Youjust tell me." I took this backto Bernie
Kerik'sstaff,andnothingwasdonewith it. But tenthousand
Iraqipolicewouldhavemadea big
I
diff'erence
. . . in controllingBaghdad.
This quote is from Colonel Paul Hughes,who was a key memberof the Coalition Provisional
Authority in Iraq. The power dynamicsof the situationhe describesgo well beyonda simple
split betweenrulers and ruled; toadyism is far from an apt descriptionof the unnamed(and
unsmiling)Iraqi officer'smotives.
The comparisonbetweenBabylonian,Hebrew,and Egyptian panegyrics,written in order
to integratethe Achaemenidsinto local patternsof legitimacy, and the actionsof expatriate
thugsattackinga statuewhile, in order to reign in chaos,a nativemilitary officer begsthe
occupyingpower to reconstitutehis unit, servesthe point well. Empire is complicated.Local
centersof power can be co-optedfor imperial control; the leadersof thesecentersof power
may or may not chooseto work with the imperial powers,but their reasonsfor doing so are
manifold and complex.To dismissthosewho do cooperateas toadiesor soon-to-berebels,or
to assumethey only do so becausethey have fallen under the sway of imperial propaganda,
is to miss a lot about empire.Cyrus, Cambyses,and the Achaemenidswere astonishingly
good at winning over such centersof power; apparently,George W Bush and Donald
Rumsfelddidn't even try.
In the end, much of this book readslike unpolishedthoughts,thoseof a scholarwho,
seeinghistory repeatitself, tries quickly to elucidatethe materialthat he knows best in order
to warn the world (note, for example,the chapter descriptionson pp. xv and 16). For this
l . C h a r l e s Fe r g u so n ,No En d in Sig h t:lr a q ' sDe scenti ntoC haos(N ew Y ork:P ubl i cA ffai rs,2008).126.

KozuH: On Tbrtureand the Achaemenids

293

reason.I am of two minds.On the one hand,it is flawed.This is not an up-to-datepresentationof the Persianempire;in fact,it comescloseto perpetuatingage-oldstereotypes.
On
the other hand, the lessonsof this book are noble and poignant,and less-than-accurate
accountsof the Achaernenidempirehavebeenemployedsuccessfullytor weighty didactic
purposessince Herodotusand Xenophon. It is tin.retbr Americans to learn again fiom the
exampleof the empirecarvedout by Cyrus,Cambyses,and Darius,and,despiteits faults,
Religion, Entpire, and Torture is a good place to start.