Rome and Persia: The Seven Hundred Year Rivalry

A sweeping narrative of the two incredibly powerful neighboring empires, Adrian Goldsworthy takes his readers behind the scenes as Rome and Persia vie for control. The book covers the period between roughly 100 BCE and 700 CE and traces the contact and conflict between its two subject states. Drawing on sources from both empires with as much evenness as the records allow, Goldsworthy does a tremendous job impartially demonstrating his respect for this period in history.

Adrian Goldsworthy is one of the most steadily prolific classical antiquarians writing today. Having received his DPhil in ancient history from Oxford, Goldsworthy has spent the past 30 years producing quality publications in the field of both history and historical fiction. His latest endeavours have included tracing empiric rivalries through the book Rome and Persia: The Seven Hundred Year Rivalry (2023), focusing on the conflicts between the two over the course of nearly a thousand years.

Goldsworthy opens this book with a discussion regarding the first interactions between members of the late Roman Republic (circa 509 - 27 BCE) and the final generations of the Seleucid Empire (312 - 63 BCE), a West Asian remnant of Alexander the Great’s brief Macedonian Empire. From there, the conversation shifts to the Roman Empire and the two great Persian powers, Parthians (247 BCE - 224 CE) and Sasanians (224-651 CE). What is highlighted by Goldsworthy in this sweeping narrative is the duality between constancy and change. Although the key players varied over the course of the nearly 700-year rivalry, the conflict between the two remained steady, with nary a clear victor ever being truly decided.

Other works set during this period, such as Mary Beard’s Emperor of Rome (2023) and Tom Holland’s In the Shadow of the Sword (2012), do remarkable jobs of conducting separate analyses of the individual empires, while acknowledging their neighbors. Where Goldsworthy sets himself apart is the comparative nature of this book. This creates a final, sweeping project that is more akin to Eric H. Cline’s Late Bronze Age duology, 1177 B.C. (2014), despite being set in very different eras.

Although Goldsworthy strives to maintain a balanced presentation of events, he justly highlights the fact that there is a great discrepancy between the source materials available for the two. Most of his cited references for the Persian components are secondary sources, such as Parvaneh Pourshariati's The Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire (2008), while Roman sources stem from largely primary sources such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, and Velleius Paterculus. In addition to these written sources, Goldsworthy implements maps to highlight the changing borders between the two. All of these materials are integral to understanding the time period better, and Goldworthy does well to integrate them in this particular work. He also notates where and when his analysis is based directly on the sources themselves, and when he is extrapolating due to the relative dearth of concrete evidence. While striking a balance between interpretation and transliteration, Goldsworthy does an admirable job of paying equal respect to Rome and Persia.

Another topic of note is, ironically enough, the benefit of hindsight. Goldsworthy spends a significant portion of the book stressing to the reader this notion that events did not transpire with any sort of predictability that may be present upon later review. He explains it best when he claimed, "Meagre though our sources are, there is little sense that what happened was inevitable, still less that it could have been predicted by anyone. Human beings-and empires-tend to live in the here and now. They assume that things are as they should be, and perhaps always will be, in spite of the lessons of history" (225).

Goldsworthy summarizes his findings on the topic by stating that the two empires’ rivalry did not appear to be a major source of weakness for either one, nor is there sufficient evidence to support the notion that this great conflict benefited them. Upon reflection of Goldsworthy’s argument as a whole, I was convinced to support this conclusion. In that sense, this is a very agreeable book that uses well-established reasoning and clearly articulated prose.

This book demonstrates a high level of teachability and pleasurability and is recommended to anyone with an interest in Roman or Persian empirical history.

Read More