Rationale: This is a book that I have recommended to several people on /r/AskHistorians as an introduction to the Seleucid Empire. This book is also a major milestone in the study of the Hellenistic era, and has become a prominent feature on many academic reading lists. It’s now extremely rare to find a book about the Seleucid Empire or Hellenistic era in general without this book appearing on the bibliography. Given that I have recommended it so often, and that it has become such an important book, it seems right that I properly analyse it.

Analyis: Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White are both professional academics, and wrote this book in 1993. The main body is around 260 pages long, but whilst there are certainly many longer books than this the volume is still weighty as each page is packed with information. The book is intended to be a summarising glance of the Hellenistic period, which is really no easy feat. At this stage, I should clarify some terms for those unfamiliar with Greek history: the Hellenistic era is an era of Ancient Greek history lasting from the death of Alexander in 323 BC to the Battle of Actium in 32 BC, and a Hellenistic culture normally refers to a non-Greek culture being ruled by Greeks during this period. Given that this is a period of almost 300 years, you might imagine that attempting to summarise it in a book of 250 pages would be difficult, and it is. So having established that this is a book attempting to make sense of a large area, multiple states, and three centuries' worth of events, let’s leap in.

Going through my usual methodology, the first thing to look at is the sources used for this text, and on that this book gets a gold star- the bibliography of the book is 14 pages long, and the works of at least 200 different authors are listed there. Many of the works listed are articles, which are generally not of immense length, but more than a few are large books of substantial density. The bibliography is a catalogue of Hellenistic history (and more besides) up till 1993, and for anyone seeking to research the Hellenistic world or historiography this bibliography would be priceless. Now, there is a minor caveat here- whilst I am certain that the authors really did read a huge portion of the works here, they would not have read all of these cover to cover. In several cases, they would have looked at the work because it was referenced in something else and wanted to check up on the reference, or would have already known that the content they wanted was in a specific chapter, paragraph or line. This does not interfere with the quality of the text, but I have seen many larger books with smaller bibliographies than this and it isn’t really necessary to reference quite as deeply as this.

Given that the source work in the book is so good, the next question is; how well it does the job of summarising the subject? Assuming that the reader has no prior knowledge of the Seleucids, I feel that the book does not really go out of its way to tell the reader about the basic concepts behind the Empire. Contextual information is enough to tell you that Seleucus was a general of Alexander, that he won a large Empire that was since named after him, and the book does tell you everything else, but in a different book that had flowery or stolid prose this would be enough to prevent any but the most dedicated from going much further. However, the authors manage to keep the text relatively simple whilst still retaining technical accuracy and depth. In other words, the text is easy to read but isn’t really cheating you. The book deals with both chronology and topics so that on the one hand you understand how the events relate to each other, and on the other you find out more about themes and structures relating to the Empire as a whole. When the authors feel there is a lack of information for them to speak with certainty or clarity, they say so. They also acknowledge their ‘angle’ on the job of summarising the Hellenistic period; they feel that many prior interpretations of the Seleucids have been ill-advised and they want to change that. That the authors are capable of fully acknowledging their agenda gets them another gold star, and this is because they also balance this with carefully acknowledging when topics are being omitted and why.

So, I’ve stated that I feel the book is both well sourced and that it succeeds in being a well-written, meaty summary of the topic at hand. Are there issues with the text? Yes, though depending on your perspective the issues are different. For the amateur historian or reader of casual interest, the book does not do enough to persuade you to read it at first; the authors are justifying the book’s existence via issues in academia regarding the Seleucid Empire and the Hellenistic era in general. That’s all well and good, but what about that exactly makes you want to read it? The joy of authors like Tom Holland and Bill Bryson is that they charm the readers into being interested in what they’re writing about no matter how esoteric, and this book does not grip in this way. From Samarkhand to Sardis is not a charming, suave rogue. But what the book does is to grip you with its own virtues- accessible language with a sense of real depth and polite confidence.

Academically speaking, the book’s issues are somewhat more complex. Around a year after the book was published an issue of the (mostly francophone) journal Topoi-Orient Occident was published, and an entire half of the issue was dedicated to appraising From Samarkhand to Sardis. Having read through many of the articles in that issue, there were several issues that other Hellenistic historians had with the book. The biggest issue was that they felt that many topics were dealt with rather clumsily, in particular the issue of Hellenistic societies in Central Asia. The book’s authors stuck by their decision that there was not enough information to talk about the issue with sufficient guarantee of accuracy. But speaking as someone interested in Hellenistic societies in strange places, and in particular Central Asia, in 1993 there was still a lot of information about these places to talk about. I do consider it a failing of the book to properly deal with this area, for two reasons; firstly, because a lot of current evidence from Hellenistic Central Asia actually supports their views on the nature of the Seleucid Empire, and it would have strengthened their argument; secondly, because whilst they consistently argued against a Eurocentric view of the Seleucids they aided and abetted the idea that looking at the eastern Hellenistic societies just isn’t very important. They moved the needle from the Mediterranean to Babylonia and Iran, but no further east.

However, I acknowledge that I am biased because I already care about these areas. In a book that is designed to catalogue an enormous field and keep track of all its developments until 1993, of course there isn’t going to be time for everything. Whilst things the book left out should be discussed, I felt that many of the authors in that Topoi issue essentially complained that this book wasn’t perfect, and that’s not really a fair criticism of anything. Other academic complaints have included that the book is too positive about Empires and about the Seleucid Empire specifically. I think this is a fair criticism, but with the mitigating circumstance that the authors are explicitly trying to deal with deeply negative opinions on the Seleucids and trying to get readers to consider the alternatives. I personally agree with many of their points on the positive elements of the Seleucids, but this text is written to stimulate debate in the first place so I don’t really have an issue that others feel the text is too positive. But looking at those movements in academia reacting against a perceived bias, many eventually overreached and ceased to be relevant or measured, and it is entirely possible that with hindsight this book may be perceived as having heavy bias.

In balance, I think that From Samarkhand to Sardis continues to earn its reputation even though the book is almost two decades old. The language of the text flows and refuses to resort to constant jargon or never-ending sentences. The book is extremely well sourced, it covers many different topics and areas, it forms conclusions cautiously but with confidence, and it acknowledges and examines bias. But with the passage of time, new archaeological discoveries have already begun to erode its factual relevance, and this will continue as the years pass. This is a book that should begin reading about the Seleucids and Hellenistic era, not be the sum total of it. However, until another ambitious work like this is made, in my opinion there is no finer introduction to the Seleucids currently on bookshelves.

Summary: Packed and a little slow to start, but articulate, intelligent, and self aware. A must read for anyone looking at the Seleucid Empire, but in concert with some more recent looks at the period.

Where to find: The vast majority of the book is available on Google Books, which I link to here. For those looking for a physical copy of the book, any university library with a decent Ancient Greek history section will likely hold a copy, but smaller libraries and public libraries will not.