Talk:Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War/Archive 6

Review and comment by Jona Lendering
I found a review by a historian who contributed some of the photographs, Jona Lendering.  The heading says "Three books on the Achaemenid Empire, all aiming at the general audience. One of them is just bad, the second one is unnecessary, the third explains what everybody already knows. This is the wrong way to introduce people to one of the most fertile branches of ancient history." Guess which is the 'just bad' one? ''One of the last lines of Kaveh Farrokh's Shadows in the Desert. Ancient Persia at War is that "there has been an overall decline of programs and studies of Iranica in western Europe and the United States since 1980". If his book is indicative of the quality of modern-day Iranian studies, the decline can only be lauded. Shadows in the Desert contains dozens of factual errors, repeats Iranian propaganda from the 1970s, and contains numerous unnecessary digressions. Osprey Publishers have obviously invested a lot of energy in producing the book, which is indeed very attractive,[1] but all their care cannot hide that the manuscript ought to have been returned to the writer, much though he is to be praised for trying to redress the Greece-centeredness that bedevils most ancient history.''

And here Lendering says: ''1. Kaveh Farrokh’s Shadows in the Desert is one of the worst books I have ever read; 2. Tom Holland’s Persian Fire is unnecessary; 3. Bruce Lincoln’s Religion, Empire, and Torture, although a very good book by an excellent scholar, understates its own case.

''Of these books, the first one is probably the most dangerous for Iranology, as it contains hundreds of errors and even quotes political propaganda. I was shocked to discover that Farrokh holds a PhD and is working for a university. The book by Holland also contains numerous mistakes, but at least the author does not claim to be a historian.'' Doug Weller (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)