SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTIONDr Kaveh Farrokh

Grossing over 70 million dollars in its first weekof release, the movie 300 is set to crash into

the list of highest grossing Hollywood blockbusters.Its strong opening is a clear indicator of its successwith the North American and by implication, European audiences. Although this picture is basedon a graphic novel by Frank Miller and directed byZack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead), it is already beingportrayed as a “historical” movie, and will be perceived as such by many (less discerning) viewers.More significant however, are the conclusions thatare being derived from this picture.

The producers of the movie (as well as the actors) are honest in stating that they did not consult primary historical sources. The writer of thecomic book appears to have relied on the writingsof Greek historian Herodotus, whose works,though valuable, inevitably contain an element ofbias, as do any historical works from any culture.

My article will not discuss the cinematography (ajob best left to the film critics), nor is it a criticismof the cast and crew. There has been no agenda onthe part of the original novelist, movie director, castand crew to promote an anti-Iranian agenda. Themovie however (no matter how sincerely it was intended as entertainment), is nevertheless purveyingmessages; messages most certainly unintended byMiller or the film producers.

The following commentary is specifically directed against the very human biases and distortions that currently pervade against ancientIran and Iranians; the very same views that 300 has(inadvertently) perpetuated.

Though perhaps trivial, I feel my backgroundgives me a unique perspective. Born of Iranian parents in Greece, I am a student of both ancientGreece and its “East Roman” successor, Byzantium,alongside my main research interest, ancient Iran.My Greek friends often cite me as a blend of ancient Iran (or what the west terms as “Persia”)and “Hellas” (Greece). It is often overlooked that

an Iranian can admire ancient Greece just as aGreek can do likewise with Persia. A Greek friendstated this to me in an e-mail on Monday, March12, 2007:

“I watched the movie 300…and I was totally disappointed…The movie demonized the Persians, everything that was depicted in the movie about the Persians was untrue. The movie demonized also theGreeks and through some words of Leonidas Greekphilosophers and Athenian civilization were downrated…Iwonder why I should watch demons and Spartans with afalse image…there was no showing of glorious brave andsmart people from both sides. I have learned that whatSpartans did in Thermopylae was magnificent, that theydid not match any enemy but what they did there was really magnificent because it was achieved against a verybrave, worthy and glorious enemy. …very few understand it.”

In the course of their historical intercourse, Greeceand Persia have created breathtaking works in domains such as the arts, architecture, sciences,music and of course, democracy and human rights.It is interesting that many modern Greeks acknowledge and appreciate ancient Iran as a civilization as worthy as their own, yet the same isnot necessarily true in northwest Europe andNorth America.

This review will focus on eight items for discussion:

1. The Notion of Democracy and Human Rights

2. What really led to War

3. The Military Conflict Separating Fact from Fiction

4. The Error of Xerxes The Burning of Athens

5. The “West” battling against the “Mysticism” of “the East”

6. The Portrayal of Iranians and Greeks

7. A Note on the Iranian Women in Antiquity

8. “Good” versus “Evil.”

OSPREYPUB L I SH ING

What struck me about the movie was its portrayal of the Greco-Persian Wars in

binary terms: the democratic, good, rational “Us”versus the tyrannical, evil and irrational, “other” ofthe ever-nebulous (if not exotic) “Persia.” Centralto this dichotomy is the following message:

300 men stood between victory and the collapse ofWestern civilisation. If the barbarian hordes…overranthese defenders, Greek democracy and civilisation wouldfall prey to alien forces whose cruelty was a byword.[Christopher Hudson, “The Greatest Warriors Ever,” The Daily Mail, March 9, 2007]

Note the key words “collapse of Western civilization,” “barbarian hordes,” “democracy andcivilization” and “alien forces whose cruelty was abyword.” These key words are reminiscent of political sloganeering, targeting the “other” withslanderous propaganda. These simplistic (and patronizing) statements are a clear indication thatthe general media and much of the audience is seeing 300 as much more than just a movie of a“graphic novel.” This has been astutely observedby Tomas Engle, a student at a West Virginia College, who has noted with some concern thatmany people are viewing the movie to “inform themselves on history.” [Tomas Engle’s article:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/engle1.html]

The citations from popular media outlets are yetanother vivid demonstration of the gross prevailingignorance as to the actual origins of the notions ofhuman rights, democracy and freedom, as well as thecomplex factors that led to the Greco-Persian wars.

The origins of democracy and human rights arenot as simple as we are led to believe. As we will seebelow, these notions share both Greek and Iranianorigins. The Greeks (the Athenians and their Ionian kin in particular), created the notion of“Demos” (the people) and “Kratus” (government).This government by the people is what excites theimagination of the contemporary “western world.”However, few acknowledge the role of “the East” inhelping place modern democracy as we know ittoday, within the context of racial, religious andcultural equality, or (more succinctly), humanrights.

The founder of the Achaemenid Empire, Cyrusthe Great, was the world’s first world emperor toopenly declare and guarantee the sanctity of humanrights and individual freedom.

The tomb of Cyrus. (www.livius.org)

Cyrus was a follower of the teachings ofZoroaster (Zarathustra), the founder of one of theworld’s oldest monotheistic religions. Zoroastertaught that good and evil resides in all members ofhumanity, regardless of racial origin, ethnic mem-bership or religious affiliation. Each person is giventhe choice between good and evil – it is up to us tochoose between them. It is that goodness, and afirm belief in its divinity, that is the key to humanliberty, according to Zoroaster. As a consequence,every individual is entitled to liberty of thought,action and speech. This is enshrined in Zoroaster’sguidelines: Good Thoughts (Pendar Nik), GoodDeeds (Kerdar Nik) and Good Speech (GoftarNik).

As a result, freedom of thought, action andspeech are laden with the awesome responsibilityof wielding these for the good of all mankind.Zoroaster taught that there is no such thing as a“bad race” or “bad religion.” The only divide is thatbetween good and bad people, both within one’sown community and those outside of one’s community. Zoroastrians often referred to ancientIran as “the land of the Free/Freedom” (ZaminAzadegan).

1 THE NOTION OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Zoroaster preached the concept of an all-powerful single god known as Ahura-Mazda (theSupreme Angel), who stood for all that is good.However, the acceptance of Ahura-Mazda was apersonal choice. There were to be no forced conversions and the gods of all nationalities werefully respected: Cyrus prostrated himself in front ofthe statue of Babylonian god Marduk after his conquest of Babylon. As noted by Graf, Hirsch,Gleason, & Krefter “Belief in a heavenly afterlife forgood people and torment for evildoers may have beenpartly responsible for the moral treatment that AchaemenidKings accorded subject nations…”

The Greek warrior-historian Xenophon, spokehighly of Cyrus in his Cyropaedia. Cyrus is described as being void of deceit, arrogance, guileor selfishness. Cyrus is the first “one world hero” inhistory, namely the ruler who sought to unite allthe peoples into one empire while according fullrespect to all languages, creeds and religious practices. Alexander the Great, who greatly admiredCyrus, adopted his mantle of the “world hero” afterhis conquests of Persia in 333–323 BC.

Cyrus’ system of government has been foreverimmortalized by the Cyrus Cylinder. This is a claycylinder of a decree that was issued by Cyrus theGreat in 538 BC shortly after his conquest of Babylon.

The three main premises in the decrees of theCyrus Cylinder were a) the institution of racial, linguistic and religious equality; b) all exiled peopleswere to be allowed to return home; and c) all destroyed temples were to be restored.

When Cyrus defeated King Nabonidus of Babylon, he officially declared the freedom of theJews from their Babylonian captivity. This was thefirst time in history that a world power had guaranteed the survival of the Jewish people, religion, customs and culture. Cyrus allowed theJews to rebuild their Temple and provided themwith funds to do so. The empire continued thatsupport as indicated by a decree by Darius theGreat in 519-518 BC by allowing the Jews to complete the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple (Ezra, 4:1). Cyrus’ magnanimity is reflectedin the Old Testament where he is cited as Yahweh’s

anointed (See Book of Ezra 1). Koresh (Hebrew forCyrus), was hailed as a Messiah by the Jews. Isaiahcites Cyrus as “He is my Shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose” (Isaiah, 44.28; 45.1). The Biblical characters Ezra, Daniel, Esther and Mordecaiplayed historically important roles in the Persiancourt. The tomb of Esther and Mordecai still standsto this day in Hamadan, the site of the ancient cityof Ecbatana, a city that has hosted Jews for over2500 years. The Persian king Xerxes himself wasmarried to a Jewish queen named Esther.

Tomb of Esther and Mordecai in Hamadan, Iran.

Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow atthe Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Professor Emeritus at California University) summarizes the issue of “Freedom versus Tyranny”very succinctly:

If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaningof Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they shouldreread carefully ancient accounts and then blameHerodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus – who long agoboasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persianautocracy…in almost all wars, one side is defending itsfreedom. The Greeks were not the first human beings todefend their freedom…monarchy is not something Eastern…when these ‘freedom-defender’ Greeks wereunited under Alexander, they did the same thing…theyinvaded Persia, Egypt and India and created their ownempire…so did their Roman successors…

[See the full text at http://www.victorhan-son.com/articles/hanson101106.html]

2 WHAT REALLY LED TO WAR

THE UNTOLD STORY

As noted above, Western popular opinion andacademic historiography portrays the Greco-

Persian wars as being an epic contest between liberty, as represented by Greece, and “PersianTyranny.” Professor Richard Nelson Frye, howevercautions us that such historical narratives are “…anexample of imposing modern concepts on the past…distorting our understanding…” [Richard Nelson Frye,1984, p.93]

Yes, indeed it is true that the Ionian revolt on thewest Anatolian coast and the support of the Athenians for their Hellenic ethnic kin against thePersian Empire was a major factor that led Dariusthe Great (549–486 BC), the father of Xerxes, toinvade Greece in 490 BC. But this is only a part ofthe story. Very few western historians have discussedthe role of economic rivalry as a factor in theGreco-Persian wars.

By this time, the Greeks had established a powerful maritime economic empire in theMediterranean Sea. The Greeks established coloniesin southern Italy as well as contemporary southernFrance; an example of this legacy is seen in thename of the city of “Nice” (pronounced /nees/) insouthern, France – “Nice” is derived from theGreek Nicea (modern Nice). Greek trading postshad also been established in the Caucasus, in theModern Republic of Georgia.

The Achaemenid Empire became a marine empire as soon as it reached the Aegean Sea. Darius the Great built the world’s first formal

“Imperial Navy,” many of its ships manned byPhoenician, Egyptian and (Hellenic) Ionians. Moreimportantly, the Persian Empire began to “musclein” on the economic sphere of the Greeks in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (see Cook, TheGreeks in Ionia and the East, 1962, pp.98–120; 132-133; K. Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapter 4). Italian researcherssuch as Nik Spatari have confirmed that Darius hadsent naval scouts as far as Southern Italy to gain information on possible trade contacts with thewestern Mediterranean (Farrokh, Shadows in theDesert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapter 4).

Reconstruction of Achaemenid ships in 1971.

Persia’s growing economic strength in theMediterranean was certainly of great concern tothe Greeks and their prosperity. The Greco-Persianwars were as much about economics, as they wereabout systems of government. For further referencesconsult the bibliography.

3 THE MILITARY CONFLICT

SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION

There are very few historians who doubt thetenacity and military skill of the Greek

defenders who faced the invading army of Xerxes.The 300 movie displayed the equipment of theSpartans relatively well, considering that the producers were intent on reproducing the images ofa comic book, leaving little room for consultationwith modern scholarship. If the portrayal of theGreek side was adequate, that of “the Persians” waspure fantasy. This being said, there are already a largenumber of viewers who have taken these images ina very “literal” and historical context – the humanmind is indeed a very impressionable organ.

The discussion here is a very quick and overallanalysis of the actual military factors that were inplace during Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in 480 BC– however we will digress into the post-Alexandrianeras, notably the evolution of the Persian knightsduring the Parthian (238 BC–AD 224) and Sassanian (AD 224–651) eras. I will closely scrutinize the veracity of whether Xerxes actuallywielded 1,700,000 troops during his invasion ofGreece. By no means is this discussion adequate,however it is hoped that the reader’s curiosity willbe sufficiently piqued as to encourage further research and readings.

WEAPONSGreek spears and swords were longer than theirAchaemenid counterparts. This meant that in handto hand combat, the Spartans held the advantageand were able to “outrange” their opponents withtheir swords and spears, which were primarily usedfor thrusting (see Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapters 4–5). The swords of“the Persians” in the movie are of no historical relevance – many of the Iranian swords of that erawere short and dagger-like. These were known asthe “Akenakes.”

Scythian (left) and Mede (right).

Saka Tigrakhauda (Tall-capped Scythian to theleft) and a Mede (round cap to the right) appearingbefore the Achaemenid kings at the Imperial palaceof Persepolis. Note the short size of the akenakesdaggers, which proved inadequate in hand to handcombat against Greek warriors. For a thorough examination of the akenakes daggers, as well as allIranian military gear from the Bronze Age to the19th century, consult Manoucher Moshtagh Khorasani’s comprehensive book on the subjectArms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to end of theQajar Period, http://www.arms-and-armor-from-iran.de/

ARMORGreek troops were far better armored than theiropponents, although it is not clear if all the Spartanswore heavy armor at Thermopylae. Greek helmets,body armor and greaves provided excellent protection against blade weapons in hand to handcombat, whereas the vast majority of theAchaemenids lacked significant armor protection.Scale armor was available, but not to the majorityof troops. When engaged in hand to hand combat,Achaemenid troops were exposed to deadly spearthrusts as well as hacking/thrusts against their faces,limbs and torso (see Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert:Ancient Persia at War, Chapters 4–5). The movie portrayal of Achaemenid armor was pure fictionand has no resemblance to that issued amongAchaemenid troops.

THE MARTIAL ARTS TRADITION OF GREECEThe 300 movie did capture the camaraderie, zealand “esprit de corps” of the Spartans very well, andrepresented the contemporary military culture ofancient Sparta in a fairly realistic manner.

Greece (as a whole) was the heir to an excellentmartial arts tradition. According to legend, the newborn child in Sparta would be washed by hismother in wine to ensure that the child was strongand fit (the weaker baby would reputedly die fromthe bathing). The father would then bring the babyto advisors who would ultimately decide if thenewborn child was fit to be raised as a Spartan. Ifthe baby “failed” the test, he would cast off a cliff orgulley at Mount Taygetos, known as the “Kaiada.”

As shown in the movie, the boys of Sparta begantraining from the age of 7. Formal military servicewould begin at the age of twenty. Examination ofGreek vases clearly shows Greek warriors engagedin very “modern” training methods: kicking, boxing, wrestling, Pankration, using “speedbags”etc. Training and drills were at least as brutal ascombat situations. Sparta was very much a warriorsociety; it was the Athenians and their ethniccousins in Ionia (modern western Turkey), thenunder Persian rule, who were at the forefront of theHellenic Democratic tradition.

THE GREEK PHALANX SYSTEMThe Greeks in general had developed the phalanxsystem, where soldiers fought as one unit in a single formation. Central to this system was the useof overlapping shields which formed an impenetrable barrier against javelins, spears and arrows. The Macedonians of northern Greece, perfected the phalanx and adopted the 12-foot longpike or “sarissa” used with devastating effect byAlexander the Great during his invasion of Persia.

The Chiqi vase showing a Greek Phalanx. (www.livius.org)

The Greeks often engaged in close quarter combat and had been doing so for centuries before the Achaemenid invasions. Suffice it to saythat when it came to hand to hand combat, theSpartans held the advantage. Thanks to their training, the Spartans were so disciplined that theywere able to collectively maneuver the phalanx ata single command. With their shields locked together, the phalanx was able to march and putforward all of their spears simultaneously. There wasno breaking of formation in acts of battlefield individualism – all warriors were expected to adhere strictly and steadfastly to the phalanx. Thespears protruded in deadly fashion towards the onrushing enemy, with deadly results. The Greekstestify to the bravery of the lightly armored Iranians who tried to break the spears of the Spartans with their bare hands in an endeavor toget close to the warriors within the phalanx.

THE EVOLUTION OF CAVALRYThe portrayal of “Persian cavalry” was totally wrongin the movie with respect to weapons, equestriangear and uniforms. Superficially, these resembledmore the Arab horsemen seen during the Arabo-Islamic conquests over a thousand years after the battle of Thermopylae and bore little resemblance to either the Iranian cavalry of theAchaemenid era (559–333 BC), or the armoredknights of the later Parthian and Sassanian eras ofPersia (238 BC–AD 651). Below is a reconstructionof Iranian heavy cavalry of the Achaemenid period.

Despite their formidable armor, Achaemenidcavalry had yet to solve the problem of rider stability,especially against well-trained, heavily armored,lance/spear wielding infantry fighting in phalanxes(see Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia atWar, Chapters 4–5). This is mainly because the Iranians had not yet invented saddle technologyadvanced enough to keep the rider stable as hefought on horseback. As a result, Iranian cavalryduring the Achaemenid period was vulnerable tounseating by Greek heavy infantry, as observed byXenophon in the early 400s BC.

Nevertheless, Iranian cavalry continued to evolve,even after the Alexandrian conquests of the PersianEmpire. It was the cavalry which had posed thegreatest challenge to the Greeks during their conquests of Persia, and the Greeks were duly impressed by them. Xenophon warned about thedangers of the Iranian cavalry, a prophecy whichwas to prove true with the rise of the Parthians andthe Sassanians. It was these new Persian knightswho finally defeated the Seleucid successors ofAlexander and who scored dramatic victoriesagainst Marcus Licinius Crassus at Carrhae (53 BC),and against Roman Emperors Severus Alexander(Ctesiphon in 233 AD), Gordian III (Mesiche in244 AD), Phillip the Arab (Barbalissos in 253 AD),Valerian (Carrhae-Edessa in 260 AD), and Julian(inside Persia in 363 AD). By the 5th century AD,the Turks had arrived from the North of China intoCentral Asia and Europe, and were influencing theIranians and the Romans: the Turks were probablythe first to invent stirrups.

Very few are aware of the positive references tothe military skill of the later Persian knights. Oneexample is Libianus who, referring to the Sassanian

knights, notes that Roman troops “prefer to suffer anyfate rather than look a Persian in the face.” [Libianus, XVIII, pp.205-211; Consult also Farrokh, Sassanian Elite Cavalry, 2005, p.5]

Much of the armor of these knights appears very“European”; the warriors wear mail, plate armor,riveted Spangenhelm helmets, broadswords, macesand battle-axes. Yet these warriors predate their European counterparts by centuries (see Farrokh,Sassanian Elite Cavalry).

Though the Spartans (and indeed the Greeks as awhole) are rightfully remembered as magnificentwarriors whose exploits and heroism resonate acrosstime, Persia too gave birth to magnificent militarytradition: the Partho-Sassanian elite cavalry, known asthe “Savaran.” Is it not interesting that nobody haseven heard of the Savaran? As noted by Greek-Canadian historian, George Tsonis:“Unfortunately weprobably will never see movies of Roman defeats in ‘theeast’ at the hands of Persian knights…such movies wouldmost probably bomb at the box office.”

This bias is not confined to the entertainmentmedia. The academic community (mainly in north-west European and English-speaking world) hasuntil recently continued to champion ancientGreece and diminish, sideline and even ignore theSavaran. This bias can be seen in the comments ofworld renowned military historian, Professor JohnKeegan, who in reference to the Persian influenceon western European cavalry states in no uncertain

Mede Cavalryman of the later Achaemenid era.

terms that: “True, the Persians … had fielded squadronsof armored horsemen and even armored horses at an earlier date [than the western Europeans] … to ascribe theorigin of heavy cavalry warfare to them is risky.”[Richard Keegan, A History of Warfare, 1993, p.286]Keegan’s interpretation is essentially rejected by alarge number of historians such as Herrmann,Michalak, Inostrancev, Nickel and Newark (see discussion by Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapters 9–22, 24). ProfessorKeegan represents a more selective interpretationof the history of cavalry, one that has sought to diminish the role of Persia in particular. As notedby another Greek colleague, “Stamatis”:

…there is no need for academics to denigrate Persia justto preserve the glory of ancient Greece. Both Greece andPersia are glorious in their contributions to world civi-lization. Comments such as these are more a productof academic dogma rather than true scholarship. Onesees such scholarship in ancient Greece, Persia, Egypt,China and the golden age of Islamic learning wherenon-Arabs such as the Iranians made mighty contributions …

THE IMMORTAL UNITSPerhaps most interesting was the portrayal of theImmortal units of the Achaemenids. Superficially,they resembled Hollywood-style “ninjas,” dressedin black. Black and dark clothing were not featuredamong any of the standard Achaemenid troops. Thesuperficially “Oriental”-looking iron face maskswere never used by the elite troops, and as notedabove, Iranian units (in general) were more lightlyarmed and armored than their Greek counterparts.

The paintings below provide a more accurate reconstruction of the uniforms, weapons and armorof the Achaemenid troops.

These were reconstructed by historians, researchers as well as professional army officers in1971. Suffice it so say, that the movie portrayal andhistorical veracity are widely divergent. Note thecolors on the uniforms as well as the equipment(and virtually no armor). But at least the creatorsof 300 admit that they are basing their “Persians”on cartoon-like demon characters.

The Pushtighban Heavy Knights of the Royal Guard (left) and

Jyanavspar-Peshmerga (right) engaged against Roman troops

during the failed Julian invasion of 363 AD. (Angus

McBride © Osprey Publishing)

Achaemenid Persian officers as they would have appeared

during Xerxes’ invasion of Greece.

XERXES’ INVASION FORCEFew question the fact that Xerxes’ army was hugeand that the Greeks were outnumbered. The question is “by how much”? The movie trailer states:“They [the Spartans] were 300 men against a Million” Themain source of these accounts for modern European scholarship is Herodotus, who actuallycites 1,700,000 invaders (Herodotus, VII, 60).Herodotus, who wrote after the Greco-Persian warsof Darius and Xerxes had ended, and before the ageof Alexander.

Herodotus lists a total of 46 nations mustered byXerxes in his invasion of Greece (see Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapter5). The vast numbers of troops were actually a liability as co-ordination and communication andlogistical support must have been complex, particularly in contrast to the much smaller andcompact, and linguistically uniform, Greek force.

Nevertheless, it is unfair to pin these quantitativecitations solely on Herodotus. The Greek tragedy byAeschylos, The Persians, describes the Greeks facingXerxes’ armies as facing “a great flood of humans…awave of the sea that cannot be contained by the most soliddikes”(The Persians, lines 87–90) and “…a rash rulerof populous Asia [Xerxes] pushes a human herd to theconquest of the entire world” (The Persians, 73–75).

From the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries anumber of European scholars began to question thefantastic numbers cited by Herodotus. European researchers such as Gobineau and Delbrueck beganto seriously doubt the numerical claims made by Classical sources. The table below cites some of the researchers of the period who provided the following estimates as to the actual size of Xerxes’ invading armies:

Scholar Citation and Year Estimate of Xerxes’ troops

Eduard Meyer As cited in W. K. Prentice, “Thermopylae and 100,000 plus an equal number of Artemisium,” Transactions and Proceedings of the non-combat support personnelAmerican Philological Association,Vol. 51, 1920 pp.5-18

Ernst Obst “Der Feldzug des Xerxes,” in Klio, 90,000Beiheft 12, Leipzig, 1914, p.88

Comte de Histoire des Perses, Volume II, 1869 p.191 90,000Gobineau

Reginald Walter Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth and 90,000Macan Ninth Books, London, 1908, Vol. II, p.164

William Woodthorpe “The Fleet of Xerxes,” The Journal 60,000Tarn of Hellenic Studies, 28, 1908, p.208

Hans Delbrueck Die Perserkriege und die 55,000Burgunderkriege, Berlin, 1887, p. 164

Robert von Fischer “Das Zahlenproblem in Perserkriege 40,000480-479,” Klio, N. F., vol. VII, p.289

Most modern scholarship appears to accept thefigure of 100,000-200,000 invading troops, a figureconsistent with the population base of theAchaemenid Persian Empire at the time (Farrokh,Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapter5). Even if the Persian Empire had had the population base to produce 1,700,000 troops, itwould have faced a gargantuan task in organizingand deploying these without the benefit of moderncomputers and communications technology. Even ifsuch an army could be organized to set off on themammoth journey from Asia to Greece, ancient logistics and supply would not have been able tosustain such fantastic numbers of troops in so ambitious a campaign. These capabilities date fromfar more recent modern times, from the time of theAmerican Civil War (1861–1865) and the adventof the railway and telegraph.

At Thermopylae, the Greek numbers were closeto 6,000, when counting all of the Spartans andGreek kinsmen. Still, even if we take the lowest estimate of 40,000 Achaemenid Persian troops, theGreeks would have been vastly outnumbered, especially during King Leonidas’ last stand.

Few have addressed the engineering feats thatXerxes’ engineers accomplished in building theworld’s first true bridge between Asia and Europe.For an introduction to the engineering feats thatled to the invasion of Europe from Asia Minor(modern Turkey), you may wish to consult the History Channel program “Engineering an Empire: The Persians.”

A FINAL NOTE: THE BATTLE OF SALAMISThere are other inaccuracies in the movie as well,especially with regards to the Greek perspective.First, the Spartans were not exactly “democratic” inthe Athenian sense; theirs was a hierarchical andmilitaristic society. To argue that the Spartans were“fighting for Democracy” is somewhat simplistic. It is correct however that the Spartans fought forthe glory of Greece, which included Democracy.That does not necessarily mean that the Spartansspecifically stood for Democracy as the Atheniansand Ionians did.

Second, the 300 Spartans were not alone in theirlast stand – they were accompanied to the death byat least 300 Thessapian Hoplites, who fought shoulderto shoulder beside them. The fact is that Xerxes finally won at Thermopylae and pushed throughinto Greece. The battle that actually saved Greecefrom total conquest occurred at sea: the battle ofSalamis, after the forcing of Thermopylae. Xerxescould not maintain or expand his European landconquests if he could not control the seas. TheGreeks under the bold leadership of AdmiralThemistocles lured Xerxes’ fleet into a trap in thestraits between Salamis itself and Piraeus.

Typical of the drama of Greek politics, Themistocles, the man who had rescued Greecefrom the jaws of defeat, was later condemned as atraitor to Greece and forced to flee Athens! Evenmore ironic is the fact that Themistocles was givenshelter by Artaxerxes I, the successor of Xerxes I!In my opinion, it would be fascinating to have ahistorically balanced movie that would portray thelives of Themistocles, Xerxes, Artemesia, and Artaxerxes.

4 THE ERROR OF XERXESTHE BURNING OF ATHENS

The greatest blunder committed by Xerxes inhis invasion of Greece were his very un-

Persian actions in ordering the city of Athens to betorched, including the Acropolis.

Xerxes’ troops destroyed many towns, villages,farms and temples. These actions stiffened theGreek determination to resist and expel the invaderfrom their soil. As I have previously noted, the statues of sacred Greek gods were confiscated andbought to Persia – an action that only fueled theintensity of the Greek desire to seek vengeance.This culminated in the invasion and conquest ofPersia by Alexander the Great in the 330s BC.

Xerxes soon realized the error of his actions, butit was too late. His offers to rebuild Athens after thebattles were firmly rejected by the Greeks. Mostsignificant however was the fact that Xerxes hadbroken the tradition of tolerance and respect thathad been shown by Cyrus the Great towards captured cities. How would history have been different had Xerxes behaved in Athens as Cyrushad in Babylon? One thing is certain: the West hasnever forgiven Xerxes’ invasion of Classical Greece.

The Acropolis in Athens

5 THE “WEST” BATTLING AGAINST THE

“MYSTICISM” OF “THE EAST”

Towards the end of the movie, there is a statement to the effect that the war is against

“the Mysticism and Tyranny” of Persia. How doesone wage war on Mysticism? As a student of history for 20 years, I honestly was not aware thatXerxes’ invasion was about bringing (or forcing)mysticism upon Europe, at least in the historicalsense. The directors and producers of the 300 moviedo not appear to have given much thought to theconsequences of this proverbial Hollywood “one-liner,” however it does contain a powerful latent message: “the East” stands for “Mysticism.”In that case, what does “the West” stand for? Iwould surmise the antithesis of Mysticism – namely,“Reason and Learning.”

Few would question the fact that the Greeks pioneered much of what we cherish today with respect to logic and philosophy: Greeks (like allgreat peoples of history) are integral to world civilization. But any type of assumption that ALLof learning has been historically confined to Greeceis very much a recent interpretation (from the late17th century) – and if I may be so bold, it is also an“Orientalist” viewpoint.

While outside the scope of this discussion, it may surprise some readers to know that a number of thegreatest Greek minds of the Classical era, Pythagoras,Plato, Thales, and Democritus, traveled to the Persian Empire to take advantage of the centers inlearning in Persis, Babylon and Egypt, notably inthe fields of astronomy, mathematics, physical sciences, geometry and theosophy (see Farrokh,Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapter 4).

The Greeks, like many other of the learned and civilized peoples of antiquity, also had their share of superstitions as well. Very few are aware that thestudy of Astronomy was actually prohibited in ancient Athens in the 5th Century BC; any suchstudies were labeled as blasphemy. Anaxagoras of

Clazomenae (Ionia, modern Western Turkey) wasactually expelled from Athens because of the hypotheses he proposed about the sun. TheAchaemenid Persians certainly had their superstitions.One vivid example is that of Xerxes “punishing”the Aegean Sea by having the waves lashed – theking was angry that the sea had been so turbulentduring his invasion of Greece.

The evolution of learning very much resemblesthe evolution of human rights in history: it is organic and is ultimately achieved by the synthesisand sharing of ideas between nations, cultures andpeoples, whether they are engaged in trade, culturalrelations or war. For further references consult thebibliography.

Plato. (www.livius.org)

6 THE PORTRAYAL OF IRANIANS AND GREEKS

What struck me most vividly in this moviewas the following question: Where are the

Greek actors in this movie? After all, is this movienot narrating a story about ancient Greece?

The straight forward answer would be that themovie producers were depicting the characters of agraphic novel, which may explain their casting decisions. There still remains the question howeverof why not at least consider utilizing Greek actors toportray Greek historical characters?

Hollywood seems intent on conveying a certain“image” of the Classical World. Perhaps there is adesire to “Nordify” ancient Greece just as there is adesire to “Orientalize” the ancient Iranians. At leastthe portrait of King Leonidas in the movie wasconsistent with the depictions of ancient Greeks asseen in the vases of Classical Greece. For a previousdiscussion of the depiction of Greeks and Iraniansin Hollywood by the author, kindly consult: “TheAlexander Movie: How are Greeks and IraniansPortrayed?” onhttp://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/farrokh6.htm.

When it comes to the portrayal of the Iraniansand the Greeks, I find the following observation byDr. Ahmad Sadri (College Professor of IslamicWorld Studies, Lake Forest College) rather astute:

Snyder’s Persians – I am not talking about the disposable extras covered up to their eyes in male burqas– are predominantly black and by implication of mannerism and affect, homosexual. Allowing the widestberth for the genre and medium one still marvels at Snyder’s audacity in demonizing the “Asiatic hordes”while morphing the Spartan warrior into the typicalwhite American survivalist. Snyder’s Spartans are whiteguys fighting a sea of racially inferior blacks, yellows andbrowns.

As I walked out of the theater during the closing credits, I heard the following comment by one ofthe viewers in the audience:

This movie chose really excellent Eye-ranian [Iranian] actors – they showed them so accurately – just what youwould expect them to be…

It is very interesting that in this movie (and itscomic book original) insists on portraying the “Persians” (especially the elites) as black Africans.In the movie trailer, King Leonidas is shown kicking the “Persian messenger” into a bottomlesspit and shouting “This is Sparta!” The “Persianmessenger” is black. Other Persians in the film arealso black, including a “Persian” general executedby Xerxes and a “Persian” emissary sent to communicate with Leonidas – the latter rolebeing played by talented actor Tyrone Benskin.

Interestingly, the recent movie Alexander (starringColin Farrell), featured (with few exceptions) Arabic-speaking North Africans instead of Iraniansin the role of the Persians, whereas the 300 bookand movie portrays Iranians as Africans. As we shallsee later below, there are indications that Hollywood (in general) believes that such portrayals,however inaccurate, “sell better” in North Americaand Northwest Europe.

There are no Greek or Roman references toblack “Persians” and Greco-Roman sources alsoclearly distinguish between the Arabs of antiquityand “the Persians.” Greek vase art from the Classical period show “the Persians” as remarkablysimilar to the Greeks – their differences are inwardrobe and equipment.

In this discussion, I will make use of the term “Iranian” as opposed to “Persian” as the former ismore inclusive and includes Kurds, Azeris, Persiansand other peoples of Iranic origin. The term “Persian” was used by the Greeks to designate allIranian peoples of the time, when in fact, the Medesand the Scythians (Saka) were also partners in empire alongside the Persians.

There is a dearth of primary sources to help archeologists, anthropologists and historians reconstruct the ancient Iranians contemporary toXerxes’ invasion of Greece. Note the clear distinction that is made between African(Ethiopian) and Caucasian (Iranian) troops byGreek vase-arts in Nick Sekunda’s The Persian Army560–330 BC, Osprey Publishing, 1992, pp.16–17).

As a Classical historian, Sekunda has reconstructed King Xerxes, Iranian warriors as wellas their African contingents:

Ethiopian marine (left), Iranian warrior (center) and

Iranian spearbearer. (Simon Chew © Osprey Publishing)

The Iranians shown in the center and rightwould not look unusual in today’s Iran. LaterRoman sources also provide a very clear and detailed pictorial view of the Iranians contemporaryto the 3rd–7th centuries AD. Note the Romandrawing of the three Iranians in Persian dress fromRavenna, Italy:

Roman depiction of Iranian nobles depicted here as the three wise

men. It is clear that the Romans were objective in their portrayal of

their enemies, the Parthians and the Sassanians.

The cultural and linguistic legacy of the Indo-European or “Aryan” arrivals on the Iranianplateau since at least the 2nd millennium BC continues to resonate in modern Iran, and in Iranian speaking Kurds in the Near East as well asthe Caucasus and Central Asia. Please note that Iuse the word “Aryan” with considerable cautionhere, as we are referring to the Old Iranian from“Airya” and/or “Eire” which loosely means “Lord”or “freeman” – the closest European equivalent isthe Irish word “Eire.”

However what makes Iran unique on the worldstage of history is the fact that Iran is the world’soldest multi-ethnic and multi-language nation inhistory. Before the Indo-European arrivals, Iranwas already host to a vibrant Elamite civilizationto the southwest as well as Manneans and Hurrians to the northwest and west. These peoplesfused their culture with the incoming Iranianspeaking Indo-Europeans – Iran has been a evolving tapestry of peoples ever since. In any ofIran’s cities one can find an array of faces and languages – from Turkish in the northwest to Arabic in south. There are Iranians of African descent as well, these being partly descended fromEthiopians who were settled along Iran’s PersianGulf coast during the Achaemenid era.

Genetic researchers have conducted a number ofdetailed genetic studies on Iran, the Caucasus aswell as the Near East. One example is a recentstudy by Professor Martin Richards and 26 otherresearchers who conducted a thorough geneticanalysis of Turks, Arabs, and Iranians. The latter focused mainly on Iranian-speaking Kurds (mainlydescendants of the Medes) and the mainly Turkishspeaking Azerbaijanis of Iran (themselves descendants of the Media Atropatene – one of theancient homes of the aforementioned Zoroastrianreligion). There was also a large sample of Ossetiansin the study; Ossetians speak variations of the OldIranian Avestan language (the basis of many of theold Zoroastrian hymns). Armenians were also studied.

Put simply, the results show a very high incidenceof U5 lineages – genes common among modernEuropeans as a whole. The results are aptly summarized as such:

…many Armenian and Azeri types are derived from European and northern Caucasian types (p.1263)…TheU5 cluster… in Europe… although rare elsewhere in theNear east, are especially concentrated in the Kurds, Armenians and Azeris…a hint of partial European ancestry for these populations – not entirely unexpectedon historical and linguistic grounds [Richards et al.,(2000). Tracing European founder lineages in theNear Eastern mtDNA pool. American Journal ofHuman Genetics, 67, pp.1263–1264, 2000]

There were no genetic links between the Iraniangroups cited and the Arabs of that study. Interestingly,a number of Turks from western Turkey in theRichard study showed incidences of the Europeangene markers, indicating mixtures with Greek andother European populations in the course of Turkishhistory. Suffice it so say that Caucasians with so-called “European” appearances are nothing unusual in today’s Iran – they are part and parcel oftoday’s multi-ethnic Iran.

Photograph taken in 1971 by Ali Massoudi of a girl from Rasht in

Gilan province, Northern Iran (Source: R. Tarverdi (Editor) & A.

Massoudi (Art editor), The land of Kings, Tehran: Rahnama

Publications, 1971, p.116).

There seems to be very little international motivation to understand the multifaceted natureof the Iranians themselves as well as their historyand culture. A survey by Jack Shaheen (author ofThe TV Arab, 1984) in the early 1980s found thatover 80 percent of North Americans wrongly believe Iranians to be Arabs and to speak Arabic.This may explain in part the persistence of the“Hollywood Persian” image in the entertainmentindustry.

ADDENDUM: IS THERE A CASE OF INSTITUTIONALIZEDDISCRIMINATION AGAINSTIRANIANS IN HOLLYWOOD?

There are disturbing indications that a subtleform of racism has at times been applied in Hollywood against actors and extras of Iranian origin. A vivid example of this was demonstratedover 15 years ago during the filming of the actionmovie The Hitman, starring Chuck Norris, releasedin 1991. A portion of the filming took place inNorth Vancouver, British Columbia in Canada in1989–1990. The directors and Norris put ads in thelocal papers asking for Iranians to audition as extras for the movie. What happened next is ascomical as it is tragic.

Many of the “Iranians” who showed up on theset proved to be a major disappointment to Norris.This is because, far from fitting into the popularized“Hollywood Persian” stereotype, the potential Iranian extras displayed a variety of phenotypes. Thegroup included Iranians from the northern regions(Gilan, Mazandaran, Semnan, Talesh), the northwest(Azerbaijan) and the west (Lurs and Kurds) as wellpeople from Isfahan and Tehran. Many of thesecould appear as “regular Americans” on the street orin your local shopping mall. The directors and Norris were very disappointed at this and were visibly upset. Here is an excerpt by one of the auditioning Iranian extras on the set (his identitywithheld at his request):

…the directors came to the set and were upset to see us.Among us were Mashadis of Turcomen background [withCentral Asian/Far eastern appearance], Baluchis andmore blondish types from the north and west…Norris andthe directors said ‘what are these Caucasians doing on the set? I said I want ‘Iranian extras’ notCaucasians…Americans like to see real Iranians…

The recruiters then explained that the “Caucasian” extras were natives of Iran from thenorth, Tehran and the northwest, but to no avail.Norris and the directors insisted on expelling the(so-called) “Caucasians” from the set. Similar reports have been reported by the aforementionedJack Saheen with respect to Arab actors of Lebaneseorigin. Hollywood certainly is not free of humanbias, seriously compromising any educational valueof some of its “historical” releases. This leads us tothe fantastic depiction of Xerxes himself. If the portrayal of the Persians is fictional, that of Xerxeshas set new parameters for creativity. For a thorough analysis of the actual appearance ofXerxes, kindly consult Daniel Pourkesali’s article “Movie 300: A Tale of Pure Fantasy,”http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1157.html.

As noted astutely by Daniel Pourkesali, themovie’s portrayal of Xerxes is based faithfully onthe graphic novel, but widely divergent with historical depictions of Xerxes. Below is his portrait as he appears in Persepolis:

Below is another reconstruction by ProfessorSekunda of Xerxes as he would have appeared inGreece.

Court Eunuch (left), King Xerxes (centre) and Royal Spearbearer

(right) (Simon Chew © Osprey Publishing)

The Miller/Warner Brothers portrayal of Xerxesand the way he would have historically appearedare literally as different as day and night. ProfessorEphraim Lytle, a Hellenistic historian at the University of Toronto in Canada, has aptly summarized the picture’s portrayal of Xerxes and“the Persians”:

300’s Persians are ahistorical monsters and freaks. Xerxesis eight feet tall, clad chiefly in body piercings and garishlymade up, but not disfigured. No need – it is strongly implied Xerxes is homosexual which, in the moral universeof 300, qualifies him for special freakhood. [ProfessorEphraim Lytle, “Sparta? No. This is Madness,” TheToronto Sun, March 11, 2007]

An Iranian portrait of Xerxes.

7 A NOTE ON THE IRANIAN WOMEN IN ANTIQUITY

Ireceived the following e-mail which aptly summarizes this segment of our discussion:

“Have you seen the movie? I have heard that it was soinsulting to Persian women…”

The 300 movie certainly portrayed Iranianwomen as shallow, mindless “harem girl-objects.”This is even testified to in the trailer.

The portrayal of Iranian women in this movie isnot only grossly inaccurate in historical terms, butalso degrading, insulting to women in general.Again, this seems to be derived from a massive senseof ignorance regarding the role of Iranian womenin history.

The women of ancient Iran were priestesses (i.e.at the Temple of Anahita), warriors, leaders andguardians of learning. While a detailed discussion isbeyond the scope of this article, a few highlightswill hopefully serve to arouse the interest of thereaders.

Roman sources are very clear in referring towomen among the ranks of the Iranian cavalry inthe Sassanian era: “in the Persian army…there are saidto have been found women also, dressed and armed likemen…” [Zonaras (XII, 23, 595, 7-596, 9) in reference to the forces of Shapur I.

King Shapur receives the surrender of Emperor Valerian at

Barbalissos. Female Iranian cavalry officer (left), nobleman of the

Suren clan (with tall “beaked” hat), Emperor Valerian (kneeling),

Roman Senator (man with toga) and King Shapur I (right)

(Angus McBride © Osprey Publishing)

Iranian women organized resistance against theArabian invaders of the Ummayad and later Abbassid caliphates after the fall of Sassanian Iran(or Persia) in the 7th century AD. Key figures include Apranik, the daughter of General Piran, aswell as Azadeh, guerilla resistance leader of Gilan-Mazandaran in northern Iran, and Banu, the wife ofthe anti-Abassid rebel Babak Khurramdin who leda decades long anti-Caliphate movement fromIranian Azerbaijan (see Farrokh, Shadows in theDesert: Ancient Persia at War, Chapters 4–5).

Iranian women continued to play leadership roleswell after the fall of Sassanian Iran (or Persia) to theIslamic invaders of Arabia in the 7th century AD.One example is the governess of Rayy, birthplace ofthe medical savant Rhazes (near modern Tehran):

Governess of Rayy.

The equality of women with men in enshrinedin the Zoroastrian religion itself. One of the Zoroastrian fables refers to a conversation betweenZoroaster and his daughter Freyne highlighting thefact that it is up to women to choose their mates forcourtship and marriage.

8“GOOD” VERSUS “EVIL”

Ashort and final point has to do with the portrayal of “the Persians” as “evil.” In one of

the earlier scenes, King Leonidas holds a dying boywho, in reference to the invading host, states softlythat the Persians“…came from the blackness…” It isvery clear that “the Persians” are literally portrayedas “evil.” The retort to this is that the movie is only faithfully reproducing the characters of a harmlesscomic book. But is it?

How would members of other ethnic communities worldwide feel if their ancestors werebeing portrayed as monsters, troglodytes, degenerates,and demons? These same producers would probably think twice if they were to portray othernationalities in the manner that they have donewith the “Persians.” If my logic (flawed as it maybe) is not mistaken, portraying Iranians as monsters,troglodytes, degenerates, and demons is “artistic entertainment,” but other nationalities are exemptfrom this “art form” as this would be “tasteless andpolitically incorrect” and would be regarded as a“hate crime.”

The targeting of specific ethnic groups with negative attributes in the name of entertainmentdollars is dangerously misinformed and irresponsible.As noted earlier in this commentary, viewers andmedia outlets (especially in the English-speaking world) are already interpreting much ofthe movie in a “historical” light. The Greco-Persian

wars evoke very intense emotions in northwest European culture, in some ways even more so thanin modern-day Greece and Italy. The movie 300has successfully capitalized on those very emotionsin the quest for profit.

It is at this juncture of the discussion, where wemust remind ourselves of one of Zoroaster’s chiefteachings: Zoroaster taught that good and evil resides in all members of humanity, regardless ofracial origin, ethnic membership or religious affiliation. Each person is given the choice betweengood and evil – it is up to us to choose betweenthem.

Having discussed the issues at length, it is hopedthat the reader will appreciate the multifaceted andorganic nature of human history. Nations, peoplesand cultures have had a symbiotic relationship withone another through trade, cultural exchanges andwar. It is these very processes that have shaped ouridentities and who we perceive ourselves to betoday. As the size of our world diminishes daily dueto the breathtaking leaps in technology and communications, it is all the more important tomake the endeavor to understand history, not interms of “east” versus “west,” but with the appreciationof human civilization being a collective.

Kaveh Farrokh

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Notions of Democracy and HumanRights/What Really Led to War

Abbott, J., Cyrus the Great (New York and London:

Harper & Brothers, 1902)

Boyce, M., Zoroastrianism: A shadowy but Powerful

Presence in the Judaeo-Christian World (London:

Dr. Williams’s Trust, 1987)

Curtis, J., Ancient Persia (London: British Museum,

2000)

Delebeque, E., & Bizos, M., Cyrope_die. Texte e_tabli

et traduit par Marcel Bizos (Paris: Les Belles Lettres,

1971–1978)

Farrokh, K., Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

(Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2007)

Frye, R. N., The Heritage of Persia

(London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962)

Frye, R. N., History of Ancient Iran

(Munich: C.H. Beck, 1975)

Moorey, P. R. S., Ancient Iran

(Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1975)

Oxtoby, W. G., Ancient Iran and Zoroastrianism in

Festschriften: An Index (Waterloo, Ontario: Council

on the Study of Religion, Executive Office,

Waterloo Lutheran University; Shiraz, Iran: Asia

Institute of Pahlavi University, 1973)

Spatari. N., Calabria, L'enigma Delle Arti Asittite: Nella

Calabria Ultramediterranea (Italy: MUSABA, 2003)

Wiesehofer, J., Ancient Persia: from 550 BC to 650 AD

(London and New York: IB Tauris, 1996)

The Greco-Persian Wars and the Battle of Salamis

Cartledge, P, The Spartans (Random House: 2004)

Cook, J. M., The Greeks in Ionia and the East

(London: Thames & Hudson, 1962)

Farrokh, K., Elite Sassanian Cavalry AD 224–642

(Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2005)

Farrokh, K., Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

(Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007)

Head, D., The Achaemenid Persian Army

(Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1992)

Holland, T., Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the

Battle for the West (Little Brown, 2005)

Khorasani, M. M., Arms and Armor from Iran:

The Bronze Age to end of the Qajar Period

(Legat Verlag, 2006)

Sekunda, N., The Persian Army 560–330 BC

(London: Osprey Publishing, 1992)

Wallinga, H. T., Xerxes' Greek Adventure: The Naval

Perspective (Leiden Brill Academic Publishers, 2005)

The Portrayal of Iranians and Greeks

Ewen, S. & Ewen, E., Typecasting: On the Arts and

Sciences of Human Inequality (New York: Seven

Stories Press, 2006)

Parenti, M., Make-Believe Media: The Politics

of Entertainmen (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992)

Shaheen, J., The TV Arab (Bowling Green, Ohio:

Bowling Green State University Popular Press,

1984)

McChesney, R. W., Corporate Media and the Threat to

Democracy (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997)

Kadivar, Darius, “Sword and Sandals: Films about Ancient

Persia,” http://www.iranian.com/Darius

Kadivar/2003/January/Bigger/index.html

Iranian Women

Brosius, M., Women in Ancient Persia: 559–333 BC

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998)

Davis-Kimball, J., Warrior Women: An Archaeologist's

Search for History's Hidden Heroines (Clayton,

Victoria: Warner Books, 2002)

Winchester, B. P. P., The heroines of ancient Persia: Stories

Retold from the Shahnama of Firdausi (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1930))