Questioning the term ”chemical warfare” in reference to Ancient Iran


Recently reports were made with respect to the alleged use of “chemical warfare” by the Sassanian armies of Shapur I during his successful campaigns against Rome in the 3rd century AD.

Payvand News of Iran (February 4, 2009) has cited an interesting report questioning the validity of the term “chemical warfare” in reference to the siege of Dura Europus. The report cites Phd Candidate Reza Yeganehshakib (Depatment of History, University of California, Irvine) and history Professor Khodadad Rezakhani of UCLA who question the “slant” in recent reports regarding “chemical warfare“.

Yeganehshakib holds degrees in Chemical Engineering (BS) and Environmental Studies (MS). Simply put, Yeganehshakib commands a strong understanding of the scientific processes that may have taken place at Dura Europos. Yeganehshakib has observed in the aforementioned Payvand News report that :

The Roman soldiers that were found could have been killed because of the lack of oxygen due to the blockage of the mouth of the tunnel, or possibly because of the collapse of the earth and the blockage of the mouth of the tunnel behind them. The dimensions of the tunnel…must be precisely analyzed and compared to the material and texture of the soil and its mechanical properties to see if the Roman reinforcement and structures could resist the weight of the mass of the soil above it or not.

Roman and Persian miners would have needed some means of providing light in order to be able to see what they were doing. The sulphur crystal and bitumen, mentioned in the article, are among the chemicals that were commonly used in order to produce torch light at the time. The presence of these chemicals and burning them could surely produce hazardous gasses. Gasses like Carbon Monoxide (produced as a result of the lack of enough oxygen required for the complete combustion in the tunnel), sulphur oxides, and unburned Hydrocarbons are among the most lethal gasses produced by burning these chemicals to produce enough light. The accumulation of these gasses in either side of the tunnel was surely quite deadly. The accumulation of the harmful gasses could have been caused either by the physical blockage of the entrance or mouth of the tunnel or due to the air pressure difference between the inside of the tunnel and the outside air pressure particularly at the mouth of it. If the outside air pressure was higher than that of the inside, then the gases inside could not be released to the outside and would accumulate there. The elevation difference of the tunnel and its entrance is a crucial factor, as the air density and pressure in the higher altitudes is lower than that of lower altitude.

If the Persian tunnel, as shown at the first image, was built at a lower elevation and had an open entrance to enter the air, then a hole or any other open area could have unexpectedly connected the Roman and Persian tunnels together. the air and the harmful gases, either produced by those chemicals to produce light or intentionally to produce harmful gasses, would have suddenly rose up and gotten into the Roman tunnel due to the air pressure difference. Therefore almost all of the gasses that had lower densities than air would have rose up to the Roman tunnel. At the time if the Roman tunnel mouth was closed for any reason, even if the process of the gas transfer from Persian side to the Roman side was slowed, the gasses already existing in the Roman tunnel would have remained for awhile.

All the burning processes need enough oxygen, fuel, and temperature. The latter can be produced by the initial ignition that Sulphur Crystals might have cause; however, the gases produced as the result of combustion are proportionate to the amount of fuel and air. By finding evidence of the existence of the quantity and quality of the fuel (a very difficult task), we can determine the amount of the gas released by creating a mass-energy balance for the chemical reaction of this combustion to see if enough hazardous gases were produced in order to kill 21 soldiers (20 Romans and one Persian). We also need to see if there as enough oxygen or air to realize the combustion is another issue.

So, these scientific take on the news imply that although the intentional use of “chemical weapons” was possible, the case could also have been a simple case of accumulation of poisonous gasses as the result of the burning of the chemicals used for creating light in the tunnels. In the former case, one should celebrate that the Persians were indeed as “advanced” as the Romans in their knowledge of warfare tactics and technologies. If the latter, one would also wonder the wisdom of trampling the history of Iran/Persia in all other occasions only to give it credence when violence is involved.

Yeganehshakib and Rezakhani note of the possible political motives behind recent reports by stating:

Usually, when Iran/Persia gets mentioned, it is either in the form of nuclear “threat” currently providing fodder for news networks or in the shape of ghouls and monsters who get massacred in hundreds by a few brave and freedom loving Greeks, making puddles of blood in service of human rights and freedom. So, it was interesting to see that the only time the Persian history makes it to the main news is still in connection with violence, particularly “gruesome” tactics against the beloved, civilised, freedom loving Romans who just killed their enemies by boring them to death, apparently.

…the Sasanians had the definite upper hand in the war with the Romans. This is again interesting, since comments such as “the Sasanian Persians were as knowledgeable in siege warfare as the Romans” (quite common when there is talk of ancient history) somehow imply that the Romans were the Americans of the ancient world, the most civilised, knowledgeable, and technologically advanced of all ancient peoples to whose exalted positions all others needed to aspire, despite constant reminders from those such as the Chinese that this could not be farther from the truth.

The siege of Dura Europos is a field of study that will be examined for decades to come. Few serious scholars would suggest that the successes of Shapur I were due to “Chemical warfare”.  Shapur’s victories against his Roman opponents were primarily due the Savaran, the elite Sassanian cavalry. It was these who were to inflict upon Rome one of her most dramatic defeats in history.

The Controversy of the Achaemenid Tablets


The dangers to Iran’s ancient heritage are existent both inside and outside of Iran. A case of the latter can be seen with respect to the recent controversy on Achaemenid era artifacts in western museums today.

The most salient issue as reported in the History news Network is the case of the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning in the spring of 2006 that citizens who were injured in a 1997 bombing Israel have the right to seize 300 Achaemenid era clay tablets that have been loaned to the University of Chicago.


Achaemenid era tablet. A very large number of these tablets were discovered by the archaeologists of the University of Chicago during their excavations of Persepolis in 1933.

This is perhaps the first time in history where political grievances have been legally mobilized against archaeology and history. This sets a very dangerous legal precedent as it entitles any nationality or ethnic group with political grievances to appropriate historical and archaeological artifacts.

On May 23, 2007, Iranian officials reported that the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago has assured them that the confiscation of the Achaemenid tablets would come to an end.

The issue however has not been resolved and as noted by the Payvand news of Iran, the danger of the seizures of the tablets for political purposes remains real.

In response to these politicized actions, The Societas Iranologica Europea (SIE) has released a petition to put a halt to the confiscation and sale of thousands of items from Persepolis as well as Achaemenid treasury clay tablets (written in Elamite) that remain on loan to Chicago University’s Oriental Institute.


Jennifer Gregory, graduate student at the University of Chicago’s oriental Institute, examines the Elamite tablets (Payvand News).

History and archaeology have traditionally been held aloof from the turbulent and ever-changing landscape of contemporary politics. The case of the Achaemenid tablets is a clear contest between political grievances and academic integrity.

The Campaigns of Sassanian Emperor Shapur I

The Sassanians (226-651 AD) designated themselves as “…the Aryan realm/nation” or “Eiran-Shahr” as seen in Pahlavi script in lines 1-6 at the SKZ (Shapur Kaba Zartusht). Shapur (lit. Son of the King) I (r. 241-272 AD) assumed the Sassanian throne from his father Ardashir Babakan (r. 224-241 AD), who founded the dynasty.

Shapur had been present in the battles of his father from the early days of the rebellion in Persis to the campaigns of Alexander Severus. Shapur had proven himself to be a capable warrior and his exploits soon exceeded those of his father. His first military action as king was to capture the city of Hatra, whose formidable defenses had withstood the armies of Rome and Ardashir alike. The strategic fortress city of Nisibis was also captured by 241 AD (or perhaps earlier in Ardahsir’s time in 238 AD. Shapur’s tactic was to rapidly approach the city with the Savaran and to surround it. The obstinate defenders of Nisibis proved difficult to defeat, however these were finally subdued when a breach was created in the city’s otherwise impregnable walls. The fall of Nisibis allowed Shapur to thrust into Syria, leading to the capture of Antioch and Carrhae (Harran) (Zarrin’kub, 2002, p.193).

Gordian III attempts to defeat Shapur I

The young Emperor Gordian III (r. 238-244 AD) moved quickly to restore the Roman position in the Near East and to destroy Shapur. After some initial successes, Gordian crossed the Euphrates for his showdown with Shapur. There are two historical versions  as to what transpired next.

The first version as stated by numerous Greco-Roman sources such as Ammianus Ammianus Marcellinus (XXIII, 5, 17), Festus (Brevarium, 22, p.64, 2-7), Jordanes (Historia Romana, 282, p.36, 27-31) states that Gordian met Shapur in a final battle and defeated him but was then murdered by the Praetorian Prefect, Phillip the Arab after the engagement. This was the “official” version as generally taught in the west until recently when further archaeological research and translations into English revealed a different version of these events.

It is generally agreed that Gordian III, after some initial successes,  lost his life in battles against Shapur I.

The Oracula Sibyllina (XIII, 13-20) and Zosimus (III, 32.4) clearly state that Gordian lost the final battle and his life fighting Shapur. The latter (largely ignored) version is corroborated archaeologically by the rock reliefs at Bishapur in Iran. These show Gordian being trampled under Shapur’s stallion. Interestingly Cedrenus notes that “He [Gordian] died after falling from his horse…” (I, p.450-451, I, 11-12). Orthographic verification of Shapur’s victory is provided by the inscriptions of Shapur (Dodgeon & Lieu, 1991, p.35) which clearly state that Gordian was decisively defeated at Misiche (modern Anbar) north of Ctesiphon in 244 AD. The Shapur inscription at Nagsh-e-Rustam states that “…at Mesiche, a great frontal battle occurred. Gordian Caesar was killed and the Roman force destroyed” (See translation of SKZ (Shapur Kaba Zartusht) in Appendix 4, 1984).

Shapur I as he may have appeared during his campaigns against the Roman armies in the 3rd century AD. By the 6trh centruy AD (or earlier) the broadsword had been relegated to ceremonial duties.

Phillip the Arab

After the defeat of Gordian at Mesiche, Phillip the Arab (r. 244-249 AD) became emperor of Rome. Phillip’s first act was to immediately made peace with Shapur. Roman sources corroborate Phillip as having made “a most dishonorable peace” (see Zosimus, III, 32. 4). According to the SKZ inscriptions, Phillip paid 500,000 Dinarii (Shapur Kaba Zartusht, see Appendix 4, Frye, 1984) as ransom to assure the safe return of the remnants of Godian II’s defeated Roman army at Mesiche.  The Romans were also distraught that Phillip had conceded Armenia and Mesopotamia as belonging to Shapur (Zonaras XII, 19, p.583, 1-5). To add insult to injury, the Sassanians had re-named Mesiche as “Peroz-Shapur” (lit. victorious Shapur) (SKZ (Shapur Kaba Zartusht), see Greek lines 9-10).

Roman Emperor, Phillip the Arab who after making “a dishonorable peace” with Shapur I, attempted to reverse this by attacking Sassanian Iran when the Savaran (Sassanian elite cavalry) were engaged in battles to the north and east. When Shapur I returned he completely defeated Phillip and the Roman forces.

The humiliating treaty proved too bitter for the Romans to swallow. Phillip reneged on the terms of his treaty with Shaour and duly marched back into Armenia and Mesopotamia. Phillip timed his attack just as Shapur was in the midst of concluding his campaigns in Northern and northeastern Persia to obtain the allegiance of the remaining Medes, Khwarazmians, Kushans, Giloi, and Dailamites. It was during these campaigns that the city of NevShapur (modern Nishabur) was founded in Khurasan, northeast Iran.

The timing of his Phillip’s attack evidently caught the Sassanians by surprise (Zonaras XII, 19, p.583, 5-9) in 253 AD. It did not take long for the Sassanians to strike back. Having successfully concluded his campaigns to the north and northeast, Shapur returned with his army to the west, and was now accompanied by the tough northern Iranian Dailamite infantry as well as cavalry (Giloi, Khwarazmians, etc.).

Rome meets its match: Bishapur depiction of Shapur I (mounted on horse) clasping Emperor Valerian (standing to the left) and Phillip the Arab pleading for mercy (on his knee). Below the hooves of Shapur I’s steed is barely visible the trampled body of Gordian III.

The Shapur inscriptions report that

“…Caesar [Phillip] lied again and did wrong to Armenia. We [Shapur and his army] marched against the Roman Empire and annihilated an army of 60,000 men at Barbalissos” (See translation of SKZ (Shapur Kaba Zartusht) in Appendix 4, 1984).

This now tore a wide gap in the Roman position in Mesopotamia leading to the fall of (once again) Antioch to  “the arrow-shooting Persians” (Oracula Sibyllina XIII, 89-102) by c.256 AD. At this juncture Zosimus notes that

“…the Persians could have conquered the whole of Asia had they not been overjoyed at their excessive spoils…” (Zosimus, I, 27.2).

Most likely, Shapur’s strategy was to simply consolidate his empire’s position rather than attempt a vast territorial expansion at Roman expense.

The case of Dura Europos: “Gas warfare” or smoke inhalation in confined tunnels?

One of the areas to fall to Shapur during his campaigns along with Antioch was Dura Europos around 256 AD (exact dates are disputed). This was a site that changed hands between the Romans (later Romano-Byzantines) and the Partho-Sassanian empires of Iran several times. The site is of interest in that it shows a number of details pertaining to Parthian armored knights. There is also a depiction of a man in Iranian dress believed to be portrayal of Zoroaster.

The Sassanians were much better than their Parthian predecessors in siege works and soon proved to the equal of the Romans in siege-craft. The Sassanians used a wide variety of techniques in their siege warfare techniques, and even adopted certain techniques from the Romans. The array of Sassanian equipment included mangonels, siege towers, etc. Massed archery by infantry during sieges was a technique going back to the days of the Assyrians. One of the valuable finds at Dura Europos are the remains of the Sassanian soldier which provides valuable clues on Iranian helmets, mail and other infantry equipment at the time.

Remains of the Sassanian Soldier at Dura Europos (University of Leicester)

Reconstruction of a Roman helmet based on the sassanian designs (Peterson, 1992). After their defeats against Sassanian cavalry, the Romans adopted various facets of Sassanian technology.

One technique in which both the Romans and the Sassanian were highly proficient in was mining and counter-mining. Simply put, this would be the technique of trying to burrow into an enemy fortress by building mines. The besieged would then construct their own counter-mines to prevent enemy mines from encroaching into the fortress. Often, these mining and counter-mining operations entailed bitter hand to hand combat in narrow and confined spaces.

Sassanian mining and Roman anti-mining operations at Dura Europos as described by Professor James.

There is now new research regarding what may have occurred in one the Sassanian mines digging towards Dura Europos. Professor Simon James of the University of Leicester, who is one of the world’s leading expert and archaeologist of Dura Europos has presented findings that one of the tools used by the Sassanians was the burning of bitumen and sulphur crystals, resulting in the asphyxiation of a number of Roman troops in one of the mines.  Not surprisingly, reputable mainstream media sources reporting the James findings print dramatic headlines such as the BBC report’s “Ancient Persians gassed Romans

Professor Simon James does state that:

Use of such smoke generators in siege-mines is actually mentioned in classical texts, and it is clear from the archaeological evidence at Dura that the Sasanian Persians were as knowledgeable in siege warfare as the Romans; they surely knew of this grim tactic.

To BBC’s credit, the above statement was cited from the original University of Leicester report. Nevertheless the title of the report may lead to the nuanced impression that the Sassanians primarily relied on “chemical weapons” or “gas warfare” in their battles and that the Romans did not. The simple fact is that both the Roman and Iranian empires were cognizant of a variety of techniques (as noted by Professor James) including bitumen and sulphur crystals. The Romano-Byzantines for example used a deadly form of rudimentary “napalm” known “Greek fire:” in naval warfare.

Bitumen and sulphur crystals are deadly only in narrow and confined spaces with little or no ventilation egress – the more appropriate phenomenon that occurs in this case is a form of smoke inhalation, but this is not neceassarily “gas warfare” where manufactured chemicals are deployed against the enemy in open spaces. Bitumen and sulphur crystals indeed give off noxious fumes and smoke as James avers, but these are not “chemical weapons” in the modern sense of (human manfactured) Sarin, Tabun, Mustard or nerve gases which are used in open spaces as used by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988.

The siege of Dura Europos is a field of study that will be examined for decades to come. Few serious scholars would suggest that the successes of Shapur I were due to “Chemical warfare“.  Shapur’s victories against his Roman opponents were primarily due the Savaran, the elite Sassanian cavalry. It was these who were to inflict upon Rome one of her most dramatic defeats in history.

The Final showdown with Emperor Valerian

Valerian (r. 253-260 AD) ascended to the throne in 253 AD and soon organized a third Roman army to help restore Rome’s defeats against the Sassanians. The Romans wanted to destroy Shapur, the Sassanian army and the new Iranian empire.

Valerain soon cleared Antioch of Sassanian troops by c.256 AD, prompting Valerian to strike his own “victory” coins. This celebration proved premature as Valerian had thus far only confronted second-rate garisson troops. He had yet to face Shapur’s first-rate Savaran cavalry. Shapur, had in fact conserved his cavalry and main army. He then deployed to Carrhae (Harran) and Edessa. Valerian rashly deployed his mainly infantry army towards Edessa-Harran, a flat region ideal for cavalry operations. This was the same region where Crassus’ troops had been crusehd by the Parthian cavalry over 200 years before.

History was to indeed repeat itself: the Savaran decisively crushed the Romans (Festus, Brevarium, 23, p.64, 8-13) and captured 70,000 troops, including senators and the Roman Praefect in c.260 AD. The Shapur inscriptions also report a large range of European prisoners, including

Germany…Dacia [Modern Romania], Pannonia [Modern Hungary]…Spain…Thrace…Germania” (See translation of SKZ -Shapur Kaba Zartusht- in Appendix 4, 1984).

The blows that Shapur inflicted upon the Roman army were indeed catastrophic; up to one third of Rome’s professional army (including officers) numbering around 150,000 troops, had been simply eliminated (See calculations in Farrokh, 2005, p.45).

Emperor Valerian and Roman Senator surrender to Shapur I (on horse) escorted by Sassanian cavalry officers (Elite Sassanian Cavalry).

The greatest psychological blow was the capture of Emperor Valerian and his ceremonial chariot as commemorated in the Shapur inscriptions (SKZ -Shapur Kaba Zartusht- Greek lines 19-37) as well as the sites of Naghsh-e-Rustam and Bishapur.  Never in the history of Rome had a Roman Emperor been captured alive. According to Ferril:

Valerian’s defeat and capture number among the most humiliating military losses in Roman history” (Ferrill, 1988, p.38).

Valerian’s chariot captured by Sassanian troops as depicted at Bishapur.

Roman prisoners included a large number of engineers who were soon put to work building dams and bridges in modern Khuzistan, some of which, like the dam-bridge of Shushtar, have remains which have lasted to this day, a testament to the durability of Roman engineering skills.

Remains of the bridge at Shushtar build by Roman prisoners of war.

The mosaic works of the Roman craftsmen at Bishapur depicting Sassanian noblewomen and noblemen still stand, with near-intact examples present in the Louvre Museum in Paris.

An Iranian noblewoman as depicted by Roman craftsmen captured by Shapur.

Western sources report of Valerian meeting a cruel and tragic end at Persian hands. Roman accounts report him being used as a footstool for Shapur when mounting his horse. After his death Valerian’s body is said to have been stuffed and placed inside a Zoroastrian temple.

Valerian, the only Roman emperor captured alive in history.

Iranian historical accounts however, dispute Roman and modern western accounts of Valerian’s fate. The Shahnama epic cites Valerian as a man of good character who after his defeat and capture, was treated honorably by Shapur.

The Sassanian knights (the Savaran) soon acquired a fearsome reputation among the Romans. As noted by Libianus’ reference to the Savaran:

Romans…prefer to suffer any fate rather than look a Persian in the face

Further Readings

Banchich, T., & Lane, U. (2009). The History of Zonaras: From Alexander Severus to the Death of Theodosius the Great. London & New York: Routledge.

Bekker, I. (1839). Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae Ope. Bonn: Impensis Ed. Webberi.

Dodgeon, M.H. & Lieu, S.M.C. (1991). The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226-363). London & New York: Routledge.

Eadie, J.W. (1967). The Breviarium of Festus. London: Althone Press.

Farrokh, K. (2005). Elite Sassanian Cavalry. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Farrokh, K. (2008). Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War.  Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Ferrill, A. (1988). The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation. London: Thames & Hudson.

Foerster, R. (1909-1927). Libianus. Leipzig: Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.

Frye, R.N. (1984). The History of Ancient Iran. Munich, Germany: C.H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhanndlung.

Mommsen, T. (1882). Jordanes: Historia Romana. Berlin: MGH.

Peterson, D. (1992). The Roman Legions recreated in Colour Photographs. London: Windrow & Greene Ltd.

Reitemeier. J.F. (1837). Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Zosimus. Bonn: Impensis Ed. Webberi.

Rolfe, J.C. (1935-1939). Ammianus Marcellinus (Three Voluimes). London: W. Heinemann.

Thompson, G. (1979). Die Oracula Sibyllina. New York: Arno Press.

Zarrin’kub, A. h. (2002). Ruzgaran:tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi. Tehran: Sukhan.

Vandalism against Persepolis


There have been a number of deliberate attacks of vandalism directed Iran’s heritage and pre-Islamic sites. One of these was directed against the Perspolis Palace in late December 2006.

Destruction of Achaemenid relief by anti-Cyrus vandals at Persepolis, December 6, 2006
(Report on December 23, 2006 by Maryam Tabeshian of CHN; and reported by Payvand news of iran)

The Cultural Heritage News Agency of Iran also reported that according to official reports, a “film crew” had been responsible for detaching one of the heads of the Achaemenean guard reliefs at Persepolis on December, 21, 2006.

There seems to be no proper system in place to protect Iran’s archaeological sites. A private photograph sent from Iran on January 16 2009, shows what appears to be the base of a column from one of Iran’s heritage sites being used as a short stool for shoes in the entrance-way of a prayer hall or gathering place.

A piece of Iran’s ancient heritage being used as entrance furniture in a public place. The item may possibly be from Persepolis however closer examination and measurements are needed for verification.

Review of Kaveh Farrokh book by Terry Graham


Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War as reviewed by Dr. Terry Graham, the Literary Editor of the journal, Sufi: A Journal of Sufism:

It is rare to have a history of arms and warfare be so intelligently interwoven with the issues of social development. The context of Dr. Farrokh’s study of Iranian armament from the ancient days of the Persian empire to the Islamic conquest is richly developed, so that this book serves not only as a handbook for military historians but also as a vivid history accessible to the average reader, who may take delight in the workings of Iranian society at every stage as it is played out over a period of more than a millenium.

One advantage of taking ancient history from the military perspective is that armament, armor and weaponry are amongst the most visible pieces of evidence from areas which are less well-covered by written records. Then again, where narratives and histories exist, they tend to focus on military campaigns with their victories and defeats. Using this more substantial evidence as his point of departure, the author goes into the cultural, political, social and economic aspects, of which he gives a thorough-going account in its own right.

With the book lavishly illustrated with color photographs, the reader has a truly Persian banquet of delights on which to feast. Not just the tools of war, but also the objects of art and high culture, for which the Persians set the highest standard during this era, much emulated by the Greeks, the Romans, the Indians and the Chinese – all the bearers of the great civilizations on the historical threshold of our times.


Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War“,  won the “Best History Book of 2008 Award” in the London WAALM award ceremonies on October 31st 2008 (see collage of 2008 WAALM winnders that include Professors John Curtis and Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis of the British Museum, Professor Richard Davis, etc). The book was also nominted as being among the top three History books of 2008 by the Independent Book Publishers Association of the United States. There have been citaitons of the book by the BBCthe Kayhan Newspaper of London and

The foreword of “Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War” written by Harvard University Professor Emeritus Richard Nelson Frye of Harvard University, the world’s leading authority in Iranian Studies (especially with respect to the Achaemenid, Parthian, Seleucid and Sassanian domains). Frye whose publications span nearly five decades, was honoured as the world’s leading authority of Iranian Studies by leading Iranologists such as Dr. David Stronach, Dr. Farhang Mehr, Dr. Jalal Matini (editor of Iranshenasi journal),  and Dr. Ehsan Yarshater (Editor of Encyclopedia Iranica). The event was hosted by the Persian American Society on March 1, 2008.

The book has also been examined and favorably reviewed by other leading authorities in the fields of Classical Studies pertaining to Iranica including Geoffrey Greatrex (University of Ottawa), Patrick Hunt (Stanford University), and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones (University of Edinburgh).

The Voice of America interviewed Kaveh Farrokh live on December 20, 2008 regarding his book: 

  1. Part I (
  2. Part II (