The Scythian Empire
Good Fit
- Readers wanting to explore the impact of nomadic steppe empires (Scythians, Huns, Turkic peoples) on world history
- Readers interested in a critical re-reading of Herodotus and other classical sources
- Readers of Christopher Beckwith's earlier "Empires of the Silk Road" looking for a follow-up
- Readers comfortable with dense academic apparatus (footnotes, archaeological sources)
Not a Fit
- Readers looking for light, narrative-style popular history — this is written in dense academic prose with dozens of footnotes per page
- Readers unwilling to treat Beckwith's more controversial theses (e.g., that the Medes were "creolized Scythians") as settled scholarly consensus — this remains actively debated in academia
- Readers who want to skip past the preface/methodology sections straight into "the story"
Beckwith lays out his central thesis in the Introduction: in the late 9th century BCE, Central Eurasian nomads developed mounted archery, and within a century built a vast empire, but a traditional bias against pastoral peoples has kept historians from crediting their contributions to world civilization beyond the bow and arrow.
Although Herodotus attributes many revolutionary changes in the Ancient Near East to the first Median king, Cyaxares, Beckwith argues these changes were actually brought by the Scythians — this chapter examines just the first of seven such innovations: weaponry.
The core evidence is archaeological: the Arzhan kurgans in Tuva (9th–7th centuries BCE) show the short, reflex-curved "Cimmerian bow" and Scythian-type three-winged bronze arrowheads in use from the 9th century BCE onward — these weapons were more effective than a long bow for shooting backward from horseback (the "Parthian shot").
Herodotus records that the Scythians taught Median children archery while ruling Media — Beckwith reads this as evidence for his thesis that the Medes were in fact "creolized Scythians" (Scytho-Medes), since the same weapons (the akinakes short sword, the sagaris battle-axe) appear equally in depictions of both peoples.
The chapter goes further still, arguing that even the Persians were partly "creolized" under Cyrus the Great — a thesis to be substantiated with linguistic evidence in the book's Chapters 4 and 5.
- Dense academic prose — nearly every sentence carries a footnote, with Greek/Persian sources quoted in the original
- A methodology that directly links archaeological evidence (kurgan excavations) to textual evidence (Herodotus)
- A revisionist tone that openly challenges existing scholarly consensus (that the Medes were independent innovators)
- Illustrated with images (vases, reliefs) that support weapon typology with visual evidence
The same author's foundational earlier book on nomadic Central Eurasian empires
A similar academic work examining nomadic steppe peoples through archaeology and linguistics
A similarly large-scale, comparative-civilizational approach to history
According to the table of contents, the book moves from the Central Eurasian steppe to Media, the Scytho-Median and Persian empires, and on to the Scythian empire in Chao and the first Chinese empire. It closes with two appendices, on Zoroaster and monotheism and on Scythian dress and weapons.
In the Epilogue Beckwith presents four philosophers as Scythians: Anacharsis, half-Scythian, who taught in Greece; Zoroaster, whose native language was Scythian; Gautama Shakyamuni, the Buddha, «the Scythian sage» who taught in northern India; and Laozi, whose name is Scythian and who taught in early China. In the author's view, Anacharsis must have been the first in Greece to raise the «problem of the criterion».
The boldest claim concerns Laozi. Beckwith argues that the name «Laozi» was in fact used for an otherwise unknown person called *Gudama (Gautama). Knowledge of the Buddha and his teaching could only have reached China orally, through this person, who wrote the original early core of the Taoist classic, the Tao te ching. The author maintains that the book's non-political, verse sections come from a single hand, while the political sections were added later.
If you see a problem, write to us. Publisher, author, rights holder, or just a reader — it doesn't matter. If there's something problematic about copyright in this review, if the review's author has broken the site's rules, or if you simply have a suggestion or complaint, hey@kitabdanevar.com. We'd rather resolve this between ourselves than go to court: we review requests within 48 hours and, if needed, correct or fully remove the review.
