Thomas Harrison (2) (1969–)

Some chapters are pretty good, for instance the one on the Maurya, Kushan and Gupta empires in India (and it is great to see that these are included!). Others however are flimsy and seem hastily written. The chapter about the Parthian and Sasanian empires is written entirely from a western, that is, Roman perspective. All authors are men and only few of them actually work in the field of empire studies. There are no recurring questions to give the volume cohesion.

Several authors say that their respective empires are probably not empires by any "modern definition of empire" because they are not unified and centralized. But no definition of "empire" is ever given, not even in the introduction. They probably mean "a definition of modern empire"; they seem unware of the fact that virtually all definitions of premodern, non-western empires would emphasize their diversity, forms of indirect rule, and lack of unity and centralization. And most empires in world history ARE premodern and non-western.

The authors who were given the chapter on the Hellenistic period are so in awe of Alexander "the Great" that they forget to give sufficient attention to the three long-lasting successor polities, the Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Antigonid empires. The Caliphate/Umayyad Empire is conspicuously absent even from the chapter that deals with the Sasanians.… (mer)