What do you think?
Rate this book
Darius the Great; Volume IV
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1850
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 21, 2017
The narrative carried me along and held my interest.
Random responses:
I hadn't known that Darius was *not* a descendant of Cyrus.
The story of Darius' ascent to power includes the dastardly deeds of Cyrus' son, Cambyses.
I enjoyed learning about the Greek physician, Democedes.
It was unusual to read about the Battle of Marathon from the perspective of the Persians.
Abbott encapsulates the life of Darius
Darius performed no great exploit, and he accomplished no great object while he lived; and he did not even leave behind him any strong impressions of personal character. There is in his history, and in the position which he occupies in the minds of man, greatness without dignity, success without merit, vast and long-continued power without effects accomplished or objects gained,
and universal and perpetual renown without honor or applause.
Onward to Xerxes!
Random responses:
I hadn't known that Darius was *not* a descendant of Cyrus.
The story of Darius' ascent to power includes the dastardly deeds of Cyrus' son, Cambyses.
I enjoyed learning about the Greek physician, Democedes.
It was unusual to read about the Battle of Marathon from the perspective of the Persians.
Abbott encapsulates the life of Darius
Darius performed no great exploit, and he accomplished no great object while he lived; and he did not even leave behind him any strong impressions of personal character. There is in his history, and in the position which he occupies in the minds of man, greatness without dignity, success without merit, vast and long-continued power without effects accomplished or objects gained,
and universal and perpetual renown without honor or applause.
Onward to Xerxes!
Read
August 13, 2023هیچ ستاره ای بهش نمیدم کتاب اینقد مضخرف و جانب دار طرف یه پتک برداشته افتاده به جون ایرانیا و اینکه چرا باید ترجمه شه این چرتو پرتتتت
June 8, 2024
کتاب بایستی اصل بی طرفی را رعایت کند ولی افسوس
کتاب یه تنه فقط ایرانیان رو تمسخر کرده و ما را از رشک و حسادت،وحشی و بربر نشان داده
○●○●○●○●○●○●
پر از اشتباهات و غلط های تاریخی غیر قابل بخشش بود ❗
۱) اول از همه اینکه ایرانیان بربر نبودند و هیچ وقت برده داری نمی کردند برخلاف گزافه گویی های هرودوت
۲) نویسنده از همان آغاز کتاب که منابع ایرانی را دروغ و تبلیغات پنداشت و هرودوت دشمن ایران را یگانه منبع معتبر انگاشت !
۳)این کتاب از پادشاهی کمبوجيه به بعد فقط به گزافه گویی و افسانه سرایی و دروغ بافی پرداخته و از خشایارشاه چهره ای زشت آفریده
○●○●○●○●○●○●
بنا به گواهی خود هرودوت گزافه گو، یونانیان پیوسته مثل اعراب تازی با هم در جنگ بودند و ایرانیان می کوشیدند میان ایشان صلح برقرار کنند ! دقیقا کاری که داریوش اول انجام داد و پیمان صلح با یونان بست که تا زمان اسکندر این پیمان همچنان برقرار بود و مهم تر از همه اینکه خشایارشا به هیچ عنوان آتن و آکروپلیس را نسوزاند و معبد آکروپل و دلفی در جنگ های داخلی و پلوپنزی سوزانده و ویران گردید
⚠️○●○●○●○●○
وقتی هرودوت از آمار ۵/۵ میلیون سپاه ایران سخن می گوید واضح است که خشایارشا کل جمعیت ایران رو با خودش به میدان جنگ برده بوده :)
○●○●○●○●○●○
ترجمه کتاب فوق العاده بود ولی کتاب متاسفانه به تحقیر داریوش اول و کمبوجیه دوم پرداخته 😕
خیلی برام جالبه نویسنده این کتاب گفت که تاریخ کسانی را چون اسکندر مورد ستایش قرار می دهد بعلت کارهای بزرگی که برای بشریت کردند و کسانی چون داریوش فقط بعلت مقام بزرگ بودند و نه شخصیت!؟
بله کاملا واضحه کسی مثل اسکندر چونکه خون مردم بی گناه را ریخت و به ناموس ایرانی ها تعدی کرد و کتابخانه های پرسپولیس را سوزانید برای بشریت کارهای مفیدی کرد ولی کسی چون داریوش اول که پیمان صلح با یونان بست و سیاست حقوق بشر کورش کبیر را مسیر خود قرار داد آدم بدی بود!
نوسنده کتاب به هیچ عنوان اصل بی طرفی را رعایت نکرده و به شدت به تحقیر ایران و شاه های عادل هخامنشی پرداخته است
کتاب یه تنه فقط ایرانیان رو تمسخر کرده و ما را از رشک و حسادت،وحشی و بربر نشان داده
○●○●○●○●○●○●
پر از اشتباهات و غلط های تاریخی غیر قابل بخشش بود ❗
۱) اول از همه اینکه ایرانیان بربر نبودند و هیچ وقت برده داری نمی کردند برخلاف گزافه گویی های هرودوت
۲) نویسنده از همان آغاز کتاب که منابع ایرانی را دروغ و تبلیغات پنداشت و هرودوت دشمن ایران را یگانه منبع معتبر انگاشت !
۳)این کتاب از پادشاهی کمبوجيه به بعد فقط به گزافه گویی و افسانه سرایی و دروغ بافی پرداخته و از خشایارشاه چهره ای زشت آفریده
○●○●○●○●○●○●
بنا به گواهی خود هرودوت گزافه گو، یونانیان پیوسته مثل اعراب تازی با هم در جنگ بودند و ایرانیان می کوشیدند میان ایشان صلح برقرار کنند ! دقیقا کاری که داریوش اول انجام داد و پیمان صلح با یونان بست که تا زمان اسکندر این پیمان همچنان برقرار بود و مهم تر از همه اینکه خشایارشا به هیچ عنوان آتن و آکروپلیس را نسوزاند و معبد آکروپل و دلفی در جنگ های داخلی و پلوپنزی سوزانده و ویران گردید
⚠️○●○●○●○●○
وقتی هرودوت از آمار ۵/۵ میلیون سپاه ایران سخن می گوید واضح است که خشایارشا کل جمعیت ایران رو با خودش به میدان جنگ برده بوده :)
○●○●○●○●○●○
ترجمه کتاب فوق العاده بود ولی کتاب متاسفانه به تحقیر داریوش اول و کمبوجیه دوم پرداخته 😕
خیلی برام جالبه نویسنده این کتاب گفت که تاریخ کسانی را چون اسکندر مورد ستایش قرار می دهد بعلت کارهای بزرگی که برای بشریت کردند و کسانی چون داریوش فقط بعلت مقام بزرگ بودند و نه شخصیت!؟
بله کاملا واضحه کسی مثل اسکندر چونکه خون مردم بی گناه را ریخت و به ناموس ایرانی ها تعدی کرد و کتابخانه های پرسپولیس را سوزانید برای بشریت کارهای مفیدی کرد ولی کسی چون داریوش اول که پیمان صلح با یونان بست و سیاست حقوق بشر کورش کبیر را مسیر خود قرار داد آدم بدی بود!
نوسنده کتاب به هیچ عنوان اصل بی طرفی را رعایت نکرده و به شدت به تحقیر ایران و شاه های عادل هخامنشی پرداخته است
May 21, 2018
Fascinating story and told well enough to keep you turning the page. However not the best telling of history by contemporary standards. Worth the read, but just know that it reflects the time in which it was written.
December 9, 2013
Great book for light reading. I am thanks to him have downloaded the whole Makers of history on my Kindle.
January 17, 2026
terrible book in historical accuracy.
This book is highly problematic in terms of historical accuracy. Rather than serious history, it reads like a 19th-century moral story shaped by Greek-centric bias.
The portrayal of Cambyses II as a cruel and irrational tyrant is especially weak, relying almost entirely on Greek propaganda while ignoring Persian, Babylonian, and Egyptian evidence. Modern scholarship does not support this depiction. Cambyses is clearly antagonized to make Darius appear as a moral savior.
Overall, the book consistently glorifies the Greeks while presenting Persians as despotic and inferior, reflecting outdated Orientalist thinking rather than balanced history.
Not recommended for readers seeking an accurate understanding of the Achaemenid Empire.
This book is highly problematic in terms of historical accuracy. Rather than serious history, it reads like a 19th-century moral story shaped by Greek-centric bias.
The portrayal of Cambyses II as a cruel and irrational tyrant is especially weak, relying almost entirely on Greek propaganda while ignoring Persian, Babylonian, and Egyptian evidence. Modern scholarship does not support this depiction. Cambyses is clearly antagonized to make Darius appear as a moral savior.
Overall, the book consistently glorifies the Greeks while presenting Persians as despotic and inferior, reflecting outdated Orientalist thinking rather than balanced history.
Not recommended for readers seeking an accurate understanding of the Achaemenid Empire.
April 12, 2026
This is an informative read which as a fan of history I enjoyed. I knew nothing of Darius the Persian ruler and now I know a fair bit about him so it was worth the effort to read this short book by Jacob Abbott.
It jumped about a bit though and didn't flow as well as the previous biographies I've read by him but it was still an interesting read. It again highlights how brutal life was back then. I was surprised about the corruption and despotic acts when reading the Cleopatra book. It seems the further you go back in time the worse these acts and corruption become.
Facts that I found most interesting was how Darius was elected to the thrown and before that someone managed to con their way in to leading an empire for a short while.
It jumped about a bit though and didn't flow as well as the previous biographies I've read by him but it was still an interesting read. It again highlights how brutal life was back then. I was surprised about the corruption and despotic acts when reading the Cleopatra book. It seems the further you go back in time the worse these acts and corruption become.
Facts that I found most interesting was how Darius was elected to the thrown and before that someone managed to con their way in to leading an empire for a short while.
March 25, 2024
Darius I was a Persian King. He ruled from 522 to 486 BCE. During his reign, he encountered a series of revolts from all across the lands he absorbed into his kingdom. One of these revolts would eventually lead to the infamous Battle of Thermopylae, which the movie 300 is based off of. Darius I was the father of Xerxes I who would lead the drive to get revenge for his father against the revolting Greeks. This book was one I read for a paper I was writing in class, and it was full of useful information for that project. It was well written and was interesting to read, not at all a dry historical biography.
May 27, 2021
I am enjoying working my way through Jacob Abbott’s Makers of History series. Darius wasn’t a descendent of Cyrus, but through political dealings came to the throne after Cyrus’s terrible son fell on his sword. Darius wasn’t a great conqueror like many leaders of his day, but maybe that is what made him a great and stable monarch. He held Cyrus's enormous empire together, a real administrator. It is interesting to read history from the Persian point of view rather than from the Greek side. The battle of Marathon was discussed where Darius tried to invade Athens, but the Greek soldiers attacked first and won the battle despite being grossly out numbered by the persians. Darius died soon after.
June 28, 2011
I would have liked it had I read it. I just wastn't looking for a Persian ruler, I was looking for a Greek, or Roman.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews