Rome, Parthia, and the Politics of Peace: The Origins of War in the Ancient Middle East by Jason M. Schlude (review)

Reviewed by: Rome, Parthia, and the Politics of Peace: The Origins of War in the Ancient Middle East by Jason M. Schlude Peter Edwell Response to Everett L. Wheeler’s review of Jason M. Schlude, Rome, Parthia, and the Politics of Peace: The Origins of War in the Ancient Middle East (London and Routledge, 2020) (CJ 118.4). It is not my usual practice to engage with claims made in book reviews but the publication of a review by Everett Wheeler of J. Schlude, Rome, Parthia and the Politics of Peace (Routledge, 2020) in the Classical Journal in 2022 requires a response for a number of reasons. One could legitimately argue that the whole tone of Wheeler’s review is problematic with its inclusion of sarcastic statements designed to do little more than denigrate their target but most readers would agree that they reflect more on Wheeler than the book under review. An egregious claim in the review, however, must be refuted as it is not only insulting to Dr Schlude but has implications for my own reputation. Wheeler claims “Much of the work’s (Schlude’s) first half is recycled from published articles and a 2017 anthology (often touted) of dubious merit, whereas the second half relies on a revised 2005 Macquarie dissertation with its own problems.” The footnote in the review refers to the monograph I published in 2008, which was based on the PhD I completed at Macquarie University, Sydney in 2006; P.M. Edwell, Between Rome and Persia: The Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra and the coming of Rome. There is no elaboration of [End Page 116] what the problems are that Wheeler identifies in my book but it is clear even from a cursory investigation of Dr Schlude’s book that the second half of it does not “rely” on my book and there is no reason why it would. If Wheeler had read my book in any detail he would know that. Between Rome and Persia is principally a regional study focussed on Palmyra and the Middle Euphrates (with a detailed analysis of Dura Europos) during Rome’s rivalry with the later Parthian rulers and the early Sasanians. The extent to which my book was of benefit to Dr Schlude’s much broader study of the political function of Rome’s rivalry with the Parthian Empire is accurately reflected in the endnotes to Dr Schlude’s book. There is one reference to my book in the Introduction and no other references to it until chapter 7 (of an 8 chapter book) and the most detailed reference only relates to the location of the Roman legions on the Upper Euphrates from Vespasian to the early 3rd century (Chapter 7, endnote 8, p. 152; see also chapter 8, endnote 1, p.177). In the last three chapters of Dr Schlude’s book there are some references to a chapter I published in the 2017 volume edited by Dr Schlude (with Dr Benjamin Rubin, Arsacids, Romans and Local Elites: Cross-Cultural Interactions of the Parthian Empire) that similarly incensed Wheeler but these are not numerous. Wheeler’s claim regarding Dr Schlude’s reliance on my book is not only incorrect but also implies that Dr Schlude has not sufficiently undertaken his own independent research, which must be strongly refuted. Unfortunately, Everett Wheeler has form in writing reviews such as these. See, for example, the now infamous review by Wheeler of David Braund’s Georgia in Antiquity https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1995/1995.04.05/ and Braund’s entirely justified response https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1995/1995.09.28/. It is not at all clear why Everett Wheeler writes such reviews and what he seeks to achieve in writing them. While scholarly debate must be robust, judicious and critical it must also be accurate, balanced and constructive. Hyperbole, inaccuracy and denigration benefit no-one; an observation I would think is painfully obvious to us in the daily news cycle. [End Page 117] Peter Edwell Macquarie University, peter.edwell@mq.edu.au Copyright © 2023 Classical Association of the Middle West and South