![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Iranian/median Iranian/Achaemenid Empire? Is this accurate? would someone write the Italian Roman empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.131.249 ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this very interesting at first: "Persia/Iran has never practiced slavery in its thousands of years of history, and was founded on respect and equality for all races and religions as Cyrus the Great's human rights declaration" But then I remembered that Herodotus wrote in 154. (Volume One):
"Hearing this on his way, Cyrus said to Crœsus as follows: "Crœsus, what end shall I find of these things which are coming to pass? The Lydians will not cease as it seems, from giving trouble to me and from having it themselves. I doubt me if it were not best[157] to sell them all as slaves; " Also the sentence I've quoted from the article sounds a little suspicious to me. Someone should definetly look into this. From what I've read it sounds like the ancient Persians did not take slaves as often as say the hellenes did, but that they have at times done so. Did any people that conquered lands in the middle east or mediterranean not take slaves?
ancient persia is quiet different from islamic period iran was occapied by arabs and their culture was
quiet different furthermore as any body knows herodot was from the defeated nation and any one khows that grees where imaginative and creative in making stories and myths its in some ways good but it makes them unreliable as historians! so why europians insist on using their stories as facts is weierd! nowadays homer stories is not used as an evidence in researches about ancient greeks religion. in Cyrus Cylinder the abolishment of slavery in ancient persia is proved.
grI haven't changed anything in the article but somebody probably should.
I took the lion image off. It suspiciously seems to be the same (digitally inverted) lion at the NY Metropolitan, which DOES NOT belong to Iran:
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=3&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=0&item=31%2E13%2E2
Furthermore, the style of the lion does not reflect the Achaemenid Artistic style. They (the Achaemenids) were more refined.
In place of it, I'll put another picture.-- Zereshk 02:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Amir85): Mr Zereshk ,as you know there is an element in every article that makes it more appealing to read and it is the element of beauty.So stop reverting my work because of wiki-format , as if see other Wikipedia articles they sometimes use this type of photo arrangement for the sake of beauty or whatever.And about copyright violations , all the photos are fair copyrights with the permission of its source as long as I mention their site which I had done in SEE ALSO.
Please change the title of this article to the Achaemnid Dynasty. Achaemnid were a dynasty who ruled the Persian Empire, not a Empire! Please correct this immediately, both in the title and related links.
I removed this text from the article because it's weirdly written and probably too NPOV:
This is a confirmation that the Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could be considered superior to the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly. The Human Rights Manifesto looks very interesting in its kind regarding the expressions and composition, but the Charter of Freedom issued twenty three centuries before that by the Iranian monarch sounds more spiritual.
Lethe | Talk 12:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
-- Codex Sinaiticus 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
In the beginning of the page I linked Old Persian. I also want to ask if there is a good reason why Avestan is there. I can see that the Avestan prefix hu- (good) might be related here, and ka (some one) and Avestan mana (mind) which is a cognate of the Skt. might work out. But Avestan was never the language of any dynasty. It was never even written down until the Sasanian dynasty. It was a liturgical language, and would have been foreign to someone from Western Iran anyway. Also, why is there a discrepancy between Hakamanishiya and Haxāmaniš? I'm not talking about the suffix -iya, but let's choose one transliteration system or another, shall we? The latter I feel to be more desirable as this is how you see the cuneïform transliterated. The caron over the 's' is optional. The Farsi should be hakhāmanshi or -ī. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Martinmuse 11:48, 23 January 2006 (PST): It seems that Avestan is relevant to the Achaemenid dynasty. They professed to be devout followers of Ahuramazda and Avestan is associated with Zarathushtrian scripture. I agree it would not be a conversational language, but would it be foreign to Western Iran at a time when the Achaemenids' influence extended so far to the east?
It's obviously relevant, just not the main spoken language. Sure, wherever Zoroastrianism was, Avestan would be there also, of course. I cannot recall, but I was probably talking about something specific at the time. Also, why is the current link in the table Persian? Is it possible to be a little more specific? We're not exactly talking modern Farsi here. Khirad 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The following I find amusing because it sounds exactly like the modern Indian stereotype of the Parsis. Besides amusing me though, I'm wondering what this adds to the article:
If Zoroastrianism is to be reduced to a few insubstantial stereotypes, than tolerance and industriousness would seem more relevant contributions to posterity. I think this sentence would be improved if the people who noted this were mentioned (i.e. ...were noted by the Greeks...). Otherwise I don't see this as a NPOV statement. Plus it suggests that Zoroastrianism was the state religion. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
In Farsi, does the ch in Achaemenid sound like \kh\, \sh\, or \k\?
--John on 27th of October 420
As I have heard this pronounced multiple ways by professors, an uploaded sound file pronunciation of this word would be a great asset to this article. --Robert Jan. 11th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.0.26 ( talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A user has pointed out by e-mail:
I have been researching several sources preparing for some church work, and find in THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1976 edition, Volume 15 (P), page 262c, that before Darius I, CYRUS THE GREAT of the Persian Empire (quote) CALLED THIS THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE AFTER HIS ANCESTOR, ACHAEMENES (end quote). Article by Richard Nelson Frye.
Which is correct? L.H. Olsen ...
Kûruš \ xšâyathiya \ vazraka \ Kabûjiya hyâ \ xšâyathiyahyâ \ puça \ Haxâmanišiya \ thâtiy \ yathâ [...] [... ...] akutâ [... ]
Cyrus the great king, son of Cambyses the king, an Achaemenid, says: When [...] made [...]
Current trend is to consider the Behistun Inscription as covering up for a côup d'état, that is that the magus Gaumata really was Bardiya (= Smerdis in Herodotian Greek), the surviving son of Cyrus the Great. It's just the trend, and we do live in times where conspiracies are seen everywhere, so it may be false, but just for the sake of completeness....
-- FreezBee 13:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The previous version had "Achaemenid rulers of Persia ruled over territories ... much of what is now India". I do not think this is correct, especially with respect to central, east and south India. I have accordingly removed India from the list, please cite sources if it is put back. Jayanta Sen 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In almost every other large empire article page there is a stat regarding the size of the empire. I think it was important to add to the lead/intro at the top that Achaemenid Persia encompassed roughly 7.5 million squared km's and was as a result the largest empire of classical antiquity, so I included it. The stat is present in another Wiki page comparing thr historical sizes of the largest empires. -- Arsenous Commodore 05:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No reference is given for the following info in the text. I have never heard of these and I think proper citations are needed before we can accept them as facts (the numbered items are taken from the current text):
1. Xerxes I was followed by Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC), who moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon.
What is the basis of this statement? First, someone has to prove that Persepolis has ever been the capital of the Achaemenid dynasty to begin with. Since no documents about political affairs have been found at Persepolis so far and also the palaces show no sign of continous occupation, it is doubtful that Persepolis has ever been a 'capital'. What makes the writer think that the capital had been moved to Babylon is unclear and unstated.
2. Under Artaxerxes I, Zoroastrianism became the de-facto religion of state, and for this Artaxerxes I is today also known as the Constantine of that faith.
Has the writer found a new inscription by Artaxerses I mentioning Zoroaster or a new contemporary Greek source mentioning that religion? There is no reference in Achaemenid documents to Zoroaster or his religion or his holy book Avesta. The most we can say is that they worshiped Ahura Mazda at least since Darius I, but that is way different with saying they were Zoroastrians. I know of no evidence of a religious change around the time of Artaxerses I and would love to learn abotu such change.
3. Artaxerxes I died in Susa, and his body was brought to Persepolis for interment in the tomb of his forebearers.
The tomb of Artaxerses I is NOT in Persepolis but in Naqsh-e Rustam, 30 km to the north of Persepolis. The writer has confused Artaxerses I with Artaxerses II here. There is also no such thing as 'the tomb of his forebearers'; each Achaemenid king had his own tomb and Artaxerse I was no exception.
4. Darius II was then in Babylon, where he rallied support for himself. He marched eastwards, disposed and put to death the assassin and was crowned in his stead.
Before he had killed the so-called assasin, the prince couldn't have been called by his throne name of "Darius II", but under his personal name of Ochus.
5. Artaxerxes moved the capital back to Persepolis, which he greatly extended.
There is absolutely no evidence of ANY construction in Persepolis during the reign of Artaxerses II, who is believed to have spent most of his time in Susa. Again Artaxerses III might have been meant here.~~mirfakhr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirfakhr ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Under the "government section we have the statement "enlightened despots" describing the political mindset of this BCE empire. One click on the hyperlink brings me to a page describing these "enlightened despots" as merry fellows influenced by the period of "enlightenment" in the 18 and 19th century CE. Anachronism? Heck yeah! Can some expertly history buff please replace this term with a proper one please? Thanks! --non-member 20:12, 14 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
--another non-member —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.104.192.58 ( talk) 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
"His immediate successors were less successful. Cyrus' son Cambyses II conquered Egypt, but died in July 522 BC as the result of either accident or suicide, during a revolt led by a sacerdotal clan that had lost its power following Cyrus' conquest of Media. These priests, whom Herodotus called Magi, usurped the throne for one of their own, Gaumata, who then pretended to be Cambyses II's younger brother Smerdis (Pers. Bardiya), who had been assassinated some three years earlier. Owing to the despotic rule of Cambyses and his long absence in Egypt, "the whole people, Perses, Medes and all the other nations," acknowledged the usurper, especially as he granted a remission of taxes for three years (Herodotus iii. 68).
It is important to note that the claim that Gaumata had impersonated Smerdis, is derived from Darius. Historians are divided over the possibility that the story of the impostor was invented by Darius as justification for his coup [1]. Darius made a similar claim when he later captured Babylon, announcing that the Babylonian king was not, in fact, Nebuchadnezzar III, but an impostor named Nidintu-bel. [2]
According to the Behistun Inscription, pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months before being overthrown in 522 BC"
note that is says Cambyses died in july 522 bc, and then they say pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months, yet the year is still 522 BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.156.145 ( talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The text says that Ataxerxes I moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon. I'm just wondering why Babylon isn't listed as one of the capitals in the info box at the top of the article? Thanks. Bjoleniacz ( talk) 05:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
What did the Achaemenid Persians call their country? Because isn't it true that Persians only started to refer to their country as "Iran" until (maybe) the Sassanid dynasty. So what was the country called under the Achaemenids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 ( talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Are "Anšān" and "Anshan" the same? The text needs to make it clear one way or the other, and be consistent. Randall Bart Talk 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
as pointed out in my edit summary there is no need for the second map, it is merely a duplication of the one in the infobox... both show the greatest extent of the ae. @Xashaiar: you can explain the difference between the two here if you like, why (or how) one shows an empire and the other a country is beyond me. -- !linus ( talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1.i did notice the different caption yes. i also note how you kept pushing your point by reverting uirauna's edits regarding that caption.
2. uirauna never deleted the image (thus far)
3. i deleted the image because:
so, by removing the second map not only is the article kept clean, it also removes the cause of a disruptive edit war.
4.simply reverting back to your last edit and ignoring my question above isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. -- !linus ( talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
yes, they are two different maps... so what? that doesn't change the fact that they show the same thing, namely the greatest extent of the ae. the fact that you keep changing the caption of the second map so that it says iran in 500 bce doesn't mean it depicts anything other than the first map... if you really think that what the maps are named (rather than what they show) is of importance, have a look at both file names and you will note they are the same. -- !linus ( talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
fyi: uirauna corrected the map's caption, you keep reverting it to a (at best) less accurate caption. and that's the last i have to say here as you still haven't given any good reason why the second map should stay. -- !linus ( talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There are two maps of Persian Achaemenid empire in the article. Two users ( User:Uirauna and User:L!nus) try to remove this ( 1 and 2) reference. Why? The two maps are different. One is historical and one is computer made and therefore both are necessary. This can not go on like this. The article has no size problem, so what is the point? According to what wikipedia rule you are removing this? -- Xashaiar ( talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, to solve the two maps issue I create a new map derived from a russian one. This is the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_En.svg I suggest we replace both of them with the new one. What do you think? Uirauna ( talk) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i had a look at maps of the ae a few days ago, i thought the russian one was the best, except that it wouldn't have been of much use in an english article... so yeah, your new english map deffo would be a good idea.
i think the one that is currently in the infobox is a tad too much outdated (its from an atlas from the early 20th century), the other one in the article is a tad too much of an anachronism (with the background of modern borders), the one you linked on my talk page earlier today is a tad too much inaccurate (i mean... what's going on with the north-eastern boundary?) which leaves the one you made... and i don't see anything wrong with that one
as an aside: i wouldn't say there's an issue really, still haven't seen a real explanation on the claimed difference between the two maps -- !linus ( talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
xashaiar, i can perfectly understand your desire to have the article illustrated. however, duplicate images do not serve any purpose ... it is just clutter.
this goes for the maps (see above) and the image of cyrus's tomb. about the latter: you say it obviously belongs with the article... well no one has said it doesn't, it is simply that it already is in the article (i.e. in the gallery section). secondly, the tomb in question is not referred to in the article, so it sort of floats around there without any real reason. and thirdly, the image interferes with the text (i.e. it covers part of the text). incidentally i remedied that earlier on, but you reverted that edit.
and as i said above: simply reverting things back isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. -- !linus ( talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
@xashaiar: i don't see how an image of a tomb would be preferable to an image of the man, but you make a good point... so i suggest you find a good image of cyrus (if you do not find it here on the english wp or at the commons, i suggest you upload one) and replace the tomb image with that and add the tomb to the gallery.
as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text
as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text
@both of you: it seems you get on each other nerves a tad too much (and not only here)... so take a deep breath, take some distance and start afresh... keep in mind that the basic underlying principal is that edits should improve an article, edit warring and quibbling/throwing insults at each other is counterproductive. -- !linus ( talk) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged this article, do not remove the tags until there is a consensus on the topics being discussed. Thank you. Uirauna ( talk) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This recent addition:
(...which is followed by a reference to a book by Schmitt) has a few issues - I somehow doubt that this last bit is true - if they had slavery or conquered by violence it's certainly false, and even any kind of class system makes it doubtful.
I changed it to the following - still bad, I expect, but less blatantly:
-- Chriswaterguy talk 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
comment:
secondly (as i said before) do not resort to reverting so quickly. try to improve a previous edit so that everyone can agree with the content instead of simply undoing it. especially so when a previous editor started a topic on a talk page...
the success and endurance of the empire founded by cyrus the great lay in its successful model for centralised administration and government: while the achaemenids were absolutists they nevertheless allowed a certain amount of regional autonomy in the form of the satrapy system. ...
or something similar -- !linus ( talk) 09:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I replaced that image with this one because this one looks less text-booky, and is far more detailed. Why is the one you just placed better? -- LightSpectra ( talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
First paragraph, where we talk about the largest extent of the empire, does anyone know where the 10.7 Mil. km2 is coming from? I know British Musuem: Forgotten World, http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/forgottenempire/persia/people.html states 7.5 Mil. Km2, and this 2004 paper http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/Latitude.pdf provides a lesser figure of 5.5 Mil. Km2. Any insights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok why are the major maps in this article not in English!? This cannot be in an English wikipedia, no matter how nice they look, we need an english map at the top. Im leaving the other one in the middle of the article, but it is still unnecessary because the article already has various maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierfv1212 ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I know some people here have a problem with this specific article having more than 1 map! I'm in favor of having more maps no matter what the empire in question is. Anyways, I wanted to know what users think of a map showing AE superimposed onto modern day states/countries? This is not something new, I see many articles about empires/dynasties have such a map. Something like this perhaps? -- LogiPhi ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
First & Second map -
Artaxerxes II late period.
Third map -
Darius the Great late period.
Fourth map -
Cyrus the Great period.
Fifth map -
Darius the Great early period (he later conqured parts of Central Asia and Thrace).
The most relevant is third map, because we talk of Persia's greatest extend.
Note few important things - Persian Empire held 10.7 million km2, but not in the same period of time:
- Cyrus the Great conqured Asian territories, about 5.5-6.5 million km2.
- Cambyses II. conqured much of North Eastern Africa, but he later lost some parts in Libya and Sudan.
- Darius the Great reconquered Central Asian satrapies after 522 BC revolt, as well as northern Balkans. In his time, empire held about 9-10 million km2
- Xerxes I. reconquered main part of Egypt after his father's death, and conqured largest parts of European Greece under period of two years.--
Orijentolog (
talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Persian Empire is the much more common name, and therefore the one which should be used. Thoughts? Rd232 talk 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
um, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that " Persian Empire" first and foremost refers to the Achaemenid period. Yes, the term has also been extended to include the Sassanid period, which is why we have Persian Empire (disambiguation), but that clearly is a marginal point. The Sassanid dynasty, when referred to as "Persian" is typically referred to as "Second Persian Empire", "Later Persian Empire", "Restored Persian Empire" or similar except for cases where the context is clear.
Similarly, "Achaemenid Empire" is only used when disambiguation is necessary. If the context is clear, the common term for this entity is "Persian Empire". -- dab (𒁳) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any advantage in moving this page to Persian Empire. But redirecting "Persian Empire" to this page (and linking to the disambiguation page) is fine. Alefbe ( talk) 03:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
re [6], for "former states" of antiquity, we do not need to give an endonym if none is attested. Hakhamaneshiyan may be the Old Persian for "Achaemenid", but the Achaemenid empire was probably something like Airyanem Vaejah. Either way (cite your reference), it is a complete anachronism to spell whatever endonym they may have had in the Arabic alphabet. -- dab (𒁳) 11:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I note it isn't Old Persian at all, it's just the Modern Persian term. That's about as reasonable as claiming that the endonym of the Anglo-Saxons was Anglo-Saxons. -- dab (𒁳) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
you are right, Haxāmanišiyava is the OP term. I guess the -iyān ending can still be put down to MP. We can give Haxāmanišiya- as the "native name" of the dynasty, if you like. I stand by my point that it isn't very useful to give "reconstructed self designations" in the infobox, these things can be explained in the article body. -- dab (𒁳) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In the Penguin edition of Herodotus, the editor points out that this "debate" is in fact based on thoroughly Greek concepts and rhetoric, and so could never have taken place in the form reported by Herodotus... AnonMoos ( talk) 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: This is a continuation of a long-running debate over how the issue of slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire should be treated. It has been shortened to reflect the current status of the debate because it had become far too long and unwieldy. The two principle debaters are going to present their own versions on this issue.
Please note, there is an open RfC at Talk:Persian Empire. 76.66.197.30 ( talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the recent edits that have occurred on this article, it should be brought to thought about the usage of units of time. Why don't we use BCE and CE, why do we use BC and AD instead? The article has nothing to do with Christianity, and I believe the article's units of time should be changed from BC, AD to BCE, CE.
Such a change would be very unwise. If we replace the BC's with BCE's in the 'Infobox Former Country' the categories will not work any more. Try to replace the BC's with BCE's and you will end up with Category:559 BCE establishments and Category:330 BCE disestablishments (see how "red" they are?). The 'History of Greater Iran' box uses BC/AD too.
Please take also a look at Cyrus the Great, Greco-Persian Wars, Darius I of Persia, Darius III of Persia, Achaemenes, Behistun Inscription, Xerxes I of Persia, etc. Consistency speaks for itself.
The statement that "The article has nothing to do with Christianity" is a red herring. A lot of 'articles about history' have nothing to do with Christianity, but that doesn't mean that because of it they should/are forced to use BCE/CE.
This article has used BC right from the start see the creation of the article. However if you truly want to reward this kind of behaviour [8] [9] [10] [11] be my guest. Flamarande ( talk) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
@Flamarande: Your first argument is quite irrelevant, because the discussion is about the usage in text, not changing categories. About your second argument, I agree that it's not a good idea to change BCE or BC just for changing it, however, you cannot use this argument to justify your preference, because you (with support of Pmanderson) have previously edit-warred just to replace BCE/CE with BC/AD in Parthian Empire. Alefbe ( talk) 01:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Right. Isn't 7 days a sufficient time to wait? And please... let's not cry over what has been done. I see sufficient consensus to close it anyway... Pmlineditor ∞ 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me reply with the following: You request a poll, and get three votes in favour (or was it two? I think it was two, and then Dejvid cast the "decisive vote" yesterday) and one against. Are you justified to close the matter and proceed acording to your own wish? Or are we supposed to wait and let someone neutral (perhaps an administrator) count the votes and reach a conclusion? Because Warrior4321 didn't wait, and there was only a single revert (but hey if we can use a single revert to justify a quick archival...). There was NO edit-war whatsoever (that's his sorry excuse: he was "only trying to prevent a possible revert-war" and asked for support). I mean, he clearly "didn't close it to secure the support". It may only seem that way. Flamarande ( talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
From my inspection of similar discussions on the subject of era settings, this one comes across as defective. In order to change the era setting, there must be a substantive reason, for instance; a) to keep in line with other closely related articles; b) to conform to the requirements of the sources/references (rather weak reasoning); c) to prevent implied bias in the quality of the article (ie religious ones). Each one of these is rather subjective, but none applies in this case. The reasons offered are specious (neutrality is not satisfactory) but even then would be possible were there no objections (so as to avoid any controversy). However, this was also not achieved so other editors may now set it right in terms of WP:ERA-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Cyrus became king in 559 BC, but in 550 BC he established the empire and became emperor of Persia. The empire did not start in 558 BC, 90% of the sources say 550 BC, some users may have used an outdated or incorrect source. Discuss here if interested. Its time to get things right on Wikipedia, users making mistakes all over the places and making issues out of non-issues, regards.-- 24.23.160.233 ( talk) 07:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Children's book and museum flyers (not to mentioned google chached pages and privates websites) are normally not reputable sources for WP. In particular it is unacceptable to prefer them over available scholarly/academic papers and books, which are available for Persian empire.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 09:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The offical website of the British Museum for Persian empire is better source than the "booklet" essentially just being a programm (what exhibition are availavle when, opening times, special events etc.) The World Tribune article focuses on the bias of Islamic education in the field Iranian history and is not the really about the old Persian empire in particular, more importantly it does not state explicitly than the old Persian empire covered 8 million square miles, but it says Iran did in its history (which might refer to old persian empire or sassanid empire or whatever). Also such a newspaper article is clearly outranked by the officilal website of the British museum (not to mention scholarly papers containing other figures as well).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kmhkmh, All I can say is Wow, you now seem to be stretching the issue more than it should be. Firstly, please go read the message on your talk page, it's a new one. Secondly, you forgot that the source IS from the official website of the British Museum ( http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/22828_Booklet.pdf) which I managed to find. The booklet is not the program, in the booklet it has list of things in the Museum, the program in question is just one of many activities, lectures, films, and presentations end quote, on the first page of the booklet, that would take place in the British Museum. There is no other way to find the program on the site, other than the pdf version of it, when things are published in the booklet, that is where you would find them (it makes no difference it is on the site or the pdf site of it, both go back to http://www.britishmuseum.org). That's like saying the facts stated in the article on Wikipedia.org/Toy, are not from Wikipedia, hello?! Your a little right about the World Tribune one, but it is indirectly implying that it was the Achaemenid Empire, because it says that 1300 years history prior to Islamic Invasion, 1300 before Islam is not Sassanid, Median, but Achaemenid. And the only two candidates are Sassanid and Achaemenid, but Sassanid got no bigger than 3.5 or if you believe in the original research estimate of 7.4. However, we know she is talking about the Achaemenid when she says AT ONE POINT 1300 years before, it was over 3 million square miles, today scholars are beginning to accept a larger area of the AE, such as British Museum in 2005 that had the 7.5 estimate, so the only empire that ever got close to 3 million square miles is the AE. Your statement "but it says Iran did in its history (which might refer to old persian empire or sassanid empire or whatever)" is unacceptable (and clearly shows you did not look at the sources properly), Iran and its history means refering to the Persians, because the Sassanid and Achaemenid dynasties were both Persian. And that the author of the article published 10 days ago has a Master's degree in Ancient history (emphasis Ancient Persia) and other degrees and is a teacher, journalist, businesswomen. She more than qualifies regardless of the vague British Museum estimates, I also put link for the authors of the British Museum source so you can contact them, and another link for the World Tribune lady so you can verify her credentials. BTW, she works at the Presepolis 3D group, a reliable organization that has its own book, and historians that work in trying to reconstruct Achaemenid architecture. I think the real problem is that you don't investigate the source enough in plain site, so this creates problems. I don't know what else you want me to do, I guess that my sources are good for Wikipedia, but not for you. Regards.-- 24.23.160.233 ( talk) 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the use of the non-existent categories Category:States and territories established in 550 BCE and Category:330 BCE disestablishments with the existing Category:States and territories established in 550 BC and Category:330 BC disestablishments. I recognise the agreement above to change the dating format in the text of the article, but unless these category names are changed, there's no reason not to have the correct ones on the page. The non-existent ones will also still appear on the page because of the use of "BCE" in the template and the automatic application of that template, which I have noted here before. (The template is in the process of being de-automated in this regard, but it will require more time.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
hi, i am thinking of making a map for the achaemenid empire .... at its greatest extent. I read the above discussion related to maps but it was inconclusive. can any body suggest me which map i should recreate into wikipedia standered format, like that of the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire.
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I did that. For the reasons in the edit summary and the fact that "the question is not whether Achaemenids were Zoroastrian, but what we mean by calling them Zoroastrian". Academic consensus does not exist on this and Achaemenid religion is named as Zoroastrianism in a broad sense. Xashaiar ( talk) 13:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
i have noticed that through this artical on the Achaemenid Empire that it seems to use 2 dating systems BC and BCE and i must say it is quite confusing to some people i recomend that this page be edited to correct this. 209.26.247.114 ( talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Herodotus writes[15] that the native leadership debated the best form of government for the Empire. It was agreed that an oligarchy would divide them against one another, and democracy would bring about mob rule resulting in a charismatic leader resuming the monarchy. Therefore, they decided a new monarch was in order, particularly since they were in a position to choose him.
This is universally acknowledged as made up by Herodotus by all historians. Such discussions about political systems were held in Greece, not in Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.120.104 ( talk) 14:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a another source before the war Persia's military of the dynasty lost only twice is that true-- 76.94.173.73 ( talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
See [20] -- Groisser wrote high school textbooks, he was only an assistant professor in a minor college in their School of General Studies, there is no way this should be in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 07:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, fixed. We still have Dr. Groisser's quote, except now it is embeded, with reference. Problem solved! Dr. Persi ( talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Iranian/median Iranian/Achaemenid Empire? Is this accurate? would someone write the Italian Roman empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.131.249 ( talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this very interesting at first: "Persia/Iran has never practiced slavery in its thousands of years of history, and was founded on respect and equality for all races and religions as Cyrus the Great's human rights declaration" But then I remembered that Herodotus wrote in 154. (Volume One):
"Hearing this on his way, Cyrus said to Crœsus as follows: "Crœsus, what end shall I find of these things which are coming to pass? The Lydians will not cease as it seems, from giving trouble to me and from having it themselves. I doubt me if it were not best[157] to sell them all as slaves; " Also the sentence I've quoted from the article sounds a little suspicious to me. Someone should definetly look into this. From what I've read it sounds like the ancient Persians did not take slaves as often as say the hellenes did, but that they have at times done so. Did any people that conquered lands in the middle east or mediterranean not take slaves?
ancient persia is quiet different from islamic period iran was occapied by arabs and their culture was
quiet different furthermore as any body knows herodot was from the defeated nation and any one khows that grees where imaginative and creative in making stories and myths its in some ways good but it makes them unreliable as historians! so why europians insist on using their stories as facts is weierd! nowadays homer stories is not used as an evidence in researches about ancient greeks religion. in Cyrus Cylinder the abolishment of slavery in ancient persia is proved.
grI haven't changed anything in the article but somebody probably should.
I took the lion image off. It suspiciously seems to be the same (digitally inverted) lion at the NY Metropolitan, which DOES NOT belong to Iran:
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=3&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=0&item=31%2E13%2E2
Furthermore, the style of the lion does not reflect the Achaemenid Artistic style. They (the Achaemenids) were more refined.
In place of it, I'll put another picture.-- Zereshk 02:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Amir85): Mr Zereshk ,as you know there is an element in every article that makes it more appealing to read and it is the element of beauty.So stop reverting my work because of wiki-format , as if see other Wikipedia articles they sometimes use this type of photo arrangement for the sake of beauty or whatever.And about copyright violations , all the photos are fair copyrights with the permission of its source as long as I mention their site which I had done in SEE ALSO.
Please change the title of this article to the Achaemnid Dynasty. Achaemnid were a dynasty who ruled the Persian Empire, not a Empire! Please correct this immediately, both in the title and related links.
I removed this text from the article because it's weirdly written and probably too NPOV:
This is a confirmation that the Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could be considered superior to the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly. The Human Rights Manifesto looks very interesting in its kind regarding the expressions and composition, but the Charter of Freedom issued twenty three centuries before that by the Iranian monarch sounds more spiritual.
Lethe | Talk 12:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
-- Codex Sinaiticus 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
In the beginning of the page I linked Old Persian. I also want to ask if there is a good reason why Avestan is there. I can see that the Avestan prefix hu- (good) might be related here, and ka (some one) and Avestan mana (mind) which is a cognate of the Skt. might work out. But Avestan was never the language of any dynasty. It was never even written down until the Sasanian dynasty. It was a liturgical language, and would have been foreign to someone from Western Iran anyway. Also, why is there a discrepancy between Hakamanishiya and Haxāmaniš? I'm not talking about the suffix -iya, but let's choose one transliteration system or another, shall we? The latter I feel to be more desirable as this is how you see the cuneïform transliterated. The caron over the 's' is optional. The Farsi should be hakhāmanshi or -ī. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Martinmuse 11:48, 23 January 2006 (PST): It seems that Avestan is relevant to the Achaemenid dynasty. They professed to be devout followers of Ahuramazda and Avestan is associated with Zarathushtrian scripture. I agree it would not be a conversational language, but would it be foreign to Western Iran at a time when the Achaemenids' influence extended so far to the east?
It's obviously relevant, just not the main spoken language. Sure, wherever Zoroastrianism was, Avestan would be there also, of course. I cannot recall, but I was probably talking about something specific at the time. Also, why is the current link in the table Persian? Is it possible to be a little more specific? We're not exactly talking modern Farsi here. Khirad 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The following I find amusing because it sounds exactly like the modern Indian stereotype of the Parsis. Besides amusing me though, I'm wondering what this adds to the article:
If Zoroastrianism is to be reduced to a few insubstantial stereotypes, than tolerance and industriousness would seem more relevant contributions to posterity. I think this sentence would be improved if the people who noted this were mentioned (i.e. ...were noted by the Greeks...). Otherwise I don't see this as a NPOV statement. Plus it suggests that Zoroastrianism was the state religion. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
In Farsi, does the ch in Achaemenid sound like \kh\, \sh\, or \k\?
--John on 27th of October 420
As I have heard this pronounced multiple ways by professors, an uploaded sound file pronunciation of this word would be a great asset to this article. --Robert Jan. 11th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.0.26 ( talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A user has pointed out by e-mail:
I have been researching several sources preparing for some church work, and find in THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1976 edition, Volume 15 (P), page 262c, that before Darius I, CYRUS THE GREAT of the Persian Empire (quote) CALLED THIS THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE AFTER HIS ANCESTOR, ACHAEMENES (end quote). Article by Richard Nelson Frye.
Which is correct? L.H. Olsen ...
Kûruš \ xšâyathiya \ vazraka \ Kabûjiya hyâ \ xšâyathiyahyâ \ puça \ Haxâmanišiya \ thâtiy \ yathâ [...] [... ...] akutâ [... ]
Cyrus the great king, son of Cambyses the king, an Achaemenid, says: When [...] made [...]
Current trend is to consider the Behistun Inscription as covering up for a côup d'état, that is that the magus Gaumata really was Bardiya (= Smerdis in Herodotian Greek), the surviving son of Cyrus the Great. It's just the trend, and we do live in times where conspiracies are seen everywhere, so it may be false, but just for the sake of completeness....
-- FreezBee 13:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The previous version had "Achaemenid rulers of Persia ruled over territories ... much of what is now India". I do not think this is correct, especially with respect to central, east and south India. I have accordingly removed India from the list, please cite sources if it is put back. Jayanta Sen 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In almost every other large empire article page there is a stat regarding the size of the empire. I think it was important to add to the lead/intro at the top that Achaemenid Persia encompassed roughly 7.5 million squared km's and was as a result the largest empire of classical antiquity, so I included it. The stat is present in another Wiki page comparing thr historical sizes of the largest empires. -- Arsenous Commodore 05:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No reference is given for the following info in the text. I have never heard of these and I think proper citations are needed before we can accept them as facts (the numbered items are taken from the current text):
1. Xerxes I was followed by Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC), who moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon.
What is the basis of this statement? First, someone has to prove that Persepolis has ever been the capital of the Achaemenid dynasty to begin with. Since no documents about political affairs have been found at Persepolis so far and also the palaces show no sign of continous occupation, it is doubtful that Persepolis has ever been a 'capital'. What makes the writer think that the capital had been moved to Babylon is unclear and unstated.
2. Under Artaxerxes I, Zoroastrianism became the de-facto religion of state, and for this Artaxerxes I is today also known as the Constantine of that faith.
Has the writer found a new inscription by Artaxerses I mentioning Zoroaster or a new contemporary Greek source mentioning that religion? There is no reference in Achaemenid documents to Zoroaster or his religion or his holy book Avesta. The most we can say is that they worshiped Ahura Mazda at least since Darius I, but that is way different with saying they were Zoroastrians. I know of no evidence of a religious change around the time of Artaxerses I and would love to learn abotu such change.
3. Artaxerxes I died in Susa, and his body was brought to Persepolis for interment in the tomb of his forebearers.
The tomb of Artaxerses I is NOT in Persepolis but in Naqsh-e Rustam, 30 km to the north of Persepolis. The writer has confused Artaxerses I with Artaxerses II here. There is also no such thing as 'the tomb of his forebearers'; each Achaemenid king had his own tomb and Artaxerse I was no exception.
4. Darius II was then in Babylon, where he rallied support for himself. He marched eastwards, disposed and put to death the assassin and was crowned in his stead.
Before he had killed the so-called assasin, the prince couldn't have been called by his throne name of "Darius II", but under his personal name of Ochus.
5. Artaxerxes moved the capital back to Persepolis, which he greatly extended.
There is absolutely no evidence of ANY construction in Persepolis during the reign of Artaxerses II, who is believed to have spent most of his time in Susa. Again Artaxerses III might have been meant here.~~mirfakhr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirfakhr ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Under the "government section we have the statement "enlightened despots" describing the political mindset of this BCE empire. One click on the hyperlink brings me to a page describing these "enlightened despots" as merry fellows influenced by the period of "enlightenment" in the 18 and 19th century CE. Anachronism? Heck yeah! Can some expertly history buff please replace this term with a proper one please? Thanks! --non-member 20:12, 14 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
--another non-member —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.104.192.58 ( talk) 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
"His immediate successors were less successful. Cyrus' son Cambyses II conquered Egypt, but died in July 522 BC as the result of either accident or suicide, during a revolt led by a sacerdotal clan that had lost its power following Cyrus' conquest of Media. These priests, whom Herodotus called Magi, usurped the throne for one of their own, Gaumata, who then pretended to be Cambyses II's younger brother Smerdis (Pers. Bardiya), who had been assassinated some three years earlier. Owing to the despotic rule of Cambyses and his long absence in Egypt, "the whole people, Perses, Medes and all the other nations," acknowledged the usurper, especially as he granted a remission of taxes for three years (Herodotus iii. 68).
It is important to note that the claim that Gaumata had impersonated Smerdis, is derived from Darius. Historians are divided over the possibility that the story of the impostor was invented by Darius as justification for his coup [1]. Darius made a similar claim when he later captured Babylon, announcing that the Babylonian king was not, in fact, Nebuchadnezzar III, but an impostor named Nidintu-bel. [2]
According to the Behistun Inscription, pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months before being overthrown in 522 BC"
note that is says Cambyses died in july 522 bc, and then they say pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months, yet the year is still 522 BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.156.145 ( talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The text says that Ataxerxes I moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon. I'm just wondering why Babylon isn't listed as one of the capitals in the info box at the top of the article? Thanks. Bjoleniacz ( talk) 05:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
What did the Achaemenid Persians call their country? Because isn't it true that Persians only started to refer to their country as "Iran" until (maybe) the Sassanid dynasty. So what was the country called under the Achaemenids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 ( talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Are "Anšān" and "Anshan" the same? The text needs to make it clear one way or the other, and be consistent. Randall Bart Talk 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
as pointed out in my edit summary there is no need for the second map, it is merely a duplication of the one in the infobox... both show the greatest extent of the ae. @Xashaiar: you can explain the difference between the two here if you like, why (or how) one shows an empire and the other a country is beyond me. -- !linus ( talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1.i did notice the different caption yes. i also note how you kept pushing your point by reverting uirauna's edits regarding that caption.
2. uirauna never deleted the image (thus far)
3. i deleted the image because:
so, by removing the second map not only is the article kept clean, it also removes the cause of a disruptive edit war.
4.simply reverting back to your last edit and ignoring my question above isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. -- !linus ( talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
yes, they are two different maps... so what? that doesn't change the fact that they show the same thing, namely the greatest extent of the ae. the fact that you keep changing the caption of the second map so that it says iran in 500 bce doesn't mean it depicts anything other than the first map... if you really think that what the maps are named (rather than what they show) is of importance, have a look at both file names and you will note they are the same. -- !linus ( talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
fyi: uirauna corrected the map's caption, you keep reverting it to a (at best) less accurate caption. and that's the last i have to say here as you still haven't given any good reason why the second map should stay. -- !linus ( talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
There are two maps of Persian Achaemenid empire in the article. Two users ( User:Uirauna and User:L!nus) try to remove this ( 1 and 2) reference. Why? The two maps are different. One is historical and one is computer made and therefore both are necessary. This can not go on like this. The article has no size problem, so what is the point? According to what wikipedia rule you are removing this? -- Xashaiar ( talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, to solve the two maps issue I create a new map derived from a russian one. This is the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_En.svg I suggest we replace both of them with the new one. What do you think? Uirauna ( talk) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
i had a look at maps of the ae a few days ago, i thought the russian one was the best, except that it wouldn't have been of much use in an english article... so yeah, your new english map deffo would be a good idea.
i think the one that is currently in the infobox is a tad too much outdated (its from an atlas from the early 20th century), the other one in the article is a tad too much of an anachronism (with the background of modern borders), the one you linked on my talk page earlier today is a tad too much inaccurate (i mean... what's going on with the north-eastern boundary?) which leaves the one you made... and i don't see anything wrong with that one
as an aside: i wouldn't say there's an issue really, still haven't seen a real explanation on the claimed difference between the two maps -- !linus ( talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
xashaiar, i can perfectly understand your desire to have the article illustrated. however, duplicate images do not serve any purpose ... it is just clutter.
this goes for the maps (see above) and the image of cyrus's tomb. about the latter: you say it obviously belongs with the article... well no one has said it doesn't, it is simply that it already is in the article (i.e. in the gallery section). secondly, the tomb in question is not referred to in the article, so it sort of floats around there without any real reason. and thirdly, the image interferes with the text (i.e. it covers part of the text). incidentally i remedied that earlier on, but you reverted that edit.
and as i said above: simply reverting things back isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. -- !linus ( talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
@xashaiar: i don't see how an image of a tomb would be preferable to an image of the man, but you make a good point... so i suggest you find a good image of cyrus (if you do not find it here on the english wp or at the commons, i suggest you upload one) and replace the tomb image with that and add the tomb to the gallery.
as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text
as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text
@both of you: it seems you get on each other nerves a tad too much (and not only here)... so take a deep breath, take some distance and start afresh... keep in mind that the basic underlying principal is that edits should improve an article, edit warring and quibbling/throwing insults at each other is counterproductive. -- !linus ( talk) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged this article, do not remove the tags until there is a consensus on the topics being discussed. Thank you. Uirauna ( talk) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This recent addition:
(...which is followed by a reference to a book by Schmitt) has a few issues - I somehow doubt that this last bit is true - if they had slavery or conquered by violence it's certainly false, and even any kind of class system makes it doubtful.
I changed it to the following - still bad, I expect, but less blatantly:
-- Chriswaterguy talk 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
comment:
secondly (as i said before) do not resort to reverting so quickly. try to improve a previous edit so that everyone can agree with the content instead of simply undoing it. especially so when a previous editor started a topic on a talk page...
the success and endurance of the empire founded by cyrus the great lay in its successful model for centralised administration and government: while the achaemenids were absolutists they nevertheless allowed a certain amount of regional autonomy in the form of the satrapy system. ...
or something similar -- !linus ( talk) 09:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I replaced that image with this one because this one looks less text-booky, and is far more detailed. Why is the one you just placed better? -- LightSpectra ( talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
First paragraph, where we talk about the largest extent of the empire, does anyone know where the 10.7 Mil. km2 is coming from? I know British Musuem: Forgotten World, http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/forgottenempire/persia/people.html states 7.5 Mil. Km2, and this 2004 paper http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/Latitude.pdf provides a lesser figure of 5.5 Mil. Km2. Any insights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok why are the major maps in this article not in English!? This cannot be in an English wikipedia, no matter how nice they look, we need an english map at the top. Im leaving the other one in the middle of the article, but it is still unnecessary because the article already has various maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierfv1212 ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I know some people here have a problem with this specific article having more than 1 map! I'm in favor of having more maps no matter what the empire in question is. Anyways, I wanted to know what users think of a map showing AE superimposed onto modern day states/countries? This is not something new, I see many articles about empires/dynasties have such a map. Something like this perhaps? -- LogiPhi ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
First & Second map -
Artaxerxes II late period.
Third map -
Darius the Great late period.
Fourth map -
Cyrus the Great period.
Fifth map -
Darius the Great early period (he later conqured parts of Central Asia and Thrace).
The most relevant is third map, because we talk of Persia's greatest extend.
Note few important things - Persian Empire held 10.7 million km2, but not in the same period of time:
- Cyrus the Great conqured Asian territories, about 5.5-6.5 million km2.
- Cambyses II. conqured much of North Eastern Africa, but he later lost some parts in Libya and Sudan.
- Darius the Great reconquered Central Asian satrapies after 522 BC revolt, as well as northern Balkans. In his time, empire held about 9-10 million km2
- Xerxes I. reconquered main part of Egypt after his father's death, and conqured largest parts of European Greece under period of two years.--
Orijentolog (
talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Persian Empire is the much more common name, and therefore the one which should be used. Thoughts? Rd232 talk 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
um, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that " Persian Empire" first and foremost refers to the Achaemenid period. Yes, the term has also been extended to include the Sassanid period, which is why we have Persian Empire (disambiguation), but that clearly is a marginal point. The Sassanid dynasty, when referred to as "Persian" is typically referred to as "Second Persian Empire", "Later Persian Empire", "Restored Persian Empire" or similar except for cases where the context is clear.
Similarly, "Achaemenid Empire" is only used when disambiguation is necessary. If the context is clear, the common term for this entity is "Persian Empire". -- dab (𒁳) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any advantage in moving this page to Persian Empire. But redirecting "Persian Empire" to this page (and linking to the disambiguation page) is fine. Alefbe ( talk) 03:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
re [6], for "former states" of antiquity, we do not need to give an endonym if none is attested. Hakhamaneshiyan may be the Old Persian for "Achaemenid", but the Achaemenid empire was probably something like Airyanem Vaejah. Either way (cite your reference), it is a complete anachronism to spell whatever endonym they may have had in the Arabic alphabet. -- dab (𒁳) 11:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I note it isn't Old Persian at all, it's just the Modern Persian term. That's about as reasonable as claiming that the endonym of the Anglo-Saxons was Anglo-Saxons. -- dab (𒁳) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
you are right, Haxāmanišiyava is the OP term. I guess the -iyān ending can still be put down to MP. We can give Haxāmanišiya- as the "native name" of the dynasty, if you like. I stand by my point that it isn't very useful to give "reconstructed self designations" in the infobox, these things can be explained in the article body. -- dab (𒁳) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In the Penguin edition of Herodotus, the editor points out that this "debate" is in fact based on thoroughly Greek concepts and rhetoric, and so could never have taken place in the form reported by Herodotus... AnonMoos ( talk) 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: This is a continuation of a long-running debate over how the issue of slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire should be treated. It has been shortened to reflect the current status of the debate because it had become far too long and unwieldy. The two principle debaters are going to present their own versions on this issue.
Please note, there is an open RfC at Talk:Persian Empire. 76.66.197.30 ( talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the recent edits that have occurred on this article, it should be brought to thought about the usage of units of time. Why don't we use BCE and CE, why do we use BC and AD instead? The article has nothing to do with Christianity, and I believe the article's units of time should be changed from BC, AD to BCE, CE.
Such a change would be very unwise. If we replace the BC's with BCE's in the 'Infobox Former Country' the categories will not work any more. Try to replace the BC's with BCE's and you will end up with Category:559 BCE establishments and Category:330 BCE disestablishments (see how "red" they are?). The 'History of Greater Iran' box uses BC/AD too.
Please take also a look at Cyrus the Great, Greco-Persian Wars, Darius I of Persia, Darius III of Persia, Achaemenes, Behistun Inscription, Xerxes I of Persia, etc. Consistency speaks for itself.
The statement that "The article has nothing to do with Christianity" is a red herring. A lot of 'articles about history' have nothing to do with Christianity, but that doesn't mean that because of it they should/are forced to use BCE/CE.
This article has used BC right from the start see the creation of the article. However if you truly want to reward this kind of behaviour [8] [9] [10] [11] be my guest. Flamarande ( talk) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
@Flamarande: Your first argument is quite irrelevant, because the discussion is about the usage in text, not changing categories. About your second argument, I agree that it's not a good idea to change BCE or BC just for changing it, however, you cannot use this argument to justify your preference, because you (with support of Pmanderson) have previously edit-warred just to replace BCE/CE with BC/AD in Parthian Empire. Alefbe ( talk) 01:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Right. Isn't 7 days a sufficient time to wait? And please... let's not cry over what has been done. I see sufficient consensus to close it anyway... Pmlineditor ∞ 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me reply with the following: You request a poll, and get three votes in favour (or was it two? I think it was two, and then Dejvid cast the "decisive vote" yesterday) and one against. Are you justified to close the matter and proceed acording to your own wish? Or are we supposed to wait and let someone neutral (perhaps an administrator) count the votes and reach a conclusion? Because Warrior4321 didn't wait, and there was only a single revert (but hey if we can use a single revert to justify a quick archival...). There was NO edit-war whatsoever (that's his sorry excuse: he was "only trying to prevent a possible revert-war" and asked for support). I mean, he clearly "didn't close it to secure the support". It may only seem that way. Flamarande ( talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
From my inspection of similar discussions on the subject of era settings, this one comes across as defective. In order to change the era setting, there must be a substantive reason, for instance; a) to keep in line with other closely related articles; b) to conform to the requirements of the sources/references (rather weak reasoning); c) to prevent implied bias in the quality of the article (ie religious ones). Each one of these is rather subjective, but none applies in this case. The reasons offered are specious (neutrality is not satisfactory) but even then would be possible were there no objections (so as to avoid any controversy). However, this was also not achieved so other editors may now set it right in terms of WP:ERA-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Cyrus became king in 559 BC, but in 550 BC he established the empire and became emperor of Persia. The empire did not start in 558 BC, 90% of the sources say 550 BC, some users may have used an outdated or incorrect source. Discuss here if interested. Its time to get things right on Wikipedia, users making mistakes all over the places and making issues out of non-issues, regards.-- 24.23.160.233 ( talk) 07:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Children's book and museum flyers (not to mentioned google chached pages and privates websites) are normally not reputable sources for WP. In particular it is unacceptable to prefer them over available scholarly/academic papers and books, which are available for Persian empire.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 09:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The offical website of the British Museum for Persian empire is better source than the "booklet" essentially just being a programm (what exhibition are availavle when, opening times, special events etc.) The World Tribune article focuses on the bias of Islamic education in the field Iranian history and is not the really about the old Persian empire in particular, more importantly it does not state explicitly than the old Persian empire covered 8 million square miles, but it says Iran did in its history (which might refer to old persian empire or sassanid empire or whatever). Also such a newspaper article is clearly outranked by the officilal website of the British museum (not to mention scholarly papers containing other figures as well).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kmhkmh, All I can say is Wow, you now seem to be stretching the issue more than it should be. Firstly, please go read the message on your talk page, it's a new one. Secondly, you forgot that the source IS from the official website of the British Museum ( http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/22828_Booklet.pdf) which I managed to find. The booklet is not the program, in the booklet it has list of things in the Museum, the program in question is just one of many activities, lectures, films, and presentations end quote, on the first page of the booklet, that would take place in the British Museum. There is no other way to find the program on the site, other than the pdf version of it, when things are published in the booklet, that is where you would find them (it makes no difference it is on the site or the pdf site of it, both go back to http://www.britishmuseum.org). That's like saying the facts stated in the article on Wikipedia.org/Toy, are not from Wikipedia, hello?! Your a little right about the World Tribune one, but it is indirectly implying that it was the Achaemenid Empire, because it says that 1300 years history prior to Islamic Invasion, 1300 before Islam is not Sassanid, Median, but Achaemenid. And the only two candidates are Sassanid and Achaemenid, but Sassanid got no bigger than 3.5 or if you believe in the original research estimate of 7.4. However, we know she is talking about the Achaemenid when she says AT ONE POINT 1300 years before, it was over 3 million square miles, today scholars are beginning to accept a larger area of the AE, such as British Museum in 2005 that had the 7.5 estimate, so the only empire that ever got close to 3 million square miles is the AE. Your statement "but it says Iran did in its history (which might refer to old persian empire or sassanid empire or whatever)" is unacceptable (and clearly shows you did not look at the sources properly), Iran and its history means refering to the Persians, because the Sassanid and Achaemenid dynasties were both Persian. And that the author of the article published 10 days ago has a Master's degree in Ancient history (emphasis Ancient Persia) and other degrees and is a teacher, journalist, businesswomen. She more than qualifies regardless of the vague British Museum estimates, I also put link for the authors of the British Museum source so you can contact them, and another link for the World Tribune lady so you can verify her credentials. BTW, she works at the Presepolis 3D group, a reliable organization that has its own book, and historians that work in trying to reconstruct Achaemenid architecture. I think the real problem is that you don't investigate the source enough in plain site, so this creates problems. I don't know what else you want me to do, I guess that my sources are good for Wikipedia, but not for you. Regards.-- 24.23.160.233 ( talk) 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the use of the non-existent categories Category:States and territories established in 550 BCE and Category:330 BCE disestablishments with the existing Category:States and territories established in 550 BC and Category:330 BC disestablishments. I recognise the agreement above to change the dating format in the text of the article, but unless these category names are changed, there's no reason not to have the correct ones on the page. The non-existent ones will also still appear on the page because of the use of "BCE" in the template and the automatic application of that template, which I have noted here before. (The template is in the process of being de-automated in this regard, but it will require more time.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
hi, i am thinking of making a map for the achaemenid empire .... at its greatest extent. I read the above discussion related to maps but it was inconclusive. can any body suggest me which map i should recreate into wikipedia standered format, like that of the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire.
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I did that. For the reasons in the edit summary and the fact that "the question is not whether Achaemenids were Zoroastrian, but what we mean by calling them Zoroastrian". Academic consensus does not exist on this and Achaemenid religion is named as Zoroastrianism in a broad sense. Xashaiar ( talk) 13:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
i have noticed that through this artical on the Achaemenid Empire that it seems to use 2 dating systems BC and BCE and i must say it is quite confusing to some people i recomend that this page be edited to correct this. 209.26.247.114 ( talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Herodotus writes[15] that the native leadership debated the best form of government for the Empire. It was agreed that an oligarchy would divide them against one another, and democracy would bring about mob rule resulting in a charismatic leader resuming the monarchy. Therefore, they decided a new monarch was in order, particularly since they were in a position to choose him.
This is universally acknowledged as made up by Herodotus by all historians. Such discussions about political systems were held in Greece, not in Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.120.104 ( talk) 14:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a another source before the war Persia's military of the dynasty lost only twice is that true-- 76.94.173.73 ( talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
See [20] -- Groisser wrote high school textbooks, he was only an assistant professor in a minor college in their School of General Studies, there is no way this should be in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 07:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, fixed. We still have Dr. Groisser's quote, except now it is embeded, with reference. Problem solved! Dr. Persi ( talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)