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 |
While on the website " http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/sla-anc.html", I found the following segment about the issue of slavery within the Persian Empire:
For its information, the website cites the following books: "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin and "History of the Persian Empire" by A.T. Olmstead. These both seem to be scholarly, academic sources (checked on Amazon).
Now, this seems to at least partially contradict what this article says about the presence of slavery in the ancient Persian Empire. The article seems to downplay the existence of slavery, but the website suggests that slavery was more prevalent (not as prevalent as in, say, Greece or Rome, but still more prevalent that the article suggests).
I am NOT an expert on either the history of slavery or the history of the Persian Empire, and I do NOT have access to the two books that the website cites as its resources. But, maybe someone else is an expert and/or has access to these two books. If so, then I think it would be very useful to compare our article with the website that I have mentioned, cross-reference and verify the information with the two books cited, and figure out which of the two views on slavery in the Persian Empire is more accurate. IonNerd ( talk) 09:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
the name of the empire is also shown in arabic script. Why is this? the arabic script wasn't in use yet back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.189.148 ( talk) 17:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a quote in this article:
It is not clear what is meant by "largest", in population or geographic area or what? The Wikipedia page on the Roman Empire under the section Demographics indicates larger figures for estimated range of population and most accepted figure. Historyfiend2000 ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This claim doesn't make sense either as Alexander the Great managed to expand his own Macedon empire to engulf the existent Persian empire, which would defacto mean that the Persian empire could no longer be the largest in ancient history, whichever way you look at it. The comment is thus ambigious and could not be claimed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannis S C ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Portrait of Cyrus the Great.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
This whole "bce" dating system makes no sense whatsoever, because it is only used by in reality 0.1% of people. BC/AD is obviously the more understood and known dating method. What is before common era? It does not represent anything, what is a "common era"? Can we please put an end to this politically correct garbage?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacsearraigBhoy ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This discussion established a consensus for BCE on this page. A couple of people preferring BC or thinking BC is "more popular" does not establish a new consensus. Absent any further decision, BCE needs to be restored to this article-- JimWae ( talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment: This article has bigger and much more important problems than this constant war about BC versus BCE, which doesn't really matter much to people outside those quarreling camps anyway.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
mr john hill on wikipedia will told you how the claims are hugely exaggerated, achamenid dont hold an inch of india and china , america,russia then how such a huge population was ruled by it. Before commenting have a look at mr john hill page and his contribution on mauryan empire.thnx 115.240.54.30 ( talk) 05:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend, this is in 5th century B.C. America was not even discovered then! This is also based on the data available as best approximated to the population of the world at the time! Also if you edit please do not cut whole sections including pictures!! Please discuss here first. Thank you! Dr. Persi ( talk) 06:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
very very thnx mr persi i would be higly obliged if you will told the same thing to mr john hill who is editing Mauryan empire page without any knowledge , he includes population of america the reality is america is never accounted for historical culture. And yes you are right but this was a demo for mr john hill who has edited mauryan empire page without any knowledge. and sorry for my edits
115.241.234.29 (
talk) 07:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"The vast size of the Persian empire, and its extraordinary ethnocultural diversity across its realm,[4] would prove to be its undoing as the delegation of power to local governments eventually weakened the king's central authority, causing much energy and resources to be wasted in attempts to subdue local rebellions.[1] This was the reason why when Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) invaded Persia in 334 B.C.E. he was faced by a disunified realm under a weak monarch, ripe for destruction." This paragraph almost echoes every idea that the Classical and Hellenic historians had about the persian empire. The most authoritative books on Achaemenid history however point to a different reality
Pierre Briant's book "The Persian Empire from Cyrus to Alexander" P.196 explicitly points out to "rejecting the greek interpretation where diversity led the greeks to beat the Persians or as a cause of persian downfall" P.873 of the same book mentions the fact that "the acceptance of diversity actually strengthened the empire" if you read the same book you'll also come across the idea of decadence and weak central authority which as a myth had been the focal point of Achaemenid history in much of 18th-20th century, the idea itself had come from over reliance on greek authors.
Now if you consult the book Ancient Persia written by Josef Wiesenhofer, you'll find the same conclusions. Idea of decadence and myth of diversity causing weakness to the role of the great king has all been discussed and rejected by Achaemenid specialists.
follower of Arta, may you prosper ( talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Without getting into specific sources I'd like to make a general knowledge/common sense argument here. One needs to distinguish between "decadence myth" and the "ethnic diversity". I don't want to comment on the former but the latter. "Ethnic diversity" has always been a problem for any large empire at some point and hence "weakened" it somewhat at times. That is basically due to the fact that many ethnics historically where thriving for their own state, so an empire is forced to quell rebellions & uprisings, station additional troops, etc and such things do of course bind forces that it will lack for fighting an new external enemy. You can see that from the concrete history of the Persian empire as well, which temporary lost regions in the fringe of its empire. The question is now how many resources of the Persian empire where bound by such things at the eve of Alexander's inavsion. That's a matter for historians to assess and on that note Briand and Wieshöfer are 2 disntinguished scholars on the persian empire so their assessment is definitely notable here and should be included.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The current line seems rather problematic and looks like case of WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH
First of all neither of the claims seems actually sourced (the sources merely give (total) figures for the poplulation of the empire and of the world). The greatest percentage seems to be stated in none of the sources but rather concluded by combining [11] and [31], which would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Note that combining different estimates for ancient populations from different sources in to a new calculation (relative percentage) is anything but a straight forward computation, such a computation would only be acceptable if it is performed from the data given in one source. But using data from different sources for the computation creates novel knowledge and it is not at all clear whether the data from different estimates can be arbitrarily combined.
As far as the greatest empire in ancient history (areawise) is concerned though currently unsourced that can be fixed as at least to my recollection many scholars or books use that description. nevertheless some differ and use that term for Alexander's or even the Roman empire instead. Another problem with many of the sources of such claims is that they restrict themselves to geography of "classical antiquity", that is not taking South and East Asia into account.
Probably only minor thing, but the US Census is not a good source for ancient population estimate (instead academic paper/books should be cited). However the originally missing deep link of the US Census site ( [1]) does at least specify the academic work from which the figures were taken.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree 44% of world population seems like too far of a stretch, keeping in mind major population centers in China, India, Europe, Africa and the Americas, that simply could not have been possible or plausible follower of Arta, may you prosper ( talk) 19:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't changed the text in question yet (a similar formulation is also in the lead, which might need to be adjusted as well), but I cleaned the sources under [11] and fixed the format.
As far as the format goes, one shouldn't give whole google books search string as links, but just provide the google books url (including the page number).
Aside from that format fix I cleaned out old sources and some less scholarly looking books. Literature being 100 years old or older usually does not reflect current knowledger accurately, so that it should not be used as references. In the case of Persian Empire there's ample relatively recent scholarly literature available anyway. This is also for less scholarly sources or scholarly sources without a real domain expertise. That means a book on current Iran or the Iran_US conflict is not a good source for the Persian empire. At best the authors of such books copied their information on tre Persian Empire from some authoritative sources (scholars with an expertise in ancient history and the Persian empire in particular) or at worst they got it by hearsay or unreliable sources. In the former case we should those authoritative sources directly rather than using such a book as proxy and the latter case the book is unusable as a source to begin with.
Having said all that, I've noticed that aside from the sources that I've just fixed the article still needs an improvement/overhaul regarding its sources as it still references some old stuff like an 1902 encyclopedia.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
selective use of sources (especially bad sources) leading to misinformation
There simply is no evidence of ban of slavery in Persia, while slavery wasn't as developed in persia as it was in mesopotamia and egypt, but there wasn't any legal ban. Zoroastrianism as the religion of the Kings is still a matter of debate and open to interpretation much less as a "defacto religion" of the empire
ive wrote exactly on why this is not true, there was no weakening, disorganization, and dis unified realm under Darius III
Innovative postal system is misleading, the roads and communication system were adopted from the earlier empires and built upon by Cyrus and followers. follower of Arta, may you prosper ( talk) 17:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I am really busy but you can guys should learn to use google books. You can find easily many sources in its support. The above source says what is stated word for word. Cheers. I be back in a week and add all textbooks. for now this will do. Dr. Persi ( talk) 00:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Persi ( talk) 21:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
While recent edits seem to have fixed some of the problems mentioned in chapters above, they seem to hae introduced a new one. The size of the empire around 500 BC (2.6 million km2) though being correctly cited seems somehwat nonsensical. First of all that figure is way off from other numbers cited in reputable sources (being in ball park of 5 to 8 million km2) and second it doesn't even hold up to simple common sense comparison (current Iran and Turkey already account for that figure, but for rough comparison you'd still need to add Iraq, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt to that). So that should be fixed.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
Why is it the article entitled the "Achaemenid Empire"? I was under the impression that "Persian Empire" was the more well-known. It's also easier to remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the caption under the picture to reflect its true nature. It is not a map of the empire near the time of Alexander. The territories it holds in Greece and the coast of the Black Sea in addition to the areas in Central Asia suggest that it is set in the time of Darius the Great or Xerxes. During the Wars of Alexander the Empire had lost significant territories in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Kaveh94 ( talk) 20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a note on the additional pictures, which bears the slightly unfortunate title Gallery, about Wikipedia policy on such images. The comment is that such an arrangement of images is discouraged in the standard style of Wikipedia articles.
Having come to this article to do some research, I find these images are a useful source of additional information, and it is helpful to my studies of this subject that these images are here.
Would the Moderators kindly suggest what alternative structure there is within Wikipedia to make such a valuable selection of images easily available and linked to the main article? I accept that there is a Wikipedia policy against articles becoming an art-gallery. However, in this case, these images are as informative as the text, and I suggest that they form a vital part of the whole article.
Perhaps the solution is to change the format, from the "gallery" format, to a paragraph within the main article in which the images are all included alongside their explanatory text. -- Robert of Ramsor ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The map in the infobox? Is it correct (should be removed) ?
( Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας ( talk) 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)).
The pronunciation given at the beginning of the article should possibly be corrected: Orthographical "Achaemanid" would be spelt in IPA as [əˈkiːmənɪd], wouldn't it? "Achaemenidae" would be the orthographical equivalent to the IPA transcription given in the article.
All the best, Michael Job (Göttingen, Germany: mjob@gwdg.de) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.32.107 ( talk) 21:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Before anyone says anything YES! IT IS ABOUT THE MAP! I was just thinking that rather than a map that shows territorial acquisitions over time, shouldn't we simply have a map in the infobox that shows the Achaemenid Empire at it's greatest extent? I have one, but it is no where near done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_under_Darius.png
I am remaking the map and planning on making it a bit more like this: http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/persia-map1.jpg
what do you all think? (most of you probably won't agree with me, but it is worth a shot...) Keeby101 ( talk) 06:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This empire has included parts some 35-40 modern countries and inserting all of them is extreme WP:OVERCAT. It would be much better if such categories are used for provinces (satrapies). -- HistorNE ( talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not the map that I posted before, it's a much better and more accurate version of the Godly Achaemenid Empire! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Achaemenid_Empire_ca_400_B.C.jpg
What do you think? Keeby101 ( talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
This needs revision: it currently states slavery was 'banned', which isn't actually true, but then in the remainder of the paragraph describes its practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 ( talk) 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I have recently created a new and more high quality map of the Godly Achaemenid Persian Empire that I would like to put into the infobox of the article!
It's not finished yet obviously, I still need to add the rest of the cities and provinces, but you have to admit that it is far better than the current map in the infobox. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 05:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If this article is appropriately redirected when searching Wikipedia for Medo-Persian Empire, why isn't "Medo" in the article anywhere? (Please message me? Thanks.) Misty MH ( talk) 01:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
That figure is a violation of WP:SYNTH as it combines data total empire population estimations from one set of sources to the word population total from another source. In another words none of the sources actually claims that 44% figure. This is particularly problematic since population estimates vary greatly and are not particularly reliable, so by combining figures from different sources into a derived percentage value, you can essentially make up any percentage value and the 44% are simply the best guess by the WP editor (rather thabn ab external source). On top of that a rather weak source is used for global population total (some UN/government statistic rather than some academic/scholarly publication).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There have been a bunch of sources added for the area of the empire which imho is a bit problematic. First of all one or two sources at the end of the paragraph might be more sensible (and improve the readability of the source text dramatically) then adding inline references to each single country. There is also cherry picking/ WP:SYNTH problem by picking and combining these countries names from different sources, instead of sticking to the description in one or two reputable sources. Also the use of India in the sources cannot necessarily be equated with modern India, but also with historic India which includes Pakistan, in that sense northwestern India is essentially Pakistan.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Base on what i've read, The spelling of 'Persepolis' is not really persepolis, it was 'Persopolis'. However, if i am wrong i will accept just sayin' what my opinion is about the spelling of 'Persepolis'
Stating that a 'Persian maritime presence was maintained in the Persian Gulf until the arrival of the Royal Navy in the 19th century' in the context of this article is silly. Why not say the same thing about the Italian navy wrt. Rome or compare Saxon pirates in the North Sea in the 4th century to the Royal Navy. I will remove the statement. Feel free to revert if you can justify. :) 1812ahill ( talk) 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: ( diff) The native name of the empire was an Old Persian (and Median) word. The Modern Persian name is almost as irrelevant as the German name. Even the Ancient Greek name is more relevant. -- Z 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This orthographic projection can be more helpuful and better than using this map in Infobox. By indicating the area of Achaemenid Empire on this type of map, pretty much, anyone can immediately recognize the exact location respects to other regions, continents, countries and places on the earth. Also this map is in vector format. If there is any problem with this map, we can helping it to improve by upadating it. Ali Zifan 05:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I also talked with Ali Zifan recently about the map. I told him as well, that the map is simply no improvement of article/content quality or whatsoever, and thus should not be added. - LouisAragon ( talk) 03:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look to at the Infoboxes of these two version of Iran's article on wikipedia : Current version and old version. As you can see, the flat maps were used to indicate the country's location "for a long time" but the orthographic projection has been replaced those flat maps. This fact is true for many countries that have an article on wikipedia. Orthographic projection are considered the most exact and preciese maps that can indicate any point or area on the earth. Please read these links: rice.edu and progonos.com . Actually, we can easily get that this type of maps are definitely the best choice to indicating the empires' area.
The other reason is that by looking at the area (such as iran's area) on this type of maps, pretty much, anyone can immediately recognize the exact location respects to other regions, continents, countries and places on the earth. These reason are not made up by myself. These are the reasons that have been proved and Wikipeidia is currently using it (as i said for every country's (from islands to peninsulas, from small countries to large countries) articles). I sent you some links about the area of other empires that were used orthographic projection like Aztec. I want you to open those links again. You will find out that there is no discussion about using this type of maps.
In addition, what I am talking about is, we don't have to replace these maps with current maps. All I am saying is these orthographic are for Infoboxes of the empire's article. You told me about Sassanian map's image. Yes it has details and it is good but it will be much and much better if we place this on the other part of the article which has the details about sassanids ( History part of the article can be the great position for putting that image) instead of putting it in Infobox part of the article. "What should an infobox not contain? In general, data in infobox templates should not be: Lengthy. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." This obviuosly can be true about images that have much details.
Besides that, if you see any problems with the area or border of the empire's map, you can update it on these files. Actually you can tell me and I will do that. I've already put much time for making these orthographic maps as making them more precise as I could and i will put more time on them to make them more precise if you want. It will be certainly my proud to working with you to updating these maps.
And also I really can't understand that why you say: '"that the map is simply no improvement of article/content quality or whatsoever, and thus should not be added"'. This map is in vector format (Which is considered an improvement on wikipedia) and used orthographic projection which also is considered the best map for showing any coordinate or area on the earth. Finally I hope you revise you opinion about this type of maps. Ali Zifan 04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is what I am talking about:
Thank you Ali Zifan 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to put a temporary map. If you want to change the map, replace it with this, since it is accurate, sourced and authoritative. There's no reason to put a temporary map which is worse than the current one. Thanks! UCaetano ( talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (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 |
While on the website " http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/sla-anc.html", I found the following segment about the issue of slavery within the Persian Empire:
For its information, the website cites the following books: "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin and "History of the Persian Empire" by A.T. Olmstead. These both seem to be scholarly, academic sources (checked on Amazon).
Now, this seems to at least partially contradict what this article says about the presence of slavery in the ancient Persian Empire. The article seems to downplay the existence of slavery, but the website suggests that slavery was more prevalent (not as prevalent as in, say, Greece or Rome, but still more prevalent that the article suggests).
I am NOT an expert on either the history of slavery or the history of the Persian Empire, and I do NOT have access to the two books that the website cites as its resources. But, maybe someone else is an expert and/or has access to these two books. If so, then I think it would be very useful to compare our article with the website that I have mentioned, cross-reference and verify the information with the two books cited, and figure out which of the two views on slavery in the Persian Empire is more accurate. IonNerd ( talk) 09:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
the name of the empire is also shown in arabic script. Why is this? the arabic script wasn't in use yet back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.189.148 ( talk) 17:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a quote in this article:
It is not clear what is meant by "largest", in population or geographic area or what? The Wikipedia page on the Roman Empire under the section Demographics indicates larger figures for estimated range of population and most accepted figure. Historyfiend2000 ( talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This claim doesn't make sense either as Alexander the Great managed to expand his own Macedon empire to engulf the existent Persian empire, which would defacto mean that the Persian empire could no longer be the largest in ancient history, whichever way you look at it. The comment is thus ambigious and could not be claimed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannis S C ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Portrait of Cyrus the Great.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
This whole "bce" dating system makes no sense whatsoever, because it is only used by in reality 0.1% of people. BC/AD is obviously the more understood and known dating method. What is before common era? It does not represent anything, what is a "common era"? Can we please put an end to this politically correct garbage?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacsearraigBhoy ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This discussion established a consensus for BCE on this page. A couple of people preferring BC or thinking BC is "more popular" does not establish a new consensus. Absent any further decision, BCE needs to be restored to this article-- JimWae ( talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment: This article has bigger and much more important problems than this constant war about BC versus BCE, which doesn't really matter much to people outside those quarreling camps anyway.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
mr john hill on wikipedia will told you how the claims are hugely exaggerated, achamenid dont hold an inch of india and china , america,russia then how such a huge population was ruled by it. Before commenting have a look at mr john hill page and his contribution on mauryan empire.thnx 115.240.54.30 ( talk) 05:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend, this is in 5th century B.C. America was not even discovered then! This is also based on the data available as best approximated to the population of the world at the time! Also if you edit please do not cut whole sections including pictures!! Please discuss here first. Thank you! Dr. Persi ( talk) 06:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
very very thnx mr persi i would be higly obliged if you will told the same thing to mr john hill who is editing Mauryan empire page without any knowledge , he includes population of america the reality is america is never accounted for historical culture. And yes you are right but this was a demo for mr john hill who has edited mauryan empire page without any knowledge. and sorry for my edits
115.241.234.29 (
talk) 07:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"The vast size of the Persian empire, and its extraordinary ethnocultural diversity across its realm,[4] would prove to be its undoing as the delegation of power to local governments eventually weakened the king's central authority, causing much energy and resources to be wasted in attempts to subdue local rebellions.[1] This was the reason why when Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) invaded Persia in 334 B.C.E. he was faced by a disunified realm under a weak monarch, ripe for destruction." This paragraph almost echoes every idea that the Classical and Hellenic historians had about the persian empire. The most authoritative books on Achaemenid history however point to a different reality
Pierre Briant's book "The Persian Empire from Cyrus to Alexander" P.196 explicitly points out to "rejecting the greek interpretation where diversity led the greeks to beat the Persians or as a cause of persian downfall" P.873 of the same book mentions the fact that "the acceptance of diversity actually strengthened the empire" if you read the same book you'll also come across the idea of decadence and weak central authority which as a myth had been the focal point of Achaemenid history in much of 18th-20th century, the idea itself had come from over reliance on greek authors.
Now if you consult the book Ancient Persia written by Josef Wiesenhofer, you'll find the same conclusions. Idea of decadence and myth of diversity causing weakness to the role of the great king has all been discussed and rejected by Achaemenid specialists.
follower of Arta, may you prosper ( talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Without getting into specific sources I'd like to make a general knowledge/common sense argument here. One needs to distinguish between "decadence myth" and the "ethnic diversity". I don't want to comment on the former but the latter. "Ethnic diversity" has always been a problem for any large empire at some point and hence "weakened" it somewhat at times. That is basically due to the fact that many ethnics historically where thriving for their own state, so an empire is forced to quell rebellions & uprisings, station additional troops, etc and such things do of course bind forces that it will lack for fighting an new external enemy. You can see that from the concrete history of the Persian empire as well, which temporary lost regions in the fringe of its empire. The question is now how many resources of the Persian empire where bound by such things at the eve of Alexander's inavsion. That's a matter for historians to assess and on that note Briand and Wieshöfer are 2 disntinguished scholars on the persian empire so their assessment is definitely notable here and should be included.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The current line seems rather problematic and looks like case of WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH
First of all neither of the claims seems actually sourced (the sources merely give (total) figures for the poplulation of the empire and of the world). The greatest percentage seems to be stated in none of the sources but rather concluded by combining [11] and [31], which would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Note that combining different estimates for ancient populations from different sources in to a new calculation (relative percentage) is anything but a straight forward computation, such a computation would only be acceptable if it is performed from the data given in one source. But using data from different sources for the computation creates novel knowledge and it is not at all clear whether the data from different estimates can be arbitrarily combined.
As far as the greatest empire in ancient history (areawise) is concerned though currently unsourced that can be fixed as at least to my recollection many scholars or books use that description. nevertheless some differ and use that term for Alexander's or even the Roman empire instead. Another problem with many of the sources of such claims is that they restrict themselves to geography of "classical antiquity", that is not taking South and East Asia into account.
Probably only minor thing, but the US Census is not a good source for ancient population estimate (instead academic paper/books should be cited). However the originally missing deep link of the US Census site ( [1]) does at least specify the academic work from which the figures were taken.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree 44% of world population seems like too far of a stretch, keeping in mind major population centers in China, India, Europe, Africa and the Americas, that simply could not have been possible or plausible follower of Arta, may you prosper ( talk) 19:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't changed the text in question yet (a similar formulation is also in the lead, which might need to be adjusted as well), but I cleaned the sources under [11] and fixed the format.
As far as the format goes, one shouldn't give whole google books search string as links, but just provide the google books url (including the page number).
Aside from that format fix I cleaned out old sources and some less scholarly looking books. Literature being 100 years old or older usually does not reflect current knowledger accurately, so that it should not be used as references. In the case of Persian Empire there's ample relatively recent scholarly literature available anyway. This is also for less scholarly sources or scholarly sources without a real domain expertise. That means a book on current Iran or the Iran_US conflict is not a good source for the Persian empire. At best the authors of such books copied their information on tre Persian Empire from some authoritative sources (scholars with an expertise in ancient history and the Persian empire in particular) or at worst they got it by hearsay or unreliable sources. In the former case we should those authoritative sources directly rather than using such a book as proxy and the latter case the book is unusable as a source to begin with.
Having said all that, I've noticed that aside from the sources that I've just fixed the article still needs an improvement/overhaul regarding its sources as it still references some old stuff like an 1902 encyclopedia.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
selective use of sources (especially bad sources) leading to misinformation
There simply is no evidence of ban of slavery in Persia, while slavery wasn't as developed in persia as it was in mesopotamia and egypt, but there wasn't any legal ban. Zoroastrianism as the religion of the Kings is still a matter of debate and open to interpretation much less as a "defacto religion" of the empire
ive wrote exactly on why this is not true, there was no weakening, disorganization, and dis unified realm under Darius III
Innovative postal system is misleading, the roads and communication system were adopted from the earlier empires and built upon by Cyrus and followers. follower of Arta, may you prosper ( talk) 17:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I am really busy but you can guys should learn to use google books. You can find easily many sources in its support. The above source says what is stated word for word. Cheers. I be back in a week and add all textbooks. for now this will do. Dr. Persi ( talk) 00:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Persi ( talk) 21:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
While recent edits seem to have fixed some of the problems mentioned in chapters above, they seem to hae introduced a new one. The size of the empire around 500 BC (2.6 million km2) though being correctly cited seems somehwat nonsensical. First of all that figure is way off from other numbers cited in reputable sources (being in ball park of 5 to 8 million km2) and second it doesn't even hold up to simple common sense comparison (current Iran and Turkey already account for that figure, but for rough comparison you'd still need to add Iraq, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt to that). So that should be fixed.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
Why is it the article entitled the "Achaemenid Empire"? I was under the impression that "Persian Empire" was the more well-known. It's also easier to remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the caption under the picture to reflect its true nature. It is not a map of the empire near the time of Alexander. The territories it holds in Greece and the coast of the Black Sea in addition to the areas in Central Asia suggest that it is set in the time of Darius the Great or Xerxes. During the Wars of Alexander the Empire had lost significant territories in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. Kaveh94 ( talk) 20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a note on the additional pictures, which bears the slightly unfortunate title Gallery, about Wikipedia policy on such images. The comment is that such an arrangement of images is discouraged in the standard style of Wikipedia articles.
Having come to this article to do some research, I find these images are a useful source of additional information, and it is helpful to my studies of this subject that these images are here.
Would the Moderators kindly suggest what alternative structure there is within Wikipedia to make such a valuable selection of images easily available and linked to the main article? I accept that there is a Wikipedia policy against articles becoming an art-gallery. However, in this case, these images are as informative as the text, and I suggest that they form a vital part of the whole article.
Perhaps the solution is to change the format, from the "gallery" format, to a paragraph within the main article in which the images are all included alongside their explanatory text. -- Robert of Ramsor ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The map in the infobox? Is it correct (should be removed) ?
( Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας ( talk) 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)).
The pronunciation given at the beginning of the article should possibly be corrected: Orthographical "Achaemanid" would be spelt in IPA as [əˈkiːmənɪd], wouldn't it? "Achaemenidae" would be the orthographical equivalent to the IPA transcription given in the article.
All the best, Michael Job (Göttingen, Germany: mjob@gwdg.de) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.32.107 ( talk) 21:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Before anyone says anything YES! IT IS ABOUT THE MAP! I was just thinking that rather than a map that shows territorial acquisitions over time, shouldn't we simply have a map in the infobox that shows the Achaemenid Empire at it's greatest extent? I have one, but it is no where near done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_under_Darius.png
I am remaking the map and planning on making it a bit more like this: http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/persia-map1.jpg
what do you all think? (most of you probably won't agree with me, but it is worth a shot...) Keeby101 ( talk) 06:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This empire has included parts some 35-40 modern countries and inserting all of them is extreme WP:OVERCAT. It would be much better if such categories are used for provinces (satrapies). -- HistorNE ( talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not the map that I posted before, it's a much better and more accurate version of the Godly Achaemenid Empire! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Achaemenid_Empire_ca_400_B.C.jpg
What do you think? Keeby101 ( talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
This needs revision: it currently states slavery was 'banned', which isn't actually true, but then in the remainder of the paragraph describes its practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 ( talk) 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I have recently created a new and more high quality map of the Godly Achaemenid Persian Empire that I would like to put into the infobox of the article!
It's not finished yet obviously, I still need to add the rest of the cities and provinces, but you have to admit that it is far better than the current map in the infobox. Cheers! Kirby ( talk) 05:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If this article is appropriately redirected when searching Wikipedia for Medo-Persian Empire, why isn't "Medo" in the article anywhere? (Please message me? Thanks.) Misty MH ( talk) 01:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
That figure is a violation of WP:SYNTH as it combines data total empire population estimations from one set of sources to the word population total from another source. In another words none of the sources actually claims that 44% figure. This is particularly problematic since population estimates vary greatly and are not particularly reliable, so by combining figures from different sources into a derived percentage value, you can essentially make up any percentage value and the 44% are simply the best guess by the WP editor (rather thabn ab external source). On top of that a rather weak source is used for global population total (some UN/government statistic rather than some academic/scholarly publication).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There have been a bunch of sources added for the area of the empire which imho is a bit problematic. First of all one or two sources at the end of the paragraph might be more sensible (and improve the readability of the source text dramatically) then adding inline references to each single country. There is also cherry picking/ WP:SYNTH problem by picking and combining these countries names from different sources, instead of sticking to the description in one or two reputable sources. Also the use of India in the sources cannot necessarily be equated with modern India, but also with historic India which includes Pakistan, in that sense northwestern India is essentially Pakistan.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Base on what i've read, The spelling of 'Persepolis' is not really persepolis, it was 'Persopolis'. However, if i am wrong i will accept just sayin' what my opinion is about the spelling of 'Persepolis'
Stating that a 'Persian maritime presence was maintained in the Persian Gulf until the arrival of the Royal Navy in the 19th century' in the context of this article is silly. Why not say the same thing about the Italian navy wrt. Rome or compare Saxon pirates in the North Sea in the 4th century to the Royal Navy. I will remove the statement. Feel free to revert if you can justify. :) 1812ahill ( talk) 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@ LouisAragon: ( diff) The native name of the empire was an Old Persian (and Median) word. The Modern Persian name is almost as irrelevant as the German name. Even the Ancient Greek name is more relevant. -- Z 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This orthographic projection can be more helpuful and better than using this map in Infobox. By indicating the area of Achaemenid Empire on this type of map, pretty much, anyone can immediately recognize the exact location respects to other regions, continents, countries and places on the earth. Also this map is in vector format. If there is any problem with this map, we can helping it to improve by upadating it. Ali Zifan 05:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I also talked with Ali Zifan recently about the map. I told him as well, that the map is simply no improvement of article/content quality or whatsoever, and thus should not be added. - LouisAragon ( talk) 03:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look to at the Infoboxes of these two version of Iran's article on wikipedia : Current version and old version. As you can see, the flat maps were used to indicate the country's location "for a long time" but the orthographic projection has been replaced those flat maps. This fact is true for many countries that have an article on wikipedia. Orthographic projection are considered the most exact and preciese maps that can indicate any point or area on the earth. Please read these links: rice.edu and progonos.com . Actually, we can easily get that this type of maps are definitely the best choice to indicating the empires' area.
The other reason is that by looking at the area (such as iran's area) on this type of maps, pretty much, anyone can immediately recognize the exact location respects to other regions, continents, countries and places on the earth. These reason are not made up by myself. These are the reasons that have been proved and Wikipeidia is currently using it (as i said for every country's (from islands to peninsulas, from small countries to large countries) articles). I sent you some links about the area of other empires that were used orthographic projection like Aztec. I want you to open those links again. You will find out that there is no discussion about using this type of maps.
In addition, what I am talking about is, we don't have to replace these maps with current maps. All I am saying is these orthographic are for Infoboxes of the empire's article. You told me about Sassanian map's image. Yes it has details and it is good but it will be much and much better if we place this on the other part of the article which has the details about sassanids ( History part of the article can be the great position for putting that image) instead of putting it in Infobox part of the article. "What should an infobox not contain? In general, data in infobox templates should not be: Lengthy. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." This obviuosly can be true about images that have much details.
Besides that, if you see any problems with the area or border of the empire's map, you can update it on these files. Actually you can tell me and I will do that. I've already put much time for making these orthographic maps as making them more precise as I could and i will put more time on them to make them more precise if you want. It will be certainly my proud to working with you to updating these maps.
And also I really can't understand that why you say: '"that the map is simply no improvement of article/content quality or whatsoever, and thus should not be added"'. This map is in vector format (Which is considered an improvement on wikipedia) and used orthographic projection which also is considered the best map for showing any coordinate or area on the earth. Finally I hope you revise you opinion about this type of maps. Ali Zifan 04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is what I am talking about:
Thank you Ali Zifan 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to put a temporary map. If you want to change the map, replace it with this, since it is accurate, sourced and authoritative. There's no reason to put a temporary map which is worse than the current one. Thanks! UCaetano ( talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)