Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 4
 | This page 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. |
AE Size Discussion: All 4 questions answered.
Hi Km, I have decided to post all the 4 questions in a short form, meaning I have all the answers, but made them closely pact together, so please if you can read the areas and look at the maps just once, which takes about 1 hour, then you can comment below my message, I thank you very much.
- Well first of all tanks for the impressive effort of collecting such a large amount of material. There are however big problems with your usage and reading of those sources. I will post a short summary at the end and add a few additional comments inbetween.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Q1: Are there reputable maps or sources that favor a 10.7 estimate or the green map?
Overview: Maps that if combined, would be larger than 10.7 for the AE, but because the removed green map was trying to be as accurate as possible, it was 10.7. Babylonian empire maps show are meant to show the area the Achaemenids acquired when Cyrus conquered Babylon, an interesting fact is most people are unaware that Egypt was part of Babylonia, when Cyrus conquered, that means both Egypt and Cyprus were part of Babylonia, the question is when did Egypt break from Babylon, before or after Cyrus conquered it? Xenophon the historian says Cyrus had some control of Egypt, but after he died, it revolted from the empire, then it was re-conquered, this time by force, by Cambyses. However, this issue is irrelevant here, what is important is that some maps show significant portions of Arabia, even up to half of Saudi Arabia under Babylonian rule, which would have became Achaemenid territory, and the Arabs on the border who helped Cambyses invade Egypt were already part of the empire, but Cambyses had to ask them for help. Other maps in the list show that the AE controlled at least to the Third Cataract during Cambyses rule. The links to the books at the bottom even say this in their own words. The interesting pink Persia map is from 1971, right below, it is by the National Cartographic Center of Iran (NCC), first published 1971 and revised in 1999, Iran Cultural Heritage Organization (ICHO), so the source can’t be questioned, THIS is the map the green map was based on that you removed, the green map was even more reliable because it took into account more areas that were conquered by the AE, and took into account river, mountain, and even coastline natural barriers and amounts of the time that the AE ruled, in 480 BC. The largest map in this list is at least 8.7, and plus the books mentioned in the end say up to the Blue Nile, and the pink map shows, and the whole coast lines of the Black Sea with Crimea. If you add that plus some northern areas it will be either 9.7 or 10.7 at least. But I have plans to contact the user who made that map, or make one myself that even shows EVERY province of the AE and their positions to show that it was 10.7. The bible says 170, but if you count every group, clan, tribe, race, province, satrapy of the AE it is somewhere between 350-500 nations inside the empire, interestingly it’s half of what was said in the movie 300, when the Persian general said, “The thousand nations of the Persian Empire will descend upon you.” Anyways, you can ignore that, but remember that everyday our knowledge of the AE is growing, and most of the sources that agree with me (note, agreeing with me, means agreeing with each other, because my conclusions are not mine, its what the historians say themselves) are reliable, comparative, unbiased, un-refuted, and updated sources. So I finally hope this has been a great learning experience, and this is done, so first it can be accepted by a user, this is the first requirement towards finally going on the article. Plus, if this is too overwhelming, that in the next large message, I might just include the best maps and books, not most of them, for better focus. Please remember, I am not stretching the truth, I am simply stating what is there to be found for any serious researcher. Thank you very much.
Top 24 maps (I did not include the maps were it shows Egypt in the Babylonian Empire right before Cyrus conquered it, because that is another issue so I focused on the best maps. For the complete list of the 30+ maps with that issue, please make the request in your next message, and I’ll put them here. Also, there are maps here that show AE routes that they took, and that Nubia, Ethiopia, and Punt are three different places, and the first and middle maps contain the 10.7 estimate too, and both come from reputable sources, as also another source states 10.7, as you will see at the end of question 1):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran-achaemenids_(darius_the_great).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/graphics/dariusempiremaplarge.jpg
http://fittedtogo.com/BasH/P.304.Fig.63.-Map.Persian.Empire.500BC.JPG
http://teachinghearts.org/dr0imappersia.gif
http://www.crystalinks.com/dariusmap.jpg
http://www.thelastcyrus.com/about/images/03.jpg
http://members.cox.net/smiles17/Images%20for%20Practice%20Test/q11map.jpg
http://www.irc2009.net/images/iran-old-map.jpg
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Bible/Bible%20Atlas/083.jpg
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/persia500tbc.jpg
http://www.euratlas.net/altatlas/altatlas_1/aa_0400_0300.jpg
http://www253.pair.com/jfazli/hasius_atlantis/5.jpg
http://www1.american.edu/ted/images4/falla.gif
http://aramis.obspm.fr/~heydari/divers/persian_empire.jpg
http://www.arbolingo.com/tam/worldmap/persia-490bc.jpg
http://www.duke.edu/~rkl7/Images/Greece-Persian-Empire.jpg
http://www.persiansara.com/Iran_Persian_Empire_Cyrus.jpg
http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/persia_map.gif
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/Atlas/persemp.gif
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Bible/Bible%20Atlas/061a.jpg
http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/source/alex1.gif
http://antique-images.com/images/Atlas1834/Ancient%20Persian%20Empire.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/persian_empire.jpg The above map is what you chose, look how old it is! The Historical Atlas: By William R. Shepherd, 1923.
Book links:
1. http://www.transoxiana.org/0104/sasanians.html
2. http://books.google.com/books?id=lxQ9W6F1oSYC&pg=PP1&dq=from+cyrus+to+alexander#v=onepage&q=Cambyses%20Ethiopia&f=false As all the sections up to E in question 1 has been answered so far in this document, this link answers question 1.G, read the full pages of 55, 56, 57, 68, 69. Conclusion; both tributaries and gift giving subjects were territorially part of the empire; this is like a quote from page 69 I think.
3. http://members.lycos.co.uk/AnnePowell/queen_resources/map_Nubia.jpg The words in the brackets [] are cities that still exist to this day. Most sources say Cambyses at least reached the Third Cataract and set up a garrison to guard the area for Persia, were interestingly cities with the names of [Kurti], (Kur-Kura-Kuras-Kuru-Kurus for Cyrus, possibly named after his own father Cyrus II the Great of Persia) [Marawi]-Meroe of which both lie by the Third Cataract, (his so-called Egyptian wife or first queen with him which historians say he named after) and [Kabushiya] (Kambushiya is Babylonian or another name for Cambyses, notice it’s missing only the “m” in the word, which he named after himself) which lies on the Fifth Cataract below the real ancient Meroe.
4. http://books.google.com/books?id=AzqbYf9Q_2UC&pg=PA41&dq=persian+empire+million+people&lr=#v=onepage&q=persian%20empire%20million%20people&f=false This book say’s Crimea was inside the empire.
5. http://books.google.com/books?id=VtISTfUL-NAC&pg=PA7&dq=persian+empire+50+million+people&lr=#v=onepage&q=persian%20empire%2050%20million%20people&f=false This book say’s the empire reached as far as the Blue Nile, it could have just said Nile, but say’s Blue Nile, type Blue Nile into Wikipedia and see what comes up, now I have a clear statement from a reputable book that can be used as a source, bingo!
6. http://www.listsergeant.com/site/index.php/content/article/10_little-known_ancient_and_prehistoric_cultures/ This site is copyrighted material from some book, it has been made into a BlogSpot for some history person, the historian AKA “List Sergeant” Emily H. (which may be a actual historian that I have trouble remembering), Check out number 7., that has a 10.7 million km2 estimate for the AE, calls it the largest and wealthiest empire in the ancient world, and the rest of the information is reputable. This site comes from an article too, which because it is copyrighted (but still lets people use it for Wikipedia), the estimate was made by the historian herself.
Conclusion: Therefore, question 1 is 90% correct.
- I disagree - for more see the summary comment at the end, which mostly refers to this section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Q2: Are there reputable books that say the AE was the largest empire in the ancient world or classical antiquity?
3. http://books.google.com/books?id=-BIGv9vIoqcC&pg=PA627&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false (includes a 50 million population estimate and 2.5 million square miles or 6,474,970.28 kilometers squared estimation too).
7. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=nex1AAAAMAAJ&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&q=Persians+created By Lewis Victor Thomas, Richard Nelson Frye - History - 1951 - 291 pages In the sixth century BC the Persians created the largest empire the ancient world had yet witnessed. The "One World" of the Achaemenid kings was a tolerant...
8. Atlas of world archaeology by Paul G. Bahn - Social Science - 2003 - 208 pages Page 130 The empire created by the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia was the largest in the ancient world. Its rulers developed new strategies for organizing ...
11. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=fs4JAQAAIAAJ&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&q=ancient+world by Jasleen Dhamija - Art - 1979 - 81 pages Under the Achaemenid rulers the frontiers of the Persian empire were greatly ... The founder of the largest empire in the ancient world was Cyrus the Great ...
13. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=taOBAAAAMAAJ&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&q=achaemenid+empire by Bhairabi Prasad Sahu - History - 2006 - 248 pages Achaemenid empire, but this wave seems to have been confined to India west of ... Achaemenian empire, the largest and most powerful in the ancient world. ...
14. Science, technology & medicine in Indian history: essays in honour of Dr ... by Dr. Devendra Kumar Singh, Vijay Kumar Thakur, Krishna Kumar Mandal - History - 2000 - 452 pages Page 34 ... Which was the heart of the Achaemenid empire, but this wave seems to have been ... empire, the largest and the most powerful one of the ancient world. ...
15. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=pJ45AAAAIAAJ&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&q=biggest+empire By Centre for the Study of the Civilizations of Central Asia (Pakistan) - History - 1978 It is this newly added strength that later enabled the Achaemenids to lay the foundation of the biggest empire of the Ancient World. ...
18. Oxford illustrated encyclopedia - Page 32 by Harry Judge - Reference - 1988 - 391 pages It was twice the centre of a major empire. The first was established by the ... time was the largest of the ancient world and included the Hanging Gardens, ...
19. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=Qf8cAAAAYAAJ&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&q=ancient+world+hitherto by Peter Green - History - 1970 - 326 pages ... a greater empire than that of Assyria at her apogee: the largest single administrative complex that had ever existed in the ancient world hitherto. ...
20. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=S7kQAQAAIAAJ&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&q=largest by Debra Reid - Religion - 2008 - 168 pages Between 545 and 538 BC, the Achaemenid kings conquered the whole of the Middle ... and had established the largest of all the empires in the ancient world. ...
22. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=eRxmAAAAMAAJ&dq=achaemenid+empire+largest+empire+in+the+ancient+world&q=largest+state by Arthur Cotterell - Reference - 1998 - 483 pages The Achaemenid art which inspired the Mauryan emperors is one of the great ... that their empire was at the time the largest state in the classical world. ...
Conclusion: Therefore, the Xiongnu or Romans were not the largest empire in the ancient world or classical antiquity, the AE was.
- There was never an issue with the statement that some reputable sources claim that the persian empire was the largest empire in ancient history. Your list of reputable sources illustrates that's nicely. However it still only illustrates just that, i.e. what is written in italic. It does not disprove other sources claiming Alexander's empire or the Roman empire to be the largest, such claim can be found for instance here: Alexander: [1],[2],[3],[4] rome: [5], [6],[7],[8]
- However there are enough reputable sources for claiming in the article that the Persian empire was the largest (without a concrete area figure though). Such a statement would be reasonable however adding a footnote mentioning dissenting literature might be even better.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Q3: Are there reputable maps or sources that favor a lower estimate for the Xiongnu Empire?
The Xiongnu book; http://books.google.com/books?id=GXj4a3gss8wC&pg=RA1-PA36&dq=han+were+larger+than+xiongnu#v=onepage&q=han%20were%20larger%20than%20xiongnu&f=false
This book say’s that the Xiongnu were the same size as the Rouran in its greatest extent, the Rouran is currently listed as 3.8 million km2, although they come from the same source, this is eerily close to the previous removed long ago 3.5 number and 4.5 user estimated number (note 4.5 is half of 9.0), the number between 3.5-4.5 is 4.0, when the book says “as vast,” it means nearly as big as the Xiongnu, now if the Xiongnu were 4.0, nearly is 3.8ish, which is the exact estimate of the Rouran, this is critical thinking. So this book and many others yet to be found, indirectly state that the Xiongnu was around 4.0 million km2. Also the maps below, with an exception of a deleted outdated map in the “world history maps,” range from 2.5 to 5.5 in million km2 (relatively about the same sizes, and ranges from 135-215 or 175 BC, when it was at its greatest extent), which I have painstakingly managed to calculate, some have modern day borders drawn on them, so to calculate the numbers would not be original research, because its just calculating what is the exact size of the Xiongnu as found on the maps.
- The cited books doesn't contain anything about Rouran. So frankly what are you talking about here? MOst of the maps below are not usuable as reputable resources either. However if you can come up with a smaller figure in a reputable source and you want to use that in the article, that's ok with me. However a footnote should explain why the msaller number was picked.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
10 maps found of the Xiongnu, which most are reliable;
http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/maps/hun03-0.gif
Not even borders drawn for them, means it’s a confederation: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hand/hg_d_hand_d1map.gif
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/BC%20200%20Huns.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20080122204949!Asia_200bc.jpg
http://www.allempires.com/article/images/xiongnu.jpg
http://www.bertsgeschiedenissite.nl/ijzertijd/eeuw3ac/woongebied_xiongnu.jpg
Second most reliable: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_100bc.jpg
Again, not even borders: http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/china/map-han100bce.gif
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/husa/origins/hunhist/hunmap.jpg
Probably the most reliable map here comes from a University: http://ssil.uoregon.edu/hist387/gallery/full/1202860359.jpg
Conclusion: Therefore, the Xiongnu were at least half of 9.0 million km2 in size.
Q4: What do most reputable sources in books say about Cambyses’ invasion of Nubia?
Books on Cambyses’s expedition (listed by newest books first);
Overview: In overall, there are three places, Nubia, Ethiopia, and Punt, which the first one was conquered by Cambyses, then broke away during the revolt of the satraps early in Darius’ rule. Then during his organization of the empire, he included Nubia in the lists, and later after building the Suez Canal added the rest of Ethiopia with Punt, (which he combined under the name of Kush for one huge satrapy, he is known to combine various provinces into one for easier control [If you doubt this fact, I have more sources to back it up]) which was just a tiny spread of land or the northern coast of Somalia. Also, to address two of your great points; there is also historical, not just archaeological as you mentioned, evidence to back up the conquest of Nubia by Cambyses, and together Kush (Nubia and Ethiopia) existed before the Persians and became powerful after, especially Napata and Aksum (Meroe), so when they existed is irrelevant, as interesting as it is, there are mysterious gaps or Persian sounding-unknown rulers listed as kings of Kush at the same time when the Persians conquered it. This is due to the turmoil caused by occupying garrisons and nobles set up by Cambyses and Darius to overlook Kush and Punt when they were fully conquered or became a loosely controlled satrapy by 515 B.C. This is the conclusion one comes to when reading the ten Best books on AE that can be found on Google Books and the rest of the internet. For number nine and ten, Google Books did not allow me to view the books, but luckily I had them in my library look at.
- The cited literature only suggest tha norhern nubia was occupied by the Persians, it does not suggest that Nubia or its capital was conquered. In fact some of them explicitly state, that conquering Nubia was probably not even Cambyses goal to begin with, but rather to secure the border region in southern Egypt. They don't state anything about gaps in Kush rulers. --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
2. http://books.google.com/books?id=XWbhmebyhxAC&pg=PA116&dq=achaemenid+corpus+sources+cambyses+reaches+Meroe#v=onepage&q=&f=false pp. 116-117.
5. http://books.google.com/books?id=dFo7MPWe9V8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=herodotus+ethiopia&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Go to p. 180, he says Cambyses later got more than 1/5 of the way there, probably meant the Ethiopia which was more southern than Nubia, because he is known to mix up Ethiopia with Nubia.
9. J.M. Cook, The Persian Empire; The Critical Decade, The Organization of the Provinces, Published by Schocken Books, New York (1983). pp. 48-49, 87:
“Unfortunately the Eastern Greek levies in Cambyses’ army were not taken on the Ethiopian campaign (III 25), and consequently Herodotus had to rely on Egyptian sources which consistently denigrated Cambyses. So we cannot with any certainty write the campaign off as a disaster. But a few years later people of Kush (Ethiopia) were included among the subject peoples listed by Darius and depicted on the Persepolis Apadana reliefs as negroes bringing gifts of elephant tusk, an okapi (or, we are now told, nilgai) and perhaps incense.”
“Concerning the other (unnamed peoples in the Skudra lists); the island of Socotra is not out of the question.”
10. A.T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire; Cambyses and the Conquest of Egypt, The Great King and His Armies, University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London (1945). pp. 89, 244:
“Cambyses annexed the Ethiopians on the border, but, despite “Cambyses’ Storehouse” at the second cataract, supplies failed.”
“Punt on the Somali coast was never organized as a regular satrapy.”
Conclusion: Therefore, Cambyses at least got to Third-Sixth Cataract and was inside the empire, and then Ethiopia and Punt were added during Darius’ reign. Also Xerxes conquered the Dahae north of the Aral Sea, and Akaufaka, or mountains by Yue-Chi or the eastern fringe of China, and got all the way to Athens, remember these are ADDITIONS to Darius’ empire. Also in Xerxes’ inscriptions in Susa he lists that Quadia [Briant, p. 173, (2002)] was in the empire too, which the only tribe with that name in the ancient world was located in Austria and was once conquered by Rome! However I don’t support Austria being part of the empire, so this is still under ongoing investigation. Then after Xerxes, as you may know, the decline of the empire started, so 480 BC marks the zenith of the empire. Also look for where Socotra is located, this may be a surprise. So, with finding that there is also a 10.7 estimate out there, as seen in question 1, my final conclusion is that the AE at its greatest extent in 480 BC was at least 10.7 million kilometers squared, the end.
I included this for a reference, and the main AE article should have one estimate as the Roman Empire article does, not 5.5-7.5, but taking out the 7.7, it should now have one estimate or the 10.7 one.
- AE size estimations that we already know about (note, at its greatest extent is in 480 BC, so even if the 5.5 estimates are the most and are reliable, they are estimates made for when the empire was not at its largest, so for this article, only the largest estimates that were made when it was at its largest count, or 10.7 million km2 in 480 BC);
- AE area estimated at 2.5 million km2 in 480 BC, by an author that can also be found under the 70 million population estimate mentioned in the population section for the empire (note, it comes from a children's book, possible typo by author or an extreme fringe estimation).
- AE area estimated at 5.0 million km2 by an author of which the name escapes me.
- AE area estimated by Taagepera (1979) and Turchin (2006) is 5.5 million km2 in 500 BC, of which at least 100+ other semi-reliable books have been found to carry this estimation.
- AE area estimated by Clara Colliver Rice Persian women & their ways (1923) is 6.4 million km2 in 490 BC.
- AE area estimated by The New York Times' Guide to Essential Knowledge (2007) is 6.4 million km2 in 490 BC.
- AE area estimated by the British Museum's Forgotten Empire (2005) is 7.5 million km2 in 485 BC (by the end of Darius' rule, greatest expansion gets mixed up with greatest extent, that is why most make the mistake of saying greatest extent for Darius, not Xerxes).
- AE area estimated by Strauss (2005) is 7.7 million km2 in 480 BC.
- AE area estimated by Batchelor (2008) is 7.7 million km2 in 480 BC.
- AE area estimated by Alloway (2008) is 7.7 million km2 in 480 BC, at its absolute greatest extent for one year 480-479 right before the battle of Plataea (this is where I think it's 10.7 not 7.7).
- Note, for the 10.7 estimate, just look in question 1.
The AE size discussion has now been resolved.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually no the issue has not been resolved at all neither as far as quoting that figure in the WP article is concerned nor as far as us agreeing on the actual area of the Persian empire. Don't take this the wrong way, but after going over most of the sources you've collected, I think a few general words regarding WP and the evaluation of sources are in order.
- No original research in WP (see WP:OS). WP articles should reflect knowledge from reputable sources only. It is allowed to "improve" or "expand" their statements. Doing an extensive literature or knowledge research that leads to "new" conclusions not yet stated in that form in reputable resources constitutes strictly speaking OS as well and therefore is normally not permitted.
- This directly concerns your argument here, since you compile a variety of sources to state something "new" that none of the sources themselves state.
- When using sources for Wikipedia, one need to review them critically and also apply some common sense ranking regarding reliability and reputability of sources, such as:
- No unreliable or unreputable sources such arbitrary blogs, private websites, arbitrary graphics (without a reputable origin).
- Books/articles by academic scholars (university) rank higher than books/articles by other people such as general writers/journalists
- sources need to be ranked by the reputability/reliability of their authors as well. A book by a historian or archeologist on the Persian empire ranks higher than a book by CIA analyst on Iran
- special subject publications rank usually higher than general books, so for instance a publication on the persian empire or ancient history ranks higher than a publication on Iran (mentioning some infos on the Persian empire as well)
- (reputable) scholar interpretation of various evidence (such as archeological findings) outranks the personal interpretation of WP authors.
- newer reputable sources outrank or supercede older reputable sources
- don't cherry pick or distort the content of reputable sources
- This concerns you a part of your argumentation directly since your compiled resources range from rather questionable pieces like arbitray graphics from internet, blogs, oudated material to reputable sources. In other words the sources contain a lot of unusable noise which just obscures the issue/distracts from the reputable sources. However there are also many reputable sources in your collection, but they simply do not back up what you claim (we seem to read them rather differently).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Km, first of all, I want to thank you dearly for looking into my message. I know exactly what you mean when saying we read them differently. But I think on closer examination you might find out most of what I say is true, now the main problem here is that I have put together so much sources, that it seems like original research, but its put here to show that what I say is overwhelmingly supported by the most and BUT mostly best Persian histories (like you said, number is not important, reliability is important). In my next message, I will select the most reliable sources from my message, and together we will go over them one by one, don't worry I will make it short. I'm just saying we need get the idea of what I'm saying by reavaluating the sources. Also, I'm NOT saying that I am 100% correct, I'm saying most of what I say is repeated by the best Persian historians, I urge you to ask a Persian Wikipedian if the 10 best books in that section are the best Persian history books or not, British Museum, Briant, Dandamenev, Olmstead, Cook, Strauss, Kurt, Grayson I think, etc... So my actual reply will be in the next message. Thanks.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, basically all books by academic scholars in the field of history/archeology can generally be considered as good resource (no matter from which country, which a few exceptions science/academics are international). Distinguishing between them regarding being more correct or being more reputable is a task that has to be done by an (academic) expert on the subject, which I am not. I did however a while back ask a historian regarding the best authoritative sources on the Persian Empire and he recommended Briant and Kurt (and iirc specifically pointing out that they supercede the older Olmstead).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Revised Reply
Okay, this is the reply (I know this might seem unusual but I'm going to paste your comments below and put the answer right under them, this would make it easier for you and me so you don't have to scroll up and down each time, because the question and reply are by eachother, thank you for undersating);
I'm not going to paste your comment about sources that say Alexanders and Rome was largest too, because I have a quick answer for them, the first three sources in the Alexanders part if you read carefully say that after Alexander conquered Persia it became the largest empire, the next one only says it was largest.
- If you claim that, then you have not read the sources carefully, literally they say about alexander and his empire:
- "the largest empire the world had yet known"
- "alexander the great[...] ruler of the largest empire the world had yet seen"
- "building the largest empire in the ancient world"
- "Alexander was now master of all that comprised the largest empire the world had yet seen"
- Strictly speaking you could argue 3 of 4 sources open the possibility of the roman empire to be greater (as it came after Alexander), however in any case all of them obviously suggest Alexander's empire being greater then the Persian empire.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
For your Roman ones, only two explicity say it was the largest, and in the other one book says it became the largest empire in all history, this statement is clearly false, in all history, the largest empire was the British, if your going to count all history.
- See, that is an incorrect interpretation as well all of them state clearly the roman empire being the largest, some of them "just" make the mistake of referring to all history rather than anvient history. You might argue however, that a source that sloppily using "all history" instead "ancient history" doesn't make an all that reliable impression.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
But one fact is clear the vast majority of authors state Persia was the largest, and the point of Q2 was not to say Rome or Alexanders weren't the largest, the point was that I can't find ONE book that say's the Xiongnu empire? confederation? tribe? (even I don't know what they are fully) were the largest in ancient history, (note, classical antiquity means the ancient history of the WESTERN world, not all ancient history, this is important to understand) also you can find books in my list that say Persia was largest in both ancient history and classical antiquity. So this and question 1 is solved (I'll go into that later), only question 3 and 4 remain, because in your last statement in question 2 you basically say that I'm right, and you are also right because you found some sources that seem to say the Rome or Alexander were largest too.
- I don't object to the claim that most sources say the Persian empire id the largest, though strictly speaking i don't know, since one would have to do a real quantitative analysis of literature for that, which I didn't. I simply picked one of the first examples a search showed up. The purpose of posting them here was not to state that the Persian empire was not the largest, but to point out that your earlier insinuations like "it is obvious", "all academics know" and similar are simply not true. As far as the Xiongnu are concerned, i don't claim that they are the largest or that any publication other than Turchin's paper says so. My point here is, that if you want to correct/overrule Turchin you need a reputable source for doing so. That source should either give a smaller figure for the Xiongnu or be a source that clearly includes the Xiongnu in its computation. As I explained earlier the problem with sources simply claiming, that Persia (or Alexander, or Rome) is the greatest in ancient history, is, that they have a good chance of simply being unaware of the Xiongnu or not considering East Asian/precolumbian empires at all. If that's the case their claim is no good (as far as the global view is concerned).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"The cited books doesn't contain anything about Rouran. So frankly what are you talking about here? MOst of the maps below are not usuable as reputable resources either. However if you can come up with a smaller figure in a reputable source and you want to use that in the article, that's ok with me. However a footnote should explain why the msaller number was picked."
In this statement you show that you have not fully read p. 36, especially its last paragraph that states, The Rouran arose in Mongolia to re-create an empire as vast as the Xiongnu. Which later it tells how far the Rouran reached, and I searched those locations, which meant a figure of 3.8-4.5. Now, the maps I included were the best I can find on the entire net, it astounds me that you say they are unusable as reputable resources (these maps range from 2.5-5.5); Metropolitan Museum of Art 1, Allempires.com internets #1 resource for all empires 2, This is were Wikipedia gets its historical maps from, hundreds of articles get their maps from this guy, who I checked seems to be an academic, like Livius.org 3, University of Texas at Austin 4, University of Oregon [9]-the department and its map-5. Well, what else can I say? I can say that if I had to find more Xiongnu maps, they would come from unreliable sources or user created, so I chose the best 10, and that the p. 36 source indirectly implies that the Xiongnu were as vast as the Rouran, if you believe the Rouran became as large as the Xiongnu, which the book seems to mean, then please make the Rouran 9.0 million kilometers squared-which it's clearly not.
- Actually my statement was correct, the Rouran are not mentioned in the book and in particular not on that page. However after rereading the paragraph I probably found the explanation. You were referring to the Ruanruan (rather than Rouran), they are of course 2 different name variations for the same thing. Originally i just read the first paragraph and after not finding the Rouran there, i did a word search on the whole book which came up with nothing. This means you basic argument is valid (though somewhat weak since it requires intermediate conclusions versus an an explicit number in the Turchin paper). However personally I have no objection to use that way to come up with a smaller figure, but that definitely requires a footnote explaining the reasoning otherwise people proofreading the article will see Turchin paper and correct the figure or complain that the sources are not used appropriately.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"The cited literature only suggest tha norhern nubia was occupied by the Persians, it does not suggest that Nubia or its capital was conquered. In fact some of them explicitly state, that conquering Nubia was probably not even Cambyses goal to begin with, but rather to secure the border region in southern Egypt. They don't state anything about gaps in Kush rulers."
Your only reading once source again, and drawing conclusions from it. You forgot the four other books that say Cambyses got at least to the Third Cataract. Some Nubian cities still retain Persian or Cambyses type names. The part about gaps in the rulers was an old book that I have trouble finding where it lists the kings of Kush, a list not on Wikipedia. That goal was not begin with statement was one historians theory, most others know, not theorize that it was Cambyses' great African project-as Herodotus even states. The other half of the sources say later, thanks to Darius, he fully finished the conquest Kush (Nubia-Ethiopia), and even made a unregular satrap of Punt (while occupying the island of Socotra)! I don't know understand why it's so hard to understand clear quotations directly from the books THE 10 best books by the best historians on Persia, how much better can this get? In the AE size estimations that we already know about the 2nd highest or most estimates are 7.7, the highest is 5.5, which are hundreds of barely reliable books that copy eachother, only Taag and Turchin are reliable, the other most estimations are from 7.7-10.7.
- No, at that time I looked at all the books that you've originally quoted in that section and in none of them I could find what you've claimed, i.e. neither of them stated that either Cambyses or Darius conquered KUsh (other than north/border area to Egypt). It is possible though, that I might have overlooked a line or looked at different paragraph than intended though. To avoid that please cite a specific book (including page, paragraph/line in case there is a disagreement). I will comment on the sources you quote further below now individually.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Your telling me I say things the sources don't say?;
Duke University [10].
- There 2 things. At first I wasn't even sure whether this is a reputable source at all (just being on university server doesn't mean anything). However after taking a closer look, the I realized it is in the directory of a PhD candidate in classic studies, which at least seems to make it somewhat more trustworthy. However strictly speaking it is still not reputable source as giben. Because we don't know whether and where it was published and from what data it was created. We don't don't know whether it was created by the expertise candidate or whther he just ripped it of from somewhere else. We don't he himself considers the map correct or not. A possible (though not very likely) scenario could be, that he saved it as an example for an false outdated map for his students. Oberall conclusion as of now that map is not a reputable source
- Probably even more important. This maps excludes Nubia from the Persian empire and hence directly contradicts your claim.
Orignially from the British Encyclopaedia, search Google, some maps don't show the source at the bottom [11].
University of Michigan [12]-his profile and school profile-[13]-and his map-[14].
- That looks like an interesting map from an informed person, but the notation is somehwat inconclusive/unclear. Kush seems to a date of conquest or acquiring (500BC) under Darius, but it doesn't really indicate as what (part of the empire or clientel sate/ally). Nor does it show an clear area in fact aside from the given date Kush is shown to be not a part of the empire. ASide from the actual reading however this map is not reputable source either (see general comment on that further below), but very circumstantial evidence at best.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This map is used in a history lecture by a proffesor, you can see the video on Youtube, type in Cyrus captures Babylon, the proffesor has glasses on [15].
This is clearly torn out of a book [16].
The source that made this map is in here Pause the documentary containing many imminent Persian historians at 6:00-its map is this-[17].
National Cartographic Center of Iran (NCC), first published 1971 and revised in 1999, Iran Cultural Heritage Organization (ICHO), so the source can’t be questioned. Read everything down the page-[18].
- Not a reliable source (as of now) and yes it can be questioned. First of all it contains no specifics other than the organisation (which has an unclear academic reliability/reputability to me right now) and the provided link doesn't seem to work (not even the top level domain).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A reliable site-[19]-borrowed the map from a book-[20].
- That's an iffy resource as well or rather one you might only use when nothing else available is available. Why? First of all this is clear case of ranking sources, that I've mentioned earlier. This is pedagogic sides for teaching (little) kids, i.e. it is clearly outranked by academic or scholarly publications (and maps they contain). Moreover it is not clear where the given map is from either. It looks like it stems from some old book, about whose accuracy or correctness we have no information.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Another book [21].
- Basically a similar problem as above regarding the map, moreover the website is clearly less reliable than the one above.
Crystal links chose this map from a history booklet-[22].
[23] The above map is what you chose, look how old it is! The Historical Atlas: By William R. Shepherd, 1923. This is supposed to be reliable right? You may want to call this map the map with holes, lol!
- This is not about winning a polemic contest. Pay attention to what i wrote earlier. I said I used this map (in the article on the persian empire) because it stems from an old (but reputable) source and much more recent reputable (but not free) sources do essentially show the same area in their maps. I also explicitly named 3 among them DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (maps for world history). Also note that this map has an exact reference in the file description on commons (contrary to the more recent one in commons above). Moreover it replaced a completely unreliable and unreputable map (the infamous selfmade "green map").
- A summary for all the maps. We have 11 maps out of them 1 only really supports your claim (20), 4 support it partially (16,22,23,24) and 6 do not support it at all. All maps but 24 have a somewhat unclear origin, which make them at this stage unreliable for any hard argument regarding the area of the empire. "Probaly being used by some academic" or "most likely from some history book" is not good enough. Another indicator that one has to be rather careful with those maps is that regarding Africa, Arabia and Crimea they differ vastly in their description. For a hard argument (rather than just a suspicion or personal conjecture), you need to pick a map being published in a reputable journal or book (and being able to reference the exact publication in which the map appears.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Book links; [24] This source states: the conquest of Egypt acted by the Achaemenid Emperor Cambyses (529-522 B.C.) [Snowden, 1971, pp. 121-125, 184; Law, 1978, pp. 98-103, 105; Bresciani, 1985 (reprint 1993); Morkot, 1991; Török, 1997, pp. 377-392; Huyse, 1999]. Some Achaemenid monuments accompanied by carved inscriptions report in effect the possible condition of regions such as Putaya (Libya) and Kushiya (Ethiopia) as rendered tributary of the Persian Empire (fig. 1) [For a detailed study on the presence of these two peoples in the Achaemenian monuments and inscriptions: Walser, 1966, pp. 27-67, 99-101, pls. 29-30, 79-82, foldout pls. 1-2. See also: Conti Rossini, 1928, p. 54; Monneret de Villard, 1937-38, p. 305, note 3; Monneret de Villard, 1948, pp. 154-155; Leroy, 1963, pl. CLXII, a-b; Snowden, 1971, p. 125; Roaf, 1974, pp. 75-92, 137-143; Shinnie, 1978.a, p. 223; Cook, 1985 (reprint 1993), pp. 214, 219, 247, 263; Bresciani, 1985, pp. 503, 523; Tourovets, 2001, pp. 227, 251. According to Herodotus, these were not real Ethiopians but Nubians, i.e. the black inhabitants of the region bordering Southern Egypt [Cook, 1985, p. 263; Tourovets, 2001, pp. 250-251], albeit the incontrovertible similarities between the aspect of the black tributaries depicted at Persepolis and that of a pre-Aksumite Ethiopian statue and reliefs (fig. 2) [Leroy, 1963; Anfray, 1990, fig. at p. 40; Munro-Hay, 1996, p. 413]. Type Aksumite Empire on Wikipedia (its most southern border is by the Blue Nile (oh now I remember another source above [actually its below] also said that the AE reached the Blue Nile oh now I remember) ever wonder where it is?
- Well the Aksumite empire is not the Kush empire, but another one with its center being east of Kush and it existed much later. In fact the map and book your are citing here in your link is about the Sassanid Empire (=new Persian) and not the Achaemenid Empire (=old Persian). All we have here is that 'Northern NuBia/kush wass most likely occupied by Persians. And yes there a a few Persiasn inscriptions that list tributes or donations from Ethopia (you can a more detailed description on livius.org) that mention tributes from Ethopia, but it is not at all clear to which area that exactly refers nor does it mean that Kush was part of the empire. This is precisely why all authoritative books being aware of these inscriptions and other archeological findings (and even most you've cited) do not show Ethopia as part of the Persian empire.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
[25] As all the sections up to E in question 1 has been answered so far in this document, this link answers question 1.G, read the full pages of 55, 56, 57, 68, 69. Conclusion; both tributaries and gift giving subjects were territorially part of the empire; this is like a quote from page 69 I think.
- This probably one of the best resources on the empire. However according to it Cambyses did not conquer Kush, but just occupied the northern region. Its is not mentioning an expedition by Darius against Kush either. The discussion on page 69 is about the differences between tribute/taxes/donation and what to make of it. He does give his scholarly interpretation, but in the discussion he makes no reference to Nubia explicitly. True is however that in the book at several other location mentions Nubia as a part of the empire (so do the persian inscription (see livius.org for that)). However that might only refer to the occupied Northern Nubia and not to the kingdowm of Kush. Nowhere does it mention that Kush capital was occupied by Persia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
.[26] This book say’s Crimea was inside the empire.
- yes, this is reputable source that mentions Crimea being part of the empire. However here again the ranking matters and the overall picture. This is a book about the general history of Iran, but we ave plenty of experts books on antiquity or the Persian empire itsself and they do not mention Crimea as part of the empire. Moreover all the maps but one you cited show Crimea not being a part of the empire. And the one exception is a bit inconclusive as well, having a question mark in the concerned area.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
[27] This book say’s the empire reached as far as the Blue Nile, it could have just said Nile, but say’s Blue Nile, PLEASE type Blue Nile into Wikipedia and see what comes up, now I have a clear statement from a reputable book that can be used as a source, bingo!
http://www.listsergeant.com/site/index.php/content/article/10_little-known_ancient_and_prehistoric_cultures/ This site is copyrighted material from some book, it has been made into a BlogSpot for some history person, the historian AKA “List Sergeant” Emily H. (which may be a actual historian that I have trouble remembering), Check out number 7., that has a 10.7 million km2 estimate for the AE, calls it the largest and wealthiest empire in the ancient world, and the rest of the information is reputable. This site comes from an article too, which because it is copyrighted (but still lets people use it for Wikipedia), the estimate was made by the historian herself.
- Again as given this just a blog. If' the author in your opinion just repeats what he has read (or written himself) in an authoritative book, then please provide a reference to that book and not the blog. If any historian has published a 10.7 figure than please provide the exact publication in which the figure is given.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The belief that I state something new is your belief, I state something that most reliable historians have known, but have not fully discussed. So if the empire seems larger than it should because you did not read the end footnotes and further analysis areas of some Persian empire books its not my fault-that is why I urge you to contact Persian Wikipedians to come and discuss this issue with us, people who know what they are talking about and can either back me or discredit me, so I'm just reporting what's out there.
- Again I did read those books and they 'do not support your claim neither regarding Kush nor regarding the area claimed in the "green map". And this is not about my belief but about the gap between what the authoritative sources actually say and what you claim.
- No unreliable or unreputable sources such arbitrary blogs, private websites, arbitrary graphics (without a reputable origin).
- Books/articles by academic scholars (university) rank higher than books/articles by other people such as general writers/journalists
sources need to be ranked by the reputability/reliability of their authors as well.
- A book by a historian or archeologist on the Persian empire ranks higher than a book by CIA analyst on Iran
- special subject publications rank usually higher than general books, so for instance a publication on the persian empire or ancient history ranks higher than a publication on Iran (mentioning some infos on the Persian empire as well)
- (reputable) scholar interpretation of various evidence (such as archeological findings) outranks the personal interpretation of WP authors.
- newer reputable sources outrank or supercede older reputable sources
- don't cherry pick or distort the content of reputable sources
My reply;
- I don't use blogs, private websites-only by academics, arbitrary graphics, Taager and Turchin use graphics on their PDF document, so I only use reputable originated graphics.
- Have lots of university publications, more than just on Cambyses or Darius.
- You picked this one book by an CIA analyst, actually I could have used another source, but chose the CIA one because I thought it would be more reliable, especially a Persian historian who we are not sure is a CIA analyist.
- Subject publications are all over my sources, some are listed in books, but come from independent articles that were put into books, you even said use Briant and Kurt, check question 1 and 4.
- Reputable scholar interpretations of physical evidence for the conquest of Kush, saying achaemenid pottery was found to be used in Kush into Darius' reign and many other sets of evidence, Cambyses introduces Ethiopian tree to Egypt, are not just in Kurt's, but other books as well.
- The finding of Persian pottery in Kush alone does not prove the conquest, it can get their by many different means such as trade for instance. The existence of silk in ancient Rome doesn't lead to the conclusion that Rome was a part of the Han empire either. However if reputable scholars conclude with reasonable certainty from archeological evidence and other knowledge (not just as mere speculation), that Kush was indeed a part of the empire (or crimea), then you have your smoking gun. But again after surveying the material I've seen no such statement. All they claim is that with some certainty Northern Nubia (possibly up to the 3rd cataract) was occupied by the Persians for a while. Note that to conquer the Kingdom of Kush as a whole you need to control the area up to the 6th cataract). If we are simply looking at different chapters in the same book, then please provide a detailed reference (page, paragraph line) where it explicitly states that Kush was a part of the Persian empire (similarly for crimea and the area southeast of Kush (which later becomes Axum)).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, that's a good point, like when you perfer a '1923' map over an 'Iranian Persian historians celebrated by the academic headquarters of Iran's cultural organization Made map from 1999, or the famous pink map that is at least 8.7-9.7.
- You could say I cherry pick everything, because I look for something until the Google pages run out, in terms of distorting, it may look like I stretch the truth at times, but I try my best to restate what the best historians say themselves.
I hope you have read this section carefully before making an reply, please look over it, especially the academic sources (basically all of them), one more time. Best regards to you.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried - however chances are that i might have overlooked a thing or two. If that's the case please point it out with a more specifiv location when possible. This time I also commented each source and its problems individually. Regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Km, thanks for the detailed reply. I'm just commenting here to tell you that I'm going to write a better one with new sources I discovered. So stay tuned... It will will also be shorter, so we can get down to details and ignore the if's and maybe's, I post what the authors actually said, how does that sound? Thanks a mil.--67.160.195.101 (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)