Talk:Cyrus the Great

Archives
2007 to July 2008

Checking references

A couple of the three refs given for the sentence...."According to many interpretations of the Nabonidus Chronicle, our main source of information on the battle, Cyrus's troops subsequently carried out a massacre and large-scale looting..." do not contain a page number. I am looking through my copy of Glassner's Mesopotamian Chronicles, which is some 388 pages, and don't seem to be finding that. Could we get a page number for that and for the Grayson reference? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pages 232-7 in Glassner's book (translation no. 26) and pages 104-111 in Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the page numbers. I will check them more carefully later. I did want to point out that Jona Lendering, whom you have often quoted, in his version of the Nabonidus Chronicle (found here: [1] interprets this "In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. He is not the only one to question the reference of the personal pronoun. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what I am about to say does not matter; but the comman sense of Ariobarza tells him that the only reason I would massacre the confused inhabitants, is that if they revolted from me, therefore they were confused and did not know who to fight, me or Cyrus, but I taught them a lesson, so I Nabonidus, slaughtered the confused inhabitants of Akkad, it was me!--Ariobarza (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

If you look at Lendering's version, he says at the bottom: "This translation was made by A. Leo Oppenheim and is copied from James B. Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament, 1950 Princeton. Some minor changes have been made." The comments in brackets are not in Oppenheim's original text, which says "(Nabonidus)" instead. An article in vol. 35 of The Ancient World calls this interpretation "perverse" and correctly notes that modern translations such as Kuhrt's (or Grayson's, or Glassner's) "more plausibly see the perpetrator as Cyrus". This certainly makes more sense in the context - it was common practice for conquerors to massacre the inhabitants of resisting cities in order to encourage other cities to surrender without fighting (as Sippar and Babylon did). The Romans famously did that, and it would be no surprise for Cyrus to do it too. I obtained a recent translation by Maria Brosius (in The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I) in which she comments: "After the Babylonian defeat at Opis, both Sippar and Babylon surrendered, opening the gates of their cities to the enemy. In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament."

The two are not mutually exclusive. How a ruler treats their enemies verses their subjects, can be vastly different. Hardyplants (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but don't forget that the Cyrus cylinder portrayed his takeover of Babylon as peaceful - it doesn't even mention the Battle of Opis. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Lendering's version, I had pointed out earlier that his translation had "differences" that we are unaware of, and thus had to be taken with caution. However that particular line demonstrates that even Lendering whose general pov is in line with yours acknowledges that it is unclear whom that passage is referencing. Nor, as I have said, is he the only one who recognizes the confusion in the personal pronoun. It is so out-of-character with the Cyrus the Great that we do know, that there are even contemporary translator(s) who claim the whole passage is mis-translated. Thus it seems to me that we are doing OR when we try to determine a "correct" version based on certain translators (or historians) and not on others. We can mention in passing that there is a question in the Nabonidus Chronicle, but we should not make very much of it, im(nsh)o. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the business of deciding which translation is "correct", merely which is the prevalent modern interpretation. There's a common interpretation of the disputed line by essentially all the modern translators of the Nabonidus Chronicle's full text - Grayson (1975), Brosius (2000), Tavernier (2003, in Dutch) Glassner (2004) and Kuhrt (2007). Lendering uses the older Oppenheim translation from 1950, for some reason. As for being "out-of-character with the Cyrus the Great that we do know", this is just an assumption on your part, I'm afraid. We don't "know" Cyrus for the simple reason that he's been dead for 2,500 years, there are very few more-or-less contemporary sources on his life and none of them are remotely objective. All we "know" is that there a majority of modern translators follow a common interpretation of the Nabonidus Chronicle's description of the Battle of Opis. That doesn't mean that they're "right" or "wrong", merely that there's a prevalent view among historians. That needs to be reflected in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed appear that you are in the business of deciding which translation is "correct". I was not discussing exhuming a corpse and am well aware that he has been dead lo these many years. We "know" from previous evidence and the history written since. Re this statement: "...there are very few more-or-less contemporary sources on his life and none of them are remotely objective" sounds like a significant case of OR to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

“Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy” -- Max Mallowan. 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge , Cambridge University Press, pp.392-419. Max Mallowan? Not remotely objective? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew Max Mallowan wrote quite a long time ago, but he's not a "more-or-less contemporary source" on Cyrus's life, is he? Please try reading what I write before replying to it. The sources I'm referring to are the Babylonian and Persian inscriptions from around Cyrus's time, plus Herodotus and Xenophon, plus (arguably) the Biblical texts. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO please read this, and tell me what is wrong

Hi ChrisO, something conernes me, I think (based on your own neutrality rules) you should stop saying but he shows his take over of Babylon was peacefull, but his battle was not peacefull, therefore the Cyrus Cylinder is propaganda. Have you ever read the Cyrus Cylinder itself? It is clearly talking a decree to the citizens of the city of Babylon (the capital, because the empire at the time was called the Chaldaean or Neo-Babylonian Empire), it says his take over was peacefull, and that is TRUE, because he never besieged Babylon. According to all smushed up accounts, Gubaru diverted its river, and his troops when the water was at hips height entered the city at night, then Cyrus joined later, and then a few guards and maybe the son of Nabonidus was killed with a candle holder by Gadates and or Gubaru (I KNOW the story from all versions). If his decree was to all Babylonia, then it would make sense it was propaganda because he had fought a battle before, BUT when he is speaking to the Jews of Babylon, which he is on the tablet, then of course he is speaking to the city of Babylon were all the Jews were! Not all of Babylonia, yet you keep saying he captured Babylon in great bloody battle, when only a couple of guards might have been killed during the night raid. Thanks.

Here is what is wrong with ChrisO's neutral point of view, by referencing this it seems unlikely that this is neutrality;

"After the Babylonian defeat at Opis, both Sippar and Babylon surrendered, opening the gates of their cities to the enemy. In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament."

1. Now here is the problem, Sippar had no choice because it was running out of supplies, and it was Nabonidus plan to shut himself in the city for some strategic plan he had in mind, but it never worked out (I will cite this if you do not believe me).

2. Babylon did not surrender and open their gates, (EVEN if they thought the Persians were going to destroy everything) the Persians got in themselves, what Kuhrt (I THINK it is a she) says is theoritical commentary, just some extra blah blah to expand her book a little more, it completely contradicts the all the accounts, as you may have read above (actually it might be in talkOpis or talkChrisO) how Babylon was taken, so I will not repeat myself. And I am not saying she did this on purpose, it is possible she did not know. Now history tells us that after the Persians captured Babylon themselves, (and here is the question) did the Persains kill the inhabitants and destroy the city? THIS is what Kuhrt tells us, In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. Will according to all accepted history the Persians did not destroy or kill anyone in the city of Babylon (which is the capital), they did the opposite. THE GREAT MYSTERY to me is why does ChrisO keep referencing uneutral, biased, somewhat Greek nationalistic, and out of date with a touch of denial in history SOURCES? Sounds like a good recipe huh? ChrisO I got gut feeling that tells me you might not be neutral, NoW Am I WoRnG?--Ariobarza (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

One thing that you should never forget, it may seem that me (I barely do it though) and others might want to make the Persians look amazing, it is because of ITS HISTORY, we make our points on that, and even if you read Persian history, I think that EVEN you yourself will start talking in a nationalistic tone about Persia. So my point is that I think that you might not know about Persian history that much, therefore you theorise that just because we seem to talk good about Persia we are nationalistic. But what is unfair is that means that all the major historians WHO talk good about Greece are nationalistic too? Generally most historians tend to like Greece more than Persia, because they think the Greeks are the backbone of the Western world, and the IRONY here is that even the Greeks themselves say they got most of their knowledge from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Atlantians, as other historians have also confirmed this whether or not Greeks say it. So up to this time I can assure you that overall this whole problem on Wikipedia, as also do not think that I believe Iranian nationalists dont exist, I believe Iranian nationalist are out there. But we must analyze; WHY there are IN (short for Iranian Nationalists)? And me knowing much about the problem CAN answer that question. IT is because Persians now feel because of tensions between the west and east, 300, Iranian nuclear program, Iranians think the WEST is trying to kill their culture. ((Now just to know, I am not debating or argueing with you in this paragraph, I am saying what I think the problem is here with facts.)) (AS AN EXAMPLE) Imagine if your Jewish, and Hollywood makes an Anti-semitic flick, US invades Syria, and put sanctions on Israel. Than I can assure you will be VERY defending of your culture, and then Ariobarza calls you a nationalist. So, do you see what I mean, you must analyze why these things are happening in the FIRST place, before telling me and others that we are IN and unbalanced, I am a Libra by the way, and I am balanced. I just hope as a human you can be understanding toward this problem, and NOT make assumptions. Thanks for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Cyrus cylinder

After reading that sections and other posts in discussion page, I have decided to put it up for disputition and undue weight. There is a great deal of original research that has been done in that section. It has simply brough together material from various sources, to make "ONE" point. I have visited the British museum website, and it does not merely trying to make a point like this section does. Again, Wikipedia is not for tyring to make a "point" of your judgments. I read that some users "think" that since Cyrus entered Babylon as a conquerer it is not possible for this cylinder to represent human rights, and these users have made the changes in this section. Wikipedia is not a place for your thoughts and judgements. the cylinder and what it represents should be discussed from both sides. The important aspect that support the human right claim is that its claim is supported by Jewish and Babylonian sources, unlike the ones before it. The article fails to make mention this.There is a great deal of "reenforcment of one idea over another " in this section.