Talk:Achaemenid Empire

Top

Iranian/median Iranian/Achaemenid Empire? Is this accurate? would someone write the Italian Roman empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.131.249 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this very interesting at first: "Persia/Iran has never practiced slavery in its thousands of years of history, and was founded on respect and equality for all races and religions as Cyrus the Great's human rights declaration" But then I remembered that Herodotus wrote in 154. (Volume One):

"Hearing this on his way, Cyrus said to Crœsus as follows: "Crœsus, what end shall I find of these things which are coming to pass? The Lydians will not cease as it seems, from giving trouble to me and from having it themselves. I doubt me if it were not best[157] to sell them all as slaves; " Also the sentence I've quoted from the article sounds a little suspicious to me. Someone should definetly look into this. From what I've read it sounds like the ancient Persians did not take slaves as often as say the hellenes did, but that they have at times done so. Did any people that conquered lands in the middle east or mediterranean not take slaves?

ancient persia is quiet different from islamic period iran was occapied by arabs and their culture was 

quiet different furthermore as any body knows herodot was from the defeated nation and any one khows that grees where imaginative and creative in making stories and myths its in some ways good but it makes them unreliable as historians! so why europians insist on using their stories as facts is weierd! nowadays homer stories is not used as an evidence in researches about ancient greeks religion. in Cyrus Cylinder the abolishment of slavery in ancient persia is proved.

grI haven't changed anything in the article but somebody probably should.

That needs to be taken out; it's simply not true. Iran clearly took slaves during Islamic times, and there is considerable evidence that the Sassanids took slaves as well. It is clear that the Achaemenid policy was against slavery, but one dynasty does not 2500 years make. I'm taking that line out unless someone can source such a claim. Spectheintro 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

I took the lion image off. It suspiciously seems to be the same (digitally inverted) lion at the NY Metropolitan, which DOES NOT belong to Iran:

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=3&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=0&item=31%2E13%2E2

Furthermore, the style of the lion does not reflect the Achaemenid Artistic style. They (the Achaemenids) were more refined.

In place of it, I'll put another picture.--Zereshk 02:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Amir85): Mr Zereshk ,as you know there is an element in every article that makes it more appealing to read and it is the element of beauty.So stop reverting my work because of wiki-format , as if see other Wikipedia articles they sometimes use this type of photo arrangement for the sake of beauty or whatever.And about copyright violations , all the photos are fair copyrights with the permission of its source as long as I mention their site which I had done in SEE ALSO.

Dude, your pics look pretty nice, but if you dont mention the specifics of the source of your pics, the administrators will erase them. There are people whose job is just to hunt for pics with uncertain sources for deletion. Your pics dont even have copyright tags. They wont last very long.

Also, the admins will soon wikify your article, even if I dont do it. The way you have the photos stacked up left and right, they actually overlap on some screens. A jumbled up page doesnt look pretty at all.

Be cool.--Zereshk 11:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achaemenid Dynasty is NOT an empire

Please change the title of this article to the Achaemnid Dynasty. Achaemnid were a dynasty who ruled the Persian Empire, not a Empire! Please correct this immediately, both in the title and related links.

You didn't sign this, which you are supposed to do. I understand what you are trying to say; however, let me say this. In English "Achaemenid Empire" can mean "the empire under the Achaemenids" as well as "the empire of the Achaemenids." You wouldn't know which one until you saw the context. My guess is that English is not your first language, or you would have known that. English is the great language of not saying anything while seeming to say something (and books have been written along those lines as a joke). For example, to say "the Roosevelt government" does not mean that President Roosevelt abolished the constitution of the United States and formed his own government. It means only that his administration was functionng in government offices under that constitution for a while. You would have to know the history to know that the expression had that meaning. If not, you would have to ask, "what do you mean, the Roosevelt government?" Then you would expect to get some such answer as "the administration under President Roosevelt, dummy. Don't you read any history?" Now, the article makes it clear that there were not a series of Persian empires in the same way that there have been a series of French governments and I think everyone knows that. So, there is no danger I believe of misinterpreting the meaning. What does everyone else think? Shall we move the article to a different name?Dave (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I took a more careful read and by golly the text may very well imply what you say. If it's any consolation, the writing ain't too good and will have to be cleaned up. Once that is done, what I just said above will be true. I still think we ought to collect opinions on this.Dave (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

remove weird text

I removed this text from the article because it's weirdly written and probably too NPOV:

This is a confirmation that the Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could be considered superior to the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly. The Human Rights Manifesto looks very interesting in its kind regarding the expressions and composition, but the Charter of Freedom issued twenty three centuries before that by the Iranian monarch sounds more spiritual.

Lethe | Talk 12:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• LOL! You're right, it is weirdly written! I'm too lazy to look up in the history and see who contributed that writing right now, but if it is to be included at all, I would suggest paring it down to a single, less POV sentence and sticking it on the last paragraph like so:

"The Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could even be considered more spiritual sounding than the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly 2300 years later."

--Codex Sinaiticus 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

But why should we want to compare the spirituality of Cyrus' declaration to that of the French Revolution? If we want to compare declarations of human rights, let's use a bunch, the American Declaration of Independence, the French Revolution's Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (and let's call it by it's right name), the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And as far as comparing these declarations go, let's compare the scope of the rights, not the spirituality of the text (which strikes me as rather irrelevant to the import of the declaration). I am not familiar with any of those declaration, so I'm not going to write a comparison. Even if I did, I'm not sure that this article is the right place for it.

I see that the article human rights contains a similar statement about Cyrus: " Cyrus's charter, adopted by the first Persian Empire is thought by some to be more advanced than the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly 2300 years later in the 18th century". It seems slightly more NPOV and that article seems a more germaine place to say such a thing, but even that is probably too NPOV, and I'm inclined to remove it from that article as well. Thoughts? -Lethe | Talk 21:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that originally User:Amir85 added this concept to the Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid dynasty articles, and from there User:Mehrshad123 added it to the human rights article -Lethe | Talk 21:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The only thing "spiritual" about it is that it reflects the tolerant Zoroastrian religion. But nothing in the text of the cylinder is "spiritual" per se. The invocations to Ahura Mazda are more of a "Dieu et mon droit" formality. In any case these things should be put on the Cyrus Cylinder article, which I found out to be plagiarized itself. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

language

In the beginning of the page I linked Old Persian. I also want to ask if there is a good reason why Avestan is there. I can see that the Avestan prefix hu- (good) might be related here, and ka (some one) and Avestan mana (mind) which is a cognate of the Skt. might work out. But Avestan was never the language of any dynasty. It was never even written down until the Sasanian dynasty. It was a liturgical language, and would have been foreign to someone from Western Iran anyway. Also, why is there a discrepancy between Hakamanishiya and Haxāmaniš? I'm not talking about the suffix -iya, but let's choose one transliteration system or another, shall we? The latter I feel to be more desirable as this is how you see the cuneïform transliterated. The caron over the 's' is optional. The Farsi should be hakhāmanshi or -ī. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Martinmuse 11:48, 23 January 2006 (PST): It seems that Avestan is relevant to the Achaemenid dynasty. They professed to be devout followers of Ahuramazda and Avestan is associated with Zarathushtrian scripture. I agree it would not be a conversational language, but would it be foreign to Western Iran at a time when the Achaemenids' influence extended so far to the east?

It's obviously relevant, just not the main spoken language. Sure, wherever Zoroastrianism was, Avestan would be there also, of course. I cannot recall, but I was probably talking about something specific at the time. Also, why is the current link in the table Persian? Is it possible to be a little more specific? We're not exactly talking modern Farsi here. Khirad 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

The following I find amusing because it sounds exactly like the modern Indian stereotype of the Parsis. Besides amusing me though, I'm wondering what this adds to the article:

"The religion of the Achaemenids was Zoroastrianism, whose adherents at the time were noted for their dedication to clear lines of right and wrong, and for their apparent honesty."

If Zoroastrianism is to be reduced to a few insubstantial stereotypes, than tolerance and industriousness would seem more relevant contributions to posterity. I think this sentence would be improved if the people who noted this were mentioned (i.e. ...were noted by the Greeks...). Otherwise I don't see this as a NPOV statement. Plus it suggests that Zoroastrianism was the state religion. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Achaemenid's Pronunciation

In Farsi, does the ch in Achaemenid sound like \kh\, \sh\, or \k\?

--John on 27th of October 2005

It's "kh". In Persian (farsi) it is "Hakhāmaneshi".--Zereshk 06:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have heard this pronounced multiple ways by professors, an uploaded sound file pronunciation of this word would be a great asset to this article. --Robert Jan. 11th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.0.26 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the "Achaemenid Empire" name

A user has pointed out by e-mail:

I have been researching several sources preparing for some church work, and find in THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1976 edition, Volume 15 (P), page 262c, that before Darius I, CYRUS THE GREAT of the Persian Empire (quote) CALLED THIS THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE AFTER HIS ANCESTOR, ACHAEMENES (end quote). Article by Richard Nelson Frye.

Which is correct? L.H. Olsen ...

Hi! To the best of my knowledge (which unfortunately isn't all that good) Cyrus in general called himself an Achaemenid on his inscriptions.

See e.g. halfways down this [page :http://www.livius.org/a/iran/pasargadae/pasargadae3.html#inscription Livius.org]:

Kûruš \ xšâyathiya \ vazraka \ Kabûjiya 
hyâ \ xšâyathiyahyâ \  puça \ Haxâmanišiya \ 
thâtiy \ yathâ [...] 
[... ...] akutâ [... ] 

Cyrus the great king, son of Cambyses the king, an Achaemenid, 
says: When [...] made [...]

Hope this helps :-)

--FreezBee 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gaumata/Smerdis/Bardiya

Current trend is to consider the Behistun Inscription as covering up for a côup d'état, that is that the magus Gaumata really was Bardiya (= Smerdis in Herodotian Greek), the surviving son of Cyrus the Great. It's just the trend, and we do live in times where conspiracies are seen everywhere, so it may be false, but just for the sake of completeness....

--FreezBee 13:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

much of what is now India?

The previous version had "Achaemenid rulers of Persia ruled over territories ... much of what is now India". I do not think this is correct, especially with respect to central, east and south India. I have accordingly removed India from the list, please cite sources if it is put back. Jayanta Sen 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately "most of ... India" was reinserted by someone who did not log in. It is factually wrong as can be seen from the map of the empire at it's greatest extent on the article page. Jayanta Sen 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In almost every other large empire article page there is a stat regarding the size of the empire. I think it was important to add to the lead/intro at the top that Achaemenid Persia encompassed roughly 7.5 million squared km's and was as a result the largest empire of classical antiquity, so I included it. The stat is present in another Wiki page comparing thr historical sizes of the largest empires. --Arsenous Commodore 05:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange info: refernece needed

No reference is given for the following info in the text. I have never heard of these and I think proper citations are needed before we can accept them as facts (the numbered items are taken from the current text):

1. Xerxes I was followed by Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC), who moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon.

What is the basis of this statement? First, someone has to prove that Persepolis has ever been the capital of the Achaemenid dynasty to begin with. Since no documents about political affairs have been found at Persepolis so far and also the palaces show no sign of continous occupation, it is doubtful that Persepolis has ever been a 'capital'. What makes the writer think that the capital had been moved to Babylon is unclear and unstated.

2. Under Artaxerxes I, Zoroastrianism became the de-facto religion of state, and for this Artaxerxes I is today also known as the Constantine of that faith.

Has the writer found a new inscription by Artaxerses I mentioning Zoroaster or a new contemporary Greek source mentioning that religion? There is no reference in Achaemenid documents to Zoroaster or his religion or his holy book Avesta. The most we can say is that they worshiped Ahura Mazda at least since Darius I, but that is way different with saying they were Zoroastrians. I know of no evidence of a religious change around the time of Artaxerses I and would love to learn abotu such change.

3. Artaxerxes I died in Susa, and his body was brought to Persepolis for interment in the tomb of his forebearers.

The tomb of Artaxerses I is NOT in Persepolis but in Naqsh-e Rustam, 30 km to the north of Persepolis. The writer has confused Artaxerses I with Artaxerses II here. There is also no such thing as 'the tomb of his forebearers'; each Achaemenid king had his own tomb and Artaxerse I was no exception.

4. Darius II was then in Babylon, where he rallied support for himself. He marched eastwards, disposed and put to death the assassin and was crowned in his stead.

Before he had killed the so-called assasin, the prince couldn't have been called by his throne name of "Darius II", but under his personal name of Ochus.

5. Artaxerxes moved the capital back to Persepolis, which he greatly extended.

There is absolutely no evidence of ANY construction in Persepolis during the reign of Artaxerses II, who is believed to have spent most of his time in Susa. Again Artaxerses III might have been meant here.~~mirfakhr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirfakhr (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Enlightened despots?

Under the "government section we have the statement "enlightened despots" describing the political mindset of this BCE empire. One click on the hyperlink brings me to a page describing these "enlightened despots" as merry fellows influenced by the period of "enlightenment" in the 18 and 19th century CE. Anachronism? Heck yeah! Can some expertly history buff please replace this term with a proper one please? Thanks! --non-member 20:12, 14 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but I think "federalist" (in the sense of power-sharing between central/provincial governments) is a better term for satrapy. The Achaemenids had great accomplishments, but "enlightened" offers them far too much moral approval.

--another non-member —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.104.192.58 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

a problem with time

"His immediate successors were less successful. Cyrus' son Cambyses II conquered Egypt, but died in July 522 BC as the result of either accident or suicide, during a revolt led by a sacerdotal clan that had lost its power following Cyrus' conquest of Media. These priests, whom Herodotus called Magi, usurped the throne for one of their own, Gaumata, who then pretended to be Cambyses II's younger brother Smerdis (Pers. Bardiya), who had been assassinated some three years earlier. Owing to the despotic rule of Cambyses and his long absence in Egypt, "the whole people, Perses, Medes and all the other nations," acknowledged the usurper, especially as he granted a remission of taxes for three years (Herodotus iii. 68).

It is important to note that the claim that Gaumata had impersonated Smerdis, is derived from Darius. Historians are divided over the possibility that the story of the impostor was invented by Darius as justification for his coup [1]. Darius made a similar claim when he later captured Babylon, announcing that the Babylonian king was not, in fact, Nebuchadnezzar III, but an impostor named Nidintu-bel. [2]

According to the Behistun Inscription, pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months before being overthrown in 522 BC"

note that is says Cambyses died in july 522 bc, and then they say pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months, yet the year is still 522 BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.156.145 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Babylon a capital of Achaemenid Empire?

Hi, The text says that Ataxerxes I moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon. I'm just wondering why Babylon isn't listed as one of the capitals in the info box at the top of the article? Thanks. Bjoleniacz (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What did the Achaemenids call their country?

Hi,

What did the Achaemenid Persians call their country? Because isn't it true that Persians only started to refer to their country as "Iran" until (maybe) the Sassanid dynasty. So what was the country called under the Achaemenids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anšān/Anshan

Are "Anšān" and "Anshan" the same? The text needs to make it clear one way or the other, and be consistent.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

maps

as pointed out in my edit summary there is no need for the second map, it is merely a duplication of the one in the infobox... both show the greatest extent of the ae. @Xashaiar: you can explain the difference between the two here if you like, why (or how) one shows an empire and the other a country is beyond me. --!linus (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You and the other user see below. Two maps are different. Just look at them. Two different captions they have. Do not remove the maps,--Xashaiar (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1.i did notice the different caption yes. i also note how you kept pushing your point by reverting uirauna's edits regarding that caption.

2. uirauna never deleted the image (thus far)

3. i deleted the image because:

• your little edit war over the caption is disruptive
• the image is unnecessary because it shows exactly the same thing (in a different format) as the image in the infobox. it isn't any different because you keep giving it a different caption.

so, by removing the second map not only is the article kept clean, it also removes the cause of a disruptive edit war.

4.simply reverting back to your last edit and ignoring my question above isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. --!linus (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am pushing my POV so are you. You say there is no difference, that's OR and unacceptable (One is historical one is modern, and they have different captions, so what do you mean by "showing exactly the same"?). The article is clean, if one nice modern map makes an article unclean (your view-this is POV and therefore uninteresting in wikipedia), then maybe wikipedia as a whole is unclean. I suggest strongly to keep the two maps.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, they are two different maps... so what? that doesn't change the fact that they show the same thing, namely the greatest extent of the ae. the fact that you keep changing the caption of the second map so that it says iran in 500 bce doesn't mean it depicts anything other than the first map... if you really think that what the maps are named (rather than what they show) is of importance, have a look at both file names and you will note they are the same. --!linus (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is non-sense. The other user changes the caption. I am reverting to its earlier version. So be careful in your analysis of the history page! And I asked the user (User:Uirauna) in edit summary, to ask in the talk page whether such change of caption is appropriate. Now you come and do the worst: deleting the image. What are you doing? And File name, as you suggest, is no justification. Do you mean I have to re-upload the image and change its name????? What are you talking about? It is your POV that the second map is not necessary. Wait and see what other users say. It is not up to you and me to decide what is necessary or not.. I like the map, and since the article is nicer with that map I would like to have that. This is my pov and in conflict with yours, the solution is by WP:CONS and not reverting.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

fyi: uirauna corrected the map's caption, you keep reverting it to a (at best) less accurate caption. and that's the last i have to say here as you still haven't given any good reason why the second map should stay. --!linus (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Please consider adding images." This is clear policy of Wikipedia. So you need reason for having images in an article without size problem? One image does not bother an article.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

do not remove images

There are two maps of Persian Achaemenid empire in the article. Two users (User:Uirauna and User:L!nus) try to remove this (1 and 2) reference. Why? The two maps are different. One is historical and one is computer made and therefore both are necessary. This can not go on like this. The article has no size problem, so what is the point? According to what wikipedia rule you are removing this? --Xashaiar (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, both maps show exactly the same information to the reader, it does no matter if they are from a book or computer-made, they DO show the same information and thus you only need one of them to illustrate the article. The seccond one does not add anything that has not been shown by the fisrt one, so it is redundant, and therefore we do not need it. If the information caontained in the map was different, then we would need it. Uirauna (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New map

Hello, to solve the two maps issue I create a new map derived from a russian one. This is the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_En.svg I suggest we replace both of them with the new one. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this change. The historical map is wonderful and the computer-made map is clear and consistent with usual unnamed maps.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

i had a look at maps of the ae a few days ago, i thought the russian one was the best, except that it wouldn't have been of much use in an english article... so yeah, your new english map deffo would be a good idea.

i think the one that is currently in the infobox is a tad too much outdated (its from an atlas from the early 20th century), the other one in the article is a tad too much of an anachronism (with the background of modern borders), the one you linked on my talk page earlier today is a tad too much inaccurate (i mean... what's going on with the north-eastern boundary?) which leaves the one you made... and i don't see anything wrong with that one

as an aside: i wouldn't say there's an issue really, still haven't seen a real explanation on the claimed difference between the two maps --!linus (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

clutter due to duplicate images

xashaiar, i can perfectly understand your desire to have the article illustrated. however, duplicate images do not serve any purpose ... it is just clutter.

this goes for the maps (see above) and the image of cyrus's tomb. about the latter: you say it obviously belongs with the article... well no one has said it doesn't, it is simply that it already is in the article (i.e. in the gallery section). secondly, the tomb in question is not referred to in the article, so it sort of floats around there without any real reason. and thirdly, the image interferes with the text (i.e. it covers part of the text). incidentally i remedied that earlier on, but you reverted that edit.

and as i said above: simply reverting things back isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. --!linus (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter. Delete the picture from the gallery, then keep the image of the founder within the article. I will delete it from the gallery.(update: I think the image of tomb or another image of the founder of the empire should be in the article. If there is a better image let us know. I still think the image could still be in gallery as well, and I realy do not understand why you keep removing the most important images!)--Xashaiar (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Xashaiar, the purpose of an image on wikipedia is to describe information that can't be simply described as text. I agree that if there was a picture of Darius it should be included in the article, but if there is not, a picture of a Tomb supposed to be Dariu's does not belong in the article. It does not illustrates any information that is not already in the article. The article by itself has too many images already, and most of them do not add significant information. It needs a serious clean-up. You can read more about images in the WP:Manual of Style. It doesn't matter how importat Cyrus was, this article is not about him, but about the Dynasty he belonged to and wasn't even the founder, so his tomb does not add relevant information, and therefore should be removed. Wikipedia is not a repository of images, and they should only be added if they add significant information to the reader. Even if left in the gallery it does not add enought information to justify its presence. Uirauna (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with all you said. You better read and time to time look at dictionary. 1. We are not talking about the dynasty, we are talking about the Empire (the reason: trivial!). Your biggest mistake that shows you do not know what you are editing. 2. What kind of information adds the fictional picture of alex of republic of macedonia to this article??? This shows you are not consistent in your arguments. 3. even if you consider the fake sources that are usually used in ancient history articles, you will be able to accept who the founder of the empire was (even the article explains this clearly). Overall, your edits seems to me disruptive. So if you want to edit, A. be consistent, B. use a few clicks and few hours time to learn about the articles you want to edit.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

@xashaiar: i don't see how an image of a tomb would be preferable to an image of the man, but you make a good point... so i suggest you find a good image of cyrus (if you do not find it here on the english wp or at the commons, i suggest you upload one) and replace the tomb image with that and add the tomb to the gallery.

as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text

as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text

@both of you: it seems you get on each other nerves a tad too much (and not only here)... so take a deep breath, take some distance and start afresh... keep in mind that the basic underlying principal is that edits should improve an article, edit warring and quibbling/throwing insults at each other is counterproductive. --!linus (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged this article, do not remove the tags until there is a consensus on the topics being discussed. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove your tags as you do not explain just why you put them in the first place. Your tags say the article is not neutral. Give instances for this accusation. The clear statement in the page POV-check is The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. You violated this, And one more thing, your reason to delete the picture was that there was already a copy of it in the gallery. I deleted the one in gallery. So what else remains? Do you mean addition of that picture is not neutral? If so, why addition of a fictional picture is, in your view, neutral? This is inconsistent.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Praise of the Persian empire

This recent addition:

In universal history the role of the Persian empire founded by Cyrus the Great lies in their very successful model for centralized administration and a government working to the advantage and profit of all.

(...which is followed by a reference to a book by Schmitt) has a few issues - I somehow doubt that this last bit is true - if they had slavery or conquered by violence it's certainly false, and even any kind of class system makes it doubtful.

I changed it to the following - still bad, I expect, but less blatantly:

In universal history the role of the Persian empire founded by Cyrus the Great lies in their very successful model for centralized administration.

--Chriswaterguy talk 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please no POV. Achaemenians had no slavery as much as the rest of world empires had. See the page related to this. Moreover, connecting "slavery" to "not being for the advantage of all" is OR. And the author is Schmitt, the source is not a "book" and the sentence is well-sourced. Since it is WP:RS and WP:V no need to change according to your POV. If you think that sentence is "very starange" I guess you can find a source (written by scholars of Achaemenid Iran and not any book according to WP:POV). In that case we ask for WP:CONS on this issue.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

comment:

• @xashaiar: chris's edit is no more nor less pov than your original, you two have a different opinion on the matter but that is not what pov is about. the essential thing is that a wp article should be neutral, i.e. what is says about the topic should neither be too positive or too negative. in that respect i think chris has a point. even if something is well sourced that doesn't automatically mean it is neutral in its point of view.

secondly (as i said before) do not resort to reverting so quickly. try to improve a previous edit so that everyone can agree with the content instead of simply undoing it. especially so when a previous editor started a topic on a talk page...

• personally i don't think the sentence in question should not be in the lead at all. with a bit of alteration however it can easily go as the opening for the government section... like this:

the success and endurance of the empire founded by cyrus the great lay in its successful model for centralised administration and government: while the achaemenids were absolutists they nevertheless allowed a certain amount of regional autonomy in the form of the satrapy system. ...

or something similar --!linus (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the other map better?

I replaced that image with this one because this one looks less text-booky, and is far more detailed. Why is the one you just placed better? -- LightSpectra (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current one. Despite the fact that, your version is newer and "in your opinion" more detailed. The current one is historical and I really like it. That's my opinion. Also your map shows where the battles were. This is not really necessary in the data-box as the map of an empire that lasted 200+ years. I think we can have your map in sections related to the expansion of the empire where we need to know where the wars happened, ... regards.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would say that since most of the portrait images show the empire at its greatest extent, and the former shows more of the Persians' advances into northern Afghanistan and Pakistan, that it is better for the page. I also think that its superior image quality is more suited for the top of the article. -- LightSpectra (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with current one however is, that it seems be false and that is doesn't seem to match any maps found reputable sources (at least for the ones I've seen). In particular the areas in Africa seem rather off.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed the map to one based on or being from a reputable source. Also note that the "false" map was introduced, while leaving the description of the older map, now description and map match again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the 10.7 Mil. Km² coming from?

First paragraph, where we talk about the largest extent of the empire, does anyone know where the 10.7 Mil. km² is coming from? I know British Musuem: Forgotten World, http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/forgottenempire/persia/people.html states 7.5 Mil. Km², and this 2004 paper http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/Latitude.pdf provides a lesser figure of 5.5 Mil. Km². Any insights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to go with the British Museum's figure. Obviously ancient empires can be hard to quantify with uncertain and fluctuating boundaries/vassas states etc. Once the order of magnitude is about right,I'd be happy enough anyway. Fribbler (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It may origin from this article List of largest empires, check the references there. It appears that it is a self computation based on questionable map and in my eyes that's not a reliable reference, the article should the figures ranging from 5-7.5 million, that you can find in reputable sources. However unfortunately this article still uses that questionable map, which should be removed as well (or at least backed up by proper references, which i suspect might not possible).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I corrected thta figure now in both articles and added the according references.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A third Map, or an alternative second map?

I know some people here have a problem with this specific article having more than 1 map! I'm in favor of having more maps no matter what the empire in question is. Anyways, I wanted to know what users think of a map showing AE superimposed onto modern day states/countries? This is not something new, I see many articles about empires/dynasties have such a map. Something like this perhaps? --LogiPhi (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have put the maps I see often on achaemenid related articles here. My favourite is number 3 since two days ago. I propose making a small "Map gallery" at the end of article and put all these maps there. Each of them is nice in a way.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the 3rd map is, that is that it might not really come from reputable/reliable source (the reliability/expertise of the claimed source is unclear (to me at least) and the provided weblink does not work). Moreover the areas in Africa and Europe (Crete, North of the Danube) seem wrong.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A third Map, or an alternative second map?

Ok why are the major maps in this article not in English!? This cannot be in an English wikipedia, no matter how nice they look, we need an english map at the top. Im leaving the other one in the middle of the article, but it is still unnecessary because the article already has various maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierfv1212 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys!

First & Second map - Artaxerxes II late period.
Third map - Darius the Great late period.
Fourth map - Cyrus the Great period.
Fifth map - Darius the Great early period (he later conqured parts of Central Asia and Thrace).

The most relevant is third map, because we talk of Persia's greatest extend. Note few important things - Persian Empire held 10.7 million km2, but not in the same period of time:
- Cyrus the Great conqured Asian territories, about 5.5-6.5 million km2.
- Cambyses II. conqured much of North Eastern Africa, but he later lost some parts in Libya and Sudan.
- Darius the Great reconquered Central Asian satrapies after 522 BC revolt, as well as northern Balkans. In his time, empire held about 9-10 million km2
- Xerxes I. reconquered main part of Egypt after his father's death, and conqured largest parts of European Greece under period of two years.--Orijentolog (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Note just one more thing; maps are not very precise, and most of them dont include parts of Maka or Upper Egypt, which were very important satrapies. Why did Darius the Great built his Suez canal and lost dozens of thousands men, if Persia didn't hold much shores od Red Sea in Africa? Darius the Great's Persian empire was far more larger in Africa then you can see in 1-2 & 4-3 maps. --Orijentolog (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that the 5th map is old and ideally should be replaced by newer one (it also does not show the punjab as part under Darious, which became briefly a part of the Persian empire under him), any newer replacement however needs to come from a reliable academic resource (or if selfmade based on one) and that is not really true for the current one. The scholarly expertise of Iran Cultural Heritage Organization seems questionable to me and the provided weblink for the source is dysfunctional (even for the top level domain). More over the areas displayed in Africa (South of Egypt), Nort of the Danube /Crimea and Crete do not match what can be found in authoritative (academic) literature on the Persian empire. The same holds for the 10.7 figure for its largest extend, in particular does the number not appear in any of the quoted sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Cambyses II. conqured southern Egypt (Kush), as well as parts of Lybia (Kirenaika), while Herodotus claim that Persian army reached beyond Danube river; to river Volga. Please find me just one authoritative (academic) source which tells us different story! Note: map of Iran Cultural Heritage Organization don't include Maka. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Cambyses did not conquer the empire of Kush. According to Herodot his campaign against Kush was a disaster and modern scholars evalutating all the available evidence seem to conclude that Herodot was somewhat biased against Cambyses and hence his account was overly negative. In their evaluation Kambyses goal might not have been the conquest of Kush after all but only to secure the borders of upper Egypt. They also state that due to archeological evidence the Persians occupied northern Kush up to the 3rd cateract of the Nile, they did however not conquer the Kush capital or the whole Kush empire. The mouth of the volga was certainly not a part of the Persian Empire. True is however that an expedition by Darious did cross the Danube and went further north. But similarly to Cambyses case this was not a "successful" campaign and Dareious did not annex any territory north of the Danube. Somewhat recent authoritative sources are the books by Pierre Briant and Amélie Kuhrt on Persian empire (you can read much of their content via google books btw.). Also note if you want to use a map that clearly differs from other maps of the Persian empire in reputable source, then you can only do so by providing a reputable publication confirming that map explicutly (same for 10 million figure). Moreover note as well that when you add the 10 million figure into an older sentence with footnotes containing different figures, then this is a rather unfortunate mistake, because it leads reader to believe that the 10 million figure was taken from some reliable academic source given in the footnote, which it was not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cambyses did conqured northern parts of Kush, and stories about his fail is mixed with story about king Khabash fail, according H. Schafer. Even a kid can look at ancient maps and count that Persian empire was far larger then 5.5 million2, so please stop with idiocy by reverting my edits and putting obviously wrong information on basic page. By the way, how can you explain blacks at Persepolis reliefs if parts of Kush empire weren't annexed by Persia? According Werner F. Dutz, Sylvia A. Matheson, Henri Stierlin and Pierre Briant, they were or Ethiopians or Nubians (people of Kush). --Orijentolog (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you stick proper arguments, discussion ala "even a kid can tell..." you better pursue outside wikipedia. There was no "idiotic" revert either, I was merely correcting an problematic edit by you, that you unfortunately repeated again. To be very clear here: There wasn't any wrong information in the article before you started modifying it it. Now the article claims that the Tagpeera paper gives a 7.7 million figure for the size of the Persian Empire, which is false, since Tagpeera like Turchin gives a 5.5 million figure. So due to your edit once again the article partially misquotes its sources. Furthermore the referenced source (turchin), that you had originally deleted, was neither "untrue" or "doubtful" it was proper academic paper. It however did not claim that its figure describes the largest extension of the empire. Note that the article spoke of "height of power" and not "maximal area". So i suggest next time you read the comments and sources more carefully before making changes to assure that the information of the wikipedia article and the sources do match. As fas as Kush is concerned - yes i'm aware of some persian inscriptions (one in Persepolis and another in Behistun) that claim or seem to indicate that Ethiopia is a part of the empire (or more precisely paying tribute). However it is not clear whether Ethiopia refers to the whole kingdowm of Kush and not just the North and while there is archeological evidence indicating a Persian occupation up to the 3rd cateract, so far there seems to be none for the rest of Kush and its capital (at least to my knowledge). In any case like what is true for Herodot is true for Persian inscriptions as well, they cannot be taken literally but they need to be interpreted taking all known context information into account. So what matters here for wikipedia is to which conclusions the expert scholars on theP ersian empire come after considering all the evidence. And the authoritative sources by such scholars as Briant, that i've read, do not claim the Kingdom of Kush to be a part of the (regular) Persian empire, it might have been an ally or clientel state for a while though. Images of Nubian on Persian artifacts or even nubian soldiers in the Persian army do not indicate an occupation of Kush either. As far as images are comcerned, it should be rather obvious that people do create images of subjects/objects being outside their country and Nubian soldiers can simply be be from the occupied North, or provided by Kush as an ally or as a gift, or captices from Cambyses' expedition or simply hired soldiers. To provide some general (historical) perspective, Nubians were also fighting alongside the roman army and provided roman auxiliary troops, without Kush ever being a part of the Roman empire. A similar argument can be made for germanic soldiers in the Roman army.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, we know Persians annexed part of Kush or Ethiopia, but we don't know precisely. Facts about Persian satrapies and known from Herodotus work and Persian inscriptions like Daiva, Behistun and Naksh-e Rustam. However, some satrapies like "sea peoples" or "accros the sea" are not identified. If may be Greeks, it may be Ethiopians, or even Arabs... Meanwhile, Herodotus and other Greek historians don't know anything about history of Kush. Talking about Arabs, "Arabia" is also mentioned, but we don't know how much of Arabia did they annexed. As Darius inscriptions says; boats traveled from Mediterranean to Persia (through Darius canal), which is 5000 km long voyage. It's obvious Persians had to have some stop stations in Arabia, but where? No one knows... Your argument about comparing Kush to Roman times are wrong. All foreign people on Persepolis reliefs were from their satrapies - Athenians and Spartans also served in Persian armies like mercenaries, but they are not shown on reliefs, just Ionians (Yauna). It's glad to see you know Kush people fight for Vespasian in Jerusalem, but it's analog situation as Greek mercenaries in Persian armies. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There you go - to quote yourself "No one knows." and we do not claim things for fact here that no one knows, that pretty much sums it up. Note the issue was here was not with northern kush being occupied by Persians, there is no disagreement on that. The issue was with the additional areas in Africa (as well as crete, areas north of the Danube or on the Arabian peninsula). WP rules are quite clear if "we do not know" it stays out. If you want to include it you need to back it up by an acceptable source (the map or the 10 million figure). Also whatever content you edit make sure it matches the cited sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Page name

It's my understanding that Persian Empire is the much more common name, and therefore the one which should be used. Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is now unfair and ridiculous to assume that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, pretending so is fine. Which encyclopaedia gives "Persian empire" the exclusive meaning "Achaemenid empire"?Xashaiar (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you're an expert it seems ridiculous to you. From my own general knowledge and some googling it doesn't: eg British Museum [1]. If you have some sources clarifying the meaning of "Persian Empire" beyond the Achaemenids, please produce them. WP:V. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But never mind, the discussion is ongoing on this issue at Talk:Persian Empire. Rd232 ^talk 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

um, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that "Persian Empire" first and foremost refers to the Achaemenid period. Yes, the term has also been extended to include the Sassanid period, which is why we have Persian Empire (disambiguation), but that clearly is a marginal point. The Sassanid dynasty, when referred to as "Persian" is typically referred to as "Second Persian Empire", "Later Persian Empire", "Restored Persian Empire" or similar except for cases where the context is clear.

Similarly, "Achaemenid Empire" is only used when disambiguation is necessary. If the context is clear, the common term for this entity is "Persian Empire". --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought you are familiar with WP:NAMING and WP:POV. Achaemenid empire is equivalent to "First Persian Empire" and not "Persian Empire". The common name of Achaemenid empire is just "Achaemenid empire" (Check google scholar or any of authorative works Encyclopaedia Iranica, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc. All of these use as TITLE nothing but "Achaemenid empire/dynasty" for their articles on Achaemenid empire). Acting differently is against WP:NAMING and is obviously OR. I do not know why one should ignore the clear rules of naming in wikipedia. Xashaiar (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What scholarly books and articles do is less relevant than what more accessible sources do. WP:COMMONNAME has "Generally, articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." WP:Common name clarifies "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" I think that the average Wikipedia user has heard of "the Persian Empire" (meaning the Achaemenid empire - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) but wouldn't know what to do with "Achaemenid Empire". Rd232 ^talk 10:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article access stats may be relevant here. In August 09, when the articles were separate, Persian Empire got 57k hits,[2] while Achaemenid Empire got 28k [3] (Sassanid Empire 19k [4]). And the British Museum has an exhibition on "The Persian Empire"[5], not "a Persian empire" - note the definite article. No prizes which empire they're referring to. Rd232 ^talk 10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage in moving this page to Persian Empire. But redirecting "Persian Empire" to this page (and linking to the disambiguation page) is fine. Alefbe (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

See above and WP:COMMONNAME. Rd232 ^talk 10:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

agree with Alefbe. Precisely because the term "Persian Empire" does have a somewhat wider range of applications, it is well to keep this article at the unambiguous title. See also Talk:Persian_Empire_(disambiguation). We should also give this a rest due to the recent monumental trolling spree at WP:ANI over this, we can resume a possible disscussion on "COMMONNAME", among bona fide editors with an interest in the topic, once the wikidrama has died down. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current situation with Achaemenid Empire and the Persian Empire disambiguation page seems the best solution from my perspective and from any perspective it should be at least justified. Also note that in many of such cases there is no one true solution but just several reasonable/acceptable variation and we simply have to settle for one. And moving the name from one acceptable solution to another without any really pressing need to do so is imho not a good idea and wastes a lot of time of all the people involved on subject that doesn't really matter much in the end.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

also, it's just terminology: there aren't even any points of content in this, and I am really a little bit exasperated at the drama that Wikipedia can generate even over a trivial point of conventional terminology such as this. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Sometimes it makes really sense to "fight" for the sake of wikipedia and live through the drama, but it should be about issues that really matter. Getting upset about unimportant points or upsetting others over it, isn't really help the project and just a waste of energy that could have been use to fix serious problems (as correcting factual errors, keeping POV pushers and spammers out, etc.).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

well, it was more difficult than it should have been, but we have made a significant step forward by fixing the "Persian Empire" problem, which basically amounted to a text dump tagged for cleanup which just sat there for years. The situation is much improved. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"native name"

re [6], for "former states" of antiquity, we do not need to give an endonym if none is attested. Hakhamaneshiyan may be the Old Persian for "Achaemenid", but the Achaemenid empire was probably something like Airyanem Vaejah. Either way (cite your reference), it is a complete anachronism to spell whatever endonym they may have had in the Arabic alphabet. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I note it isn't Old Persian at all, it's just the Modern Persian term. That's about as reasonable as claiming that the endonym of the Anglo-Saxons was Anglo-Saxons. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The original Old Persian form of the patronymic (Achaemen* as used by Cyrus, Darius,...) is Haxāmanišiya and is "indeed" Old Persian (check no. 13 on this page,...). I guess plural is "Haxāmanišiyava" (?). Having said that "they" called themselves "Achaemenians" and the notion of state appeared sometime during/before Sassanid. Though Aryānām xšaçam seems plausible as state designation for Achaemenians. The notion of people however existed as explained somewhere else.Xashaiar (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

you are right, Haxāmanišiyava is the OP term. I guess the -iyān ending can still be put down to MP. We can give Haxāmanišiya- as the "native name" of the dynasty, if you like. I stand by my point that it isn't very useful to give "reconstructed self designations" in the infobox, these things can be explained in the article body. --dab (𒁳) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I guess explaining things in the article is better than puting an isolated term in the infobox. Xashaiar (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"According to Herodotus, the native leadership then debated the best form of government for the Empire."

In the Penguin edition of Herodotus, the editor points out that this "debate" is in fact based on thoroughly Greek concepts and rhetoric, and so could never have taken place in the form reported by Herodotus... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in Achaemenid Persian Empire

The section entitled "Government" makes this statement:

The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was generally banned, although there is evidence that conquered and/or rebellious armies were sold into captivity.[10] Zoroastrianism, the de facto religion of the empire, explicitly forbids slavery,[11] and the kings of Achaemenid Persia followed this ban to varying degrees, as evidenced by the freeing of the Jews at Babylon, and the construction of Persepolis by paid workers.

I linked to citation #11 that is listed in the passage, and it had this to say:

The concept of slavery is alien to Zarathushtra's teachings, and no caste system or class privilege is recognized in the Gathas. The best evidence of this is provided by Zarathushtra's prayer for Kavi Gushtasp, wherein he hopes that some of the King's sons would go into agriculture, some into the military, and some work for the religion. The class privileges that existed in the time of the Sassanians were contrary to Zarathushtra's teachings.

Can someone please explain how that passage in citation #11 disproves slavery? I am honestly not seeing a direct connection; indeed, slavery as such is not directly mentioned at all. Maybe if the actual quotation was referenced, the link would become clear. If someone has access to the direct quotation from Zarathushtra's prayer for Kavi Gushtasp, then please post it. The question I have boils down to this: did Zarathushtra expressly forbid slavery of any sort, and if so can someone post a direct quotation from a translation of one of his works where this is stated?

I have heard that the Cyrus Cylinder is supposedly proof that Cyrus the Great abolished slavery, but when I went to read the article about it here on Wikipedia, I discovered that there is an ongoing debate on that article's discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrus_cylinder, over whether or not the claims about Cyrus abolishing slavery are actually true.

Someone on that talk page of the Cyrus Cylinder article directed me to a scholarly, academic translation of the Cyrus Cylinder: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html.

Now, I read that translation of the Cyrus Cylinder, and I could not find a single reference to the abolition of slavery. Is that translation wrong, and if so can someone post an accurate translation from an academic source? Or, if not, then how can these claims about Cyrus abolishing slavery be true? Where are these claims coming from, if they are indeed false? Are there other independent sources from the ancient world that suggest or state that the Persian Empire did not practise slavery?

I am very confused by this topic. It seems that people go back and forth here on Wikipedia about this. Can someone just settle this once and for all with clear evidence from academic scholars? 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights charter" idea is a fad from the 1970s, and has nothing to do with scholarship. The only people trying to push this are Iranian nationalists. We have plenty of these on Wikipedia, so yes, it is going to keep popping up. --dab (𒁳) 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"human right" is a new "term/word composition" but not a new concept. Having said that, you do not make sense: 1. considering some non-Iranian scholars commenting in favour of the concept associated to Cyrus Cylinder and your claim that "the only people trying to push this are Iranian nationalists" one has no choice other than concluding "there are quite a few non-Iranian Iranian nationalists" which, if correct, makes one respect Iran's achievements! 2. Since no other great ruler of Achaemenian empire (like Darius the Great) and the whole ancient world for that matter received such positive image as Cyrus the Great did in even non-Iranian sources, arguing non-politically, and knowing that the contrary is even more difficult to prove one has no choice other than concluding: Cyrus the Great did respect certain humanitarian matters and customs that no one else did anything like that before or after him and therefore he has a special place whether named "first writer of human right charter", or as the Greek said "Just king", or "father" or whatever. So puting everythng under "Iranian nationalism" is not even wrong. Xashaiar (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that ad hominem attacks are going to get us anywhere. The issue is about sources - we need some confirmation of the claims about the abolition of slavery. That is what I think that should be focused on. Did the Persian Empire practise any form of slavery? Did Cyrus the Great abolish slavery in the Cyrus Cylinder?

This issue is never resolved, and Wikipedia articles keep going back and forth over this. If someone could find clear evidence either way, then the issue might be settled once and for all. I think that this is very important, since, if true, the claims about slavery would place its abolition more than 2500 years before it supposedly happened the first time. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful that in the ancient time slavery was not strange, but 1. "The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was generally banned" and "was not common as it was in other era and states". This is sourced. 2. In Zoroastrian law book there is only mention of "sacred slave" which is labelled so that it hardly can be called "slavery". As the article slavery in Achaemenid Iran says as far as the "written documents" are concerned the term "banda" was a word used not only for slaves but also similar to its usage today which "is not slavery". And please do not mention Cyrus Cylinder here as a "false proof of certain wrong statements". 3. You can delete the sentence "Zoroastrianism, the de facto religion of the empire, explicitly forbids slavery" if you want. Thank you. Xashaiar (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be ever so glad if we can keep the sad propaganda mess surrounding the Cyrus Cylinder out of this. If we have independent evidence that the Achaemenids kept less slaves than their contemporaries, that's fine with me, but we'll also need some WP:RS putting this in context in terms of significance. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, I took a look at the Wikipedia article, History of slavery in Iran. Unfortunately, I must say that I am still confused. On one hand, the article clearly mentions 3 distinct categories of slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire. On the other hand, it claims that slavery was uncommon and rare, without providing any specific numbers or figures that might place this in context (for instance, what exactly was the population of slaves in the Empire versus the number of free persons?).

I also took a look at the article on slavery in the Persian Empire on the website called "Encyclopedia Iranica": http://www.iranica.com. This website was one of the most cited sources in the Wikipedia article, History of slavery in Iran, so I thought that I would "go to the source" and take a look at it. (I went to the main site, typed "slavery" in the search engine, and clicked on the first item. This was the article that the Wikipedia article was referencing.) Now, this website is also fairly confusing for me. Let me try to explain what I mean.

On one hand, we have the following passage from Encyclopedia Iranica that seems to corroborate the idea that slavery was very rare in the Achaemenid Persian Empire:

On the whole, there was only a small number of slaves in relation to the number of free persons even in the most developed countries of the Achaemenid empire, and slave labor was in no position to supplant the labor of free workers. The basis of agriculture was the labor of free farmers and tenants and in handicrafts the labor of free artisans, whose occupation was usually inherited within the family, likewise predominated. In these countries of the empire, slavery had already undergone important changes by the time of the emergence of the Persian state. Debt slavery was no longer common. The practice of pledging one’s person for debt, not to mention self-sale, had totally disappeared by the Persian period. In the case of nonpayment of a debt by the appointed deadline, the creditor could turn the children of the debtor into slaves. A creditor could arrest an insolvent debtor and confine him to debtor’s prison. However, the creditor could not sell a debtor into slavery to a third party. Usually the debtor paid off the loan by free work for the creditor, thereby retaining his freedom. (This was directly quoted in the Wikipedia article, History of slavery in Iran.)

But, on the other hand, we also have something like this from the very same exact site:

As a result of the far-flung conquests of the Achaemenids there occurred a sharp change in the royal household and in the households of the Persian nobility from primitive patriarchal slavery to intensive utilization of the labor of foreign workers in agriculture and partly in crafts. A portion of these foreigners were exploited as slaves, while the remainder were treated as semi-free people and were settled on royal land. Usually they were prisoners of war recruited from those who had rebelled against Persian rule or put up resistance to the Persian army (see M. Dandamayev, “Foreign Slaves on the Estates of the Achaemenid Kings and their Nobles,” in Trudy dvadtsat’ pyatogo mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov II, Moscow, 1963, pp. 151­-52). A substantial number of slaves who performed domestic work for the Achaemenids and Persian nobility (bakers, cooks, cupbearers, eunuchs, etc.) were also recruited from among the representatives of vanquished peoples. Babylonia alone was obliged to supply the Persian king for these purposes an annual tribute of 500 boys (Herodotus, 3.92). A certain number of such slaves were purchased by Persians on the slave market as well (Herodotus, 8.105). [...] Under the Achaemenids in Babylonia and other conquered countries Persian nobles became large slave owners (see for references Dandamaev, op. cit., p. 111). According to some documents, Iranians sold their slaves in Babylonia (see, e.g., H. G. Stigers, “Neo- and Late Babylonian Business Documents,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28, 1976, no, 22). (This was NOT quoted or mentioned in the Wikipedia article, History of slavery in Iran.)

Okay, now the author of the Encyclopedia Iranica article cannot seem to make up his mind, in my opinion. He says that Persian nobles became "large slave owners" and that a substantial number of the conquered foreign peoples became agricultural and domestic slaves to their new Persian rulers. But, despite this, the author also seems to be trying to suggest that slavey was incredibly uncommon. Either there is an issue with differing ancient sources here, or the author is trying to make an "apology" for the practise of slavery.

I think that what would really help resolve all this confusion is this: clear numbers that demonstrate the ratio of slaves to free persons in the Achaemenid Persian Empire and that also compare slavery in the Empire to, say, slavery in Greece or (pre-conquest) Egypt or other nearby civilizations. If such numbers exist from ancient sources, then that would be great! Maybe there exists a modern academic work that presents such figures? If there are no such sources, then I really do not see how we can state that slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire was rare, uncommon, or generally banned. Where is the evidence needed to make a comparison coming from? 76.203.224.124 (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The author of Encyclopedia Iranica is not confused....There are multiple authours who contribute to the encyclopedia. Did you even bother to check the author? warrior4321 11:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I did check the author - M. A. Dandamayev. I am unsure, however, of his/her academic credentials. I am just saying that the article seems to contradict itself, and that this contradiction seems to have worked itself into the Wikipedia article, History of slavery in Iran, an article which Xashaiar suggested that I should read. Does anyone know anything about M. A. Dandamayev or about the Encyclopedia Iranica? Or, more to the point, can anyone explain the discrepancy between the suggestions that slavery was uncommon or generally banned in the Achaemenid Persian Empire and that "Persian nobles became large slave owners"? Which stance is correct and supported by the ancient sources?

The reason that I keep harping on this is that the various Wikipedia articles on the Achaemenid Empire, Cyrus the Great, the Cyrus Cylinder, and the History of slavery in Iran seem to go back and forth on this issue of slavery in the ancient Persian Empire. Some very direct claims are made, but they are often supported by what seems, in my opinion, to be weak evidence. Like I said before, what would really help with this article by M. A. Dandamayev that has been cited on Wikipedia is some precise numbers concerning slaves in the Persian Empire. Until we get some numerical evidence, I really do not see how we can claim that the Persian Empire had less slavery than other states in the ancient world or how we can claim that slavery was "generally banned" (this article right here has made this claim) in the Empire. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote was based on Encyclopaedia Iranica and The Cambridge History of Iran. If they confuse you, that means, sorry to say, you do not distinguish "scholarly work" with "fiction". Having said that, please please please write in one sentence or two the EXACT sentence in THIS ARTICLE which you have difficulty with. I already told you what you can delete, so that everybody is happy. also

1. "utilization of the labor of foreign workers" is not slavery (as made clear by the author). Please read WP:FORUM.
2. "According to some documents, Iranians sold their slaves in Babylonia" which tries to tell the reader about "PLACE to sell/buy SLAVES" and not "SLAVES were sold everywhere for example Babylonia".

As I said please write the exact sentence and your change proposal. (If you give me some time I will propose my version for the paragraph of this article you cited originally.) Xashaiar (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, here is the one phrase that I find suspect in this article: "The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was generally banned, although there is evidence that conquered and/or rebellious armies were sold into captivity." You cite M. A. Dandamayev in the Encyclopedia Iranica. I am raising the issue that this article by M. A. Dandamayev seems to contradict itself - on the one hand, it suggests that slavery was uncommon, but then it turns around and says that the Persian nobles became "large slave owners" by enslaving conquered peoples. Which is it? Is slavery "generally banned" or was it widespread and fairly common? How can it be "generally banned" if the Persian nobles gained slaves from their conquests? M. A. Dandamayev's article seems very confusing to me on this issue. Explain. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, how can you say that the "utilization of the labor of foreign workers" is not slavery?! The article by M. A. Dandamayev clearly says that "A portion of these foreigners were exploited as slaves". You see what I mean? This is why I am confused by the Encyclopedia Iranica article; it goes back and forth. Did the Persians enslave any of the peoples they conquered or not? And, when Dandamayev says that "Iranians sold their slaves in Babylonia", how then can we extrapolate that slavery was "generally banned" in the Persian Empire for this article? You yourself cited Dandamayev for the idea that slavery was "generally banned". Someone must be wrong here. These suggestions that slavery was uncommon, rare, or even banned seem to be extreme stretches of what the sources are presenting. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have also tried to find the 2nd volume of the "Cambridge History of Iran", which deals specifically with the Achaemenid era. On page 281 of that text, I discovered the following:

In the Iranian social structure we have no evidence of a legal concept of slavery other than that by which, to commence at the highest level, all men were slaves of the King; but there seem to have been imported workers, at Persepolis and elsewhere, whose condition (whether permanently or not) was effectively that of slaves. At the same time the development of a market economy in 482 - 480 in preparation for Xerxes' expedition (Herodotus vii.23) and apparently of a monetary economy after that time in the Persepolis Treasury tablets implies that corvee workers were not quite slaves. Similarly, temple craftsmen at Uruk in Cyrus' time could bargain about their terms of employment. (page 281)

Now, that statement seems to me to be far more nuanced and complex that what you have presented in this article. Certainly, the passage from the "Cambridge History of Iran" does not suggest, as you claim, that slavery was "generally banned". Rather, the passage recognizes that slavery was not technically "legal" - but neither was it "illegal". It seems that slavery in the Achaemenid period was something of a gray area, and it is still hard to decipher today. Therefore, I do not see how it can be claimed that slavery was banned at all in the Achaemenid Persian Empire. The "Cambridge History of Iran" seems to be suggesting that it did indeed exist, but that it was not granted any important legal status (unlike, say, in Greece or Rome where there existed clear, unambiguous legal distinctions between a slave and a free person). But, this should not be taken to mean that slavery was not practised or that there existed specific laws in the Achaemenid Empire that explicitly forbade its practise. When you say that something is "banned", that implies that there are specific laws that directly make that thing illegal. But, the "Cambridge History of Iran" seems to be suggesting that slavery was not exactly banned - it was not popular and widespread, maybe, but not explicitly banned. (Hence, perhaps rich Persian nobles could legally own as many slaves as they wanted, but otherwise the common Persian did not own any slaves.)

My final point is that I think that you are over-generalizing and simplifying this topic; this complex issue cannot be treated with broad statements like "slavery was generally banned" or "Cyrus abolished slavery in the Cyrus Cylinder" - these are exactly the kind of claims that I keep encountering on Wikipedia articles that deal with this. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, just so you don't suspect me of being biased against your country (I assume that you might be Iranian by your username, but maybe I am wrong), I went ahead and did some research of my own. I found this book by Gene R. Garthwaite, "The Persians": In the Greek view the Achaemenians exemplified autocracy, power, wealth, and excess. Ironically, slavery was essential for Greek society but not for the Achaemenians. In addition, the Greek historians explained history in terms of their society and its moral values; they attribute the Achaemenian decline - which begins with Xerxes for the Greeks! - to decadence and to weakness, even effeminacy. Such attitudes have dominated thinking in the west down to the present. (page 27) I think that this could be worked into the text of the article, and it might have bearing on this discussion right here. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are better in english than I am. Yes "utilization of the labor of foreign workers" is not slavery (not necessarily) as explained by the author. Anyway, I will propose a version in a few days and see if you agree. Xashaiar (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be grand if you could present a new version. The key issue that I think needs to be addressed is that of "nuance and complexity". Generalizations about slavery being "generally banned" are not useful if they overshadow complicated matters. Also, if you are going to say that the "utilization of the labor of foreign workers" is not *necessarily* slavery (which I agree with), then you also need to make clear that it *could* still be slavery in other cases. The quote that I posted from the "Cambridge History of Iran" (volume 2, page 281) is very careful to make this delicate distinction - some of the workers were slaves and some were not. But, this does not imply that slavery was somehow "gnerally banned" or uncommon in the Achaemenid Persian Empire. The statement that some workers were enslaved, whereas others were paid, could be made about any number of other civilizations - not all Greek or Roman laborers were slaves either, since some were indeed paid for their skilled work. Similarly, not every worker in the American South during the 19th-century was a slave either. Ultimately, this does not have any direct bearing on slavery, but it does suggest that slavery and paid labor co-existed. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move towards 'Persian Empire'

Achaemenid Empire → Persian Empire — Hy there, I'm proposing that we move this article towards Persian Empire. AFAIK 'Persian Empire' is its most common name in the English language and used as such to an overwhelming degree by English speakers/writers (historians, books, museums, schools, TV documentaries, etc) Flamarande (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Flamarande (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) To best of my knowledge and conscience Persian Empire is the most common name in the English language, known and used as such to a simply overwhelmingly degree. IMHO a very clear case of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)
• Oppose there were several Empires that are known as a Persian Empire 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — Persian Empire is the subject of an ongoing content dispute. See the page edit history. --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: ==

Those of you who went to a English-speaking school, try your best to remember your history teacher. Did he or not teach that: "Cyrus the Great established the Persian Empire. The ancient Greeks fought several several wars against the Persian Empire. The battle of Thermopylae was an engagement in which a Greek army was defeated by a Persian army under the command of Xerxes. The naval Battle of Salamis ended in a Greek victory over the Persian fleet. Alexander the Great invaded, defeated Darius III, and conquered the Persian Empire, etc."

I wish to make clear that AFAIK the Persian Empire was succeeded by the Seleucid Empire, followed by the Parthian Empire. The Persians (as in people, language, and culture) survived and thrived (this survey and move proposal is not about the people, this is about the common English name of a historical state). After several centuries a new state appeared; its rulers loudly and officially proclaimed that it was a resurrection of the former Persian Empire. It was located in the same area, and had to a certain degree the same cultures, languages, religions. This proclamation hasn't been forgotten or ignored quite the opposite; acknowledging the proclamation the state is (sometimes) also called Neo-Persian Empire, Sassinid Persian Empire or something similar. Nevertheless AFAIK the majority of English-writing historians call it the Sassanid Empire (have named it/study/teach/write about).

(Let me be clear that the 1st paragraph is about the Persian Empire the 2nd is about the Sassinid Empire. One is different from the other and that's why historians use different names, so that we (common mortals :) don't confuse one with the other).

Those of you who didn't go to a English-speaking school (it matters little what name is used by other languages; this is the English wiki) just ask yourselves: What name do we find in English books (e.g.: Osprey)? What name do we find inside museums in the UK and USA (English-speaking museums)? What name do we see in TV documentaries (e.g.: History Channel, Discovery, BBC, National Geographics, etc)? Which name is used by the English-speaking narrators of these documentaries (ignore the translations shown in the subtitles; what name is spoken by the British/American voice)?

Did you see 300 (film) (or its trailer)? "The thousand nations of the Persian Empire descend upon you..." ? (go verify if you doubt it). I'm not claiming that this product of Hollywood is historically accurate (far from it). However in my very humble opinion it shows yet again so clearly which name was, is, and will be used for the foreseeable future by the English-speaking world and (as far as I'm able to judge this matter) that name simply isn't 'Achaemenid Empire' at all.

I guess that I could (and perhaps even should) present some stupid numbers obtained through Google, but I won't. Too many of us know (or at least should know) that Google results tend to show what the lawyer wants to show. You may certainly in good conscience look for yourself if you want (who is stopping you?). But I decline to use them. If you truly need a Google list or something similar to make up your own mind about a common name in the English language (common as in commonly known and used as such) then IMHO you're probably not qualified to judge this matter. Either you already do know what (English) name is more often used in books, taught at school, and shown in TV documentaries or you simply don't (due of having no access to such products?). You see I'm hereby using the books you have read, your own education, and the TV programs you saw already.

Just ask yourselves: "What English name is used more often? 'Achaemenid Empire' or 'Persian Empire' when someone is talking about the 'ancient state' which invaded ancient Greece and which at the bitter end was invaded conquered by Alexander? Which name should be used by the article of the English wiki? Reach your own honest answer and vote accordingly above. Thanks Flamarande (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have a poll. If you bothered to read the Persian Empire talk page like you claimed, you would have seen it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly within my right to ask for a new poll. Let me ask you the following question: Do you deny that 'Persian Empire' is the commonly used name of 'the state founded by Cyrus and ended with Darius III' as far as the English language is concerned?. Isn't it used as such by the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world (and used as such by the majority of its books, historians, schools, museums, TV documentaries, etc ? - provided that they are written and/or spoken in the English language of course). Flamarande (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The poll would be meaningless as 1. the page has been page protected so you can't override it and 2. there has already been one straw poll in which 10 people have said that a restoration of the Persian Empire page with all of the dynasties listed instead of just the Achaemenid Empire. The second straw poll has 6 people stating such with a 45k+ page, which would mean that a large consensus is already against you. As such, it would seem that you are forum shopping to push a POV that is no verified with any sources. Very problematic. By the way,y ou can claim "majority" all you want, but it is meaningless unless you find a reliable source to claim it. Regardless, "majority" is meaningless, because that is like saying that Augustus is the majority of what people say a Roman Emperor is as if it would exclude all of the others who claim the title. That is not how things work. By the way, even the Farsi Wiki contradicts you. I think that is a strong sign that you don't understand how things are. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: let's everyone remember to remain civil and assume good faith in this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)