Talk:Immortals (Achaemenid Empire)

History Vs Herodotus

I removed this line "The regiment was followed by a caravan of covered carriages,camels mules that transported their women and servants. The Immortals received special food." because it is not based on any historical evidence, in fact slavery wasn't allowed during emperial era's, as well as Immortals being mostly a horse back style unit (not camel). Furthermore there were female "Immortals". It's important to not include herodotus words as facts when there's clear historical evidance against his view of an evil persian empire seeking to enslave all of humanity. ( see Cyrus the Great's laws). RumiPantea (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Wow, just wow! I am speechless... You sir are clearly some sort of Iranian ultra-nationalist that roams the Wikipedia pages to change valuable historical information as you see fit. Sadly, after the deplorable, xenophobic film that is "300", it seems that Iranian nationalists have invaded the Internet, and Wikipedia in particular, to spread their own lies and misinformation; I understand that you may be deeply offended by Hollywood's portrayal of your heritage and history, but please do not taint history even further with lies of your own.

I do not know where you got the notion that there was no slavery during the Achaemenid Persian Empire. All ancient societies had some sort of slave or serf system to support its economic base, and Persia (as well as Greece) was no exception; this is just pure nationalistic drivel. Please either support your claims with some sort of ACADEMIC source or cease from spouting these ridiculous, inane exagerrations. In fact, I have encountered the erroneous claim that the Persian Empire had no slavery before on Wikipedia (in the article on the Cyrus Cylinder to be precise), and then as now it seemed that I was dealing with some-sort of nationalist pretending to be a historian and trying to rewrite history to suit his own convictions.

In addition, all ancient armies had large supply trains that supported the soldiers on campaign - and, yes, these trains were often formed by slaves, servants, and women travelling with the army behind the frontlines. In fact, there was a famous Persian general, Surena, who brilliantly utilized his supply trains to crushingly defeat a Roman army at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE.

And, excuse me for being so blunt, but an entire regiment of female Immortals? This is one of the most ludicruous statements that I have ever heard expressed about ancient history. Maybe you are confusing the fact that indeed some women did serve in the Persian military: most famously, Queen Artemisia of Halicarnassus (from Herodotus' home city) commanded five ships from her city as part of Xerxes's combined fleet at the battle of Salamis. The key point here is that Artemisia was a commander - and a very rare exception at that. But, entire regiments composed of women? That is just absurd and there is no historical evidence that I have ever heard of that can even remotely justify that claim.

Also, the Immortals were primarily an infantry regiment during the era of the Achaemenid dynasty. If you had bothered to read the whole article, you would have discovered that (in the section entitled "Successors") it clearly states that it was the later Sassanid dynasty who reformed the Immortals as cavalry. But, I guess you were too eager to revise history, rather than to actually read any. There is an excellent history book called "Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War" by Kaveh Farrokh that analyzes in detail the evolution of the Immortal guards throughout the entire ancient history of Persia. I suggest you take a serious look at it.

I have seen this kind of historical revionism before on Wikipedia, but usually someone was quick enough to catch and correct it. In your case, you have clearly gone completely out of line. In the future, when editing Wikipedia, please rely only on accredited academic sources and cite them accordingly to support your claims. You are free to believe whatever nationalistic, revisionist propaganda you want in your private life, but please keep it far away from Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia.

Oh, and on a final note, have you ever bothered to actually READ the Histories of Herodotus? I realize that you may have a deep-seated distrust of "Western history", but please do try and read it sometime. I think you will find that Herodotus was FAR from being a xenophobe or a racist; far from it, he depicts non-Greek nations in a very positive, well-balanced light. And he does not hate the Persians; he NEVER shows them as the monsters that Hollywood has created using special effects. For Herodotus (and for many Greeks) the Persians were the great, mighty, tragic heroes of the ancient world: theirs was the first super-empire and world superpower, but their imperialist expansionism ultimately failed to subdue everyone (as was also the case for the Greeks themselves under Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans, the British, the Germans, etc. on down throughout history). As regards the Greco-Persian Wars, Herodotus provides some truly majestic descriptions of brave and noble Persians fighting to the end against the Greeks. You can at least read the article about the Battle of Plataea right here on Wikipedia and learn about the glorious efforts, even in the face of certain death, of Masistius and Mardonius. You can read the following modern works: "Way of Herodotus" by Justin Marozzi or "Travels with Herodotus" by Ryszard Kapuscinski if you want to gain a truly deep understanding of the man. Did you know that even though you call Herodotus biased and filled with hatred against the Persians, in the ancient world he was actually accused of the exact opposite? Some writers, Plutarch in particular, vehemently labeled him a "philo-barbarian", that is to say that he was too respectful of other cultures and not racist enough for most of his fellow Greeks and Romans. How is it, do you think, that Herodotus was considered not racist enough back then but you today claim he is too racist? Maybe both you and Plutarch are wrong! At least read book 3 of the Histories and you can discover that disrespecting other cultures and their customs was in fact the greatest moral taboo for Herodotus of Halicarnassus. And, by the way, Herodotus would have been just as offended by "300" as you were. IonNerd (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)IonNerd

Clearly by your own words you're a random igonarnt person, for one thing I don't comment alot or even often on wiki you would know this if you had done some research before opening your mouth. The same applys to your views on the matter, for one thing 'iranian' term is clearly wrong iran is middle persian for the land of the aria, so saying iranian is not only redundent but stupid. You accuse me of inaccurcy yet you fail to provide any clearcut evidence which disprove what I've said. You openly and blindly accept herodotus's words as fact which any historian will tell you it is a hugly bias and overly exhaturated propeganda. Seems to me, that you sir, are unable to accept historical evendince not only has it been shown in writing ofcours the cyrus cylinder and in practice (which workers were paid and the records of such transations were kept by the empire which also exist today in many tablets). Workers were paid and let's face it you can't really trust everything you read history is a biggest collection of lies and distortion it is up to you to deduct what was likely and which sources are reliable and how many sources agree on the events in this mannor you can fish out what's been distorted to a certain degree. As for slavery in the Imperia persia, why would an empire so big go through the trouble to free the jews and other slaves at babylon and continue to abolish slavery in laws and as well as imperial records for construction and maintainance just to stick it to some one like you in the future? there's no need for such things if you're a powerful empire if you want to own slaves you would do so not try to denounce it publicly but secretly own slaves. You are one of those conspiracy nuts who cannot accept relentless evidence that yes infact in those times in the 'good ol days' ideals were virtous by modern standards, or perhaps you cannot simply accept that there were decent people who threated human beings right. Also I never said their forces were ENTIRELY women, do your research you'll find out that aria tribes were known for gender unbais'ness in their lives which included war as the tribe would women and men fighting along side each other. (no not rare cases commonly and it continues to be so in the akhamaneshi dynasty, it is only in the sassania dynasty that women peak in the military). The female you've mentioned who was a queen of an ionian greek city, who herodotus said 'sacrifcied persian babies to her god', this goes to show the only thing you know of the subject is from the bias writings which is no wonder you think it's a rare case. You sir, are just that bias and looking to shape history to your own vision of truth. Please by all means feel free to provide any form of evidence and I will gladly accept it by logic and deduction. ( please note unreliable sources such as herodotus which isn't excepted as the truth in acedemic terms by historians are not considered evidence. arcilogical, multiple concuring sources, or any logicaly deducted theory based on examining such sources not just picking and choosing which you want to be true and which not.) I've provided arcilogical via cylinder of cyrus, the mention of cyrus and his actions in the tora, imperial records of works being paid and no link to any slave and unpaid labor, which btw include soilder's pay and rank (just so you know it's not a rare case when you only hear about things you want to). Finally nationalisem has nothing to do with this, such actions are of no clear nation as what is now iran never was the home of the people who did found the persian empire, and the boarders ofcourse of what would become their home was definately not limited to iran. It is about humanity and their ability to have intergretiy from very early stages of civilization such that ignorant gender steriotypes which you live with didn't exist and people have proven time and time again not just in persian but in many cultures around the world that women can do EVERYTHING a man can and there need not be any more proving coming from them. Ofcourse I speak of the perisans, but others like mongolians (certain tribes not all), and japanese have had their era of unbaisness as well were women and men were equals. You are either ignorant of history or you are racist/sexist, and ignorant who refuses to accept evidence. There is only one race which we all belong to and that's human, I'm offended by you movies like 300 were funny and I didn't go on a tantrum like you seem to have here when your view of history was challenged. RumiPantea (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE: "The female you've mentioned who was a queen of an ionian greek city, who herodotus said 'sacrifcied persian babies to her god'" - can you cite the relevant book and chapter where this is mentioned in Herodotus? I have honestly never heard of this. Please enlighten me, but please cite your sources accordingly.

I am hardly a conspiracy nut. Read any modern historical work on the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Read Herodotus, if you care. Please do not construct some grandiose revisionist theory based around the Cyrus Cylinder. Any academic translation of the Cyrus Cylinder will disprove your wild speculations. The Cylinder never once claims that slavery was non-existent in the Achaemenid Persian Empire. The Cyrus Cylinder does not abolish slavery in any way, shape, or form. It was a way for Cyrus to legitimize his rule over Mesopotamia by promising peace, prosperity, and reforms (much like a modern political speech or platform); but, those promises never included any suggestion of abolitionism or emancipation. Your reading of the Cyrus Cylinder is entirely revisionist. Actually, the Wikipedia article on the Cyrus Cylinder discusses the controversy fairly well.

Here is a link to a modern, scholarly translation of the Cyrus Cylinder: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html. Where does that say that Cyrus abolished slavery? Please just give me a clear citation with appropriate line numbers. I am hereby officially presenting evidence that I believe refutes your claims concerning the Cyrus Cylinder. Please respond with evidence of your own.

Furthermore, it is interesting that you link the liberation of the Jews from Babylon with slavery throughout the Achaemenid Persian Empire as a whole. The two are not at all connected. Cyrus most likely allowed the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland so as to gain further allies for himself and weaken the power structure of the Babylonian nobility that he had just vanguished. He saw the Jews as potential allies against the Babylonian nobles, and so he freed them (and others that the Babylonians had previously subjugated). In and of itself, that act really says nothing about Cyrus views toward slavery in general. The question is this: did Cyrus free all the slaves in the lands that he conquered, or just the ones that he knew would support his rule in the future? You cannot really claim that Cyrus abolished slavery if he was selective and calculating in who he liberated, in order to serve his own political agenda. The Jews were the enemies of his enemy, so Cyrus was quite logically (from the Machiavellian point-of-view) willing to liberate them and allow them to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Now, it could also be that Cyrus did feel morally obligated to help the Jews, but he certainly did not turn this moral stance into a larger reform movement against all slavery and subjugation. There is no evidence for this belief (except for your misguided, revisionist interpretation of the Cyrus Cylinder, of course).

Now, I am not denying that the Achaemenid Persian Empire relied on paid labor, alongside slave labor. When Darius began building the city of Persepolis to serve as his new capital and the center of Persian imperial power, he hired hundreds, if not thousands, of highly-skilled and well-paid craftsmen. For instance, architects came from as far afield as Greece to help built the Apadana - the great audience hall where the Persian King of Kings met with dignataties and embassies from throughout the Empire and from which he gave out orders for the governance of the realm. However, that also does not mean that slavery did not exist as such within the Persian Empire as a whole. The existence of paid labor for highly technical and complex tasks does not obviate the real need for unpaid slaves for menial, back-breaking labor. To extrapolate that slave labor must not have existed, simply because paid labor also existed right along with it, is historical revisionism.

I am sorry if I keep repeating this notion of "historical revisionism" like some sort of mantra, but I honestly believe that you are indulging in it to the utmost excess.

Now, if you truly want my personal opinion on this (not that it really matters), I do believe that the Cyrus Cylinder is a "declaration of human rights", but I do not believe that it abolished slavery. I support this belief by a close reading of the text itself (in a scholarly translation). Yes, Cyrus was a progressive, enlightened ruler for his time period and historical context, and he should be honored, glorified, and remembered for his reforms and policies. Of the three great "world conquerors" - Cyrus, Alexander, and Genghis Khan - Cyrus was (in my opinion) the most enlightened and progressive by far. Alexander tried to follow Cyrus' example at first, but he reverted to blatant, tyrannical absolutism by the end anyway. And, Genghis Khan did away with "enlightened despotism" all together since he probably saw it as standing in the way of his domination of everything and everyone between the two oceans. There are many good reasons why Cyrus is the first person in world history that is widely referred to as "the Great".

But, that does not mean that we should worship him for things that he never did nor ever claimed to. We should not distort the legend simply because we prefer to believe that slavery was abolished around 600 BCE. It was not. Cyrus did other noteworthy and magnanimous deeds, but total emancipation of all slaves within the Persian Empire was not one of them. He was religiously and ethnically tolerant, and he truly cared about improving the prosperity of his subjects; he ensured peace and harmony within his pluralistic, diverse domains. However, he did not "free the slaves" - not in the sense the Abraham Lincoln "freed the slaves" with the Emancipation Proclamation. Cyrus may have been "the Great", but he was hardly "the Perfect" or "the Ideal".

A final note on Herodotus: I am not slavishly following every word Herodotus said. Far from it - Herodotus has been (quite rightly) subjected to rigorous academic criticism over the 2500 years since he wrote down his "Histories". However, historical revionism is another thing altogether. Herodotus needs to questioned, analyzed, and interpreted, but not revised to suit modern sensibilities and wishful-thinking. You want to see him as some sort of racist, biased, Eurocentric boogey-man that you can utilize as an empty straw man to justify your revisionist history. Blaming Herodotus for "racism" or "bias" is different from an objective, rational critique and analysis. Herodotus wrote and believed many things that we now know to be completely false, but we cannot therefore dismiss the entirety of the "Histories" a priori; we have to be careful to independently investigate each claim that he made, because while some of it will surely be wrong, some of it may also be right. We cannot throw all of the "Histories" into the trash. It is an important historical document, one of the few that we have concerning that era.

Finally (and I promise to stop for now), the term "Iranian" may be redundant as you claim, but it is the standard English word for someone from the nation of Iran. Actually, English is filled with linguistic errors and anachronisms like these, but they have become accepted usage nonetheless. Take, "Russian" for example - "Russia" means "land of the Rus", so someone from there would simply need to be called "Rus". Many other languages actually do exactly that - a "Rus" is someone from "Russia". Unfortunately, standard English has rendered it as "Russian", which is (as you say) a redundancy. But, is that my fault? I did not write or create the English language. It just developed this way over hundreds of years. I just follow its conventions so that I can be understood by the average English-speaker. IonNerd (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of the 300 Arguement

First of all..... "Frank Miller's graphic novel 300 and the motion picture present heavily fictionalized version of the Immortals in the Battle of Thermopylae. In the movie, they appear as black covered warriors who wear silver masks and wield twin swords in battle, based more upon Japanese Samurai and Ninja. They serve as King Xerxes' personal warriors but in the story they mainly serve as nameless and faceless henchmen, which Spartans easily defeat. The movie portrayed the Spartans as almost invincible, and the fact that the Immortals could kill a few was the only thing that proved that they were the greatest in the entire Army of Xerxes.".... This statement seems to be fairly opinionated, also... in the end it is the Immortals that do them in... after the spartans lost their advantage of that rock formation...

On another note, although the Frank Miller's Immortals were heavily fictionized, they were based on the original Immortals and as such are deserving of atleast a note..

• Maybe a mention but no more. This is no D&D prestige glass page - Skysmith 09:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey can we leave 300 off this page please? Frank Miller's immortals are fictional, and don't belong here. Thanks 141.153.155.149 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The game Rise of nations has the 'Immortals'as Persian unique infantry, starting with the 'Immortals', wich can be upgraded to 'Anusiya', wich can be upgraded to 'Athanatoi'. Fairly original, don't you think?

• Amusing, but not surprising, I'm afraid. They are essentially the same thing - Skysmith 08:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Not surprising at all, seeing how Rise of Nations re-uses similar names of unique units to extend the unit roster, such as adding "Elite", "Royal" or anything short of "Super" to indicate improved versions of unique units. --Scottie theNerd 13:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rome: Total War has not Persian immortals.

• Nor does Age of Empires, I believe 169.233.121.238 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • AoE does not have Immortals, so I removed the reference. Nibios (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Barbarian Invasion and Alexander expansions of RTW both have the Immortals, as do numerous mods. Also, why should 300 be left off the page? 300 classifies as popular culture, and the name of the section it's in is "The Immortals in popular culture". Spartan198 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

300

It's fictional, but there are cultural reference sections in many of the pages. The book and movie should at least be mentioned at the end.

Why do they look like orcs in the movie?--Sonjaaa 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because they are in the same position, narrative-wise, that is, evil henchmen - Skysmith 09:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've only heard this from a History Channel Documentary and I'm not familiar with their accuracy (probably very good?) but according to the special, Immortals wore black thin cloth-material, called tiaras (like the crown)over their faces. Picture a ski mask but thinner and without the eye-holes. Frank Miller's interpretation of them might be influenced by this, hence the masks.

• Contemporary depictions show them having helmets which left the faces bare. - Skysmith 09:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In Fiction

this article is not about the characters in the comic/movie. It's supposed to be a bout historical figures. I shortened up the section. It still mentions their appearance in the film but that's all that is needed.99DBSIMLR 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good move. It was becoming a little weird to have a serious historical aricle dominated by a comic strip creation which didn't bear any resemblence to the real thing.210.246.16.179 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• In other fiction-> Final Fantasy XI: Immortals do appear as imperial troops, however their clothing style suggest post-islamic era, as well as the empire's symbole being the two headed serpant (ferdosi wrote shahname during islamic occupation) further supports this. This ofcourse is trivial as there were/is no Immortals during islamic rule. Not sure if it's worth mentioning in the main page. RumiPantea (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Instead of this:

Later in time, a strict adherence to the religion of the prophet Zarathustra and his teachings, or "truth" as the Persians called it, was required.

Why not just say something to the effect of: "..., a strict adherence to Zoroastrianism, the state supported religion of the Achaemenids."

Technically it was not a state religion, it must be noted. Persians did not force conversions upon conquered peoples, for example. The note on "truth" is ambiguous and doesn't really clarify anything. Is that referencing 'Asha'? I've no idea what the Persians are calling it, besides the "Good Religion" or Mazdayasnian Zarathushrianism, etc. Okay, so I do, but that's not important in this article, unless you want to start entering in Avestan and Old Persian transliterations. And "truth" sounds a little generic. Could just as easily be talking about the Tao, or the 'Gospel' truth. In other words, note that they were required to be Zoroastrians, but leave the specifics of the religion to Zoroastrian pages perhaps? Khirad 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment about "truth" looks like an attempt to reconcile Herodotus' description of the Immortals' training regime (IIRC they are taught from childhood to be good with spear, good with bow, and to always tell the truth) with actual Persian beliefs and practices. 212.139.84.55 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• In avestan Amesha Spenta kind of translates to immortals in the zoroastrian faith this might be the link between them or where the idea originated. RumiPantea (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

300

I know you want 300 left off this page, but in the movie they WERE heavily fictionalized. I loved the idea that there were black ninjas that looked like ghouls under their Armour. I mean if there was an award for best remake ever, this movie i feel should get it

203.26.13.4 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Companions"

"Herodotus' source may have confused the name Anûšiya (companions) with Anauša (Immortals)."

"The title of "Immortals" was first revived under the Sassanids. The most famous of the Savaran units were the Zhayedan (Immortals) and numbered 10,000 men, like the Achaemenid predecessors, with the difference that they were cavalry."

This article doesn't make it clear whether the Persian units were actually called Immortals or whether this was an error. If it was an error, were the Sassanids just repeating it? I doubt they were working off Herodotus. 82.95.254.249 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Concrete proof that the Immortals actually existed?

The only sources their are come from to third party sources, and one of them is vague. Isn't it possible that Herodotus was confusing these guys with another unit? According to the article the Persian Empire itself had no record of such a unit. --Ted87 07:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello to everyone here!I'm new so I apologize if I create any problem at least for now!.Anyway as far as I'm concerned the Persians had an elite unit named AMRTAKA.It's said this unit is the original'immortals'.i don't know what it means in Persian but I don't think it actually gives that meaning knowing that taka means shield.Probably Herodotus had given them a very unique name due to their fame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euagoras (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, no remains of the historical documents of the Persian Empire remain. All the libraries which contained accounts of soldiers sent, and those that died, full list of victories and defeats were all in the libraries throughout the Empire, but most notably at Ctesiphon. However, after the Muslim conquest of Persia, the Arabs burned all the libraries and the books. Therefore, we are now forced to rely on foreign sources rather than our own. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

Are the guys that defend the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade based on the immortals? Doctorfluffy 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword is a fictional order of Christian militants created for the movie, who have as their sole purpose the protection of the Holy Grail. Take a look at Military Order or Secret Society, those come a lot closer. Themill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WH40K and Starcraft

Is there any evidence of a connection between the Necron and Protoss units and the Persian ones? The name is not good enough, that's just meant to be either descriptive or sound badass.

If I don't get an answer by the next time I look at this page, I'm deleting those references. Andy Christ 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

What a useless picture to include in such an article--the 300 one, that is. You may well be better off not using one at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.155.16 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems rather strange that a photo of an actual Persian relief at Persepolis should be deleted and that a grotesque caricature like the film poster should appear in its place. Presumably the same copyright rules apply to both.210.246.8.136 05:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have attempted to solve the picture problem. I created this illustrated version of the Persian Immortals that is hopefully somewhat more accurate than that fictionalized 300 thing-a-majiger.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Buistr 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor 83.233.154 has twice removed the picture of a Persian Immortal (Achaemenid era not the film 300 poster) with the comment "cute picture but no authenticity whatsoever". Anon 83 has not however supplied any evidence in support of this statement. I have checked with the artist Persian Poet Gal who advises that her references were the archers freize from the Susa palace, now in the Louvre, and a modern reconstruction. Her comment was "granted that the picture isn't 100% perfect but it gives a relatively good idea of how they looked". Taking into account the uncertainties surrounding this subject I would agree. Would other editors agree that the picture should again be restored? Buistr 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture at the bottom of the page, from 300, is not the actual immortals. They're just the persian foot soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.168.207 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to use the actual Persian relief as the main visual reference for this article, instead of that RTW skin/model? Spartan198 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

Weapons, armor, combat style?

Perhaps more detail on exactly how they were armored, and how they fought would be a more worthwhile addition than pointless discussions about allusion to pop-culture and the origin of the term. http://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html 86.137.206.238 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)