Historical Inaccuracies with Persia article

[cyrusIII85]

Hi I'm new in this forum. Anyway, I've noticed the extreme historical inaccuracies of some parts of the Persia summary for civ IV. I have notified both IGN and Civ itself of my viewpoints and have yet to receive a response. As such, here is my response to the IGN article which contained the summary:

Dear Mr. Mortal,

I am surprised and shocked concerning this particular article, and the
only wish I have is that I could have read it sooner to possibly prevent
the horrible lies within take up valuable memory space on computers
throughout the world. My specific concern comes from the last part of the
article. I quote:

"In a series of decisive battles between 633 and 642, the Arabs conquered
and destroyed the Persian Empire; since this time, Persia (modern Iran)
has largely belonged to the Arab world. The customs and religion of
ancient Persia were destroyed and the population absorbed into the
surrounding Islamic culture; only a few remnants survive today."

First of all, in no way shape or form has Iran EVER belonged to the Arab
world. This is primarily evident in the definition of being Arab. For
dictionary.com:

Arab -
1. A member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and
Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern
Africa from the seventh century.
2. A member of an Arabic-speaking people.

First of all, by definition, Aryans aren't Semitic. I think that goes
without saying, but apparently having those two contradicting
categorizations in your article didn't mean anything. Hence, Iranians
can't be Arab by the first definition. Also, in case you don't know
geography, Iran isn't in Arabia. Arabia simply defines the Arabian
Peninsula, which includes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and all of the other
states created by "tribes waving flags" (a quote from a historian I have
forgotten).

Concerning the second definition, I refer you to any encyclopedia article
which states that only 3% of Iran's population speaks Arabic. Those
peoples are pretty much located along the Persian Gulf. The majority of
Iranians speak Persian, which is the Khorasani version of the
Indo-European languages originally brought by the Aryans. Hence, the
second definition is also invalid for the far majority of Iranians.

In conclusion, Iran has never belonged to the Arab world in any shape or
form.

My second criticism is that the customs and religion of Persia was
destroyed. In no way whatsoever has this ever occurred. While it would be
somewhat hard for me to detail each and everyway this hasn't, I'll give
the highlights. The first Arab dynasty of the Islamic empire, the
Umayyads, tried to undermine Persian language, culture, and religion. This
eventually led to the lead to the collapse of the Umayyads (because they,
being Arabs, had no history of governing empires or any cultural pursuit)
and the rise of the new Arab era of Islam, the Abbasids. The Abbasids,
despite being Arabs, were so influenced by Persians that they moved the
capital of the Islamic empire from Damascus to Baghdad (Baghdad was
originally a Persian village), adopted Persian court customs, and wore
Persian clothes. This automatically refutes the belief that pre-Islamic
Persian customs were destroyed because, in essence, Arabs adopted the same customs. And of course, if you know the term "The Golden Age of Islam", then keep in mind that it started by the Abbasids and they're
reorientation toward Persian culture.

Even Persians were in large force in the bureaucracies of the Islamic
Empire and even in the academic arena where the presided in far greater
numbers and importance than any Arab group (some examples: Al-Khwarizmi, the person that literally wrote the book on Algebra, Omar Khayyam, creator of
the Jaalai calendar which is the most accurate Solar calendar in the
world, Al-Razi, famous chemist who created Sulfuric Acid and Ethanol,
Avicenna, Al-Biruni, etc. look them up on Wilkapedia). As a result, there
is a clear contradiction when there are so many people active in an
academic and administrative life and yet somehow, their beliefs have been
seemingly ripped away from them.

But perhaps the most notable acts of independence by Persians to the
Islamic empire. For the 400 years that the Islamic Empire were ruled by
Arabs, only did the first hundred years see actual dominance by Arabs. The
next 300 years saw resurgence of Persians, not only the Islamic empire,
but outside of it. The most notable examples are the Saffarids, Samanids,
and the Ghaznavids. Each were dynasties set up in Persian provinces in
Iran and C. Asia and operated independently, if not defiantly, toward the
Islamic empire. These states saw a resurgence of completely pure Persian
culture mixed with some elements of Islam. But even the Islamic empire
didn't withstand the threat of Persian complete rule. Around 1000 AD,
another territory of Persians, in the Albroz Mountains, hailed the leaders
called the Buyid brothers. Two of these brothers were actually successful
in conquering the Islamic Empire and even forced the caliph to kiss their
hands and feet. One was proclaimed Sultan (military chief) and the other
Shahanshah (king of kings). The last title is particularly important
because it was the same title that the ancient Persian kings adopted. An
interesting coincidence since Persian customs seemingly were destroyed eh?
Also, the fact that Persians conquered the empire is somewhat perplexing
given the articles accounts right?

In response to the religion, which was Zoroastrianism, it wasn't destroyed
at all. In fact, most Iranians kept their faith despite Arab attempts to
destabilize the religion. Zoroastrianism continued to remain strong until
the advent of the Safavid dynasty (16th century, opposed to 7th to 11th
century Islamic Empire) which saw the religion being to old and stale,
decided to replace it with a new version Islam. However, despite this,
Zoroastrians and their temples still exist in Iran and in India notably in
the city of Yazd. However, despite this, Persians put their own twist on
Islam, namely Shiite Islam (rings a bell from Iraq???). While it has
expanded into Iraq and elsewhere, make no mistake that the reason why the
sect exists is because of Iranian effort notably by, as I have already
stated, the Safavids. The reasons why the particular brand of Islam was
advocated was because it included many elements of PERSIAN culture,
Zoroastrianism, and was different from the Arab Sunni Islamic beliefs.

This, by itself, shows how stupid it was to state that Iran absorbed "the
surrounding Islamic culture" when, in fact, they advocated a nearly
forgotten sect of Islam that was hostile to the surrounding Sunni Arab and
Ottoman Turk beliefs.

In conclusion, these arguments show how wrong you are. Obviously you
didn't quite take a very long and hard look at Persians in any way shape
or form from the advent of Islam onward. I hope the length of my response
shows you how much information you are ignorant of and I subsequently hope
that you will try to read a book before making such stupid, simplistic
statements on Persia.

Regards,
__________:

A Chemical Engineering Major
An Iranian
A person who has, and will, fight against the ignorance of Persian culture
and history that you have demonstrated

P.S. I expect a reply stating your defense concerning the statements you
made.

 

[shadow2k]

If you're going to point people to Wikipedia, you should be aware that most articles written on this subject refute your claim that the Arabs never conquered Persia.

I don't want to argue about whether they did or didn't. I'm just saying, when I read "Arabs conquered Persia" from a source you are directing people to use...it doesn't make much sense.

 

[suspendinlight]

I don't think he's claiming the Arabs never conquered Persia. He's disputing the amount that Arabic culture has influenced modern-day Iran as far as I can tell.

 

[linjon1]

Don't sit by the phone waiting for a call.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

To the OP: You're right, obviously. Anyone who has ever met an Iranian (especially Iranian women ) AND Arabs of both sexes will agree with you immediately.
Same would be true for Turks, btw.
Sadly, it's a common thing today - all Moslem or Middle Eastern ethicities are lumped together in the media often enough.
And nobody ever claimed the 'pedia would be the best part of CIV...

(And while we're at it: "German" is by no means identic with "Prussian" ).

 

[slightlymarxist]

Right now Swedish embassies are being burned to the ground in middle east because of a Mohammed caricature being published by a DANISH newspaper.

Works both ways, it would seem. Blond hair? Hey, we're all the same.

 

[shadow2k]

I don't think he's claiming the Arabs never conquered Persia. He's disputing the amount that Arabic culture has influenced modern-day Iran as far as I can tell.

Maybe it's just poor wording, I don't know. When it states that Persia belonged to the Arab world, I interpret that as the Arab people controlled it. Not that the population in Iran was Arab.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Right now Swedish embassies are being burned to the ground in middle east because of a Mohammed caricature being published by a DANISH newspaper.

Works both ways, it would seem. Blond hair? Hey, we're all the same.

Well, the %age of idiots is roughly the same in all ethnicities...

 

[potatokiosk]

Considering that Persia has been in previous civ games, you'd think they'd have finished their research by now.

 

[shahreevar]

the argument that "persia belongs to the arab world" because it was conquerd by Arabs, is like saying China belongs to the "Mongol" world, since it was conquered and ruled by the Mongols. same thing goes for India. sure, arabs left their marks on the Iranian people, through language, and islam. but if anything, they, like everyone else who came to Iran as a conqueror, became "persianized", and thus were abosorbed in. this is true of Mongols, the Greeks, the Arabs, and the Turks. and yes we are always lumped together in the eyes of the western media,and the majority of the western people. its funny that easterneners are most of the times able to distinguish between all different poeple. and yes, the swedish embassy thing, has to do more with frustration, and lack of knowledge. its wrong period, no matter who the victim is.

p.s. persian language, is indo european, and thus shares its root with European, and Indian languages. e.g. Father, Mother, and Brother, are Pedar, Madar, and Baradar in persian.

 

[Aramazd]

the argument that "persia belongs to the arab world" because it was conquerd by Arabs, is like saying China belongs to the "Mongol" world, since it was conquered and ruled by the Mongols. same thing goes for India. sure, arabs left their marks on the Iranian people, through language, and islam. but if anything, they, like everyone else who came to Iran as a conqueror, became "persianized", and thus were abosorbed in. this is true of Mongols, the Greeks, the Arabs, and the Turks. and yes we are always lumped together in the eyes of the western media,and the majority of the western people. its funny that easterneners are most of the times able to distinguish between all different poeple. and yes, the swedish embassy thing, has to do more with frustration, and lack of knowledge. its wrong period, no matter who the victim is.

Since it said Persia belonged to the arab world, not belongs that would imply that it was once ruled by the Arabs, but not now. If I lived during the Yuan(mongol) dynasty I would consider China part of the Mongol world. Obviously the article is not in depth and leaves out a lot of details that should be included. You are right that Westerners generally think of Iranians as Arabs due to religion and geography and that should change.

 

[shahreevar]

Abgar, the civipedia says that persia has since beloged to arab world, not that it once blonged. even so the correct term would be the Islamic world, ie it has since blonged to the Islamic world. but even then, due to shia sect paracticed in iran, it puts it at odds with the rest of the Islamic world.

 

[Eigenvector]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but didn't Persia get overrun by both the Turks AND the Mongols as well towards the Middle Ages? Not to mention the Parthians, Arabs, Greeks, and the Romans as well?

I would suspect the culture of Asia Minor and Arabian Peninsula to be as heterogenus as any Mediterranian country. Its doubtful the "Original" Persian culture is intact - of course that depends upon what you define the "original" Persian culture.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but didn't Persia get overrun by both the Turks AND the Mongols as well towards the Middle Ages? Not to mention the Parthians, Arabs, Greeks, and the Romans as well?

I would suspect the culture of Asia Minor and Arabian Peninsula to be as heterogenus as any Mediterranian country. Its doubtful the "Original" Persian culture is intact - of course that depends upon what you define the "original" Persian culture.

Parthians - Stopped the spread of Hellenism and increased the power of the Persian realm. They are considered by nearly all Iranians as purely Iranians and originally came from the Caucasus, exactly like the Aryan tribes.

Romans - When Marc Antony lost 35,000 troops in N. Iran, Crassus got his head cut off, or when the Emperor Valerian was reduced to a slave? There were just as many Persian invasions of Rome than the reverse. Furthermore, due to the non-centralized state of Parthia, when the Romans briefly captured the capital (under Trajan as I recall) they were forced to flee because of reinforcements from other areas of the Parthian realm.

Arabs - Has been discussed and I showed how ARABS absorbed Persian culture. They had very little culture and no artistic identity before the conception of Islam; so to say that a nearly non-existent culture overran one of the most influential ones is absurd. Furthermore, another interesting fact, Iranians actually AIDED in developing modern Arabic. The reason is because Arabic before Islam was spoken mainly by nomads and caravan personnel, and their language reflected that. However, when they became central parts of an actual civilization, the language itself didn't have enough complexity to be adequately used. As a result, Iranians got the Arabic script simply because it was partially developed by Persians (it's pretty similar to Palhavi, the ancient way of writing) and it was easier to use because of the advancements made. The language itself (grammar, etc.) wasn’t adopted.

Greeks - Had some success on Hellenizing Iran immediately after the Alexander era, but quickly lost control thereafter. Were basically reduced to figureheads like 100 years after. Hellenism was completely destroyed by the time of the advent of the Sassanids. Furthermore, just as an interesting note, if you were to compare the Persepolis, the heart of Persia, with the Acropolis, the heart of Greece, you would notice that they are very similar. Now wrap your mind around the fact that Persepolis was completed BEFORE the Acropolis, and the architectural style is more advanced. Shows how maybe a person could ague that Greece was in fact influenced by Persia, but no person goes there because that would show that Asian cultures were actually superior to Western ones. But no, that's unacceptable...

Mongols - The only thing they succeeded at was killing off so many Iranians that it took around 500 years to achieve the pre-Mongolian era population. They came and went, and, ironically, some of the best poets came around that time and celebrated Iranian culture.

Turks - They invaded...and then they fully adopted Persian customs and culture, except for language. They best example would be the Ghaznavids who actually were instrumental in resurrecting the Persian spirit. Notice there is a big difference between "Chinese" Turks (aka Turkmen) and "Iranian" Turks (aka Azeris), because of their very different appearance.

As such, the reason why I argue against these characterizations of Persian culture being infringed upon is because the exact opposite (Persians infringing upon other cultures and their development) is even "more" true. Iran, like any other country, went through change. In fact if Iran didn't change it wouldn't have survived. However, the core tents of Persian culture have survived and in fact were completely adopted by all invaders, and, hence became "Persianized". However, if you chose not to believe me, then why don't you look at the map? Iran, as far as I recall, is still an independent state. It isn't call Greece, nor Rome, nor Mongolia. It's Iran, meaning "land of the Aryans", and the ONLY reason Iran survived so many barbaric invasions is because of the strength of the culture that tied the people of Iran together.

Lastly, I remind you that Iran isn't in ASIA MINOR NOR THE ARABIAN PENNINSULA.

 

[cyrusIII85]

cyrusIII85

That was interesting and I had not realised that Zoroastrianism was still being practiced. Thanks.

Yup, it still was practiced until the advent of the Safavids in the state of Fars, the "core state" of Iran one might say. It's still being practiced in Iran, especially in Yazd, as well as in India by the "Pars", descendents of Persians that went to India following the Arab invasion. Anyway, no problem.

 

[Eigenvector]

Oh come on you sound like a German arguing that Germany is the origin of Germanic culture.

Cultures change over time, peoples change over time, its very common for indiginous people to want to claim their culture is the original but evolution is inevitable. The situation in Iran is no different than the one in China - it may look like the culture has endured for millenia to them, but an outsider can see the changes. This isn't a slam against Iran or its people, but a counter to your arguments. You sound like you are arguing that the culture of Iran is the one pure culture of the world, one that has survived wholly intact over the millenia. I'm just pointing out that all things evolve over time for better or for worse and that there's nothing wrong with that - in fact evolution of culture is a good thing.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Oh come on you sound like a German arguing that Germany is the origin of Germanic culture.

Cultures change over time, peoples change over time, its very common for indiginous people to want to claim their culture is the original but evolution is inevitable. The situation in Iran is no different than the one in China - it may look like the culture has endured for millenia to them, but an outsider can see the changes. This isn't a slam against Iran or its people, but a counter to your arguments. You sound like you are arguing that the culture of Iran is the one pure culture of the world, one that has survived wholly intact over the millenia. I'm just pointing out that all things evolve over time for better or for worse and that there's nothing wrong with that - in fact evolution of culture is a good thing.

Um...have you read my posts? I haven't argued anything that you have stated, merely that the common Western perspective of Iran (aka Cyrus founded it, Persians were beaten by Greeks, then Alexander, and then magically became Arab) is completely incorrect and that, if I had my way, Iran would be compared more closely with China in terms of it's legacy and effects of human development. Anyway, good night .

 

[Sidhe]

Very few cutlures remain intact. Look at England, how much of the original indegenous celtic culture remains now. Let's not underplay Philip of Macedon and Alexanders achievements in taking the Persian empire. A country which produced 200 talents of gold per year to Persias 200,000 also 100th the size of the Persian empire, it was brought to it to its knees, that's some good leadership there; subsequently Greek influence was strong for a long time in the area. The Greeks were undoubtably influenced by Persia, after all Persia fought to stem a united Greece by sowing war, funding opposing factions, ironically they achieved the opposite.

 

[shahreevar]

thats very true. Persia was much larger, and richer than greece and Mecdonia combined. and in fact Alexander was brave and a very strong leader. even so the Persia, or rather the persian empire, i.e. the the persia itself, and the all the sorrounding satrapies were already falling apart. the last king, Darius III inherited this, and tried to unify the empire. remember that the persian policy was unlike the roman policy. there were much more lelient, and allowed the conquerd people to keep their believes, and let them govern themselves. the only ture obligation of these many nations were to pay taxes, and supply the king with troops. you mught say that the persian empire was the first Federal system. the roman way on the other hand was to rule with the iron fist, since all others were barabarian, and only roman rule was right, and civilized.

so back to alexander... yes he crushed the already weakened persian empire, and some say that it was a good thing, since the Hakhamneshian were already due to collapse, since cprruption, and riots in the distant satrapies were already a sign of things need to be changed. in today's term that would an internal revolution which would do the deed. in the ancient day, an intelligent ruler would use this chance to invade, and rule, which is what Alexander did.

 

[shahreevar]

Very few cutlures remain intact. Look at England, how much of the original indegenous celtic culture remains now. Let's not underplay Philip of Macedon and Alexanders achievements in taking the Persian empire. A country which produced 200 talents of gold per year to Persias 200,000 also 100th the size of the Persian empire, it was brought to it to its knees, that's some good leadership there; subsequently Greek influence was strong for a long time in the area. The Greeks were undoubtably influenced by Persia, after all Persia fought to stem a united Greece by sowing war, funding opposing factions, ironically they achieved the opposite.

no one is underplaying that, at least i am not. Alexander himself later on became a legendary hero/uler for the Persians--he is called Eskandar in persian-- and so he beame one of us. its true that very few people were given that honor, but i guess he did something to be considered good.

oh and since you are English (you from england, so I assume you are English)... when the Normans invaded the British isles, and ruled for a long time, they brought with them the French language and traditions. Modern English is the child of that glorious fusion between French and Anglo-saxon tongues. are you thus called French??