Historical Inaccuracies with Persia article

suspendinlight said:
No, didn't understand a word (though if I ever had the time, I would like to learn Farsi due to my interest in Persia). :)

I just wanted to note to cyrus that the Aryans tribes were happily wandering around as nomads in central Asia for several thousand years before arriving in modern day Iran and settling down. During all of this time the Sumerians, Elamites, Hittites, Egyptians, Akkadians, and others had formed complex societies in the Near East and the Aryans were the barbaric invaders. It's a cycle that repeats throughout human history. A nomadic group of "barbarians" infringes on a civilized society eventually destroying it, only the invaders eventually form a civilized society themselves, which is the eventually invaded by another "barbarian" horde. This is in reference to your comment about Arabs and their pre-Islamic culture, and to duly note that the Aryans were not always the "most cultured".

yes. this is actually true of all human cultures. all were at one stage something like that of a Barbarian. when humans started to settle sown, or "specialize" they strated tp pursue culture.
 
TylerDurdon said:
Just want to add a little here!!! I'm sure there is a General in the US army inspire by someone like... hmmm lets say American hero General McArthur who just want to Nuke the HELL out of China right about now... OK he is not president and doesnt have much power but that person SURELY exist and could one day have influence over the matter...

Also, the Holocaust thing, its a perfect example of a TABOO subject in our society to ILLUSTRATE the ambiguity of our Rightfully precious freedom of speech... when this thing going to BOOM itself in the international medias, Jews/moralist will react strongly to censure it... they wont burn embassies but they will be angry!!! and more they will be angry, more the people who try to undermine freedom of speech will be right!.. it a kinda political mine(the thing you step on and explode in pieces) more than anything else!

Well, back to the medias; they are ONLY a mean of propaganda, in any country including US, its mostly corporative propaganda (commercials) but also state misinfomation... Aristotle once said something like: "Leaders most lies in order to rules, ordinary people cant stand the truth" and I like to think that he was right on that one!!!

Everything is propaganda... the truth are mostly never known to the point that its relevant to ask ourself if their is such thing as THE Truth (with a big "T"!)

Now I'm really out its way to late!:crazyeye:


Truth? You can't handle the truth!!;)
 
shahreevar said:
Truth? You can't handle the truth!!;)


mwahahaha!!!! :lol:

Sorry for the useless post but I had to laugh at loud!! :cool:
 
shahreevar said:
Truth? You can't handle the truth!!;)

I can that's why I'm enjoying this thread so much:)

Damn Tylers eaten my brain, Can't think No more. Me Like Bush, me vote Republican;) :lol:

WHS^^^ too :nospam:

by the way where is la la land is it near Timbuktu? or Xanadu? Maybe Shangri La?
 
Timbuktu actually exists. :rolleyes:
 
suspendinlight said:
No, didn't understand a word (though if I ever had the time, I would like to learn Farsi due to my interest in Persia). :)

I just wanted to note to cyrus that the Aryans tribes were happily wandering around as nomads in central Asia for several thousand years before arriving in modern day Iran and settling down. During all of this time the Sumerians, Elamites, Hittites, Egyptians, Akkadians, and others had formed complex societies in the Near East and the Aryans were the barbaric invaders. It's a cycle that repeats throughout human history. A nomadic group of "barbarians" infringes on a civilized society eventually destroying it, only the invaders eventually form a civilized society themselves, which is the eventually invaded by another "barbarian" horde. This is in reference to your comment about Arabs and their pre-Islamic culture, and to duly note that the Aryans were not always the "most cultured".

You're half correct: Iranian Aryans weren't the most cultured group at all times. What you fail to note, however, is that the Aryans, unlike the other nomadic peoples, have a history for tolerance, peace, and justice. When Arabs invaded Iran they burned down the main library in Ctestphion and destroyed perhaps the most magnificent carpet ever made: the spring of Khrosow. The reason was because of zealotry and self-centralism. First, they had no understanding of the work that went into creating such things as arts and books. They simply and naively declared, fronted by the Caliph Omar, that all books, other than the Koran, be burned down officially because the Koran contained all of the useful knowledge in the world. All other books were superfluous by their estimate, of course not realizing that useful information can come from humans and not god. As a result, Iranians can't find much of anything concerning Persian literature before the Islamic era. They also deeply undermined Iran's native language, Parsi (Farsi), and the religion at the time Zoroastrianism in order to expand the role of Arabic and Islam in Iran. They failed, of course with respect to Arabic, but this gives you to what extent they operated to undermine Iranian culture and civilization, which is why Iranians to this day despise most Arabs and went so far as to establish a countering view of Islam: Shia Islam, which was nearly forgotten. The reason that Shia Islam exists today is because of the efforts of Iranians.

The Mongolians, when they gained power, decided to kill millions upon millions of people and leave anyone left alive with pure fear. They engaged in total warfare which, with respect to Iranians, left millions dead from the war and a far higher number to famine. It is said it took 500 years for the population to increase to pre-Mongolian levels. Timerlane, another person affiliated with the Mongolian time period, created huge towers of skulls from dead Iranians in the city of Isfhan (I believe). These are the examples of barbarian invasions of Iran.

Iranian Aryans, however, never had such a history. When they settled in Iran they didn't take much of anything away from the local inhabitants, Elamites especially. Nor did they engage in war and ruthless executions. They didn't undermine the Elamites nor any other civilization, simply built their own. They slowly developed, learning of Mesopotamian and Elamite art and learned how to structure a civilization. The Medes were most prominent in this respect and actually created a very strong state in NE Iran. Once again, I remind you, Iranians haven't invaded, conquered, or deprived anyone of their ideas and culture, merely adapted to them. Finally, perhaps the greatest figure of all time, Cyrus the Great came and unified all of the states within Iran. He then extended the first world empire. However, his rule wasn't marked by intolerance and violence that was nearly homogenously developed by all other kings before him, but one of respect and kindness to the conquered peoples. When he invaded Babylon, he didn’t shed a single drop of blood and his army peacefully walked into it’s streets as friends rather than conquers. There was no looting or raping, only a declaration from Cyrus himself. This is categorized as the first charter of human rights and created an atmosphere where all slavery was abolished, all stolen property of others would be returned, and that all religions were to be respected.

This is how Iran came to be great, because, when we had ultimate power, we didn't abuse it. We didn't enslave peoples, we liberated them and created a state, which incorporated all previously important areas, the world had ever seen. That is what separates Iranian Aryans from those other nomads.
 
shahreevar said:
@cyrus

do you agree that the Iranians in Genreal believe themselves to be superior to other people? Honar Nazdeh Iranian asto bas? yes i take pride in my homeland, and my native culture. and i am somewhat nationalistic. nationalism can be both good and bad. the bad comes out when it becomes racism. Grasshopper-eating arabs? arab dogs? siah sambo? turkeh khar? etc.:rolleyes: or when people fro tehran make fun of other persian speaking people. omfg, you are actually speaking dari vari, where as the Afghanis for example speak Dari, the language of Hafiz, Rumi, and Sadi (btw i stole that joke from the comedian Hadi Khorsandi!!)

people need to realize that not all modern iranians are persians, or Aryan. i doubt that after 4000 years of history the Aryan gene pool has remained intact, and pure. my mian problem with yor arguement, or rather my interpretation of arguemnt was that you believe that arabs are inferior to persians. you later said that the pre-islamic arab were inferior. well the poster above me(meisen) has addressed that issue. and fyi, arabic is a rich, powerfull language. it is rich, or rather it became so since it was the sole vehicle for transmitting ideas, stories, and the history of the Arabs.


p.s. to the other readers, i am sorry if you cant understand some of the word i said.

Well...yes ;). But Iranians make fun of all other Iranian groups, not just Arabs and Turks. Furthermore, even though we stereotype and make fun of them, we don't attack and kill them unlike racists movements in the West. So I view those as somewhat "fun" activities that Iranians enjoy. The most common one I hear was "lizard eater" with respect to Arabs btw.

The concept of Aryan is difficuilt to say the least. The way I try to define it isn't so much "blood" as it is "culture". Anyone who shares the culture of Iranians and fights for Iran is considered, by me, and Iranian and hence an Aryan. Certainly, with respect to blood, I don't think any people can claim they aren't mixed (chinese are ancient chinese as well as Mongolian and Japanese for example becuase of those invasions). But I do believe that Iranians still retain most of the original blood and that even experts say the closest population to ancient Aryans are Iranians and N. Indians.
 
meisen said:
CyrusIII85

The Arabs were nomads first and Arab second. Nomads don't create what we would call "high culture". They don't have time. They don't live in large cities, they don't stay in one place long. Few usually learn to write and most knowledge is passed down orally from generation to generation. Nomadic life prevents a lot of the specialization that leads scientific and technological advances. This is true of most nomadic peoples. The Mongols, the Aryans, the Turks and all the rest of the nomadic people who mixed in this region didn't leave much for us later to call "history" till they settled down and people started specialising.

Looking at ancient nomads, unfortunately we know very little as there is little remaining for present day archaeologists to study with their current technology. My own opinion is that "high culture", "civilization" and those sort of terms are pretty much meaningless. They are value judgements and vary immensely from one person or group to another. The usefulness of such terms in talking about cultures and their differences is about as useful as the terms long and short are to carpentry (to nick an example Alan Watts used).

I don't know how you can say a person is more something than another thing. Arabs were Arabs! They were also nomads. If they were "less" Arab than nomad, then who were the real "Arabs"? They are the people that spread Arabic and they are THE true Arab population if anything existed as Arab.

With respect to their lifestyle, I agree. I, however, contend that people chose to live that way instead of trying to engage in cultural pursuits. Arabs always knew of the great civilizations in Persia, Greece, and Rome, but never tried to create anything like them. Iranians, specifically Persians, who lived nearly in the same climate conditions of Arabs, eventually became a cultural force despite the harsh weather and scare water. Instead, Arabs created a civilization, motivated by the greatest force ever (god), on the ruins of other civilizations, which isn't what Iranians did at all.

High culture and civilization reflects a choice. You either stay as an animal, being iterant and less developed, or you achieve the next stage, which all humans are capable of. Iranians made that choice before Arabs, and other groups certainly made that choice before Iranians. However, I don't view any of them as barbarian simply because they were nomads. What determines if they are really barbarians is if they only gain from destabilizing others.
 
Sidhe said:
Sorry very interesting do go on guys.

One very good reason why Greece couldn't unite under one banner was because Persia spent huge quantities of money on financing wars between the city states to keep just such a thing from happening, Persia new greece was a threat to it only as a whole.

Alexander was a great military strategist who surrounded himself with the best generals and inspired loyalty bordering on worship. Persia lost to a vastly inferior(size wise) force. I think if you just look at the acievement of the Macedonians on numbers alone you cant fail to be impressed. Military students still learn about alexanders battle tactics to this day. I looked into the history from a completely impartial viewpoint not being Greek or Persian and I'm impressed.

1. Greeks accepted the gold, and justified the weight of gold in taking the lives of countrymen. That, to me, is extremely cold and reflects the not so good side of Greeks at the time.

2. Persians didn't even bribe with alot of gold. Greece, mind everyone, was an unimportant state at the time with bad and small amount of land. Anyway, I recall what Alexander paid his soldiers after depleting the Persepolis treasury with what Persians gave to a Spartan in the Pelopennisian war. Lol, the difference was a couple orders of magnitude. Yup like a 1000% more. So just another way to show how bad the Greek economy was at the time.

However, this gets me for my final point: GREEK history is NOT PERSIAN history. Persian history is by itself mainly, and so is Greek, and they merged for a 200 years drastically out of the 2500 year history of Persia. That's like 8% common time. As a result, I see no reason why Greece and especially Alexander should be mentioned as much as they have been.
 
Dairuka said:
Timbuktu actually exists. :rolleyes:

No s**t Sherlock?



Obviously humour is not something you indulge in regularly?

Erm what's Mali's in game capital again er could it be no can't be.... Timbuktu? No man that's not it must be something else, Is it in Africa perhaps? Must be thinking of somewhere else? :rolleyes:

Saying Greek culture had no influence or little is probably not accurate I have no idea why it got mentioned so much after that except to correct obvious flaws in the statements that corrected me:crazyeye:

Persia Was afraid perpetualy that Greece would unite and become a threat to it especially after the the last disasteorous invasion By Xerxes. There humiliating defeat at Marathon against a unified Greece(minus the spartans who were not present for religous reasons) made them look west in fear at the Greeks from that moment on. Persia's emissaries could be found in every Greek city throm Thebes to Sparta to Thermopylae and Thespiae sowing the seeds of war with diplomacy and coin. Ironically A non Greek who tired of persias diplomatic games: Philip: a macedonian managed to do it with shrewd politics and would have destroyed the worlds greatest land empire of the age had he not died, instead his son got all the glory for the victory and probably in some measure deservedly so. Small Impact on your culture admitedly but to set the record straight.
 
There is a difference between making fun and raccism although not a particularly big one. For example we have irsh jokes in England And the Welsh get a bit of a bashing too as do the Scottish sometimes, but it's a two way thing and 99.9999% of the time it's all meant in fun.

I don't think there is anything especially wrong with sending up another race, it all depends on intent. The English's entire comic tradition is founded on taking the p out of themselves though as well so we tend to be very good at taking criticism. I would imagine the same thing happens in Persia but then I don't know?

I don't think he was advocating raccism as such in any of his statements? But then I could be wrong?
 
I kind of feel like this thread is getting off topic, which is a shame since its been interesting so far. I'm not sure why people are taking offense to the Persian vs. Arab posts. Both civs are represented in the game and therefore, regardless of whatever point of view one holds, the two can be treated as seperate/different civilizations. Remeber the civ in question is not Iran, it is Persia.
 
cuchulain said:
I kind of feel like this thread is getting off topic, which is a shame since its been interesting so far. I'm not sure why people are taking offense to the Persian vs. Arab posts. Both civs are represented in the game and therefore, regardless of whatever point of view one holds, the two can be treated as seperate/different civilizations. Remeber the civ in question is not Iran, it is Persia.


It's kind of offensive for someone to say that a) high civilization is a "choice" and that arabs made the conscious choice to stay as "animals" and "barbarians" who only rode the coattails of the Persians and others. Yes I find these statements a tad offensive not to mention in error.
 
Sidhe said:
by the way where is la la land is it near Timbuktu? or Xanadu? Maybe Shangri La?

Sidhe said:
No s**t Sherlock?

Obviously humour is not something you indulge in regularly?

Timbuktu was the odd one out, as Xanadu, and Shangri La both don't exist. :rolleyes:
 
Precisely my point where is la land land, does it exist or not:rolleyes:

Christ on a bike!!
 
Sidhe said:
Precisely my point where is la land land, does it exist or not

Christ on a bike!!

Maybe "La La Land" is by Neverland Ranch.

I have no idea what, "La Land Land" is though. :rolleyes:
 
Dairuka said:
Maybe "La La Land" is by Neverland Ranch.

I have no idea what, "La Land Land" is though. :rolleyes:


stop rolling you eyes, you are doing that way too often. leave some for the rest of us.:rolleyes:

LA LA Land, is of course Los Angeles, california, USA. its a famous phrase, since LA is so "LA LA ";)

and yes Illram, i found that offensive too. this Persian appologizes for another.:)
 
meisen said:
That's one prejudiced way of looking at it.



Well, initially I thought it interesting to read your pov as I didn't realise there were Iranians who snubbed Arabs and I was curious why. Unfortunately your last post directed towards me tells me I wont be finding out much besides your own personal prejudices and the effect these prejudices skew your interpretation of the world around you. I suspect I'll be wasting my time if I continue this further.

Bye bye

Bye. Perhaps I do have prejudice thoughts about people settling down, constructively engaging in the acts of civilization. Specifically farming and the creation of the ats. All people have eventually in the modern era become such except for a few isolated people who go still about the primitive acts of hunting and gathering. As a result, I view that, in fact, the act of settling down is superior, or the greater method of survival and life, with respect to nearly every human being.

However, lets just look at the lives of nomads. They wander, try to find animals and wild plant life, kill them, and then eat. They don't sit down and engage in lively pursuits. Instead, their lives are a horrid collection of vast wanderings, bitter weather, and a constant existence in a virtual warfare mode, kill or be killed. As a result, they naturally decrease their capacity to pursue higher intellectual activities and even decrease the amount of enjoyment. They keep the status quo of all animals who naturally pursue the acts of survival via the same method instead of becoming better than nature and going to the next degree. Compare it to the existence within a settled civilization. No longer is the human body and mind subjugated to the harshness of hunting, but opened and expanded to achieve abstract concepts and even better methods of survival because of the time they don't waste in the nomadic activities base.

Concerning Arabs, I don't see how you can the original Arabs as not or less than "Arabs". Makes no sense whatsoever. Have fun telling people that there were make believe people in 600 AD who were the real Arabs and the ones in the Arabian peninsula were simply trying to "aspire" to their level. Then, when the Arabs actually achieved that level, they gradually disappeared.

Either way, you have already learned why Iranians don't view Arabs in a good light. What I want to know, specifically, is why Arabs don’t like Iranians. I covered all the basics. Oh, and btw, the way I was able to reply was because I was shouting at you when you were leaving :lol: ;).
 
Sidhe said:
No s**t Sherlock?



Obviously humour is not something you indulge in regularly?

Erm what's Mali's in game capital again er could it be no can't be.... Timbuktu? No man that's not it must be something else, Is it in Africa perhaps? Must be thinking of somewhere else? :rolleyes:

Saying Greek culture had no influence or little is probably not accurate I have no idea why it got mentioned so much after that except to correct obvious flaws in the statements that corrected me:crazyeye:

Persia Was afraid perpetualy that Greece would unite and become a threat to it especially after the the last disasteorous invasion By Xerxes. There humiliating defeat at Marathon against a unified Greece(minus the spartans who were not present for religous reasons) made them look west in fear at the Greeks from that moment on. Persia's emissaries could be found in every Greek city throm Thebes to Sparta to Thermopylae and Thespiae sowing the seeds of war with diplomacy and coin. Ironically A non Greek who tired of persias diplomatic games: Philip: a macedonian managed to do it with shrewd politics and would have destroyed the worlds greatest land empire of the age had he not died, instead his son got all the glory for the victory and probably in some measure deservedly so. Small Impact on your culture admitedly but to set the record straight.

I'm sure that you have learned your history from pro-Greek sources, because it overplays the situation entirely. Perhaps you should look at a more Persian source:

http://www.gaugamela.com/

There you will find cited information which gives a different perspective than what you certainly are used to.

Secondly Greece HAD no lasting cultural impact on Persia. This is an article on how Persians fought against Hellenism, leading to its complete destruction within Persia.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iran_death_alexander_resistance_hellenism.php
 
Sidhe said:
I don't think he was advocating raccism as such in any of his statements? But then I could be wrong?

Yeah Iranians seemingly do the same thing. As far as I can tell, the only times jokes are ugly is when there is a particular cultural divide amongst the people that allows the formation of somewhat paranoid anxieties.

And no, I am not racist, I merely know of history and how each people lived. To proclaim that all people were right throughout their existence in behavior and actions is entirely wrong and with fault. Iranians have done some bad stuff, Arabs the same. Let's give some examples of bad stuff: Iranians have a history of looting, especially from India. Iranians, seemingly, have been arrogant throughout our history when dealing with other people. Iranian monarchs, typically at the end of their respective dynasties, did abuse their power and basically created bad policies. As a result, they were killed and a new dynasty would take hold. These are some examples. I can't, however, cite an example when Iranians deprived conquered people of their culture, language, or basic human rights, or anything bad for a long period of time. I also don't recall massive slaughtering of civilians. I do recall some slavery especially at the hands of Nadir shah in India, but not in ancient times, contrary to the assertions of Alexander the movie.

cuchulain said:
I kind of feel like this thread is getting off topic, which is a shame since its been interesting so far. I'm not sure why people are taking offense to the Persian vs. Arab posts. Both civs are represented in the game and therefore, regardless of whatever point of view one holds, the two can be treated as seperate/different civilizations. Remeber the civ in question is not Iran, it is Persia.

Persia is Iran. I find that the notion that Iran isn't Persia, simply because Greeks had to give a different name to a country than what it's own people gave to it, is completely sickening.
 
Top Bottom