Historical Inaccuracies with Persia article

[shahreevar]

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.

i totally agree with this one. Persia was simply parsua, or parsa, the name of the province where the empire started. iran, means "the land of arya" (the home of Aryans) and it has been used from the time of Cyrus the Great till now(i wasnt always Iran, in sassanid era it was Eran shahr for example). some even argue that was utulized eralier. the notion that persia (as a country) and Iran are different, is like saying Greece and hellena are differnt entities.

 

[cyrusIII85]

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.

I believe it is a choice. A group either invests time to achieve a certain state, or doesn’t and keeps the same old same old. Furthermore, as I said before, "barbarian" is a term I reserve for those who act as parasites with respect to cultural development. That departs from the standard definition of "without civilization". The reason for that is because people have the choice to decide what they can or can't do with their lives. I find that if a people makes a decision that is not detrimental to others, or if others go along with it in free will, then such an action should not constitute a derogatory word because all people have the right to make decisions. However, that being said, when humans act like such, they naturally exhibit more features of regular animals as opposed to how humans now a days are characterized by. So certainly they do exhibit more natural animal-type characteristics. And, of course, all humans exhibit animal type behavior when they don't produce energy by sunlight and go after intermediary sources of energy, like plants and other animals. So all humans can be characterized by such a word to varying degrees.

 

[cyrusIII85]

i totally agree with this one. Persia was simply parsua, or parsa, the name of the province where the empire started. iran, means "the land of arya" (the home of Aryans) and it has been used from the time of Cyrus the Great till now(i wasnt always Iran, in sassanid era it was Eran shahr for example). some even argue that was utulized eralier. the notion that persia (as a country) and Iran are different, is like saying Greece and hellena are differnt entities.

Great. Btw, since you are Persian, I would like to hear your viewpoints on all these matters.

 

[illram]

It's not worth it for me to continue this discussion as I do not have the time to go find the web links and literature of arab history to reference. Suffice to say Arabs had culture of their own, they were not "parasites" as you so politely (sarcasm) refered to them as, and no, nomads of the peninsula didn't hunt and forage for food like "animals." It was a desert. They were herders, not hunters. Generally there isn't very good hunting and foraging in the desert.

The fact that people still exist in this capacity today, such as bedouins, does not seem to me to indicate "animal" like qualities or inferiority, rather it indicates success. They have a way of life that has worked for thousands of years, unlike the rest of us, and they are comfortable. Why change? It's you own value judgment as to whether this kind of behavior constitutes "civilized" behavior, and it doesn't really have any relevance to actual historic argument or to your argument in general. It's also a little disrespectful IMHO.

The term "arab" is being thrown around too loosely anyway, if you want to restrict "arab" to early herders and tribesmen of the peninsula then fine. The arabian peninsula still had urban centers, they had irrigation, and they certainly had civilization. They were not parasitic animal-like barbarians as you seem to be fond of calling them. Just because they may not have been as advanced technologically (which is a subjective standard, whatever one thinks of advanced can be different) as early as the Persians were doesn't make them less "human" or inferior as you seem to be insinuating. As to the "parasitic" thing, in addition to their own culture, as Arab influence spread throughout the region, they took or borrowed or stole elements from other cultures just like every other empire had, including the Persians.

It would be nice if you stuck to your argument that Persian history is often misunderstood, rather than bashing away at Arab and Greek culture and so forth. You're not getting anywhere by insulting people.

 

[Aramazd]

I believe it is a choice. A group either invests time to achieve a certain state, or doesn’t and keeps the same old same old. Furthermore, as I said before, "barbarian" is a term I reserve for those who act as parasites with respect to cultural development. That departs from the standard definition of "without civilization". The reason for that is because people have the choice to decide what they can or can't do with their lives. I find that if a people makes a decision that is not detrimental to others, or if others go along with it in free will, then such an action should not constitute a derogatory word because all people have the right to make decisions. However, that being said, when humans act like such, they naturally exhibit more features of regular animals as opposed to how humans now a days are characterized by. So certainly they do exhibit more natural animal-type characteristics. And, of course, all humans exhibit animal type behavior when they don't produce energy by sunlight and go after intermediary sources of energy, like plants and other animals. So all humans can be characterized by such a word to varying degrees.

Obviously all civilizations would be parasites according to your definition. The Persian culture has definately adopted some aspects of Arab culture, so by your definition the Persians would also be "barbarians". The Arabs adopting aspects of Persian culture wasn't detrimental, yet you use the derogatory term ''animal'' and you use ''barbarian''. While the Arabs were generally nomads they had a culture, and they had cities(i.e. Mecca and Medina).
Cyrus, you must be a jingoist, as this entire thread you have attacked the Arabs and dismissed other countries as inferior to Iran.

 

[SmokeyD]

I disagree with a point laid out in the original post -- that is, that Zorroastriansim has continued to exist in more or less a pure form since the advent of Islam. Shi'a Islam existed before the Arabs arrived in Mesopotamia and arose as a disagreement over leadership the caliphate -- whether it devolved to the husband of Muhammed's daughter or to whom the Sunni regarded as Muhammed's annointed successor. From a theological point of view, the existence of two equally powerful forces (one good, one bad) through which the universe is in balance is at odds with the strict monotheism and primacy placed on Allah in all forms of Islam, including Shi'a.

Certainly, however, Zorroastrianism played a role in transforming ha-satan from a emissary of God and a trickster figure to the opponent of the Divine and corrupter of mankind. Interestingly, Iblis, the Arabic word for Satan comes not from Persian or even a Semetic language, but from the Greek diabolos.

Also, the Persian sultanates were distinct from Arab caliphates, and while there obviously was cultural exchange between the two, it is wrong to say the capitals of Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad (post-Arabinisation) did not contribute hugely and in their unique fashion to science and culture of the period.

 

[Sidhe]

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

Yeah most of the sources I refer to or have read are Greek and Roman but having read most of this web site, very itneresting btw, I still think the Persians made a series error in underestimating Greece. And there ploy of payment to fund war simply had the opposite effect. Had Xerxes of crushed Greece in the first place instead of being humiliated and sent packing then the threat from Greece would have been a moot point.

Persian diplomacy then set about trying to minimise the threat whilst their attention was elsewhere in other wars, little realising or maybe caring about the threat Greece in fact posed. Phillip and Alexander made them pay for there mistake, it seems and I have to say I'm still pretty impressed that a kingdom that made 200 talents a year overtook and overthrew one that took an estimated 200,000 per year. And did so against vastly greater armies than Alexander possesed, this is not the act of a lucky man or a stupid one but a great one IMO anyway and the opinion of history; Academics still site the three decisive battles as great military victories and still study the tactics to gain insights into war.

 

[shahreevar]

Yeah most of the sources I refer to or have read are Greek and Roman but having read most of this web site, very itneresting btw, I still think the Persians made a series error in underestimating Greece. And there ploy of payment to fund war simply had the opposite effect. Had Xerxes of crushed Greece in the first place instead of being humiliated and sent packing then the threat from Greece would have been a moot point.

Persian diplomacy then set about trying to minimise the threat whilst their attention was elsewhere in other wars, little realising or maybe caring about the threat Greece in fact posed. Phillip and Alexander made them pay for there mistake, it seems and I have to say I'm still pretty impressed that a kingdom that made 200 talents a year overtook and overthrew one that took an estimated 200,000 per year. And did so against vastly greater armies than Alexander possesed, this is not the act of a lucky man or a stupid one but a great one IMO anyway and the opinion of history; Academics still site the three decisive battles as great military victories and still study the tactics to gain insights into war.

The truth is that humans naturally don't like to admit defeat. to say that Alexander was a fool, or lucky is a total concealment of the truth. he did in fact defeat the persian empire, and anyone who has inteligence, would
acknowledge his genious. now of course the Roman and Greek sources would exaggerate the facts, e.g. the # of troop, the performance of various individuals (cowardly or not), etc. but then again had this particular piece of history been written by the persians, surely there would have been some amount of exaggeration.

I am an Iranian, if you didn't already know. and as much as I hate to pick on a fellow Iranian, i have to, since my own conscience does not permit me to look the other way. I have a problem with racist people, be they Iranian, Arab, American, French, Black, Yellow, or others. I can see that Cyrus suffers from such disease called racism, or more specifically Ethnocentrism. and i cant blame him, since such conditioncan be found in almost any culture, anywhere in the world, but more so in cultures that have a long history. it is true that the Iranians have contributed immensly to this world in such areas as Literature and the sciences . however this should not mean that iranians are the sole contributers, or that the works of others are less, and inferior.nobody gains by putting others down, since by doing so you show only your own insecurity, and lack of respect. the only way we, as a human race can advance is by respecting others, and working with them, since each has something to give, while all of us are to gain collectively.
and of course since Cyrus(the poster) has chosen such a fine name, he should atleast try to follow in Cyrus's (the great) footsteps, and be respectful of others.
and also (curus this is really for you) pull the cotton out your ears, the ones planted there by ultra nationalism. if you succeed in doing so you may find out that things are not so black and white.

p.s. of course the name Alexander is reapeated over and over in the Western Media. since the west sees itself as the child of the Greek tradition, and of course since we live in a time when the west is having lots of problems with the east. you will never see a piece on History Channel on say "the Persian wars" with the Romans, where the Persians defeated the romans. nor will you see anything about the Great thinkers of the East, or of the Islamic world (i.e life of Avecina,Farabi, Ibn khaldoun, Rumi). all you will see will always carry the message of western superiority, and of how the blonde west (greeks? they werent really blonde) defeated the dark East (persia). you shoudn't be surprised to find this on the propaganda channel. just ignore movies like Alexander. they are poorly done, and the majority of the people, across all races, and creeds, dislike them. I mean Alexander was so bad that most people who saw it couldnt wait for him to die in the movie.

 

[gotmatt]

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 .

i think what he is trying to say is that being influenced by the culture of your conquered prvince and adopting that culture as your own are 2 totally different things. for instance, you could argue that Cletic culture is still celebrated wherever in Ireland, England and the USA in particular. Valentine's Day is coming up, so is Easter... both take place when they do because the Church wanted to convert the locals and that's when the Pagan's Holy Days were. Solstices were BIG pagan holidays (easter falling on spring and christmas put into winter) and i can't remeber off-hand about St. Valentine or St. Patrick, but i do believe it was along the same lines. Halloween is another example.

but WHY would say just because our culture celebrates similar holidays to previous pagan cultures in our histories that we, ourselves were absorbed by the conquered culture??? it's circular logic. it makes no sense. superficial similarites like cothing and architectural styles make not a culture. how have the core beliefs changed in Modern-Persia compared with Pre-Conquered Persia? i'm sure the Islamic influence has greatly changed the belief structure. it has in every other country the religion has touched.

another example is Rome. Rome basically ripped it's culture from Greece, but we still say Roman culture. why? because they put their own unique stamp on the ideals held of Greece. every where the Roman Empire went it was smart enough to understand to let the locals practice their own cultures to maintain control over it. the most popular example in the Christian world is Israel. it hardly impeded on Israel's religion and culture. but at the same time they made roads, schools, doctors', aqueducts and basically strengthed all the regions it conquered infrastructure...

i am not arguing that the Persian culture was conquered, but maybe that the Arabs, Greeks, Romans, and other conquerers were smart enough to let the solidified persian culture be practiced to remain in complete control over the region. therefore the cultures of the conquering people's were probably well recepted by the Persians and it stands to reason that the cultures of the conquerers were adopted into the fold as well.

face it, as much as you don't like it Persia was influenced by the Western world j/k but it was, just like the western world has been influenced by it's eastern counterparts. it's The Circle of Life, as Elton John has said

interesting question to the Ancient Historians in the house. when do think this trend took off by conquering tribes? the Israelis, after being set free from Egypt completely obliterated the local cultures except, i think, the Assyrians. i'm Sure Egypt did the same thing in it's infancy. but who was it that first started practicing Machivellian principles of conquest?

 

[Sidhe]

The truth is that humans naturally don't like to admit defeat. to say that Alexander was a fool, or lucky is a total concealment of the truth. he did in fact defeat the persian empire, and anyone who has inteligence, would
acknowledge his genious. now of course the Roman and Greek sources would exaggerate the facts, e.g. the # of troop, the performance of various individuals (cowardly or not), etc. but then again had this particular piece of history been written by the persians, surely there would have been some amount of exaggeration.

I am an Iranian, if you didn't already know. and as much as I hate to pick on a fellow Iranian, i have to, since my own conscience does not permit me to look the other way. I have a problem with racist people, be they Iranian, Arab, American, French, Black, Yellow, or others. I can see that Cyrus suffers from such disease called racism, or more specifically Ethnocentrism. and i cant blame him, since such conditioncan be found in almost any culture, anywhere in the world, but more so in cultures that have a long history. it is true that the Iranians have contributed immensly to this world in such areas as Literature and the sciences . however this should not mean that iranians are the sole contributers, or that the works of others are less, and inferior.nobody gains by putting others down, since by doing so you show only your own insecurity, and lack of respect. the only way we, as a human race can advance is by respecting others, and working with them, since each has something to give, while all of us are to gain collectively.
and of course since Cyrus(the poster) has chosen such a fine name, he should atleast try to follow in Cyrus's (the great) footsteps, and be respectful of others.
and also (curus this is really for you) pull the cotton out your ears, the ones planted there by ultra nationalism. if you succeed in doing so you may find out that things are not so black and white.

p.s. of course the name Alexander is reapeated over and over in the Western Media. since the west sees itself as the child of the Greek tradition, and of course since we live in a time when the west is having lots of problems with the east. you will never see a piece on History Channel on say "the Persian wars" with the Romans, where the Persians defeated the romans. nor will you see anything about the Great thinkers of the East, or of the Islamic world (i.e life of Avecina,Farabi, Ibn khaldoun, Rumi). all you will see will always carry the message of western superiority, and of how the blonde west (greeks? they werent really blonde) defeated the dark East (persia). you shoudn't be surprised to find this on the propaganda channel. just ignore movies like Alexander. they are poorly done, and the majority of the people, across all races, and creeds, dislike them. I mean Alexander was so bad that most people who saw it couldnt wait for him to die in the movie.

Which is why this thread is of such interest to us ingnorant propoganda fed monkeys in the west

And not everyone has failed to apreciate the gift of the middle east and the rest of the world for that matter to culture. The west is as in awe of the achievements of Babylon as it is in Persia and Egypt and Greece and Rome and has a great facination with eastern culture. Or at least many people do. Finding about European history is interesting IMO but more remote cultures is more interesting. For example I'm Fascinated by Roman/greek history Persian babylonian Phoenecian and Mongolian histories, Japanese and chinese cultural and religious practices and just about anything I can glean about the ancient cultures of the middle east or the cradle of civilization as it is known.

 

[cyrusIII85]

It's not worth it for me to continue this discussion as I do not have the time to go find the web links and literature of arab history to reference. Suffice to say Arabs had culture of their own, they were not "parasites" as you so politely (sarcasm) refered to them as, and no, nomads of the peninsula didn't hunt and forage for food like "animals." It was a desert. They were herders, not hunters. Generally there isn't very good hunting and foraging in the desert.

The fact that people still exist in this capacity today, such as bedouins, does not seem to me to indicate "animal" like qualities or inferiority, rather it indicates success. They have a way of life that has worked for thousands of years, unlike the rest of us, and they are comfortable. Why change? It's you own value judgment as to whether this kind of behavior constitutes "civilized" behavior, and it doesn't really have any relevance to actual historic argument or to your argument in general. It's also a little disrespectful IMHO.

The term "arab" is being thrown around too loosely anyway, if you want to restrict "arab" to early herders and tribesmen of the peninsula then fine. The arabian peninsula still had urban centers, they had irrigation, and they certainly had civilization. They were not parasitic animal-like barbarians as you seem to be fond of calling them. Just because they may not have been as advanced technologically (which is a subjective standard, whatever one thinks of advanced can be different) as early as the Persians were doesn't make them less "human" or inferior as you seem to be insinuating. As to the "parasitic" thing, in addition to their own culture, as Arab influence spread throughout the region, they took or borrowed or stole elements from other cultures just like every other empire had, including the Persians.

It would be nice if you stuck to your argument that Persian history is often misunderstood, rather than bashing away at Arab and Greek culture and so forth. You're not getting anywhere by insulting people.

Lol. It seems you have incorrectly interpreted my opinions. It seems it's hard for people to understand my posts for some very strange reason. As such, let me give you some points you are incorrect on:

1. My comments of nomadic culture were generalized. It was meant to state the overall tendencies of nomads and not specifically refer to any particular group, including pre-Islamic Arabs. Nomadic behavior is usually typified by such tendencies. Anyway you are correct that they were herders.

2. Arabs were "parasites" relative to Iran, by the aforementioned events: the destruction of numerous libraries by Caliph Omar decree that all books other than the Koran be destroyed, the destruction of the arts (the Spring of Khrosow, certain sculptures in Persepolis, etc.), the subversion of Zoroastrianism and subversion of Farsi through Arabization efforts which succeeded in nearly every other country in the Middle East.

3. Did the have urban centers? Of course, Mecca is a good example. Irrigation? No, there is no documented history of that, and countless Arab stories constantly refer to oasis and merely developing of natural sources of water. If they did, they most probably got it from Persian canal designs, although I will state again that I know of no developed irrigation techniques.

4. My argument? Which one? All I'm saying is that people have changed from nomadic to developed civilized behavior and that indicates a general preference of people to live as such than the former. If you want to argue that the change from nomadic to very structured forms of human life doesn't mean it's necessarily superior, then fine. I guess humans changed simply due to random behavior rather than it being actually preferred.

5. Arabs were those people. They were the only people called "Arabs" at the time. So yes I restrict that word for them because they were the only ones who were that.

6. Arabs stole and destroyed. Persians borrowed. That's the difference I make with respect to the spread of ideas. And as such, yes I am disrespectful towards the pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabs that commited atrocities toward Persians. I'll cite some resources later.

7. Bashing away at Greek and Arab history is unfortunately necessary to properly give light to Persians. Both peoples antagonized Iranians and our legacy at different points in time, destroyed alot of stuff within Iran, and both tried to subvert the Zoroastrian religion and to varying extents Persian culture. As such, to properly appreciate Persians, one has to remove their biased accounts from telling the history of Persia. The number one problem I have with Persian history is that it is told by Greeks and Arabs. If Persian sources of history actually survived numerous invasions by, unfortunately, superior conquerors, then I would gladly tell Persian history from Persians. But this is not the case so one naturally has to oppose the enemies of Persia and their influence to properly evaluate the country itself.

Go to go for now. I'll be back later to reply to other posts.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Obviously all civilizations would be parasites according to your definition. The Persian culture has definately adopted some aspects of Arab culture, so by your definition the Persians would also be "barbarians". The Arabs adopting aspects of Persian culture wasn't detrimental, yet you use the derogatory term ''animal'' and you use ''barbarian''. While the Arabs were generally nomads they had a culture, and they had cities(i.e. Mecca and Medina).
Cyrus, you must be a jingoist, as this entire thread you have attacked the Arabs and dismissed other countries as inferior to Iran.

To what degree a "culture" is arguable, as is the definition. Certainly, if by culture one means some generalized "connection" and a pattern of actions in that respect, and then certainly one can argue that all people had culture in all instances. I believe that culture, however, is classified by the creation of higher, abstract arts. The fact is, with respect to Arabs, nearly all forms of literature, architecture, and art was developed after Islam. When the statues of Satan, in it's three forms, was created in Mecca, the were represented as cubes. The classification of Islamic Architecture has been a combination of Persian, Byzantine, and Coptic designs. Clothing, also an artistic style, basically the same as present Arab countries, was basically white robes, which indicate no real artistic sophistication.

The final category, that of literature, was developed in pre-Islamic Arabia. Specifically, poetry and long poems at that. However, even in this respect, Persians have headed a far more direct role in the profession with the great poems of Shahnameh by Ferdowsi, Sadi, Hafez, etc. which are far more well known internationally.

In the end, I only see really one partially developed category out of three. So, as a result, I don't view Arab culture before Islam in a strong light.

The adoption of Persian culture by Arabs wasn't determental. However the destruction and subversion of Iranian culture and language was. Anyone who compels violence and destruction, as was the case with the early Arab invasions of Iran, I classify using bad words. So, the people of Arabia, Arabs, who came and destroyed Persian arts and destabilized Iran I classify as barbarian and animals. So please, try to tell me I'm wrong in this categorization.

Lastly, I think you will find Iranians, if you ever meet them, one of the nicest people in the world. In fact I've heard of such sentiments in many books about Iran like Persian Mirrors, Neither East nor West, and The Iranians: Persia, Islam, and the soul of a Nation. However, you WILL find that all Iranian are generally jingoists, as you have pointed out. It's hard with our history under so many barbarian invasions which have led to varying repression and destruction, for Iranians to not be such.

But, I have not at all said that all countries are inferior to Iran. The states that developed before and alongside Iran: Egypt, Mespotamia, China, India I view as great countries and civilizations. I simply put Iran in the same league as them.

 

[cyrusIII85]

I disagree with a point laid out in the original post -- that is, that Zorroastriansim has continued to exist in more or less a pure form since the advent of Islam. Shi'a Islam existed before the Arabs arrived in Mesopotamia and arose as a disagreement over leadership the caliphate -- whether it devolved to the husband of Muhammed's daughter or to whom the Sunni regarded as Muhammed's annointed successor. From a theological point of view, the existence of two equally powerful forces (one good, one bad) through which the universe is in balance is at odds with the strict monotheism and primacy placed on Allah in all forms of Islam, including Shi'a.

Certainly, however, Zorroastrianism played a role in transforming ha-satan from a emissary of God and a trickster figure to the opponent of the Divine and corrupter of mankind. Interestingly, Iblis, the Arabic word for Satan comes not from Persian or even a Semetic language, but from the Greek diabolos.

Also, the Persian sultanates were distinct from Arab caliphates, and while there obviously was cultural exchange between the two, it is wrong to say the capitals of Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad (post-Arabinisation) did not contribute hugely and in their unique fashion to science and culture of the period.

Partially correct. Shia Islam did exist before Iranians adopted it, and it was developed by Arabs and headed by groups like the Fatamids. However, under Zoroastrianism, it is said that Ahura Mazda will eventually defeat Ahriman. As a result, while they approach the concepts of Satan and God in more equal terms, Ahura Mazda is still superior and hence it IS strict monotheism. Only more competition. Also, Shia Islam exists in the way it exists today, both in number and style, because of Persians. Even Ali is often depicted with Aryan elements and said that he is Iranian. Also, the concept of the Mehdi, or enlightened one that will bring Armageddon, directly comes from Zoroastrianism as well.

Right about Satan and it's development from Ahriman. However, Greek people generally had more contact with Arabs (I believe the way Koroush, the way Persians called Cyrus, changed to Cyrus was because of the fact Arabs couldn't really pass his name correctly to the Greeks. Or at least that's what my father has told me.) As a result, while it may have its origins in a Greek word, certainly Persians were the ones which influenced the Jews when we freed them from Babylon. Most people, in fact, view the modern Satan as a reflection of Ahriman. Btw, thought that "Shatan" was the way one says Satan in Arabic.

Lastly, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your last paragraph. I only like to point out that most of the important scholars of the Islamic period are Persian, even though many, many sources often mix up "Arab" and "Persian" with respect to these people as well. And, of course, I get disgusted. There were, of course, famous Arabs as well, as the "father of chemistry". I simply like to point out that it is hard for a person to head a science or math when their "culture" has been taken away .

 

[cyrusIII85]

Yeah most of the sources I refer to or have read are Greek and Roman but having read most of this web site, very itneresting btw, I still think the Persians made a series error in underestimating Greece. And there ploy of payment to fund war simply had the opposite effect. Had Xerxes of crushed Greece in the first place instead of being humiliated and sent packing then the threat from Greece would have been a moot point.

Persian diplomacy then set about trying to minimise the threat whilst their attention was elsewhere in other wars, little realising or maybe caring about the threat Greece in fact posed. Phillip and Alexander made them pay for there mistake, it seems and I have to say I'm still pretty impressed that a kingdom that made 200 talents a year overtook and overthrew one that took an estimated 200,000 per year. And did so against vastly greater armies than Alexander possesed, this is not the act of a lucky man or a stupid one but a great one IMO anyway and the opinion of history; Academics still site the three decisive battles as great military victories and still study the tactics to gain insights into war.

Persians primarly operated on negotiations and bluffs to solve most disputes. Greeks had a history of fighting amongst each other, and hence got good fighting in melee combat. Persians utilized more archers as I recall. Less "in your face" type tactics.

Poor people fight better than rich ones. Greece was poor and desperate and as a result they had nothing to lose when they were on the battlefield. Combined with the rather warfaric origins of Macedonians, they formed a very strong army.

Of course, if Xerxes had won history would be different. But I don't believe for a second that Greek culture and government would have been comprimised if Greece voluntarily joined within the Persian satrapy. All peoples, under the empire, were allowed to keep their religion and culture. Zoroasterianism, unlike every other monothestic religion, was never forced on outsiders by missionaries or soldiers. So, I just don't see why Greeks really wanted independence that badly when they most probably would have benefited from Persian infrastructure and wealth.

 

[cyrusIII85]

another example is Rome. Rome basically ripped it's culture from Greece, but we still say Roman culture. why? because they put their own unique stamp on the ideals held of Greece. every where the Roman Empire went it was smart enough to understand to let the locals practice their own cultures to maintain control over it. the most popular example in the Christian world is Israel. it hardly impeded on Israel's religion and culture. but at the same time they made roads, schools, doctors', aqueducts and basically strengthed all the regions it conquered infrastructure...

i am not arguing that the Persian culture was conquered, but maybe that the Arabs, Greeks, Romans, and other conquerers were smart enough to let the solidified persian culture be practiced to remain in complete control over the region. therefore the cultures of the conquering people's were probably well recepted by the Persians and it stands to reason that the cultures of the conquerers were adopted into the fold as well.

face it, as much as you don't like it Persia was influenced by the Western world j/k but it was, just like the western world has been influenced by it's eastern counterparts. it's The Circle of Life, as Elton John has said

interesting question to the Ancient Historians in the house. when do think this trend took off by conquering tribes? the Israelis, after being set free from Egypt completely obliterated the local cultures except, i think, the Assyrians. i'm Sure Egypt did the same thing in it's infancy. but who was it that first started practicing Machivellian principles of conquest?

Well...ceratinly everything that Iranians have gained from others voluntarily, I view, as an improvement and adaptation. Almost like evolution. So no I'm not against the assimilatory traits of Persians, I just feel that our assimilation has been overstated and been used as an excuse by many people to trivalize Persian history and lump it with others (Greece, Islam, etc.). I have been against, however, the more violent conquerings of Genghis Khan, Timerlame, Islamic forces, and Alexander, who did burn down Persepolis during a time of peace. I've already, however, given an article which shows Iran wasn't influenced much by Hellenism.

Arabs and Macedonians (Romans and Greeks never invaded Iran), at first tried to fight against Iranian culture and civilization. Arabs majorly and Macedonians overall minor but it reached a climax when they burned down Persepolis . Then they realized their mistakes and their own limitations, and gradually became complacent with Persian culture. It's not like they didn't try, but they had such a hard time they just gave up, and the Abbasids actually got their intial strength from Persians who were eniemes of the Ummayyad regime. As a result, they were replaced and that, in fact, showed how much power Iranians had later on in the Islamic Empire.

I'm not aware of how Romans treated the conquered Greeks btw. However, based on the fact that I know a large number of Greeks were slaves in Rome, then I certainly believe Rome was parastic with respect to Greece.

 

[illram]

Well now we are in territory where I don't need an extensive knowledge of Arabic history in my pocket to argue with you. Just simple logic.

Lol. It seems you have incorrectly interpreted my opinions. It seems it's hard for people to understand my posts for some very strange reason.

No I pretty much nailed it, as others have on this thread.

Point 1: You refer to arabs as nomads who hunt and gather "like animals." You then retract that statement saying:

1. My comments of nomadic culture were generalized. It was meant to state the overall tendencies of nomads and not specifically refer to any particular group, including pre-Islamic Arabs. Nomadic behavior is usually typified by such tendencies. Anyway you are correct that they were herders.

So if you knew they were herders, why did you state that Arabs were nomads, and nomads are hunters and gatherers who act like "animals?" For a cheap shot? An easy insult?

Point 2: I said you called Arabs "parasites."

2. Arabs were "parasites" relative to Iran

Thanks for making it crystal clear, in your response, in case anyone missed that. I'm not going to waste my time arguing the finer points with someone who starts off an argument like that.

Point 3: Arabs had civilization, they had urban centers, they had art, they had poetry. They were people just like you and me.

3. Did the have urban centers? Of course, Mecca is a good example. Irrigation? No, there is no documented history of that, and countless Arab stories constantly refer to oasis and merely developing of natural sources of water.

What is "merely developing natural sources of water?" Is that not irrigation? Is irrigation the process of creating water out of thin air for gods sakes? Oh wait it gets better...

If they did have irrigation, they most probably got it from Persian canal designs.

Oh, so if they ever did have it, it was from the Persians. Not the Egyptians, or those living in the fertile crescent right next door, but the Persians. Because Arabs are too dumb to think up this stuff on their own, right?

Point 4: What is civilized is your own opinion:

All I'm saying is that people have changed from nomadic to developed civilized behavior and that indicates a general preference of people to live as such than the former.

Indicated to you a general preference, huh? So you speak for all 6 billion people in the world and the countless billions that have come and gone: pretty lofty goal for one person such as yourself.

First of all, it has already been pointed out that not all Arabs were nomads. Second of all, what is civilization? What is developed?

Have you seen the world lately? Are you aware over 90% of it lives on less than 90$ a year? Does this sound like preferable behavior to you? Have you ever heard tales of what highly populated cities of 1500-1900 Europe were like? Or modern citites in poor countries? One word: filthy. OK two words: filthy and diseased. If anything, ancient cities would be more filthy and diseased than current ones. Right now this is playing out all over the world: India, Africa, China, South America; Modernization and urbanization has meant massive wealth for a small minority and abject poverty for the majority.

AFAIK, early urbanization was due to an offshoot of the massive amounts of food humans were producing from agriculture and for defense reasons. People didn't all get together and say "hey I'm sick of doing what I want to do with my small family clan everyday, let's go to Ur and settle down and become subjects of some King I never have met in my life."

Native Americans lived healthy, sustainable lives, often without "urbanization" or whatever you consider "civilized" behavior. Hunter Gatherers in South American jungles have more leisure time and are actually mentally healthier, on average, than any other group of people. This has been documented and studied. As already mentioned, Bedouins still exist and also live healthy sustainable "civilized" lives. So don't spit silly idealistic notions about "developed civilization" being "generally preferred" by every freaking human being on the planet. Give me a break.

Again, what exactly is "developed civilized behavior?" Certainlty herding animals, or even people living in the jungle in huts and foraging for food have "developed" a specific "behavior" which would seem "civilized" to certain people.

If you want to argue that the change from nomadic to very structured forms of human life doesn't mean it's necessarily superior, then fine. I guess humans changed simply due to random behavior rather than it being actually preferred.

Not calling it superior doesn't mean it didn't happen for a reason. I simply prefer not to marginalize or categorize entire groups of people as "inferior" or "superior" because it is a) dangerous, b) highly disrespectful, and c) childish.

Here's the real kicker.

Arabs stole and destroyed. Persians borrowed. That's the difference I make with respect to the spread of ideas. And as such, yes I am disrespectful towards the pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabs that commited atrocities toward Persians.

I thought the Islamic Arabs were the ones burning all the books and so on? What's this about pre islamic arabs destroying Persia? I thought they were all uncivilized hunters in the desert?

Any and every atrocity is awful and should be remembered so it doesn't happen again. Being disrespectful towards people doesn't "help" this, in fact it makes it more likely to happen again in the future. You are committing one of the true follies of human nature.

Arabs stole and destroyed, Persians borrowed.

I just wanted to repeat that so everyone notices it. Why would anyone ever take you seriously when you make sweeping generalizations like that?


Oh it gets better! My last point was that you should stop insulting and bashing Arabs and Greeks. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined you would actually admit that this is a tactic of yours! Brilliant!

7. Bashing away at Greek and Arab history is unfortunately necessary to properly give light to Persians.

So insulting Arabs and Greeks is a necessary step in...umm....educating Arabs and Greeks about your plight? Riiiiight..... just like insulting, say, modern day Spanish people in order to bring to light the history of the Aztecs is necessary, right? Or insulting Isrealis is a necessary part of discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict? Insulting English people is a necessary part of making people aware of Irish history? Am I making my point here? Do any of these tactics sound like they are good ideas, or even worthwile ideas of any form? No. They are stupid. You don't win people over by insulting them. You just make yourself look foolish.

 

[gotmatt]

Have you seen the world lately? Are you aware over 90% of it lives on less than 90$ a year? Does this sound like preferable behavior to you? Have you ever heard tales of what highly populated cities of 1500-1900 Europe were like? Or modern citites in poor countries? One word: filthy. OK two words: filthy and diseased. If anything, ancient cities would be more filthy and diseased than current ones. Right now this is playing out all over the world: India, Africa, China, South America; Modernization and urbanization has meant massive wealth for a small minority and abject poverty for the majority.

i strongly disagree with most of what cyrus is saying, but uh... that's just silliness. in America right now, poverty is considered only owning 1 car and 2 TVs. this is true over the majority of the world's population... that poverty is considered owning or having more now than it was 50, 30, or even 10 years ago. i'm not saying it's fixed, but this is an over exageration. the poorest 3 Billion people live on an average of $2 a day. that's $430 a year, or +400% of what you said.

now, i'm not even going to try to justify that that is okay, or good enough. it's not. it's just that your exageration was unneccesary when the real numbers are bad enough.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Um...hey guys does it ever happen that when you write a post, for some reason when you go to submit it, it asks you to log in? And when you do, you sort of lose your post? Anyway that happened to me when I was trying to reply to illram.

 

[cyrusIII85]

No I pretty much nailed it, as others have on this thread.

Point 1: You refer to arabs as nomads who hunt and gather "like animals." You then retract that statement saying

So if you knew they were herders, why did you state that Arabs were nomads, and nomads are hunters and gatherers who act like "animals?" For a cheap shot? An easy insult?

Not really. You assume by insulting the bad actions of ones ancestors that I am insulting them. The only time I would actually be insulting them is if they had the same destructive mentality of their ancestors. It would be sort of like critizing Nazi Germany. Certainly it's okay to critize it, but that critism dosen't at all transfer to modern day Germans because they are not generally Nazis.

Nomads are iterant people who rely on natural resources of food and water for survival. Herders are nomads because they don't have permenant housing nor developed land where they grow their food. Also, I might remind you that Arabs did forage for food. Some examples are dates, figs, barley, etc. all of which grow in the desert.

Point 2: I said you called Arabs "parasites."

Thanks for making it crystal clear, in your response, in case anyone missed that. I'm not going to waste my time arguing the finer points with someone who starts off an argument like that.

You, for some strange reason, fail to note that this entire thread deals with Persians and everthing with respect to them. So is this post. Anything that isn't dosen't belong in this thread.

Point 3: Arabs had civilization, they had urban centers, they had art, they had poetry. They were people just like you and me.

What is "merely developing natural sources of water?" Is that not irrigation? Is irrigation the process of creating water out of thin air for gods sakes? Oh wait it gets better...

They had no art. I would like you to give me examples of pre-Islamic Arab art that aren't just cubes. The architecture that Arabs somewhat headed after Islam were mere combinations of Persian, Byzantine, and Coptic designs. Furthermore, the urban centers were mere installations on top of natural water resvoirs etc. As a result, they were a place for nomads to pass through and collect food and shelter. They weren't cities in the traditional sense that has a fixed population and usually people have jobs only within the city and surrounding areas. I like to call them "pit stops".

The water development was basically creating a city on top of resivoir or oasis. It didn't involve the transport of water as what was devloped in Iran like 1600 years before. In evidence I would like to point out that very few settlements existed for this reason. If they actually found a way to effectively transport water than there would have been more settlements IMO. Combined with my own knowledge that dosen't indicate any irragation system that led to little to any farming whatsoever, I don't believe that such existed.

Oh, so if they ever did have it, it was from the Persians. Not the Egyptians, or those living in the fertile crescent right next door, but the Persians. Because Arabs are too dumb to think up this stuff on their own, right?

Two points:

1. Arabs lived at time of Persian rule and the Persian country, not at the time of Mespotamians and Egyptians. How is this possible? Being Arab is defined under speaking Arabic. Arabic, however, emmerged in the 3rd Century AD. At this time, Mespotamia was a state under Persian control and Egypt under Byzantine control. Those states no longer existed, so it's just a bad reference point. Remember how I said that Arabic wasn't as developed as Persian, which is why Persians had to help construct Arabic? This is one of the reasons why: it sort of appeared late.
2. Mespotamia and Egypt are river areas. Persia and Arabia aren't. The irragation, as a result, would be very different and incomptable with that of Mespotamia and Egypt which got water from rivers rather than wells. If they were to get it, they would have gotten it from the Iranian irragation system which existed in the BC era, before the Arabs actually existed as a group.

Indicated to you a general preference, huh? So you speak for all 6 billion people in the world and the countless billions that have come and gone: pretty lofty goal for one person such as yourself.

First of all, it has already been pointed out that not all Arabs were nomads. Second of all, what is civilization? What is developed?

Have you seen the world lately? Are you aware over 90% of it lives on less than 90$ a year? Does this sound like preferable behavior to you? Have you ever heard tales of what highly populated cities of 1500-1900 Europe were like? Or modern citites in poor countries? One word: filthy. OK two words: filthy and diseased. If anything, ancient cities would be more filthy and diseased than current ones. Right now this is playing out all over the world: India, Africa, China, South America; Modernization and urbanization has meant massive wealth for a small minority and abject poverty for the majority.

AFAIK, early urbanization was due to an offshoot of the massive amounts of food humans were producing from agriculture and for defense reasons. People didn't all get together and say "hey I'm sick of doing what I want to do with my small family clan everyday, let's go to Ur and settle down and become subjects of some King I never have met in my life."

Native Americans lived healthy, sustainable lives, often without "urbanization" or whatever you consider "civilized" behavior. Hunter Gatherers in South American jungles have more leisure time and are actually mentally healthier, on average, than any other group of people. This has been documented and studied. As already mentioned, Bedouins still exist and also live healthy sustainable "civilized" lives. So don't spit silly idealistic notions about "developed civilization" being "generally preferred" by every freaking human being on the planet. Give me a break.

Again, what exactly is "developed civilized behavior?" Certainlty herding animals, or even people living in the jungle in huts and foraging for food have "developed" a specific "behavior" which would seem "civilized" to certain people.

Not calling it superior doesn't mean it didn't happen for a reason. I simply prefer not to marginalize or categorize entire groups of people as "inferior" or "superior" because it is a) dangerous, b) highly disrespectful, and c) childish.

There are many varying opinions on culture and civilization, I simply picked the one that's the most mainstream: the development of the arts and sciences. Anyway, concerning Native Americans, they haven't once they've been introduced to Western civilization, never really reverted back to nomadic activity huh? Also, we don't know much about Native American life and how bad/good it was. So I'm not sure how you can deem their life spans to be healthy.

Here's the real kicker.

I thought the Islamic Arabs were the ones burning all the books and so on? What's this about pre islamic arabs destroying Persia? I thought they were all uncivilized hunters in the desert?

Any and every atrocity is awful and should be remembered so it doesn't happen again. Being disrespectful towards people doesn't "help" this, in fact it makes it more likely to happen again in the future. You are committing one of the true follies of human nature.

Islamic Arabs were the ones that did the atrocities. However, it was the pre-Islamic tendancies of Arabs like total war tactics, being arrogant and zealous, etc. that contributed to the attacks and mentality of Islamic Arabs. As such, why should I blame the sins on thesons exclusively when the fathers clearly contributed as well.

Furthermore, as I've said before, I am not disrespectful to modern Arabs. Only to those Arabs that committed those crimes and the Arabs who stood by and watched, all in the name of Allah. If I didn't say the truth concerning these circumstances nor the atrocities they committed then I wouldn't be respectful to my ancestors that revitalized Iran with great effort after every barbarian invasion.

I just wanted to repeat that so everyone notices it. Why would anyone ever take you seriously when you make sweeping generalizations like that?

Because I really don't have time to point out all of the little tiny things. In short my generalizations apply to most of the people. It's like anthropologists who study certain people of a tribe and then broaden their findings to represent the whole community. Everything is a generalization with respect to humans, but humans are societal animals and hence tend to be similar to their peers in general.

Oh it gets better! My last point was that you should stop insulting and bashing Arabs and Greeks. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined you would actually admit that this is a tactic of yours! Brilliant!

So insulting Arabs and Greeks is a necessary step in...umm....educating Arabs and Greeks about your plight? Riiiiight..... just like insulting, say, modern day Spanish people in order to bring to light the history of the Aztecs is necessary, right? Or insulting Isrealis is a necessary part of discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict? Insulting English people is a necessary part of making people aware of Irish history? Am I making my point here? Do any of these tactics sound like they are good ideas, or even worthwile ideas of any form? No. They are stupid. You don't win people over by insulting them. You just make yourself look foolish.

Actually yes. By stripping down the lies and biases of their ancestors, hopefully they too will realize the truth. But it is based on whether or not they can handle the truth. It is not based on insulting them at all; you only perceive that I'm in fact insulting them. The only time I'm really insulting anyone is when they harbor the same mindset of their destructive ancestors. And by ancestors, even then I direct my blame towards the people who actually committed the crimes. It's sort of lie Nazi Germany. Certainly all Germans were involved in the Holocaust, and they all deserve some blame. Does that mean they were all directly responsible for the murders? No, they simply were in the wrong place and wrong time, and certainly some Germans were definitely opposed to the events. But, in the end, one nation and people committed atrocities against others.

The same thing goes with Israelis, who are the sons and daughters which evicted Palestinians out of their lands by gunpoint. If they are interested in building a better world, they better understand the complaints and sins of their predecessors if they are truly interested in achieving peace. The same thing goes for Palestinians etc.

 

[illram]

i strongly disagree with most of what cyrus is saying, but uh... that's just silliness. in America right now, poverty is considered only owning 1 car and 2 TVs. this is true over the majority of the world's population... that poverty is considered owning or having more now than it was 50, 30, or even 10 years ago. i'm not saying it's fixed, but this is an over exageration. the poorest 3 Billion people live on an average of $2 a day. that's $430 a year, or +400% of what you said.

First off, I wasn't talking about America. Second of all, is $2 a day any better? Does that invalidate my point? No. I admit to being guilty of writing that from memory and using hyperbole. I should check myself before doing that and I apologize. Cyrus just kind of pisses me off. Anyways, maybe I am wrong with the numbers, but my point still stands with your number just as well. Would you like to live on $430 a year? Of course not.

Poverty in our country, as you correctly point out, is a higher standard than others, but it is not "owning one car and two TV's." To say that's the standard is an oversimplificaiton and "off the cuff," similar to the statement I was guilty of earlier. The census bureau's official method is complicated, but essentially a five family household earning less than 20,000 a year is considered below the poverty line. Thats still pretty bad, but rich compared to world standards. (But then again poverty is relative, cost of living is higher here so living on 20K a year could be called the equivalent to earning a couple bucks a day somewhere else. This is a whole different discussion.)

However, America is a small % of the worlds population,and all of this is getting off the topic here. My point (or one of them, at least) was that in general, a majority of people are poor and not well off, and that the term "civilization" (whatever it means) is a misnomer, and Cyrus' categorizing people as "civilized" and "uncivilized" in order to try and define superiority and inferiority reeks of colonialism and prejudice. I don't think that's being silly, it's being honest.