Historical Inaccuracies with Persia article

[illram]

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.

Well OK. That sounds crazy and I dont really buy that, but this is getting off topic, so whatever.

 

[Sidhe]

there are much better definitions of poverty than that. It has a lot to do with not being able to afford the basics to live on or having to depend on the state for money and a huge slew of other variables. I don't believe for a minute the definition of this is poverty I think it's a ghetto style lifestyle. Maybe MNM's or Vanilla Ice's upbringing

Please bring this thread back to topic or start a thread in off topic that is about what we define in america as poor The Iranians postings were great, really was apreciating the back and forth....

Otherwise I'm going to start throwing in, man when I was a kid we were so poor..... type jokes. you have been warned

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.

I agree but I think it has alot to do with Greek independant thinking as exemplified in their city states and non national pride i.e we are Spartans before we are Greeks.

I would of personally preferred to be part of the whole. But then I am a westerner in a modern society so what I think is irrelevant.

 

[cyrusIII85]

I'm not. I actually took a bit of offense to the article the first time I read it, but I think that those other events do shed some light on the same matter. Both are examples of misunderstandings between the Middle East and the West.

Quite true. I propose more cultural exchange programs and better education concerning Middle East in the West and the West in the Middle East. Near Eastern studies in the West, while developed, I see many ways to improve them. Concerning the Near East, they have alot of work to do for standardizing education and textbooks via the state level rather than leaving to somewhat autonomous teachers. The same thing goes with the press etc.

 

[SmokeyD]

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.

That's not entirely true. The biblical events on which Easter is based happened over the Jewish Passover which, by happy co-incidence for the Church, took place roughly around the same time pagan groups celebrated Ester, the goddess of fertility, spring and rebirth.

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.

It is not strict monotheism because there are two deities. In both Christianity and Islam, the devil is depicted as a rebel angel or djin unable to prostrate themselves to man. The key difference with Zoroastrianism is that Satan/Iblis is universally and eternally subservient to God. In the ultimate arrangement of things, the devil is no more God-like than we are. Zoroastrianism posits the existence of two supreme beings of nearly equal strength, and while the good Spirit will ultimately triumph over the bad, it will be a struggle. The idea of such a struggle is non-sensical to truly monotheistic, because it only exists at the will of God and thus is not really a struggle at all.

Your argument is akin to saying Catholicism is a Roman/Celtic pagan religion because it inherited practises from the previous pagan religions and is made up of the descendents of Celts and Latins. Or that Christianity is not really its own religion because of its reliance on the Hebrew Scriptures.

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.

Yes, it's quite likely the transformation of the Devil from divine emissary to God's adversary took place under the Babylonian Captivity. Are you now suggesting that neither Judaism nor Christianity are their own religions because they adopted an aspect of Zorroastrianism?

And Shatan is a title of the Devil, I believe, but Iblis is the name in the same way that Lucifer is the name in Christianity.

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

I am annoyed by your erroneous use of parasite. By your definition, any civilisation that did not spontaneously develop its own system of writing, mathematics, agriculture, art, poetry etc is a cultural parasite. The thing is, though, each of those only developed spontaneously a few times (writing, for example, arose independently in China, Mesopotamia, the Nile valley and South and Central America and from each of these original sites spread across the world). Of these original areas, only China has remained a continuous cultural presence. Is everyone but the Chinese, therefore, a cultural parasite? No, because that's not what the word means.

To be a parasite one has to take something from the host without giving anything back. I'd suggest that the relationships between civilisations are symbiotic. That is, what the Greeks absorbed off the Persians allowed them to produce some of the greatest thinkers in the world and lay the foundations for the Western tradition of critical inquiry, ideas which were reintroduced into the Middle East with the arrival of Alexander; what the Romans absorbed off the Greeks allowed them to forge one the greatest and most stable empires in the history of the world, to develop elegant architecture, produce writers such as Virgil and Cicero and write a law code that endures in some part to this day; what the Arabs absorbed both of Greek Christendom and Persia allowed them to forge an empire that spanned the breadth of Eurasia, establish some of the most culturally dazzling cities in the world, and set up a reciprocal cultural relationship with both its neighbours that allowed it to reach unprecedented cultural heights.

There is no one sided leeching off another culture. It is a dynamic and constant exchange which allows for developments to take place in both participant cultures. To say otherwise is nothing short of jingoism and childish nationalism.

 

[cyrusIII85]

1. It is not strict monotheism because there are two deities. In both Christianity and Islam, the devil is depicted as a rebel angel or djin unable to prostrate themselves to man. The key difference with Zoroastrianism is that Satan/Iblis is universally and eternally subservient to God. In the ultimate arrangement of things, the devil is no more God-like than we are. Zoroastrianism posits the existence of two supreme beings of nearly equal strength, and while the good Spirit will ultimately triumph over the bad, it will be a struggle. The idea of such a struggle is non-sensical to truly monotheistic, because it only exists at the will of God and thus is not really a struggle at all.

Your argument is akin to saying Catholicism is a Roman/Celtic pagan religion because it inherited practises from the previous pagan religions and is made up of the descendents of Celts and Latins. Or that Christianity is not really its own religion because of its reliance on the Hebrew Scriptures.



2. Yes, it's quite likely the transformation of the Devil from divine emissary to God's adversary took place under the Babylonian Captivity. Are you now suggesting that neither Judaism nor Christianity are their own religions because they adopted an aspect of Zorroastrianism?

And Shatan is a title of the Devil, I believe, but Iblis is the name in the same way that Lucifer is the name in Christianity.



3. I am annoyed by your erroneous use of parasite. By your definition, any civilisation that did not spontaneously develop its own system of writing, mathematics, agriculture, art, poetry etc is a cultural parasite. The thing is, though, each of those only developed spontaneously a few times (writing, for example, arose independently in China, Mesopotamia, the Nile valley and South and Central America and from each of these original sites spread across the world). Of these original areas, only China has remained a continuous cultural presence. Is everyone but the Chinese, therefore, a cultural parasite? No, because that's not what the word means.

To be a parasite one has to take something from the host without giving anything back. I'd suggest that the relationships between civilisations are symbiotic. That is, what the Greeks absorbed off the Persians allowed them to produce some of the greatest thinkers in the world and lay the foundations for the Western tradition of critical inquiry, ideas which were reintroduced into the Middle East with the arrival of Alexander; what the Romans absorbed off the Greeks allowed them to forge one the greatest and most stable empires in the history of the world, to develop elegant architecture, produce writers such as Virgil and Cicero and write a law code that endures in some part to this day; what the Arabs absorbed both of Greek Christendom and Persia allowed them to forge an empire that spanned the breadth of Eurasia, establish some of the most culturally dazzling cities in the world, and set up a reciprocal cultural relationship with both its neighbours that allowed it to reach unprecedented cultural heights.

There is no one sided leeching off another culture. It is a dynamic and constant exchange which allows for developments to take place in both participant cultures. To say otherwise is nothing short of jingoism and childish nationalism.

1. I will say that Zoroasterianism is a different kind of monothestic religion, incorporating dualistic thought (perhaps even the first to do so). However, I do believe it is monothestic because only one god exists (I find when certain academic sources entitle angels and demons as "gods" to be slandering the faith) and that one god is the creator. Furthermore, because the big 3 monothestic religions inherited at least some ideas concerning angels, demons, and the afterlife from Zoroasterianism and that, based on the Bible, Cyrus is treated in a good light being Zoroasterianism, I think the existence of those religions in their current form imply that it Zoroasterianism is accepted as an equal religious practice, despite later actions trying to discredit the religion from the very same big 3.

2. No, the spread of ideas progresses humanity and is in line, as I view it, with God's will. The compilation of all constructive religious thought will hopefully stop alot of violence in the world, and as such I view as a essential imperative.

3. I really don't want to get into this again, but parasite means to gain susteince while depleting the host. A person who takes something and doesn't give back, may be a little stingy, but as long as it doesn't affect the other party determentally, the state of both beings increase. As such, I don't define parasite the way you do and I view your defintion to be ethical under certain circumstances.

 

[SmokeyD]

1. I will say that Zoroasterianism is a different kind of monothestic religion, incorporating dualistic thought (perhaps even the first to do so). However, I do believe it is monothestic because only one god exists (I find when certain academic sources entitle angels and demons as "gods" to be slandering the faith) and that one god is the creator.

Monotheism can never be dualistic. It's a contradiction in terms.

There are plenty of other polytheistic pantheons with only one creator god. That doens't make them monotheist.

No, the spread of ideas progresses humanity and is in line, as I view it, with God's will. The compilation of all constructive religious thought will hopefully stop alot of violence in the world, and as such I view as a essential imperative.

Good way of looking at it. Why is the spread of Islam and Arabian ideas parasitic then?

I really don't want to get into this again, but parasite means to gain susteince while depleting the host. A person who takes something and doesn't give back, may be a little stingy, but as long as it doesn't affect the other party determentally, the state of both beings increase.

No. A parasite is an organism that gains sustenance from its host without the host gaining anything in return. Persia, and ultimately the world, gained hugely from the injection of Arab culture. It revatalised an empire tending ever closer towards stagnation, brought together two views of the world which sent scientific progression hurtling forward in unprecedented directions and allowed the Middle East to take the forefront at world affairs like it hadn't done for nearly 1000 years.

As such, I don't define parasite the way you do and I view your defintion to be ethical under certain circumstances.

You mean you misdefine a word to cast Arabs in a negative light.

There is no point in language if we are just going to change the definitions of words to whatever we want.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Monotheism can never be dualistic. It's a contradiction in terms.

1. There are plenty of other polytheistic pantheons with only one creator god. That doens't make them monotheist.



Good way of looking at it. Why is the spread of Islam and Arabian ideas parasitic then?



2. No. A parasite is an organism that gains sustenance from its host without the host gaining anything in return. Persia, and ultimately the world, gained hugely from the injection of Arab culture. It revatalised an empire tending ever closer towards stagnation, brought together two views of the world which sent scientific progression hurtling forward in unprecedented directions and allowed the Middle East to take the forefront at world affairs like it hadn't done for nearly 1000 years.



3. You mean you misdefine a word to cast Arabs in a negative light.

There is no point in language if we are just going to change the definitions of words to whatever we want.

1. I would like you to find one academic source which doesn’t regard Zoroastrianism as monotheistic. Furthermore, as I might have mentioned, the Bible itself accepts Zoroastrianism by mentioning Cyrus as the inheritor of the world (paraphrasing) by God's blessings, despite he or the Persian state not being Jewish but Zoroastrian. How can the Bible, itself a "strict" monotheistic religion by your opinion, basically endorse a pagan religion (as you imply).

Furthermore, while there might be one creator god of the world in polythesm, I don't recall that any such religion only has ONE god which can create things.

2. Ah...this is where I show some of my inexperience with Biology. My fault, I specifically meant the specific type of parasite that harms the organism. However, somewhat logically, I would suppose that an organism that takes resources from another organism, uses it, and then creates a deficiency of it in the host, basically harms it, or at leasst changes the equilibrium to a new operating parameter.

Also, you basically misrepresent the entire Arab-Persia dynamic, and clearly ignored my articles that I have posted. Some Arabs DID destroy art, literature, and undermined Persian culture and language on numerous occasions in the early Islamic period (citing my sources). Furthermore, it is the general view of many scholars, from what I have read, that the Golden Age of Islam was simply a continuation of the scholarship of the Sassanid era, hence the rather unusual amount of Persian scholars from eastern Iran, Afghanstan, etc. which leads one to believe there were certain academic foundations in that region which, also quiscidentally, was usually beyond the raiding distance of certain Islamic Arabs. Unfortunately, because of the numerous invasions that Iran experienced, the amount of Middle Persian texts that have survived are very few, and those works are now lost. It didn't revitalize an empire, because of the aforementioned destruction, but certain aspects of Sassanid era, such as religion and heavy taxes by the rulers, were becoming distant and corrupt. However, this happens to all dynasties, and I am a 100% sure that a Persian dynasty would have replaced it without undermining Iran in the aspects that it was harmed by those groups.

3. Quite true. Thanks for showing me the rather vague definition of parasite. I'll make sure to specify the specific case next time .

 

[gotmatt]

1. I would like you to find one academic source which doesn’t regard Zoroastrianism as monotheistic. Furthermore, as I might have mentioned, the Bible itself accepts Zoroastrianism by mentioning Cyrus as the inheritor of the world (paraphrasing) by God's blessings, despite he or the Persian state not being Jewish but Zoroastrian. How can the Bible, itself a "strict" monotheistic religion by your opinion, basically endorse a pagan religion (as you imply).

many links claim that yes, Z-ism is monotheistic, although there seems to be some debate, lots of terms like "basically monotheistic" or "not really aggresively monotheistic" and my personal favorite " the religion contains both monotheistic and dualistic features." it's kind of like if Christians started sects of christianity where Mary and Satan worship were prevelant... oh wait... hmm...

as far as the Bible is concerned, if the Jews, who are only born jewish and do not convert people, believe God to be in complete control over the entire universe, which they do, then their God can place benevolent leaders who are not born of the jews in control of them. especially if they had been naughty, as in the case of the Babylonian and Philistine invasions.

 

[cyrusIII85]

many links claim that yes, Z-ism is monotheistic, although there seems to be some debate, lots of terms like "basically monotheistic" or "not really aggresively monotheistic" and my personal favorite " the religion contains both monotheistic and dualistic features." it's kind of like if Christians started sects of christianity where Mary and Satan worship were prevelant... oh wait... hmm...

as far as the Bible is concerned, if the Jews, who are only born jewish and do not convert people, believe God to be in complete control over the entire universe, which they do, then their God can place benevolent leaders who are not born of the jews in control of them. especially if they had been naughty, as in the case of the Babylonian and Philistine invasions.

Ha "satan worship"...never really happened in Persia as far as I know. The religion merely emphasized evil alot more and the threat it posed to mankind, and hence people should be always vigilant to counteract the evil that lies within us. It didn't really divert attention from Ahura Mazda and put it on Ahriman, merely it wanted people to focus on Ahura Mazda and know that, if they didn't, they will be under the increasing domain of the doomed Ahriman.

Regarding your second paragraph, that's certainly interesting. However, can God really advocate a person which may or may not be a pagan??? Isn't that slightly hypocritical? God should only advocate and help good people...

 

[gotmatt]

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but people convert to Judaism all the time. They don't have to be born Jewish to become Jewish.

don't have to be, no. but typically? YES! Judaism is an exclusive religion. you have to go through a lot of rigorous "testing" and "training" to convert. it's not like Christianity where you walk through the doors, say a prayer and show up week after week. to say that "people convert all the time" is just not correct. they do convert, but it's MUCH smaller numbers compared to the worlds other major religions. there are numerous debates, on this in the "religions in CIV IV" threads.

 

[gotmatt]

Regarding your second paragraph, that's certainly interesting. However, can God really advocate a person which may or may not be a pagan??? Isn't that slightly hypocritical? God should only advocate and help good people...

from a strictly judeo-christian theological standpoint, being good does not get you into heaven. it's by pure atonement of original sin. being christian or jewish doesn't neccesarily make you good either. King's Saul and Ahab pop into my head as immoral kings of Israel, whereas Nebechunezzar (sp?) was considered a "good" ruler by God because he atoned for his sins of throwing shadrach, meshach and Abednego into the furnace by declaring that the Jehovah must be the one true God. (historical evidence i do not have for any of these, STRISTLY theological). Cyrus was another King whom God granted dominion over his people because he was benevolent.

another example of God's Chosen not being good but another is is the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

 

[gotmatt]

So I didn't read your post wrong. True, it involves more steps and fewer numbers of people, but people do convert to Judaism all the time as I wrote. I've known more Christians who've converted to Judaism than I know Jews who've converted Christianity. Very few of either as most of the people I've known didn't adopt a new religion, but instead became agnostics or atheists as they got older. You are engaging in a semantics game here.

i guess i misunderstood your post and i apologize for the slight error, but i stand by the fact that historically and especially in ancient times (which happens to be when we are talking about) Judaism was nearly strictly Hebrew. i did not mean to imply that in the modern world it hasn't been made more accessible.

also, i think i should clarify after re-reading my post. it could be construed that i meant the judaism believes in original sin. when i used judeo-christian, i meant it stirctly that christians believe in the jewish history (the old testament) as how the world unfolded.

 

[Vatec]

Basically in response to the original post....

Sadly, there are many Americans who can't tell the difference between an Arab, a Turk, an Iranian, or, for that matter, a Hindu or a Sikh.

Likewise, there are apparently many in the Islamic world who can't tell the difference between Denmark, France, and America. Recent demonstrations by Indonesians (who are non-Arab Muslims), Nigerians (who are non-Arab Muslims), and Turks (who are non-Arab Muslims) pretty much prove that.

Ignorance is a very common vice. And educated people who take advantage of wide-spread ignorance in order to further their own political ends are lamentably common as well.

I agree with the original post that the Civilopedia should be changed. At the very least it should say "Islamic world" instead of "Arab world."

On a related note, I'm still trying to figure out why Immortals are mounted units. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the Persian Immortals were mounted infantry rather than true cavalry. In that sense, they should probably be replacements for swordsmen, not chariots. They would still keep their 2 speed, though ;^)

 

[Older than Dirt]

So what are my friends in Lebanon whose heart language is Arabic and who are Christians to be considered? Besides persecuted, that is.

PS: If you are a man, converting to Judaism is a serious matter!

 

[warpus]

So what are my friends in Lebanon whose heart language is Arabic and who are Christians to be considered? Besides persecuted, that is.

PS: If you are a man, converting to Judaism is a serious matter!

Lebanese Christians?

ps: what's a heart language?

 

[cyrusIII85]

Basically in response to the original post....

Sadly, there are many Americans who can't tell the difference between an Arab, a Turk, an Iranian, or, for that matter, a Hindu or a Sikh.

Likewise, there are apparently many in the Islamic world who can't tell the difference between Denmark, France, and America. Recent demonstrations by Indonesians (who are non-Arab Muslims), Nigerians (who are non-Arab Muslims), and Turks (who are non-Arab Muslims) pretty much prove that.

Ignorance is a very common vice. And educated people who take advantage of wide-spread ignorance in order to further their own political ends are lamentably common as well.

I agree with the original post that the Civilopedia should be changed. At the very least it should say "Islamic world" instead of "Arab world."

On a related note, I'm still trying to figure out why Immortals are mounted units. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the Persian Immortals were mounted infantry rather than true cavalry. In that sense, they should probably be replacements for swordsmen, not chariots. They would still keep their 2 speed, though ;^)

I thoroughly agree with eliminating ignorance. In order for a person to truly be at peace with the world, one has to know the world on a pure level, including differing peoples and try to understand their views rather than imposing one's own beliefs.

Concerning Immortals, it seems that they could have been mounted or unmounted. Based on historical evidence, they carried spears with counter weights (in order to use spears better) and they have been pictured as pure infantry units. They seemed to have a back up sword, wore quilted armor, and carried wicker shields (yes I know, so WEIRD, but useful since it could deflect arrows quite effectively while being lightweight, whereas metal shields were very bulky and couldn't be lifted if the shield were to be big enough to cover one's body during an arrow shower). So that was the pictured version (aka Immortal statues in Persepolis), but I assumed since Persians put heavy emphasis on cavalry that those regiments, who were trained better, could be used on horses as well.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Lebanese Christians?

ps: what's a heart language?

Alot of Lebanese in the USA are Christian. Furthermore, like 75% of all Arabs in the USA or Christian as well. So yeah, they do exist and in large number.

 

[gotmatt]

Alot of Lebanese in the USA are Christian. Furthermore, like 75% of all Arabs in the USA or Christian as well. So yeah, they do exist and in large number.

do they now live in the USA because they were persecuted in their Theocratic country or were they converted over here or what? i'm sure it's different for each individual, but i bet a majority is the first choice.

 

[Armorydave]

Lebanese Christians?

Lebanon is an extremely diverse country with a sizable Christian minority.

 

[warpus]

Alot of Lebanese in the USA are Christian. Furthermore, like 75% of all Arabs in the USA or Christian as well. So yeah, they do exist and in large number.

Yes, I realize that, I was just answering Older than Dirt's question:

So what are my friends in Lebanon whose heart language is Arabic and who are Christians to be considered? Besides persecuted, that is.

I worded it as a question since I wasn't really sure why he was asking in the first place.. seems obvious to me.