Historical Inaccuracies with Persia article

[suspendinlight]

This thread has been seriously hijacked.

 

[gotmatt]

For a second there I thought you posted that in all seriousness.

heh... i forgot the

 

[TCGTRF]

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

A lot of the pre-1980 Lebanese Christians were immigrants from Armenia who had left early in the century because of the persecution in Turkey. Lebanon had been carved off of the Ottoman Empire after WW1 and was being administered by the French, I believe under a League of Nations mandate (similar to the British in Palestine.) The Armenians constitued a lot of the mercantile class in Beirut, for example.



Tom

 

[cyrusIII85]

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

OOPS! This is what happens when a person replies to a person without reading what the person orginally replied too ! Try saying that three times faster (than what you imagine me saying it at )!

Anyway, it seems the discussion built upon my orginal ignorance, and thus it's a total sham. But at least the post before me gave some nice info.

 

[gotmatt]

as opposed to being high-jacked i think this thread has actually evolved into a more thought provoking consideration of the Middle Eastern area.

one thing i'd like to add, and ask the resident Persians thoughts on.

i just recently watched "Alexander" by Oliver Stone. typically, Stone dramatized historical theory to make it seem like fact, ignored the true genius of Alexander to show us his softer gentler nature. since i have read a decent amount on the topic of Alexander i thought his translation of the life of the Great King was boring at best and annoyingly inaccurate at times.

too much mention of Greeks being synonamous with Macedonian and then contradicting it with Macedonians thinking Asians (and Persians in particular) were inferior. the fact that they used the battle of gaugamela as a show of Alexander's battle prowess in the movie showed how little the writer cared about historical fact. he actually dealt the Persian army it's biggest blow at Issus where he proved he could overwhelm the large Persian forces with his smaller armies. it de-moralized the Persian armies for future conflicts. in movie terms it was akin to the first large scale battle in "Braveheart" and a perfect example of Alexander's battle genius.

i don't want to go into anymore but i was wondering if any of the gentlemen living and taught in Iran had seen the movie and fealt it to be equally dissappointing from the Darius perspective.

 

[shahreevar]

as opposed to being high-jacked i think this thread has actually evolved into a more thought provoking consideration of the Middle Eastern area.

one thing i'd like to add, and ask the resident Persians thoughts on.

i just recently watched "Alexander" by Oliver Stone. typically, Stone dramatized historical theory to make it seem like fact, ignored the true genius of Alexander to show us his softer gentler nature. since i have read a decent amount on the topic of Alexander i thought his translation of the life of the Great King was boring at best and annoyingly inaccurate at times.

too much mention of Greeks being synonamous with Macedonian and then contradicting it with Macedonians thinking Asians (and Persians in particular) were inferior. the fact that they used the battle of gaugamela as a show of Alexander's battle prowess in the movie showed how little the writer cared about historical fact. he actually dealt the Persian army it's biggest blow at Issus where he proved he could overwhelm the large Persian forces with his smaller armies. it de-moralized the Persian armies for future conflicts. in movie terms it was akin to the first large scale battle in "Braveheart" and a perfect example of Alexander's battle genius.

i don't want to go into anymore but i was wondering if any of the gentlemen living and taught in Iran had seen the movie and fealt it to be equally dissappointing from the Darius perspective.

hi there...
i am amazed at to where this thread has gone... intersting.
re alexander, the feelings are mixed. yes he was a military genious, and he did know how to use smaller #'s to defeat a larger. the persian weakness was (in this instance) the superior numbers. add to that the variety of nationalites, and customs. add to that an ill empire breathing it's lat breaths....

the movies was sad. typically sad. racist overtones of"Blondes vs. Darkies" etc. i noticed the "flies" hovering around the persian soldiers heads... nice, since considering that they were spoiled, well paid, richly dressed soldires who carried golden swords. each immortal had his own entourage, his posse you might say of women, kids, cooks, retainers, servants, etc...

and in a usual hollywood film, where rambo(s) kills all the Bad guys (this time they were persians not russians ) with a single blow. i have to admit when i heard of this film, when it came out (btw my "american" friends thought that it was horrible, and funny at times, they couldn't wait for alexander to die already....) i made sure that i see this film, just to see how @@@@ed up a movie a director of such caliber has made. it was too long, not exciting at all, collin farrel (sp) is such a bad actor, and those accents... i mean come on!! and the bleached hair... akh... just a poorly made film. i cant wait for the Cyrus film to come out. i hear its the most expensive british film to date. i jsut hope Sean connery isn't playing him like they were talking about it .

 

[cyrusIII85]

I just thought the omission of the Persepolis burning and the nearly ludicrous attempt to indirectly say that Alexander was Zoroastrian were the two biggest flaws in the movie historically. Alexander actually severely weakened and antagonized Zoroastrianism through his various actions.

 

[SmokeyD]

I would like you to find one academic source which doesn’t regard Zoroastrianism as monotheistic.

While we're at it, I'd like to see an academic source who regards an explicitly dualistic religion 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).

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not constitute an unbiased historical source.

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.

Don't jargon me.

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.

Would Persia have developed culturally and militarily in the way it did without the inspiration of Islam and the injection of Arabic ideas?

What you are saying is that Persia didn't benefit from the Arab invasions in the slightest, when in fact without it, it would have been left out in the cold, unable to particpate in the benefits that naturally come with a continent spanning empire.

 

[cyrusIII85]

1. While we're at it, I'd like to see an academic source who regards an explicitly dualistic religion as monotheistic.



2. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not constitute an unbiased historical source.



3. Don't jargon me.



4. Would Persia have developed culturally and militarily in the way it did without the inspiration of Islam and the injection of Arabic ideas?

5. What you are saying is that Persia didn't benefit from the Arab invasions in the slightest, when in fact without it, it would have been left out in the cold, unable to particpate in the benefits that naturally come with a continent spanning empire.

1. Lol, and here I thought you could actually support your words with an academic source. Guess I was wrong...

Keeping my end of the deal:

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/XLVII/4/557

2. No, but it is, seemingly, a "strict" monotheistic religion right?

3. Sorry I'm an engineer, it's the language I use .

4. Culturally - No, but you fail again to state how they were better than the Persian ideals before.
Militarily - Iran already developed the military tactics that Arabs used, or along the same lines basically. Parthians, the people that preceded the Sassanids, used very similar hit and run tactics. As Persian military progressed, the use of heavier cavalry became preferred over the past lighter cavalry styles. Unfortunately, the pre-evolved version of Persian warfare proved to best the evolved form in the desert as opposed to the way Byzantines and Persians fought.

5. There are many things wrong with what you said. First, Sassanids controlled a very large landmass before the invasion of the Arabs. At one point, Persians conquered Egypt, Israel, and nearly every other Byzantine land except W. Turkey along with alot of C. Asia. Second, you are just floating around ideas without any historical evidence, while I have clearly cited my specific sources that do say that Arabs undermined Persian arts and language. Unless you want to say that's a good thing, that somehow Arab culture and language was better than the Persian ones, I don't think you have much of an argument. Why, instead of typing one-liners, don't you educate yourself about Iran after the occupation of Arabs rather than throwing out generalizations.

And, in case you failed to read my posts, I DID say that certain aspects of Persian lifestyles were improved after the Arab invasion. However, far more suffered and overall I view the invasion negatively based on my academic SOURCES, which you have not provided (maybe because you can find none backing your thesis on how undermining a country actually improves their living).

 

[SmokeyD]

1. Lol, and here I thought you could actually support your words with an academic source. Guess I was wrong...

By your own source you are defeated.

In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world.

The fact that such a combination exists precludes strict monotheism. The ultimate triumph of monotheism does not matter in this context, because we are comparing religions that are universally and eternally (that is, strictly) monotheistic with something tending asymtopically towards monotheism.

Besides, your original assertion that Zoroastrianism exists more or less intact in Shi'a Islam ignores the fact that Persia/Iran was largely Sunni until the 15th Century.

No, but it is, seemingly, a "strict" monotheistic religion right?

So what? Does the Bible explicitly endorse Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic relgion?

Culturally - No, but you fail again to state how they were better than the Persian ideals before.

Any introduction of new ideas is beneficial in the long term. Even if most of Arab culture is simply that of Persia viewed with an Arab perspective, it is better than having only Persian culture viewed with a Persian perspective. If there is only one monolithic entity there is no dynamic interaction, no dialectic synthesis, no growth. There is only stagnation.

Iran already developed the military tactics that Arabs used, or along the same lines basically. Parthians, the people that preceded the Sassanids, used very similar hit and run tactics. As Persian military progressed, the use of heavier cavalry became preferred over the past lighter cavalry styles. Unfortunately, the pre-evolved version of Persian warfare proved to best the evolved form in the desert as opposed to the way Byzantines and Persians fought.

Regardless, Arab methods proved superior -- even if it is only in the desert.

There are many things wrong with what you said. First, Sassanids controlled a very large landmass before the invasion of the Arabs. At one point, Persians conquered Egypt, Israel, and nearly every other Byzantine land except W. Turkey. Second, you are just floating around ideas without any historical evidence, while I have clearly cited my specific sources that do say that Arabs undermined Persian arts and language.

The larger, and more stable the Empire, the more ideas flow through it and the greater the cultural and scientific development. Without the emergence of the Arab wars, Middle Eastern culture would have geographically confined to one spot. Instead, the fusion of Arab and Persian ideas that derived from the Arab conquests expanded to become the largest geopolitical and culturual entity at that point in history.

In fact, your example is like saying Europe didn't benefit from the establishment of the Roman empire, which was also known to culturally damage or even destroy its subject peoples.

Unless you want to say that's a good thing, that somehow Arab culture and language was better than the Persian ones, I don't think you have much of an argument. Why, instead of typing one-liners, don't you educate yourself about Iran after the occupation of Arabs rather than throwing out generalizations.

Of course not. The fusion of Arab and Persian culture was superior to both pre-fusion Arabia and Persia. That is, while many of the great Arabic thinkers were in fact Persian, they would not have had the oppurtunity to do that thinking without the arrival of Arabic in the first place.

 

[cyrusIII85]

1. By your own source you are defeated.



2. The fact that such a combination exists precludes strict monotheism. The ultimate triumph of monotheism does not matter in this context, because we are comparing religions that are universally and eternally (that is, strictly) monotheistic with something tending asymtopically towards monotheism.

Besides, your original assertion that Zoroastrianism exists more or less intact in Shi'a Islam ignores the fact that Persia/Iran was largely Sunni until the 15th Century.



3. So what? Does the Bible explicitly endorse Zoroastrianism as a monotheistic relgion?



4. Any introduction of new ideas is beneficial in the long term. Even if most of Arab culture is simply that of Persia viewed with an Arab perspective, it is better than having only Persian culture viewed with a Persian perspective. If there is only one monolithic entity there is no dynamic interaction, no dialectic synthesis, no growth. There is only stagnation.



5. Regardless, Arab methods proved superior -- even if it is only in the desert.



6. The larger, and more stable the Empire, the more ideas flow through it and the greater the cultural and scientific development. Without the emergence of the Arab wars, Middle Eastern culture would have geographically confined to one spot. Instead, the fusion of Arab and Persian ideas that derived from the Arab conquests expanded to become the largest geopolitical and culturual entity at that point in history.

In fact, your example is like saying Europe didn't benefit from the establishment of the Roman empire, which was also known to culturally damage or even destroy its subject peoples.



7. Of course not. The fusion of Arab and Persian culture was superior to both pre-fusion Arabia and Persia. That is, while many of the great Arabic thinkers were in fact Persian, they would not have had the oppurtunity to do that thinking without the arrival of Arabic in the first place.

1. No, it doesn't. By way of the sentence you quoted it includes both dualism and monotheism thought.

2. Um, I'm not sure if you know what it means that it includes both with time. Furthermore, it isn't asymptotic, because the state will be gained, not will approach very close to the state.

I would like you to think of light and it's spectrum. A spectrum states what makes up the subject at various points. Light is blue at a certain wavelength, red at another, etc. But all are light, and "strictly" light. Zoroastrianism is a spectrum of monotheism and dualism. Whether you chose the beginning, middle, or end, nevertheless it's Zoroastrianism and it's ideology, like that of any religion or school of thought, is time independent and constant. It's forever both dualistic and monotheistic within its ideology of uniquely and greatly combining the two into one ideology.

And yes, you are right, but nevertheless Shism made the breakthrough, does have connections to Zoroastrianism, and diminished Sunni ideology rapidly. It's sort of like thermodynamics, the state will happen, it's simply unknown how long it will take to get to that state. Kinetics (aka events, will, etc.) defines the rate. Iranians, through their constant love of their country, will always go towards a state which reaches that fundamental goal.

3. Not explicitly, but I don't see how the Bible or God can endorse pagans under any circumstance, despite my previous discussions.

4. You forget humans are dynamic beings, and that the needs of humans, including being dynamic (aka entertained, knowledgeable, etc), automatically make any human system dynamic and ever changing. One doesn't need raids, war, and oppression to spur change, albeit it makes certain things happen faster and other things happen slower. Certainly I would say that Farsi and many languages other than Arabic were in fact, stagnant because of that oppression.

5. And then Arabs failed militarily, they disintegrated, while Iranians reconstituted their country and eventually beat Arabs by taking the battles to the mountains (aka the Buyid brothers). I would like you to state how that constitutes superiority and progress.

6. The Islamic Empire wasn't stable in many instances. Furthermore, I'm sure you would argue then that the Mongolian Empire, known for some of the worst atrocities against man, was at a certain point very stable and large. Was it marked by the largest cultural and scientific development ever? No. It wasn’t because of the atrocities committed that decreased the standard of living of the people. The same was true of the beginning of the Islamic Empire. You again weasel your way out of tackling how destroying culture can be justified, irrespective of whatever results. It shows arrogance and ignorance by the people who do it, and shows no respect for human will and rights.

And I agree that Rome didn't help the people whose unique cultures it destroyed.

7. Arabs can't be Persian, and vica versa. The fact that you said they were "Arabic" thinkers, despite the fact they all basically knew and spoke Khorasani Farsi, shows how ignorant you are. Don't you dare try to say that Persians and Arabs are even close to being similar. Arabs have their land, culture, and language, and Persians have theirs. Under no circumstance can anyone be viewed as both Arab and Persian because violates not only definitions, but also historical reality. And no, I don't see how "Arabic" allowed them to think, when they were born and raised Iranians and didn't rely on Arab resources many of the times. Al-Khrawizimi used Indian sources, same with Al-Biruini, and many other Iranians created texts independently of "Arab" institutions. Again, try learning HISTORY, especially the part that Persians served as the primary contributor of knowledge, architecture, and governmental administrators, not Arabs.

 

[SmokeyD]

No, it doesn't. By way of the sentence you quoted it includes both dualism and monotheism thought.

Because it includes both, it can be neither strictly monotheistic or strictly dualistic.

Um, I'm not sure if you know what it means that it includes both with time. Furthermore, it isn't asymptotic, because the state will be gained, not will approach very close to the state.

Bearing in mind that eschatology is about the end of time, I think it's fair to call it asymtopic.

I would like you to think of light and it's spectrum. A spectrum states what makes up the subject at various points. Light is blue at a certain wavelength, red at another, etc. But all are light, and "strictly" light. Zoroastrianism is a spectrum of monotheism and dualism. Whether you chose the beginning, middle, or end, nevertheless it's Zoroastrianism and it's ideology, like that of any religion or school of thought, is time independent and constant. It's forever both dualistic and monotheistic within its ideology of uniquely and greatly combining the two into one ideology.

That's like saying it's forever black and forever white.

Not explicitly, but I don't see how the Bible or God can endorse pagans under any circumstance, despite my previous discussions.

In the Old Testament especially, God is known to favour the doers of good works, even if their beliefs are wrong.

You forget humans are dynamic beings, and that the needs of humans, including being dynamic (aka entertained, knowledgeable, etc), automatically make any human system dynamic and ever changing. One doesn't need raids, war, and oppression to spur change, albeit it makes certain things happen faster and other things happen slower.

And one of the fastest ways to promote change is the interaction between two world views. If everyone started off with a Persian way of thinking, it would take millenia to develop anything new.

And then Arabs failed militarily, they disintegrated, while Iranians reconstituted their country and eventually beat Arabs by taking the battles to the mountains (aka the Buyid brothers). I would like you to state how that constitutes superiority and progress.

They failed aministratively.

Certainly I would say that Farsi and many languages other than Arabic were in fact, stagnant because of that oppression.

Until it was revived by Arabs hoping to curry favour with the Persian powerbase.

The Islamic Empire wasn't stable in many instances. Furthermore, I'm sure you would argue then that the Mongolian Empire, known for some of the worst atrocities against man, was at a certain point very stable and large. Was it marked by the largest cultural and scientific development ever? No. It wasn’t because of the atrocities committed that decreased the standard of living of the people. The same was true of the beginning of the Islamic Empire.

The Mongolian Empire was hugely important to the cultural development of the world. Just because they did some truly horrific things doesn't mean they didn't do anything significant, just like the Holocaust doesn't erase Germany's cultural achievements.

You again weasel your way out of tackling how destroying culture can be justified, irrespective of whatever results. It shows arrogance and ignorance by the people who do it, and shows no respect for human will and rights.

I never said it was justified. Destroying a culture is never justified. The symbiotic relationship of two cultures that often occurs when one invades another, however, is usually beneficial to both parties.

And I agree that Rome didn't help the people whose unique cultures it destroyed.

Until they were made citizens of the largest, most powerful and most stable empire in the world, with all the rights that that entailed.

Arabs can't be Persian, and vica versa. The fact that you said they were "Arabic" thinkers, despite the fact they all basically knew and spoke Khorasani Farsi, shows how ignorant you are.

They wrote and published in Arabic, codified Arabic grammar and sytax, contributed to Arabic literature etc. Certainly, they were Persian, but they were thinking, at least in part, in Arabic.

Don't you dare try to say that Persians and Arabs are even close to being similar. Arabs have their land, culture, and language, and Persians have theirs. Under no circumstance can anyone be viewed as both Arab and Persian because violates not only definitions, but also historical reality.

Of course they're different.

And no, I don't see how "Arabic" allowed them to think, when they were born and raised Iranians and didn't rely on Arab resources many of the times. Al-Khrawizimi used Indian sources, same with Al-Biruini, and many other Iranians created texts independently of "Arab" institutions. Again, try learning HISTORY, especially the part that Persians served as the primary contributor of knowledge, architecture, and governmental administrators, not Arabs.

So Persians would have written Arabic literature, set out the basic rules of Arabic grammar and style, written many books in and translated others into Arabic without the arrival of Arabic on the Iranian plateau?

 

[cyrusIII85]

double post

 

[cyrusIII85]

1. Because it includes both, it can be neither strictly monotheistic or strictly dualistic.



2. Bearing in mind that eschatology is about the end of time, I think it's fair to call it asymtopic.



3. That's like saying it's forever black and forever white.



4. In the Old Testament especially, God is known to favour the doers of good works, even if their beliefs are wrong.



5. And one of the fastest ways to promote change is the interaction between two world views. If everyone started off with a Persian way of thinking, it would take millenia to develop anything new.



6. They failed aministratively.



7. Until it was revived by Arabs hoping to curry favour with the Persian powerbase.



8. The Mongolian Empire was hugely important to the cultural development of the world. Just because they did some truly horrific things doesn't mean they didn't do anything significant, just like the Holocaust doesn't erase Germany's cultural achievements.



9. I never said it was justified. Destroying a culture is never justified. The symbiotic relationship of two cultures that often occurs when one invades another, however, is usually beneficial to both parties.



10. Until they were made citizens of the largest, most powerful and most stable empire in the world, with all the rights that that entailed.



11. They wrote and published in Arabic, codified Arabic grammar and sytax, contributed to Arabic literature etc. Certainly, they were Persian, but they were thinking, at least in part, in Arabic.



Of course they're different.



So Persians would have written Arabic literature, set out the basic rules of Arabic grammar and style, written many books in and translated others into Arabic without the arrival of Arabic on the Iranian plateau?

1. Strict - Precise; exact: a strict definition.
Complete; absolute: strict loyalty.
Kept within narrowly specific limits: a strict application of a law.
Rigorous in the imposition of discipline: a strict parent.
Exacting in enforcement, observance, or requirement: strict standards. See Synonyms at severe.
Conforming completely to established rule, principle, or condition: a strict vegetarian.
Botany. Stiff, narrow, and upright.

Nothing in the word "strict" precludes an object or ideal can be strictly two things. As long as it includes both principles, in a complete and true form, it is "strict" in implementing both. Once again, you have not given an academic source saying that Zoroastrianism is in fact not monotheistic (aka polytheistic) and I find it quite pathetic that you are using an article, which states it combines two ideologies, complete ideologies, into one, in a very manipulative way against me.

2. As long as an end point is completely defined, and it reaches that end point, it isn't asymptotic. A function that goes to infinity won't reach there because we have no conceptually grasp how large infinity is, and hence can't say when it ends. The "End of Time" however, is completely and purely defined by the coming of the "Second Zoroaster" who will cause a chain of events leading to the complete triumph of good over evil, typified by "the end of time". Also, as I recall, there is a stated year for his coming.

3. It's like that for you because you have sort of extreme bias that precludes YOU from thinking that dualism and monotheism can be integrated. As such, you naturally view the ideologies as opposite not based on evidence, which you have not yet provided, but on your own opinions. I actually find it quite arrogant that you put your own opinions higher than the research done by certified scholars. And no I didn't say "black" = "white", merely that Zoroastrianism is black and white, like light is red, blue, green, etc. at once.

4. That goes conceptually against the later teachings that only people who acknowledge god's existence can gain god's favor. I, personally, would find that contradiction to be nearly earth shattering.

5. Nevertheless, not justifying the evil acts that started it.

6. They were conquered by two generals, who happened to be brothers. They failed both militarily and administratively, administratively by kicking out Persians and basically laying waste to their empire by losing complete control of Iran. In fact, the Persian realm in 8th-9th centuries actually gave rise to an extraordinary amount of scholars, despite the fact that Iran along with C. Asia was about completely independent of the Islamic Empire.

7. It was never revived by Arabs, don't try to create history when I have clearly given evidence on how Iranian languages suffered by Arabs. It was revived by Ferdowsi and Persians who risked their lives saving Persian books. Some translated them into Arabic so Arabs wouldn’t become paranoid over the books that weren’t written in a different language and destroy them as a result. Unless, of course, you can find a source which states that Persian was in fact, saved, by the acts of the Islamic Empire.

8. They, like the beginning Islamic Arabs, destroyed and raided. However, they also engaged in total warfare starving millions upon millions of people. I would like to see how you defend the genocidal acts committed with the cultural improvement of the original Mongolian realm. Yes, their culture improved dramatically, but they fit the complete definition of a harmful parasite that I put forward.

9. key word: "usually".

10. Yes the conquered were made citizens...if they served in the military for 20 years! You think being conquered, pillaged, and raped by a people, and then forced to join that very same force is a good thing?!?!?!

And of course, in the Islamic Empire, it didn't. Never mind that Persians, despite being the best artisans, administrators, and scholars of the Islamic empire, were second-class citizens because they weren't Arabs. They discriminated against all peoples who had different languages, at some points destroying languages and heritages, and, even when Iranians converted to Islam, the still had to pay the tax that non-Muslims pay.

11. Because their works had to be written in Arabic because of the oppression of the Islamic Empire. They codified Arabic, not because they wanted to, but because they were cultural and intellectual superiors, but conquered peoples nonetheless. Sort of like the China-Mongolia dynamic, and how Chinese did alot of things despite the fact they hated them completely. They then, when they were rid of the Islamic Empire, completely reverted back to non-Arabic languages, evidencing the fact that there was a strain by the presence of Arabic, and that it was removed quite interestingly for a people who seemingly integrated with Arabic ideology and language. In short, they didn't based on the minute existence of Arabic in Iran, even with a Islamic theocracy, and even discrimination against Arabic as a primary language through the well documented cases of the Khuzestani Arabs.

12. Persians wrote PERSIAN literature. Give me one case of what an Iranian wrote is described as "Arabic". Simply because an American writes a book in French, doesn’t mean he's French nor the work is associated with the French culture or nationality. What determines if a book is Persian or Arabic is whether or not the SOURCE is Persian or Arab. Furthermore, evidenced by the non-Arabic languages in Iran, I say that codifying Arabic and improving it did not improve the lives of Iranians in any way. It certainly improved the lives of Arabs, but then again plantations often improved the lives of Southern whites by utilizing black slave labor. And no, I don’t believe translating books into a foreign language was in fact beneficial in any way. None of there show, btw, that they completely thought in Arabic when they were Persian speakers.

Again, I ask, was it a good thing, or was the wasted time translating all the books to Arabic actually stifled the research of the scientists by wasting their time.

 

[cyrusIII85]

Okay, since the topic has safely closed, it's time to begin the "cultural awareness of Persia" posts. If you guys don't know what this means, given the gross lies in the Civ article, I and other Iranians, or non-Iranians if you guys know about something, will post things on Persian heritage, culture, and important people that will enlighten people to what Iran truly is. Since I have recently saw the movie "Omar Khayyam: The Legend of the Keeper", and since his ethnicity is often confused (some texts say that he was Arab, foolishly) and his relations to Nizam al-Mulk and Hassan Sabbah (historically, most probably they never met, despite the tale orginated by a Russian writer that they met in elementary school), I've decided to post on him.

In short, he came from Nishapur a city in E. Iran in Khorasan. He developed, as I recall, the most accurate solar calendar to date, written some of the most famous poetry that inspired great contemporary writers like Ernest Hemmingway, and advanced mathematics to such a degree that algebra (specifically methodologies of finding roots) would have never developed as rapidly as it did without him. One example, as I recall from Encarta, is his methodology to use conic sections and lines to find roots of generalized equations. He was also an astronomer, and the movie hinted that he found a new constellation and used some Euclidean principle to find roots using triangles.

Biography:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Khayyam.html

Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam

The website of the movie I mentioned:
www.greatomar.com

I encourage everyone to explore the links on each page I have put here, because they give far more specialized knowledge.

If you guys want to post on anything related to Khayyam, or any other subject involving culture/heritage that is somehow mistaken, please do.

 

[Brighteye]

Come on SmokeyD. I'm looking forward to your next post.

 

[Older than Dirt]

Hey we ain't got no time for no Oldmar Cayenne and his Ruby Yacht here. Nor have we time for King Lear or that other ShakeSpear nonsense. We only got so many brain cells and need to remember really important cultural stuff - like, you know, who's on American Idol and what colour panties is Paris wearing today? Will your grandchildren really want you to recite Mark Anthony's funeral oration for Julius or the Jaberwocky? Spend your time wisely and memorize all the winners and losers of the Superbowl.

 

[Xshayathiya]

wow, just wow. I hadnt even seen this thread before. good job cyrus on being on top of the ball. I just made a thread in the suggestions and ideas, and hoped someone from firaxis would see it. I havent really had a chance to read through the entire thread, but i want to make a comment on a recent thing:

Would Persia have developed culturally and militarily in the way it did without the inspiration of Islam and the injection of Arabic ideas?

What you are saying is that Persia didn't benefit from the Arab invasions in the slightest, when in fact without it, it would have been left out in the cold, unable to particpate in the benefits that naturally come with a continent spanning empire.

I would absolutely agree with that. The arabian invasion did not benefit us in any way. How did we militarily develope after the invasion? Persia did not have a single successful war after the arab invasion. we were defeated by the mongols, turks and russians and humiliated with treaties that bit by bit took away pieces of the Persian Empire. The "Inspiration of Islam" did not do anything for us militarily. At least before it, we won a war here and there.

We would not have been left out in the cold. We had a continent spanning empire. I dont see how that is relevant either. At that point in time, who had a continent spanning empire? Rome? not anymore. Britian? not even a country yet. The goths? not united.

Now culturally. We didnt develope because of them, they developed because of us. AT most arab courts, the language of choice was persian. the first person to write an arabic dictionary was persian. more than half of all "islamic" scientists were persian. the same was true of the mongols.

The only thing left to say about that topic is,
Ze shire shotor khordan va soosmar,
Arab ra be jayi residat kar ke taje Kian ro konad arezoo

 

[Xshayathiya]

ok, now that i've had a chance to look through this thread, i'll retract those last two sentances of arab bashing there doesnt need to be any more of that.

I read something somebody said about the original tribes not executing elamites, etc etc. and that gave me an idea for my "cultural education". However, since i'm lazy, im going to quote Herodotus. Take it away my man:

There is no nation which so readily adopts foreign customs as the Persians. Thus, they have taken the dress of the Medes, considering it superior to their own; and in war they wear the Egyptian breastplate.

and it goes on to say:

As soon as they hear of any luxury, they instantly make it their own: and hence, among other novelties, they have learnt unnatural lust from the Greeks. Each of them has several wives, and a still larger number of concubines.

the point i was trying to illustrate that we have always been very tolerant of other cultures and religions, letting conquered peoples keep their own government and religion. Because of this, we pretty much absorbed the Elamites (and to a lesser extent, the mesopotamians).

PS you got something a tad wrong cyrus
in the word Baghdad, the first part is Baga and its from old persian, meaning god.

PPS if anyone is ever intrested in learning about any aspect of persian history, your one and only stop should be this. I used it to teach myself old persian last summer, and will be doing avestan and pahlavi this summer.

 

[cyrusIII85]

LOL, I thought it was Pahlavi. But I guess your right lol. And you know old Persian?!?!?! Bravo.

And I thought it was far more than half , like 75% right ?

Have you seen the movie about Omar Khayyam btw?