Persia

[Rameses the Great]

This is intriguing, as I once remember reading a study of the religion of Zoroastrianism, published by the academic house I was working for at the time. It stated that rich and successful Zoroastrians had a duty to share their good fortune with those less fortunate. I don't know whether this is a modern concept, or was already part of the canon in ancient times. Anyone know?

 

It was partly what Zoroastrianism morals are about. They believed in equality regrdless of gender, race, or religion (probably why it didn't last very long in the Ancient World. ) It not only taught equality, but taught more kindness to foreigners who were conquered, and sought to treat them better.

[The Augusta]

This is intriguing, as I once remember reading a study of the religion of Zoroastrianism, published by the academic house I was working for at the time. It stated that rich and successful Zoroastrians had a duty to share their good fortune with those less fortunate. I don't know whether this is a modern concept, or was already part of the canon in ancient times. Anyone know?

 

It was partly what Zoroastrianism morals are about. They believed in equality regrdless of gender, race, or religion (probably why it didn't last very long in the Ancient World. ) It not only taught equality, but taught more kindness to foreigners who were conquered, and sought to treat them better.

 

Thanks for the information, Rameses. I also had this belief from reading of the religion itself. But how then, could the Persians perpetrate such a hierarchial system, in which freeborn men prostrated themselves before the High King? I can't believe that this was purely Greek propaganda. Or was the position of the king seen in a more secular light?

[Pantagathus]

This is intriguing, as I once remember reading a study of the religion of Zoroastrianism, published by the academic house I was working for at the time. It stated that rich and successful Zoroastrians had a duty to share their good fortune with those less fortunate. I don't know whether this is a modern concept, or was already part of the canon in ancient times. Anyone know?

This is exactly why I wanted to point out the difference between the general less fortunate and those who suffered from a malady.

 

I think it was Xenophon who said that Cyrus himself would personally hand out gold pieces taken from vanquished enemies to the less fortunate of Persis, not in an effort to win his 'hometown' over but as a civic duty of sorts. We must remember that the early Persians and therefore early Zoroastrians by default were a deeply tribal people at heart and taking care of the less fortunate is a very tribal thing to do.

[Rameses the Great]

I just want to know more about the emperor in Persia. He had advisors and government officials, but appears to wield an awful lot of power. Did this ever conflict with his citizens? Perhaps an uprising or civil war like in Rome? It seems that Persians supressed any uprising since there were never any major events in the course of their history.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Rameses the Great

[caldrail]

I just want to know more about the emperor in Persia. He had advisors and government officials, but appears to wield an awful lot of power. Did this ever conflict with his citizens? Perhaps an uprising or civil war like in Rome? It seems that Persians supressed any uprising since there were never any major events in the course of their history.

 

The information I've read mentions the willingness of persian leaders to torture and punish the citizens who get out of line. Perisan culture was almost medieval in structure with poor people treated as serfs. This meant they were bound to the land and were bought and sold as part of the estate. I see persian nobility as people who didn't let their minions get out of control.

[Gaius Octavius]

Ramses try this:

 

http://www.livius.org/persia.html

 

Compliments of Publius Nonius Severus.

[Rameses the Great]

Thanks GO, and Publius Nonius Severus. This link really helps a lot!

[Kosmo]

Persia was a weak connected empire. For example local rulers in Cyprus were fighting each other all the time despite persian overlords (like russians under the mongols). Obligations of a subject group were to pay taxes and to send levies to war. They had no common language, law or customs. The money and purple were hoarded and carried by the king as his wifes.

Infighting for being king was common.

I don't think that the people were happy with the system. Egypt rebelled often. Against Alexander only the greeks and some of the phoenicians fought well.

[DecimusCaesar]

It's true that the Egyptians didn not like the Persians. One of the main reasons for this is that the Egyptians believed that the Persians were insulting their gods and their customs. Trouble between the two nations led to an revolt that Xerxes took several years to subjugate.

 

duaring Alexander's day, his success in subjugating the country came from showing the Egyptian gods' respect (visting the temple of Zeus Ammon at Siwa) to donning an Egyptian headress. Something Persians had failed to do.

 

On another note, it was consider very important (along with never lieing) to reconsider any descision they had made while drunk at a time they were sober. It's a wonder that they even remembered!

[The Augusta]

On this same subject - I am just beginning my in-depth study of ancient Iran - something I've been promising myself for years! In this regard, I am wondering if anyone who has so far contributed here has read Olmstead's 'History of the Persian Empire'? I have only read up to Cyrus' conquest of Babylon so far, but am amazed at the flow of the work from a historian writing in the 1930/40s! Considering how we have been discussing historians on other threads (and I think Decimus Caesar mentioned how the older historians' work tends to flow better than a modern) I find that I am quite seduced by Olmstead's writing. The book has more in common with Holland's 'Persian Fire' in style - recreating the ancient Iranian world from its beginnings with mythical stories of creation etc., and presenting Cyrus' rise as a linear narrative, without getting too bogged down in academic arguments. Although some of Olmstead's interpretations have now been superseded in the light of more recent archaeological evidence etc., he still seems to be considered a fore-runner in ancient Iranian scholarship, and I am enjoying his book very much.

 

Anyone else read this?

 

My other reading matter for the period at the moment is Wiesehofer's 'Ancient Persia', which goes beyond the timescale of Olmstead, in that it deals with Iran from the ancient Persian empire, right through to the Arab conquest of the 7th century AD. This work is not, however, a 'history' as such. It tends to deal more with the evidence uncovered in more recent times, and examines relationships between the king and his people throughout each of the dynasties: Achaemenid, Seleucid, Arsacid and Sasanian. So, it has a narrower scope, but is still worth a read.

 

One of my regrets in history, is that during the time of the Parthian empire, when Iran came more into contact with Rome than at any other time, there are less sources from the Parthian side. This is a pity, as from what I have read so far, the Parthian period seems to have been the most organised in terms of administration and trade.

 

Any views?

Edited March 7, 2007 by The Augusta

[DecimusCaesar]

They certainly sound interesting Augusta. My own library of books on Persia is certainly lacking. I only have 'The Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia' as well as 'The Persian Army'. Most of the other books I have deal with Persia from the perspective of the Greeks or Romans.

[Divi Filius]

Anyone else read this?

 

I have read it. Amazing book, although many of the parts dealing with astronomy and science did almost put me to sleep. However I remember reading a JORST review which discussed the various mistakes on the part of the author when dealing with Greek science.

 

Very good writer however. I remember those nights I went to bed at around 10PM to read the book, the next time I looked at the clock it was around 1:30AM and I still didnt want to put it down.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Divi Filius