Been a while since I've done one of these threads.
Ask any questions you might have, and I'll answer to the best if my abilities.
General question: What impact did Zoroastrianism have on religions of the time? I know there's something about the good/evil dichotomy in Christianity that was related and I've heard Hinduism had devas as good and asuras as bad while Zoroastrianism had it reversed.
>>1070763
Which period are you talking about?
In its early periods, the main relgions were Paganism, Egyptian, Vedic, and Greek.
Zoroastrianism had roots in original Indo-European traditions and rites. That's why Vedism or Hinduism share some similarities. They're primarily cultural and linguistic. However, I believe Zoroaster set to establish differences between the two. That's why there are contradictions (as you mentioned)
>>1070811
I was just interested in what Devas and Asuras represented in Zoroastrianism. I've seen some websites that say Devas were elemental/war gods while Asuras were gods of higher human qualities, but then again those websites seemed pretty suspect.
Gods like Mitra being present all the way from India to the Romans makes me think there was some proto-iranic religion that eventually gave birth to Vedism and Zoroastrianism.
>>1070763
>>1070865
I'm not OP but here is an academic article on the influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity
>Zoroastrianism: The Iranian Roots of Christianity?
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/RennieCSSR36.1.pdf
I have not read it myself but I do know that they share many of the same features and that Zoroastrianism long preceded it. It seems the most likely outcome that Christianity and also Judaism were influenced by Zoroastrianism, the question though is whether they were influenced moderately or significantly.
>Gods like Mitra being present all the way from India to the Romans makes me think there was some proto-iranic religion that eventually gave birth to Vedism and Zoroastrianism.
There likely was based on what we know. What we do know is that there was a prototypical Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian culture or multiple closely-related groups of them that were located in the regions around the Caucasus mountains and were around the Caspian and Black Seas. I don't remember the exact dates and am too lazy to look it up but I think they were somewhere in the 4000-2000 BC range and that there were large groups of people from these groups who emigrated SE to India, emigrated south to Iran/Persia, emigrated SW to the Balkans and also west to Europe.
Most academics agree that Sanskrit, Persian, Latin, and some other European languages have a common ancestor language they all developed out of or multiple closely-related ancestor languages and this is probably the language this early Indo-Aryan culture spoke.
Its only logical to assume that there was also a common religion of the Indo-Aryans as well which spread with their language.
Who was the greatest Shahanshah and why is it Cyrus the Great?
>>1070732
I admit, most of my knowledge of Iran/Persia comes from either studying Classical Greek stuff, or from WW2, so my questions will be a bit scattered.
1) In pretty much all Greek accounts of fighting the Persians, you get this thing that the Persian arms and armor was so inferior to what the Greeks were using that it was like fighting unarmed men.
And what's doubly weird is that Persia was much bigger, probably wealthier per capita let alone in the aggregate, and had professional military classes, as opposed to the hoplite militia-like system.
Why were their weapons and armor so much worse?
2) In relation to #1 above, why did the Ionic Greeks have so much more trouble than the mainland Greeks? It wasn't like they couldn't hold their own when fighting the mainlanders, even if they usually did do a bit worse.
3) How firm were ties between Germany and Persia during WW2? What were Rezah Shah Pahlavi's policies? Was there any way to assuage the allies and prevent an invasion?
4)Why did the Safavid's and the Muhgals fight in the early 18th century? And how did the Safavid's project force all the way to Dehli?
>>1072520
That's not remotely true. Regular professional Persian soldiers used scale and chainmail armor for their infantry. The actual elite horsemen wore heavy chainmail and were armored similarly to Greek heavy hoplites or Macedonian phalangites.
Secondly, the Persian weapons weren't worse. Line infantry in the Immortals and Companions used heavy battle axes, lances, and short stabbing swords or maces. Alexander was nearly killed by the Persians in hand to hand combat twice during his conquest of the Persian Empire.
Also Persian archers were particularly feared by the Greeks, as they used recurve composite bows which gave them both incredible range and armor penetrating power even from over 200 yards away.
Please do more research.
>>1072520
>1) In pretty much all Greek accounts of fighting the Persians, you get this thing that the Persian arms and armor was so inferior to what the Greeks were using that it was like fighting unarmed men.
Greek bias and patent bullshit based off the last century of archaelogical digs, recovered armor, relics, and Persian records translated. Greek bias is extremely heavy. Actual findings show Persian soldiers, not levies, using scaled armor and wore their clothing over it. Which even Herodotus admits to. Secondly even Xenophon and Plutarch as well as the record keeper attached to Alexander's army, forgot his name, attribute to the Persians "great skills in combat" where they talk about the Battle of the Persian Gates where unarmed Persian soldiers where wrestling heavily armored hoplite infantry to the ground and stabbing them with their own weapons.
Which makes sense, since Iran has a tradition of unarmed combat and wrestling/grappling martial traditions dating back to the Achaemenid's time known as Pahalvan. So no, they weren't inferior to the Greeks in armor or skill, but usually the Greeks/Macedonians had an advantage with the pikes or spears they use being over 3 meters long. Standard lance the Persian used was about 2.5 meters long, reach made a huge difference.
Also the Persians, Medians, and other Iranic peoples like the Scythians formed the core of the Achaemenid military. The Persians developed their style of warfare based of lightly armored but heavily armed infantry augmented with cavalry to have mobile fast response battle tactics as Cyrus the Great used them against his opponents founding the Persian Empire.
Unlike the Greeks, whose hoplite warfare developed in Greece which is a land unlike Iran, is very rocky, craggy, mountainous, and has a large number of choke points and passes where a small force of heavily armored men fare far better then larger ones.
bump from the grave
>>1070732
WE
>>1070732
How mutually intelligible were the Iranic languages spoken by nomads like the Scythians to those of the long-settled peoples like the Persians?
Best crown?
Bump
Also the Sassanids were apparently extreme effective builders of castles, fortifications, and military bases.
>>1070732
Zoroastrian (not memeing, i'm Parsi) here. I can answer any questions about the religion if you have them. I'm not an ervad or anything, but I do consider myself practicing.
>>1078435
Can you marry your sister?
>>1076503
Peroz I and Bahram IV
>>1078435
Can you convert into it or is it a must that you have to be born in it.
Are Azeris in Iran decended from the medes? Are they just "Turkified"?
>>1070732
Do you think the introduction of Islam benefitted the Persians? What were the cons of it compared to Zoroastrianism?
>>1078634
No. The independent Azerbaijani Azeris are the ones who were brainwashed by Russian and later Soviet propaganda into thinking they were always "originally" Turkic. The Azeris in Iran are still Iranian, ethnically and culturally.
>>1078696
Even though they speak a different language? (im assuming)
>>1078707
Azeri language was influenced and turkified, no one in Iran denies this. But no Iranian Azeri accepts any claim that they are a Turkic people at all.
>>1070732
I'm a Persian Jew but I don't know what kind and don't know my family history except that they came to the US during the Islamic Revolution. Am I considered Sephardi or Mizrahi?
>>1078740
>I'm a Persian Jew
You mean you are a Jew of Iranian descent who was Persianized?
>>1072583
The best soldiers in pre-Islamic Persia were the Dailamites. They were pound-for-pound the finest infantry ever fielded by the Shahs and even the Romans rated them highly.
Fun fact: The Muslim Arabs got BTFO when they tried to enter the Dailamite homelands in northern Persia. It was full of mountains and very European-esque terrain with a proud warrior people that refused to submit until it was under their own terms.
>>1078754
First part sounds about right but I don't know what you mean by Persianized. I was wondering what middle eastern Jews are considered since all I know is that we're not Ashkenazi.
>>1078866
It could've been the Dailamites or Sogdians during pre-Islamic times. You have to remember by the time of the Arsacid dynasty and into the Sassanid dynasty's own era, Persian knightly class known as the Aztan, were primarily cataphract horsemen/cavalrymen or foot archers.
Also the area you are referring to is in Tabristan, which is located around what makes up today's Gilan province, which was heavily mountainous, in Northern Iran. Much of the more hillish and rockier eastern Iran also held out in pocket areas. Hell one of the dynasties that didn't end until the 15th century was directly related to one of the seven Royal Parthian Houses from the Arsacid/Parthian period.
You are also correct that Gilan and Tabristan was never conquered by the Arab Caliphates.
>>1078539
Technically but its not commonly done, in the past its mostly a noble thing.
>>1078548
You can't convert effectively. Reason is that we don't marry outside the community, and the temples are only for our community (language, culture, etc. are impossible for outsider to learn and letting them in would spell an end to our culture even faster)
>>1078595
>mixed
There's two types of us:
Parsi: guys from kerman, etc who came first - they did inter-marry for a few generations but our looks vary a lot. i'd say like 10% are really indian looking, but like 50% have some south asian genes (gene test results are done, look them up).
Irani: that's what i am. we came in qajar dynasty, so much later. we also had enforced endogamy already, so we didn't intermarry when we got to india either. we're from eastern parts (afghanistan, bactria), so we speak dari more, and the liturgy uses bactrian words too.
> indian looking
parsees have been in India so long, that they have been adopting indian fasthion too. we have traditional dress for men, but women wear a parsi version of indian sari. that, combined with the few indian-looking guys, probably gives you the impression they are 'indian looking'.
hope i answered your question. where is your persian side from?
>>1078935
>we don't marry outside the community
I should clarify: if a non-parsi marries a parsi, the non-parsi spouse or the children are not allowed in the temples. we'll allow out-marriage, but basically those who do can't be a functional part of the community.
>>1078888
Persian cavalry (especially the Asvaran) always got the press since it was glamorous, but the Dailamites were the only ones praised by Greco-Roman historians. They could fight with javelin, sword, sling, bow, dagger, and battle-axe on equal terms against Greek and Roman infantrymen.
>>1078935
and to the half-persian: source on genetic tests:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi#As_an_ethnic_community
>>1078935
That's actually only correct for parsis. not converting was enforced by the Indian governments to keep you guys segregated. The original zoroastrians in ancient times let people convert. But not in a war like way like Islam or Christianity. It was more similar to judaism where you had to study on your own and prove you really wanted to be apart of the community. It's like this in Iran too. Except the Islamic government counters it by giving death sentences to people leaving Islam. But people convert on the down low anyway. So they are allowed to convert other religions but since the majority of people are Muslims they can't get much converts in the open. During the shah tho there was a huge movement to preserve the culture and let it grow. Mostly due to nationalism.
>>1079045
>That's actually only correct for parsis.
m8 i'm pretty sure you don't need to tell me my history. obviously I was talking about parsees.
we do take converts once in a while if a priest allows a marriage to a non-parsi, but i've only heard this happen once in reality.
in Iran, all the liturgy and such is destroyed now, sadly. none know avestan besides a select few. sadly, if the indian community dies then pretty much no knowledge of the old scholarship will remain.
>>1079070
Yes but my main point is that the original zoroastrians did take converts. And a lot more then modern ones due to them not being a minority and not being oppressed politically. But they didn't send a missionary or declare jihad like Islam/Christianity. They acted like jews where you had to prove yourself and take the necessary steps by your own free will. It took dedication to convert.
>>1079194
i didn't disagree with your 'point'. nothing in our scriptures says we don't take converts, and i made it pretty clear that i was talking about parsees, not zoroastrians in my statement. maybe my english is shit or you can't read well, but i'll say it again: nothing has changed about our stance to conversion. its just that its basically functionally impossible to convert, due to ethnic constraints we (parsees) put on people entering our temples. because our religion and community have basically become the same thing now.
>didn't send a missionary
lmao, that's definitely not the case
yeah next time try to not lecture people on their own history.
>>1079223
Dude you are taking this out of context I'm not arguing with you I was adding an interesting fact that 2000 years ago customs were different. I was staying it for people who aren't familiar with our culture and history. No shit the parses do things different. I never diagreed. I just said that the reason they do things different is more socio-political due to their migration not because of the original teachings of the prophet.
Seriously what is wrong with the iranics. We always get mad and jump to conclusions whenever anyone brings our history into question. Not everything is a debate.
>>1079223
And yes except for a period in the sassind dynasty they were not violent converters. That is well known.
>>1079267
bebakhsheed dadash, hard to tell feeling over text ;_;
also didn't know you were the half-persian, thought some random westerner wanted to lecture me on what he knew from wikipedia lol
>Seriously what is wrong with the iranics
hot blooded; harfam raa fahmedid magarna
btw we did send missionaries. to armenia, arabia, many places. not by force though as you mention >>1079325 ; that is true.
> tfw if we played better politics and without idiots like Varzgen, we'd have zoroastrian georgia
>>1078962
Probably because the Persian cataphracts were able to skewer multiple heavily armored Roman infantrymen like literal kebabs is why their infantry was ignored.
>>1079325
There's also a lot of passages in the Avesta that actively encourage mobads and followers to convert others. Amazingly, in Iran, despite state sppression, the fastest growing religion is actually Christianity, not Zoroastrianism.
>>1072520
Different methods of war. Cavalry and archers were the backbone of Persian forces, with men carrying shield and spear defending the bowmen.
Decisive infantry clashes just didn't happen, and nobody they faced was going to field a large body of infantry heavy enough to crack such a force.
>>1072583
>>1072607
Their infantry didn't wear fucking helmets. The single most vital piece of armor.
On top of that
>professional
The VAST majority of Persians in any battle were levies.
>equal to greeks
No when you have a shield made of damned wicker to face against wood and bronze, no head protection, and no greaves.
>Unlike the Greeks, whose hoplite warfare developed in Greece which is a land unlike Iran, is very rocky, craggy, mountainous, and has a large number of choke points and passes where a small force of heavily armored men fare far better then larger ones.
Greek war was heavily ritualized. They almost always elected to find flat areas suitable to phalanx usage to fight on. Hoplites were and are poorly suited to mountain warfare and would be devastated by light troops in passes. Heavy troops cannot quickly ascend roudg slopes- Meaning skirmishers can easily get ahead of them, ascend, and shoot at them with near impunity.
>>1079694
>Their infantry didn't wear fucking helmets.
They wore caps and hats, yes but no helmets.
>The VAST majority of Persians in any battle were levies.
No, they weren't. The vast majority of the Persian army were Persians but you are confusing "anyone who serves in the Persian army as being Persian", which isn't true. Also the main support and large numbers of troops were from auxiliaries were levies, forces partitioned from satraps' own personal armies and garrisons that would be a mix of mercenaries, professional soldiers, and levies taken as tribute. The Immortals were the professional standing army, about 10,000 strong.
The additional Persian or otherwise Iranic people formed the backbone of Achaemenid armies and were usually bondsmen who were warriors for life, much like certain Greek counterparts in Sparta.
>No
He was talking about skill. Also for all that heavy armor, the Greeks always were afraid of Persian arrows and marksmanship. Also:
>wicker shields
They used large rectangular shields, usually made of bronze. The claim from Herodotus confuses the standing army with what normal levied troops used (i.e. non Iranians like Egyptian volunteers who were light infantry) who maintained small wooden or wicker shields.
>Greek war was highly ritualized
Hoplites are at their best when used in a stationary or slow approach. Their designed to be deployed in eight man deep formations, so no mobility has never been a factor in Greek warfare up to that point in time.
>>1079739
Mobility wasn't a factor because they actively avoided fighting in areas where a phalanx couldn't form, and fought in a set, ritualized manner. HAd they been using the mountian passes as battlefield, the light troops they had would have dominated the fighting with ease.
You can literally pinpoint the moment this changes down to a specific year, and follow the evolution from that point.
>Their designed to be deployed in eight man deep formations
You could expect to see anything from 4-50 deep.
>The claim from Herodotus confuses the standing army with what normal levied troops used
You mean the VAST MAJORITY of soldiers fielded by the Persian Empire at any given time?
Their best troops are lighter than the average greek by a considerable margin, in terms of both arms and armor. Trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
Also,no- he clearly refers to the immortals.
>but the immortals had
The logic you're using would allow me to argue that the tiny handful of Greeks who still wore am guards and had arrow curtains represent the average. They didn't.
The troops of the Persian empire-which is clearly what that poster was refering to-were very light by greek standards. It's that simple.
>>1079767
>Mobility wasn't a
They did not utilize phalanx formations all the time in their combat. Mobility wasn't a factor because hoplite forces were not expected to have rapid charges or encirclement in the first place.
>You could expect to see anything from 4-50 deep.
No. The typical pattern was 8 men deep in battle formations. Any more then that assembled and it takes too long to mobilize, hence why the Romans tended to kick the Greeks and Macedonians asses because manipules were designed to contrast this by being 3 men deep with more space, typically about 3-5 feet vs the 1-2 feet a hoplite is deployed in a normal phalanx.
>You mean the VAST MAJORITY of soldiers filed by the Persian Empire at any given time?
I think my context was pretty clear on what I was saying there.
>Their best troops are lighter than the average greek
Heavy scale and chainmail armor that covered their chests, shoulders, waist, and lower legs , typical armed with heavy short stabbing swords and the most common actual sidearms of the Companions and Immortals were trench and battle axes. They weren't inferior in arms.
And lighter, yes, "much lighter", no. And certainly not better armored then Persian horsemen.
>He clearly refers to the immortals
You don't get it. Herodotus makes numerous errors with Persian formations, troop identities, ranks, and so on. The regular forces are the Immortals, the elites are the Companions and the Immortals were not levied troops nor acted as spearmen. They were deployed as heavy infantry (regardless of being chainmail vs plate) as shock troopers and archers, not spearmen, that was the Arabian/Indian/Egyptian levies job.
>The troops of the Persian empire-which clearly is what that poster was refering to
Not the one you are responding to earlier, two posts ago.
>were very light by greek standards.
No, the levies were. Not the professional or regular ethnic troops.
>It's that simple.
No.
>>1079815
Jesus. No.
>They did not utilize phalanx formations all the time in their combat
Find a single fucking example of classical Greeks choosing not to use it after the archaic period and before the Peleponesian war.
You can't.
>Mobility wasn't a factor because hoplite forces were not expected to have rapid charges
The Spartans were literally the only Greeks to steadily march to contact and not run. The Greeks found this intimidating.
>or encirclement in the first place.
Men form two victorious wings killing each other during an encirlcment is LITERALLY the reason behind Greeks starting to use national designs on shields.
Their whole tactic was to break a wing and roll up the opposing flank as fast as possible.
>No. The typical pattern was 8 men deep in battle formations
*812.
Except marathon sees the center 4 deep, and lecutra sees thebans fucking 50 deep vs Spartans being 8-12.
Both of these non-standard arrays were done by amateurs.
>and Macedonians
16x16 blocks are the standard unit of organization in the Macedonian phalanx. And yes, it was standarized and well regulated.
>manipules were designed to contrast this by being 3 men deep with more space
Maniples were not desinged with greeks in mind, but gauls and samnites, who were romes great foes of the day.
They were 6-8 ranks deep on average, not fucking 3.
With THREE such 6-8 rank deep lines. Roman armies formed deep, not wide.
>Heavy scale and chainmail armor that covered their chests, shoulders, waist, and lower legs , typical armed with heavy short stabbing swords
Feel free to post a source for this, because it contradicts literally everything i've ever read.
And chain? No. Chain doesn't enter the area until after the celts forcibly migrated into the area, long after the Hellenic conquests have occurred and persia is a dead empire, broken apart and ruled by Hellenes.
>The regular forces are the Immortals
again, you're contradicting everything i've seen on the subject.
>>1079872
ANd in addition to all this-The immortals and companions are the same damn force, and even iranian reenacotrs depict the classic immortals as herodotus describes.
It seems fairly obvious that you're confusing the arms and use of the later, sassanid era immortals for the classical force. They have next to nothing in common.
How important was boipussy in ancient Persia?
>>1079872
>Jesus. No.
You need to re-read what I said earlier.
>Muh Spartans only did this.
Not really. The full armor of a Hoplite weighs about what, 60-70 lbs in full kit, mobility regardless is not a practical issue with that sort of gear.
>Their whole tactic was to break a wing and roll up the opposing flank as fast as possible.
This was everyone's tactic.
>Except Marathon
Except Marathon has the center go 4 deep which was considered non-standard, the wings on both sides were still deployed 8 deep to pull off the double envelopment. Stop trying to obfuscate facts.
>amateurs
Yeah those Corinthians and Thebans who typically kicked pederasty loving Spartan ass sure were "amateurs".
>Macedonians
You mean phalangites typically.
>Maniples were not designed with greeks in mind
No but they were awesome at countering phalanx's and crushing them due to their mobility and wider spaced formations in the first place.
>6 to 8 ranks deep
No, they weren't. They were deployed 3 to 4 deep typically, 40 men to a line. They were always deployed deep in the first place, because they used checkerboard formations that allowed sub-manipules to wheel around. This is why the maniple is superior to the phalanx. The Romans had space and leverage, the Greeks did not once the entire main army formation was broke.
>Scale
Is another word for chainmail, friend. Also chainmail in the Near East has nothing to do with the Celts at all..
>Hellenic conquests
Of about 40 or 50 years, which rapidly degenerated after the Diodachi. Hellenistics really brought nothing and had no permanence in Iranian lands.
>again youre contradicting
No I'm not. The Companions and Immortals are two very different organizations. The Companions are the elite infantry, who are the bodyguards and royal guards. The Immortals are the regular professional soldiers a tier below them. The Immortals were not the regular army's name but the Companions never amassed more then 1000 men, so no.
>>1079900
No, I'm not. The Companions specifically numbered 1000 men and were stationed at all times in the capital cities or accompanying the king's person directly. The Immortals and the Zheydan Immortals are not being confused.
Herodotus informant mistook the Persian word for "Companion" with "Immortal" because in Old Persian they are very similar sounding to Greek ears. Its fairly obviously I know a lot more about Persian warfare then you do.
>>1079900
>>1079872
If you are using the wikipedia article, its pretty much outdated and flawed, even with the basis of Herodotus as its main source, dudester. There were two different main Persian forces that were held at all times in the Achaemenid dynasty's reign.
A) Companions: who Herodotus mistakes as the "Immortals" who only numbered about 1,000 men of noble birth who acted as the personal guards, enforcers, and elite units for the King directly
B) Whatever the "real name" for the Immortals was who numbered over 10,000 men and were formed by Persian and Median soldiery of freeman caste who were employed as the regular soldiers
Mr. Farrokh covers this pretty extensively in his books and articles.
>>1079914
Not very. In Northern Afgahnistan though they're ending Alexander's legacy of boy loving.
>>1079939
>Not really. The full armor of a Hoplite weighs about what, 60-70 lbs in full kit, mobility regardless is not a practical issue with that sort of gear.
Having worn that much gear-you can fucking run in it.
On top of that, EVERY SINGLE primary source has hoplite being prone to break into a shambling run before contact.
>This was everyone's tactic.
Except it wasn't. Romans preferred to steamroll the center and then defeat both wings in detail. Celts mounted a massed charge and tried to simply sweep a foe off the field.
Iberian tactics were exceptionally varied.
>Yeah those Corinthians and Thebans who typically kicked pederasty loving Spartan ass sure were "amateurs".
They were literally amateurs, you fucking moron, with the exception of a band of men comprising 5% of the fighting force.
>No but they were awesome at countering phalanx's and crushing them due to their mobility and wider spaced formations in the first place.
....which is why they initiated battles by attacking them head on.
>No, they weren't. They were deployed 3 to 4 deep typically, 40 men to a line
And yet, the primary sources-polybius especially, a fucking contemporary witness to roman battles and a soldier himself- directly contradict you.
>because they used checkerboard formations that allowed sub-manipules to wheel around.
The quincux closes the gaps and forms solid lines once in contact.
>Is another word for chainmail, friend
No, it fucking isn't. It's a totally different armor, made with scales, not cvhain links,m hence the name. It also behaves very differently.
>Also chainmail in the Near East has nothing to do with the Celts at all..
Please then, tell me how the persians are the ONE people to invent it themselves and not gain the use of said armor through cultural diffusion started by migrating celts, who fucking invented it.
Bear in mind, there's no written source for it EXISTING in this time period-anywhere.
You have yet to post a source. And you won't.
>>1079967
>maniple
>>1079959
Please, post an actual citation for chain-armored, sword and shield wearing immortals. And then explain how the Persians have chain before it is known to have existed in their part of the world at all, and how no source comments on it, and no art depicts it.
And then explain why the few depictions we have of immortals shows them with spear, bow, and robes, just as herodotus describes.
>>1079972
The article you stole that from has no source at all for your statement, or for the image.
>>1079967
>Having worn that much gear
Sure you have.
>shambling run
Sure, that's not the same thing as fucking constantly moving set piece large formations at an advanced pace or sprint or anything which is what I was getting at, you dong.
>Except it wasn't.
Except it typically was. Gauls liked to use ambushes that had large formations of men hit at the wings, same as the Persians, Medes, Assyrians, Babylonians, Iberian, Carthigians, and so on.
>They were literally amateurs.
Who typically kicked Spartan asses. Good for them, right? Right.
>Polybius
That's the source I'm using, same with Plutarch, Tacticus, and Caesar. They deployed their formations in maniples typically 3 to 4 men deep, but spaced wide enough to give each man enough room to fight with about 2 feet of clearance behind or around him. Which makes it easier for Roman soldiers to cycle in and out for a fresh rank to replace them the combat lines.
So don't try that bullshit with me.
>The blah blah blah
Didn't work for the Macedonians, didn't work for the Greeks, didn't work for the Seleucids, or the Antigoids. The Phalanx is absolutely shit at dealing with maniples or cohort formations.
>No it fucking isn't.
Your right, I made a mistake with scale and mail armor, there I'll concede on that.
>>1079984
>Chain armored
You mean scale-armored, sword wielding Persians? We have plenty of frescoes and friezes of that at Persepolis, you can simply google them, my man.
>robes
My friend, its a commonly well known fact with anyone who possess a semi-functioning brain that the Persians worse their clothes, tunics and jackets both, over their armor. Also, the friezes at Perspeolis depicts the Immortals in ceremonial uniform, not in battle readiness, so please stop being so autistic.
Now can you tell me when the Persians had ANY interactions with the Celts?
>stole that from
That was copy-pasted straight from wikipedia based off articles posted in Osprey books that use various sources like Tacticus for information, don't be autistic.
>>1079993
>worse
*wore
>>1079989
>Gauls
>ambushes
These same fucking people are also known for issuing challenges to single combat, and noted for their exceptionally fierce charge.
Yes, they launched ambushes. When fighting in the open, they did not focus on crushing wings, but on sweeping their foes off the field entirely.
>>1079993
The empire didn't. The people living in western reaches the former empire got PLENTY of interaction from the Galatians, who would have introduced chain armor to the region.
>>1079989
You're posting things the sources don't actually describe, and confusing later writers, dealing with professional legions-who are able to b more detailed-for the earlier ones.
For early republican legions-the only ones relevant to "why the Romans fought the way they did instead of as hoplites- i've seen arguments ranging from 6-8 deep-the most common-to yours, to a VERY fucking compelling argument form J.E Lendon that the maniple doesn't even have a formation.
Specifically, he argues that roman arms are uniquely suited to individualized combat-hence the lack of spears-that enlistment oaths mention that a man can leave the company to attack and enemy, and that no actual formation is ever described for an actual maniple.
Essentially he argues that the first two lines are actually clumps of men organized into a coherent, but rough line with no set places or shape.
Regardless, even if you're right-two 3-4 deep lines, plus the 6x10 triarii-this is explicitly described-means they're overall 16-18 ranks deep in total.
Which is still deeper than a hoplite phalanx.
>>1080012
Go ahead and post sources of direct relations between Persians and Celts, I'm waiting for this, especially since Persian presence in Europe even with solely basis of trade routes would've been absolutely tenous at best and sporadically intermittent. Especially since the earliest attested proof we have is the Sassanids in the 3rd century in Asia.
>Youre posting things from sources don't actually describe and confusing later writers
Polybius talked about pre-Marian Roman armies, so no I'm not. He compares and contrasts the strengths and weaknesses Roman vs Greek style of warfare had, especially with the Phalanx vs the Maniple. And I'm using Osprey's "The Roman Army" directly for my main source.
But anyways this is completely off topic for a thread about Iranians. If you want to make one about Roman armor and battle tactics for Greeks, go ahead and do so.
Why are Indo-Iranian religions so much more interesting then boring Abrahamic ones?
>>1071993
The most uniformed Iranian-centric explanation I've ever read. Wow
Bet this is the same retard from last night claiming that Greece should have submitted to Persia so it could be more culturally prosperous.
>>1082212
It's entirely true though.
>>1082212
Ofc it's going to Iranian centric, Indo-Yuropeeons came out of central fucking Asia.
>>1082282
I'd bet all my limbs he's here.
>>1079966
Pretty sure the Persian kings were enjoying boipussy long before Alexander m8
>>1070732
>>1082454
Here's a (You)
>>1082543
Stop shitposting.
>>1082543
Holy shit you are dumb.
>>1082524
Top laff m8
Bagoas was Darius III lover before Alexander took possession of him. You are full of shit
>>1082595
>Bagoas was Darius III's lover
A) What does that have to do with Bacha Bazi?
B) Proof
>>1082577
cool shop my dude
>>1082617
>shop
Sorry to say but more then one anon here is responding to your dumb posts. Like I asked you earlier, can you kindly just fuck off?
>>1078139
Kek, they don't get bracer nor fortified walls.
#REKT
>>1082663
That's a pity that someone is that delusional then.
>>1082667
They had fortified walls, that's only a part of the Dagestan fortification. You do realize the Byzantines were very heavily dependent on the Persians maintaining fortresses and garrisons in the Caucasus and Eurasia for a reason right? That's why they paid the Sassanids to hold and build those defenses.
>>1082677
Byzantines are OP anyway, their buildings get extra HP and they get cheap counter units, which fucking REKS any persian army. Halberdiers and camels deal an insane amount of bonus damage against Persian elephants and cavalry, and the Persians don't even get fucking two-handed swordsmen to counter those.
>>1082704
>their buildings
So just Constantinople? Like I said earlier, Persian engineers and siege masters were the main reason why the Byzantines were constantly paying huge fees and settlements to the Sassanids because the Persians were generally much better at holding off nomadic tribes then the Byzantines were.
Like how Attila ravaged much of the Byzantine Empire but the only thing he couldn't do was breach Constantiople's defenses itself. They had to pay him off. When Attila tried to invade through the Caucasus was a large force under one of his cousins, the entire Hunnic army was annihilated in two battles, one in Armenia and a second outside of Ctesiphon.
>>1082726
*with a large force
>>1082726
>>1082742
Byzantines and Persians both suck at siege, the only thing the Persians have that the Byzantines don't is the Heavy Scorpion, which is a more or less useless upgrade anyway.
Huns and Mongols are both cavalry and cavalry archer civilizations, and the Byzantines can fucking crush them with their trash units and camels. Granted, the Hunnic and Mongol siege units are pretty good and sort of negate the building HP bonus. But neither of them get Bombard Cannons, so there's that. War Elephants may be the strongest unit in the game, but they're also the most expensive and easy to counter with spearmen and fast archers.
TL;DR, Persians are only real good for one strategy and Byzantines are great at everything, can counter everything, and will win against everything, including Persians and nomadic tribes.
>>1078883
>I was wondering what middle eastern Jews are considered
TAA-DAA!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews
>>1082782
>Byzantines and Persians both suck at siege
No they didn't. One of the main reasons why the siege of Constantinople failed was because the Persian siege engineers were killed trying to circle around the straits to get to their Slavic and Avar allies who lacked both the skill and technical experience to create siege weapons to breach the gates and walls of the city.
Also heavy scorpions only? That is wrong. They used mobile siege towers, battering rams, catapults, and trebuchets which were a match for their Byzantine counterpats as well.
>Persians are only real good for one strategy
Wrong. A certain Byzantine military officer and historian is very explicit that the Persians were the most dangerous foes of the Romans/Byzantines because "like us, they excelled in generalship and strategy, rather then brute force."
>and will win against everything
They frequently lost as much as they won, dude. The final three wars before the 602-629 AD last Byzo-Persian War had the Persians constantly taking tributes from their Byzantine counterparts.
>>1082782
>game
What the fuck are you babbling about
If the Persians sucked as much as you were claiming then the Byzantines wouldn't have been so reliant so many times during peace between Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Empire for the Persians to maintain fortifications and defensive networks in the Caucasus and Central Asia because like >>1082726 pointed out, the Persians were good at redirecting barbarians away from them with their military power.
Was Ya'qub Saffarid the Persian equivalent of Chuck Norris?
>>1082889
What does that make Mardavji then?
>>1082893
I don't know who that is but I probably should have used King Arthur instead of Chuck Norris
>>1082843
>Also heavy scorpions only? That is wrong.
That's the only thing where the Persians can one-up the Byzantines. They have indetical tech trees in the siege workshop and university, but Persians get the Heavy Scorpion and the Byzantines don't.
>>1082850
>What the fuck are you babbling about
In this post >>1082667 I made a joke relating to the vidya game Age of Empires II and its portrayal of the Persian civilization. I though that was really, really obvious now, but the banter was just too enjoyable. I could not stop. Thanks for that.
>>1082912
Nigger I haven't played Ages of Empires II since I was 11 years old and that was more then a decade ago.
>>1082906
Founder of the Ziyarid dynasty, who were Persian royalty by being one of the cadet branches of House Suren and House Sasan, the founder was anti-Muslim and was kicking the shit out of his Iranian Muslim and Arab rivals in Iran until he got assassinated.
>>1082927
ah ok
makin me real agitated my only exposure to medieval persia is through crusader cucks 2 and that game doesn't even have a means to play in that specific decade range
>>1082927
>Nigger I haven't played Ages of Empires II since I was 11 years old and that was more then a decade ago.
You should give it another try, it's a great game. Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds too.
Could someone translate this into Farsi? I can't find that translation anywhere.
https://youtu.be/XwfLzbb3bLw
In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter—bitter,” he answered;
“But I like it
“Because it is bitter,
“And because it is my heart.”
>>1083077
Translate it to Persian? Why?
>>1082605
>with whom Darius was intimate and with whom Alexander would later be intimate... "Quintus Curtius Rufus"(BOOK VI. 5.23)
>>1083139
I want to read the Farsi translation along with her. I can't find it anywhere. I looked on the bands website and googled ""In the Desert" in Farsi" to no avail.
Do you post on askhistorians
>>1083200
>source written multiple centuries later
>Bagoas
>eunuch
>sexual relations
Yeah I'm not accepting that claim at all.
>>1072488
Amen
>>1083473
>SACROSANCT
>IRANIAN
>DOMINION
>>1076503
How do you know how they looked like?
>>1083700
Because all of the attested Sassanid family rulers have inscriptions, friezes, and sculptures of themselves with their customized crowns in various places in Iran to this day?
There's the colossal statute of Shapur the Great for example.
>>1080034
>perisans
>europe
How in the fuck do you not know about a Galatia?
Celts migrated into anatolia and founded a kingdom, anon. There was also a sizeable population settled in Egypt. Given the propensity of celts to migrate-and the fact that they served in sucessor armies fairly often-, it's a near guarantee that interaction occurred, and this how they-and the greeks-would have acquired mail armor.
>>1084187
I asked you about Celtic and Persian interactions in Achaemenid times dude, not Celtic and Greek interactions or relationship.
>>1083237
>it's not a real source unless I agree with it
Persians fucked boys m8, there's nothing to be ashamed of
>>1084298
>a guy writes a claim
>more then 400 years later
>when never being at any the sites or locations he's talking about
>Bagoas is a eunuch
>Darius III murdered all the court enhuchs because how they ruined the Achaemenid family successively by the start of the late 5th/early 4th centuries
>"just agree with it even though its probably groundless"
Nah. Peddle that crap somewhere else.
>>1084298
I dunno dude, its kind of iffy given Rufus is known for anti-Persian and anti-Parthian bias, talking about an incident and historical figures he's never met, several centuries later, and its well known that Darius III ordered the massacre of the remaining court eunuchs because of Bagoas' treachery in the first place as well as no indication in most any other and the courtier dude was just known as a favored dancer.
This narrative is suspect pretty hard, especially since of how spontaneously we're supposed to believe Darius III might've been bisexual? Nah I'm with that anon, its probably not true.
>>1084370
Bagoas' presence as a enunch in Darius' court is a matter of historical record. He attested the account of the Persian nobleman Nabarzanes after the latter surrendered to Alexander, having betrayed and arrested Darius.
Fun fact: after the disaster at Arbela, Darius was deserted by his Persian followers. Even the legendary Immortals abandoned their posts. The only unit that remained faithful to the Great King were Patron's Greek mercenaries.
'Treacherous' and 'Persian' might as well be cognates.
>>1084389
I never contested the courtier's presence, I contested your claims of trusting Rufus that there was some sort of implicit sexual relationship between Darius III and Bagoas. Which are definitely not supported outside of hearsay and inconvenient claims.
>Treacherous and Persian might as well be cognates.
I'm sorry, my pederasty loving friend, but that's more of a Greek thing. Fun fact cultural mixing was instigated by Darius the Great long before Alexander showed up.
Also you clearly a shitposter fishing for responses, why are you in an Iranian thread? Don't you have something better to do?
>>1084389
Nice /pol/ bullshit. What exactly is any soldier supposed to do when their ruler has lost three major engagements, a lionshare of their military force and constantly retreated from battle?
Go away.
>>1084389
>Treacherous
>from the people who liberated the Jews, financed the reconstruction of the Great Temple, rebuilt Judea, allowed religious freedom and autonomy, and some of the most notable men in history hail from their nation and race
Yeah, dude.
Totally.
Upvoted.
>>1084389
If you want to talk about treachery how about how the Lydian vassal states of the Ionian Greeks when Cyrus was about to face off with Croesus army sent messengers telling him he would fail utterly? And after Cyrus defeated Croesus and captured Sardis, they sent messengers again demanding the same high status and privledges they enjoyed under Croesus despite their earlier flouting where only Miletus remained true in their word to honor their pact with the Persians, and the third time they sent an envoy demanding Cyrus recongize their freedom after he dismissed them for their arrogance?
You surely have a strangely wired memory to cherrypick historical events to suit your biased narrative, my very likely racist friend.
>>1084449
Which historical source? Rufus invented a claim without providing any evidence.
>Your people
I'm not Persian. Please stop trying to poison the well, Golden Dawn man.
>even of their kings
No, it isn't. Actually as you post more, I can definitely detect you have a very clear line of bias in your posts. Again, why are you here aside from shitposting?
Also its very clear you are in fact a racist whose trying to impose unrelated modern events onto ancient times, which is the hallmark of a dishonest individual with a blatant agenda.
End result: you are a shitposter.
>>1084449
>>1084458
Nice (You), /pol/.
>historical source
I asked you before to given me a shred of evidence to post proof of Rufus' invented claims which I am familiar with and you simply repeated ad naseum "if its written it has to be true" despite the disparity in time, location, and lack of any truth to his claims, while also refusing to acknowledge he was well known for his anti-Persian/Iranian stance even in early Principate times compared to other Roman writers.
I'm not buying it and no one else has to.
>>1084458
>Defect?
Why should they? Several of the Eastern satraps were still having bannermen and soldiers who fled Darius' controls to their bases and outposts.
>treachery of Persians
Yep, Greeks never burned Sardis to the ground, fomented a revolt because a certain tyrant's corruption in Miletus was going to come up conspicuously to Darius' ears which even Herodotus and Thucydides mention repeatedly his name with disdain for his lack of character, and even murdering of unarmed Persian messengers sure isn't Greek treachery.
So fuck off with your bullshit.
>>1084470
You are a spoiled little child. Rufus' account is the only one we have of Darius' final days. If you'd like to dismiss that in order to deny the claim of Darius having a male lover, then be my guest. But there isn't any evidence on the other side of that argument.
>>1084463
The Greeks were hardly one people. The Macedonians who toppled your Persian Empire were not even considered true Greeks in most respects. The snobbery and bombast of Athens, which by Phillip's time was essentially all they had left, probably contributed to this. And yet there is a case that ethnically speaking, the Macedonians were not true Greeks.
The treachery of Artaxerxes II is also a matter of historical record. He even tortured and killed the man who struck down Cyrus for daring to boast of his accomplishment.
>>1084476
So deposing your King and trading him to Alexander is less treacherous than deserting? Look at the buffoon they put in charge afterwards.
As I said above, the Greeks were not one people. The treachery of the Athenians, for instance, should not serve to discredit the Lacedaemonians.
>>1084505
>Rufus' account
An untrustworthy one. That simple, there is no records otherwise corrobrating his claim and I've already dismantled your prior arguments for considering his claims valid.
Get over it.
I am no spoiled child for accepting your unverified narrative of historiography, you aren't going to change this at all here.
>The Greeks were hardly one people.
Greeks are Greeks, my dishonest shitposter, its that simple.
>treachery of Artaxerxes II
You mean the brother of the man Mithridates killed Cyrus the Younger entirely by accident, and when told not to boast about it by both the King and his mother, did so despite being told so when drunken? He had it coming, and that certainly isn't treachery when forewarned of the consequences before hand.
Once again, you obfuscate and lie, which is academically a very dishonest thing for a supposed /his/torian.
>Buffon
They were a coalition, Bessus had no formal backing for the throne aside from his position as a member of the Achaemenid family and his satrapy being that of Bactaria, which is the equivalent of being the Head of the House of York for the Crown Heir in England.
>Greeks are not one people.
Yes they are.
>>1084522
*for not accepting
>>1084449
Arrian uses contemprary accounts when writing the Anabasis of Alexander and doesn't talk about any implict or sexual relationship between the fuckboy or Darius III, Rufus uses no direct sources and makes a circumstantial claim.
I don't know dude but you sound like your full of shit like the other anons were saying. At least be an honest enough person and admit that. Like he said, its clear all your doing here is riling people up, projecting baitposts, and trying to piss people off.
Go away and make some Greek general thread to masturbate and invent crap up.
>>1084505
>The Greeks were hardly one people.
So were the Persians, retard. There were over a dozen different Persian tribes alone divided between Anshan and Pars. Just admit you have no idea of what you are talking about, because saying the "Greeks" were hardly one people while claiming the opposite for Persians is horseshit.
Actually fuck it, I'll just hide your posts and report you for shitting up the thread so hard, if that was your goal, congrats you succeeded.
>>1084522
>>1084542
>>1084553
I'd like to believe that these are all the work of one very bitter pseudo-historian, but it seems we have more than a few charlatans at work here.
Rufus is a weak source, I agree; but that does not mean he wrote pure fiction. Where a story cannot be corroborated by other accounts, but is not directly contradicted by anything else, there is at least as much evidence for it as against it. Rufus did have the luxury of working from firsthand source which unfortunately are no longer extant.
Pederasty was commonplace enough in the ancient world, and I do not see why you are so loathe to concede that Persians did engage in it. Perhaps you are a Moslem and find homosexuality morally repellent; but even so, the concepts of homo and heterosexual did not exist in the ancient world. Boys were beloved in Greece, Persia, Rome, China and elsewhere.
The differing ethnicity of the many Greek tribes is a matter of anthropological fact. I could refer you to an appendix in Arrian's Campaigns, but I doubt you'd bother to read it.
Artaxerxes was vexed that Mithridates should make him out to be a liar (which he most certainly was), and I don't deny that Mithridates was a fool to do it, but it was barbaric all the same to torture and murder a man for crediting his own achievement. I observe that you have nicely skirted around the deplorable treachery in which this same king engaged when dealing with Xenophon and his generals, whom he had summoned on the pretense of reaching terms, and then executed as soon as they were in custody. Such cowardice would have appalled Alexander, to be sure.
Again, Rufus' sources cannot be assessed, because they no longer exist.
Persian society was composite, there is no question. But I believe I am within my rights to point out that all Great Kings were in fact of Persian descent, and there was a deal of treachery among them, undoubtedly. The Immortals were chiefly comprised of ethnic Persians, but also other peoples.
>>1084613
Rufus uses Cleitarchus, which is well known in academia as a highly romantacized motivated writer whose accounts are highly critizized and generally dismissed. No one else, not Arrian, not Plutarch, not Pliny, not Diodorus, claim any homosexuality involvement for Darius III or Alexander.
Only Rufus does.
Singularly.
His word is not credible at all. His main source is not credible, and his main source on top of that is neither contemprary nor written factually but rather romantically with exaggerations which are known to us to this day.
>Pederasty was common place
Not really. Particularly in ancient Greece, Italy, and Southern Europe in particula, sure. It has no archaeological, ethnological, or written accounting in ancient Persia until AFTER the Macedonian invasion and even then it was literally confined to northern Afghanistan in a few remote province while wide spread in Greece comparatively. Though I bet you also believe Greek propaganda that Persian children of both genders routinely had orgies with their relatives too.
Either way on the original tangent, there is absolutely zero evidence nor margin to accept Rufus's claims at all.
>your rights
I don't care for your rights, you've been outed multiple times on your claims and arguments.
>Immortals
Only Persians and Medes were allowed to serve in them. Oh yeah now that I'm remember correctly, even the name of the Immortals is incorrect sine Herodotus botched the Persian words for companions and death together.
>treachery
Nothing compared to the Greeks. Also for the last time I'm asking you to leave the thread again
>>1084613
>Rufus is a weak source I'll agree
>But say he isn't anyways despite the fact every other source contradicts him and pre-dates his works by hundreds of years with better access
Yeah okay, troll kun, whatever you say.
>Pederasty
Definitely a Greek thing, even the word in the English language is derived from the Greek language itself.
>Barbaric
Coming from the faggot who turns his face to Greek atrocities, crimes, and lies by hand waving a bullshit claim that not all Greeks are Greeks because of different tribes? I don't think anyone is buying your shit then or now still, so no, I don't think so. Also you neglect to concede the fact even fucking Xenophon mentions the one who puts Mithirdates to death and the way he was executed was Cyrus the Younger's mother herself and the earlier fact that Mithridates was warned not to open his mouth.
Yeah scaphism sucks, so does being burned alive for hours in a hollowed out bronze or iron bull, you dipshit.
>skirted around
Who has skirted around? Your entire shitick the last hour is lying through your teeth, telling half truths at best, constantly lying, moving goal posts, and otherwise interjecting racially charged insults at ancient Persians by attacking their modern descendants, you are in zero position to talk about anyone "skirting" around anything here you deflective sack of shit.
>Persian sociey was composite
No it wasn't. Modern archaeological finds shows that Persepolis was only a ceremonial capital in Iran, the majority of the stone buildings used tented covers or roofs because the Persians were still semi-nomadic even late into Darius' time, and each tribe inhabited its own sub-provincial region areas all over western and Southern Iran. Don't sing me your bullshit.
Also don't bother responding, I'm just going to ignore your autistic bullshit hereon.
>>1084642
No, I think I'll stick around, if only to retard your ability to spread disinformation.
Rufus did use Cleitarchus, but so too did Diodorus, Justin, Plutarch and Curtius. Rufus would however have had access to Ptolemy and Callisthenes, as well as whatever fragments of the ephemerides were still in existence. I have a feeling you are dead-set against granting him even an ounce of credibility because it would undermine your position that the Persians did not engage in pederasty, which by all accounts they did. Both Plutarch and Sextus Empiricus stated as much, and the former got into a public debate with Herodotus over it.
I'm not sure what you're insinuating, as I haven't been spreading fictions about any people, which is more than can be said for you, unfortunately.
Elamites were also permitted to serve in the Immortals, if we are interested in being correct.
That the Greeks engaged in treachery, particularly against each other, is not an argument against the treachery of the Persians, which has been extensively documented.
>>1084662
I'm having trouble finding any salient points here that aren't ad hom bluster. Perhaps you'd like to stick to the subject?
The Persian Empire was enormous and included many different peoples under its banner: Scythians, Bactrians, Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Elamites, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. The capital city may have been undiversified, but the empire itself was quite diverse.
You bring up Greek atrocities, but there are plenty of Persian ones as well, such as the Greek craftsmen enslaved to produce jewelry at Persepolis, and who often had their limbs removed to prevent them from fleeing the city. When the city was abandoned to Alexander, a large band of these poor slaves met Alexander on the road. Most of them had one foot off, fingers removed, an eye cut out, or something of that kind. The sight they produced probably reentered Alexander's mind on the hazy night he decided to burn Persepolis to the ground.
>>1084701
You are a petty little cretin who can't handle intelligent discourse. You are everything wrong with this board.
Reported as well. We'll see who gets thrown out.
>>1084698
>retard disinformation
Kind of a misnomer since you've been lying and twisting ancient sources to fit a made up narrative with your racist crap?
>Diodorus
Not my main source but interesting how Arrian and all others don't share, corroborate, or otherwise coincidence with Rufus' claims? Funny how this slipped your mind, also again amusing how you have no rebuttal for the fact many academic sources dismiss Rufus's claims of sexuality because they're generally invented and made up on the spot by him.
Get over it.
>Elamites in the Immortals
Very few, and in all likelihood more likely darker skinned Iranians. By the 5th century, the Elamite language was dead for a reason.
>I haven't been spreading fiction
Yes you have, you lying little fucker. You are repetaedly, ad naseum, ad infinitum, repeating a stupid claim that Rufus' singular instance that Darius and Alexander were homosexuals as fucking canon and gospel in this thread. You have done nothing but bring about Stormfront tier shitposts to the thread and you are academically dishonest.
>Greek craftsmen enslaved
You mean the ones we have literally thousands of records from the Persian fortification tablets in Persepolis? Enslaved by being paid? You made this claim in the other thread and got blown out before from it.
>limbs removed
Lying, again.
>>1084712
There is no intelligent discourse when you have zero intelligence to begin with, you are simply shitposting and trolling. The no you response isn't going to help you at all.
You can obfsucate, lie, twist, and deny every single fact as much as you want that counters your claims. No one is buying it.
>Reported as well. We'll see who gets thrown out.
I'd wager that'd be you, Stormfront kun.
>>1084389
>>1084449
>"Treacherous" and "Persian" might as well be cognates.
>"It's clear enough that your people left behind whatever nobility they formerly had."
Keep breaking those global rules though.
Ha. Called it. It is the same faggot from yesterday.
>>1084752
Nice (You)
>>1084752
Yeah you sure "did" buddy: >>1082626
>>1082577
>>1084739
Twisting and denying ancient sources appears to be your only real stratagem here. I added Plutarch and Empiricus to the argument, but either you aren't familiar with them, or you deny their credibility as well. I'm guessing the former.
Rufus may have fabricated the detail, but I'm willing to credit it. You aren't. It's called a disagreement. Deal with it.
Didodorus says of the Greek slaves Alexander met:
'All had been mutilated. Some lacked hands, some feet, some ears and noses. They were men who had learned skills and crafts and done well in training: after which, their other extremities had been cut off and they were left only with those on which their work depended.'
Curtius adds that many were elderly, relics from Ochus' days, and that these had been branded as well.
Alexander wept for them, and set them up in a small city with their families.
The Persians of today cannot compare with their ancient ancestors, as is the case with the Greeks. Persians are beautiful, articulate people, but apart from that they have little to show for their noble ancestry. The Greeks are not even beautiful anymore, so I suppose they have come out worse.
>>1084776
>Twisting and denying ancient sources.
I didn't deny anything, I asked you why you were treating Rufus like gospel or absolute canon when he's only singular in his belief of homosexuality with Alexander and Darius III. Why are you strawmaning so hard and trying to move the goal posts? Is it because the truth hurts?
>I'm willing to credit it
No one cared until you attempted to enforce this as fact, you mongoloid sack of shit. Are you dyslexic or merely mentally unbalanced with that shitty memory of yours? We repeatedly asked you why so many other sources contradict Rufus and you gave nothing
If you actually paid attention you knew Rufus was more focused on fucking talking about Alexander's psychology and behavior then his actual exploits or history..
>The Persians of today cannot compare with their ancient ancestors, as is the case with the Greeks.
There we go with the Stormfront shit again, ad naseum.
>>1084776
>What Rufus says is absolute fact because I believe
t. Golden Dawn
Also moron, there's a reason why Arrian is the most trusted source on Alexander's life and not Rufus.
>>1084776
Another incident worth mentioning:
Before Alexander marched south to engage Darius in 333, he set up a field hospital at the inlet bay at Issus, leaving his sick and wounded behind. Darius, marching north (in what was probably his boldest and stupidest strategic move in the whole war) marched North by a different route, and reached the Macedonian camp at Alexander's rear. Whether by order or by negligence, the Persians cut up the Macedonians in their sick-tents. Arrian reports that they were tortured to death. Curtius (probably being fanciful) says that Darius had their hands cut off and cauterized with hot pitch.
In any event, Alexander never took revenge for this atrocity in the field.
>>1084803
Why do neglect to mention the passage Arrian dedicates on the fact that Darius "could not afford to give quarter with so many of his own troops depleted"? Why do you cherrypick and lie so much?
>>1084791
>>1084796
You seem to be a tad slow in the head. Did you miss this line:
>Rufus may have fabricated the detail, but I'm willing to credit it.
And that's because Bagoas was almost certainly Alexander's lover, and would have had some training as a royal eunuch prior to that.
>so many other sources contradict Rufus
So many that you've yet to name one? I agree he is dubious, but in this regard I see no reason not to believe him, since everything else he reports relating to the eunuch Bagos is perfectly credible. On top of that, we have Plutarch and Empiricus attesting to pederasty among the Persians.
>>1084807
Which passage is that friend? I have Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander spread across my lap right now.
>>1084807
Ah nice, just sweep away the atrocity of killing the sick and wounded.
>>1084809
You seem a tad slow in the head. Did you miss this factoid:
>No other ancient historians collaborate with Rufus's claims of homosexuality.
Are you sick in the head? Dyslexic? Give me a source that isn't Rufus. Oh wait, you can't because every other source like Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and so forth contradict him by never mentioning it or addressing it in the first place.
I've named several. Its not my fault you are blind and obstinate, and refuse to address them, faggot kun.
>>1084811
>>1084813
Autism the poster, I direct your attention to this passage and how Arrian frames it.
>just sweep away
As much as you "sweep" away by lying continously and spreading a singular historical claim from a singular individual that isn't corroborated or supported by anyone else in ancient or modern history studies?
Keep being delusional.
>>1084813
>The Greeks burned Sardis and killed hundreds of Persian men, raped Persian women, and sold their children into slavery via transmission from Ionia to mainland Greece
>They murder Persian soldiers fleeing the battle or had already disarmed and thrown down their weapons by slaughtering them in great numbers and frequently killed Persian messengers and envoys
>Talk about atrocities
You are a biased man, Stormfront kun.
>>1084809
No other historians make any claims about a male lover or homosexuality with Alexander or the last Persian king besides only Rufus. That burden of proof is on you. Secondly, there is no "almost certainly" because not a single one of said historians from aforementioned earlier posts, makes a mention of Bagoas being involved with Darius III other then Rufus again, so that is not valid.
Thirdly, you are still projecting a made up claim that you only base from Rufus' tertiary account, which isn't rooted with actual direct sources, as fact which is absolutely the most dishonest thing anyone could do.
>Check thread yesterday
>'Neat I don't know shit about Persians, this might be cool'
>Check thread today
>'m-muh /pol/! Souflakianos can't be trusted he was biased! PERSIAN LIES NEVER TRUST PERSIANS'
Come on fám
>>1084835
Its the same fucking guy from the Greece thread who was making shit up and claiming anyone who disagreed with him was the same poster. He alternates between episodes of well structured fabricated /pol/ shit and retard /b/ tier autism.
Just report and hide his posts.
>>1084821
>contradict by never mentioning
I'm not sure your grasp of logic is quite solid, amigo.
What bastardized, abridged version of Arrian is this? That remark is entirely fabricated, I suspect by an editor taking liberties.
It does not appear Chinnock or Romm
Chinnock:
>Darius crossed the mountain range by what are called the Amanic Gates, and advancing towards Issus, came without being noticed to the rear of Alexander.[1] Having reached Issus, he captured as many of the Macedonians as had been left behind there on account of illness. These he cruelly mutilated and slew. Next day he proceeded to the river Pinarus. As soon as Alexander heard that Darius was in his rear, because the news did not seem to him trustworthy, he embarked some of the Companions in a ship with thirty oars, and sent them back to Issus, to observe whether the report was true. The men who sailed in the thirty-oared ship, discovered the Persians encamped there more easily, because the sea in this part takes the form of a bay. They therefore brought back word to Alexander that Darius was at hand.
Romm:
>pic related
>>1084841
forgot the pic
>>1084841
>That remark is entirely fabricated.
>"Uh oh he called out my shit better say its wrong."
>>1084841
>nothing exists to corroborate said claim besides a guy who uses non primary sources.
Still waiting, faggot kun.
>>1084841
>>1084846
Try harder.
Also, I'm liking >>1084854 still waiting for your proof of Rufus's made up bullshit being fact. Put up with sources that corroborate his claims, now.
>>1084852
Give me a source you charlatan, I want to see what retarded version of Arrian you're going off of, because it might explain a lot
>>1084854
Waiting for what, your balls to drop?
You will be a long time waiting, I think.
Rufus had access to FIRST HAND material such as Ptolemy and Callisthenes, as well as whatever fragments of the ephemerides (royal scribe's day journal) were still in existence. It is no longer extant, so we can't examine it.
>>1084862
>0 sources
You are blind.
>>1084863
>Waiting for what, your balls to drop?
This is the worst attempt at an insult I've seen.
>You will be a long time waiting, I think.
This is also really worded grammatically, are you ESL by chance?
>Rufus had access to first hand
No, he didn't. He never did.
http://www.livius.org/articles/person/curtius-rufus/
>>1084862
>has provided 0 sources
You are dumber then belief can postulate at this point.
>Persian Studies Major at Tehran University posting with a VPN?
If you want to keep being retarded and trying to poison the well with this made up bullshit, the least you can do is use the most stereotypical generic bullshit of trying to uncreatively word that I'm Persian or Iranian, my shit-eating retard of a poster.
>>1084863
>you charlatan
Are you the dude whose been fucking a thread about Iranians with your autism, when you turned the whole thread upside by frothing over one awful Roman historian whose shit isn't generally accepted in most academic circles?
That's ironic.
>>1084872
>Yet, he is not an uncritical imitator: he has read other sources (Ptolemy, Aristobulus) and sometimes corrects his model.
Please source that screencap of Arrian so I can have a good laugh and go to bed
>>1084835
You are talking about a guy with top tier absolute autism who decided from his very first post he was going to fuck up the thread. I've reported all of his posts and mods have yet to do a single thing. This is why this board sucks so much ass.
>>1084885
>Uncritical imitator
>"Cleitarchus, however, had based himself on the stories told by soldiers, who sometimes exaggerated or did not fully understand what was happening. Errors were inevitable, and slipped, through Cleitarchus, to the History of Curtius Rufus."
Do you have tunnel vision?
>>1084889
>waaaah why won't the mods ban this guy for ruining my thread with strong arguments and rock solid scholarship
>>1084896
What strong arguments, Stormfront?
>>1084893
>One of Rufus' sources isn't perfect, so all his work is bunk
>>1084901
>Cleitarchus, however, had based himself on the stories told by soldiers, who sometimes exaggerated or did not fully understand what was happening. Errors were inevitable, and slipped, through Cleitarchus, to the History of Curtius Rufus.
Do you have tunnel vision?
>>1084893
SOURCE THAT PASSAGE FROM ARRIAN OR LEAVE 4CHAN FOREVER
>>1084907
Writing in all capslock just magnifies your troll status, dude.
>>1084911
where is the source
show me the fucking source
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeee did you get that?
>>1084913
>Cleitarchus, however, had based himself on the stories told by soldiers, who sometimes exaggerated or did not fully understand what was happening. Errors were inevitable, and slipped, through Cleitarchus, to the History of Curtius Rufus.
Do you have tunnel vision?
Also
>You
>implying
>>1084914
Still waiting on you to fulfill your burden of proof first. Which you haven't then, you haven't now, so I don't see why I have to do anything you ask, my dishonest /pol/tard.
>>1084917
I can double post from my phone too m8
>>1084919
Which burden is that? We're not arguing over a source with Rufus, we're disputing his credibility as source.
Just link me to wherever you got that from kiddo. Because if it's from The Campaigns of Alexander translated by Heydar Ghaznavi I am going to completely lose my shit
>>1084927
>I can double post from my phone too
I doubt it.
>Just link me
Not happening.
>>1084927
>I can double post from my phone too m8
Good thing its not a double post.
>massive thread killing shitstorm over whether the shittiest Persian king in history liked boipussy
Only on 4chan
>>1084937
Nice (You)
>>1084929
>I have a source but you're not allowed to see it
>>1084941
>If his sources contradict mine, I'll just say they don't count.
>Let alone ignore the irony of pushing one Roman historian's wildly unverified claims of questionable content and invented context as absolute fact
Great post, dude.
>>1084941
Good thing he posted excerpts in screencaps then. You just want the source so you can bullshit that it isn't valid. You aren't very smart.
>>1084945
I can't tell whether your source contradicts mine because YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN ME A SOURCE.
For all I know you opened Notepad and typed it yourself dumbass.
Look here, I have proof that Hitler didn't kill himself:
>>1084945
>>If his sources contradict mine, I'll just say they don't count.
Literally what you just did with his source retardo
>>1084955
>yah shooped it
Nope. Keep trying to poison the well and stay made, my delusional aspie. Also keep trying with the false equivalence arguments, its amusing.
>>1084959
>his source
Nice (You).
>>1084965
HOLY FUCK I JUST FOUND IT
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS PHAM
THIS IS NOT ARRIAN
OH MY ACHING SIDES, GOD HELP ME
I'M DONE
NEVER AGAIN
YO HO, YO HO
NEAR THE HOOKS, I'LL NEVER GO
>>1084971
Osprey is better then Arrian.
>>1084971
>THIS IS NOT ARRIAN
Who said it was Arrian???
>>1084959
Hey, samefagging fucktard >>1084971, you even admitted Rufus is by himself in his dumb gay theories, so why would anyone have to prove others don't agree with that in the first place?
>>1084993
I'M OUT
HAIL THE ONE TRUE KING OF PERSIA
>>1084993
The main source for the book is Arrian and Livy.
>Its over
That you lost?
Let's go back: you claimed Rufus is absolutely right, I challenged that, others challenged that, you then conceded only "you believe it" even though you refused to admit you were wrong on everything else and keep forcing it as fact.
Then you degenerated it into bullshit with other historians trying to use them to justify Rufus, who is by himself with the fag love.
Kill yourself.
>>1084993
Still waiting for evidence in the book is wrong when author uses all those historical sources and then some on top of that.
>>1084998
Nice concession.
>>1084998
>King of Persia
>died of gay aids and empire split apart upon his death
>>1084993
Why do you post like a monkey from /v/ and how does that contradict Osprey Books or any other modern source that has access to far more material then Arrian while utilizing Arrian all the same?
Are you really this butthurt?
>>1085007
Shuush, don't remind him, it'll probably trigger him so badly like most Greeks he'll just end up going bald prematurely by the time he hits 20.
Reminder that all pro-Persian posts and
>Nice (You)
are the same butthurt faggot from every other thread this week concerning Persians and Greeks.
Reminder he has not cited any source by name except a single 1960s history of Persia book.
Reminder that he rejects all Greek authors cited against him, but uses the same authors to support himself.
Reminder that Rufus/Arrian guy is wasting his time here.
>>1086447
Are you so butthurt you necrobumped a thread and got called out when trying to point out multiple different posters as the same person and had your posts deleted in the thread?
Hilarious.
>Rufus guy
You're the same faggot.
>>1086494
Not the same, and none of my posts have been deleted and best I can tell neither have his.
>>1086510
We know its you.
>>1084776
>Rufus may have fabricated the detail, but I'm willing to credit it
>Rufus may have fabricated the detail.
>But I'm willing to credit it.
So basically
your saying you know its bullshit but your going to accept the fact and still peddle it as being valid? thats dumb
