all i am saying is...

[cyrusthegreat]

all i am saying is that.
we dont have any information about the old persia. who was writtin by the persian.
all i know is the most onfos we have from the persians are givin to us by the greeks.later.

[yiannis]

But really, isn't there anything available from Persian sources? There was of course an autocratic regime that didn't allow free thinking the way Greeks understood it. Most of the Persian enscriptions were like "me the Great King conquered/punished my enemies ...etc" and were erected to glorify the King.
At least that is my understanding why we do not have any Persian sources on the wars with the Greeks.

[maciek]

So You can't say that someone is liar only because You don't believe him. Our accounts are not only Greek. Romans had a lot of time to use all kind of sources what was there. They also hadn't any special reason to lie or write good about Greeks or Macedonians. Many of them were jealous about them so they exaggerated against them. I think most of our sources (except some details) are quite reliable.BTW Instead of opening new threads why don't You post the answer to already opened one??
Maciek

[S]

Greetings,
The fact is, we can never know the "truth" of history, as it is written by the victors, from the perspective of whatever group is controlling/interpreting the information, driven by their own cultural, political and social biases, values, mores, etc.
The value of sites like Pothos, Nick's Persian site and the plethora of sites that seek out as much truth as is possible is that we might gain a more balanced picture of antecedents.
Truth does not have to diminish any one group, nor does it have to gloss over the flaws of another- the men and women of our pasts were human- fallible, but glorius all the same.
Greece brought much to the world, but so, too, did Persia and the lands beyond. There is a middle ground, in which we seek to respect the positive and learn from the negative, is there not?
Regards,
Sikander

[nick]

Hi Companions -Yiannis, you wrote:
"But really, isn't there anything available from Persian sources?"In fact: no. Nothing like a narrative. The Persian culture did not have an 'urge' to write down their history. The only thing that is remotely like a narrative is the Behistun inscription of Darius I (around 500 BC) but even that isn't really much longer than the maximum length of a posting on pothos.org! When people claim that most that we know about ancient Achaemenid Persia comes from 'hostile' sources, they do have a point, yes.Persians recorded many 'minor' things, however. The price of every transaction, who paid what for how much and when, who delivered how many goods and for what amount of money. They left us a Wall Street journal - but nothing like a 'Herodotus'.Yiannis, you wrote:
"There was of course an autocratic regime that didn't allow free thinking the way Greeks understood it."This is very far from the truth. The Persians generally favored customs and religions of minorities and subdued peoples. Modern historians (like Wieseh+¦fer) have pointed out that most subjugated nations saw the Persian Achaemenid king as the supplier of safety and prosperity.Yiannis, you wrote:
"At least that is my understanding why we do not have any Persian sources on the wars with the Greeks."The analysis is more complex. The Greeks had (and still have, I suppose) a low-context style of communication. That means communication is predominantly verbal and explicit. The Persians had a high-context style of communication. That meant communication was predominantly non-verbal and implicit.Regards -
Nick

[nick]

Hi Maciek -You wrote:
"Our accounts are not only Greek. Romans had a lot of time to use all kind of sources what was there. They also hadn't any special reason to lie or write good about Greeks or Macedonians."As the Romans entered the stage of World History, the foundations of Achaemenid Persia had been swept away 150 years before. And there were no written records of Achaemenid Persia...You wrote:
"I think most of our sources (except some details) are quite reliable."Yes, I think so too. It's only that we need to accept that it's quite a trick to see the story from the other side.For example: a European tourist goes to China for one full month and records everything that happens to him during that month very accurately. Is his account reliable? Yes, it's. Does it tell us anything about the Chinese and their interpretation of the situation? Well, that depends. While the European complains about the 'chaos' at railway stations, the Chinese might have seen a foreigner who 'joins the wrong queue' everytime.This is rather the case with our accounts about ancient Persia. I love Herodotus, Arrian, Curtius e.g. and I tend to take seriously every word they have written. But that tells us very little about the other side of the medal.Regards -
Nick

[Nicator]

"all i am saying is that. we dont have any information about the old persia. who was writtin by the persian. all i know is the most onfos we have from the persians are givin to us by the greeks."I guess that's Alexander's fault too...c'mon cyrus, why not be thankful that the Greeks wrote something down instead of lambasting them for it. Xenophon's Cyropeadia? provides a lasting tribute to Cyrus the Great. Are you so filled with hatred that you can't recognize that as something good done by a Greek? Change your outlook and change your life, you'll be much happier in the end, and much happier throughout. later Nicator

[yiannis]

Nick, I agree with your points. Regarding the "autocratic regime" part, I didn't implied that the Persians were "torturing" other nations (well except for the Egyptians). I meant that the concentration of power to the hands of one person and the ceremonialism of the court didn't allow much of free thinking within the empire. Everything had to be done for the glory of the great king!

[maciek]

Hello NickWell I think just that Romans had much more sources to study it then us. Also they had some of those (Persian) provinces under their rule, so they could know more then us. I mean historian then in Rome had much more chances for finding the truth. I also think that this is very importand to see especially sources from ancient times from some perspective - to understand what writer then could do for other purposes then only the history knowledge. I'm afraid that this is importand also today, as we see in many writers which are influenced completelly by one side opinion. Maciek

[cyrusthegreat]

oyu people should seek the truth instead of worshiping a guy who kille people for his own good.

[maciek]

Oh well so now we know You have nothing more to say... Pity I had some hope You will say something interesting, but You are just angry with no arguments... Only repeating the same words. Maciek