I still got it, but it needs WD-40 after being waylaid.
Posted on 09/13/2005 11:55:04 PM PDT by neverdem
LONDON, Sept. 11 - An early reference to Alexander of Macedon is the first hint of where the British Museum is heading in its new exhibition, "Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia." After all, to Persians then and Iranians now, there was nothing great about the Alexander who crushed the largest empire the world had yet known. Indeed, his burning of Persepolis in 331 B.C. was considered an act of vandalism.
But the show, which runs through Jan. 8, goes further, challenging the version of history that ancient Greece, starting with Herodotus, bequeathed to the West. Put simply, in that version Greece heroically resisted the marauding barbarians from the east during the Persian wars of 490 B.C. to 479 B.C. Then, by defeating the Achaemenid empire, as it was also known, the "West" scored its first important victory over the "East."
It is this victors' account, then, that the British Museum has set out to "correct." By presenting some 450 ancient objects, from stone reliefs and lapis lazuli heads to gold statuettes and jewelry, it aims to blur the political fault lines that have long separated East and West and give ancient Persia its proper place - between Assyria and Babylon on the one hand and Greece and Rome on the other - in the chronology of early civilizations.
In that sense, "Forgotten Empire" is also highly topical.
In a foreword to its catalog, Neil MacGregor, director of the British Museum, wrote that "the exhibition clearly gives the lie to the common Western perception that the Achaemenid empire was a nest of despotism and tyranny that was swept away by Alexander."
John Curtis, the show's curator and keeper of the museum's ancient Near East department, added in a statement: "It may also be important at this time of difficult..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
No, but the Greeks were as bad.
There were some republics in Greece, for a small oligarchy of the population, but far more despotisms.
No people ever surpassed the Greek City States in treachery and backstabbing. Any given state was as likely to switch sides and join the Persians as to show up for a battle.
Don't forget that at that time Persia had not yet suffered under Arab or Mongolian invasion. It was essentially a European nation speaking an Indo-European language, and very little different from any part of Greece.
SO9
Most beautiful pieces of artwork.
The title of "the Great" wasn't applied to Alexander until long after his death. In his lifetime Greeks knew him as "Alexander son of Philip." The Athenians and many other Greeks had a pretty negative opinion of him. (Among other things he razed the city of Thebes.)
Alexander became more despotic as he went East.
However, he spread Greek culture. And Greece had far more democracy than any other great power of the day.
America got many of its ideas from ancient Greece. If they hadn't won over Persia, we may not be living with the freedom we have today.
---------------------------------------------
What could you possibly mean by that? Name three European 'nations' that existed at that time (not tribes - nations). Are you suggesting that Persians are racially European? What language roots does ancient Farsi share with European languages? What are you trying to say?
Another obvious reason to build 'em up is to emphasize the accomplishments of pre-Islamic Persia; the reason this gets a free pass from the worldwide wanker society is that it appears to be pro-Iranian propaganda. It will be used that way. It should be interesting to see what that does to that rickety alliance which supports Greek analogue to Anschluss on Cyprus and the islands of the Aegean.
The HistoriesIt was the grandfather of the Artayctes, one Artembares by name, who suggested to the Persians a proposal which they readily embraced, and thus urged upon Cyrus: "Since Jove," they said, "has overthrown Astyages, and given the rule to the Persians, and to thee chiefly, O Cyrus! come now, let us quit this land wherein we dwell -- for it is a scant land and a rugged -- and let us choose ourselves some other better country. Many such lie around us, some nearer, some further off: if we take one of these, men will admire us far more than they do now. Who that had the power would not so act? And when shall we have a fairer time than now, when we are lords of so many nations, and rule all Asia?" Then Cyrus, who did not greatly esteem the counsel, told them, -- "they might do so, if they liked -- but he warned them not to expect in that case to continue rulers, but to prepare for being ruled by others -- soft countries gave birth to soft men -- there was no region which produced very delightful fruits, and at the same time men of a warlike spirit." So the Persians departed with altered minds, confessing that Cyrus was wiser than they; and chose rather to dwell in a churlish land, and exercise lordship, than to cultivate plains, and be the slaves of others.
by Herodotus
Translated by George Rawlinson
He must mean like most of the Mideast is currently.
Nation does not mean modern political state in most of its uses - it means an ethnic group. The nation-state was for the most part basically a 19th century invention. But that's neither here nor there. Persian is related to most of the currently spoken European languages:
Persian is a member of the Indo-European family of languages, and within that family, it belongs to the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) branch. Scholars believe the Iranian sub-branch consists of the following chronological linguistic path: Old Persian (Avestan and Achaemenids Persian) ==> Middle Persian (Pahlavi, Parthian, and Sassanids Persian) ==> Modern Persian (Dari, c. 900 to present.
Old Persian, the main language of the Achaemenid inscriptions, should not be confused with the non-Indo-European Elamite language (see Behistun inscription). Over this period, the morphology of the language was simplified from the complex conjugation and declension system of Old Persian to the almost completely regularized morphology and rigid syntax of modern Persian, in a manner often described as paralleling the development of English. Additionally, many words were introduced from neighboring languages, including Aramaic and Greek in earlier times, and later Arabic and to a lesser extent Turkish. In more recent times, some Western European words have entered the language (notably from French and English.)
The language itself has greatly developed during the centuries. Due to technological developments new words and idioms are created and enter into Persian like any other language. In Iran the Academy of Persian Language and Literature is a center that evaluates the new words in order to initiate and advise its Persian equivalent. In Afghanistan, the Academy of Sciences of Afghanistan does the same for Afghan Persian (among other languages).
__
The various subgroups of the Indo-European family include (in historical order of their first attestation):
* Anatolian languages — earliest attested branch, from the 18th century BC; extinct, most notable was the language of the Hittites.
* Indo-Iranian languages, descending from a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-Iranian
o Indo-Aryan, including Sanskrit, attested from the 2nd millennium BC
o Iranian languages, attested from roughy 1000 BC, including Avestan and Persian.
* Greek language — fragmentary records in Mycenaean from the 14th century BC; Homer dates to the 8th century BC. See History of the Greek language.
* Italic languages — including Latin and its descendants, the Romance languages, attested from the 1st millennium BC.
* Celtic languages — Gaulish inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; Old Irish texts from the 6th century AD.
* Germanic languages (including English) — earliest testimonies in runic inscriptions from around the 2nd century, earliest coherent texts in Gothic, 4th century.
* Armenian language — attested from the 5th century.
* Tocharian languages — extinct tongues of the Tocharians, extant in two dialects, attested from roughly the 6th century.
* Balto-Slavic languages, believed by many Indo-Europeanists to derive from a common proto-language later than Proto-Indo-European, while others are sceptical and think that Baltic and Slavic are no more closely related than any other two branches of Indo-European.
o Slavic languages — attested from the 9th century, earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic.
o Baltic languages — attested from the 14th century, and, for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European.
* Albanian language — attested from the 16th century; relations with Illyrian, Dacian, or Thracian proposed.
In addition to the classical ten branches listed above, there are several extinct languages, about which very little is known:
* Illyrian languages — probably related to Messapian; relation to Albanian also proposed.
* Venetic language — close to Italic.
* Messapian — not conclusively deciphered.
* Phrygian language — language of ancient Phrygia, possibly close to Greek, Thracian, or Armenian.
* Paionian language — extinct language once spoken north of Macedon.
* Thracian language — possibly close to Dacian.
* Dacian language — possibly close to Thracian and Albanian.
* Ancient Macedonian language — probably related to Greek, others propose relation to Ilyrian, Thracian or Phrygian.
* Ligurian language — possibly not Indo-European; possibly close to or part of Celtic
There were no doubt other Indo-European languages which are now lost without a trace. The fragmentary Etruscan and Rhaetian languages cannot be classified with any certainty, although they are probably non-Indo-European.
Excellent point. Maybe the next time we'll fight on the side of the Serbs.
Language tree map time. ;')
ping.
The Battle of Salamis:
the Naval Encounter
That Saved Greece --
and Western Civilization
by Barry Strauss
my current reading:
The Death of Alexander the Great:
What - or - Who Really Killed
the Young Conqueror of the Known World?
by Paul Doherty
As to your assertion that "Persian is related to most of the currently spoken European languages", I could use a little help beyond a linguistic map of the ancient world that connects all languages used from Ireland in the West to India in the East. How specifically is Persian related to, let's say, Dutch? What words are in common? What verb tense patterns are common? Are adverb and adjective use structures the same?
Alexander was quite as despotic when he destroyed Thebes. But the individualistic Greek culture - that's the point I was trying to make. One could argue that from it springs democracy, and not the other way around - i.e. that democracy is possible [not necessary, for it does not happen all the time] only among individualists, and not among clans or tribes as constituent units.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
