300: The Truth Behind (Making Heroes out of Terrorists)

Spenta ^ | 8/20/07 | Spenta

[Tainan]

The most relevant post on the thread...thank You!

[philman_36]

Or are you talking about the son of Cambyses I the Elder who was actually Cyrus II?

[Paige]

The Founder’s feared “Democracy” would turn into Mobacracy. We were designed as a new experiment, “A REPUBLIC” (developed through republicanisn) and I am sick and tired of teachers and the lamestream media saying we’re a Democracy. America is a “REPUBLIC.”

Enough of the REVISED HISTORY!

[Cronos]

well, the problem is that history doesn’t fit into neat little boxes. Iran in a wider sense included a whole bunch of Irani peoples including the modern day Ossetians, the people of Sogdiana (northern Afghanistan) that are now Tajiks and also Cimmerians and maybe also ancestors of the Germans.

[dinasour]

Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.

Those xenophobic monsters.

And the only country that doesn't grant suffrage to the rest of of the planet is the United States under the evil Bushitler. Right?

[Sherman Logan]

http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/societies/near_east/persian_soc/persiansociety.html

Slavery
Domesticated animals and enslaved humans and a vast number of people were needed to work on projects of agriculture, warfare and monumental construction. State owned slaves in the mines (Olmstead, 1948: 74 ff), and they were well paid (Dandemaev and Lukonin, 1989: 161-2), but they had the status of livestock moveable property (op. cit 153). The household of the Great King maintained a large retinue of slaves who functioned as plowmen, millers, cow herds, shepherds, winemakers and beer brewers, cooks, bakers, wine waiters and eunuchs (Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1989: 158, 170). Of the slaves at Persepolis, 12.7% were boys, and 10% were girls (Fortification Tablets). Dandemaev and Lukonin (1989: 160–1), concluded that these slaves lived together as families but they were also moved around the empire in what amounts to job lots. Documents record the movements of between 150 and 1500 slaves from one site to another. In Babylon, Egypt and the Greek cities of Lydia, the arrangements predating the Persians were kept. Slaves were usually acquired through warfare (Falcelière et al, 1970: 433), and were known as “the booty of the bow” (Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1989: 156). The peace established by the Great King would have effectively dried up this source. However, the Great Kings enslaved satrapies and cities which rebelled (Dandemaev and Lukonin, 1989: 170). Slavery was usually seen as a hereditary state, the children of those slaves maintained private stocks. Household slaves could be bought (Herodotos, vm, 1os). There was a privately owned slave labour force doing menial tasks. In Babylon, debtors could sell themselves into slavery (Olmstead, 1948: 74 ff), but this quickly died out under Persian rule (Dandemaev and Lukonin, 1989: 156). Everyone from the highest nobles down were defined as bandaka (the slaves of the Great King) (Kurht, 1995: 687), or ‘those who wear the belt of dependence’ (Wiesehoefer, 1996:31). This meant that taxation was due in money, precious metals, goods, military service and labour.

[SolidWood]

Kurush I. or Cyrus the Great. Darius the Great wasn’t a son or descendant of Kurush, but killed his sons and ascended to the Throne. Therefore the list of ancestors Darius gives isn’t a list of the Kings before him. This means that Kurush/Cyrus the Great is to be seen as the first Persian Greatking.

[SolidWood]

Fair enough. As I said before I don't exclude the possibilty of slavery in Persia, when given several sources (not Greek or Islamic). Dandemaev and Lukonin seem to rely at least partly on Persian documents. This also reafirms my earlier comment that slaves were usually paid, the local laws remained within their regions and war captives were used as labour force.

My disagreement was on the sources not on the fact whether there were slaves or not. (One could however argue whether families who were getting paid for labour constitutes slavery). I'll try to get hold of Dandemaev's (Soviet I assume) book, for I am curious on what sources exactly he relies.

[philman_36]

Well, SW is defining a very narrow group of people as "Persians", as to when their reign actually begins and when they were first called Persians. By his criteria the Medes were not Persians at all and "Persia/Persians" didn't exist until Cyrus II took the throne.
Following that defined criteria it is easy to back any claim that "slavery didn't exist in Persia", whether historically or archaeologically, as Cyrus II was renowned for his Cyrus Cylinder which is considered the original emancipation proclamation.
Not looking back to the predecessors of Cyrus II blocks out a good chunk of "Persian" history. The Medes were slaves to the Assyrians and it's conceivable that they enslaved the Assyrians once they were defeated.

If one wants to get technical the "Persians" aren't even Persians as they were originally nomadic tribes called the Paarsa, thus giving us the Paarsi language today.

[BnBlFlag]

Why did you post this piece of crap?

[wafflehouse]

those are AWESOME lol

[SolidWood]

You are correct that I tried to have an narrow definition of Persians in this context. The subject was whether there existed institutionalized slavery within the Achaemenid Persian Empire which (in my, and in general definiton) began with Cyrus the Great and ended with the conquest of Alexander. Of course there were Iranian/Persian states, kingdoms, empires etc. before and afterwards.

[philman_36]

My disagreement was on the sources not on the fact whether there were slaves or not.
And people call me picky...
C ya!

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

“The Muslim Arabs should be glad, too. If Persia had been able to expand its empire into Europe, it would have been that much more to draw resources from for when Muhammed came along.”

Actually, I think Sassanid Persia could’ve taken the early jihadis without extra territory were it not for the timing of the expansion of the death cult. The problem as I see it is that the Eastern Roman Empire and the Persians spent themselves duking it out with each other. Finally, the Romans under Heraclius won. The Persians then deposed their king and and were only with some difficulty able to put a functioning government back together—then enter the muslimes. Later, they would go up against the Romans (who were likewise exhausted) and seize much of the Middle East and North Africa.

I see it as a great tragedy as these two great powers put all their effort in their war with each other and then the muslimes moved in and basically picked up territory at will (the Romans tried to put up a fight—and I assume the Persians did too, but they were too weak to crush the mohammedans). But that’s getting off topic.

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

LOL! I love the panda one. The surprise is priceless.

[SW6906]

I would argue that whether they were paid or not is irrelevant as to whether or not they were slaves. Slavery has to do more with subjugation, forced labor (paid or not) and the denial of the ability to "leave" than with being paid for one's labor.

Thanks for good discussions on this thread. I've learned a lot and it's not even 5:00 AM here yet!

[GraniteStateConservative]

What makes Herodotus's propaganda so difficult to refute is that it is peppered with facts.

That's sort of what all history is.

[WashingtonSource]

More lies in a single story than I’ve seen Janet Cooke wrote her last story. Or was that Jayson Blair?

[R.W.Ratikal]

Terrorists are not heroes. Heroes do not wear masks to hide their iodinate or attack school buses from ambush or shoot up unarmed women and children. Terrorists are wormy little cowards who are not fit to lick the feet of their victims.

[JoeGar]

“300” was based on a novel (i.e. fiction).