Posted on 04/23/2012 4:47:09 AM PDT by SJackson
interesting, thanks...
"Accretion" is right.
But, have to point out that the so-called "Persian Empire" has a distinct history before Cyrus, and even the Median Empire. It just isn't well-known to even the Persians Iranians) themselves. This is before the neo-Assyrian Empire..
As you point out, Cyrus (Kourosh) the Great, was the grandson of of the Median Emperor (Cyrus' mother, if am not mistaken, was a Median herself), and Cyrus, actually married a Median Princess, himself. That union helped, later, with uniting the Medians (current kurds) with the Persians. Both being of Aryan roots, but different tribes, at the time.
However, in strictly Aryan terms/history (Iran in particular), that history (or pre-history) began with the Pishdadians Dynasty. Remember "Jamshid" and Norooz or as the Parsee Zoroastrian community in India call it "Navroz" Jamshidi?
While I am on this subject, it is fascinating to find out more about it.
Even Ferdowsi's Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings), which is a very significantly piece of literary & historical work (written circa 10th century AD), explicitly goes well beyond Cyrus the Great "Persian Empire" and talks about other Aryan Dynasties of Iran, namely, the Pishdadians and Kianians.
Well worth reading if interested in history: Pre Cyrus the Great Aryan Dynasties of Iran - Epic Cycles
interesting, thanks...
As far as I know, Khalifa allaha means "successor of Allah (or God's successor or "deputy"). Khalifa is just the arabic word for what we usually spell or pronounce as "Caliph" in English. It means "Successor". Or, possibly, "deputy", depending on context.
But, "Rasul" is also an arabic word, originating from "resalat" meaning to bear messages or be a medium.
Khalifa rasul allaha, presumably spelt per arabic pronunciation, does not mean "deputy of God's prophet". It literally would mean "Successor or deputy, messenger of Allah".
Unless I am corrected, or given a more accurate translation (meaning), by a native Arabic speaker, I believe what I just said is the most precise/accurate translation into English, but more importantly, the *meaning* of the mentioned words.
significantly piece = significant piece
You are quite correct that we tend to pay more attention to the Muslim conquests west rather than east. Perfectly logical, since the western conquests moved into areas with which we have a historical and civilizational connection. They were Christian and Western in character (at least sort of) up to the Muslim conquest. Persia and Central Asia were, and are, the Other.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Arabs raided into Syria and Iraq all down through history whenever the got the chance. Given the inherent disparity between the populations and military potential of the settled areas versus the deserts, large raids only took place when the settled areas were in great disarray. Which probably in all history were never greater than when the Byzantines and Persians had battered each other into exhaustion after centuries of intermittent war and 30 years of continuous war. Each contender had invaded and devastated the other’s heartland. The effects were probably right up there with those of the 30 Years War on Germany, or possibly even worse.
The problem is that the mindset needed for effective conquest is very different from that of raiders, who seldom set up governments that last very long. As Napoleon said, you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. Conquest requires structure, and smash and grab bandits aren’t big on structure.
Interesting.
However, as far as I can tell, these stories are mythical in nature rather than historical.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t dismiss myth as inherently untruthful, but I prefer to see it backed up with some genuine historical evidence from archaeology, etc. King Arthur is probably based on a historical figure, but the Camelot of the stories never really existed.
Did some research and you are correct that by the time of the Muslim invasion the Christians of Spain were reasonably united, though in previous centuries there had been a lot of religious dissent.
However, the Visigoths were among the most anti-semitic of all the Christian nations of the time and persecuted the Jews with great enthusiasm. Hence, it is recorded that the Jews opened the gates of Toledo to the Muslims, accurately seeing them as likely to treat them with greater lenity than did the Christians.
In any case, it is obvious something was wrong with the Spanish of the time. They were conquered in just a few years by a small army at the end of a very long supply line.
800 years or so before the Romans needed a couple of centuries to conquer Iberia, and of course Napoleon learned just how hard it was to control the peninsula against the wishes of its people.
Very little of this resistance by the people occurred when the Moops (pop culture reference) invaded. Religious disaffection may not have been the reason, but obviously the people were not willing to fight and die against the invaders. This is probably because the Visigoths, something like 1% or 2% of the population, had retained all power and privilege in their own hands for several centuries. The people saw little reason to be concerned which group held this power. Which just goes to show that tyranny and oppression often sows the seeds of its own destruction.
Possible. However, the Japs tried it on with the Red Army in 1939 and got absolutely smashed.
The Japs were set up to fight the obsolete Chinese forces and were in no shape to deal with mechanized land warfare in open country. Banzai charges didn't work any better against Soviet tanks than against American marines.
That's what moslems & more than a few moslem scholars also say about Jerusalem - that King Solomon's Temple never existed, it is a myth.
At the very least, I have FULL belief in Ferdowsi's Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings).
As I've said before, he wrote his book, after 30 (laborious) yrs, in the 10th century AD in Iran. Even though he does segment his book in to 3 sections, one being the "mythical" one, I doubt it is *entirely* mythical; he spoke the truth. I will tell you why, later. It is late at night here at my end right now.
Mean time, tell me why you think it is "mythical", in your opinion ??
For now, I can only tell you that Ferdowsi did his research (be it surreptitiously) as was required, for his time, extremely well.
I am largely familiar with the legend of King Arthur & Camelot - however, I can comfortably say: No comparison with Camelot and King Arthur, At All, in this case. The history & circumstances, in & for England, were completely different.
The peoples of the steppe had a several thousand year history of conquest down into the settled areas of China, India, Persia and the Middle East by the time Genghis came along. Intermittently a great leader would arise on the steppe, unite the tribes and conquer down into one or more of the areas. Genghis was not an innovator, only the most successful of all the leaders to arise from the steppe.
The steppe peoples lived a similar lifestyle from Hungary to Korea. Tribes coalesced and splintered easily. There was nothing resembling "nations" in the sense we use the term. A long period of good rains would result in significant growth in the herds and population of the nomads. When drought inevitably returned, they fought each other for pasture or turned outward for conquest of the farmers.
The settled nations on the perimeter of the steppe defended themselves primarily by divide and conquer, bribing the tribes to fight each other rather than unite and attack the civilized areas.
The basic military fact was that before the introduction of effective firearms mounted archers properly used were invincible, at least on reasonably suitable terrain. Any force powerful enough to defeat them was too slow to catch them.
My point is that the Arabs had no such history of conquest. This is probably at least partially because the Arabian peninsula is not nearly as large or as suitable for supporting large tribes of nomads as the Eurasian steppe. Much of it is true desert, not steppe.
Napoleon was a complete failure, never mind Waterloo.
Just finished rereading Herodotus. Lots about the establishment of the Persian Empire by Cyrus. Admittedly, Herodotus was an enemy, but he very obviously admired Cyrus even if he considered the Persians enemies.
There is not a trace in Herodotus of a long history of Persian magnificence prior to Cyrus. The idea you get is of a hard-living primitive more or less tribal people moving in on more effete civilizations and taking them over.
AFAIK, Cyrus, Darius and the other Achaemenids made no claim of ancient lineage, which they certainly would have had there been any way for them to do so.
For instance, in the Behistun Inscription (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_translation_of_the_Behistun_Inscription), Darius the Great (probably a successful usurper) did everything he could to portray his rule as legitimate. But he only claimed 9 generations of kingship, which was probably a lie in itself. If he could have done so with any credibility at all, no doubt he would have claimed great antiquity for his kingdom.
The recorded Persian documents in the Bible also make no claim of great antiquity. The Persians do not appear in the Bible till after the Babylonian Conquest, making it very unlikely, IMO, that they had been major players previously.
I'm no expert, but the surviving Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian records generally portray the area of what is now Iran as primitive and tribal, not the home of powerful contending empires. At this point we're getting back something like 5000 years, leaving little time for the great Persian empires of the Shahnameh to exist.
This is not a historical Muslim contention. Muslim legend is historically loaded with stories about Solomon, for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Solomon
The Koran, I believe, originally referenced Jerusalem as The holy city precisely because it was where the Temple originally stood. Only after the Jews rejected him did Mohammed go with Mecca.
No doubt some Muslims of today claim there was no Temple as a way of dissing the Jews, but this is not the historical Muslim tradition. They claim not that David and Solomon did not exist, but rather that they were great Muslim prophets as well as kings.
Many scholars of today are skeptical of the Bible stories of the great empire of David and Solomon, but that is because remarkably little archeological evidence of its existence has been found. Which I must admit I find a little disturbing myself.
Napoleon eventually lost a war against overwhelming odds when the entire rest of Europe turned on him.
I fail to see how this qualifies him as a complete failure. Unless you consider RE Lee to be “a complete failure” because he was eventually defeated by overwhelming force.
Napoleon was perhaps the greatest general and strategist of all time. Probably would have set up an empire over all Europe if not for the existence of that pesky English Channel. And of course his apparent inability to get beyond French chauvinism which eventually encouraged the growth of nationalism in the subject peoples and the disintegration of his empire.
Good point, however I meant specifically the Achaemenids, not the overall Aryanic realm. it's interesting that Jamshid is the iranic version of the Indic Yama -- who is the Indic god of death who rides a buffalo and who bears much of the aspects of an Asura (and I think is named as such along with Varuna and Agni in the Rigveda)
The older extant Korans have a Hebrew inscription at the end, saying that “this is all nonsense”. We have a tradition that that was snuck in by Mo’s Jewish secretary. I believe he was a specific person, suffering from epilepsy and fed up with the idiotic beliefs of Arabs at that time, and enamored with Christian and Jewish stories and theology. He was also an egomaniacal mass murderer. Presently reading Twilight Over Delhi by a distinguished Muslim of letters, contemporary of Ghandi, and he is quite right that imperialistic interference with native cultures leaves irreversible harm in its wake. The same goes for the most imperialistic religion of all, Islam, destroying indigenous cultures for 1,400 years and counting.
Robert Spencer interview on Janet Mefford (Christian) radio show.
INCREDIBLE! States at end “Mo” never existed.
http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2012/04/25/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20120425-hr-3/
Agreed.
Good differentiation between the Achaemenids and the overall Aryanic realm. Re Jamshid, Kianians & Pishdadian, I was referring to the “Aryanic realm” (as does that link I gave), which is not necessarily & only the “Persian” or “Median” one.
Interesting about Indic god you mention. Didn’t know that.
Also, “Persepolis” is the Greek name, a you know, for Takht_e Jamshid. Unfortunately, even many Iranians refer to it as Persepolis, instead of its true name Takht_e Jamshid.
Sherman Logan: Meant to get back to you yesterday on that earlier post, but got too busy w/ other things. Am getting ready for work now, but will try later today.
Takht_e Jamshid means Seat or Throne of Jamshid.
So, even from Cyrus’ time it must have had direct connection or at least influence on ancient Persians and Medians.
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.