Military mentality of Achaemenid leaders?

[century x]

Speculate rather definitively.

Let me give an example to compare. Armenia has nothing written left from its pre-Christian history (thanks to the efforts of Drtad III), except for Urartian steles and a few steles from Artaxias I in the 2nd century BC. Does that mean they didn't have any literature, and then all of a sudden started mass producing and translating books in the 5th century AD? That is highly unlikely, just like the Persians having no literature in Achaemenid times is very highly unlikely.

Totally Agree.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Speculate rather definitively.

Let me give an example to compare. Armenia has nothing written left from its pre-Christian history (thanks to the efforts of Drtad III), except for Urartian steles and a few steles from Artaxias I in the 2nd century BC. Does that mean they didn't have any literature, and then all of a sudden started mass producing and translating books in the 5th century AD? That is highly unlikely, just like the Persians having no literature in Achaemenid times is very highly unlikely.

BTW, do we actually have proof of a library in Persepolis?

[Drtad]

BTW, do we actually have proof of a library in Persepolis?

It's where the Avesta was kept in it's entirety, and when the library was destroyed, much of the Avesta was destroyed along with it. That's all I know, unfortunately. I don't profess to be a Persian expert.

There were other major libraries within the Achaemenid Empire too. The Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh is of absolutely critical importance to ancient studies, and Persians and Alexander alike were inspired by it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Ashurbanipal

[century x]

BTW, do we actually have proof of a library in Persepolis?

There probably was until Alexander got a hold of it and burned it all.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

"There probably was"

What? There is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim, face it.

[Drtad]

"There probably was"

What? There is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim, face it.

No physical evidence, but to say that they didn't have one is silly. There is almost no way they didn't have one, and I don't think any historian would take that idea seriously, Roach/Blatta Optima Maxima. The Library of Ashurbanipal inspired future libraries so much (including the one at Alexandria) that it's just impossible that the Persians ignored it while it was at the center of their empire for centuries, not to mention that other similar libraries were not uncommon, though several have been lost.

[Kitsunegari]

Ashurbanipal is my hero fwiw (along with Hannibal and Epaminondas)

[century x]

No physical evidence, but to say that they didn't have one is silly. There is almost no way they didn't have one, and I don't think any historian would take that idea seriously, Roach/Blatta Optima Maxima. The Library of Ashurbanipal inspired future libraries so much (including the one at Alexandria) that it's just impossible that the Persians ignored it while it was at the center of their empire for centuries, not to mention that other similar libraries were not uncommon, though several have been lost.

Again I totally agree.

The term here is "Lost".. to say that just because there is no hard evidence or physical evidence. Does not mean they never took place.

A good example is Greek tragic plays. We know beyond a reasonable doubt that they exist because they have survived. But we also know that there are some plays that are lost and can never be brought back. But since there is no hard evidence of their existence we still accept the fact that they were written. Sounds like a double standard to me.

To assume that they had no literature or libraries or anything like that is absurd. Your talking about a civilization that spanned countless miles.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

But there is no surviving Persian literature to back it up. Same way as we can't say the Mayans had railroad because there is absolutely no evidence for that, apart from some nutjobs' conjecture.

[Drtad]

But there is no surviving Persian literature to back it up. Same way as we can't say the Mayans had railroad because there is absolutely no evidence for that, apart from some nutjobs' conjecture.

It is not the same at all. Greece was conquered by Rome, which continued and expanded upon prior Greek literature and traditions, like the Trojan War and its associated literature. Persia on the other hand, was conquered by people hostile to its native culture several times in its history. That's why there is anything left from Greece at all, and even then there are A LOT of tragic plays, etc, missing. The only reason the Library of Ashurbanipal survived as intact as it is is because when the Babylonians burnt it to the ground the fire actually baked the tablets and preserved them. Even a composer as recent as the Baroque era's Tomaso Albinoni has A LOT of compositions missing, but I think we can safely conclude that he composed a lot more than what remains today.

It is impossible that an empire as prominent as the Achaemenids had no literature. It makes absolutely no sense. Just like the Mayans having railroads makes no sense.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The same could be said for an "obvious" feature like money... Which was not used in the Achaemenid empire for other purposes than bribing Greeks or paying Phoenician marines.

[Drtad]

Money isn't particularly obvious. China didn't have standardized currency until Qin Shi Huangdi in the 3rd century BC, and they'd already been around for over a millennium.

[century x]

It looks like no matter how we put it. Your not going to understand the fact that the Persian people are a people with lost history. So much has been lost forever. And for you to say such claims that we had no money, literate...Nothing that we were just a bunch of people hanging out at a farm.

If your people's culture and history has been slowly erased you will have a different point of view.

I get tired of reading about Persian history and it all coming from Post - Islamic invasions. And how the Persians needed saving and we needed salvation and the Arabs were the ones to give it to us.


In fact we were doing fine without

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I am not saying you didn't have a huge ass empire, with lots of cultures in it.

What I am trying to tell you, is that while you can assume they had literature, there is absolutely no evidence for that.

They may have had it, but there is absolutely no proof

[Kitsunegari]

I am not saying you didn't have a huge ass empire, with lots of cultures in it.

What I am trying to tell you, is that while you can assume they had literature, there is absolutely no evidence for that.

They may have had it, but there is absolutely no proof

Not so, Persian and other authors from the Islamic era frequently mention the writings that were lost during the Greek and Arab invasions

[century x]

Not so, Persian and other authors from the Islamic era frequently mention the literature that was lost during the Greek and Arab invasions

There you go.

If the Greeks said it then it must be true.

[the persian Immortal]

Speculate rather definitively.

Let me give an example to compare. Armenia has nothing written left from its pre-Christian history (thanks to the efforts of Drtad III), except for Urartian steles and a few steles from Artaxias I in the 2nd century BC. Does that mean they didn't have any literature, and then all of a sudden started mass producing and translating books in the 5th century AD? That is highly unlikely, just like the Persians having no literature in Achaemenid times is very highly unlikely.

The Library of Persepolis, which contained a lot of literature including the Avesta (which only exists in fragments now mainly) was destroyed by Alexander's forces.

Given Persia's history of other cultures overrunning it at times (Hellenes, Arabs, Seljuks, Mongols, etc) I'd imagine that most Achaemenid records would be lost, besides their rock carvings. A lot of ancient kingdoms only have a few inscriptions left like this to prove they were literate cultures at all, like the Urartians and their steles. Don't forget that the Mongols burnt half the Khwarezmian Empire to the ground, and it might have been the half of Persia that Alexander hadn't touched.

The proof is in the circumstantial evidence. The Persians were undoubtedly influenced by Mesopotamian literary cultures, which were extremely rich and extensive in their subject matter (myths, reporting, king lists, dictionaries, hymns, laments, epics, etc). To say that the Persians, a settled people, adopted none of that for their own use isn't impossible, but it's highly improbable. The other people they conquered also had literate cultures, such as Egypt, Urartu, formerly Hittite regions, formerly Hurrian regions, and then the Greeks of Ionia and Anatolia, and we know how they loved their literature.

dude you rule thanks for posting , I totaly agree .

[Ishan]

Few insults and off-topic junk deleted, although this thread is full of it but i only deleted things like "ZOMG Prince of Persia rocks" etc.

Drop the debate and continue the topic from now onwards: "Military mentality of Achaemenid leaders?"<--This is the topic any further ToS violations will result in thread closure and infractions.

[century x]

I apologize.

[Anakarsis]

Achaemenid leaders were spected to show high and noble features alongside warrior might, they were expected to be wise, honest, clever, knowledgeable, and skilled in archery, horsemanship, poetry, art, sciences and government business; it was though that a leader better prepared in all senses would neccesarily be better and more resourseful in the battle were he was expected, mainly, to lead. The standards for these virtues probably were higher as the young Persian were, or wanted to be, higher in the social scale, and take a lot of time and practice. AFAIK persian noblemen were not considered "adults" and with their maturity being enough to be military officers until age 30. (Some sources are the Cyropaedia and Persian sources referring to the achaemenid nobility). Warrior might was not overlooked, the noble HAS to be a great warrior, but he often was not forced to show his skill by risking himself in the battlefield. I think that i main problem in the Achaemenid military system is that they spend too much in a warrior elite that they dont always use to their fullest until was too late, like if the modern USA navy enters on a non-asymetrical war and refuses to risks their aircraft carriers in combat. I also dont think that they overlooked casualties since the virtues of the nobleman were to be considerate and compasionate, its just that, unlike greek generals, they were mostly NOT leading men that were of technical equal status than them. But only against greeks and in the steppes the Persians suffered high casualties so i think that they were not THAT used to that nor consider it as normal.

And about numbers, Herodotus spoke of 1.000.000 men-at-arms, i go for the 250.000 combatants figure, so applying sample maths ill say that the dead at Thermophylae have to be around 5.000 (that, taking into account that this was the total number of greek combatants until Leonidas asked everyone except the Spartans to leave, does not sound SO strange)