Talk:Achaemenes

oddly speculated that Achaemenes was the son of the Greek hero Perseus and a grandson of Zeus
Should "grandson" be "granddaughter"? Anthony Appleyard 05:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Achaemenes was a man. Fishal 03:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dates and numbers in this article

Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE would seem to make the most sense. Sunray 19:42, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I see someone has reverted back to BC/AD for dates. Perhaps we could take a poll of authors of this article to see which is the preferred dating system for eras. Sunray 06:52, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

++ Polls truly matter not; mob rules? Born and raised in America, I find it odd how those in the Western hemisphere honestly feel WE (Greek, Roman, etc.) was the start of all civilization and how the AD/BC timescale 'should' be used, as that falls in favor to the Christian Western side, because this matter to Muslims, Chinese, Hindus who have a totally different timescale.

• Sunray, a poll has been taken at Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Votes. At last count, the vote was 92 votes to 75, with the majority OPPOSING Srubenstein's policy change proposal. Rubenstein has UTTERLY FAILED to acheive a consensus for his proposed policy change, and now it seems the supporters of the failed proposal are unilaterally proclaiming victory and considering it to be enacted anyway. This is most evident on the Iran pages. Since official wiki policy states that both are equally acceptable and not to go making changes like this from the original form when there is any opposition, it seems you are in violation and the ones here who are making trouble. If both are "equally acceptable" and I can unilaterally make such a change, it would be equally acceptable for me to invade articles about archaeology or the Talmud and impose BC / AD on precisely the same grounds. This policy about officially favoring one or the other under certain circumstances has LOST; face it and stop ramrodding the LOSER policy down our throats as if it actually had anything close to a consensus. This is a perfect example of the process whereby a minority cabal can fraudulently enforce their own POV on everyone else in North American "academia", but if wikipedia is going to work that way, I will stop contributing my edits and will no longer be able to take the whole project seriously at all.

If there is an inscription, as a valid historical source, that says that Assyrian king repelled an attack led by Achaemenes, then there can be no doubt that there WAS a living person by that name, living presumably round 700 BC. Only question seems to be whether that person was an ancesstor of Teispes and later Persian rulers, or not. KIKA

As graffiti on a wall proclaims one to be the 'messiah', how does that, if it survives hundreds or thousands of years, becomes a 'valid historical source'? I can see how with a story written in stone there IS doubt to the matter. Hypothetically speaking, if I carved in rock that in "1932 (well before I lived) I beat up KIKA," and later uncoverd in the year 3078, people should interpret that as fact according to your logic. There are much more questions than who was an heir. Please save me the hassle of rebutting. Thank you.

You didn't read well. I wrote: "If there is an inscription, as a VALID historical source (it was partially my mistake since I didn't emphasize it) that says etc". So, you are now challenging the iscription and changing the subject. I said: "If it is valid", meaning that "if it is truthfull and honest" and if it could be trusted by historians. I agree about your remark on graffiti case, but, even after thousands of years, your rock and the inscription you carved into it would be subject of historian's test. Besides, I read the article in Britanica about Achemenes, and it chose to believe the inscription. Where's the problem then? KIKA

BC/AD

Guys, why not simply use BC/AC (Before /After) and sove the problem! Kiumars 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything to support these rumors and doubts!

Due to the lack of historical sources on Achaemenes, his rule and existence are sometimes doubted. He may have been legendary. Darius I the Great may even have invented him so as to legitimize his rule. Since Darius was not an heir to the previous Shah, Cyrus the Great), it is contended that Darius invented an earlier ancestor shared by Cyrus and himself. In this way he was able to claim royal ancestry.

Can you add links to references to support the claims please. Britanica seems to think he was real! http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003515 Also, The guys who are working on Teispes of Anshan think he is the son of Achaemenes! How could he have a son if he was not real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teispes

What a mess! Kiumars 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Teispes is never mentioned as "a son of Achaemenes" in old Persian inscriptions, but as "an Achaemenid". This is the way he has been named in both the Cyrus cylinder and Darius I's Behistun inscription. Refering to Teispes as the son of Achaemenes seems to be a Greek invention. mirfakhr

• mirfakhr; you better take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teispes and correct them if they are wrong! Kiumars

NPOV cleanup

This article is part of the NPOV backlog. Since the NPOV tag has been placed without any discussion here, and the text appears to be uncontroversal, and there seems to be no discussion suggesting disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with {{NPOV}} and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag will be re-added as the dates doesn't concorde with his son's dates by 2000 years ... that's a lot. Lincher 12:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, but let me ask: this sounds more like a factual issue, what does it have to do with NPOV policy? -- Steve Hart 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact the date is confusing, but on the second look it became be apparent that it matches the times of his son. The sentence tells that he lived 2700 years ago. That means 700 BC. Teispes (the son of Achaemenes) was living: 675-640 BC. So it is even not the matter of factual accuracy. It is problem of formulation .--Reo ^ON | +++ 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting

I agree with Steve Hart; this is an issue of accuracy, not of neutrality. I'm changing the tag and adding a citation needed to some of the statements. Fishal 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add that I added a lot to this article back when citation standards were much more lax; I know right where I can find the secondary sources that I used and will cite them as soon as I can (realistically, probably not for a couple of months). Those books were the source of the statement, "Achaemenes was most likely a 7th century BC warrior-chieftain... An Assyrian inscription from the time of King Sennacherib mentions that the Assyrian king repelled a raid by the Parsu, who may have been led by Achaemenes." This is also where much of the Greek mythological material came from. Fishal 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Ok wtf, biranica is correct there are no doubts why are you putting messed up info on this...

??????

in some of the text translated in old persian script shows only several Question marks on my computer. what is the required font needed to view it and how is it acquired? i believe there must be some other readers couldnt see them.
Xmlv (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found the Aegean font at http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/Fonts_OldPersianC.html to work well for displaying old Persian cuneiform. --Wikiacc (¶) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

about a recent edit

I reverted an edit by a user. The book he/she adds is "Isaac's empire". This book challenges 1000s of years historical facts and its thesis is "Ancient Persian Empire was really an empire made up of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". I think we should follow a certain number of wikipedia guidelines: "use works of specialists in the subject". Xashaiar (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

um, yes, this is just British Israelism, a cranky idea from the 18th century that survives in some religionist corners in the US. Remove under WP:FRINGE. --dab (𒁳) 06:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The books has nothing to do with British Israelism. As for the book challenging 1000 years of facts it does not. It gives a list of possible alternatives based on the same evidence found by the scholars that you use or support. Remember history is not an exact science, and in no way is everything you or Mr. Rea propose is set in stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry2377 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the theory you like to add is WP:FRINGE and YES that type of theory prompted by the book does say "Ancient Persian Empire was really an empire made up of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel". This is the official description of the book. And beside, can you show us one scholar of Indo-European languages or Ancient Near East that supports that theory? You are right that "history is not an exact science" but this encyclopaedia should represent the point of view of those who are considered most reliable on the subject, right? Xashaiar (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia's are just as fallible as books that discuss the topic. So don't feed me that. Any ways, here is your list.

Bienkowski, Millard, Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, p. 1
 Tavernier, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.), p. 17-18
 Herzog, Hauck, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theorogie und Kirche, p. 390
 Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras, p. 149
 Nanavutty, The Parsis, p. 177/ Culican, The Medes and Persians, p. 49
 Burton, Camoens: His life and His Lusiads, p. 656
 Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persian, p. 239
 Hackmann, Buddism as a Religion: Its Historical Development and its present conditions, p. 49
 Narain, Later Indo-Scythians, p. 121-122
 ‘Iran and India: Age old Friendship’ by Abdul Amir Jorfi, India Quarterly, October-December 1994, p 69  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry2377 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 

What are you exactly talking about? Why did you list some books? For example "Tavernier, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.), p. 17-18" that you list, mentions just what Haxamanish* is: the name of a Persian tribe and some related words and their occurences in other languages used by Achaemenian kings. So what did you list this book? Xashaiar (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You said you wanted to know how. So I got the end notes from his book that he used. So there you go. Do some research. If you need more I found some more notes but I think this covers it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry2377 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

how what? Are you telling me that "your book is OK since your book uses fine references"? That's unacceptable for inclusion of the wrong info you proposed. And the article already uses high quality source for the section on etymology. Xashaiar (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And besides. can you show us one scholar of Indo-European languages or Ancient Near East that supports that theory? WHy yes I can and his name is Yair Davidiy. He understands Indo-European languages and supports Mr. Rea's finds. Also, what about Simo Parpola? He supports the Anne Kristensen's book "Who were the Cimmerians and where did they come from". She address many of the same issues Mr. Rea address. So there is three scholars for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry2377 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not here to argue, but to provide an alternative that is all. Mr. Rea does not say what you say is wrong. He just provides another possible alternative to who they maybe. That is all. People should have the option to decide for themselves. Hell, I agree that his name might not have anything to do what is being proposed. But at the same time I consider the idea possible. ---

Are you the same person? So why you do not learn to sign and respect talk pages so that I know who is talking... Second I asked you "PLEASE BRING SCHOLAR OF INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES" I did not ask yo bring "scholars who speak an indo-european language". Moreover, your Yair Davidiy is no scholar at all. If you can find sources in the level of OED, The Cambridge History of Iran, The Cambridge Ancient History.. or something like them, then we can add their opinion as they are those that this article SHOULD represent their POVs. Xashaiar (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I the same person? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Any ways it does not matter. Your mind is set and that is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry2377 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I saw two messages and no signature. Please sign your message. And please do read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. I am not happy with this article as I have not written more than one sentence of it. My mind is not set. If you can find anything appropriate in the sources I mentioned, then go on. Xashaiar (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing, so I have no idea how to do a lot of things on here. But I did my best to summarise what Mr. Rea said. So I'm not sure what you would want. (larry2377)

I meant please read thse wikipedia pages: WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and also the first paragraph of WP:POV. Xashaiar (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I read them both a few days ago. So now what? I see no problem here. (Larry2377) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry2377 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You read them? You think your theory is not FRINGE? You think your theory is along the line "representing the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." (from wikipedia policy)? You think your theory is within mainstream that WP:UNDUE does no apply? Xashaiar (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it sure isn't my theory, and second I agree with the theory as I do with the other theories about who he was or if he was even a person. Because, no one is certain one way or another regardless of the best info money can afford. Like I said, History is not an exact science, and nether are the men we both list or read. They most likely would tell you the same thing. Ether or I'm good, I just wanted to help out and that is just about it. Larry2377 (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)(Larry2377)

The point is wikipedia is not a place to "put any theory you like". It is an ecyclopaedia which follows rules. The theory you like is Fringe theory and not supported by mainstream scholars of the subjects (languages and ancient history). Xashaiar (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What ever you say buddy. We ALL agree with you!Larry2377 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)(Larry2377)

Why did you add Sanskrit? What is the reason? (Please do not bring that fringe theory here. What you add is their opinion). Why you do not add Chines? Since Iranian and Indian were old friend, does it mean we should add the name of a person who ruled (if at all) over a portion of present dar Fars province? IN entire wikipedia guidelines I could not find any policy that support inclusion of unrelated translation. If you see Greek, that's because from Greek (then Latin, then English) the modern English world came to know the name "Achaemenes". YOu said you are very new and do not know what to do, could you please for the time being leave a message in the talk page and ask about relevancy of the info you want to add? If you still like to add Sanskrit, please provcide a source that indicates other indo-european languages got the name "achaemenes" from Sanskrit (this is obviousely false). Xashaiar (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the scepticism

The idea that Darius forged his ancestry seems unlikely to me, considering he was only going back a few generations. It would have been common knowledge whether his family were cousins of Cyrus' or not, and a blatant lie that no one believed wouldn't really have helped to legitimise his rule. Kings who make spurious ancestral claims usually have to come up with more elaborate genealogies that go back to time immemorial. 82.16.143.198 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but...

• The substance of his claim is less important that the fact that he felt compelled to make it. That is the immediate cause for skepsis.
• Darius' inscription actually just says "ancestor". All the 7th-century "dating" is based on one sentence in Herodotus (Histories, 7.11.2): "Darius son of Hystaspes son of Arsames son of Ariaramnes son of Teispes son of Cyrus son of Cambyses son of Teispes son of Achaemenes". Note that Herodotus is muddling two different Teispes here. The ridiculous precision is unsupported by the evidence.
• While we don't know who Achaemenes was, it would be safe to assume that he was a well-known hero figure in the minds of Darius' audience. Iranian clans almost always had mythical or semi-mythical figures as their apical ancestors. Its part of their minstrel tradition. It obscured even historical figures under layers of legend and myth, sometimes intentionally. -- 77.178.60.120 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Pseudopedia

and Pseudo-etymology. The name Achaemenes has ancient greek origins. Old persian has its roots in ancient greek. 2A02:3100:109D:6C00:A197:86A:CCE7:DEB5 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)