![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of Eras in articles:
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.
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
Guys, why not simply use BC/AC (Before /After) and sove the problem! Kiumars 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
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.
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ---
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)
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)
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)
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)
What ever you say buddy. We ALL agree with you! Larry2377 ( talk) 23:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)(Larry2377)
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)