Talk:Achaemenid Empire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Map

@Ali Zifan: did a very good job of making a vector version of this map:

In my opinion it is way better than the current leading pic in the article:

Not only it is vector based, but it is an identical version of a sourced, authoritative map, and in my opinion should replace the current lead image in the article. @LouisAragon: and other editors, any comments or opposition to this? UCaetano (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Yeah that looks sweet! Imho though, how "sourced" it may look, don't forget the map is some 70+ years old and things have been updated about Achaemenid history, especially regarding the European territories. In my opinion, if Ali Zifan could re-add the Black Sea territories (which Darius had definitely subjugated and we even have an article about), Paeonia, Macedon, all of Thrace, further parts of mainland Greece, etc; basically the same territories in Europe which were already added on the previous map, then it would be complete. Furthermore, Xerxes conquered swaths of Northern and Central Greece during the Greco-Persian Wars prior to the Greeks getting the overhand. There are many, many sources which confirm these possessions, and it would only result in more edit wars and factual inaccuracy if we don't re-add them. Science does not stand still in time, and 70 years is a really long time. The problem with the previous maps on these articles was that they were almost entirely unsourced. I can cite all the sources here that are needed for those particlar territories, and Ali Zifan can add them to the source description on Wikimedia, if he agrees with it. The rest of the territories are all correct namely, even today in 2015.

Basically re-adding the territories in Europe alike these maps. [1] - [2] @Ali Zifan:, UCaetano; are you both fine with this? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with using the map as it is. While we can find sources on areas which were at some point ruled by the Achaemenid Empire, I don't believe any of us are experts who should be designing maps based on that. That would be a lot of interpretation, and would introduce factual errors (such as where exactly was the border), as well as subjective claims (does areas occupied DURING a war count as actual territory? the US occupied Germany, but no map would ever consider Germany as part of the US). I'd avoid any subjective interpretations and leave the map as it is. UCaetano (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, then theres no point in adding any map to such empire-related articles, imho. It should be one way or another; either everything, or nothing. It's strange to add a 70 years old map while contemporary research has proven it to be factually incomplete. It can be used as a reference (a good one that is), but by no means as a source to disregard the modern-day knowledge and facts about it. The capture of the territory in northern/Central Greece during the wars can be ommited, I agree (though numerous sources mention that as "far as Thessaly" paid tribute), but the other mentioned regions as I mentioned above definitely were subjected to Achaemenid rule for decades, paid tribute, and were recorded in the Behistun inscription. Furthermore, tons of Wikipedia articles would be ruined as well if we don't add it on the newly proposed map as well, as they go by the previous Achaemenid maps, as well as books, references, and such that are inserted and are up to date. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a contemporary map from a reliable source including those regions, I'd have no problem with adding it (or a vector version). My problem is with drawing homemade maps based on interpretations. That's OR IMHO, and we should avoid it. UCaetano (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: and @UCaetano: Finally is this map ready to used? Should I add any other territories to the Achaemenid's map illustration? Ali Zifan 21:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with using this map as it is. Maybe I'll add names to some of the geographic features (seas, oceans, etc.) just to clarify, but I say go ahead and make it the article's map. Thanks for you good work! UCaetano (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

UCaetano, hey, well, you have a point there. We should avoid interpretations, though most empire maps on Wikipedia are made this way; an amalgamation of sourced info that has been put together into an image. Please don't forget that. Its not an issue to have such a map as I described, as long as every inch is reliably sourced so to say. (at least that's how I think about it) That way one avoids WP:OR too, though exceptions exist. Anyways, here are several other (including more recent) academic maps that show the Achaemenid extent that I found; [3] (scroll to "achaemenid empire"), as well as this one, another one,and lastly, this one, that might be of any use for us to formulate a definite map/ What are you two guys' takes on these? Can we use or deduct info from them for our new map? If negative/no, we can place the old one Ali just fixed, I guess.

PS: A further issue btw regarding what I said in my first sentence of this reply, is that we have 10+ Achaemenid maps on Wikimedia all which show a different extent. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, I'm ok with replicating this map and placing it in the article lead, but I would avoid mixing maps to find the "greatest extent", since that's interpretation on our part. This map is sourced "enough", and also provides some historical context, showing the empire at different stages. UCaetano (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Do you want a vector verison of it ?

I also updated the map based on territories that gained by Darius I in Europe. Ali Zifan 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The current one LGTM, feel free to add it to the article. I changed the description and the source in the image. Good work! UCaetano (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Ali Zifan 12:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I concur. This map is of good usage and I just already asked Ali Zifan to update it regarding it. Guess we're basically done here, and indeed, good work to Ali Zifan, but also to our fruitful discussions. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WAIT!!! I have a better map! I made this long ago if this were to ever arise again! It's based on the exact sources as the other maps, it's just colored red and it's far more detailed than any map as of now! Please take this map into consideration!

Godly Achaemenid Empire ca. 500 B.C

Again, PLEASE take this one into consideration! I will gladly put this one up in the infobox! I will add more cities and Satrap names as time goes on! Don't you worry about that one! Kirby (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah we've seen that map before, but it's factually very incorrect, especially regarding the territories in Central Asia and the Subcontinent. Never ever did it have such an extent. Furthermore, the colouring (red) is not good. And lastly, sorry, but in my opinion Ali Zifan's map is better, about which we already reached a consensus, and is entirely sourced. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I support keeping the current one. UCaetano (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kirby: Hello. I appreciate your work but in my opinion it can't be placed in the article, especially in the infobox because :

• This map doesn't have any sources.
• Some the names that you've put on the area of the empire are incorrect. Maka is one of the examples.
• The borders on the north (east of the caspian sea) are indicated incorrectly.
• Vector maps are more preferable than other types of images in Wikipedia.
• Infoboxes give generals. Putting the names on a map in infobox is not that necessary.

Also we already had a long discussion about choosing a map so you can read those if you are not convinced yet. Thank you Ali Zifan 01:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Plethora of bogus claims.

• Just wanted to ask the more informed conventional historians/editors if Charles Robinson can be considered authentic. Also, in the part where Alexander's invasion is "described", Rosbinson along with Will Durant and Peter Levi are cited. Durant was a writer and Levi a poet. AND they all base their accounts on Diodorus who is often considered unreliable. Add to this that Diodorus himself lived more than 200 years after Alexander.

• The claims about the extent and population of the empire also need references. Several editors kept adding present-day countries/regions like pakistan and Saudi and UAE and even China! Some edits just add some region/country with no reference (the existing ones do not mention that region/country). The Roman Empire I believe was far bigger and wealthier. This article also makes the claim that it was the largest empire in recorded history's "ancient period". Can somebody confirm these? 117.194.230.124 (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article is occasionally a bit of honey pot for questionable claims and it currents though extensive seems not without problems (some possibly outdated literature and a lot of primary sources, private websites and non-schloarly sources). For now just removed the map with the false borders, but the article could use some further work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced we shouldn't use Charles Robinson Jr.'s book. Unless something's wrong with my search, no one seems to mention it.And yes, Durant and Levi shouldn't be used either Doug Weller (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, these are all claims that slowly creep back into the article from time to time, usually using estimates for which there is no consensus or dubious sources. UCaetano (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is also Hegel (German philopher, 1770-1831) and Farrokh (author without scholarly reputation), who might be not appropriate. There are also a variety of private websites still being used as sources. I started to remove some of it (some of the private websites and the guiness records website), but that's only a small start. Aside from removing obviously questionable stuff many of "good" sources need to be properly cited and formatted (currently they are sometimes only links with no visible information about the source) and at some point the article might need a content review by expert editors who have greater familiarity with the topic and access to relevant scholarly literature.

After that there is also the question, whether anything "smart" can be done to reign in the constant deterioration over time somewhat.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole article needs a rewrite using the best modern sources. There must be much more on Encyclopedia Iranica that can be used. Note also this edit, by a copyvio sockpuppet, though judging by the style of the language wherever it was lifted from is likely to be out of copyright by now. Durant is I think only used for the puffing wind-up quote at the end of the article, next to Hegel. At the same time, I don't think historians' perceptions of the Achemenids have changed all that much in recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but sorry, I'm not the best person to do it. Note that the sockpuppet History of Persia is very active on Commons and some of his maps are appearing in articles here. Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in Proto-Nabataean history, but if there was an Arabia province or Arab settlements which were tributaries of the empire, then that should be on the map. It should be noted that many Achaemenid "provinces" were essentially tributaries, so I'm not sure where we draw the line. It seems doubtful that such an important region such as Egypt would only be connected to the Asian portion of the empire by little more than the coast. Such a thin strip would be subjected to Arab raids constantly. It would only make sense for the Achaemenids to create some port of buffer, either by "tributary", "vassal", "province", "client", or whatever English word we'd use to describe some degree of subordination by manner of "giving" "gifts" "supplies", whatever. You get the idea. For example, the Achaemenid Arabia article mentions 1000 talents of frankincense being given by "Arabia" to the Achaemenids, but paints it as more of a gift than actual tribute. It even makes a point of stating that the Arabs were still autonomous, which very well may be true. If a "vassal" is still essentially autonomous aside from annual "gifts", is it still part of the empire? These are all things we need to talk about when dealing with the dynamics of the relationships between the Achaemenids and their distant provinces and neighbours. We probably need a dual-colour map indicating "vassals".--Tataryn (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Largest population by percentage of world total

When I insisted that in terms of its share of the world population it was the largest empire, instead of one of the largest empires, I was reverted. What particularly surprised me was the claim that there is no concensus on it, or that sources disagree about it. We have our own article on the wiki, List of largest empires, unambiguously giving a tremendous 44.48% compared to Qing's 36.60%. We should be careful not to contradict ourselves (or we'll have to add the Template:Contradict-other template). But more importantly, what notable sources disagree here? I even notice that Guinness World Records has now marked it as the largest, seemingly untroubled by any controvery around it. It's always difficult to find the origins of claims that are often repeated, but this one seems almost universally accepted. What gives? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The 44.48% number (which by itself is not contained in the source provided) is a calculation, based on a single source. We should not be using another WP article as source and feel free to add the template. As for Guinness, I wouldn't consider it here a reliable source for historical population analysis. Modern estimates range from 17M to 35M, but one source claims 50M (from where the 45% figure was calculated). In other words, this % is done by consolidating multiple numbers, from multiple experts across multiple times, and is not something reliable enough to claim without doubt that it was the largest empire. Makes sense? UCaetano (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Population

I changed the population number to reflect a much better source. The previous number comes from Encyclopedia Iranica citing another source, while the new one (a range) comes from here. I know this will be controversial, so I'm starting the discussion here. UCaetano (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Map

Section redacted at request of Arman ad60. Issue appears to be settled and moot now anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I want to include this map in this article. If you editors are watching, please tell me what do you think about that? Arman ad60 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC) This map used to be the leading map in the article, and was replaced, by consensus with the current map. I do not support your move to revert to this old map. STOP trying to push it via edit warring. UCaetano (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC) BTW, you can read the entire discussion on the current map up here. UCaetano (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, but my map is graphically much better and it is highly detailed. Well "Quality" is also an important thing here, isn't it? This is an encyclopedia and people of the world will see this. So, the maps should be improved, shouldn't they? So, can't my map be accepted for this article? Arman ad60 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC) No, it isn't improved. It is hard to read and is an image of poor quality. UCaetano (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I will differ with your opinion in this matter. This map is obviously better than the previous one. Because it is made with better graphics and is more detailed. And you cannot read any text of any other maps at this size. You can read them all when you zoom in on the map. What do the other editors think about that? Arman ad60 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC) If a majority of other editors support reverting to the map you're proposing (btw, you can read the previous map discussion in this talk page), I'd have no issue in doing it. Until then, there's no new consensus, and the current map stays. UCaetano (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC) There are plenty of unillustrated parts of the article, and we don't have a labelled map, which many will find useful. Most non-local readers are not at all familiar with Near Eastern geography, and will find maps without labels hard to relate to. I think it should be included, but certainly not in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC) OK, I have presented three more maps here. What do you think about them: All three maps are substantially different. You gotta figure out the actual borders.--Tataryn (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC) I don't think there is any problem with the borders. There will always be 2 or 3% differences in different maps. I don't think that should be a big problem. Can you tell me which part of the border you have problem with? Arman ad60 (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC) The current map was created based on those 3 maps you've shown, and is far better. No confusing text, simple and high quality vector graphics. I don't understand what is the problem you see with the current map. UCaetano (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Map

For a very brief time in Xerxes war against greece, Xerxes had annexed Attica and Boetica, but this is not shown in the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.224.26 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Relogion

The "Religion" section discusses only Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenid kings and ethnic Iranians, but fails to mentions other religions. --Z 13:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent use of Greek names to refer to Persian cities

I've noticed the persistent, exclusive use of Western demonyms (i.e., Greek xenonyms, rather than Persian autonyms) in this article, to refer to Persian entities from people to cities. The entries on this page go so far as to claim that cities were actually called by their Greek names, without qualifying that it was the strictly the Greeks who were doing the calling by that name. Persepolis is an example. I think this is misleading (as a person of Persian descent I actually find it offensive) and, unless someone beats me to it or raises a proper and persuasive objection, I will edit the page to clarify this issue, and include the Persian name as well as the Greek. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)SD

Note that this is an english article

I don't know whose one-line response it is, above, as it is unsigned, but the fact that this is an English article is irrelevant. The following sentence: "As Persians gained power, they developed the infrastructure to support their growing influence, including creation of a capital named Pasargadae and an opulent city named Persepolis."—is misleading and, therefore, inappropriate as it stands. The capital and "opulent city" were not "named" Pasargadae and Persepolis by their owners, the Persians (as you might be lead to believe), but by the Greeks—and only the Greeks. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Achaemenid Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001032753/http://plutarch.classicauthors.net/PlutarchsLives/PlutarchsLives3.html to http://plutarch.classicauthors.net/PlutarchsLives/PlutarchsLives3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619124220/http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720031359/http://www.tomrawlinson.com/Personal/Links/RawlinsonGeorge.htm to http://www.tomrawlinson.com/Personal/Links/RawlinsonGeorge.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315084037/http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/GogAndMagog.htm to http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/GogAndMagog.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217023749/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/history/periods/persianii.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/history/periods/persianii.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619124220/http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310231608/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f8/v1f8a022.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f8/v1f8a022.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105203909/http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/PUB/SRC/OIP/117/OIP117.html to http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/PUB/SRC/OIP/117/OIP117.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Achaemenid Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126081333/http://www.museum-achemenet.college-de-france.fr/ to http://www.museum-achemenet.college-de-france.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Rein Taagepera

Rein Taagepera is a political scientist not an historian and has no specialization in the field of Persian history, Greek history or even that particular time period, therefore his sources should be removed and replaced with reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Achaemenid Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jprasurg.com/article/S1748-6815%2810%2900521-8/pdf%7C.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723072146/http://www.mazdapublisher.com/Documents/Persian%20Civilization.pdf to http://www.mazdapublisher.com/Documents/Persian%20Civilization.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in the lead as a badge of honor

The Seven Wonders of the World were not the most significant wonders in the world, they were "seven wonders" according to the view of a certain people in a certain location in a certain period of time. There were probabbly more significant buildings in Achaemenid territories, the Palace of Darius in Susa, the palace at Ecbatana, and even Persepolis. But mentioning the existence of a single building in a country in its article's lead doesn't make sense. --Z 09:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Receiving no responce after three months, I'm going to remove the statement from the lead. Please discuss before addition. --Z 08:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Achaemenid Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015232225/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9068262/Smerdis to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9068262/Smerdis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517062736/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f8/v1f8a031.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f8/v1f8a031.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317005252/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f4/v1f4a109.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f4/v1f4a109.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Fv9f3%2Fv9f393a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621133316/http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/OIP92.pdf to http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/OIP92.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Haxamaneshian

This dynasty is always called "Haxamaneshian" in Persian. This fact should be reflected (early on) in the article. It's pronounced: /hæxɑːmæneshjɑːn/

It is the modern Persian name. The Old Persian name is already added in the infobox. --Z 10:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Achaemenid Empire. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Cutting down origins section

@Wikaviani: I'm trying to cut down on the stuff in the origins section because a lot of it is information that's repeated later in the article and doesn't really need to be there, plus some of it wasn't actually talking about the origins of the Achaemenids. Happy to explain why I'm taking out particular parts thought.

Specifically for the edits you reverted, the bits that I called "extraneous" weren't all extraneous I messed up there. I think the sentence about the varying scholarly views could stay but I felt like it made the sentence a bit too long and complex. As for "Nonetheless, it is clear that Cyrus and Darius were critical in the expansion of the empire" the sentence didn't make much sense to me in its context. I've moved a couple of things around and taken stuff out already so I might be missing its original context, but I don't think that mentioning Darius out of the blue in a section about the dynasty's origins is important, and I think it goes without saying based on the rest of the article that Cyrus and Darius were important in the empire's expansion. The part about Cyrus's grandfather possibly being Astyages I'm fine with staying but I didn't feel like it was necessary to include.

The main articles template I took out because I didn't feel like it was the right use of the template. I'm not 100% that I've got the usage right, but I don't think Teispids is a main article here when they're not mentioned in the section, and the section talks about more than just Achaemenes and the family tree. If I'm wrong about what the main article template is meant to do please correct me because I'm not 100% sure. TripleRoryFan (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@TripleRoryFan: Thanks for clarifying. I think that Teispids are relevant as a main article in the origin section, since Cyrus the Great was a member of this dynasty and they ruled the Zagros area from 650 BC to 522 BC. As to Cyrus and Darius contributions to the Empire's expansion, i also think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, because these two kings are the most prominent kings of the dynasty (probably along with Artaxerxes III). Cyrus conquered many territories and Darius organized the Empire. As a last word, i would like to thank you for the time you put on improving this article since i've seen that you made more than a dozen edits in a row. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll go to the Teispids article and make some improvements to it (it's a stub that hasn't been significantly edited since 2010, yikes!) then try to summarize that article in this one. TripleRoryFan (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire : unlikely candidate for "...largest state in history by share of population."

"The Achaemenid Empire (...)

(...) , it is estimated to be the largest state in history by share of population.[12]'"  ***

Source [12] = http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-empire-by-percentage-of-world-population/

I suggest that this very implausible and unverifiable claim from 'Guinness World Records' (an opaque and not a very reliable source for historical-statistical data!) be deleted, as it was deleted for the same reasons <22:06, 17 February 2018‎ TompaDompa> from another article :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

• • • After deletion, the preceding first half of the sentence (though not very informative) could be kept slightly adapted as follows :

"It incorporated various peoples of different origins and faiths."

---

Extract from the "View History"-tab for the fore-mentioned article :

(cur | prev) 22:06, 17 February 2018‎ TompaDompa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,157 bytes) (-590)‎ . . (→‎Largest empires by population: Actually, let's remove it altogether.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 22:01, 17 February 2018‎ TompaDompa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,747 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎Largest empires by population: While the IP's edit was misguided (but not vandalism – I reported the reversion as a false positive), the point about Guinness not being an ideal source is perfectly valid.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 21:40, 17 February 2018‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,706 bytes) (-672)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 80.200.136.88 to version by TompaDompa. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3288725) (Bot)) (undo) (Tag: Rollback) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 21:40, 17 February 2018‎ 80.200.136.88 (talk)‎ . . (19,378 bytes) (+672)‎ . . (I deleted the unsubstantiated claim, copied from the Guinness book (!), that Persian empire had 44% of World pop. in 500BCE. My source reduces this to 17 à 23%. Its top-10 list still very tentative, as based on 5 historians using diff.World pop.estimates) (undo) .

---

My alternative list of 10 "largest-ever empires by % of World population" (distilled from discussions on a history forum ), that I "misguidedly" replaced it with in the above article, was not wholly unsubstantiated like the Guinness claim, but was of course still much too speculative, ramshackle and unreferenced to be published on Wikipedia. I was aware of that, but -being new to Wikipedia- I had found no "forum" on Wikipedia to present this as an additional argument for the suggested deletion. An argument to the effect that such a sweeping, over-arching Guinness-like claim is near-impossible to ascertain in the field of historical demography, due to the huge uncertainty about global population data prior to 1800 or even 1900...

Notwithstanding the inevitably approximative nature of its detailed figures and rankings, my alternative source strongly suggested that Achaemenid Empire representing 17 to max. 24% of World Population in 500 BCE, would rank only 11th to 14th on such a list of "proportionally most populous empires", coming after nr. 1 Qing China with 38 to 39% in 1800 and even below nr. 10 the British Empire with 25 to 26% in 1922.

I added back the content, removed without any consensus and added two sources for it. Also, the link (Historium), is nothing else than a forum, thus totally unreliable.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg: How do you define "strong claim" ? I don't see how this claim qualifies as such, since this Empire encompassed a very large share of the ancient known world. Second, please take a look at the above thread, this content seems to have been removed on the basis of a discussion forum (Historium). Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius_the_Elder

80.200.136.88 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Of course it's a strong claim. You are saying the empire ruled over nearly half the world's population. To prove this, you need a source that can accurately calculate the world's population at the time, and the population of the empire at the time. Only a high quality academic source will do. If we were to write "According to the Guinness Book of World records, the Achaemenid Empire ruled over 44% of the world's population..." Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Guinness Book is for pop culture trivia, not scholarly work. I don't know what historium is or what happened there, and I don't care. It seems you are trying to use that to somehow justify adding poorly sourced extraordinary claims to the lede of a high visibility article. That's not how wikipedia works. Khirurg (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Native name

In the Achaemenid Empire many languages were spoken, including several languages used at various official contexts (Old Persian, Babylonian, Elamite, Aramaic). Mentioning a single word in the lead or even the infobox is inappropriate; instead, I changed the name of the first section from "Etymology" to "Name" and added a short paragraph discussing the native name in the this section. --Z 13:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Achaemenid Empire is noted in Western history

Maybe this paragraph should be somewhere else in the article? Leading with it here is western-centric, and there's no reason to mention how it is noted in Western history over any other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.120.188 (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Codification of what data?

From the article:

"Other accomplishments of Darius' reign included codification of the data"

What data? Is that a census? It has to be clarified. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: It is the dāta, an Achaemenid legal system (see "DĀTA – Encyclopaedia Iranica". iranicaonline.org.). I corrected the sentence and upgraded the refs. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

New Map

Old Map

New Map

Hello! I found the current map for this article to be a bit lacklustre and so I decided to make a new one. This one adds cities, Satrapies and historical regions together with a legend. It's also a .png instead of a .jpg and is in an equal-area projection.

Let me know if there's something else I should add or change :) Cattette (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely prefer the new map over the currently used one. Has much more information and is aesthetically more pleasing. Good job on the map. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Me too, though the areas in the empire could be a little darker in the new map to contrast more with the areas not in the empire. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Much better map, no doubt about that. Perhaps a minor gripe, but the Gandharan capital of Taxila doesn't seem to be included as part of the Achaemenid Empire (perhaps this article may be of help? Achaemenid conquest of the Indus Valley). Also, if it isn't too much to ask, would it be possible to add other major/important cities, namely Pasargadae (one of their capitals), Ganzak, Hecatompylos, Opis, Anshan, and Arachoti? EDIT: This might also be of help [4] - according to the source, the Karakum Desert was part of the Chorasmia/Khwarazm satrapy. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind words and critique. I've added @HistoryofIran:'s suggestions to the map. Cattette (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: Doriscus, Eion, Dascylium and Sestos would be good additions too I think. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: I am not sure Sagala (your "Sangla"?) should be included within the eastern frontier. Here is an example of commonly agreed limits. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, @पाटलिपुत्र: thank you for your comments, your concerns have been addressed Cattette (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I do have a few final gripes about some border areas, could the Karakum desert and Tayma get included under Achaemenid rule as well? This is what Iranica says:

"2.4. Main Satrapy Uvārazmī/Chorasmia. This was one of those provinces where nomads were governed by indigenous rulers. Pharasmanes was the satrap who held sway at the time of Alexander. His territory largely coincided with the Karakum desert and covered a roughly rhombus-shaped area, which in the northeast was separated from the territory of the Massagetae by the Oxus/Amu Daryā (see below 7.6). In the northwest the old Oxus branch, the Uzboy, marked the boundary."

"Besides Mudrāya itself, at first only Arabāya/Arabia (already named in the Bisotun inscription) belonged to the Great Satrapy as a Main Satrapy. Arabāya must refer to the region that Nabonidus had conquered around the oasis of Taymāʾ (Gadd, pp. 79-89; Tadmor; Lambert, pp. 54-57; Rashid). Although it had once been part of the Babylonian empire, it was probably added to Egypt because it was won in connection with the conquest of the latter (Cook, p. 262; Knauf, pp. 202, 206-7)."

"Arabia around the oasis of Taymāʾ, which had also belonged to the Babylonian empire, was only won during the Egyptian campaign of Cambyses and then added to the Great Satrapy Egypt (see below, 5)."

Also, could you add Arbela as well?

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: I think the map is missing the easternmost satrapy: "India" (along the Indus river, numbered XX) as described by Herodotus (paragaph 94) ("The Indians made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation known to me, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust.") and as appears in this map, this map, this map or this map for example. Gandhara should be labelled as a smaller territory in the area of Charsada. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: Also, the VII satrapy should be positionned in the area of Gandhara, per Herodotus "The Sattagydae, Gandarii, Dadicae, and Aparytae paid together an hundred and seventy talents; this was the seventh province" [5], as shown in this map [6].पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the satrapies as described by Herodotus (from Districts of the Achaemenid Empire):पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

District	Satrapies	Tribute per District	% of total
I	Susa and the surrounding area, Cissia	300 Babylonian talents of silver	2.7%
II	Mysians, Lydians, Lasonians, Cabalians, Hytennians	500 Babylonian talents of silver	4.5%
III	Hellespontine Phrygians, Phrygians, Asian Thracians, Paphlagonians, Mariandynians, Syrians	360 Babylonian talents of silver	3.2%
IV	Cilicians	500 Babylonian talents of silver along with 360 white horses (one for each day of the year); of the talents, 140 were used to maintain the cavalry force that guarded Cilicia	4.5%
V	The area from the town of Posidium as far as Egypt, omitting Arabian territory (which did not pay taxes). All Yehud Medinata (Judea/Israel), Cyprus, and most of Phoenicia were herein contained. In the biblical Book of Ezra, this district is called Abar Nahara ("beyond the Euphrates river")	350 Babylonian talents of silver	3.1%
VI	Egyptians and the Libyans in the border towns of Cyrene and Barca	700 Babylonian talents of silver, in addition to the money from the fish in Lake Moeris, and 120,000 bushels of grain for the Persian troops and their auxiliaries stationed in the White Castle at Memphis	6.3%
VII	Sattagydians, Gandharans, Dadicae, Aparytae	170 Babylonian talents of silver	1.5%
VIII	Ionians, Asian Magnesians, Aeolians, Carians, Lycians, Milyans, Pamphylians	400 Babylonian talents of silver	3.6%
IX	Mesopotamia (Babylonia and Assyria)	1000 Babylonian talents of silver and 500 eunuch boys	9%
X	Ecbatana and the rest of Media along with the Paricanians and Orthocorybantians	450 Babylonian talents of silver	4%
XI	Caspians, Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae	a joint sum of 200 Babylonian talents of silver	1.8%
XII	Bactrians and all neighboring peoples as far as the Aegli	360 Babylonian talents of silver	3.2%
XIII	Pactyica, Armenians, and all the peoples as far as the Black Sea	400 Babylonian talents of silver	3.6%
XIV	Sagartians, Sarangians, Thamanaeans, Utians, Myci, and the inhabitants of the Persian Gulf islands (where prisoners or displaced people were sent)	together they paid 400 Babylonian talents	3.6%
XV	the Sacae and the Caspians	250 Babylonian talents of silver	2.2%
XVI	Parthians, Chorasmians, Sogdians, and Arians	300 Babylonian talents of silver	2.7%
XVII	Paricanians and Asiatic Ethiopians	400 Babylonian talents of silver	3.6%
XVIII	the Matienians, Saspires, Alarodians	200 Babylonian talents of silver	1.8%
XIX	the Mushki, Tibareni, Macrones, Mossynoeci, Marres	300 Babylonian talents of silver	2.7%
XX	Indians	360 Euboean talents of gold dust, equivalent to 4680 Euboean talents of silver, or 3600 Babylonian talents of silver.	32%
Total	Total of all annual tributes, in Babylonian talent silver equivalent	11140 Babylonian talents of silver	100%

@पाटलिपुत्र: @HistoryofIran: Added your suggestions Cattette (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: Thank you! Would it be possible to add the name "India" as one of the main satrapies, next to the number XX? An example, but vertically may be better. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: I am afraid many of the positions for the numbers (I to XX) are off, especially in the north and the east. May be Oxford could serve as a reference for this: [7][8]. Also, several of the names attached to the numbers in Oxford could be used for clarity. Finally, per the same source, the territory in the northeast should be expanded slightly beyond the Jaxartes, where the Sakas are (XVth satrapy). Chorasmia could also be added for clarity (the other part of the XVth satrapy). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I did my best to salvage what i could from that source, but a lot of the central satrapies were blocked out of view by the page gutter. Cattette (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: Great work! I don't think Macedonia and European Thracians were considered as part of a satrapy but only as vassals (and they don't appear as part of a satrapy in Herodotus, neither do they appear in his description of the IIIrd satrapy).... so it would probably be better to remove the "III" from the European side on the map... Thanks again! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work Cattette. Could Karakum be removed from the map? The term is anachronstic and wouldn't have been used till at least the Middle Ages when the Turks moved there. And Phrygia is mispelled as Phyrgia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

All said and done :) Cattette (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: Got two more: Mazaca and Aigai. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Thanks, Added your suggestions Cattette (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: A detail: geographically speaking, the label "Gandhara" should probably be just above Charsadda. "Charsadda" itself should probably be replaced by its old name Pushkalavati. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Alright,I'm only making one more update from now on which I will upload in a few days. So stack up as many little areas to improve and expand upon as you see fit until then. Cattette (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cattette: No problem. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Could Phyrgia get corrected to Phrygia? Could you add the satrapy of Arabaya? According to Iranica, it was a major satrapy, located around Tayma, perhaps you could add it above the VI above Tayma? Could the major satrapy of Sattagydia be added as well? According to Iranica, it coresponded to the Punjab. Also, could you add Hyrcania above Parthia? According to Iranica, it was a minor satrapy, part of Parthia;

"2.3. Main Satrapy Parθava/Parthia covered a territory that was described in two ways: “Parthia and Hyrcania” (DB par. 35; Arr., An. 3.22.1, 3.23.4, 6.27.3) as well as just “Parthia” (DB par. 37; cf. Arr., An. 3.28.2, 4.7.1; Curt., 9.10.17). It also follows that Hyrcania was subsumed under Parthia, from the description of the Chorasmians as living east of the Parthians (Athenaios, 2.70b). Administratively Hyrcania belonged to Parthia, most probably as a Minor Satrapy. In Seleucid times the two provinces were still assessed together for taxation (Strab., 11.9.1)."

And perhaps Sagartians -> Sagartia // Carmanians -> Carmania? Last but not least, could the city of Cyropolis be added as well?

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Thanks, I will add the cities and change the labelling. In regards to the Satrapies, I think it would be best if it relied on only one source. Reports of the administration of the Achaemenid Empire are often contradictory and Herodotus only spoke of 20 Satrapies, not 21 or 22. I'm not claiming that he is 100% correct about his assessment but I think mixing many different sources will open a pandora's box of research that will wield a lot of confusing and contradictory results.

Therefore I think it's apt to only cite Herodotus and make it clear that he is the source, which i have already done in the legend and description of the map. It will make it so much simpler for the casual viewer. Cattette (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Fix on mobile

Hey! I tried to do a small adjustment on mobile, but the formatting keeps making it awful...I don't know how to resolve this. The paragraph with the issue is under "government", and it should be fixed - I posted what I had corrected it to in the comment about the edit.

If someone could help me out, I would be very thankful! LiesForgotten (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@LiesForgotten: Hi! I restored the original content for the time being. Please try again when you have a stable platform. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! :) LiesForgotten (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@LiesForgotten: No problem! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sphinx Darius Louvre.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Neo-Babylonian Empire.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Source that Colchis was a satrapy

Where is the source who says that Colchis was the 18th satrapy in the Achaemenid Empire? All sources say that he was a vassal and an ally, but not a satrap.

No historian on this planet has ever written that Colchis was in any satrapy and if I am mistaken can anyone name one source who says these words "Colchis was a satrapy". CeRcVa13 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating this when I've already showed you a source that contradicts you? Moreover, the current infobox map is already supported by 4 sources. I'm gonna cite the source for a last time: "The situation is reminiscent of Colchis and Caucasian Iberia. Once, it was inconceivable that they had been under Achaemenid rule; now, ever more evidence is emerging to show that they were, forming a lesser part of the Armenian satrapy", page 665 "A Companion to the Achaemenid Empire and While “Armina” is already mentioned as a Persian satrapy in the Bisotun inscription, the territories of the former soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, as well as the northern part of Armenia, became part of the empire at the latest when the Persian army marched through this region during Darius I’s disastrous campaign against the Scythians in 513/12 BCE." - page 297, same source. While it might not have been part of this so called '18th satrapy', (which you keep mentioning) it was still part of the Achaemenid Empire. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To address this issue, despite CeRcVa13's indef block;

• "Under the Medes and the Achaemenid Persians, the Georgians of Colchis and of Iberia achieved parity, if not unity: Sasperi, or Iberians, formed the eighteenth Satrapy of the Persian empire, and Colchians(Herodotus lists them as Moskhi, Tibarenes, Makarons, Mossynooci and Mars) formed the nineteenth Satrapy." -- Donald Rayfield, "Edge of Empires : A History of Georgia", page 18-19. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Name of the empire

Given the native name and various non-native sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, I would like yall to consider adding the name the "Achaemenian" empire before Achaemenind in the opening paragraph. That would be the most accurate. 72.142.172.132 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Persians ruled by Assyrian Empire

• "For a number of centuries they[Persians] fell under the domination of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–609 BC), based in northern Mesopotamia."

After two attempts by an editor to reference this particular sentence, I found;

• Sophist Kings: Persians as Other in Herodotus, Vernon L. Provencal, page 98;"There is no record of the Persians before 1000 and 'we hear nothing certain about them or the development of their state'..... before the seventh century. The earliest record is of an event occurring about 647 involving a certain "Kurash, king of Parsuwash", who appears in an Assyrian text in which Ashurbanipal recounts his destruction of Elam."

Which would indicate that the Persians could not have been under the domination of the Neo-Assyrian Empire for centuries, if no record of them is found until 647!

A similar sentence in the article Persians is also unsourced.[9] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

In Daniel Potts' paper, he cites differing opinions as to Kurash's possible ethnic origins, page 287-288. Potts also makes no mention of Persians under Neo-Assyrian rule. As such, said sentence will be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Iranian, not persian

learn the differences, the Achaemenid Empire included many other Iranian ethnicities than Persian. Krqftan (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is saying its exclusively ethnic Persian, its called "Persian Empire" in English because westerners referred to all of Iran as Persia. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Cyrus and his family were from Persia has something to do with it. The dynasty was Persian, not Median, not Parthian, ... 20:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC) 50.111.60.40 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Too much focus on not the topic

The fourth paragraph talks a lot about Alexander the great, and what came about after his death. Since it’s not on him, I believe that it should just state that he conquer a lot of the land, and leave the rest of the information to the appropriate pages SaavayuAdrin (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Alexander III has a substantive article and we should cut this off after his defeat of Darius or thereabouts, as that was the end of the first Persian Empire. 50.111.60.40 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Elamite

" It was during his reign that Elamite ceased to be the language of government,[citation needed] and Aramaic gained in importance " -- the kings and the army spoke Old Persian. Written records that have been found in the capitol are majority written in Elamite, but that is not the same as 'language of government' ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.40 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

contradiction

Map says largest land area under Darius I, lede says Xerxes ... one or the other needs to be corrected. 50.111.60.40 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Just an observation. During the Second Persian invasion of Greece (480–479 BCE), Xerxes temporarily conquered Euboea, Phocis, Boeotia and Attica (including Athens). He held more Greek territory than Darius I. Dimadick (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)