Talk:Cyrus the Great/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

korosh's name origin

as the article says the name of korosh probably was originated from the words of "kor" + "rosh" or "rash" which both of them originated from kurdish or ancient median since korosh's mother was median. "kor" in kurdish means "boy" or "son" and "rash" means "black" or "dark". maybe korosh had got dark skin.--Awyer (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Awyer

Another example of false etymology.Heja Helweda (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that Awyer presented his own etymolgy of the name, I suggest him a similar folk hypothesis!: maybe the word origiantes from Kur+rozh which in Kurdish means Son of Sun! A name quite fitting a nobleman/king, especially in accordance with Iranian mythology regarding their respect for sun and light. :)) Sharishirin (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some research and found that the name Kurush may actually be connected with the word kur (son/boy) which is from old Iranic root of kur (to be born). Don't you think this should be reflcted in the article? Sharishirin (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and it would be great if you can add it with its reference in the "name" section. The Encyclopaedia Iranica entry mentions the hypothesis, but its author rejects it.Amizzoni (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Source by Suren-Pahlav

This source regarding family background of Cyrus is from an unreliable personal website [1]. The norm is to refer to reliable academic sources.Heja Helweda (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Queen Esther?

The text treats Queen Esther as a historical person, rather than the heroine of romantic fiction. Not many biblical scholars take the Book of Esther as history! Jim Lacey (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza talk says that this is a excerpt from the article Basileus which is a copy pasted here, and says...

Use of Basileus in Classical Times

In classical times, almost all states had abolished the hereditary royal office in favor of democratic or oligarchic rule: Some exceptions exist: namely the two hereditary Kings of Sparta (who served as joint commanders of the army, and were also called arkhagetai), the Kings of Macedon and of the Molossians in Epirus, various kings of "barbaric" (i.e. non-Greek) tribes in Thrace and Illyria, as well as the Achaemenid kings of Persia. The Persian king was also referred to as Megas Basileus (Great King) or Basileus Basileōn, a translation of the Persian title Šāhanšāh ("King of Kings"), or simply "the king".

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are many issues that need to be addressed.

• In short, this article has serious problems. Parts, like legacy etc. are well sourced while others, like this whole dam business seem to be copyright violations from some website, so badly have they been incorporated. Much of the article is poorly written. In the legacy section for example, which is one of the best parts of the article, Thomas Jefferson is brought up twice in two seperate paragraphs which make the same comment. In order for this to remain a GA, I will need to see a real commitment from somebody to deal with these problems, beginning by exorcising this strange section on the dam and replacing it with reasonable and sourced prose. If anyone is willing please indicate below and I will work with you to straighten out the problems.
• The biography section needs close attention because at the moment it is just a collection of short, frequently unconnected paragraphs, and in places lacks vital sourcing.
• Find an image to go in the infobox.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

his tomb

heard that it is being destroyed by the iranian government, we have to highlight it as a separate piece in the site., —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrecoPersian (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't see Old Persian text

I can't see the Old Persian text, just "??????". Anyone else have this problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.41.217.24 (talk • contribs) 09:20, June 26, 2007.

That's because operating system developers are jerks. Unicode has, since version 3.0 (that was 8 years ago), supported Old Persian as well as many other historic languages. However, no operating system that I know of ships with a font to actually RENDER those glyphs. So, while practically any modern OS has the ability to display the characters -- it simply cannot, because it has no fonts with those glyphs. In short, you must manually download a font with Old Persian glyphs in it. Roozbeh was kind enough to share a link to download such a font: http://persian.ir/images/7/70/Xerxes.ttf. Install it (ie. for Windows, put it in your Windows/Fonts/ directory) and your browser will automatically start rendering the text properly. ♠ SG →Talk 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked after also trying code2001 from :http://got.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gothic_Unicode_Fonts , in the end I don't know which it was that one worked.

I've seen 'unusual character' warnings on other articles. Can we get one here that will tell users what to do? --Rindis (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WAIT!

Hi, I want to say that one day soon I will revamp this article to be so cool it will get an A+! But I am working on his battles currently so someone now, only now has to do these things you want them to do, which I have taken the liberty of doing myself because I care, but, also I want you to know that I put a lead into to go before hand in the part about the Tedd Koppel part talking about Cyrus the Great, which is the part that mentions Thomas Jefferson, in a qoute of course. I do not know how to make big light blue quotation marks, so sorry, I'm new here, been doing other things. But I got the other thing done, I put a reference to an eternal link about the save Pasargadae from Sivand Dam thing. Also I'm still looking for a decent picture of Cyrus the Great. So I did 2 of 3 things, and I want you to send your pleading message to all those guys intrested in Cyrus, so the pros can know about this articles mishaps, also I will one day soon put some information pertaining to the views of Ctesias, and Nicolas, Xenophon, which have the right to be heard, I mean their accounts of Cyrus that are very similar to Herodotus's versions, so they have some truth to it. So I'm planning to make major well referenced from academic sources article that will make Wikipedia's administraters happy, so thanks for reading this long statement, be good, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I appreciate the message. Don't worry, there is no rush to delist, and if it does happen it is easy to restore GA status once the problems have been addressed. Glad to see there is attention here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I apologise for not coming back to this for two months, but real life intervened. The article has improved, and although it would benefit from better and more thorough sourcing as well as a substantial copyedit, I will pass this as a GA once the section on Cyrus's tomb is sorted out. This section is poorly written and has raw URLS, some actually written out in the text! When this is cleaned up drop a line here and I will reassess. If nothing is done in seven days then I will delist this article. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no work in the last week on the tomb section. This article is no longer a GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

English pronunciation

How do you pronunce the English name "Cyrus"? I'm not living in an English-speaking country and I'd like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.227.129 (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is pronounced SIGH-russ (or SY-russ, if that is clearer. Raymondwinn (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've lately heard KEI-rush. I wonder how _that_ is spelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.107.101 (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Titles

• Shahenshah of Persia: OK
• Emperor of Media: The imperial status of Media is disputed among scholars, so it would be better to say "King of Media" instead. It is important to take into account that the word King doesn't imply that the individual ruled over a small territory, it is used to indicate that he was a sole ruler; by this way, all emperors were kings, so the people who consider Media as an Empire accept that its emperor was King of Media. Compare the usage of Emperor of Media (4) with the usage of King of Media (2,100).
• Basileus of Lydia: Cyrus conquered Lydia, but, AFAIK, there is no evidence that he used any title relating to Lydia. It is a dubious and unreferenced statement, so I think we should simply remove it.
• King of Neo-Babylonia: Such title doesn't exist, his title was "King of Babylonia". We shouldn't make up titles.
• Cyrus was also king of Anshan. It is in fact his most attested title.Amizzoni (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I move here the reply Ariobarza put in my talk page. Amizzoni (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

===Shahenshah of Persia===: Ok.
===Emperor of Media===: The imperial status of Media is disputed among scholars, so it would be better to "SAY" "King of Media" instead. REPLY; That is why I PUT a semi-colon on the word Emperor, so if its wrong people know its just a fancy title.] It is important to take into account that the word King doesn't imply that the individual ruled over a small territory, it is used to indicate that he was a sole ruler; by this way, all emperors were kings, so the people who consider Media as an Empire, accept that its emperor was King of Media. REPLY; And also according to some findings, which I WILL site soon, sometimes the rulers of Media called themselves the EMPEROR, and Cyrus was not a ruler of a Kingdom, but an Empire.] Compare the usage of Emperor of Media (4) with the usage of King of Media (2,100). REPLY; In the study of history, it changes over time, as more evidence is discovered and arranged, so basically if the majority of people choose to believe something wrong, does not mean its true.]
===Basileus of Lydia===: Cyrus conquered Lydia, but, AFAIK, there is no evidence that he used any title relating to Lydia. REPLY; PLEASE READ THE LAST HUGE PARAGRAPH I WROTE, AND LOOK AT THE BASILEUS ARTICLE YOURSELF!] It is a dubious and unreferenced statement, so I think we should simply remove it. REPLY; I referenced it on your talk page, and Cyrus' talk page.]
===King of Neo-Babylonia===: Such title doesn't exist, his title was "King of Babylonia". We shouldn't make up titles. REPLY; Yes, but he conquered the Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire, not the ORIGINAL Babylonian Empire, please type in Neo-Babylonian Empire on Wikipedia.] Cyrus was also King of Anshan. It is in fact his most attested title. REPLY; Yes, but most scholars today consider him just talking about his capitals name, which Tiespes conquered Anshan or Susa from the Elamites, when they were destroyed by Assyria. So if Cyrus says he is the King of Pasargadae, he is the king of his own capital, his capital was later moved to Pasargadae.]

Amizzoni, I agree with you on everything, its just there are some things most people know and don't know, but don't REALIZE! And also tell me what AFAIK means, thank you, bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

AFAIK means "as far as I know". I paste here your comments on basileus (from my talk page):

"Ariobarza talk also says that this is a excerpt from the article Basileus which is a copy pasted here, and says...

Use of Basileus in Classical Times

In classical times, almost all states had abolished the hereditary royal office in favor of democratic or oligarchic rule: Some exceptions exist: namely the two hereditary Kings of Sparta (who served as joint commanders of the army, and were also called arkhagetai), the Kings of Macedon and of the Molossians in Epirus, various kings of "barbaric" (i.e. non-Greek) tribes in Thrace and Illyria, as well as the Achaemenid kings of Persia. The Persian king was also referred to as Megas Basileus (Great King) or Basileus Basileōn, a translation of the Persian title Šāhanšāh ("King of Kings"), or simply "the king".

None Greeks calling none Greek kings the title of Basileus? What the hell, I thought...Oh, and don't forget that Byzantium rulers of turkey in nearby Lydia used them to, even for foreign conquerors, and that Thrace was sometimes changed in locations between Greece and Turkey, and that the eastern half of ancient Thrace belongs to Turkey today, so don't say it only applied to Persian Satraps in Thrace, which anyways Thracians and Persians are none Greeks themselves, it was applied wherever the majority of the population was Greek, I guess, because I think this seems to be the case here, or the lands between Greece and Turkey. Which included ancient Lydia, which Cyrus conquered. Also we have a considerable amount of information that Ctesias has left us, basically based on the fragments of Ctesias, Herodotus talks about the Persians five times more than Ctesias talks about the Persians, and both Ctesias and Herodotus mention eachother, which shows both the (Persica), and (Histories), were written around the same time, which is very similar to Herodotus accounts too. So I think there is some truth to it, in the middle of course. Which is still worth mentioning, you can find it, and read it, and you'll be suprised, in books, and on the internet. Another reason is that Ctesias, as verified by other historians was the personal physician of Artaxerxes, and had access to the Persian archives. So is it not common sense, to believe in the words of a royal Persian physician, or to believe in the words of a commoner in some ancient town, meaning Herodotus!. To give an EXAMPLE, imagine a Assyrian tablet saying king Whatever killed Tedo, but the tablet dosen't say when he buried Tedo. Then a Babylonian tablet both dated in the same time, says that in July 2, 1,234 BC, king Whatever buried Tedo, now we have the date, because the Babylonians have told us this, and there is no reason to doubt them, because, like I said both tablets were dated around the same time, and lets say they were written by prominent historians, (and again this is an example), SO the point is, (by using more than one source to find something out, we come closer to the truth), both Ctesias fills in the gaps that Herodotus leaves open, and Herodotus does the same thing to Ctesias. So as I read in most books, historians do this today. Okay then, thanks for reading, goodbye."

"I really respect your work, but I got to say I'm just dissapointed at your recent edits, YES imperial status of Media is disputed, but compare it to Assyria and Egypt, it was a huge KINGDOM? Or an {E M P I R E}, so the Cyrus article is just an educated guess on it, because to tell you the truth were never going to know. And Cyrus first conquered Lydia, so if the Persian kings after him were called Basileus (as my last comment implies), then he was most likely the first of the Persian kings to be called that, thank you!--67.180.225.250 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk"

I find it hard to understand what you are trying to mean, it really doesn't make much sense to me.

• On Emperor of Media vs. King of Media: no, the Median kings never called themselves "Emperor", the word comes from Latin (imperator) and there has not yet been found any written source of the Medes themselves.
• On Basileus of Lydia: "so if the Persian kings after him were called Basileus (as my last comment implies), then he was most likely the first of the Persian kings to be called that." The Persian kings, as all kings, were called basileus by the Greeks: basileus is the Greek word for king. It is not a title the Persian kings used, but a way the Greeks called them. Futhermore, they had no title related in any way with Lydia, as far as we know from the evidence available.
• On King of Neo-Babylonia: So you admit that his title was King of Babylonia. Remember that caption is about titles, not about the places where he ruled. If you click on "edit", you'll see that this part of the Infobox says: title = , and a little bellow, othertitles = .
• On King of Anshan: Again, the caption is about titles. Amizzoni (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Until you provide a reference about the Median kings calling themselves "emperor" (?) and about the Persian kings used any title relating to Lydia, the article can't stay as it is now, so I'll correct it. I hope you can understand that we can't allow unreferenced information. Amizzoni (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THESE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ALL MY PROPOSALS ON THE CYRUS THE GREAT ARTICLE

EXCUSE THE PERSONAL RESPONDS IN THESE COMMENTS, I WAS RESPONDING TO A FRIEND, BUT I MAKE MY POINTS HERE TOO, SO THANK YOU FOR AVOIDING THEM AND UNDERSTANDING IF YOUR WILLING TO READ IT.

Salam or Dorood my Persian bro...

Hi, I got to say, thanks for your edits, you have opened my mind. But, there is a problem, me, who has studied the works of Herodotus, the father of historical lies, and Ctesias the lost and very intricate historian that almost all his works were lost, and Xenophon, Nicolas of Damascus, Justin, including Biblical and Babylonian sources... All I can say is that all these historians and history, which the arguement over history itself lets leave for another time, is disputed, all of them, so just because the full work of Ctesias the guy who knew personally as the physician of Artaxerxes, and knew Persian historians, I think people have been biased to Ctesias because almost all his works were lost, and he fills in the holes that Herodotus leaves open, including that he wrote his thing only 200 years after Herodotus' Histories, so to call him unreliable, would be a big mistake. So I just want to say that Cyrus' campgain box that I created is based of a combination of Hero,Ctes, and Nicols works. Which always remember the only way to discover truth in history is to analize all works and average them, by using all sources to find similar things which could be true. The article of Cyrus only has Herodotus' version of events, and that shows that over the ages peoples bias's are expanding, he basically fails us to cover the later events of Cyrus the Greats life. So it is the only way is to include all estimates even if they are not true. Like in certain battles if more than one historian talks about the numbers, you don't just put one of their guesses, you put all the guesses of all the historians who talked about it, to be fair and balanced of course. So Atradates was a nickname of Cambyses I, it's not another person, and therefore I think it now should be included in Cambyses I article, don't worry I won't put it back in Cyrus's article. Second, Baselius or something, I may have spelled it wrong, like you said only applies to Greek rulers right, but in tradition Croesus was a Semi-Greek, and even if the tradition is wrong, Asia Minor which is half of The Lydian Empire was composed of Asian Greeks! Lydians are Greeks, and so are Ionians, throughout really ancient history they migrated back and forth from mainland Greece to Asian Greece. But when Persia fought, starting from the Ionian Revolt, mainland Greece, the official Greco-started-Persian Wars began, so to make Cyrus's title apply to him, calling him a Baselius is not going to hurt. And the Medes had a Empire with a Emperor, some books today call Astyages Emperor of the Medes, ask me to look for it, and I'll prove it to you. But as we all know Bablyonians had only Kings, which they called themselves, so thanks for reading, and best of wishes to you. Also Herodotus told allot of stories, but Ctesias said facts, now Herodotus is more proned to lie than Ctesias, but Ctesias could have lied to, most of the time they both don't know if even the things they say themselves is true or not, so they could lie without even knowing it. And thanks you. Comment back, and suggest things to me if I'm wrong, remember that I only talk comman sense here, I'm in a unknown school of thought, and I am becoming 19 years of age, and study ancient Persia heavily, and have allot of good books, okay.

Ariobarza talk also says that this is a excerpt from the article Basileus which is a copy pasted here, and says...

Use of Basileus in Classical Times

In classical times, almost all states had abolished the hereditary royal office in favor of democratic or oligarchic rule: Some exceptions exist: namely the two hereditary Kings of Sparta (who served as joint commanders of the army, and were also called arkhagetai), the Kings of Macedon and of the Molossians in Epirus, various kings of "barbaric" (i.e. non-Greek) tribes in Thrace and Illyria, as well as the Achaemenid kings of Persia. The Persian king was also referred to as Megas Basileus (Great King) or Basileus Basileōn, a translation of the Persian title Šāhanšāh ("King of Kings"), or simply "the king".

None Greeks calling none Greek kings the title of Basileus? What the hell, I thought...Oh, and don't forget that Byzantium rulers of turkey in nearby Lydia used them to, even for foreign conquerors, and that Thrace was sometimes changed in locations between Greece and Turkey, and that the eastern half of ancient Thrace belongs to Turkey today, so don't say it only applied to Persian Satraps in Thrace, which anyways Thracians and Persians are none Greeks themselves, it was applied wherever the majority of the population was Greek, I guess, because I think this seems to be the case here, or the lands between Greece and Turkey. Which included ancient Lydia, which Cyrus conquered. Also we have a considerable amount of information that Ctesias has left us, basically based on the fragments of Ctesias, Herodotus talks about the Persians five times more than Ctesias talks about the Persians, and both Ctesias and Herodotus mention eachother, which shows both the (Persica), and (Histories), were written around the same time, which is very similar to Herodotus accounts too. So I think there is some truth to it, in the middle of course. Which is still worth mentioning, you can find it, and read it, and you'll be suprised, in books, and on the internet. Another reason is that Ctesias, as verified by other historians was the personal physician of Artaxerxes, and had access to the Persian archives. So is it not common sense, to believe in the words of a royal Persian physician, or to believe in the words of a commoner in some ancient town, meaning Herodotus!. To give an EXAMPLE, imagine a Assyrian tablet saying king Whatever killed Tedo, but the tablet dosen't say when he buried Tedo. Then a Babylonian tablet both dated in the same time, says that in July 2, 1,234 BC, king Whatever buried Tedo, now we have the date, because the Babylonians have told us this, and there is no reason to doubt them, because, like I said both tablets were dated around the same time, and lets say they were written by prominent historians, (and again this is an example), SO the point is, (by using more than one source to find something out, we come closer to the truth), both Ctesias fills in the gaps that Herodotus leaves open, and Herodotus does the same thing to Ctesias. So as I read in most books, historians do this today. Okay then, thanks for reading. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrus_the_Great"--Ariobarza (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I really respect your work, but I got to say I'm just dissapointed at your recent edits, YES imperial status of Media is disputed, but compare it to Assyria and Egypt, it was a huge KINGDOM? Or an {E M P I R E}, so the Cyrus article is just an educated guess on it, because to tell you the truth were never going to know. And Cyrus first conquered Lydia, so if the Persian kings after him were called Basileus (as my last comment implies), then he was most likely the first of the Persian kings to be called that, thank you! ===Shahenshah of Persia===: Ok. ===Emperor of Media===: The imperial status of Media is disputed among scholars, so it would be better to "SAY" "King of Media" instead. REPLY; That is why I PUT a semi-colon on the word Emperor, so if its wrong people know its just a fancy title.] It is important to take into account that the word King doesn't imply that the individual ruled over a small territory, it is used to indicate that he was a sole ruler; by this way, all emperors were kings, so the people who consider Media as an Empire, accept that its emperor was King of Media. REPLY; And also according to some findings, which I WILL site soon, sometimes the rulers of Media called themselves the EMPEROR, and Cyrus was not a ruler of a Kingdom, but an Empire.] Compare the usage of Emperor of Media (4) with the usage of King of Media (2,100). REPLY; In the study of history, it changes over time, as more evidence is discovered and arranged, so basically if the majority of people choose to believe something wrong, does not mean its true.] ===Basileus of Lydia===: Cyrus conquered Lydia, but, AFAIK, there is no evidence that he used any title relating to Lydia. REPLY; PLEASE READ THE LAST HUGE PARAGRAPH I WROTE, AND LOOK AT THE BASILEUS ARTICLE YOURSELF!] It is a dubious and unreferenced statement, so I think we should simply remove it. REPLY; I referenced it on your talk page, and Cyrus' talk page.] ===King of Neo-Babylonia===: Such title doesn't exist, his title was "King of Babylonia". We shouldn't make up titles. REPLY; Yes, but he conquered the Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire, not the ORIGINAL Babylonian Empire, please type in Neo-Babylonian Empire on Wikipedia.] Cyrus was also King of Anshan. It is in fact his most attested title. REPLY; Yes, but most scholars today consider him just talking about his capitals name, which Tiespes conquered Anshan or Susa from the Elamites, when they were destroyed by Assyria. So if Cyrus says he is the King of Pasargadae, he is the king of his own capital, his capital was later moved to Pasargadae.]

Finally, the Finale! I'm doing this, as from the begining, to correct the previous versions of the titles of Cyrus, and to match it with Alexander the Greats titles (which I suggest you click on him to see what I mean), in history, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU CLAIM OF EXISTS, UNLESS ITS ARCHAEOLOGICAL. So please do not TALK about EVIDENCE, the only EVIDENCE is a surviving fragment of the historians writings. Also read the USE IN CLASSICAL TIMES part of the Basileus article, even if you have already read it carefully, I beg you the last sentences answers your questions. EVIDENCE OF TITLES for Cyrus is the king of the four corners, as he and the Mesopotaimians cite in his famous stella to himself. Or the former powers that he conquered, IN FACT, by conquering the LYDIAN, NEO-BABYLONIAN OR YOU CAN CALL IT CHALDEAN, AND MEDIAN E M P I R E S, he managed to also conquer the hundreds of smaller types of peoples in them too. So what BOTHERS me is that other than a coin of Alexander saying he is Zeus-Ammon, there is no evidence, just like in Cyrus's case that he had any other titles, we give him titles based on what historians say, SO believe it or not, JUST LIKE CYRUS, he conquered the three to four major powers of his time, (and anyways they should give him a Indian title to, because he also conquered India), Alexander gets the Greek, Hellenstic, Egyptian, and Shahenshah TITLES. But Cyrus only gets half of what he deserves. But, know this, its not that I want to overshadow Alexander or any other great conquerers article, its that I want things to be fair, so if your human, I think you can understand. And Herodotus, Ctesias, and Nicolas of Damascus, all say after the battle of Pasargadae, which Cyrus conquers the Medians, he is praised by both sides, and even referenced by the titles of now being the KING OF PERSIA AND MEDIA, ACCLAMATIONS AND SHOUTING TO HIS FACE! Again ANSHAN is just a capital, that later moved to PASARGADAE! About 75% of historians agree that the Persian realm was all of south-western IRAN, because all the Persian tribes were united as one under Achaemens or Teispes, so Cyrus was not the ruler of just one small city, most suppose that Cyrus may have acknowledged himself (so the Babylonians would know) that his original capital was at ANSHAN, that is why he refers to himself as KING OF ANSHAN AND OF PERSIA, (Persia being the new empire he created). I PRAY to Ahura Mazda, that you can understand my simple to understand sentences that even a five year old can understand. Finally check this mind blowing article out, Neo-Babylonian Empire, yes such a name, and possible title for Cyrus can exist. For Medians calling themselves emperor, I'm still searching. But in the mean time, I'll put "Emperor", but as you can SEE, with SEMI-COLINS AROUND EMPEROR, TO SHOW THAT THIS IS A FANCY TITLE FOR MEDIAN EMPIRE, so people UNDERSTAND it still means king, so DON'T remove it, because I kinda agree with you on the Media subject.

FINALLY, Amizzoni, I agree with you on everything, its just there are some things most people know and don't know, but don't REALIZE! I cheerish and I'm pissed off about the debates that we sometimes have, but I HOPE THIS CAN BE THE LAST ONE! Other than that I am still kinda okay with your recent edits. thank you, bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amizzoni"

I don't want to offend you, but this is nonsense. Please, do not revert my edits anymore. Regards, Amizzoni (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I move here Ariobarza`s response from my talk page. --Amizzoni (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

MISUNDERSTANDING, PLEASE READ

I am sorry. I know when I write, it sounds like I'm a ten year old, its just I'm in a hurry most of the time for personal reasons, hope you can understand. Also whenever I revert your edits, it is because of AFAIK, I might know more or less for certain things at times. And I'm expecting you to know why I do it, because I leave you those HUGE responses. But, I did not revert your edits last time, someone else added Media and Babylon to it. So again just for YOU to know, Anshan was an Elamite city conquered by Teispes in 645? BC, when the Elamites were weakened by the Assyrians. Then from that time it was considered to be the capital of the Persis province, so Cyrus may have been wanting the Babylonians to know that his birthplace and coronation was in Anshan, that is why he says he is KING OF ANSHAN, AND PERSIA, which is more like KING OF PERSIA, if he was originally from Anshan, then he should have said he is an Elamite, WHICH HE DOES NOT SAY, again the capital was moved to another city, which is Pasargadae, the city where his tribe resided, and the clan of the Achaemedae were, it was also were he beat his so called grandfather Astyages in battle, so to me, and most historians, it is considered as only ONE TITLE, not Anshan and Persia, only PERSIA. So don't be mad at the last edit that did not really change anything, which anyways was not me. Finally I wish you the best, thank you, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

And look at the "other titles" section of Cyrus the Great, and the main title I think should now be Shahensha of Persia, which if you look is most appropiate, I also did not remove anything you put there, only rearanged it, so that is it. I hope you can now agree!

DATE OF DEATH, AND CITING TITLES

The last editing for Cyrus titles tells me that I have to cite titles. But why do I have to site other titles, if in the Cyrus article it says he conquered the median, lydian, babylonian empires? So Cyrus is never going to have these titles, even in the other titles, these were independent and largest empires of that time, so he had to have the titles. Also from the babylonian tablet other than him being king of Anshan, Persia, Media, he says he is the king of Babylonia, so I don't need to cite anything its to obvious, and the small numbers by the titles, will make this article to silly and intricate, as other articles are not like this, anyways for Lydia it was at the time the 4th largest empire, so I think it is safe to assume he had a title for that, almost no historians doubt it. And I found this on the cyrus article of 1911encyclopaedia.org site, which says, (His death occurred in 528 B.C., as we have a Babylonian tablet from the Adar of the tenth year of Cyrus, i.e. February 528; for in Babylon the first year of Cyrus began in the spring of 538.) I'm not sure if this is true, I always thought he died either mid-August 530 or 529 B.C. So if anyone wants to verify it, please go ahead and comment here or on my page, or both, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

No, you need reliable sources that he actually used any title you want to cite. 'Safe to assume' won't do. What 'other articles' do is immaterial, they may need fixing. As for his death, a source a century old is certainly not adequate. Doug Weller (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

for titles, one source - [2] says he took the title 'King of all, Great King, Mighty king, King of Babylon, King of the Land of Sumer and Akkad, King of the Four Rims [of the earth], the son of Cambyses the Great King, King of Anshan." He did not have the titles of Emperor, Basileus or Shahenshah and we can't give him those. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary to give the entire titulature above the image, see for instance Elizabeth I of England. Perhaps we should create a new section on his titles with all the details. I think "King of Persia, King of Anshan, King of Babylon" would be OK for the infobox. Or perhaps we should include King of Media too, and say Shahenshah of Persia instead of King of Persia. My reasons are the following:

• King of Anshan: He uses it in an inscription from Ur and in the Cyrus Cylinder.
• King of Babylon: He uses it in the Cyrus Cylinder Doug quotes, and he is called so in Babylonian documents. King of Neo-Babylonia is not a title, it was made up by Ariobarza.
• King of Persia, or Great King of Persia, of even Shahenshah if you prefer: He is called so in by the Nabonidus Chronicle (king of Parsu) and by Greek authors. It is agreed among scholars that he was king of Persia (although DT Potts called it into question in a recent article published in Birth of the Persian Empire; I think his view is not at all mainstream). The problem with Shahanshah (King of Kings) is that it is Modern Persian; in Old Persian it was rendered xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām. Furthermore, xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām is only attested since Darius I.
• King of Media: Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon says he took the throne of Media. I don't know what happened in Cyrus' times, but I'm quite sure that Xerxes is called King of Persia and Media in Babylonian documents, so it is a real title that the Persian kings used (I mean, it wasn't made up by Ariobarza). The problem is that I'm unable to find any academic book or article calling Cyrus "King of Media" or discussing the matter (in fact I haven't searched a lot).
• Basileus of Lydia, or King of Lydia: Cyrus never used such title. No Greek author calls him so, no source of any kind calls him so, no scholar argued that he used such title. The title "King of Lydia" disappeared with Croesus' dethronement. As far as I know, of course, but in any case Ariobarza must provide an academic reference.

You can find references for my statements in the Cyrus entry of the Encyclopedia Iranica [3]. Amizzoni (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Medism: The Origin and Significance of the Term" by David F. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 104, (1984), pp. 15-30"Although the simple title 'king of Media' does not appear in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, there is substantial evidence that Cyrus also adopted the standard royal formulae of the Median kings after his defeat of Astyages in 550. Several years later, in the Harran inscriptions of king Nabonidus of Babylon, Cyrus is depicted as the legitimate successor to the Median throne. These texts indicate that the Babylonian monarch received ambassadors from the 'king of Egypt, the city of the Medes, and the land of the Arabs'.46 The strange expression, 'the city of the Medes', has been assigned to the period 'immediately after the victory of Cyrus, who had perhaps not secured or assumed his official titles',47 but it can more plausibly be dated after the I3th year of the reign of Nabonidus, i.e. between 543 and 539.48 'The city of the Medes' then seems obviously to refer to the Median capital of Ecbatana, the political center of Cyrus' regime or a synecdoche for the entire Median kingdom."Doug Weller (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, it seems you've found the right quote. So if you agree I'll replace the Cyrus Cylinder titulature with "King of Persia, King of Anshan, King of Media, King of Babylon." Amizzoni (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, but I think the titles we know he used need to be in there somewhere.

I completely agree, I soon as I have the time (on July) I'll write a new section on his titles. Amizzoni (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lydia Title

Hi, I was wondering why you keep removing Cyrus the Great title of king of lydia. As you know Cyrus conquered three major Empires during his reign, the median, lydian, and babylonian EMPIRES, NOT SOME INSIGNIFIGANT SMALLER KINGDOMS, like Armenia or Cappadocia, these where all independent. So as cited various times in history books, the article, and historical fragments he conquered lydia the same why as he conquered media or babylon but, for some reason, to YOUR exception he does not deserve the title, EVENTHOUGH, the Persian kings right after him still held the title Basileus of Lydia, eventhough the Lydians or Persians where not Greeks, this is due to the fact that the Lydian culture was modeled after the Greeks! So if he was the first Persian king who conquered Lydia, shouldn't he be the first to have the title BASILEUS? Or if thats to extremist for this user, than at least KING should do, EVENTHOUGH, (basileus translated to persian is shahensha which still means ruler or king!) thank you, goodbye. (Sorry for the confrontational langauge, I was in a hurry), BY THE WAY SHAHENSHA STILL MEANS KING SO PLEASE DO NOT REPLACE IT WITH KING OF PERSIA, THEY MEAN THE SAME THING! For Ruler of Anshan, Anshan was a small city of belonging to the small petty kingdom of Elam, which the Persians took, so look at the article of List of rulers of Bithynia, notice it says ruler of, they were still kings, but for cities, they say RULER.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Where is the source that says he was styled King of Lydia? Any title for him needs good sources. Doug Weller (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza, I'd ask you to read Wikipedia:Verification before editing. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Amizzoni (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Some men with eyes cannot see, even when the truth is right in front of them

For Basileus of Lydia

From google.com go to books, and type in cyrus the great as basileus. NOTE TO READER: Eventhough hundreds of sources were found, sources relating Cyrus the Great and his title was limited, but none the less should prove that the only way he could have been basileus, if he was closest to Greece, which the closest EMPIRE was that of the Lydians, which were not a mere province but an EMPIRE controling 1/3 of Turkey. And in the Basileus article which specifically says Persian kings were called basileus by greeks, which means they did not have to be Greek to have such a name, and the Ionians that Cyrus conquered were Greeks, and may have bitterly called him basileus. For more confirmation please type in the title of the books given here in google books, and search online, which may produce more results!

page3 OF SEARCH.{The Land of the Great Sophy: 2nd Ed - Page 14 by Roger Stevens - History - 1962 - 291 pages} EXCERPT:... the Achaemenian monarchs were Basileus, the king, not just Kings of Persia. ... And so it might have been, had Greece remained weak and another Cyrus or ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

page4 OF SEARCH.{Studies in the Book of Daniel: A Discussion of the Historical Questions - Page 93 by Robert Dick Wilson - Bible - 1917 - 402 pages} EXCERPT:In Greek the word basileus was employed to denote the ruler of a city such as ... and Egypt; or of the great empires of Esarhaddon, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, ... Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

page4 OF SEARCH.{Law and Philosophy: The Practice of Theory : Essays in Honor of George Anastaplo - Page 150 by George Anastaplo, John Albert Murley, Robert L. Stone, William Thomas Braithwaite - Law - 1992 - 1232 pages} EXCERPT:Xenophon unambiguously calls Cyrus a king (basileus) only near the end (8.2.13).10 Cyrus' kingship is there apparently evidenced in two ways. ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

page6 OF SEARCH.{History of Ancient Civilization - Page 114 by Albert Augustus Trever - Civilization - 1936} EXCERPT:This organization, though begun by Cyrus, was developed to a finished system ... this in their capitalization of their word for the Persian king, Basileus. ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

The issue is not about what the Greeks called him after he was dead (or what anyone else called him after he was dead), the issue is his titles while he was alive. And here is the quote from Xenophon "[8.2.13] That he, the richest man of all, should excel in the munificence of his presents is not surprising; but for him, the king, to exceed all others in thoughtful attention to his friends and in care for them, that is more remarkable; and it is said to have been no secret that there was nothing wherein he would have been so much ashamed of being outdone as in attention to his friends."

Find a quote contemporary with him that calls him Basileus and other editors might take you seriously. And 'may have called him' doesn't count. Doug Weller (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First, for some reason, King of Media is up there with his titles, so confirmation of titles for Media and Lydia only appear in Greek historians accounts of when he was alive, and Media is still up there!? We keep it because we know he conquered it. But for Lydia it should not be a mystery, because it was a empire he conquered. Second, the persian kings at Lydia that lived after him were called basileus, and they did not conquer Lydia, so who conquered Lydia first? CYRUS THE GREAT, this should be common sense. And it is not my fault the author gave a wrong quote from Xenophon.

Now, for King of Lydia

NOTE TO READER: As already acknowledged, Basilues means king. So, is there any shred of historical evidence that the kings of Lydia were called and or gave themselves the title of basileus in the first place? And did Cyrus let Croesus keep his title? Another thing, just because we have not FOUND evidence of Cyrus as basileus written down, does not mean he was not, and Lydian coins minted in his time should call him king, like all other Persian coins do, so I am also doing research on that. For more confirmation please type in the title of the books given here in google books, and search online, which may produce more results!

Answer 1:{Herodotus' Portrayal of Croesus: A Study in Historical Artistry - Page 23 by Ann Cornell Sheffield - 1973 - 360 pages} EXCERPT:Elsewhere, Croesus is referred to, and refers to himself, as Basileus . Six times in speeches H uses the word tyrannos to refer to oriental rulers (see ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Answer 2:See Battle of Thymbra, The last sentence talks about a tablet from Babylon that say's Cyrus killed the LYd...(lacuna, which means that part of the tablet has worn off) RULER, and took the throne and his possesions, and set up a garrison there. It's not known if it refers to Croesus, but the other ruler could have been of Cilicia, which is unlikely because cyrus never fought him in battle, which the tablet implies he fought the ruler first, which only man could have been Croesus that Cyrus killed, and thus took the title, because in Herodotus version it says Croesus' son and hire to the throne was accidently killed,(Which is the only possible reason the tablet is refering to) or Cyrus may have actually killed Croesus, so it's a barely a mystery, and Cyrus spares Croesus in Herodotus' version, and Ctesias' version, also Ctesias says Cyrus relocated Croesus, and made him satrap(therefore taking his title away) of the Choromithrenia province, which the capital of the province was Barene, near Ecbatana, the capital of the Median province. Also the only way the Persians could have attained the title of Basileus is that the former king was descended from a Greek, or a Greek king ruling in a Asian state, or as it means king could have applied it anyone, if the population or culture did not mind it.

More results from more than a thousand found in google book searches of CROESUS BASILEUS OF LYDIA, and BASILEUS OF LYDIA alone!

{Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos - Page 39 by Speros Vryonis, Milton Vasil Anastos - History - 1986 - 232 pages} EXCERPT:16 (Persian basileus, administering his state). ... 18), Cyrus' appearance in Lydia (153.20, 22), Julius Caesar's appearance in Rome (216.7), ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

{The Observer - Page 133 by Richard Cumberland - Conduct of life - 1822} EXCERPT:... they used no term but Basileus, which they applied even to the cruelest of ... at which time, (viz. the age of Archilochus) Gyges, Tyrant of Lydia, ... No preview available - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

{Reading Greek - Page 354 by Joint Association of Classical Teachers, Joint Association of Classical Teachers, Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course - Foreign Language Study - 1978 - 182 pages} EXCERPT:... (3d) (basileus archon and for a short time husband ... ó Croesus (2a) (king of Lydia) (see map, Text, p. ... Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

{Studies in the Book of Daniel: A Discussion of the Historical Questions - Page 93 by Robert Dick Wilson - Bible - 1917 - 402 pages} EXCERPT:In Greek the word basileus was employed to denote the ruler of a city such as the ... of countries, great or small, such as Macedon, and Cilicia, and Lydia, ... Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

{The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought - Page 106 by C. J. Rowe, Malcolm Schofield, Simon Harrison, Melissa S. Lane - Political science - 2000 - 745 pages} EXCERPT:of Croesus, king of Lydia in Asia Minor - 'the person who first within my ... than your subjects do you' - a further allusion to Pindar's nomos basileus. ... Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

{The Greek Tyrants: [bibliog.]. - Page 22 by Antony Andrewes - Political Science - 1956 - 166 pages} EXCERPT:... had killed the king of Lydia and taken the throne for himself. ... and Sophocles in the fifth century can employ tyrannos interchangeably with basileus, ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

{History of Ancient Civilization - Page 114 by Albert Augustus Trever - Civilization - 1936} EXCERPT... this in their capitalization of their word for the Persian king, Basileus. ... Only Lydia, Phoenicia, and the Ionian Greeks paid tribute in coin. ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

{Ancient Greece: a sketch of its art, literature & philosophy viewed in ... - Page 128 by Henry Bernard Cotterill - Art - 1913 - 498 pages} EXCERPT... the king of Lydia, and about the same time Miletus nourished exceedingly under the tyrant Thrasybulus. ... The king of Persia was always Basileus. ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Seriously, as there is another 1.5 way to go in the results, I am getting tired, I have proven that Lydia used the title of Basileus(Whether or not his king was of Greek descent or not, which can forever be debated) which does not matter because he did call himself Basileus, anyways I have also proven that Croesus was called and called himself Basileus, and that while his son and hire died, becaue of Cyrus' invasion, and even if Croesus did not self execute or was not executed, scholars and historians agree that he became a satrap, and Ctesias says he was satrap in the city of Barene that I already explained above. Lastly even if Lydia got a Persian satrap, which it did, it would not take the Basileus title away from Cyrus, because Cyrus appointed a satrap for Media, and Babylon, BUT still he kept his title for them. And it is so obvious, that scholars in books don't even attempt to name him Basileus of Lydia, (but King of Lydia they do call him, which I am finding more and more in books, which I will copy paste more books with that here soon, for now I have no time, and must depart) because it's virtually implied, and not straightforwardly stated everywhere! The FACT is his main conquests, not the minor ones, was that he conquered the MEDIAN, LYDIAN, AND BABYLONIAN EMPIREs, THEREFORE HE IS THE KING OF MEDIA, KING OF LYDIA, KING OF BABYLON, OR BASILEUS FOR LYDIA, (same thing!), WHETHER ANYONE LIKES IT OR NOT. And Anshan is just a Elamite city conquered by Persians before Cyrus, so KING OF ANSHAN is said to the Babylonians to make them know that he was born and ascended to the throne there, so its just a city and Cyrus says it himself. Also the city of Pasargadae, home of that certain Persian tribe containing the clan of the Achaemenids existed before Cyrus built a bigger city there to comemorate his victory over Astyages there. And Anshan was not an independent kingdom to have it's OWN TITLE! So finally, If anyone agrees or STILL does not agree with me, after multitudes of evidence supplied here, please have a dam* good explanation here! Finally, thank you for reading, and goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Just know this reader, seriously some of the members of Wikipedia are impossible or robots, because I have to kill myself to make an insignifigant point! (Sorry for the tone of the language, highly disrespectfull to the inoccent viewers, therefore I apologize).

Croesus, the last king of Lydia

Please stop the insults. You have shown no sources that say he used the title King of Lydia. It is easy to find sources about who the last king of Lydia was. You have not found a source that says he ever used the title King of Lydia, and that is what you need. All the sources I have read do not give him that title and say that Croesus was the last King of Lydia.

Aeneas and Agathocles in the Exclusion Crisis - all 2 versions » A Roper - The Review of English Studies, 2005 - Oxford Univ Press ... repr.1664)).The ¢rst allusion is to Croesus, last king of Lydia, whose heir ... He was challenged by his younger brother, Cyrus II, who commissioned Clearchus to ...

International Dictionary of Historic Places - Page 547 by Trudy Ring, Robert M. Salkin - Historic sites - 1996... the last king of Lydia. That situation was short-lived, as the Persian kingCyrus II (the Great) envisioned his empire expanding westward to the Aegean. ..

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: [in 32 Volumes] by Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Robert McHenry - Reference - 1999 - 32000 pages Page 939 The next and last king of Lydia was Croesus (c. 560-546). ... Cyrus II the Great,

The timetables of history: a horizontal linkage of people and events, based ... by Bernard Grun, Werner Stein - History - 1975 - 661 pages ... (-581) The Phoenicians in Corsica Croesus, last king of Lydia (-561 to -546), Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

um

DA one of my sources says the [king of persia was always BASILEUS] to the greeks of europe and asia too, even when alive, kings of Lydia were also called BASILEUS, last king of Lydia was Croesus, Croesus dies or lives but becomes satrap in a far away land, Croesus' son, the Prince of Lydia dies, the satrap of Lydia is still not a Baileus, SO WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE KING WHO CONQUERS LYDIA IN 546 BC? BASICALLY, WHO GETS THE TITLE OF BASILEUS SO THAT PERSIAN KINGS AFTER HIM STILL HAVE THE TITLE OF THE BASILEUS? WHAT ARTICLE SAYS LATER PERSIAN KINGS WERE CALLED BASILEUS? Pss! (See Basileus article). I think your telling me as Croesus died, his title of Basileus (which believe it or not means king) FADED INTO THIN AIR? History and contempories say know one could have carried on the god forsaken title, so that leaves one person, the KING OF KINGS, KING OF MEDIA, KING OF LYDI*, KING OF BABYLON, KING OF THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. Still don't know who it is? I will close my eyes and take a deep breath.--Ariobarza (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

NOW i got this from Amizzoni's reply: And look at what happened below!

King of Babylon: He uses it in the Cyrus Cylinder Doug quotes, and he is called so in Babylonian documents. King of Neo-Babylonia is not a title, it was made up by Ariobarza.(ACTUALLY HE IS KNOWN TO HAVE CONQUERED THE NEO-BABLYONIAN OR CHALDEAN EMPIRE AS SEEN ON THE MAP ON HIS ARTICLE!) King of Persia, or Great King of Persia, of even Shahenshah if you prefer: He is called so in by the Nabonidus Chronicle (king of Parsu) and by Greek authors. It is agreed among scholars that he was king of Persia (although DT Potts called it into question in a recent article published in Birth of the Persian Empire; I think his view is not at all mainstream). The problem with Shahanshah (King of Kings) is that it is Modern Persian; in Old Persian it was rendered xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām. Furthermore, xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām is only attested since Darius I. King of Media: Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon says he took the throne of Media. I don't know what happened in Cyrus' times, but I'm quite sure that Xerxes is called King of Persia and Media in Babylonian documents, so it is a real title that the Persian kings used (I mean, it wasn't made up by Ariobarza). The problem is that I'm unable to find any academic book or article calling Cyrus "King of Media" or discussing the matter (in fact I haven't searched a lot).(NOTICE AMIZZONI SAYS THAT THE GREEK AUTHORS SAY THIS AND THAT, SAME THING I SAID TO YOU FOR LYDIA TITLE, AND YOU TURNED ME DOWN, AND EVEN IF XERXES IS CALLED KING OF MEDIA, THATS STILL AFTER HIS DEATH, AGAIN LIKE I SAID BEFORE CYRUS THEY CALLED THEM BASILEUS OR KING OF LYDIA, AND AMIZZONI SAYS IT WAS AFTER THAT THEY SAID KING OF MEDIA, BY THE WAY BASILEUS I SAID A MILLION TIMES WERE THE TITLE GIVEN TO ALL PERSIAN KINGS WHILE ALIVE, AND THE FIRST PERSIAN RULER OF LYDIA WAS CYRUS!) I hope you can understand the irony I putting up with here!--Ariobarza (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Here is what I wrote on my talk page in reply.

No sources deny it, and it's so obvious you can barely find it because the scholars don't say it, they imply it. That's your problem in a nutshell. You need to read WP:OR and {{WP:SYN]]. And please don't say 'other articles are bad' because that is definitely not a good argument. And while we are on the subject of sources, I hope you have stopped creating articles with no reliable sources. I've got some good sources for a couple of articles you've created that way, but I can't find any for your Battle of the Median Border -- there is no battle of that name I can find. So,I'll help where I can, but if between the two of us we can't find reliable sources, it'll have to go to AfD. It's not as though other people have said the same thing to you.

Now to add to that. First, I think this is all due to a misunderstanding on Ariobarza's part on how Wikipedia works. In this case, editor's should never add their own conclusions, only what other people -- reliable, verifiable sources (Ariobarza, have you read the policies and guidelines on this?) have said. And we are talking about Cyrus's titles, specifically those which he actually used.

Now, you asked about what AfD is and if you are in trouble. Nope, you're definitely not in trouble, but you haven't been following guidelines for creating new articles. Have you read Wikipedia:Starting an article? If not, please read it.

My example in this case is your article Battle of the Median Border. It consists of the sentence "The Battle of the Median Border, is the second encounter of the forces of Media and Persia together." and an infobox that tells us that Nicholas of Damascus had both heavy and light casualties and that there were up to 250,000 combatants (with Nicolas again fighting on both sides). There are no references. It also has the date, 551 BC. It links to Nicolaus of Damascus who is a Syrian historian in Herod's time. This is simply not enough for an article. Now if I could (and I don't think I should have to, the article should have been created according to guidelines and policies), I'd try to enhance it with sources at the expense of time I'd rather spend doing something else. But I can't, because I can't find such a battle. It doesn't seem to belong in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is meant to be an online encyclopedia reporting what reliable sources say about a subject. So here's how it works. I've tried to find sources, now it's your turn. Find some sources to flesh the article out. I'll watch it, if there are problems about the sources I'll try to help and we can discuss them on the talk page. If you can't find any, there is something called the Articles for Deletion process. Someone (me probably, but you can if you decide you can't turn it into a good article, you can't delete even your own article) lists it on the AfD page for a particular date, putting a template on the article leading to the discussion. Editors then put their reasons for keeping or deleting the article. It may look like a vote but it isn't. After 5 days or so an Administrator looks at the arguments and makes a decision as to what to do about it.

You have other unsourced articles I may be able to find sources for and if I can I will. But as I've said, it shouldn't be necessary. The only article I have created I created on a subpage of mine and created it there with sources, etc, then created it as a new article. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Nicolaus is a source? Then use him. Doug Weller (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The date of his death

I found this on the cyrus article of 1911encyclopedia.org site, which says, (His death occurred in 528 B.C., as we have a Babylonian tablet from the Adar of the tenth year of Cyrus, i.e. February 528; for in Babylon the first year of Cyrus began in the spring of 538.) I'm not sure if this is true, but I know that Cyrus invaded Babylon in 539, but it was in spring 538 that he officially began his rule after he had conquered it. Anyways, I always thought he died either mid-August 530 or 529 B.C. Here is the link, http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cyrus. When anyone reading this gets there, scroll down to the death of Cyrus, where it talks about it. So if anyone wants to verify it, please go ahead and comment here or on my page, or both, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

See note 5: "Cyrus' date of death can be deduced from the last reference to his own reign (a tablet from Borsippa dated to 12 August 530 BC) and the first reference to the reign of his son Cambyses (a tablet from Babylon dated to 31 August); see R.A. Parker and W.H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, 1971.)" He died on August 530 BC. An encyclopedia published in 1911 is outdated. Amizzoni (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence

Hey, thanks for responding to my call. But the fact that the article on www.1911encyclopedia.org is OUTDATED, IS NOT THE ISSUE. You know, Herodotus is outdated too, but the info he provides most of the time is true. Anyways, if they find a tablet from Babylon that shows Cyrus' last breath, not reign was longer than what is said on Wikipedia. It means Wikipedia is outdated. Now, it is possible that by the time he reached the area of his final battle a year had passed, and if his death is ranged from 530-528 BC, I THINK IT WAS MOST LIKLEY IN 529 BC, a reign of 30 years. I'm currently researching to find such a tablet, and if it's found, then I will not outdate Wikipedia, but indated, goodbye.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Guess what, same guy here, I found it on the 1910 enyclopaedia, which you said was outdated, will I put it here to show that I can provide evidence too, and I'll put it on Cyrus's discussion page for others to decide. But I will continue to do more research on its existence, so it can be verified better. And here it is,[4]--67.180.225.250 (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The Persian Empire - Page 25by John Manuel Cook - History - 1983 - 275 pagesIll The Deeds of Cyrus the Great To begin at the end, Cyrus was killed in war in Central Asia in a year that can be fixed with virtual certainty as 530 BC ...

The Ancient Near East: C.3000-330 B.C. - Page 656by Amélie Kuhrt - Middle East - 1995 - 782 pages 13c The formation of the empire Cyrus the Great The founder of the Persian empire was Cyrus ... give us a fairly precise date of August 530 for his death. ...Doug Weller (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug, depending on which book you read, it says either 530 BC or 529 BC in August, and ancient dates according to A. T. Olmstead the guy who wrote history of the persian empire, a famous book, says ancient dates can have a two-zero year mistake, if we try to determine ancient dates, so 528 BC seems unlikely to me too.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Pasargadae hoax

The future inundation of Pasargadae is a well-known hoax, which has been refuted long ago. The news report that was quoted in the section I have removed, is from the CAIS, a website that is -for excellent reasons- blocked by Wikipedia; it also contained remarks like

"Iran’s pre-Islamic past and Iranians’ non-Islamic-national-identity and heritage have always been the subjects of abhorrence for the clerics. This diabolical plot by Ayatollahs in Tehran was set in motion in 1979 to destroy and erase all pre-Islamic Iranian past from the consciousness of the Iranian nation as part of their de-Iranianisation campaign."

Oddly enough, those clerics, once in power, have not pursued this "diabolical" policy, but instead spent lots of money to restore and maintain Iran's pre-Islamic legacy. In other words, the CAIS report is biased.Jona Lendering (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... His CHARTER OF FREE RIGHTS???

I was reading, and i saw that there was hardly any mention of his charter of free rights. Now, shouldn't there be some kind of "goog" expansion into this? This was the first occurence of something like this, as to not take slaves, let the invaded country keep its own religion and ways, and even king. They payed the workers from teh captured countries. But its mention hardly does the fact justice. I just believe there should be a better explanation and maybe even a translation of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pejmany (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This so-called "charter of free rights" is nothing but a clever piece of propaganda by Cyrus, which in modern times was resurfaced by some politicians with own agendas. Unfortunately, even the UN has allowed themselves to be fooled into this. Subsequently the view of the text as a "charter of human rights" has been proliferated further by people without knowledge of the historical context. Nevertheless, from a historical point of view, it isn't justified at all. 89.56.49.15 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FALLING FOR ANCIENT PROPAGANDA. Article from Spiegel Online, enjoy. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The above-mentioned article in der Spiegel is just a worthless and ugly piece of propaganda. Any person who has even a passing knowledge of history can clearly see that the article by Mr Matthias Schulz overwhelms in falsehoods. Here is an example. Mr Schulz writes:

...priests of the god Marduk were committing treason against their own country. Angry over the loss of power they had suffered under their king, they secretly opened the gates and allowed hostile Persian negotiators to enter the city. [...] In truth, Cyrus merely freed his own followers. [...] In compensation for their treacherous services, the priests were given money and estates. In return, they praised Cyrus as a "great" and "just" man and as someone who "saved the entire world from hardship and distress."

Now anyone who knows anything at all, knows that Cyrus the Great was referred to as a "great" and "just" king in Old Testament (Ezra, Chapter I onwards). It follows that Mr Schulz is implicitly asserting that the elders and priests of the Jewish community in ancient Babylon must have been involved in paying "treacherous services" to Cyrus the Great. But this directly contradicts the earlier statement by Mr Schulz that these priests were the priests of the god Marduk. Can there be any doubt that Mr Schulz is involved in creating historical falsehoods? Mr Schulz seems to be loath to mention that Cyrus the Great released Jews held in captivity in Babylon; he instead refers to Cyrus' "own followers". Clearly, the Jewish captives in Babylon were by no recorded account "followers" of Cyrus the Great! Who were these "followers" actually? Mr Schulz does not mention. In fact, I am not aware of any of the historical sources that Mr Schulz must have supposedly relied upon in writing the above-mentioned treacherous article. What Mr Schulz writes is in direct contradiction with what we know through, for instance, Old Testament and Xenophon's Cyropaedia. The interested may wish to consult the latter text at this address: Iran Chamber Society.

Lastly, I am familiar with the "journalism" of Mr Matthias Schulz (I peruse the German version of der Spiegel on almost daily basis), and consider him a propagandist, rather than a serious journalist; he is very consistently always the same ill-informed, pernicious and jingoistic person. Hoping for a day that charlatanism no longer passes for serious scholarship, --BF 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

The article of SPIEGEL can't be used as a source , because neither the writer nor the historians of that article are reliable sources. In Wikipedia , we have to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That article can not be used as a source and I will personally do whatever it takes to stop this nonsense to be written. This man was the founder of Iran and the greatest man on this earth and any kind of trash talking about him is trash talking about Iran and it's nation. SPIEGEL is not a trustworthy source! --JavidShah (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For more information about unreliability of SPIEGEL article , please see : About Spiegel Magazine’s revisionist view of the history of Cyrus the Great.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Checking references

A couple of the three refs given for the sentence...."According to many interpretations of the Nabonidus Chronicle, our main source of information on the battle, Cyrus's troops subsequently carried out a massacre and large-scale looting..." do not contain a page number. I am looking through my copy of Glassner's Mesopotamian Chronicles, which is some 388 pages, and don't seem to be finding that. Could we get a page number for that and for the Grayson reference? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pages 232-7 in Glassner's book (translation no. 26) and pages 104-111 in Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the page numbers. I will check them more carefully later. I did want to point out that Jona Lendering, whom you have often quoted, in his version of the Nabonidus Chronicle (found here: [5] interprets this "In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. He is not the only one to question the reference of the personal pronoun. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what I am about to say does not matter; but the comman sense of Ariobarza tells him that the only reason I would massacre the confused inhabitants, is that if they revolted from me, therefore they were confused and did not know who to fight, me or Cyrus, but I taught them a lesson, so I Nabonidus, slaughtered the confused inhabitants of Akkad, it was me!--Ariobarza (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

If you look at Lendering's version, he says at the bottom: "This translation was made by A. Leo Oppenheim and is copied from James B. Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament, 1950 Princeton. Some minor changes have been made." The comments in brackets are not in Oppenheim's original text, which says "(Nabonidus)" instead. An article in vol. 35 of The Ancient World calls this interpretation "perverse" and correctly notes that modern translations such as Kuhrt's (or Grayson's, or Glassner's) "more plausibly see the perpetrator as Cyrus". This certainly makes more sense in the context - it was common practice for conquerors to massacre the inhabitants of resisting cities in order to encourage other cities to surrender without fighting (as Sippar and Babylon did). The Romans famously did that, and it would be no surprise for Cyrus to do it too. I obtained a recent translation by Maria Brosius (in The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I) in which she comments: "After the Babylonian defeat at Opis, both Sippar and Babylon surrendered, opening the gates of their cities to the enemy. In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament."

The two are not mutually exclusive. How a ruler treats their enemies verses their subjects, can be vastly different. Hardyplants (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but don't forget that the Cyrus cylinder portrayed his takeover of Babylon as peaceful - it doesn't even mention the Battle of Opis. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Lendering's version, I had pointed out earlier that his translation had "differences" that we are unaware of, and thus had to be taken with caution. However that particular line demonstrates that even Lendering whose general pov is in line with yours acknowledges that it is unclear whom that passage is referencing. Nor, as I have said, is he the only one who recognizes the confusion in the personal pronoun. It is so out-of-character with the Cyrus the Great that we do know, that there are even contemporary translator(s) who claim the whole passage is mis-translated. Thus it seems to me that we are doing OR when we try to determine a "correct" version based on certain translators (or historians) and not on others. We can mention in passing that there is a question in the Nabonidus Chronicle, but we should not make very much of it, im(nsh)o. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the business of deciding which translation is "correct", merely which is the prevalent modern interpretation. There's a common interpretation of the disputed line by essentially all the modern translators of the Nabonidus Chronicle's full text - Grayson (1975), Brosius (2000), Tavernier (2003, in Dutch) Glassner (2004) and Kuhrt (2007). Lendering uses the older Oppenheim translation from 1950, for some reason. As for being "out-of-character with the Cyrus the Great that we do know", this is just an assumption on your part, I'm afraid. We don't "know" Cyrus for the simple reason that he's been dead for 2,500 years, there are very few more-or-less contemporary sources on his life and none of them are remotely objective. All we "know" is that there a majority of modern translators follow a common interpretation of the Nabonidus Chronicle's description of the Battle of Opis. That doesn't mean that they're "right" or "wrong", merely that there's a prevalent view among historians. That needs to be reflected in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed appear that you are in the business of deciding which translation is "correct". I was not discussing exhuming a corpse and am well aware that he has been dead lo these many years. We "know" from previous evidence and the history written since. Re this statement: "...there are very few more-or-less contemporary sources on his life and none of them are remotely objective" sounds like a significant case of OR to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

“Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy” -- Max Mallowan. 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge , Cambridge University Press, pp.392-419. Max Mallowan? Not remotely objective? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew Max Mallowan wrote quite a long time ago, but he's not a "more-or-less contemporary source" on Cyrus's life, is he? Please try reading what I write before replying to it. The sources I'm referring to are the Babylonian and Persian inscriptions from around Cyrus's time, plus Herodotus and Xenophon, plus (arguably) the Biblical texts. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)