Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Persian empire. Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 04:21 |
I really don't get this - everyone says that Akkad was the first centralized state - nobody mentions that with Narmer and the other Early Egyptian dynasties
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 12:14 |
There may be some misunderstanding here. What Sargon did was to create "the first empire". Prior to him, the Sumerians would create "hegemonies", in which the strongest Sumerian city-ruler was overlord to other city-rulers. This was usually precarious, and within a generation or two, the "weaker" cities would regain their independence. Sargon appointed his own governors, usually from his own city to rule over the Sumerian cities. The regions outside of Sumer which he conquered, were usually continued to be ruled by natives as vassals. Egypt on the other was "unified" under one ruler since about 3100 BC. All of his governors answered directly to him. It was essentially the first nation-state. The creation of the pyramids could not have been done without the kind of centralization required for such grandiose projects. Remember, that they began to be created as much as 300 years before Sargon.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jul-2007 at 05:59 |
...Good point. So Sargon had not the centralized state that the Egyptians had created? He was still using the old sumerian model of appointing vassal-ensis to his conquered lands?
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 04:04 |
Sargon's Empire was a centralized state as far as Sumer and Akkad went. According to Sargon's own royal inscriptions "citizens of Akkad held the govenorships". However, outside of that state, he continued to allow for vassal rulers to have power, like for instance Elam. It was an "empire" in the truest sense of the word as one ruler ruling over many rulers or states.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 07:22 |
If that's the case, why do people still call Sumeria the cradle of civilization when Egypt developed further?
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 09:55 |
Because most of the components of what we call civilization were already in Sumer. Hence, Sumer can boast the first cities, writing, and monumental architecture (among other "firsts"). In fact there is evidence to suggest that Sumer influenced pre-dynastic Egypt. When these concepts reached Egypt, the Egyptians made them their own, and simply just past Sumer in the concept of state-formation. Sumer was the cradle of civilization, but Egypt was the first nation-state.
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 17:13 |
I haven't heard of any Ancient Egyptian cylinder seals- all the reading that I've read seems to indicate that there wasn't that much contact between them ligusitically - Sumerian and Egyptian were both completely different. However, on a larger, architectural basis, there do seem to be a lot of links. Djoser's step pyramid is reminicent of the contempary Zigguarats of the time, and it's evolution from Mastabas piled up on top of each other is remarkably similar to the evolution of the Ziggurat from tiers being added to a temple over time. In fact, regarding that, several Jemdat Nasr period stepped temples have collinades and friezes which are very similar to Egyptian ones. The same gladually inclining slits in the walls and tall, fluted edges. It's in fact amazing when you consider the large amounts of evidence of Mesopotamian and Levantine influence in Egypt that it remained so remarkably static culturally and socially for centuries- professor W.B.Emery gave massive amounts of evidence for Syrian invasions into lower Egypt after the old kingdom, and there are loads of records of extensive trading between the nations. It seems that Sumer took more of Egypt culturally that Egypt did of Sumer.
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 23:05 |
I haven't heard of any Ancient Egyptian cylinder seals- |
Regarding the late pre-dynastic period -
"The rise of the state and the imposition of taxes and record keeping on even the humblest citizens is dimly echoed in a clay label and slab that bear the indistinct impressions of a cylinder seal."
(Egypt Before the Pharoahs, by Michael A. Hoffman, rev. 1993, page 129)
all the reading that I've read seems to indicate that there wasn't that much contact between them ligusitically - Sumerian and Egyptian were both completely different. |
We really don't expect there to be that kind of linguistic influence. We do in fact know that there was during the Uruk Period efforts to control natural resources which were non-existent in Sumer. Trade centers and garrisons were planted either on the trade routes or in or near non-Sumerian towns. This was known as the Uruk Expansion (c. 3800-3100 BC) which spread from Sumer to Syria, southern Turkey, northern Mesopotamia and into western Iran. The proto-dynastic Egyptians may have come into contact with these ideas through trade rather than by some conquest.
However, on a larger, architectural basis, there do seem to be a lot of links. Djoser's step pyramid is reminicent of the contempary Zigguarats of the time, and it's evolution from Mastabas piled up on top of each other is remarkably similar to the evolution of the Ziggurat from tiers being added to a temple over time. In fact, regarding that, several Jemdat Nasr period stepped temples have collinades and friezes which are very similar to Egyptian ones. The same gladually inclining slits in the walls and tall, fluted edges. |
Well, the step pyramid did not come from the Sumerian ziggurat. The Sumerian ziggurat did not appear until about 2100 BC. The ziggurat seemed to have been of Elamite origin, since we are now finding ziggurats in southern Iran dating to at least about 2600 BC.
It's in fact amazing when you consider the large amounts of evidence of Mesopotamian and Levantine influence in Egypt that it remained so remarkably static culturally and socially for centuries- professor W.B.Emery gave massive amounts of evidence for Syrian invasions into lower Egypt after the old kingdom, and there are loads of records of extensive trading between the nations. It seems that Sumer took more of Egypt culturally that Egypt did of Sumer. |
No, it was the Egyptians who took more of Sumer culturally. Just look at the artistic style of the proto-dynastic palettes. They were clearly of Mesopotamian origin.
|
|
Gharanai
Arch Duke
Afghan Empire
Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 16:17 |
Well let the west say what ever they want to but still no intellectual can ignor that the Persian Empire was one of the greatest the world has ever seen not only by size but also by might, resources and wealth.
Edited by Gharanai - 18-Jul-2007 at 16:23
|
|
|
Darius of Parsa
Colonel
King of Kings
Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 03:55 |
Take a look at the Persian's beginings...a small vassal of the Medes that were deticated to defending the South of Media. They raised an army and attacked their ruler (Media),and took over Lydia, Babylonia, Egypt, Bactria, northwest India, Ionia, Macedonia, parts of Scythia, and Northern Greece. The Persians HAD the GREATEST empire in all of history.
|
What is the officer problem?
|
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended
Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 04:05 |
But hold on a second. If Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, added to it, etcetera - wouldn't he have had an even greater empire? I'm just questioning your conclusion, that's all.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 05:07 |
Alexanders empire was smaller than the empire under Xerxes IIRC,
|
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended
Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 05:29 |
You're right actually Sparten. The Achaemenid Persian Empire was larger than Alexander's, but under Darius I. I maintain the questioning of Darius of Parsa's conclusion that the Persian Empire was the greatest in all of history though.
|
|
Darius of Parsa
Colonel
King of Kings
Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 00:40 |
The Persian Empire was better than Alexander's in many ways. Its taxation system was better, the way of governing was better ( in ways of fairness, the satraps), everyone wasnt as judgemental to different factions. The word "paradise" even comes from the Greek language refering to Persia's parks, archetecture, and its general "pretty" scenery. As I posted earlier, the Persians came from rough beginnigs, but were led by Cyrus the Great of Persia to glory. Alexander already had a functioning society, and he was "powerful" compared to Cyrus who was born by Cambyses I and Mandane ( a princess ) of Media. Edit: Knights, you said Alexander "added on" to the Persian Empire. If Alexander never attacked Persia, the Persian Kings could have added on to the empire as well.
Edited by Darius of Parsa - 19-Oct-2007 at 00:44
|
What is the officer problem?
|
|
Conservative
Samurai
Joined: 02-Aug-2007
Location: Iran Inshalla
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 110
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 23:22 |
Alexander's "empire" collapsed with his death and divided among his generals so it can hardly be considered to be a 'great empire' Alexander's campaigns were a great conquest no doubt, but a 'great empire'? No.
|
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides
Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 23:47 |
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa
Take a look at the Persian's beginings...a small vassal of the Medes that were deticated to defending the South of Media. They raised an army and attacked their ruler (Media),and took over Lydia, Babylonia, Egypt, Bactria, northwest India, Ionia, Macedonia, parts of Scythia, and Northern Greece. The Persians HAD the GREATEST empire in all of history. |
Better than both Western and Eastern Roman Empires as well? I do agree that the Persian Empire was in fact a great empire. However, had not it been for Darius The Great, the empire wouldve collapsed far sooner than it actually did.
|
|
andrew
Earl
Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 00:42 |
Didn't the Egyptian also influence the Levant? A lot of the Phoenician art looks Egyptian in nature and the use of the column was invented in Egypt. I think Egypt influenced the Levant then the Levant to Egypt.
|
|
medopersian
Immortal Guard
Joined: 21-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 16:33 |
you everytime say persian...
but if you look at historical documents, you can see that peoples hadnt call them only persians, and many times had said only Median..but if you ask me we should call ''MEDOPERSIAN ''
for example : there isnt a war between Astyages and Cyrus . just the empire has changed...and cyrus hadnt kill his grandpa (astyages)...
Harpagos [conqueror of Anatolia] was median... and if you read Darius' writing ..you can see the name of median commanders...
the last empire of medopersia (darius) was median..
just family had changed , the empire hadnt changed...
therefore we cant call them only as persians...
|
|
medopersian
Immortal Guard
Joined: 21-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 16:35 |
i forgot to say , that answer was for darius of persia
|
|
medopersian
Immortal Guard
Joined: 21-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 16:36 |
sorry, darius of parsa
|
|