Redpill me on the Sassanids, Veeky Forums

To be honest they were literally the persian empire.

>You should keep in mind that Sassanians didn't call their kingdom Persia but Iran, and parthians were iranians.

Persia is the Greek name for the region, Iran or Iranshah has always been the ethnic Persian name for their homeland.

>implying you can't spot the /pol/tard via usage of 'redpill'.

Fuck off.

>implying you can

...

>>>/gasyourselfmyfam/

>implying you are helping your case

"Persia" (fars, pars and parsa in the past) existed and exists for iranians, even today. Iran and pars are just different things. Iranians being called persians by europeans is like the dutch being called hollanders, something that happens a lot (although not so much in english, apparently). Hollanders exist and are dutch, just not ALL the dutch.

Achaemenid kings made it sure they were remembered as persian of persian stock and iranian of iranian stock.

>redpill
nice /pol/tard echo-chamber language you got there.
back to your containment zone.

The Sassanids called their empire "Eranshar", Persia was the name dubbed to to Persians and their homeland in Iran by the Greeks because of their corruption of the word "Parsa", which is what the Achaemenids called their Empire after their homeland.

You can call an ethnic Persian a Persian and they won't mind it obviously. You call a Kurd, Azeri, Gilaki, or Pashtun a Persian, they'll chaff at it.

I am not him, but if you are being serious you are sounding really fucking autistic.

>Somalian

>Somalian

>Somalian

The name is literally " land where the Somalis live". It's not Somalialia, it's Somali and then A.

Land of the Somalis. Logically the people who live there are called___?

fucking broken english mixed with autism

Berbers.

>"i have Cyrus blood in me!"
>"I have MORE Cyrus blood in me!"
>"I am the reincarnation of Cyrus!"

Persian claimants in a nutshell?

That's monarchy everywhere though. The War of the Roses can be summed up as "No, I have more William Blood!" Napoleon III's pitch for leadership was his relation to his more competent namesake. and so on

England, land of the Engs.

Eranshahr just means kingdom of iranians/kingdom of aryans (the same in that context). Literally Iran in an archaic form.

Cyrus was not one of the kings included amongst the Kayanians. Native sources hint that Sassanians and Parthians didn't know about him. They certainly had access to greek sources that talk about Cyrus yet the native literature completely ignores him.

Damn that's mind blowing.

I've read that the Sassanids considered themselves the rightful heir of the Achaemenids, and that they fought wars against Rome in order to restore the what they considered rightful Persian clay (I.e Egypt, Syria , and Anatolia).

How much of this is true?

How much did they actually know about the Achaemenids? Did they know who constructed stuff like Persepolis?

>Redpill
Fuck off.

>Implying 'redpill me on...' isn't now just another way of saying 'I have a subnormal IQ'

Eranshar is what they called their empire, period.

>Native sources hint that Sassanians didn't know about him.
Citation required.

Read "Were the Sasanians Heirs to the Achaemenids?" by Ehsan Yarshater. In Atti del Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia nel Medioevo (Roma, 31 marzo-5 aprile 1970), Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, pages 517-533.

For a more recent work about the subject that also touches the Arsacids quite a lot read "Arsacids and Sasanians" (2011) by M. Rahim Shayegan. Be warned that it probably can be dense for those with small knowledge about ancient middle east.

Finally, the volume about Seleucids, Parthians and Sasanians of the Cambridge History of Iran has a whole chapter about how ancient/late antique iranians saw their history. It can be very helpful for understanding the previous works.

It's very complex.

For starters, you've been reading the roman sources or someone who only has been reading the roman sources. And it's 100% true that the romans believed that. I recommend you to read the two works mentioned above, but if you just want a tl;dr I'll say that the Sassanids considered themselves rightful heirs of the Kayanids. Darius III was a Kayanid according to this Sasanian national historiography but not Cyrus or a lot of other Achaemenid kings (who are not even mentioned). The territories claimed by the Sasanians were rightful Kayanid and iranian clay because they were part of the legacy of Iraj name-giver and ancestor of the iranian nation. They were rightful iranian clay because they belonged to the empire of Dara, son of Dara, killed by Alexander.

That said, the Sassanians were not stupid or blind. They knew the greco-roman version of the story by the time of Shapur II if not way, way before. In his letter to Constantius Shapur basically says "even your own historians say that all this land belongs to my ancestors". It tells a lot that this is the only time the claim is extended as far as Macedonia, the actual achaemenid border. It also says a lot that Shapur II demands to the romans being way smaller.

Retard.

Post actual citations and excerpts, shitposter kun.

I should add that, while the Sassanians claimed everything east of the Bosphorus to be rightfully theirs, scholars have expressed doubt that this was actually the objective for most of the dynasty. The territorial objectives of most Sasanian monarchs were more humble and self-defense against the roman threat was the priority.

I think it's in the first part of East Rome, "Sasanian Persia and the end of antiquity : historiographical and historical studies" (2006) by James Howard-Johnston that you can get more information about this. But it may be in "Information and frontiers : Roman foreign relations in late antiquity" (1993) by A.D. Lee. I'm pretty sure it's in the first book, but since I did read both simultaneously some time ago I sometimes mix them. They're both great readings for those interested on persian-roman relations, by the way.

Literally the first thing he wrote.

Why? You can't read sixteen pages? You don't have access to a good library that can give you access to those books and I'm supposed to go and pick them for you? What are you doing on Veeky Forums then?

>he

Post the actual excerpts with the documented sources and scientific evidence.

Listing a foreign language source then acting like one posted a fucking actual excerpt aren't the same thing.

The source is fully in english.

Then post the actual excerpts, why is that such a burden for you?

Thanks m8. I actually have the Cambridge History of Iran so I'll look up that chapter now.

You're asking me to go to the library and make a photo of the whole article? That's what you're asking, to be spoon-feed?

Because you're asking me to do my job for free in a cambodian tapestry forum? Despite the fact that I already gave you the means and directions to do the research?

I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claims rather then expecting anyone to accept your word at face value because academic dishonesty on Veeky Forums is a well established symptom. It's that simple.

That's not my problem, that's yours.

>"It's in this book I referenced"
>"Which is primarily in Italian"
>"Just take my word for it, okay."

I don't accept that.

>>"Which is primarily in Italian"

It's a collection of articles. It was published by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, so the title and a lot of the articles are (obviously) in italian. The article of Dr. Yarshater is not in italian, it's in english. The rest of articles are not related to his article except for the fact that they're about "Persia in the Middle ages", a pretty broad subject.

>rather then expecting anyone to accept your word at face value

I'm not expecting you to do that. I'm expecting you to go, find those books and read them.

That again, is not my problem. I'm not going to seek out a book to counter a claim solely because one is insistent on that. I post actual scans and sources directly from those I have available to reinforce my points when I'm debating something on Veeky Forums and I expect the same courtesy from others here, even though I know it won't happen.

If one can not post their evidence directly, arguments are worthless. Its that simple.

He gave you the fucking sources. If you can't be bothered to access those sources yourself, it absolutely is your problem. He's not forcing you to accept his claims based on his word alone, he's directing you to the fucking sources that you might actually use to educate yourself. You can't expect other people to do your learning for you, you lazy piece of shit.

Here, I'm so I'll copy and paste some of that if it will satisfy your autism;

>Some of the features of the national history as it evolved in late Sasanian times may be observed here. The first is that no distinction was made between the factual, the legendary, and the mythical. All three are blended in a unified whole, presented as a continuous narrative of events. Thus, the account of the Pishdadians, mythical figures chiefly, was given in the same vein as that of the Sasanians. The second is that the history of the Medes and the Achaemenians had no place in the record. In fact, its authors displayed no appreciable knowledge of events in western and southern Iran before Alexander; it was an eastern tradition which formed the basis of the early portion of this history.

Wow, someone who knows their shit on Veeky Forums. Color me surprised.

>He

Yeah, and then there's

Who just fag this board endlessly.

Christ, you're actually insane.

>That again, is not my problem.
It is if you're interested on the subject.

> I'm not going to seek out a book to counter a claim solely because one is insistent on that. I post actual scans and sources directly from those I have available to reinforce my points when I'm debating something on Veeky Forums and I expect the same courtesy from others here, even though I know it won't happen.

This two statements contradict each other. Not only you haven't scaned shit, but you're literally saying you will not do it.

>If one can not post their evidence directly, arguments are worthless. Its that simple.
That's retarded. Maybe you're some millionaire with a library full of expensive books about several subjects, all them in your home available for you when you want. Most people is not in this situation.

So do you never read articles with citations, or what?

>Redpill me

Not him but you are wrong: Also Dr. Poursharitia has countered Dr. Yarshater's claims before and debunked them, which is why the latter is not even considered in the vogue or orthodox of Sassanid expertise.

Source: Decline and Fall of the Sassanid Empire

>Once we turn to the accounts of Flavius Arrianus of the second century
CE and consider the numismatic evi-
dence of later Arsacid history, however, we realize that the political ideology of
the Arsacids had undergone a transformation, incorporating in the process an
important dimension into their claim for legitimacy: the Arsacids now claimed
an Achaemenid genealogy. This claim, Neusner argues, was not advanced by
the Arsacids before the end of the second century
BCE
. From then on, how-
ever, Arsacid co-option of Achaemenid heritage is evidenced not only in their
coins, which bear the title
King of Kings
(
sh
̄
ah
̄
ansh
̄
ah
), but also by their use in
writing of Pahlavi side-by-side of Greek as well as other symbolic associations
that they sought to make with ancient Iranian rule and the Achaemenids.
105
Neusner believes that this change in Arsacid political ideology was a reflection
of the changing fortunes of the dynasty. Initially instigated by the victories of
the Parthians in the course of the first century, victories which recalled “the
glories of Achaemenid Persia,” the change in Arsacid political ideology was
thereafter sustained when, by the end of the first century
BCE
, “the power-
ful [Parthian] armies and government . . . fell apart . . . and the fundamental
weakness of Arsacid rule became evident.”
106
From then on the power of the
nobility increased, while the strength of the state in the face of external enemies
decreased. In view of this, there was a greater need for the state to continue to
emphasize its legitimacy by resorting to extra-Parthian, ancient Iranian tradi-
tions of rule and hegemony.

You are retarded.

I'm interested in someone supplying direct evidence on hand, which is nothing insane to ask in a board about historical discussion.

>Not only you haven't scanned shit
I never made a claim or arbitrated a view, so that doesn't follow.
>but you're literally saying you will not do it
No, literally the opposite of what I said. my friend.
>That's retarded
It's not.

Arsacids aren't Sassanids. The Arsacids were far more Hellenized and thus tended to draw more on Greek historiography, which of course did know of the Achaemenids. The Sassanids drew from native Iranian historiography, which did not.

i called you a retard not a samefag you mong. Also, really, he used sources, go ahead and look at them, otherwise fuck off to what illiterate shithole you hail from you mongrel. Nobody is going to do the legwork for you,

Yeah! Persianist here - it's refreshing to find fellow Persiabros on the board.

This. Darius sort of gets a shout out in stories (Shahnameh, etc.) later on, but the rest of the Achaemenids (and even the Parthians, who as north Iranians who were semi-hellenized were likely seen as less legit) don't really get mentioned.

This carries on into the codification of Shahnameh by Ferdowsi during the Islamic Period under the Samanids and Ghaznavids - by which point Alexander/Iskander is even proposed to actually be partly of Iranian descent himself.

I insist that you should read Shayegan. Not because I want to push my position in this argument, but because you'll find his arguments very interesting if you have read Pourshariati and because his conclusions are not 100% contradictory with your excerpt.

And before you ask me for specific parts, I make it clear that you should read all of it. It's not the kind of work that can be dissected. Also, being a recent work, it should be easy to find.

I hope we can continue the discussion once you have read him.

If you didn't make the rest of those posts, why are you acting like you did? Like, in you reply as if you were the same person as .

This. Arsacid Parthia even used Greek in court and administration. They had a radically different approach to other Persian Empires, even though the Sassanids did co-opt some of their innovations (Asvaran/Azadan noble classes etc.)

>Arsacids aren't Sassanids.
Never claimed they were.
>Arsacids were far more Hellenized.
Only for the first half of their rule and reign before it was evident their Iranian kin were disgusted by Hellenistic culture and the continual upswing of revolts, uprisings and civil war threatened to destabilized their empire.

>The Sassanids drew from native Iranian historiography, which did not.
Wrong. And both Dr. Poursharitia and Daryaee have countered Dr, Yashater's claims, so stop claiming Yashater's beliefs as absolute when there is no consensus to this day.

Why are you samefagging and implying anyone who disagrees with you is the same person which you all but said in the first place, my intentionally misleading shitposter?

Actually Shayegan claims that the Arsacid "Achaemenid program" has babylonian and pontic origins.

But I'm not able to copypaste the whole book here. So my argument is of course invalid.

I'm and I'm not Just like there's no samefagging in "your side" don't expect it to be in mine.

...

>Never claimed they were.
Then why did you post a source about the Arsacids when we're talking about the Sassanids.

You haven't actually given any source countering the claim that the Sassanids (not Arsacids) knew little to nothing of the Achaemenids. If you have one I'll try to check it out if I can.

I'm not very familiar with this topic so I'm not saying you're wrong.

And the proof, since everyone is paranoical.

He posted a book on the Sassanids that references multiple modern and ancient sources that countermand and contradict Dr. Yashatar's claims about Sassanid knowledge of the Achaemenids.

He posted a section from the book about the Arsacids though, not the Sassanids. I'll try to check to book out to see if it does counter those claims though.

Why do we have to check those sources? It's not our problem. He should scan the exact line and page where Yarshatar is debunked.

Touraj Daryaee provides a pretty explicit countering of Yashatar's claims as well as using both Armenian, Greek and Roman sources at the time to show the Sassanids were well are of Achaemenid achievements and legacy,

>Dio talks about it
>Marcellinus talks about it
>Sassanid entry at the door of Persepolis which has them referencing the Achaemenids as "the ones whose glories are to be remembered" dated around the mid 3rd century
>And coincidences with Marcellinus speaking that Shapur was aware of his forebearers and ancestors (Achaemenids) at the time

Also less lunacy wise, we still have majority of pre-Islamic oral traditions dating back over 3500 years ago in Iran surviving to this day. Why would such oral traditions and knowledge evaporate over such a relatively short period of time when the transition period between the Achaemenid era to the Arsacid and Sassanid ones?

Man your saltiness is adorable.

>Oral tradition
With who, the Zoroastrians who won't even exist in a couple of years?

Thanks, I'll try to look more into this.

With native Iranian folklore, mythological history, oral history, and not simply limited to Zoroastrian histography. Mate, its an established fact by Iranianologists that Iranian/pre-Islamic oral history in Iran has still survived despite all the shit since the fall of the Sassanids.

Majority of those are coming from Iranians, not Parsees. And Zoroastrianism really has nothing to do with it.

Thanks. But what about Cyrus?

Cyrus' legacy?

Link to Rahmin Shayegan "Arsacids and Sasanians - Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia":

archive.org/details/ArsacidsAndSasaniansByRahimShayegan

No, Cyrus himself. He's not mentioned by any native iranian literary source after Alexander. We got references to "ancestors" and everything but where is Cyrus? You yourself (or another person) argue that oral tradition could have not be forgotten by the iranians. Cyrus or someone who can be identified as Cyrus should be at least in the Shahnameh and probably in a lot of other texts. Ardashir founder of the Sasanian Empire is everywhere, why the founder of the Achaemenid Empire is not?

I love you.

He survives in oral traditions and through the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. Also while he is not directly named in the Shah Namah, his personality and achievements are broken down into several mythological figures.

How hellenized was Iran by the time the Sassanids came around?

It is my understanding that the Sassanids were not fond of Hellenic culture and actively tried to revive native Persian traditions.

So, based on the above, is it possible to say that the Sassanids displayed a form of pseudo nationalism?

But isn't that too little? We're not talking about a minor character here. We're talking about arguably the most influential iranic person in world history. I'm not only asking about this strange situation but also for explanations.

Not him, but this might help.
iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-i-perspectives
The second entry talks about Sassanids (and the other pre-islamic iranians) but I strongly recommend to read it all.

My opinion is that you would need a very specific definition of nationalism to not call it, at least, iranian proto-nationalism.

>Also while he is not directly named in the Shah Namah, his personality and achievements are broken down into several mythological figures.
Could you expand a little more on this statement? Because I'm not sure that this is the case.
That's more or less the traditional assesment of Sasanian history, yes.

>How hellenized was Iran by the time the Sassanids came around?
Not very. Like the other user mentioned earlier in the thread prior, the Arsacids were facing increasing revolts and uprisings by other Iranian peoples; particularly from the Persians, Sogdians, Medes, and so forth over the Arsacids patronizing of Greek culture, language, and religious tolerance. By a few decades interactions with Rome, native Iranian religions once again assert themselves and traditional "aryan" practices and customs overwrite and erase Greek based ones.

There's been plenty of scholarly debate by Iranian scholars and academics that several figures that are attributed to the mythological Kayanian dynasty and their rulers are based off the achievements of Cyrus the Great.

Chiefly, that Ferdowsi attributed it from Cyrus into a more pan folklore and race origin mindset to make it more universal to Iranians then invoke Cyrus as a secular individual of a previous dynasty of Persia.

>There's been plenty of scholarly debate by Iranian scholars and academics that several figures that are attributed to the mythological Kayanian dynasty and their rulers are based off the achievements of Cyrus the Great.
>Chiefly, that Ferdowsi attributed it from Cyrus into a more pan folklore and race origin mindset to make it more universal to Iranians then invoke Cyrus as a secular individual of a previous dynasty of Persia.

Hmm, I'm not buying it. For one thing, the Kayanians are already present in the Avesta (Kay Khusrau and Kay Wistasp, for example), which is older than Cyrus himself. Also, I don't see how Cyrus's achievements are represented in the Shahnamah at all. If by "Cyrus achievements" we consider his conquests, then they aren't mentioned, since the existence of Iran as a political unit is atributed to the partition of the world between the sons of Fereydun: Salm (Rum, meaning the Roman Empire), Tur (Turan, ie Central Asia) and Iraj (Iran and India). There are no stories about the conquest of the Iranian plateau by anyone else except usurpers and tyrants (Azi Dahaka, from the Arabian desert, and Afrasyab from Turan) and of course, Alexander.

I'm the user who asked and I'm not buying it eithe for similar reasons as those exposed by the other user. But I'm 100% interested and may change my opinion if you know about specific works or chapters about the subject.

Yes and so? For centuries Western scholars also believed that Darius the Great's father Hystapes had been a direct patron and companion of Zarthusthra because Darius claims it in his inscriptions. Secondly the statement I used was that Cyrus' person is fragmented into various other mythological or legendary figures in Iranian lore and most importantly, the compendium that Ferdowsi made with his poetic epic based off of, the Sassanid Xwadâynâmag, parallels Kai Khosrow and is a direct reference to the Persian Revolt against the Medians.

He exists in fragments and piece meal scattered through the Book of Kings. This has been echoed by Noldeke and other scholars.

Niggers.

>Yes and so? For centuries Western scholars also believed that Darius the Great's father Hystapes had been a direct patron and companion of Zarthusthra because Darius claims it in his inscriptions.
I don't see how this example is supposed to counter what I said. We know that Darius's father could have never been the companion of Zarathusthra because, the dates for the compostition of the Yast and the Avesta (which mentions Zarathusthra) is older than the entrance of Iranian speaking peoples in the Iranian Plateau. If Darius was already an aristocrat in Parsa by the time of his rebellion against the "false Bardiya", then having is father beign the mythical benefactor of Zarathusthra (Vistaspa, which "greekified" is Hystaspes) is impossible. We also know that Darius the Great genealogy in the Behistun inscription is partly fabricated (if not all, at least the parts where he is descendent of Cyrus are)
>Secondly the statement I used was that Cyrus' person is fragmented into various other mythological or legendary figures in Iranian lore and most importantly, the compendium that Ferdowsi made with his poetic epic based off of, the Sassanid Xwadâynâmag, parallels Kai Khosrow and is a direct reference to the Persian Revolt against the Medians.
The narrative of Cyrus's early history and his ascent to power contains a lot of mythical and folkloric elements, I think its most likely that his and Kay Khusraw legends are derived from a common mythological and folklorical topos of the iranian people (the royal prince brought up by sheepherds) rather than Kai Khusraw beign a derivative of Cyrus.
>He exists in fragments and piece meal scattered through the Book of Kings. This has been echoed by Noldeke and other scholars.
I'm still not convinced. I don't see the reason why would Cyrus's figure be scattered through the Shahnamah, him beign a pagan is no justification since all figures in the Shahnamah are.

>I don't see
Exactly, your incapable of comprehension. It was a well established belief and part of the orthodoxy on Persian and Iranian studies until relatively recently that the dating of the Gathas for example conclusively proved that sentiment wrong.

>I think most likely that his and Kay Khusraw legends are derived from a common mythological and floklorical topos
Not really. Because the dating of the Persian Revolt instigated from studying the Shah Namah coincides with the actual records and accounts we have of Achaemenid Empire's founder. Sure their mixed together but its clearly a reference to Cyrus himself.
>I'm still not convinced.
That's really not my issue.

>Exactly, your incapable of comprehension. It was a well established belief and part of the orthodoxy on Persian and Iranian studies until relatively recently that the dating of the Gathas for example conclusively proved that sentiment wrong.
I'm still not following, what I said is that:

The Kayanians appear in the Gathas and the Yasts -----------> The composition of both dates from before the time of Cyrus ---------> ergo, the Kayanians cannot be a mythologicized version of Cyrus or the Achaemenids themselves, because they existed (in myth and folklore, probably not real historical persons) before both.

You cited the example of scholars taking Darius inscription at Behistun at face value (with Darius's father beign the patron of Zoroaster), but that doesn't disprove anything I said.

>Not really. Because the dating of the Persian Revolt instigated from studying the Shah Namah coincides with the actual records and accounts we have of Achaemenid Empire's founder. Sure their mixed together but its clearly a reference to Cyrus himself.
How did they "coincide with the actual records"? By actual records of the Persian Revolt are you talking about Xenophon and Herodotus? The reference to Cyrus is not clear at all, the similarities between both is in the legends of their birth and ascent to power, which again, given that Cyrus's story is already legendary from the get go, I find more plausible that both accounts are the result of both stories growing from the same cultural millieu. The "genealogical line" between Cyrus's account and the Kayanids is not clear at all, and the question as to why Cyrus's is absent from the Shahnamah, is still unclear.

>the Sassanid Xwadâynâmag, parallels Kai Khosrow and is a direct reference to the Persian Revolt against the Medians

Can you develop this? I have read fragments of the Book of Kings (Rostam and Sohrab and classic stuff like that) but not the reign of Kai Khosrow, and nothing of the Xwadâynâmag if it survived.