Xerxes sacked Greece before Alexander sacked Persia.
Darius was the successor of Xerxes.
Cheers, Doc
Looking Through Broken Glass: Rajput Victories In Indian History
- Thread starter RATHORE
- Start date
Xerxes sacked Greece before Alexander sacked Persia.
Darius was the successor of Xerxes.
Cheers, Doc
Sorry, I needed to have elaborated. Alexander certainly did not sack Persian cities as a general rule. One night in Persepolis, after a drunken dinner, an orgy, egged on by the Greek courtesan Thais, he and the other drunken Macedonians took up lit torches and set fire to the city. It is thought that Thais reminded them of the destruction of Greek cities, particularly Athens (just before the Battle of Salamis), and incited them to do this.
Sacking 'Greece' is as misleading as sacking 'Persia'. Neither did anything of the sort. Wherever there was resistance, bloodshed followed - in both cases. The most awful sack by Alexander was the sack of Tyre. It was horrific. In India, on his march down to the sea, after the encounter with Porus, he and his men did, however, commit atrocity after atrocity.
Well, he destroyed ALL our written history in that one night.
Something that allows Hindus to this day to claim that the Vedas predate the Gathas.
And gave us the Zand (lost) Avestan texts as a result, by word of mouth. Minus the original tomes.
Cheers, Doc
Yes, Doc, but why shouldn't Alexander have conquered the Persian Empire (not Persia alone; it was only one province of the Empire) and become the successor to Darius?
No sir, I meant that Black's post said the reverse (which I missed till you quoted it).
He said Xerxes was Darius's successor.
Nothing to do with Alexander.
Cheers, Doc
I apologize.
One must not blur the lines.
It only plays into their hands.
My personal problem is that once the management here banned the use of s.anghi (easy and short and rolled off the lips so nicely) its a pain to write Hindutvwadi. Just does not feel the same ....
Cheers, Doc
Oh, OK, I get it. Here is the king-list (I am not putting them in order, just a straight line, because I see your problem now, and this list may fix it):
- Cyrus the Great (he was named after his grandfather, Cyrus I)
- Darius the Great (the first of his name as Achaemenid Emperor. This was the man who tried to fight off the Scythians and was baffled by their riding off into the vast steppe-land every time the Persians thought they had them at last. He also started the fatal fight with the Greeks, because some of the Ionian city-states fell to his power simply because of proximity; when their overlords fell, they were 'inherited' by Darius)
[MARATHON] - Cambyses II (there was an earlier Cambyses, one generation earlier)
- Xerxes I the Great
[THERMOPYLAE - THE STAND OF THE 300
SALAMIS
PLATAEA] - Artaxerxes I
- Xerxes II
- Sogdianus
- Darius II
- Artaxerxes II (if you've read Xenophon's Anabasis, this was the Emperor whose brother, Cyrus, whom the Greeks called Cyrus the Younger, rebelled against him, and hired Greek mercenaries to back him up, and lost; their march to the Black Sea, fighting off the whole Persian Empire, satrapy by satrapy, was what gave the Greeks the clue that the Empire could be taken down. If you haven't read the Anabasis, READ IT NOW)
- Artaxerxes III
- Artaxerxes IV
- Darius III (Alexander's Persian Emperor)
- Artaxerxes V (a phony)
- Alexander III (of Macedon) and I of Persia
Last edited:
There was Cambyses who succeeded Cyrus the Great and not Cambyses succeeding Darius the Great .
I got that now.
I thought since the discussion was around Darius III, that's who he was referring to.
Cheers, Doc
Yes, I realised, a little late.
You need only pay attention to #2, #4 and #12 on the king-list.
Darius told Mardonius to make the first invasion, irritated by the Greek cheekiness. The Athenians fought him off at the pass of Marathon, and Phillipides ran back to Athens with the good news, hence the Marathon.
Then Xerxes came in himself, saw the Spartans getting slaughtered at Thermopylae (that was not bone-headed bravery, it was a cold-blooded, deliberate self-sacrifice to give the rest of the Greeks, and the rest of the Spartans, time to gather), the Persians getting totally beaten at Salamis (when Themistocles sent the famous false message to the Persians, tattooed on the scalp of a slave), and the epic defeat at Plataea.
And that was it, 499 down to 451. And then Alexander pounced on Darius III.
Were all your liturgy and sacred texts concentrated only in Persepolis ? If yes , as later evidence demonstrates , it's clear that Zorastrianism failed to strike deep roots . That it was one of several cults / sects / religions in that part of the world and would continue to be so except one of its adherents struck it big and decided to make Zoroastrianism the state religion at the cost of others . That it became the preserve of a select group of people ( the Magi?) who used it to monopolise their hold over the community is also evident .Hence the collapse when it came was inevitable , by retrospective wisdom.
Last edited:
The only reason you didn't conquer the Indic realms beyond the Indus was more likely that the Indics were more advanced than the Persians and to quote Arrian as BlackOpsIndia did - they were much better fighters . The regions to the west , while equally advanced offered easier pickings in that they were smaller sized and more disparate as compared to the Indic realms . It may also be worthwhile to emphasise that the bulk of your populace would have been concentrated in the Central Western & NW parts of Iran as opposed to the sparsely populated Eastern & NE realms .Hence their interactions would be Western oriented as would be their world view . Please also note that the earlier capitals of the dynasties which ruled Iran were all situated in precisely those areas where the population was concentrated . Except for the Parthians .
Babakism is of early 6 th century vintage and regarded as a heresy among the then conservative elements .Magiism while having different roots became synonymous with Zorastrianism.
He trots in on his high horse at last; you're Bengali aren't you? What exactly did you guys achieve, other than giving the East India Company its initial foothold in India?
Can't you SEE that the GODS themselves did not like either your People or your Books
Ah, the ardent supporter of the Freikorps? The 'evolution' of the philosophy (?) continues! Fredrick the Great will be proud or will he?
How convenient! Simply asked you to post both sides of the story and let the reader decide - that is merely called a neutral view. Or are you suggesting that you are not posting a neutral view? If that remains the case, then why not post the disclaimer - that the piece is meant as a propaganda (or counter propaganda)?
I am amused by your attempt at trying to change the reading frame here, the context of my quotes to you and what I am implying. Typical!