- This topic has 6 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
What made Cyrus “great”? I think it was because of his religious tolerance (he restored temples of lands he conquered), he had people of native lands, as well as Persians, in his government, he showed great repect for ancient civilizations by incorporating their practices, and he was a peacemaker. All (most?) those he conquered considered Cyrus their legitimate ruler.
What made Cyrus "great"? I think it was because of his religious tolerance (he restored temples of lands he conquered), he had people of native lands, as well as Persians, in his government, he showed great repect for ancient civilizations by incorporating their practices, and he was a peacemaker. All (most?) those he conquered considered Cyrus their legitimate ruler.
You pretty much nailed it.
So far he's my “favorite” ruler. He certainly sets the bar high. I'm curious about how much religious tolerance plays a role in defining a good leader (and also if it caused the downfall of any)
I suppose one can either subjugate people by show of raw force or by making them satisfied. Cyrus chose the latter.Looks like there's some kind of documentary on Cyrus coming out, at least potentially.
What made Cyrus "great"? I think....
Don't forget he came to power leading a revolt against the Medes that had ruled the Persians for 150 years or so. Heroic beginning to the Persian Empire plus all the good things you listed. Yup, he earned the Great moniker.
Looks like not everyone thinks he was all that “great” after all. Cyrus cylinder's ancient bill of rights 'is just propaganda'It does puzzle me to see this...is it really worth it to go about criticizing ancient rulers as "despots"?
I think this is more about anti-Iran propaganda than anti-Cyrus.
For all the criticisms of the Cyrus cylinder, it is unlikely to change perceptions of it in Iran, where Cyrus and the cylinder are regarded with intense national pride.
Good point….I hadn't thought of that. When I read the article I thought that lines like "The ancient Persians were not some early form of Swedish Social Democrats" were somewhat stupid. After all, which historical rulers would ever have adopted policies on par with the Swedish Social Democrats....except the Swedish Social Democrats?
This is fascinating, with the addition of the article criticism; do you really think someone like Cyrus can conquer so much with so little force?
It seems to most of the people he conquered, he was viewed as a liberator. Perhaps he didn't need to use much force.
Another thing,too, the Persian Empire developed a very good road system so they were able to move large militaries without that much difficulty. Anyone they conquered became a part of the empire, that means the armies too. So Cyrus really didn't have a little force. It was quite massive.
Another thing,too, the Persian Empire developed a very good road system so they were able to move large militaries without that much difficulty. Anyone they conquered became a part of the empire, that means the armies too. So Cyrus really didn't have a little force. It was quite massive.
Massive it was - 300,000 strong. I just heard a factoid that the shah in Iran, of which Cyrus the Great was the first (c. 6th century B.C.), only ended in 1979 making it the longest running imperial monarchy in history.
I just heard a factoid that the shah in Iran, of which Cyrus the Great was the first (c. 6th century B.C.), only ended in 1979 making it the longest running imperial monarchy in history.
But didn't the Ottoman Empire take them over?
