Mullahs follow in the footsteps of Alexander's army

**Rosacrux redux** · 12-06-2005, 08:28

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

There's a slight technical problem with that.

.

"slight" is the understatement of the year

**Dâriûsh** · 12-06-2005, 23:51

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I'm not. I'm saying that calling themselves Persian would be illogical, since most of the people who controlled Iran called themselves Aryan (Sassanians, for example).

I am Iranian and Persian. Farsi, the language, is Persian, and I think it would be more correct to use the word Persian when talking about Farsi-speaking Iranians in English. For instance, Kurds and Balochs are not Persian, but they are Iranians.

Pardon the off-topic.

**Rosacrux redux** · 12-07-2005, 09:15

Kurds should be called "Iranic" in the way that Azheri, Khazars and others are called "Turkic". Persia (and Persians) is the correct terminology for the particular people (the ones that are noted by dynasties as Achaemenid, Sassanid and so on) but there is a larger group of people that are "Iranic" (and that included in antiquity people as the Persians, the Medes, the Sakae, the Parthians and many others).

**Steppe Merc** · 12-07-2005, 14:52

Good point. I was not sure how many Persians inhabit Iran opposed to just Iranian speakers...

**lugh** · 12-07-2005, 14:53

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

"slight" is the understatement of the year

Whatever, half remembered scanned article for the lose?
Some kind of important burial sites are there, no?

**Mouzafphaerre** · 12-07-2005, 20:35

.
I didn't intend a mockery but couldn't resist it sorry.

Sassanids didn't come to existence until III. C. AD
.

**lugh** · 12-08-2005, 11:27

It's quite allright.
I had to go see what could possibly be wrong with what I posted, so I went looking around. The era isn't really my thing, but it's interesting nonetheless. So thanks, I guess..

**Mouzafphaerre** · 12-08-2005, 14:26

.
7,000 years (VI.M BC) would be way pre-Persian. Even before Medians I assume (didn't check with the dates).

Thanks Kenny!
.

**Steppe Merc** · 12-08-2005, 15:02

Yeah, pre Medians as well.

**Rosacrux redux** · 12-08-2005, 16:34

Pre IE, actually, if believe in the IE thing...

**The Wizard** · 12-08-2005, 18:12

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

Kurds should be called "Iranic" in the way that Azheri, Khazars and others are called "Turkic". Persia (and Persians) is the correct terminology for the particular people (the ones that are noted by dynasties as Achaemenid, Sassanid and so on) but there is a larger group of people that are "Iranic" (and that included in antiquity people as the Persians, the Medes, the Sakae, the Parthians and many others).

I would prefer the more widely known Indo-Iranian.

**artavazd** · 12-15-2005, 01:08

I think about 50% of the Iranian population is Persian. They look like armenians greeks italians. This in its self is proof of the IE heritage. I have seen iranians who look arabic, but the persians look "european" I was so angered by the movie about alexander made by oliver stone. None of those "persians" looked pesian. I even heard arabic when the soldiers were talking. It is a shame how uneducated people especially in the media can distored history, and more importantly distort a people.

there is a documentary being made by an armenian director who seems to have a good amount of knowledge about the Perisan world. The documentary is about the armenian war caled the Vartanantz war against the Sassanid empire in the 5th century. here is the link http://www.archfilm.net/fugitives-princes.htm

also conceptual art which will be used in the documentary
http://www.invaderdigital.com/subpages/ancient1.htm
http://www.invaderdigital.com/subpages/ancient2.htm
http://www.invaderdigital.com/subpages/ancient3.htm ( the 3rd picture down is Vartan and the armenian cataphracts)

**The Wizard** · 12-18-2005, 14:51

That looks brilliant

Where is that airing? I love it!

But you are right. It was the one major inaccuracy within that film -- otherwise, R. L. Fox did a pretty nice job. But, really, that was a pretty big misconception with the depiction of Medes, Persians, Ferghanans, Skythians, etc etc etc. They might be of a somewhat darker complexion than Germanics or Celts, but they certainly don't look Semitic. Sigh

**artavazd** · 12-18-2005, 20:44

that is true wizard. Being brunett does not mean someone looks semetic. actualy if i am not mistaken arent there more brunet europeans than blond ones?

I do not know when it is airing, but they are filming the documentary in new zealan. Plus it is not only about the armenian war with the persians, it covers from the 2nd to the 6th centuries a.d the roman and persian world.