Talk:Darius the Great/Archive 1

Archive 1

Correction of etymology

I removed the incorrect part about the origin of the name Darius, which indicated it is from the Old Testament. The same mistake was also made about the name of Cyrus, which indicated it is from Hebrew (which I corrected and provided the correct etymology on that page). Both names are originally from Persian and "Cyrus and Darius" are the Greek/Latin versions of the original Persian name, which are Khourvash and Darayvash. In Persian vash is a suffix of similarity or characteristics, which to this day exists and many Persian names and words contain this suffix. -- Keyvan Partovi

• It is Dārayawauš, not Dārayawuš; from dārayati "he holds, he upholds" (modern Farsi dārad دارد) and wahuš "(the) good" (cf. Farsi beh-tar بهتر). In Achaemenian Old Persian medial -h- is dropped, so ahura becomes aura, and wahuš becomes wauš. The h was preserved in Avestan, as in Vohu Manah (Farsi Bahman بهمن), where vohu = wahu (neuter of wahuš). RandomCritic 05:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I performed a clean-up and removed the tag. The Brittanica article provides a good start, but I think we could still expand it a bit. But I should be working on my paper instead of worrying about this now ;) --Jpbrenna 03:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Font

Unfortunatly, the standard font doesn't have Old-Persian characters. Could you please provide with a Font name that I can download in order to view it correctly? Thanks, Boris A

Code2001, available at [1]. DopefishJustin 04:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dates and numbers in this article

Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE appears to make the most sense. Sunray 18:01, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I've gone back to BCE/CE since User: Jpbrenna has indicated on other articles that he prefers BCE/CE notation. Sunray 07:01, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Note to Jguk and other editors: Please do not revert this page for reasons of date notation (eras) from BCE/CE to BC/AD or vice versa. This issue is currently the subject of an arbitration matter concerning Jguk Sunray 17:54, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

How Darius came into Power

Wouldn't it be remiss, if we don't mention the debate of government forms: Monarchy vs Oligarchy vs Democracy among the Persian nobles? 82.70.40.190

Darius' Will.

I came across the following website that has a Persian transcript of Darius’s will. I am not sure how authentic it is, I have not been able to find an English version from a reputable site yet. It will be a great addition here with regards to human rights in his time.

وصيت نامه داريوش كبير http://www.topiranian.com/topnews/archives/003600.html

82.70.40.190

The Irony

Isn't strange that Darius the Great article should be redirected to here under the Darius I of Persia, the title that given to him by the world histroy, since ancient times, and a Macedonian warlord become Alexander the Great, the title that given to him by pompous parvenu Victorians, in quest for historical connection and legitimacy?! It seems historical distortions are going strong here! Who does not know that the first law of historical writing is the truth (Cicero) - Surena ^talk, 22 June 2006.

Do you have any basis for the claim that Alexander the Great is a name made up by Victorians? I would add that "Darius I of Persia" is recognizable, while Alexander III of Macedon is pretty ridiculous. john k 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry John, we are not talking about the beautification of the names here, but a historical discussion. You are implying that it is not ridiculous to falsify history, and change the name of a historical figure, from Darius the Great, to just Darius I of Persia, but it is pretty ridiculous to call Alexander the Macedon by the name that has been known throughout history untill recent times, to Alexander the Great because it sounds better, and it is recognizable?! Anyhow, to pursue the matter please refer to:

• Fernandez-Armesto, Felipe, Guide to Peoples of Europe, Published in London by Times Books in 1994.
• Spatari, Calabria, N.,L'enigma Delle Arti Asittite: Nella Calabria Ultramediterranea, Roma: MUSABA, 2003
• Mallory, J.P., In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archeology and Myth. London, Thames & Hudson, 1989".

Surena ^talk, 23 June 2006.

"Alexander III of Macedon" is the name by which he is known throughout history? Seriously? I find this dubious in my own experience. I note that you cite three books which are not about Alexander as your sources. I don't see how history is being falsified, anyway - we are just using the designation that is most familiar, as wikipedia suggests. I know for a fact that Edward, the Black Prince was not called that until long after his death (I think shortly before Shakespeare's time was when it was invented). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the article there - this is how he is known to history, which is what's important. At any rate, I'd like some specific quotes from your sources as to how the name "Alexander the Great" was made up by prissy Victorians. You listing the titles of a bunch of books I can't look at isn't terribly helpful. john k 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I cannot give you a reference book that its' title contains the name of Alexander the Great! You have asked for references, and I provided you with, that is up to you to pursue it or not. In the meanwhile read this interesting article about Alexander of Macedon and [http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Post-Achaemenid/alexander.htm How ‘Great’ Was Alexander? by Professor Ian Worthington of University of Missouri-Columbia] - Surena ^talk, 24 June 2006.

Firstly, why in the world is it up to me to pursue it? In the second place, there are plenty of books which could clearly be explicitly discuss Alexander that don't contain "Alexander the Great" in the title. Thirdly, I am not in a place where I can easily look up books. Even if I could, I don't see why I should have to dig through a bunch of books to figure out what they say about this subject, when you apparently have them and could quote or paraphrase them. This is what I want - for you to say, specifically what these books say about the name Alexander. Your link, which I can read, in fact explicitly contradicts your claim that the title "the Great" was made up by Victorians:

The first attested reference to Alexander as great is found in Plautus, Mostellaria 775, where Tranio compares himself to Alexander ‘the great’ (magnum) and to Agathocles of Syracuse. The casual, non-explanatory, nature of the exchange here would indicate that Alexander had had this title for some time, and that the audience knew it. Besides, it would be hard to ascribe the start of a tradition to someone like Plautus! When was Alexander saddled with this title? Perhaps during the reign of Ptolemy I, at the time when he kidnapped the funeral cortege of the dead Alexander, which proved so useful in promoting his rule.

So the first attested reference to Alexander as "the Great" dates to the early 2nd century BC. So what on earth are you talking about? john k 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me where in the article it has mentioned the above quote you have proudly stated, as I'm not able to find it? - Surena ^talk, 24 June 2006.

That's totally weird - it was definitely there when I was looking at it before, in the third foot note, and a google search for a long phrase confirms that it was there the last time google trolled through. It can still be found at this version of the same article, and in the google cache. In the version you linked, it has oddly been replaced by a completely different foot note. I have no idea how to explain that. john k 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, the text of the third footnote, as it's been altered, is now identical to the end of the 12th footnote...what an odd coincidence, huh?

Interesting. Would it be possible that someone reading this discussion has access to that website's maintenance, to change files there? Occam's razor would possibly not suggest such explanation... Shilkanni 23:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But why would someone want to suppress this? It seems to be correct, and it seems fairly clear the change was malicious - as I noted, the "new" footnote is simply a fragment of a later footnote in the same article. 01:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Another notice of Plautus' use of "Alexander the Great" can be found here. The text of Plautus's play can be found at Perseus Project and Project Gutenberg. The precise text is as follows:

They say that Alexander the Great and Agathocles achieved two very great exploits; what shall be the lot of myself, a third, who, unaided, am achieving deeds imperishable?

I think this would appear to be fairly well established - the name "Alexander the Great" is more than two thousand years old. john k 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. You can glorify Alexander as much as you wish, call him the Greatest, for what I care; the discussion here is about the alteration of the historical name of Darius the Great to just Darius- Surena ^talk, 25 June 2006.

I have no interest in glorifying Alexander. You were claiming, on the basis of, apparently, no evidence whatsoever, that use of "the Great" with respect to him derives from the Victorians. This is nonsense, and now you don't even have the good grace to admit that you were wrong. Your whole original point was based on the idea that we were "suppressing" the title by which Darius was known for thousands of years, while giving Alexander a title made up by the Victorians. But Alexander's epithet was not made up by the Victorians. Your point was completely bogus. As to Darius, the very first line of the article refers to him as "the Great." This is no different from numerous other people known as "the Great".

Looking at List of people known as the Great, we can see how it works out. On the side of "the Great" in article titles, we have the following people known as "the Great" who actually have the title in their article title:

1. Alexander the Great
2. Alfred the Great
3. Antiochus III the Great (but note that all Seleucid rulers have their second name in article title)
4. Canute the Great
5. Charlemagne
6. Cyrus the Great
7. Gwanggaeto the Great of Goguryeo
8. Herod the Great
9. Llywelyn the Great
10. Pacal the Great
11. Rhodri the Great
12. Sejong the Great of Joseon
13. Theodoric the Great
14. Tigranes the Great
15. Vytautas the Great
16. Yu the Great

Note that in a great number of these cases, "the Great" is in the title essentially because it's the only clear way to disambiguate. I'd say this is true of Alfred the Great (otherwise we have to choose between "Alfred of Wessex" and "Alfred of England,"); Canute the Great (ruled over three countries - how to choose?); Charlemagne (same deal, more or less); Cyrus the Great ("Cyrus II of Persia" is confusing, due to the general obscurity of Cyrus I); Herod the Great (not ever called "Herod I," that I've seen, he's pretty much always distinguished from the other Herodians by use of "the Great"); Llywelyn and Rhodri the Great (of Gwynedd or of Wales?); Theodoric the Great ("of the Ostrogoths" is awkward); and Yu the Great (I'm not sure how else to do it).

On the side of not having it, we have:

1. Abbas I of Safavid (which is, btw, and awful article title. "Safavid" isn't the name of a place.)
2. Akbar
3. Alaric I
4. Alfonso III of León
5. Ashoka
6. Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke
7. Casimir III of Poland
8. Catherine II of Russia
9. Chandragupta Maurya
10. Chulalongkorn
11. Constantine I
12. Darius I of Persia
13. Frederick II of Prussia
14. Genghis Khan
15. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
16. Henry IV of France
17. Ivan III of Russia
18. John I of Portugal
19. Justinian I
20. Kamehameha I
21. Karikala Chola
22. Karim Khan
23. Louis I of Hungary
24. Louis XIV of France
25. Mithridates II of Parthia
26. Mithridates VI of Pontus
27. Moctezuma I
28. Mubarak Al-Sabah
29. Nadir Shah
30. Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor
31. Peter I of Russia
32. Peter III of Aragon
33. Pope Gregory I
34. Pope Leo I
35. Pope Nicholas I
36. Rajaraja Chola I
37. Ramesses II
38. Reza Shah
39. Sancho III of Navarre
40. Sargon of Akkad
41. Shapur II
42. Shivaji
43. Stephen III of Moldavia
44. Theodosius I
45. Valdemar I of Denmark
46. William V of Aquitaine
47. Wilhelm I of Germany
48. Xerxes I of Persia

Pretty clearly, there's a lot more people not at "the Great," including lots of people besides Darius who are very commonly known as "the Great" - Gregory the Great, Otto the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great, Theodosius the Great, Constantine the Great, and Ramesses the Great, for instance. I don't see as you have any ground to stand on claiming that anything is being suppressed. john k 12:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with john k completely. We have the redirect for Darius the Great to here, and that's fine. John K pretty much nailed every point. This is not a conspiracy against Persians, if that's what you're onto. And renaming the article to just Darius, as you suggested, is just ridiculous. You seem to have forgotten Darius III of Persia]. ♠ SG →Talk 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And Darius the Mede. Mdotley 21:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

The link for the "Geneology of Darius" at the bottom has no such thing. It has a search function, and when I looked for Darius, it had a few hits in contemporaneous non-Persian king lists. Mdotley 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Darius and the Magi

According to several different sites, Darius was connected to a junta that killed large numbers of Magi, and nothing I read, save that spurious anonymous edit, suggested Darius was a Magi. There is an account of a legend that Darius was one of six or seven candidates for the throne who was chosen b/c his horse neighed first, but nothing solid. Mdotley 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Context

The following part, that I erased, needs to be contextualized:

The Stone Tablets of Darius the Great

The Persian Rosetta Stone

Seal of Darius the Great The empire then reached its greatest extent under Darius I. He led conquering armies into the Indus River valley and into Thrace in Europe. His invasion of Greece was halted at the Battle of Marathon. Darius I, who ascended the throne in 521 BC, pushed the Persian borders as far eastward as the Indus River, had a canal constructed from the Nile to the Red Sea, and reorganized the entire empire, earning the title 'Darius the Great.' Darius (Greek form Dareios) is a classicized form of the Old Persian Daraya-Vohumanah, Darayavahush or Darayavaush, which was the name of three kings of the Achaemenid Dynasty of Persia: Darius I (the Great), ruled 522-486 BCE, Darius II (Ochos), ruled 423-405/4 BCE, and Darius III (Kodomannos), ruled 336-330 BCE. In addition to these, the oldest son of Xerxes I was named Darius, but he was murdered before he ever came to the throne, and Darius, the son of Artaxerxes II, was executed for treason against his own father. According to A. T. Olmstead's book History of the Persian Empire, Darius the Great's father Vishtaspa (Hystaspes) and mother Hutaosa (Atossa) knew the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster) personally and were converted by him to the new religion he preached, Zoroastrianism. The empire of Darius the Great extended from Egypt in the west to the Indus River in the east. The major satrapies or provinces of his Empire were connected to the center at Persepolis, in the Fars Province of present-day Iran. The Royal Road connected 111 stations to each other. Messengers riding swift horses informed the king within days of turmoil brewing in lands as distant as Egypt and Sughdiana. One of the most awe-inspiring monuments of the ancient world, Persepolis was the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenian empire. It was built during the reign of Darius I, known as Darius the Great (522-485 BC), and developed further by successive kings. The various temples and monuments are located upon a vast platform, some 450 metres by 300 metres and 20 metres in height. At the head of the ceremonial staircase leading to the terrace is the 'Gateway of All Nations' built by Xerxes I and guarded by two colossal bull-like figures. Darius was the greatest of all the Persian kings. He extended the empires borders into India and Europe. He also fought two wars with the Greeks which were disastrous. Darius established a government which became a model for many future governments:

Established a tax-collection system;

• Allowed locals to keep customs and religions;

• Divided his empire into districts known as Satrapies;
• Built a system of roads still used today;
• Established a complex postal system;
• Established a network of spies he called the "Eyes and Ears of the King."
• Built two new capital cities, one at Susa and one at Persepolis.

                                          The Persian Wars 

In the 5th century BC the vast Persian Empire attempted to conquer Greece. If the Persians had succeeded, they would have set up local tyrants, called 'satraps', to rule Greece and would have crushed the first stirrings of democracy in Europe. The survival of Greek culture and political ideals depended on the ability of the small, disunited Greek city-states to band together and defend themselves against Persia's overwhelming strength. The struggle, known in Western history as the Persian Wars, or Greco-Persian Wars, lasted 20 years -- from 499 to 479 BC.

Persia already numbered among its conquests the Greek cities of Ionia in Asia Minor, where Greek civilization first flourished. The Persian Wars began when some of these cities revolted against Darius I, Persia's king, in 499 BC.

Athens sent 20 ships to aid the Ionians. Before the Persians crushed the revolt, the Greeks burned Sardis, capital of Lydia. Angered, Darius determined to conquer Athens and extend his empire westward beyond the Aegean Sea.

In 492 BC Darius gathered together a great military force and sent 600 ships across the Hellespont. A sudden storm wrecked half his fleet when it was rounding rocky Mount Athos on the Macedonian coast.

Two years later Darius dispatched a new battle fleet of 600 triremes. This time his powerful galleys crossed the Aegean Sea without mishap and arrived safely off Attica, the part of Greece that surrounds the city of Athens.

The Persians landed on the plain of Marathon, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from Athens. When the Athenians learned of their arrival, they sent a swift runner, Pheidippides, to ask Sparta for aid, but the Spartans, who were conducting a religious festival, could not march until the moon was full. Meanwhile the small Athenian army encamped in the foothills on the edge of the Marathon Plain.

The Athenian general Miltiades ordered his small force to advance. He had arranged his men so as to have the greatest strength in the wings. As he expected, his center was driven back. The two wings then united behind the enemy. Thus hemmed in, the Persians' bows and arrows were of little use. The stout Greek spears spread death and terror. The invaders rushed in panic to their ships. The Greek historian Herodotus says the Persians lost 6,400 men against only 192 on the Greek side. Thus ended the battle of Marathon (490 BC), one of the decisive battles of the world.

Darius planned another expedition, but he died before preparations were completed. This gave the Greeks a ten-year period to prepare for the next battles. Athens built up its naval supremacy in the Aegean under the guidance of Themistocles.

In 480 BC the Persians returned, led by King Xerxes, the son of Darius. To avoid another shipwreck off Mount Athos, Xerxes had a canal dug behind the promontory. Across the Hellespont he had the Phoenicians and Egyptians place two bridges of ships, held together by cables of flax and papyrus. A storm destroyed the bridges, but Xerxes ordered the workers to replace them. For seven days and nights his soldiers marched across the bridges.

On the way to Athens, Xerxes found a small force of Greek soldiers holding the narrow pass of Thermopylae, which guarded the way to central Greece. The force was led by Leonidas, king of Sparta. Xerxes sent a message ordering the Greeks to deliver their arms. "Come and take them," replied Leonidas.

For two days the Greeks' long spears held the pass. Then a Greek traitor told Xerxes of a roundabout path over the mountains. When Leonidas saw the enemy approaching from the rear, he dismissed his men except the 300 Spartans, who were bound, like himself, to conquer or die. Leonidas was one of the first to fall. Around their leader's body the gallant Spartans fought first with their swords, then with their hands, until they were slain to the last man.

The Persians moved on to Attica and found it deserted. They set fire to Athens with flaming arrows. Xerxes' fleet held the Athenian ships bottled up between the coast of Attica and the island of Salamis. His ships outnumbered the Greek ships three to one. The Persians had expected an easy victory, but one after another their ships were sunk or crippled.

Crowded into the narrow strait, the heavy Persian vessels moved with difficulty. The lighter Greek ships rowed out from a circular formation and rammed their prows into the clumsy enemy vessels. Two hundred Persian ships were sunk, others were captured, and the rest fled. Xerxes and his forces hastened back to Persia.

Soon after, the rest of the Persian army was scattered at Plataea (479 BC). In the same year Xerxes' fleet was defeated at Mycale. Although a treaty was not signed until 30 years later, the threat of Persian domination was ended.

Darius was killed in a coup led by other family members. At the time, he was preparing a new expedition against the Greeks. His son and successor, Xerxes I, attempted to fulfill his plan.

Enthroned in Peresepolis, the magnificent city that he built, Darius I firmly grasps the royal scepter in his right hand. In the left, he is holding a lotus blossom with two buds, the symbol of royalty.

--Amizzoni 22:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The account of the Greek campaign that you so cavalierly deleted ought to have been made into a linked subpage instead. It represents a lot of editing work and is pertinent. You have also deleted other information (building two new capitals, establishing a postal system and an espionage network, etc.) that belongs in this article and calls for an expansion, if anything. Since you seem to be a competent enough historian to enumerate all the man's offspring, why do you not expand on these topics, rather than deleting them for no good reason? Freederick 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rise to power

AFAIK, Darius's rise to power has been somewhat irregular and interesting. The article, however, begins in medias res, without making any mention of these events -- a major shortcoming, IMO. As a matter of fact, there is no chronology of Darius's reign and campaigns; the information given is a static summary of achievements, no events of Darius's reign are mentioned, and the only campaigns addressed (out of context), are the European ones. Freederick 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoroaster vs. Zoroastrianism

Wouldn't it make more sense to refer to "the Dualistic religion Zoroastrianism" rather than "the Dualistic religion of Zoroaster" in the second paragraph? The latter makes it sound like Zoroaster is the name of the religion, and besides, we never refer to anyone as being a believer in "the religion of Christ". Nani 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact there isn't agreement if the religion of the Achaemenids can be called Zoroastrianism. --Amizzoni 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One Relief, Two Kings

The articles on Xerxes and Darius each have pictures of the very sam relief from Persepolis, (note the damage) and each article attributes the portrait to its eponymous king. Is it a relief of Xerxes? Of Darius? Is this question disputed? In any case, the image from the article on Darius is of much better quality, so it should be used once we've established a reasonable caption. 75.71.66.105 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I found it!, here. It was originally placed in the eastern stairs of the Apadana, which were built by Darius, so it's agreed that the depicted king is him. A twin relief (we have it here and here too; see also this page) was originally placed in the northern stairs of the Apadana, which were built by Xerxes, so some think the depicted king is him, but it is disputed (in fact, Xerxes only finished the Apadana what his father had begun). In any case, there is no doubt about our relief: the king is Darius. Both reliefs were later removed from the Apadana and placed in the Treasury. Our relief is now in the Teheran Museum, but its twin remains in Persepolis. So I'll replace the "Xerxes" image with this one, making it clear that it is not agreed whether the king is Xerxes or Darius. Amizzoni 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Edits

I'm not sure how the article got so thoroughly vandalized, but I just spent a good twenty minutes removing snippets from all over the article. That vandalism persisted through numerous legitimate edits, so I'm asking everyone to please take a minute to read over the entire section you're editing before you leave the page. Some of the vandalism was almost a month old. Thanks! Spectheintro 14:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

I almost spent one hour just to make everything right, and to make my report about Darius. But, there are many errors that I saw in the whole article! This makes the article very "disgusting" to read, but what important is that everything about Darius is corrected. ("Maybe, Darius will be very happy to make everything right about him and everything will be corrected through the cooperation of everybody!") Bubbles16 22 15:39 15 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbles16 22 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Darius the Great

I think it is a good idea to move the article to Darius the Great, as that is in fact the common name he is known by in the English language. After all, we also have Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great, not Cyrus II or Alexander III. Shervink 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no response in three weeks to the proposed move, I understand that nobody opposes the idea. So I will proceed with moving the article. Shervink 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have two books on my shelf one says Darius I and the other just Darius. Are you sure that the Great means anything other than his tittle was "Great King"? But tho I disagree with the move let it stay as it is for now.Dejvid 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessarily "Great King" , but he had claimed he is the "King of Kings" (from a tablet he had ordered to be inscripted or carved). It is right that not all kings who ruled Persia were not called as "the Great" (examples were Cyrus and Darius). It is given to a ruler who had done a big, or in some cases, the greatest role in his kingdom, in spite of the negative things he had done when he ascended to the throne. A few are only considering Darius as a great king, or being referred to as "Darius the Great". Bubbles16 22 15:32 15 August 2009

How Many Provinces?

The present edit says that Darius organized the Persian Empire into twenty provinces called satrapies. Most sources say that he really had that 20 satrapies, which refer to the major provinces (example is Babylon, who has been conquered by Cyrus the Great a generation ago.) but the 120, which has been expanded to 127 by Darius on the near end of his reign, were only minor ones. Yeah, Persia really reached its "golden age" under Darius. But, his successor, Xerxes, had lost some of these provinces due to revolts against him.

He had 20 great satrapies. These were ruled by satraps, but being guarded by the inspectors he had established to act as Darius' "eyes and ears", to maintain the order in ruling these satrapies. You're right: they are called satrapies: but other books gave the name of "minor satrapies", which refer to the minor provinces Darius had established earlier in his reign, when he started his conquest for a bigger empire. --bubbles16_22 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2009

Requested move (expired)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The current title is out of line with other Persian monarchs (Xerxes I of Persia, who was Xerxes the Great, and Cyrus the Great, who is not titled "Cyrus the Great of Persia"). Remove the redundancy. Srnec (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The 'of Persia' seems pretty redundant here to me (unless there are some other Darius the Greats I'm not aware of?). Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calling him simply Darius would be defensible; but if not, we should use Darius I, like the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Book of Daniel's Darius the Mede is famous enough to preclude simply "Darius", but if we go with ordinals, shouldn't it be Darius I of Persia for consistency, or would you move all the others to simply "Name + Ordinal"? Anyways, I think the nickname is more informative, since I doubt many people who are not well-informed of him already know what his numeral is, but perhaps his nickname. Besides, we already have Cyrus the Great. Srnec (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for including country in European monarchs is the likelihood of their being ambiguous with monarchs of other countries. The chance here is much smaller (Armenia? Atropatene?) so we don't need to do that, any more than we use Akihito of Japan.

I don't think that this nickname (or indeed Cyrus the Great) actually distinguishes him for anybody. Neither is actually common in English; they're modern Iranian nationalism at work. If Cyrus needs disambiguation from his distant descendant Cyrus the Younger, he should be Cyrus the Elder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't think the nicknames distinguish these figures? I do. I've always known them as such. Since I was a kid. They are more common in English than either ordinals or "elder/younger". Can I ask why you believe this is Iranian nationalism? I have never heard that before. Srnec (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Which them have you always known as such? The two Cyri, or Cyrus and Darius?

I believe that Cyrus the Great was titled by Iranian nationalists, because it was written (at least the text that I reviewed when it was presented to FAC some time ago) by Iranian nationalists. I am open to persuasion that this is common usage; but the OCD is a standard source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant both Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the figures were nicknamed by Iranian nationalists, not that their articles were only titled by them. Google searches for Cyrus seem pretty definitively in favour of Cyrus the Great. Darius I seems to have a slight margin, however the searches were difficult to perform for Darius without getting "false positives" either way. I will let you perform any Google searches yourself, if you care. Outside of that I don't know how to demonstrate that the cognomen is to be preferred, but either way I want this page renamed. Srnec (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The current title is out of line with other Persian monarchs and is redundant (there is no other Darius who is the Great except one of the ones who is also of Persia). I prefer Darius the Great, but seeing as it failed as "no consensus"... Srnec (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support as an improvement. But what's wrong with Darius, as primary usage against Darius II Ochus and so on? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also Darius III Codomannus. Notice this search and how the first hit is "Darius the Great". The only other Persian king to make the first page is also "Darius the Great". All other "Darius" mentions are to companies or modern figures. Srnec (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Like Spetentrionalis, I'd prefer Darius. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Darius I of Persia. Dekimasuよ! 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support The current title is awful. Darius I or Darius the Great would both be fine. I don't like Darius, which is ambiguous - Alexander doesn't go to Alexander the Great, does it? john k (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice that the move from Darius I of Persia to Darius the Great of Persia was carried through with essentially no discussion? The mover said he wanted to move to "Darius the Great," got no response, and then moved it to Darius the Great of Persia. There was never any consensus for the current title. john k (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Darius I, Darius I of Persia, Darius the Great: all of them are alright for me. Amizzoni (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Seems to have been moved - there are still redirects to fix. Dekimasuよ! 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ethymology

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.120 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

78.151.173.120 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)The name Darius is of Lithuanian origin and still is very popular name in Lithuania. It originates from the verb 'daryti'=to make/to act/to be doing smth and consequently Darius means both and being making/being acting/being doing and the man who is doing/acting/making...Zeus Bottiaeus in Lithuanian language 'Dzevs Botiaus' means God of our ancestors (Aleksandre dedicated altar to Zeus Bottiaeus)...Aleksandras in Lithuanian language 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras' means born second and Macedon 'Manke Duona' means knead bread...Hun in Lith. 'Gunas/ganytojas' means pastor/shep-herd and Atila 'Eitila' means going/runing the office...Ainiai is the name of ancient Greece tribe and in Lithuanian language that means posterity/antecedents78.151.173.120 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No. See this article's archive for the correct origin of "Darius" as the common English name for this king as derived from the Persian. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ascension

There is no section on Darius' ascension to power by the asassaination of the "Magian", who was impersonating Smerdis, the murdered brother of Cambyses. Darius and the "7" who killed the Magian then sought out the best form of government, with the decision being based on whoever's horse neighed first in the morning, would become King. Darius, through deception, won the contest, as told by Herodotus, book 3. anyone mind if i add the section? Nathraq (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a serious academic theory that Gaumata never existed. So it should be explained as such. See also Smerdis and I have another go. BTW, Herodotus was describing the events 100 hundred years later from persian sources and Darius left only inscription on his tomb, not a reliable account of how Gaumata usurped the power StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is that "serious academic". "Persian fire" is that academic? I am using P. Briant and Dandamaev. So please consider reading WP:POV. Your source does not seem respected in this area. Also please stop introducing deliberate error. According to sources by Dandamaev an others (from cambridge history series) that theory is hypothetical and the only debate is whether the person in question is Cambyses's brother that your "academic source" mention as cambyses himself (or you made the error). According to WP:POV: the article should mention what the scholars of the subjects say and not "anybody". Also please read a bit of the sources I provided: all (I repeat all) ancient Iranian, Greek and Roman sources mention the theory as stated. It is interesting that you question all ancient sources on an ancient subject. You even do not know where the inscription is and you come and question what you even do not know its place? Darius the Great+Herodetous+Justin+ The Cambridge history series (Ancient and Iran) should be enough to leave the things as stated because of WP:UNDUE.Xashaiar (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What you say above makes no sense. (1) It was not Cambuses: it was my error and the last version is correct. (2) Your opinion aboout Persian Fire is irrelevant: stop pushing your POV. (3) I can give more references but you are not giving references. For some reason you are just saying according to Darius himself. Are you aware that he did not write anything and this is just an inscription on his tomb? StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why it is irrelevant? "Persian fire" is not academic. I am not pushing "my" pov. I am pushing Encyclopaedia Iranica, The Cambridge History of Iran, and The Cambridge Ancient History POV. And the reason is WP:POV: " The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue". Now yourself tell me, Dandamaev, Schmitt, are relevant or "the author of Persian fire"? 2. "inscription on his tomb" please read a bit about the inscription you are talking about. It was not on his tomb. All ancient sources confirm what is written and you can not challenge Herodotus, Justin and all others just because you read something different. Please bring view of specialists of Iranian studies. Xashaiar (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Xashaiar, you do not know what you are talking about. I have just looked up P.Briant. He says that the ancient sources contain major contradictions. While he does not support alternative theory, he states clearly that the situation is complicated. Why are you trying to misrepresent major sources? StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And you know waht yo are talking about because

1. You put Darius tomb in Behistun.
2. Your alternative theory is from "Persian fire". The cambridge history series/Iranica call that "hypothetical".
3. Briant writes in English and he makes it clear that he is talking about the one who is called Bardia in Babylonian tables. Thats why there are many Bardia's. Why do you falsify?
4. Your language looks like highschool or something: "it is worth mentioning", "alternative theory" "To cover the crime"...

If this is your edit which makes you know what you are talking about, then go on. Xashaiar (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please find rewording for "it is worth mentioning", "alternative theory" "To cover the crime"... because they are no encyclopaedic: I propose "There is also", "the view..", "to legitimize his seizure of roral power". You agree? Xashaiar (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Iran

Hi User Xashaiar

Please ref to your removal of category Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Iran
In this edit of yours
darius does not belong to that category (according to description of the category

The reason you sited for removal does not seem valid because the very first criteria listed in the description of this category it clearly states

“People from Iran or their descendants of ethnic Zoroastrian/Aryan descent”

Please do not delete this category .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Darius the Great was a person, so although I think Achaemenid empire should go in that category, but "people of Achaemenid Iran" seem to me belong to subcategories. If that category should stay there I think there should be subcategories. And why the category "History of Iran" is not enough?--Xashaiar (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi User Xashaiar

I havent been able to understand the meaning of your post please specificaly explain ....and do not delete before discussing your reasons ,
Intothefire (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please explain what is the point of your Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Iran? Because we have the category Category:History of Iran and Category:Achaemenid_people. Have a look at them please. Please delete your category.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The POV of the article is not neutral.

"HistoryofIran" has written a biased article, with sentences that are at best historically biased (Briant quite clearly cautions to accept neither version of the Gautama story, and the article presents other anti-Bardiya sentiment as has already been mentioned above) and at worst completely biased ("Darius loved Atossa the most", "he was a good king who quelled many rebellions" - things uncritically lifted from 40 year old monographs or the primary sources themselves). (Personal attack removed). Samuel D Rowe (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)