Talk:Achaemenid Empire

New Map

@Ali Zifan: did a very good job of making a vector version of this map:

In my opinion it is way better than the current leading pic in the article:

Not only it is vertor base, but it is an identical version of a sourced, authoritative map, and in my opinion should replace the current lead image in the article. @LouisAragon: and other editors, any comments or opposition to this? UCaetano (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Yeah that looks sweet! Imho though, how "sourced" it may look, don't forget the map is some 70+ years old and things have been updated about Achaemenid history, especially regarding the European territories. In my opinion, if Ali Zifan could re-add the Black Sea territories (which Darius had definitely subjugated and we even have an article about), Paeonia, Macedon, all of Thrace, further parts of mainland Greece, etc; basically the same territories in Europe which were already added on the previous map, then it would be complete. Furthermore, Xerxes conquered swaths of Northern and Central Greece during the Greco-Persian Wars prior to the Greeks getting the overhand. There are many, many sources which confirm these possessions, and it would only result in more edit wars and factual inaccuracy if we don't re-add them. Science does not stand still in time, and 70 years is a really long time. The problem with the previous maps on these articles was that they were almost entirely unsourced. I can cite all the sources here that are needed for those particlar territories, and Ali Zifan can add them to the source description on Wikimedia, if he agrees with it. The rest of the territories are all correct namely, even today in 2015.

Basically re-adding the territories in Europe alike these maps. [1] - [2] @Ali Zifan:, UCaetano; are you both fine with this? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with using the map as it is. While we can find sources on areas which were at some point ruled by the Achaemenid Empire, I don't believe any of us are experts who should be designing maps based on that. That would be a lot of interpretation, and would introduce factual errors (such as where exactly was the border), as well as subjective claims (does areas occupied DURING a war count as actual territory? the US occupied Germany, but no map would ever consider Germany as part of the US). I'd avoid any subjective interpretations and leave the map as it is. UCaetano (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, then theres no point in adding any map to such empire-related articles, imho. It should be one way or another; either everything, or nothing. It's strange to add a 70 years old map while contemporary research has proven it to be factually incomplete. It can be used as a reference (a good one that is), but by no means as a source to disregard the modern-day knowledge and facts about it. The capture of the territory in northern/Central Greece during the wars can be ommited, I agree (though numerous sources mention that as "far as Thessaly" paid tribute), but the other mentioned regions as I mentioned above definitely were subjected to Achaemenid rule for decades, paid tribute, and were recorded in the Behistun inscription. Furthermore, tons of Wikipedia articles would be ruined as well if we don't add it on the newly proposed map as well, as they go by the previous Achaemenid maps, as well as books, references, and such that are inserted and are up to date. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a contemporary map from a reliable source including those regions, I'd have no problem with adding it (or a vector version). My problem is with drawing homemade maps based on interpretations. That's OR IMHO, and we should avoid it. UCaetano (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: and @UCaetano: Finally is this map ready to used? Should I add any other territories to the Achaemenid's map illustration? Ali Zifan 21:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with using this map as it is. Maybe I'll add names to some of the geographic features (seas, oceans, etc.) just to clarify, but I say go ahead and make it the article's map. Thanks for you good work! UCaetano (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

UCaetano, hey, well, you have a point there. We should avoid interpretations, though most empire maps on Wikipedia are made this way; an amalgamation of sourced info that has been put together into an image. Please don't forget that. Its not an issue to have such a map as I described, as long as every inch is reliably sourced so to say. (at least that's how I think about it) That way one avoids WP:OR too, though exceptions exist. Anyways, here are several other (including more recent) academic maps that show the Achaemenid extent that I found; [3] (scroll to "achaemenid empire"), as well as this one, another one,and lastly, this one, that might be of any use for us to formulate a definite map/ What are you two guys' takes on these? Can we use or deduct info from them for our new map? If negative/no, we can place the old one Ali just fixed, I guess.

PS: A further issue btw regarding what I said in my first sentence of this reply, is that we have 10+ Achaemenid maps on Wikimedia all which show a different extent. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, I'm ok with replicating this map and placing it in the article lead, but I would avoid mixing maps to find the "greatest extent", since that's interpretation on our part. This map is sourced "enough", and also provides some historical context, showing the empire at different stages. UCaetano (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: Do you want a vector verison of it ?

I also updated the map based on territories that gained by Darius I in Europe. Ali Zifan 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The current one LGTM, feel free to add it to the article. I changed the description and the source in the image. Good work! UCaetano (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Ali Zifan 12:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I concur. This map is of good usage and I just already asked Ali Zifan to update it regarding it. Guess we're basically done here, and indeed, good work to Ali Zifan, but also to our fruitful discussions. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WAIT!!! I have a better map! I made this long ago if this were to ever arise again! It's based on the exact sources as the other maps, it's just colored red and it's far more detailed than any map as of now! Please take this map into consideration!

Godly Achaemenid Empire ca. 500 B.C

Again, PLEASE take this one into consideration! I will gladly put this one up in the infobox! I will add more cities and Satrap names as time goes on! Don't you worry about that one! Kirby (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah we've seen that map before, but it's factually very incorrect, especially regarding the territories in Central Asia and the Subcontinent. Never ever did it have such an extent. Furthermore, the colouring (red) is not good. And lastly, sorry, but in my opinion Ali Zifan's map is better, about which we already reached a consensus, and is entirely sourced. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I support keeping the current one. UCaetano (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kirby: Hello. I appreciate your work but in my opinion it can't be placed in the article, especially in the infobox because :

• This map doesn't have any sources.
• Some the names that you've put on the area of the empire are incorrect. Maka is one of the examples.
• The borders on the north (east of the caspian sea) are indicated incorrectly.
• Vector maps are more preferable than other types of images in Wikipedia.
• Infoboxes give generals. Putting the names on a map in infobox is not that necessary.

Also we already had a long discussion about choosing a map so you can read those if you are not convinced yet. Thank you Ali Zifan 01:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Plethora of bogus claims.

• Just wanted to ask the more informed conventional historians/editors if Charles Robinson can be considered authentic. Also, in the part where Alexander's invasion is "described", Rosbinson along with Will Durant and Peter Levi are cited. Durant was a writer and Levi a poet. AND they all base their accounts on Diodorus who is often considered unreliable. Add to this that Diodorus himself lived more than 200 years after Alexander.

• The claims about the extent and population of the empire also need references. Several editors kept adding present-day countries/regions like pakistan and Saudi and UAE and even China! Some edits just add some region/country with no reference (the existing ones do not mention that region/country). The Roman Empire I believe was far bigger and wealthier. This article also makes the claim that it was the largest empire in recorded history's "ancient period". Can somebody confirm these? 117.194.230.124 (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article is occasionally a bit of honey pot for questionable claims and it currents though extensive seems not without problems (some possibly outdated literature and a lot of primary sources, private websites and non-schloarly sources). For now just removed the map with the false borders, but the article could use some further work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced we shouldn't use Charles Robinson Jr.'s book. Unless something's wrong with my search, no one seems to mention it.And yes, Durant and Levi shouldn't be used either Doug Weller (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, these are all claims that slowly creep back into the article from time to time, usually using estimates for which there is no consensus or dubious sources. UCaetano (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is also Hegel (German philopher, 1770-1831) and Farrokh (author without scholarly reputation), who might be not appropriate. There are also a variety of private websites still being used as sources. I started to remove some of it (some of the private websites and the guiness records website), but that's only a small start. Aside from removing obviously questionable stuff many of "good" sources need to be properly cited and formatted (currently they are sometimes only links with no visible information about the source) and at some point the article might need a content review by expert editors who have greater familiarity with the topic and access to relevant scholarly literature.

After that there is also the question, whether anything "smart" can be done to reign in the constant deterioration over time somewhat.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole article needs a rewrite using the best modern sources. There must be much more on Encyclopedia Iranica that can be used. Note also this edit, by a copyvio sockpuppet, though judging by the style of the language wherever it was lifted from is likely to be out of copyright by now. Durant is I think only used for the puffing wind-up quote at the end of the article, next to Hegel. At the same time, I don't think historians' perceptions of the Achemenids have changed all that much in recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but sorry, I'm not the best person to do it. Note that the sockpuppet History of Persia is very active on Commons and some of his maps are appearing in articles here. Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in Proto-Nabataean history, but if there was an Arabia province or Arab settlements which were tributaries of the empire, then that should be on the map. It should be noted that many Achaemenid "provinces" were essentially tributaries, so I'm not sure where we draw the line. It seems doubtful that such an important region such as Egypt would only be connected to the Asian portion of the empire by little more than the coast. Such a thin strip would be subjected to Arab raids constantly. It would only make sense for the Achaemenids to create some port of buffer, either by "tributary", "vassal", "province", "client", or whatever English word we'd use to describe some degree of subordination by manner of "giving" "gifts" "supplies", whatever. You get the idea. For example, the Achaemenid Arabia article mentions 1000 talents of frankincense being given by "Arabia" to the Achaemenids, but paints it as more of a gift than actual tribute. It even makes a point of stating that the Arabs were still autonomous, which very well may be true. If a "vassal" is still essentially autonomous aside from annual "gifts", is it still part of the empire? These are all things we need to talk about when dealing with the dynamics of the relationships between the Achaemenids and their distant provinces and neighbours. We probably need a dual-colour map indicating "vassals".--Tataryn (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Largest population by percentage of world total

When I insisted that in terms of its share of the world population it was the largest empire, instead of one of the largest empires, I was reverted. What particularly surprised me was the claim that there is no concensus on it, or that sources disagree about it. We have our own article on the wiki, List of largest empires, unambiguously giving a tremendous 44.48% compared to Qing's 36.60%. We should be careful not to contradict ourselves (or we'll have to add the Template:Contradict-other template). But more importantly, what notable sources disagree here? I even notice that Guinness World Records has now marked it as the largest, seemingly untroubled by any controvery around it. It's always difficult to find the origins of claims that are often repeated, but this one seems almost universally accepted. What gives? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The 44.48% number (which by itself is not contained in the source provided) is a calculation, based on a single source. We should not be using another WP article as source and feel free to add the template. As for Guinness, I wouldn't consider it here a reliable source for historical population analysis. Modern estimates range from 17M to 35M, but one source claims 50M (from where the 45% figure was calculated). In other words, this % is done by consolidating multiple numbers, from multiple experts across multiple times, and is not something reliable enough to claim without doubt that it was the largest empire. Makes sense? UCaetano (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Population

I changed the population number to reflect a much better source. The previous number comes from Encyclopedia Iranica citing another source, while the new one (a range) comes from here. I know this will be controversial, so I'm starting the discussion here. UCaetano (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Map

I want to include this map in this article. If you editors are watching, please tell me what do you think about that?Arman ad60 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This map used to be the leading map in the article, and was replaced, by consensus with the current map. I do not support your move to revert to this old map. STOP trying to push it via edit warring. UCaetano (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, you can read the entire discussion on the current map up here. UCaetano (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of unillustrated parts of the article, and we don't have a labelled map, which many will find useful. Most non-local readers are not at all familiar with Near Eastern geography, and will find maps without labels hard to relate to. I think it should be included, but certainly not in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have presented three more maps here. What do you think about them:

All three maps are substantially different. You gotta figure out the actual borders.--Tataryn (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The current map was created based on those 3 maps you've shown, and is far better. No confusing text, simple and high quality vector graphics. I don't understand what is the problem you see with the current map. UCaetano (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)