Talk:Xerxes I of Persia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Esther
"Xerxes is also understood to be Ahasuerus the King in the biblical Book of Esther" There's no evidence to suggest this is him. It's just pointless speculation. As a matter of fact.. there's little evidence to suggest a lot of things in the biblical book of whoever, but... anyway :P This is probably one of the Artaxerxes's who are often confused with Xerxes, such as the king called "that wicked man" by Egyptian priests, was not Xerxes as the cartouche would suggest but most likely Artaxerxes III. But I'm just a fucking High School student, so what would I know.
-
- While I'm all for punishing ignorance, perhaps a more civil discussion is in order. For example, we could trim the above post right at, "There's no evidence to suggest this is him." I'd rather see evidence from both sides instead of useless remarks. 71.118.143.244 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- As far as the connection of Ahasuerus to Xerxes, I think it would be useful to consult the Septuagint (Greek)translation of Esther, where Ahauerus is called Artaxerxes (Septuagint; Esther 1:1,2,9...etc.; 2003 Hendrickson Publishers, ed. by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton). If Ahasuerus had been Xerxes himself, you'd think his name would have translated as such into Greek. Historydude1978
-
- For the two comments above I would council the authors that nameing in the ancient world can be difficult. Josephus complaining that the Greeks renamed everyone to suit their own tongue, which makes a hard job even harder: he himself noting this. Not to mention the Alexandrian Library going up in flames repeatedly, doesn't make it any easier. Please see my additions to the section (~ in the Bible) and you will find that it is linguistically possible to trace Ahasuerus. It is even logical as you progress in a westerly direction from Persia across linguistic groups: hence Persian is transliterated into Babylonian, which is altered to suit it's sister Hebrew language which was then immortalised in Latin by the Romans and appears in Jerome's Latin Vulgate version of the Bible; which in turn was probably maintained in this form for consistency in the King James Version, even though the then commonly available Septuagint’s clearly renders 'Αρτάξερξου (Artaxerxes).
-
- As regarding Historydude1978's comment regarding the LXX version's Artaxerxes rendering, please note that the academic community considers this to be nothing other than a simple scribal mistake; probably similar to it's rendering that Haman was of ό Μακεδων (Macedonian) descent without a single precedent (LXX Esther 9:24).
-
- But here is the clincher: Taking an atheists point of view so as to assume that the book of Ester was nothing other than fiction for the audience of the day, then the story would be implausible and would even be rejected as 'historical fiction'; furthermore it would be unworthy of the effort required to maintain ancient handwritten documents. Why? Because key characters would be too old for historical consistency. The key being "a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, ... a Benjamite; Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity..." of "Jeconiah", also known as Jehoiachin. Esther 2:5-6
-
- Using the Archaeological Babylonian Chronicle, we find that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the defending Egyptians in the late spring or early summer of 605 BC opening Syria and Palastine to the Babylonian arms. Eventually in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year of his reign by Hebrew reckoning (2 Kings 24:12), he carried away the captivity of 'Jehoiachin'; which the author of Ester claimed Mordecai had been part of. This means that if Mordecai had been a new born infant in his mother's arms, he would have survived the entire Babylonian period and reached to the very height of the Persian Empire during the reign of Xerxes 'the Great'. Yet if Ahasuerus were Artaxerxes I, Mordacai would be even older. If the story is set in the reign of Xerxes, Mordecai would be no less than 115 years old! But if we argue for Artaxerxes, Mordecai would be no less than 136/7 years old!
-
- Hence this would explain why he Mordecai is found sitting at the king's palace gateway, as he was just too old for anything else! Neither are these old ages unknown in the ancient world, for Herodotus speaks of the Ethiopians (Cushites) regularly reaching 120 years of age. While these considerations are by no means conclusive, that does make a Xerxes rendering to be the more plausible.
-
- Secondly the feast of Purim exerts the strongest evidence for the validity of the Book of Esther, as it is a living memorial to the things contained in the manuscript. To start this festivity at a much later date one would have to deceive an entire nation simultaneously to enact an historical memorial festivity of genocidal proportions. It would be like trying to tell our American friends that they never had a war with Great Britain, or that their Independence Day was not actually on the 4th of July! --Avanduyn 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Another possible discrepancy I've found is that the article on Haman from the Book of Esther mentions that he is generally thought to be Xerxes I. The story of Haman and the timeline don't seem to support this. Thoughts? Saturn 5 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- As regarding your comment on Haman being Xerxes, well, people always love the fanciful... the article gives no credible reference other than a questionable public opinion confinded to limited circles. Neither will you even find a hint of such ideas in the academic literature. --Avanduyn 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Persian in Arabic script
Why should the modern Persian form of the name be given in Arabic script at the beginning of the article? Persian wasn't written in Arabic script until a thousand years after he was dead... AnonMoos 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- idk - its not arabic script
- that's the script the present persians can read. it uses arabic letters but it is persian/farsi. I bet you know that. -Mohseng 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Don't worry coz In Linguistics, scripts are the least worthy elements of a language, you can write the same language in almost any scripts without any changes in the language itself.
[edit] Pronunciation
How is the name Xerxes pronounced in English? --Cotoco 05:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- in English (I'm Aussie so non-rhotic): IPA /'zəːcsiːz/ (how you'd say 'zerk-sees') (note: Americans would probably put an 'r' at the end of the first syllable)
but how is it pronounced in persian? Danlibbo 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)- Actually Americans say "zerk-sees" too, but I've heard it said "zur-sees". 71.0.240.88 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Odd, Ive ONLY ever heard americans pronounce it Zur-sees. odd...--71.97.138.104 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Persians don't call him Xerxes, they call him as it's written in the article's Lead (Khashayar-shah)Lordpezhman 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually Americans say "zerk-sees" too, but I've heard it said "zur-sees". 71.0.240.88 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Bold text==Xerxes = "King of Heroes" (?)== Actually, it doesn't, and it's nonsense to say it does. Xerxes' name in Old Persian (Khshayārshā, not Khashâyârshâ like the article says) almost certainly means "ruling man". The "shāh" stated as maning "king" is Persian, not Old Persian. Shāh is short for Old Persian khshāyathiya. Thus, Xerxes' real name would be Khshayār-khshāyathiya, which we know is not the case (and it would sound ridiculous, anyhow). Scholars believe Khshayārshā is made from the Old Persian prefix khshaya-, which means "king" or "ruling", and arshan-, which means "man".
- In the persian wikipedia it's written:
نام خشایارشا از دو جزء خشای (شاه) و آرشا (مرد) تشکیل شده و به معنی «شاه مردان» است
- Translated it means, that the name khashayarshah is composed of two words, khashay (king) og arshah (man), combined it means something like king of men. Is the persian wikipedia wrong? Is it "Ruler of heroes" as the english wikipedia states? And the is Xšayāršā pronounced khashayarshah? Anyone knows? Mr Mo 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The 2007 film 300
Note: discussion of 300 (film) belongs at Talk:300 (film). Former discussion here has been moved to that talkpage, where it may be relevant. I removed the pop image. Rant about the apparently monumentally forgettable movie does not belong in this article. --Wetman 03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- "...your moving of the contents of the Xxs talkpage to talk:300 was very ill-advised. In case somebody tries to re-add a similar image later, a record of the previous arguments made on the subject would be useful." This sensible suggestion was made at User talk:Wetman by Hornplease 04:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Copied here by Wetman 04:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
-
- I think a movie version picture of Xerxes has a very good place in this article. If someone wants to use the single image next to the popular culture section, then I say good on them. JayKeaton 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Adding an image of a 7-foot androgynous man with obscene amounts of piercings and jewelry and hardly any clothes from a work of fiction seems like the worst possible candidate for an image to be placed in a factual, historical article.--Charibdis 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-
a looser in fight may make a giant or devil from a winner of war they did so.they must have rationalized their weakness.and they have to do it now. when persians lived in civilized world they lived in their caves or on top of the trees so they must create some thing to be proud of it .if iwas them i would do so. they have to make a history. they are so hopless thet they heve to cheat.they wish they could change the reality. poor people!!
-
-
- It's not about what he looks like, it's the fact that it is a representation of Xerxes in modern mass media JayKeaton 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not of the historical Xxs, it isn't. Hornplease 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please. So should we now discriminate against including mentions of other historical figures in popular culture sections of Wikis if we don't like the way they're visually depicted?! If so, we're going to have to re-do just about every WP entry on pre-modern historical figures. The fact is that neither you nor I know if the real Xerxes was or wasn't "a 7-foot tall androgynous man with obscene amounts of piercings and jewelry and hardly any clothes". The photographs from that era are all rather blurry. The ONLY depictions we have of him are the schematical images of him that only differentiate him from all other depictions of other men in his milieu by adding kingly accouterments. For all we know (and it's very likely), he had an immense hook nose, was missing a few front teeth, had a bald patch, was 5-foot 2, and spoke with a lisp. The only salient fact for this WP entry is that Xerxes is depicted in "300" doing what Xerxes is historically recorded as having done at Thermopylae. In that sense, it is the "historical Xerxes". That's the point of including the citation of the movie here. Bricology 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not of the historical Xxs, it isn't. Hornplease 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about what he looks like, it's the fact that it is a representation of Xerxes in modern mass media JayKeaton 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
Errr, what other kind of "XXs" page is there, exactly? The Lzbth 2 page has a cartoon image of her and a photo of her being played in a movie, and Lzbth onest has actress's playing her. TELrnc has film poster images of himself. If your worrying about historical slander, then I would hate to break it to you but there is no such thing. Besides, slander is something you say or do, something in print or on a webpage is actually libel. But he's dead and been dead for quite some time. The fact is, this is the defining image of Xerxes 1 for the modern age and is probably the only image of him in a motion picture for the past 2500 years. JayKeaton 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- When there's a page on "Ten doot tall androgynous Xerxes", you can put it there. Unless you're claiming that Helen Mirren looks as much like L2 as Rodrigo Whatever did our best guess of XtG? Oh you're not? OK, then. Hornplease 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- elizabeth II has no comic image on her page not does it has a photo of her being played in a movie, and by the way even if she did, theres still around 10 other pictures of her here, about elizabeth I, there is not one image of an actress playing her, but about 5 of them and TE lawrence displays the poster for the critically acclaimed and most famous movie by david lean (which is one of historys most important movies btw). Regarding Xerxes I, there is 2 pictures of old representations of him (in one of them you can see his back) and one for the highly criticized by historians flick 300, in which xerxes was so completely redone one has to wonder if its fictional one instead of being the historical xerxes I.
-
-
- As per the consensus here, the re-added image has been removed. Hornplease 19:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
Xerxes wasn't androgynous he was eccentric in the film but he was still obviously a man! 69.209.222.187 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There is another film featuring Xerxes, "One Night with the King." I prefer that image to the one of "300." Here he is sensitive, sensual, attractive but not yet the warrior King that he would become later. It all balances out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEACE BE UNTO YOU (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Great?
As an ancient historian, I dispute this epithet being given to Xerxes and cannot recall it ever being used about him in the ancient or modern works relating to the Persian Empire. It is certainly applicable to his grandfather Cyrus, who founded the Persian Empire, but not to this man. I would therefore propose removing all references to him as "the Great". Simply being known as the "Great King", which the early Persian Kings were called, does not make him "great". bigpad 11:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, a search for the phrase "Xerxes the great" but excluding "the Great King" phrase in Google Books returns about 700 results. It may not be common usage, but it is not unknown. Hornplease 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Doesn't make it correct though. If you want to say sth like "sometimes known as 'Xerxes the Great'," that's probably ok bigpad 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Friends, reading over this dispute I see validity to the original argument but find some narrowness in it at the same time. While intermediately trained in the ancient Greek language, I can not say I have read every work nor speak with absolute authority as I still prefer to read English, but it may be so that Xerxes' contempories failed to title him "the Great"; yet that does not make him unworthy. The title "του μεγάλου βασιλέως" (the great king) carries the obvious and simple overtones of: "the king of kings," "Ruler of the World" as used for "Artaxerxes the great king" in the LLX version of the book of Ester (which I believe to be a scribal mistake for Xerxes I - see the latter part of the article '~ in the Bible'). But note that this is vastly different from the salutation Cyrus takes for himself as in Ezra 1:2; "Κύρου του βασιλέως Περσων," (i.e. Lord / Master of the kingdom of the Persians). Considering that this is after the fall of Babylon, Cyrus, who we would not hesitate to call 'great' did not call himself great; even after this victory! Nor was Cyrus called 'great' by Ezra in the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus: even though he was certainly worthy. We also have those such as Antiochus 'The Great' who may have been addressed and known by that title by his contempories and those following him, but he was anything but worthy: for he was adversely involved in the increase of Roman dominion over Macedonia. So, it seems to me that superfluous salutations mean very little, what matters is the benefit of hindsight.
Thus History is the great judge of us all and we have come to call him "The Great" in memory if his ambitious designs, the vastness of his arms, his successful submission of the rebellions, the wealth of his reign situated at the hight of the Persian Empire - even though it may have been ill fortuned and perhaps unsuccessful. This title also contrasts him from others which happened to bear his name: for his attempts and deeds were far greater than any other Xerxes that appeared in the theatre of history. Hence, while I acknowledge the original point, I must state my vote for leaving the title of Xexres 'the Great' unmolested. Regards to you all. --Avanduyn 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow I was just about to start a section on this but bigpad beat me to it. No matter what ancient Persians, Greeks and Germans called him, what matters here is what modern English-speakers call him. "Xerxes the Great" apparently exists on the internet but it has significantly limited use and shouldn't be preferred over plain Xerxes I. Yet some editors insist on using the former when linking to this article. Miskin 13:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question on Birth Year of Xerxes I
this is a very false and icorrect article do not use in any form this will get you a very bad grade if u use this in a report and to prove it scroll to the bottom of the page you will notice it says he was born in 465 B.C. The correct birth date of xerxes was in 520 B.C big difference right? this article is very faulty and misprinted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.54.145 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you will find that there is no contradiction at all my friend. The article never claimed that he was born in 465, but rather that he died in that year. --Avanduyn (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
