The answer to the above question really depends on who you ask. When you think about what you know about the Persians, perhaps the word toleration doesn't come to mind. The reality, though, is that the major signature of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenids was just that-- TOLERANCE. In fact, the idea of tolerance was the main part of the ruling philosophy of Persian kings Cyrus and Darius. Unfortunately, for far too long, historians have struggled with a negative view of the Persians left over from the European and American fascination with the Greeks. In this light, events such as the Persian Wars took on the form of epic battles between the “good” Greeks and the “evil” Persians without any sense that in many ways the Persians were far more tolerant and enlightened rulers than the Greeks. In fact, even recently, with the Hollywood film 300, a film that is unapologetically bad in every way imaginable, a film that is just one in a long line of misguided, inaccurate Hollywood filth in which calling it a disgusting piece of trash would be putting it lightly, the Persians are portrayed as villainous, faceless creatures while the Greeks are treated as noble heroes. In reality, the Greek's habit of equating foreigners with barbarians stands in stark contrast to the cosmopolitan, tolerant nature of the Persians. This is not to say, of course, that the world would be a better place if the Persians had won the Persian Wars (far too much of later history is dependent on Greek contributions), but it’s important to create and maintain a more balanced view of world history. So the big question then is, whose history are we really learning? The point of view of the writer of the history will greatly influence what you take as fact, for better or for worse. This is why looking at DIVERSE INTERPRETATIONS of history is so necessary. Really, a look at the Persians through different points of view is an excellent example of why history is not merely a collection of facts to be memorized. The question of historical influences is an important thing to discuss at this point in the course therefore. Passages from Herodotus' Histories are important passages to explore when it comes to understanding the Persians from a western point of view. Herodotus has often been described as the "father of Western history writing," but he has also been described as "the father of lies." The focus of most of Herodotus' Histories was on Greece's recent Persian Wars. Herodotus feared the Persians, but somewhere deep inside he must have admired them when one considers his seeming obsession with them. I would like for you to read an example of Herodotus' description of the Persians by reading his description of Persian emperor Cambyses by clicking on the following link (Herodotus' Histories) [you only have to read sections 37-38 on pages 185-186]. How does Herodotus portray the Persians in this passage? Could his background perhaps have something to do with this?Alternatively, the Jewish community in Persia generally held the Persians in high regard. After all, it was the Persians that freed the Jews from a several decade long captivity in Babylon. It was also the Persians that made it possible for the Jews to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem that had been previously destroyed by the Babylonians. In fact, in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) of the Bible, the Persians are portrayed as saviors, as heroes if you will. For example, in the book of Isaiah, please click on the following link (Isaiah 44:28-45:1) to read how Persian king Cyrus is described. How was this different from the Greek view of the Persians? Additionally, it is Cyrus himself that his given the credit in Jewish history for commissioning the rebuilding of the temple. In the Bible book of Ezra this is mentioned several times. Please click on the following link (Ezra 1:1-8) to read evidence of this.
Is it any wonder then, that the Jewish community praised the Persians, while the Greeks, who were literally at war against Persia for around 150 years, villainized them? So the question must be asked then: How do we know the things we know about history? What role have historians played in creating the current worldview? Notice how opinions of the same exact societies can sometimes be diametrically opposed. Are historical interpretations really just subjective? Can history in fact CHANGE? Does it really matter whose history we read??? Your thoughts...
64 comments:
The greeks called them crazy, and the Jews called them heroes, because they let Jews rebuild their temple in Jerusalem, but had conflicts with the Greeks. Historians look at accounts of what other people back then wrote about the civilization. They look at what other peoples' opinions are. So that to me isn't real history. How do we know that what they are saying is true? they aren't able to prove it. so maybe using information about civilizations from different sources of opinions isn't so good. But there is so much other information like about the economy and religion and stuff like that, that those documents are very important. Historians should compare different documents and take what they have in common so that they aen't being misled into thinking that the civilization was cruel or even heroic. I think that history can change. Through reading opinions, there is a possibility that the writers are overexagurating(sorry if i mispelled) or undermining the truth. The history can be completely different from what the sources say. So overall I'd say that it does matter whose history we read because of the facts about economics and accomplishments,although they might be twisted a bit, we can get something good out of it. We can't exactly assume how a civilization was accordingg to opinions. This is hard to explain for me..hope you understand what i'm trying to say.
i do understand what you are saying miss patel. however, i will say that opinions is all we really have to go on. how do you think your textbook was written? all your textbook is is dr. bentley's INTERPRETATION of primary document sources and other secondary sources that he's researched. as students of history or historians, what we are are simply investigative reporters on the search for truth. what makes history so cool is that we are constantly trying to arrive at truth through swimming through a vast sea of bias, lies, half-truths, eye-witness reports, spin, diaries, etc. history would be boring if it was just a collection of dry facts and statistics, then it would just be math (sorry math folks, but it's true). what i like about looking at the dichotomy of accounts that you see of the persians through various sources is just that, that no history is absolute, there is no absolute truth. but is there really any in the current world either? trying to find absolute truth with the 21st century news media, with it's various opinions, spins on realities, is just as hard don't you think? but again, that's what makes it so interesting. let's just say that history never caught my interest at all until a professor explained to me that history is only about 15% facts, and about 85% interpretations of those few facts from various sources. THAT IS REAL HISTORY. that's what makes it so awesome!
well, in my opinion, history can definatly change. It all depends on what world view we are looking at it from! It is a little contraversial, because how do we know that any of these wars or bad things really were occuring in Persia if history changes according to the view?? The only way, i think, is that we have to have a historian who has no personal matter in the subject at all. I mean, if i was Greek i would probabaly hate Persia, but if i was Jewish, then i would love them. Since im neither, it's easier not to take a side in whether Persia is a villain or a hero. But thats hard to find a historian that has those qualities. Thats why history is co confusing!!!
i thought that 300 was a good movie but Mr Prill you are right when you say it was misleading in a historical standpoint but still a cool movie
But doesn't that create things that are untrue, so that wouldn't be real..how do we know whats real history? do we just have to assume that whatever source we got it from is right? so, history isn't history? cool..
we can never assume that sources are correct. that's why we have to search out and investigate a number of documents to make valid conclusions. again, the point of this class is to explore DIVERSE INTERPRETATIONS.
I think that history does not change at all in the way that you all seem to refer to it but people’s opinions of it can change. From my stand point I can't side with either of these considering I don't know enough about the topic even from reading what you have provided there are so many more things I would need to know before I could honestly side with either of them. But is it possible that the Persians treated the Jews and Greeks the same but they reacted differently as if they may offered the take over of the Jews but in return they would rebuild temple and help them thrive where in this case they agreed to the take over without hostility. Where as maybe they made the same offering to the Greeks but with different pro’s and they declined thus leading to hostility between the two groups.
Tonights reading is about the topic..
indeed miss patel, hope everyone reads before looking at this post.
well the greeks and the jews both had their own opinions on wether the persians were villains or jews. the jews practically worshipped the persians and the greeks hated them. i couldnt argue wether the persians are good or bad because i was not actually there when the persian empire was present so all i have are two different OPINIONS about the persians, but the way i see it the persians were a huge impact on how to govern and control a huge landmass without rebellion. which was huge at the time. The persian empire beign very tolerant meaning not using violence or having many different ethnics and religion was the result of a long lasting empire.
I agree and think that history can change. Although I don't think that it can change very much. History is all about someone’s point of view and how they interpret something. Based on these passages it depends on which point of view you look at. The Greeks saw the Persians as being villains and evil. This was based on the Herodotus’ Histories. Herodotus was described as “the father of lies” which could have a lot to do with his negative point of view. On the other hand the Jewish perspective was totally different. They worshiped Cyrus as almost a god. The fact that he helped them escape captivity from the Babylonians and let them rebuild their temple leads to their very optimistic view of Persia.
this does not pertain to the blog but i cant find the September calender
my opinion is that history does change. the future is what we make it right..? because what we do now may cause a difference in the world a couple of years later.
and i cant really decide if the persians are good or if they are villains. i mean they were able to control/govern their huge empire without rebellion. they made it sort of fair for the people who werent persians. but if their empire made a huge change and afterall was teh biggest empire at the time, why didnt people who came after the persian empire use the same idea? it they did, the only thing they had to change was to have their grandkids and sons to be able to follow EXACTLY in their foot steps.
It is said, that we write our own futures, but it seems we also write our own histories. lol. I love that even our great sources of primary documents from history (the Bible, etc.)were also simply opinions mixed with facts. And so many people take these opinions and points of views as fact.
If we view an event from one point of view, like the greeks thinking the persians were insane and the jews saviors, we will classify for generations that view...and it will influence our later decisions and communications with them, right? Also, we just saw 1 document, from one time period, of one person's opinion. That doens't make it the overal opinion of all of the greeks or jews or persians. Someone may not have wanted to build up the temple, or maybe each time he viewed Cambyses as being insane, Cambyses was just having a bad day or wanted revenge but was hiding it... Could you write down exactly what happened? no. you don't know what really happened. -even if it happened to you, there are to many outside influences
it really just all depends on who is looking back on the history. the Jews were happy because the Persians let them rebuild the temple. The Greeks were in a war with them, so they aren't going to look back at that fondly. i'm sure if 300 was made in Southwestern Asia the Greeks would have seemed crazy. there could have been faults and good justifications on each side. there really isn't always a right side and wrong side, good and evil.
History is mix of facts altered by point of view. For example take a battle between two countries; The facts are simple: where it was, when it was, who it was...etc. One side may see the battle as a great and noble victory that will bring centuries of forelong glory and the other may see it as a meaningless battle that gains nothing to skew the words of history in their favor. Yes the Persian's were tolerant to those under their rule but the Greeks being independent of them saw them as tyrants and doers of evil because they were not ruled by them. The Jews sought to praise them because of the tolerance offered to them by their rulers. I believe that the true Persians were a combination of both point of views and a formulation of your own opinion. Its a simple fact of enemies see each other as tyrants and friends see each other as benevolent and worthy of admiration.
The Greeks and Jews all had their own opinions on the Persians. They might have been because they were like villians to them, or because they were like Jews to them, but I think that's just something that we cant really say & judge saying that they're villians or not, because we dont know how the Persians acts & how they were, the most important thing that we know about them is that they had the longest lasting empire. And all that came from such a great ruler & he was just a genius. He knew everything to be a ruler, & he used all his knowlegde for his reign. It's amazing how they never had rebellion through just tolerance.
As Mr. Prill said at the begining, that we were thought more through european views. thats why we think of them as evil people.
hahaha. this reminds me of a song in Wicked...the Wizard of Oz(who's from here) says to the Wicked Witch of the West(when she was younger...)"Elphaba,where i come from, we belive all sorts of lies. We call it history. A man's called a trator, or liberator. A rich man's a thief of thalanthrapist(sp?). Is one a crusador or ruthless invader? It's all in the label that's able to presist..."
i totally agree that history completely changes through the different points of view. but as you've stated Mr. Prill, it's all we will ever know, or at least untill we somehow invent a timemachine... haha.
Even now the points of view are different like when Mr. B came in for a minute in 1st period and told us how the Persian empire was CRAP and wrote down all kinds of stuff on the map you had up VS you calling the Persian Empire your BEST FRIEND and you would even name your children after the persian emporers!
It's all in the point of view...
I think that it is a bit frustration not knowing the complete truth about history and always having to base it off a interpretations because when you think that you have learned something it could really be wrong and incorrect information. However, I do think that historians are able to do a good job of interpreting the opinions and giving us a somewhat accurate source to learn. The greeks and jews have a completely different view point of Persia. The greeks saw them as evil and horrible but the jews found them as a great empire.
First of all Herodotus cant be trusted since he has been known to be inaccurate when giving details of what has happened in history. How do we know if what he says is true or false? For all we know, what he wrote down could just be how he wants us to see it and not what really happened. Anyways everyone is a hero or a villain to someone. it is all about the people's perception. Hero's and villain's have existed ever since people have been on earth and maybe even longer. For example, a skilled warrior of the cherokee indians may be a hero to his people but to the other tribes or prey he would be considered a villain no matter how much of a nice or idiotic the guy is. In my eyes i would say the persians were heros from looking at there accomplishments because we are neutral in the matter, but if i was taught by a greek then my perception of the place would be completely different because the teacher would focus on how it effected their society which would more than likely be negative. I think that if it werent for the persians though we wouldnt have some of the things that we have in modern times. But until we have every single detail we cant really tell if persia was a hero or villain and even then it still cant be told because peoples perceptions are different. What they see decides who is a hero or a villain and there really isnt a wrong answer
History is history. The facts never changed; what happened happened and can't be relived. But, yeah, people's opinions of it change. Right now I'm thinking that Persia is a hero because of Prill fawning over Persia in class. But if Prill started dissing Persia, saying how horrible it was, I would say that Persia is a villain. It just depends on what side you are taught.
mr. dyer, the calender is one of the links on the sidebar. it will say "calender and syllabus information."
i believe that opinion is always key you have differents thoughts about civilization. good or bad still we need to be open minded to history because i think we will never know but just guess if truth or not the persian were kimd to the jews and not to the greeks.
I really don't think that an interpretation of history can be subjective. History is largely based on one's own view point and opinion. It matters on what situation someone is in and what their mindset is on that particular culture/society. Another thing, if a person reads something swayed to more one side than the other, than of course the reader will want to side with that particular reading. What we read really influences are thinking, and so history can change just because of what someone reads.
so essentially miss kim, you're saying that history IS subjective, as opposed to objective.
i dont really know which ones they are...
because since the greeks called them villians and the jews called them hereos, im not sure which one to go by
I think not knowing the complete truth about history and always having to base it off a interpretations. Everyones opintion goes into these facts as well. Opinion goes a long way, but facts are what you really need. I technically think that opinions dont make history. History is facts not what someone thinks or believes. For example the Persians were hated and considered evil by the Greeks, but were called hereos by the Jews. This is two different views on one group. This is opinions NOT facts.
yes miss bullock, but as i've said before, you will find very quickly that the facts that are available are very few. you may think, well, if i had a copy of the newspaper from that day in history, then i could get some real facts. yeah, try finding facts from yesterday's paper. get a copy of the new york times, the washington post, the wall street journal, the ajc, turn on fox news, cnn, msnbc, and bbc news in order to get the story on sarah palin's speech last night, or perhaps the situation between russia and georgia, and i guarantee you that you will get a slightly different story from each of those sources. if yesterday's history is hard to get ahold of, imagine trying to gather reputable info from 3000 years ago! the reality is that history is in no way a study of facts, but it is a study of interpretations of facts available. the great thing about history is that, once you gain enough experience, your interpretations are just as valid as dr. bentley's, or anyone else's for that matter. if you're looking for facts, study math. if you're looking for something a little more exciting, study history, where we're all investigators and lawyers in a search for truth amisdt a sea of opinions, stories, myths, lies, half-truths, propaganda, first hand interpretations, second hand interpretations, diaries, newspapers, scrolls, etc etc etc. that, my friends, IS HISTORY!
I think all history has some inaccuracies. Peoples perception of an event are different. And no ones opinion is the same. So you can’t trust every thing a document says. What one side think is nice another might think is evil. So even being there couldn’t make me decide what Persians were. It like to days election. One side trying to convene they’re better than the other.
I agree, Mr.Prill. for the most part you are never going to find history as objective, peple allways have their opinions. s humans we think everything revolves around us, so when we would write down history you wouldn't stop to think what is really going on, you only write abou wht has directly impacted you. For the Greeks they had bad experiances with the Persians, which shaped how they thought of them. The same goes for the Jews. History is just interpretations of what has directly affected you or your counrty.
After reading Miss Patel's starting comment I wanted to post that those writings were the only references we can adjourn to, but Mr.Prill already stated it upon reading his response and I entirely agree with what he put that history is only interesting because it is a search for the truth. That is what interests me most about history, and even though I'm an analytical thinker, I'm also very opinionated and open in my mind, allowing my ideas to flow and be influenced accordingly which is probably why history fascinates me.
Also I arrived at the realization after reading Abbi's remark, that what we should do is try to put ourselves in the situations that we are reading and determine for ourselves what could or could not be, but truthfully nothing is set in stone and it would vary in contrast to societies and views that the people of that time held so it wouldn't be as easy as I portray it.
But, more on the topic, The Persians were indeed heroes overall. I believe the Greeks were stubborn and ignorant and couldn't accept being ruled by government which is why they always lashed out into war. The only times Greeks were quelled was by the power of Cyrus under Persian rule, the takeover by the Macedonians and the unification of the poleis under the guidance of Athenians, and even those didn't last considerably long or without some form of rebellion or attempt at it. Persians were favoured by other people for their tolerance, which was, in my opinion, how a territory should be ruled, especially one as diverse as the Persians', and how they managed to successfully maintain order among their various ethnic regions. Cyrus was a genius, and a true marvel of those times. Even after Xerxes xaused the eventual downfall of the Achaemenid Empire, when later rulers sieged parts of the Persian Empire they followed their methods of maintaining control and that is why the Persian Empire lasted nearly a millenia and all because Cyrus revolutionized the idea of a centralized government. Persians were indeed heroes, and while I wouldn't say Greeks are villians, I will profress that I think they're a bit rebellious and try to show their "superiority" (as they have it) by lashing out and creating war where it isn't always necessary.
"The Odyssey" (whoever you are) the point of the blog is share opinions, so using your knowledge of the Persian rules, you should come up with your own opinion, instead of going by what the Jews or the Greeks or the Egyptians think.Also, out of 70 different ethnic societies, a majority were at least satisfied by Cyrus' leadership. Also I forgot to include his idea of combining many different law codes into one, thereby satisfying everyone instead of himself. Cyrus was truly a man of power and intellect, as he never ruled for himself, he ruled for his people. Instead of forcing his beliefs on them, he tolerated(which is not to be mistaken for accepted) theirs and allowed them more freedom and cultural sovereignty over themselves.
I think that most people's view of the persians has been distorted like you said by hollywood, but i also don't think any civilization is "bad", it's based on who's histroy your looking at.
Many people have made the Persians evil. But if you look on another perspective, opinions of the Persians can change. For example the Jews looked highly upon Persians because the Persia gave them their homeland back. On the other side, Greeks think Persia was an evil empire because Persia invaded them out of revenge.
I thnik its very interesting to see different sides of the stories because you can really get the point of view and the interpretation of what they thought happened, on the other hand it is complicated becasue its hard to define what actually happens sometimes. it can also be very fustrating see only one point of view, but in this class i guess we will see all sides of the story and how they relate to see why different societies though what they did and we can see what they believed. science teachers are always saying that experiments are only theories that are tentative and can change, I think world history is also like that becasue it can change becasue of different interpretations.
Like any empire, the Persians were diliked by some people and like by others. The Jews were obviously in favor for the Persians, becuase the werent strict as strict wiht them...they werent tolerant. The Greeks, however, basically were the ones who gave The Persians a bad impression, becuas eof the various conflicts they had between eachother.Therefore, in my opinion history can and still does change everyday. I think it has history has a lot to do with an individuals world veiew. This can affect the way people see history in many ways. Everyday historians are learning more and more about history itself and the facts of ancient times.
I kinda believe calling any political organization "good" or "evil" is an understatement to what history really is. Western society has been been brought up on history by Greek and Roman sources, so of coarse it will be centered on their views. Normal you have bad views of people you fight. I think we should read histories from every view point we can, or a neutral countries history. Its almost like maps and how they vary form region to region. European maps have Europe in the middle, where Chinese maps have china in the middle. European history is going to glorify the people of Europe and make everyone else look bad. A society is always going to try and make itself look better than it really is.
But calling a political system "evil" i do not believe is constructive to history. For instance can you really get to know someone just by thing other people say about that person. So i doubt we will ever truly know who really is to blame in history for the Persian/Greek conflicts, but i believe that just knowing both sides of the conflict and the causes people should be able to draw their own conclusions. And maybe its better that way. that way we do not constantly blame ethnic groups for problems. Which we kinda do, but because there is no definite 100% truth of what has happened in history it isn't as bad as it could be.
The history is supposed to be objective, but i think it becomes objective after the phenomena. As seen in these two passages, the situation can be seen in two totally different view. I think this is history itself because it shows the cause and the effect depending on different societies' perceptions. So even though a phenomenon can be very biased at the time that it is when it is being analyzed, after time pass and when other people look at that conclusion, i think, it becomes history because it becomes a fact that that society had a different view from others. Also, it tells one what caused a society to think in a certain way.
Everybody has their ups and downs and the Persians were like that to. We view the Persian empire through what seems normal to us. We think it was good that they expanded and made a huge empire, but they also conquered a bunch of people and xerxes was a nut
The Jews had every right to respect the Persians and loathe the Greeks. History changes based off of biased people. If you talked to a greek, the greek'd tell you that they were the best, if you talked to a Persian, the Persian'd tell you that they were the best, and the same with the Jews. History changes based off of who was telling the story, just like the was it does if you are trying to figure out the truth from two siblings trying to blame the other for something.
The Persian's varied from place to place depending on who you asked, and you said that history is based on primary sources and how they are interpreted, making it hard to get accounts that are not bias. This is a very good example of our history.
to me, the persians under the rule of darius and cyrus in the achemaneid (however you spell that) were heroes. yhey not only set up a very well working system of government and society with their great use of tolerance but they also established one of the biggest empires known to that time and maintained it! it was a working society with order and happy people! that to me, makes them heroes. the greek just thought they were crazy because they wanted to conquer them. thats what i think :)
Not Heroes nor villains. Just really really god and conquering and politics. What other group of people do u know that lasted over 1000 years of dominance
I find myself easily influenced by what I'm told haha. From watching 300 i really did think that the Persians were evil people who didn't care about anyone but themselves and were very not understanding, but from listening in class and reading this i find that they truly were good people. I'm interested in seeing how else my views change just from this class hah
If tolerance was doing so well to keep the society together, then why did Xerces (i don't know how to spell his name. but the really stupid grandson or whatever) have to change all that. It made even more work for him. stupid stupid people...no offense. And i thought the 300 movie was just okay. i heard it was like awesome and very exciting..haha yeah right. it was okay. and the bad thing about it was i guess that it was not factually correct. So, i dont realy get why Cambysus wanted to put Croesus to death when he should have known that he was eventually going to miss him..? And he is greedy for wanting all that land. He just had to kill one brother and banish the other huh. The Jews must have really loved the Persians. They talk about the king as if he was a god.
whoa... Herodotus' description of the Persians makes them sound messed up in the head, but that was just one flaw. i still personally praise the Persians for being able to unify all of Persia under tolerance. i mean... all this time i always thought violence was a major factor in unifying a country, but after learning about the Persians i see these things differently. i always assumed that if a government ran by extremely high tolerance, the citizens and the rest of the society will take advantage of that. man, was i wrong haha
and i dont blame you Mr Pril for being mad at hollywood. they need to get their historical facts straight
Kevin Shin
oh and by the way. does anybody know how to change my name on the blogging thing? i want it to display my full name but it keeps coming out with only my first name.
Wow that's so weird. Those Bible excerpts are really interesting. IT never occured to me when I read Isiah that that was THE CYRUS as in Persia Cyrus. It just never meshed...hmm interesante. Well I think that what we are doing in class is great because we get to hear both sides of the story then chose who we like (haha like the middle school teachers).
Soo far I have learned so many objections from what I learned in middle school or elementary school about the Greeks. yay
and the Persians are I guess in between as far as Hereo or Villian. It varies due to the ruler at the time uhhmmm (xerxes). But they were certainly very intelligent and governments today can really learn from them. :)
I myself am a HUGE fan of the Persians. The thought of tolerance is a brilliant idea that we still see today. For example, U.S. doesn't force any religion on anybody. Cyrus was infact a genius. I just hate when someone like Xerxes comes in and messes it all up. I guess you could Persia is my son.
I just read the Herodotus' Histories and I agree that Ccambyses was insane! Whose idea was it to put that guy in charge? Anyway, I don't think he necessarily has a grudge towards Persia, just some of the leaders and different people, which is completely understandable. Only someone who is insane would make fun of religions in that way, and look down upon his allies. Anyone can see that this is not a good idea. I loved how he talked about Darius asking people about their different cultural beleifs. I wonder if he did this to understand the people he was leading or because he thought it was interesting, I did. Also, he did it in the presence of the Greeks! Not only would he understand the tribe, but so would their neighbors. I think that for whatever reason Darius did this it was a genius move. I'm really begining to like this guy.
Wow, I would never have thought the Jews would be this grateful to Cyrus! They even mention him alongside the Lord in the book of Isaiah1 This also kind of makes me think that Cyrus himself may have been Jewish, and he pbobably wanted as little outside conflict as possible. As far as historians altering our world view, it seems like too many historians are influenced by other historians and don't look at other points of view. I like looking at these old documents a lot more than reading the history books or listening to some historain, I feel like I learn so much more. History can definitely change throughout time. I never knew that the Eutruscans played such a huge part in Rome utnil tonight's reading. The Romans would NEVER admit to being conquered by anybody (as we've talked about in Latin many times). I doubt Romans in later generations knew nothing of being conquered by the Etruscans.
I agree with Macy. It is very frustrating only being able to rely on interpretations. Are there no papers from history stating facts written by a neutral observor of the Persians and Greeks?
Instead of people just giving us their opinions on news and all, why can't they just tell us what truly happened.
surprisingly, im actually frustrated. I want facts! because yes, I do think history can change. But if people stop basing their interpretations off other peoples' interpretations and go to actual historical evidence, the history we know would be much more true.
If only we had more evidence...
Sapp.
History most certainly varies, changes, and is altered over time. And like Mr. Prill said, if you look in any newspaper or on any news station on television and whatnot, you'll find a million different versions of the truth and facts. That's just in our own country. We're basically twisting the that was twisted when we first started spreading it. Of course, facts are immediately altered because of the impact something may have on a particular region as opposed to the way it may be twisted in another. The Jews viewd the Persians as being "heroes" because they were impacted in a positive way where as Greeks were battling back and fourth with the Persians creating a negative outlook on the whole Persian Empire and considering them to be malevolent. So of course, the Greeks would make them seem like the bad guy when spreading word about the Persians.
I think that history can change because it is based on one's opinions. Most of the histories that we now learn is based on written records, and it can vary depending on who writes it. People tend to think that what they do is right, and anyone who is against them is wrong, as it can be seen in contrasting views of Persians betweeen Greeks and Jews. So, history can change depending on whose perspective you are looking at.
i really think that before you say that someone is bad or good that you need to look at the situation from all views. But i think that the persians were perfectly fine until that xarius or whatever took over and ruined everything trying to fix what his father had done.
hey Mr prill i was just thinking about what u were saying about the spartans today in class. Im talking to my friend on the phone and he was talking about how good the movie 300 was and i told him about how they didnt really care about military until the slave population really started to rise and he was like why? and i explained it to him that they needed agriculture and stuff and how a lot of bad things started from farming. so yea, now he gets it so thanx for explaining it in class today!!!
miss persyn, i'm glad that you enjoy reading these primary documents more than secondary textbooks. the real history is really in the documents. it's like pulling teeth to get some to read documents in the beginning, but seriously, it makes all the difference in our understanding, and once you get used to regularly reading them, you do get to like them.
miss kempshall, glad you were able to clear that up with your friend on sparta. isn't enlightenment a wonderful thing?
the persians depending were you look from are both heroes and villians.
because among the greeks they were very unliked due to the many wars they had and how the persians tried to take over them. yet among the jews they were very like because they gave the jews their land back that had been taken away. so the jews were able to rebuild their city. because you cant really say oh the persians are bad because they did this this and this you know because then someone else could argue oh but they are good because they did this, so it all depends from were your point of view is coming from to judge the persians for either being heroes or villians.
An interesting thing is that once the Greeks split Persia into the three parts, the more eastern parts that were ruled by the Seleucids absolutely hated their rulers. Was there a lack of tolerance by the Seleucids? I also read in the book that Greeks came flocking in and instantly began changing the culture. Maybe the Persians were just so used to the exact same system ruled by Persians that they hated the Greeks for ending it. They went from hating to being the hated.
History is based on facts and other peoples opinions. i believe that history can change. I also agree with Abbi Edwards with the idea that you would need to have a historian that has no ties to what he is researching or writing about. I also have a different question, Itf persia was so advanced why didn't china use their ideas with better mantaining a large empire? is it because china developed without anybody's influence or was it because they weren't zorastian(sp)?
perhaps miss grayson... also remember the chinese notion of "we don't need the world, the world needs us."
i think that history itself cannot be changed, but that history can be interpreted so differently that it can seem that history changed. if one person writes totally from the greek side about the persian wars, one would get a negative connotation of the persians. but if somone wrote from a persian perspective, people would think that the greeks were in the wrong.
but overall in history, only ONE thing happened. it just cannot be changed.you cant go to your grandma's house one weekend and then say the next week you went to the mall. it just doesn't work.
they were heros because they had the longest dynsty be cause of tolerance.and they helped the jewish people rebuild the temple in jeruselum
Post a Comment