achaemenid

Ancient Persia, which usually means the Achaemenid Empire, was Mediterranean from the beginning.

The Middle East was at war when the Achaemenid Empire conquered its neighbors in the 5th century BC.

There was a recent thread by an Iranian historian on how Achaemenid king names were forgotten in Iran.

However, he was obsessed with ancient Persia, seeing in Achaemenid Persia a great and glorious Aryan civilization, now sadly gone.

In Persia the Sassanids and Parthians knew less about their Achaemenid past than the Greeks/Romans did.

This ultimately led to the decline of the Achaemenid Empire and its eventual defeat by Alexander the Great in 334 BCE.

I also don't know whether Achaemenid Persians would have referred to themselves by a term of that nature.

The Achaemenid Empire at its peak probably produced half of the world's goods.

Most Persians consider themselves proud inheritors of the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empires.

The Achaemenid Empire (500-300BC) banned slavery due to its Zoroastrian religion.

The king in Achaemenid Persia owned all the land.

Arathos, also known as Arathas or Artaxerxes (Persian: اردشیر), was a king of the Achaemenid Empire, who ruled from 465 to 424 BCE.

> Considering that the word ["Persia"] is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?

> none of them including the ones on the Iranian plateau would have thought of themselves as "Persian" Considering that the word is derived from Farsi/Farsi wouldn't the people living in the territory that became heartland of the Achaemenid empire have called themselves that?

The author seems impressed with Claude's job answering the Achaemenid Persia question, but, just taking a look at it, if I had started a conclusion paragraph with "In conclusion," in my more rigorous university courses, I'd have been pilloried for it.

Take this passage for example: "The importance of the Achaemenid model for Sasanian power was profound yet selective, manifesting most clearly in royal ideology, administrative structures, and religious policy, while being mediated through the complex filters of historical memory, practical necessity, and contemporary innovation." This is nonsense.