Post 69, myself:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Parthians seem to have been of this religion (Zoroastrianism) as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Came across something about Parthians yesterday. It wasn't terribly interesting or new, but it made me start thinking about who they were. I looked them up in Encarta Encyclopaedia, and filtered out the Aryan nonsense.
So far I thought they had migrated to Babylon/Iraq/Mesopotamia on the Tigris-Euphrates rivers, after having left western India long ago. But it seems that their actual home kingdom was not established in Mesopotamia, though they did build many major cities there, but was much closer to home: western Afghanistan to eastern Iran.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Topic: <b>Parthia</b>
Parthia, ancient empire of Asia, in what are now Iran and Afghanistan. The Parthians were of Scythian descent, and adopted Median dress and Aryan speech. They were excellent horsemen and archers. In battle, mounted Parthians often discharged their arrows back toward the enemy while pretending to flee; this is the origin of the phrase âa Parthian shot.â
Parthia was subject successively to the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and Macedonians under Alexander the Great, and Seleucids. About 250 bc the Parthians succeeded in founding an independent kingdom that, during the 1st century bc, grew into an empire extending from the Euphrates River to the Indus River and from the Oxus (now Amu Darya) River to the Indian Ocean. The main Parthian cities were Seleucia, Ctesiphon, and Hecatompylos. After the middle of the 1st century bc Parthia was a rival of Rome, and several wars occurred between the two powers. In ad 224 Parthia was conquered by Ardashir I, king of Persia and founder of the Sassanid dynasty.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Topic: <b>Ctesiphon</b>
Ctesiphon, city of ancient Mesopotamia, on the eastern bank of the Tigris River, opposite Seleucia. Ctesiphon was the winter residence of the Parthian kings and later the capital of the Parthian kingdom. When the Arsacid dynasty of Parthian rulers was overthrown, about ad 224, the city became the capital of the Sassanid dynasty of Persian kings. Plundered by the Arabs in 637, the city was abandoned when the Abbasid caliphs made their capital at nearby Baghdad. The ruins of Ctesiphon, in modern Iraq, are noted for the remains of a great vaulted hall of the Sassanian period.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Topic: <b>Mesopotamia</b>
After Alexander the Great's conquest in 331 bc, the Greek dynasty of Seleucus I held Mesopotamia. A dozen cities were foundedâSeleucia on the Tigris being the largestâbringing Hellenistic culture, new trade, and prosperity. A major new canal system, the Nahrawan, was initiated. About 250 bc the Parthians (see Parthia) took Mesopotamia from the Seleucids. The Parthian rulers (the Arsacids) organized their empire so that several autonomous vassal states developed, in which Greek and Iranian (Persian) ideas mingled. After rebuffing Roman attacks, the Parthians fell (ad 224) to the Sassanids (see Persia), whose domain extended from the Euphrates to present-day Afghanistan. Effective government with a hierarchy of officials and improved irrigation canals and drainage brought prosperity. Intermittent conflict in the northwest with the Roman province of Syriaâpart of the Eastern Roman (later Byzantine) empire after 395âand with Arabs in the desert border areas led to disaster when insurgent Arab tribes destroyed Sassanian Persia in 641, bringing with them a new religion, Islam. Despite this defeat, the Sassanid dynasty lasted until 651, when the last Sassanid ruler died.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(1) First, about the statement in red above:
The Parthians were of Scythian descent, and adopted Median dress and Aryan speech.
Ignoring any triumphant Oryan (Scythian) lilt to Encarta's statement here (the encyclopaedia does this often, I wonder who writes their articles):
- Does Encarta mean 'Indo-Aryan' speech? So far I have only read that Parthians spoke Iranian, not Indian. Or do they mean 'Aryan speech' as in 'Indo-European' speech? Why the obfuscation, when they know enough to be more specific and can write that the Parthians spoke an Old Iranian language? Even were they Scythians, all Scythians known to history spoke an Old Iranian language anyway.
- Encarta writes that Parthians were of Scythian descent, but what if it was the other way around: that the Scythians (wild tribes) were of Parthian descent? That is, even if the country wasn't yet called 'Parthia' at the time some tribes took off from the W-Afghan region and community which would later to be called Parthia and Parthians, the ethnic origins of these emigrating tribes (who'd become the Scythians of C-Asia later on) would actually have been of the same ethnicity as the Parthians-to-be from whom they'd split earlier. That is, Scythians in that case would have been ethnically-Parthian.
It would make sense as to why the Scythians spoke Iranian, and would be consistent with why the people of the later Parthian empire are described as of 'Scythian descent', since they are related, even if the relationship might originally have been in the opposite direction and even if the Scythians re-entered Afghanistan in later times, in time for the Partian empire to form.
(2) My actual questions.
- So far, I was of the opinion that the Parthians would have been Zoroastrian, as they were long under the Zoroastrian empire of Persia. However, if they were not always Zoroastrian, would their religion have been something between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism or just another version of having the many Gods which had long been common to India and Iran. (Though the fact that W-Afghanistan is the birth-place of Zoroastrianism makes me still think the Parthians might have been Zoroastrian at the time of their Empire.)
- The Kalash Kafirs stuck in Pakistan - are they in any way related to the Parthians and could their religion have been the Parthian religion? I read somewhere on IF that it was a lot like Hinduism. <i>If so</i>, they might have been either driven eastwards during the course of history, into what is now called Pakistan, or maybe they were the easternmost remnants of the Parthians?
- Are the Pathans in anyway related to the Parthians (who would then also have been driven more east-wards during the ages)? Of course, language erosion need not have taken place in such an obvious way as to make 'Parthian' turn into 'Pathan', but couldn't help noticing that when written in the Roman alphabet, these two words have a lot of letters common.
Just to clarify: the above are questions, not statements of fact. Even if there's lots of speculation in there. But then, IE Studies does far more speculating using infinitely less logic and evidence, so I think I have all the right to draw some straight lines between points that may be random and may be aren't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Parthians seem to have been of this religion (Zoroastrianism) as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Came across something about Parthians yesterday. It wasn't terribly interesting or new, but it made me start thinking about who they were. I looked them up in Encarta Encyclopaedia, and filtered out the Aryan nonsense.
So far I thought they had migrated to Babylon/Iraq/Mesopotamia on the Tigris-Euphrates rivers, after having left western India long ago. But it seems that their actual home kingdom was not established in Mesopotamia, though they did build many major cities there, but was much closer to home: western Afghanistan to eastern Iran.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Topic: <b>Parthia</b>
Parthia, ancient empire of Asia, in what are now Iran and Afghanistan. The Parthians were of Scythian descent, and adopted Median dress and Aryan speech. They were excellent horsemen and archers. In battle, mounted Parthians often discharged their arrows back toward the enemy while pretending to flee; this is the origin of the phrase âa Parthian shot.â
Parthia was subject successively to the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and Macedonians under Alexander the Great, and Seleucids. About 250 bc the Parthians succeeded in founding an independent kingdom that, during the 1st century bc, grew into an empire extending from the Euphrates River to the Indus River and from the Oxus (now Amu Darya) River to the Indian Ocean. The main Parthian cities were Seleucia, Ctesiphon, and Hecatompylos. After the middle of the 1st century bc Parthia was a rival of Rome, and several wars occurred between the two powers. In ad 224 Parthia was conquered by Ardashir I, king of Persia and founder of the Sassanid dynasty.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Topic: <b>Ctesiphon</b>
Ctesiphon, city of ancient Mesopotamia, on the eastern bank of the Tigris River, opposite Seleucia. Ctesiphon was the winter residence of the Parthian kings and later the capital of the Parthian kingdom. When the Arsacid dynasty of Parthian rulers was overthrown, about ad 224, the city became the capital of the Sassanid dynasty of Persian kings. Plundered by the Arabs in 637, the city was abandoned when the Abbasid caliphs made their capital at nearby Baghdad. The ruins of Ctesiphon, in modern Iraq, are noted for the remains of a great vaulted hall of the Sassanian period.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Topic: <b>Mesopotamia</b>
After Alexander the Great's conquest in 331 bc, the Greek dynasty of Seleucus I held Mesopotamia. A dozen cities were foundedâSeleucia on the Tigris being the largestâbringing Hellenistic culture, new trade, and prosperity. A major new canal system, the Nahrawan, was initiated. About 250 bc the Parthians (see Parthia) took Mesopotamia from the Seleucids. The Parthian rulers (the Arsacids) organized their empire so that several autonomous vassal states developed, in which Greek and Iranian (Persian) ideas mingled. After rebuffing Roman attacks, the Parthians fell (ad 224) to the Sassanids (see Persia), whose domain extended from the Euphrates to present-day Afghanistan. Effective government with a hierarchy of officials and improved irrigation canals and drainage brought prosperity. Intermittent conflict in the northwest with the Roman province of Syriaâpart of the Eastern Roman (later Byzantine) empire after 395âand with Arabs in the desert border areas led to disaster when insurgent Arab tribes destroyed Sassanian Persia in 641, bringing with them a new religion, Islam. Despite this defeat, the Sassanid dynasty lasted until 651, when the last Sassanid ruler died.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(1) First, about the statement in red above:
The Parthians were of Scythian descent, and adopted Median dress and Aryan speech.
Ignoring any triumphant Oryan (Scythian) lilt to Encarta's statement here (the encyclopaedia does this often, I wonder who writes their articles):
- Does Encarta mean 'Indo-Aryan' speech? So far I have only read that Parthians spoke Iranian, not Indian. Or do they mean 'Aryan speech' as in 'Indo-European' speech? Why the obfuscation, when they know enough to be more specific and can write that the Parthians spoke an Old Iranian language? Even were they Scythians, all Scythians known to history spoke an Old Iranian language anyway.
- Encarta writes that Parthians were of Scythian descent, but what if it was the other way around: that the Scythians (wild tribes) were of Parthian descent? That is, even if the country wasn't yet called 'Parthia' at the time some tribes took off from the W-Afghan region and community which would later to be called Parthia and Parthians, the ethnic origins of these emigrating tribes (who'd become the Scythians of C-Asia later on) would actually have been of the same ethnicity as the Parthians-to-be from whom they'd split earlier. That is, Scythians in that case would have been ethnically-Parthian.
It would make sense as to why the Scythians spoke Iranian, and would be consistent with why the people of the later Parthian empire are described as of 'Scythian descent', since they are related, even if the relationship might originally have been in the opposite direction and even if the Scythians re-entered Afghanistan in later times, in time for the Partian empire to form.
(2) My actual questions.
- So far, I was of the opinion that the Parthians would have been Zoroastrian, as they were long under the Zoroastrian empire of Persia. However, if they were not always Zoroastrian, would their religion have been something between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism or just another version of having the many Gods which had long been common to India and Iran. (Though the fact that W-Afghanistan is the birth-place of Zoroastrianism makes me still think the Parthians might have been Zoroastrian at the time of their Empire.)
- The Kalash Kafirs stuck in Pakistan - are they in any way related to the Parthians and could their religion have been the Parthian religion? I read somewhere on IF that it was a lot like Hinduism. <i>If so</i>, they might have been either driven eastwards during the course of history, into what is now called Pakistan, or maybe they were the easternmost remnants of the Parthians?
- Are the Pathans in anyway related to the Parthians (who would then also have been driven more east-wards during the ages)? Of course, language erosion need not have taken place in such an obvious way as to make 'Parthian' turn into 'Pathan', but couldn't help noticing that when written in the Roman alphabet, these two words have a lot of letters common.
Just to clarify: the above are questions, not statements of fact. Even if there's lots of speculation in there. But then, IE Studies does far more speculating using infinitely less logic and evidence, so I think I have all the right to draw some straight lines between points that may be random and may be aren't.