Talk:Siege of Sardis (547 BC)

Military history: Middle East / Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Iran Mid‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

How do I make a battle article!

How do I make a battle article!--Ariobarza (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

I've added an infobox to the article. Jagged 85 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Siege of Sardis → Siege of Sardis (546 BC) --(Discuss )-- Believe or not, I created this article and, I accidently made a mistake of copy and pasting which made two seperate histories about the articles which was redone by the administraters. But, I now want to move the article in a proper way. There is two different articles about the sieges at sardis, one with no date and one that happened in 498 BC, and before the one with no date, there were two or three sieges in that place, maybe one in the story of Troy. But if Siege of Sardis (498 BC) has a date, why not siege of sardis which was not even the first siege to happen there. And the siege of sardis was a very important outcome in history of Cyrus the Great, and its even in his campagain box, so like other sieges of Alexander and Hannibal, this one definitly needs a date, thats it.----Ariobarza (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose as principal usage. Siege of Sardis (498 BC) may well be misnamed anyway; I see no evidence that the city was besieged then, rather than stormed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the move, partly because a histmerge was needed; Siege of Sardis is now a disambig page. Move it back if you want to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date and title problems

See [1] which says the date of the siege is disputed, it could have been 542-541. Or maybe 547 [2] and not necessarily December! Doug Weller (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the 541-542 deal is a theory, the Nabonidus chronicle says Cyrus marched to the land of [Ly...], in 547 BC, and then to Cilicia and then killed its king or prince (in Herodotus's histories, the deaf prince trying to save Croesus from death by a Persian soldier, is accidently killed, and Croesus almost burned alive), which is on the road to Lydia, which the Royal Road was later based on. Herodotus might give the December date, it was the last month of 547 BC, that is a widely accepted fact. Check google books, or something.

Furthermore, if Cyrus was born 600 BC (which Biblical sources claim), then he would invaded Lydia in 570 BC, there might be even a third date, 542-547 is a 5 year difference, so the last and fourth possible date is 565 BC (you see how this is becoming OR? And that it is JUST theories) the book you linked to here is highly a fringe theory, I mean really.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Archaological evidence that Cyrus' campaign on Lydia was not 542-540, or even 535-533 BC, but was in 547 BC

Here is the link, read pages 164-169 [3], and this book clarifies it [4], it say's Persian arrowheads dated from near the end of 547 BC were found around the Phrygian city called "Midas City"(must get book for a complete view, as some pages are omitted, I know it sucks), and that the rampart and outer walls of the city is nearly destroyed, indicating heavy fighting when being besieged.

Xenophon say's that after Cyrus captured Sardis, the Phrygian king revolted, and Cyrus may have gone with them, when he sent Hystaspes and Adusius to conquer Phrygia, Xenophon indicates that some fighting happened on the kings city ("Midas City"), to capture the city by some siege or something. The commanders Hystaspes and Adusius were successfull, and when all the other Phrygian cities got word of what happened, they surrendered. In which Persian garrisons were set up in their cities. Search for "Hystaspes" and "Adusius" in the Cyropaedia, and you will find the account there. So archaeological and historical evidence agree with each other.

If you go on Livius.org, (and read about the translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle) it says the first translation that read with "U" and not "Lu" is from 1894! In the 50's two people read it as "Zu" or "Su," The most up to date, and newest translations(overall consensus, and most books, or 75% of them) agree that Cyrus marched to "Lu"[udi]a or Lydia in 547 BC. However few still like to doubt it. But now this 1985 book presents evidence that shows Cyrus went to Lydia in 547 BC(keep in mind that there could be better and more books too).

Mainly the majority of historians say Urartu was near Armenia, and therefore too much to the north from where Cyrus crossed the Tigris below Arbela, and that the kingdom of Suhu or Zuhu did not really exist at the time, and was too small for military action to be taken on it. So the other possibility is Lydia, plus there is actual evidence for it now too. The evidence shows that it is because the city was destroyed by Persian arrowheads from 547 BC, it takes the other possible date of 542-540 BC out, and for 535 BC cuneiform evidence shows that he was near Ecbatana at the time, the end. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

I read the Cambridge source from Google Books. It says that certain fortifications were destroyed, and speculates that they were destroyed in Cyrus' 574 BC campaign (the author takes it as given that there was a 547 campaign, and does not discuss that further). This, again, emphasizes the need to develop articles with overall context that show the sequence of battles as documented by historians and the possible ranges of dates for them. This hailstorm of "battle" articles with no connection to an overarching history is not an useful activity. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to bring a "hailstrom" of battle articles with no connections to history in Wikipedia. You must understand, that the evidence is pretty much clear now for a 547 BC campaign on Lydia (book was by Cambridge University), with a connection to Xenophon's book that say's a Phrygian "kings city" was besieged and taken, so there is a connection, arrow heads resemblings Persian arrowheads were dated to 547 BC, coincedence? I already explained (in full detail and expanded) in my previous message. So remember two things; some pages from the book is omitted, meaning it could better clear this up, and secondly; there could be better books that talk about this evidence.

Going back to the Nabonidus Chronicle, the kingdom of Urartu or Suhu is the only other possibilities(that is why the date for LYDIA is disputed), if compared to the context, the kingdom of Suhu is too small to have such signifigance(as scholars have noted), the kingdom of Urartu was practically non-existent at the time of Cyurs, and too far to north(near Armenia), to be were in the chronicle say's Cyrus crossed below the Tigris over Arbela to invade the kingdom in question. So what is left? It is the kingdom of Lydia, or as the translations go, "Lu"[udi]a.

FACT: the oldest and most outdated translation has "Suh"u, which is from 1894!!! And for Urartu, it was made by Lambert(which is the same translator that has currently behind the Fringe Theory in saying that Cyrus did not slaughter the people of Akkad, only the army, see Battle of Opis). In the 1970's-present time, historians have made the Lydia translation, and it is the final fact, that most, not 75%, but I checked again, that 85% believe it was Lydia. Now so what if it was Lydia? Well, the Nabonidus Chronicle which records the invasion of Lydia by Cyrus, has the date, (when translated into English) 547-546 BC! So three independent from all times sources that never met each other, Agree!

In spite of this, I will keep an open mind, and try to find other agreements to present here, in the meantime. (Note and common sense, if he was in Phrygia in 547 BC, that means he was in Lydia too, they are only a couple of miles away from one another, anyways he was in the Lydian empire, so he had to invade with a army to enter that country safely, if he had no army, the border patrols would have killed him, it was the lydian king bytheway that invaded the empire of Cyrus in the first place, so Cyrus had to get passed him and his army before coming to Phrygia and shooting arrows).

All other books say 547 BC, there are NO other RANGES in chronology, even books that think Cyrus was born 600 and not 576 BC, put it at 547 BC. It's all up to the Nabonidus Chronicle. Some carbondating had to happen for that Cambridge book to say it was Cyrus, they could have said another ruler destroyed that city, but why does it say it was Cyrus, because it says after Scythians ravaged Phrygia, then CAME Cyrus, so they say it is only he that is possible, and say (547) not 542, or 535 BC. Thanks for reading my long response, much apprecciates.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]