Jump to content

Talk:Immortals (Achaemenid Empire)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continuation of the 300 Arguement

[edit]

First of all..... "Frank Miller's graphic novel 300 and the motion picture present heavily fictionalized version of the Immortals in the Battle of Thermopylae. In the movie, they appear as black covered warriors who wear silver masks and wield twin swords in battle, based more upon Japanese Samurai and Ninja. They serve as King Xerxes' personal warriors but in the story they mainly serve as nameless and faceless henchmen, which Spartans easily defeat. The movie portrayed the Spartans as almost invincible, and the fact that the Immortals could kill a few was the only thing that proved that they were the greatest in the entire Army of Xerxes.".... This statement seems to be fairly opinionated, also... in the end it is the Immortals that do them in... after the spartans lost their advantage of that rock formation...

On another note, although the Frank Miller's Immortals were heavily fictionized, they were based on the original Immortals and as such are deserving of atleast a note..

Hey can we leave 300 off this page please? Frank Miller's immortals are fictional, and don't belong here. Thanks 141.153.155.149 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The game Rise of nations has the 'Immortals'as Persian unique infantry, starting with the 'Immortals', wich can be upgraded to 'Anusiya', wich can be upgraded to 'Athanatoi'. Fairly original, don't you think?

Rome: Total War has not Persian immortals.

The Barbarian Invasion and Alexander expansions of RTW both have the Immortals, as do numerous mods. Also, why should 300 be left off the page? 300 classifies as popular culture, and the name of the section it's in is "The Immortals in popular culture". Spartan198 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Spartan198[reply]

300

[edit]

It's fictional, but there are cultural reference sections in many of the pages. The book and movie should at least be mentioned at the end.


Why do they look like orcs in the movie?--Sonjaaa 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard this from a History Channel Documentary and I'm not familiar with their accuracy (probably very good?) but according to the special, Immortals wore black thin cloth-material, called tiaras (like the crown)over their faces. Picture a ski mask but thinner and without the eye-holes. Frank Miller's interpretation of them might be influenced by this, hence the masks.

In Fiction

[edit]

this article is not about the characters in the comic/movie. It's supposed to be a bout historical figures. I shortened up the section. It still mentions their appearance in the film but that's all that is needed.99DBSIMLR 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In other fiction-> Final Fantasy XI: Immortals do appear as imperial troops, however their clothing style suggest post-islamic era, as well as the empire's symbole being the two headed serpant (ferdosi wrote shahname during islamic occupation) further supports this. This ofcourse is trivial as there were/is no Immortals during islamic rule. Not sure if it's worth mentioning in the main page. RumiPantea (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

Instead of this:

Later in time, a strict adherence to the religion of the prophet Zarathustra and his teachings, or "truth" as the Persians called it, was required.

Why not just say something to the effect of: "..., a strict adherence to Zoroastrianism, the state supported religion of the Achaemenids."

Technically it was not a state religion, it must be noted. Persians did not force conversions upon conquered peoples, for example. The note on "truth" is ambiguous and doesn't really clarify anything. Is that referencing 'Asha'? I've no idea what the Persians are calling it, besides the "Good Religion" or Mazdayasnian Zarathushrianism, etc. Okay, so I do, but that's not important in this article, unless you want to start entering in Avestan and Old Persian transliterations. And "truth" sounds a little generic. Could just as easily be talking about the Tao, or the 'Gospel' truth. In other words, note that they were required to be Zoroastrians, but leave the specifics of the religion to Zoroastrian pages perhaps? Khirad 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about "truth" looks like an attempt to reconcile Herodotus' description of the Immortals' training regime (IIRC they are taught from childhood to be good with spear, good with bow, and to always tell the truth) with actual Persian beliefs and practices. 212.139.84.55 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300

[edit]

I know you want 300 left off this page, but in the movie they WERE heavily fictionalized. I loved the idea that there were black ninjas that looked like ghouls under their Armour. I mean if there was an award for best remake ever, this movie i feel should get it

203.26.13.4 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Companions"

[edit]
"Herodotus' source may have confused the name Anûšiya (companions) with Anauša (Immortals)."
"The title of "Immortals" was first revived under the Sassanids. The most famous of the Savaran units were the Zhayedan (Immortals) and numbered 10,000 men, like the Achaemenid predecessors, with the difference that they were cavalry."

This article doesn't make it clear whether the Persian units were actually called Immortals or whether this was an error. If it was an error, were the Sassanids just repeating it? I doubt they were working off Herodotus. 82.95.254.249 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title 'Immortals' for the Sassanian elite unit seems to not well attested and might be a Graeco-Roman invention [1]. It would in that case indeed be a descendent of Herodotus's original error, but not through the Sassanians. [1] CHARLES, MB 2011, 'THE SASSANIAN 'IMMORTALS, Iranica Antiqua, 46, pp. 289-313 66.31.21.26 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete proof that the Immortals actually existed?

[edit]

The only sources their are come from to third party sources, and one of them is vague. Isn't it possible that Herodotus was confusing these guys with another unit? According to the article the Persian Empire itself had no record of such a unit. --Ted87 07:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello to everyone here!I'm new so I apologize if I create any problem at least for now!.Anyway as far as I'm concerned the Persians had an elite unit named AMRTAKA.It's said this unit is the original'immortals'.i don't know what it means in Persian but I don't think it actually gives that meaning knowing that taka means shield.Probably Herodotus had given them a very unique name due to their fame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euagoras (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, no remains of the historical documents of the Persian Empire remain. All the libraries which contained accounts of soldiers sent, and those that died, full list of victories and defeats were all in the libraries throughout the Empire, but most notably at Ctesiphon. However, after the Muslim conquest of Persia, the Arabs burned all the libraries and the books. Therefore, we are now forced to rely on foreign sources rather than our own. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones

[edit]

Are the guys that defend the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade based on the immortals? Doctorfluffy 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword is a fictional order of Christian militants created for the movie, who have as their sole purpose the protection of the Holy Grail. Take a look at Military Order (society) or Secret Society, those come a lot closer. Themill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WH40K and Starcraft

[edit]

Is there any evidence of a connection between the Necron and Protoss units and the Persian ones? The name is not good enough, that's just meant to be either descriptive or sound badass.

If I don't get an answer by the next time I look at this page, I'm deleting those references. Andy Christ 21:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

[edit]

What a useless picture to include in such an article--the 300 one, that is. You may well be better off not using one at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.155.16 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems rather strange that a photo of an actual Persian relief at Persepolis should be deleted and that a grotesque caricature like the film poster should appear in its place. Presumably the same copyright rules apply to both.210.246.8.136 05:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have attempted to solve the picture problem. I created this illustrated version of the Persian Immortals that is hopefully somewhat more accurate than that fictionalized 300 thing-a-majiger.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Buistr 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor 83.233.154 has twice removed the picture of a Persian Immortal (Achaemenid era not the film 300 poster) with the comment "cute picture but no authenticity whatsoever". Anon 83 has not however supplied any evidence in support of this statement. I have checked with the artist Persian Poet Gal who advises that her references were the archers freize from the Susa palace, now in the Louvre, and a modern reconstruction. Her comment was "granted that the picture isn't 100% perfect but it gives a relatively good idea of how they looked". Taking into account the uncertainties surrounding this subject I would agree. Would other editors agree that the picture should again be restored? Buistr 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture at the bottom of the page, from 300, is not the actual immortals. They're just the persian foot soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.168.207 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to use the actual Persian relief as the main visual reference for this article, instead of that RTW skin/model? Spartan198 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Spartan198[reply]

Weapons, armor, combat style?

[edit]

Perhaps more detail on exactly how they were armored, and how they fought would be a more worthwhile addition than pointless discussions about allusion to pop-culture and the origin of the term. https://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html 86.137.206.238 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the dates to BCE

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Support warrior4321 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not related to Christianity-related topics and should not contain BC/AD, but rather BCE/CE. The latter is a more neutralized, global form of date system which provides no favor to any religion. The Using more common calendar terms such as common era and before common era are more neutral than terms such as before Christ or anno domini. warrior4321 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Support as nominator. warrior4321 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

Neutral

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

stop pushing era formats. The only way to increase the frequency of the era format of your preference is by writing substantial contributions. If you are the main contributor to an article, you get to pick the era format. --dab (𒁳) 14:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

[edit]

Question, why name this article Immortals (Persian Empire) when we can name it the more popular term the Persian Immortals?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be called that, make a proposal for a change. Don't do the change without discussion - someone tried making the change without discussion in December 2009, and another editor reverted.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immortals (Persian Empire) → Persian Immortals – Using a specific name is better. "Faction/Nation + Class", faction = Persian (from Persian Empire) and class = Immortals. For example, see Roman legion or other army-related articles. Also see the Google Books results:

  • Google Books results for "Persian Immortals": [1]
  • Google Books results for "Persian Immortals" OR "Persian Immortal": [2]

I think my suggested name is common in other medias (for example, history and documentary TV shows). Also, editors use "Persian Immortals" as wikilink instead of "Immortals". For example, see Greco-Persian Wars and Deadliest Warrior (season 2). Currently, Persian Immortals redirects to this article. So I think it will be a reasonable move. Zyma (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immortals_(Achaemenid_Empire)&oldid=1195692090"