Why are we so reliant on greek sources for an empire as large

>>1854758
Bump.
I would also be interested in the answers to these questions.

>>1854758

Hey you know that part of what made greeks special is that they recorded stuff in greater detail than others, right?

>>1854758
Did Persians use Aramaic script then?

>>1854758
The Persians only wrote official documents describing events very matter of factly. "On (date), the armies of Persia led by (general) went into battle against the armies of (place) and won" that's pretty much everything you can expect from Achaemenid and Parthian records. The Sassanians were a bit better, but not by that much. Persians only really began to write detailed-as-Grecce-chronicles following the Islamic conquest.

>>1854977
>Persians only really began to write detailed-as-Grecce-chronicles following the Islamic conquest.
Why is that?

>>1855688
cockroaches aren't smart

>>1855692
What do the Turks have anything to do with this?

>>1855692
More outside influences. The Caliphate tore down old borders, so ideas and people could spread around. Islam values the written word highly, so when more and more people converted the interest in the written word grew.

Persians did not write down much fantasy stuff like stories or religion or poetry down before. If their religion was/is an indicator then they had a strong oral tradition.
While in Mesopotamia written word was mostly used in religious context.


Other people in the realm wrote much shit on the other side, namely greeks, hebrews, syrians and so on. Which made up a decent second hand source.

>>1854977
>Sassanids were a bit better, but not by much.
Showing how retarded you are. The Sassanid royal archives were torched about a century or two after the Islamic conquest of Persia. And yet we still have MILITARY MANUSCRIPTS and combat manuals of Persian armies, their formations, and so on from the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. As well as other scattered if historical documents describing lineages of kings, governors, battles, conquests, and so on.

>>1855811
>Persians
>Have a strong oral tradition
Well that's also another factor, there are still strong oral traditions in Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and Tajikistan dating back to before the Arsacid period when it comes to poetry, folklore, and so on. But like I said in my above post, a lot of of Persian records existed up until the 8th or 9th century when the Royal Archives were finally destroyed by Umyyadd and Abbassid forces, as Al-Tabiri has noted repeatedly.

>>1854758
Their still translating and archiving the Persian fortification tablets and cylinders from Persepolis, there are THOUSANDS of them remaining.

>>1854758
Everything they told you here except >>1855837>>1855846 and >>1855858 are half truths.

What nobody said yet is that we're reliant on greek sources because those are the sources we have. Our civilization is based on greeks and romans, not persians, and it's basically impossible to have the original document of an historical work. Achaemenids or Babylonians could've wrote a bible sized treaty on their daily life and we wouldn't know because no medieval monk would bother to translate that (not saying this ever happened).

Don't you know that, actually, even the greek and roman documents we have are very few compared to what they produced? We don't have a single complete stoic work that isn't from late republican times or later.

>>1856788
>half truths
Use google. There's already literally hundreds of the Persian fortification tablets translated from Elamite and Imperial Aramic as well as Old Persian itself being done by Near Eastern anthropologists and Iranianologists in Iran, the UK, Italy, and several other countries as well as the US.

They give a very vivid and specific account of the Achaemenid economy, daily life, court customs, judiciary law, and other things actually. Olmstead himself took advantage of this information decades ago.

The rest of your post is a goofy non sequitur.

>>1856788
Shoo shoo, Turkroach.