3DJay

I already gave you links to events you're overlapping with your revisionist history. "I moved ALL HISTORY in a block with it"... NO YOU DIDN'T. If you moved ALL history, then Plato would still be the same age. You just left Plato where he was. Who is it that states Plato was consulted in the exact same year as the problem was first given? What's your source?

Since you've given me permission... You're crazy!

You just did it again...why didn't Plato and Aristotle move? History is not back in sync. I gave you links to overlapping events. Where do they go? Socrates can't be put to death until after the Athenians regain their independence, which would be 375, according to you. However, in 375 an already independent Athens had its nose stuck in the conflict between Sparta and Thebes...so we move that 28 years, to 347, the year Plato died. But, then you're overlapping it with Phillip II's campaigns and past the birth of Alexander.

Do they move, or don't they? Alexander's life ties to Aristotle's. If you move one, you have to move the other. If you don't move them, then you've got Phillip's campaigns overlapping the Sparta and Thebes war.

476 BCE:
The Behistun inscription describes the first 3 years of his rule: http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun01.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_tr...un_Inscription

Introduced the Aryan alphabet: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Langua...lphabet_p3.htm

Introduced a uniformed gold Daric, and silver Shelkel: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Economy/daric.htm

Reorganized the military: "Once he gained power, Darius placed the empire on foundations that lasted for nearly two centuries and influenced the organization of subsequent states, including the Seleucid and Roman empires (Stolper, 1989, pp. 81-91; Kornemann, pp. 398 ff., 424 ff.; Junge, 1944, pp. 150, 198 n. 46). Himself a soldier of the first rank "both afoot and on horseback" (DNb 31-45; Kent, Old Persian, p. 140), Darius provided the empire with a truly professional army. Earlier Achaemenids had relied on regional contingents, especially cavalry, apparently recruited as the need arose. Darius put his trust mainly in Iranians, including Medes, Scythians, Bactrians, and other kindred peoples (see ARMY i.3) but above all Persians: "If you thus shall think, 'May I not feel fear of (any) other,' protect this Persian people" (DPe 18-22; Kent, Old Persian, p. 136). Thenceforth the mainstay of the imperial army was an infantry force of 10,000 carefully chosen Persian soldiers, the Immortals, who defended the empire to its very last day (Curtius Rufus, 3.3.13)." http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Histor...rius_great.htm

Royal Road: http://www.livius.org/ro-rz/royal_road/royal_road.htm

Susa: Built a terrace, palace, and Apadana, minimum. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/susa/susa.php

Persepolis:
Built/carved a 135000 square metre, terrace. Including military defences and quarters. (over 33 acres, 13.5 hectares...about 2.5x the size of the base of the Great Pyramid, a third the size of Disney World's Magic Kingdom) http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo...e/terrace.html
Finished the treasury. http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo.../treasury.html
Finished the main audience hall of the Apadana. (Xerxes finished the outer towers) http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo...a/apadana.html
Started his palace. http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo...us/palace.html
Fortification Tablets. "The find consisted of over 30,000 tablets, whole or fragmentary, of which 2,120 texts (44 with Aramaic glosses, see below) have already been edited and translated by Richard T. Hallock (1969; idem, 1978), while the rest remain unpublished (including many he edited and translated, although his manuscript archive has been used by several scholars, most notably Walther Hinz and Heidemarie Koch, 1987). The documents were drafted between the 13th and the 28th regnal years of Darius I, that is, from 509 to 494 B.C.E. Although all were found in Persepolis, they originated from a large area of Persis and Elam, and some were actually written in Susa. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archae...te_tablets.htm
Treasury Tablets. "They date from the 30th year of the reign of Darius I to the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes 1 (i.e., 492-458 B.C.E.). In all 753 tablets and fragments were discovered, and of these, 128 have so far been published (Cameron, 1948; idem, 1958; idem, 1965)."

Ecbatana: "European visitors to Hamadân in the 19th century describe Persepolis-style column bases, fragments of ancient structures used in later buildings, and jumbles of stone blocks in the Alûsjerd river (Porter, II, p. 115; Morier, pp. 267-68; Flandin, p. 387) ... The 1923 trove included two small foundation tablets, one silver and the other gold, belonging to Darius I (521-485 B.C.E.) with trilingual inscriptions recording the construction of palaces in Ecbatana (Kent, Old Persian, pp. 111-12, 147) ... It is reported that a stretch of the wall of Darius' palace has long been exposed on the northern side of the Tell in the present Qal´a-ye Ūâh Dârâb quarter (Geographical Division, p. 7) ... In 521 B.C.E., Darius the Great remained there until the Median pretender Fravartiš (Phraortes) was captured and returned to the city for mutilation and execution (DB 2.76 ff.). Achaemenid expansion of the royal complex is attested by the foundation tablets of Darius I ... http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Geography/ecbatana.htm

Built his tomb, Naqsh-i Rostam. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archae...aqshrustam.htm

Bolaghi Valley: "Previous findings in Area No. 34 as well as chronological studies conducted on the site together with the architectural style applied to the discovered plinths suggest this palace to have been one that belonged to the early Achaemenid dynastic period, particularly to the reign of Darius the Great." http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2007/F...-02-palace.htm

Bardak Siah: "Bardak Siah was discovered in 1977 when aerial images of Dashtestan revealed the existence of architectural remains in the area. The ruins were later confirmed to have been a palace, called Bardak Siah, built by the Achaemenid Emperor, Darius the Great. The palace resembles Apadana of Persepolis and has 36 columns, 16 of which were found during the first season of excavation along with a number of inscriptions and bas-reliefs." http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/D...03-12-tree.htm

Hekmataneh hill: "The monuments and artefacts discovered from Hekmataneh Hill gold plaques which date back to Aryans, Darius the Great and Darius II, silver plaque dating back to Darius the Great, a fragment of a silver dish which dates back to Xerxes, plates and silver cups from Artaxerxes I and the stand of a stone pillar which holds the name of Artaxerxes II along with a lot of jewellery." http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2002/June2003/12-06.htm

Tal-e Takht: “During the reign of Darius the Great in addition to Persepolis Palace in Marvdasht, some other constructions were performed in Pasargadae archeological site such as changing the usage of Tal-e Takht in the northern part of Pasargadae from a ceremonial building to a strong and giant fortress spanning over a two hectares area,” http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/N...2006/01-11.htm

Codified Egyptian Law. "In order to regain the support of the powerful priestly class, Darius I, the Great (522-486 B.C.E.) revoked Cambyses' decree. Diodorus (3.89 ff.) reported that Darius was the sixth and last lawmaker for Egypt; according to Demotic papyrus no. 215, in the third year of his reign he ordered his satrap in Egypt, known in Greek as Ariandes, to bring together wise men among the soldiers, priests, and scribes, in order to codify the legal system that had been in use until the year 44 of Amasis (ca. 526 B.C.E.). The laws were to be transcribed on papyrus in both Demotic and Aramaic, so that the satraps and their officials, mainly Persians and Babylonians, would have a legal guide in both the official language of the empire and the language of local administration (Bresciani, 1958, pp. 153-55)." http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Histor...enid_egypt.htm

"Light is thrown upon the religious policy of Darius by the inscription of Uzaḥor, chief priest of the goddess Neit in the Egyptian city Sais. Uzaḥor was summoned to Elam (Susa) by Darius, and was fully empowered to restore the Hierogrammatic College (the House of Life), for which institution he trained many children. Darius himself went to Egypt and showed such deep interest in the institutions of the land that the Egyptian priesthood regarded him as the last great lawgiver of Egypt (Diodorus, i. 95; compare Herodotus, ii. 110)." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...2&letter=D#176

Repaired and completed the Suez Canal. Visited Egypt, for the second time (visits are about 20 years apart), for the opening ceremonies. "Meanwhile, Darius was occupied with his building programs in Persepolis, Susa, Egypt, and elsewhere (Hinz, 1976, pp. 177-82, 206-18, 235-42). He had linked the Nile to the Red Sea by means of a canal running from modern Zaqâzîq in the eastern Delta through Wâdî Tûmelât and the lakes Bohayrat al-Temsâh and Buhayrat al-Morra near modern Suez (Hinz, 1975b; Tuplin, 1991). In 497 he again traveled to Egypt, "opened" his "Suez canal" amid great fanfare, executed Aryandes for treason, erected several commemorative monuments, and returned to Persia, where he found that the codification of Egyptian law had been completed (Bresciani, p. 508); a statue of Darius in Egyptian style, found at Susa (EIr. II, p. 575 fig. 40), reflects the influence of this journey." http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Histor...rius_great.htm

Ghueita Temple: "No definite epigraphic evidence of any ruler prior to Darius I is thus far known at Ghueita Temple, and the extant decoration of the rear central sanctuary belongs to the Persian Period." http://www.yale.edu/egyptology/gebel_rear_chamber.htm

Hibis Temple: "The earliest extant parts of Hibis Temple date to the reign of the Persian ruler Darius I, although it was probably begun during the Dynasty XXVI reigns of Psamtek II, Apries and Amasis II, or built on the site of an even earlier structure for which foundations were found by Winlock." http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/deserts/...rga/hibis.html

Serapeum: "Darius I was responsible for some important work at the Serapeum. The first Apis burial occurred in year four of his reign. The entrance hall was enlarged to accommodate the burial. The next bull died in year 31 of Darius reign, which resulted in some major engin-eering to accommodate such a large sarcophagus, including the creation of a new entrance passage." http://home.comcast.net/~hebsed/dodson.htm

MARRIED ATOSSA, DAUGHTER OF CYRUS, WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIED TO HER HALF-BROTHER, CAMBYSES. THEY HAD XERXES...AFTER HE WAS KING. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/atossa/atossa.php

Fixed satraps, taxes, and annual tributes. http://www.livius.org/da-dd/darius/darius_i_t08.html

A number of campaigns (after the civil war) to explain away... in India (518-515 BCE), Scythia (513-512 BCE), Thrace (512-510 BCE), Cyclades (501 BCE), Ionian Revolt (499-493 BCE), Ionia-Macedon (492-491 BCE), Marathon (491-490 BCE) http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancie.../camp_frm.html

He spent the first few years quelling a civil war. He ended up in Egypt. So, you're asking could it have been done in 3 years? The canal is some 80 km long! And, he didn't return, for the opening ceremonies, until some 20 years later. You tell me. You're the one asserting constructions "should take" a certain amount of time, instead of letting history tell us how long they "did take". You prove how long these constructions "should take".

The Persepolis terrace is 33 freaking acres big, very high, in some places, and carved out of the mountain, in others. You tell me how you could plan, and complete, just that, in 3 years. He fully completed a palace and Apadana, at his first capital, Susa. Show me, at least, one archaeologist's writings that back up your assertions. Just one.

Susa (smaller terrace, palace, apadana); Persepolis (terrace, treasury, audience hall of apadana, and started palace); roads, with post & guard stations; Suez canal; Pasargadae fortress; temple of Amun, Hibis;

Unbelievable. See the little dots. Are you grasping the size of it?



It also had fortifications. http://www.persepolis3d.com/structur.htm#

You seriously wouldn't call a terrace that's a third the size of the Magic Kingdom, with fortified walls and towers, extensive building? Are you using ancient standards, modern standards, biblical standards?

Highlights in the History of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: http://www.templemount.org/history.htm

7 years, just for a temple?

So...minus the 15 year delay...59 years, just for a temple?

Another 46 years?! What the...?

Maybe a Christian version, might be more accurate. http://www.biblestudy.org/biblepic/secdtemp.html

Errr...535 + 65 = 600 years! Crikey! Oh wait...should I still subtract 15 years? lol

Just what standards are you using? What PROOF can you provide as to how long it actually took...not "should have" taken?

Prove it's a two year investment. Put up, or shut up. The historical evidence, and archaeologists don't disagree, shows it was an ongoing construction continuing for over a hundred years.

And, was still under construction, when it was destroyed... unfinished Army road http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo...army_road.html ; unfinished gate http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo...gate/gate.html (started by Artexerxes III, continued by Artexerxes IV and Darius III, and still not done...WTF?! 10-28 years, Just for a gate, and after your timeline is in "sync", no less). Explain that.

Oh really? Based on what? Who's reign are you comparing it to?

Are you serious? You don't get much more agressive than Alexander, and it took him 12 years, to fight his way to India.

"Should have been"? That's not how history works. We're supposed to let history tell us what it was, not make history what think it "should have been".

Holy crap! It didn't make reference to him being the "son of" Cambyses. Cambyses wasn't Darius' father.

"The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides"

See? You're pretending that they didn't already have an idea of the timeline, when the quote specifically states he's comparing accounts against some known "chronological tables", and thinks Thucydides is the most reliable account.

Prove it! Oh right, you can't...they did too good a job.

If you're moving ALL history then Plato, and "The Delian Problem", should get moved too, fixing nothing. Who is it, that links Plato and the Delian Problem, to the same year anyway?

It seems ludicrous to assume that Persians went and made up decades of accounting, and other BS documents, just to extend Darius' reign, for some unknown reason. It's ludicrous to just assume that a Persian king would make up a story about his own murder, so he could become his own son, dispose of his brother/son, and still share the same timeline as his son. All, just so you can make the timeline fit into your preconceived notion of where it's supposed to fit. It might be more of a sanity call.

Nebuchadrezzar II (605-562)
Amel-Marduk (562-560)
Neriglissar (559-555)
Nabonidus (555-538, when Babylon fell to Cyrus)
Cyrus II (559-530)
605 - 23 - 70 = 512 BCE

"But I know this" ...

"it is clear who Nehemiah is at Persepolis with Artaxerxes"

If that's Nehemiah, in the relief, then yes it is clear...



"Another gate. In the gate, the king is sitting on a throne. Behind him is a servant with a fly-whisk."

Nehemiah, the second most powerful person in the Persian Empire, is actually just Artaxerxes I's fly swatting servant?

Show me the Plato reference. Is it a document that's meant to be a history, or just a story?

It wouldn't matter, if he was real, or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedo_of_Elis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Life

The lives don't mesh, on any level. A toy boy slave, from Elis, landing in Athens, a few years before Socrates' death, then returning to Elis, after Socrates' death, doesn't mesh with the life of Aristotle, at all.

Thucydides, year 1:
Thucydides, year 2:
1. Everyone's pissed at Pericles in the summer of year 1; 2. an eclipse in the summer of year 1; 3. the Athenians sending out 130 ships in the summer of year #1; 4. a plague, that had broken out previous to the beginning of summer #2. When he speeks of "that year", he may have been speeking of the year leading up to summer #2.


Plutarch, year 1:
1. Everyone's pissed at Pericles in the summer of year 1; 2. an eclipse in the summer of year 1; 3. the Athenians send out 150 ships in the summer of year 1; 4. a plague had broken out in year 1


So, basically, you want to rewrite history, because one describes the effects of the plague, as it starts, and the other describes the effects of the plague after it has started...even though both clearly state the eclipse is in the summer of the first year.

Extensive: very large in quality or size

The terrace of Persepolis, alone, is extensive...you just don't understand that fact. Repairing and completing an 80+ km canal, alone, is extensive...you just don't understand that fact. Even building a 2 hectare fortress (about the same area covered as Red Square, or Silbury Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbury_Hill ) could be considered extensive...you just don't understand that fact.

You are the one that needs to show, against all apparent evidence, that it only took 2 years. And, provide a source.


Peace

Larsguy47

Thanks, 3DJ for your research. Much appreciated.


Sorry, I thought you were keeping up. I had already stated that based on the Delian Problem Plato needed to be at least 20-25 years of age when the war started. So when I redated the war from 431BCE to 403 BCE, then Plato would have been 25 years of age. So no, I don't move Plato or Aristotle, but on a case by case basis others might have adjusted dating.

Because they are the right age with the redating so they didn't have to move. Right now Plato is being consulted 3 years before he was born. Now that strikes me as not only rather odd, but impossible. But I suppose that works for you? Fine.


No I don't. I move them selectively. I told you Aristotle and Socrates become lovers didn't I? I said that Phaedo was really Aristotle, right? That assumes they knew each other until Phaedo was 18-19. Each adjustment is a case-by-case basis.

Thanks fo the historical references for Darius, much appreciated.


Susa: Built a terrace, palace, and Apadana, minimum. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/susa/susa.php

Thanks for this reference, but it doesn't say Darius built anything but the palace, which I'm assuring is associated with the palace. That palace was completed in two years. He also apparently also built a palace for Xerxes at Babylon that was completed after two years. You didn't happen to see that reference did you?

But I did find this, THANKS:

By the favor of Ahuramazda, my father Hystaspes and Arsames my grandfather - these both were living when Ahuramazda made me king in this earth.

After Darius died, his father was still alive and visited his tomb at Naqushi-Rustam. That sort of pushes his age on up there if Darius ruled for 36 years. Just thought I'd mention it.

Persepolis:
Built/carved a 135000 square metre, terrace. Including military defences and quarters. (over 33 acres, 13.5 hectares...about 2.5x the size of the base of the Great Pyramid, a third the size of Disney World's Magic Kingdom) http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo...e/terrace.html
Finished the treasury. [url]

Thanks, but Darius also had all the money in the world and as much staff from wherever he needed to build these things. Further, the only structure he finished was his own palace. He did not finish the treasury. The reference simply says he "designed" it. That is, it is known that he started several of these buildings including his palace but barely finished his own palace. That is, there is one inscription by Darius saying he built the palace but another by Xerxes that says he finished the palace for his father. I couldn't find anything on the treasury, whether he finished it or not, but only started it. Thanks for this reference.

Started his palace. http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepo...us/palace.html
Fortification Tablets. "The find consisted of over 30,000 tablets, whole or fragmentary, of which 2,120 texts (44 with Aramaic glosses, see below) have already been edited and translated by Richard T. Hallock (1969; idem, 1978), while the rest remain unpublished (including many he edited and translated, although his manuscript archive has been used by several scholars, most notably Walther Hinz and Heidemarie Koch, 1987). The documents were drafted between the 13th and the 28th regnal years of Darius I, that is, from 509 to 494 B.C.E. Although all were found in Persepolis, they originated from a large area of Persis and Elam, and some were actually written in Susa. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Archae...te_tablets.htm

None of these tablets have the name of the king on them, so it is just a presumption they belong to Darius past year 6. Further the following opinion about the tablets:

"When the first preliminary examinaion of the nearly thirty thousand tablets and tablet fragments excavated at Persepolis by Profesor Herzfeld was begun, it was rather a surprise to discover that, although most of the tablets examined were dated by month and year, none of them contained any reference to the king to whom, e.g. the eleventh, fiftteenth, twentieth, or twenty-eighth year mentioned in the datings was to be assigned.

From this ommission of the king's name in the dates it was evident that the whole group of tablets (or at least that part already examined) belong to the reign of one single king, and, since the years mentioned on the tablets range from the eleventh to the twenty-eighth, of course to one of the Persian kings whose reign lasted at least twenty-eight years... Judging merely from the fact that the forms of the signs to be found on our tablets as a rule are intermediate between those of Darius I and Artaxerxes II, it seemed to me a fair conclusion (...) that, of the three kings just mentiond, Arrtaxerxes I was probably the one to whom the tablets should ascribed.

From" The American Journal of Semitic Languages and LIteratures, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1939) pp. 301-304


Treasury Tablets. "They date from the 30th year of the reign of Darius I to the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes 1 (i.e., 492-458 B.C.E.). In all 753 tablets and fragments were discovered, and of these, 128 have so far been published (Cameron, 1948; idem, 1958; idem, 1965)."

Again, no specific names have been found on these tablets so there is no confirmation by the tablets that they came from the reign of Darius beyond year 6.

In addition, Darius was noted to have over a thousand workers working at Persepolis based on the tablets.


Bardak Siah: "Bardak Siah was discovered in 1977 when aerial images of Dashtestan revealed the existence of architectural remains in the area. The ruins were later confirmed to have been a palace, called Bardak Siah, built by the Achaemenid Emperor, Darius the Great. The palace resembles Apadana of Persepolis and has 36 columns, 16 of which were found during the first season of excavation along with a number of inscriptions and bas-reliefs." http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/D...03-12-tree.htm

Also, from this reference: “This invaluable relief which is extremely similar to Darius the Great’ relief at Persepolis could easily be stolen any time and we must think about ways to protect it,” added head of Bardak Siah excavations."

THANKS, FOR THIS REFERENCE! I was not aware of these palaces they found. Of course, it goes without saying that without critical identification that Xerxes could have built these palaces as well.


B]Tal-e Takht:[/B] “During the reign of Darius the Great in addition to Persepolis Palace in Marvdasht, some other constructions were performed in Pasargadae archeological site such as changing the usage of Tal-e Takht in the northern part of Pasargadae from a ceremonial building to a strong and giant fortress spanning over a two hectares area,” http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2006/N...2006/01-11.htm

Now this statement is in the above reference as well: "Construction of the Achaemenid fortress at Tal-e Takht started during the reign of Cyrus the Great, founder of the second Iranian dynasty, and the first Persian Empire, the Achaemenids, and was completed later during his successor, Darius the Great. Tal-e Takht, the towering stone platform that protrudes from the west side of this hump-backed hill, offers one further proof of the scale and quality of Cyrus’s building activities. Left unfinished upon Cyrus’s death in 529 BCE, this rigorously constructed palace platform provides a manifest link between the earlier Ashlar terraces at Lydian Sardis and the huge later terrace Darius chose to erect at Persepolis."

Serapeum: "Darius I was responsible for some important work at the Serapeum. The first Apis burial occurred in year four of his reign. The entrance hall was enlarged to accommodate the burial. The next bull died in year 31 of Darius reign, which resulted in some major engin-eering to accommodate such a large sarcophagus, including the creation of a new entrance passage." http://home.comcast.net/~hebsed/dodson.htm

This dating seems to be the result of application, he first bull dated to year 4 of the reign of Darius the the next 27 years later, which is assigned to the 31st rule of Darius but Darius only ruled for six years, so this would have to be confirmed further for a direct connection. But thanks for this reference!!!


MARRIED ATOSSA, DAUGHTER OF CYRUS, WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY MARRIED TO HER HALF-BROTHER, CAMBYSES. THEY HAD XERXES...AFTER HE WAS KING. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/atossa/atossa.php

This is part of the revised history. You can see from the bas-reliefs at Persepolis that begun in the 4th year of Darius that Xerxes, his younger song was already an adult when he began his rule. So this is contradicted by Persepolis and has been a problem for historians. If Xerxes wasn't born until after Darius I became king then he would have only been four years old. However, Xerxes was born the year his grandfather "Cyrus" became king which is why he was chosen king over his brothers as he became known as "Prince Xerxes" after he was born.


A number of campaigns (after the civil war) to explain away... in India (518-515 BCE), Scythia (513-512 BCE), Thrace (512-510 BCE), Cyclades (501 BCE), Ionian Revolt (499-493 BCE), Ionia-Macedon (492-491 BCE), Marathon (491-490 BCE) http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancie.../camp_frm.html

All historical sources and would have to be squeezed into his six-year rule reign. But the Sythia expedition noted by Herodotus is considered to be an illusion to Xerxes' vasion of Greece. That is, when Darius allegedly invaded Sythia the people abandoned their city and land and burned all the crops so that the Persian soldiers had no sustenance. A mass evacuation. That is considered to be a suspicious reference to the massive evacuation of Greece by the entire population when Xerxes invaded Greece. Thus the Greeks must have burned their crops as well, making it too difficult for the Persians to subsist once they did arrive there.

From your source: "Shortly after his succession and his consolidation of the empire, Darius embarked on what is commonly called the 'Scythian expedition' or the first historic attack of Asia upon Europe which he lead in person. Unfortunately we have to rely almost solely on Herodotus for our knowledge of events of this campaign."

You can't go by written history at this point at face value, especially if it contradicts the 6-year rule, but particularly not by Herodotus. But thanks for this reference!

Don't forget, Xerxes/Artaxerxes was determined to fortify Persia as well and he finished a lot of work started by Darius. Remember, even beginning with Cyrus a lot of reconstruction in the entire empire was done, such as at Jerusalem. Darius was involved in reconstruction there by the Jews and Artaxerxes was Johnny-on-the-spot after he died to finish it there. He focused first, after Darius' death, to invest in the empire and finish things and apparently did some building. So Darius may initially have started work on the canal which was then completed by Artaxerxes? I'm not sure. But he just "completed" the canal that had already been dug.



That would be an error if he only ruled for 6 years, right? So that reference would need to be confirmed. From what I've read he didn't return 20 years later but just a few years later. At any rate how long it took depended upon how many people Darius hired to be involved. If it was on the scale of Persepolis where over 1300 people were employed, three years is a long time.

Again, do we know precisely what was done? Do we know for sure that Xerxes didn't actually complete the work that Darius began? He did at Persepolis. I need to know where that reference comes from. If it's historical or an inscription. If he finished the canal before his death, however, then whatever work was done was done over a 6-year period. He was a prolific builder and started a lot of building, but every place had their own workers by the thousands. So while he was building Persepolis he was also building the temple at Jerusalem. He also had a palace built at Babylon and one at Susa, all of which could have been under construction at the same time.

But one of the references you gave me noted that I believe over 1300 people were employed to do the work. Further, was this building simply begun by Darius and completed by Xerxes? Three years of buliding by a maximal staff, with no end to resources would get a lot accomplished. Over 1000 workers working 12 hours a day (I'm just saying) 6 days a week for three years? I don't know. Funny to me, though, you haven't found yet the reference about the palace at Babylon being completed after just two years. But here it is:

A. T. Olmstead wrote in History of the Persian Empire (p. 215):"By October 23, 498, we learn that the house of the king's son [that is, of Darius' son, Xerxes] was in theprocess of erection at Babylon; no doubt this is the Darius palace in the central section that we have already described. Two years later, in a business document from near-by Borsippa, we have reference to the 'new palace' as already completed."

No. Lots of inscriptions at Persepolis indicate that Darius started these buildings but did not finish them, he did. But in that regard here's another quote:

"On page 8 of A New Inscription of Xerxes from Persepolis (1932): "The peculiar tenor of Xerxes' inscriptions at Persepolis, most of which do not distinguish between his own activity and that of his father, and the relation, just as pecular, of their buildings, which it is impossible to allocate to either Darius or Xerxes individually, have always implied a kind of coregency of Xerxes. Moreover, two sculptures at Persepolis illustrate that relation."

I said not by Darius. Apparently there are records that it began to be built in his fourth year, but perhaps it was begun before then. Nevertheless, he apparently started several of the other buildings and the overall plan but couldn't finish anything but his palace from what I've read. I'll to try confirm whether or not he completed the Treasury or not. Even so with over 1300 workers and unlimited resources it might be amazing what could be done in just 3-4 years even back then. The length of time to buld would have to be weighed against the number of workers. Further, he was building these things simultaneously in several parts of the kingdom.

However, granted that if we imagine this took longer than 6 years to build, was Darius building at Persepolis for a full 34 years and still only finished a couple of buildings, leaving the rest for Xerxes to finish? Or are we overestimating how much time it would take a thousand workers working every day to complish this over a period of years?

The second temple at Jerusalem took 22 years to build with a 2-year interruption. But it was started in the 1st of Cyrus. Darius worked on it for 4 years during his rule and then died, leaving the last six months to Xerxes.


What "proof" do you have to the contrary? I have historical references for the 6-year length of his reign from the Bible. I have astronomical recalculation for the battle of Marathon to 434BCE (unless you want Plato consulting 3 years before he was born), and that matches the 6th year of Darius when 455BCE is dated to the 1st of Cyrus. The VAT4956 confirms the current dating is fabricated and confirms the correct dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar is 511BCE. Now when I tell you that, don't you think it is rather "convenient" or too "coincidental" that the two "errors" in this test just happen to point to the same year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar as the Bible does?


It is an estimated based upon two references. One, above, where a palace built in Babylon was completed after just two years. And a reference that he began Persepolis in his 4th year, though he might have begun the foundation earlier. So I can't really say just a "two year" investment for Persepolis overall. But if he didn't start the buildings until his 4th year and he died in his 6th year, that's just a two-year investment based upon the time other palaces presumably of another nature were being completed. From what I've read, there's only evidence that he barely finished his palace. I'll have to get a quote regarding that and whether it is confirmed he completed the Treasury or not. But it may have taken two years or less to build those structures, apparently. He had thousands of workers and all the money in the world.

Gladly. It wasn't begun anytime near the time of Darius and Xerxes/Artaxerxes or even after the rule of Darius III. This was a later project, probably when Persia was much poorer, that began but was not finished. This might be because the center of government had moved elsewhere from Persepolis and this was a back-burner project. We know that even the Treasury was used for storage, I believe after some time, so the initial use of the city had been abandoned. They say that none of the steps at Persepolis are worn. Over time, old building steps over the years become worn down. But at Persepolis that's not the case, indicating few people were there on a regular basis.


I already told you, Thucydides is the person who quotes the letter from Themistocles. So Thucydides' source is the person who helped fabricate the lie. In the meantime, the precise description of who he went to is not Araxerxes but XERXES. This is how we find out what happened! That LETTER. That's the mechanism. The Greeks were so shocked that their favorite (now exiled) general Themistocles who saved their necks during Xerxes' invasion was now becoming Medized, and going over to the side of the Medes, that they barely noticed this was the first news they'd heard that Xerxes had died and his son "Artaxerxes" was on the throne. Themistocles was the most effect user of written propaganda and lies ever in anciet history. He wrote a message to opposing forces on a rock to create suspicions and wrote a letter to Artaxerxes while he was deciding when to attack at Salamis to trick him into sealing off the escape of some of the non-Athenians who were about to back out and go protect their own countries. He himself got ostracized because of something found in some letter that incriminated him. This was his way to get back by writing his own lie and having Greece believe it. It worked. So Thucydides cannot be used as a counter witness to the lie since he is not confirming what was going on in Persia but only the letter Themistocles sent. In the meantime many other historians including a detailed account say he went to Xerxes.

I know, how convenient for me!

The contradiction between historians is all I need to prove. If you want to get in there and decide which is the best reference be my guest. But there are historians on both sides. Somebody is lying.


They didn't! And it's not an UNKNOWN reason. After Xerxes fled from Greece he became a laughingstock in Greece and there was a faction in Greece anxious to go to war and try to get revenge. So the whole purpose of this scam was to prevent a war. To pretend that he had died and now another king was ruling. Themistocles became a great man in Persia after this. So there was a very good reason. But this type of lie, involving a new generation, required adjusting the chronology at some point to try and make it REAL. It's like the CIA. We pay them to lie and lie well to our enemies and sometimes they have to fabricate things to make the lie more believable. So to make Darius a generation older, they just added 30 years to his 6-year rule. They changed all the pertinent Babylonian documents, removing 26 years of NB kingship history. That resulted in the contradictions between NB history and the Bible that we are seeing. I'm simply showing you how and why. IT WAS POLITICAL.


Not if it involved national security! And not if it would secure Themistocle's position in Persia. It was certainly the brainchild of Themistocles who knew he could get away with it. He knew the Greeks. He was the wisest of them and knew about how gullible they were about things in private letters. If push came to shove, even Persepolis hinted there were three different kings when there were only two since Xerxes and Darius are seen in the older buildings and "Artaxerxes" in the new. It's not ludicrous, but smart politics. It just looks involved now since we're focussed on the chronology, but it took very little to revise records, plus at that time the Persians controlled all ancient history from Babylon to Egypt. So at first it was to protect his life, later it was to protect the secret and his reputation.

NOT ME. I'm not publishing that Plato was consulted 3 years before he was born. I don't have dozens of historians who can't figure out who was ruling when Themistocles went over to Persia. But you know something is wrong.

Yes, that would be Nehemiah.

Now, now, now, be nice! It's a servant with fly whisk in what kind of attire? Jewish. Yes. And a eunuch? Yes. And he's holding what? Wow! A Cuptowel! Therefore his badge of office indicates what, now? Oh, yes! He's the cupbearer! The Jewish, eunuch, cupbearer who feeds the king his food after first tasting it, and gives the king his drink after first sipping and all that personal stuff. He has personal access to the king. He must be trusted. And so here, he is following behind the king with a fly whisk. It's a great position of honor to be shown this way.

Yes. He personally served the king his food and drink. But in that position he also advised the king. That's how they did things. You know, our mothers cook food for the family and feed us. That sort of like a servant, but moms has a position of great honor in the household. They take care of us when we're sick and wipe the sweat off our brows, feed us medicine. Plus Jewish rumor shows Nehemiah had a huge crush on the king. I guess he was kinda handsome. Anyway, when he asked the king, after getting him "happy" with wine to be released to go help his people, the Jewish folklore version says he was sitting on his lap and "batting his eyes" at the king. So the folkloric rumor was that he was in love with the king, the obvious basis for the Book of Esther fable, which is just an adaptation of Nehemiah's history where he becomes both Esther and Mordecai; "Marduka" was his Babylonian name.

The Delian Problem


It's because that part isn't true. Socrates was still alive when he was born. But you know, it will be easy to find more contradictions now and look into all the intermingling lives. Starting with Xenophon who claims not only that he attended the famous Symposium (which is doubted because he would have been only 8 years old) but that he also knew Socrates when he was a youth.


Thucydides, year 1:


They do not. You missed it. The war begins in the summer. Pericles herds everybody into the city and a plague breaks out and ravages everybody. After that he tries to save face by sailing out and the eclipse happens and delays him. So in Thucydides this happens in year one, the same year the war begins.

The contradiction is with when the plague broke out and when Themistocles sailed out. At the beginning of chapter VII it says, "Such was the funeral that took place during this winter, with which the first year of the war came to an end. Now the eclipse is already over in chapter 1. And yes, it does occur in year 1 of the war. But the plague hasn't broken out yet. It's not until this next summer the plague breaks out. "For the plague broke out so soon as the Peloponnesians invaded Attica." Then we find the same story about how Pericles delayed in sailing out. "But Pericles, who was still general, held the same opinion as in the former invasion, and would not let the Athenians march out against them. However, while they were still in the plain and had not yet enered the paralian land, he had prepared an armament of a hundred ships for the Peloponnese and when all was ready put out to sea."

So the BASICS, Pericles doesn't engage the Spartans at first, people herd into the city the very first year of the war. It's summertime. A plague breaks out. Pericles finally sails out after the plague breaks out and this eclipse occurs. So the sailing out and the plague are related. But in Thucydides the eclipse happens during the previous summer, before the plague breaks out.

So one suspicion is is that while a good otherwise substitute eclipse was found during the 1st year of the Olympic cycle in 431 BCE to match the 402BCE eclipse, it occurred in the summer instead of in the winter. Therefore, a lot of the events that had to happen that summer, including the plague, before Pericles sailed out and the eclipse was seen, had to be moved to the next year, though the eclipse had to occur in the summer. See? There's no time for the plague to break out the first year and then Pericles sail out after the plague broke out because it took more than a month for those developments and this new eclipse happens in August, early August in fact, August 3rd.

Get it? You can't have the story of Pericles and the plague breaking out and him delaying until thousands have died before he finally sails, ravaged with the plague himself. That doesn't happen in just a month and the historians didn't try to make it happen in a month. So they just mention their mid-summer eclipse and move the plague and sailing of Pericles afterwards to the following year.

But it doesn't work. It appears that the people herded into the city at the very beginning of the war, not engaging the enemy and the plague breaks out that very first summer, not the second summer. Then after it takes hold and ravages everybody, he finally sails out in January that winter when the total eclipse happens. So there's enough time if the eclipse happens in the winter for the plague to break out the first year when it needs to. But there is not enough time if the eclipse happens in the summer.

BUT I'm sure this little detail means nothing to you. Just a minor little gloss, right? Why be a stickler for detail? The CONTRADICTIONS are there, the clues are there. You're just refusing to pick them up.

Yes, thanks for the references. But all I have is UNFINISHED PERSEPOLIS and Nehemiah with Darius as cupbearer suggesting he died in his sixth year. Also Behistun. NOW YOU'RE AN EXPERT ON DARIUS! You see how much building he did and wanted to do. You see he was paranoid about history, writing a lot of things in three languages! Yet at Behistun he only records the first three years of his long 36 year rule? Did he have a personality change? Or did he just die?

And don't forget, yes I'm claiming he has only a 2-3 year investment at Persepolis, but you're claiming a 34-year investment and still couldn't finish it. Now why is it that since I want to reduce his rule that a city he started was left incomplete with buildings started that had to be finished by Xerxes?

So you're arguing it took time for these things, and I'm saying, yeah, and we see he didn't finish most of what he started.

Anyway, thanks for the RESEARCH. That was fun and I learned some things!

Lars.

LG47

Weltall

How many times do we have to point out that we don't accept the Delian Problem as factual? It was made up hundreds of years later to make Plato look good by someone who wasn't being careful with dates. Without that, there is no problem.
Your 'cases' rely on your unsupported assumptions. Produce this damn book of yours. I promise that I'm not a Man in Black or a member of the Illuminati seeking to cover up this historical conspiracy.
Not that they'll change your position since you've convinced yourself that you're right no matter what the evidence shows.
I rest my case. You are convinced that your six-year rule is correct and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.Can we take this as an admission that you don't know how to do actual research of your own? I doubt you've learnt anything seeing as you keep bringing up discredited arguments ad nauseum.

Larsguy47

That's what you're saying now, because I've pointed out the discrepancy. However, if he was really 25 when the war began, which was actually in 403BCE, then this would explain where the story came from. It's just one of the "loose ends" that substantiate there was a revision in that direction.

"Unsupported" in your mind because you haven't seen all the research, you haven't worked out all the astronomical events, and likely because you don't understand Biblical chronology and how specific it is. Now it is easy to sidestep practically every single reference if you want to as fabricated. I do the same with ones that contradict the original chronology. So all I can do is point out to you how many contradictions there are and leave it up to you to think that there's only one clear and absolute chronology with no revisions to be concerned over. Ktessias says that Cyrus was the son-in-law of Astyages; Herodotus and Xenophon claims he was his grandson. Whose right? Josephus says the last deported Jews were in exile a full 70 years before they returned, that is 70 years from year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. That is not supported by the current chronology. Where did he get those numbers/ You can make up a story that works for you. But it doesn't change the contradiction. What I do is test the contradictions. Thus the two "errors" in the VAT4956 dating year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE are contrasted with the 455BCE dating for the 1st of Cyrus and Josephus' report that the 70 years began in year 23. Based on that, year 23 falls in 525BCE, dated either by the VAT4956 511 BCE dating or the Bible. So I have harmony. I have harmony, not the rest of the world who do not believe the Bible.

Of course they won't change my position, I have too much information. The EVIDENCE is on MY side. Have you seen this chart?



Look at it. It's not put out by the Watchtower. It's a scientific reading on the RC14 testing they use to date the destructive level for Rehov City IV. Do you see what date it is pointing to for "relative probability"? That SCIENCE. Science is on my side! You don't want to pay attention? Be my guest. Do you know agrees with me? Dame Kathleen Kenyon! She says based on her best estimates that Jericho fell at the hands of the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE. My date? 1346BCE! Shishak's invasion falls within the range of 918-823BCE for 94.5% "relative probability". 925 BCE is completely outside that range. My date? 871BCE. It's right in the middle of that range. So by all means, pay no attention. I have all the proof I need.

I don't have to. I didn't make it up. I got it out of a historical record. Here it is:

EZRA 6:14 And the older men of the Jews were building and making progress under the prophesying of Hag´gai the prophet and Zech·a·ri´ah the grandson of Id´do, and they built and finished [it] due to the order of the God of Israel and due to the order of Cyrus and Da·ri´us and Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia. 15 And they completed this house by the third day of the lunar month A´dar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign of Da·ri´us the king."

If you want to. You have your own opinion on these things. If you see I'm not going to change my mind, you shouldn't argue with me. If you want others not to be persuaded by my arguments then do like some others and post your references. You can't just think: Hey, I don't believe in the Bible so it must be wrong for everybody. Since I can't get them to believe that Plato should have been able to be consulted three years before he was born I guess they're not that smart.

It's impossible to "discredit me" since I'm only telling you about discrepancies. The historians who couldn't figure out who was ruling, Xerxes or Artaxerxes when Themistocles fled there, for instance. It's an ancient controversy. But do you have an opinion on that? Have you asked WHY is this particular part of history so confusing?

Maybe that's all my research was for. Me being reassured of my own beliefs? That works for me. But I guess everybody else is doing the same thing.

Cheers,
LG47

-Jay-

Larsguy47, you little dickens, you! Look at you going all formal with the titles there! I wonder who pointed that out to you?

Everyone here has seen this chart by now, and everyone has seen your interpretation get shredded. Move along. Nothing to see here.

regards,

NinJay

Larsguy47

Oh sure, you'd like me to move on when this chart destroys Finkelstein and Mazar's dating. Finkelstein needs dates as low as 835BCE for the destruction of level City IV. I think he has a reference from somewhere proving that Hazeal was on a campaign around that time. But at least Finkelstein is honest and consistent. He knows that 925BCE is way out of range. 871BCE doesn't suit him well as the obvious "peak dating" (i.e. where the peak goes all the way up to near .95-99 "relative dating" level on the chart. For him to get a dating of 835BCE, he'd have to be near the fringe of this dated sample.

However, he is only confused by using the 763BCE eclipse for dating Shishak's invasion to 925BCE. Which I agree with him, does not match the lower dating. Even the extended range of the 95.4% probability between 918-823BCE does not include 925BCE. It does include c. 835 BCE which calculates out at about 40% "relative probability" range. Dates as has as 95+% "relativative probability" occurs for dates between 874-867BCE approximately.




Arriving at c. 871BCE for the correct dating for Shishak can be done FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS. 871 BCE is midrange for the stated 95.4% probability range:

1. Via Kathleen Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325BCE, you can date the Exodus between 1390-1326BCE. This dates year 4 of Solomon from 910-885BCE, and his 39th year, the year of Shishak's invasion, between 875-850 BCE.

2. Via Manetho and the KTU 1.78 eclipse. This is rather "optional", but Manetho gives year 17 as the year Joseph became vizier which allows us to date Jacob's arrival in Egypt in his 25th year. If we calculate down 215 years to the Exodus it falls in the 1st of Akhenaten. We then simply use a common application (i.e. David Rohl) of this eclipse reference to year 12 of Akhhenaten. The eclipse dates to 1375BCE which dates year 1 to 1386BCE. 1386BCE gives you a fixed date for year 4 of Solomon to 906CE, which dates Solomon's 39th year and Shishak's invasion to year 871BCE.

3. Based upon astronomical texts such as the VAT4956 with double dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE, the dating for the NB Period can be corrected by 57 years. This transfers to the Assyrian Period which gets fix-dated by the 709BCE solar eclipse, a predictable eclipse in Assyria and also one using the standard Babylonian dating for the first month of the year after the spring equinox. Using 709BCE rather than 763BCE thus downdates Shishak's invasion from 925BCE to 871BCE, which is in line with the highest "relative probability" dates in the chart.

4. Finally, based upon Biblical chronology and the JUBILEE DATING method you can use either 455BCE for the 1st of Cyrus as the 20th year of the Jubilee cycle, or 1947 as the 69th jubilee of a cycle of jubilees. The entire jubilee period is 70 x 40 = 3430 years. The Exodus is 19 jubilees earlier than 455BCE and thus 931 years earlier which is 1386BCE. Or you can use 1947, just add 49 years to get to the end of the jubilee period in 1996 then calculate back to the beginning of that period in 1435BCE. The first jubilee would be the Exodus 49 years later in 1386 BCE.

As you can see the KTU 1.78 astrotext when applied gives you a fixed date that matches the fixed date based upon 1947. All the above methods, though, align with the RC14 dating for the fall of Rehov, City IV, assigned to Shishak's invasion archaeologically.

Thus this is an amazing confirmation of Bible chronology and Bible truth and a slap in the face of the revised chronology which misdates Shishak's invasion to 925BCE and further has some archaeologists, like Israel Finkelstein, thinking that lots of Bilblical revisionism took place or that Solomon didn't build the palaces he claimed. But the correct dating confirms, indeed, Solomon did bruilt those palaces.

LG47

3DJay

Nope. What's the source of the "legend"? Won't respond to anything else, till you find one. I mean, you want to rewrite history, over it, you must have a solid source, right?


Peace

Larsguy47

The SOURCE of the legend apparently is the actual event that actually happened and got repeated. Is that what you mean? That would be the "source" of the legend.

If you want to know the oldest reference or what writing mentions it I think I can hunt that down. But then... so could you. "The Delian Problem" is covered in a lot of places. But since I'm the one using I may as well hunt it down. But let me know what you find out on your own!

LG47

Wow! Thanks, I found it pretty quick:

Doubling the cube also known as the Delianproblem. This is described by Plutarch centuriesafter the fact and so may be highly embellishedbut probably based on a splinter of truth. Plutarchhas Plato solving the problem of to double the cu-bical altar at Delos, the problem being that it isdifficult to construct a new cube with exactly twicethe volume as the old cube. Perhaps this muchis true—there was a problem of doubling the cubethat Plato had something to do with. At any rate,the problem of doubling a cube predates Plato.Actually, there’s a much older story that of thesame type about Minos and a tomb to Glaucus.We can anlyze this with modern methods to seejust what the problem was. Suppose the old cubewas an a × a × a cube and the new cube is to be ab × b × b cube. Then it is required that b3= 2a3,hence b = a3√a, so the ratio b/a needs to be equalto3√2. Thus, the problem is to lengthen the side aby a factor of3√2 to construct b.Numerically, that could be done by computing3√2 approximately:3√2 = 1.25992....

But Plutarch wrote this story to emphasize that Plato (whomhe was writing about) required an exact geomet-ric construction. By the time of Plato (429–347),the geometers, for instance Hippocrates of Chios(fifth century B.C.E.), had developed formal math-ematics and Plato was a very influential proponentof formal mathematics. The key feature of formalmathematics is formal proofs In general, a proof of astatement is a convincing argument that the state-ment is true. Formal mathematics goes further inrequiring that the proofs are logical arguments that leave no room for doubt."

3DJay

Yes, what's the oldest known reference to this "legend"? Who first wrote that Plato was consulted?

Nope, I can't find it.


Peace

3DJay

Well, that's not quite the source, either. But, you're getting warmer. The Plutarch book, that actually tells the account, would be even warmer. Do you know which book?

I can't find it. I'm assuming you already know, and helping me find the answers, isn't any trouble for you. You must know the account, intimately. I mean, you want to rewrite history because of it, and nobody would want to rewrite history based on a rumor...hahaha...that'd be silly.

There's no source, before Plutarch?


Peace