Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 04-06-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

You missed the point.

No, you missed it.

Stacking a bunch of claims together and then saying, "prove me wrong" is not research.

Quote:

For instance. I make this preposterous claim that Xerxes and Artaxerxes are the same person. If you try to disprove this,

I don't have to disprove it. It's your claim; your job to prove that it's true.

Quote:

Or you might go to the Bible hoping to find a confirmation to the contrary,

Why would I do that? That is circular reasoning - just because you practice it in your arguments does not mean that other people have the same flaw.

Quote:

And on and on. That's how I discovered the details of the conspiracy. I first assessed what the Bible's chronology was and then tried to disprove it and it led me to the above research.

Except that when you're asked for proof of the above (so-called) research, you can't provide it. You revert back to repeating your claim.

Try as hard as you like - but the burden of proof is still on your back.

RED DAVE · 04-06-2007, 06:25 PM

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

I don't want to produce the evidence. I found the reference in a book and then matched the dating! The eclipse of 402BCE redates the PPW beginning in 403BCE.

Sigh. Wrong eclipse, but we've been through this before. Now we'll hear the stuff about annular elipses, etc. Doesn't cut Lars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponessian_War

Everything that comes after is nonsense because there is no reason to redate the entire Peloponnesian War because you don't like the eclipse that's been accepted by all recognized scholarship.

By the way, we'd like to see that famous book you keep talking about.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Socrates was 32 years old when the war began so must have been born in 435BCE.

Socrates was born ca. 470.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Phaedo was 18-19 when Socrates died.

Socrates died ca. 399.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

If Socrates died at 69 or 70 then it means Phaedo would have been born in 384BCE, the same year Aristotle was born.

Phaedo was born ca. 400.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedo_of_Elis

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Interesting.

Incorrect.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

But a coincidence? Maybe. Well if the two knew each other one would think something would have survived to support that. For instance, did Aristotle ever mention him and if so, is there something in the context of those quotes that would confirm they were lovers? Aristotles mentions Socrates over 80 times in his works!! And guess what, you can tell by the reference that he presumed his readers knew Socrates. So Socrates was definitely a contemporary of Plato. Further it is clear Aristotle was still very much in love with Socrates.

Bull-double-shit. Socrates was the greatest philosopher of his time. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, who was Socrates’s pupil, so of course he mentions him. And of course Aristotle’s readers knew him. We still know Socrates 2500 years later.

We would like to see some evidence that Aristotle was in love with Socrates. The references should be interesting because Socrates was dead 18 years when Aristotle was born.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

But fare more interesting than that, if I found this in a book, it means it's a deep dark secret in some scholarly circles; somebody already knows about this or has heard the rumor they knew each other and were lovers.

You have never produced the slightest evidence that this book exists. We will have to presume it doesn’t until you do so.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

IFurther, don't you think that Socrates, who allegedly (but didn't) was the teacher of Plato

Considering that Socrates appears in every one of Plato’s dialogs, and there are contemporary sources, we shall have to presume that Socrates was Plato’s teacher.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

If that if he personally took a lover and mentored him that he would have amounted to something? Compare that with what the substitute "Phaedo" character became compared to Aristotle!

Phaedo weren’t no Aristotle, but he is attested to have been a philosopher.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

IFurthermore, Xenophon, Aristotle and Plato become prominent historical icons, but if they destroyed everybody else's work, leaving only their own preserved, that was inevitable! The only Greek historian's work that survives in toto is one: Xenophon!

There is no documentation whatsoever for X, A and P destroying anyone’s work.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

If The only question is, did Xenophon know any Persians and was he in any way focussed on Persian history? Answer: Yes! He wrote Cyropaedia, about the life of Cyrus.

Now, Dave, here's where being a little smart, not so smart or really smart comes in. Why are the most two prominent Greek historians, Herodotus and Xenophon, so focussed on PERSIAN HISTORY?

Because the major events of their time were the Persian Wars.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

If It's because if you have to CHANGE history, you have to publish a new version of history. You can't merely destroy the records. Since the Persians were the ones changing their history, Persian history becomes the focus.

No evidence at all, at all.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Thus Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon became famous in later times because they manipulated history. Socrates servives because Plato and Xenophon wanted his "dialogues" preserved. But his actual history had to be chucked since he likely mentioned too many historical characters known to be related to later times.

Worse and worse. No evidence at all. Where are the little green men who helped them do all this?

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

IInto this context we put "The Delian Problem" where Plato is consulted to help out with the Peloponnesian War. You see, you can't change folklore that easily and this was a popular story. They mention Plato and 431BCE in the same text and don't realize Plato wasn't born yet!!!

There is one source, 250 years after the fact.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

If And yet you come here, proposing to resolve this! Did you write the encyclopeadia to tell them they have the wrong Plato?

Oh, I forgot, your EXCUSE and your own acceptance of that explanation has "refuted" everything else.

That’s right.
From Larsguy47:

Quote:

So, no, I'm not giving up all my sources and therefore I can't blame you for not accepting this as fact. But I don't need you too, it can remain a "possibility". It's only a detail I happen to know about that you'd have to investigate anyway (not the love affair but Aristotle being alive while Socrates was) once you correct the chronology.

Yea, verily, amen.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

IWhen it comes to revisionism, the closest you get sometimes is just the suspicion and "loose ends", like the Delian Problem. But that's all you need to dismiss the history as potentially revised.

So as I said, you can't prove Aristotle and Socrates were not lovers or that Xenophon wasn't paid by the Persians to revise Greek history. You can't. You can't PROVE that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were two different kings. You can't.

Using the normal, standard, non-fruitcake definition, yes I can.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

I can prove they were by the Bible's reference though.

Well, I guess that settles it: a 2000+ year old religious scrap book can’t be wrong

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

Even so, if I gave you my reference for Socrates and Aristotle being lovers, you still might not accept it and claim it is unfounded like some people do with the gospels! So why should I give it to you?

It's far more tantilizing to just tell you I didn't make it up but found it in an old book I happen see in a dustry old used book store in San Pedro.

And I found proof that Jesus was a space alien in a book I found at Barnes & Noble.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

You want PROOF before you believe, do you DAVE?

’Fraid so.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

It doesn't work that way.

It does in the world of scholarship, science, etc.

From Larsguy47:

Quote:

There's a videotape of Socrates and Aristotle having sex but the person who has it wants too much money for it, otherwise, I'd buy it and send you caopy so you'd "believe". Oh wait, then you'd claim it wasn't real, it was fake because they didn't have video back then! SEE! I can't please you, Dave! It's impossible. :huh:

Tell you what. I’m not into the gay thing, but send it on. My wife and I live in a neighborhood with a large gay population, so I’m sure it will interest some of our neighbors.

Until then, in the absence of the book and the videotape, I shall continue to believe that your beliefs are up there with the flat earthers, circle squarers, cube doublers and Mormons.

RED DAVE

Sauron · 04-06-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You have to answer questions rather running from them and starting new threads.

spin

Indeed. He's still trying to claim Nehemiah as a cupbearer on a bas-relief, even though:

1. the only source for that is the bible - circular reasoning; and
2. the bas-relief doesn't show a cup-bearer anyhow

spin · 04-06-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Look at this DARIC:

Notice how Darius is running on this coin, the position of the legs.

Now notice Artemis depicted on her temple at Corfu:

Artemis temple, Corfu

Notice the running stance.

Notice also this is MEDUSA. In Greek times, the Persians were not known as the "Persians" as much as they were called "the MEDE."

No connect MEDE with MEDUSA. Compare the representation.

Are they connected?

No? Just a coincidence?

And you see that figure sitting down on the left? A king on a throne? Don't you think it resembles Darius sitting on his throne? See how both figures are holding up a staff? Is this a depiction of DARIUS? and MEDUSA a symbol of the evil of the MEDES? Is this temple commorating the Greek pride in the fact that they killed the great king of Persia, Darius? In fact, beheaded him? That's the story of MEDUSA, you know, how Pericles beheads Medusa. Coincidence? or Connection?

You've outshone yourself, Larsguy47!

X is Y and Z is Y so X is Z, but Z is M, so X is M, but M is M1, so X is M1.

X = Darius
Y = running
Z = Artemis
M = Medusa
M1 = Mede

With logic like this you could equate you mouth with your other orifice and never need to be fed again.

-Jay- · 04-06-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Speaking of Parisian Wars, have you seen the recent movie hit "300"? It's about Xerxes at the beginning of his invasion of Greece. Great movie, great effects! But you can see what they thought Persian "fashion" was.

It was a great film, I agree. Not sure why Xerxes was portrayed as a homoerotic action figure, though...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

And you see that figure sitting down on the left? A king on a throne? Don't you think it resembles Darius sitting on his throne? See how both figures are holding up a staff? Is this a depiction of DARIUS? and MEDUSA a symbol of the evil of the MEDES? Is this temple commorating the Greek pride in the fact that they killed the great king of Persia, Darius? In fact, beheaded him? That's the story of MEDUSA, you know, how Pericles beheads Medusa. Coincidence? or Connection?

Darius? Medes? Darius the Mede? Are we going to be shifting to the Book of Daniel now? Do we get to talk about how the author of Mark reinterpretted the Book of Daniel because the author of Daniel got it all wrong and how John of Patmos had to re-reinterpret the Book of Daniel because the author of Mark blew it too?

The only place I've seen material that beats this is in writings of the great philosopher L. Ron Hubbard...

v/r

NinJay

Larsguy47 · 04-06-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You've outshone yourself, Larsguy47!

X is Y and Z is Y so X is Z, but Z is M, so X is M, but M is M1, so X is M1.

X = Darius
Y = running
Z = Artemis
M = Medusa
M1 = Mede

With logic like this you could equate you mouth with your other orifice and never need to be fed again.

Like I said, everybody can't keep up. But I forgot to note that you can see on the left from the Artemis sculping where someone is cutting the head of of a bearded man who also has the running stance of Darius/Gorgon/Medusa! Is that supposed to be related or not?

Potentially, this temple was dedicated to commemorate the beheading of Darius at the battle of Marathon.

When Herodotus wrote his history, he mixed references to hide the truth. For instance, when he described Darius invading Sythia where they all leave and destroy their crops so that the Persians had nothing to subsist on, that was a reference to when Xerxes invaded Athens and everybody left. Or in the case of the beheading of Darius by a woman, since that event was distorted historically, it got transferred to the history of Cyrus where this queen Tomyris gets to have the head of Cyrus. Whereas other sources show Cyrus died peacefully at home and not in battle, etc.

Understanding esoteric history, particularly when you have a good handle on the actual chronology and some of the distortions begin to fall right in place.

For instance Herodotus mentions the army general "Datis" who was captured by the Greeks and his "body" was never recovered. In the context that we know that Darius was beheaded and his head taken by the Greeks, this reference to "Datis" and his body not being recovered would be an indication that apparently the head of Darius was never returned.

So, of course, Xerxes was quite angry and set out to kill all the Athenians. They knew this and that's why they began evacuating immediately before ever there was an engagement. This was expected.

Incidentally, a palque found of Themiscle's orders of evacuation is written in a writing style that is too early for when they are dating this event and so the archaeologists think it's a copy!

Quote:

The Decree of Themistocles is an ancient Greek inscription discussing Greek strategy in the Greco-Persian Wars, purported to have been issued by the Athenian assembly under the guidance of Themistocles. Since the publication of its contents in 1960, the authenticity of the decree has been the subject of much academic debate. The decree directly contradicts Herodotus's account of the evacuation of Attica in 480 BC, in which it is stated that the evacuation was an emergency measure taken only after the Peloponnesian army failed to advance into Boeotia to fight the Persians. If the decree is authentic, the abandonment of Attica was part of a considered strategy aiming to draw the Persians into naval combat at Artemisium or Salamis.

Academic controversy

Challenging as it did the Herodotean account that had up to that point stood as the definitive account of the Greco-Persian Wars, the authenticity of the Themistocles decree soon became the subject of heated scholarly debate. Epigraphic evidence revealed that the marble slab on which he decree was inscribed had been carved in the first half of the 3rd century BC, raising the question of how the text had survived for two centuries, particularly given that Athens was sacked by the Persians in 480 and again in 479 BC.[5] The first extant mention of a decree that can be identified with the one found at Troezen comes from Demosthenes, who records that Aeschines read the decree aloud in 347 BC, again leaving a gap of over a century to accound for.[6] Scholars who support the authenticity of the decree point to the last two lines of the famous oracle given to the Athenians.

The Decree of Themistocles

Your move. :devil:

LG47

spin · 04-07-2007, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You've outshone yourself, Larsguy47!

X is Y and Z is Y so X is Z, but Z is M, so X is M, but M is M1, so X is M1.

X = Darius
Y = running
Z = Artemis
M = Medusa
M1 = Mede

With logic like this you could equate you mouth with your other orifice and never need to be fed again.

Like I said, everybody can't keep up.

When you make such logical blunders, you don't honestly expect people to keep up with your flittings, do you?

spin

3DJay · 04-07-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Like I said, everybody can't keep up. But I forgot to note that you can see on the left from the Artemis sculping where someone is cutting the head of of a bearded man who also has the running stance of Darius/Gorgon/Medusa! Is that supposed to be related or not?

Not. Because it's not someone cutting off the head of a bearded man. It's Zeus slaying Kronos with a thunderbolt.

Zeus with a thunderbolt against a giant

Zeus and Kronos: Temple of Artemis pediment, Corfu, ca 590 BC.

590 BC? Some 40 years before Darius was even born? WTF?!

Zeus et Cronos

Zeus se enfrenta a Crono

Battle Between Zeus and Cronos

Peace

Larsguy47 · 04-07-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

Thucydides, Book IV:

Q 1. That 7th year (ending in the spring) equates to 425-424 BCE, a standard year of death, given for Artaxerxes (reigned: 465 - 424 BCE).

THANKS, for correcting me on this. Not sure where I got the "8th year" reference for sure, might have been a misquote. But the 1-year difference is not consequential for this dating other than moving the 41-year rule back to the 2nd of Darius instead of the third of Darius. That is, the reference for beginning the co-rule of Darius and Xerxes in the 3rd year of Darius is this single 8th year reference. So if Xerxes becomes co-ruler with Darius a year earlier then that's fine. But I stand corrected on quoting the 8th year vs the 7th, unless there is some conflicting reference. Thanks! I'm starting the PPW in the summer of 403, the 1st year of the Olympic cycle, same as 431BCE. So the 7th year would be from 397-396BCE. Let's see if this works: (I have to do it this way to keep from getting confused).

summer/winter
431/430 1st year 403/402 Plato consulted re: "The Delian Problem"/plague
430/429 2nd year 402/401
429/428 3rd year 401/400 Plato born.
428/427 4th year 400/399 Olympic games held, summer.
427/426 5th year 399/398
426/425 6th year 398/397
425/424 7th year 397/396 Artaxerxes dies, 41st year.
424/423 8th year 396/395
423/422 9th year 395/394
422/421 10th year 394/393

The 7th year of the is 397/396BCE, if this was the 41st year of Artxerxes he began ruling 40 years earlier in 437BCE (397+40=437BCE). 437BCE is the 3rd year of Darius I who began to rule in 439BCE and died in his sixth year in 334BCE, the same year as the Battle of Marathon. Xerxes/Artaxerxes was born the year his "father" became king, which isn't Darius who began to rule in 439BCE. 18 plus 437 = 455BCE; thus the reference is to his grand-"father", Cyrus who began to rule that year. So THANKS. I was wrong to say the 8th year of the war, it truly is the 7th!!!

Quote:

2. Your source calls him the son of Xerxes.

Yes, we already have established that Xerxes had successfully claimed that he was his own son. This is Thucycides who actually quotes from the letter of Themistocles to "Artaxerxes", but this is contradicted because many other historians claims he went over when Xerxes was ruling:

Here's the controversy in PLUTARCH! Note that even though Thucydides, considered reliable regarding Themistocles fleeing to Artaxerxes, the historical reference is for him coming before Xerxes! Thucydides, though, was influenced by the letter of Themistocles claiming he went to "Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes" so Thucydides' source is the source of the conspiracy, Themistocles! Quite fascinating but once you know Xerxes and Artaxerxes are the same king, you understand completely the confusion over exactly when Artaxerxes began to reign and Xerxes died. But you see, Xerxes did not die he was just going under his second name. There are astronomical texts that list a king Artaxerxes dated to year 27 at least who was "also known as Arses." Since this does not fit any of the other Artaxerxeses (i.e. Artaxerxes II was "Mnemon" and Artaxerxes II was "Ochus") then apparently some documents have survived from the time of Artaxerxes who was "also known as Arses(Xerxes)" that were not destroyed. Based upon those documents we can confirm that the name adoption did not stop him from using "Xerxes" in some circumstances, that is, he continued to use and be known by both names. This is a KEY QUOTE for you from Plutarch, "Lives, Themistocles":

Quote:

Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, write that he came to Xerxes. The chronological tables better agree with the account of Thucydides, and yet neither can their statements be said to be quite set at rest.

[Note: no we find the account where he comes to Xerxes]

When Themistocles was come to the critical point, he applied himself first to Artabanus, commander of a thousand men, telling him that he was a Greek, and desired to speak with the king about important affairs concerning which the king was extremely solicitous. Artabanus answered him, "O stranger, the laws of men are different, and one thing is honorable to one man, and to others another; but it is honorable for all to honor and observe their own laws. It is the habit of the Greeks, we are told, to honor, above all things, liberty and equality; but amongst our many excellent laws, we account this the most excellent, to honor the king, and to worship him, as the image of the great preserver of the universe; if, then, you shall consent to our laws, and fall down before the king and worship him, you may both see him and speak to him; but if your mind be otherwise, you must make use of others to intercede for you, for it is not the national custom here for the king to give audience to any one that doth not fall down before him." Themistocles, hearing this, replied, "Artabanus, I that come hither to increase the power and glory of the king, will not only submit myself to his laws, since so it hath pleased the god who exalteth the Persian empire to this greatness, but will also cause many more to be worshippers and adorers of the king. Let not this, therefore, be an impediment why I should not communicate to the king what I have to impart." Artabanus asking him, "Who must we tell him that you are? for your words signify you to be no ordinary person," Themistocles answered, "No man, O Artabanus, must be informed of this before the king himself." Thus Phanias relates; to which Eratosthenes, in his treatise on Riches, adds, that it was by the means of a woman of Eretria, who was kept by Artabanus, that he obtained this audience and interview with him.

When he was introduced to the king, and had paid his reverence to him, he stood silent, till the king commanding the interpreter to ask him who he was, he replied, "O king, I am Themistocles the Athenian, driven into banishment by the Greeks. The evils that I have done to the Persians are numerous; but my benefits to them yet greater, in withholding the Greeks from pursuit, so soon as the deliverance of my own country allowed me to show kindness also to you. I come with a mind suited to my present calamities; prepared alike for favors and for anger; to welcome your gracious reconciliation, and to deprecate your wrath. Take my own countrymen for witnesses of the services I have done for Persia, and make use of this occasion to show the world your virtue, rather than to satisfy your indignation. If you save me, you will save your suppliant; if otherwise, will destroy an enemy of the Greeks." He talked also of divine admonition, such as the vision which he saw at Nicogenes` house, and the direction given him by the oracle of Dodona, where Jupiter commanded him to go to him that had a name like his, by which he understood that he was sent from Jupiter to him, seeing that they both were great, and had the name of kings.

The king heard him attentively, and, though he admired his temper and courage, gave him no answer at that time; but, when he was with his intimate friends, rejoiced in his great good fortune, and esteemed himself very happy in this, and prayed to his god Arimanius, that all his enemies might be ever of the same mind with the Greeks, to abuse and expel the bravest men amongst them. Then he sacrificed to the gods, and presently fell to drinking, and was so well pleased, that in the night, in the middle of his sleep, he cried out for joy three times, "I have Themistocles the Athenian."

Quote:

Book I:
Quote:
(14) But a little before the Persian War and the death of Darius, who succeeded Cambyses, the Sicilian tyrants and the Corcyraeans had them in considerable numbers. No other maritime powers of any consequence arose in Hellas before the expedition of Xerxes.

WONDERFUL, 3D!!! This is one of my favorite hold-out quotes! Note that the Persian War and the death of Darius are linked together!!! If they didn't occur at the same time, why would they be mentioned together? Darius allegedly died four years afterwards in the revised history. Also noted that Darius is also put into the context of having succeeded Cambyses. This suggests that Cambyses was a more important and more well-known historical factor to Thucycides than was Darius. Yet Darius was supposed to have ruled for 36 years! If Darius only ruled for six years, then Cambyses would have ruled longer than he had and thus we understand the historical reference here. So every single line was not changed and this is one that would lend itself to confirming that, indeed, Darius did die at the same time of the battle of Marathon! So thanks!!! This is used in combination with Herodotus' cryptic reference of a solider with a huge beard that covered his entire shield that would link Darius at Marathon as well!

Quote:

" 2] The following marvel happened there: an Athenian, Epizelus son of Couphagoras, was fighting as a brave man in the battle when he was deprived of his sight, though struck or hit nowhere on his body, and from that time on he spent the rest of his life in blindness. [3] I have heard that he tells this story about his misfortune: he saw opposing him a tall armed man, *whose beard overshadowed his shield,* but the phantom passed him by and killed the man next to him. I learned by inquiry that this is the story
Epizelus tells."

Darius, of course, specifically was known for his enormously long beard. The reason why the hsitory shows Darius dying 4 years after the Battle of Marathon is because the 30 years added to the rule of Darius was adjusted by removing some of the years of the NB kings, but only 26 years could be removed. Thus the 4 years left over had Darius living 4 years beyond his own death at Marathon. But as you see from Herotodus and also from Thucydides, even in this passing comment, Darius is not only an insignificant king in relation to Cambyses but his death is associated with the Battle of Marathon. So this makes the second reference to associate Darius with the Battle of Marathon!

Quote:

(118) Fifty years elapsed between the retreat of Xerxes and the beginning of the war; during these years took place all those operations of the Hellenes against one another and against the Barbarian which I have been describing.

Very important reference! Did you do the math? If this is correct, and there are actually 50 years "between" the PPW and the Battle of Salamis then the Xerxes' invasion began 51 years prior to the PPW. Thus 51 plus 431 dates that event to 482BCE! So this doesn't work, since the battle is now dated to 480BCE. My theory is that it was so well-known this occurred during an Olympic year that it was revised later down to 480BCE so that now there are only 48 years "between" the two wars. My original dating for the war based upon the improved eclipse begins in 403BCE, with only a 20-year interval between the wars. Thus a rounded 30 years were added to this timeline. 403 plus 21 gives us the original year of the war in 424BCE. Likewise the original 30-year peace agreement expires in the 10th year of the war which falls in 394BCE, which also dates Xerxes' invasion 30 years earlier to 424BCE (394+30=424BCE). An eclipse in the spring also happens this year which does not hapeen in 482 or 480BCE, but it does in 424BCE.

Quote:

Quote:
(137) He then went up the country in the company of one of the Persians who dwelt on the coast, and sent a letter to Artaxerxes the son Xerxes, who had just succeeded to the throne.

This is the presumption of Thucydides who was influenced by the letter of Themistocles, whom he quotes! Themistocles is the one who lied that he went to "Artaxerxes" here rather than Xerxes. So this actually shows you the source for this concept from Thucydides, which is Themistocles, the mastermind of the conspiracy. But as noted above, the other historians adamantly contradict Themistocles here and confirm that he is lying knowing that, indeed, Xerxes was still on the throne when he first fled.

Quote:

4. "Fifty years elapsed between the retreat of Xerxes and the beginning of the war". Thucydides' year one, of the war, is said to be 431 BCE. The year given for Xerxes retreat, is 480 BCE, so 50 years, fits just fine.

HA! No it does not. As I noted above. 50 years "between" the wars pushes Xerxes invasion back to 482BCE, not 480BCE. This was revised by 2 years.

Quote:

Darius I the Great (522-486)
Xerxes I (486-465)
Artaxerxes I Makrocheir (465-424)

What's the problem?

No problem whatsoever unless you want the correct dating and you want to follow the Bible. Here's the corrected dates for the entire Persian Period:

CYRUS, 9 years, (455-446)
Kambyses, 8 years (445-439), 1 year co-rule with Cyrus
Darius I, SIX YEARS (439-433)
Xerxes/Artaxerxes, 41 years (437-396), 4-year co-rule with Darius
Darius I(Ochus), 22 years (397-375), 1 year co-rule with Artaxerxes I
Artaxerxes II (Mnemon), 17 years (375-358)
Artaxerxes III (Ochus), 21 years (358-337)
Arses, 2 years (337-335)
Darius III (Cadomannus), 2 years (335-333)
Alexander, the Great conquers Persia 333 BCE

Peace

LG47

RED DAVE · 04-07-2007, 06:36 PM

Here we go gathering nuts in May, nuts in May, nuts in May,
Here we go gathering nuts in May on a bright and frosty morning.

RED DAVE

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2007, 06:36 PM	#40
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Here we go gathering nuts in May, nuts in May, nuts in May, Here we go gathering nuts in May on a bright and frosty morning. RED DAVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.