Talk:Xerxes I

Esther

Curious as to why there is no discussion in the main article regarding the traditional identification of Xerxes I as the Persian King named Ahasuerus in the biblical book of Esther. There are countless books and websites that reference this traditional connection, so why not at least mention it? A few references found within a few minutes of googling: Princeton grad student wiki, Identification of Darius the Mede by George R. Law p 95, Encyclopedia Britannica Vol I 1890 p 422, Encyclopaedia perthensis, or, Universal dictionary of the arts, sciences, literature, etc, Volume 9 page 82 2nd Ed 1816, and of course The Jewish Encyclopedia Regardless whether these sites embody full academic merit, or whether this identification is historically factual at all, the longstanding traditional association and present-day debate, in and of themselves, deserve mention. 70.66.148.34 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Xerxes is also retarded and idiotic to be weird the king in the biblical Book of Esther" There's no evidence to suggest this is him. It's just pointless speculation. As a matter of fact.. there's little evidence to suggest a lot of things in the biblical book of whoever, but... anyway :P This is probably one of the Artaxerxes's who are often confused with Xerxes, such as the king called "that wicked man" by Egyptian priests, was not Xerxes as the cartouche would suggest but most likely Artaxerxes III. But I'm just a fucking High School student, so what would I know.

While I'm all for punishing ignorance, perhaps a more civil discussion is in order. For example, we could trim the above post right at, "There's no evidence to suggest this is him." I'd rather see evidence from both sides instead of useless remarks. 71.118.143.244 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the connection of Ahasuerus to Xerxes, I think it would be useful to consult the Septuagint (Greek)translation of Esther, where Ahauerus is called Artaxerxes (Septuagint; Esther 1:1,2,9...etc.; 2003 Hendrickson Publishers, ed. by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton). If Ahasuerus had been Xerxes himself, you'd think his name would have translated as such into Greek. Historydude1978

For the two comments above I would council the authors that nameing in the ancient world can be difficult. Josephus complaining that the Greeks renamed everyone to suit their own tongue, which makes a hard job even harder: he himself noting this. Not to mention the Alexandrian Library going up in flames repeatedly, doesn't make it any easier. Please see my additions to the section (~ in the Bible) and you will find that it is linguistically possible to trace Ahasuerus. It is even logical as you progress in a westerly direction from Persia across linguistic groups: hence Persian is transliterated into Babylonian, which is altered to suit it's sister Hebrew language which was then immortalised in Latin by the Romans and appears in Jerome's Latin Vulgate version of the Bible; which in turn was probably maintained in this form for consistency in the King James Version, even though the then commonly available Septuagint’s clearly renders 'Αρτάξερξου (Artaxerxes).

As regarding Historydude1978's comment regarding the LXX version's Artaxerxes rendering, please note that the academic community considers this to be nothing other than a simple scribal mistake; probably similar to it's rendering that Haman was of ό Μακεδων (Macedonian) descent without a single precedent (LXX Esther 9:24).

But here is the clincher: Taking an atheists point of view so as to assume that the book of Ester was nothing other than fiction for the audience of the day, then the story would be implausible and would even be rejected as 'historical fiction'; furthermore it would be unworthy of the effort required to maintain ancient handwritten documents. Why? Because key characters would be too old for historical consistency. The key being "a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, ... a Benjamite; Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity..." of "Jeconiah", also known as Jehoiachin. Esther 2:5-6

Using the Archaeological Babylonian Chronicle, we find that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the defending Egyptians in the late spring or early summer of 605 BC opening Syria and Palastine to the Babylonian arms. Eventually in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year of his reign by Hebrew reckoning (2 Kings 24:12), he carried away the captivity of 'Jehoiachin'; which the author of Ester claimed Mordecai had been part of. This means that if Mordecai had been a new born infant in his mother's arms, he would have survived the entire Babylonian period and reached to the very height of the Persian Empire during the reign of Xerxes 'the Great'. Yet if Ahasuerus were Artaxerxes I, Mordacai would be even older. If the story is set in the reign of Xerxes, Mordecai would be no less than 115 years old! But if we argue for Artaxerxes, Mordecai would be no less than 136/7 years old!

Hence this would explain why he Mordecai is found sitting at the king's palace gateway, as he was just too old for anything else! Neither are these old ages unknown in the ancient world, for Herodotus speaks of the Ethiopians (Cushites) regularly reaching 120 years of age. While these considerations are by no means conclusive, that does make a Xerxes rendering to be the more plausible.

Secondly the feast of Purim exerts the strongest evidence for the validity of the Book of Esther, as it is a living memorial to the things contained in the manuscript. To start this festivity at a much later date one would have to deceive an entire nation simultaneously to enact an historical memorial festivity of genocidal proportions. It would be like trying to tell our American friends that they never had a war with Great Britain, or that their Independence Day was not actually on the 4th of July! --Avanduyn 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah." (Esther 2:5-6 NIV) I believe this means that Mordecai was the great grandson of somone who had been exiled, not himself. Regardless, that doesn't answer to who the king of persia mentioned in the Bible is. The NIV also calls him Xerxes, and if this is wrong I would like to know. In fact, even if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the king in Esther isn't Xerxes the misconception that it is Xerxes is so great that it would probably be worth clearing up in his page. 50.39.216.120 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't my reply indented? I expected it to automatically indent. 50.39.216.120 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Another possible discrepancy I've found is that the article on Haman from the Book of Esther mentions that he is generally thought to be Xerxes I. The story of Haman and the timeline don't seem to support this. Thoughts? Saturn 5 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As regarding your comment on Haman being Xerxes, well, people always love the fanciful... the article gives no credible reference other than a questionable public opinion confinded to limited circles. Neither will you even find a hint of such ideas in the academic literature. --Avanduyn 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you belive the Book's events happeend or not the Author's intent was clearly to Identify Xerxes, the Septuigant was the orign of the mistakeing him for Artexerxes, but his 1 refrence in Ezra shows he reigne dbetween Darius and Artxerxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021 (2)

I would suggest the removal of the word "fictional" when describing Ahasuerus. Billions of people around the world adhere to the Bible and don't see it as a work of fiction. If anything, make reference to the disputed status of his historicity, but I would highly advise against simply saying he is fictional. In so doing you risk alienating many people by stating that their holy book is inaccurate, a book which they believe to be true. Also, saying that Esther is "broadly considered to be fictional" is not very conciliatory. It is telling people who believe in this book that "most people" think it's fake. Even though that is a claim that is hard to prove. Thank you. XanderSt9898 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NPOV applies, we do not write from the perspective of religious people; and "holy books" are, as pointed out above, "largely fictitious" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Then can you please not write from the perspective of the religion of atheism, because I don't know where it's pointed out which holy books are "largely fictitious" outside your imagination.Cornelius (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Renassault refrain from personal attacks. The sources on the Book of Esther is "a work of fiction, its vivid characters (except for Xerxes) being the product of the author's creative imagination." This is not controversial. Dimadick (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Death

If there's a cuneiform saying Xerxes was killed by his son, this seems to me to confirm Ctesias' version over Aristotle's, which is later and seems less likely (Artabanus just whacks a bunch of the royal family, but leaves other sons of Xerxes alive)? Cornelius (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Historiography

I'm uncomfortable with the first sentence of this section: "Much of Xerxes' bad reputation is due to propaganda by the Macedonian king Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 BC), who had him vilified." This is in the source cited, but it seems dubious. Most of our source material for Xerxes pre-dates Alexander. Xerxes is vilified in The Persians and, if Herodotus treats him as "more of a tragic figure," that's not the same thing as saying he isn't responsible for his "bad reputation".

I also don't really see what we gain by having separate sections on "historiography" at one end of the article and "cultural depictions" at the other. Herodotus is a cultural depiction. If we had any writings from Alexander the Great about Xerxes, they would also be cultural depictions. Furius (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think the 'historiography' section could be merged into the cultural depictions one. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the info in the "Historiography" fits the "Cultural depictions" section imo, sounds off. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It could be titled "historiography and cultural depictions"? It seems very strange to separate Herodotus and the rest of the classical historiographers off from Aeschylus (who influenced them). And discussion of whether Herodotus presents a "more nuanced and tragic" figure is as much about cultural depiction as it is about historiography.

I grant that the point about tablets contrasting with Greek sources isn't really a cultural depiction, but as it stands it is also very vague. Furius (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As it stands the entire section is basically just devoted to saying that Herodotus isn't that reliable and there are contradictions between classical historian write-ups and native records, which, well, duh. That primary source conflict on points is hardly news to anyone. They are all biased. Better to point out, in context, where they actually conflict. The section is basically just a rehash of why we don't use primary sources as writ on any subject but rely on secondary analysis - it is just a 'how to use ancient sources 101' - with very little to be learnt of the historiography at all ... so it isn't really very useful at all as a section. However, a reflection on the way in which Herodotus portrays Xerxes obviously is pertinent to the cultural depictions section.

In terms of content flow, the section is also terrible. The section starts: "Much of Xerxes' bad reputation..." before it has even been established on page that Xerxes had a "bad reputation". What underlying assumptions is this page structure carrying? Bare minimum, this section would need to introduced with a proper overview of the different cultural depictions of Xerxes to makes sense of where these sentences are about - by which point, yeah, you almost may as well have it in the cultural depictions section. If it is more amenable, perhaps it could be a sub-section of the cultural depictions section that shows how the cultural depictions fed into the write ups by historians? But as it stands, introducing the historiography before the subject itself has even been properly introduced is just counter intuitive. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, you guys have convinced me. However, if I ever start rewriting this article, I might move that info and more around, though in a way that makes sense of course. I see in the current state that the article is in, your suggestions are better. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox picture replacement proposal

Since it's uncertain if the king portrayed in the relief shown by the infobox image is actually Xerxes, I propose it be switched out for the confirmed depiction of Xerxes found on his tomb. I'm thinking either this one or this one. There's also the option of this/this relief at his palace in Persepolis. Any objections? Sinclairian (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your comment. I mean, it's not that "uncertain" since it's described as "most likely". I think it's also much more visually appealing than the others. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)