11-18-2007, 04:49 PM
Yes, I think so, for me this idea of "loyal companions" makes sense.
in fact, the term "anushiya" (coming from "anu-", along, according to) is well attested in Old Persian corpus, not referring any special unit, but a loyal army.
For example, in Darius inscription at Behistun, II 95, "kara hayashay anushiya aha..." "...went forth with the army wich was faithful to him..)
anausha "immortal" is not attested directly in Old persian, but it is attested in Avestic (an old iranian dialect, very close to old persian) "anaosha". It is sure that this word can be reconstructed in Old persian, and the Herodotus mistranslation could occur.
However, iranist Ruediger Schmitt has reservations because the Herodotus's usage of the word "athanatos" is strange and not tipical greek (athanatos is often referred only to gods in greek.) But I dont see clear his argument.
Regards!
in fact, the term "anushiya" (coming from "anu-", along, according to) is well attested in Old Persian corpus, not referring any special unit, but a loyal army.
For example, in Darius inscription at Behistun, II 95, "kara hayashay anushiya aha..." "...went forth with the army wich was faithful to him..)
anausha "immortal" is not attested directly in Old persian, but it is attested in Avestic (an old iranian dialect, very close to old persian) "anaosha". It is sure that this word can be reconstructed in Old persian, and the Herodotus mistranslation could occur.
However, iranist Ruediger Schmitt has reservations because the Herodotus's usage of the word "athanatos" is strange and not tipical greek (athanatos is often referred only to gods in greek.) But I dont see clear his argument.
Regards!
"paraita karam hamiçiyam haya mana naiy gaubataiy avam jata"
"Go forth and crush that rebellious army, wich does not call itself mine!" King Darius at Behistun
Vishtaspa/Inyigo
"Go forth and crush that rebellious army, wich does not call itself mine!" King Darius at Behistun
Vishtaspa/Inyigo
