Two weeks have now passed since the opening of the exhibition The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning (9th March to 28th April 2013), organised by the British Museum in collaboration with the Iran Heritage Foundation and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution in the United States.[1] This exhibition, which showcases the Cyrus Cylinder, a clay artefact inscribed with Akkadian cuneiform script, has been hailed as one of the most notable archaeological discoveries of the ancient world. Often celebrated as the first charter of human rights,[2] the Cylinder has not only captivated the American public but has also prompted the publication of numerous articles and reports worldwide, examining its historical significance and the implications of its visit to the United States. It is, however, unsurprising that coverage of this event in Iran has been limited, given that the ruling Islamic regime in Iran is an alien and anti-Iranian system brought to power by Western powers in 1979.[3] The totalitarian Islamic establishment and its leaders, many of whom are non-Iranian, naturally regard Cyrus the Great and ancient Iran as antithetical to their identity and their policies of de-Iranianisation of the country.

 

Nevertheless, over the past fortnight, while some journals such as the Christian Science Monitor took the opportunity to invite the world to learn tolerance and global unity from Persians and Cyrus the Great,[4] a multitude of Western media outlets and certain publications aligned with Eurocentric narratives, such as The Telegraph, have sought to undermine the Cylinder’s status as a declaration of human rights. They have even claimed that it was a fabrication of the propaganda apparatus of the late Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in an effort to diminish the historical and humanitarian contributions of the Iranian people to global civilisation. Yet, what is particularly notable is that the overwhelming majority of these outlets have deliberately omitted the title the Great when referring to Cyrus the Great in their reports.

 

The title the Great was historically conferred upon Cyrus II of Persia by his Greek-speaking adversaries, who were impressed by his magnanimity, generosity, kindness, and humanitarianism.[5] This stands in stark contrast to Macedonian warlord, Alexander III, who was first referred to as Great by the Roman playwright Plautus in the third century BCE in his play Mostellaria (The Haunted House), and even then only once (Plautus, Mostellaria, Act III, Scene 1). The widespread use of Great in reference to Alexander gained prominence during the Napoleonic era, as Napoleon Bonaparte admired his military conquests and brutality. Later, the Nazis emulated Napoleon’s admiration, cementing the transformation of Alexander III of Macedon into “Alexander the Great”; and modern Western scholars call him Great for creating the so-called “Hellenistic Culture”.[6] Today, in Western nations that consider themselves the inheritors of so-called Greek civilisation, it is nearly impossible to find a book or article that refers to Alexander without the epithet the Great; Great because the Macedonian warlord thirsted for blood? Great because in 332 BCE, after the city of Tyre[7] fell, Alexander ordered the massacre of 8,000 Tyrian civilians, including 2,000 men who were taken to the shoreline and crucified, while over 30,000 women and children were sold into slavery;, Or, en route to Egypt, also in 332 BCE, the citizens of the Persian fortress town of Gaza, a hilltop stronghold of the Persian army in Palestine, where its marketplace was considered one of the richest of the ancient trade routes, faced the same fate as Tyre. The men of Gaza were massacred, and their women and children sold into slavery. The local Persian governor, named Batis, who refused to bow when brought before Alexander. Alexander did something so horrific that even most ancient historians omit the event altogether.[8] He tied Batis to his chariot by his ankles and dragged his mutilated body through the surrounding rocky desert around Gaza long after he was dead, this is while 207 years earlier, Cyrus the Great declared his pride and joy for conquering Babylon without shedding a drop of blood and setting the inhabitants free, including the Hebrews from Babylonian slavery.

 

Therefore, the epithet the Great attributed to Alexander III of Macedon by Eurocentrics reflects Western cultural valorisation of military brutality and expansionist violence. Scholarly discourse has observed that Western historiography frequently reserves such honorifics for figures associated with conquest and subjugation, rather than leaders who championed humanistic or infrastructural progress. A striking parallel exists in the case of Cyrus II, founder of the Achaemenid Empire, whose historical designation as the Great (attested in contemporaneous sources such as the Cyrus Cylinder [539 BCE]) is acknowledged by some Western scholars, albeit grudgingly and with marginalisation in mainstream academic narratives. This selective omission, juxtaposed against the ubiquitous application of the Great to Alexander III, reveals a systemic Eurocentric bias. Such inconsistency underscores a pattern of historical revisionism that privileges Greco-Roman or Western-centric figures while minimising non-Western legacies, thereby reinforcing colonialist paradigms of civilisational hierarchy.

 

A provocative hypothetical emerges: should global survival into the next millennium hinge on resisting Western neo-imperialist agendas, potentially manifest in catastrophic conflict, future historiography might retrospectively canonise figures like Tony Blair and George W. Bush as the Great for their militaristic interventions in the Middle East, which resulted in the murder of over 1,000,000 civilians, rhetorically justified as democratising missions. This mirrors the civilisational dichotomy posited by postcolonial critique: Western traditions, historically rooted in martial conquest and resource extraction, contrast with Eastern civilisations[9] (Islamic contexts excluded, given shared martial origins in Islamic expansionism), where titular greatness typically honours advancements in governance, philosophy, or cultural synthesis, a stark divergence from Western associations of the term with territorial aggrandisement.

 

Nevertheless, what is particularly concerning is that many Iranian academics, journalists, and activists within stoical groups have adopted this Western practice by omitting the Great from the name of ‘Cyrus the Great’ in their non-Persian-language writings. This phenomenon reflects a broader trend of cultural and historical self-effacement, which undermines Iran’s rich heritage and perpetuates a Eurocentric narrative that marginalises non-Western contributions to global civilisation. These Iranians can be divided into four distinct categories, each characterised by specific motivations and ideological underpinnings:

 

1. The Traitors: This category can be further subdivided into three subgroups, where an ‘anti-Iranian’ mentality is deeply ingrained in their worldview:

 

1a. Globalists with Leftist Ideology: These individuals often prioritise globalist agendas over national identity, aligning themselves with ideologies that dismiss or undermine Iran’s historical and cultural legacy. Their adherence to leftist doctrines, which frequently reject national pride as a form of chauvinism, leads them to downplay or outright deny the significance of figures like Cyrus the Great. This ideological stance is often coupled with a desire to appear progressive or cosmopolitan, even at the expense of their own heritage.

 

1b. Pro-Regime or Regime Affiliates: These individuals operate under the guise of ‘reform’ but are, in reality, agents of the Islamic regime, exported to the West to advance its agenda. An example is an individual who wrote a piece in the Huffington Post, regrettably, this person is also an archaeologist.[11] Such individuals often employ a veneer of intellectualism to legitimise their attacks on Iran’s pre-Islamic history, portraying it as irrelevant or antithetical to the regime’s ideological narrative.

 

1c. Foreign-Affiliated Mercenaries: These individuals deliberately and consciously attack Iranian cultural heritage and identity, often in the hope of facilitating a balkanised Iran that can be exploited by foreign powers. Their ultimate goal is to reduce Iran to a fragmented state, allowing their foreign masters to claim its resources and strategic assets as booty.[10] Many of these individuals are absorbed into various foreign media outlets, particularly VOA and BBC Persian (often referred to as Ayatollah BBC), which perpetuate the organisation’s more than seventy-year history of anti-Iranian propaganda. These outlets serve as platforms for disseminating narratives that erode Iran’s national identity and historical consciousness.

 

 

2. The Uneducated Religious: Members of this category undermine their own cultural and national identity out of ignorance, lack of critical thinking, or naivety. Many come from either rural or uneducated religious backgrounds, where they were not taught the importance of national identity during their formative years. Their limited exposure to Iran’s pre-Islamic history and their indoctrination into religious or leftist ideologies that prioritise communal or global identities over national ones contribute to their disconnection from Iran’s historical legacy. This group often lacks the tools to critically engage with their own history, making them susceptible to narratives that diminish the significance of figures like Cyrus the Great.

 

 

3. Afflicted by a Form of ‘Lamb Mentality’: This category is more numerous than the previous two groups and represents a deeply troubling psychological phenomenon. Members of this group suffer from a deeply ingrained affliction of self-deprecation and a lack of national self-confidence, which has been systematically propagated by the Islamic regime over the past three decades as a means of eroding Iran’s national identity from within. This ‘lamb mentality’, a term used to describe a submissive, self-effacing attitude, stems from decades of state-sponsored propaganda that vilifies Iran’s pre-Islamic history and glorifies the regime’s ideological narrative. The regime’s efforts to suppress national pride and replace it with a sense of inferiority have been remarkably effective, leading many Iranians to internalise a narrative that diminishes their own heritage.

 

Evidently, one of the motivations behind this anti-Iranian behaviour among this self-alienated group, stems from their desire to appear ‘enlightened’ and their fear of potential criticism, reproach, or alienation by Western scholars and commentators. To gain acceptance, they mimic Western perspectives at the expense of their own cultural and national heritage.  However, what is particularly disheartening about this group is that it includes individuals who are otherwise well-educated and aware of Iran’s cultural and historical legacy. Despite their knowledge, they succumb to the psychological pressures imposed by the regime, adopting a submissive stance that aligns with the regime’s narrative. This phenomenon is not merely a reflection of individual weakness but rather a testament to the regime’s success in weaponising psychology to achieve its ideological goals.

 

 

4. The Opportunists: A fourth category can be inferred from the broader context. These are individuals who, while not inherently anti-Iranian, opportunistically align themselves with Western or regime-aligned narratives to advance their personal or professional interests. Their actions are driven by pragmatism rather than ideology, but the consequences are equally damaging to Iran’s cultural and historical legacy.

 

These individuals must recognise that if Eurocentrists attack Iranian culture and identity, it is because such actions align with their interests. However, as the Persian saying goes, “when the scorpion stings, it is not personal; it is its nature,” and Western Iranophobic stances, including Eurocentrists, are by nature the ‘scorpion’. But when an Iranian, whether consciously or unconsciously, participates in such acts, it constitutes a betrayal of their own country and nation, a betrayal for which they will one day in the future Free Iran be held accountable.

 

 

Conclusion

The deliberate omission of the title the Great from references to Cyrus II of Persia in Western media and academic discourse is not merely an oversight but a manifestation of deeper Eurocentric biases that seek to marginalise non-Western historical narratives. This selective amnesia, juxtaposed with the uncritical glorification of figures like Alexander III of Macedon, underscores a systemic privileging of Western-centric historical figures and a dismissal of the humanitarian and civilisational contributions of ancient Iran. The contrast between Cyrus’s legacy of tolerance and Alexander’s record of brutality reveals a troubling pattern in which Western historiography valorises conquest and violence while downplaying the achievements of leaders who championed governance, cultural synthesis, and human rights.

 

Equally concerning is the complicity of certain Iranian academics, journalists, and activists in perpetuating this Eurocentric narrative. Whether driven by ideological alignment, ignorance, psychological conditioning, or opportunism, their actions contribute to the erosion of Iran’s rich cultural heritage and national identity. This internalised self-effacement not only undermines the legacy of figures like Cyrus the Great but also plays into the hands of those who seek to diminish Iran’s historical and cultural significance on the global stage.

 

As the world continues to grapple with the legacies of imperialism and colonialism, it is imperative to challenge these biased narratives and reclaim the rightful place of non-Western civilisations in the annals of history. The story of Cyrus the Great and the Cyrus Cylinder serves as a powerful reminder of Iran’s enduring contributions to human rights and global civilisation. To omit his title is to erase a part of this legacy, and to do so knowingly is to betray not only Iran’s past but also its future. In a world increasingly shaped by interconnected histories, it is crucial to recognise and celebrate the diverse origins of human progress, ensuring that figures like Cyrus the Great are remembered not as footnotes in a Eurocentric narrative but as central figures in the shared story of humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footnotes and References:

1, 'The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning', the National Museum of Asian Art, Smithsonian Institute Online. Available at: [https://asia-archive.si.edu/exhibition/the-cyrus-cylinder-and-ancient-persia-a-new-beginning/].

 

2, Suren-Pahlav, Sh. (1998), 'Cyrus The Greats' Cylinder: The World's First Charter Of The Human Rights', The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS). Available at [https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder.htm].

 

3, Suren-Pahlav, Sh. (2013) “From conspiracy to engineered revolution: Why and how did Britain, America, France, and Israel overthrow the imperial system?” (In Persian). Available at: [https://www.suren-pahlav.com/pe/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1:political-article&id=49:how-west-and-zionism-toppled-shah-of-iran].

 

4, Peterson, S. (March 03, 2013), 'The Cyrus Cylinder, symbol of Persian tolerance, heads to US', The Christian Science Monitor. Available online at [https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0303/The-Cyrus-Cylinder-symbol-of-Persian-tolerance-heads-to-US].

 

5, Suren-Pahlav, Sh. (1998), ' Cyrus The Great: The Father & Liberator ', The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS). Available at [https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_the_great.htm].

 

6, Hammond, N.G.L.  (1993), “The Macedonian Imprint on the Hellenistic World”, in Hellenistic History and Culture, ed. P. Green (Berkeley & Los Angeles). Pp. 12-23.

 

7, The City of Tyre, located on an island off the Lebanese coast, was the most powerful of all the Phoenician cities and one of the richest trading centres of the Persian Empire in the Mediterranean.

 

8, Freeman, P. (2011).  Alexander the Great. Simon & Schuster.

 

9, Suren-Pahlav, Sh. 'Movie 300: A Fabrication of History and an Exercise in Cinematic Absurdity'. The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS). Available at: [https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Iran/movie_300_a_fabrication_of_history_and_an_exercise_in_cinematic_absurdity.htm]; and the personal Website at: [https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/movie-300-a-fabrication-of-history-and-an-exercise-in-cinematic-absurdity.html].

 

10, Joneidi, Kh. (10 March 2013), “Cyrus' Charter in Washington: The Link Between American History and the Achaemenid King” (In Persian), BBC Persian. Available at: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/arts/2013/03/130310_u02_cyrus_cylinder_dc.shtml].

 

11, Saeedi, S. (19 March 2013), 'Why the Cyrus Cylinder Matters', Huffington Post, available at: [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cyrus-cylinder_b_2908555]