Every time I read about history, the Persian civilization (and some incarnation of it as an empire) is ubiquitous. But while the Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Hellenic civilizations are well-remembered with their place in history well defined, the Persian civilization seems to only ever be recognized in relation to the history of other civilizations.
Why is this?
Every time I take the time to read about the Persian civilization it seems very rich with a long list of novel accomplishments that are historically noteworthy. But instead we don’t hear much about this civilization compared to the other major ancient Eurasian civilizations.
Well, the obvious starting point is what is different between Persia and those other cultures. I think we also need to define what we mean by "under-remembered," because (anecdotally) I don't think you'd find many people in the Euro-American world who know any facts or stories more about ancient China, India, or Mesopotamia than they would know about Persia. Egypt could probably be added to that list as well, but Egyptian motifs are at least more prominent in popular culture. Ancient Chinese, and to a lesser extent Indian, motifs appear in similar contexts, but they don't seem as frequent (again anecdotally). Obviously the Hellenistic civilizations are more remembered, more prominent, and more widely discussed because, whether or accurately or not, they have been designated as the ancient route of Euro-American culture for generations. Yet, you're not alone in feeling like Persia is still the most under-referenced, if not under-remembered, culture in this discussion, so there's probably something to that. The big points are, in my opinion: duration, modern legacy, and sources,
I'll stick to ancient history since that seems to be what you're referencing in your explanation.
Duration
Duration and age are particularly important for understanding why Egypt and Mesopotamia are so often remembered. Both represent the earliest known civilizations with writing and widespread urbanization. Beginning before 3,000 BCE Mesopotamian culture lasted in one uninterrupted span until 539 BCE, or at least it's often perceived that way. There is room to discuss a divide between the earliest Sumerian period and the later Akkadian-based cultures, but the two became so thoroughly intertwined in the first Akkadian empire that they are difficult to separate into distinct cultural epochs the same way you can for other parts of the world. Ancient Egyptian culture held a shockingly consistent form from around the same starting point until 30 BCE, really even later that.
Hellenism, in this sense, is fairly similar to the Mesopotamians. In both cases an uninterrupted series of city-states, kingdoms, and empires all shared a similar culture, occasionally spreading and dominating a neighboring culture that would go on to rule the progenitors of some key cultural traits. For example: Assyria in relation to southern Mesopotamia or Rome in relation to Greece.
So what's different in Persia? Well Iran also had a culture that fits the same description, the Elamites, but they're not Persian. They also have their own set of problems. There are fewer Elamite sources and the language was deciphered much more recently than Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian. The Persians themselves do not have the same sort of uninterrupted cultural dominance. 220 years of Achaemenids, followed by the Hellenistic Seleucids and the northern Iranian Parthians (related, but more like a cousin than a direct descendent of Persian culture. By the time the Persians themselves had the same kind of cultural cache again, almost 600 years had passed and the direct connections between the Achaemenids and Sassanids were largely lost in our sources.
China and India are often portrayed as having similar continuity to Egypt and Mesopotamia. In both cases, their own respective nationalists will often claim exaggerated legacies stretching back much farther than the reality of documented history really demonstrates. Chinese history is actually fairly similar to Persian history in terms of interruptions and periods of dominance, but with a start date around 1200 BCE. Indian history can be argued back and forth between routes in the Harappan Civilization c. 3000 BCE or the Vedic Aryans c. 1500 BCE, but there's very little historical documentation until closer to 300 BCE. Indian Hindu Nationalist writers seem particularly guilty of this, often claiming cultural continuity that dates back 10,000 years, which doesn't have any support from mainstream historians. However, this does intersect with:
Modern Legacy
China and India are the most obvious example here. Both are modern nation states that have political motivations to project their own modern ideologies and conceptions of unity, ethnicity, or nationality on to the past. Having a long illustrious history has always provided some level international prestige, especially when it can be used to claim ownership or the invention of important technology and philosophies. In reality, both India and China have long periods of division in their histories when different parts of each country would have considered themselves bitter rivals and indisputably different from one another. Despite that, the modern nations maintain a degree of control over how scholarship is carried out in their territory and actively promote a sometimes anachronistic idea of their own cultures.
Egypt sees the same issues play out to a lesser extent. There can be no denying that modern Egypt and ancient Egypt have a distinct break in continuity as a result of the Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, Egypt is also home to some very visible and very famous ancient monuments and was the subject of intensive European interest during the colonial period. This was partially due to how well Egypt's climate preserved sources and artifacts, partially to how unique that culture was historically, and partially due to intense colonial involvement in the country. Mesopotamia lacks this particular aspect of modern legacy. While Iraqis proudly lay claim to their regional history, there's no mainstream idea of "ancient Iraq."
So what's different in Persia? Modern Iran has a very complicated relationship with it's history, especially its ancient history. The explicitly Islamic, revolutionary government of the Islamic Republic of Iran downplays both the ancient Zoroastrian past and the recent periods of monarchism. The Sassanid Persians in particular suffer from this as they were both explicitly Zoroastrian as a state religion and fought against the rise of Islam in the 7th century.
The Achaemenids become more complicated because they were simultaneously a huge point of pride for the last Shah, deposed by the current government, but also the largest and most powerful Iranian empire. Their ruins are major tourist attractions, and absurdly inaccurately propaganda from the monarchy in the 1970s gives Iran a claim to a history of human rights, which is a positive talking point for the current regime's image. The ancient empires are more popular among secular nationalist movements, but the current government doesn't promote ancient history, and can't promote any sort of continuity, in the same way as China and India.
Hi there! You’ve asked a question along the lines of ‘why didn’t I learn about X’. We’re happy to let this question stand, but there are a variety of reasons why you may find it hard to get a good answer to this question on /r/AskHistorians.
Firstly, school curricula and how they are taught vary strongly between different countries and even even different states. Additionally, how they are taught is often influenced by teachers having to compromise on how much time they can spend on any given topic. More information on your location and level of education might be helpful to answer this question.
Secondly, we have noticed that these questions are often phrased to be about people's individual experience but what they are really about is why a certain event is more prominent in popular narratives of history than others.
Instead of asking "Why haven't I learned about event ...", consider asking "What importance do scholars assign to event ... in the context of such and such history?" The latter question is often closer to what to what people actually want to know and is more likely to get a good answer from an expert. If you intend to ask the 'What importance do scholars assign to event X' question instead, let us know and we'll remove this question.
Thank you!