Did ancient Persians debate important matters drunk and sober before making decisions?

A claim regarding an unusual manner of debate apparently practiced by ancient Persians has appeared on social media every so often. According to the claim, men in the Persian Empire would debate ideas twice, once when sober and once when drunk. An idea had to sound good in both states to be considered a good idea, social media posts claimed.

The claim was made in a July 2025 Instagram post (archived) liked over 16,000 times. A May 2025 Instagram post (archived) liked more than 160,000 times said ancient Persians did this “when faced with a big decision.” A similar claim made in an April 2025 Facebook post (archived) was liked nearly 5,000 times, while a July 2023 Instagram post (archived) with the claim was liked over 650,000 times. The claim was even shared as far back as in a 2013 Reddit thread (archived).

The claim does originate with an ancient historical account of Persian culture, but that source, the writings of Herodotus, had some credibility issues that makes it impossible to know with certainty if this depiction of ancient Persian custom was accurate.

The claim first appeared in Book 1 of Herodotus’ “Histories,” which covered Persian culture and wars between Greeks and the Persian Empire. Herodotus wrote about the ancient Persians’ supposed custom of drunken debate in Chapter 133. According to a 1920 translation by A. D. Godley, Herodotus wrote:

Moreover, it is their custom to deliberate about the gravest matters when they are drunk; and what they approve in their deliberations is proposed to them the next day, when they are sober, by the master of the house where they deliberate; and if, being sober, they still approve it, they act on it, but if not, they drop it. And if they have deliberated about a matter when sober, they decide upon it when they are drunk.

Herodotus’ reputation as an accurate historian is and was a mixed bag. Within a couple of generations after his death, he had earned a reputation as a liar. He has been called both “The Father of History” and “The Father of Lies” since ancient times. He often credited gods and other supernatural phenomena for events in his histories. However, some of his seemingly fantastical claims have since been proven true, at least in part. For example, Herodotus claimed fox-sized ants in Persia spread gold dust when digging their mounds; in 1984, a French explorer discovered a fox-sized marmot in the Himalayas that spread gold dust when digging. The Persian word for mountain ant and marmot at the time were similar, according to the explorer.

Much of what Herodotus recorded was told to him by other people in his travels, and while he often included commentary on whether or not he believed what others claimed to have happened he still wrote down what others reported anyway. He says as much in Chapter 152 of Book 7: “I however am bound to report that which is reported, though I am not bound altogether to believe it; and let this saying be considered to hold good as regards every narrative in the history.”

Herodotus traveled throughout Greece and modern-day Turkey to collect the accounts he then recorded in “Histories,” and thus never traveled to Persia himself. It is therefore likely someone told him about this supposed custom, although Herodotus did not say who his source was for this particular factoid.

Whatever the truth may be, Herodotus was not the only Greco-Roman historian to claim people of a foreign culture discussed important matters in this way. The Roman historian Tacitus later claimed something similar of the German barbarians in a book about the German people:

In their feasts, they generally deliberate on the reconcilement of enemies, on family alliances, on the appointment of chiefs, and finally on peace and war; conceiving that at no time the soul is more opened to sincerity, or warmed to heroism. These people, naturally void of artifice or disguise, disclose the most secret emotions of their hearts in the freedom of festivity. The minds of all being thus displayed without reserve, the subjects of their deliberation are again canvassed the next day; and each time has its advantages. They consult when unable to dissemble; they determine when not liable to mistake.