Talk:Parthia

I suggest a map indicating the boundaries of Parthia, perhaps at the height of its power, be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.21.122 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

See: Arsacid Empire.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think what Eupator means to say is: Parthia is not the same as the Parthian Empire, just as (for example) Rome is not the same as the Roman Empire, Persia is not the same as the Persian Empire, and Britain is not the same as the British Empire.

But yes, this article does need a map. Ideally, one based on reliable sources, like this. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Upon its review on January 17, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The tag has been there since August 2007 and is very much warranted, as many of the sections lack citations or footnotes. I suggest ensuring that all facts and sections are properly referenced and cited before renomination. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

For something that has shaped Iran more so than the Greek conquest by Alexander and the Macedonians, it seems that there is a lack of interest in creating a better page about Ashkanian history, the same ones that kicked and freed Iran from the Hellenistic world.

--ParthianPrince (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree we need more contributors to describe this Iranian dynasty.. Although try to stay calm in Wikipedia while making good edits :) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The original mainline Parthian dynastic family was not Persian; it was Semitic. The Persians were a subject nation who much later on, rebelled and grabbed control, kicking out the Semitic population, which moved to Armenia (a nominally Roman, but in fact Parthian-ruled province which the Persians couldnt conquer) and usually pretty quickly (because Armenia is small with not much tillable land to feed large numbers) into Europe. They became known as the Goths. The gigantic wave of Goths did not appear in Europe out of nowhere; they were Parthian refugees who on the run from Persian forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.181.195 (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Salam, my apologies if my statements above seemed to be rather emotional, Ive always had a connection with this particular dynasty more so than the others. A pleasure meeting you by the way, would it be all right to quote books in wikipedia, though Ive started to realize that most citations are from websites. --ParthianPrince (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

just edited the article for wrong spellings, will recheck it tomorrow for grammatical and syntax mistakes--ParthianPrince (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My first mission here in wikipedia is to make this article fulfill its fullest potential. I do hope people can aid me in this. Ive recently place the translation of middle persian beside the introduction. corrected some of the other wrong spellings and mistakes in syntax. --ParthianPrince (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.90.235 (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

hopefully I can add them in a few weeks, been a bit busy at work. --ParthianPrince (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

added a few footnotes and changed the text, I am trying my best to make this article the best it can be. --ParthianPrince (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

may be someone can help me in this manner, I would love to create the same template as the sassanid template but if someone can create it for the Parthia article, that would be much appreciated. --ParthianPrince (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

been a bit busy, Ill update the article soon. --ParthianPrince (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just added this note to Parthian Empire, and am leaving it here as well. I have added a "see also: Pathian Empire" to the Parthia page. Whilst doing so, I noticed that Parthian Empire has been moved nine times since January to Parthia. The Parthia article does have a robust section on the Parthian Empire, but is also more expansive than an article specifically focused on the empire. I think a few editors more knowledgeable than I on the subject could be of great assistance in turning the Parthia article into a shorter article on Parthia as far as culture and homeland are concerned, while turning this article into something focused (as the title suggests) entirely on the Parthian Empire alone. At this point, I see no reason why the two article cannot both exist. I intend to do some cleanup here and there, but this is slightly outside my range, so all help is appreciated. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree completely. The Empire content should be moved to the Empire page, and this page should focus on the region and people that pre- and post-date the empire. I don't think that more knowledge is needed however. It is a simple split and move of content. That said, this page has very little content about Parthia itself, and focuses almost entirely on the empire. -Gomm 06:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's physcially impossible to edit those, as the list leads to a bizarre dead end. What do I do? (I mean there were at least two UNKNOWN Kings arould 80 BC. We're talking about the number three country in the WORLD at the time, and everywhere else is extremely well documented despite the antiquity. There are coins and inscrptions and we don't know the dudes' names! So what do I do?Ericl (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The sections surveying Parthia's connection to China and Rome are a good start --but merely draw attention to the extent to which the connection to India is lacking.

There is an academic journal that was basically founded because of scholarly interest in this connection, Indo-Iranian Journal carried by the publisher Springer --admittedly, that journal now carries whatever interests the editors, from any period, etc.

[Admittedly, a lot of European interest in Parthia in the 19th century was a bit "over-the-top", based on fantasies about Alexander the Great, etc. --but it did turn up a few facts of interest.]

I was checking the article myself because I had hoped (or assumed) there would be some notes on the appearances of Parthia in Pali sources, such as the -va'ngsa [semi-historical-]literature, etc. --so far as I know, the written record in Sanskrit is not so inclusive of contacts "northern Barbarians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.212.34 (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Here's a nice photograph of a Parthian jar, 1st-2nd century, probably Iran. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article claims that "Initially, around 238 BCE, their king named Arsaces (Ashk) toppled Andragoras and established his dynasty's independence from the Seleucid Empire, ruling his kingdom in remote areas of northern Iran in what is today known as Turkmenistan." But in the List of Parthian Kings, the article claims that Parthian Empire began in 247 BC. When the Parthian Empire was founded, in 247 BC or in 238 BC?--89.97.102.196 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)an italian user.Reply

Ashkâniân

87.59.87.226 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

the article has wrong name. we have three things here: parthia the land, parthian the civilization, parthian the empire. it seemed, at my first glance, that these are confused in the article. so, i am going to spend sometime on the first thing: parthia the land. once i am ready i will ask for your assistance on how to fix wiki move, replace, links...--Xashaiar (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

From PHG (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is there an image of Scythia ? If there is indeed a proper reason to have it, should its relevance not be made clear?. There is no mention of Scythia in the rest of the article, only in the subscript of the image; As it is, it looks totally out of place. (BoudewijnBecking (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC))Reply

Shouldn't this victory over Crassus be mentioned? Kdammers (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

See where it is rightly mentioned. Xashaiar (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think BC & AD should be used in this article, just like Parthian Empire. *** in fact *** (contact) 14:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No you should not think like that. Common era is more suitable for encyclopaedias (npov) and in scholarly writing CE/BCE is the more acceptable format. Xashaiar (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to BRITANNICA, you are not right! *** in fact *** (contact) 14:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

That source is not what you should look at. In general, examples do not justify your confidence in victory in a fight over preferences. ! . Here is what wikipedia (the only style authority here) says:

• AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing....
• Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.

And I think BCE/CE are neutral. Xashaiar (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is not a fight as you mentioned! I am looking for the best format. I wonder why you did not copy the beginning of that WP:Manual of Style which says: " Years are numbered according to the traditional western Dionysian era (Common Era). AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style. " ?! *** in fact *** (contact) 15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

By the way, if "BCE&CE" are used in religious writings,then they can not be neutral.Because religion has never been neutral. *** in fact *** (contact) 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although I am not satisfied, But I quit this discussion because of this rule, which says:"Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." *** in fact *** (contact) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If we're going to follow that rule and be consistent, then the BC/AD format should be reinstated in this article, for that was the format used here from the very beginning. The first use of BCE/CE came later, despite no substantial reason for the change in systems. The editor who introduced the BCE/CE notation never sought consensus with other editors, and no attempt was made to change the entire article for consistency. If this were a religious topic, then concerns for neutrality of BC/AD would be founded, but this is not the case here. As such, I've since defaulted the dating system to that used first in this article with this edit. As per WP:MOSNUM, if the BCE/CE notation is to be used here in the future, a consensus must be reached on the talk page with all participating editors. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Parthians" are mentioned in The Book of Enoch Chapter 56 verse 5. i have been reading this book and had not heard of Parthians so i looked it up on here and there was no mention of this reference. but now i know what geographic area is being written about. 4.31.110.4 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Terrance Hall4.31.110.4 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Josephus in the preface to his "Wars of the Jews" makes the following statement

"I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians" (Preface, Section 1).

In Section 2 of the Preface he then goes on to identify these "Upper Barbarians" as

"the Parthians, and the Babylonians, and the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni".

Josephus probably wrote his book originally in Aramaic. That he sent copies of it in the original language to the Parthians suggests, does it not, that Aramaic was also widely spoken and understood, at least amongst the educated classes; and possibly more widely.^[1] Mark76 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps just my verions of Firefox but I think not. see, for example:

lang-peo 𐎱𐎼𐎰𐎺

--BenTrem (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply