Misplaced Pages

Talk:Seleucid Empire: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:58, 12 June 2008 editBrando130 (talk | contribs)1,535 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:03, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,379 editsm Archiving 24 discussion(s) to Talk:Seleucid Empire/Archive 2, Talk:Seleucid Empire/Archive 1) (botTag: Replaced 
(212 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1=
{{WP Iraq |class=B |importance=mid|nested=yes}}
{{WP Syria |class=B |importance=mid|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Iran|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject Iran|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=Mid}}
{{WPFC|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Syria|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Former countries}}
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
|algo = old(365d)
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|counter = 2
|archive = Talk:Seleucid Empire/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
==Army Sizes==
Alot of this information seems exagerated. Hopefully a wikihistorian can do something about it. I still dont know much about the seleucid empire, though I do know 100,000 men and 9,000 war elephants is completly absurd. What moron would send all those men to india for a mere trade alliance instead of conquering something closer to him, or perhaps retaking the other greek provinces nearby(Maybe egypt to gain more mediterainian control?).

:Wildly exagerated figures are pretty much par for the course for this period when proper bookeeping didn't exist.] 19:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== Gah == == Gah ==

This article is awful...I shall overhaul at some point. ] ] 14:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) This article is awful...I shall overhaul at some point. ] ] 14:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks so much for the note! I was going to use it for a presentation.... Ah the dangers of wiki. ] 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Thanks so much for the note! I was going to use it for a presentation.... Ah the dangers of wiki. ] 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Line 18: Line 29:
I've rewritten much of the article - unfortunately, I just discovered that there's a lot of overlap with ]. Any thoughts on how to do this? ] ] 5 July 2005 04:22 (UTC) I've rewritten much of the article - unfortunately, I just discovered that there's a lot of overlap with ]. Any thoughts on how to do this? ] ] 5 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)


== Seleucid Armies == == Chaniotis 2006? ==

Does any know the composition of Seleucid armies. Would they be composed like the Macedonian armies of Alexander or would they be closer to the Persian armies, or a combination of the best of both. ] 13:29, 26 August 2005

I think they had a phalanx, like Alexander's armies. I know they had elephants, as well. Probably something of a combination of the Persian and Macedonian style armies - Macedonian style infantry, and Persian style cavalry. But I'm not sure. ] ] 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

==References==

This article, despite being lengthy and informative, contains no references at all, save for one web link. I'm putting the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template at the top of the page to reflect this worrying state of affairs. ] 23:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

==Era names==

This article is currently using a mix of BC and BCE, so we need to pick one over the other. ] 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
:I agree on the History of Greater Iran series they use BCE and in other historical articles from about this era do to. ] 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

== Palestina instead of Judah ==

Palestina versus Israel is a delicate and long debate present in many articles. A user changed the current word "Palestina" into "Judah", explaining that at the time of Seleucid dinasty the deleted name didn't exist yet. But he/she is wrong.
First of all Palestina is the actual name of the region where present day Israel and Palestine Authority are based, while Judah it's not the name of that place. That's why I corrected the change. Also, that's not an anachronism neither. The word comes from the latin version of Philistine, (or שְׁתִּים, in hebrew), a people how inhabited the region long before jews arrive.

:No, I'm not wrong at all. ALmost everything you said above is wrong and POV. The Philistines were there before the Jews? Where is your source? The place is controlled by Israel today, but the name in Seleucid times was Judah or Coele-Syria. FACT. ] (]) 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

::The source is the Old Testament (written by the jews). The place is off course controled by Isreal state, but the region's name doesn't change because of that. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::That would be wrong. This was the region's name from AD 135 to 1948. The Romans picked this name out of hatred for the Jews in AD 135. Before that it had other names. There is no logical reason to go with the later Roman name, it is anachronostic and obsolete and POV as a term to describe this region. There was an entity called Philistia, but it was nowhere near the size of the other entities and besides it is not the same as the Latin name Palestine. There is absolutely no reason to use that POV name when the name at the time, Judah or Coele-Syria would be more accurate. ] (]) 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:Chronicles of the Bible Lands: A history of the Holy Lands. John Rogerson, 2003. ISBN 1-904594--05-0 pg36 ; "Betwen 200 and 198BC Judah was wrestled from Egypt by the Greek rulers of Syria, the Seleucids" Though my preference would be for either what the conquering empire called the region , or what the conquered people called themselves at that time. Shown with references. ] 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
::That would be ] and ]. Definitely NOT the Neo-Latin contemptuous term ''Palaestina'' which was designed solely to excise the name of 'Judah' from the history books, and it appears that very same spirit is once again raising its ugly head in the world... ] (]) 14:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I am looking forward to the references. ] 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The first time the term ''Palaestina'' was used by the greek historian Herodot (485-425). So the Romans did not invent the term. The terms "Judah" and "Palaestina" existed both at the same time during the seleucidian reign. Probably the Jews around Jerusalem used the term "Judah", while most of the inhabitants of the cities at the coast spoke of "Palaestina". That may have been a reason for the Seleucids to use the more neutral term "Coele-Syria" for the region.

:Judah was a name for the southern portion of modern Israel and at the time the northern part plus Lebanon and such was called Syria or Israel. ] 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::I say Judaea. Why? That's what Tacitus says. In fact, he also says a Seleucid was king of Syria when Titus burnt the temple. So this article is kind of wrong...] 00:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

==Double infobox==
Apart dispute, the current article features two times the same infobox. Bye. --] 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
:I know right. It's driving me crazy. Does anyone know anyone to get this problem fixed while others are still arguing.] 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

== Reasons of protection ==

The disputed sentence stated: “...the Empire comprised central Anatolia, Syria, Palestina, Mesopotamia, Persia, Turkmenistan, Pamir and the Indus valley.” as of 14:22, 29 January 2007. Then, an user called Codex Sinaiticus, judged the word “Palestina” undesirable. So he changed it into “Judah”, once, and, using a pop-up program, he did it twice, again and again until I asked a fully protection for the article. Well I’ll avoid to questioning about this user personal past behaviour in wikipedia edits, as well as whether he is totally impartial on this matter or not; me personnally I’m not jewish, and I’m not muslim neither.

So, let’s focus on the topic. The word that has to be retained (“Palestine” or “Judah”) is supposed to reflect the name of the region comprised between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea (I hope those names will be accepted by everybody). It’s absolutely irrilevant wich names were given to that region by the differents politicals entities that occupied it. Image if China would change the name of Tibet.

Well, it happens that the english name is '''Palestine'''. The word has its roots in the latin Palaestinae, who came from the hebrew Plishtim (שְׁתִּים). What is more, it have been the name since several millennia, long before the word Judea was coined. The firt written evidence of that was written sometime between the 11th and the 7th century BCE, and treaths about events roughly situated between the 23rd and 15th century BCE. It is, try to guess, the Bible. Written by Jews, in hebrew. In the Genesis book, the word “Philistins” is mentionned eight times before the first time the word “Juda” is. Still, “Juda” is just the name of a ''person'', who will, based on the Bible story, found thereafter an offspring, while “Philistins” is since the second time coupled with “land of”: for instance, a ''land'', a ''region''. For exemple: “Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines for many years.”, Genesis 21, 34. So, the Romans didn’t invented anything, and Herodot wasn’t the first to mention the name neither.

Thereafter, many many others occupied Palestine. Notably, the jews did. And they created the kingdom of Isreal and Judea, who later split in two indipendent states. But still, those names were kingdoms’ names, they didn’t have vocation to designate the region, and if they had, it’s not really important because they ''didn’t follow'' the Philistins presence, but just ''went with''.
Jews were not the only ones to occupy Palestine. The region was later conquered by Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantins, Arabs, etc, etc... None of them tried to change the name of Palestine once acquired, perhaps because they had their native region far away, thus they weren’t interested on assimilate the region or change its appelation. Even the crusades used unchanged names of local cities to call their kingdoms.

So, based on the jewish sources, the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea was called “land of Philistins” since before Abraham time, thus prior to the 23rd - 15th century BCE, while, upon the same sources, the names Judea and Israel were superimposed to Palestine since the 13th BCE ‘til, and then there are other multiple sources to inform us, the 2nd century CE, and then again since the 19th CE ‘til the present day. Archeological evidence confirm the Philistins, and thus their name, were present in Palestine before jews tribes arrive.

Ok, that’s for the past, but what about today? Even if the disputed article concerns an ancient age, it’s important to know the present day name. It’s not unusual to read the Aztecs settled Mesoamerica, even if the word America was coined in the 16th century CE, or that dynosaurs inhabited Australia, even if Australia is a recent name and the retroactive appellation given to that land mass at dynosaurs’ times is Pangea. It’s not an anachronism, it’s just a way to define the limits of a place. Well, perhaps also because of the Romans’ decision in 135 CE (after all, they had a discrete influence in the Western civilization), the totality of the world retained the name Palestine. Anyway it is the ''name given in english language'' to the region today occupied by the Isreal state, and that since long before zionism arrised.

Of course here follows a list of scholar’s quotes who credit all that. Here is what says one of the biggest works about the Seleucid Empire: “301 BCE (summer): Seleucus and Lyisinadrus defeat Antigonus at Ipsus. Ptolomy I of Egypt seized Phoenicias and '''Palestine'''.” from The Cambridge history of Iran, page 19, volume 3 The Seleucid, Ponthian and Sasanian periods, ISBN 0 521 20092 X, ISBN 0 521 24693 8, ISBN 0 521 24699 7, chapter written by E. Bicherman, emeritus professor of ancient history, Columbia University, New York. Of course Palestine is used all along the book, and Judea is never mentionnned. But let’s read another source: “From IX to I century five big political entities were created including Mesopotamia and the West of the Middle East (western Syria, Phoenice and '''Palestine'''): the Neo-assyrian Empire, Neo-babylonian, Achamenid Persian, Hellenistic and Seleucid, the Arsacid Parthian.” from Mesopotamia at Ist millennium BC, page 5, volume I, ISBN 2 200 26120 9, section written by Francis Joanès, emeritus professor of ancient history, Paris VIII University, Paris. Also here, like elsewhere, Palestine is the only name used in the whole work.


Cited twice but with no further information: anyone got any idea what it might be? , but the wrong page numbers and, as far as I can see, subject matter. ] (]) 10:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, these are exemples of what the world thinks, but what about Jews? What they think Palestine’s name is? Well, actually is not really important, but it can be helpful for avoid any doubt. So here is a text from and israeli author: “In the area dealing with geography, Le Strange and the collection of sources in his “'''Palestine''' under the Muslims” are considerably helpful, as are Avi Yonah’s work on the geographycal history of '''Palestine''', Dussaud on the topography of Syria, and the encyclopaedic enterprise of Z. Vilny (Ariel).” from A history of '''Palestine''', page XV, ISBN 0 521 40437 1, written by Moshe Gil, professor of jewish history, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. This quote is very interesting, not just for the nationality of its writer, but also because it states both in the book’s title and in its text the choice for the word Palestina, because in the choiced sentence it is used as sole definition the name Palestine even if it was suitable for style elegance avoid to repeat the same word shortly after in the same sentence, and because it credits an another israeli scholar. And what did Avi Yonah write? “Jerusalem: Old city in '''Palestine''', first settled in the early 3rd millennium BC, and first mentioned in contemporary documents in the middle of the 2nd millennium.” from Illustrated encyclopaedia of the classic world, page 254, ISBN 0 06 010178 4, written by Michael Avi Yonah, professor of classical archeology and history of art at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
So. Of all dozens books I consulted, we can note that all the historians from all around the world, included jewish ones, used as sole name for the mentioned region the word “Palestine”, the majority of isrealians authors used as sole name “Palestine”, and a minority of isrealians authors used both “Palestine” and “Judea” as synonymes. Thus I think there shall no be any doubt about Palestine’s appellation.


== I fixed content ==
Maybe I wrong, but I have little hope this list of proofs will convice Codex Sinaiticus. I feel like he made his choice long ago, before even his birth, so I don’t think logic or evidences can have any weight to his eyes. Instead, what can be done, is to develop a discussion, and contact the administrator resposible for the page’s protection, ], once a consensus has been reached. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


I fixed the preceded country link to the macedonia empire page. ] (]) 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
::You are arguing that the name of the region was was "Philistin" even before the Hebrews got there. However, the pre-Hebrew name that is corroborated by archaeological evidence, Biblical records, and records of all neighbouring peoples is "Canaan". Although the Bible mentions Philistines already in the country in Abraham's day, Scholarly consensus actually contradicts this and says that the Philistines were latecomers who got there well after the Hebrews. But even if they were there in Abraham's day, "Philistia" never applied to anywhere outside of their coastal settlements near Gaza. While some Greeks knew the term, it did not become official until 130 AD. The reason is because they could not stand the name Judah and they were attempting to do a large-scale ] on the name Judah so it would not appear anywhere. We don't have to follow this Roman damnatio memoriae today; the country was officially called Judea and Coelo-Syria in Seleucid times, so Palestine is both an anachronism and a pov term when used in the sense of a damnatio memoriae. ] (]) 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


== Native name? ==
::Palestine is a misnomer from 135AD that became accepted even up until the 1940s. This may have been said before, but the Philistines lived mainly in a narrow coastal strip. They were genetically distinct from modern day Palestinians, having come from Crete or Greece. So as well as a misnomer, it will make some readers assume that today's "Palestinians" have a historical claim to the land of Israel. So call it Judah, or Israel if you want to go further north. ]] 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Since a series of edits in 2015 this article has shown an unsourced purported "native name" in Ancient Greek, "Βασιλεία τῶν Σελευκιδῶν". Was this name ever used and is there any sourcing for it? ] ] 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
:::We could just cut out Syria and Palestina/Judah/Israel and call it the ] instead; this would be accurate and avoid the whole issue. ] 01:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


:No. The most detailed study of this issue is probably still Edson 1958 (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/364260?journalCode=cp), who finds that ancient literary sources call the kingdom "imperium Macedonicum" ("Macedonian empire" - mainly ]), "basilea hellenon" ("kingdom of the Greeks" - Jewish sources only), Asia (the only term that appears in a Seleucid inscription), and "Syria". Weirdly, he doesn't mention that ] refers to ἡ δὲ ἀρχὴ τῶν Σελευκιδῶν ("the realm/empire of the Seleucids") three times in the ''Syriaca'' (246, 346, 368). He is the only ancient source to use the term "Seleucid". For my part, I don't believe that the kingdom ''had'' a consistent name. ] (]) 20:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::Ok the hyperlink "judah" sends me to a page that does not represent the area that you guys are talking about. Stop being so goddamn uptight, just call that region whatever the seleucids called it.
-15 feb 2007. non-member.


:: Thanks, that confirms my suspicion. Great to also have a source for it. I'll remove the name then. ] ] 12:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Seeing as the principals of the debate are no longer discussing anything, consensus is not likely to be reached. However, this page needs to be unprotected so that we don't simply violate the fundamental principles of wikipedia. ] 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


==map== === In sources ===


Hello, ], thanks for looking at the sources and providing the exact quote on which the previous name was based on. I can now understand why ] initially added "βασιλεύς ''τοῦ'' Συρίας", which I corrected to "''τῆς'' Συρίας" instead. I guess, Leopardus is not familiar with ancient Greek grammar, but of course there's nothing wrong with that. Now that I see the quote, I can tell that the masculine article τοῦ (of) refers to the masculine noun: βασιλέως (of the king), and not to the feminine noun: Συρίας (of Syria).
The map on here isn't very helpful considering it's not in English.


The quote that you provided: "...Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Συρίας βασιλέως" can support the wording: βασιλεύς Συρίας (''basileus Syrias'' i.e "King of Syria") or in the reversed order as it is found in the quote: Συρίας βασιλεύς (''Syrias basileus'' "of Syria the king") which in Greek makes sense too.
The map on this page is actually a map of the Achaemenid empire, which is what the key refers to when you zoom in. Although it looks about the same, can one that is actually the right empire be found?] (]) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)01:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Also, where the source says "descended from Seleucus Nicator", I'm pretty sure it refers to the name: Σελευκίδαι (''Seleukidai''), from which the latinized and anglicised terms ''Seleucidae'' and ''Seleucids'' respectively derive. Also, I'm pretty sure that the term "King of Asia" would have been written in Greek sources as ''basileus Asias'', althoug I'm not sure if these necessarily need to be added, without at least a source verifying them. ] (]) 12:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
==Introduction==
Please do not change the introduction. The Seleucide empire was a Macedonian empire, the dynasty was Macedonian. The land was certainly Hellenised. Please refer to the well known literature starting with Hammond, Borsa etc, and older writers like Justin (Trogus), or Diodorus. I will give you these references if you do not know them (they are obligatory literature for the first university year of Greek studies all over the world!).] (]) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


:Hi ], I see what you and ] mean. I was a bit in a rush and didn't see the mistake initially, but I'm glad you both picked that up and fixed it. I also think that it is very important to include the Greek translation of "King of Syria" in the Name section as it is pretty much attested in epigraphy, and since it is also lacking in the introduction sentence, which previously had a Greek name for the Seleucid empire. ] (]) 12:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:Gotta disagree. If the Seleucid empire can't be called politcally Hellenistic, I don't know what state could. If you're merely referring to the fact that Seleucus Nicator was from Macedon, this is quite an unimpressive reason to alter the wording as Macedon's political elite were also fully Hellenized; Seleucus included. ] (]) 18:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
::We should not provide "Greek translations" of English phrases; if we were to provide any Greek, it should be the original Greek and fully supported by citations. I see no reason for us to provide a Greek original for that phrase and not the others, thus highlighting that one as if more common or significant. I do not see why it is important to include such phrases at all; they will be meaningless to the vast majority of our readers. Instead we provide sourced English translations. ] (]) 12:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::We should provide Greek translations and terms for ''some'', specific words and phrases, as it is both relevant and interesting for readers, especially regarding the name of a kingdom or empire, or also that of the rulers where possible. I completely disagree. It is in fact a pretty common practice on Misplaced Pages and is used in other Hellenistic-themed articles. Furthermore, the Greek version of King of Syria is ''not'' original research, and is clearly attested in epigraphy as previously mentioned, and it is sourced. Also it is just an example of one designation for the rulers of the late Seleucid empire. Therefore its inclusion is completely justified.
:::Of course that's just your opinion, but I think it was better to have it in the article. If you can include a good substitute, then that would be sufficient too. ] (]) 13:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's okay, no worries. Regarding the transliterated names, having also in mind what NebY said about the undue weight, I believe that some, although not necessarily every single one of them, could bee included, as long as we can verify them. ] (]) 12:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Btw, an alternative for a term in the original language (if it can be verified in a source) could also be just a note, so that the section itself wouldn't clutter with translations and transliterations. ] (]) 13:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:Our source would have been quite capable of saying merely "Seleucid" but was more specific. We really don't need to add the Greek for these terms. ] (]) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, you're right. Btw, I believe that this section does have some potential for expansion, but as far as the current version is concerned, I also think that if a term is added, it should be verified, and some names might not necessarily need a translation either. ] (]) 12:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:03, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seleucid Empire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
          Other talk page banners
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIran Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGreece Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIraq Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFormer countries (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTurkey Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gah

This article is awful...I shall overhaul at some point. john k 14:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the note! I was going to use it for a presentation.... Ah the dangers of wiki. The lesbian 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten much of the article - unfortunately, I just discovered that there's a lot of overlap with Seleucid dynasty. Any thoughts on how to do this? john k 5 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

Chaniotis 2006?

Cited twice but with no further information: anyone got any idea what it might be? This paper has the right author and date, but the wrong page numbers and, as far as I can see, subject matter. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed content

I fixed the preceded country link to the macedonia empire page. Unfriendly770 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Native name?

Since a series of edits in 2015 this article has shown an unsourced purported "native name" in Ancient Greek, "Βασιλεία τῶν Σελευκιδῶν". Was this name ever used and is there any sourcing for it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No. The most detailed study of this issue is probably still Edson 1958 (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/364260?journalCode=cp), who finds that ancient literary sources call the kingdom "imperium Macedonicum" ("Macedonian empire" - mainly Justin), "basilea hellenon" ("kingdom of the Greeks" - Jewish sources only), Asia (the only term that appears in a Seleucid inscription), and "Syria". Weirdly, he doesn't mention that Appian refers to ἡ δὲ ἀρχὴ τῶν Σελευκιδῶν ("the realm/empire of the Seleucids") three times in the Syriaca (246, 346, 368). He is the only ancient source to use the term "Seleucid". For my part, I don't believe that the kingdom had a consistent name. Furius (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that confirms my suspicion. Great to also have a source for it. I'll remove the name then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In sources

Hello, NebY, thanks for looking at the sources and providing the exact quote on which the previous name was based on. I can now understand why Leopardus62 initially added "βασιλεύς τοῦ Συρίας", which I corrected to "τῆς Συρίας" instead. I guess, Leopardus is not familiar with ancient Greek grammar, but of course there's nothing wrong with that. Now that I see the quote, I can tell that the masculine article τοῦ (of) refers to the masculine noun: βασιλέως (of the king), and not to the feminine noun: Συρίας (of Syria).

The quote that you provided: "...Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Συρίας βασιλέως" can support the wording: βασιλεύς Συρίας (basileus Syrias i.e "King of Syria") or in the reversed order as it is found in the quote: Συρίας βασιλεύς (Syrias basileus "of Syria the king") which in Greek makes sense too.

Also, where the source says "descended from Seleucus Nicator", I'm pretty sure it refers to the name: Σελευκίδαι (Seleukidai), from which the latinized and anglicised terms Seleucidae and Seleucids respectively derive. Also, I'm pretty sure that the term "King of Asia" would have been written in Greek sources as basileus Asias, althoug I'm not sure if these necessarily need to be added, without at least a source verifying them. Piccco (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Piccco, I see what you and NebY mean. I was a bit in a rush and didn't see the mistake initially, but I'm glad you both picked that up and fixed it. I also think that it is very important to include the Greek translation of "King of Syria" in the Name section as it is pretty much attested in epigraphy, and since it is also lacking in the introduction sentence, which previously had a Greek name for the Seleucid empire. Leopardus62 (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
We should not provide "Greek translations" of English phrases; if we were to provide any Greek, it should be the original Greek and fully supported by citations. I see no reason for us to provide a Greek original for that phrase and not the others, thus highlighting that one as if more common or significant. I do not see why it is important to include such phrases at all; they will be meaningless to the vast majority of our readers. Instead we provide sourced English translations. NebY (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
We should provide Greek translations and terms for some, specific words and phrases, as it is both relevant and interesting for readers, especially regarding the name of a kingdom or empire, or also that of the rulers where possible. I completely disagree. It is in fact a pretty common practice on Misplaced Pages and is used in other Hellenistic-themed articles. Furthermore, the Greek version of King of Syria is not original research, and is clearly attested in epigraphy as previously mentioned, and it is sourced. Also it is just an example of one designation for the rulers of the late Seleucid empire. Therefore its inclusion is completely justified.
Of course that's just your opinion, but I think it was better to have it in the article. If you can include a good substitute, then that would be sufficient too. Leopardus62 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It's okay, no worries. Regarding the transliterated names, having also in mind what NebY said about the undue weight, I believe that some, although not necessarily every single one of them, could bee included, as long as we can verify them. Piccco (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Btw, an alternative for a term in the original language (if it can be verified in a source) could also be just a note, so that the section itself wouldn't clutter with translations and transliterations. Piccco (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Our source would have been quite capable of saying merely "Seleucid" but was more specific. We really don't need to add the Greek for these terms. NebY (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Btw, I believe that this section does have some potential for expansion, but as far as the current version is concerned, I also think that if a term is added, it should be verified, and some names might not necessarily need a translation either. Piccco (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: