Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:01, 14 August 2013

Military history: Middle East / Classical Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Ancient Near East Start‑class High‑importance

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright violation

Removed archaeology section, copyright violation from --Doug Weller (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Terracotta Army - Misplaced Pages, the 💕

Needs improvement

The article was really, really, really bad. Now it's just quite bad. Can other editors please help, particularly with sources. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just read the article as it ran before you relaunched it and it did suck phenomenally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.79 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick improvement would be the transformation of dates from "BC/AD" to "BCE/CE", and for obvious reasons. Having in the past been chastised for making such improvements, I leave it to others to effect, and I grumble under my breath at the religious bias by which Christianity is permitted to contextualize all of history, even in a supposedly "neutral" site like Misplaced Pages. (If such an adjustment is permitted, feel free to email me, or mention it on my talk page (I'm not sure how Wikipedians communicate just yet).BarakZ (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed them to BCE, except in reference to article names. Changing the actual article name introduces issues of consistency across a very large number of articles, so that may need to be discussed more broadly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted back to BC per WP:ERA and consistency. We shouldn't have the article's title be BC and the content use BCE, that's unnecessarily confusing and inconsistent. Also, per WP:ERA, BC and BCE are equally acceptable on the encyclopedia, and the notation should not be changed without good reason and proper lengthy discussion and consensus on the talk page. BarakZ, BC/AD are no more a "religious bias" in favor of Christianity than using Wednesday or January are biased in favor of paganism. Not to mention, changing to "BCE/CE" does nothing to change the inherent bias of the epoch divide, it only covers it up with a euphemism — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous Topic-wide Chronology

Historical Events

• King Jehoiakim becomes a vassal to Babylon. (2 Kings 24:1)

1st siege of Jerusalem (iSOJ)

• King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieges Jerusalem during which King Jehoiakim dies and his son, Jehoiachin succeeds him as king. (Daniel 1:1,2; 2 Kings 24:6)

2nd siege of Jerusalem (iiSOJ)

• Three months later, King Nebuchadnezzar again besieges Jerusalem. King Jehoiachin is exiled to Babylon along with the royal family, nobles, soldiers and craftsmen. (2 King 24:10,15)
• Nebuchadnezzar installs Zedekiah, Jehoiachin's uncle, as king. (2 Chronicles 36:9,10)

Final siege against Jerusalem (FSOJ)

• King Zedekiah rebels against Babylon and allies with Egypt. (Ezekiel 17:15)
• King Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:1)
• Egypt's movements cause Babylon to lift it's siege. (Jeremiah 37:5)
• Upon repelling the Egyptians Babylon resumes it's assault on Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 37:7,8,9,10)
• Jerusalem falls, is razed and burned to the ground. (2 Kings 25:8,9,10)

Controversy over the precise date of FSOJ continues to make the absolute dating of this event as well as iSOJ and iiSOJ problematic.

Now, according to the Cyrus Cyllinder, King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.. Cyrus' first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or "the seventh month (Tishri)" as Ezra 3:1 states. Since this date for Israel's repatriation after its seven decade exile in Babylon is based on the pivotal year of 539 B.C.E, and is, therefore, authoritative, this makes:

1. Ab 607 BCE the legitimate year for FSOJ
2. 617 BCE the year for 2SOJ and
3. 618 BCE the year for 1SOJ

Given the whole host of articles pertaining to this period in ancient Jewish history that need to be corrected to these dates, I kindly solicit your help to make these changes effective as soon as possible. I welcome any and all efforts to make this coordinated effort as smooth and efficient as possible, thanks! Maxximiliann (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop trying to push your religious views on Misplaced Pages.

Despite your poor appeal to authority of the Cyrus Cylinder, it says nothing at all about the Jews returning the year after Cyrus' decree. Josephus and Ezra indicate that construction of the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, and that the Jews were in their homeland the year before, which was 538. Beyond that, the 70 years weren't a period of exile, but were a period during which all the surrounding nations were subject to Babylon.

Comparison of 2 Kings and Jeremiah with BM 21946 not only confirms the secular chronology, but also shows the JW chronology to be impossible:

• BM 21946 provides a continuous year-by-year record of Nebuchadnezzar's activities, and shows Nebuchadnezzar returning to the 'Hatti-land' straight after his enthronement. However, the JW chronology has Nebuchadnezzar doing 'a lot of nothing' from his enthronement up until 620 BCE.
• With the JW's 20-year 'adjustment', Nebuchadnezzar's 601 BCE attack on Egypt should be moved to 621 BCE. However, 621 BCE falls before their reckoning of when Jehoiakim began paying tribute. This is problematic for the JW chronology because Josephus gives the attack on Egypt as the reason for Jehoiakim's refusal to pay tribute after three years. ("But on the third year, upon hearing that the king of Babylon made an expedition against the Egyptians, he did not pay tribute," Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, Chapter 6.) If the attack on Egypt is placed in 619 BCE, such that the subsequent request for Jehoiakim's tribute were made on Nebuchadnezzar's return to Babylon in early 618 BCE, this would mean Jehoiakim's refusal to pay would fall in the second year of paying tribute rather than the third. This would suggest that the attack on Egypt would have to have been in 618 BCE. However, BM 21946 (rows 5 to 7 on the reverse) places the attack on Egypt in Kislev (December), at the same time the JW chronology says Nebuchadnezzar was laying siege to Jerusalem.
• Adjusting for the 20-year gap in JW chronology, Nebuchadnezzar's demand for tribute from Jehoiakim in his accession year should be placed in 624 BCE. However, they will not admit there was a siege on Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, despite both BM 21946 (rows 12 and 13 on the front) and Berossus attesting to Nebuchadnezzar's presence in the region to demand tribute in Sebat (February 604 BCE). Instead, they state that Jehoiakim was "compelled" to pay tribute (without acknowledging that this was to curtail a siege) in what they claim was 'really' Nebuchadnezzar's 'first year of Jehoiakim's vassalage', which they place in 620 BCE.
• The JW chronology constrains the period for which Jehoiakim paid tribute from early 620 BCE to mid-618 BCE (about 2.5 years). This contradicts BM 21946 (rows 12, 13, and 15 to 17 on the front, and rows 1 to 5 on the reverse), which places Nebuchadnezzar in the region to exact tributes on various occasions, from his accession year through to his fourth year, which should be 625 BCE (early 624 BCE) until 621 BCE when adjusting for the JW's 20-year gap. Their alternative chronology further contradicts BM 21946 (row 8 on the reverse), which says Nebuchadnezzar stayed in Babylon during his fifth year (620 BCE in JW chronology).
• In addition to the problems the JW chronology causes regarding the reason for which Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute after three years, it also creates further problems for the timing of events between Jehoiakim's refusal to pay and the siege that resulted in most of the Jews being exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE. 2 Kings 24:2 states that in between these two events, various "marauder bands" of "Chaldeans", "Syrians", "Moabites" and "the sons of Ammon" attacked Judah. BM 21946 (rows 9 and 10 on the reverse) states that Nebuchadnezzar sent these "companies" in his sixth year, which—after adjusting for the extra 20 years in JW chronology—should be 619 BCE. However they constrain these "marauder bands" to the latter half of 618 BCE—which would be Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year in their interpretation—when BM 21946 (row 11 on the reverse) says the siege itself took place. BM 21946 (rows 6 to 10 on the reverse) places three full years between the attack on Egypt and the siege on Jerusalem, but the JW chronology forces all these events into late 618 BCE.

It is therefore sufficient to say that the JW view is not compatible with the known facts of the matter, and should not be included at Misplaced Pages articles about historical subjects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

False. Your exegesis of Jeremiah 25:25 is specious, puerile. Verses 12-14 & 17-26 lists those who would suffer Jehovah God's judgment; 'drink from his cup of the wine of his rage.' (25:15,16) It most certainly does not assert what you mendaciously allege. As I've already explicated, the seventy years of desolation Jerusalem had to experience was precisely that. (2 Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5; Jeremiah 29:10) Nowhere is this figure presented as allegorical or figurative in any way, shape or form.

Withal, you just finished stating, "Josephus and Ezra indicate that construction of the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, and that the Jews were in their homeland the year before, which was 538." At worst this would put the desolation of Jerusalem at 608 BCE, nowhere near the figures you're trying to push.

In effect, you're repudiating your own argument for a later date, therefore, your entire delirious argument is laid bare for what it is, utter sophistry. —Maxximiliann talk 03:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You've just pasted the same response that you left at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC), and it's just as irrelevant here as it was there. As with the other Talk page, I didn't even mention Jeremiah 25:25 here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And how exactly does that change the fact that your argument is still deliriously fatuous? —Maxximiliann talk 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're just going to make idiotic dismissive statements instead of addressing facts already presented, you should just leave.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Classical warfare articles
• Classical warfare task force articles
• Start-Class Ancient Near East articles
• High-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment