Talk:Orontid Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Armenia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Orontid Dynasty is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Persian origin[edit]

We can all collect references to the Orontid Dynasty's Persian origin here, for example: [1], [2], [3]. Also related: [4], [5] and [6]. --AdilBaguirov 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They may have served the Aechamenid Empire in the past, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were ethnic Persian. -- Davo88 03:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Adil the last reference you gave [7] is that like a website for some kind of a gameing website? www.gaminggeeks.org? ROOB323 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
ROOB323, what about the other 5 (!) URLs? And this is not even the full list -- just smth I've collected in a few minutes. More can be provided, but why, it's a fact that all knowledgeable people admit and know, including Armenian historians. Meanwhile, Davo88, you are vandalizing the page by making such reverts and irrelevant and unsupported comments (post at least one scholarly article or reference that disputes Orontids Persian origin -- just one article!) -- I will report you for that. --AdilBaguirov 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many confounding theories about the origins of the Orontid dynasty, for example, that they were of Greeks [8] or that they were related to Persian rulers... If they really did have foreign origins, nothing changes the fact that they were Armenian nationals. -- Davo88 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, your source does not claim Orontids were ethnically Greek. Secondly, that unscholarly source does not equal Encyclopedia Iranica, or any of the other scholarly sources, along with Classical sources, including Armenian sources, which make clear that Orontid Dynasty of Armenia, like Artaxiad Dynasty of Armenia, were of Iranian origin. Third, the term "Armenian nationals" does not apply, as one has to show that there was a unified and distinct Armenian nation some 2,500 years ago at the time of Orontids. Finally, my edit is very clear and states what it states, not saying anything more or less -- hence your or others' POV on Orondits et al is not applicable. You should not engage in revert war's by removing verifiable, scholarly, authoritative and fully-sourced and discussed information from the pages. Put it back the very same way you removed it. --AdilBaguirov 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes there was. It may be unconceivable for you, but the region as a whole was called Armenia by then, as stated by Greek writers and also in the Behistun inscriptions. These facts are very clear and concrete, I don't even need to discuss them. Besides, your sources don't claim that the Orontids were ethnic Persians, while they may have been loosely related to the Aechamenid royal family. -- Davo88 13:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1) Whether any given region was/is called Armenia is completely irrelevant, as we are discussing the ethnic origins of Orontids (and Artaxiads and Arsacids).
2) Perhaps you overlooked: "The Orontid kings of Armenia were descended from the Achaemenid line" [9]. Then there is here: [10] "The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History", by Thomas T. Allsen, Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 2006, p. 37: "The Orontid dynasty of Armenia (ca. 401-200), whose ruling house was of Achaemenid origin...". Also, "This Orontes was married about 401 B.C. to the Princess Rhodogune, daughter of the Persian Great King Artaxerxes II." The Cambridge History of Iran By Ehsan Yarshater, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 506.
Also, here [11] "Artasyras, the King’s Eye, brought the news of Prince Cyrus' death to Artaxerxes II, and Artasyras's son Orontes who had been present (and perhaps distinguished himself) at the Battle of Kounaxa and was given Rhodogunde the daughter of Artaxerxes II and made Satrap of Armenia. In the late 380s after Persia had suffered serious reverses in Egypt, Orontes was recalled from Armenia to head the Persian army while Tiribazes commanded at sea. They quarreled and their case went before a court of four Persian nobles who found for Tiribazes with Orontes being disgraced and dismissed from his position as Satrap of Armenia. In the 360s BCE several of the Persian Satraps revolted and chose Orontes as their leader. However he betrayed them to the King and made peace with General Ochus. Orontes was then reappointed as Satrap of Armenia and became the founder of the autonomous Armenian Orontid dynasty." --AdilBaguirov 10:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
They had strong ties to the Acheamenid Dynasty as the article clearly states several times. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides that, they were ethnically Persian, as is also stated numerous times. --AdilBaguirov 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No they were not, they just intermarried with them. Xenophon writes about them during the time of the Medes, so does Movses Khorenatsi. They had names of Indo-Aryan origin, none of which were Persian.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Armenians are NOT Indo-Aryan. --176.14.180.11 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes they were Persian, scholarly sources are clear about it -- instead of being disruptive, either accept this fact or provide a scholarly rebuttal, that would prove your POV. Until then, the reference must stay. --AdilBaguirov 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Extensive evidence has been presented -- Orontids were ethnically Persian. --adil 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been almost a year Adil! Give up already. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
a year since you supress evidence of Persian origin of the Orontids. You should not do that, accept the fact as all scholars have. --adil 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
See above.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, you too, note all the facts which you cannot dispute -- Orontids were Persian. --adil 07:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User Hakob acts on behalf of his friends and aggressively reverts pages that don't suit his POV, removing sourced material. Unacceptable. --adil 07:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume what another users intentions are. Stop toying with these articles and open an RFC if you must.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
you should open an RFC if any of my sources unqualify for Wikipedia's Verifiability clause. Don't supress the info. My sources are verifiable, academic and authoritative. --adil 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have placed back the two references about the Persian origin of the dynasty, from very authoritative, verifiable and third-party sources. Meanwhile, I did preserve the Armenian langauge spelling of the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talkcontribs) 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Now that Hakob taken over Eupator's duties to blindly revert and supress info, I've placed (yet again) back the verifiable and academic references about the Persian origin of the dynasty. --adil 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The context written on this page is self-explanatory your intentions are not to help articles but remove historical information on certain types of articles which should be stopped. Artaxiad 02:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk about your intentions instead -- you are the one who contradicts Wiki rules and removes verifiable, academic info. You should not do that. --adil 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Theres enough references in general your introducing new theories. Artaxiad 03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I've said on the Tigranes the Great article, Adil, all of this evidence is based on your original research and personal interpretations. I'm reverting this article to its earlier version. -- Aivazovsky 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


What is the source of this Mehan listed as ruling from 321 to 317 BC? Also from the books I've read there seems to be some dispute wether Neoptolemus was actually appointed satrap or was just the general entrusted with subjugating the area. Fornadan (t) 12:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

the origin of the dynasty[edit]

apperently its origin is Greek or Persian ot Armenian.193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Bring some sources please. So can I say, that Urartu population was extremely Armenian, but I should give sources to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.55.213 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Persian origins[edit]

  • The Middle East under Rome, by Maurice Sartre, p23. Harvard University Press.
  • The royal hunt in Eurasian history, by Thomas T. Allsen, p37. University of Pennsylvania Press. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Called son of Artasuras the Bactrian, or simply Bactrian;
  • The Cambridge history of Iran, Volume 2, by William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Avery, p354.
  • The Numismatic chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, by Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain),p6. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ancient Greek orientalist painters: the literary evidence, by Tomasz Polański, p212. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good of you to have an access to so many sources. Could you please provide exact quotes for those of us who don't have those books. And for those sources which are available online, could you please also mention the page numbers? Thanks. -- Ashot  (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

All of these sources do have page numbers, the ones that do not have links. And I believe I found all of them on books.google.com. I am in no way stating that they were not Armenian. Nor have I removed "Armenian" or references stating Armenian ancestry(compared to the reactionary reverts I have seen). However, when 3 different university presses are stating Persian/Bactrian, that evidence is substantial. As for the "Ancient Greek orientalist painters", it states that Rhodogoune's dowry was the satrapy of Armenia. Grazer Beiträge, Volume 24, Universität Graz. Institut für Klassische Philologie, p203, states the same thing. It is a pity that certain(Aryamahasattva,Kevorkmail,Phoenicians8) editors that are reverting this, can not be bothered to discuss this issue. Along with Phoenicians8's canvassing for revertion, sets a poor example of "cooperation" for this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note, that I haven't said I doubt whether they have page numbers. What I said was something very different. Say one wants to see where in this source they are "called Persian", do you think he/she has to read over the whole source? Additionally I totally share Marshal's point of view presented below. And yes, I fully assume good faith per your edits (though disagree with those). -- Ashot  (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If the mass-canvassing implimented to edit-war over the sources I have posted in the article were not removed, you could read it that way. As it is, I am tired of the insults(Moosh88), edit-warring and mass-canvassing(by Phoenicians8 and his anon IPs). You can read this edit[14], which has been removed(again) without discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It might be useful to keep in mind that even if the original founder of this dynasty was from the Achaemenian royal family, that still would not negate the fact that it was an Armenian dynasty. The same can be said about the Arsacids of Armenia and the Georgian Bagrationis. The founder of the Armenian Arsacid family was the brother of the Parthian king but within a few centuries the line had been thoroughly Armenianized; in a similar vein, the Bagrationi line was founded by an Armenian but that dynasty was assimilated into the ethnic and cultural milieu of Georgia. I don't think then anyone would dispute calling this dynasty Armenian, although it's possible that its founder may have been Armenian.
The fact of the matter is that the primary sources are so contradictory that it's difficult to saying anything with definite certainty (especially the works by Roman-era sources). Specialized sources, like the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, are the material which we should be looking to so I'm not sure if books with titles like Ancient Greek orientalist painters will carry much authority nor knowledge on the issue. I will see what the ASE article says about the origins of the family.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this not a repeat of what occured in '07?--Moosh88 (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this[15] your idea of assuming good faith? Calling someone an "Iranian POV pusher"? Is this how "discussions" are conducted; mass canvassing, edit-warring and insults? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No one is insulting you, so relax. Review this it may help you understand that wikipedia is not a battleground.--Moosh88 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
An authoritative source that we can all consult is Cyril Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington D.C., 1963). The entire work is available online for viewing and the author has a lengthy section just on the Orontids themselves here. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Here, 2nd para specifically Cyril Toumanoff says that the eponym's praenomen Orontes is Avestan. Any problem with this source? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That kind of goes back to what I wrote earlier. The founder of the dynasty may have been a member of the Achaemenian royal family and thus a Persian but the dynasty itself, which was to last for over two hundred years, intermarried with the Armenians and was assimilated into the Armenian social and cultural fabric.
Nina Garsoian, another specialist from the field whom we may quote, writes about the Orontids under the heading "The Native Dynasties: Eruanids (Orontids) and Artasesids (Artashesids)" in her chapter "Emergence of Armenia" in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. i (New York, 1997), p. 46. Garsoian writes, "Both the interior chronology of Movses Xorenac'i and the reading of the Armwavir inscriptions are still open to considerable disagreement, but the existence of a local Armenian dynasty, probably of Iranian origin, as indicated by Strabo and Movses Xorenac'i as well as by the Eruanid name, has now received additional corroboration..." (pp. 46-47). That tells us very much and is nuanced enough to precisely define the identity of the dynasty: an Armenian one but one of probable Iranian heritage, no different a case than the Armenian Arsacids or Georgian Bagrationis.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, Cyril Toumanoff mentioned the term "the First Armenian Monarchy", talking about Orontid Armenia. It appears that the religion of the state was Zoroastrianism. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That shouldn't really come as a surprise. Up until the adoption of Christianity, the religion of Armenia was a syncretic form of Zoroastrianism and native mythology.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not object the article lede mentioning "Armenian dynasty of probable Persian heritage". This would summarize the article content according to WP:LEAD and would be inline with provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no objections; I would only tweak the word "Persian" with "Iranian", which just appears to be the word used more by academia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Orontids were Armenian, not Iranian[edit]

In response to User:Fornadan's defense of an "academic source", it should be made aware the Richard Hovannisian is not a reliable academic. He has been condemned by the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan State University for falsifying Armenian history. His book consistently has the goal of attributing Armenian history to other nationalities and referring to the Armenians as outsiders in their own homeland, which is why he has been accused of having political motives such as in the video I linked. Other statements by him are just plain wrong, such as the book stating (Volume II, page 432) that the first Armenian book was printed in 1660, in Holland, when in fact it was published by Hakob Meghapart in 1512, in Venice. I am removing his false claim unless you have any objections. --Steverci (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN then. I've restored it, attributing the statement to him. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
See also [16] If there are sources stating differently then we can use them as well perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Ultimately any claiming Iranian ancestry are probably based off, and thus misinformed, by Hovannisian. Sources that refer to Armenians as "colonists" and "invaders" when they are indigenous to the Armenian Highland are clearly politically motivated and not credible. --Steverci (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems we have an Ayvazyan fanboy on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
What? --Steverci (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You know who I'm talking about. I find it amusing that that pseudo-historian's rabble-rousing against western academia fails to see any irony in supporting the main failing of western scholarship: the failure to properly consider historical Armenia's close connections with Iranian culture and traditions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)