Talk:Sasanian Empire

Article size

While making a small edit to this article, I saw a Wiki-generated note about the large size of the article and a reference to WP:LENGTH. I do not feel comfortable taking on this project so I wanted to post a note. --*momoricks* (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

True extent of the Great Sassanin empire: The map you guys posted isn't the real one. Here's the actual map of the empire. Fix it please or I will. http://www.fouman.com/Y/Picture_View-Map_Sassanid_Empire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.46.224 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

True map

This is te more accurate one. http://www.fouman.com/Y/Picture_View-Map_Sassanid_Empire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.46.224 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

map

how did Sassanid Empire rule kuwait althought the city was Built in 1613...!! --Bayrak (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuwait

Well Kuwait was still a land its like saying that the area of London was taken over.so please research first 79.65.109.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

University

I removed the following text, because: (1) The edit was placed at the wrong level of detail in this article, i.e. it did not rate a section. (2) The information belonged in a single sentence in /* Art, science and literature */ where it was already as "college of Gundishapur, which had been founded in the 4th century" (Note it was 489 CE which is 5th Century). (3) Gundishapur (Academy of Gundishapur) was included as a main article in the listing under /* Art, science and literature */. (4) No citation was provided for Gundishapur being "the first university in the world". Gunishapur Academy was after the Academy of Plato and after the Nestorian theological and scientific center in Edessa, which was moved to Gunishapur to create the Gunishapur Academy. Which of course ignores developments in China, for which see University#Early history.

/* University */ in time of shapur 1 he built a university of Gundeshapur.this is the firs university in world.Gundeshapur built in Khuzestan.

I guess that covers it. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sassanid Map

hey guys,

i just wanted to say thanks for putting together this great article. very informative. i do have a question though regarding the green sassanid map. it shows the coastal indian state of gujarat as part of the persian empire in the early-mid 7th century; however, gujarat at that time was firmly a part of the Indian Emperor Harshavardhana's domain. could someone please clarify this for me if I am in error or correct the map if I am not? if you have any primary or scholarly sources regarding this they would be most appreciated. thank you for your help.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The map is biased crap and makes one question the neutrality and historical accuracy of the entire article. It should be replaced. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This map is incorrect. It shows Transoxiana as a part of Sassanid Empire. Sassanid rule never extended to the north of Amu-Darya river. Under the map it also says that this is the map of Sassanid empire under Khosrou II. Khosrou second never ruled Central Asia. During the times of Khosrou Soghdiana was ruled by Ashina Turks and their Soghdian subjects. The article is great, but the map is wrong. This is not a map of Sassanid empire. It is a map that shows nationalist claims of Pan-Iranists. Those are the same people who classify Armenians, Georgians and many other nationalities as Persian simply because at some point their lands were a part of the Persian empire. QoziKalon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QoziKalon (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the map is not accurate because india was not part of the Sassanid Empire in any form. It extended into modern day Sindh and the 3rd tributary river which is pretty close to the current border that Pakistan has with india. Was this map fabricated to include india for some particular reason??

Persian is not part of the name

This article is about the Sassanid Empire. As there is only one Sassanid Empire, it is not necessary to disambiguate the name by adding "Persian" in front of it, as a editor did on 23 May 2009. It is known as the Sassanid Empire. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with your revert, the problem is that most readers would be unaware that the Sassanid Empire is a Persian Empire. "Persia" is, for better or for worse, very commonly used as a shorthand for the Sassanid Empire just as for the Achaemenid one before, and most users will be more familiar with that term, especially in the context of relations with Rome/Byzantium. Perhaps a sentence to that effect could be added somewhere in the lead? Constantine ✍ 16:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is even necessary to put "persian" to the first sentence. In fact a google scholar search shows that "sassanid persian empire" is common. (note this one too). Also as mentioned by you, in terms of Iran Roman relations, the term persian is most of the time mentioned because of "parthian empire". Also if one looks at one of the series "the cambridge history of .." series one sees the usage of "persian sassanid" or better "sassanid persian" is common (note that we have to add up "persian sassanid", "persian sassanids", "persian sassanian", "persian sassanians",...). I think the article should mention that.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• The lead sentence used to read:

The Sassanid Empire or Sassanian Dynasty (Persian: ساسانیان [sɒsɒnijɒn]) is the name used for the third Iranian dynasty and the second -begin ref- "Ardashir succeeded in creating a "Second Persian empire" which was recognized for over four centuries as one of the two great powers in Western Asia and Europe." "Sasanian Dynasty" Encyclopedia Iranica-end ref- Persian empire.

which I thought was quite okay. However, other editors felt that "last pre-Islamic Iranian empire." was less controversial. --Bejnar (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

and why is this comment is a justification for revert? Your reason "As there is only one Sassanid Empire, it is not necessary to disambiguate the name by adding "Persian" in front of it," does not apply as sassanid were part of Persian empire and they saw themselves as heir to previous Persian empire. As said before the term "Sassanid Persian empire" is common in scholarly works and this is all matters. I already gave links to some of books usung the term. Moreover you did not respond to thes points (made by myself and the previous commentator User:Cplakidas on the importance of adjective Persian in almost all works of scholars of Iranian-Roman relations) and gave only an edit summary "I don't think so". The article of EIr mentions explicitly Sassanid as part of Persian empire lineage. This article of EIr and "last pre-Islamic Iranian empire" counts "median, achaemenian, Parthian, and Sassanid" whereas "second Persian" counts "achaemenian and sassanid".--Xashaiar (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IF a name has been used historically, then it is relavant in my opinin. Since relevancy is the main criterion for lead. For example the name of many cities. In this case sassanian in Perso-Arabic has about 1200 years of history and are part of the national consciousness of Iranians. Modern Persian itself being a continuation of middle Persian, with the vocabulary being 80% identical, it is continuation of the language of Sassanids. The word itself is Persian and is not diffeent in either Persian or middle Persian. For example see many Greek related articles. I agree the alphabet of ancient Greek is similar to modern Greek, but the main point is that ancient Greek is the direct ancestor of modern Greek. Middle Persian of Sassanids is also the direct father of modern Persian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good article

Is the article good enough to have a good article nomination? Warrior4321 20:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet.Xashaiar (talk)

Request for clarification

I've done some copy-editing to this article, for instance, changing "the last Zoroastrian empire" to "the last pre-Islamic empire" and miscellaneous grammar fixes. However, I'm not sure what the first paragraph is meant to say. The wording as it appeared:

Information is shaky concerning the relationship between Sassan and Ardashir. Sources are not consistent as far as the relationships between the early Sassanids (Sassan, Babak, Ardashir and Shapur) are concerned.

What's unclear? Presumably Sassan is the namesake of the Sassanid Empire, but there's no explanation of what the ambiguity is - or what the significance of the other names is. Although the next paragraph goes on to tell the story of Babak, the way this is written is confusing. Recognizance (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference section

50 ^ Cite Error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named iranologie; see Help:Cite errors.

• May someone fix this reference (number 50). --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

map

I reverted a self made map. The reason: SHapur I mentions:

I am the ruler of Ērān-šahr and hold these šahrs: Persia,

Parthia, Xuzistān, Mēšān, Assyria, Adiabene, Arabia, Āzerbaījan, Armenia, Geogris, Segan, Albania, Balaskan, up to the Caucasus mountains and the Gates of Albania, and all of the mountain chain of Pareshwar, Media, Gurgan, Merv, Herāt and all of Abaršahr, Kermān, Sīstan, Tūrān, Makrān, Paradene, India, Kušānšahr up to Peshawar and up to Kašgar, Sogdiana and to the mountains of Taškent, and on the other side of the

sea, Oman.

— see references of Shahrestanha-ye_Eranshahr

which indicates 1. The map used wrong geographical names. 2. The map did not show the greatest extend of the empire. According to the references above these territories were in Eranshahr at the time of Shapur I and again "continued to the time of Xosraw II in the seventh century CE." Xashaiar (talk)

As I can see from the section above, I am clearly not the only one in having problems with the map present in the infobox, since it has multiple issues. First and foremost, it depicts a supposed "maximum extent" under Khosrau II. No problem with that, except that: territory north of the Caucasus was never ever occupied by the Sassanids, Asia Minor is shown half-controlled by the Persians and half-contested (the Persians did indeed raid it, but never actually occupied and administered any large parts west and north of the Cilicia-Euphrates line for any period of time), and finally, much of Central Asia up to the Aral Sea is shown as under full control, when in fact that control was certainly more nominal than factual in the more outlying regions. No single map (except this one and various obvious derivatives) in any book on the Sassanid Empire shows a similar extent, and even Iranian sites (e.g. [1]). Second, it uses modern borders to delineate Persian influence in Arabia, an obvious fallacy. Third, and indicative of its veracity, its creator apparently had no more than a general knowledge of the relevant history, since he titled it "610 CE". In 610 CE, not even Syria, Palestine and Egypt had yet fallen to the Persians. Frankly, I am amazed that this map has been allowed to stand for so long unchanged. If we want an accurate map of "maximum extent", I'd suggest using these maps which come from actual atlases researched by scholars. Constantine ✍ 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS, Xashaiar, using a ruler's (typically hyperbolic) statement of power, dating 300 years before the date we want to depict, is not the correct way to determine whether a map is correct. The Kings of Spain for instance still claim to be "Dukes of Athens", perhaps we should add Central Greece to the map of Spain? Shapur at some point claimed to be king of the world. By that criterion, let's paint the globe green and be done with it. Constantine ✍ 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NO: What a site (In Iran or Aniran) say does not give any reason to replace a "problematic map" with "a more problematic" map. You should also avoid the usual mistakes: geographical Names in ancient time had different meaning than present time. For example: Balkan in the above quote is much different than what you think. Also "africa" problem: Here is a scholarly work] "Altheim-Stiehl“ that indicates "in the early seventh century Husraw II’s forces conquered Egypt and ruled the region for several years, where they even went further west and south, making inroads into Lybia and Nubia." so what more do you need? The current map is not good enough, but the map you included is even more problematic. (I am using the scholarly work here and the references I gave). I wrote the section above to say "why" and not "based on Shapur I", otherwise the map shows exactly what the references above indicate. The point is that at least the current map claims to be "based on a written well preserved book form Sassnid time". The maps on the (Iranian)website you posted are not RS. But I agree that we must solve the problem of map once and for all. Xashaiar (talk)

Xashaiar, please do not make the mistake of taking me for an ignoramus. I know the history of the period quite well, and yes, the Persians conquered Egypt (I even rewrote the relevant article), but in 618-619, not in 610. Read the well-referenced Roman-Persian Wars article or any book on the period and you'll see that I am right. I also know the locations of almost all the names in Shapur's list, and can also spot a nice reference "up to the Caucasus mountains and the Gates of Albania" there, which confirms that Persian authority did not extend north of the Caucasus. The Balkans I never mentioned, you did. And the extent of control in Arabia, with the modern borders, is just silly. The maps I linked to come from researched atlases, and are hosted in the site of a respected university. They are very accurate from what I can tell. According to you however, they are not reliable or accurate. What are their problems, then? I am also quite amazed that you dismiss these clearly sourced maps (to clarify: I don't mean the Iranian one here, but the others) and at the same time advocate using a 3rd-century inscription to verify a 7th-century map... The map I used to replace the current one may not depict "maximum extent", but it is a good approximation of the core of the Sassanian Empire. As another editor said above, the present map is so ridiculous that it makes one question the entire article. To resolve the problem, I suggest we put a request at the Graphic Lab for a map, using the maps I linked to (as the only ones with sufficient detail and from a scholarly source). Constantine ✍ 10:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand me. I did not dispute the date of conquering Egypt. What do you mean by "the extent of control in Arabia, with the modern borders, is just silly." Do you dispute the Sassanid control over "Arabia"? The maximum extent of the Eranshahr is "better" depicted in the current map than your map. This map is the best choice we have for 1. Geographical names are not used, whereas "your" maps use wrong ones. We need a map with correct geographical names. 2. The map is a better approximation of Xusro II's empire, at least based on the "book" cited above. 3. The maps on the (ecai)website are copyrighted. 3. please be very specific and tell us "what is your exact problem". Is it Albania or Arabia or Africa or ...? Africa and Arabia are also in the maps in the (ecai)website your posted. D you want this map? I am amazed that you did not point to real problem of the map: Eranshahr had more territories eastward than what the map shows. Xashaiar (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, using the modern colonial-era borders of Oman and Yemen to depict the extent of control of the Sassanids in pre-Islamic Arabia is patently wrong. The maps I linked are more accurate, since they limit the area and show it fading into the hinterland, which was the case. The Sassanids had garrisons on the coasts, but they did not control the country inland in the way a modern state does. For the rest, I explained myself pretty clearly above. As for your fixation with names, the current map uses no names at all. In addition, the maps I linked use the proper names for the period depicted, so I really don't understand this objection of yours. So far, you have not explained what exactly is wrong with any of these maps, just provide generalities. Please point out in detail what you object to in each of them. As for copyrights, I never said import them wholesale. I said, let's go to the Map lab, and they'll make us a map based on them. This map is actually the most detailed map of Sassanian Persia ever produced, but it is a bit too complicated for an infobox. I'd suggest combining it with this one, since you want "maximum extent". Constantine ✍ 11:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By non RS I meant your reference to "even Iranian websites" which was a mistake when arguing. My objection to those come from the fact that "Africa" should be included. (check out this form Sasanian studies or the other references I gave) Give me some time, I will see if sites like the one you gave include "maps with discussions and references". But for the moment I agree with your proposal to combine those maps. Xashaiar (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, it appears we were arguing about different things. It was apparently a mistake for me to include the Iranian map, but I only did so by way of comparison. See what you can find and we'll work on it further. Regards, Constantine ✍ 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a crap

The number of populatıon is put as 78 million while even in China at the same period the number of entire population wasn't as high as 40 million. The map isn't correct. Besides Ghaznevids were of Turkic origin. The founder of Gaznevids, Sabuktegin was a slave of obscure origin but the only thing which is true about him is that he was Turkic, so his son Mahmut just invented the story of his Sassanid ancestors. Whoever put this informations can go f..k himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.68.55 (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please behave in a more civil manner. If you have sources for any of the information you have mentioned, then change it yourself and add the reference along with it. warrior4321 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have several issue with Warriors answer, which reflects recurring problems with the attitude that many WP editors have: 1. While the OP is impolite, the answer is too far-going. Seeing that most of the OP is perfectly factual in its style and approach, I would have left it at "Please remain polite and forgiving" (or similar). 2. It is not the responsibility of the OP to provide references that statements in the article are wrong. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the original authors to provide proof that they are correct. 3. A "do it yourself" answer is not constructive: There is no guarantee that any individual has the time, WP-knowledge, etc. to do changes; there may well be valid reasons to refrain from changes, even when the time (etc.) is there, e.g. a wish to establish consensus first; even by pointing out problems with an article, the OP has already helped (provided that his information is correct, obviously), and to demand that he should help further is uncool (for want of a better word)---gift horse, mouth. Read up on "be kind to newbies" and "assume good faith", before critizing others for their behaviours.88.77.145.65 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have left it at "Please remain polite and forgiving" (or similar).

Why should anyone be asking for forgiveness from this user? He is not the owner who manages these articles. Rather, he comes in, says his fact is right, and everyone else is wrong. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not the responsibility of the OP to provide references that statements in the article are wrong. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the original authors to provide proof that they are correct.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is just as much his responsibility as it is mine, yours or anyone else's. Nobody is paid to add sources or edit Wikipedia. The original authors are not anymore responsible to add sources than the IP user is. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A "do it yourself" answer is not constructive: There is no guarantee that any individual has the time

Is there a guarantee that other editors have the time?

a wish to establish consensus first

There is no need to establish changing information if there is a reliable source backing it up, unless another editor disagrees with the statement. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

the OP has already helped (provided that his information is correct, obviously), and to demand that he should help further is uncool (for want of a better word)---gift horse, mouth.

Other editors such as myself do not work for him. I am not required to do anything. If he wants something done, he has to do it himself. Do you understand? He should ask for help, but he should be doing it himself. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Read up on "be kind to newbies" and "assume good faith", before critizing others for their behaviours.

I am quite familiar with the Wikipedian policies and guidelines. Have you even read them? Where was good faith not assumed? Where was I unkind to the new editor? He was using profane language and I responded by asking him to behave in a civil manner, and if he would like to fix to article, he may but he needs a reliable source to back him up. There was nothing wrong with what I said, please don't make a big fuss about nothing. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The spelling

The spelling Sassan with two "s" is old fashioned, wrong, and generally not accepted. The name should be spelled with one s. The same is true for the name of the dynasty, which also is done with an -ian suffix: Sasanian. This is the standard scholarly form today (as is seen in all new books and articles published). Please correct this as it is annoying... --Khodadad (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Which "new books and articles published" spell it as such? warrior4321 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know, let's see: T. Daryaee. Sasanian Iran: the Portrait of a Late Antique Empire, Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2009; idem. Sasanian Persia, London: I.B. Tauris, 2009. P. Pourshariati. Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire, London: I.B. Tauris, 2008. Also, check out the www.sasanika.com site and this list of books at Google Books: http://books.google.ca/books?q=sasanian&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp... convinced? Also, I am a PhD student of Sasanian history and deal with the subject on a daily basis and see tens of articles about them, almost always spelled "Sasanian". --Khodadad (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I can just as easily show you a list of books published in the 2000s with Sassanian spelled as such. List of books here.

• I'm fine with both (Sassanid and Sasanian). Anyway, both variants should be mentioned in the lead. Alefbe (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sassanid Army, General Tone of Article

Good to see that this article lost its star -- hasn't deserved it in a long time. It's basically been a tabloid for Iranian-exile romanticists for quite a long time. Best indication of that is the absurd map that is offered to show the extent of the Sassanid empire but which in fact only shows terrain occupied during an ongoing war with the Byzantines, all of which (and more) was lost by the conclusion of that war. Another good indication is the extent to which it relies, in its revisionism, on the work of Farrokh in the section on the army, as Farrokh writes as an advocate for his subjects rather than a scholar of them. It follows that this tone is evident in the article as well.

Would suggest that the article might be worthy of a star once again if it takes on less of the role of self-stroking by its predominantly Iranian-exile contributors and more of a role of actual scholarship into the ancient empire, which is interesting enough on its own and does not require inflation. Larry Dunn (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

See below for the map. I agree whole-heartedly about the Iranian-exile romanticist thrust of the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Map language

Regarding the second map under the Second Golden era section tittle "The Sassanid and Byzantine empires in 600 CE, before the Arab conquest" - really nice looking map, but one that isn't in German would be good! ArdClose (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbolic map

They say that maps are the favourite toys of nationalists and this seems to hold particularly true for the image above. This map is as indicative for the true and typical size of the Sassanid Empire as a map on the eve of Stalingrad is for Germany's true and typical size. Since the map merely shows the greatest extent of the front line (the Sassanid were still at war with the Byzantines and no Sassanid territorial gains were formally recognized in some peace settlement), I propose to replace the map with one which shows the long-standing Mesopotamian border between the two powers. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up time and again, but to no avail. After some debating with Xashaiar (talk · contribs), I had made a request at the Map Workshop for a new one using some of the best maps available ([2]), but nothing came of it. If you intend to make a new map, I'll be happy to help. Constantine ✍ 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I too have questions (though regarding the eastern boundaries) about the map--both this and the german-origin map indicating vassals which extend the line well into the deserts of rajasthan and gujarat. Is this for the twilight of empire before the caliphate invaded Persia? If it's the early to mid 600s, Harsha Vardhana (the then emperor of North India) was firmly in control of gujarat and the other territories that are highlighted. Could the specific articles from the Iran Chamber Society be posted? Can other Sassanid experts validate this? From what I understand, the best practice that wikipedia has been encouraging is to delineate firm borders under strong political control of the empire rather than temporary conquests. That tributaries being highlighted in a separate color also appears to be the appropriate modus operandi. Perhaps the main map at the top can follow this while another map indicating the furthest expansion (validated by sources) could be placed at the bottom. Though, I suppose to be fair, the Roman Empire Map should probably follow the same practice regarding Trajan's conquest of mesopotamia vis-a-vis the parthians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire. I hope all sides can reach an agreement that is true to history and yet acceptable.

Devanampriya (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many pictures

This article has too many pictures in the culture section ie the numerous vases on the right side of the page. This is why there is a large blank space at the end of 'Industry and Trade'. I think it's in our best interests to cut down on the number of pictures here, but I'd like to verify which ones should be kept. Deagle_AP (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor Citation throughout the article

The citation of the article is very poor. The article cites 'Zarinkoob p XX', 'Fyre 2005', 'Author pXXX' etc. on most occasion. While I understand Zarinkoob or Richard Nelson Fyre are respected scholars, however there should be a mention of his published article or book name, with author and page. Just giving reference to 'Zarinkob pXX' / 'Fyre pXX' is not sufficient enough. Those references (Zarinkoob pXX) or (Fyre XXXX) needs to be properly cited or those statements has to be removed. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Map

The new map of the empire in 620 makes very little sense. The area cut out between Oman and Yemen in the edited version are illogical. The original map of the empire in 620 wast best. It came up first on the web(google images "Sassanid Empire") and I do believe wikipidia encourages the most mainstream or common source to be used. However, since some people seem to use original research to justify the new map, I will justify why the old one was best for them:

First of all the area left between Oman and Yemen out was known as Mahra and it was under Sassanid control for a very good reason. It's simply that the Sassanids had to cross uncontrolled territory to get from Oman to Yemen and vice versa which makes the new map ridiculous. Do not tell me that they went by boat because although the Sassanids may have had a navy of sorts their land army was used the most because almost all of their enemies used land armies and not navies. It also does not make sense that they did not travel in a straight line(the land route) and got on to ships and boats to get to their destination instead. Further justification includes the fact that ships and boats of the time were not very advanced and land routes were preferred for almost all journies in such situations.

As for Sassanid control in Northwest India being chopped off the map, I want justification because the White Huns had ruled the area and they were subdued by Sassanids which means that the Sassanids gained their territories atleast for the time that the Sassanid empire was at its zenith.

The edit in Anatolia also seems ridiculously botched. The old map had the western half of it lightly shaded to show raiding and temporary occupation but the eastern half was under firmer Sassanid control which makes sense since it was right next to it. This new map just has a narrow strip from today's Kurdistan in Turkey that extends to the gates of Constantinople. The Sassanids conquered or occupied key cities in Anatolia which gave them control of surrounding lands which means that Sassanid conquests were a little mor complicated than just a narrow strip of land.

The article clearly states that the Persians gained control of Byzantine Egypt. This means all of Byzantine Egypt not some of it like the new map version indicates.

I mean no offense. It's just that many of the changes on the map have very little justification and seem to have been made to please those with an agenda. Please communicate with me on the map because it seems to have been implemented without much debate and on the will of a certain few.

If no communication is made, I will consider it my rightful duty to change it back to the original 620 AD map. (Kaveh94 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Hello Kaveh94,

I had nothing to do with the map change, but as you can see above, I did raise questions about the Northwest India point. In response to your remarks, that still would not justify showing northwestern india as part of the sassanian empire for the simple reason that the White Huns were first defeated by the Gupta Empire under Skanda Gupta in the 400s, after which they went back into Iran and killed Peroz I. And when they attacked India again, the Huns were ultimately defeated by an Indian coalition led by the Lesser Gupta emperors and driven off the plains of North India around 528 CE. This occurred well before 620 CE(the Vardhanas took over from the Guptas then) and the eventual Sassanian victory over the huns under Khosrau I. Again, had nothing to do with map editing, but just wanted to clear that up.

Best regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Devanampriya,

http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-09enl.html The site I provide seems a bit vague on Sassanid Rule after the reign of Khosrow but it mentions the Kushano-Sassanids, indo-sassanids etc that resurfaced after the White Huns were defeated and the maps hint at the resurfacing of Sassanid Rule in Sindh after the White Huns. Many major sites are rather vague on the time period between 531-620. As for the Vardhanas or king Harsha, does the article mention when Sindh was conquered by Harsha? Last I checked, Harsha's empire was still expanding in the 640's so even the time for Harsha's conquest is vague. Harsha also came from Thanesar, a place distant from Sindh and the parts of Northwest India the Sassanids controlled so it would have taken him some time to get to Sindh with all the various kingdoms in his vay. As for Sindh itself, Sassanid authority in coastal Sindh may have declined by the 7th century so coastal Sindh is up to debate. However, Sassanid authority in the rest of todays Pakistan and Afghanistan is unquestioned since they expelled the Heftalites from those areas and took over with the help of Western Turks in 531.

Anyways the new map is still considered original research so I will have to revert it back soon if some of these fellows who changed the map don't show up with justification.

I thank you for you response. We maybe be able to think of something for coastal Sindh later but the new map is far from justified at this point.

With utmost respect, (Kaveh94)

Hello Kaveh94,

Thank you for your detailed response, but I'm afraid your arguments do not align with the determined historical record. First and foremost, the western turks did not expel the huns from the punjab region of modern pakistan--it was the very Hindu confederacy I mentioned above. The hun king Mihirakula was banished and effectively locked up in Kashmir after his defeat, pardon, and exile. Thanesar is a little north of modern Delhi and very close to what is now pakistani punjab. Harsha's rule there would certainly note have been hindered by geography, nor would sindh. Afghanistan may be another story, but it is not Pakistan (which has traditionally been a part of India proper). Additionally, sindh is not gujarat. The identifiable peninsular region jutting out (and also the easternmost territory in the old, erroneous sassanid map here) is the state of gujarat. It absolutely was a part of Harsha's empire. A point of order is that the last known attempt at expansion by Harsh was circa 620 CE and he was defeated by the Chalukya emperor of Southern India, after which they fixed their mutual border at the Narmada river. Gujarat was very much a part of his empire by then and after. Sindh is more difficult to ascertain, especially given the number of Sassanian nobles who sought refuge there after the Arab conquest of Persia--but that again does not remotely prove that Sindh was a tributary state let alone a formal territory of the Sassanian empire. The gentleman below has already addressed the maps you cite, so I will leave it at that. Thanks again for the response. Hope this clarifies the issue with the map vis-a-vis northwestern India.

(addition: the present map actually still erroneously shows Sindh as part of the sassanid empire during 620 CE. While there may be a case during the early Sassanid period, there doesn't appear to be one post-huns as independent hindu/buddhist dynasties ruled there. I should also note that it is important to distinguish between territory and tribute state.)

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May I see your sources for all of this? (Kaveh94 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

Hello! I uploaded the new map, so let me answer: First, the old map was simply ridiculous, depicting a situation that never existed at any one time. The general consensus, as can be seen from the previous discussions, is that it was a "fantasy map". The "shaded area" in Anatolia was nonsensical, as can be seen by the fact that the original map author justified it as "client kingdoms", which did not exist. The borders everywhere else were rather inflated, most clearly seen in the borders in Arabia, which followed modern lines. On the Central Asian and Indian borders, the old map represented "maximum lines" of rather dubious value. The new map is based on two actual maps published in more or less reliable atlases, linked in previous discussions on this issue ([3]), and I've tried to follow them as best as I could. Now, on Egypt, it is clearly painted as belonging to Persia. I am not aware of any Persian presence in Cyrenaica (which is not part of Egypt proper). If I am wrong, please point me to a RS and I will correct it immediately. On the strip that connects Syria to Constantinople, I am not very satisfied of it either. Modern scholars are more or less unanimous in that actual, more or less permanent Persian occupation did not occur beyond the Taurus-Antitaurus line, and this stripe of land represents the actual routes that Shahrbaraz and Shahin regularly followed, and where temporary Persian garrisons were probably established (for instance, Caesarea lies within this stripe of land). From reading Kaegi, the northern and southern portions of Asia Minor were left relatively untouched by the Persians, which is also why Heraclius was able to land troops there unopposed. As for the argument "First of all the area left between Oman and Yemen out was known as Mahra and it was under Sassanid control for a very good reason. It's simply that the Sassanids had to cross uncontrolled territory to get from Oman to Yemen and vice versa which makes the new map ridiculous. Do not tell me that they went by boat", it is both sloppy original research, as the Persian army under Vahriz that took Yemen actually did arrive by sea and landed at Aden, and nonsensical, as the area is extremely arid (I've actually been there) and no one in their right mind would ever move a force of several thousand heavy cavalry through it overland. I am always open to any corrections, but please back them up with sources. Constantine ✍ 06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you for responding. All I wanted is an explanation and sources. Here is the link for the map I found depicting Mahra and the rest of Oman and Yemen under Sassanid control. It is before the conquests of Khosrow II but I doubt Khosrow suddenly lost these portions of Arabia. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://library.kiwix.org:4201/I/300px_Persia_600ad.jpg&imgrefurl=http://library.kiwix.org:4201/A/Sassanid_empire.html&usg=__dp4Zj8XRi2FRz4a-vDCQ3fs06-Q=&h=170&w=300&sz=28&hl=en&start=138&zoom=1&tbnid=l07jFyoo-MWntM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=146&ei=DFG_TaeVO4mR4gb_8sG_BA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsassanid%2Bempire%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D918%26site%3Dsearch%26tbm%3Disch0%2C1141&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1039&vpy=578&dur=2264&hovh=136&hovw=240&tx=146&ty=56&page=3&ndsp=73&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:138&biw=1920&bih=918 As for Cyrenica, the case is closed for now but further investigation will be conducted for Anatolia, Central Asia, and the disputed portions of North India, and modern Pakistan. (Kaveh94 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

Wait I found this from the previous discussions which mentions Lybia as being conquered. It appears to be reliable and has numerous sources. (Kaveh94 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC))

this map is not a reliable source by a long shot. I happen to have interacted repeatedly the guy who made this and other such maps. While generally good, they are not reliable for details. Too much guesswork, no published sources. And you will notice that even here these areas are depicted as vassals, not under direct Sassanid control. On the second source, it cites al-Tabari, who is a primary source, and hence must be treated with caution. The same tale is given by some Byzantine chroniclers too, probably relying on the same original source. However modern scholars largely dismiss this. See Douglas L. Johnon's Jabal al-Ak̲h̲ḍar, Cyrenaica, Speck's Das geteilte Dossier. Likewise, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium mentions nothing about a Persian conquest in its article on the Cyrenaica. Constantine ✍ 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't dismiss that map so easily. The author employs(http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/TAL_Sources_pg2.html#ad600 a plethora of which do happen to be published) for the maps. Also, in many Eastern Empires, especially feudal ones, vassalage was commonly adopted as a method for governing distant provinces. You can call them vassals in the map and highlight them a different shade or call the map "Sassanid Empire" and its vassals if you wish. As for Anatolia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Persian_Military.png The Sassanids also made gains towards Ephesus from Southern Anatolya as well.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveh94 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 

(Kaveh94 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC))