Talk:Parthian Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Parthian Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2011.
May 25, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted


I found a new map of Parthian at [1] that is more clear on the location of the Empire and shows its borders imposed on modern day countries. It is easier to follow than the current map that is difficult to see the extent of territories. Should we switch to this map?


Tertullian describes the Parthian flag as an image of the sun. evidence for this is: (Apologeticum, 16).

Because of this I think it would be right to use this file: Sun of Mithras (standard).png, as the flag of the Parthian empire. If anyone agrees then add the image as the flag, with Apologeticum 16 as the reference

History of Persia (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


History of Persia (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Tertullian might not be a reliable source as he is a Christian apologist from the ancient world, and texts like his are usually considered primary sources. We look for reliable scholarship that is secondary sources. Check WP:RS for a description of reliable sourcing. Ogress smash! 21:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I posted this reply not three hours ago and you ignored it and replaced the flag with the edit summary, "no one is discussing this on the talk page". Ogress smash! 00:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Farrokh is a college counselor with NO training as an academic historian(notice it says he is a writer). Farrokh is not a reliable source since he is not a historian. Tertullian is a primary source and I seriously question exactly how he would know what a Parthian flag looks like, since he lived in Carthage! Pity you can not understand that! I noticed you couldn't provide a link for the "Tertullian source". Typical of a POV pusher that you continue to edit war, despite being reverted by two editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What chapter and page of Tertullian's Apologeticum did you find this information? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The only extant Roman vexillum, 3rd century AD. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Russia.
Aside from Tertullian and Kaveh Farrokh being unreliable sources, even Farrokh himself speaks of this "flag" as a battle standard, otherwise known as a battle ensign, representing the deity Mithras (Merh). A battle ensign is NOT a national flag. No such thing existed in ancient times; national flags are an invention of the early modern era (18th, 19th centuries). I had a lengthy debate with someone about this in the talk page for the Chinese Qing dynasty, and I would direct others there without having to repeat the same points. Look to the image on your right: this is a Roman vexillum, a battle ensign used by the Romans. It would be equally preposterous to assume the Romans viewed such a thing as a "national flag" representing the Roman Empire. Pericles of AthensTalk 18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the info-box map![edit]

So recently I noticed that the map that I made and uploaded two years ago somehow turned green when it was originally red. (I have NO idea how that happened btw cause I didn't do it.) Now I was thinking of reverting the color of the map back to Red, but at the same time, I would like a consensus on the matter rather than simply reverting the map back it's original color off the bat.

Do you all want me to revert the color of the map back to Red? OR do you all want the map to stay green?

Red = Original color!

Green = Current color!

Kirby (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Parthian EmpireArsacid Empire – Hi, I suggest to change the title of the article to Arsacid Empire which is more native and more precise name for this Iranian empire. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Academically correct, but not at all familiar in general English usage. fails WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The page was moved to its current title as a result of an earlier discussion. clpo13(talk) 05:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussion that move it here. I have heard of it as the Parthian Empire not the Arsacid Empire. Native name is not consider a better name for an article as it is to serve the reader thus common names are suppose to be used unless disambiguation is needed. --Spshu (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name, as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Section redacted at request of Arman ad60. The issue appears to me moot and settled now anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Parthian empire

I want to include this map in the article. If you editors are watching, what do you think about that?Arman ad60 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the current map is far better. Your map mixes old names and modern frontiers without a clear indication of what is what. For article maps, simplicity is the key. UCaetano (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, my map is graphically very improved and more detailed than the previous one. Well "Quality" is also an important thing here isn't it. You have said about the borders of the modern countries. There are maps likes that of other empires, For example: Saffarid empire, Samanid empire, Ghaznavid empire. So, can't my map be accepted for this article?Arman ad60 (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it isn't an improvement. Just because better maps don't exist for those other articles, doesn't mean we should use a lower quality for this one. UCaetano (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this map is better than the previous one, because it is graphically better and more detailed. I want to know what the other editors think about that. Arman ad60 (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If a majority of other editors support reverting to the map you're proposing, I'd have no issue in doing it. Until then, there's no new consensus, and the current map stays. UCaetano (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be one or the other. The proposed map has some advantages:

  1. Showing the neighbouring entities
  2. Showing the relation to modern day countries
  3. Showing important cities

the disadvantages are:

  1. Mixing the above in one map
  2. Would be better as an SVG rather than png
  3. AD and BC should be caps - or better still left off the map, the caption can carry this info
  4. I would not use the inset box, the geography of the region is pretty well known.

Conversely the Infobox map is very simple, which is good for its role there.

I would like, ideally, to see a series of maps that show the empire at different stages and dates, with appropriate contemporary features, cities, neighbours, battle sites, commerce routes, depending on the historical narrative, and a separate map showing just the empire as it relates to the modern world. The map in the infobox, should I think, remain, though I would have no objection to unifying the colouring and layout.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

Also note that File:Parther reich.jpg is in German, which would be a good item to fix. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
If someone also would expand the eastern part of the this map File:Parther reich.jpg so it resembles the eastern border of the current map on the article, that would be perfection. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
there are problems, but also advantages, with this map. The caption is wrong - it clearly doesn't show the empire over its full period. It needs to be explained that the modern borders are also shown, but this is very useful. I'm bewildered by RF's claim that "the geography of the region is pretty well known" - to most non-locals it remains very obscure. We need not remove another map, and is not right for the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Not my intent to bewilder. I mean that people know that this area is at the juncture of Europe, Asia and Africa, that the bodies of water are the Med, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea, even if they cannot name the Caspian and Black Seas.
Certainly if a historical map is overlaid with Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria etc. to provide context, it is reasonable to assume that the context itself does not require context.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

My map may have many problems. But first let me know one thing. What about the "quality" of the maps. I think my map is graphically a significant improvement. The previous one looks like a "childish hand-made map". In terms of quality, which one do you think is better? Arman ad60 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the current one more more, since 'your' map has too many errors which has already been mentioned. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have presented two more maps here. What do you think about them:

Map Parthian Empire-fr.png
Not only the current map is still better, but none of the 3 maps you presented agree with each other on the boundaries. UCaetano (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)